shamanism vs yoga

[Guest guest]

> meaning the moment a person perceives differences, he is overcome with fear.

Here the

> reference is to primordeal fear which people like me (ignoramus) suffer

> > Difference is the essence of avidya. Superior, inferior all included.

> Yes, many *outer* similarities are there. But people go to woods for hicking,

dance for fun

or fitness, speak about sacred marriage referring to chemical processes, wear

snakes to

show in circus...

 

So the big difference is consciousness (attention), awareness (intention) or

infusion of Shakti (sancification)? Or is it knowledge according to you? I would

absolutely not agree.

> Not to argue, but many similarities come to mind:

> chanting, sacred dance, fasting, going into the

> forest seeking insight and communion, even the

> theme of mystical marriage. Shiva, as the classic

> yogi/sadhak, shows many traits that answer to

> shamanic methods, as Nataraj, drummer (the

> damaru), ascetic and wanderer. Even the wearing

> of serpents, which are a common image on the

> ceremonial regalia of shamans. Some of the

> inspired movements of shamans could be described

> as kriyas.

 

I agree with you. I think most of tantrism is shamanic. If it is not, these

people are obviously students or aspirants.

> However what U wrote about God is in fact nonsense. Do not try to mislead

people with crooked logic LOL.

 

Is it not so that God appears not the same to different people? He may come in

disguise. Mozes may have smoked grass and saw a fire in the bush. After 40 days

of fasting we may start to see angels and UFO's!

 

There are different levels of logic. Even Abhinavagupta explains this with e.g.

the concept of sat-tarka.

> Sad thing is, that such people spoil the name of Tantrism.

 

This happens always and seems to be inevitable. It also happens in Islam,

Chritianity and even shamanism.

> Human beings are not separate from nature. Nothing is separate from or

other than nature: everything you have ever seen/experienced, see and

will see, is (a form of) nature. Even thinking there is something

(f.e. a god(dess), a black hole,..) outside nature is a form of nature.

 

So nature is the same as what is called Paramashiva? Some terms need definition

with a certain framework or distinct school of philosophy. In several schools

prakriti is not the same as maya. And surely is not God other then through the

working of maya and the Goddess being in operation. The nature of human beings

is as it it. It is as diverse as can be. Nature is perplexing. Is this the

outcome of your philosophy?

 

> To live in/as nature does not mean to withdraw from human

relationships. Not at all. It does mean (to learn) to live/enjoy the

(comm)unity of nature and help stopping the

straightjacketing/destruction of nature. Think about how we are

polluting, exploiting, robbing, converting nature (humans included!)

in the name of Civilisation/Development, Democracy, Human Rights, Free

Markets, Religions/Spirituality..

> This is all bullshit, dangerous, destructive bullshit.

> There is nothing but nature.

 

It appears you have become very wise already yourself Jeroen and i congratulate

you on your achieved insights.

> It is high time that we realise this, and that we start living with

ourselves (nature) and not as rulers of ourselves (nature).

 

> I do agree with you as to why we are here in SS. If you will notice I, as

well as Charu, shared our thoughts. However for me the topic of 'superiority'

does not make sense. Discussing our paths, yes. If x,y,z think their path is

superior, good for them and may they progress quicker, and hopefully in

compassion return and lead me too.

 

 

Om Namah Shivaya

 

I sign up too Vir.

 

Ralph Nataraj.