Foundations

So, what are the key elements of what you're up to?  Like, what do you teach or do?

In brief, I see my public offerings revolving around three basic themes: work with the land, work with the ancestors, and work to clarify life purpose/destiny.  The first theme is reflected in the "earth medicine" offerings and emphasizes right relationship with the earth, the elements, the animals, plants, minerals, nature spirits, human ancestral spirits of the land, and Earth in general.  Learning how to live right again, in balance, with respect. In shamanic jargon this corresponds to the below worlds, the "lower world", what is beneath our feet, chakras 1-3, and embodied life. Earth.

The ancestor work is about coming into right relationship with our particular families, cultures, biological ancestors, and life stories.  Work with the ancestors is about learning how to be an upright, loving, and wholesome human being.  The ancestors offer human wisdom and perspective and help us to work through and heal a lot of the funky "ism"s that plague human societies.  Ancestor work also prepares us to become a helpful ancestor.  In the three worlds map this corresponds to the heart chakra, to the middle world, to the human experience.  Humans are the children of Heaven and Earth.  Ancestors lived as humans and in most cases will do so again; they and the unborn constitute the the unseen side of Human.

The third of three themes revolves around life purpose or destiny and is most addressed with the Shasta wilderness quest we do in the summers. And there are many ways to knock on the door of one's destiny (assuming you're not getting dragged screaming and kicking to the door already). This is about being who we uniquely are without apology and it's not always as straightforward as it sounds.  Gradually (or sometimes dramatically and fast) shedding layers of identity and self-story to stand in direct conversation with our own higher self, Will, or spiritual potentual; our personal configuration of stars, energy, and consciousness.  To become who we are.  These kinds of questions for me correspond more to the above worlds, the heavens, the planets, chakras 5-7+, and our cosmic star selves.

I hold the ideal that we can embody more and more our earthiness (balanced with other earth beings here), our full sloppy wonderful humanity, and our unique destiny as weird old star beings come to earth.  So this ideal of balance along the vertical axis informs the different ceremonial offerings I put out there, and it's partly what someone who studied with me could expect to focus on in a general structural sense.  Another key piece of the overall skeleton or framework is the elements. 

Isn't working with the elements a little simplistic?

No.  The elements are ancient, living, intelligent energies or beings and they are also what we are.  What we see as Fire or Water is also something else whose body is Fire but is not limited to that form. Both/and. Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche writes really clearly in his book Healing with Form, Energy, and Light about different levels at which to engage elemental energies, all of which are real and legitimate and relevant at different times. Work with the elements also roots our relationship with the sacred in what is physical (but not only physical) and this is good for breaking down dogma and narrow views.  We can plug into a cross-cultural language for engaging with other practitioners in a curious and fruitful way.  Elemental work is also a lot about discovering dynamic balance by touching just how fluid and alive and malleable reality is. Elemental work can seem deceptively simple but is foundational and super deep and important and relevant at all stages of the path.

What's all this talk about our life purpose/personal medicine/destiny? Aren't we just here to be loving, good people?

Yes, certainly, good and loving people.  And also there is a level of specificity lacking there.  In Jungian terms, one can be good and loving and not be individuated.  It's just to say that destiny is something more personal than wholesome values, that it's at the deeper stratas of being who we really are.  And from one perspective who we are is largely a function of our personal medicine or qualities or gifts and those in turn are really about what forces of the natural world we are especially related to (e.g. a child of Fire, a Wolf person, a daughter of Such and Such Goddess).  So, to discover our personal path and medicine, we have to inquire about our affinities, our relationships, and what patterns of consciousness we are cut from the mold of.  That in addition to questions like "What am I here for?" or "What I am supposed to be doing with my life?" and so on.  Those are really good questions and "be good and loving" is usually not a particularly satisfying answer although it's a fantastic start. 

What exactly *is* shamanism?  Is that what you're teaching?  What do you mean by earth-honoring traditions?

This whole topic is totally charged for a lot of people in all kinds of directions, so it's important to take a deep breath and unpackage it all in pieces.  The word shaman derives from the Evenk people of Central Asia and refers to a type of religious specialist who has a lot of different responsibilities in the community, many of which revolve around mediating good relations between the living humans in the community and other forces and beings (e.g., ancestors, spirits of nature, spirits of weather). When Russian, German, and other anthropologist types began spending time with different indigenous communities they noticed that other indigenous peoples of the region had similar types of religious specialists or mediators and so the anthropologists started calling them all shamans. This started a process of using the term shaman outside its original Central Asian context; a process which has grown and which continues today (and which sadly has become really divisive).

Partly this happened because European and Euro-American people no longer had good English (or German or Russian) synonyms for "shaman". The fact that the word got adopted and spread reveals just how removed the cultures of the anthropologists had become from relating with the spirits in ways like the Evenk or other indigenous folks still do. A big problem with a term like "shamanism" is that it can imply there is one essential, core, or universal shamanism; there is not. The word is often asked to hold a lot of different meanings all at once and so it's a word in need of some healing (or in need of a break).  In the meantime, it's more accurate (if cumbersome) to speak of shamanisms in the plural if using the word at all. What kind of shamanism?  From where?

So, is there even enough common ground among all these diverse indigenous (and non-indigenous wisdom systems) to justify using a word like shamanism? I believe there is, and most but not all people who write about these things tend to (cautiously) agree; however, practically speaking the words 'shaman' and 'shamanism' are pretty divisive, especially in North America, so I personally try to minimize their use. For me, a working definition of a shaman is someone who engages in long-term, intimate relationships with other-than-living-human beings (e.g., ancestors, spirits of the earth, elementals, strange old gods) and leverages those relationships for the well-being of the human community as a sort of mediator, diplomat, or advocate who can communicate effectively and wisely with different beings and dimensions.  In general it's a title that is given by others and earned through year after year of getting good results.  This is dangerous work in ways that are hard for people not doing the actual work to explain, and the work tends to make the person doing it somewhat feral or odd in relation to domesticated human society. At the very least it means that person has to maintain numerous other relationships with beings that aren't exactly human.

If the question has energy for you, I recommend Graham Harvey's 2006 text Animism: Respecting the Living World. I also recommend having an appreciation for how deep the feelings run on this question and how they include issues like: genocide of Native peoples, cultural appropriation, wounding in modern Western psyche around loss of connection to the land, and our collective dilemma of ongoing ecological disaster. This question is more like a doorway to dialogue than a question that arrives at a rigid, correct answer. Try to avoid forming rigid opinions about shamanism that shut down constructive dialogue.  Keep in mind that some people *hate* the word shamanism on a gut level and associate it with egotism and racism against Native people.  I can't think of very many Native Americans (although there are some) that really vibe well with the term.

Is there a good book I can read about all this?

When I teach the one-day foundations course I recommend Hillary Webb's Travelling Between the Worlds because it consists of interviews with lots of different people so the reader gets a feel for how much diversity there is. I still find Sarangerel's books valuable and useful in a practical way, and I'm biased having spent time with her.  Again, Harvey's book Animism is great.  Abram's The Spell of the Sensuous.  For those interested in the intersection of shamanic ways with psychology, Ann Drake's Healing of the Soul is a good start as is C.M. Smith's Jung and Shamanism in Dialogue.  I really love Martin Prechtel's writings.  My suggestion is to be educated about the histories and controversies but don't let it stop you from diving into ceremony in a transformative way.  The Mysterious Weaver of the Universe upon our deaths is less likely to test your knowledge of cultural theory than to be interested in the condition of your heart and whether or not your soul is more ripe at the end of this life time than at the beginning.  I've found spiritual practices, attending ceremony, working with teachers, and being in real community to be more effective for that ripening than just reading books and forming opinions.

Indigenous Traditions, Shamanism, and Issues of Cultural Appropriation

So, is shamanism like Native American religion?

First of all, it's Native American religions, plural. There are hundreds of tribal nations on this continent alone and while there may be values that tend to be shared, there is tremendous diversity in beliefs and practices. Second, many Native Americans do not follow traditional ways, and in that sense one could say that religion for Native Americans includes, for example, Christianity or the Mormon faith. In other words, it's important to not assume that because someone is Native American by blood ancestry that he or she sees the world in a certain way. Native American Mormons are no less Native because of their faith, and there is no singular Native American religion.

To try to clarify, Native Americans (however exactly those lines are drawn which is it's own source of controversy) are among the world's estimated 350 million indigenous peoples (using the United Nations' definition here). However, not all indigenous people (Native American or otherwise) adhere to traditional, indigenous forms of religion and spirituality.  Further complicating the discussion is that many individuals who are not indigenous (a.k.a. not among the 350 million people) *do* practice either some form of traditional indigenous religion or forms of spirituality that have a lot in common with traditional indigenous religions (e.g. contemporary paganism). 

For example, despite being an American citizen who speaks no German and has only spent a week in Germany ever, I have German ancestors and if I chose to I could learn German and devote myself to a study of pre-Christian forms of earth spirituality practiced in what is now Germany.  I could become a devotee of the old Norse Gods and an initiated priest in those ways and totally walk that path.  I would be practicing a form of traditional and arguably indigenous European Earth spirituality; however, I would never be "indigenous" in the way that the word is most commonly used. On the other hand, someone who is half-Lakota by blood ancestry and is a devout Mormon will always be indigenous even if s/he has no interest in traditional Lakota spirituality in any way.  All that is totally fine, it's just really important to understand how we're using the words to not exacerbate unhealed cultural wounding, racism, etc. 

That being said, yes, there are many shared values between traditional, indigenous religions (plural) on the North American continent and traditional, indigenous religions in other parts of the world. For example, a tendency to emphasize interconnectedness and the importance of living in harmony with other beings. An affirmation that humans may enjoy meaningful relationships and communications with other types of beings. A fundamental respect for the land and the relations that we share this earth with. A tendency to root spirituality in everyday life, conduct, and relationships. When Native elders meet with traditional, indigenous elders from other parts of the world there is an impression that certain core values are shared, so in that sense, yes, most traditional Native American religions do seem to share core values with traditional, indigenous Central Asian religions that some refer to as shamanism.

The problem with calling Native American religion "shamanism" is that Native folks already have perfectly good ways of referring to their ways of life. Many Native folks bristle at terms like "Native American shaman" because of the power dynamics of an outsider to their community defining, in outsider terms, their spiritual leaders or traditions. For anyone even remotely acquainted with the last five hundred years of North American history, it's easy to understand why Native folks might be sensitive to a power-over dynamic. In short, the best way to engage with the diverse spiritual traditions of Native North America is on their own terms, in their own vocabulary, through their living representatives, and with a healthy dose of humility.

Aren't shamans like wanna-be Indians? Isn't this cultural appropriation?  Stealing?

I can't speak for others, but I would say that all humans have a capacity to communicate with other types of beings like ancestors, animals, etc. Some people, through being born with gifts or through developing them, are good enough at this that they can be useful to others.  In traditional, indigenous communities these folks are typically encouraged to hone their skills in service to others. This phenomenon occurs among people of all nations, races, creeds, etc. meaning that there are shamans or mediums or spiritual healers or whatever you prefer to call them among all cultures.

Complications can arise when these people make claims about lineage and tradition. For example, I state clearly that I do not represent any given traditional, indigenous lineage (besides that of my ancestors with whom I am in relationship and who help to guide my work). It is possible that in the future I would be entrusted by the elders of one tradition or another to represent that lineage, but that has not yet occured and may never occur which would be OK, and therefore, in my case, I am not pretending or claiming to be anything other than myself.  For those who do claim to represent a certain lineage or tradition, it is important to be discerning and to be curious about their elders, teachers, story, reputation, etc. Some make legitimate claims, others do not, and it's not always clear from outside appearance. Furthermore, someone may have a perfectly legitimate claim to represent traditional knowledge and still behave like an idiot. As with anything, the trust implicit in representing a tradition is only as good as the people wielding it.

If these questions have energy for you I recommend Michael's Hull's book Sundancing.  He is a white Texas lawyer entrusted by Lakota elder and well-established medicine person and activist Leonard Crow Dog to lead sun dance ceremonies. What he is doing is controversial and his story speaks to some of the complexities. Similar with the story and work of Martin Prechtel who is not Mayan by blood ancestry but was totally embraced by a particular Mayan culture in many ways and practices one form of traditional Mayan religion in a very beautiful way. Also, Stephen Buhner's text One Spirit Many Peoples explores these topics at length (and again in a way that is controversial).  There are many Native folks willing to open their ceremonies to people of diverse ancestries who are sincere and reverent, so don't let fears of being disrespectful paralyze you and prevent you from honoring a calling to engage with earth spirituality in general or Native traditions in particular, just try to be educated and humble and cool about it.  If you haven't actually been around Native circles and hung out with Native folks enough to understand more directly these concerns, best to seek out some direct experience before forming too many opinions.

What about reincarnation?  I was told by a psychic that I was a Native American chief (or African healer or whatever) in a past life.

I don't personally makes claims to be anyone else and I don't focus on reincarnation much although reality does seems to be set up like that.  Partly it's because I rarely hear people say, "God, I was a real abusive, alcoholic loser in a past life." To be more direct, I've seen folks bypass their own work with their blood ancestors and families often enough that I am often suspicious of the way the whole past-life topic can come up.  So, I don't necessarily question the reality of past lives, just the way that the stories *sometimes* increase rather than decrease levels of this-lifetime egotism.  I figure whatever patternings in consciousness that may derive from before-this-life experiences, they'll need to be resolved in this life so best to have a pragmatic approach as too much self-story can create more of a mess than it resolves. 

Also, I would say that if it's really important to you that you were a Native American chief in a past life, probably best to not bring that up to many Native chiefs in this lifetime unless you've done the work to really earn their respect first as you probably won't like the response you'll get.  Seriously, most Native folks could go nuts (or laugh themselves silly) hearing non-Native folks claiming to be Native American in a past life.  And I don't think it's that there aren't past lives and all that, it's actually quite possible you were a Native chief in a past life and that some Native guy somewhere was Andrew Jackson in a past life; it's just the way that it gets used and talked about that can be divisive and counterproductive. Personally, I have my hands full being in this life, and ultimately it's in the moment awareness, conduct, and heart that matters most.

So, are you a shaman?

I don't refer to myself as a shaman, nor do I think of myself in those terms. It's my observation that the word has become too divisive to feel especially useful, although I understand that people use the word in different ways. I personally think of myself as a ceremonialist or perhaps a priest in training. Insofar as I do work in partnership with my ancestors and guides and this at times yields beneficial results for others, that is how traditional ceremonialists work, generally speaking. I also believe that most people are capable of working in that way to some degree if they really want develop the skills. I'm doing my best to work with my ancestors and guides to fulfill my destiny, and I try to stay focused on that. Compared to vintage, traditional elders I am a neophyte.  Compared to the millions of people who have no framework for any of this, I am capable of being helpful and training others in the foundations of ceremony and earth-honoring practices, so that's what I'm doing.

I've heard that you shouldn't trust anyone who calls themselves a shaman.  Is that true?

I know a lot of people say that but I actually disagree.  Why? Because my former teacher and friend (deceased) Sarangerel Odigan was a shaman and she called herself that. She was half Buryat Mongol by blood ancestry and devoutly studied, learned, and came to represent those traditional ways. She was a Mongolian shaman, had the classic near-death experience, went through various initiations, and fully inhabited that role. She spoke Mongolian, was married to a Mongolian, trained with traditional Mongolian shamans and was a shaman herself.  From what I could see, it was just the role that happened to be her destiny. There's no problem if the pope calls himself a pope or a psychic calls herself a psychic, so if some people really are shamans and they're willing to wear it, by all means.  Some shamans really are shamans.  In one sense it's just another possible role in the community.  So what?

Having said that, sure, a lot of folks throw the title around lightly and can use it as a way to puff themselves up which is sad and potentially harmful but that's like anything else. I personally try to steer clear of the drama and don't represent myself as a shaman, partly just because there is so much fuss about the word. But not all people who do represent themselves as shamans are ego-maniacs; some are just shamans going about their business. And just because someone doesn't call him or herself a shaman is no guarantee they're not an egomaniac. There is no way to avoid the need to use your own discernment about people.

If shamanism is such a problematic word, why do you still use it?

I try to use the word only as much as is useful partly because it seems to really piss off certain Native American folks in particular which is a demographic I'm especially interested in being in constructive dialogue and right relationship with. Earth spirituality is a decent alternative but it's a bit vague and not totally accurate as traditional indigenous religions are also sun, moon, and stars spirituality. The word traditional can quickly create more problems than it solves, and the word indigenous is way too linked in with questions of blood ancestry and Native peoples for it to make sense to use as a descriptor, at least for me with my European roots. I could say indigenous European traditions or paganism which is fine but it's not my only influence and I've only spent like two months of my life total in Europe so it's kind of a stretch or a bit arbitrary for me to say that I'm indigenous to Europe at this point. The word animism is actually more accurate than shamanism but it's too tied to academia, at least at this point in history, and it triggers memories of how it has been misused in the past (or just a confused reaction).  Recently I'm experimenting with the phrase "earth-honoring traditions and practices".

I've also considered "Humans trying to get their collective heads out of their behinds and be good relatives to all the other forms of life that many of us have been beating up on especially badly these last few centuries" but I think it's too long of a descriptor. I pray for a time when we can focus more on the healing of the earth than identity politics.  We're all in it pretty deep on the planet right now, and the house is on fire every moment spent arguing about this kind of stuff (a totally exciting argument happening on the train tracks).  And yet there is also a need for cultural healing and addressing the history of genocide and racism (ongoing) and so, it's also important to be clear about how we speak and represent ourselves.

I've heard that anyone who charges money for ceremony is an exploitative charlatan and thief.  What's your take?

People get so bent out of shape about this issue (and to some degree for good reason).  Money is just another form of energy (albeit an often misused one).  Traditional ceremonialists, priests, medicine people, and healers are traditionally taken care of like other people in the community.  They worked hard and, if their offerings were useful, they were compensated.  Sure, maybe it was with food, labor, or other items of necessity instead of currency, but same idea.  If I invited folks to leave groceries instead of U.S. dollars after a session with me it would get silly and besides, my rent and student loans are not paid off in yogurt and chickens. So, it is traditional to compensate people for the work they do, including the spiritual work, and money is our culture's most common unit of exchange.

Having said that there is a relevant issue of accessibility. Regarding accessability, I have yet to turn anyone away for a training, a ceremony, or healing session due to an inability to pay.  I make some distinction between community ceremonies which are drop-in and by donation (a.k.a. you can come even if you are completely broke) and individual sessions and trainings where I need to get paid something for my time.  The expectation that spirituality is somehow tainted by the energetic exchange of money or that spiritual teacher people must live in poverty is not a philosophy I ascribe to. I If you think most spiritual teachers are getting rich, give it a try; most that I know struggle to pay the bills.

And yeah, there are exceptions to that too.  If you're charging $9,000 for a week retreat, sure it's a problem and displays a total ignorance about classism besides just being rude.  Just because some folks abuse power in the form of money doesn't mean that all money is always abusive. Getting struck by lightning is painful but electricity for being on the internet to read this is alright.  Sweat lodges for example.  I've never been to a lodge where I've been asked to pay in order to lodge; however, there is almost always a donation basket, and I feel that it's good form for me to leave something.  This helps to cover the costs of the lodge, and if the lodge leader also buys him or herself lunch with the money, that's fine with me.  If a lodge leader turns someone away because of money or makes the ceremony about money, then that is problematic.

In short, if you are one of the people who think that money itself is just awful and unethical, best to avoid me.  Seriously, it's a rigid view that refuses to look at cultural/situational complexity and to consider the underlying energetics of what is happening in any given situation. Is this really where we need to be putting our energy when the world is on fire?  I can understand if a person was charging a huge amount or turning people away, but hating on someone because they accept donations?  The main place I have heard this view is among certain elements of Native American ceremonial culture, and I would just remind anyone from that camp that I'm not leading, offering, or presuming to offer Native American ceremonies (and that when I attend ceremony led by Native folks, I put something in the donation basket and it's received because my Native brothers and sisters also need to eat and pay rent).  And again, I have yet to turn anyone away for a training, a ceremony, or an individual session due to an inability to pay. Keeping ceremony accessible to everyone is something I am committed to and do support.

Questions of Lineage and Tradition

What lineage do you represent?

I do not currently represent a formal lineage of any sort.  If you feel that is something you need for yourself, I'm not the best person to work with.  If you feel that is something that all teachers must have, you are of course free to try to persuade other people to not interact with me.  Really, some people feel strongly about that issue.  If you need to work within one well-established specific historical tradition, I'm not going to be that helpful for you.  I help people to work with their own ancestors, partly because I feel that it helps them to not be hungry ghosts in relation to established indigenous cultures because they can come to see and love and forgive their ancestors and themselves.

Having said that, I recognize that I have been influenced by different teachers who do represent to different degrees a traditional lineage.  I'm conversant with different established traditions and participate in some traditional kinds of ceremonies, but make no claims to represent lineages aside from those of my blood ancestors at this time.

So, if you don't represent a certain lineage, why should I trust you? And what gives you the right to teach?

No particular need to trust me any more than the next person.  If you think I have something useful to share I'd recommend coming to a drop-in event or having a conversation with me to determine if you feel some resonance.  If you notice that you don't trust any teachers, you might look at that more closely.  If you notice that you just don't feel a resonance with me, then trust that. Someone does not have to be perfect to learn useful things from them. And also, some people just don't work well together for whatever reasons.

As for the question about teaching, there are things I can teach and things I can't because I don't know them well enough myself.  Mostly I teach the basics and mostly I find few people who are really solid with the basics.  Also, most of the basics transfer into other traditions.  Also, I'm not setting myself up as some sort of guru (although that kind of teacher-student relationship can also work for some people), so it depends on what standards you have for teachers.  If you expect perfection (like I used to, sorry former teachers) you'll find me disappointing. 

Part of why I teach is because we are in serious trouble on the planet.  In the S.F. Bay Area for example there are about 8 million people, at least 6 million of whom are not in conscious, spiritual/reciprocal relationship with the land here and probably half or more of whom are not in a good way with their family or ancestors.  Many of those people want to get more plugged in but are not sure how.  There are not enough elders or even intermediate-level teachers here to minister to the several hundred thousand receptive spiritual seekers. I am able to be helpful with those things and so that's what I'm up to.  All hands on deck.  My ceremonial work is one way I am attempting to respond constructively to the state of affairs on our precious planet.

Isn't it necessary to work within a partcular lineage?

No it's not necessary, but in most cases the advantages outweigh the challenges.  Despite not representing a traditional lineage, I've actually worked within different traditions or lineages a fair amount and continue to do so.  If you are blessed to have a tradition that speaks to your heart with accessible elders willing to guide you, go for it! Just don't wait for the perfect conditions or teacher because they're not coming.

Are you just posting all this information to defend yourself in some way?  Why bother?

It's a great question Daniel. Thanks Daniel. Seriously though, I've considered this.  My attempt here is to encourage reflection, be transparent about where I'm coming from, and perhaps foster some constructive dialogue.  Sure there are some people so busy being haters or so unwilling to examine their unconscious racism and privilege that it's a lost cause (at least at present).  But there are a lot of other people hearing conflicting messages and wanting to do the right thing and get more educated and beneath all of that just longing in a way that hurts at night alone before they go to sleep, longing is a real deep way to feel more connected to the earth and just crying out for change and for awakening and for another way to live that doesn't destroy what we love and are.  When those people stay away from ceremony because they think they're doing the right thing, that's a problem and something I take issue with.  We *all* need to find ways to pray, to love, and heal our relationships with the Earth and get things back into balance on the planet.  The divisiveness among people who love the earth is painful to me personally, I feel it in my chest like a fight in my own family, and I pray and long for more cooperation among folks of all ancestries because we absolutely need to get it together now.

Earth Honoring Traditions and Some Interfaith Dialogue

Why are people who walk earth-honoring paths always talking about spirits and guides and all that?  Is it spirit-worship or something?

This physically observable world is only part of the picture.  We're swimming in a soup of all kinds of different vibrations and beings, some of which have physical bodies, some of which don't. Some of these other beings are nice, some are nasty, and most could care less about us. The universe is a really big, happenin' place and it truly doesn't revolve around humans.

If you accept that basic proposition (which can be a lot for those raised in rational, materialist cultures), the logical next step is to try to be in good relationship with the other beings, at least the ones that have a strong impact on your everyday survival and happiness. So, traditional healers, shamans, or earthy folks (and those who listen to them) tend to go on about the spirits because the worldview is relational and they're always in a process of recalibrating our relationships with different beings and forces. Also, careful to not assume that spirits mean "non-physical". Sometimes it can mean that, but the physical/non-physical split is not so sharp in most indigenous ways of seeing the world. The spirit of Hawk or just Hawk may appear in a dream, in a waking vision, through another human, in a news story about hawks, and in a physical hawk in the sky. One Hawk body.

In general, folks don't tend to worship the spirits or different forces of nature or reality; it's more about establishing respectful relations.  If someone is your elder you relate with him or her with reverence and respect and it looks different than relating with a friend or equal; there is a tangible power differential.  The way this power differential is expressed with elders like Fire or Mount Shasta may look a little different than how you would relate with a human elder, but the principle is the same. People who are skillful about relationships tend to be attuned to power differentials and in relation to some energies it is appropriate to bow in respect or at times to simply kiss ass, if for no other reason than your own survival.

Is all the spirit stuff really necessary? Why not just work with God directly?

A lot of the bells and whistles aren't necessary. A lot of what's done pertains to folks who have a particular calling to work in some way as mediators and bridges between human and other-than-human beings. The fact that there are these other kinds of beings doesn't mean any given person has to spend much time engaging with them. In many traditional cultures the healer/shaman types are the ones who spend a lot of time relating with these other kinds of people and most living humans in the community just go about their lives, maybe coming together for festivals or healing or to share a dream.  And then in some other cultures, everyday folks also spend more time relating with the spirits.  Just depends. 

Islam, perhaps the most adamantly monotheistic major tradition, sees it as a major problem to engage in shirk, often translated as idol worship and meaning to associate other beings with Allah/God/Source. And yet in the Qur'an there is an entire sura (chapter/section) where God (through Gabriel, through Muhammad) specifically addresses the jinn (spirits as a general category). From an Islamic perspective the spirits, like humans, are capable of choice (wise or unwise) and so it makes sense to be both discerning with the spirits and when possible to be helpful to them (jinn need love too!).  Also at times they may be in a position to help us. This doesn't mean anyone is worshipping them any more than you worship your dentist when you get a cavity filled.  There is no incompatability with relating at times with other kinds of beings and still honoring one's direct and immediate relationship with Source. Shamans don't typically worship the spirits any more than your average Muslim doesn't, but shamans do try to relate with unseen powers in ways that are skillful and respectful and in ways that are also helpful for the living human community.

This topic is actually a doorway to a huge theological and mystical terrain. The only other thing I would say in this context is to see the invitation to know God/dess or Spirit or Source in relationship, through form, in and as the world. To assert that God is only beyond form or unknownable or ineffable is its own kind of dualism or, if you will, idol worship. I remember someone asking Sensei Ross at the Chicago Zen Center about God and Zen, and I think my jaw dropped as he quipped, "There's no God in Zen, we're not into idol worship." Or in Rilke's words (Stephen Mitchell's translation) "...instead of possession one learns relationship, and there arises a namelessness that must arise once more in our relations with God if we are to be complete and without evasion".

Do I have to declare my belief in something to study earth-honoring traditions? Do I have to renounce my belief in something else?

If you do I'm in trouble. Seriously though, indigenous traditions and contemporary shamanic practitioner people rarely get into heavy dogma about what a person has to believe. If there is a core belief it's something like "interconnectedness" which is a relatively benign form of dogma.  Shamanism can refer to a complete way of life and be it's own sort of path (often but not always in the form of a specific traditional indigenous way of life) *or* it can refer to a kind of orientation that folks within major organized religions adopt, almost like a vocation or cross-cultural guild.  For example, there are Muslim "shamans" or bomoh in Malaysia, Buddhist shamans in S.E. Asia, Christian shamans or spiritist types in many parts of the world, Hindu shamans, etc. Once we see past the word shaman and get at the underlying phenomena, there are folks all over who maintain relations with different types of beings in order to be helpful to their communities. In one sense purely Christian faith healers who work with Jesus to heal are functioning in a similar way to shamans. So, no, there is no need for any kind of declaration to become more skillful at relating with other kinds of beings and there is no need to renounce any other system you are already working within. Like with anything you just need to be at least moderately open to the possibility that you don't already know everything in order to actually learn.

I've heard that shamans are like sorcerers, witches (the nasty kind), brujos, and people who generally abuse power. True?

This is an important topic. Some folks define shamans as categorically good and helpful and reserve words like "sorcerer" for self-serving magician types.  Some use the word witch in a disparaging way and others use the word in a positive light, reclaiming it from centuries or persecution and discrimination. So, there is the first level of answer which has to do with the terminology. If we get hung up on the terminology here by declaring that shamans are always nice and helpful and sorcerers are always naughty and selfish then we can avoid the complex, underlying questions about right use of power.

Some people feel squeamish about power because they associate power with misuse of power.  Indeed, power is value neutral and can be used for healing and good or it can be used to harm and for self-serving purposes. The classic example of the blade that can be used to protect or to kill. To get much done, shamans have to access spiritual power.  This may derive from relating with powerful beings, working with natural places of power, tapping into various types of divine or subtle energy, or just being a big open channel for Source. Other beings run the full gamut from naughty to nice, weak to powerful. There are spirits that enjoy taking human sacrifices and encourage wars (just check out the news).  Shamans who have good sense do not feed these spirits nearly as much as corrupt politicians or warlords, but it is always an option.

So, yes, it is always always an option to abuse power by failing to consider one's impact on others, failing to be loving and wise.  This is not unique to shamanism.  Do shamans have the capacity to make bigger than average messes by virtue of their knowledge about reality and the unseen worlds and the access to power that implies.  Yeah, usually.  Do folks who know about the unseen worlds exhibit consistently less love and wisdom than average people?  Probably not.  I would guess that shamans, on the whole, are about as unpredictable, unconscious, and self-serving as the average person in the surrounding culture or *maybe* a little above average. A small handful of practicing shamans are super reliable and psychologically worked out, and a small handful are especially deluded and self-serving. In other words, I don't think shamans, as a group, abuse power more or less than the average politician, school teacher, doctor, or parent, they just have access to particularly volitale means.

What happened to getting enlightened? What would the Buddha think about all this rattling and singing?

Hey enlightenment is cool, and probably best to ask the Buddha directly about his take on shamanism. From my relatively limited experience with Buddhist practice (maybe 8 week-long retreats, all in the U.S., mostly Zen but a little Tibetan and Vipassana), I have yet to detect any real incompatabilities with indigenous/shamanic perspectives.  I joke that indigenous traditions seem like Sangha Sangha Sangha whereas in Buddhism it's: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.  

Another Mahayana way to think of this is on the level of intention or motivation.  If you have a Boddhisatva motivation to awaken/help out all beings (human or otherwise) then shamanism just becomes a question of skillful means.  If you know the ceremonies, songs, and medicines to get better results in helping others, fantastic.  Insofar as Buddhism emphasizes service and breaking down arbitrary distinctions between self and other, indigenous traditions would just underscore the importance of not limiting this service to only living human beings. Also shamanic ways tend to dive into all the wacky energetic, interdimension spirit phenomenon that many Buddhist folks are often wary of or just choose to disregard.

When I asked John Tarrant (Pacific Zen Institute) if he felt there was any contradiction between Zen and shamanic ways he said that there will always be people in any tradition who interpret things narrowly but that they are never the most interesting.  I've felt supported in my ceremonial interests and work by John, other PZI teachers, Roshi Joan Halifax, and pretty much any other Buddhist teacher I've spent any time with or brought the subject up with.  Beyond that it's a question of emphasis, what speaks to your heart, and where you are called to deepen in your journey.

I've heard that earth spirituality types don't believe in hell.  What do you believe?

There's not just one take on all this, so I will give my personal take.  I agree with Jung that it was problematic when Protestant and later secular culture lost a framework for grappling with evil and "the devil".  By whatever name, there are energies that are self-aware and still choose to be nasty and hateful.  I didn't really get exposed to them as a kid so I've had to learn about this as an adult. Knowing how to deal with these ones is critical if you want to do deep work with the spirits. I'm not talking about evil in the moralistic Christian sense although it's not *so* different.  For example, if a coyote rips apart a child's new favorite kitten it's not evil, it's just a coyote enjoying lunch and super upsetting for the child (not to mention the mangled kitten).  And if you're the child it sure might *feel* evil. Now let's say it's another person possessed by a really troubled ghost or something worse and now they're ripping apart another person, one that you know and love, or even you. Now one could say that it's just demons and sociopaths having a good meal, just like the coyote, natural order, no judgment.  Well, that's true from the demon's or sociopath's perspective (and you had best not interrupt them unless you're ready for a fight), and yet, we have to draw the line somewhere and choose which values and visions for our world are worth risking our lives to defend.  Sometimes it's a good idea to interrupt the demons, even if we risk our lives to do so or have to use violent means as a last resort to stop them. Sometimes the odds are so stacked against us, it makes more sense to survive and choose our battles more wisely. Recognizing there are smart, destructive, and powerful beings does not necessarily require a dualistic good/evil worldview but it does give rise to questions around core values, courage, and right action.

As for hell, in a way my answer is above. There are worlds which are states of consciousness which are spirit places which are actual places, worlds where there is tremendous non-stop suffering. The Buddhist teachings on the six worlds or lokas speaks to this. There is also considerable traffic between the worlds, and one can changes places/states. If you don't believe in hell, I would suggest studying more closely modern warfare or the effects of early childhood trauma or any number of other ways in which moment to moment reality may come to be dominated by deeply entrenched anguish.  Some humans live in hell worlds; if you doubt it, try studying serious mental illness.  No need to buy a plane ticket to visit hell.  The unseen or non-physical worlds mirror our world.  Anything we can imagine exists and then some.  So, yes, I would say there are hells, plural, and that there is no bottom to the hell-worlds, no real limit to how intensely we can suffer. The world is bigger than us and there is more suffering in the world than any given being can possibly wrap his or her psyche around (or at least way more than I can hold). To try to feel all the suffering at once would probably fry our nervous system and melt our psyche beyond repair.

Daniel Foor   (650) 248-8917   danielfoor@yahoo.com