I have no interest in putting down new age people, especially since I consider myself to be a new age person.  This past weekend I went to the New Living Expo in San Francisco. There were some fraudulent people there; nevertheless, I felt good about being there because I knew that a lot of sincere, well meaning and loving people were also there.  The energy level felt real good. I felt as if I was amongst my peers, other people who want this World to become a better place.

What I don't like is people who try to mislead us.  Our growth and the changes that need to take place in this World are too important.

By the way, Walsch was one of the speakers at the Expo, I didn't go to see him.

rondele wrote on May 1^st, 2009 at 6:05pm:

OK, Moonsandjunes, I will not duck your understandable request for a definition of "New Ager."  Here are defintions to light your fire!  

OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: A "New Ager" is a person who browses and reads books from the "New Age" or "Occult" sections of large bookstores rather than from the "Inspiration," "Philosophy," and "Religion" sections. A person who seeks an independent perspective by reading broadly in these related fields is an "honest spiritual seeker," not a "New Ager." For example, a "New Ager" derives his iniformation about Jesus and early Christianity from unqualified New Age writers like Acharya S. because he can't be bothered by harder reading in books by more reputable and mainstream scholars.  "New Agers" see no need to assess personal mystical experience in terms of broader knowledge of psychology, neurology, philosophy, and religion.  And so, they lack curiosity about contradictions with the astral experiences of New Agers from different metaphyiscal camps such as Ekandar, Rosacrucianism, and Swedenborigianism.  

More to the point, there are various types of "New Age occultism" just as there are various forms of "existentialism."   But this defintion will prove pragmatic:  "New Age thought" can be defined as thought trapped in the following limiting oversimplifications: (1) the belief that we are God and God is All That Is; (2) belief in reincarnation informed by uncritrically accepted contemporary experiences of alleged past life recall rather than by classical eastern religions; (3) belief in expanding creativity and self-knowledge as the meaning of life rather than any conception of meaning focussed on love or satisfying the purpose of a loving Creator God.  Thus, it never occurs to New Agers that the Source of PUL might want us to direct PUL back to the Source (= worship) to help transmit it to others.  In short, New Age thought is not based on honest, open, and eclectic inquiry that seeks knowledge through progressive falsification of outdated preconceptions; rather, it is based on narcissistic mystical experience that is impervious to the critical eye of intrusive truth seekers who want to expand scientific knowledge by engaging every relevant academic discipline.

Don

I need to add this. Don and Rondelle don't present themselves as new agers. Nevertheless, I love and respect both of them a lot. I believe that both they and new agers have good intentions. Sometimes we just don't see eye to eye on how to manifest good intentions. Sometimes it seems as if I'm in the middle. Don, Rondelle, Alan, Matthew to a lesser extent, and Justin (who is new age like me), don't appreciate misleading sources of information to an extent, where we are more vocal about it than other people.

Regardless of how each of us approaches the subject of misleading sources, I believe it is important to remember that each of us has good intentions in our own way. Therefore, it is important that even when we have our disagreements, we don't forget how wonderful each of us is. I say this with full acknowledgment that sometimes I get carried away at times. I never mean disrespect towards anybody. Not even the sources I speak against. I look forward to the day where I'll share the great oneness with these sources. I understand that it is a part of life, as it is, for some of us to end up not being a positive influence for a while. I don't believe this happens for all of eternity.  I don't believe this happens in every part of the universe.

Here's another perspective to play with.  (amended Sat am)

The core issue in relating to a teacher or other source of input is surely trust. (trust is in essence a description of the most fundamental belief we hold about others - its essentially  created or destroyed depending on whether or not actions likely or actual are perceived as more or less loving towards ourselves) Meaning our degree of trust is a measure of our willingness  accept vulnerability and/or risk as a result of relying that the actions of the other will be in our interest.

Goodwill/benevolence, integrity/honesty capability/skill and predictability/reliability are often cited as major dimensions of perceived trustworthiness. Where our belief in the likelihood of the others delivery of any of these is damaged, trust reduces. 

We tend to particularly emphasise the first two, although the trade offs are individual and complex - depending on context, cultural values, personal conditioning and experience and so on. e.g. westerners often get especially upset about sexual morality. We routinely tolerate deeply dishonest, self centred and incompetent behaviour in politics and business, but may divorce over a single mistake.

We're likewise heavily conditioned to instantly reject especially spiritual or religious teachers that fail to live up to either their own teachings, or who break our cultural taboos.

Yet trust is not a yes/no decision - the possibilities range from walking away at one extreme, through various conditional judgements, to trusting beliefs and affect/empathetic or loyalty based trust at the other.

In life we'd be unable to function, and would lose enormously if every time we felt the tiniest bit suspicious or let down we walked away and refused to have any more to do with the other. That's not to say that there are not absolute truths, but these are of a higher nature, and  inexpressible/opaque to intellect. The situation in relative reality we live in is not that simple.

In life we actually proceed by finely nuanced assessments of at least the multiple variables out lined above. We use these to decide how much risk/exposure to accept in a given situation.

The decision framework relies on only bits of data and our system of belief, and as above these are also highly complex and unreliable.

Perception is at the centre of all of this, and it's clear that perception is not the most reliable of judges. It's equally clear that judging is not a good idea - when we adopt a default position regarding anything we close down all rational process in favour of what is only a personal belief - one probably based on very limited information.

It's not hard to get turned against  a teacher. Possibly out of some of the above reasons - some of which are valid, and some not, or perhaps simply out of not understanding what the teacher is trying to do. Its pretty much a given that all teachers are perceived (whether or not this is the reality) by many people as making errors. Teachers that appeal to mass sentiment are in fact almost by definition pushing a lower view.

The truly great teachers are often only understood in retrospect, or become the target of popular hostility. The highest view is rarely the majority one, and is in fact going to be downright threatening to most.

So is it realistic given this complexity to make digital yes/no judgements on teachers based on single as we see them 'significant' bits of data, and hence potentially to reject whole bodies of useful teaching and other material out of hand?

Is it not possible to proceed more cautiously, using our own discrimination as we go and witholding the head over heels commitment many seek until we've gained a lot more experience with a teacher?

Is it realistic either to seek to fix personal perceptions and/or beliefs as truths, to judge rigidly by these and to demand that others believe as we do too?

Is it not possible to have some reservations about teachers, while at the same time drawing on their output where it intuitively feels right/is helping us?

This all of course implies a requirement for intuition and wisdom, and that we need to be cautious as these develop. That we will make potentially serious mistakes is a given. But that's the learning process, the means by which Spirit teaches - on the basis that intellectual knowledge is fairly meaningless, difficult to integrate and very different to becoming.

To move beyond a very moderate attempt to insulate others from what we regard as false teaching is (a) impossible, (b) more likely to inhibit their learning, and (c) very likely driven by ego  - either as a result of an unwillingness to accept the reality, or an attempt to control them... 

Given this inability to either easily access absolute truth in this life, and our very limited ability to recognise it even if we find it who else can be responsible for our path but ourselves?

Why do you really care if Walsch lied?

I am pulled to go in more than one direction with that...hard to chose.

The word "cult" is thrown around a little too much.

Why shouldn't I consider Christianity a cult? I do. As a religion, it has an abominable history. Why then do people who defend it attack other paths? Must be a form of projection.

Walsch filled a need for many people. Maybe he gave them hope when nothing else did. So even if he was literally wrong, he was figuratively right. He maybe lied, but he shared a sense of love. Don't fret over the possibility of finding a pea under the mattress when what you need is sleep.

Then I suppose Bruce Moen is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth!? in his books???..Proof!!??? Somewhere between zero and one per cent in the big picture!..Carl & Family

See edit to my message above.

Lucy is nailing the point with her pea analogy.

Who's a perfect teacher? Who's entitled to set themselves up to judge anyway?

What's wrong with the guy making a mistake when what he wrote helped so many? (it's not that the end justifies the means or something like that, it's just that when we're presented with situations which are given it behoves us to be pearl fishers)

Vajra-

What about all the televangelists who blanket the air waves these days?  They also bring comfort to those who tune in, wouldn't you say?

Supposedly Jim and Tammy Baker brought comfort to millions.  As did Jimmy Swaggart.

And yet they were frauds.  They constantly solicited money, supposedly to promote the growth of the ministry, but took that money to buy luxury items and live the life of royalty.

So I don't think whether someone brought comfort or not is the test.

As far as Walsch is concerned, a person could either read ACIM and believe he/she is reading the words of a channeled Jesus, or could read Conversations with God and believe he/she is reading the words of God Himself.  And yes, I admit they no doubt are being comforted.

Let's suppose, just for discussion, that Walsch's motives in writing Conversations was to capitalize on the success of ACIM.  He decided, as a marketing tool, to claim that he was getting the words directly from God.  A title like that would be a huge draw.  Suppose he ultimately admitted that he really wasn't chatting with God, he was really just rehashing what he read in ACIM.  But he claimed that his intentions were good.

What then? Would you still say it's ok because so many people found comfort in his books?

Just wondering.

R