What is wrong with the new age movement?

[dwai]

So it seems at least to me that people dont like the new age movement. I was wondering what is wrong with it and what are the thought on this board about it?

 

The problem with the New Age movement is that it appropriates knowledge and repackages it (with intent to sell) without acknowledgment or with a dismissive attitude towards the source. Or worse, with charlatans posing to be "Masters" of this tradition of that.

 

Instead of jumping around from one tradition to another like crows, one should focus on one system and continue down that line.

[gossamer]

Dear Tao Bums Friends,

 

Here's a post that I did a couple of months ago over at 'Dao is Open Forums'.

 

I personally think that it's funny, although no one at DiO seemed to think that!

 

See what YOU think...........gossamer

 

 

 

 

Dear Dao Friends,

 

In the Summer of 1987, I lived on a neo-pagan/"new age" (mostly) commune called 'Cerren Ered' (which supposedly in Welsh, means "Red Dragon").

 

I was then in my mid 30's, and still in pretty good shape, the illness from being sprayed by a crop duster was already in my body, but had not manifested YET.

 

To give understanding to this story, I must explain a little bit about the Eastern Band of Cherokees. When the U.S. Cavalry (or more like early U.S. Army troops) came to take the Cherokee people of Eastern Tennessee and North Carolina captive, and began to lead them on the Trail of Tears to what is now Oklahoma, some of the Cherokee people escaped to the high parts of the Great Smoky Mountains and were protected (according to their legends) by a huge dragon called Uktena (pronounced "ook-te-nah"). In Eastern Tennessee folklore and Cherokee historial legends, the last time that Uktena was actually seen was in the mid-1800s.

 

So this sort of tells you that these people who operated this commune venerated reptilian beings, including snakes, and this mostly had to do with the dragon, Uktena.

 

Now one bright sunny day when I was off of work, I was using an outdoor shower (these people had a double-stall outdoor shower for use by their members and visitors) and I walked into the shower stall and there was one of the hugest Cottonmouth's (or Water Moccasin's) that I had ever seen, and it opened its mouth and hissed at me with its head sort of standing off the ground, kind of like a small Cobra. It then darts back under the visqueen that surrounded the shower. So I get out of the shower buck-naked and wander around looking for a big stick, and I pull more visqueen off the water heater for the shower, and there is a whole nest of Water Moccasins!! I took the stick, killed one more big one (not the same one that hissed at me though) and probably 4 smaller Water Moccasins. The big one that was in the shower stall got away, even though I chased after it.

 

I went to find fellow commune member who was also off work that day to tell him what I had done. He immediately came to the shower stall and we went around to the water heater, and he is completely freaking out that I killed the snakes. Not only is he freaking out, and in hyerstics, but he's near to crying.

 

Now I should stop and say here that I don't even kill insects if I can avoid it. I might kill a Black Widow or Brown Recluse spider if they're inside a house where I live, but that's really about it.

 

I never step on an insect if I can avoid it, and I consciously TRY to avoid it.

 

Now, this is the same reason I killed these snakes. Multiple numbers of people per day used these shower stalls with a nest of Water Moccasins within a couple of feet from where they were showering, and sometimes people showered there at night even.

 

So, my friend and fellow commune member is freaking out over me killing the snakes and talking about how I am going to destroy the dragon power of the place, and on and on and on and on.

 

OK, so fast forward to the commune owners coming home later in the afternoon after work. By then, the whole commune is buzzing about me killing the snakes and what a wicked person I was for killing the snakes, and how the gods are going to be upset with me for doing so, etc., etc.

 

The lady who owned the land had a chat with her spirit guides, who informed her that I had done the right thing by killing the snakes, and I wasn't going to offend the spirits of the land, etc. But I might add that during this lecture that she also informed us that the lady next door who lived perhaps a mile away, had been bitten the previous summer by a Copperhead, and had spent 6 MONTHS in the hospital. The owner said if someone who was living in our commune got bitten by a poisonous snake, that they could possibly have a lawsuit filed against them for it.

 

To any snake-lovers on this list, I would have never killed these snakes were they not poisonous, and in close proximity to where people showered daily, nor have I ever killed any other snakes except poisonous ones who were also in very close proximity to my family or me.

 

I don't know if this shows you the kind of crazy comedy that went on with new age or neo-pagan people or not, but I think this is a good example of people basically doing crazy shit and trying to support their madness because of their new age beliefs.

 

In closing, I would like to say that I personally believe the stories about Uktena and how he helped the Cherokees hide high in the Great Smoky Mountains, which is where the descendants of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians came from.

 

So not to negate history, but just to point out how zany the new age could be, here's a story from long ago that shows the zaniness of some people's beliefs.

 

If I was in the same situation tomorrow, I would do the same thing all over again. To let poisonous snakes be within a foot or two of people who where showering is nutty, and I think anybody who is in their right mind would understand this.

 

Peace, gossamer

[Spectrum]

PR? ...

 

7qEwHfMApSQ

[Mal]

[altiora]

I'm flexible about the New Age movement. It has opened people up to influences that they mightn't otherwise been exposed to.

 

But there are two problems I do have with the "movement" or more correctly particular persons I have met:

 

1. Superficiality -- Certain New Age "dabblers" think that one can "take what one needs" from various religious/spiritual traditions and debunk the rest. Yes one should be open minded and critical, but religious/spiritual systems require a lifetime of practice. Unless you commit to that you can't do themk justice or given them the respect they deserve.

 

My experience is that some New Agers don't have the work or intellectual capacity to seriously engage in the religions/spiritual practices they proclaim to follow. To make matters worse some do then claim superior knowledge on the basis of their superficial approach. When you do try to debate with them, you get this "oh you're just stuck in the brain centred western culture; whereas I've higher wisdom from my heart and intutition centres" response.

 

These sorts of attitudes are sadly encouraged by the vast numbers of (more often than not) vacuous New Age books that are pumped out every year. It's sort of like New Agism has become some big free market where there is a price for everything, nothing has lasting value, and the customer is always right.

 

Recently at a reiki workshop I attended, this burly bloke stood up and said to the group "I'm certainly not a Christian [which was said with palpable disgust I might add]; I'm a Buddhist". Not sure why he considered this necessary to say this in the first place -- it wasn't as if we were asked to proclaim our faith. Anyway I had a chat to him about his beliefs afterwards to find that he knew nothing about Christianity or Buddhism. It was all just ego dressing. It does raise the issue of how thrilled I would be (if I were a Buddhist who studied the teachings and practiced every day) to have people like him wandering around proclaiming they are Buddhist. I don't think it is right to appropriate "tags" and knowledge if one hasn't made the sacrifices and hardwork to justify it.

 

I know quite a few Sri Lankan Buddhists and Indian Hindus who have a mixture of amusement and disgust at some of the attitudes of western "adherents" to their spiritual traditions: they remark that whereas they try to "live" their traditions and don't claim to know very much about them (which in my experience is very often not true), the western adherents seem to "wear" the tradition and will pontificate about it at a drop of a hat.

 

2. Arrogance and intolerance -- As a corporate lawyer who has returned back to his father's Orthodox Christian roots, I've received a fair share of "you're an unevolved money chaser who supports a religion that burnt, tortured etc etc" from New Agers. At this yoga studio I would attend after work, I would get this look of distate and "who's that stranger" when I walked through the door. It was then followed by a very cold shoulder and exclusion from their little clique. The attitude was "this place isn't for your type". It seems to be that New Agism has become a sort of ghetto in which its inhabitants feel smugly superior to everyone else and exclude anyone who they don't consider to be their type.

 

Some New Agers just don't realise (unlike the Taoists) that the real spiritual warriors are those out there who try to apply their spiritual principles whilst engaged in the community and everyday life, earning a living, and contributing to society. A spiritual warrior is not one who spends life continually hanging out in communes and meditation/yoga retreats. Spirituality is not "bliss" escapism but rather hard work and uninhibited engagment with the grit of life.

 

As I've tried to emphasise my comments shouldn't be taken as suggesting that all New Agers are like this. But in my experience, an awfully large number seem to be so.

[xakarii]

Two words.

 

Placebo effect.

 

 

It's like Don Juan says in Carlos Castenada's books. Clarity obscures truth.

 

Your beliefs can become like a cage, if you're no longer able to question them.

[Anabhogya-Carya]

 

 

Instead of jumping around from one tradition to another like crows, one should focus on one system and continue down that line.

 

I disagree. Why limit yourself to one thing when many traditions and philosophies have much to offer? The Jains teach the concept of Anekantavada in which all views contain some truth and no view has a monopoly on all truth. All traditions and philosophies are crafted to some extent by synthesis, why should that be closed once they are formed?

[dwai]

I disagree. Why limit yourself to one thing when many traditions and philosophies have much to offer? The Jains teach the concept of Anekantavada in which all views contain some truth and no view has a monopoly on all truth. All traditions and philosophies are crafted to some extent by synthesis, why should that be closed once they are formed?

 

I have never seen a Jain practicing anything other than those within their own tradition (be it digambar or shwetambar).

 

You will find the same thing echoed in the Vedic statement - "Ekam sat Vipraha bahuda vadanti" (The existent is one, different people call it by different names).

 

But that doesn't mean it's good for the seeker to keep jumping from one branch to another. Consider this...When you haven't reached mastery within even one branch, how would you know it's time for you to change your branch?

 

It is important to find a good lineage and a good teacher. It is important for the cup to be empty before it can be filled by a teacher.

 

It is not for the reason of exclusivity that the sages recommended sticking to one system and learning it really well. It is to avoid what could be considered spiritual indigestion and heartburn. Infact the beauty of the Dharmic traditions (I consider Taoism to be one of these) is that there is no such claim to authenticity or exclusivity. They simply provide you a way -- if you follow it, you will reap the benefits.

[Magda]

I just thought that if it's true that there is karma, then it makes no sense for us to discuss New Age... We can only hope to get lucky if our karma is good enough, and no matter how much better than New Agers we think, we may never get lucky enough with previous karma to achieve what we want.

[altiora]

I disagree. Why limit yourself to one thing when many traditions and philosophies have much to offer? The Jains teach the concept of Anekantavada in which all views contain some truth and no view has a monopoly on all truth. All traditions and philosophies are crafted to some extent by synthesis, why should that be closed once they are formed?

 

 

Not sure I agree with you. I know that there are records of quite a few Chinese and Japanese students who changed between the various schools of Buddhism and Taoism, but ONLY after many decades of practice and after having attained some considerable measure of success.

 

The Jain approach I think has more to do with their famous pacifism: why fight over spiritual matters when they're trying to express the same sort of aspirations.

 

Hua Ching Ni made the very pithy remark that Western students tended to want to know everything, but practice nothing.

Edited January 21, 2009 by altiora

[Unconditioned]

So it seems at least to me that people dont like the new age movement. I was wondering what is wrong with it and what are the thought on this board about it?

 

This is a tough one for me to describe but I'll try.

 

I'm not completely against it per se but movements need to be dropped at some point; or at a minimum seen for what they are. Basically, any movement, ideology, dogma, etc. further conditions us and likewise we condition the movement/ideology/etc. So from conception the new age movement is one thing and a minute later it is something different. So if we look at both sets of conditioning we may run into difficulty. The dogma of the movement may point us is the right direction or it may completely mislead us and only add to our conditioning.

 

Then, the members of the movement, even it's creator/sponsor, how do we know for certain that they are trustworthy? Just because a lineage has lasted a long time does that insure it is one worth pursuing (there are many examples of ideologies that have been around for thousands of years that have done little more than provide an ethical system for living in society).

 

Ultimately, we end up putting our faith in something that may be of no value to us and we might even be the cause of tainting the essence of the movement. Now all that said, there is value in investigating, experiencing, and 'testing' an ideology for ourselves, seeing what happens when we follow it. If we look at it and try to find it's real essence, it's core purpose, I suspect we will find truth no matter the path.

 

At the end of the day, we'll need to figure out for ourselves what is true. Even the idea of no-dogma is itself another dogma. Even the idea of "take a flower from each tradition and make your own bouquet" is a form of dogma.

 

What are we really cultivating with practice? What are we really practicing and what is the result? Don't read into these, I'm asking the questions with no intention one way or the other, just innocent questions that I personally haven't figured out yet. Nor have I subscribed to one particular practice mostly out of fear of becoming attached to it and forming the same irrational beliefs as I did when I was a Christian.

 

But perhaps if we can get to the root of practice and it's essence... what are we really searching for? hmm.

[Pietro]

Let me share a little story.

When I started being interested in Taoism, I bought a small booklet titled "Taoismo". I found it really interesting. At every page I would vibrate with it. And soon I was citing Taoist scriptures, taoist concepts, and sprinkle "yin", "yang" like salt and pepper in every conversation. Poor friends of mine. Then I moved on to Lao Tzu, Chuang Tzu, and then on to my first Yoga class. It took about 6 years before I found the first taoist school. By that time I had lost my original Taoist book. So eventually, a good 2 decades later, I found the book again in a bookstore. I immediatly bought it, wondering what would I find this time.

 

And what I found was...

the greatest amount of new age bullshit you can imagine. Imprecise, factually incorrect. Mixing concepts that never were part of Taoism, if not in the head of some western writers. And as a final slap the book explained how it did not spoke about the search for imortality and alchemical taoism, as it was not the Real taoism, but just blatant, popular, magical believes. Which should not have been part of Taoism in the first place.

 

And what is the take away message?

I am not sure. But I am sure there is a great message. I just can't really point it out yet.

 

I guess when I'll read this message in a couple of decades, I might feel differently.

[Taomeow]

 

And what is the take away message?

I am not sure. But I am sure there is a great message. I just can't really point it out yet.

 

"When a wise man hears about the tao, he follows it.

When an average man hears about the tao, he ignores it.

When a fool hears about the tao, he laughs.

If he doesn't laugh, it's not the tao." -- Laozi

 

I guess the message to take away was that you're a wise man! The source of initial exposure didn't matter, even if it only contained an inch of the guiding thread sticking out of a pile of garbabe... if you were destined to follow the tao as soon as you hear about it -- from any source -- you just had to grab that thread, and then it would lead you out of the pile of BS and to the Way. If it was meant to be.

 

For me it was even funnier. My body heard about the tao before my mind ever did. So any book that would name anything -- qi, yin-yang, bagua -- was destined to be a revelation. I don't even remember which one it was. Of course I'd laugh at it today. If I didn't laugh, it wouldn't have been the tao that I found in it!

 

Now the question is... these three people Laozi talks about -- are they three different people? for if they are aspects of the same person rather than three different people, this person is a new ager. A bit of wisdom, a bit of mediocrity, a bit of stupidity, all mixed together.

[Pietro]

"When a wise man hears about the tao, he follows it.

When an average man hears about the tao, he ignores it.

When a fool hears about the tao, he laughs.

If he doesn't laugh, it's not the tao." -- Laozi

 

I guess the message to take away was that you're a wise man!

Or maybe that I was a wise men,

but now I have become a fool!

 

Now the question is... these three people Laozi talks about -- are they three different people? for if they are aspects of the same person rather than three different people, this person is a new ager. A bit of wisdom, a bit of mediocrity, a bit of stupidity, all mixed together.

Now this is a really interesting question. My non PC answer is that although each of us have all three in them, we do tend to behave mostly as one of them. So we indeed tend to be either a wise man (or woman ), or a medicre man (or woman), or a fool.

And this leads to: were we born as mostly one of them? And where we all born with the same balance?

 

In other words the question that each of us should answer for himself is:

are you a cockroach on your way to become an angel,

or an angel on your way to become a cockroach?

[coyote]

What's wrong, not that everything is wrong, with the new age movement:

 

Taking ideas out of context:

specializing, particularizing, universalizing, rather than seeing the web of connections as a system of practices.

 

Following a logic of separation instead of a logic of connection.

The Dao, and yin and yang is about connection. Good and evil is about separation.

 

Competitive and self-righteous attitude

Ego attachment to ideas

 

Living in one's head while ignoring applications and feedback from the body and other people.

Vegetarianism and other food ideologies that ignore results and alternatives

Feminism: ignoring the facts and other points of view, while cultivating hatred toward men--that is no hyperbole.

 

And one more thing: if you disagree, just remember that my lineage is longer than your lineage, there for i'm right.

[gendao]

And what is the take away message?

I am not sure. But I am sure there is a great message. I just can't really point it out yet.

New Ageism is the TKD of alchemical ascension?

 

It's a gateway "drug" like weed, but once you cross the river you may no longer need the raft. But, the raft was still initially useful to get you across...

Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick.

After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick.

Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick.

 

The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. It is the halfway cultivation that leads to ornamentation. Jeet Kune-Do is basically a sophisticated fighting style stripped to its essentials. - Bruce Lee

[Sloppy Zhang]

New Ageism is the TKD of alchemical ascension?

 

It's a gateway "drug" like weed, but once you cross the river you may no longer need the raft. But, the raft was still initially useful to get you across...

 

The thing is that, the more I've studied and practiced and thought, the more I've noticed that certain principles are universal. The same principles a martial artist uses are going to be the same principles that a cultivator uses, which is gonna be the same as what a carpenter uses or something.

 

It starts simple, you learn and it becomes complicated, then you get everything sorted and it's all so simple.

 

One thing that I don't think BL realized with JKD is that he really didn't invent anything new. He kept on saying things like "form of no form, style of no style", but look in classical martial arts and you have "earth, water, fire, wind, VOID" where void is the absence of any certain strategy, but from that void is birthed any number of strategies. Even in non Japanese martial arts, in anything, the highest skill is going to be able to do any movement without thought or preparation, truly "something out of nothing", acting as the situation requires, "form of no form." This can be applied to ANYTHING, even look at how a professional video game player plays, he/she memorizes where all the weapons will be, knows which ones to use in the right situation, and acts accordingly to whatever happens, even if their "plan" is ruined. So let the n00b pwning begin.

 

The thing about the New Age movement may be the same as JKD. They think by drawing different aspects of other traditions they will create something new... but maybe they're just going to wind up finding the same thing? Either way, the end point will be the same, they will reach the same destination. Maybe one way or the other will be better for certain people, maybe one or the other might be more dangerous? Who knows.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[DaoChild]

What do I not like?

 

I don't like (regardless of what you believe) how people try to talk to others, like a Doctor would speak to a layman using medical terminology.

 

If you want people to understand you, sympathize with you, you can't go up to a person with a western science degree and start talking about "Chi, energy, prana, meditation." Either put them in different words or explain them differently - I think that most people plain suck at explaining things in layman's terms.

 

Example: you study alternative medicine, and someone who heavily is into Allopathic medicine comes to you for depression. They are hesitant - but heard good things, and want to give it a try since nothing else worked. You CANNOT say "Well I feel there is an imbalance in your energy field, I'll give you some good energy and you will be okay." Dumb -- they're just going to say they met this quack that works in an alternative health clinic somewhere.

 

Rather, you can counsel them if you need to. Ask how their relationship is with people around them, would they classify themselves as happy or sad, share your own suspicions, go into detail, smile alot -- and try to make them really trust you and open up.

 

It still boggles my mind that we see more and more people who "want" to believe things, either without the devotion / discipline to try them, or without a mind critical enough to scrutinize them.

 

The result? Many other people who study religion or spirituality are called quacks, fools, hippies, insane.

[Wayfarer64]

Since when is Hippy a darogatory term?

 

There are some pretty silly assumptions taken and espoused from & by some New Agers... Many psuedo-scientific half-baked ideas that counter the actuallity of cause and effect. Much "wishful thinking" and too little practical observation... A sort of immaturity of discipline, as has been stated on this thread earlier...

 

As an old hippy who saw the beginnings of this new-age thing and watched it grow into a sales-pitch -I liken it to the "Dead -head" phenominum where the trappings surplanted the essence and the verbiage surplanted the meaning... No digging around the grounded roots of a thing- only picking the flowers from its tree, as it were...as a means of transpalnting the living embodiment of the source that is meant to be shared...Which does not preclude taking a cutting and nurturing THAT from new roots of course!

 

Searching for meaning and truth - (as it pertains to our spiritual growth) is hard enough without false paths offering "wisdom" being promolgated to the gullible...Observation and deep contemplation within and without is what is usually required to gain actual knowledge -and maybe even wisdom over time...Quicky glimpses of esoteric phenomina offers scant access to useful tools...

[gendao]

One thing that I don't think BL realized with TKD is that he really didn't invent anything new.

Uh, I think you have TKD confused with JKD.

 

TKD (Tae Kwon Do) is known as n00by "phag-tag," a sport-art created in the 1950s.

 

JKD (Jeet Kune Do) is Bruce's MMA (primarily) combining Wing Chun, fencing and boxing (with considerably more street cred). Oh yea, and let's not forget the less-publicized Fook Yueng Quan, too.

Edited February 13, 2009 by vortex

[Wayfarer64]

Say, isn't there a Bruce Lee thread somewhere? Is he actually concidered "new age"?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Uh, I think you have TKD confused with JKD.

 

TKD (Tae Kwon Do) is known as n00by "phag-tag," a sport-art created in the 1950s.

 

JKD (Jeet Kune Do) is Bruce's MMA (primarily) combining Wing Chun, fencing and boxing (with considerably more street cred). Oh yea, and let's not forget the less-publicized Fook Yueng Quan, too.

 

Yes you caught my typo.

 

I'll fix it. My comment still applies.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Sloppy Zhang

[rookie]

Anything different will probably be labeled new age by someone these days.

But everything was once new.

[Bruce]

Anything different will probably be labeled new age by someone these days.

But everything was once new.

Very true. New Age probably covers a lot of territory anyway, from the slackening up on fundamentalism to the out right wierd. In my mind, anything that gets people to look inside rather than just blind belief in religous dogmas is a step in the right direction. I get the impression, though, that a lot of these new agers are just looking for a feel good religion, or some guru to wipe their spiritual nose for them.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Bruce