Things that came up in the Tarot thread.

Well, the book actually states that they are based on shamanic practices and that such practices are still a part of them, so I think we can say that they are shamanism in some respects even though they have incoporated other things too and given it a different label.

Would you then say that Christianity is Jewish? Religions/belief systems move and change and become other things. Yes, there’s a lot of belief in spirits in folk Shinto, just as there is in folk Christianity. And many of the Kami clearly are (or have started out as) nature spirits. But the form of worship and the rites and rituals have been formalised, which takes it away from the experiential nature of the shamanic journey. It is the journey in which the shaman travels to visit the spirits which makes it shamanism and which is the first thing to disappear when the beliefs start to change. Tuvan Buddhism has been influenced heavily by shamanism, as has Tuvan shamanism by Buddhism, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Such an idea would be insulting to both practices (not least because of the direct conflict between the two over the centuries).

just because something isn't directly called shamanism, doesn't mean that it hasn't got shamanic practices in it. Of course, if you think differently I'll let you take that up with Mark himself as he's the expert who's done all the years of research and personal studying of these things in Japan and other countries.

Of course not. But having shamanic practices in it doesn’t make it shamanism. I’m not suggesting that Mark Hosak is not an expert in his field. But his field is surely Reiki, isn’t it? What about the opinions of experts like Mircea Eliade or Piers Vitebsky, whose fields are (in Eliade’s case, ‘was’) shamanism? Or the opinions of those peoples around the world who still practice shamanism?

Can I ask what the background is to the shamanic practices you do yourself? e.g. are they based on native american indian shamanic practices? or those of some other country and people?

There seems to be an assumption here that all Native American spirituality is shamanic. It isn’t. Some peoples (e.g. the Pomo) are shamanic. Others (e.g. the Hopi) are not.
I learned Core Shamanism, thereby learning the techniques of shamanic work in a way which allows my own spirits and the spirits of this land (since shamanism comes largely from the land spirits) to fill in the cultural bits. I would not see the point of learning practices which are rooted in another part of the world (this means, of course, that my practice changes slightly when I am in China or in the U.S.A.) since that would not only be ‘ripping-off’ the beliefs of native peoples but would also be cutting myself off from my own local spirits. If I don’t know my own local land spirits, then I can't negotiate with them – which is the role of the shaman.

Would you then say that Christianity is Jewish? Religions/belief systems move and change and become other things. Yes, there’s a lot of belief in spirits in folk Shinto, just as there is in folk Christianity. And many of the Kami clearly are (or have started out as) nature spirits. But the form of worship and the rites and rituals have been formalised, which takes it away from the experiential nature of the shamanic journey. It is the journey in which the shaman travels to visit the spirits which makes it shamanism and which is the first thing to disappear when the beliefs start to change. Tuvan Buddhism has been influenced heavily by shamanism, as has Tuvan shamanism by Buddhism, but that doesn’t make them the same thing. Such an idea would be insulting to both practices (not least because of the direct conflict between the two over the centuries).

Of course not. But having shamanic practices in it doesn’t make it shamanism. I’m not suggesting that Mark Hosak is not an expert in his field. But his field is surely Reiki, isn’t it? What about the opinions of experts like Mircea Eliade or Piers Vitebsky, whose fields are (in Eliade’s case, ‘was’) shamanism? Or the opinions of those peoples around the world who still practice shamanism?

His field as far as I'm aware is research into the roots of Reiki through all the differnt ancient traditions and beliefs, including the shamanic practices. From what you're saying though it sounds as though there is only one formal definition of what shamanism is (in which case it's been formalised too). I don't know shamanism myself, hence I was putting forward a different understanding, but it seems that it may be an understanding you disagree with because it doesn't fit with what you do yourself.

There seems to be an assumption here that all Native American spirituality is shamanic. It isn’t. Some peoples (e.g. the Pomo) are shamanic. Others (e.g. the Hopi) are not.

As I say, I don't know shamanism, hence why I asked the question of you. I only used native americans as an example, especially as in all those films you see (and yes I know things are stereotyped) they often have, what is referred to as a "shaman" in their group.

I learned Core Shamanism, thereby learning the techniques of shamanic work in a way which allows my own spirits and the spirits of this land (since shamanism comes largely from the land spirits) to fill in the cultural bits. I would not see the point of learning practices which are rooted in another part of the world (this means, of course, that my practice changes slightly when I am in China or in the U.S.A.) since that would not only be ‘ripping-off’ the beliefs of native peoples but would also be cutting myself off from my own local spirits. If I don’t know my own local land spirits, then I can't negotiate with them – which is the role of the shaman.

Ok, so I'm learning something here. The shamanism you practice is about journeying to meet the land spirits, even though previously you've said there were spirits in everything, which is more like the Kami of Shinto which are described likewise as the spirits within everything... a plant, a leaf, a stone etc. That could be why I thought that there was some similarity. So where does "Core Shamanism" originate?

All Love and Reiki Hugs

His field as far as I'm aware is research into the roots of Reiki through all the differnt ancient traditions and beliefs, including the shamanic practices. From what you're saying though it sounds as though there is only one formal definition of what shamanism is (in which case it's been formalised too). I don't know shamanism myself, hence I was putting forward a different understanding, but it seems that it may be an understanding you disagree with because it doesn't fit with what you do yourself.

Actually, that’s exactly what I wasn’t saying. What I do myself can be left out of any definition of shamanism. Shamanism is very difficult to define, simply because there is no formal practice, no rules or laws (which is why I asked Cascara to explain what she meant) and no dogma. But any explanation has to include the going to the spirits (rather than calling the spirits here – which is how it differs from mediumship and the work of many medicine men/women) and the development of a relationship with those spirits, the work being done for the community.

Ok, so I'm learning something here. The shamanism you practice is about journeying to meet the land spirits, even though previously you've said there were spirits in everything, which is more like the Kami of Shinto which are described likewise as the spirits within everything... a plant, a leaf, a stone etc. That could be why I thought that there was some similarity.

I don’t see that what I said contradicts what I said before. There are spirits in everything – a belief that is not restricted to shamanism – and much of my work is with land spirits. Yes, there’s a similarity in the beliefs. Many belief-systems accept the notion of spirits (just as many accept the notion of only one god) The difference is in the practice.

So where does "Core Shamanism" originate?

’Core Shamanism’ is shamanism. It means that I learnt it without it being fixed to any one culture. The term was coined by Michael Harner, but he talks about not having the ‘distractions’ of culture. I would say that it is impossible to be ‘without culture’ but we need a shamanism that suits our own culture. The strength of Core Shamanism is that it can be taught anywhere. For example, I have taught it in China, to Chinese students. Their shamanism develops a different flavour because there is the freedom to allow the Chinese land spirits to have their say. I know of teachers from the UK and Western Europe who have taught Core Shamanism in Eastern Europe. Their students learned the Core Shamanic ways of journeying (generally with a drum, since that’s the simplest way) and the local spirits then taught them the traditional ways of that area.
(What I’ve said about land spirits is not accepted by everyone. Harner’s Foundation for Shamanic Studies and their UK wing, the Sacred Trust, do not work with land spirits.)

Maybe sticking to
If it feels right, Then it is right
For you

As long as we stick to “harm none” all should be fine

If it feels right, Then it is right
For you
As long as we stick to “harm none” all should be fine

I would agree. But what feels right may or may not be shamanism.
P.S. Looks like we're nearly neighbours!

I would agree. But what feels right may or may not be shamanism.
P.S. Looks like we're nearly neighbours!

Yes, I did look you up on the internet
I wish you luck & hope the book continues to sell

From what I see
Shamanism covers a wide area of things like Wicca etc
Some of them change a bit dependant on where you live
And like everything, it changes between Shamans themselves

I wish you luck & hope the book continues to sell.

Thanks. It does okay, although I’ll never get rich on it!

Shamanism covers a wide area of things like Wicca etc
Some of them change a bit dependant on where you live
And like everything, it changes between Shamans themselves

All those people I know who practice shamanism (and I know many), all the ones who study it through anthropology (I know a couple, but have read many more) and all the native shamans (again, I’ve met a couple and have read many more) can agree on what shamanism is.
The people who argue are not people who have done any shamanism. Or at least, they are not people who have studied it further than a couple of weekend workshops.
For some reason, people want to tell me that what they do is shamanism. Or what the ‘shaman’ that they are friends with does is shamanism. What is it about the word that appeals to people who have no intention of taking it seriously (but who “really like nature”?) Does the same happen in Reiki – people who have never heard of Usui claiming that their own invented brand of healing is Reiki because they like the name?
What people do is up to them. But why call it shamanism if it’s not?

Does the same happen in Reiki – people who have never heard of Usui claiming that their own invented brand of healing is Reiki because they like the name?

I know what you mean about Reiki
We seem to have a new version every week
People are changing it so they feel more comfortable with it
Adjusting attunements and names to suit their needs

Reiki is not alone in this treatment

What people do is up to them. But why call it shamanism if it’s not?

I missed this
People are strange
They find something that they like
They read or hear about something
Then find that they feel this it them
So the description fits, so they are
No more work than a bit of reading

Then like you said, a workshop or two
Then comes label that fits there feeling
We cannot take this away from them
They have meet us some of the way
The original shamans did not have books
They worked by way of mouth from others
Wise men or women shared their beliefs

That it what is being done with books now
The internet also shares a lot of information
One has to be very careful with our comments
Just because some things are done differently
Or not done the way that other shamans do them
Does not make them wrong in the great scheme
Not all shamans would have worked the same
It is the differences between us that makes us
Humans have never all conformed to a standard
The wise ones have excepted all our differences

The original shamans did not have books
They worked by way of mouth from others
Wise men or women shared their beliefs

Depends on the culture. Why is this all in the past tense?

Not all shamans would have worked the same

This is true. However, there are commonalities that make it shamanism. Just as other belief systems have basics that say that something is Christian or Buddhist or whatever, so does shamanism.

Without this, any discussion is meaningless. Why are you so wedded to, ‘anything goes, throw out the definitions’?

Depends on the culture. Why is this all in the past tense?

This is true. However, there are commonalities that make it shamanism. Just as other belief systems have basics that say that something is Christian or Buddhist or whatever, so does shamanism.

Everything has a base in history, however, are they really the same any more?

Without this, any discussion is meaningless. Why are you so wedded to, ‘anything goes, throw out the definitions’?

Without the past, we would not be free to add to the past
We do not throw out the definitions, they change through time
Anything goes would be an over simplification of all our growth
Morals adjust themselves through time dependant on lifes limits

Everything has a base in history, however, are they really the same any more?

What are 'they' and are 'they' the same as what? Are you saying that no one practises traditional shamanism anymore?

As for definitions changing - I'm interested in the fact that it is generally those who do not follow a shamanic path who are so keen to change the definition.

What is your definition of shamanism?

Time changes everything
Is a Shaman the same now as centuries ago?
I doubt that they really are, even though they try
Are people chasing something new age
Or are they the same as they really were?
Practises traditional shamanism in the modern era
Does this make people traditional shaman?
I do hope that they can be

Do I know what is a traditional shamanism?
I only know what I have read through time
And that was written be new people
So I do not really know traditional shamanism
Maybe the novels by Jean M. Auel are close
As we are really reading everything second hand

Without this type of interaction
Views and information cannot be exchanged
When someone starts getting defensive
Then all is lost as objectivity is lost

Time changes everything

Is a Shaman the same now as centuries ago?
I doubt that they really are, even though they try
Are people chasing something new age
Or are they the same as they really were?
Practises traditional shamanism in the modern era
Does this make people traditional shaman?
I do hope that they can be

I’m not talking about people in our culture. I’m referring to traditional peoples who have continued to practice as they always have – the Sami, the Pomo, the Evenki - and many others.

Maybe the novels by Jean M. Auel are close

Why would a novel be more accurate than the views and opinions of people who study and practice?

When someone starts getting defensive

Then all is lost as objectivity is lost

I’m not defensive. I’m puzzled. I repeat:

I'm interested in the fact that it is generally those who do not follow a shamanic path who are so keen to change the definition.

How much shamanism do you do?

How much shamanism do you do?

There are so many different definitions kicking around
You will find that a lot of people can find something that they are doing
Most people that are in or around the spiritual will be touching the subject
Within many of the written definitions, very few people will do all of the definitions

Giving yourself a name for what you do puts you within a pigeon hole
Not everyone needs a slot to be put in

There are so many different definitions kicking around
You will find that a lot of people can find something that they are doing
Most people that are in or around the spiritual will be touching the subject
Within many of the written definitions, very few people will do all of the definitions

Giving yourself a name for what you do puts you within a pigeon hole
Not everyone needs a slot to be put in

This is getting silly.