Scientific or Shamanic perspectives.

[Ishtar]

I don't know why we're still discussing this non proposition - Scientific or Shamanic Perspectives. It's very title is a non sequitur, and in no way reflects the intention of the original poster of this thread, WA, who should have called it "I'm bored talking about Shamanism, which I know nothing about apart from the total weirdo in my health food shop, so can we please talk about Science, my favourite subject, instead?'

The fact is, the original shamans were the original scientists. They knew the speed of light and the circumference of the earth - there is even a description of an atomic bomb going off in the Bhagavad-gita from which Oppenheimer, the so-called 'father of the atomic bomb' pinched the line "brighter than a thousand suns."

The shamans invented mathematics, botany, astronomy, they even invented a language from which our own, and tens of others, derives.

So without the original shamans, we would not have the mathematics on which our own science is based, and we would not be speaking this language to each other.

Thus shamanism versus science is a false proposition.

[Ishtar]

Religion operates under no such restriction. Since it is imaginary to begin with the imagination is free to run wild. Hence we end up with multi-armed gods, jackal-headed gods, and so on. I'm not sure what there is to predict other than the fact that people invent gods and I don't know that there is much debate on that point.

I agree. We should not be debating it.

Whether or not shamanism is a real experience of travelling into other dimensions, or just an imaginery, religious one that invents a pantheon of strange gods, is not a proper matter for discussion on an archaeology board.

All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo and Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

In other words, did HE believe in it. What WE believe here matters not a jot.

[Beagle]

I don't know why we're still discussing this non proposition - Scientific or Shamanic Perspectives. It's very title is a non sequitur, and in no way reflects the intention of the original poster of this thread, WA, who should have called it "I'm bored talking about Shamanism, which I know nothing about apart from the total weirdo in my health food shop, so can we please talk about Science, my favourite subject, instead?'

The fact is, the original shamans were the original scientists. They knew the speed of light and the circumference of the earth - there is even a description of an atomic bomb going off in the Bhagavad-gita from which Oppenheimer, the so-called 'father of the atomic bomb' pinched the line "brighter than a thousand suns."

The Vedic shamans invented mathematics, botany, astronomy, they even invented a language from which our own, and tens of others, derives.

So without the original shamans, we would not have the mathematics on which our own science is based, and we would not be speaking this language to each other.

Thus shamanism versus science is a false proposition.

This is too much for me to ignore. Given the late hour (for me), I'll try to reply later. Those are tall claims, even for the everything else forum.

[Ishtar]

Good! I shall look forward to it, Beags. But can I suggest we keep emotive language like 'tall claims' out of it, especially before we even produce anything to back up our allegations. That way, we can keep everything nice and friendly.

[Manystones]

All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo ... man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

There is no evidence for this whatsoever, produce some or admit it is just wishful thinking on your part.

[Ishtar]

Manystones

For the discussion I'm referring to, please see my last post in the Rock Art thread where this discussion is taking place, and also my last few posts on Gobekli Tepe.

However, I don't feel that I have to prove something that's widely believed by many much more expert than me, from rock art specialists to archaeologists in the field.

[War Arrow]

At the grave risk of getting dragged back into this again.

"I'm bored talking about Shamanism, which I know nothing about apart from the total weirdo in my health food shop, so can we please talk about Science, my favourite subject, instead?'

Please do not mistake my diplomacy and my willingness to attempt to find some common ground (in some instances very much despite my better judgement) with the sort of gormlessness suggested by the above extremely creative paraphrasing. Furthermore, whilst I make no claim to be an expert on the subject of Mexica/Mesoamerican religion, having studied it for more than a decade now, neither am I a complete idiot and am therefore certainly very familiar with some apects of the cultural tradition that I expect you might term shamanic.

And if Beagle really does need to justify use of the phrase 'tall claims' in reference to an assertion of an atomic bomb going off as you say is described in the Bhagavad-gita, then I really would like to know if there's any point whatsoever in continuing this thread.

If I were to suggest that the individuals depicted in the 16th (possibly even 15th) century Tilantongo Annals bear such a striking resemblance to Simpsons characters as to prove the case for ancient Mexican time travel beyond doubt, do you not think the burden would be upon me to prove such a claim rather than on you to disprove it?

[Ishtar]

And if Beagle really does need to justify use of the phrase 'tall claims' in reference to an assertion of an atomic bomb going off as you say is described in the Bhagavad-gita, then I really would like to know if there's any point whatsoever in continuing this thread.

Hello War Arrow

I don't know which particular aspect Beags was referring to as 'tall', but perhaps both you and he have misread what I said.

I very carefully worded that reference to the atomic bomb. I said: "there is a description of one" ..... not that I believe that there ever was one but that it was used as a metaphor for Krishna is his Shiva/ Destroyer aspect.

So vivid is this description, and so resonant is it of an atomic bomb, that Robert Oppenheimer, a lover of the Vedic literature as well as being the 'father of the atomic bomb' , muttered those very words from the Bhagavad Gita as the first real atomic bomb exploded.

Thus, this is worthy of note.

But to reiterate, I don't believe the Vedics had the atomic bomb. There are some intepretations of Rig-vedic verses that some believe refer to fission, but I'm very doubtful about them.

However, look at the words at this climax of the battle in Chapter 11 of the Bhagavad Gita where this conversation is taking place between Arjuna and Krishna.

Arjuna says:

Take pity, O God, Lord of the three worlds. Seeing your mouths, vivid with teeth glowing like fires on the day of dissolution, my head whirls. O Krishna, peace has deserted me.

Bhisma, Drona and Karna, Dhritarashtra's sons, kings and warriors,

Sweep into your mouth; between your teeth their heads protrude, dreadfully crushed.

Like many streams rushing into the ocean, these heroes rush into your flaming mouths.

Like moths rushing to the fatal flame, these heroes rush into your flaming mouths.

And you chew the worlds in you flaming mouths, and lick your lips; O Krishna, your shafts of flame brighten the universe.

Tell me who you are, O fiery-formed. O Krishna, have pity. How can I know you ?

Krishna replied :

I am Time, Kala, supreme destroyer of the three worlds, here visible in the three worlds. Even if you refuse to fight, none of these soldiers will live.

Wake up Arjuna, and win glory ! Destroy your enemies and enjoy your kingdom ! Their death is ordained -- you are only the immediate cause.

All have already been killed by me -- Drona and Bhisma, Jayadratha, Karna and the others. Fight ! the day is yours.

You don' t have to be a student of metaphor to see that what is being described is something very bright and very destructive, which even Oppenheimer recognised to be so.

[Ishtar]

Please do not mistake my diplomacy and my willingness to attempt to find some common ground (in some instances very much despite my better judgement) with the sort of gormlessness suggested by the above extremely creative paraphrasing. Furthermore, whilst I make no claim to be an expert on the subject of Mexica/Mesoamerican religion, having studied it for more than a decade now, neither am I a complete idiot and am therefore certainly very familiar with some apects of the cultural tradition that I expect you might term shamanic.

I make no apology for the rest of it. You freely admitted that your boredom with the subject came from not knowing much about it, which you said, came from lack of interest.

[Manystones]

Manystones

For the discussion I'm referring to, please see my last post in the Rock Art thread where this discussion is taking place, and also my last few posts on Gobekli Tepe.

However, I don't feel that I have to prove something that's widely believed by many much more expert than me, from rock art specialists to archaeologists in the field.

my emphasis

yes, belief is certainly the right word here... archaeologists might "believe" it, rock art scientists certainly don't.

and BTW Gobekli Tepe is not Palaeolithic but Neolithic

[Ishtar]

You're the second one today not to read my post properly. Must be the unexpected heatwave causing a rush to the head.

Just slow down a bit. Of course, I know GT is Neolithic. Here's what I said in the post a few back that you're responding to:

All we should be concerning ourselves with is: was shamanism a way of life for Palaeo and Neolithic man, and was what he left behind - his art and architecture - driven by shamanistic beliefs?

Neolithic man - is that clear now?

Now, as to your bolding my word 'believe', this matter, imo, will probably never be proved in the absolute way that science likes to prove things. Equally, your rock art scientists also haven't absolutely proved that the art is not shamanic. But, in the meantime, there is an interesting theory or a belief based on probabilities and experience, and that's all it is.

So maybe you should go and take a cold shower. Or better still, a nice walk in this lovely evening sunshine - and then come back and prove to me scientifically, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the sunset was absolutely beautiful.

[added later] MS, I've just noticed that you edited out my word 'Neolithic' when you quoted me earlier. What are you up to?

[Manystones]

[added later] MS, I've just noticed that you edited out my word 'Neolithic' when you quoted me earlier. What are you up to?

Indeed, I used a standard convention to make this apparent "..."

As I alluded to on the Rock art thread, the use of the words Neolithic and Palaeolithic are not interchangeable.

The revised theory of altered states of consciousness is selective, based on assumptions, and not applicable to the body of palaeoart.

Here's a quote from Bednarik, RAR, 1990, Vol 7, 1, p.68

Yet since the very advent of 'scientific' effort, 'scientists' have been engaged in proposing and then defending hypotheses. In this way they have often gone to extraordinary lengths to sustain subjective and often patently untenable proposals, including the most incredible displays of intransigence in the face of overwhelming evidence (consider Lewis-Williams and Dowson 1990).

Which doesn't seem to support your claim regarding the widespread 'support' for this theory... oh and BTW we've moved on another 17 years since.

We can all see now how laughable LW's original claim was since it is apparent that the early cave art - which is often held to be the best and has been held to be indicative of HSS - was most likely made by Neanderthal.

And even if the sleeve wasn't written by LW it is certainly accurately descriptive of the theory, and by virtue of being published - sanctioned by the author.

The Mind in the Cave puts forward the most convincing explanation yet proposed for the origins of image-making and art. The Neanderthals, our nearest ancient relatives, lived alongside our Cro-Magnon ancestors for over10,000 years, borrowing stone tool technology but never developing art – how could this be? The answer, David Lewis-Williams shows, lies in the evolution of the human mind. Cro-Magnons, unlike the Neanderthals, possessed a higher-order consciousness and a more advanced neurological make-up which enabled them to experience shamanistic trances and vivid mental imagery.

[Beagle]

I have resisted posting my thoughts on this subject, but the notion that ancient shamen invented mathematics, etc, prompts me to say something.

The word shaman probably originated in Central Asia. Some of us baby boomers may picture the figure as a "witch doctor" or "medicine man". These people filled an integral role in primitive cultures, even in recent times. We do not know for sure when the first shaman appeared, but it was in the Paleolithic, as a hunter/gatherer.

The shaman was probably an elder member of the group, and was known primarily as a Healer. Through a long process of trial and error, over generations, the shaman knew that there was medicinal power in many plants. He found that some plants would cure scurvy, and others would fight infection. He learned to make poultices and potions for various ailments. Within his limited understanding, it appeared that he could drive out evil spirits. This is truly the beginning of herbal medicine.
This is early science.

Today, it seems to me, the word shaman has been hijacked by New Age mystics. This is not the first word to be hijacked by one group or another. New Age mysticism arose in the 1970's and enjoyed a great deal of notoriety for awhile, and prompted the authoring of many, many books. Lately, it seems that the same themes are showing up in bookstores under the title of shamanism.
I have noticed discussion, in the archaeology forum, of members claiming to be channeling their spirit guides, and engaging in inter-dimensional travel, among other things.
This is New Age bullshit.

These are my personal views, and I respect anyones right to believe anything that they want. But, as some others have said, modern shamanism cannot be confused with science, and I'm happy that the subject is now in this forum. I only wish that, in one of our many threads, we had discussed the paleolithic shaman, since he/she was a pivotal figure in man's early culture.

I don't wish to cause anyone any offense, but I think my views may be shared by others, and I thought it best to get it said.

[Ishtar]

Thanks for replying, Beags. I’m glad to have the opportunity answer your points.

I have resisted posting my thoughts on this subject, but the notion that ancient shaman invented mathematics, etc, prompts me to say something.

The word shaman probably originated in Central Asia. Some of us baby boomers may picture the figure as a "witch doctor" or "medicine man". These people filled an integral role in primitive cultures, even in recent times. We do not know for sure when the first shaman appeared, but it was in the Paleolithic, as a hunter/gatherer.

Yes, you’re right. The word ‘shaman’ is Siberian, and these sages and seers were known by many different names throughout the world. One of the names for these sages in India was ‘rishi’ and another was ‘muni’. Both these words for sages occur in the Rig-veda and many of the ‘hymns’ in the Rig –veda are attributed to these rishis. And as we know, the Vedas contains some of the science that I mentioned earlier. So this is the earliest attested shamanic science.

This is from Wiki on mathematics:

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
Indian mathematics—which here is the mathematics that emerged in South Asia[1] from ancient times until the end of the 18th century—had its beginnings in the Bronze Age Indus Valley civilization (2600-1900 BCE) and the Iron Age Vedic culture (1500-500 BCE).

The shaman was probably an elder member of the group, and was known primarily as a Healer. Through a long process of trial and error, over generations, the shaman knew that there was medicinal power in many plants. He found that some plants would cure scurvy, and others would fight infection. He learned to make poultices and potions for various ailments. Within his limited understanding, it appeared that he could drive out evil spirits. This is truly the beginning of herbal medicine.
This is early science.

Your 'long process of trial and error', while an attractive theory, is not how the Rig-vedic rishi or shaman says that he arrived at his knowledge. He calls the guidance he got ‘sruti’, meaning ‘that which is heard’. Just like the Amazonian shaman today, (which the US pharmaceutical companies rely on) the shaman in the Rig-veda claims he got this guidance on the medicinal properties of plants (and much else) from the spirits of the plants themselves. The word ‘spirits’ or ‘devas’ has been translated as ‘gods’. Therefore this is entirely in keeping with how shamans get their guidance today, and thus not just a New Age fad.

I thought you might find this interesting. It is from Wiki on the health care in the Atharva Veda: (my bolding)

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atharvaveda

The AV is the first Indic text dealing with medicine. It identifies the causes of disease as living causative agents such as the yatudhāna, the kimīdin, the krimi or kami and the durnāma. The Atharvans seek to kill them with a variety of incantations or plant based drugs in order to counter the disease (see XIX.34.9). This approach to disease is quite different compared to the trihumoral theory of Ayurveda. Remnants of the original atharvanic thought did persist, as can be seen in Suśruta's medical treatise and in (Garuḍa Purāṇa, karma kāṃḍa - chapter: 164). Here following the Atharvan theory the Purāṇic text suggests germs as a cause for leprosy. In the same chapter Suśruta also expands on the role of helminths in disease. These two can be directly traced back to the AV samhitā. The hymn AV I.23-24 describes the disease leprosy and recommends the rajani auṣadhi for its treatment. From the description of the aumadhi as black branching entity with dusky patches, it is very likely that is a lichen with antibiotic properties. Thus the AV may be one of the earliest texts to record uses of the antibiotic agents.

Today, it seems to me, the word shaman has been hijacked by New Age mystics. This is not the first word to be hijacked by one group or another. New Age mysticism arose in the 1970's and enjoyed a great deal of notoriety for awhile, and prompted the authoring of many, many books. Lately, it seems that the same themes are showing up in bookstores under the title of shamanism.

I have noticed discussion, in the archaeology forum, of members claiming to be channeling their spirit guides, and engaging in inter-dimensional travel, among other things. This is New Age bullshit.

Well, that’s your opinion and your entitled to it. But it might be more helpful to keep our personal opinions out of this – and especially when if involves such inflammatory language – and look instead of what we can attest to.

Interestingly, our old friend and sparring partner Michael Witzel has recently published a paper showing how the Rig-vedic rishis were shamans. He did this by tracing the commonalities between the practices – such as the horse sacrifice - and the words used in rituals in the Rig-veda and that of the Siberian shamans and others in Central Asia.

I don’t think any of these shamans, or the ones in Mircae Eliade’s book. Shamanism: Archiac Techniques of Ecstasy, could be accused of being New Age.

There is a good abstract here about it from Witzel’s colleague George Thompson:

Shamanism in the Rig Veda and its Central Asian antecedents by George Thompson - abstract

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:-T ... cd=3&gl=uk

There have been several attempts over the past decade to identify traces of shamanism in Rigveda, but for the most part they have been impressionistic and not entirely convincing. I myself have recently suggested that there are shamanistic elements in some of the Soma hymns, though notably not among the Soma-hymns of the ninth book of the RV. Whatever their reasons for it may be, Vedicists for the most part seem to have been reluctant to accept such claims. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that shamanism is a far more important presence in the RV than is generally conceded, and therefore it is with pleasure that I notice that, in a recent paper delivered at the Third International Vedic Workshop in 2002, Michael Witzel has repeatedly pointed to shamanic motifs and themes in the Rigveda, citing their likely antecedents in Central Asia and the Hindu Kush.

From this abstract, we can see that there is a good case for the earliest written attestation of shaman’s practising what we now call science being that which is in the Vedas. Thus, the earliest scientists were shamans.

These are my personal views, and I respect anyone’s right to believe anything that they want. But, as some others have said, modern shamanism cannot be confused with science, and I'm happy that the subject is now in this forum.

I only wish that, in one of our many threads, we had discussed the paleolithic shaman, since he/she was a pivotal figure in man's early culture.

That’s what I’ve been attempting to do. The modern shaman derives their information and guidance from exactly the same place as the Rig-vedic shamans claimed to ...from sruti, from the devas or the spirits.

It’s not New Age, Beags. It’s Old Age. In fact...it's bloody ancient!

[Ishtar]

Manystones - I know that convention and of course, it's very handy for avoiding having to repeat whole sentences or paragraphs.

But why did you use it to just erase one word...the one word being 'Neolithic' ... and then go on in a later post to make it look as if I didn't understand the difference between Palaeo and Neo?

I'd just like you to answer that one question. Anything else you've said on this topic belongs in the Rock Art thread and I won't be replying to it here.