I’m doing research for my upcoming interview with psychedelic shamanism author Daniel Pinchbeck and came across a really excellent review of his book Breaking Open the Head at the Brooklyn Rail, written by Ellen Pearlman. It’s perhaps the most even-handed look at his work that I’ve seen so far, talking not just about the good, but also exploring potential negative aspects of what he’s saying and doing.
There’s one passage in it which I think is especially interesting and worthy of further conversation:
But the flaw here is one suffered by many among our homegrown, hothouse-bred elites— Pinchbeck insists on doing it all by himself, going around the globe and just dipping into other cultural traditions on his ethno-botanic pleasure/horror cruise. He doesn’t apprentice himself to anyone or anything, and by keeping his independence he saves his peculiar and much-prized Western hymen of uniqueness.
I think it’s in his interview with Bill Moyers that Joseph Campbell says something about how since he’s a generalist studying many spiritual traditions, he’ll never have that deep experience in any one tradition. I wonder what other people think of all this. Are you able to have as truly intense and deep of a spiritual experience while you’re busy flitting among many diverse traditions as you would if you really sat down and devoted your life to one in particular?
I ask that question knowing it’s going to be difficult to get objective answers from people. Those who’ve dedicated themselves to a tradition will likely have one answer. And there will be people who are so addicted to buffet-style spirituality (myself included) that the notion of settling down into one seems like it would limit your options and set up artificial boundaries which are best avoided. I’m also particularly curious to hear about the experiences of people who’ve looked around and tasted a lot of different traditions, but finally did settle into one. Is that the one you stuck with, or did that end up changing to another over time - a sort of spiritual serial monogamy?
The other issue in all this, going back to Pearlman’s original quote is the idea of “going native”. In anthropological research, there’s a great stigma against actually personally participating in certain aspects of the cultural group you’re studying, because it supposedly clouds your objectivity. There’s an okay article about this by Edith Turner at Michael Harner’s Foundation for Shamanic Studies. I wonder if for people who go from one religious tradition to the next if there isn’t also somehow an in-built cultural fear of “going native” and somehow losing some critical element of Westernized post-modernist identity. Like it’s going to somehow taint you. Anybody feel like that?
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- Notes: I Adore Eating Words
- How to Spot a Fake Shaman
- Spiritual Wealth
- Philosophical Paganism
- Doing God’s Work
15 Comments
Good articles, but I thought Pearlman’s seemed more than a little biased against the use of mind altering plants within a spiritual tradition. I got the feel of someone who tried LSD in the 60s while listening to rock music with their hippy pals, didn’t become an enlightened master by taking a pill, and then wrote off an entire spiritual path as a result. It makes as much sense as looking down on tibetan buddhism because a dime store “psychic powers from the east, in 24 hours!” didn’t provide any deep insights into reality. In particular, this line annoyed me: although Pinchbeck’s revelations are overwhelmingly drug-induced and mine are not. I think this view illustrates precisely the point she’s missing, and which most people of the 60s did as well. The revelations received through mind altering plants, when used as a tool rather than a goal unto itself, come as much or even more from musing on the experiences while in a normal state of mind.
As to your question of dine’n dash spirituality, I agree that it’s going to be hard to pin down. I almost think though, that it is in fact a single tradition. Religious traditions are almost always reflections in some way of the culture around them. It’s one of the main benefits of spiritual practices, they help shape and are shaped by the society and people around them. What’s more in line with American culture in particular, and western society in general, than a melting pot view of spirit? Of course it also raises the question of just how well a person can fit themselves into a path heavily tread by a different culture.
Ultimately I suspect the intensity of the spiritual experience is down to the individual’s effort. I don’t see any reason why you can’t have a deep experience moving from one tradition to another, depending on how you work them into your own life and practice. Conversely, I don’t think sticking to one tradition automatically guarantees richness of experience; cf. P.D. Ouspensky, spending so much of his life on Gurdjieff’s system and then declaring not long before his death that Gurdjieff’s system was a failure.
Doug Rushkoff weighed in that he thinks that often, what appears to be a end-point along one path, which leads many to seek another, is really just a crisis, and should be worked through. He himself is a Rabbi, although ordained in the Reconstructionist branch of Judaism–I don’t mean to dismiss the Reconstructionists, but simply point out that they’d be more open to borrowing ideas from other paths.
That’s good, I guess, but I sense a certain conservatism to it, it’s like advocating lifelong spiritual monogamy. If you look, you’ll see many criticisms of many things couched in a similar sentiment. That type of thinking has a value to it, in that it forces you to stick around long enough to accumulate knowlege and ashe, but after a certain point, it’s acceptable to branch out.
We’ve got endless, endless stories about apprenticeship in our culture. It’s good to see a survey and not Don Juan II. I think, to some degree, Pinchbeck’s views seem a little “fishbowled” in that they weren’t immersed enough to gain total cultural context, but i’m not sure if that’s the point. It was about the drugs and what they did moreso than a study of world travel with some drug use.
A decent boxer becomes a better fighter if he learns to wrestle, and neither deals with “uniqueness”, those aren’t categorically related. More relevantly, did Aleister Crowely lose his “save his peculiar and much-prized Wester hymen of uniqueness” by studying from, and mastering, a wide variety of practices? Does Vodoun lose its “uniqueness” and keep its “Western hymen” by syncetizing Traditional African practice with Catholicism?
This is sounding sadly like my enlightenment is better than your enlightenment, nyah,nyah… intellectualised wanking over enlightenment certainly isnt enlightening, it’s just wanking. JMHO
Suggestion noted, Gina. But I don’t really see anybody here so far as wanking. I’ve actually found these comments in this thread to be well considered and articulated and I hope people have more to share in this area. I don’t want to short-circuit the conversation before it really gets up to it’s potential full speed.
I get the feeling that something said here has touched a nerve for you, and I’m curious to hear what and why rather than a blanket condemnation in this case.
Channel Null your comments rock
The idea of spiritual monogamy is ludicrous
EVery religion is either a reaction to, reform of, syncretism with or heretical strian of some other religion or religions if you really examine it
The best IMHO stay open and take in new techniques that work
Point about boxing and wrestling well taken too - look at krav maga or pancrase or mma or shootfighting
that said going native may also be the ONLY way to learn certain things
native meaning - spend time just with that one, focus on it, get deeply into it
even syncretic religions have traditions and also have their own spiritual guides and currents that need to be respected if you really wnat to get to any depth
i would rather a black belt in a martial art that combines kicking punching joint locks and grappling
instead of a yellow belt in each of 9 different martial arts
there is something to be said for integration and flow, i think that really requires some degree of commitment
sample based culture.
soul music is great. so is reggae. and hiphop.
but when i take them all, sample them together, kick up the BPM’s, and blast it over a huge system, the kids go wild……. for the jungle music…
nothing wrong with some religious alchemy…. lol, as far as i can tell, nobody has REALLLY figured out shit….
thank God!!
one
human?
Sorry this is what I get for responding in a hurry as I ran out the door, the wanking comment wasn’t aimed at anyone’s comment but at Perlman’s comment:
Why do I feel this way Tim, because enlightenment is a singular event within the context of the path. Whenever we get tripped up discussing path as opposed to the journey we lose sight of the whole purpose of our spiritual endeavour, and frankly strict adherence to any path leads more times than not to dogmatism and exclusivity imho. And yes as you can tell I do have buttons I have a love hate relationship with the RC Church precisely because it is a dogmatic packaged and offers a one size fits all type of spirituality that discourages questioning in favour of following the rules.
Again my apologies to fellow posters for my thoughtless responce which wasnt included in some kind of context.
Cool, thanks for the clarification. The reason I posted the Pearlman link was that she was one of the few commenters of Pinchbeck who actually said some things that were divisive. Most of the other people I’ve seen write about his work are simply overflowing with praise and it becomes sort of hollow because they don’t say much of substance. Though I don’t agree with everything that Pearlman wrote in her piece, and I do think she has biases, I do think there’s a certain nobility for me that she would take the underdog stance and publicly put forward such an unpopular view. Sometimes that seems necessary to ignite real conversations.
OT but interesting
Rev, where’s that from?
whoops the link didn’t go through
http://www.netowne.com/spiritualism/shamanism/altered.htm
I have this book about the occult & paranormal at home that has a great expose on Lynne V ANdrews and Carlos Castaneda
Andrews in particular
lives in beverly hills, jet sets all over the world
no sooner does she step off the plane then she is warmly embraced by the local headhunters/witchdoctors/shamen/whatever
and endorsed as the one of whom prophecy spoke, the reincarnated elder who would at long last bring their ancient wisdom to Barnes & Noble
and in return teach them about crystals, dolphins, etc
Too funny!
http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/articles/art00070.htm
wow, interesting
HOW TO RECOGNIZE AN EXPLOITER
Sucker natives. Think if they teach a white woman about ashe, she’ll teach them how to create airplanes, TV stations, steal oil from their neighbors, and set up a state-sponsored global narco-trafficking ring.
I’m joking–what a bum deal, like a serious sigil backfire. According to some Central American shamans, the totem animal of the USA is the vulture.
Oh its a;ll bullshit. She probably doesn’t even go to those countries in the first place. Its all hooey, fantasy. I gotta see if I can find the original essay it was hilarious.
The books she’s written:
Crustal woman
jaguar woman
wolf woman
spider woman etc.
Marketing, baby!
One Trackback
[...] for “sharing” spiritual knowledge. I thought Rev Max had a really funny and apropos comment about this on another post which sparked thi [...]