Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
White Crane Feather

Shamnism. The root of religion

19 posts in this topic

I have brought this up many times, when people consider spiritual beliefs as illogical, or wishful thinking. Or when the religouse reject their shamanic roots.

Any thoughts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lQyGX05hA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree. I think that is the true essence, that connection, and after that it all follows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have brought this up many times, when people consider spiritual beliefs as illogical, or wishful thinking. Or when the religouse reject their shamanic roots.

Any thoughts

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lQyGX05hA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]

I bet you'd like this book, when we'd talk about books in the past, I meant to tell you about it. I have it, I liked it so much I read it all in one night. There's even some things in there about some science that kind of got suppressed and squashed in Russia, about an astrophysicist named Kosirev. It's supposed to be a true story, the woman who wrote it is an MD, a psychiatrist. I read it a few years ago, but it kind of blew me away, a lot of it I took to heart more because of who she was.

http://www.amazon.com/Entering-Circle-Siberian-Discovered-Psychiatrist/dp/0062514172

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A group consciousness will naturally turn towards a member that has the most connections with others. A survival instinct. A member that has few connections with others indicates what we call evil, selfishness, greed, the desire to use and abuse others for their individual desires.

The same can be said about groups. A group that connects the most with other groups will yield the same results.

The horror is that for profit media can mimic this and lead whole populations unto paths of destruction.

Although they do not perhaps realize this, this is also what many atheists fear about for profit organized religious institutions, and they are right to do so.

My personal fury is at the global upper elite group that has formed and separated itself off from the rest of humanity on almost virtually every level at this point. Studies at Berkley show members of the elite showing strong sociopathic tendencies. When ruling elites were confined to individual nations and tribes they were no where near as dangerous to the rest of the human race as the global elites of today are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A group consciousness will naturally turn towards a member that has the most connections with others. A survival instinct. A member that has few connections with others indicates what we call evil, selfishness, greed, the desire to use and abuse others for their individual desires.

The same can be said about groups. A group that connects the most with other groups will yield the same results.

The horror is that for profit media can mimic this and lead whole populations unto paths of destruction.

Although they do not perhaps realize this, this is also what many atheists fear about for profit organized religious institutions, and they are right to do so.

My personal fury is at the global upper elite group that has formed and separated itself off from the rest of humanity on almost virtually every level at this point. Studies at Berkley show members of the elite showing strong sociopathic tendencies. When ruling elites were confined to individual nations and tribes they were no where near as dangerous to the rest of the human race as the global elites of today are.

Interesting. I have come to identify western materialism, economic oppression ( really oppression by the false need to consume), and the system the has evolved around it including the religions that embrace its tennants as an actual macro entity bent on the destruction of individualism and free thought. Basically a higher conciousness wanting to turn us all into drones. Really just musings, but when I walk through society I see the oppression of the human spirit into drone like existences. The depressed mom working at the gas station breaks my heart.

Our societies no longer value life, it's values stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet you'd like this book, when we'd talk about books in the past, I meant to tell you about it. I have it, I liked it so much I read it all in one night. There's even some things in there about some science that kind of got suppressed and squashed in Russia, about an astrophysicist named Kosirev. It's supposed to be a true story, the woman who wrote it is an MD, a psychiatrist. I read it a few years ago, but it kind of blew me away, a lot of it I took to heart more because of who she was.

http://www.amazon.com/Entering-Circle-Siberian-Discovered-Psychiatrist/dp/0062514172

Thanks for that. Since borders went out of business my reading has dropped off I will order it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

western materialism, economic oppression

It is world wide, not just western and did not just evolve out of the west. Jesus and Buddha can verify that.

Evil can be gauged by the wealth gaps between the elite, the middle class, and the poor.

The larger the wealth gaps the greater the evil and more greatly those who rule are detached from the rest of the group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's signified between those who operate in service to self, ie create gaps by the old divide and conquer rule, and those who try to bridge the gaps by service to unity. Terming it evil and good is too primitive.

Edited to add, at every single social level and class you get an example of the above, even at great aunty alices bridge party of those who negate one way of being, or the other.

Edited by bLu3 de 3n3rgy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any thoughts

I have said this time and time again. All types of religion have existed at all times and still exist today. There is no reason to believe this was the first type or the root of anything. He is a reductionist and their arguments do not hold up in the study of religion. This is pure speculation and nothing to support his claim, though it is interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is world wide, not just western and did not just evolve out of the west. Jesus and Buddha can verify that.

Evil can be gauged by the wealth gaps between the elite, the middle class, and the poor.

The larger the wealth gaps the greater the evil and more greatly those who rule are detached from the rest of the group.

I think it's much more than a socio economic issue. I believe in freedoms even free enterprise. My degree is in economics. If economic theory is applied properly ( and it never is), it should be our best approach as a whole. Takeing away freedom for more freedom is not the answer... It never works. The real problem is the meams themselves on the individual level. We are perfectly capable of living in a grass hut, but no... We all want the 3,000 sqft house. We all want the steak. Whos ready to eat a stew out of mice?

Conciousness cannot be forced or labeled it has to grow from the individual with personal responsibility otherwise we have deal with the middle of the road solutions like capitalism. Which is bad...but it is our best approach to mediate the vast differences in thoughts and attitudes. The collective conciousness we have at the moment is very destructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have said this time and time again. All types of religion have existed at all times and still exist today. There is no reason to believe this was the first type or the root of anything. He is a reductionist and their arguments do not hold up in the study of religion. This is pure speculation and nothing to support his claim, though it is interesting to think about.

I think there is plenty of reason to at least see the parallels. Really religions are just very successful tribal beliefs. Their members were better marketers. Every tribe or group has their own little methos. As he explained. At the basis of all the major religions there seems to be a person or persons who describes very clearly the same things that shamans do. To those who do not know what shaman experience, it might seem as if they are makeing things up to describe natural phenomenon.. And certainly to a degree this is true. But shaman have real visionary experiences that are identical in context to Jesus, buhudda, Mohammad etc etc. they are just not called shaman. But in many ways they serve the same function. Are their experiences invented? Some certainly ( the fakers)... But some I ( and others) can identify as real experiences because we have had them. Since ultimately we all have tribal roots, I think it would be very nievee to say that religions do not begin with forms of shamanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have brought this up many times, when people consider spiritual beliefs as illogical, or wishful thinking. Or when the religouse reject their shamanic roots.

Any thoughts

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-lQyGX05hA&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/media]

I agree with this my friend. I wrote on this subject if you are intererested here is the page: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/column.php?id=209957

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since ultimately we all have tribal roots, I think it would be very nievee to say that religions do not begin with forms of shamanism.

I do not agree. You may think it nievee but I would suggest actually looking into the study of religion and you will see where that idea falls on its face. E. B. Tylor and J. G. Frazer made claims almost exactly like this and were quickly disproven. Tyler did define what study anthropology is but this was a very primitive view that has been greatly expanded upon. Their arguments fall apart because they are fundamental reductionists. Look up reductionism and look at the study of religion. Let me know if you need sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do not agree. You may think it nievee but I would suggest actually looking into the study of religion and you will see where that idea falls on its face. E. B. Tylor and J. G. Frazer made claims almost exactly like this and were quickly disproven. Tyler did define what study anthropology is but this was a very primitive view that has been greatly expanded upon. Their arguments fall apart because they are fundamental reductionists. Look up reductionism and look at the study of religion. Let me know if you need sources.

Well ok then Ill look into it. If you have sources handy go ahead and shoot them over otherwise I can dig it up. thanks.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well ok then Ill look into it. If you have sources handy go ahead and shoot them over otherwise I can dig it up. thanks.

I do not have pdfs for websites but the books I would recomend are Eight Theories of Religion and Introducing Religion both by Daniel L. Pals. After I move (June 1st) I may even be able to scan the pages but I would recomend simply buying the books if you are that interested in it. You could also try searching for E. B. Tylor and J. G. Frazer.

You can probably find a lot about reductionism just by googling it. Basically what it is is trying to find an answer by bringing it to a single specific point. For example people have tried to find the origin of religion by reducing it down to society, economics, politics, mental disorders, ect. Some ideas even get more specific than this. Their main problem is that it appears that some things, such as religion, cannot be boiled down to a single thing but covers many things. The theories also fall apart when people actually go and study different religions (such as in anthropology.) They find that religion does not "progress" from a starting point to an ending point but that all types are found at all different times. If you want some very basic knowledge it appears wikipedia has some (though I always do question them, but some of their info is good.) Here are a couple wikipedia links that will get you started. Let me know if you need any specifics or have any questions. I may not be able to answer then but as a Religious Studies major this stuff is the basis of my degree...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_religion#Edward_Burnett_Tylor_and_James_George_Frazer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do not have pdfs for websites but the books I would recomend are Eight Theories of Religion and Introducing Religion both by Daniel L. Pals. After I move (June 1st) I may even be able to scan the pages but I would recomend simply buying the books if you are that interested in it. You could also try searching for E. B. Tylor and J. G. Frazer.

You can probably find a lot about reductionism just by googling it. Basically what it is is trying to find an answer by bringing it to a single specific point. For example people have tried to find the origin of religion by reducing it down to society, economics, politics, mental disorders, ect. Some ideas even get more specific than this. Their main problem is that it appears that some things, such as religion, cannot be boiled down to a single thing but covers many things. The theories also fall apart when people actually go and study different religions (such as in anthropology.) They find that religion does not "progress" from a starting point to an ending point but that all types are found at all different times. If you want some very basic knowledge it appears wikipedia has some (though I always do question them, but some of their info is good.) Here are a couple wikipedia links that will get you started. Let me know if you need any specifics or have any questions. I may not be able to answer then but as a Religious Studies major this stuff is the basis of my degree...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_religion#Edward_Burnett_Tylor_and_James_George_Frazer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism

Cool thanks I'll probably go ahead and buy the books. They seem like good additions to my library. I'm not a big fan of reductionism either, but its useful to a degree but is incapable of anslyzing transcendent effects. Ill see what they have to say about where religions come from... But it will be a hard sell, but I'm open to it if the logic and evidence is sound. I'll let you know.

Edited by Seeker79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool thanks I'll probably go ahead and buy the books. They seem like good additions to my library. I'm not a big fan of reductionism either, but its useful to a degree but is incapable of anslyzing transcendent effects. Ill see what they have to say about where religions come from... But it will be a hard sell, but I'm open to it if the logic and evidence is sound. I'll let you know.

Well spoiler alert...the conclusion is we do not know, still today. We also do not have a universally accepted definition of religion. What the books did was offer many different views and helped me understand people's beliefs better. They start with the earlier theories of religion and then progress to the newer ones. You will see that right off the bat you do not agree with many of them. But the ones you do agree with will lead you to new things. For me, it led me towards anthropology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an unsatisfactory place to leave the point. Yes, of course, the origins of religion are controversial because religion evidently emerged before writing.

The affirmative case for early shamanism is that its core feature, direct spiritual experience, explains an enormous amount of religion with very few additional assumptions, and needs no specific level of material wealth or culture. That people have direct experience is a well documented ground fact. It is easier to explain beliefs about an afterlife, for example, founded on the experience of "talking" with survivors (as people report having done) than with woo-woo theories that all humans fear non-existence (which is not at all universal) or that all religions offer non-extinction, despite some frankly offering personal extinction as their good outcome.

Another thread of evidence is that the oldest religious documents we have often depict direct spiritual encounters. The oldest surviving Greek religious material, like the Odyssey, shows men who are not clergy dealing directly with gods. The oldest Hebrew material (possibly older than the Hebrews as a distinct people) is the beginning and end of Job, which depicts direct human conversation with God. Gilgamesh has his experiences unmediated. And even late material has Odin consulting the crows Hugin and Mugin, suggestive of some earlier strand of Hermetic-shamanic lore poking through.

Where I would part company with Sheldrake is to impute shamanism to late religious developments, like Jesus or Mohammed. These people are plainly building on an existing written revelation tradition, to which they are adding more of the same. What I would say instead is that the core feature of shamanism, direct spritual experience, presents an ongoing challenge to religions founded on "somebody else's spiritual experience" being read from a book, written by priests and addressed to other priests.

Priests (official sacrifice presiders) do require a certain level of material wealth and culture. Even if shamanism is not the earliest human religious expression, a good case can be made that it is earlier than full-time clerical ritual workers presiding at destructive sacrifices held at permanent installations.

So, while any account of religious origins will be controversial, the case for primal shamanism is not casual, and at least very early shamanism seems secure. A brief statement in a YouTube video cannot be mistaken for a scholarly treatise. The position advanced in the OP video can be supported, and is fully respectable. Compared with some theories (religion began with the universal human frustration that not everybody can be Richard Dawkins), it is a slam dunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an unsatisfactory place to leave the point. Yes, of course, the origins of religion are controversial because religion evidently emerged before writing.

The affirmative case for early shamanism is that its core feature, direct spiritual experience, explains an enormous amount of religion with very few additional assumptions, and needs no specific level of material wealth or culture. That people have direct experience is a well documented ground fact. It is easier to explain beliefs about an afterlife, for example, founded on the experience of "talking" with survivors (as people report having done) than with woo-woo theories that all humans fear non-existence (which is not at all universal) or that all religions offer non-extinction, despite some frankly offering personal extinction as their good outcome.

Another thread of evidence is that the oldest religious documents we have often depict direct spiritual encounters. The oldest surviving Greek religious material, like the Odyssey, shows men who are not clergy dealing directly with gods. The oldest Hebrew material (possibly older than the Hebrews as a distinct people) is the beginning and end of Job, which depicts direct human conversation with God. Gilgamesh has his experiences unmediated. And even late material has Odin consulting the crows Hugin and Mugin, suggestive of some earlier strand of Hermetic-shamanic lore poking through.

Where I would part company with Sheldrake is to impute shamanism to late religious developments, like Jesus or Mohammed. These people are plainly building on an existing written revelation tradition, to which they are adding more of the same. What I would say instead is that the core feature of shamanism, direct spritual experience, presents an ongoing challenge to religions founded on "somebody else's spiritual experience" being read from a book, written by priests and addressed to other priests.

Priests (official sacrifice presiders) do require a certain level of material wealth and culture. Even if shamanism is not the earliest human religious expression, a good case can be made that it is earlier than full-time clerical ritual workers presiding at destructive sacrifices held at permanent installations.

So, while any account of religious origins will be controversial, the case for primal shamanism is not casual, and at least very early shamanism seems secure. A brief statement in a YouTube video cannot be mistaken for a scholarly treatise. The position advanced in the OP video can be supported, and is fully respectable. Compared with some theories (religion began with the universal human frustration that not everybody can be Richard Dawkins), it is a slam dunk.

I agree.. Totally actually. :)

The simple fact that we have very similar visions today that are written about from religious figureheads speaks volumes.

What really brought it home to me one day was I happen to catch a Christian movie about.... Jhon I think. ( correct me if im wrong) The writer of revelations. I'm watching these sequences where he is having his visionary experiences, and I can totally relate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.