Mircea Eliade

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

I have been noticing a lot of references to and analogies of Mircea Eliade's output in a few things I've been delving into lately. I am curious as to who else here is familiar with him and, if so, what you have to say about him, his books, as well as his murdered disciple Ioan P. Culianu. I had a couple of Eliade's books in my hands recently but wasn't compelled enough to actually buy them but I am thinking that they would be great to have on hand.

[feranaja]

Eliade, like Otto, Niebuhr, James etc, is required reading in most undergrad university religion programmes so I have a few of his books here - Cosmos and History,Ordeal by Labyrinth, the three volume History of Religious Ideas. It's been a long time lol but I can dig them out and have a look. Found this that may be of interest as an overview:

http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/mebio.htm

I remember his work can be heavy going but throws out a mixture of ideas which can at the very least, provoke discussion and exploration, which I think is always a good thing. This sentence (from the link I posted) sums up what I remember:

"There has been radical disagreement over his thought, some seeing it as a crucial contribution to the study of religion, and some seeing him as an obscurantist whose normative assumptions are unacceptable"

I seem to recall Nuhad was amongst the latter, so perhaps he will jump in and offer some ideas?
fera

[Nuhad418]

I seem to recall Nuhad was amongst the latter, so perhaps he will jump in and offer some ideas?
fera

I've never had a problem with Eliade. I hated being forced to read him in university but then that is true for most things. The only time I really had contact with his writings was in course on the methodologies of the study of religion and a few anthropology courses. I think his theories are just that and as such they are very useful but can be problematic if taken as ontological truth. Luckily I am too old and bleating to concern myself with apologetics (though Jung and Crowley still have a large part of my goatish heart! lol). DAMN IT...WHY DO WE NOT HAVE A GOAT EMOTICON!?

[m1thr0s]

probably because I haven't seen anything better than this:

http://abrahadabra.com/images/goat01.gif

or similarly...

http://abrahadabra.com/images/goat02.gif

show me a cool goat and we'll hook him up!

m1thr0s

[Nuhad418]

probably because I haven't seen anything better than this:

http://abrahadabra.com/images/goat01.gif

or similarly...

http://abrahadabra.com/images/goat02.gif

show me a cool goat and we'll hook him up!

m1thr0s

Booyah! Sweet ! :rofl: Somewhat reminds me of msn :laugh:

[Nalyd Khezr Bey]

What peaked my interest in Eliade was that his theories regarding the "future shaman" seem akin to the methods of Surrealism, i.e. a deliberate schizophrenia. I first noticed his name and then an anology of his ideas in a book that was attempting to make sense of a large majority of serial killers' obsessions with the idea of transformation, speculating that in more archaic times these people may have played out these fantasies (mutulation, dismemberment, canibalism, etc.) internally and come out the other side transformed as a healer/shaman having integrated the various parts of their scattered psyche, etc. In our time we no longer practice the necessary initiations, the necessary psycho-spiritual exercises, that allow for that... of course, which can lead to someone playing out these dark fantasies existentially and never actually coming to terms with themselves. That is the basic theme in a nutshell that caught my attention. Regarding Eliade's credibility some of you are probably aware of what I tend to gravitate towards and may know that I am not as interested in whether or not what someone says is true or accurate or is acceptable in academic circles. I have seen a lot of that kind of debate regarding Eliade and I find it personally useless. I am more interested in what might be useful in the context of personal experience or inspiration even if it is a total fiction. :)

[Logos]

The Forge and the Crucible and The Sacred and the Profane are the only two books of his that I have read and I can say I enjoyed them both immensely at the time. It's been four years since I've touched Eliade, so I can't say much with absolute certainty. I can, however, say that I don't quite agree with his adaptation of the Jungian paradigm--e.g., working with chemicals in a laboratory was, generally speaking, a means to mystical awareness. I appreciate what he's done and what he has to say, but he's definitely not at the top of my list as far as recommendations go.

-Logos

[deviadah]

Having read The Invisible Landscape by Terence & Dennis McKenna I can add that they quote and paraphrase a lot from Eliade (from Cosmos and history - The sacred and the profane - Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ectasy - Myths, dreams and mysteries and a article in a newspaper that he wrote called Cultural Fashions and History of Religions).

So I haven't read anything directly, but he seems to be a smart person. I like this quote (paraphrased by the McKenna brothers):


"In non-Western cultures, in primitive cultures particularly, humans are not conscious of living in historical time, but regard themselves as inhabiting a numinous sacral time."


What peaked my interest in Eliade was that his theories regarding the "future shaman" seem akin to the methods of Surrealism, i.e. a deliberate schizophrenia.

Yes, that is indeed interesting. I quote again Eliade (this time directly):

"...their [Shamans] psychopathic experience has a theoretical content, for if they have cured themselves and are able to cure others, it is, among other things, because they know the mechanism, or rather, the theory of illness."
It makes sense I think. How can you help people if you haven't suffered from it yourself? And now it is my turn to paraphrase the McKenna brothers by saying that in ur culture the schizophrenic provides a necessary pipeline to the collective unconscious, just as the shaman does in tribal societies.

[Nuhad418]

I just finished teaching a class on Eliade last week. One of the biggest criticisms of him is his view that religion is sui generis. This would imply that religion being unique in and of itself could not be criticised from other perspectives (most obviously feminist critique). Eliade saw that there are uniquely religious experiences and phenomena that are more vital than sociological, economic, or anthropological dimensions. This becomes problematic.

[Coyote426]

His stance on entheogen use in shamanic cultures pisses me off slightly but overall he is essential reading.

[deviadah]

What is this stance?

[Coyote426]

That entheogen using shamanic cultures are degenerate versions of shamanism. While to some extent this may be true, many entheogenic shamanic cultures having been impacted by civilisation in some way, I think it's a little too much of a blanket-statement and shows more of his own bias than anything.