Shamanism on the Playa

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:15 pm

To continue, when I was a teenager, I was facinated by 19th century Russia.
If I had run around pretending to be an orthodox priest or nun, reciting mass in High Slavonic, it would have been disrespectful and phony and pretentious and I'd have been laughed at and teased and told off.

Luckily, I had more sence. It's not too late for you to develope some.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:16 pm

WTF is a butist?
Buddhist?

BonnietheCajunQueen · Post by **BonnietheCajunQueen** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:21 pm

I'm a bootist. You cross me, and you get a boot to the head.

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:22 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:Oh, and by the way, I've know several real buttists. Fine people, many of them.

I mo definitely be a buttist. I've seen some fine ones too!

Seriously, this whole shamanism thing as practiced by 21st century suburbanites in developed, industrialized societies really comes across as little more than an excuse or justification for recreational drug usage...not that one really needs an excuse or justification.....But if it "works" for the shaman, and gives meaning to his or her life, go for it.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:32 pm

I met the head of the russian church once.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:40 pm

I went to the head in a Unity church... and a Catholic one... And a Foursquare one... and a Methodist one... There's a Baptist one down the street... and let's not forget the Rescue Mission Franchise...

There's the new ZAGAT - Guide to Church Restrooms... Available through Apokiliptimazon.com... Right next to the "Idiot's Guide to keeping a forum running during a playa duststorm".

How about a practicing Bhubist? I hear there'll be a whole temple (disguised as a bar) on the playa this year in Terminal City...

bb

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:47 pm

...I used the head in a church once, blowing major chunks before my wedding...

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:03 pm

As the Dalai Lama told me once,

Good fortune happy lucky big time for you and family.

Or maybe it was Jackie Chan.
I get them mixed up.
His ainglais is much better now anyway.

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:10 pm

I'm a Stainist.

helitack · Post by **helitack** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:15 pm

As in skid marks in the tighty whities?

timburly · Post by **timburly** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 5:38 pm

Maybe I need to clarify a bit. Iâ€™m not claiming to be a shaman; however I am claiming to practice shamanism. To clear things up a bit hereâ€™s a little education.

The term shaman originally refers to healers of the Turkic Mongol areas in Northern Asia and Mongolia. The literal Turkic/Tungus meaning of shaman is â€œhe who knowsâ€

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:23 pm

timburly wrote: Any time a trance is done its ritual, and becomes even more so with plants that can be fatal. None of it I take lightly for if I do it will have serious repercussions, something I learned in the beginning

It's a risk, but I can see where it can be useful. The line between brain damage and enlightenment is fine, but if you are a happier and better person afterwards does it really matter then?

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:56 pm

skygod wrote:
timburly wrote: Any time a trance is done its ritual, and becomes even more so with plants that can be fatal. None of it I take lightly for if I do it will have serious repercussions, something I learned in the beginning
It's a risk, but I can see where it can be useful. The line between brain damage and enlightenment is fine, but if you are a happier and better person afterwards does it really matter then?

\/
Labotomy, You will be happier

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Mar 26, 2007 8:17 pm

My nagual failed her drug test & I'm so grounded.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:25 am

helitack wrote:...I used the head in a church once, blowing major chunks before my wedding...

Should have taken that as a warning of things to come...

bb

BAS · Post by **BAS** » Tue Mar 27, 2007 8:21 am

Badger wrote:
I thought that a certain percentage of people of European descent could not develop a full blown case of AIDS because one of the plagues which swept through Europe killed off everyone with a certain, due to evolution, useless cell receptor that the AIDS virus would use to enter the cell.
That's a theory that's drawing a great deal of attention.

There was a great NOVA/Frontline special on it a few years back.

It might have been a version of that report I encountered. It sounds like the time frame is about right.

B.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:50 am

I like the way you assume that I'm closeminded.

I still think you are playing with stuff that's bigger than you admit. I notice you are taking the easy and risky route, instead of the chanting, drumming (not that I want another hippie drum circle onplaya), fasting usw. I am concerned that people who are in no way ready will do this and have to face shamanic states (which can be really disturbing; a classic initiation is a trip to the land of the dead, and it can be weeks or months to put yourself back together agian--if you can do it at all) will try this with or without you. I am also concerned about drug use as a powerful way to derail whatever social progress BM might represent. Yeah, the DEA is crazy, but the ratio of real deal shamanists to twits who've read Castenda, Wade Davis, Lynn V. Andrews (or was that VC Andrews?) and the like and decide "shamanism is cool" or who use it to allow them to use drugs without having to take on the scum self image is something like 1 to 100 in my experience. And living most of my life in Berkeley, it's not all abstract.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:22 am

theCryptofishist wrote: (or was that VC Andrews?)

Shamans in the Attic?

skygod · Post by **skygod** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:23 am

theCryptofishist wrote: to take on the scum self image

I would say that's the worst part of any type of drug use. The most well-intentioned attempts at enlightenment can be side-tracked by your awareness of other people's negative perceptions of you.
You can always reach samadhi or nirvana or heaven, whatever, by helping others. That works too, and I see a lot of folks at BM doing that.
(I'm not trying to tell people what to do, I'm just enjoying myself here. Hey, no Bogart that thing!)

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:58 am

AntiM wrote:
theCryptofishist wrote: (or was that VC Andrews?)
Shamans in the Attic?

Rattles in the Wind...

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:29 am

OK, color me in the minority who thinks being spiritually positive is like being sex positive. Specifically, that casting aspersions at another's idea of spiritualism is just like casting aspersions at another's sexuality. If some consenting adult wants to combine drug intake and "religious," thought it's no skin off my nose, as long as only consenting adults are involved. As a somewhat reluctant atheist most shamans look alike to me, but that's true of most priests, nuns, door bell knockers, and so on. But I'd no more agree with a universal condimination of any of them than I'd agree with a universal condiminatin of folk who are into Pain and Power play, say.

Ah, but what do I know? I couldn't make money producing porn so that shows you how smart I am...;)

Ron

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:38 am

AS a sex positive person, I have come to appreciate that "rules" that surround certain "extreme" (perhaps even bordering on the "shamanic") sexual practices. I think bad shamanic guides do exist and are as potentially dangerous and bad doms. I wouldn't play with anyone who didn't "get" that. I'm not against shamanic practice; I'm against bad shamanic practice.

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:03 pm

Ron wrote: I couldn't make money producing porn so that shows you how smart I am

Was it too much fuckin' overhead?
Was it your reliance on Ron Jeremy? (I've heard the US Government now requires warning labels on any DVD featuring Ron Jeremy. )

Seriously, what you said above that was spot on IMHO

Ron · Post by **Ron** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:36 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:.... I'm not against shamanic practice; I'm against bad shamanic practice.

Which is just what lots of sex negative folk say about sex. "I'm not against sex, just bad sex, i.e. sex outside of marriage, sex between same gendered folk, sex without monogamy,..."

If your objection to any given sex/spiritual process is grounded in consent I'm right behind you. "Shamans," dosing folk without their informed consent are bastards, by virtue of that behavior. Just like "Tops," tying folk up and whipping them without consent are also bastards. But that's the *only* consideration I believe the X-positive observer can legitimately impose on either behavior set. In fact, it's only when someone does something that bothers you *and* involves universal consent, that you have the opportunity to be X-postive. Anyone can support folk when they are doing things within one's comfort zone, after all. But when you support folks' right to do things that are *outside* of your comfort zone that you can actually be sex/spiritually positive, seems to me.

So I've long ago shortened that age old SM/BD mantra ("Safe, Sane, and Consensual") to just "Consensual." If I want to think that my concept of "sane," must mean something to other folk, then I've got to let the Southern Baptist's concept of "safe," mean something to other folk as well, eh?

Ron

PS I couldn't make money on porn because I insisted on imposing my opinions of what was sexy on the market. Rather than focusing on a rotating stream of stereotypical female talent I cast only pre-existing couples who came from a wide range of body types and played just as they liked. "Fuckumentaries," we called them, and as good as the idea may sound it don't sell content....

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:45 am

theCryptofishist wrote:AS a sex positive person, I have come to appreciate that "rules" that surround certain "extreme" (perhaps even bordering on the "shamanic") sexual practices. I think bad shamanic guides do exist and are as potentially dangerous and bad doms. I wouldn't play with anyone who didn't "get" that. I'm not against shamanic practice; I'm against bad shamanic practice.

Some countries in South America require their shamans to have licenses in order to practice.

Archantael · Post by **Archantael** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:55 pm

IMHO I look down on practioners who rely exclusively on drug use in order to have a "religious experience" (Notice it's not plural...religion at a level that involves substances should be more than a one time trip). Fishy touched on it with one of her posts....using substances takes the easy way out and yeah, you get the voyeuristic trip but if you don't have any of the background knowledge...the experience that comes from years of practice then really what do you have? You have nothing. You have a message that can't be intrepreted. Or in plain English you're still just as stupid coming out of the experience as you were going in.

Real shamans don't need to broadcast who they are, or what they know. They just do what they do and IMHO based on personal observations people have a knack for finding them.

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:39 pm

Whether it's Christianity, Wicca, Judaism, or shamanism, aren't we all just making this stuff up as we go? Is it not the intricacies of the human mind, or the complexity of its"wiring" perhaps, that gives us a longing for something beyond what we can experience directly?

I've always been curious why it was not simply enough to be amazed and overjoyed at the beauty of flower or a child or a stunning mountain view without an otherworldly overlay. What is the inherent value of shamanism if at its roots are either some form of sensory deprivation or chemically-induced alteration of the senses? I have nothing against either of those, but I just am curious why some people want to equate an altered state with anything other than a temporary physical alteration. If your spirituality depends upon chemicals, then how deep does it really run?

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:07 pm

Moses did'nt eat for a few day..That's when he saw the bush fire and come off the mountain with the 10 comandments..

Some times people with low sugar problems see and hear strange things..

As an old drugy, I can say I seen some incredible shit..Just for fleeing seconds and no one else saw a damn thing..

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:59 pm

Archantael wrote:IMHO I look down on practioners who rely exclusively on drug use in order to have a "religious experience" (Notice it's not plural...religion at a level that involves substances should be more than a one time trip). Fishy touched on it with one of her posts....using substances takes the easy way out and yeah, you get the voyeuristic trip but if you don't have any of the background knowledge...the experience that comes from years of practice then really what do you have? You have nothing. You have a message that can't be intrepreted. Or in plain English you're still just as stupid coming out of the experience as you were going in.

Real shamans don't need to broadcast who they are, or what they know. They just do what they do and IMHO based on personal observations people have a knack for finding them.

Like car-jacking a bookmobile and going for a joyride...

snake · Post by **snake** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:22 pm

i was drawn to this post initially. but it seemed primarily about drugs, not spiritualism or doctoring or healing. an excuse for drug use. you don't need an excuse. though the use of substances can be used in doctoring or medicine, many 'shamans' healers have an inner gift.

Shamanism on the Playa

good

as a native american