This is Nick the Pilot, acting as Forum Admininstrator. I have split off these posts, and made a new thread on The New Age Movement and Theosophy. Nicholas thought it would be good to start a new thread on the New Age, and move those posts here. The thread begins with Christian's writing to Pablo, from Pablo's Intro Thread.

------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Pablo. Welcome back. Your return has been anticipated and I am sure the others will be excited to hear your news from Atlanta.

Hi Chrisitan! Thanks for your thoughtful reply

I don’t agree the fault is in Theosophy/Theosophists. Those who started the first movements of the New Age, distorted the concepts in the theosophical literature and turned they into an egotistical thing. In the theosophical literature the altruistic and impersonal point of view is as clear as it can be. The first new agers, however, not being really interested in the spiritual life but in having a more pleasant personal life, and not being able to understand the theosophical exposition, oversimplified things in ready-make receipts as for spiritually lazy people, thus missing the direction.
The spiritual practice, as I see it, is the opposite as what the New Age recommends. It is a progressive disregarding of personal circumstances, because you find that the source of happiness, inspiration, etc., is in our impersonal nature, and therefore you don’t mind much about the external conditions (at least when they are "normal". I'm not referring to extreme cases).
Many New Agers are only trying to satisfy the same personal ambitions of a materialist. What’s the difference between an ambitious head of a company who works to have the money, the fame, the relationships he wants, and the new ager who wants the same, but through affirmations, sexual magic, etc.? I tell you, I prefer the materialist, who is honest and do not pretend to be spiritual.
I’ve given many lectures, on many subjects. I’ve represented the TS in seminars where many groups of the New Age gathered, and I’ve seen that happening once and again. If I say to them: “Theosophy will give you a key to be happier” I will have a lot of people listening to me. But I will lose them as soon as I tell them that happiness cannot be attained by trying to satiate the endless necessities of the I, but by dying to it, and that that involves detachment, transcending the desires, being impersonal, etc. You can have their attention if you offer things to be acquired, but if you say “you have to make changes”, then they will turn to other who promises “free” gifts.

So you say:

“We have to start now, anew, and introduce Theosophy to the emerging ages in an easy-to-follow, fast, progressive manner that can be acceptable, fashionable, functional, market-oriented, repeatable and results-oriented; and which would compete with present approaches to spirituality.”

I’m afraid that is not possible. That is precisely, what gave origin to the New Age. Theosophy is neither easy-to-follow nor fast, because spiritual development takes a lot of effort and time. Otherwise, humanity should already be enlightened. Theosophy is not the only spiritual path. Many schools of Buddhism, Vedanta, Yoga, Sufism, Mysticism, etc. are also spiritual. And all of them agree with the general theosophical point of view that I have described before.
Of course we can improve the presentation of Theosophy, and I (as several other people as well) am trying to do it (if you read my articles you will see that attempt). But it will never be suitable for someone who still believes that happiness may be attained through the personal nature.
I don’t criticize, however, people that have that understanding, because all that is part of our evolution. What I criticize in the New Age is the group of people who exploit others and make fortunes selling magic water, magic stones, etc., or books where they say what the spiritually ignorant wants to hear. They are deepening the wrong direction in others just to gather more money, fame, etc.
The problem is complex, and the New Age will exist whether we like it or not. But I think the members of the TS have to say what they think is right, for those who want to hear.

Pablo is correct.

Even within modern American/European Buddhism there is what is called Buddhism Lite. These so-called Buddhists are not comfortable with such basic elements as karma, rebirth, authority of the guru, Buddha's sutras etc., so they drop them. Instead they only emphasize what they like in the Dharma; rituals or meditation on their buddha nature or social service etc.

HPB has a passage about Westerners preferring their spiritual path to be smooth, flat and thus easy to tread. Never mind what direction it is going, as long as they feel good strolling on it.

Here is the Blavatsky quote from "Mistaken Notions on The Secret Doctrine" in CW 12:

Hi everybody!

The relationship of the New Age Movement and Theosophy has many facets. First, I would like to say: Theosophy started the New Age Movement.

Imagine, if you will, the religious scene in New York City in 1875. Reincarnation and karma were unheard of, religions like Buddhism and Hinduism were virtually unknown, and “New Age” bookstores had yet to appear. Into the middle of all this, Madame Blavatsky brought her new and revolutionary ideas. Two of the most important ideas she taught were karma and reincarnation.

Today, karma and reincarnation are familiar words to most Americans. Not so in 1875. Theosophy takes credit for popularizing the ideas of karma and reincarnation in the western world.

How do people feel about the idea that Theosophy started the New Age Movement?

Indeed!

Christian's post above interrupted my daily arrogant sulk - but I guess I will deign to respond.

Since you have raised the New Age flag over the musty remnants of the theosophical estate, I wonder if you would share with us just what the key New Age teachings, practices or insights are? Might as well face the future.

Hi everybody!

I agree with Nicholas that we need to take a look at New Age values. However, on a different topic, I just wrote a post on the Buddhist Forum about people who say they are Buddhist only because it is a fad. Here is the original post, and my response.

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php...topic=59633&hl=

(My username at the Buddhist Forum is Skywalker.)

The original poster said,

"Dalai Lama says, 'These days many people are interested in spirituality, and especially in Buddhism, but they do not check carefully enough to see what they are committing to' "

My response was,

"I think HHDL is saying that some people see Buddhism has hip, cool, and trendy. Some people are merely jumping on the New Age bandwagon only because it seems the thing to do, and only because their friends are doing it. It is Buddhism as a fad.

"Someone told me that, a few years ago, the "cool thing" for young people in Japan was to wear a crucifix around their neck. Once the fad died out, they stopped wearing them. The idea that people would wear Buddhist pendants only because it is a fad (and then stop wearing them when the fad died out) horrifies me.

"I think there is some truth to it. We should not embace Buddhism because it is a fad. We should embrace it because it is a philosophy of life that changes the entire way we look at reality."

--> We all need to guard against taking the New Age phenomena, and Theosophy itself, as a fad.

Nick the Pilot:

Not so sure Nick, many of the most valued elements arose with RW Emerson.

Nicholas,

Do you have Emerson's story?

If you mean his biography, I do not. But there are online ones.

Nicholas,

I'll try to find time to take a look online. And, if you can, please summarize Emerson's actions to instigate the New Age Movement. It sounds like a fascinating story.

For example, Emerson was convinced (inspired by the Gita, I think) that divinity is all pervasive. So each person can contact the Divine without priest, bible, ritual - no intercessors of any kind. In 1840s this was not merely heretical, but crazy. He was called "Mad Dog" Emerson, by the town preacher (I think).

To invent one's own religion, outside of existing churches, was thought totally nuts.

Nicholas,

A mad dog does not a movement make. Do you think Emerson is the key person to cause reincarnation and karma to become household words (in the present-day western world) in the last hundred years? More so than HPB?

Gordon Melton is a well-known scholar of cults & New Age. But I had hoped to get Christian's personal view of the key elements of that movement.

Nick,

Here is something Henry Geiger or some ULT light wrote:

http://www.wisdomworld.org/setting/emersonone.html

Hi Christian!

You said

And that is precisely where the New Age turns to a materialistic movement (from my point of view), because there is a basic mistake in that conception. They think their real self is the personality (notwithstanding their speaking about the “I am”, etc.) And they try to make the universe a slave of their selves, trying to avoid everything they don’t like, cultivating an attitude of resistance to life, instead of one of acceptation.
Every spiritual tradition is based on the exercise of the discernment between the Real and the unreal. A recognition that our personal self is illusory and that we should cease to live identified with it, is essential. That state of impersonality is called Rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism; Viveka Khyati in Raja Yoga; the Witness Awareness in Vedanta, etc., etc.
The theosophical literature is full of references to that also.

We read in the book Practical Occultism:
“The sacrifice or surrender of the heart of man and its emotions is the first of the rules; it involves ‘the attaining of an equilibrium which cannot be shaken by personal emotion’.”

And Also:
“Resist not evil, that is, do not complain of or feel anger against the inevitable disagreeables of life. Forget yourself (in working for others). If men revile, persecute, or wrong one, why resist? In the resistance we create greater evils.” [Path, August 1887, page 151 ]

In At the Feet of the Masters we read:
“The Master teaches that it does not matter in the least what happens to a man from the outside; sorrows, troubles, sicknesses, losses—all these must be as nothing to him, and must not be allowed to affect the calmness of his mind. They are the result of past actions, and when they come you must bear them cheerfully, remembering that all evil is transitory, and that your duty is to remain always joyous and serene.”
“You must bear your karma cheerfully, whatever it may be, taking it as an honor that suffering comes to you”

Spirituality is not a point of view, is a way of living. To speak about karma, the power of thought, the divinity within, does not make anyone spiritual. It is only when by our way of living we become progressively free from our identification with the personal self and, therefore, independent of external situations, that one is trading the spiritual path.

Hi Pablo

"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace." The "Lord" is one's higher self - the "me" is the lower personal self. This implies an act of personal surrender.

You are right - it is a way of living.

From the beautiful prayer of St. Francis of Assisi:

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.
O, Divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

I have posted this here before - forgive me - its one of my favorites.

Christian,

You have labeled other people's ideas as pure garbage, stupid, obnoxious, arrogant, egotistical, superior, and demeaning. This is not acceptable.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. This Forum is dedicated to the free and open exchange of Theosophical ideas. You have pointed out ideas in Barker's writings that you disagree with, and that is fine. Theosophy is all about examining and re-examining the thousands of ideas and concepts that are contained within the philosophical boundaries of Theosophy.

However, flaming will not be allowed. It would be easy for someone to come back and say you are obnoxious, egotistical, etc. It could then quickly descend into something worse, and I am not going to let that happen.

No one is allowed to condemn someone else's ideas. All posts must be composed in such a way that they show respect for people who have opinions on the other side of an issue.

Sure.
I have gagged any posts that shield themselves against Theosophists, and Theosophical inferences that mediums, New Agers, Christians, unsanctioned religions and philosophers, etc. are sub-human, evil, misguided, condemned, and lost, self-serving opportunistic sorcerers, who are all dim and misinformed. These parapets against overbearing insult and demeaning innuendo were not meant to be offending to Theosophists, surprisingly, merely defending against them. Only those who are now non-aligned to what can by outsiders be considered an unspoken dogmatic approach to Theosophy and its views on spirituality, will remain offended. This would include me. All is as it was, including the righteous Theosophical mindset of dominance. Progress is often one-sided and slow, and sometimes it never occurs at all. An "issue" shall remain on this forum a mere formalization of fellow theosophical thoughts on views of spirituality that serve to alienate and denigrate outer world philosophy, and rights to believe. As I said, spiritul tolerance and understanding, progress, is slow.

Hi all

One thing is to show respect for other people’s beliefs and a different one is to say that everything is true. To say that every path is correct is an easy and comfortable philosophical position (as well as to say that no other except mine is the Truth). It is a way of saying: “You can go on with your own path but please, don’t bother me.”
I don’t think every so called “spiritual” worldview is correct, otherwise the world should be a much better place. In fact, if I may be frank, I think most of the spiritual or esoteric worldviews now spread in the West are more or less erroneous, when coming to fundamental issues. That is because our western mind is still too materialistic and selfish and, therefore, tends to distort the presentation of spiritual teachings. Of course, it does not mean that there is nothing valuable in the different approaches.
Anyway, I think we have to stimulate our discernment by challenging our points of view, not as a mere intellectual battle but as a way to discover truth. Of course, criticism has to be made with maturity, letting aside personal attacks or strong language, while being conscious of our own limitations.