Interpretations and substance

When I read about the Munay-Ki rites, a part of me was exited to have the opportunity to receive them, and another was slightly concerned about how they were talked about.

They are described from within a context of taking a sense of separate self as real, as something that needs to be protected, and so on. It doesn’t quite fit in with my Buddhist background, or my other explorations right now.

But at the same time, it is pretty clear that this is just how it is filtered, interpreted and talked about, by this one person, or this one organization. It may not even reflect his own experience of it. It could just be a way of talking about it that is more accessible to most people.

So for instance, when the first rite is described as protection for our individual self, I can appreciate the wisdom in that. Why not protect this human self through shamanic means? We do it daily anyway, in other ways, whether in the context of exclusively identifying with it or not. We eat, put on clothes, seek shelter, go to the doctor, look both ways before crossing the street. So why not also through shamanic means? It is, after all, just the initial rite, with many other ones following.

And the same is the case with the other rites. They are all aimed at transformation at our human or soul levels, so why not? It is just another exploration. Another way to discover what is possible. And it can happen within the context of taking a sense of separate self as real, or not. Either way, it is fine. Even desirable, from relative and conventional views of wanting to support life (minimizing suffering, nudging towards happiness and awakening) and evolution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.