Now, this is where it all gets fun & juicy! One of the most basic assumptions that most of us hold about the world is that it is completely objective and solid in the sense that what we think and feel about it does not change the way it actually is. Amazingly, the New Age paradigm actually questions this fundamental notion, and proposes in it's place that in fact reality is like a cosmic dream, a hologram projected into reality by Consciousness/Mind. According to this theory it only appears as if it's solid and real, whilst in fact being fluid and ever changing, the material world is simply the densest and most stagnant layer in the cosmic holomovement.
The Holographic idea was coined virtually simultaneously by Physicist David Bohm and Psychologist Karl Pribram, and made famouse by now deceased author Michael Talbot with his book "The Holographic Universe". David Bohm discovered that there were several unique features of holograms that could help explain some of the obscure elements of quantum physics. Similarly Karl Pribram also felt that the Brain could use Holographic principles to store information. The main features that were found to be of interest is that Holographic plates record information in a series of interference wave patterns. Each portion of the plate can be used to bring up the entire picture, only that the clarity of the hologram diminishes with the proportion of the holographic plate that is used. So this produces a principle, every part contains the whole. Also, holograms can appear to be 3 dimensional objects, when in fact they have no structure or mass, they are essentially visual illusion.
A common feature of the worlds Mystic traditions is the belief that the Universe is fundamentally a Mental creation, ie that Mind is in fact the absolute reality, and matter is a creation of it. This is diametrically opposed to the Naturalistic notion of the universe, whereby matter (or in truth, energy and natural law) are the fundamental realities, operating without any form of Consciousness, and that Mind / Consciousness comes into being when Energy/Matter has evolved to a suitable state as to bring into being all the necessary elements for "life" to exist. So Michael Talbot essentially linked the Holographic ideas to the Mystical concept of the Mental nature of the Universe, essentially taking Bohms work a few steps further (it must be noted that Bohm was a student of J.D.Krishnamurti, a teacher of Mysticism, so he would have been exposed to Eastern Philosophical ideas.)
Along with this Holographic idea goes the idea that our thoughts actually have some level of objective reality, and to some degree a direct effect on the world around us. This concept has become quite popular in the New Age, and you could be forgiven for thinking that this is actually a new concept, that the traditional Mystical teachings don't support it. There are countless books and DVD's written about Manifestation, creating the world which you desire, however, sometimes (in the case of the best seller "The Secret") the message has been unfortunately dumbed down for a mass audience.
This concept is in fact found in the older, traditional Mystic/Occult texts, although it's presented on a much deeper level, with a completely different focus, and is generally far more philosophically sound. In "The Secret", the draw card was encouraging people to believe that they could become rich by simply thinking it! (And suprise suprise, the author Rhonda Burne made a fortune of it!) The traditional context for such teachings was to enable the student to transcend suffering on the physical plane, and to realize how much power they have in changing their life. The Kybalion, for example teaches that there are laws that govern the unseen worlds / higher dimensions and that these laws can be used to affect the physical world. The New Age concept of the creation is that it begins initially with thought, and then descends in levels of density until it manifests on the Physical plane. The "law of attraction" that is so popular today, is proposed therefore to work via correspondence through different dimensions of reality.
Developing clarity of mind is a central theme in New Age, realizing that all the messy "monkey mind" junk that goes on actually has a unwanted effect upon the circumstances in our lives. Therefore the student concentrates on taking full conscious control of their mental and emotional procceses, so that they "create" the life that they consciously desire, rather than be effected by their individual neurosis.
Those with a Naturalistic worldview view this kind of talk as pure nonsense, responding that whilst positive thinking is always a good thing, it's not going to change our external world, for that we need actions. Perhaps this is where "The Secret" let down the New Age movement, for it came across as if it was saying that all you need to become rich is to think it, and not go out and make it happen. Whilst I usually shun the tabloid trash of current affairs shows, they did expose David Schirmer (one of the "Guru's from The Secret) as a Conman, a good example that not all that glitters is gold!
Alternatively, the Conservative Christian ranks tend to mostly follow Dualistic ideas of Mind and Matter, saying that Mind does not naturally effect matter directly, and that "paranormal" phenomena occur only by the intervention of Spiritual beings, Angels, Demons or God Himself.
As always I welcome feedback, if you have any comments or criticisms, please send them on to me. I might have to edit this post later, as I have rushed a bit to publish it.
Peace
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
New Age Doctrines - Part 3 - Quantum Metaphysics
Hello all. It has been a while since my last post, I have been very busy of late, overstretched perhaps. But, I have been getting alot done though. There have been several people who have been writing emails to me, which has been good, the material from these emails will find there way into posts in the near future.
Now, Quantum Metaphysics. Ever since Fritjof Capri's groundbreaking book "The Tao of Physics" the question as to whether or not the findings of quantm physics supports the New Age paradigm has been a controversial one related to the New Age movement. This is due to the apparent parrallels between the philosophy of easter mysticism and the philosophical implications of modern advanced physics. Since Capri's book there have been countless books released following this theme. Now skeptics maintain that it is a coincidence that there appear to be similarities , saying that in reality the two fields are discussing completely different things. The New Age movement therefore gets accused of making huge leaps between fact and conclusion. Often this certainly is the case. What I would like to do is therefore go through the points slowly, moving gradually from fact to conclusion, as the weaker writers within New Age tend to make huge leaps in this regard. As with the other topics, I'll start off with general descriptions and then try and go deeper into the specifics.
To quickly summarise, the main points which are put forth as being complematary between these two fields are the following:
1) The relativity (or lack of absolute reality) of Space & Time.
2) The interconnectedness of all energy / matter.
3) The importance of the "observer". In quantum physics this concept is central to wave/particle duality, first introduced in relation to light, then later to all sub-atomic particles. In Mysticism the Observer is the deepest aspect of Consciousness, the Spirit, which is unaffected by the constant change of the world, remaining in it's peacefull bliss regardless of outward circumstances.
Now, the major dispute is that the Scientists who don't support these parralles maintain that these attributes only apply to the sub-atomic world, and do not have any macroscopic effect or importance outside of the applications in advanced technology, or that they simply are being misinterpretated (I have heard someone argue that the oberserver in Quantum Physics is actually the equipment interfering in the experiment, must look this up). If, in fact the observer effect could be proven 100% to be general consciousness effecting reality (even just at the quantum level), than this on it's own would be a major concession, as one of the central premises of the Naturalistic worldview which is so prevalent in modern Science is that Consciousness is created by the brain and is thus limited to the brain.
The third point here is probably the most significant, the observer effect in wave/particle duality (popularly known by the twin slit experiment and Schrödinger's Cat), there is much debate over the implications of this. New Age movies such as "What The Bleep..." and "The Secret" have concluded that we create our own reality and that Quantum Mechanics supports this conclusion. The Scientific field however reacts with horror when such statements are made, particularly seeing such an advanced Science being used to support what many Scientists view as quackery.
Fritjof Capri received both praise and criticism for "The Tao of Physics". His critic's did however acknowledge that he did in fact have a strong understanding of both Physics and Mysticism. And it must be said that he was correct when he pointed out that when you place the statements of Physicist's and Mystics side-by-side, you can't tell who said what. A few examples should suffice to convince anybody of this at least. The question is, does it mean anything? Is it a coincidence, are the concepts found in completely different contexts as the Naturalist maintain, or is it an example of inner and outer Sciences coming to the same conclusions, albeit through different means as the New Age movement proclaims?
From what I've seen, conservative Christians seem to support the skeptics on these kind of issues, not wanting to support anything that would give evidence towards the New Age worldview. (However, I do know of some more liberal Christian books written which have a very similar theme to the New Age quantum metaphysics.) I'd like to leave it here for today, nice and short. Please comment if you feel so inclined, and I'd love to be sent any related links that you know of. I am writing mostly off the top of my head, so if you see any mistakes please point them out to me and I will attempt to resolve them.
Thanks,
Peace
Now, Quantum Metaphysics. Ever since Fritjof Capri's groundbreaking book "The Tao of Physics" the question as to whether or not the findings of quantm physics supports the New Age paradigm has been a controversial one related to the New Age movement. This is due to the apparent parrallels between the philosophy of easter mysticism and the philosophical implications of modern advanced physics. Since Capri's book there have been countless books released following this theme. Now skeptics maintain that it is a coincidence that there appear to be similarities , saying that in reality the two fields are discussing completely different things. The New Age movement therefore gets accused of making huge leaps between fact and conclusion. Often this certainly is the case. What I would like to do is therefore go through the points slowly, moving gradually from fact to conclusion, as the weaker writers within New Age tend to make huge leaps in this regard. As with the other topics, I'll start off with general descriptions and then try and go deeper into the specifics.
To quickly summarise, the main points which are put forth as being complematary between these two fields are the following:
1) The relativity (or lack of absolute reality) of Space & Time.
2) The interconnectedness of all energy / matter.
3) The importance of the "observer". In quantum physics this concept is central to wave/particle duality, first introduced in relation to light, then later to all sub-atomic particles. In Mysticism the Observer is the deepest aspect of Consciousness, the Spirit, which is unaffected by the constant change of the world, remaining in it's peacefull bliss regardless of outward circumstances.
Now, the major dispute is that the Scientists who don't support these parralles maintain that these attributes only apply to the sub-atomic world, and do not have any macroscopic effect or importance outside of the applications in advanced technology, or that they simply are being misinterpretated (I have heard someone argue that the oberserver in Quantum Physics is actually the equipment interfering in the experiment, must look this up). If, in fact the observer effect could be proven 100% to be general consciousness effecting reality (even just at the quantum level), than this on it's own would be a major concession, as one of the central premises of the Naturalistic worldview which is so prevalent in modern Science is that Consciousness is created by the brain and is thus limited to the brain.
The third point here is probably the most significant, the observer effect in wave/particle duality (popularly known by the twin slit experiment and Schrödinger's Cat), there is much debate over the implications of this. New Age movies such as "What The Bleep..." and "The Secret" have concluded that we create our own reality and that Quantum Mechanics supports this conclusion. The Scientific field however reacts with horror when such statements are made, particularly seeing such an advanced Science being used to support what many Scientists view as quackery.
Fritjof Capri received both praise and criticism for "The Tao of Physics". His critic's did however acknowledge that he did in fact have a strong understanding of both Physics and Mysticism. And it must be said that he was correct when he pointed out that when you place the statements of Physicist's and Mystics side-by-side, you can't tell who said what. A few examples should suffice to convince anybody of this at least. The question is, does it mean anything? Is it a coincidence, are the concepts found in completely different contexts as the Naturalist maintain, or is it an example of inner and outer Sciences coming to the same conclusions, albeit through different means as the New Age movement proclaims?
From what I've seen, conservative Christians seem to support the skeptics on these kind of issues, not wanting to support anything that would give evidence towards the New Age worldview. (However, I do know of some more liberal Christian books written which have a very similar theme to the New Age quantum metaphysics.) I'd like to leave it here for today, nice and short. Please comment if you feel so inclined, and I'd love to be sent any related links that you know of. I am writing mostly off the top of my head, so if you see any mistakes please point them out to me and I will attempt to resolve them.
Thanks,
Peace
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Near Death Experiences - Part 2
Now, I thought I'd give this topic a bit of room as I think it has a lot to offer to this discussion. I previously stated that the conclusions that would be drawn from excepting NDE's as a genuine phenomena would mostly support a New Age paradigm. For those of you unfamiliar with NDE accounts I suggest you read a few to start off. If you click on the following link, look under notable NDE's http://near-death.com/ As a resuslt, there is skepticism from two main groups, Atheists and Christians. I will now briefly present arguments that attempt to deal with the areas of dispute.
Firstly, I will deal with some of the objections of Atheists. Now Atheists propose natural, biological explanations for the phenomena of NDE's in line with the theory that consciousness in created by the electro-chemical nature of the brain, therefore ruling out possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the functioning of a suitably developed physical form or that consciousness can directly cause any direct effect on "external" reality, except through the vehicle of a physical form. So the major argument of skeptics is that NDE's are hallucinations of a dying brain, they propose that after the brain stops functioning there is 30 seconds odd of Consciousness left, categorized by the massive release of endorphins producing a state of bliss and the sensations of bright lights.
However, in response to this, one of the most common features of NDE's is that they occur while EEG machines are flat-lined, meaning that there is absolutely no electrical activity at all in the brain, accompanied frequently by the cessation of heart and lung functioning. NDE reports are consistent in that the experiencer comments that their perception was actually clearer then normal, in direct contrast to a dream or hallucination. NDE reports are often quite long, generally beginning with leaving the body, travelling to another dimension and then travelling back into the body in sync with their resuscitation. If the dying brain theory was correct, you would expect resuscitated patients to report a brief period of intense bliss fading into unconsciousness. This clearly is not the case.
Also, there are many doctors and nurses that have witnessed and reported that the resuscitated patients were able to clearly and accurately describe the medical procedures that occured whilst they were flatlined. Also, these patients have frequently described conversations and events that occured in different rooms or different places during this time, providing strong evidence for OBE's. There are also other elements of NDE's which lend strong support to them being a real phenomena, such as: Blind people see during NDE's (I believe people who are blind do not see in dreams, if I'm wrong please, point me out), there have been cases where people have brought back important information from the NDE, I think I remember reading about a scientist who got the breakthrough for a particullarly important invention from his NDE experience.
Now, the other main points often used by skeptics is to point out that experiences similar to NDE's can be produced within the laboratory by either the administration of certain drugs, electromagnetic stimulation to the brain, or the circumstances of tremendous stress on the body as when potential astronauts are subject to extreme G-forces in training. These arguments however seem to assume that understanding the biological functioning of the brain during altered states of consciousness somehow diminishes the spiritual aspect of them.
The thing is that New Age does not deny the obvious fact that the biological functioning of the brain is connected to the states of consciousness. This however, does not necessarily imply that the electro-chemical activity is the creator of these states of consciousness. The New Age view is that the brain is a vehicle for consciousness whilst in the physical form and that causality goes both ways, from the body to the mind, and from the mind to the body. There are of course numerous examples of this being the case. Therefore, the examples where altered states of consciousness bearing resemblence to NDE accounts are produced by physical conditions does not therefore have any implication to the cause of NDE's, as previously stated NDE's occur whilst there is no brain activity. In my opinion it is only due to the misunderstanding of the New Age theory of Consciousness and causality that this is raised in opposition.
The New Age view of the body is as the lowest level of an interconnected system of bodies of various density: Soul (Absolute existence, no form), Causal Body (Mental, still formless), Astral Bodies (Amorphous forms of colour, sound & energy) and finally The Physical Body (Being the most relative level of existence). Administration of hallucigenic drugs therefore has a causal effect on the Subtle Bodies producing a shift in the state of Consciousness. Alternatively, Placebo Effects tricks the mind to believe that it is being administered a real medicince, thus having a causal effect downwards through the subtle bodies into the physical body. From this perspective, when the physical body ceases it's vital functions, the higher bodies literally leave it behind and continue to exist in a different way, most often moving upwards into the Astral Planes, but occasionally also remaining temporarily present on the earth. For a more detailed overview of evidence supporting NDE's check out http://near-death.com/evidence.html .
On the other side of the coin we have conservative Christians that believe NDE accounts to be somehow demonic illusions. I think Kevin Williams the author of http://www.near-death.com/ presents a very good argument against this. In using Christianity's very own teachings against this conclusion we present Matthew Chapter 12, V25 “Every kingdom divided against itself is bought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:....You shall know the roots of a tree by its fruit”. In the context of the verse Jesus is accused of performing miracles by the power of demons. He responds by asking how could Satan drive out Satan by Satan? NDE's accounts present positive Spiritual teachings which show that there are consequences to all of our actions, thoughts and words. These teachings encourage people to show love, compassion, forgiveness, patience & tolerance to others, and to pursue the higher goals in life (creative expresions, pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, appreciation of loving relationships, philanthropic and charitable pursuits & ultimately, spiritual realisation). There are odd cases here and there where people have had trouble grounding themselves back into everyday living after an NDE, however, the majority of people who have had NDE's come back changed for the better (the perfect example is Dannion Brinkley, author of Saved By The Light). To believe that NDE's were somehow evil, is to therefore ascribe the positive teachings in them to also be evil.
If Christians maintain that since the only way to salvation is through Jesus then all satan has to do is to keep people away from Christ, then this creates a massive hole in their doctrines. Firstly, if the above were the case, then life on earth would be meaningless except for serving as a test for where we would spend eternity (I'll also raise this point later when talking about reincarnation), as the New Age paradigm specifically teaches principles which lead to both personal happiness, and overall community wellbeing (contrary to what some people contend, more on this later). If you read through the gospels taking particular note of the red-letter parts, then you will find a significant proportion of it refers to practical teachings on morality, ethics, ie it is not focused entirely on the concept of Salvation. Also, Christians today are very much into self-help, a signifanct percentage of sermons in modern churches are on self-help issues. Christians also maintain that this life does have meaning, and the little things are important.
Secondly, if God is the source of all good, and according to Christians, Satan is the source of all evil, then how could Satan preach love, compassion, forgiveness, self-lessness etc etc ? (this argument applies not just to NDE teachings, but to New Age in general and any non-Christian system of spirituality, psychology, ethics, morality and philosophy, with the exception of Satanism, the modern religion of ego-worship, hate, lust, anger and ultimate selfishness. I will use this argument repetitavely through the course of this blog, & hopefully refine it in the process.) The verse in Matthew has Jesus asking the same question. I am aware that other parts of the Bible say that Satan can perform miracles and healings. Isn't this a case of the Bible being consistently inconsistent?
(Insert: This is an add on to the post. I have received a number of comments regarding the above section so I thought I'd paste in a further explanation on the above points:
The purpose of Religion should not be solely concerned with our destiny after death (although this is important), it should lead to a truly fullfilling and happy life whilst here on earth, both for individuals and society at large. It is clear that following New Age and Eastern Mysticism has lead to many people finding true happiness, and also (depending on your understanding / interpretation of them) following their precepts should lead to one becoming self-less so as to serve others (the greater community), and serve God at all times. As both New Age and Christianity encourage morality, ethics, psychological development and humanitarianism (to different degrees depending on the denomination/sect/ or teachers that you follow), it should be clear that both these belief systems can lead towards a fullfilling indivual and cultural life. For some Christians therefore to denounce New Age as being demonic, is therefore to say that the sole significant aspect of Religion is belief in Jesus for the purpose of Salvation after death and true happiness.
Therefore, I conclude that 1) These Christians therefore do not believe that anyone can be trully happy without Jesus and 2) These Christians think it is not so much important how much much one live by the principles put forth in the Gospels as being the words of Jesus, as much as the following of orthodox christian doctrines and practices and having the outward label of a Christian.
For example, Mahatma Mohandas Ghandi was a Hindu, who lived by the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita, following the words of Krishna. Ghandi did however see the moral, ethical, psychological and spiritual teachings in the Gita as being generally in line with the "red-letter" teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and he believed in the importance of inter-faith harmony, basic New Age premises. Following conservative, orthodox christian teachings, Ghandi would be seen as a follower of "Pagan" religion, therefore not "saved", and would thus be denied "salvation" and Heaven. This would therefore take away the significance of his life that he led, self-lessly serving the greater community in the best way that he could. Ghandi is but one example of non-Christians who have devoted their entire lives to serving God to the best of his ability.
My experience has been that Christianity has way to many philosophical problems for me, and I never found fullfillment in it. I have however found the answers I wanted through Yoga, Vedanta and Spiritualism in particular, along with phenomenal inner bliss. Now, I understand that this isn't the case for everyone, I have heard many cases to the contrary. There are many people who have converted from New Age to Christianity, and vice versa, this in itself does not prove anything. The question then is, how to explain the various experiences that people have had with New Age and Christianity, and the philosophical and theological problems that different people feel can be solved by the various Religions.
Generally christianity proposes that the existence of evil is due to original sin (adam and eve's disobedience towards God in the Garden of Even), however this assumes the existence of the serpent in the Garden as the source of Eve's temptation. As this serpent is generally represented as Satan, this would conclude that the expulsion of Lucifer from heaven happened before the first sin of mankind. Now, whilst Evangelical Christians (and other conservative Protestant demoninations ) do not have a monopoly on Christian Orthodoxy, they are very vocal in their opinions. One popular belief amongst evangelicals is that every single "sin" has a related demon, and that therefore every temptation is a spiritual battle. Satan is portrayed as being consumed by hate and pervesion, seeking to eternally distance mankind from God. And God is portrayed as all-loving, wishing for mankind to return to Him, therefore Satan and his fallen angels/demons are seen as the source of anything which leads people from God (ie Sin).
There is a verse that say's that Satan does disguise himself as good, as "an angel of light" (see 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)." However, this proposes that he can therefore pretend to be good, for the ultimate evil purpose of leading mankind into Sin. It doesn't suggest that Satan is in fact loving, compassionate or anything of the such. The overall point of the post was this: NDE's give people hope and faith in the goodness of God, in his Divine Justice, Mercy and Grace, the continuation of life after death, and the importance of everything we say, do and think. They teach positive moral, ethical, psycho-spiritual teachings, the main reason why some Christians denounce them is that they generally support New Age doctrines, rather than literal, Biblical doctrines. Surely the true advesaries in this world are hate, anger, greed, lust, perversion, selfishness etc etc. End of Insert)
So, I'm still just getting started, and thus am still being quite general. But all this begs the question, OK, so what is the overall significance of this? If NDE's are taken seriously, what does it mean? It means quite frankly that the value systems of our entire society could change, for the better. If Science were to lend support to a Spiritual Paradigm, then we would have a new foundation for ethics and morality to to take their place as primary in the consciousness of mankind. Where as previously some Church's used fear and coercion to inflict puritanical notions of sin, guilt and punishment on mankind, and recent secular notions have tended to reject morality and ethics in general and embraced selfish materialistic consumerism in escaping from the inbalance of the past into a new imbalance, the new Paradigm promotes personal responsibility for our actions thoughts and words, whilst freeing us from guilt and fear. Justice & Mercy in balance. It also threatens the exclusivity of many traditional religious systems (not just Christianity, although it may seem like I think that way if you haven't read my earlier posts) who use the threat of Hell to scare their congregation into line.
Ok, I know I'm starting to stir the pot a bit now, so if you have an opinion on this, please share it with me. Post a comment and/or send me an email.
Bye for now.
Peace.
Firstly, I will deal with some of the objections of Atheists. Now Atheists propose natural, biological explanations for the phenomena of NDE's in line with the theory that consciousness in created by the electro-chemical nature of the brain, therefore ruling out possibility that consciousness can exist outside of the functioning of a suitably developed physical form or that consciousness can directly cause any direct effect on "external" reality, except through the vehicle of a physical form. So the major argument of skeptics is that NDE's are hallucinations of a dying brain, they propose that after the brain stops functioning there is 30 seconds odd of Consciousness left, categorized by the massive release of endorphins producing a state of bliss and the sensations of bright lights.
However, in response to this, one of the most common features of NDE's is that they occur while EEG machines are flat-lined, meaning that there is absolutely no electrical activity at all in the brain, accompanied frequently by the cessation of heart and lung functioning. NDE reports are consistent in that the experiencer comments that their perception was actually clearer then normal, in direct contrast to a dream or hallucination. NDE reports are often quite long, generally beginning with leaving the body, travelling to another dimension and then travelling back into the body in sync with their resuscitation. If the dying brain theory was correct, you would expect resuscitated patients to report a brief period of intense bliss fading into unconsciousness. This clearly is not the case.
Also, there are many doctors and nurses that have witnessed and reported that the resuscitated patients were able to clearly and accurately describe the medical procedures that occured whilst they were flatlined. Also, these patients have frequently described conversations and events that occured in different rooms or different places during this time, providing strong evidence for OBE's. There are also other elements of NDE's which lend strong support to them being a real phenomena, such as: Blind people see during NDE's (I believe people who are blind do not see in dreams, if I'm wrong please, point me out), there have been cases where people have brought back important information from the NDE, I think I remember reading about a scientist who got the breakthrough for a particullarly important invention from his NDE experience.
Now, the other main points often used by skeptics is to point out that experiences similar to NDE's can be produced within the laboratory by either the administration of certain drugs, electromagnetic stimulation to the brain, or the circumstances of tremendous stress on the body as when potential astronauts are subject to extreme G-forces in training. These arguments however seem to assume that understanding the biological functioning of the brain during altered states of consciousness somehow diminishes the spiritual aspect of them.
The thing is that New Age does not deny the obvious fact that the biological functioning of the brain is connected to the states of consciousness. This however, does not necessarily imply that the electro-chemical activity is the creator of these states of consciousness. The New Age view is that the brain is a vehicle for consciousness whilst in the physical form and that causality goes both ways, from the body to the mind, and from the mind to the body. There are of course numerous examples of this being the case. Therefore, the examples where altered states of consciousness bearing resemblence to NDE accounts are produced by physical conditions does not therefore have any implication to the cause of NDE's, as previously stated NDE's occur whilst there is no brain activity. In my opinion it is only due to the misunderstanding of the New Age theory of Consciousness and causality that this is raised in opposition.
The New Age view of the body is as the lowest level of an interconnected system of bodies of various density: Soul (Absolute existence, no form), Causal Body (Mental, still formless), Astral Bodies (Amorphous forms of colour, sound & energy) and finally The Physical Body (Being the most relative level of existence). Administration of hallucigenic drugs therefore has a causal effect on the Subtle Bodies producing a shift in the state of Consciousness. Alternatively, Placebo Effects tricks the mind to believe that it is being administered a real medicince, thus having a causal effect downwards through the subtle bodies into the physical body. From this perspective, when the physical body ceases it's vital functions, the higher bodies literally leave it behind and continue to exist in a different way, most often moving upwards into the Astral Planes, but occasionally also remaining temporarily present on the earth. For a more detailed overview of evidence supporting NDE's check out http://near-death.com/evidence.html .
On the other side of the coin we have conservative Christians that believe NDE accounts to be somehow demonic illusions. I think Kevin Williams the author of http://www.near-death.com/ presents a very good argument against this. In using Christianity's very own teachings against this conclusion we present Matthew Chapter 12, V25 “Every kingdom divided against itself is bought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:....You shall know the roots of a tree by its fruit”. In the context of the verse Jesus is accused of performing miracles by the power of demons. He responds by asking how could Satan drive out Satan by Satan? NDE's accounts present positive Spiritual teachings which show that there are consequences to all of our actions, thoughts and words. These teachings encourage people to show love, compassion, forgiveness, patience & tolerance to others, and to pursue the higher goals in life (creative expresions, pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, appreciation of loving relationships, philanthropic and charitable pursuits & ultimately, spiritual realisation). There are odd cases here and there where people have had trouble grounding themselves back into everyday living after an NDE, however, the majority of people who have had NDE's come back changed for the better (the perfect example is Dannion Brinkley, author of Saved By The Light). To believe that NDE's were somehow evil, is to therefore ascribe the positive teachings in them to also be evil.
If Christians maintain that since the only way to salvation is through Jesus then all satan has to do is to keep people away from Christ, then this creates a massive hole in their doctrines. Firstly, if the above were the case, then life on earth would be meaningless except for serving as a test for where we would spend eternity (I'll also raise this point later when talking about reincarnation), as the New Age paradigm specifically teaches principles which lead to both personal happiness, and overall community wellbeing (contrary to what some people contend, more on this later). If you read through the gospels taking particular note of the red-letter parts, then you will find a significant proportion of it refers to practical teachings on morality, ethics, ie it is not focused entirely on the concept of Salvation. Also, Christians today are very much into self-help, a signifanct percentage of sermons in modern churches are on self-help issues. Christians also maintain that this life does have meaning, and the little things are important.
Secondly, if God is the source of all good, and according to Christians, Satan is the source of all evil, then how could Satan preach love, compassion, forgiveness, self-lessness etc etc ? (this argument applies not just to NDE teachings, but to New Age in general and any non-Christian system of spirituality, psychology, ethics, morality and philosophy, with the exception of Satanism, the modern religion of ego-worship, hate, lust, anger and ultimate selfishness. I will use this argument repetitavely through the course of this blog, & hopefully refine it in the process.) The verse in Matthew has Jesus asking the same question. I am aware that other parts of the Bible say that Satan can perform miracles and healings. Isn't this a case of the Bible being consistently inconsistent?
(Insert: This is an add on to the post. I have received a number of comments regarding the above section so I thought I'd paste in a further explanation on the above points:
The purpose of Religion should not be solely concerned with our destiny after death (although this is important), it should lead to a truly fullfilling and happy life whilst here on earth, both for individuals and society at large. It is clear that following New Age and Eastern Mysticism has lead to many people finding true happiness, and also (depending on your understanding / interpretation of them) following their precepts should lead to one becoming self-less so as to serve others (the greater community), and serve God at all times. As both New Age and Christianity encourage morality, ethics, psychological development and humanitarianism (to different degrees depending on the denomination/sect/ or teachers that you follow), it should be clear that both these belief systems can lead towards a fullfilling indivual and cultural life. For some Christians therefore to denounce New Age as being demonic, is therefore to say that the sole significant aspect of Religion is belief in Jesus for the purpose of Salvation after death and true happiness.
Therefore, I conclude that 1) These Christians therefore do not believe that anyone can be trully happy without Jesus and 2) These Christians think it is not so much important how much much one live by the principles put forth in the Gospels as being the words of Jesus, as much as the following of orthodox christian doctrines and practices and having the outward label of a Christian.
For example, Mahatma Mohandas Ghandi was a Hindu, who lived by the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita, following the words of Krishna. Ghandi did however see the moral, ethical, psychological and spiritual teachings in the Gita as being generally in line with the "red-letter" teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and he believed in the importance of inter-faith harmony, basic New Age premises. Following conservative, orthodox christian teachings, Ghandi would be seen as a follower of "Pagan" religion, therefore not "saved", and would thus be denied "salvation" and Heaven. This would therefore take away the significance of his life that he led, self-lessly serving the greater community in the best way that he could. Ghandi is but one example of non-Christians who have devoted their entire lives to serving God to the best of his ability.
My experience has been that Christianity has way to many philosophical problems for me, and I never found fullfillment in it. I have however found the answers I wanted through Yoga, Vedanta and Spiritualism in particular, along with phenomenal inner bliss. Now, I understand that this isn't the case for everyone, I have heard many cases to the contrary. There are many people who have converted from New Age to Christianity, and vice versa, this in itself does not prove anything. The question then is, how to explain the various experiences that people have had with New Age and Christianity, and the philosophical and theological problems that different people feel can be solved by the various Religions.
Generally christianity proposes that the existence of evil is due to original sin (adam and eve's disobedience towards God in the Garden of Even), however this assumes the existence of the serpent in the Garden as the source of Eve's temptation. As this serpent is generally represented as Satan, this would conclude that the expulsion of Lucifer from heaven happened before the first sin of mankind. Now, whilst Evangelical Christians (and other conservative Protestant demoninations ) do not have a monopoly on Christian Orthodoxy, they are very vocal in their opinions. One popular belief amongst evangelicals is that every single "sin" has a related demon, and that therefore every temptation is a spiritual battle. Satan is portrayed as being consumed by hate and pervesion, seeking to eternally distance mankind from God. And God is portrayed as all-loving, wishing for mankind to return to Him, therefore Satan and his fallen angels/demons are seen as the source of anything which leads people from God (ie Sin).
There is a verse that say's that Satan does disguise himself as good, as "an angel of light" (see 2 Corinthians 11:13-15)." However, this proposes that he can therefore pretend to be good, for the ultimate evil purpose of leading mankind into Sin. It doesn't suggest that Satan is in fact loving, compassionate or anything of the such. The overall point of the post was this: NDE's give people hope and faith in the goodness of God, in his Divine Justice, Mercy and Grace, the continuation of life after death, and the importance of everything we say, do and think. They teach positive moral, ethical, psycho-spiritual teachings, the main reason why some Christians denounce them is that they generally support New Age doctrines, rather than literal, Biblical doctrines. Surely the true advesaries in this world are hate, anger, greed, lust, perversion, selfishness etc etc. End of Insert)
So, I'm still just getting started, and thus am still being quite general. But all this begs the question, OK, so what is the overall significance of this? If NDE's are taken seriously, what does it mean? It means quite frankly that the value systems of our entire society could change, for the better. If Science were to lend support to a Spiritual Paradigm, then we would have a new foundation for ethics and morality to to take their place as primary in the consciousness of mankind. Where as previously some Church's used fear and coercion to inflict puritanical notions of sin, guilt and punishment on mankind, and recent secular notions have tended to reject morality and ethics in general and embraced selfish materialistic consumerism in escaping from the inbalance of the past into a new imbalance, the new Paradigm promotes personal responsibility for our actions thoughts and words, whilst freeing us from guilt and fear. Justice & Mercy in balance. It also threatens the exclusivity of many traditional religious systems (not just Christianity, although it may seem like I think that way if you haven't read my earlier posts) who use the threat of Hell to scare their congregation into line.
Ok, I know I'm starting to stir the pot a bit now, so if you have an opinion on this, please share it with me. Post a comment and/or send me an email.
Bye for now.
Peace.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
New Age Doctrines / Beliefs - Part 2 - Prana / Chi / Vital Energy
Hi. So previously I have briefly discussed New Age concepts of the Afterlife. I thought I would another element of this worldview. The concept of "vital energy / lifeforce energy / subtle energy is an essential element to virtually all "Alternative Therapies", which form a major part of New Age, whether it is Yoga, Tai Chi / Qi Gong, Reiki, Pranic Healing, Therapeutic Touch, Accupuncture, Homeotherapy, Feng Shui etc etc. This is a very ancient concept, as we have solid archeological proof that the practices of Yoga date to at least around 3000 BC, within which the concept of Prana (vital air) is an essential part of it's teachings and practices. Some researches have shown a similar (or near identical concept) to be found in almost every culture, the most obvious example being the Chinese term Chi. Many modern reasearches have coined their own terms, for example: Orgone, BioPlasma etc. (Throughout my blog I will use the term Vital Energy or Prana).
Basically speaking, this concept proposes that all living things are sustained by this vital energy, wether human, animal, plant, bacteria etc, and that no life could exist without it. Perhaps a good comparasion for those unfamilar with the concept could be the reliance of electric goods on a flow of electricity. Along with this basic concept goes the systems through which Prana functions, the Subtle Body/'ies (The aura), Chakras (Spinning centers of consciousness and energy), Nadis (Subtle Nerve pathways, pretty much identical concept to the Chinese concept of the Meridian).
Now, the existence of Prana is a hotly contested issue. Scientifically speaking, it's a concept specifically related to the field of Physics, with many of it's applications in medicine. Most Physicist's do not believe in the existence of Prana, citing no real Scientific proof of it's existence, nor seeing any need for it to fill any gaps in modern physics. Also, a significant percentage of Medical profesional's do not believe in the existence of Prana, and refer to any alternative therapies that work with this concept as being quack or fraudulent.
Now, there is in fact a small but growing field of Scientists investigating the field of Pranic research, probably the two most well known being Hiroshi Motoyama and Valerie Hunt, who have both produced very strong evidence to support Prana as a valid Scientific concept. There are also many more which I will mention later as I go deeper into this concept. Most sources regard Prana as being primarily sub-quantum in nature, however also having measurable effects on magnetic fields and different sources of radiation. (Like many other things, I will go deeper into this later.)
Despite the Scientific skepticism, many people like myself become believers in this concept due to personal experience. As a quick example to start, the first time I ever felt it was the first time I was given Reiki, about 5 years ago. The lady who gave it stood behind me with her hands hovering above my head. I had no idea really what to expect, and very quickly I felt a warm pulsating flow of "energy" moving downwards from the top of my head into the rest of my body. For about a week afterwards I had a constant pleasant sensation on the top of my head (corresponding with the Crown Chakra - Sahasrara in sankskrit) which was accompanied by a dramatic shift in my thought processes. Soon after this I started practicing Hatha Yoga, through which I continued to have experiences which I believe can only be explained properly with the concept of Vital Energy, Prana. Now, the experiences are an everyday occurence, and I have had many particularly unique and dramatic ones.
Skeptics usually explain these experiences as examples of Placebo effect and consider that they can be fully understood within standard biology (ie reactions of the nervous system, and the release of hormones into the blood). Alternatively, conservative Christians don't deny that there is an supernatural element to this phenomena. Once again however, they consider this to be another example of demonic activity.
I will leave it here, as I am still laying down the foundations of future discussions. Feel free to comment.
Thank you.
Basically speaking, this concept proposes that all living things are sustained by this vital energy, wether human, animal, plant, bacteria etc, and that no life could exist without it. Perhaps a good comparasion for those unfamilar with the concept could be the reliance of electric goods on a flow of electricity. Along with this basic concept goes the systems through which Prana functions, the Subtle Body/'ies (The aura), Chakras (Spinning centers of consciousness and energy), Nadis (Subtle Nerve pathways, pretty much identical concept to the Chinese concept of the Meridian).
Now, the existence of Prana is a hotly contested issue. Scientifically speaking, it's a concept specifically related to the field of Physics, with many of it's applications in medicine. Most Physicist's do not believe in the existence of Prana, citing no real Scientific proof of it's existence, nor seeing any need for it to fill any gaps in modern physics. Also, a significant percentage of Medical profesional's do not believe in the existence of Prana, and refer to any alternative therapies that work with this concept as being quack or fraudulent.
Now, there is in fact a small but growing field of Scientists investigating the field of Pranic research, probably the two most well known being Hiroshi Motoyama and Valerie Hunt, who have both produced very strong evidence to support Prana as a valid Scientific concept. There are also many more which I will mention later as I go deeper into this concept. Most sources regard Prana as being primarily sub-quantum in nature, however also having measurable effects on magnetic fields and different sources of radiation. (Like many other things, I will go deeper into this later.)
Despite the Scientific skepticism, many people like myself become believers in this concept due to personal experience. As a quick example to start, the first time I ever felt it was the first time I was given Reiki, about 5 years ago. The lady who gave it stood behind me with her hands hovering above my head. I had no idea really what to expect, and very quickly I felt a warm pulsating flow of "energy" moving downwards from the top of my head into the rest of my body. For about a week afterwards I had a constant pleasant sensation on the top of my head (corresponding with the Crown Chakra - Sahasrara in sankskrit) which was accompanied by a dramatic shift in my thought processes. Soon after this I started practicing Hatha Yoga, through which I continued to have experiences which I believe can only be explained properly with the concept of Vital Energy, Prana. Now, the experiences are an everyday occurence, and I have had many particularly unique and dramatic ones.
Skeptics usually explain these experiences as examples of Placebo effect and consider that they can be fully understood within standard biology (ie reactions of the nervous system, and the release of hormones into the blood). Alternatively, conservative Christians don't deny that there is an supernatural element to this phenomena. Once again however, they consider this to be another example of demonic activity.
I will leave it here, as I am still laying down the foundations of future discussions. Feel free to comment.
Thank you.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Going deeper into the New Age - Part 1
Now, I thought it was time I delved more deeply into defining what is New Age and it's doctrines. In contrast to Christianity there is no single defining text (such as the Bible) or list of beliefs (such as the Nicene Creed) to define what it is. Despite this, there are many common elements which describe this worldview. So, what are they?
Well, the first and foremost principle is the rejection of exclusivity of Religion. This is in stark contrast to conservative Christian denominations which claim that they are the only valid spiritual path (it is not only Christian groups that take an exclusive approach. Islam and Judaism are very exclusive, some Eastern sects are too (ISKON - The Hare Krishna's for example). Some modern "cults" are exclusive, however it would be wrong to label every religious group to crop up in recent times as New Age (ie for example Raelians or Scientology)).
Taken to extremes this can mean total Relativism, ie the idea that all truth is relative to a range of variables and circumstances. In contrast, the exclusive Religions have a dualistic Absolute view of truth ie It's either their truth or its false. Certainly many people accuse New Age of being Relativistic, and in fact many people who follow a loose New Age approach are. I have met many people that don't believe in any sort of Absolutes. However, I think you will find that most of the serious researches & teachers do not advocate absolute relativism.
What I personally think is the solution is the concept of an Absolute truth, with a descending scale of Relative truths, some closer to being an Absolute truth, and some further down the scale. Specifically in relation to Spiritual/Religious concepts it means that there is Absolute truth that can be found non-exclusively in different cultures and religions, but at the same time not all Religious doctrines are equal. So, my conception of New Age will probably be different to others in that I believe in the importance of being firmly established in a traditional Mysticism, thus having an Absolute from which to ground beliefs, and than allow for the range of Relative experiences to have their place.
Probably one of the most important application of this is in relation to beliefs about an afterlife. Conservative Christianity has maintained that there are only two places one can go after death, Heaven or Hell, and that you must belong to a particular denomination and follow all their teachings in order to teach Heaven after you die (however, these teachings emphasise that Salvation is given by grace from God through Jesus Christ. However, this still implies that you authorize a specific group to dictate what is orthodoxy and what is heresy), (Jehovas Witnesses (JW's) and Seventh Day Adventists (SDA's) both believe in annilhation for unbeliever rather than eternal torment in Hell. However both JW's and SDA's are considered fringe groups by most denominations, despite the fact that they see themselves as Restorationists). Strictly, Christians maintain that the only possible method of Salvation is through Jesus. In contrast, New Age proposes that it is not so significant what title you use to describe your Religious beliefs, or what doctrines and dogmas you follow as much as how you live the Spiritual principles, or in strictly Eastern terms, how you realize the higher truths (Dharma) in your life. Specifically, what this means is that whilst doctrines can be significant in determining what one considers important and worth striving for, it is not our intellectual ideals and concepts that are important as much as how we treat others, how we speak, think and act. The perfect example of this is NDE's where many people have been told that the religious denomination is not important, the extent to which they allow love to be the driving force in their life is.
New Age does not believe in the traditional Dualistic doctrine of Heaven and Hell. Instead you have a more complex concept of varying planes or Dimensions. There are variations on these beliefs amongst different groups, however there are common elements. Many different sources describe an Astral cosmos, a universe comprised of less dense elements than our material world which exists both inside and outside our own. Within this Astral world there are considered to be many different levels to correspond with varying levels of Spiritual/Psychological development.Some of the lower levels might be considered "Hellish" prisons for corrupt Souls, however their is a major difference between this concept and the traditional one of Hell. The traditional model of Hell proposes that all those who reject Christianity (or any other exclusive Religion) will find themselves eternally seperated from God, in a realm of hate & torture, not just those who could be considered as sinners, immoral & evil. (To me this produces a major grey area in the doctrines of Christianity which I will address one day soon.) In the New Age conception, people who lived life selfishly, showing anger and hate to others, often find themselves after death in a dark world filled with torment and pain, surrounded by others of a similar inclanation. However, in contrast to the Christian view of Hell as eternal, this New Age version presents such nightmarish experiences as simply temporary, from which a Soul can escape by calling out to God. There are many NDE's where this kind of scenario has been reported.
Likewise, the view of Heaven is also remarkably different. Specifically the Christian conception of Heaven presents it as an eternal abode where one enters due to the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. Alternatively, the New Age conception of Heaven is one of many temporary abodes in the Astral cosmos, where one enters for a continuation of experience, this time however free from the miseries and troubles of the material world. Descriptions from NDE and OBE reports as well as those from traditional mystical texts and information produced through mediumship presents a picture of many Heavens, of differing levels of density, leading up towards a realm of the Absolute. Sometimes, Eastern views are misrepresented in this regard, whilst the ultimate aim of Eastern Mysticism is to reach a realm beyond the transitory cycles of birth and death (ie Nirvana, Moksha, Liberation), this does not mean that they do not have a concept of Heaven & Hell. For example, look up the meaning of the Sanskrit word Loka. Also, for example the Hindu texts frequently refer to the "three worlds" physical, astral & causal (mental), whilst mainting that the ultimate goal is beyond all these.Ok, I will leave it here for today.
More detail later.
Peace
Well, the first and foremost principle is the rejection of exclusivity of Religion. This is in stark contrast to conservative Christian denominations which claim that they are the only valid spiritual path (it is not only Christian groups that take an exclusive approach. Islam and Judaism are very exclusive, some Eastern sects are too (ISKON - The Hare Krishna's for example). Some modern "cults" are exclusive, however it would be wrong to label every religious group to crop up in recent times as New Age (ie for example Raelians or Scientology)).
Taken to extremes this can mean total Relativism, ie the idea that all truth is relative to a range of variables and circumstances. In contrast, the exclusive Religions have a dualistic Absolute view of truth ie It's either their truth or its false. Certainly many people accuse New Age of being Relativistic, and in fact many people who follow a loose New Age approach are. I have met many people that don't believe in any sort of Absolutes. However, I think you will find that most of the serious researches & teachers do not advocate absolute relativism.
What I personally think is the solution is the concept of an Absolute truth, with a descending scale of Relative truths, some closer to being an Absolute truth, and some further down the scale. Specifically in relation to Spiritual/Religious concepts it means that there is Absolute truth that can be found non-exclusively in different cultures and religions, but at the same time not all Religious doctrines are equal. So, my conception of New Age will probably be different to others in that I believe in the importance of being firmly established in a traditional Mysticism, thus having an Absolute from which to ground beliefs, and than allow for the range of Relative experiences to have their place.
Probably one of the most important application of this is in relation to beliefs about an afterlife. Conservative Christianity has maintained that there are only two places one can go after death, Heaven or Hell, and that you must belong to a particular denomination and follow all their teachings in order to teach Heaven after you die (however, these teachings emphasise that Salvation is given by grace from God through Jesus Christ. However, this still implies that you authorize a specific group to dictate what is orthodoxy and what is heresy), (Jehovas Witnesses (JW's) and Seventh Day Adventists (SDA's) both believe in annilhation for unbeliever rather than eternal torment in Hell. However both JW's and SDA's are considered fringe groups by most denominations, despite the fact that they see themselves as Restorationists). Strictly, Christians maintain that the only possible method of Salvation is through Jesus. In contrast, New Age proposes that it is not so significant what title you use to describe your Religious beliefs, or what doctrines and dogmas you follow as much as how you live the Spiritual principles, or in strictly Eastern terms, how you realize the higher truths (Dharma) in your life. Specifically, what this means is that whilst doctrines can be significant in determining what one considers important and worth striving for, it is not our intellectual ideals and concepts that are important as much as how we treat others, how we speak, think and act. The perfect example of this is NDE's where many people have been told that the religious denomination is not important, the extent to which they allow love to be the driving force in their life is.
New Age does not believe in the traditional Dualistic doctrine of Heaven and Hell. Instead you have a more complex concept of varying planes or Dimensions. There are variations on these beliefs amongst different groups, however there are common elements. Many different sources describe an Astral cosmos, a universe comprised of less dense elements than our material world which exists both inside and outside our own. Within this Astral world there are considered to be many different levels to correspond with varying levels of Spiritual/Psychological development.Some of the lower levels might be considered "Hellish" prisons for corrupt Souls, however their is a major difference between this concept and the traditional one of Hell. The traditional model of Hell proposes that all those who reject Christianity (or any other exclusive Religion) will find themselves eternally seperated from God, in a realm of hate & torture, not just those who could be considered as sinners, immoral & evil. (To me this produces a major grey area in the doctrines of Christianity which I will address one day soon.) In the New Age conception, people who lived life selfishly, showing anger and hate to others, often find themselves after death in a dark world filled with torment and pain, surrounded by others of a similar inclanation. However, in contrast to the Christian view of Hell as eternal, this New Age version presents such nightmarish experiences as simply temporary, from which a Soul can escape by calling out to God. There are many NDE's where this kind of scenario has been reported.
Likewise, the view of Heaven is also remarkably different. Specifically the Christian conception of Heaven presents it as an eternal abode where one enters due to the grace of God and the sacrifice of Jesus. Alternatively, the New Age conception of Heaven is one of many temporary abodes in the Astral cosmos, where one enters for a continuation of experience, this time however free from the miseries and troubles of the material world. Descriptions from NDE and OBE reports as well as those from traditional mystical texts and information produced through mediumship presents a picture of many Heavens, of differing levels of density, leading up towards a realm of the Absolute. Sometimes, Eastern views are misrepresented in this regard, whilst the ultimate aim of Eastern Mysticism is to reach a realm beyond the transitory cycles of birth and death (ie Nirvana, Moksha, Liberation), this does not mean that they do not have a concept of Heaven & Hell. For example, look up the meaning of the Sanskrit word Loka. Also, for example the Hindu texts frequently refer to the "three worlds" physical, astral & causal (mental), whilst mainting that the ultimate goal is beyond all these.Ok, I will leave it here for today.
More detail later.
Peace
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Occult - Definition and use of the term
I thought I should just clarify this before going any further. The word Occult traditionally means hidden, referring to supernatural laws, principles and use of which are not revealed openly. However, in todays world, not much is hidden anymore. Much of what is written about explicitly today had been shrouded in secrecy for long periods of time, the perfect example being Kundalini (for those of you who don't know, more on this later).
The term Occult often conjures up images of Black Magic/Sorcery, but this isn't necessarily implied by the use of the term. Conservative Religions view all supernatural phenomena outside of their own as being therefore signs of Satanic/Demonic activity. Therefore the term Occult often is used with a negative connotation. However, traditionally the term was used to refer to a wide range of practices and beliefs.
The modern religion of Satanism is specifically concerned with expansion of the Ego (this word has different meaning depending on which context it is viewed), meaning seeing oneself as seperate from all others, identifying totally with the physical body and thus encouraging selfishness and hate. This is in complete contrast to New Age and traditional Mystical / Occult traditions which encourage dissolution of the Ego (see the sankrit word Ahamkara for the Eastern definition of Ego, which differs significantly to Freuds use of the term), meaning seeing oneself as interconnected with all life, identifying ultimately with the eternal Soul/Spirit and thus encouraging selflessness and unconditional love. To place Satanism in the same category as modern Spiritualism (for example) by defining them both as Occult is a gross misuse of the term, and is ultimately deceptive.
So, I use the term Occult to describe things like knowledge of the Astral realms, and laws that govern them. For example the Hermetic text The Kybalion is a short series of Occult Principles which relate to both natural science and metaphysics. Used in the context provided within the text, these principles can be used for positive spiritual growth. However, if one goes against the strong warning of all serious spiritual philosophies and chooses to use knowledge of such principles for selfish or destructive purposes then you are in the realm of genuine Black Magic.
So, the term Occult refers to the the Science (many people will object to my use of this term here, I understand) specifically and not the use of it. Just as modern technology can be used for either productive or destructive purposes, so can Occult knowledge. This is the traditional meaning of the term.
The term Occult often conjures up images of Black Magic/Sorcery, but this isn't necessarily implied by the use of the term. Conservative Religions view all supernatural phenomena outside of their own as being therefore signs of Satanic/Demonic activity. Therefore the term Occult often is used with a negative connotation. However, traditionally the term was used to refer to a wide range of practices and beliefs.
The modern religion of Satanism is specifically concerned with expansion of the Ego (this word has different meaning depending on which context it is viewed), meaning seeing oneself as seperate from all others, identifying totally with the physical body and thus encouraging selfishness and hate. This is in complete contrast to New Age and traditional Mystical / Occult traditions which encourage dissolution of the Ego (see the sankrit word Ahamkara for the Eastern definition of Ego, which differs significantly to Freuds use of the term), meaning seeing oneself as interconnected with all life, identifying ultimately with the eternal Soul/Spirit and thus encouraging selflessness and unconditional love. To place Satanism in the same category as modern Spiritualism (for example) by defining them both as Occult is a gross misuse of the term, and is ultimately deceptive.
So, I use the term Occult to describe things like knowledge of the Astral realms, and laws that govern them. For example the Hermetic text The Kybalion is a short series of Occult Principles which relate to both natural science and metaphysics. Used in the context provided within the text, these principles can be used for positive spiritual growth. However, if one goes against the strong warning of all serious spiritual philosophies and chooses to use knowledge of such principles for selfish or destructive purposes then you are in the realm of genuine Black Magic.
So, the term Occult refers to the the Science (many people will object to my use of this term here, I understand) specifically and not the use of it. Just as modern technology can be used for either productive or destructive purposes, so can Occult knowledge. This is the traditional meaning of the term.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Near Death Experiences & theories on the afterlife. Part 1
Ok, now to open the can of worms. This will be my first post on a specific topic, and I forsee that it will take quite some time to cover in detail, so as I have been so far, I will be quite general and leave out alot of specifics. Near Death Experiences (NDE's for short) have become increasingly well known in the last century as medical technology has developed, meaning that more and more people are being brought back to life after being declared physically dead (ie no heart beat, breathing or electrical activity in the brain). Also technology has allowed for information to be circulated with far greater ease than any other time in recorded history.
Some of the most significant basic ingredients of a NDE are as follows, the experience of leaving ones body, meeting with non-physical beings which radiate light (I'll refer to them as the Beings Of Light, BOL's), moving through non-physical worlds or dimensions, Heavens and Hells (which correspond very well with the occult concept of an Astral plane) and the life review, the experience of reliving every single experience of ones life in full detail, experiencing the consequences of ones own actions, words & thoughts on others.
Often also, the person having the NDE is given Spiritual teachings by the BOL's which in most cases correspond with New Age doctrines. Whilst from what I've seen there is not 100% consistency, there does seem to be a good deal of common ground between the NDE accounts. There are some obvious exceptions but the majority of books and websites on this topic seem to support this.
Now, as this all supports the New Age Paradigm, there is of course much dispute and opposition to this. Skeptics (generally Atheists) propose that the experiences are hallucinations caused by the dying brain and argue for purely biological processes as being the cause. They point to similarities in the experiences of fighter pilots who pass out under extreme G forces, or the experiences of Hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain), the ability to reproduce many elements of the experience with electromagnetic stimulation to specific parts of the brain (in particular the temporal lobes), and the common experiences of people in drug induced states (particularly hallucigons like DMT, LSD, Psilocybin and also Ketamine). Skeptics also point to the case that many people who die and come back to life later recall nothing at all, like a black out or deep dreamless sleep, ie a lack of consciousness.
Christians on the other hand present mixed responses. In my own upbringing I was not told of the New Age implications of NDE's, but I was told stories of people who had died, gone to heaven, met Jesus and come back. I was told about how after they died and before they went to heaven they moved around the hospitals and were able to later recall things that had been said in other rooms of the building whilst they were physically dead (a common claim with NDE's). So, first off, some Christians are seemingly unaware that the phenomena is generally used to support the New Age worldview, or choose to ignore this.
Secondly, some Christians choose to agree with skeptics in dismissing NDE's as hallucinations, mostly because of the New Age doctrines that are put forth, also because some (and I use that word cautuosly) Christians do not believe in the possibility of the Soul existing externally from the physical body (This is a major grey area from what I've seen. I would love to hear from anybody willing to let me know where their branch of Christianity stands on this. I do believe that the Bible is not specifically clear on this area of metaphysics, ie the strict definitions of Mind, Spirit and/or Soul. In contrast, Eastern and Occult traditions go very deeply into this area. I do know that some Christians believe that Soul is a combination of Body and Mind/Spirit, and that eternal life relies entirely on physical ressurection. Therefore any account of out of body experiences (OBE's for short) are rejected as either Hallucinations or evidence of Demonic activity.)
Others that I have seen tend to declare some NDE's as real and others as fake depending solely on what doctrines are put forth in them. ie If a NDE account makes no mention of doctrines which are in conflict with Christianity then it is accepted as being real, however if like a significant percentage of NDE's it presents doctrines that are in conflict with mainstream Christian beliefs then it is declared to be either a hallucination, a fantasy of the subconscious or a Satanic delusion. (It must be mentioned here that as there are common beliefs between Christianity and New Age, some NDE's will be presented as evidence for both of these conflicting worldviews.)
Now, I have much, much more to say on this topic, but I think I will leave it here for today and continue very soon. Please, I would love to get some comments, so don't hold back on your thoughts. Also, anyone, if you feel I have misrepresented a particular viewpoint please let me know and I will respond to your thoughts. I am trying to be objective, but it will be very difficult for me to achieve that so please bear with me. I will try to own up to any mistakes I make along the way.
Bye for now.
Some of the most significant basic ingredients of a NDE are as follows, the experience of leaving ones body, meeting with non-physical beings which radiate light (I'll refer to them as the Beings Of Light, BOL's), moving through non-physical worlds or dimensions, Heavens and Hells (which correspond very well with the occult concept of an Astral plane) and the life review, the experience of reliving every single experience of ones life in full detail, experiencing the consequences of ones own actions, words & thoughts on others.
Often also, the person having the NDE is given Spiritual teachings by the BOL's which in most cases correspond with New Age doctrines. Whilst from what I've seen there is not 100% consistency, there does seem to be a good deal of common ground between the NDE accounts. There are some obvious exceptions but the majority of books and websites on this topic seem to support this.
Now, as this all supports the New Age Paradigm, there is of course much dispute and opposition to this. Skeptics (generally Atheists) propose that the experiences are hallucinations caused by the dying brain and argue for purely biological processes as being the cause. They point to similarities in the experiences of fighter pilots who pass out under extreme G forces, or the experiences of Hypoxia (lack of oxygen to the brain), the ability to reproduce many elements of the experience with electromagnetic stimulation to specific parts of the brain (in particular the temporal lobes), and the common experiences of people in drug induced states (particularly hallucigons like DMT, LSD, Psilocybin and also Ketamine). Skeptics also point to the case that many people who die and come back to life later recall nothing at all, like a black out or deep dreamless sleep, ie a lack of consciousness.
Christians on the other hand present mixed responses. In my own upbringing I was not told of the New Age implications of NDE's, but I was told stories of people who had died, gone to heaven, met Jesus and come back. I was told about how after they died and before they went to heaven they moved around the hospitals and were able to later recall things that had been said in other rooms of the building whilst they were physically dead (a common claim with NDE's). So, first off, some Christians are seemingly unaware that the phenomena is generally used to support the New Age worldview, or choose to ignore this.
Secondly, some Christians choose to agree with skeptics in dismissing NDE's as hallucinations, mostly because of the New Age doctrines that are put forth, also because some (and I use that word cautuosly) Christians do not believe in the possibility of the Soul existing externally from the physical body (This is a major grey area from what I've seen. I would love to hear from anybody willing to let me know where their branch of Christianity stands on this. I do believe that the Bible is not specifically clear on this area of metaphysics, ie the strict definitions of Mind, Spirit and/or Soul. In contrast, Eastern and Occult traditions go very deeply into this area. I do know that some Christians believe that Soul is a combination of Body and Mind/Spirit, and that eternal life relies entirely on physical ressurection. Therefore any account of out of body experiences (OBE's for short) are rejected as either Hallucinations or evidence of Demonic activity.)
Others that I have seen tend to declare some NDE's as real and others as fake depending solely on what doctrines are put forth in them. ie If a NDE account makes no mention of doctrines which are in conflict with Christianity then it is accepted as being real, however if like a significant percentage of NDE's it presents doctrines that are in conflict with mainstream Christian beliefs then it is declared to be either a hallucination, a fantasy of the subconscious or a Satanic delusion. (It must be mentioned here that as there are common beliefs between Christianity and New Age, some NDE's will be presented as evidence for both of these conflicting worldviews.)
Now, I have much, much more to say on this topic, but I think I will leave it here for today and continue very soon. Please, I would love to get some comments, so don't hold back on your thoughts. Also, anyone, if you feel I have misrepresented a particular viewpoint please let me know and I will respond to your thoughts. I am trying to be objective, but it will be very difficult for me to achieve that so please bear with me. I will try to own up to any mistakes I make along the way.
Bye for now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
