There's no new-age 'dogma' - it's all very open and free. Categories of the past like esotericism can be collapsed as new categories arise.
That's very true. I think if we want the new, we have to create it for ourselves. Some stuff which has emerged in the past may be ok. It may need revision to fit the context of now though. One aspect of it that I think about is this: in the last 2,500 odd years, the whole ethos of most religion has revolved around the concept, however expressed, of self-abnegation as the way to spiritual enlightenment. We have to 'die into god' as the christians put it, or the sense of self has to be dissolved, or we have just to admit our own uselesness and surrender to the will of god as expressed in x, y or z scripture. Our desires are to be crushed, as is independent or critical thought. We are to see ourselves as basically sick, flawed creatures who, left to their own devices, would do nothing but evil. All this has, IMO had most unfortunate consequences, for individuals and for civilization. The direction of the new age will be entirely different in my view. It is not about abandonment of the self, or abbrogation of the sense of our individual existence here on earth, but about affirming the self as the locus of a growing cosmic awareness. Healing and transformation play their part in this. But it's not about dying, either literally or metaphorically, in order to 'go to heaven'. We want heaven, we have to make it for ourselves here. To return to the subject of this thread - esotericism. Esoteric teachings were held secret in the past for a number of reasons. There was, in western culture, the repressive nature of the church, who regarded anything other than their own dogma as heresy to be rooted out and punished. Hence practitioners of occult arts etc tended to keep them secret. Also, there is the power tripping of some 'esoteric masters' - it gives you power if you are party to secrets considered too sublime to put before the profane masses of the ignorant. That's how the greatest masters of esotericism, the ancient Egyptian priesthood were able to control society. Same with the Maya, and also catholicism during its medieval hayday. The obvious corollary of that is that if knowledge is kept secret, the masses are even more likely to remain ignorant. So it's a useful strategy for those who want to control society. In our time, most of the serets of esotericism both eastern and western have been published in many places.
Yes, but can you trust what is published? :H A teacher of mine once published an esoteric Buddhist ritual in one of his books. To us, his regular students, he said "The book is wrong, I only wrote that so people would quit asking me about it at every short seminar I teach. When you have the background to understand it, I will show you the right way". Hmmm.
This is a difficult thing. You have to be skeptical but you also have to be open. This is why you have to entirely trust the teacher. I think skepticism should come in before you take the plunge. Otherwise you will question everything the teacher tells you. That said, there ARE very few teachers out there who know what they are doing. This is why despite my experience, I don't take students right now because I haven't convinced myself that I have all of my bases covered. If you are going to question if what your teacher says is "correct" then you are better off not having a teacher. This may sound harsh, but a good metaphysical teacher will sometimes use unconventional methods to teach you things.
Yes - well I'm not looking for a teacher myself. Unfortunately there are many who call themselves teachers, gurus etc who are completely unreliable. Some of the notions of esoteric doctrines that are around these days are actually nothing to do with true esoteric teachings. It is another bandwagon for those who are unscrupulous and wan to to make money and aggrandize themselves. In the end a teacher can only point out the way - or the way as they know it. They can offer suggestions - and that's about as far as a teacher should go in my view. Otherwise it can lead to a dis-empowerment of the student - a culture of reliance on an external source. That's how religious hierarchies get going perhaps.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies as long as they are in perspective. Problem is people tend to get too hung up on titles. Many pagans/Wiccans/etc. tend to lump all "organized" religions as evil or counterproductive, but I have found the issue is not organized religion but power trips, yet I have met many a power-hungry non-organized religious person.
Personally, religious heirarchies have no place in my new-age. It is pompous nonsense. And it always becomes politicized. A power game. People have to learn to empower themselves - not give away their power to this or that external 'authority'.
hierarchies don't have to be that way, but most of the time they are. In the temple I belonoged to for many many years until my teacher died had a hierarchy, but it absolutely was not abused and they only applied to certain rituals. My teacher would blast anyone who tried to carry that over in any other capacity. In our case hierarchy was tied to experience and it was a form of respect to those who had more experience - that's it. The problem is today most people pay lip-service to repsect. When most people are faced with a situation where they HAVE to put their ego aside in order to learn something, then suddenly they feel threatened. Most religions say ego is death to true learning, yet many people cannot handle this one concept. My teacher had HIS teacher flown in whenever a major function was performed. He did this because his teacher had much more experience and also as a show of respect. My my teacher's teacher told my teacher he was wrong, he had to suck it up and listen. If my teacher's ego got in the way then nothing would have been accomplished. In my case if I ever start a temple I might do it a little differently since my teacher had the ability to pull that kind of thing off really well and still be fair. Now if hierarchy is used to weild power then yes it is wrong. To say that it is ALWAYS politicized is wrong. Never say never, and never say always. You will... ummm... always be proven wrong.
