16 Reader Responses

1. Emerson Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 3:20 am

   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.

2. James Russell Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 6:59 am

   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.

3. channel null Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 9:17 am

   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.

   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.

   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?

4. Gina Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 9:43 am

   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

5. Tim Boucher Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 12:51 pm

   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.

6. rev max Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 1:33 pm

   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

7. human? Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 1:57 pm

   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….

   There is also no possibility of nailing down a “Final Theory” of everything.

   thank God!!

   one
   human?

8. Gina Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm

   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.

   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:

   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.

   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.

9. Tim Boucher Says:
   September 29th, 2005 at 2:46 pm

   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.

10. rev max Says:
    September 29th, 2005 at 5:50 pm

    OT but interesting

    Castaneda teaches like a trickster. He’s alluring, but he’s not the real meal, and you’ll waste your time trying to figure out if it really happened the way he said. Plus he had so many confused expectations; if don Juan said, “Men are like eggs,” Castaneda would go out and buy a dozen. You have to remember that these books, as well as those by Lynn Andrews [Jaguar Woman, Star Woman, Crystal Woman], are written from the viewpoints of disciples, not shamans. As such, they give you the experiences, mistakes, and mystifications of the disciple—not the experience of the shaman, and certainly not what your experience of shamanism might be. You can read all of Castaneda’s books and not know how to do anything; that’s why I tell people to read Harner’s Way of the Shaman [Bantam New Age paperback], because when they finish it they know how to do something, at least how to start.

11. Tim Boucher Says:
    September 29th, 2005 at 6:05 pm

    Rev, where’s that from?

12. rev max Says:
    September 29th, 2005 at 7:16 pm

    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!

    The ‘Crystal Skulls’ ‘Original Clan Mothers’ and ‘Shields’ scams are traceable back to Lyn V. Andrews (the Beverly Hills Shaman/Witch) who has no ties whatsoever to the Native American community, and her ‘Sisterhood of the Shields’ scam which she popularized through her books. Shortly after Andrew’s books became popular, an individual calling herself “Amylee” created a pyramid scam around it in the late 80’s. She claimed membership in the Iroquois wolf clan and started charging women $300.00 for the privilege of “birthing” a shield. Grandmother Twylah showed up shortly after this and incorporated the sheilds scam into her “teachings”. She and Mary Elizabeth Thunder are both involved in promoting the crystal skull teachings.

    http://users.pandora.be/gohiyuhi/articles/art00070.htm

13. rev max Says:
    September 29th, 2005 at 7:22 pm

    wow, interesting

    
    HOW TO RECOGNIZE AN EXPLOITER

14. channel null Says:
    September 29th, 2005 at 9:13 pm

    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.

    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

    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.

15. Rev max Says:
    September 30th, 2005 at 12:15 am

    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!

16. Pop Occulture » How to Spot a Fake Shaman Says:
    September 30th, 2005 at 11:40 am

    […] for “sharing” spiritual knowledge. I thought Rev Max had a really funny and apropos comment about this on another post which sparked thi […]