+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

  1. Link to Post #21
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    Ernie, lots of good stuff there. I think we're in agreement on much of it.

    But the purpose of this thread isn't to vilify the new age, it is to evaluate it rationally, just like the thread title suggests.

    Just like you said - and other posters have pointed out - there are exploitative types in any endeavor, be it religion or politics or whatever. Agreed! But you can't write about everything. I've chosen the new age here due to my disgust not just with Goodes and Wilcocks of the world, but also with the newly emerging Matthew Mournian, who seems every bit as dubious as they are.

    I'm not trying to rid the world of the new age; my hope is that a rational evaluation might help to trim some of the unnecessary fat off of it

    Totally get where you are coming from. In my mind Goode has nothing to do with New Age stuff, and Wilcock, no matter what else he might be, is a master in the field. A MASTER! With no equivocation. He might have been mislead in recent years, and I have given up defending him in that regard since he dug his own hole, but that does not take away from his work in the field, except to make it a bit suspect (and whose work isn't?). I don't much like Ram Dass or the newer works by Neile Donald Walsche, but I respect their contributions to the field, and I read every book they ever wrote. But I do not subscribe to their personal slant on the material and their monetary exploitation of it either.

    Actually, I feel sorry for those who have been soured on the New Age because it has been subverted by the CIA. They cannot erase the priceless knowledge that has been uncovered by its proponents. But if one is focused on the misinformation, or if one enters the field in today's world hoping for clear-cut information, they will be mislead if they do not garner the opinion of experienced trailblazers and their followers.

    For instance the famous Renard of the work, The Disappearance of the Universe. That is the work that forever stopped my own investigations. That a plebe like Renard should have two angels come down from on high, Arten and Pursah, was too much for my sensibilities. I never forgave my god for that bit of an insult. We don't talk anymore since. And it is when I realized that god is an impersonal god that does not care a whit about the plight of humanity.

    I stopped loving that god entirely - that god does not deserve my love. And when I get back home I will have a lot to say about that.

    Otherwise, the New Age movement qave me hope that there was a god somewhere, and that that god had everything under control. If my plight is not to my liking that does not in any way concern god - that is solely my problem due to incorrect beliefs.

    I feel abandoned by my god, but abandonment is my issue. I was abandoned early in my life and it has been a theme throughout my life, to this very day. It is why I never fit in, why even here people do not understand me. I had to grow up real fast at age two. No one should have to do that...and then abused at age four. That is too early to ever get over because at that point there was no me, only a subconscious yet to blossom into self-awareness. The mess is in my subconscious. I do not have much control over programming at that level.

    Hard to keep it impersonal when it is everything to me. (It took three rewrites and two edits but I think I got it down now.)

    [It is like the parable of doubting Thomas. Until you can stuff your hand in the wound, you will not believe. But the bible says, paraphrased, Blessed are those who have not laid witness yet still believe... , for it is easier for a camel to pass through the Eye of the Needle than for a rich man...]

    The problem with this world is that they think they know something...but they are mistaken. In fact, they know less than nothing because their supposed knowledge blocks the truth.
    Last edited by Ernie Nemeth; 1st January 2021 at 18:32.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    aoibhghaire (1st January 2021), Bill Ryan (1st January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (1st January 2021), Peter UK (1st January 2021), Sue (Ayt) (24th January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  3. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    journeying to the end of the night
    Age
    46
    Posts
    5,777
    Thanks
    35,699
    Thanked 50,307 times in 5,692 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    The way I feel about the new age is similar to the way I feel about the political left, which is to say I recognize it's value and respect some of it's values but I think it's gone way too far.

    Maybe I should have built the thread around that question: When does the New Age go too far? It's gone way too far astray for my tastes. And while it's true that its admirable values have been co-opted by charlatans and criminals, what role are we playing in allowing it to be held hostage by those charlatans and criminals? Where does our responsibility lie? And what should we do about it?

    Best to begin with the first question: when does the New Age go too far? I mean, exactly when? Where do we draw the line? Exactly.

    Consider the Goode saga: He arrived and told a very wonky story. For some people just that was going too far. After all, his story was megalomaniacal and totally unfalsifiable and he had zero evidence. But others wanted to hear him out at the very least. Fair enough.

    But then, little by little, the blatant cracks began showing. We found out about his mining Avalon for info; we found out about his dubious past with various employers, where his litigious behavior began; we found out he lied about his salary at at least one job; we found out he was counseling milabs and abductees, and lying about it. And these were just bread crumbs, it turns out. We all know now what he's done since and what a despicable piece of sh!t he is.

    Point being, at each step of the way we had a chance to walk away. We had a chance to condemn. We had a chance to expose. Some did and some didn't. Even now, astoundingly, he still hasn't gone too far for some.

    Every time there's an appropriate time to walk away, condemn, stand up to and expose a charlatan or criminal, and we don't, we empower that person and become more and more responsible for whatever damage they inflict.

    I recall Richard Dolan saying something that shocked me at the time. Speaking of Goode, he said he appeared to be a "nice guy" and that he "had nothing personal against him". He went out of his way to point that out on several occasions.Nothing personal against him? I couldn't fathom that. Goode was almost single-handedly destroying secret space program research and discrediting Dolan along the way. How the hell could have nothing personal against him? Dolan - kudos to him - who went further than most in an attempt to expose Goode, and deserves loads of credit for it, wasn't willing to take that final step. I said at the time in response to that that if he didn't take the war to Goode's door, Goode would take it to his. Sadly I was right.

    Even with full awareness of who Goode was and what he was doing, Dolan still couldn't make an unequivocal, emphatic statement condemning Goode without adding all these qualifiers. Why? In his mind, Goode still hadn't gone too far.

    I listened to a small part of Laura Eisenhower's latest interview with Matthew Mournian, and even now she's making excuses for Goode. He's a milab, she says, and we need to have compassion yada yada yada. Despite everything he's done, he still hasn't gone too far for her. It's astounding.

    Jordan Peterson has a great quote: "Never ignore early signs of betrayal."

    Consider that one a moment.

    So when evaluating the New Age, or New Age personalities for example, I don't need to see 25 signs of betrayal before I make up my mind and speak it. I only need one. It wasn't always so, but I've learned my lesson.

    In the New Age community, things like forgiveness and compassion are worn like badges of honor, even when neither of those things are the slightest bit appropriate. Sometimes forgiveness and compassion are mere virtue signalling behaviors to mask other things, like a fear to fight. I think that's what happened and is continuing to happen with Goode. Too many in this community are afraid to fight, or have flaky judgements about fighting, even when it's absolutely necessary, because they're concealing their fear with sanctimonious ethics.

    I started a thread about Matthew Mournian recently, for these very same reasons. Chris and I had what I feel is a pretty productive chat about it. In my mind, Mournian has already gone too far. I don't need to see any more, because I can see exactly where this is going, or at least I think I can.

    When does the New Age go too far for you? Ernie, I notice you are still a Wilcock supporter. And fair enough, I'm not here to lecture you on it. But my question for you is, What else does he have to do before you dismiss him? Where is your line? And do you think supporting him now is doing more damage than good?
    Last edited by Mike; 1st January 2021 at 20:29.

  4. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Mike For This Post:

    aoibhghaire (1st January 2021), Bill Ryan (1st January 2021), Brenya (3rd January 2021), Constance (1st January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (1st January 2021), Satori (1st January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Thanks Mike. Well put. Makes me think.

    We all make a distinction between the person and the message. And if the combination doesn't satisfy we move on. In Wilcock's case, it was obvious because he wears his many foibles on his sleeve for all to see, especially his large ego. It was immediately obvious where his head was at in terms of worldly matters. What only became obvious after listening to his data was that he had an equally large volume of pertinent information to share.

    The information hasn't changed and stands on its own merit. I score it high on the curious anomalies, medium on the interpretation and significance of those anomalies, and low on the premise or thesis side where its tied together into ascension and other esoterica of dubious relevance or pertinence. On top of that, I like David Wilcock as a person, both for his obvious foibles and his comprehensive knowledge. And that's it. I take the knowledge he offers that I deem relevant, I discard the rest. I make no judgement on the man.

    When does it go too far? When should we cry foul?
    I don't do that. I boycott. Or like you said, I dismiss.
    I boycott credit scores, insurance, taxes, governmental overreach, parking violations, products, driver's licensing, corporations, medical quackery, TV, web sites, vaccines, global warming, carbon tax, and many other things with the list growing every day. And by boycott I mean stop compliance. With the list growing by leaps and bounds there is not much left of this modern world I haven't boycotted. There is nothing left to value because the corruption in every field continues to grow by leaps and bounds. I guess, and you might be right, because no one ever cries, foul!

    For me personally, I want to be very certain that I am right before I would call someone out. And since I am uncertain about almost everything, why would I waste my small store of certainty on something so trivial? I go by the motto, he who casts the first stone...

    And also, I have learnt that I cannot convince people of the most obvious, right in front of your face, inconsistencies and errors. Why would I presume to be able to convince somebody of superficial flaws in someone's character?

    Further, why blame the messenger of bad intent? Why not lay the blame at the feet of those who can accept such tripe without having done their homework, their due diligence.

    I maintain the same I've always said, people don't know the basics. They don't know the names of the planets or that there are even planets that can be seen with the naked eye. They do not understand the periodic table of elements, or even what that is. They do not know their mathematics, not even the very fundamentals. They do not know how anything works in our modern world, and could not even give a grade school explanation of any manufacturing process. And I could go on. Without these basics one cannot practice discernment because those are the foundation on which everything else is built.

    How can one practice discernment if one does not know the reason for the tides, or asymmetric parity, or why nuclear physics is even called nuclear physics, or how plants reproduce, or how any animal reproduces. What about cosmology? Can one have an opinion about the uneven distribution of cosmic background radiation without some understanding of the very large? And so many more fundamentals, in every field.

    Wilcock knows. I doubt Goode does. I actually doubt many have the prerequisite knowledge to discern.

    Maybe that is actually the problem: None of us are in a position to cast that first stone. We have to wait until the person hangs themselves with their own errors. Then we can pounce like a bunch of jackals. Nothing better than a bout of full blown self-righteous indignation to make one feel vindicated, especially after having to swallow their crap until they were found out.

    On the other hand, I don't like to rub a dog's nose in their crap, but it has to be done unless you want crap all over the house.
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (1st January 2021)

  7. Link to Post #24
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    3,453
    Thanks
    20,718
    Thanked 25,435 times in 3,321 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
    Last edited by Constance; 14th November 2021 at 18:58.

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (1st January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (1st January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021)

  9. Link to Post #25
    United States Avalon Member Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    journeying to the end of the night
    Age
    46
    Posts
    5,777
    Thanks
    35,699
    Thanked 50,307 times in 5,692 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Quote Posted by Constance (here)
    Or...another question could be asked here, where are the new age theories and philosophies missing the point?

    Here are a few thoughts...

    1. When the individual or group is telling someone what to do rather than how to do it. For example, telling someone that they need to be compassionate without showing someone how to be compassionate. Above all, what needs to be shared needs to be practical.
    2. Fluffing pillows - see the above post highlighted in black
    3. When what is being shared is outside the conditions of unconditional sharing
    4. When what is being shared is not pure, simple, natural, attainable, accessible, obtainable and replicable for all.
    5. When individuals sharing the information cannot mind their own business. We are not here to change or save the world. We are here to be all that we can be and to share that with others.
    6. When the guidance is not appropriate for the situation. For example, if a person is suicidal and ready to jump off a cliff, you wouldn't advise them that their chakras require balancing.
    7. When the information shared is not shared from a place of purity. For example, I hear of spiritual teachers telling people that it is okay to eat animals.
    8. When the information shared does not show someone how to attain peace. For example, when someone who is sharing new age philosophies or theories but that person cannot find instant peace within what has been shared.
    9. When the information is not wholistic, in other words, the information is not shared as a whole.
    10. Any information that separates us from the conscious state. For example, the false belief that anything artificial is here to serve us.
    11. When the individual or group sharing the information are not living and sharing it themselves.
    12. When the individual or group sharing the information have not awakened to the nature of life - it is the blind leading the blind.
    13. When individuals or groups are not open to correction and where there is a lack of humility - ie not coming from a place where they "dont" know or they are not open to being told that there are higher truths.
    14. The information being shared is void of inspiration.

    Great list

    A couple stood out to me. The difference between instructing someone to be compassionate and telling them how to be compassionate. I really like that. (I might even add when to be compassionate)

    And number 11, which is people not practicing what they preach essentially. God there are so many examples of this in the New Age arena. Some immediately pop into my mind:

    1) Carlos Casteneda and L.Ron Hubbard: both were sick with illnesses they claimed their particular belief system would keep them immune from, and both resorted to pharmaceutical drugs they strongly discouraged others from taking (I've been binging Leah Remini's Scientology show this week on Netflix and...WOW!)

    2) Corey Goode we now know (if Adrienne Youngblood's testimony is to be believed) was taking steroids and had cosmetic surgery done, all while claiming it was diet and meditation and so forth that kept him healthy

    3) Bill Deagle: I just recently revisited some of his stuff with Camelot and the Granada Forum. He is undoubtedly impressive in spurts. But the question must be asked: why is he so fat? I don't mean that as a superficial judgement, and I don't mean to be unfeeling, but he's a doctor (or was), sells all sorts of supplements (wildly overpriced btw), and presents himself as not only a prophet and a genius, but also as an authority on health (who has a "direct line to God"). He makes many esoteric claims about himself, but how can I possibly take any of them seriously when he can't even remain reasonably healthy? Where's his discipline? How can I respect his views on health when he clearly doesn't respect his own?

    4) David Wilcock: obvious reasons - preaches spirituality while remaining mostly self interested, egotistic, and money hungry.

    ....the list goes on and on. I mentioned something earlier about evaluating someone by their lifestyle, and I sort of meant the same as this.

  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mike For This Post:

    Constance (1st January 2021), Ernie Nemeth (2nd January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021)

  11. Link to Post #26
    United States Avalon Member Mike's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    journeying to the end of the night
    Age
    46
    Posts
    5,777
    Thanks
    35,699
    Thanked 50,307 times in 5,692 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Ernie, I'll throw the first stone!

    Slightly tongue in cheek there, but I don't think I'm required to be a perfect person in order to identify a disingenuous or abhorrent individual. In fact I feel it's my duty and responsibility to identify them (especially when they're claiming some sort of lofty status)...not to judge them against perfection or spend the rest of my life obsessing over them, but to point out obvious hypocrisy. I think it's useful for myself and the people around me.

    It's true that we're 100% certain about very little, but imo it shouldn't stop us from making reasonable judgements based on strong evidence suggesting mendacity and/or obvious moral deficiencies. That's how we decide what's good for us and what isn't as we move forward in the world, right?

    If we wait till the evil person comes right out and says, "I'm evil! gotcha!", the damage will have already been done. This concept is always mentioned in those old Nazi documentaries. Victims unfailingly lament waiting too long to act. I should have known when this or that happened, they say. When such n such occurred, I should have done something. That sort of thing.

    (Note: It must be said that I've been both disingenuous and abhorrent at various times in my life, but in my defense I'm not positioning myself as anyone special..and I'm not trying to sell anything based on a reputation of specialness)
    Last edited by Mike; 1st January 2021 at 23:03.

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mike For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (2nd January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021), Satori (1st January 2021)

  13. Link to Post #27
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    3,453
    Thanks
    20,718
    Thanked 25,435 times in 3,321 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
    Last edited by Constance; 14th November 2021 at 18:58. Reason: wasn't exact enough

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (2nd January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  15. Link to Post #28
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    26th January 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    3,453
    Thanks
    20,718
    Thanked 25,435 times in 3,321 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
    Last edited by Constance; 14th November 2021 at 18:57.

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Constance For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (2nd January 2021), Harmony (2nd January 2021), Mike (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  17. Link to Post #29
    Canada Avalon Member Ernie Nemeth's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2011
    Location
    Toronto
    Age
    66
    Posts
    5,659
    Thanks
    26,233
    Thanked 36,600 times in 5,379 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    I think, from my experience, where New Age philosophies miss the point is the extent to which the powers that be, the principalities, influence this world and its occupants. There is no space and no time outside their control.

    What they want is the eternal flame to remain extinguished. They want us reduced to embers of ourselves; tiny individual sparks that flitter here and there before fading to ashes.


    But the Flame is eternal and cannot be put out.

    And we are not sparks.

    We are the fire!


    Beyond the scope of the binding principles that seek to control is the source of this eternal flame. Luckily, that fire does not depend on time or space. For that reason, the eternal flame is forever present within us all, perceived dimly as merely a spark in the distance.

    That is the choice: the spark or the Flame. Each is within us, each merely a shift in perception.


    The Principalities will destroy this realm, for that is their nature - to consume. They start from the outside in. They began in realms unseen and unknown that give rise to this world. They consume everything in their path. They continue until they starve.

    The river of life sustains them, but the subtle realms are rent asunder by the effort and it takes forever more energy (and individual lives) to maintain the process and also satisfy their ravenous appetites.

    So it has been and still continues. Life after life flows down the river, falls off the edge, reconstitutes, and starts down the river again; tiny sparks launched from the bonfire of life, shooting into the air with zest and vigor, only to rapidly cool and fade, and fall back to earth as dust.

    The end is disaster, the apocalypse. It is the unraveling of a conspiracy so big it dwarfs the imagination of even the most accomplished visionary.

    The snake eats its tail! Reality is dissolving. No one can escape it. No one spark can survive it...one by one we will be no more.



    Together is another matter. Together in harmony and in realization of a common commitment to a sacred task, through strength, the integration of the self, and the denial of all idols. Together we are One. Together we are The Flame.

    They can put out a spark but not the Flame.

    That is what enlightenment is - the return of the Flame.

    So like the mighty comic-book hero Torch would say, "Flame On!"
    Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water...Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend. Bruce Lee

    Free will can only be as free as the mind that conceives it.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ernie Nemeth For This Post:

    Harmony (3rd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  19. Link to Post #30
    Avalon Member Peter UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th June 2019
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    7,750
    Thanked 6,754 times in 978 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    I wonder how many people that have been aware of or around and within the new age for a long time still use the term new age, it's quite possible that it's mainly used and acknowledged by newcomers to the scene.

    I used to love the term new age, it had real meaning and validation for me and shaped my world. I have over a very long period of time and lots of experience with it come to loathe it; which is not quite the same as saying that some things under the guise of new age aren't or never were worthy or interesting. It's become for me an absolutely bland and meaningless term that is past its cosmic sell by date. It's of course the worst aspects of the movement, if we're going to call it that, which has brought me to that conclusion.

    The new age is a conglomeration of beliefs and practices that has been an attempt to redefine spiritual paradigms for humanity and the art of living. Whilst it may have been successful in a number of areas, the fallout from a great deal of it is has been a real concern to say the least. As well as empowering individuals which it has had success in, it's also created its fair share of controversy.

    One of the central concerns which has been alluded to is the personalities that it's fostered where the message that preceded these individuals became corrupted beyond measure. The truth is that the message of the new age is for the most part greater than the individual's ability to truly assimilate it, because of ego. It's a lack of integration within people that accounts for this and the result is that it created and continues to throw up a plethora of cosmic messiahs, gurus and cults in just about every field in its wake.

    It's not that the new age lacks some fundamental truths but that it doesn't have the checks and balances that it ought to have and as a consequence we can end up with the lunatics running the asylum and their names are legion (insert your own favourite here).

    Of course the same can be said of law and order, politics and science but that doesn't exonerate in any way the new age and what it potentially is meant to be and offer.

    The question was asked when does the new age go too far exactly?

    I would suggest that one possible answer is at the point when a concept, an idea or a foundational and universal truth becomes misappropriated by an individual, usually in some charismatic fashion and ends up empowering that individual with the resultant effect of simultaneously disempowering all others associated with them.

    Having said that, the other way to view this. providing damage is minimal, is to accept the failures within the system and take that as a further opportunity to once again ask the important questions as to who we are and why we might be here. Intuition and discrimination at this point would be more finely tuned and result in the realisation that it certainly isn't about following charismatic leaders or dogma.

  20. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Peter UK For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (3rd January 2021), Harmony (4th January 2021), Iancorgi (3rd January 2021), Mark (Star Mariner) (3rd January 2021), Mike (3rd January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  21. Link to Post #31
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th December 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    27
    Thanks
    144
    Thanked 206 times in 26 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    The way I feel about the new age is similar to the way I feel about the political left, which is to say I recognize it's value and respect some of it's values but I think it's gone way too far.

    Maybe I should have built the thread around that question: When does the New Age go too far? It's gone way too far astray for my tastes. And while it's true that its admirable values have been co-opted by charlatans and criminals, what role are we playing in allowing it to be held hostage by those charlatans and criminals? Where does our responsibility lie? And what should we do about it?

    Best to begin with the first question: when does the New Age go too far? I mean, exactly when? Where do we draw the line? Exactly.
    ?
    Great question and I think the answer differs for all of us. For some, any hint of spirituality outside the Bible, Koran, or other Holy Book, goes too far. For others who, for one reason or another, reject traditional belief systems, they may follow New Age tenets quite a ways or just a short ways, depending on their level of education, understanding, or upbringing.

    For me, personally, a good deal of New Age-ish stuff crosses the line, especially when it becomes obvious to me that it's for money-making purposes. Then again, Christianity is often called the Greatest Story Ever Sold, so to my mind, most religions, paganism, New Age, and belief systems are bunk.

    That said, I believe all belief systems can work for some people. We're all looking for different levels of enlightenment and we all have various ways of perceiving what we feel is true. Personally, I think past-life regressions are bunk but some swear by them and I'm happy not to try and convince them otherwise.

    Some of today's "New Age" practices are quite old, including things like Tarot, Ruins, and Astrology, while others are relatively new. When I think of New Age, I think of an explosion of cult- and commune- belief systems that started in the 60s and intrigued many of our young at that time because the world was a volatile and not-too-friendly place for everyone back then. The veil that protected governments and their atrocities was dropping and the young were looking for different ways. Groups that offered spiritual insight sprung up right and left, and I'm sure some were beneficial, but others created monsters like the Charles Manson groupies. I have to wonder how much New Age depended back then on hallucinatory drugs?

    I think we all have different comfort levels and we all have to decide for ourselves. And, I don't think there's any inherent "good" or "bad" in any of the systems, only in the way their followers choose to act based on their beliefs.

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Brenya For This Post:

    Ernie Nemeth (3rd January 2021), Harmony (3rd January 2021), Peter UK (3rd January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

  23. Link to Post #32
    Avalon Member Peter UK's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th June 2019
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,073
    Thanks
    7,750
    Thanked 6,754 times in 978 posts

    Default Re: Evaluating The New Age Rationally

    Quote Posted by Mike (here)
    What is the New Age?

    1) Does the person or concept being offered represent an escape from reality or an engagement of it? Much of what's being offered in the New Age is pure escapism. While there may be some value in psychics and astrology and so forth, their purpose should be as an adjunct to practicality, not a replacement. We should all be, first and foremost, firmly rooted in our 3D lives. We should have a schedule, a clean diet, fitness goals, and a job. Without any of those things, you're blowing in the wind. Our lives need to be ordered and anchored in things like logic and rationality. When that's established and when some version of emotional and mental stability is achieved, then you can go exploring a little.
    Precisely!

    Well said Mike.

    As far as anything goes which can be termed new age the problem is that a lot of apparent leaders in the movement aren't sufficiently balanced or integrated as personalities. As a consequence there's a desire to run before learning to walk, some of the individuals are not only potentially dangerous in deluding themselves but in misleading others.

    The problem is compounded substantially by the new age attracting and promising its adherents goals which aren't appropriately thought out, being presented in a glamorous diluted fashion, that makes them all the more appealing.

    Neo-Advaita is a classic example of that where we find a plethora of self styled gurus

    It seems anyone and everyone can become a voice which leaves the authentic voices hard to hear in the clamour to become noteworthy.

    There are many voices in what might be considered new age circles worth hearing and I would include channelling as a part of it but the discernment is on the rest of us to intuit the signs whereby they can be determined.

    If the age is new, as is suggested, then it really needs to be seen to be different from that which is not perceived in the same light, it has to be accountable by different standards which should be observable, achievable and transparent or it offers nothing new at all.

    I'm reminded of the Latin caveat emptor to which we all have to be alert.

    Let the buyer beware.

  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Peter UK For This Post:

    Delight (24th January 2021), Mike (24th January 2021), Zirconian (24th January 2021)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts