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