New Age Lies
Katinka Hesselink's always-interesting blog alerted me to an exceptional article in the January 2010 issue of THE THEOSOPHIST.
“Manifestation of Intention Through Visualisation” by Pablo D. Sender starts right off in an exceptional way: “In THE SECRET DOCTRINE, Madam Blavatsky wrote that, at the root of the manifested Cosmos, there exist two fundamental principles: Universal Mind and Cosmic Matter.”
While I usually like to refer to this pair as “Undifferentiated Consciousness” (Purusa, Atman, Self, etc.) and “Substance” (Prakriti), it is a treat to see a modern Theosophist who recognizes that HPB, at least, was likely fundamentally oriented toward the
perhaps more “esoteric” Sankhya or Yoga philosophy rather than the simpler, but
perhaps less useful as a “psychological analogy,” Vedanta philosophy.
This observation alone would be more than enough to make me a fan of the author; however, Pablo D. Sender further seals the deal with his astute analysis and criticism of the “self-affirmation”/visualization techniques which have become a very common
feature of the “New Age”: “This is a materialistic and self-centered philosophy, because it considers the personality as the real Self, and that happiness is attained through the
fulfillment of its desires.”
Yes.
And furthermore, self-affirmations may be even more screwed-up and disfunctional than that.
The following is from a little writing of mine called “Chief Bemidji Syndrome”:
{Anyway, Simple Psychotech #5 is pretty much the exact opposite of the positive-assertions/fabrications commonly known as “self-affirmations” that Guy W. Ballard’s I AM decrees may or may not have evolved into. Accordingly, here (unless the statements are true) are probably some examples of what NOT to say to oneself: “I am confident. I am powerful. I am popular. I am productive. I am in perfect physical and mental condition. I am energetic. I am a money magnet. Every cell in my body vibrates with vitality and good health. I attract romance in the most magical and unexpected ways.”
A virtual psycho-cash New Age industry has grown up based upon using similar
affirmations, and there is no shortage of individuals ready to give revival-tent
testimonies that such I-am-lies have produced miracles for them. Simple Psychotech #5 does not deny that such false affirmations may sometimes produce positive results; it only suggests that they may be short-lived while the frequent and possibly more profound bad results can go on and on.
Furthermore, self-affirmations could be a good example of just how pretentious and “Godless”—in terms of psychological usefulness—modern society has become. Apparently, it is not now enough to merely try to impress our neighbors by living in houses and driving cars that we only pretend we can afford; now we must also try to plant lies in our own psyches so that we may be able to impress ourselves as little
Houdinis. The old saying let go, let God may no longer apply; it may have been replaced by let go of God, let ME.
Take for example a person who is depressed and suffering. What actually happens when he or she tries to assume control and lie this condition away by saying “I am cheerful and feeling great in every way” over and over again?
Interestingly, it seems that many things, perhaps almost anything, repetitively verbalized for an extended period of time will have some “positive” result; this may or may not be associated with changes in Beta, Alpha, Theta, and Delta brain waves and/or the release of serotonin, dopamine, and endorphins. Tibetan Buddhists advise repeating Om Mani Padme Hum; many Hindus just like the syllable Om; Ramana Maharshi and perhaps Shankara recommend Aham; Dr. Herbert Benson (THE RELAXATION RESPONSE) of Harvard Medical School prefers the word One.
Gandhi, however, perhaps tops them all with his enthusiasm for Ram or Rama: “The recitation of Rama's name for spiritual ailments is as old as the hills. My claim is that the recitation of Rama's name is a sovereign remedy for our physical ailments
also. To take Rama's name from the heart means deriving help from an incomparable power. The atom-bomb is as nothing compared with it.”
There is at least a possibility that many of the perceived benefits of self-affirming may simply be the result of its similarity to mantra repetition. Naturally, it is also tempting to think that there may be some “purposeful tricking” of the “subconscious” involved, and perhaps there is. From the perspective of an important Theosophical doctrine, however, this might not be such a good thing. If the overarching purpose of incarnation is to gradually eliminate all differentiated egoic delusions generated by “psycho-Spiritual maturation,” what sense does it make to add even more Self-deceptions to the ontological mess one already has to deal with?
All of this is just theoretical carping, of course; the biggest pragmatic complaint
is that affirmative benefits often quickly disappear once a person stops affirming—in
other words, if you want to keep walking, you better keep talking. . . .
But if a person does manage to keep walking and talking, perhaps he or she might also want to consider the possibility that some self-lies may be producing the opposite of what they intend—and that if such psycho-gremlins happen to show up only in the longer term, no cause-and-effect connection might ever be made.
Curiously, the mental realm does seem to have a “natural contrarian component.” For example, it is a common observation of Psychology 101 that if you tell a person “don’t
think of pink elephants,” that is precisely what a person will start to do.
One might try an informal experiment with self-affirmations that may reveal something similar: wait for a time when you are very, very tired and then say out loud, “I am completely refreshed and lively.” Re-focus your attention inward, and it is quite
likely you will immediately hear your own private contrarian “voice” whisper silently,
subtly, but emphatically, something like “NO YOU’RE NOT!”
“I am confident.” (“NO YOU’RE NOT!”)
“I am powerful.” (“NO YOU’RE NOT!”)
“I attract romance in the most magical and unexpected ways.” (“B*******!”)
Even using self-hypnotic strategies, these immediate nay-sayings may sometimes be powerful enough to undermine affirmations; however, even more powerful may be the “little evidences” the world can later give you that it is not being fooled by your psycho-lies. When surprises happen in daily life which are not in concert with what you have been repeating over and over, your misery may be further perfected by the frustrating realization that you are nowhere near being a Houdini-grade magician, after all.
Although truth should be what one strives for when making affirmations, it is probably far better to be surprised that things in daily life are not as bad as you have been over-kill-affirming rather than the reverse.
And at least one historical category of powerful magic involved truth and humility
rather than the reverse. Old-time religion. Here credit must be given where
credit is due. The great influence, achievements, and expansion of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam may have resulted, at least in part, from a type of prayer-life which seemed to produce amazing energy, motivation, and sharply focused purpose in many who practiced it. Traditionally in all three religions, it was not a puffed-up “I-am [great in some way]” pretense; rather, it often included some sign of subordination to the Deity and a humble, honest admission of unworthiness, general powerlessness, and/or open admission of the specific help which was needed. There could also be intense
emotion. For example, the human dynamo Ignatius Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits, was said to weep so profusely for his shortcomings and undeserving character during masses and prayer sessions that his doctor told him he would have to stop or otherwise go blind.
Regarding the use of truth, humility, and God as a resource, mention should probably also be made of the 12-Step Program. It is still at or near the top as the most
admired and effective approach to a wide variety of human problems. In 1999, Time Magazine selected Bill Wilson, founder of Alcoholics Anonymous (along with Dr. Bob Smith) to be in the top 20 of its Heroes and Icons of the Century.
After introducing oneself in the truthful manner of “I’m Michael. I’m a/an
[alcoholic, over-eater, sex addict],” a person verbalizes something relating to
one of the Steps--Number Three of which reads “Sought through prayer and
meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood God,
praying only for knowledge of God's will for us and the power to carry that out.”
God as we understand God. Thus, even if one is convinced that Jehovah has left the cloud he was supposed to be sitting on, one should probably not hesitate to experiment with the cloud itself if it is suspected that it was there where the growth-promoting rain actually came from in the first place. And as a “General” Theosophist, one should especially not hesitate to psychologically experiment with Absolute Vacancy should it appear that both Jehovah and the cloud have moved out of heaven and into mythology. . . .
Baudelaire once said, “God is the only being who, in order to reign, doesn’t even need to exist.” Change one word: “God is the only being who, in order to help, doesn’t even need to exist.”
The principle of analogy might be involved here as well. Just as the immune system and/or other natural correctives of the human body are not set in motion until a pathogen or other problem has been recognized by it, so too might it be necessary that a person psychologically accept and affirm the existence of some animating, physical, emotional, or mental difficulty before some “root” psychological mechanism—or perhaps even the restorative “Solvent” of Undifferentiated Consciousness—can automatically begin working on it.
Furthermore, the “help me in every way” is undoubtedly crucial. Call this requesting assistance from God if you wish—either old-time-religion Jehovah-God or new-time-General-Theosophical YHWH-God which, like the original Hebrew, no one can even pronounce the name of, much less describe or reveal the Divine motives of in any smug televangelist way.
Conversely, it is possible that promiscuous use of self-affirmations may require Undifferentiated Consciousness to first spend additional time dissolving a
person’s newly added, self-designed egoic pretenses before It can start solving the actual problems.
In any case, it is important to note that Simple Psychotech #5 is often more of a long-term investment rather than a quick slot machine payout. This cannot be emphasized enough. For example, if a person has, so long ago that he or she has forgotten about it, declared, “I am declining as an athlete; help me in every way,” he or she might someday otherwise inexplicably find himself or herself investigating the virtues of kettlebells as an exercise aid.
Indeed, like old time religion, there is a certain amount of faith required for truth-declarations. Look back after a day, a week, a month, or longer, and only then may one recognize its marks and miracles. . . .}
Comment
-
Comment by Richard Ihle on September 9, 2010 at 6:35pm
-
Greetings, Michael, and good wishes.
On some days I can be the type of Theosopher who makes people sorry they asked ever asked certain types of questions. One example might be your request for clarification which follows: "Richard, could you clarify the difference you see between Yoga Philosophy and Vedanta Philosophy and why Yoga is more "esoteric" and better? I know people who practice both with no contradiction."
This is not one of my bloviating days, so I will forego trying to explain Sankhya/Yoga philosophy with my customary “Undifferentiated Consciousness” vis-a-vis the “Circular, Interpenetrating Animating/Physical/Desire-Feeling/Desire-Mental/Mental/Spirit-Mental/Spirit Continuum of Substance.”
Anyway, here is a much more interesting website: http://www.swamij.com/prakriti-purusha-sankhya.htm
(It should be noted that the “yoga” previously mentioned is not simply the hatha variety of postures; rather, it refers to the quite sophisticated philosophy which underlies, for example, Patanjali, and which shares a definite “similarity” to Sankhya.)
Vedanta and Sankhya might be considered “Theosophical” systems in that they both may have been the “products” of valid insights of meditation and, in the case of the latter, particular attention paid to the inner states of consciousness which change in a regular sequence during a meditative session. Just as in modern physics one can subscribe to both wave theory and particle theory to describe light, so too can one accept both Vedanta and Sankhya.
In a short sentence for each, Vedanta more or less can end up with Shankara’s “Atman is Brahman”; however, Sankhya can produce, down-the-line, the Hermetic axiom “the breath becomes a stone, the stone becomes a plant, the plant becomes an animal, the animal a man, the man an angel, the angel god [sic God]” (H.P.Blavatsky’s “special version” beginning with breath).
I suppose the difference between the meditative experiences underlying this pair of philosophies might be the difference between savilkalpa samadhi and nirvilkalpa samadhi—the former would be the condition of consciousness where there is no longer an “observer,” and the latter would be the blissful condition where there still is one.
(Ramakrishna once described the latter type of meditative experience something like this: “The purpose of this meditation is to taste the honey, not to become the honey.”)
The reason I consider Sankhya more “esoteric” than Vedanta is not only because of its greater complexity and lesser modern popularity, but it is also because of its amazing usefulness in “reverse analogizing” to rediscover the inner conditions of conscious (producing all the different types of egoic delusions) which were the basis for the articulation of this Theosophical philosophy in the first place.
In my view, perhaps one can straight-arrow into God with the Vedanta perspective, but to be an Theosophical Adept one may need at least a little homegrown, simplified Sankhya. . . .
Thank you for your request for clarification.
-
Comment by Michael A. Williams on September 8, 2010 at 10:55pm
-
Thanks Richard and Dominique for your replies.
I must not have made myself clear about the term "New Age," so I'll try to clarify more. Nowadays, with "New Age" getting slammed from all sides, barely no one wants to be associated with it! People usually pick out the more silly and superficial aspects from the past and use that as a definition. Many writers use the term covering a very wide area, like I said. I can see where those in Theosophy would want to distance themselves from the now meaningless term. But, the facts seems to show that Theosophy played a big role in influencing the revival of interest in Ancient Wisdom Traditions that became more wide spread in the 1960's. Attach any label to it you want. And, I would think that Theosophy would be proud to have played such a significant role.
Yes, learning to quiet the "monkey mind" is important and seems to be an ongoing process. This is where meditation of some kind comes in.You seem to feel that all Thought is "monkey talk" and should be eliminated, except to a minimum. I don't and think Thought can be used creatively to enhance our lives and in the process to help others, if we make our lives about service. I won't argue the point. We all have our different approaches.
I don't want to discourage anyone from using the 12 step program if they feel it can benefit from it. Many do. It's a matter of how it is applied, is all. Christians seems to do better, as they put the "higher power" outside of themselves. I myself, and others, and I assume most Theosophists, put the "Higher Power" as our "Higher Self" or states of Higher Consciousness within. Like I said, if people can use the 12 step, great. I know it didn't work for me and others I know.
I didn't mean to imply that we deny our "negative" attributes. No, full awareness is needed. I only meant continual harping on that all we are and how overwhelming they are is not fruitful. I'm not a trained Therapist, so I won't go much further than that - in public, anyway.
Dominique, I'm sorry you had a rough time with Affirmations. I've never heard of anyone having those problems. Obviously, they're not for you. Usually, people either really benefit from them, or quickly grow bored and quit. I
I don't know what your feeling was, but there's a difference between a healthy Self Confidence tempered with true humility and Spiritual Arrogance. From my perspective, we all have Personalities and Ego, and they're needed to function in society and on the physical plane. It's a matter of whether they are mature or immature.
All the Enlightened Masters and Advanced Souls had personalities, just read deeply about them. They had their human foibles. Blavatsky herself was a forceful personality, certainly not above using "colorful" language on many an occasion.
I don't have all the answers. I'm still learning and am just sharing some thoughts here.
Richard, could you clarify the difference you see between Yoga Philosophy and Vedanta Philosophy and why Yoga is more "esoteric" and better? I know people who practice both with no contradiction.
-
-
Greetings, Michael, and good wishes.
In his article it is pretty clear that Mr. Sender did not mean to include Theosophy in the "New Age" movement; indeed, one section is actually subtitled "Theosophy vs. New Age."
RE: "It's not a matter of do we want Affirmations or not, our whole "Self Talk" streaming through our minds is Affirmations, directing effecting our subconscious mind, whether we know it are not."
This may be true for many, I don't know. However, I think a case could be made that a Theosophical approach to this might be to use meditation to quiet such a non-stop "monkey mind" rather than to constantly try to put better monkey-talk in there.
RE: "The 12 Step Program is good for some people, but not for everyone. The continual belittling of ourselves just does not work for most folks."
In my view people in 12-Step programs do not appear to be "belittling" themselves by brave admissions of their problems and asking a "Higher Power" for assistance.
RE: "Constantly giving attention to the negative only puts more power into it."
Perhaps constantly giving no attention to what is negative but true is called denial and pretension.
Still . . . "
-
-
In response to Richard Ihle's blog "New Age Lies," I would like to add a few comments.
First, the term "New Age" has long become "old hat." At one time in the late 60's to early 80's it may have had some useful meaning, but has now become misused and all encompassing. For different writers and cultural historians it's a gigantic tent that can cover everything from Hermeticism, Wicca, Kaballah and Gnosticism to all Eastern Religions; from Theosophy to cutting edge quantum physics and the Human Potential Movement. In fact, many, myself included, point to Theosophy as itself a major influence in this "New Age" or "New Spirituality" movement.
As for Affirmations, there's more to be said than Mr. Ihle's points out. It's not a matter of do we want Affirmations or not, our whole "Self Talk" streaming through our minds is Affirmations, directing effecting our subconscious mind, whether we know it are not. There's nothing wrong with trying to bring some self awareness to this and some conscious control of it. Obviously, certain approaches are not for everyone.
As for mantra meditation, it's the old argument that J. Krishnamurti espoused. His "non-method" certainly worked for him and led to deep meditation states, from all reliable reports. It has not worked for anyone else, except, maybe, for a very possible few. He himself said as much on his death bed, stating that no one had understood him nor been transformed by his teachings. Mantra meditation is not the only approach, but there are those who can present a good case for it.
As for Guy Ballard, he's hardly the first nor only person to see the value in "I Am." In the Bible it's said "Be still and know that I AM God." It's referring to the "awareness of existing" or "awareness of being aware", which is beyond the ego personality. The same reference can be found in the East.
The 12 Step Program is good for some people, but not for everyone. The continual belittling of ourselves just does not work for most folks. Constantly giving attention to the negative only puts more power into it. But, evidently, some are able to thrive on this approach. Fine for them.
Whether any of this stands up to "Blavatsky doctrine" is the wrong approach. Blavatsky herself said there is much in 'The Secret Doctrine" that was unconscious to her even. That we must not make it a dogma of final authority, but a launching off point for our own widening perceptions.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Theosophy Network.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Theosophy.Net to add comments!
Join Theosophy.Net