New Way of practicing Old Beliefs

[Leonardo17]

Here is the message of Grand Nudger in the thread called "pure Brutality" in the "Islam" part of this forum:

You believe in "original messages" because islam. The new age movement is a western movement full of western thoughts designed to satisfy a western aim. Separating suckers from their money. Neo paganism is full of western pagan thought - not alot of african gods in there. American buddhism is microtargeted at americans.

Your idea of traditional beliefs "working" is doing alot of work covering for alot of sins. One wonders, if they "worked"..why you and every other imam or guru or shaman has been continually amending and revising them, continually saying that they're all meaningfully wrong. Mantra science is not a thing. It's the belief in magic words, in cantrips and spells. In wizards, harry. You think we need to put some limits on them and they think we need to put you under the limit bus.

I do, fwiw, agree with you that all this stuff is an attempt to figure out how to live our lives. I just think that superstition and fiction are a poor basis for such practical aims...and dogmatic and fanatical new ageism is just as dogmatic, just as fanatic, and just as superstituous as any other traditional fiction. It's also very...very...western. It's the great satans most american belief set. A mashup of things from everywhere, just like it's people.

1) Well if we are talking about Neo-pagans some of them are into Norse Gods, some of them like Greco-Roman Gods others prefer the Egyptian of even Hindu Pantheon.
 
All of these new-ages approaches are very Western in nature because I don’t see them emerging in the Soviet Union or under Nazi or Fascist rule for instance. I think this has to do with the spirit of the 60’s. So yes it is very western, but it started with a feeling of dissatisfaction with the Western Cartesian and purely scientific way of doing things. I can even add to that that 20th century Western philosophical movements like existentialism etc. are great. But none of these will answer the deeper spiritual questions that many of us have.
 
2) All that I am saying on that is that I am my own shaman, İmam or preacher (mostly). I study new ideas, practice them, see if they work for me and move forward. This is very different from people doing things out of fear of hell and hope for bodily pleasures (in a phase of their existence in which they don’t even have a body to experience bodily pain or pleasures).
 
3) All beliefs can become superficial and dogmatic in time. So there are cases in which you are 100% correct. Still, the new thought movement is more dynamic and individualize din comparison to old religions. People go in, people go out. I learn, I unlearn and because it’s individualized I have no “spread the word” issue of anything like that.
 
   Also it’s easy to learn and apply on yourself. And it’s based on observation too, because in the end you can observe if this thing is useful to you or others.
 
   So again: the “Le Bled” grammar book was the main student book in schools in the 70’s. in the 80’s it was a mean of punishment and most modern schools around the world had figured out ways to make school into something that is “fun” and teachers learned to be friendly with their students instead of acting like miniature dictators.
 
   So everything in this world is evolving. So is religion and spirituality

[Paleophyte]

All of these new-ages approaches are very Western in nature because I don’t see them emerging in the Soviet Union or under Nazi or Fascist rule for instance.

Interestingly, you're very wrong on that point. The Nazis were deeply involved in all sorts of really absurd pseudoarcheology and whackadoodle mysticism that had been coopted from older religions and warped to fit their ideology. That's why they make such great baddies for Indiana Jones movies. Their swastika was a symbol of several older regions that they thought supported their absurd Aryan dogma.

[Sheldon]

 
   So everything in this world is evolving. So is religion and spirituality

So are comic books, and science fiction movies, this doesn't make what they describe real.

[The Grand Nudger]

1) Well if we are talking about Neo-pagans some of them are into Norse Gods, some of them like Greco-Roman Gods others prefer the Egyptian of even Hindu Pantheon.
 
All of these new-ages approaches are very Western in nature because I don’t see them emerging in the Soviet Union or under Nazi or Fascist rule for instance. I think this has to do with the spirit of the 60’s. So yes it is very western, but it started with a feeling of dissatisfaction with the Western Cartesian and purely scientific way of doing things. I can even add to that that 20th century Western philosophical movements like existentialism etc. are great. But none of these will answer the deeper spiritual questions that many of us have.

If new agers were dissatisfied with science, why are they always claiming their mantras (and crystals, and potions, and spells) are scientific?
 

2) All that I am saying on that is that I am my own shaman, İmam or preacher (mostly). I study new ideas, practice them, see if they work for me and move forward. This is very different from people doing things out of fear of hell and hope for bodily pleasures (in a phase of their existence in which they don’t even have a body to experience bodily pain or pleasures).

It isn't.  You're deciding whether things are true based on whether they serve your self interest, and so are people operating out of fear of hell or desire for reward in heaven.  It is a common feature of new age religion that they believe they are doing something different when, in fact, they are not.  
 

3) All beliefs can become superficial and dogmatic in time. So there are cases in which you are 100% correct. Still, the new thought movement is more dynamic and individualize din comparison to old religions. People go in, people go out. I learn, I unlearn and because it’s individualized I have no “spread the word” issue of anything like that.
 
   Also it’s easy to learn and apply on yourself. And it’s based on observation too, because in the end you can observe if this thing is useful to you or others.
 
   So again: the “Le Bled” grammar book was the main student book in schools in the 70’s. in the 80’s it was a mean of punishment and most modern schools around the world had figured out ways to make school into something that is “fun” and teachers learned to be friendly with their students instead of acting like miniature dictators.
 
   So everything in this world is evolving. So is religion and spirituality

You're here spreading the word.  I don't know anything else about you...and that's a shame.  Spirituality and Religion™ can't evolve.  They are not biological entities or hereditary traits.

[Leonardo17]

All of these new-ages approaches are very Western in nature because I don’t see them emerging in the Soviet Union or under Nazi or Fascist rule for instance.

Interestingly, you're very wrong on that point. The Nazis were deeply involved in all sorts of really absurd pseudoarcheology and whackadoodle mysticism that had been coopted from older religions and warped to fit their ideology. That's why they make such great baddies for Indiana Jones movies. Their swastika was a symbol of several older regions that they thought supported their absurd Aryan dogma.

- Yes I’ve had this discussion with someone here. And I’m going to repeat myself here: Real religion has nothing to do with all of these humbo-jumbo things. That’s why there has always been problems in the early part of each religion. In fact the story of the exodus is relating us just that: Pharaoh-like enormous autocratic egos do not like the idea that Truth shall be the authority. They believe in authority creating truth. That’s a huge issue in most true religions

Sheldon:


No it does not. Not everything you read is ever true. This even applies to science and philosophy. So without a critical mindset, I don’t know if we can get anywhere with faith alone. (Ibelieve it’s still possible but I don’t know how to do that)
 
Grand Nudger:

1) Jaggadish Vassudev is constantly talking about “Yogic Sciences”. We have to see this as a way of expression. There is a given methodology in these things and we may be at the very beginning of our understanding in all these practices.
 
You know in the Middle Ages they tried to cure people according to colors, their astrological signs or even by bleeding them to eliminate the “bad blood”. In fact people are still doing it today and if you are caught you might go to jail for fraud.
 
Crystals are different. For instance, you might want to place some sort of plant or even flowers near your bed when you sleep. The bio-energy will affect you in a positive manner while you sleep and contribute to your well-being. Another thing is walking barefooted on the soil. It’s great for body energies. Yet another method is to hub a tree for a minute or so (or longer). These things will balance your energies and contribute to mental / physical health (there has been research done about these things).
 
Still: They do not cure illnesses directly or act as a flu-shot during the flu season.
 
2) It’s not that different of course. It’s just that this “self-interest” thing is the typical feature of people living in our age. We are a type of people who are constructively and more and more healthily “self-serving”. Our energies are also higher. We are smart and very talented in finding books, people, communities, internet-groups that are appealing to our self-interest. In fact you are doing this too at this very moment.
 
That’s very different from the communal lives of people some 500 years ago. Back then what mattered was the community (monastic or agricultural or even military). People could not do things on their own. Even if they did they did not leave the place where they were born. They were illiterate. Only aristocrats or religious elites had access to some sort of mind-nourishing materials or activities. The rest of us has to obey and work.
 
So today we are in this ego-development era. This is not a bad thing at all actually.
 
3) I’m not here to “spread the word”. Maybe, I am in a sense. But I’m doing this for another reason: As you might have heard there is a political change that is currently occurring in Syria. Everyone, especially European countries are currently watching the situation trying to determine if Political Islam (they say “İslamism”) can work this time.
 
So what they are asking actually is: “Arab monarchies are working but are very backward societies. The “Islamic” revolution of Iran is a joke. Afghanistan is not even a regime because it’s mainly barbarians taking over a country. Other LGBT hating “Muslims” don’t seem to be doing so well either. But these guys are saying they will do it differently. Is this possible or not?”
 
So I am here to provide some sort of answer. The short answer is “No”.
 
Religion and spirituality is a method of turning inward and trying to find answers within ourselves on issues that are not that much related to what happens in this world. The world in itself is not “bad” or “sinful” or anything like that. It’s just that it’s not real. That’s what “A Course in Miracles” is saying. So we (spiritual people) like to be reminded of that. That’s why Christians used to pray several times a day and that’s why Muslims do it 5 times a day. Meditators do it once in the morning, once in the evening + once in the afternoon if they can.
 
/ So our goal is inner discoveries. Social engineering that is loosely based on religious scriptures is a thing of the past (in the best-case scenario) or a complete abomination that is designed to keep backward societies backward and exploit all of their wealth and resources while encouraging them (through religious looking doctrines) to deceive themselves with all sorts of false or outdated beliefs that simply don’t have a place anymore in the modern world we are living in.
 
/ But I’m not talking about truly faithful people of any religious or spiritual affiliation here. I am talking about the usage of religion as a political tool.
 
So being here, trying to describe the things that I really do as a spiritual person, I’m also describing all the circus out there that is supposedly connected to a belief in a higher power.
 
I mean Revolutionaries can be spiritual persons. I don’t have a problem with that. But there is no spiritual revolution (or war) in this physical world. That’s complete nonsense

[Paleophyte]

Real religion has nothing to do with all of these humbo-jumbo things.

       
            
                 
                    

[Alan V]

Religion and spirituality is a method of turning inward and trying to find answers within ourselves on issues that are not that much related to what happens in this world.

Everyone learns at their own rate, through whatever they find useful at the time. The books I read when I was young I would find intolerable now.

For instance, I don't think you will find many people posting in this forum who define religion and spirituality like you do.

[Belacqua]

2) All that I am saying on that is that I am my own shaman, İmam or preacher (mostly). I study new ideas, practice them, see if they work for me and move forward. 

I guess I have mixed feelings about this. 

On one hand, yes: we all have to do the work for ourselves, and this means judging for ourselves what's working. 

On the other hand: a good teacher knows things we don't. And for spiritual practices, I think a large part of the teacher's role is to force us to question the things we thought we knew before. Spiritual traditions are often very much in opposition to the norms of everyday modern life. 

So from the time we're born, pretty much, we're getting trained in the values and beliefs of our society. (You can say "trained," or if you don't like what people get taught you can say "indoctrinated." But that's a value judgment.) By the time you're old enough to start looking around at spiritual traditions, you're going to be so deeply embedded in the ways of a particular time and place that you may not even be aware of it. 

We believe things that we aren't even aware we believe. And we use these beliefs when evaluating other beliefs. 

So the danger is that when learning a new (to us) spiritual tradition, we will judge it according to the values we already have, which means that this new tradition will end up being only a new way of formulating what we already believe. 

It seems to me that when learning a new spiritual system it is very likely to seem counterintuitive, or even downright wrong, at first. The parts that seem the most wrong are likely to end up being the most valuable. But I suspect this is really hard if you're doing it on your own. A person can judge "this new practice is really making me feel good," when what they mean is "this new practice is really massaging and confirming my prior beliefs." 

This is why it's so important to study the ancient traditions seriously, and take the time to get past a superficial evaluation based on modern mores. 

This is very different from people doing things out of fear of hell and hope for bodily pleasures (in a phase of their existence in which they don’t even have a body to experience bodily pain or pleasures).
 

Surely that's a bit of a false dichotomy there, I think you'll agree. 

People don't only follow old-fashioned spiritual practices 1) out of fear of hell, or 2) in the hope of bodily pleasure. Some do, no doubt, but there are a lot of other reasons. 

3) All beliefs can become superficial and dogmatic in time. So there are cases in which you are 100% correct. Still, the new thought movement is more dynamic and individualize din comparison to old religions. People go in, people go out. I learn, I unlearn and because it’s individualized I have no “spread the word” issue of anything like that. 
 
   Also it’s easy to learn and apply on yourself. And it’s based on observation too, because in the end you can observe if this thing is useful to you or others. 

Agreed. It's common for older practices to become habitual, to the point where people practice them superficially. And I agree that working on oneself is more important than evangelizing to others. 

"Based on observation" is tricky, because of course all observation is interpretation. And, again, deciding that it is "useful" may simply be deciding that it conforms to the values you held before. For example, usefulness is very much a modern capitalist value. In some older traditions, usefulness is a thing to be wary of -- a path to be used and discarded, and any really good thing is useless. 

[Leonardo17]

Belaqua:
 

“On the other hand: a good teacher knows things we don't. And for spiritual practices, I think a large part of the teacher's role is to force us to question the things we thought we knew before. Spiritual traditions are often very much in opposition to the norms of everyday modern life.”

 
- If we are talking spirituality: A Course in Miracles defines the Holy Spirit as this button designed to take us back to our True Nature whenever we are ready. So technically, if a spiritual teacher is presenting himself / herself, it has probably got a lot to do with the changes we are already experiencing within ourselves.

- A Course and Miracle says that the thinking of this world is 180 degree different from the thinking of God.
   So this is a theme the seeker has to study and find answers for himself / herself.
 

“
So the danger is that when learning a new (to us) spiritual tradition, we will judge it according to the values we already have, which means that this new tradition will end up being only a new way of formulating what we already believe.
 
It seems to me that when learning a new spiritual system it is very likely to seem counterintuitive, or even downright wrong, at first. The parts that seem the most wrong are likely to end up being the most valuable. But I suspect this is really hard if you're doing it on your own. A person can judge "this new practice is really making me feel good," when what they mean is "this new practice is really massaging and confirming my prior beliefs."
 
This is why it's so important to study the ancient traditions seriously, and take the time to get past a superficial evaluation based on modern mores.”

 
- Which is why I am not totally antagonistic toward “classical” spiritual systems. I think that they provide us with some of the basic materials (when we are younger) that we can study more deeply as adults. But as Alan V is pointing out: Not all of us (unfortunately) get to a point where we can study this deep spiritual wisdom.

But still: There is so much material in book-stores and libraries + so much material in places like you tube etc. There are Yoga / meditation classes in most college campuses across the world. So even if both our parents were practicing atheists, curious people are nowadays able to get to very useful teachings quite easily (without getting into the trap of numerous new-age charlatan gurus etc. that are unfortunatelly very abundant too).

As I said: there is this inner button. The Course calls it “The Holy Spirit”. And in fact it already doing 90% of the work for us. So there is no need for any type of worry on that front either
 
“Surely that's a bit of a false dichotomy there, I think you'll agree.
 
People don't only follow old-fashioned spiritual practices 1) out of fear of hell, or 2) in the hope of bodily pleasure. Some do, no doubt, but there are a lot of other reasons.”
 
- This has to do with the realities of the previous ages. Hindus call it “The Kali Yuga”. Kali Yuga people cannot understand spiritual realities or perceive things like “energy”. In summary they were less intellectually able than us. So this was the only way forward for religious authorities in those days.
 
Today, each and every one of us is already some sort of spiritual teacher of his/her own. So the carrot and stick approach is no longer necessary. Our way is the way of studying and understanding deeper philosophical and spiritual concepts with a goal of personal growth or benefit.
 
So it’s the same thing, with a better / more modern approach.
 

“Agreed. It's common for older practices to become habitual, to the point where people practice them superficially. And I agree that working on oneself is more important than evangelizing to others.
 
"Based on observation" is tricky, because of course all observation is interpretation. And, again, deciding that it is "useful" may simply be deciding that it conforms to the values you held before. For example, usefulness is very much a modern capitalist value. In some older traditions, usefulness is a thing to be wary of -- a path to be used and discarded, and any really good thing is useless.”

 
- Agreed: I also have to add that actually I don’t know that much. All that I am saying is that all spiritual people need to demonstrate at least some of the dynamics that I have been trying to describe here. It does not matter if they are old school or new school or that they belong to this religious denomination or that religious denomination. One thing that turns me immediately away from anyone in an instant if it’s not present for instance is if they are not humble.

    That’s a major issue. Philosophers are usually humble (Because they know that they do not know) so how can a person who claims to be a theist of any kind be self-confident enough to start to claim that his way is the best and only possible way?
 
- Again: This is a huge contradiction: Atheists understand these issues fully. Theists on the other hand are more likely to fall into these traps and end up in a much more ego-centered position than most atheists.
 
One thing that Mr. Scott Peck says in one of his books is that “The Devil hates scientific and rational approaches”. The Devil likes speculation, the holding on on unproven issues and an unfounded trust that is placed into the hands of religious or other authority figures.
 
So one book I can suggest you to read is “The Devils of Loudin” by Aldous Huexley. The book describes how all these religious figures and authorities and great scientists (of their time) ended up turning a place of worship into some kind of human circus with a dozen of 16th century nuns being exorcised (on a daily basis) from the possession of (completely imaginary) demons and one Jesuit priest being condemned because he was accused of causing the whole thing by conjuring those demons in the first place.
 
So for me and before anything else, true spirituality has to be this space of honesty toward yourself. And therefore, it’s an individual issue that has to be kept separate from more worldly things like politics etc.

[Alan V]

- Which is why I am not totally antagonistic toward “classical” spiritual systems. I think that they provide us with some of the basic materials (when we are younger) that we can study more deeply as adults. But as Alan V is pointing out: Not all of us (unfortunately) get to a point where we can study this deep spiritual wisdom.

For the record, I studied Sufi wisdom literature for over two decades before I abandoned it entirely. It all depended on the unproven and unlikely assumption that God existed.

These days I think simple honesty about factual information is the basis of ethics and self-improvement, not religion or mysticism. "Spirituality" is too vague a term for me to use except in such conversations as these.

But like I said, different people learn in different ways -- and some the hard way.