The Importance of Cosmology in Shamanism

[Lupabitch]

The new issue of Rending the Veil ezine at http://www.rendingtheveil.com/ came out today. My column this month (which can be viewed from the above link; it's the first article on the page) is some musings I have about the role of cosmology in shamanic practice.

I believe that cosmology often gets taken for granted or even ignored by modern neoshamans in favor of focusing more on techniques and shiny objects. It's relatively easy to learn the basics of journeying, talking to spirits, etc. However, doing these things well takes practice, and having an understanding of the cosmology you're working within gives more depth and context to your experiences.

It's interesting comparing the importance of cosmology between traditional shamanism and neoshamanism; in the latter, the "spirit realm" is somewhat removed from everyday reality, and there are essentially two different cosmologies--what you experience when you shamanize, and your "mundane" life. However, in most (if not all) traditional shamanisms, everything weaves together into one reality. Granted, some neoshamans have this figured out, though I see it less in practice than I do in theoretical understanding. To an extent we can blame modern postindustrial society coupled with Cartesian duality for the physical/not-physical divide, and a lack of a method for combining everything in a healthy unit.

So what are your thoughts on cosmology? How is the world put together? How did you learn the cosmology you work within? Do you work with only what you've been told, or do you actively explore the universe to better understand it?

[Earthwalker]

The trouble I have with metaphysical cosmologies is the problem of mistaking the map for the terrain. Cosmologies are often culturally specific and while there are some broad similarities there are also conflicts between them. What one culture or person uses as their map of the terrain may not make any sense at all to another person.

Classifying different parts of the otherworlds into categories can be useful to help us understand things, but I think it's important we realize that these categories are constructs and the lines are drawn where we want to put them to enhance understanding.

Sometimes it can be a good idea to put off or resist labeling an experience altogether instead of trying to make it fit into a model. That's how I usually operate. Later I find I could categorize that experience in dozens of ways on different people's terrain maps.

It doesn't matter to me which one is 'right' for in my humble opinion, all of them are right. The map isn't the terrain. The point is for it to make sense for you! Much of the time I don't feel a need to categorize my experiences on a cosmological framework. I find it interesting to study different models and maps, but I've yet to find a single one I feel truly conveys the terrain's diversity and complexity.

[WolfWhoSings]

I was going to say that it's hard for me to imagine having the "other" world and the "mundane" world separate, until I remembered how easy it is to sleepwalk, keeping yourself occupied with distractions.

Hey, I've done it.

For me, optimally, the spirit world is both another place and an overlay over the "normal" world, moving among us, around us. When one then speaks to journeying, as you did in your article, one is hoping to effect the "real" world in some way when one works, aren't they? How can they be separate?

One thing in your article I did find quite interesting, which also ties into some things said in the stickies above, is the assumption that it's all "safe" and "fun" and "whatever." I'd think that anyone who is at all familiar with the natural world, which is where we neo-shamanic types are pulling from, would know better! To our human perspective, Nature can be "a fairly bad word that starts with b." Soft fur often comes with claws and teeth. Pretty snowflakes can mean freezing to death.

Knowing the cosmology of the powers you're dealing with, even if it's not strictly adhering to any existing cultural paradigm, is important. It's good to know what "neighborhoods" you're wandering into and bring the right backup. To paraphrase the Untouchables, "Don't bring a humming bird to a snake fight."

It's something that does take some time, research and experience, though without a major cultural commonality, I think people will be seeing things differently. Course that also has to do with the nature of conciousness, but that may be a whole other discussion. ;)

[Lupabitch]

I
One thing in your article I did find quite interesting, which also ties into some things said in the stickies above, is the assumption that it's all "safe" and "fun" and "whatever." I'd think that anyone who is at all familiar with the natural world, which is where we neo-shamanic types are pulling from, would know better! To our human perspective, Nature can be "a fairly bad word that starts with b." Soft fur often comes with claws and teeth. Pretty snowflakes can mean freezing to death.

Which is something I'm quite aware of, and which is part of why I believe it's a good idea to know what it is you're getting into, as much as possible anyway. Where did you get your assumption from, if I may ask? Not trying to quarrel, just not sure I see where you're coming from, and context may help me see that.

While I do think that there are different realities accessible through different states of consciousness, I don't see them as completely separate. I am an animist, and I treat the world around me as wholly living and aware--even things that are often considered to be 'dead" and "unconscious". There sometimes need to be descriptions of different layers of reality and what can happen in them--for example, I can turn into various animals in nonphysical layers of reality, but not here in my physical body. However, the division is more practical than anything, and isn't something I perceive to be a classic dualistic split.

Bah. I may not be making sense; I'm kinda tired, and sick. Apologies if I'm being confusing :P

[Lupabitch]

The trouble I have with metaphysical cosmologies is the problem of mistaking the map for the terrain. Cosmologies are often culturally specific and while there are some broad similarities there are also conflicts between them. What one culture or person uses as their map of the terrain may not make any sense at all to another person.

(snip) I agree for the most part with what you've said. I do see cosmology as being a very subjective experience, which is why I think it's important to have a good understanding of where you're going and what you're going to be getting into.

I think sometimes people leap into a particular cosmology because that's what X tribe did or what Y shaman suggested, and don't really question the whys of it. It's like the seven-layer model of the astral plane--it may be popular, but it's still subjective.

[punxzen]

There sometimes need to be descriptions of different layers of reality and what can happen in them--for example, I can turn into various animals in nonphysical layers of reality, but not here in my physical body. However, the division is more practical than anything, and isn't something I perceive to be a classic dualistic split.

I am unsure what you mean there

All cosmology has to be based on dualistic splits, dividing, differentiating, and describing are all derivatives of dualism. I think that part of the natural evolution of life on our planet involves learning to utilize our dualistic manner of thinking. We can create cosmologies because of this, and from what I gather (mostly from my own experience) the shamanic type of cosmology tends toward a fractaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal) style where there are many iterations of reality all connected. This is, in my opinion, the most effective cosmological style for any kind of magic, and is differentiated into a shamanic style when you accept that these layers are immediately traversable without dichotomizing about it first. Is that what you were getting at by saying that it was a practical division rather than dualistic split?

[WolfWhoSings]

Which is something I'm quite aware of, and which is part of why I believe it's a good idea to know what it is you're getting into, as much as possible anyway. Where did you get your assumption from, if I may ask? Not trying to quarrel, just not sure I see where you're coming from, and context may help me see that.

While I do think that there are different realities accessible through different states of consciousness, I don't see them as completely separate. I am an animist, and I treat the world around me as wholly living and aware--even things that are often considered to be 'dead" and "unconscious". There sometimes need to be descriptions of different layers of reality and what can happen in them--for example, I can turn into various animals in nonphysical layers of reality, but not here in my physical body. However, the division is more practical than anything, and isn't something I perceive to be a classic dualistic split.

Bah. I may not be making sense; I'm kinda tired, and sick. Apologies if I'm being confusing :P

No worries. I think I may have phrased badly myself.

I didn't believe you held such ideas, but was rather commenting on the fact that anyone would. I concur with what you're saying.

[Lupabitch]

I am unsure what you mean there

All cosmology has to be based on dualistic splits, dividing, differentiating, and describing are all derivatives of dualism. I think that part of the natural evolution of life on our planet involves learning to utilize our dualistic manner of thinking. We can create cosmologies because of this, and from what I gather (mostly from my own experience) the shamanic type of cosmology tends toward a fractaling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal) style where there are many iterations of reality all connected. This is, in my opinion, the most effective cosmological style for any kind of magic, and is differentiated into a shamanic style when you accept that these layers are immediately traversable without dichotomizing about it first. Is that what you were getting at by saying that it was a practical division rather than dualistic split?

Close enough :) I'm not sure if I'm making myself completely clear, since it's one of those things that words don't quite fit yet. Basically, I don't see an either/or split between the physical and spiritual, but practically speaking I can't just walk right into the spirit world, though I can walk into a physical place and interact with the spirits there, if that makes sense.

[Lupabitch]

No worries. I think I may have phrased badly myself.

I didn't believe you held such ideas, but was rather commenting on the fact that anyone would. I concur with what you're saying.

No worries. Sometimes the words cooperate very well with me, and other times, well, they're stubborn. On top of it, you have the lack of vocal inflection on the internet (only somewhat rectified by things like :) and ;) ).