So I was listening to "Out of Your Mind" (a collection of Alan Watts lectures), and felt compelled to share an idea put forth on disc-10: The disc starts out talking about the beginnings of human civilization and how originally, hunter/gatherer cultures tended toward following shamans. After the establishment of agrarian society, the order of priests was established in place of the shaman. He then goes on to discuss Indian society and the role of the shramana (Buddha, for example) serves as sort of a return to the idea of the shaman (which is actually thought to be etymologically related). The shaman and shramana both serve as spiritual guides who have spent much time by themselves--often in the wilderness.

This is quite an interesting connection, especially at a point in history when we could truly appreciate the similarities and potentials of synthesis. Such a primal and wild role as the shaman with such a refined and transcendent role as the shramana. Perhaps our community should consider such things when contemplating our own roles or future roles in our own immediate communities or even in the world at large.

I also find it interesting that Nietzsche's Zarathustra appears in such a role. Upon finishing "Genealogy of Morals," I was left thinking of the potential for a true antipode to the role of priest, as the priest is born of a slavish--though ascetic--inclination (considered in terms of Nietzschean master and slave morality). I began to think that perhaps a shamanistic role was what I was after, but in the truest primal sense, as modern shamans bear much more resemblance to priests. The shaman/sramana is both a master and an ascetic.