Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: What's the difference between the two?

  1. #21
    Sr. Member loststarshine's Avatar
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    435
    Gender
    female
    Religion
    pagan i dont care for labels or titles
    Location
    colorado

    Re: What's the difference between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by monsno_leedra View Post
    But to give you what your asking you first would have to undergo all the test and such. First you got to die. A physical death where you cross the veil between life and death, meet your ancestors and many times have to decide if your going to come back. May occur at any point but for many first nation and aboriginal peoples is occurs during youth and is a sign to the elders that you've been touched and selected by the spirits. Then you'll probably have the shamanic illness that goes with it though sometimes it occurs as part of the death aspect. usually an illness so severe you'll not be suspected of being able to survive it. After that you also get the shamanic death in the spirit world where you'll be ripped apart by your guides. A lovely process where you are torn asunder as the parts are torn out and reformed or replaced. Really a lovely experience as your body shows the physical welts, bands and such where you were torn apart, and lets not forget the fact you feel and suffer the pain of it even though it occurs in the spiritual world.

    Then that just gets you noticed it doesn't mean you'll be selected to be trained or will become a spirit walker / shaman / medicine person / hedge rider or a thousand other names for a similar type position in the society. Nor does it mean which aspect you'll be groomed for and the lovely tests and such that come with that. It's not like Odin on the tree sacrificing an eye to learn the runes. NO you get the mind crusher for instance where the worlds over lap and you walk in one, two some or all of them all at once. Where it truly is an example of is it real or is it fantasy. No drugs needed just friggin detached voices and faces and surreal landscapes that make up your everyday world. Almost lunatic in how it works.

    Then if your real lucky you get a teacher / elder / mentor / etc to guide you through it all. To tell you that its more than just animism / anamatism at work and acting upon you. You get the lovely sensation of being alone even in a room full of people and knowing that all the people surrounding you are not living nor of this world. Then you get the lovely sense of shamanic time distortion where where your at is not always when your at. The mind screw where all are talking potentially to you but they fade in and out like some corrupt drug induced state, except again no drugs there just Spirit screwing with your mind and trying to see if you puke, toss in the towel and collapse under the mental strain.

    And it still doesn't mean your selected for many are tested and few are chosen. So you go through the death misses, those events where your weighted and your life is left to the visions or presence of someone else. For me lovely things, my sister died I died shortly there after, My parents decide to go somewhere last second grandparents refuse to let me go my carseat is crushed beneath the passenger seat, a bullet flies through the air and passes next to me and an old black man stops my mother and me from entering a bank as the robbers come out in a hail of bullets, the list goes on and on or near misses or physical injury. Not counting dead relatives who appear and tell you not to go a certain way less you die only to discover the one who warned you died the day you were born. That also tends not to touch upon experiencing the death of another regardless of which of the peoples they happen to be.

    People like to equate the notion of shape-shifting, shift-shaping with berserker or skin walker and claim a similarity there. Yet just because some practitioners wear a regalia to connect with their allies and guides its not the same. Especially in the sense of mentally or physically becoming that ally or guide and experiencing life through its senses, form, etc. Yep more than just putting a skin on and taking a drug to make you feel like that creature. Especially screwed up when your forms don't come back together just right and your an animal in a human body or a human in an animal form.

    All of that before I turned 17. Every single bit i'd give up in a heart beat but not given the option. Yet punished to the extreme every time you try to ignore or refuse it.

    Just because so many think they can select to become something from a book doesn't mean its true or real. Just because some one said hey these things have a lot of anamism / anamatism aspects that are similar they are the same and call it core shamanism doesn't make you a Spirit walker / hedge ridge / world traveler or any of the names used with it.

    Druidry the same as shamanism in the first nation or aboriginal aspect not even close. But so many new agey authors love to compare and sort of contrast to make it seem they are the same while ignoring nearly every cultural, social, psychological and spiritual / religious aspect that drives them.
    Very well said

  2. #22
    Supporter callmeclemens's Avatar
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    427
    Religion
    Druid
    Location
    Southern NJ

    Re: What's the difference between the two?

    I was once told my and elder, as I consider my path to be somewhat druidic that. A Druid is one who unites the divide between Science and Spirituality.
    “A lifetime may not be long enough to attune ourselves fully to the harmony of the universe. But just to become aware that we can resonate with it -- that alone can be like waking up from a dream.” - Br. David Steindl Rast

  3. #23
    Opinionated Rae'ya's Avatar
    Reputation
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    2,373
    Gender
    female
    Religion
    Northern Tradition Shaminist Demonolator. Or something along those lines...
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia

    Re: What's the difference between the two?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ticklebits View Post
    Hahaha I cant believe there's actually a thread here. I have this argument all the time with my boyfriend. He thinks there's some difference (thanks world of warcraft) and then theres me going "omg babe, druids are just celtic shamans!" But thats what I find attractive about shamanism, its a simple, foundational term that explains a core element of some spiritual practice. The word itself came from Siberia. If the word hadnt evolved into something more generalized we'd all be talking about russian shamanism (and I dont think that is the case).
    This depends entirely on how you understand the term 'shaman' and 'shamanism'.

    It is absolutely true that the words have evolved from the original Tungus words to mean something quite different. We can thank anthropologists for that little slice of cultural appropriation. But we can also thank the anthropologists for bringing the techniques employed by many indigenous shamans into the awareness of the general public. And we can thank Michael Harner for the invention of Core Shamanism, which has bought the techniques of indigenous shamans into paganism and the New Age movement, which has in turn bought to us the concepts of 'Celtic Shamanism' and the like. Suddenly, every practice and culture in the world is shamanic or does something that makes it like shamanism.

    The part that is difficult for those of us within the non-core shamanic communities to make outsiders realise is that just because you practice some shamanic techniques does not make you a shaman. There is a VERY large difference between a shaman and a shamanist, or a shamanic practitioner. The statement that "druids are just celtic shamans" is incredibly flawed and fundamentally incorrect. On the other hand, Thalassa and I earlier both stated that some druids practice shamanic techniques... this is accurate.

    Core shamanism is the camp that would have us believe in things like 'Celtic Shamanism' and 'Norse Shamanism' and whatever other religion they want to tack it onto. Because Core Shamanism maintains that there are certain core techniques practiced by native spirit workers that define 'shamanism'... some of which are practiced by pretty much anyone who communicates with spirits or believes in a world other than this one. Because of this, it's very easy to fall into the trap of believing that Druids are just Celtic Shamans, or that Seidhr workers are just Norse Shamans. It is true that there is a large enough number of neo pagans who believe this that Celtic Shamanism now exists, though I'd argue how much resemblance it has to traditional Druidry. Adding into that the fact that we have very little anthropological and archaeological evidence to tell us what Druidry was or wasn't, which means that at the end of the day, it's all speculation anyway

    What that boils down to is that your boyfriend is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Azvanna View Post
    I don't know a lot about shamanism (or druidry really).. but first impressions leads me to think that druidry/ism is more like a set of values/beliefs whereas shamanism is a practical technique.
    On the surface, absolutely!

    But when you're involved in shamanism and the shamanic communities, the differences between classic, core and neo shamanism start to make things a great deal more complex. Just to confuse everyone. lol.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ticklebits View Post
    The only comparison you made was manner of selection. That certainly doesn't constitute calling them completely different. The rest was all just random information that referred to both druidry and shamanism in a non-comparative fashion. Then you end your statement by theorizing that only neo-druidry/shamanism can be called similiar (despite having just used "similar" to describe an aspect of both druidry and shamanism in an above paragraph) without ever stating which incredibly specific version of either YOU were originally going on about. I, for one, would be enormously curious to hear how "shaman" is being defined in this context because the word itself was mostly invented to describe a method of practice and not a religion.
    The comparison of the manner of selection is fundamental to the difference between classic shamanism and core shamanism. The selection process, along with the illness and death-rebirth process, is essential to the definition of classic shamanism and a classic shaman. Without this selection process and initial stages, you aren't a shaman. There are a few things that define a classic shaman, and only classic shamans can use the term 'shaman' without backlash from the shamanic communities. Everyone else must use the terms 'shamanist' or 'shamanic practitioner'. To be a 'shaman' you must:

    - hold that position with a society and culture that practices an indigenous or directly evolved faith incorporating the position of shaman (ie you must be a Buryat black or white shaman, or a Korean Shaman, or a Peruvian vegetalista, or any one of those practicing shamans within an extant traditional shamanic culture)
    - serve your community in some selfless manner (ie as healer, medium, spirit worker etc). If you don't serve your community, you aren't a shaman, even if you were spirit chosen and have gone through a death-rebirth process
    - be chosen by the spirits themselves or taught in a traditional, lineaged, inherited or otherwise succeeded path. You don't chose to be a shaman of your own back. It is appointed TO you, not BY you.
    - 99% of the time you must go through either a shamanic illness, or a death-rebirth process, or both
    - you must not be allowed to quit. Being a shaman is a lifelong (and sometimes beyond life) calling that was thrust upon you by the spirits... you don't get a choice in the matter. Even in those traditional faiths that have shamans who are appointed by the previous shaman, if you accept, there is no going back
    - usually, it's your full time job
    - you must communicate with spirits directly. To be a shaman is to be a spirit worker. No spirits, no shaman.

    If Druidry does not tick every single one of these boxes, then Druids are NOT shamans. Period.

    The reality is that there are very few classic shamans outside of native indigenous faiths... they make up a tiny proportion of the Western shamanic community, because the paths and faiths that were built around classic shamans are not practiced by pagans. They are practiced by indigenous peoples and by communities who can trace their shamanic practices back to the indigenous peoples before them.

    Now some Druids may be shamanists... to be a shamanist the criteria is much, much more fluid. And therein lies the issue of Core Shamanism. I am actually not opposed to Core Shamanism at all... I think that it is a valuable personal practice that is incredibly empowering and growth-inducing. But I (and every other non-core-shamanist) am incredibly frustrated by the misinformation and misunderstanding that it has created within the general populace. A core shamanist is NOT a shaman.

    Now you'll notice that in my classic shaman list above, I actually didn't say anything about journeying to Otherworlds. That's because not all shamans actually journey to Otherworlds... there is a fundamental belief in Otherworlds, but many traditional indigenous shamans actually interface with spirits here in Thisworld, not in the Otherworlds. Journeying is actually not a pre-requisite for classic shamans, but it is for neo-shamanism. Neo-shamanism or non-core shamanism is the term that is mostly (but not always) used to indicated a non-core shamanist who is not a shaman. We are kind of the midway point between the two extremes. It's a relatively new term that simply differentiates core from non-core. To be a neo-shamanist you must:

    - believe in physical external Otherworlds. The Otherworlds are NOT an internal landscape, they are literal spirit worlds apart from this one.
    - journey to the Otherworlds (or Thisworld) in some form or another (usually via trance but not always). I personally include Thisworld in this point, because I know a number of (mostly bioregionalist) shamanists who don't journey into the Otherworlds but journey in Thisworld on a regular basis. To me, it counts, but not everyone feels this way.
    - communicate and engage with spirits. This is still spirit work. No spirits, no neo-shamanist
    - may or may not go through a death-rebirth or shamanic illness. Generally there is an astral death-rebirth as a part of initiation and re-wiring of your energy body to better be able to do the work you are doing. It's not an absolutely necessary part, but it's there 90% of the time
    - it is possible to chose to do this yourself, but you must be spirit approved. If they don't approve you, you wont get very far and can be locked out of the Otherworlds
    - you need a team of spirit helpers and allies to help you navigate the Otherworlds. It's VERY difficult to get around in there on your own, because you're a foreigner and an intruder. If you work for a deity it's easier to get around without a guide, but some helpers and allies are essential.
    - practice shamanism as a fundamental part of your practice... this is not just a bit of drumming to meet your animal guide. This is your everyday practice.
    - have a reason for doing it... you can't just wander around in the Otherworlds for no reason. You don't specifically need to serve a community, but you still need a reason. Most neo-shamanists are still healers, soul retrievers, mediums, spirit workers, diviners or something along those lines)
    - have an integrated cultural context within which you practice. This is your life, your daily practice... and it's inextricably linked with your worldview and religion. Yes, shamanism is a set of techniques that can be theoretically harnessed by anyone, but when you LIVE it, it is fully integrated into your everyday life and religion. It's not separate to your religion, it's a part of it. Luckily, most religions have space for shamanism to be a key aspect so it's actually not that difficult to have a cultural context for what you do. But you can't just be a shamanist if you don't know what you believe in, don't believe in spirits or are generally directionless.

    Everyone else who practices shamanic techniques is a core-shamanist. Internal landscapes, non-theistic shamanists, intermittant practices, no cultural context, guided meditations to the Underworld to recreate the Descent of the Goddess... all that is core shamanism. Which again, is not a negative thing. It's just different. And those of us in the neo and classic shamanist camps feel that it's a fundamentally important difference.

    Druidry shares some techniques with core shamanism (but then, so does everything), but it certainly isn't the same as classic shamanism or even neo shamanism. Now, the elitist, snobby part comes when you decide which of the three shamanic paths has enough merit to be able to call what you do 'shamanism'. Within the shamanic community, core shamanism doesn't really count as an actual shamanic path. It's kind of like... the way that Seax Wicca doesn't really count as a Heathen path. Core shamanism is inspired by actual practicing shamanic paths, but that's about as far as it gets. A core shamanist isn't a shaman, isn't serving their community in the role of spirit worker, didn't go through a shamanic illness or death-and-rebirth, wasn't chosen by the spirits themselves, and isn't forced into continuing their path under threat of death or madness. Core shamanists aren't even neo-shamanists in the sense that there is usually not an integrated cultural context, they aren't journeying in external Otherworlds, they are often not communicating with external spirits other than their deity and an animal guide, they don't have teams of spirit allies (sorry, but having ten 'power animals' doesn't count), it's not a part of their everyday practice and their are usually serving themselves (personal growth and healing rather than healing others). Some Druids would potentially fall into the neo-shamanist category, but believing in Otherworlds and communicating with spirits is not enough on it's own to be able to call someone a neo-shamanist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ticklebits View Post
    Fyi: All of this snobbery looks like nothing more than nonsense to anyone outside of your elite club.
    This comment was unnecessary, and honestly shows more about your lack of understanding about shamanism than about our nonsensical elitist snobbery. Just because you don't understand something or don't agree with it doesn't mean that it's nonsense, snobbery OR elitist.

    I will grant you that sometimes Monsno comes across as snobby, but it's because he actually knows what the f--- he's talking about. You'll probably think the same thing about me after this post. But you know what? We are both non-core shamanists, which means that we are qualified to answer questions like the one from Gleb and the one you are putting forth in an educated, experienced manner. If you don't like the answers then that's your problem, not ours. But please refrain from making insulting comments about our nonsensical elitist snobbery.... if you have issue what something that is said, address the point directly rather than making vague global statements.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ticklebits View Post
    Yes and again a lot of words and not much said. Still no explanation or actual definition. Hard to refute nothing, or come to any understanding for that matter, which effectively renders my part in this little debate over.
    You haven't engaged in a debate yet, so how can it be over? Debate involves detailed discussion and rebuttal. If you wish to debate, I will happily debate with you. Particularly on a subject that I have experience and knowledge of. Shamanism is something that is an integral part of my practice and is a subject that I have studied and practiced for many years. So I'm up for a debate if you are.
    Last edited by MaskedOne; 21 Sep 2014 at 20:34. Reason: modded one word

Similar Threads

  1. What is the difference between ''Neopaganism'' and ''Paganism''.
    By Wonder in forum Pagan Traditions & Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25 Sep 2014, 05:55
  2. Science vs Religion: Whats the difference?
    By thalassa in forum Catacombs
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 20 Aug 2013, 06:11
  3. How do I tell the Difference?
    By Lilium of the Valley in forum Catacombs
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 03 Jun 2013, 15:54
  4. Difference between Archetype and God?
    By westwoden in forum Catacombs
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 28 Dec 2012, 14:43

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •