The Pageless Book

New Age spirituality is one of those subjects on which I cannot seem to form a solid opinion. It is hard to define, but generally encompasses a belief in angels, psychic powers, energy crystals, reincarnation, aliens, and divination. My knee-jerk reaction is to discount it entirely as a miscellaneous collection of modern myths and superstitions blended together to form a very misinformed, but well intentioned, spiritual path. To be honest, that reactionary opinion comes from a very smug place of intellectual superiority which doesn’t suit me well at all. I may tell myself that I am above such non-sense, but then I put myself in the position of defending my own brand of non-sense.

I also put myself in the position of being a hypocrite – I own several decks of tarot cards and have been known to use them on occasion. Somehow, fool myself into thinking that tarot reading is *different* than the rest of New Age spirituality. Because I’ve studied the history of the tarot and view it more as a psychological tool, I can assure myself that I’m not gullible or superstitious. Yet, is it really about being gullible or superstitious?

How is a prayer for health any different than Rikki healing? On the surface, both practices are attempts to influence unseen forces to the benefit of others. With prayer, you are seeking the blessings of a Divine Source that exists independently of yourself. Rikki healing, on the other hand, utilizes the divine power within the healer. The big three religions in Western culture - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - teaches that humanity is imperfect, unworthy, and unclean. They teach that we are all less than divine, daring only to touch at the hem of God’s robes, as we are not worthy of any closer contact. New Age spirituality seems to challenge this idea, asserting that we are all divine - even the people who seem least divine. In going against traditional religion, it also go against what might be called “common sense.” The truth is that it merely goes against our learned bias.

New Age spirituality also seems to exist merely to thumb its nose at intellectualism. Perhaps it is a direct reaction to our culture’s insistence that everything fit into the small box of what we consider logical? We tend to neglect the emotional and intuitive side in favor of reasoning and proof. While logic holds a special place in being one of humanity’s most useful tools, it represents only a portion of human experience. Sometimes we need to let go of logic and reasoning to understand truth on a more intuitive level. Again, it is a learned bias to believe that this intuitive head-space not serious enough to be considered valid spirituality.

Speaking of “seriousness”, have you ever noticed that constant negativity is always taken more seriously than constant optimism? Because New Age spirituality is consistently optimistic and upbeat, it can be easily dismissed as being silly and foolish. Pessimism, however, should not be given any more consideration than optimism. I believe that pessimism is often more foolish than optimism.

Probably the biggest complaint people have about New Age spirituality is that it seems to be a mish-mash of unproven sciences, superstitions, and the musings of snake-oil salesmen. Even this has a positive aspect to it - no one can deny the creativity of New Age spirituality. Spirituality should be about creativity. These people have fun with their beliefs, and are unashamed to do so.

Does this mean that I will be taking up a crystal waving? No, not likely. I still find it to be too much for me on many levels. What it does mean is that there are several aspects of New Age spirituality that can be learned from and admired. I can learn from it’s creativity and optimism, it’s intuitiveness, and the affirmation of individual divinity. And if I wander into a New Age book store once in a while, it means I don’t have to feel guilty about it… Did I mention they have really cool stuff?

First Photo by Muji Tra. Second Image by Jon Parise. Final Image by Steve Jurvetson.

Photo Above by Ed Schipul. Photo Below by Symphoney Symphoney. Final Photo by Roberto Arias.

I consider myself a mystic. Also, I consider myself a rather rational person who doesn’t subscribe to superstitions. However, it does not surprise me in the least that many people lump mysticism in with superstition. Perhaps you, dear reader, are one of them. Honestly, I’d rather you be critical of mysticism, and religious experience in general, than be a oblivious believer.

Mystics claim to seek, and some to have found, a greater truth than that which we can touch, see, and hear. The content of this greater truth and how it is conveyed vary from culture to culture. However, the insistence upon literal interpretation of the figurative by the culture in which the mystic resides remains constant. It is society, not the mystics themselves, who spin superstition from wisdom, absolutes from poetry, and dogma from good ideas.

I recently asked Paul Sunstone, a fellow blogger and frequent visitor to the Religious Forums, for his thoughts on mysticism without superstition, and he responded:

So far as I know, mysticism can be without any superstition and superstition is not implicit in it. The mystical experience can be described as “an end to subject/object perception” and there is nothing in someone’s experience of an end to subject/object perception that necessarily creates or promotes superstitions.

Having said that, however, I should be careful to point out that I suspect there are some sources of superstition closely associated with mysticism. In my opinion, the first and most common of those is the tendency of people who have had a mystical experience to borrow language and concepts from religion in order to describe their experience. So, for instance, someone living in a culture that routinely ascribes mystical experiences to Dionysus might be heavily inclined to ascribe their own experience to Dionysus. Or someone living in a Christian culture might ascribe their experience to God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, or even Satan. Or someone living in second century Rome, when the cult of Isis was gaining popularity, might ascribe their experience to Isis. And so on and so forth.

The mystical experience is beyond all categories and labels. It is only after the actual experience itself that someone might begin labeling and conceptualizing it. If they begin labeling and conceptualizing it immediately, within seconds of the experience, then they have a very strong tendency to borrow “memes” from their culture - especially their religious culture - with which to define, describe or explain it.

While I liked his explanation and could not find anything to disagree with, I quickly realized that what he was saying needed to be expanded upon. Paul’s definition of mysticism as being an end to the subjective/objective duality within an individual’s world view hints at possible avenues for discussion. Most people tend to think of things in rather black and white terms; if something is true once, then it is true until something else contradicts that truth.

For them, there exists a creature of a mythic proportions which remains unto this day the greatest superstition to ever to cloud human judgment - Objective Reality. Experiences are by their very nature subjective. If there was not a subject to the experience, it would not have been experienced. Quantum Physics, Psychology, Sociology, and Neurology have only begun to prove what mystics have long believed - true objective reality does not exist. Superstition, on the other hand, is what happens when we fail to recognize the subjectivity within our own observations.

Another distinction between mysticism and superstition is their motivating emotions. The root emotional cause of superstition is fear of the unknown. By contrast, mysticism gleefully bears a child like curiosity of the unknown, and is motivated primarily by love of truth. How can anyone not love truth?