Wednesday 1 June 2011

What is the difference between shamanism and other kinds of teaching?

One key point that defines what shamanism is or isn't.

Shamanism embraces a state of primeval innocence. Moral systems require that one embrace a system of knowledge. Shamanism differs from all other forms of philosophy or ideology that gain their authority on the basis of morality. Shamanism is the recalcitrant younger brother or sister of the system that demands moral authority, because it retains its naivety so as to remain true to itself. Whereas most religious systems proclaim a teaching about what good and evil, shamanism is a return to a state of being wherein such knowledge has not yet come into existence.

Hear Nietzsche, through his "prophet" Zarathustra:

WHEN I VISITED MEN, I FOUND THEM SITTING UPON AN OLD SELF-CONCEIT. EACH ONE THOUGHT HE HAD LONG SINCE KNOWN WHAT WAS GOOD AND EVIL FOR MAN. ALL TALK OF VIRTUE SEEMED TO THEM AN ANCIENT WEARIED AFFAIR; AND HE WHO WISHED TO SLEEP WELL SPOKE OF `GOOD' AND `EVIL' BEFORE RETIRING. I DISTURBED THIS SOMNOLENCE WHEN I TAUGHT THAT NOBODY YET KNOWS WHAT IS GOOD AND EVIL -- UNLESS IT BE THE CREATOR! [Zarathustra].

A shaman embraces "non-knowledge" with regard to everything previously known, in order to open the doors of the perception to the world anew. She in effect creates the world anew through her new manner of perception.

No comments:

Cultural barriers to objectivity