Editor's note: An online
pre-conference discussion took place from April
28 to June 13, 2004, among presenters of the
Symposium "Shamanism As The First Integrative
Psychotherapy" at the 2004 SEPI Conference in
Amsterdam, plus Hilde Rapp (chair of the
Conference), and Geoffrey Samuel
(anthropologist). As the reader will see,
shamanism is still a controversial word, even
among those who think that psychotherapy has a
spiritual side in need of a label. The
discussion served to reshape the SEPI symposium
on shamanism, which took place in Amsterdam on
June 25, 2004.The presenters were Tilke
Platteel-Deur, Joy Manné, Luca Panseri, and
Tullio Carere-Comes.
Tullio Carere, 28 April
2004
Dear all,
I had a
fantasy of this group as a shamanic family, at
least embryonic, and imagined that this was the
main reason why I had organized the whole thing
in Amsterdam, without knowing it. This could
have been just a case of wishful thinking, of
course, but there can be something to it.
So let me try
to put my fantasy to reality test. For this
group to ever be anything like a shamanic
family, the minimal condition is that we all
share a common view of what a modern shaman is.
That is, there must be a common ground that we
share, in our obviously and necessarily
different views of modern shamanism. This is my
pre-conference proposal, then: let us try to
concisely lay out our or ideas on this topic,
and let us see if we can discern anything like a
common ground. I begin first.
A modern
shaman (MS) is first of all a mystic, one who
dares venture into the dark night of the soul,
only supported by the basic shamanic faith that
passion and (symbolic) death give place to a
rebirth. In his/her journeys into the unknown,
the MS draws upon the source of transpersonal
inspiration and healing. But the MS is not a
naive new-ager, to the extent that s/he does not
take the truth of his/her intuitions for
granted. Besides being a mystic, s/he is a
scientist, both in the sense of the 'local
scientist', who transforms every intuition in a
hypothesis to put to test in the laboratory of
the therapeutic interaction; and in the sense of
a scientist who belongs to the scientific
community of his/her time, inasmuch as s/he
accepts and applies the basic rules of empirical
research (this might be one reason for us to
meet in a conference of a scientific association
like SEPI).
The MS is a mystic
and a scientist, but that is not all. Like his/her
forerunners, s/he knows s/he also has to do some more
basic psychological job. Namely, s/he has to create a
relational environment endowed with a holding,
unconditionally accepting, maternal quality on one side,
and a confronting, reality-testing, paternal quality on
the other side. S/he moves in a field defined by a
vertical (philosophical) axis, connecting a mystic and a
scientific pole, and a horizontal (psychological) axis,
connecting a maternal and a paternal pole. His/her
attitude is dialogical, because s/he knows nothing for
sure, and dialectical, because s/he shuns all
one-sidedness and flows with the contradictory nature of
all phenomena.
I described this
four-vertex model 15 years ago in a book entitled "Il
nuovo sciamano" (The new shaman). In my fantasy-vision I
had the intuition that you must be all modern shamans
like me, and each of you must have developed his/her
original model roughly along the same lines as mine. If
it were true, the idea of a modern shamanic family would
not be so far-fetched, after all. Please give me your
feed-back.
Joy Manné, 29 April 2004
Dear Tullio and all:
I am really sorry
that I cannot read Italian, because your book, written
all of 15 years ago, is really a path-breaker, a leader
in the field. Today, many people are interested in
shamanism and consciousness, and my new book sets
Breathwork's contribution in this growing field. You
wrote before the field was created.
As for my model, what
I see is that when consciousness is given the chance to
develop, it follows a shamanic pattern. In my thesis, I
interested myself in the hypothetical case histories
that were in the Buddhist texts. As I mapped out the
Buddha's own hypothetical case history, I perceived a
pattern which looked to be shamanic. When I did the
research, the mapping was one on one: it was a truly
shamanic "hypothetical case history," which I then
started to call a "life pattern." As the Buddha also
used breathwork, I became interested in the features in
this pattern as they related to my own experience and
that of my clients. There was again a strong mapping. I
then realised that what Breathwork does is give
consciousness the space to look at itself. When
Breathwork is well done, i.e. breathworkers are not
imposing their own ideas and agenda, this process is not
interfered with and so consciousness can flow its own
way. The result is shamanic development.
Another important
aspect for me is that each person's shamanic development
is unique and individual. The pattern exists, but is
interpreted or expressed differently, according to the
person's religion, society, etc. I am still exploring
this aspect, and will admit now that it is developing
into the subject of my next book.
Hilde Rapp, 29 April 2004
Dear Tullio, dear
all,
As you know - given
our long standing dialogue- we are much on the same page
with respect to how we thing about the dialectic-
dialogic balance, the mystic- scientific- (vertical) and
the maternal- paternal (horizontal) coordinates which
define the space in which we operate.
Joy, you also know
that we share much, so I just set out my starting
position for Catherine, Tilke and Wilfried- to be
refined, abandoned, transformed... as this dialogue
develops...
I too have been
interested in shamanism (since childhood) and breathwork
( since the sixties) for a very long time, because
combined they represent a direct path to the experience
of the divine, beyond the containment and restrictions
provided by religion and any other form of clerical
regulation of our communication with the divine and with
one another. I have been lucky to have travelled a
little and to have sat with shamanic healers from a
number of cultures to learn what is important to them...
In psychotherapy
(which brings us together in this conference) the
tension between the shamanic and the clerical is
paralleled by the tension between, on the one hand
socially and professionally regulated practice according
to a shared understanding of what is tried, tested,
effective and ethically acceptable , and, on the other,
innovate pathbreaking forays into the unknown by
courageous individuals at the cutting edge of knowledge
and practice .
Both the shamanic and
the 'clerical' paths have advantages and disadvantages,
as I have explored in many papers on psychotherapy
regulation and integrative practice. The shadow side of
the shamanic is that a shaman, in virtue of being human,
is also subject to the distortions that the ego will
bring to the soul path , and he or she is therefore
liable to misperceive and mislead unintentionally or
indeed misguide deliberately in order to increase their
power. We see this with adepts like Crowley or gurus
like Bhagwan...
The shadow of the
clerical path is that rules and regulations designed to
mark out an arena of safe and productive work can become
restrictive, suffocating, stultifying and censorious,
preventing the development of open and free enquiry and
experimental practice. We see this in the increasing
bureaucratisation of the healing arts and sciences.
The underlying
tension is defined by an arc which leads from
preconventional practices (where certain developments
which lead to the formation of a socialised personality
have not yet taken place); conventional practices (
where socialisation has led to a formation within a
particular cultural, professional or religious
formation); and post conventional practices (where we
include and transcend the constraints of our
socialisation as we recognise it as contingent as we
strive to make direct contact with the divine, not
without an ego [preconventional], not confined to the
ego [conventional] but beyond the ego, that is from the
entire volume of the body-mind-soul-spirit space we
define as "I").
In practice (unless
we are psychotic or enlightened), most of us will be
mixtures of pre-con, con and post con organisations, and
with luck we might be aware enough both of the bright
and of the shadow side of all three - in which case
shamanic excursions to the limits of our understanding
are likely to be beneficial.
Breath is the vehicle
which takes us to the boundary. Breath will however only
help to reveal our underlying structure. It will be
divine inspiration - if it comes - that can bring
healing by creating a dynamic balance between our
pre-con, con, and post-con components to make us
maximally adapted to the challenges of modern life. A
modern shaman needs to be evenly poised between the
capacity to belong to a secure social framework and the
capacity to let go and take off into an imaginative
flight into the divine cosmos...
This means guarding
in equal measure against the hijacking of shamanism in
the service of quackery and power games on the one hand
and the suppression of shamanism in the service of
bureaucracy and social control.
(It is for this
reason also I have insisted on including these panels in
the conference- because only in the light of public
scrutiny which is scientifically and spiritually
literate can we actually safeguard that our profession
stays alive...)
At least this is how
I currently see the challenge of modern shamanism as it
develops through the practice of breathwork, but I very
much hope that together we refine one another's thinking
and practice so this is just my starting base for this
dialogue...
Tullio Carere, 3 May 2004
Dear Joy and Hilde,
Thank you for your
contributions to this inchoate pre-conference
discussion. It seems to me that what you say sets the
stage for what could be a major thread in our
shamanistic meeting: the comparison of a basic shamanic
pattern as it is discernible in all cultures of all
times (Joy), and a 'modern' shamanic pattern, defined by
an arc which leads from pre-conventional to conventional
to post-conventional practices (Hilde). Although we may
like to think of ourselves as post-conventional, most of
us are in fact "mixtures of pre-con, con and post con
organisations". Because the shaman, "in virtue of being
human, is also subject to the distortions that the ego
will bring to the soul path", s/he always runs the risk
of moving in the regressive direction of the
pre-conventional, while deluding him/herself and others
into believing that s/he is a post-conventional person.
My idea for
minimizing this risk lies in the dialectic on the
vertical axis of the field, i.e. between mystics and
science. Their interdependence protects both science
from becoming scientism, and mystics from "quackery and
power games". I look forward to reading Tilke's,
Catherine's, and Wilfried's views on this topic (and, of
course, further comments by Joy and Hilde).
Hilde Rapp. 4 May 2004
Dear Joy, Tullio,
Tilke, Wilfried and Catherine,
My sense is that this
will not only be a pre conference but also a post
conference conversation...
I wonder whether we
might want to rename our thread to 'The Shamanic
dimension of psychotherapy'- simply because 'shaman-ism'
suggests an organised body of beliefs and practices, and
I think we are concerned with an attitude ( not a set of
beliefs) and a set of experiences (rather than
practices) which arise from 'observing' rather than
'controlling' the breath?
In most cultures I
know of, the shamanic experience relates to soul
travel-our capacity to allow inspiration and intuition
to guide our attention to realms in which we experience
aspects of reality that are not easily grasped in
ordinary waking consciousness.
In this way the
shamanic experience might be the opposite of a
possession state. Mediumistic experiences, sometimes
described as 'channeling' might be examples of such a
reaching down of spirit into the plane of human
experience. We become the (passive, permissive,
receptive) vehicle for spirit beings to convey messages
to others such that they can be understood in waking
consciousness. Here the thrust is to reconnect people by
means of the message with their community in a more
balanced and harmonious way...
By contrast, the
shamanic flight is our (active, questing, visioning)
reaching up into the spirit plane. Here the thrust is
emancipatory, liberational- to free us from our social
categories in order to make a new development possible
both at the personal and at the community level... The
outcomes of the shamanic and possession route to
transforming our consciousness from one state to another
may be the same or similar- forms of rebalancing or
healing. However, the process is different- and maybe
the social contexts within which the possession process
rather than the shamanic process is favoured may also be
different...?
What I mean by
'modern' shamanism has firstly to do with how we, in
contemporary Europe, revision what we mean by the plane
of spirit or spirit beings. The most common terms we
seem to use, draw on some notion of 'energy patterns' or
'energy 'fields'. What happens here might be thought of
in analogy ( or perhaps even in homology - Wilfried?) to
alterations in genetic patterning ( biological
engineering) or neurochemical patterning, in that
systemic changes take place which we think of in terms
of 'healing'. I quite like a musical analogy- nada
brahma: the world is sound- energy as vibration and
healing as the reconfiguring of a piece of music so that
it has a different emotional, spiritual and physical
quality)
In any case,
something is reconfigured in a dimension to which we
gain access by a process we choose to call shamanic, the
outcome of which is a rebalancing of the system which we
conceive of in terms of an energy change towards greater
aliveness and harmony... In most 'traditional' societies
the path of the shaman was entered through being chosen
by the spirit world or by a hereditary entitlement to
the role... Therefore a second strand of 'modern'
shamanic processes lies in the social fact that in
principle everyone may now engage in a process which
results in a shamanic transformation of consciousness
which allows a reconfiguring of energy patterns to take
place...
Thirdly, this seems
to presuppose that we must believe that everyone has the
capacity to become enlightened, to engage in vision
quests etc , rather than only the 'chosen'. This has
implications for professionalism, elitism etc on the one
hand and raises issues of responsibility, preparedness,
'safe practice' etc on the other- where, as Tullio also
says, science and mysticism are the two guardians which
ought to guarantee the integrity of the process, the
authenticity of the experience and the usefulness of the
outcome...
( What else?)
I wonder whether this
way of thinking is shared among us - or how each of you
uses the words shaman, shamanic, shamanism...? What
views, concepts, understandings do you bring to this
field? What do you think happens here? How do you
describe it?
Joy Manné, 5 May 2004
Dear Hilde,
I am ever less of an
intellectual (for better or for worse), so I look on
with respect and awe as you and Tullio juggle concepts,
and hope not to get eaten alive at the conference.
What I have observed
(and written about in my new book), is that when
breathwork is practiced, and neither the breath nor the
process are interfered with, shamanic experiences
result, and so does the pattern of development of the
shaman, up to the person's capacities and gifts. And
this intrigues me, as I think we are watching
Consciousness, liberated from all theories, allowed to
follow its practical route, developing in its own way.
Wow! I observe and I marvel as consciousness shows
itself to me in the development of my clients. I
continue to observe and learn about this unravelling (of
unconsciousness), and do intend to write about it in
depth when I know more. Right now, I'm only at the
pattern-recognition stage.
Now, being practical
(and a simple beast, a simple rhino from Africa though
connected, of course, to the hairies that once roamed
freely across the British Isles), I'm happy to take a
group voyaging (here's another workshop offer: shamanic
voyaging for psychotherapists! Will have to be late
night shamaning, that one!) and do the action stuff. My
little Noah, with his transformers and heroes who save
others shows the way. Let some do the deep theorising.
We wild grannies want to be where the action is and have
the fun!!!
Wilfried Ehrmann, 7 May
2004
Dear SEPIs,
sorry for reacting so
late. Explanation follows:
Now I realize a part
of my not-attraction about coming to the Amsterdam
conference which was obviously intended as a partial
shamanic meeting (Tullio) had to do with this aspect.
Shamanism is not a common context for me as person or
for my work. I see it as a widespread cultural practice
in premodern societies. My knowledge about this
phenomenon does not exceed old Eliade. My experiences
are limited to attending a workshop with Serge Kahili
King (the Urban Shaman), transcendence, etc. So I do not
wear the predicate Shaman. I see myself as spiritual
seeker heading towards more stillness inside. The
colourful world of the Shamans is not my homeland
although I like to visit it at times.
As Non-such I feel
freed of contributing to the discussion about the place
of shamanism in our world. Now as postconventionalist or
postmodernist I am aware that anything can be used as a
label and that we can use anything in any context and it
will make some sense. Still I ask myself what it adds to
therapy in general or breathwork in special when we call
it shamanistic. Maybe it has an additional marketing
aspect, but to some extend it could also be perceived as
limiting the experiences we have when breathing to the
realm of spectacularity.
Shamanism has
discovered universal patterns in human development. Yet
I cannot see that they could possibly describe or
enclose all the experiences plus contexts that were
created in the evolution of society since the Shamanic
ages. One could say that this is all the evolution of
Shamanism but that is just a play of words which does
not add to clarity. One could say that through
techniques like breathwork the deep roots of therapy in
Shamanism are regained. This means that breathwork has a
shamanistic aspect but calling breathwork a shamanistic
method would neglect or exclude all the other maybe less
ancient aspects of it. It is interesting for me to find
out what in breathwork is shamanic and what not. But for
that to find out we have to decide what Shamanism is: an
ancient healing technique or a modern umbrella.
When you, Tullio, say
that modern shamanism is scientific, then it seems to me
like stretching a concept so wide that everything finds
its place in it, and the concept becomes
wishy-washy.
Even associating
shamanism and mysticism is misleading as there are many
aspects of mysticism which exceed the (old) shamanistic
world.
Tullio Carere, 8 May 2004
Dear Wilfried,
First of all, let me
tell you how much I appreciate your straight and frank
approach. It is compelling, in the sense that it compels
us to face the core questions about shamanism: is it "an
ancient healing technique or a modern umbrella"? Is it a
useful concept for contemporary breathworkers and
psychotherapists, or just a wishy-washy new-ageist
fashionable word? Let me try to answer these
questions.
Firstly, the meaning
of shamanism is highlighted in the comparison with
priesthood. The shaman is a direct mediator with the
world of the spirits, while the priest is just an
official in a church: the shaman relies on his/her
direct experience, whereas the priest is a believer. The
priest is functional to the social order which is
essential in agricultural and industrial societies,
strongly identified with a conventional spirituality,
whereas the traditional shaman is basically
preconventional. The problem, in postindustrial
societies, is to found a postconventional spirituality
in order to avoid the dangers of secularization
(scientism, individualism, hedonism, consumerism). It
has been observed that secularization has freed the
sacred from the religious. We are faced with the task of
re-connecting with the sacred without the protection
(and the oppression) of clerical institutions and
dogmas. If we engage in this task without taking into
account what our forerunners did when facing the same
task, we run the risk of being in the position of those
who start to re-invent the wheel.
Secondly, the old
shaman was a really integrative therapist, a combination
of spiritual healer, scientist (shaman means originally
"he who knows"), psychologist, physician, educator. Of
course, the knowledge of "he who knows" was the
knowledge of a primitive culture. Nonetheless, the basic
inspiration was holistic and integrative, the same that
many of us have begun to re-discover in the last decades
of the past century.
Thirdly, the main
function of the shaman was the mediation with the spirit
world. In order to connect with that world, the old
shaman got into an altered state of consciousness (ASC),
induced through a variety of means. Paradigmatically, a
"new shaman" like Stanislav Grof started with
LSD-induced ASC, and arrived at the conclusion that
breathwork can profitably substitute for any chemically
induced ASC. The fact that in most ancient languages
spirit and breath are named with the same world is a
clue for the strict relatedness between breathwork and
the "spirit world", and therefore between breathworkers
and old shamans.
This is not to say
that "breathwork is a shamanistic practice", or that
breathwork and shamanism are one and the same thing.
This would be confusing and misleading. What I mean is
that we (breathworkers or therapists doing breathwork)
can find a common root and a common ground in shamanism.
We have left out much of what belongs to shamanism
(homosexuality, for instance, as far as I am concerned),
and added much that did not belong to it (transference
and countertransference analysis, as far as I am
concerned again). But the three points made
above-shamans vs priests, holistic and integrative
therapy, breathwork as a royal or imperial way to the
spirit-form a solid basis for me to identify myself as a
modern shaman, more than anything else. (If they ask me:
what kind of medicine doctor are you?, I say a
psychiatrist; and if they ask: what kind of
psychiatrist?, I say a psychotherapist; and if they
further ask: what kind of psychotherapist?, I don't' say
a psychoanalyst-which I could say-but a shaman).
In conclusion, I see
shamanism as a possible common ground for therapists
with a great investment in breathwork, if they ever want
to find one-and this is the reason why I proposed a
panel on shamanism in the first place, after proposing
one on breathwork. But may be the problem is that I am a
diehard searcher for common grounds, in a post-modern
epoch of pluralism in which people don't seem to feel a
special need for such things. Maybe in the end I will be
convinced that they don't feel that need, simply because
such things are not needed. But for the time being I
still suspect that we do need common grounds (how can we
ever communicate, if we don't share a common ground?--in
fact, we usually do not communicate much). Or, maybe,
you will argue that we can share a common ground, but
this is not shamanism (I had a long and passionate
discussion with some distinguished Italian SEPI
colleagues, who held that the only possible common
ground among us is science, and wanted me to join them
over there). Hence I ask you Wilfried, and I ask you all
dear breathworkers: do you think that the search for a
common ground is a superfluous or even politically
incorrect activity, or on the contrary it is an useful
or even necessary enterprise? And in the second option,
which could be in your view that ground?
Wilfried Ehrmann, 10 May 2004
Dear Tullio, dear
SEPIs,
thank you for your
feedback, Tullio and Hilde.
Tullio, thank you for
your explanation about your shamanism, this is very
clear, respectable and understandable. About your
question of a common ground for breathworkers and
therapists, I think it is not the world of spirits but
spirit itself which only could work as a common
denominator, and I think, this IS the common denominator
for any therapeutic work, if not for everything that
happens. The work would be to specify what spirit means
for psychotherapy and what spirit means for breathwork
in special.
Shamanism does not
work as a common ground for me because Shamanism does
not only lack modern insights and techniques like the
therapeutic relationship etc. but that it lacks the
connection to spirit and tends to get caught up in the
world of spirits. According to (or interpreting) Karl
Jaspers, spirit was reflected and conceptualized around
500 BC (maybe there are forerunners like Echnaton) with
Lao Tsu, Buddha, Socrates, etc. This new level came into
existence by transcending the world of spirits (myths),
but as you can see with e.g. Plato integrated mythology
in the new paradigm. Another example was the Buddhist
monk (I do not remember the name) who brought Buddhism
to Tibet. He conquered the Bon priests (the shamans) on
their field and so he was accepted in bringing a
superior idea. Still, Tibetan Buddhism contains a lot of
elements of the Bon religion. But would it be fruitful
to look for a common ground in religion (or in Buddhism)
in the Bon practices? The story tells that the age of
Shamanism is over like the way of medieval economy was
over when capitalism came. Recalling and reviving the
medieval society is called Romantic remythologization.
It has no future perspective and is basically
conservative. What do I mean by spirit? Maybe it is
better to call it Philosophia perennis (Ken Wilber). For
me personally, it is best described in the Advaita
teaching, but it can be found in the scriptures of many
mystics and spiritual seekers, saints and holy persons.
They basically say the same when they speak about "the
truth".
The world of spirits
and ghosts on the path of growth is a intermediate realm
which at least to me is not necessary for everyone to
pass and which has to be left behind when walking on. So
in my view healing does not necessary require to enter
the Shamanistic "playgrounds" and cannot be the ultimate
step. This again seems to disqualify Shamanism as a
basic common ground.
Another reason why I
do not think that Shamanism is a strong fundament for
modern therapy comes from the debate about whether there
is something like a universal shamanism or rather
various quite different practices among the
preconventional tribes. Maybe the idea of a universal
Shamanism is an intervention of some ethnologists? Then
the foundation would not be more than a doubtable
scientific concept.
Hilde Rapp, 11 May 2004
Dear Wilfried,
again I agree with
much of what you say- and I think this also marks the
difference between the 'modern' shaman and the
'traditional shaman'- that we live in a post modern
world and not a medieval one, and that our understanding
of the supernatural or divine is expressed in terms of
spirit or energy rather than ancestral spirits, ghosts
or other spirit beings.
Of course we could
dispense with the term shamanic altogether if it creates
confusion rather than open new debate- but now that we
have in our discourse- and I think the distinction
between the 'wild' (unconditioned) and the contingent
(tame) aspect of ourselves is a useful one, we might as
well use it as the 'address' in logical space for
experiences and concepts which are collectively seeking
to describe and define... thanks you for the
dialogue
Tullio Carere, 11 May 2004
Dear Wilfried and
all,
Thank you for
defining your theoretical position as rooted in Advaita
Vedanta. Let me try to explain why I still prefer
shamanism to that venerable tradition. The most renown
Advaita master, Shankara, was unambiguous in saying that
the phenomenal world is not the true reality: it is
illusion, maya. Symmetrically, mainstream modern science
locates reality on this side of the line, in phenomenal
world, and declares that all form of spiritualism is
illusion. The two types of monism, spiritualistic and
materialistic, deny each other. They reflect the
spiritualistic and materialistic biases of the East and
the West, respectively.
Shamanism originates
in a time that predates the East-West splitting, and the
two metaphysics it has brought about. I like shamanism
because it does not choose spirit to the detriment of
matter, or vice versa, or heaven to the detriment of
earth, or vice versa. It does not choose, it mediates.
It is basically dialectic. It constantly moves from O
(the noumenon) to K (the phenomenon) and vice versa. [I
borrowed these letters from the psychoanalyst Bion, who
spoke of transformations of O in K, and vice versa
(someone called Bion a shaman)].
The shamans are not
monistic: they do not practice the "reductio ad unum".
Their many spirits, instead of the one spirit, reflect
their dialectical Weltanschauung. The caduceus, still
today the symbol of medical art and science, is
perfectly shamanic--a winged staff entwined with two
serpents, to represent the basic aim of therapy: to
harmonize opposite forces, or energies, or spirits.
Besides, the caduceus is a realistic representation of a
core movement in breathwork. As you must have observed
many times, a pattern is often generated in deep
breathing in which two energetic currents flow along the
spine in opposite directions. The energy of love,
flowing bottom-up, and the energy of mastery and
control, flowing top-down, have been represented as two
well-known serpent-spirits in different traditions. The
spirits are but symbolic representations of the opposite
forces that govern human life, and are specially
elicited in deep breathing (hence their names).
When all is said and
done, Wilfried, you remain an Advaita seeker, and I a
shaman. Does it mean that we should give up the very
idea of a common ground? I don't think so. This is what
happens everywhere among therapists: there cannot be any
theoretical integration. Theories are different,
incompatible and incommensurable, just like (my idea of)
shamanism and Advaita Vedanta. But I guess that our
practices are much more similar than our theories. The
only common ground I can conceive of between us is made
up of common factors, i.e. the factors that are common
to our practices. Shall we try to identify them, and
describe them in a language that is as experience-near
and theory-neutral as possible?
Hilde Rapp, 12 May 2004
Dear Tullio, dear
Wilfried, dear all,
Tullio, as always I
enjoy and admire your clarity.
I know far too little
about it as I am not an Indologist, but it seems to me
from the little that I do know, that both within the
Hindu and the Buddhist tradition, also Jaina, there are
an extraordinary variety of interpretations of a
multiplicity of myths and stories about. For instance I
believe that just looking at the many different myths
surrounding the birth of Ganesa ( the remover of
obstacles) I can discern both a shamanic thread, path or
underground river where practice is left to the
intuition of the individual practitioner- however much
ritualised and embedded in tradition, and a non shamanic
clerical approach, tied to observances that are
regulated by a (usually) hierarchical set of clerical
power structures. Both lead to understanding and
healing.
I am in
correspondence with Geoffrey Samuel (you may want to
have a look at his website) who is an internationally
renowned scholar and who has looked into this subject
matter deeply. He would be interested, in principle,
with your permission, to be copied into these exchanges,
and he would be, in principle, willing to give feedback.
In practice he is busy moving from Australia to the UK-
so he does not have much time in the immediate future.
Please let me know if
you would welcome this.
Personally I find
that I learn much from all the different traditions and
perspectives in this manifold of meanings and practices-
and I agree with Tullio that we might do well to look
for common ground at the level of "direct ( unmediated)
experience", which you may be surprised to learn is the
dictionary definition of "reality".
Joy Manné, 14 May 2004
Dear All,
Geoffrey Samuel's
book on Tibetan shamanism was a great inspiration in my
research on shamanic elements in the Buddha's life
history. Recently I had the pleasure of meeting him in
Leiden, Holland. I welcome him to this discussion.
Geoffrey Samuel, 16 May
2004
Dear Joy, Tullio,
Tilke, Wilfried and Catherine
Hilde has copied a
couple of your messages on to me and suggested that I
might join the conversation. I'm a social/cultural
anthropologist, working on Tibetan Buddhism, shamanism
and mind-body processes among other things, currently
based in Australia, moving to Wales next January. Some
of you will have received a message from Joy a few weeks
ago about a workshop on healing processes in the unified
mind-body field which I am hoping to hold at Cardiff
next July.
I'm wary these days
about shamanic as a general term, and even more about
"shamanism". As Wilfried commented, it's not at all
clear how far universal "shamanism" is, if "shamanism"
means the kind of thing Mircea Eliade described - in
fact, Eliade's model seems in some ways not even very
accurate for the Siberian cultures it was supposedly
based on. In particular, the shamanic flight versus
spirit possession distinction seems far from universal,
with practitioners in many cultures (including some of
the "classic" Siberian cultures and also Nepal) using
elements of both - the same person can both go on a
journey to find the cause of an illness, and invite a
helping spirit into his/her body to help deal with it.
(The difference between "positive" mediumistic states,
where helping spirits are invited in, and "negative"
possession, where harmful spirits have taken over and
need to be removed, is maybe more widespread, but that
is not really universal either.)
I am also unconvinced
(despite Karl Jaspers etc) about the big change around
500 BCE, and about the implied idea (which is quite
widespread) that shamans are primitive low-grade
practitioners as opposed to the Buddhist monks or lamas
(etc) who are working on some much more exalted plane .
. . I think there are "tribal" shamans (of many
different types) who work with "spirits," but others
whose experience has taken them well beyond that level.
I think the same is also true of Tibetan lamas. Tibetan
Buddhist training doesn't guarantee that everybody who
(e.g.) does a three-year retreat and so can call
themselves "lama" (in the non-Gelugpa orders) has
reached any very high level of insight into the workings
of spirit (or whatever you want to call it). The idea
that lamas are superior to shamans, Brahmins to village
spirit-mediums etc is much more to do with politics than
anything else.
Specifically on
Tibetan Buddhism, by the way, though it's something of a
side issue, modern scholarship has long dropped the idea
that Bon is some kind of "shamanic" predecessor to
Buddhism (although some Tibetans now repeat this line
themselves). Yet for all my doubts about shamanic and
shamanism, there is somethingthere which needs a
label, and so far "shamanic" seems to be the best and
most ge neral word we have (it's the one I have used
myself, with intermittent misgivings when it gets
misunderstood as it often does). When Hilde says (about
modern Western shamanism) "something is reconfigured in
a dimension to which we gain access by a process we
choose to call shamanic, the outcome of which is a
rebalancing of the system which we conceive of in terms
of an energy change towards greater aliveness and
harmony..." this sounds to me to be essentially right
about both modern Western shamanic practice and many
pre-modern and modern non-Western "shamanisms" (given
that the "system" may be the wider social group, or even
an entire society, as much as an individual).
On whether "everyone
has the capacity to become enlightened, to engage in
vision quests etc , rather than only the 'chosen'"
(Hilde) -- many cultures seem to think so, especially
the small-scale and less hierarchical societies, though
this doesn't exclude some people being more talented
than others. Again, there is a political point here, and
I think it is an important one.
Tullio Carere, 17 May 2004
Hi Geoffrey!
Welcome into our
conversation, and thank you for the precious remarks you
make in your introductory comment. I see your
contribution as organized around two main points:
I'm wary these days about shamanic
as a general term, and even more about
"shamanism".
and
Yet for all my doubts about
shamanic and shamanism, there is something there which needs a
label, and so far "shamanic" seems to be the best and
most general word we have
The question of the
legitimacy of using the terms "shaman" and "shamanism"
for a universal anthropological category is an old one,
as you know. It is paralleled by a similar question in
our field: how legitimate is the use of the term
"psychotherapy" for such disparate, incompatible and
incommensurable practices like, say, psychoanalysis and
cognitive-behavioral therapy? Let me grapple with the
two questions together, because in both cases "there is
something that needs a
label".
What is the something of psychotherapy, to
begin with? My answer is that it is the relationship
that develops between a patient and a therapist who meet
regularly and interact both verbally and non verbally to
the aim of curing disorders and/or promoting personal
(interpersonal, transpersonal) growth. I have observed,
like many others, that this relationship develops
according to an inner logic of its own, i.e. some
regularities or common factors tend to occur and recur
independently of the theory and the technique of the
therapist (psychoanalysis, CB, etc). It is as though the
relationship were shaped, beyond the conscious
intentions of both patient and therapist, by some basic
features of human nature.
And what is the something of shamanism? As you
say, "the shamanic flight versus spirit possession
distinction seems far from universal, with practitioners
in many cultures using elements of both". Then why do we
tend to unify such apparently disparate phenomena like
shamanic flight and spirit possession under the same
label of shamanism? My answer is that the shaman is an
intermediary between the actual (phenomenal) and the
potential (noumenal) worlds. S/he can both get out of
the phenomenal and take the ecstatic flight into the
unknown, and let the unknown get into his/her own body
in the form of some 'spirit'. I don't see a
contradiction, but a complementarity between these two
modes. In both cases the shaman acts as an intermediary
to draw upon the healing, inspirational, and
regenerative power of the noumenal (spiritual)
dimension.
And finally, what do
these two somethings have in
common? I.L. Lewis once wrote that the shaman is no
less, but more then a psychiatrist. Indeed, many
psychiatrists or psychotherapists move today inside a
strictly secular horizon and seem to have no interest at
all beyond that. Other therapists seem to have some
intuition of an "unconscious" that is not just a
repository of repressed materials, but also a source of
inspiration and healing; however, they don't seem to
have a personal and direct access to such dimension, as
the access is allowed and regulated by the laws and
rituals of to school to which they belong. In other
words, they are more priests than shamans. On the other
hand, most contemporary psychotherapists avail of
sophisticated tools to explore, regulate and correct
interpersonal relationships, whereas shamans have at
most an unsophisticated knowledge of this dimension. In
conclusion, I would say firstly that a contemporary
psychotherapist is both less and more than a shaman, and
secondly that there are therapists of the shamanic type,
and others of the clerical type (plus some that are a
mixture of the two types, and some that have no
connection at all to a spiritual dimension). I know that
my view is similar to Hilde's in this regard, whereas I
suspect that Wilfried would object to it. What about the
others?
Thank you again
Geoffrey for reminding us that there is something there
in need of a label, and suggesting that "so far
"shamanic" seems to be the best and most general word we
have"--unless or until someone suggests a better one.
Geoffrey Samuel, 18 May 2004
Dear Tullio
Many thanks for this
and for your comments. I am in Bangkok briefly at
present, on my way back to Australia, will perhaps
respond at more length later when I have had a chance to
read through the conversation so far properly.
My feeling at present
is that I probably have much more to learn than to give
in this exchange. I don't have any in depth experience
of psychotherapy (which as you say is in its way as
problematic a term as 'shamanism'), though like many
people these days I have been to the occasional workshop
or group on the edge of the therapy scene.
The relationship
between actual and potential worlds is surely a key
issue for the "shamanic," though maybe we need something
more to specify anything useful - is a religious
tradition such as Christianity or Judaism not also about
the relationship between actual and potential worlds,
for example? Or is the difference that Christianity and
Judaism have already decided what their potential worlds
should be like, whereas the shamanic approach leaves it
open for creative reshaping?
For me the social and
cultural dimension is also important: the shamanic
approach, at least in pre-modern societies, is about the
group, not just the individual. Though perhaps rather
than "the shamanic approach" I would feel happier to
speak of a variety of approaches which have some common
features.
One thing though, you
say that "most contemporary psychotherapists avail of
sophisticated tools to explore, regulate and correct
interpersonal relationships, whereas shamans have at
most an unsophisticated knowledge of this dimension".
What do we really mean here by "sophisticated"? I am not
saying it does not have meaning, just asking the
question.
Tullio Carere, 18 May 2004
On 18-05-2004,
Geoffrey wrote:
The relationship between actual and
potential worlds is surely a key issue for the
"shamanic," though maybe we need something more to
specify anything useful - is a religious tradition such
as Christianity or Judaism not also about the
relationship between actual and potential worlds, for
example? Or is the difference that Christianity and
Judaism have already decided what their potential worlds
should be like, whereas the shamanic approach leaves it
open for creative reshaping?
Yes, this is what I
mean. The shamanic approach leaves the potential world
constantly open for creative reshaping (in Bion's terms:
"O" should be left unsaturated, wheras all religions
saturate it with their positive theologies, reified
symbols, institutional dogmas). Nothing is wrong in
symbols and myths, provided that one is aware of their
symbolical/mythical nature and do not reify them. Of
course one can find shamans who do reify their myths:
but then, I would hardly call them shamans, if I choose
to use this word to signify an "Idealtypus": the person,
in all epoch and culture, who does not need dogmas
because his/her identity is not defined by any
institutional allegiance (as, for instance,
"psychoanalyst"), and does not need to reify his/her
experience, because s/he knows how to always return to
the source (the "thing in itself") to reshape it. As you
said, we need a word for a something (is my something
more or less the same as yours?), and I, like you,
cannot find a better word than shaman. "Mystic", or
"spiritual seeker", are possible alternatives that don't
satisfy me, because my Idealtypus is an intermediary
between spirit and matter, or noumenon and phenomenon,
or mystics and science.
For me the social and cultural
dimension is also important: the shamanic approach, at
least in pre-modern societies, is about the group, not
just the individual.
The individual is
nothing without a group (and vice versa), in the
shamanic view and in my own. An individualistic society
like ours would greatly benefit, I think, from a
shamanic injection. Besides, I started this
pre-conference discussion with the fantasy of a
"shamanic family"--a network of "shamanically oriented"
persons (breathworkers, psychotherapists,
anthropologists...)--and have not yet given it up.
One thing though, you say that
"most contemporary psychotherapists avail of
sophisticated tools to explore, regulate and correct
interpersonal relationships, whereas shamans have at
most an unsophisticated knowledge of this dimension".
What do we really mean here by "sophisticated"? I am not
saying it does not have meaning, just asking the
question.
Sophisticated I call
the competence in the management of interpersonal
relationships that has been developed mainly in the
psychoanalytic tradition (analysis of transference and
countertransference) and in the cognitive, starting with
Piaget. A groundbreaking paper that connects and
integrates the two traditions is "Transference, Schema,
and Assimilation: The Relevance of Piaget to the
Psychoanalytic Theory of Transference", by Paul Wachtel,
one of the fathers founders of SEPI ( http://cyberpsych.org/sepi/
).
Wilfried Ehrmann, 19 May 2004
Dear Tullio, dear
SEPIs,
this is my comment to
the concept of dialectic vs. monism, Shamanism as
dialectic concept and Advaita as monistic concept.
I agree that the
dialectic connection of the mundane and the sacral world
is an essential concept. Yet the nature of dialectic is
not limited to thesis and antithesis but both require a
synthesis, at least according to Hegel and not following
Adorno's skepticism. What then is the synthesis of the
two worlds? This cannot be the Shaman as a person or the
Shamanism as a doctrine, as you describe Shamanism in
between the two worlds. It must be something different
in quality, a quality jump. And this I see in the
perennial concept of Spirit as e.g. seen in the teaching
of Advaita.
The description of
the two worlds as Maya in Advaita and other Indian
teachings does not mean (in my understanding), that they
are irrelevant or meaningless. On the contrary, they are
the realms of our lives. Still they are not of ultimate
truth because they are caught in the polarizing
structure of our mind. When we enter the void which can
happen in meditation, it is neither from one world or
the other but is of a different quality of reality which
incorporates the contents of the worlds and still is not
of these worlds.
Tullio Carere, 19 May 2004
Dear Wilfried and
all,
I would hardly say
that spirit is a synthesis between matter and spirit (I
would say the same of matter, for that matter). But, as
we all know all too well, a doctrinal dispute would lead
us nowhere. Let us try to return, instead, to our very
common ground: breathwork. Let me quote from Tilke's
biographical sketch:
The Spirit of Breath has the power
to connect us with real strength. In an atmosphere of
acceptance, respect and love, a human being may become
more conscious of his true nature, his essence, and with
that of the deeper meaning of his life.
These things--our
real strength, our true nature, our essence--are what we
usually call our potential world, the noumenon, the
spirit. Then Tilke goes on to say:
Integrating spirituality into
normal daily life has always been of great interest to
her (Tilke).
Through breathwork,
says Tilke, we get in touch with, we become aware of our
spiritual nature. Then we can integrate our spirituality
in our daily life (the matter, the material conditions
of our everyday life). Could we agree that this integration is the synthesis
we look for? If we do, the next step would be to
recognize that this integration is far from complete or
perfect. It is not that we "become spirit". We might
feel at one with the universe in some ecstatic moments
during breathwork or in meditation, but for most of the
time we struggle in contradictions. When one is
resolved, two more open very soon. Vast portions of
psychological matter, inside and around us, stubbornly
refuse to be enlightened. If my aim were synthesis, I
would feel very frustrated. But it is not. My aim is to
grow in the capacity of flowing in life with all its
contradictions: solving some, if I can; letting the
others as they are, if I cannot; greeting all new
contradictions that come to life every moment; and
trying not to be too spiritual, nor too material, as a
being who lives at the interface between earth and
heaven.
Ok, this is my
Weltanschauung. But can we discuss of breathwork, or
psychotherapy, or shamanism, or advaita, without
exposing and confronting our Weltanschauungen? (I like
it, by the way).
Joy Manné, 23 May 2004
Dear Hilde,
My approach to this
subject is in my paper, attached for those who have not
read it. The bibliography shows what I've been reading.
You will see that mine is a psychological approach and
not an anthropological approach. It is a minimalist
approach - looking at the larger picture, or the essence, as I am not interested
in the details. I think they muddy the waters. I'm more
likely to talk about something as being "shamanic"
rather than about "shamanism." The essence, for me, is
that when consciousness is given a chance to look at
itself, which it receives in Breathwork (and other
therapies, Jungian analysis, for example), its natural
pattern of development is shamanic. For example: for me
it is irrelevant which school of thought any shaman
belongs to; the essence is that there is a tradition,
the shaman forms part of the tradition, and as s/he
develops her/his shamanic gifts, begins to make the
transit from student to teacher. All Breathwork group
leaders that I know are also spiritual teachers. It goes
with the job. I can give endless examples of how this
pattern manifests as consciousness develops, and will
give many during my presentation.
How does theory
really help? What really is the discussion on theory? I
wonder whether it is not a sort of magic competition -
shamans do compete and there is often a hierarchy. Also,
competing is a sort of game, a sharpening of wits, etc.
Do the details matter here? I don't think so, but then I
do not want to convert anyone - never have! Now, looking
at the pattern that shows itself - well, there I think
theory helps to serve better practice in Breathwork or
in any other method that deals with psyche. Theory where
it is minimal and practical. The client will fill in the
details, according to her/his tendencies, and need to
believe one way or another.
More about competing.
It risks getting into "my school is better than your
school" positions, which I find meaningless. There's
always the danger of drawing prestige from "my guru",
"my teacher" etc. Why is one person drawn to one school
rather than another? That is the interesting question
for me, not the contents of the school's teaching.
I'm very interested
in Integrative Psychotherapy and integrating models. I
think these must leave the details for clients to fill
in, according to their needs and developments, and not
impose structures. The more simple and basic the
structure, the less danger of imposing the therapists
own picture on the client. Of course we are chosen
because our Weltanschauung is compatible with that of
our clients; we are not characterless. And if we are
developing sufficiently, we are shamans who belong to
schools and are teaching…
Tilke Platteel-Deur, 27 May,
2004
Dear Tullio and other
SEPI's
Reading what you have
been sharing so far makes me feel like the little girl
from that small province town in the Dutch backwaters. I
am definitely not the kind of intellectual you are and I
am in a state of admiration about the way you explore
this whole shamanic issue.
I have resonated with
Wilfried in his first answer and then I was pleased with
Tullio's remarks about shamans being integrative
therapists.
I don't think I want
to be a mediator between the spirit world and another
world. All I can do sometimes is assist a person to
clear himself in such a way that the spiritual world
becomes more accessible to him, that he becomes capable
of making his own inner connection with God in a
tangible way. I do -like Joy in her last letter- not
especially like the idea of a competition in ideas about
shamanism. It is so extremely personal and as hard to
describe as what someone feels while having an orgasm.
Whereas theory in breathwork is practical, reproducible
and tangible I have never called myself a shaman.
I have never called
myself a healer. I have called myself a trainer and a
therapist who uses breathwork a lot. People consider me
to be a very good trainer and a very good (breathwork)
therapist. Sometimes I agree with that and other times I
just don't know and I don't think a lot about it.
I do my work, which
is what I feel I have to do and that's that. I am a very
practical person. Some years ago Joy has finally coaxed
me into writing (something my children had tried to do
for years!) I wrote some articles and I wrote handouts
for our training and now I am working on a book that
will be a very practical piece of work.
I do this work
because in me is a part that wants to add to spreading
consciousness on this planet. I feel moved by people
when they go through their steps of development, when
consciousness develops and grows. It sometimes makes me
cry for joy. This is what gives me the most
satisfaction, often more than the money could do. Don't
worry. I like money! There are days where I still find
myself being amazed about the power of breath and the
simplicity of it. I adore breathing and I am good at
guiding the breath and initiating the moment where
spirit comes in. Breathing took most of my fears away.
It made my body -with me in it- feel safe with strong
energy and strong emotions, not always with pain.
I have never worked
with a shaman and I have never had an initiation
whatsoever. I do not work with, nor do I have a certain
personal animal spirit who is helping or guiding me.
What I do have is a
-sometimes better and sometimes less good- connection
with God or, like I often say, with "what is bigger than
me". This connection is my true help and inspiration. I
am questioning it constantly so that I don't take it for
granted. It makes me feel humble and at the same time
special. What I also have is, that over the last 28
years I have done a lot of self-exploration and I have
had loads of insights, which of course is a still
ongoing process.
My own process
together with my inner connection to God, my love for
people and my life and work experience is the basis of
what I do in therapy.
When I work I sit in
front of my client and I connect myself with him. I let
myself be guided by what I perceive, by everything I
ever learned, by my experience and by my love. Like you
all do, I guess. When I get a new client with whom I do
not get to this basic feeling of "universal love" in a
relatively short time, I used to refer him to another
therapist. I realize that this did hasn't happened
anymore during the last 9 years.
What I mean with
integrating spirituality into daily life is enjoying my
tasks, no matter what. It's being friendly to the lady
in the supermarket, having a really good relationship
with my children and grandchildren. It's enjoying myself
looking back on my day before going to sleep that I was
just 57 times judgmental during the day instead of 100
times. It's being glad when the cleaning lady tells me
that she thinks I am an inspiration for her because of
the fact that she sees me as a content person. Simple
little things that make life good and better for others
and myself. Little things that spread light.
I still think that my
place is not in this shamanic panel.
I feel very good about the
breathwork panel like I told you before.
I am a breathworker. That's my
interest. In breathwork, I see that we have a common
ground with a teachable and reproducible technique.
I see our panel on breathwork as an
enjoyable and probably very useful addition to
therapists in a conference for psychotherapists. It adds
a dimension that I have never found in any other
psychotherapeutic technique, which is the possibility of
opening up to a much bigger context than the human
psyche is able to create; a spiritual context that we
need if we want to be able to integrate our real life's
problems; a godly context that will hold and carry us
even when our world collapses, when our loved ones or we
get ill or die.
To give this
dimension the title shamanism makes it unclear to me. We
might call it just as well religion because it
emphasizes the true "religare" that human beings are
capable of; on a horizontal level the reconnection
between living beings and on a vertical level the
reconnection between heaven and earth and…
Hilde Rapp, 28 May 2004
Dear Tilke, dear all,
I warm to your
approach as you say very deep things very simply. We
should do more of this in psychotherapy and perhaps your
way of aligning yourself with humbleness and human
openness is more than anything a message we need to
spread.
At the same time we (
SEPI) or, perhaps I should say, I personally, have
always attempted to build bridges between the knowing we
might align with intuition, wisdom and gnosis and which
comes from 'being with' and communion on the one hand
and the knowledge about things which comes from
reflecting about things through experiment, observation
and interpersonal communication on the other.
Because psychotherapy
has become embedded in health care systems rather than
remained a personal or spiritual quest, more allied to
mystical enlightenment and religion, we do need to be
able to talk about what we do in terms which people can
understand who are involved in regulating our practice
within the health care sector.
I can see that the
term 'shamanic' may jar, and I personally have accepted
this label because it denotes something which has been
researched by anthropologists who sit on the bridge
between communion and communication perhaps more than
any other discipline.
Geoffrey's books (
and to an extent my own writings) are arguing for a new
language, a new paradigm for understanding what we know
about ourselves as embodied spiritual beings. I believe
fervently that psychotherapists also need this new
language and new way of understanding ourselves.
Our exploration of
'shamanic' experiences and practices might be a good
beginning for this wider enquiry and it may well turn
out that we will abandon the term in due course.
Currently it serves
as a place holder, a conceptual marker for something we
intuitively apprehend but don't yet know quite how to
describe... I think of this new way as being embedded in
an understanding of ourselves and our world as
interdependent living systems... So, dear Tilke, please
bear with us, and share what you know in the way that is
true to you! Trust those of us who endeavour to be
bilingual between science and wisdom do the struggling
with finding words which can just about be understood by
both sides...
Tullio Carere, 29 May 2004
Dear Tilke and all:
Thank you for your
precious contribution. You say that breathwork offers
the possibility of opening up to a
much bigger context than the human psyche is able to
create; a spiritual context that we need if we want to
be able to integrate our real life's problems; a godly
context that will hold and carry us even when our world
collapses, when our loved ones or we get ill or
die.
Then you go on to say
that
To give this dimension the title
shamanism makes it unclear to me. We might call it just
as well religion because it emphasizes the true
"religare" that human beings are capable of; on a
horizontal level the reconnection between living beings
and on a vertical level the reconnection between heaven
and earth
I proposed the
shamanism panel in the first place because of that
"bigger context" that opens up in breathwork. More
precisely, because I saw that Joy used the word
shamanism in connection with that bigger context, and I
(mistakenly) thought that her choice were more shared in
the breathworking milieu-and, of course, because I
myself like this word. But above all, for the reasons
that Hilde beautifully points out in her last
contribution:
I can see that the term 'shamanic'
may jar, and I personally have accepted this label
because it denotes something which has been researched
by anthropologists who sit on the bridge between
communion and communication perhaps more than any other
discipline.
Geoffrey's books (and to an extent
my own writings) are arguing for a new language, a new
paradigm for understanding what we know about ourselves
as embodied spiritual beings. I believe fervently that
psychotherapists also need this new language and new way
of understanding ourselves.
Our exploration of 'shamanic'
experiences and practices might be a good beginning for
this wider enquiry and it may well turn out that we will
abandon the term in due course.
Currently it serves as a place
holder, a conceptual marker for something we intuitively
apprehend but don't yet know quite how to describe... I
think of this new way as being embedded in an
understanding of ourselves and our world as
interdependent living systems...
Our conversation made
me realize that the term 'shamanic' is more
controversial in the breathworking milieu than I
imagined. If I had known that before, I might have
chosen another title for the panel. But the title is not
a problem. More importantly, we could try now to clarify
our points of agreement and of disagreement. It seems to
me that we all agree that breathwork opens up to a
"bigger context". I also believe that we agree on the
use of the word "spiritual" for that context, given the
special kinship between "breath" (in Italian: respiro)
and "spirit". But then we disagree on how to
conceptualize this spiritual dimension. Let me list some
options that have emerged: 1. We should not
conceptualize at all; we should remain at a very
pragmatical level, giving up any attempt at theorizing
on this domain of experience. 2. We could draw on a
shamanic "ideal type" as a pattern that we can discern
in many and disparate cultures, and then see how this
pattern is modified in the case of the modern or urban
shaman. 3. We could draw on the Advaita Vedanta
tradition, and on some forms of contemporary
transpersonal therapies inspired by that tradition. 4.
We could call this dimension "religion", and then maybe
we will want to specify how we locate this one inside
"The Varieties of Religious Experience".
Each of the
presenters at the shamanism panel in Amsterdam could
choose and develop one of these options (or a different
one, if none of the above suits them). I hope that this
way no one will feel conditioned or obliged by the term
"shamanism".
Tilke Platteel-Deur, 30 May,
2004
Dear All,
Thanks for your kind
words Hilde.
And a thought
about what you said.
I have a
student in the moment who is taking our training for
trainer year. He is extremely intelligent and the paper
he wrote after his basic 3 year training was brilliant
and nevertheless easy to read. I see him struggle to
have the "inner spark" when he is working with someone.
Sometimes it's there very briefly and then he is caught
up in personality and cleverness and he does not reach
the people. There I see it happening again this magic
stuff that goes beyond words and has to do with some
inner quality that we all try to put into words that
will get the inner message across. Sometimes we succeed,
sometimes not. We keep searching and finding.
Catherine Dowling, 30 May, 2004
Dear All
I'm afraid I still
don't know what I can contribute that Tilke has not
already said. I find the word 'shamanism' along with
'love' and 'spirituality' very difficult. In my
experience people use those words so freely and with
such expanded definitions that they have lost their
meaning for me. What exactly is a shaman? Some of the
qualities, skills, etc. that Tullio (April 28) Hilde and
Joy (April 29), etc. have been talking about I have
experienced in myself and others, most others who have
done breathwork or other forms of therapy or who have a
strong spiritual (faith, god, etc.) life. And this
includes people who express this spiritual connection
through organised religion. So shamanism must be
something more specific.
If it is "mediation
with the spirit world" as Tullio puts it (entities,
spirits, ghosts, etc.????) then that is a bit more
specific. I have had contact with entities myself and
found it frightening and don't particularly have a
desire to operate on that level. But I am not sure I
would call that 'spiritual'. For me it is an expansion
of awareness into a different dimension of existence and
breathwork, among a lot of other things, facilitates
this. (I think, but am not quite sure, that this is the
same thing that Wilfried said more eloquently on May
10.) It's healing for the people for whom it is healing.
Spirituality for me is something other than this, a
connection with the divine, god, great spirit, Jesus,
Allah whatever people want to call the experience. And
this is something that is not the exclusive prerogative
of the shaman, priest, healer, etc. It's something far
more democratic and it's also very real and very
ordinary. I would call it religion if that word did not
now have connotations of institutionalism, repression,
dogma, etc. Here, Tullio, I would disagree with you when
you say that a priest is just an official in a church
and a believer while a shaman relies on direct
experience and is a direct mediator with the world of
spirits. I think priests are often far more than
officials of the church and can have very strong
spiritual connection. A recent family bereavement has
shown me the role of a good priest. Of course, others
are as dry as toast. I was brought up a Catholic but
have not practiced for many years. However, modern
shamanism smacks of religion under another name (I have
also found this in Rebirthing) and if I were to choose a
religion for myself I would return to Catholicism rather
than rebirthing or shamanism etc.. This is rambling. I
will try to get to a relevant point.
Is shamanism a
possible entry point/connection point for
psychotherapists and the spiritual dimension that is
missing from many forms of psychotherapy but is a
recognised element of others? I think it is one way that
will attract some people at a psychotherapy conference
and repel others. For me the development, or rather the
uncovering, of a latent spiritual connection is often
part of breathwork and is one end of a continuum that
begins often with deep unhappiness and psychological
dysfunction. But it is often present very strongly
before a person begins any form of therapy and often
people achieve their goals in breathwork therapy without
any real experience of or even thinking about
spirituality. I think there are probably many happy,
contented, ethical and loving atheists, some of them
working as psychotherapists.
However there seems
to be some sort of reverence for the modern shaman among
new agers - a preciousness, a spiritual hierarchy, a
spiritual materialism as Joy has called such things. I
think Hilde referred to shamans being human and subject
to egotism. My reaction to this reverence is scepticism,
and distrust and possibly this is one of the reasons I
have never been interested in the subject.
I am, like Tilke, a
therapists who uses breathwork and a trainer. Not a
shaman, a healer, a teacher. As a rebirther I know
breathwork brings people to shamanic (if I get the
meaning) and spiritual experiences. And as a rebirther
my job is to facilitate the breathwork, nothing more -
or nothing less.
Reading over this I
don't quite know what I'm trying to say and have said
nothing that someone has not already said before in a
different way. So I shall bow out of the dialogue on
Shamanism and leave it to the people on the panel. I'd
appreciate it if you would continue copying the e-mails
to me as I find the way you are teasing out things
fascinating even if the subject does not resonate with
me.
Tullio Carere, 2 June 2004
Dear Catherine,
I appreciate the
effort you have done to contribute to this dialogue. It
seems to me that your position is well represented in
these lines:
As a rebirther I know breathwork
brings people to shamanic (if I get the meaning) and
spiritual experiences. And as a rebirther my job is to
facilitate the breathwork, nothing more - or nothing
less.
Yes, this is a very
respectable position of many therapists: they know that
something spiritual happens in, or is facilitated by,
therapy (breathwork or else), but they don't feel the
need of addressing this dimension directly. Some
therapists even state that a therapist should completely
avoid to deal with spiritual matters while doing their
job. So we have the whole spectrum, from explicit
involvement to complete refusal to get involved in a
spiritual dimension. The study of this spectrum could be
the object of another panel in its own right.
Joy Manné, 6 June 2004
Dear Tullio,
How well you put it,
and I thank you.
The argument should
not be about words, I totally agree. For me, it is about
what experiences breathwork
clients have, and what
behaviours breathworkers do, and whether there is a pattern to
them. If there is no pattern or structure, how can
clients and breathworkers integrate their experiences?
How can breathworkers guide their clients if there is no
pattern or structure? These are the questions I asked
from the beginning of my experience in Breathwork, and
which I believe I have answered in the article I
attached to a previous email, and in my new book
Conscious Breathing: How Shamanic Breathing Can
Transform Your Life. I certainly do not maintain that
these are the only answers or that this is the only
model possible. It is a beginning for Breathwork where
the only model I know of is that all experiences fall
into the different phases of the birth trauma (Grof). It
is also a model for the working of consciousness, and I
am not alone in putting it forward. I also want to say
that I am not attached to the term "shamanic." It is
simply the best description I can find at present.
I also want to say
that I am talking about "shamanic behaviour" and "being
shamanic" - i.e. like a
shaman - and not saying that any one breathworker is a
"shaman." As I said, I am not attached to the term
"shamanic". I am only trying to find a coherent pattern
to behaviours that all breathworkers I know do and
experiences that most breathwork clients have. I am
talking about shamanic
behaviours and experiences. We can get lost in the
details in anthropological studies of shamanism. We find
one shaman does this, the other does that. My approach
is psychological. What is the essence of what they are
doing: that is shamanic behaviour.
Now here are some
examples of shamanic behaviours that all breathworkers
do:
1. One behaviour that
shamans have in common is that they induce altered
states of consciousness We all agree, I think, as
Breathworkers, that breathing rhythms affect the
client's state of consciousness. All Breathworkers
induce altered states of consciousness, just through
working with the breath, helping the client to more
productive and adapted breathing rhythms, etc.
Breathworkers also work with images - the title of
Tilke's paper. Imagework also induces altered states of
consciousness - shaman's work!
2. Another example:
Breathworkers who work in Bert Hellinger's Family
Constellation method should read Daan van Kampenhout's Images of the Soul:The Workings of
the Soul in Shamanic Rituals and Family
Constellations. (arl-Auer-Systeme Varlag) Van
Kampenhout maintains there is an overlap between Family
Constellations and shamanic behaviour. Now, Tilke and
Wilfried - you and I too work in this method. If we are
not being shamanic in doing
this work, how do we account for what we are doing? We
are certainly working or mediating between the worlds of
the living and the dead?
3. What about the
rituals that take place during Breathwork groups? One
that comes to mind from my own study of Breathwork- and
15 years later I still feel grateful to Tilke and Hans
for the quality of their teaching - is that Hans would
have us all singing to start the day, until he felt we
were all ready to work - that too is inducing an altered
state of consciousness. Other rituals include having
sacred stones and burning candles in the group room,
often upon an altar.
4. Tilke, you say you
have never had an initiation. You do say, however, in
your description of yourself for the conference, that
you are an Avatar master. In the little knowledge I have
of what happens in Avatar, certainly the first lessons
and principles are initiations, and in agreeing to
become a "master," one agrees to initiate others.
Further, Avatar insists that its teachings are kept
secret - and this is an essential part of some
initiations - that there are secret elements. This is
one way of accounting for what happens in Avatar and
systems like it.
The term
"initiation" can also be applied to everything we do for
the first time - a usage I think is important. I find it
a useful term. Life is full of initiations: many first
experiences are considered to be initiations.
5. A final point.
Working with guidance is also what shamans do. It is a
shamanic activity. Many breathworkers work with
guidance, and encourage their clients to develop their
own capacity to be guided (through teaching grounding,
awareness, discernment, how to recognise one's
projections and take them back, etc.). We may or may not
call our guides spirits or animals - this is a detail.
6. To address some of
what Wilfried says: "the age of Shamanism is over" on
two levels.
a. Now, about 20-50
years ago, people were so excited about modern medicine
that they imagined magic bullets - pills that would
resolve particular problems easily. Look at the language
the scientists used then: "magic" bullets. For a while,
society tried to get rid of what was magic and replace
it with science. It failed. The magic is coming back -
witches are back, rituals are back, etc. Why is this?
Because consciousness requires magic. It is part of its
processes, part of what it integrally is and how it
functions.
b. Let's look at
what kind of behaviour attempts to explain the world
are. I maintain that they are shamanic behaviours, and
competing explanations can be compared to shaman
competitions, especially when these attempts are
"spiritual" or "religious." Then, if I am to go all the
way, what could a "spirit" be if we remove all the
details (as I do to come to my shamanic model) and look
at it as an abstract idea? Why not "the spirit of an
idea." Just putting forward an idea can be regarded as
an act of magic. It is very much a part of magic to
attempt to get power over what is involved by naming it,
i.e. by calling the name of the spirit. So, saying "the
age of spirits", etc., …
7. And I agree that
at the core - for those who ever arrive there - there
are no ideas, just a void, or emptiness, or God, or
Nirvana, or whatever one wants to call it as it is
ineffable. Now is that shamanic? Or is that going beyond
the shamanic? … I'll let you know when I get there!!!
Fully enjoying the spirit of our discussion - now that
my period of dismemberment is over, and I've surely been
found to have the right number of bones,
Tullio Carere, 13 June 2004
Dear all,
Joy's questions have
remained unanswered in this forum, but they will be a
starting point in our panels in Amsterdam. Many thanks
to all for your participation. See you, or most of you,
in Amsterdam