(1/8)

Shamanism: Terminology cont:

Adam Brand, a merchant from Lübeck, published in 1698 his account of a Russian embassy to China; a translation of his book, published the same year, introduced the word shaman to English speakers.[14]

The etymology of the Evenki word is sometimes connected to a Tungus root ša- "to know".[15][16] This has been questioned on linguistic grounds: "The possibility cannot be completely rejected, but neither should it be accepted without reservation since the assumed derivational relationship is phonologically irregular (note especially the vowel quantities)."[17] Other scholars assert that the word comes directly from the Manchu language, and as such would be the only commonly used English word that is a loan from this language.[18]

However, Mircea Eliade noted that the Sanskrit word śramaṇa, designating a wandering monastic or holy figure, has spread to many Central Asian languages along with Buddhism and could be the ultimate origin of the Tungusic word.[19] This proposal has been thoroughly critiqued since 1917. Ethnolinguist Juha Janhunen regards it as an "anachronism" and an "impossibility" that is nothing more than a "far-fetched etymology."[20]

21st-century anthropologist and archeologist Silvia Tomaskova argues that by the mid-1600s, many Europeans applied the Arabic term shaitan, meaning "devil," to the non-Christian practices and beliefs of indigenous peoples beyond the Ural Mountains.[21] She suggests that shaman may have entered the various Tungus dialects as a corruption of this term, and then been told to Christian missionaries, explorers, soldiers and colonial administrators with whom the people had increasing contact for centuries. Ethnolinguists did not develop as a discipline nor achieve contact with these communities until the late 19th century, and may have mistakenly "read backward" in time for the origin of this word.

Definitions

There is no single agreed-upon definition for the word "shamanism" among anthropologists. The English historian Ronald Hutton noted that by the dawn of the 21st century, there were four separate definitions of the term which appeared to be in use. The first of these uses the term to refer to "anybody who contacts a spirit world while in an altered state of consciousness." The second definition limits the term to refer to those who contact a spirit world while in an altered state of consciousness at the behest of others. The third definition attempts to distinguish shamans from other magico-religious specialists who are believed to contact spirits, such as "mediums", "witch doctors", "spiritual healers" or "prophets," by claiming that shamans undertake some particular technique not used by the others. Problematically, scholars advocating the third view have failed to agree on what the defining technique should be. The fourth definition identified by Hutton uses "shamanism" to refer to the indigenous religions of Siberia and neighboring parts of Asia.[23] According to the Golomt Center for Shamanic Studies, a Mongolian organisation of shamans, the Evenk word shaman would more accurately be translated as "priest".[24]

So far, what we can note, is that definitions for the translated words "Shamanism" and "Shaman" are quite varied over time and between different places in history, but, are heavily interchangeable with "Priesthood" and "Priest"; essentially, Shamans were the original 'Priests' of primitive tribes/societies, for a simplified way of putting it.

Criticism of the term

Further information: medicine man

~~

Anthropologist Mihály Hoppál also discusses whether the term "shamanism" is appropriate. He notes that for many readers, "-ism" implies a particular dogma, like Buddhism or Judaism. He recommends using the term "shamanhood"[236] or "shamanship"[237] (a term used in old Russian and German ethnographic reports at the beginning of the 20th century) for stressing the diversity and the specific features of the discussed cultures. He believes that this places more stress on the local variations[15] and emphasizes that shamanism is not a religion of sacred dogmas, but linked to the everyday life in a practical way.[238] Following similar thoughts, he also conjectures a contemporary paradigm shift.[236] Piers Vitebsky also mentions that, despite really astonishing similarities, there is no unity in shamanism. The various, fragmented shamanistic practices and beliefs coexist with other beliefs everywhere. There is no record of pure shamanistic societies (although, as for the past, their existence is not impossible).[239] Norwegian social anthropologist Hakan Rydving has likewise argued for the abandonment of the terms "shaman" and "shamanism" as "scientific illusions."[240]

Dulam Bumochir has affirmed the above critiques of "shamanism" as a Western construct created for comparative purposes and, in an extensive article, has documented the role of Mongols themselves, particularly "the partnership of scholars and shamans in the reconstruction of shamanism" in post-1990/post-communist Mongolia.[241] This process has also been documented by Swiss anthropologist Judith Hangartner in her landmark study of Darhad shamans in Mongolia.[242] Historian Karena Kollmar-Polenz argues that the social construction and reification of shamanism as a religious "other" actually began with the 18th century writings of Tibetan Buddhist monks in Mongolia and later "probably influenced the formation of European discourse on Shamanism".[243]

Noteworthy also, is that you can find incidences of 'religion' mandated circumcision and FGM in some tribal settings - again, a primitive and outdated practice in absence of a medical condition to warrant such a procedure - many peoples across time and the earth have had their reasons for circumcision, some more agreeable than others; we can debate the finer details of circumcision, if necessary - my position is that it should never be forced on anyone(primitive if forced), especially infants; the issue of infant circumcision should be decided on the grounds of whether or not there is a legitimate medical justification for doing so...

Moving on...

The importance of "Shamanism" here, is that Satanism is essentially in exactly the same basket; The term Satanism itself refers to decentralized practices found across the planet over history - best defined as having emerged during antiquity in Mesopotamia/Assyria, with roots in earlier traditions and knowledge found under the same umbrella of "Shamanism"; Satanism, however, is something applied on a personal basis for exploration of the self. Satanism at it's core, deals with understanding that which is accused of being "Satan"(the enemy of the self) and the application of that self reflection on a larger scale - it also deals with the application of both science & religion in everyday life.

With that in mind, Satanism essentially catalogues the most vile human acts, as a teaching resource... what you do with that information, is up to you; do as thou will; if you use that which you learn, to corrupt/hurt others - expect the righteous to come after you. If you use that knowledge to do good(eg, use it to identify and expose the corrupt), expect the corrupt to come after you...

Much like Shamanism, Satanism has been a root element in many other belief systems over time; that is to say, many have taken knowledge from Satanism and applied it in their own ways, sometimes in ways which are a betrayal of Satanism; they have exploited Satanism to justify/augment their own personal depravity, in a myriad of ways.

Here's where it gets really interesting... Christianity and Judaism are both rooted in Satanism, all three teach about the enemy of the self in their own ways and advocate restraint, rather than wantonly giving in to temptations seen to be the enemy of the self. Interesting to note, though, is that Judaism/Jews do not accuse their enemy, of being "Satan" or "Satanic"... Likewise with Christianity, their enemy is not referred to as "Satan" or "Satanic", "Satan" is identified as Lucifer in Christianity, no?

Satanism does not advocate the abuse of children, in fact, the popularly accepted understanding so far as I can tell, is that harming children is explicitly against what Satanism is about, to most rationally minded people who say they're Satanists. It's ignorance which leads to the misconception that all child abusers are Satanic or that just because a Satanist(pretender or otherwise) abuses a child, that act is then Satanic.

It is very important to understand why Satanism itself is not the enemy, because, I'm going to explain where it all went wrong and how Satanism is being constantly exploited/abused by, well, Satan itself... lol, sorry, that is to say, it is being exploited and abused by the enemy, while they accuse it of being their enemy... do you understand yet? No? Okay...

Refer back to m1

Up in the top left corner, you'll find the pink antiquity section, in which you will find the header "SATANISM" and several things listed under it.

See that link between human sacrifice and SATANISM? That needs fixing.

See NIMROD listed under Satanism? That needs fixing. I cannot confirm if the link between ROTHSCHILD and NIMROD is accurate, but, it certainly shouldn't be dismissed.

• Firstly, we would need to add "Shamanism" as a parent to "Satanism", that's fix one.
• Next, we need to remove the connecting line between Satanism and human sacrifice, replace it with a connection between Shamanism and human sacrifice.
• Let's also keep in mind, that Satanism is not about the worship of Lucifer/Satan/Baal.

Next, we're going to fix the placement of Nimrod by exposing "the enemy" responsible for misappropriating human sacrifice from primitive times into antiquity and into the present.