What is 'NewAge', and why is it bad?
 

For a 'spiritual' forum I've seen a LOT of disparagement of the 'New Age'. Why is that? What do you think New Age is? :smile:

The New Age is too often the Old Age in a new packaging, neatly wrapped up and only containing the agreeable things.

Think of what Taco Bell did to Mexican food. You don't put mayonnaise or ranch in corn tortillas!!

Back to topic, *ahem* If a study helps a person with their self development...I can't hate on that. If it helps accelerates a persons spiritual and soul growth for their own betterment, than more power to them.

I do feel there could be more consideration for culture groups. Perhaps, be mindful on how you botch the tradition up. Similar to what gentrified small business have done to the foods in my culture. Basically completely screwed them up, and really for profit gains.

I don't see this I really don't. I've always felt new age broke from tradition and asked us to do what we don't do, such as one is to always love for instances or do no harm. And since we can't do these things well of course would mock it. I love metaphysics, which to me is New Age. It contains and is about science, religion, psychology and philosophy and has tons of information. But we have no such things as teachers or institutions or doctrine or authority and it is said by choice. We don't want to contaminate it. It is total freedom with no restrictions and open. I remember how much trouble I had with it and what it asked of me, so this is just me.

I remember the very first use of the lingo where Dr. Spock wrote their book and how it was belittled as New Age and jokes made about it. But it was like fresh ideas and understanding introduced into society in a new way. In fact the ideas seemed new by showing us what to do. It was society's time to see.

The Wiccan religion is new age. Certain periods of time are under the umbrella of New Age. Old wisdom, even dead religions are now in New Age.

I think it's about what we were not allowed to do and we're finally free to explore. New age resufaces old idea and I kinda get the feeling New Age says we didn't understand what was what it meant to be a wiccian and we want to reexplore. New age isn't God centered but nature centered, human centered. I don't know what the feeling is but I see New Age truth centered that have never died and no matter what we have tried, it can't be killed.

I might be totally wrong with this assumption but I've always thought of Wicca as being 'old age" and much of what is being talked about as "new age' sounds to me like a fair amount of recycled hinduism....

No you're right that makes perfect sense, pretty much everything was presented as New Age. Guess maybe because it was new to me and them to. I guess I believed them....lol.

I got curious, so I looked to Wikipedia. They have an extensive write-up. Here are some relevant bits:

The New Age phenomenon has proved difficult to define,[2] with much scholarly disagreement as to its scope.[3] The scholars Steven J. Sutcliffe and Ingvild Sælid Gilhus have even suggested that it remains "among the most disputed of categories in the study of religion".[4]

The scholar of religion Paul Heelas characterised the New Age as "an eclectic hotch-potch of beliefs, practices, and ways of life" which can be identified as a singular phenomenon through their use of "the same (or very similar) lingua franca to do with the human (and planetary) condition and how it can be transformed".[5] Similarly, the historian of religion Olav Hammer termed it "a common denominator for a variety of quite divergent contemporary popular practices and beliefs" which have emerged since the late 1970s and which are "largely united by historical links, a shared discourse and an air de famille".[6] According to Hammer, this New Age was a "fluid and fuzzy cultic milieu".[7] The sociologist of religion Michael York described the New Age as "an umbrella term that includes a great variety of groups and identities" but which are united by their "expectation of a major and universal change being primarily founded on the individual and collective development of human potential".[8]

The scholar of religion Wouter Hanegraaff adopted a different approach by asserting that "New Age" was "a label attached indiscriminately to whatever seems to fit it" and that as a result it "means very different things to different people".[9] He thus argued against the idea that the New Age could be considered "a unified ideology or Weltanschauung",[10] although he believed that it could be considered a "more of less unified "movement"".[11] Conversely, various other scholars have suggested that the New Age is insufficiently homogenous to be regarded as a singular movement.[12] As a replacement term, the sociologist of religion Steven Bruce suggested that New Age was better seen as a milieu,[13] while scholar of religion George D. Chryssides suggested that it could be understood as "a counter-cultural Zeitgeist".[14]

These definitions I find illustrate exactly the problem, of how people just don't 'get' New Age. To me, New Age is religion a la carte. What this means is that the most revolutionary thing about New Age is that it discards the old idea that religions come to you as a complete and self-contained system that you must adhere to. Instead, it means the individual is free to make their own religion from whatever source they want.

Wicca is actually related in that what we know of as Wicca is a modern invention, though it too is subject to evolution, though in group terms. Again from Wikipedia:

Wicca (English: /ˈwɪkə/), also termed Pagan Witchcraft, is a contemporary Pagan new religious movement. It was developed in England during the first half of the 20th century and was introduced to the public in 1954 by Gerald Gardner, a retired British civil servant. Wicca draws upon a diverse set of ancient pagan and 20th century hermetic motifs for its theological structure and ritual practices.

Wicca has no central authority. Its traditional core beliefs, principles and practices were originally outlined in the 1940s and 1950s by Gardner and Doreen Valiente, both in published books as well as in secret written and oral teachings passed along to their initiates. There are many variations on the core structure, and the religion grows and evolves over time. It is divided into a number of diverse lineages, sects and denominations, referred to as traditions, each with its own organizational structure and level of centralisation. Due to its decentralized nature, there is some disagreement over what actually constitutes Wicca. Some traditions, collectively referred to as British Traditional Wicca, strictly follow the initiatory lineage of Gardner and consider the term Wicca to apply only to similar traditions, but not to newer, eclectic traditions.

New Age simply continues the trend to it's ultimate form - people simply make up their own religions as individuals. A big part of the problem of defining New Age comes from scholars who still have the old mind-set, thinking that it must be some sort of religio-social movement with common themes and authority - but that's not what it's really about. Yes, there are some New Age groups - and those are New Agers that prefer to be part of a group. But, by and large, the real defining characteristic of the 'New Age' is that it is perfectly fine to be completely on your own.

So I'm still wondering - Why is that bad?

I can only speak of the UK but it was probably the same in some other parts, maybe America. Much of my reckoning comes from certain family friends and a local esoteric shop.

It probably started in the 1960s with what some people call the hippy culture, a revolution of the young against the authoritative parents of the 1940s. Fed up with parents the young created their own culture. Apart from the fashions created by people like Mary Quant, the music was all new and very acid-based (of the Purple Haze / Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds sort) or overtly sexual.

With this came an explosion of interest in spiritual matters from afar like Hindi, African, Buddhist, as the young turned away from orthodox religions and their constraints.

More to the point, popular literature abounded. High street bookshops started sections on “Mind body and spirit.” This was all new. Previously if you wanted esoteric “teaching” you had to belong to sects or societies or know your clandestine bookshops – the minority of readers meant limited print runs etc.

But to the young it seems it was more a novelty than a serious willingness to study. They wanted quick, easy answers and publishers (like Llewelyn) rose to the demand.

Then came the internet that allowed anyone who wanted to speak on almost anything to have their say, no less in “spiritual” matters which unless tangible goods were involved, could be anything, the authentic against the bogus with the same quick and easy methods. Much is snake-oil and it can be difficult without work and a dialectical approach to sort out the good from the bad. (I gave some examples of how the bad could be detected elsewhere here.)

Some of its larger problems are
i) that “spirituality” has become so compartmentalised. Each division tends to sell itself as the answer which makes choice difficult. Excuse the cliché but seeing the big picture is difficult for a newcomer.

ii) few of the new currents encourage seekers to ask what they really want (from spirituality) and why. Of course they don’t. They want to persuade people their particular idea is where it’s at. Never “Do you really want to do this? What do you think you’ll get from it?”

In former times this was sorted out before acceptance by an Order sometimes with initiations and usually needing evidence of motivation.

So anyone can pick up what grabs them, fake or bona fide alike. Many won’t question what they’re being told.

That’s the source of so much disappointment. People give up.

:::::::::
:::::::::

The following comes from a discussion on the web: Avoid these common pitfalls when studying magick, meditation or mysticism

What do you want?

It’s a simple question, but most who enter the world of magick and alternative spirituality never ask it, or never fully define the answer. As a result, they’re caught up in the “dazzling lights” of the New Age Pinball Machine, and bounced around between experiences, groups and teachers, never finding themselves or getting to their core issues and drives.

You need to ask this question up front: What do you want? Do you want greater creative skill and power? Do you want to fix a trauma or personal challenge? Are you willing to give up everything and seek enlightenment? Whatever it is, define it now, and then ask yourself if magical means are really the answer, or if more mundane means would be a lot easier. Be clear on this, or you risk getting caught up in the glamour of magick, and forgetting that it’s just a tool, and only one tool of many available to you right now.

Its perhaps perceived that each belief has disciplines attached to them, which I often compare to Martial arts.

The longer you study, the higher your rank or belt.

New age is the jeet kune do of religious practice as likewise you are encouraged to discard that which you don't find helpful. The masters who teach an entire martial art or religion likely feel that followers picking & choosing isn't grasping the true concept just merely scratching the surface.

I don't know where I stand on the concept of buffet spirituality because I am certainly not disciplined but I'm also not chained to everything that a single book prescribes.

.

Then please take a seat and I'll bring the champagne round once I've stopped playing the piano...

:wink: