Pagan Journeys

Pagan Journeys => Paths and Traditions => Topic started by: earthmuffin on September 25, 2010, 12:48:09 AM

Title: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on September 25, 2010, 12:48:09 AM
"Why I don’t consider Wicca a shamanic religion." By Earthmuffin

A growing number of articles on the internet assert that Wicca is a shamanic religion or that Wiccans are in effect shamans. While some members of the Wiccan religion may undertake practices also employed by some shamans or practitioners of shamanism, these are two distinctly different spiritual paths that are by no means equivalent and, to my mind, do not even overlap significantly.

However, to make an accurate determination of the validity of calling Wicca a shamanic religion, one first needs to define what ‘shamanic’ means, and therein is where I think the confusion lies over whether Wicca can be considered shamanic. I think we can safely say the terms shamanic and shamanistic mean “of or relating to shamanism.” So how is shamanism defined? If a definition is too broad, it becomes meaningless; if it is too narrow, it is of little use, so we must seek a description that is both sufficiently inclusive and meaningful to be of value.

The root word, shaman, comes from a word of the Evenks, formerly called the Tungus tribe, of Siberia to describe members of that group who act as mediators between the physical world and the world of spirits. (Please note that the plural of shaman is shamans.) Shamanism is the term anthropologists have used to refer to this practice among this people and have applied more broadly to a family of similar practices and beliefs among indigenous cultures around the globe. While each indigenous culture has its own name for the equivalent of the shaman in its society, certain central commonalities exist across cultures. These are a belief that everything has spirit, the regular use of ecstatic trance states by the shaman to make a ‘soul flight’ to otherworld realms, and the ‘mastery over’ (I prefer ‘aid of’) spirits to effect cures for individuals and the community. A modern movement using these core beliefs and practices has rapidly gained popularity in our Western culture since Michael Harner, an anthropologist turned shamanic practitioner, brought these ideas to the public in the early 1980s with publication of The Way of the Shaman. This movement has also been referred to as shamanism or more accurately as core shamanism, modern shamanism, neo-shamanism or urban shamanism. In deference indigenous cultures, I have begun using ‘shaman’ only to refer to members of indigenous cultures and ‘shamanic practitioner’ to refer to members of the modern day Western movement.

It seems needless to define Wicca, a religion that has been around now for nearly six decades and is considered the fast-growing religion in the United States; however, Wicca, the religion, and witchcraft, a spiritual practice, are still confused to this day much as Wicca and shamanism are. Wicca is a religion that originated with Gerald Gardner in the 1950’s. Gardner’s claim that his religion was a rediscovered ancient path has not found support among archaeologists and is generally accepted as fictional by modern pagans (see Adler, Drawing Down the Moon). Witchcraft is more simply the practice of using magic.

The following contrasts between Wicca and shamanism as defined above indicate to me that Wicca should not be referred to as a shamanistic religion.

•   Wicca is a nature-based religion that takes many of its ritual components from ceremonial magic.
Shamanism, on the other hand is not a religion but a worldview and spiritual practice by specific members of certain indigenous cultures.

•   Wiccans typically worship an archetypal Goddess and a God or a pantheon of deities representative of those archetypes.   
There is no specific concept of deity in shamanism.

•   Shamanism is an animistic belief system, in which all things, including inanimate objects like rocks and manmade items, are considered to have spirit, or a form of consciousness.
While many Wiccans have close relationships with the natural world and most believe in the existence of spirits, they are not necessarily animists and being one is not a prerequisite to the religion.

•   Shamans enter trance states to make journeys to specific otherworld realms to accomplish healing for others with the aid of spirits.
Not all Wiccans employ trance in their religious practice. Some Wiccans may practice astral projection, which differs from shamanic soul flight in that the destination is different and there is not a clear healing purpose. Priestesses or solo practitioners may enter trance during the Drawing Down the Moon or Drawing Down the Sun rituals, but in this case the trance is considered a form or possession rather than a soul journey to an otherworld realm.

•   Wiccan practices and shamanic practices do have some more minor aspects in common. Both Wiccans and shamans and shamanic practitioners may practice forms of divination and use herbs for healing, but these are not central components of these paths.

In conclusion, while I find it misleading to assert that Wicca is a shamanic religion, shamanic practices can be combined successfully with many religions, including Wicca. A couple of texts I can recommend that do a laudable job of describing shamanic practice within the context of the Wiccan religion are Green Hedge Witch by Rae Beth and the Shamanic Witch by Gail Wood.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Crystal Dragon on September 25, 2010, 02:25:38 AM
Excellent piece EM ... thank you for sharing your thoughts and information. :warmfuzz:

On a side note, I'm guessing you found some time to read Shamanic Witch?    I'm still working my way through that one. :whistle:
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: dragonspring on September 25, 2010, 04:31:13 AM
Yes, it is an excellent piece.  Thanks for sharing EM!
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Eternal Seeker on September 25, 2010, 08:25:53 AM

Very well reasoned, and well written.

peace,
ES
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on September 25, 2010, 10:16:41 AM
Thanks.  :D
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on September 25, 2010, 11:18:16 AM
Yep, quite good Muffin. I don't get how the two things got confused in people's minds, other than lack of research.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Fox on September 25, 2010, 11:31:57 AM
Thank you so much, EM!  You have done a wonderful job of writing this and clearing up a few things.  I think I will be adding those books to my wish list.  :D
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: bluefire on September 25, 2010, 02:28:01 PM
Well done, EM.  Thank you!
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on September 25, 2010, 04:15:36 PM
Yep, quite good Muffin. I don't get how the two things got confused in people's minds, other than lack of research.

I don't either. I think it's because being Wiccan is cool and being a shaman is cool so being a Wiccan shaman is considered even cooler.  :whistle:
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on September 25, 2010, 04:47:52 PM
Yep, quite good Muffin. I don't get how the two things got confused in people's minds, other than lack of research.

I don't either. I think it's because being Wiccan is cool and being a shaman is cool so being a Wiccan shaman is considered even cooler.  :whistle:

I think you're on to something, there.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: HappyZealot on September 26, 2010, 03:38:28 AM
Yep, quite good Muffin. I don't get how the two things got confused in people's minds, other than lack of research.

I don't either. I think it's because being Wiccan is cool and being a shaman is cool so being a Wiccan shaman is considered even cooler.  :whistle:

I think you're on to something, there.

Yeppers.  It's a based upon a drive to meld neo-Wicca with something other in order to make it cooler (when dropping the 'neo' from Wicca should be cool enough) and so doing to try and make Wicca into something cooler than it already is.
 :omg:

That being said, I believe that the merger of these two trads can be done... In fact I'd go so far as to suppose and suggest that Wicca can (should?) be shamanic in nature.

As an exhibit of evidence let me offer up C Penczak's Temple of Shamanic Witchcraft.
CP's inclusive approach is enough to give this syncretist a major stiffy.  Further, it might help the WalMart Wiccan move past the white-light-n-bunnies phase to truly confront the Shadow-self.
May I add that facing the Dark is a royal beeyotch at best, regardless of trad; it's not for driveby Wiccans, nor for anyone faint of heart or light of scrote.  But it ain't easy for anyone; however I'd suggest giving CP's technique an honest read.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Eternal Seeker on September 26, 2010, 07:56:04 AM

"In fact I'd go so far as to suppose and suggest that Wicca can (should?) be shamanic in nature." Shamanism is a specialty and a technique that someone of almost any religion can pursue if they've a gift for it, just as Oncology is a specialty any doctor can pursue if that is their choice...but no one can tell you that you should do it. It is a choice and a calling.

peace,
ES
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on September 26, 2010, 11:26:06 AM

"In fact I'd go so far as to suppose and suggest that Wicca can (should?) be shamanic in nature." Shamanism is a specialty and a technique that someone of almost any religion can pursue if they've a gift for it, just as Oncology is a specialty any doctor can pursue if that is their choice...but no one can tell you that you should do it. It is a choice and a calling.

peace,
ES


:yeahthat:

I'd also add that it's difficult and potentially dangerous to delve into just on the basis of reading a few books. A good mentor/teacher is a must, in my opinion.

HZ, I hadn't heard of the Penczak book. Will have to check it out. Thanks for mentioning it.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: HappyZealot on September 26, 2010, 11:57:28 AM
It's a good 'ern, but like you say it's no subsitute for flesh-n-blood mentorship.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: vordan on September 27, 2010, 08:47:38 PM
Interesting post, I think that the element of spiritual mediumship is another reason that people sometimes refer to Wicca and even Pentecostal Christians as being shamanistic. The ability to connect directly to spiritual energies is a feature often left out of mainstream religions. While shamanism and Wicca are very different things, I think the trend toward solitary practitioners has encouraged even more of that direct channeling of the spiritual without reliance on structure or clergy. Shamanism from a anthropology background, is normally a tribal phenomenon learned by means of apprenticeship, more of varied techniques of ecstatic communion. That shamanistic techniques are used increasingly by many Wiccans is true but as your post so nicely pointed out they are different.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Artemis_moon on January 30, 2012, 03:26:43 AM
Quote
Further, it might help the WalMart Wiccan move past the white-light-n-bunnies phase to truly confront the Shadow-self.
May I add that facing the Dark is a royal beeyotch at best, regardless of trad; it's not for drive by Wiccans, nor for anyone faint of heart or light of scrote.

You couldn't be more right! But sadly so few will realize balance is everything and with darkness comes light and with balance comes enlightenment and wisdom. Thank you for writing this piece. I loved it. Very informative and intelligent. I get annoyed when people get these things mixed up, but its easy for the ill educated and ignorant to mix all of the earth based faiths and put them in one basket. I actually got asked if being Pagan was like being a scientologist. I was steaming mad inside. lol SERIOUSLY!!! GRRR lol Thanks again I loved it really. And it inspired me to write my next journal entry :)
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 02, 2012, 01:20:21 PM
Reading this again, I do want to mention one of the oldest rules about shamanism - it is not a path by choice. True, you can follow the practices in your attempt to become something close to that, but even then you can call yourself "follower" or "shaman beginner" or something like that. True shamanism is not given by choice. It is often that people survive a horrible accident, or recover from a condition modern medicine can't cure, because they have been asked the question.

Usually it evolves around finding yourself in a coma or something like that, during which you are asked by the gods/spirits if you will wish to follow the path as a shaman and heal for them. The question will occur only once, and those who deny it are never asked again. Some of them regret it for the rest of their life.

Anyway, Wicca, destined or not, doesn't involve the whole "being asked a question" thing that is pretty much common for all types of shamanism. Doesn't mean that someone who isn't just following the shaman practice won't be asked the question at some point, but until he is and answered the question with "yes" he cannot truly heal, nor should call himself a shaman.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 02, 2012, 01:23:26 PM
What is this cryptic "question" to which you refer?  :confused:

Muffin is an Atheist Shaman, so I'm sure she'll disagree.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 02, 2012, 01:43:34 PM
Not sure exactly, hasn't happened to me for all I know. It is literally that, "Want to be a healer?" or "Want to be a shaman?" or something of the sorts asked during the coma-like state, which can be three days or just 5 mins during a crash. Yes or No question, basically, different traditions and different cults explain it differently. I did found similarity in the Siberian and Native American traditions when it came to this question, though.

I think I read somewhere it was just a "Yes or No" choice or something like that. But anyway, you are chosen and given a choice; at least that is what I know for the common shamanism. I am not familiar with the atheist shamanism you speak of, it probably has different traditions and traits.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 02, 2012, 02:04:41 PM
Muffin would have to explain it. I don't understand it myself.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 02, 2012, 02:07:01 PM
Muffin would have to explain it. I don't understand it myself.

Yeah, that. ^
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 02, 2012, 05:12:38 PM
I think Rovay us talking about being "called" by the spirits but also about initiation. The calling happens for most shamans, but not necessarily all. Some native shamans are initiated into shamanism because of their family lines (father was a shaman). But most are called, which usually involves something very traumatic like a period of mental or physical illness or near-death experience during which one gets an inkling that there are spirits that want you to follow a certain path. One may be healed of whatever the illness was at that time by spirits.  The shamanic initiation usually happens later, when the newbie shaman has started along the path. The initiation as I understand it happens during a shamanic journey, in which the shaman experiences death and often complete dismemberment in the otherworld. I don't know about a specific question being asked and answered per se. That perhaps is a feature of some cultures, but not necessarily the same with all.  I think for many shamans there really is not a choice offered-- you either get the message and follow the path you were meant to follow or you suffer more and more physical and/or emotional problems that either direct you back to that path or kill you. I suppose the choice is you either get it or  you fight it and be miserable or succumb to the illness.  It is a feature characteristic to shamanism but I didn't list it because Wiccans could find their path along similar lines-- the proverbial giant cluex4 whacking you upside the head repeatedly-- though usually the physical illness is not a component for Wiccans and some Wiccans are initiated by other Wiccans rather than by spirits.

For the record, I consider myself more of an agnostic than atheist, and at this point, I don't feel I have the right to call myself shaman. Shamanic practitioner is a better descriptor. I'm still trying to figure it all out. ;)
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 02, 2012, 10:14:33 PM
Wiccans are always initiated by other Wiccans, male to female, female to male. Spirit initiation is not a part of Wicca. Nor can one initiate one's self. ;)
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 12:14:44 AM
I realize that is the traditional viewpoint, GW, but it ignores the fact that there are many solitary "self-initiated" Wiccans out there. Scott Cunningham, widely respected and beloved Wiccan author, describes self-initiation rituals in several of his books. He describes the God/Goddess as being the entities passing power to the initiate instead of the High Priestess/Priest. By his definition, then, a solitary Wiccan initiatory rite could be considered similar to (but obviously not the same as) a shamanic initiation.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 02:36:01 AM
Yeah, thanks EM, I was trying to explain "the Call" but I was kind of inadequate yesterday. You explained it the way I wanted to, though, so thanks. But yeah, that is why I meant when I said "destined" when it comes to Wicca and stuff, you do get whacked in the head with signs too, but I think shamanism has a more unique call.

And I thought Wicca can be practiced solo, from what I read?
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: BronwynWolf on February 03, 2012, 07:38:51 AM
I had a reply all set to go and my computer decided to eat it :::le sigh::: I will try again.

Yes, there are a lot of people who claim they are Solitary Practioners of Wicca. Cunningham was the first to write a book for them. HOWEVER, I think I know where GW is coming from....

"Wicca" as a term for a specific path was coined by Gerald Gardner in the 1940s.He CREATED it, no matter what bits nad pieces he borrowed from where. And the path he created was initiatory...A female had to initiate a male, and a male had to initiate a female. That was the way it was, period. Alexandrian Wicca is a direct spin-off of Gardnarian, because Alex WAS first a Gardnarian Wiccan. So, by the original use of the word, if you are NOT initiated into one of those two, you CANNOT call yourself Wiccan...

Times change and so does word usuage. What we called "Wiccan-based" in the 80s and 90s is now simply "Wiccan", and abounds with Soliataries who borrow from the original, and from other sources, but do not have the direct connection to either Gardner or Sanders. If someone claims to be Gardnerain or Alexandrian Wiccan, but have not been initiated into a direct-liniage coven, then no, they are not what they claim to be. Specific paths DO have rules and rituals specific to them, and those need to be followed to actually claim that path.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: dragonspring on February 03, 2012, 08:00:56 AM
:yeahthat:

I don't have a problem with Solitaries calling themselves Wiccan but they cannot be initiated except by another Wiccan who was previously initiated themselves. 
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 08:14:16 AM
BW - thanks, that will come in handy to remember. Wiccans in my country are quite rare, but I do think I can close the mouths of some of them with that. "You can claim to be Wiccan, but not real Gardnarian or Alexandrian, unless you have been initiated by their followers" pretty much sums it up. I like it.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: dragonspring on February 03, 2012, 08:20:22 AM
I think it might be more accurate to say that one cannot claim the title of Wiccan priest or priestess unless one has been properly initiated.  One can dedicate as a Wiccan either solitary or in the community and never be initiated and they are still Wiccan IMO.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 08:30:43 AM
I think it might be more accurate to say that one cannot claim the title of Wiccan priest or priestess unless one has been properly initiated.  One can dedicate as a Wiccan either solitary or in the community and never be initiated and they are still Wiccan IMO.


Works to close the mouths of the coven leaders who have a bunch of mistakes in the translation of the Wiccan rede on their homepage.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Mongo on February 03, 2012, 08:40:32 AM
I think it might be more accurate to say that one cannot claim the title of Wiccan priest or priestess unless one has been properly initiated.  One can dedicate as a Wiccan either solitary or in the community and never be initiated and they are still Wiccan IMO.

 :yeahthat:

As a solitary myself I still call myself Wiccan since my faith is based very heavily upon Gardnerian Wicca as filtered through all the resources I've found for solitary practitioners. And I likewise do not have a problem with others who say that they are Wiccans even though they are self-dedicated and not initiated.

I'd be one hell of a hypocrite otherwise.

I also have no problems with isolated groups who have formed their own groupings, what many have termed a "learning coven" or a "non-traditional" coven. I've been in one and my wife and I took the position in the rituals as the priest and priestess. Someone after all had to drive and since we were the only married couple our friends nominated us.

But at no point would we ever make a claim to *being* a priest or priestess, high or otherwise as we have not been initiated nor have been trained. The most we admit to is having to take up the part as needed in ritual.

Most people understand the distinction. Especially in light of the fact that I fully intend on being initiated and start my path to learn how to be one once I can move out of the Bible-Thumping-Belt I find myself stuck in.

Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Eternal Seeker on February 03, 2012, 09:27:15 AM

Mongo states it well. I call myself "Wiccan" among the mainstream types because they wouldn't understand any finer distinctions, and the image evoked is close enough for most purposes. Among fellow Pagans, I add modifiers or don't use the word at all out of respect for Gardner and Alexander- I have not been initiated, nor do I wish to be, as I have some differences. Being dedicated is another story, however; one can self dedicate. Actually, dedication is always self dedication- you can initiate me, but you can't dedicate me! At most, you can only recognize my dedication.

peace,
ES
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 11:06:39 AM
From what I have read, some solitaries (and Wiccan authors) do make a distinction between self-dedication and self-initiation and there are probably very many solitary Wiccans who have "self-initiated" (despite how legitimate the practice, or the terminology, is viewed by others), and possibly more than have been traditionally initiated.  This discussion highlights the disagreement there is among the pagan community regarding initiation, but I'm still sticking to my guns with the way I have characterized the differences between Wiccan and shamanic initiation.

Wiccans could find their path along similar lines-- the proverbial giant cluex4 whacking you upside the head repeatedly-- though usually the physical illness is not a component for Wiccans and some Wiccans are initiated by other Wiccans rather than by spirits.

At the core, what we're talking about is how a person finds their spiritual calling-- did you chose it or did the spirits or deities chose you?
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 03, 2012, 11:17:35 AM
You can't initiate yourself.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 11:21:28 AM
That is your belief, yes. ;)
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: dragonspring on February 03, 2012, 12:48:45 PM
It is not simply a belief - it is the accepted definition by Wiccans who undergo formal training in the Craft.  I am curious as to why someone who does not identify themselves as Wiccan would argue the point with those who do. 

I understand that there are authors who say otherwise - most authors write to appeal to a certain audience.  I would think stating that initiation requires formal training might not appeal to an audience of Solitaries.  There may be some form of initiation that can be done as a Solitary but it is NOT a Wiccan initiation.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 03, 2012, 01:00:17 PM
An initiation is a passing down of lineage. That is why one can not self initiate.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 01:05:20 PM
I agree. It's the accepted definition by Wiccans who undergo formal training in the Craft. I'm not arguing the point at all. I'm saying there appear to be other viewpoints by people who identify themselves as Wiccan. In my comparison of Wicca and shamanism, I was attempting to draw a comparison between Wicca as a whole, which would be more inclusive than traditional Gardnerian Wicca or even other traditions with covens, and shamanism as a whole, which would extend beyond traditional native shamans to include modern shamanic practitioners. The argument over whether solitary Wiccans are valid in calling whatever steps they take to become Wiccans, to begin and follow their paths, an initiation seems to me to be tangential to the topic of the essay.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 01:11:46 PM
Yeah, this did get a lot off-topic. I think we can all agree that shamanism isn't even half as much about initiation as Wicca is, and just stop it here.

I stick to the Call being the most important thing that distinguishes the path, though. Really the coolest thing about shamanism in my opinion. Plus, according to Siberian shamanism, there were three types of shamans, invokers, priests and healers, or something like that, according to which shamanistic trait they were tasked with. I may have the terms messed up and there being a priest, invoker and warlock, but I am definitely sure there were three types.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: dragonspring on February 03, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
True, it may be tangential to the essay but it was brought up.  There are many people trying to learn here, I believe clarification was required in regards to Wiccan initiation.  Wicca is not a religion where "do whatever feels right" applies to everything. 
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Ghost Wolf on February 03, 2012, 01:14:46 PM
The plethora of "Wicca 101" books out there, beginning in the 90s, is both a blessing and a curse. Much misinformation has been circulated, which it is our duty to dispel when we can.

(BTW Muffin, you brought the initiation issue up originally ;))
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 01:19:47 PM
Pft, I messed up on my facts very bad, not sure where I got the invoker thing from. The shaman had three primary functions, Priest, Healer and Prophet, while the three types of shaman were by primary skill Estatic, Prophet and Incantation shaman.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 01:27:48 PM
Meh, I don't have a problem with the Wicca 101 books. To me, spirituality is an extremely personal path and each to his own, whatever you want to call it. Wicca will evolve whether traditional Wiccans like it or not. Maybe eventually the differences will be great enough that everyone will start calling solitaries something else.

I agree the calling is an important characteristic of shamanism, but like I said some shamans have the title passed on by their relatives so it doesn't characterize all shamans. And I think most shamans would agree it really isn't cool. It's pretty horrid actually. My question about do you choose it or are you led to a path by spirits or deity should have been revised to "or dragged kicking and screaming in the case of shamanism."

Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 01:33:14 PM
Hehehe, EM, I like your way of expressing your opinion. Kicking and screaming is quite correct, even if I judge by the few times I was saved from death I can imagine the call being pretty darn horrid, but truth be told, that is, what in my opinion, makes it distinguishably special and different from Wicca. By "cool" I meant what makes it damn unique; because all spiritual paths share some similar traits, but this one I find to be the main trait no other has.

Scratch that, "most other" doesn't sound better, nothing springs to mind that is close to the shamanistic call in my head, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on February 03, 2012, 01:52:11 PM
A mystical conversion might be similar. There is also spontaneous kundalini awakening, which some describe as being similar in some respects. Then there's being abducted by aliens and sent back down to earth to teach the alien religion... (I'm getting silly now in case that wasn't obvious).
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Rovay on February 03, 2012, 02:18:36 PM
A mystical conversion might be similar. There is also spontaneous kundalini awakening, which some describe as being similar in some respects. Then there's being abducted by aliens and sent back down to earth to teach the alien religion... (I'm getting silly now in case that wasn't obvious).

Obviously was, and I find it funny. Yet, I do think I should end my part in this conversation for tonight, because I actually wrote "don't sounds better", and now have the desire to shoot myself. I have the feeling that ever since I came to the conclusion that it'd be a good career move to become an English teacher, I'm making dumber and dumber typos...
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Tinevisce on August 09, 2016, 01:02:58 PM
An initiation is a passing down of lineage. That is why one can not self initiate.

OK, so I have a question here that I'm a little hesitant to ask: no matter which way I'm trying to phrase it, it's coming across as rude or confrontational, yikes!  :hairpull:

I'm just going to go ahead and ask it, and heavily disclaim that I only ask out of honest curiosity. It isn't meant to hurt or rile anyone up- incredibly sorry if that's what I end up doing anyway.

From what I know, an initiation into a Wiccan coven is about lineage, like GW points out: so in very practical terms, being initiated into a Gardnerian coven (for example) would mean getting access to the Gardnerian way of doing things, the BoS's and rituals and so on....outsiders would not have access to the same materials or training. (In fact, a time honoured way of making sure that only initiates knew the full details of a ritual or system was to deliberately mess up a few details in publications meant for the general masses)

So from this specific knowledge, the initiate would get the privilege to call himself/herself a "Gardnerian Wiccan".

My question is this:  would you say there are observable differences between the "skill sets" of people who are initiated properly into a wiccan trad versus the ones who come from a wiccan-like path but aren't actually initiated. In the context of energy work, I mean.

Edited to add: I realised while typing this that I'm making the basic mistake a lot of folks make, in that I'm assuming all wiccans necessarily practice Wicca for the witchcraft.  :whistle: Regardless, I'll let my post stand anyway. :)

I guess what GW said corresponds exactly with the sacred thread ceremony of Bramhin hindus; so I'm trying to make sense of that through this context.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on August 09, 2016, 05:17:06 PM
Hi, T! Wow, you have dredged up an old one here.  :whistle:  I think the only people who could answer this would be those initiated into a traditional Wiccan coven and I am not sure there are very many here who can lay that claim.

But I would hazard a guess that yes, there would be a difference in the skill set because the traditional Wiccan initiate would have access to specific training the solitary would not. That's not to say the solitary could not get possibly comparable energetic training or experience through different sources such as study with a tai chi, reiki master, yogi, or other such mentor, or even just through their own experience of trying different things. I think that in any discipline, secular or spiritual, it is quite possible for some to achieve very high levels of competency through years of self-teaching. Having an experience person or group of people to train you, of course, takes a more direct route to the same end.



Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Eternal Seeker on August 09, 2016, 07:19:42 PM

Yes, there would be a difference in *GARDENERIAN* skill sets, or whichever tradition the initiation is in. Not necessarily in magic skills, or or meditation skills, or any other such specific instance- but if you're not initiated into the mysteries, you're not a (fill in the blank).

peace,
ES

Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: DragonsFriend on August 11, 2016, 05:33:31 PM
I have been initiated into two formal paths. Initiation is the work you do to learn about a specific path and remake yourself as a spiritually practicing human. The ritual is a celebration of what you have already done. It provides a reason for further training and a hope that you will learn the mysteries of that path. I didn't have access to the covens BoS until I reached the third degree but I had learned a great deal about the path and the way to practice. As for energy work, it is taught as you progress in your own growth. An initiate does very little energy work outside the circle or other group work. Learning to recognize energy and manipulate it are lessons given at the latter stages of the second degree work.

The above was true in the mystery tradition I first initiated into. It was not a Wiccan path but I believe that in Wicca the mysteries are revealed slowly throughout your learning process culminating in your third degree ceremony.
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: Tinevisce on August 15, 2016, 10:24:28 AM
Hi EM, ES and DS! Thank you so much for the replies!

I understand this a lot better now. If part of being a good Christian is being generous, a supposedly good christian would be generous....but you don't necessarily have to be a Christian to be generous. Conversely, a generous person doesn't get to call himself a Christian unless they're initiated into the Christian tradition.

How far would you guys agree that the various trads (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Celtic, Druidic and so on) are cultural labels more than spiritual ones?

:)

Edited to add: This somewhat ties in with the original question/issue posed in this topic. Would you say that Wicca is a cultural term whereas shamanism is more of a highly specialised skill-set?
Title: Re: Why I don't consider Wicca a shamanic religion.
Post by: earthmuffin on August 15, 2016, 11:09:43 AM
Hi EM, ES and DS! Thank you so much for the replies!

I understand this a lot better now. If part of being a good Christian is being generous, a supposedly good christian would be generous....but you don't necessarily have to be a Christian to be generous. Conversely, a generous person doesn't get to call himself a Christian unless they're initiated into the Christian tradition.

How far would you guys agree that the various trads (Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Celtic, Druidic and so on) are cultural labels more than spiritual ones?

:)

Edited to add: This somewhat ties in with the original question/issue posed in this topic. Would you say that Wicca is a cultural term whereas shamanism is more of a highly specialised skill-set?

Re. your first comparison, I view it more as a difference in training than any inherent quality a person may possess. I went to school and was trained (i.e., earned degrees) by experts in my field to become a wildlife biologist, whereas there are some people who may, out of their own interest in the subject, pursue learning about various wildlife species and ecology. They could attain a high level of knowledge on their own as a lay person but, without my same training, they would not call themselves a "wildlife biologist" or be recognized by others as that particular label or employed as one--- until they went through a similar degree program to earn the degree.

Re. the second point, Wicca is a religion in which certain skills and knowledge are passed down (talking traditional forms of Wicca here and not solitary path) whereas shamanism is a cultural and spiritual practice and is not tied to any religion in particular, though those who practice shamanism all share an animistic worldview. Like in Wicca, certain skills and knowledge may be passed down among shamans but there may also be acquired directly through experience with the spirit world.