Talk:Nagual

General Comments

The Huichol people of Mexico have lived in the general area of the Sierra Madre Occidental chain, for at least 1800 years, and, throughout that period of time, the spiritual practice of shamanism has remained a fundamental part of Huichol cultural life. In particular, a lesser known type of shamanic practice has also survived into the present, called "nagualism," from Aztec meaning "something hidden." What is hidden from view is a carefully guarded, feared and esoteric spiritual technique, by which, these people believe that they can transform themselves into wolves and back again. This is probably a result of the hallucinogenic plants that they eat, which tend to confuse the issues of reality for these people. Outside of a few western scholars (e.g. Furst, Lemholtz),little of this specialized knowledge and technique has been fathomed into its specific details, and yet, some of its contours can be seen with what has been offered to researchers.

Information collected about nagualism or the rituals for becoming a wolf-shaman accentuates a fundamental knowledge of Huichol creation myths. According to one of its versions, the first people, who were half human and half wolf, lived miserably in darkness and hunger. After some time in that state, their situation was alleviated by Deer Person, Kauyumari, who had allowed himself to be killed by Kumukemai, the Father of the Wolves, and consumed for food. Interestingly, as they ate his body, it turned into the flora, peyote, and thereafter, the wolf people obtained fundamental knowledge about survival. After following the remaining deer out of the darkness into the peyote desert, the birthplace of the sun, the wolves were given the choice of remaining wolves or transforming into humans, of which, Kumukemai agreed to change into a human being. This allowed the deities an opportunity to teach him how to build a number of temples, places at which to offer blood to honor the gods and goddesses for granting the half human half wolf people the knowledge of healing, rainmaking, growing maize and hunting deer.

With this story in mind, we can begin to see how fundamental the relationship was formed between the wolves and the deer, a type of which, is based on a fellowship of reciprocity. Because of his self sacrifice, in other words, the wolves were saved from starvation, and, concomitantly, it became their obligation to ritually protect and uphold that sacred relationship or covenant. It is both a means of thanking the deer (or Game Master) for offering themselves as a continual source of food, and, as a blood sacrifice from the mixed bloods (wolf-human people) to the deities, to ensure the growth of agriculture (e.g. maize) and need for rain.

Now when the peyote heart was consumed, a fundamental and mysterious union was formed between the wolf people and the realm of the gods. It is exactly in this connection that Huichol initiates must recapitulate in order to become a wolf-shaman. Roughly taking six to ten years to complete, and, most of the time under frightening conditions, it is a task to be taken seriously, for if it is not done so, could eventually lead the initiate into serious personal harm and danger.

Again, the process of becoming a wolf, more or less, involves a ritual re-enactment of themes from this Huichol myth. The amount of shrines an initiate must visit corresponds to the same number of different colors wolves can be found to exist in that part of the world. Because each color represents a different degree of power, strength and wisdom, they are arranged in a heirarchy, from red as the lowest level, to that of the highest level of shrine represented by multicolored wolves. At all of these color coordinated shrines the goal is to develop a working relationship with the wolf spirits who variously offer tests of courage, not the least, of which, the initiate is eventually taken into their den by actual living wolves, to prepare him or her for the actual transformation into a wolf.

Here, at the highest level of initiation, atop the sixth (roughly around the sixth year of initiation), the wolves wait for the arrival of the moon, under which, to tell him or her to ceremoniously bath with a jamol plant, and, in two more weeks, during a full moon, the initiate is to do five somersaults, after which, he or she amazingly turns into a wolf.

It is at this point during the transformation that the wolf-shaman is not only given the opportunity to test the physical limits of his or her new body-to try his or her ability at catching a deer and digesting it raw-but, also, to ceremoniously appropriate a portion of the kill back to the ancestor gods, the mystical and original source of game animals. By offering certain portions of the deer-heart and blood-to the spirits of Kauyumari, the Deer Peyote Person, Kumukemai, the Wolf Father, Tatewari, the Great Transformer (allows the wolf-shamans to eat meat raw) or patron of hunting arts, and Takutsi, Grandmother Growth, not only accentuates the degree of indebtedness of that ageless bond, but, also, signals that the initiation process is complete, and, that he or she can become a wolf at will-although each period of transformation can only last for five days at a time, after which, the wolf must resume its human form-lest, remain solely as a wolf forever.

In conclusion, wolf-shamanism or nagualism, is an astute blend of myth, covenant and ritual for transformation. It is a reminder of the cultural richness and breadth of Huichol spiritual life, par excellence.

Bibliography:

Schaefer and Furst. People of the Peyote. Huichol Indian History, Religion and Survival. Univ. of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1996

Bernstein, Susan ed. Mirror of the Gods: Proceedings on the Huichol Indians. 1989

Larsen, Stephen. The Shaman's Doorway. Station Hill Press. New York. 1988

Vandalism in w

In the spanish version of this page, one subject begin to put bad references. In this case was the W reference ( nawal ), is a wrong spelling promoted by FDH, Frank Diaz Herrera, and the term Nawalli have not any reference in PAPER. Please check the spanish vandalism case,or the profiles of FDH and Darakan--Darakan

I was wondering what the differing words for sorcerer were in Mexico. According to my Nahuatl or Aztecan language dictionary (edition Hermin Ferrera,) there are more words for sorcerer than there are any for magician. One word, (sp?) cuihuatl, refers to sorcerer. Another, Naguales could be etymologically linked to the modern word Nahual. Is there a difference in meaning? My dictionary does not define the words separately from the Spanish for Brujo or Brujero, but definitively, both words mean "sorcerer," and not "magician." What is a magician, if not a sorcerer, and what other folklore is available on this subject? Has anyone read much of the literature in anthropology for this subject?

Nagual Band

Nagual is a psycho-folk band from Belorus Republic as well. Know more at http://nagualia.net/.

Merger

support Two spellings for the same idea. I've seen it more commonly with a "g" in both English and Spanish, so I think it should get merged here.--Rockero 04:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

support I'd agree that Nagual should be the destination.--cjllw | TALK 09:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

support Carlos Castaneda uses both meanings presented here as Nahual and Nagual and spells them both as Nagual. Unless there are other more serious anthropological studies that suggest they have separate origins, I would say the two articles should be combined.It appears to me by reading these articles that both concepts could have derived from a same central belief and the difference is due to distance of peoples separated by natural barriers. That they are spelled differently does not make too much difference, as they would have become a Spanish loan-word from a native language that is pre-literate. I also have a preference that, unless shown false or unable to be referenced, the excellent history of the word on this talk page be included in the merged article as appropriate. L. Greg 21:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

support (but split)I suppose I can concede as do you make a good point esp. about including the history of the word on this talk page. At the same time I believe it important to make a clear distinction between the modern New Age definition and the older anthropological definitions.--Cyberhero 03:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

commentInterestingly, this article mentions a late 19'th century book that references Nahual in a manner similar to the one Castaneda meaning of 'a person of power' and in the article itself it mentions something similar to the earlier Castaneda contrast of 'tonal' (our normal world) and 'nagual' (a world containing the tonal but which also contains those things which can't be expressed in language). L. Greg 06:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Support. It is extremely important that Castanedas ideas be kept separate from the concepts of mesoamerican religion since they are not really related at all. This, however, could be done by a different distinction than between nahual/nagual. I would propose that this article be renamed into somethin like Nagual (Castaneda) or Nagual (New Age). The same was done with the article on the Toltecs, where there is now an article on the actual Toltecs and another on Toltec (Castaneda).Maunus 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to support because I have now split out Castañeda related material into its own article at Nagual (Castañeda). Nagual is the most commonly used spelling for the concept in mesoamericanistics so I think both concepts should be treated here.

Oppose Nahual in this entry should be more about the supernatural shapeshifting spirit that is believed to exist in some areas of rural Mexico. Examples of Nahuales are like warewolves or vampire bats, though the larger meaning would encompass "Spirit Animals". Nagual, on the other hand, is part of the same cultural traditions but is not the same thing. Naguales are healers, witchdoctors, sorcerers, "Men of knowledge". Though some naguales may claim that they can transform into nahuales or have the knowledge to create nahuales, the definitions are clearly distinct. I think this entry should definitely be cleaned up as it does confuse these two DIFFERENT ideas, but given that these two different entities are NOT the same, the articles should not be merged. P.S.- The Indian tribe spelled "Yaki" on this page is wrong. It is spelled "Yaqui". ~~Flora (This comment by USer:65.98.196.2 moved here from Talk:Nahual)

oppose There are no references to Nahual in the books by Carlos Castaneda. There are references to the believe that Nagualist can shape shift, though this would not conform to the definition of shape shifting into werewolves or vampires. It should not be assumed that there is a bodily transformations from a man into any creature by Naguals. These transformations are due to a shift in consciousness or perception. movements of the assemblage point either through heightened awareness or dreaming. These are the actions of the 'double", a spiritual self that can be witnessed by those in ordinary life. Other transformations were also cited in the text including transformations into inorganic beings similar to allies and entities.--76.235.43.50 (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

oppose It is arguable whether or not Nahual and Nagual are the same idea. No one has any proof that the two words have the same origin. It is possible that the words sound the same and have similar meanings but are not the same thing. To be truly accurate we would have to speak to a Mesoamerican shaman practitioner who is versed in this sort of thing. Other wise all we have is second hand knowledge and it would be wise to at least make clear the various distinctions between these two words. (This anonymnous comment was posted by User:207.255.30.159)

Support Your contributors seem to be unaware that standardized spelling is a fairly modern invention. The early Spaniards had several letters they could chose from to "spell" newly encountered indigenous words. Indeed, attested forms for this word include not only "Nagual" and Nahual" but, "Xagual" as well, (see From The Doc below). (signed: James B Porter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.140 (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose: please read my entry in this talk page (found below) titled: "Correction needed on this Article's Title. "Nahual" is the correct version, "Nagual" is cultural appropriation." Thank you.

Rewrite

I got really tired of looking at both of those really misinforming pages and boldly rewrote the whole thing and completed the merger. In doing so I put the Castañeda related material in a new article called Nagual (Castañeda). I think this puts us a step forward.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good call, Maunus.--cjllw | TALK 01:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nagualism and/or Zen

Apithecanthropus Apithecanthropus (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The tabletop metaphor, or analogy, depending on whether you give it credit for moving parts, of the Tonal is much like the Self in the 'Nothingness' of Zen.

The 'Nothingness' of Zen is not nothing. Nothing is quantifiable, definable. Nothingness, like the Nagual, is indefinable because that which can be anything is nothing in particular.

The Tonal is not separate from the Nagual, as the Self is not separate in the universe of Nothingness. And as such it too, in the constant course of change, is nothing in particular as something that can be anything.

Metaphysics is not required for this. Just physics, as it is known that atoms are constantly changing, degrading, into other kinds of atoms that will join to reform matter, endlessly.

The metaphysical aspect is the same for both Zen and Nagualism in ascribing force or control to a single Universal Consciousness.

What can be accepted or not, agreed with or not, as you please, is that for Sorcerers or for those of Zen, both the physical and metaphysical are equally real. Whether in the physical world, or in meditative visions, what we experience is equally real to us.

In the physical world, only the physical world is real. In visions, only the metaphysical world is real. It takes some getting used to, and whether you call it meditation or dreaming is just, you know, a word or two.

To Apithecanthropus

Are you going to give us a lecture & philosophical poetic dribble; Or are you going to discuss the wikipedia topic?

-Bill-

Monday June 16, 2008

To Apithecanthropus

Where can I get some of what you're smoking? (James B Porter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.139 (talk) 02:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

............

The Tonal and the Nagual exist simultaneously, concurrently. The differences being that the Tonal is available to and experienced by all men and manifests itself as reality. The Nagual however can only be perceived by seers and dreamers and those they assist in their seeing and dreaming (apprentices), it has the equivalence of a spiritual realm containing multiple realities overlaying the commonly perceived reality called the Tonal.

Some of the ways Nagualism is liken to Zen or Buddhism are: The practice of not doing and gazing, acceptance of the folly of life, detachment, losing the human form and the awareness of the Eagle or Nagual as spiritual ascension. The riggers of the Nagualist philosophy also approach the difficulties found in ascetic teachings with differing emphasis.--76.235.43.50 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

To UTC

Would love to see your sources! (JBP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.142.122 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Knowl?

All I want to know is why Knowl redirects to this article. The article makes no reference to anything called a "Knowl".

-Knowl- Saturday October 4, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge Incarnate (talk • contribs) 10:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Theres no reason. I've nominated the redirect for deletion. Maunus (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Donkey Versus Owl

Someone changed the animal from "Donkey" to "Owl" but left no explanation or citation yet. Can anyone confirm which is correct?

-Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 06:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The most common is donkey I will source this to Nutini& Roberts later today. ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Donkeys didn't come to America until Columbus brought them here in 1495. Dubious that mesoamerican religion would feature an animal that didn't exist in their hemisphere. Since someone bothered to make this change, maybe they had a reason... True (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC) True (talk) 08:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The ref checks out - donkey is correct see here. Mesoamerican culture has had 500 years to assimilate old world animals into its beliefs. Simon Burchell (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

This article attempts to imply that there exist modern day practices of nagualism that have decended directly from those described in pre-columbian writings, however, I know of no reliable sources that have ever documented such a connection. Without any reliable sources to support such a claim, the statement should be deleted post-haste. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 03:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That is ridiculous there are loads of ethnographic sources that make this connection - except for the few attempts to link nagualism with european medieval witchcraft - which have been quite thoroughly refuted - it is simply accepted as fact by mesoamerican scholars that there is a direct link between modern nagualism and precolumbian belief systems. If you want to introduce an element of doubt then the burden of evidence that nagualism is not seen as a continuous mesoamerican practice in the field of mesoamericanists is on you: the buklk of ethnographical and ethnohistorical schlars seem to be convinced that it is the case.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with Maunus. A brief search of the literature can turn up refs. Miller & Taube in An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya ISBN 0-500-27928-4, p.122 has:

"Although the concept of nahual recalls European concepts of witchcraft, it is clealy of native origin..."

Simon Burchell (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the feedback, though not so much the condesension. I think you guys are misunderstanding me, but the misunderstanding could well be mine. I freely admit (and admitted) my ignorance on the subject and am hoping to verify that what I'm reading here is accurate. Could someone please provide a readily attainable source to support the statement that there is a connection between ancient and modern-day practices of nagualism? You see, what I'm actually questioning is whether there exist any modern day practicing naguals at all. So, in fact, any text that documents the practices of a modern day practicing Nagual would satisfy me. Thanks. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 20:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the perceived, but unintentional condesension. I don't know what sources you consider readily attainable but the "Dictionary Gods and Symbols ..." is a standard handbook. Other studies such as those mentioned in the article by Nutini, Stratmeyer and Kaplan document the beliefs of Nagualism in modern mesoamerican comminties based on ample fieldwork. However your question about reports of a modern practicing nahgual is a little besides the point. Nagualism is a beliefsystem - the sources report that there is a popular belief in many mesoamerican communities in the existence of naguales and a popular belief about what being a nagual is and is not. Obviously people are not actually capable of changing into animal form - but sometimes their neighbors think that they are and treat them as if they are (this is well documented e.g. for the Jacaltec community by Stratmeyer). Your question is like asking whether we could prive that there was actual practicing witches in medieval europe - there wasn't - but there was a popular belief of witchcraft and people were treated differently when their neighbors believed them to be witches. I think that it may be understood in this way (it is original reasearch so don´t put it in the article): Precolumbian nagualism was a shamanistic practices where shamans would claim to be able to change shapes into animals and perform "dream journeys" in animal form. (Plenty of preconquest iconography show shapeshifting shamans)In postconquest mesoamerica this practice was seen as diabolical and the shamanistic practice dissapeared but the belief that some people still practiced the old ways and were able to cause harm to other in their animal forms continued, now in the guise of a witchcraft belief system where people would accuse eachother of being naguales, but no one (or hardly anyone, there are repors of modern day shamanistic practices in the mixe area )was actually practicing the shamanist part of the tradition.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A search for the term nagualismo in GoogleBooks will turn up multiple, readable anthropological works that document and describe the continuation of the practice and belief in contemporary mesoamerican communities. Good examples would be Garry Gossen's Telling Maya Tales, and A. James Arnold's Monsters, Tricksters, and Sacred Cows.

Likewise due apologies for any perceived condescension, that was certainly not my intention. As an aside, when doing internet searches, it's best to try various spellings since at least 3 are in reasonably common use: nagual, nahual and nawal. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Read, Tedlock, Barbara 1982, Time and the Highland Maya, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. This is the most reliable, and least cited, source on modern Maya calendar religion. Tedlock discusses the office and role of modern Maya Nagualli. (James B Porter) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.207.139 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Mimbres fantastic animal-people as naguals?

Has anyone seen anything published linking Mimbres culture, and other similar prehistoric pottery from the SW US, to the nagual tradition? It seems like an obvious link.

Huh. I can only find one Mimbres pottery photo at Commons, and no SW nagual-analogs. But see, forex, the third bowl here.

Incidentally, there's a nice Tonala nagual plate at [1]. I'll ask the photographer for permission to use it here, as we currently have no contemporary nagual photos. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From the Doc

The following comments were left in the actual article, however they belong here in the discussion section so I'm pasting them here for the good doctor. I would like to note for Dr. Porter, should he return, that wikipedia is edited by multiple authors and as long as he can cite valid sources then all of this can be fixed. -Knowl -<(I am questing for Knowledge!) (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(This article has several disturbing qualities which the author refuses to correct:

1. The confusion between the Tonal (the day spirit proper) and the Nagual (the day spirit's animal familiar) exhibited in this article is unique to the fictionalized, and very funny, account of an apprentice to an indigenous religious practitioner presented in the work of Carlos Castenada.

2. Rather than address the culture historical issues leading to the translation of the term, as 'Transforming Witch', the author has simply removed references to the Nagual as an indigenous religious official who works with a Familiar spirit or Power animal, (Tedlock, Barbara 1982: 'Time and the Highland Maya', New Mexico University Press, Albuquerque). The accusations of 'witchcraft' (which western religious/civil authorities have directed against Indigenous religious practitioners for the past 500 years) have far more to do with Christian/European ethnocentrism than with the true role of such specialists.

3. The author clearly prefers the notion that the Nagual concept is an import from Spain and will not acknowledge the widespread Indigenous belief in personal, clan and national Tutelary spirits in animal form, (the indigenous matrix from which the nagual concept ultimately arises). Further, the author provides no social mechanism for the introduction of a foreign 'werewolf' concept from Spain. To what part of Spain is this concept endemic? How was the concept forced upon the new (and unwilling) converts? Indigenous religion is quite resilient and continues to survive alongside various versions of Abrahamic religion.

3a. Many of your contributers seem to have a direct and remarkable insight into the intentions of dead artists from (pre and non-literate) cultures which are not their own. Without speaking to the artist, how is it possible to assert that any precolumbian art works 'depict' or 'represent' a Nagual?! Further, your contributors claim that Olmec artists depict people 'transforming into animals'. The Olmec did not have motion pictures. How do your contributors know these depictions represent process as opposed to status? Where is the Olmec text which identifies these depictions of people with animal characteristics as depictions of 'transforming witches'?

I have no problem with the obvious indigenous nature of the Nagual concept. However, I do have serious problems with people who make completely unfounded and untestable claims about indigenous art and its meanings! Assertion may create "truth" in politics, crime and magick, but assertion does not create truth in science!

4. The widespread conception of the Nagual as a particular organism which shares a single soul and life with a particular person, a 'spiritual symbiot', does not appear at all in this article (Laughlin, Robert 1976: 'Of Wonders Wild and New, dreams from Zinacantan' Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology #22, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. Voight, Evon 1969: 'Zinacantan, a Maya community in the highlands of Chiapas', Harvard University Press, Cambridge).

An example from a first contact situation: A female servant of the Kan Ek' of Tayasil, 'was a great "magician" and "witch", whom he had instructed in his "diabolical cult", treating her, as it were, like a priestess.' When asked, by the Spaniards, where she was coming from, she replied: 'it was from seeing the Xagual (her suitor) who always came out to visit at the shore of the lake, [[[Lake Peten Itza]]], in the form of a "lion" or "tiger", and presented her with "rabbits", "pheasants" and other fowel and game. [Note how all of these animals are indigenous to the Old World. Even in 1701 the Spaniards did not know where they were!] She refused to conduct the Spaniards to him, for, if they killed him she herself would die.' (Juan de Villagutierre y Soto-Mayor 1701: 528-529. Historia de la conquista de la provincia de Itza, Madrid).

Here, we also have clearly documented testimony that the bond between the person and the nagual is one of love.

5. The article presents a restrictive and narrow view of one of the most important and complex of Native American religious concepts, the spiritual unity of all life. Much of the existing article is based upon Church polemics, Western works of fiction, armchair theorizing and cultural ignorance! Indigenous religion and people deserve fair and full treatment by someone without a religious/cultural ax to grind! --James B Porter BA. MA. PhD.)

A valuable reference for those discussing this subject.

By Daniel G. Brinton, published 1894, Nagualism A Study in Native American Folk-lore and History

Nagualism by Daniel G. Brinton

About Mr. Brinton

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_G._Brinton

--Toltec Guardian 13:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Its already in the bibliography.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Brinton is the first blind groping, not the final enlightenment on Nagualli! (JBP) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.132.142.122 (talk) 21:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

image problems

So I attached an image to the article, but I am unable to see it on my work computer. It works on other comptuers. Is anybody else having problems seeing this? If I can't fix it and others are unable, I'll take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snickeringshadow (talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see the image just fine. Maybe the problem is with your PC? Simon Burchell (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why does it say Nagualism made pacts with the devil and link to European folklore?

That's really confusing. It's already established as a Pre-Columbian Native American practice, so is this wikipedia article trying to tell me that the Christian devil was an accepted fact of Native American religious traditions?

Edit: I just read the cited source and specific page, they make no mention of a devil on that page at all. I decided to not try to change anything, since your moderators here act like hateful bullies intimidating people with suspensions and bans for any amount of factual evidence given with criticisms against their beliefs. In any case, Page 43 doesn't say anything about Naguals and only mentions Nahuals and doesn't specify anything about devil worship of any kind. It says there's male and female Nahual names and that the superstitions preach that theirs a tradition that changing into animals is passed down from family or by someone who willingly or is coercively forced to teach it (specifically in its captured animal form) according to the book.

https://books.google.com/books?id=dJt24_8iKbwC&pg=PA39&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false --69.126.88.42 (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Spurious Castaneda quote

I removed a spurious Castanada quotation which was actually sourced to somebody's self-published blog. Can't find the first part of the sentence in Castaneda or any reliable source, only Wikiclones. Skyerise (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Correction needed on this Article's Title. "Nahual" is the correct version, "Nagual" is cultural appropriation.

Greetings,

I would like to draw attention to an issue concerning the article title and pronunciation of the term "Nahual". Currently, the article is merged under the title "Nagual," which, I would like to explain here why it is an inaccurate representation of the term's origin and correct pronunciation. As a native Spanish speaker with knowledge of Mesoamerican and Aztec cultures, I would like to provide a more precise understanding of this matter, including sources to back up these statements, which are mentioned close to the end.

The term in question derives from the Nahuatl language, where the original word to describe the creature or shape-shifting person is "Nahualli" (not nahual, and not nagual) and it's primary meaning is "sorcerer" or "shapeshifter." Therefor, the closest word to the real word, would be Nahual (with an 'H', and not 'G') which means "to transform". I would like to emphasize that "Nagual" with a 'G' is a mispronunciation that emerged during the early colonial period when Spanish-speaking colonizers and priests encountered the term Nahualli or Nahual. This mispronunciation, worth considering, likely arose in the context of accusations of native sorcery made to Catholic priests (provided the common sense notion that the term Nahual had no other common reason to be verbally repeated in Spanish language at that time) who, as a well known fact, strictly prohibited shamanism or any similar practices, during this historical period in which said colonizers were in the process of oppressively forcing the natives to quit their traditions, beliefs, religion, etc.

As mentioned previously, the mispronunciation of "Nahual" as "Nagual" by native Spanish speakers is a result of phonetic adaptation or assimilation, a common occurrence when people of any given native language, encounter foreign words. "Phonetic adaptation or assimilation" refers to the process by which speakers modify the pronunciation of foreign words to conform to the phonetic patterns and sounds of their native language.

Moreover, it is crucial to acknowledge that the terms "Nahualli," and consequently "Nahual," hold exclusive significance within, and pertain exclusively to Mesoamerican and Aztec beliefs. This term is deeply rooted in the spiritual and cultural traditions of these indigenous cultures. Therefore, to preserve the integrity, accuracy of the subject matter, and even to at least show respect to these cultures who were in fact victims of severe colonizer oppression (pillaging, gold theft, countless cases of rape, executions, deceit, etc.) it is essential to use the term closest to its original form, which is "Nahual" (with an 'h'), and not the mispronunciation of adopted by their oppressors.

In light of all this, it goes without saying how this is an example of cultural appropriation, on behalf of the colonizers of that time. Cultural appropriation refers to the 'adoption, borrowing, or imitation of elements from a marginalized culture by members of a dominant or privileged culture without proper understanding, respect, or acknowledgment of the cultural significance or context. In this case, the mispronunciation and subsequent use of "Nagual" instead of "Nahual" by Spanish colonizers and priests can be seen as an example of cultural appropriation, as it disregards the authentic linguistic and cultural origins of the term, and even distorts its meaning and significance.

Using the term "Nahual" instead of "Nagual" is not only a matter of linguistic accuracy but also an act of respect towards the Mesoamerican cultures that endured severe oppression, pillaging, rapes, torture, and slavery. By adopting the correct term, we acknowledge and honor the rich spiritual and cultural traditions of these indigenous communities that were targeted and marginalized during the colonial period. It is a small but meaningful step towards reclaiming their identity and ensuring that their heritage is recognized and valued with the dignity it deserves. Choosing to use "Nahual" demonstrates a commitment to rectifying historical injustices and promotes a respectful portrayal of these cultures.

For further verification and support of these claims, the website [2] provides valuable information on the translation, etymology, and cultural significance of the term. One specific source worth referencing is Katarzyna Mikulska Dabrowska's article, "'Secret Language' in Oral and Graphic Form: Religious-Magic Discourse in Aztec Speeches and Manuscripts," published in Oral Tradition 25:3 (2010), pages 325–363, where she explores the multifaceted nature of the term "Nahualli" within Aztec discourse.

In conclusion, I propose that the article title be revised to reflect the original and accurate form of the term as "Nahual," and that its pronunciation and cultural origins be appropriately highlighted within the article. This adjustment will not only ensure the scholarly integrity of the information presented but also demonstrate our commitment to respecting the indigenous heritage and linguistic nuances associated with the subject matter.

Thank you for considering these points, and I welcome further discussion and collaboration on this topic.

Sincerely, Roberto Carrillo 186.15.130.237 (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

Your beef is not with us. This is English Wikipedia: we use words as they are added to the English language dictionaries by Oxford and Merriam-Webster. The English spelling of the word is "nagual". Many words are spelled differently in English than they were in their language of origin. This is not some sinister intentional "cultural appropriation". If you insist on tilting at windmills, your opponents are the dictionary producers, not Wikipedia, which simply follows Oxford and Websters, as it should do. Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore your little "funny" mocking tone and point you to search for the word Nahual with an H in the Merrian Webster dictionary. It is there. Simple as that. 186.15.130.237 (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll ignore your arrogant, intentionally provocative tone (complete with shouting in bold), and point you to Encyclopedia Britannica, which also titles their article "Nagual". Skyerise (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

P.S. "our commitment" - are you a Wikipedia editor? What's your user name? Oh, you haven't made major contributions to Wikipedia? How dare you use the word "our" if you haven't. Skyerise (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)a

Can "nahual" be mentioned as an alternate name? It redirects to this page, so may be the best solution. Instead of arguing maybe working together would be better, and if anyone needs an anger-thing look at the short descriptor and first sentence or two when the word Witch is sought for on Wikipedia. 186, you seem interested enough to claim Wikipedian status, so please consider choosing a name and come on board for some editing. Better than pancakes (well, maybe not, but up there somewhere). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. I've done so. Skyerise (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Though perhaps it should be moved to werecreature so it can be generalized to all cultures. Skyerise (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Skyerise. Do you mean move the entire article there or just the descriptor? Since werecreature is a red link perhaps at least redirect it somewhere. (186, if you pick a name choose one you'd like to keep for awhile, as once you dip a toe into Wikipedia that toe is pretty solidly connected). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where we would redirect 'werecreature'. But the fact remains that tales of sorcerous transformation into animals are a worldwide phenomena, not something invented by the Nāhualli. It's a part of global culture, and it seems that our article on the subject should ultimately reflect this. Oppression of people who claim these abilities has also been (at least historically) global, e.g. European and American witch trials often mention that the accused must be a witch based on reports of animal transformations. Skyerise (talk) 14:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Aside from a full article it could also be used as a Category:Werecreature, as looking at a few of the were-animal articles there seems no central collection category. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is definitely a needed category! Skyerise (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2023 (UTC)r

Please do the honors as you came up with the word. Also nice to show 186 what Wikipedia collabs accomplish. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I hope they are still paying attention. Skyerise (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)