H.E Khandro Rinpoche speaks about the New-Age movement

dorje

DharmaField

This is damning by faint praise. The slippage between new-age/...new traditions appears very much like a shot western modes of Buddhism. New age is a meaningless term as it has been applied to far too widely, ironically also to include Tibetan Buddhism. This Lama seems to be pushing his own view of Buddhism. And did he suggest enlightenment is something to obtain? As someone from a shallow new tradition, I think of enlightenment as something that can't be grasped, but that which we recognise: as our original face. To meet that face does not require any special practices at all - ask the Chinese sixth patriach of Zen. Many western Buddhist traditions may not be as shallow as he surmises, and just as running around like a mountain monk, or sitting for years in a cave can be forms of grasping, each tradition has its strengths and weakenesses. When we really know there is nothing to attain, we do not easily get caught in putting down others as "not deep" and by effect praising our own brand of dharma. I try to respond to such things from where there is no shallow nor deep and I rarely know if what I am saying is any better than a donkey's bray. Most traditions try not to judge too quickly and in the Tibetan tradition paying attention to right speech is very important, as it is in most new traditions - and like all of the eightfold path it can be practiced where-ever you are and in whatever tradition.

compassionate_warrior

Khandro Rinpoche is a nun.

DharmaField

Oops!

dorje

I think we all forget that when a monastic person gives his or her idea, it has to be informed by his or her position and background.

HE Khandro Rinpoche is speaking about the New-Age movement through a Buddhist perspective, and a Tibetan Buddhist one at that. I actually subscribe to her view. That the New age movement is actually quite effective in introducing mindfulness and awareness and equality and so on. I also agree with her that in terms of Buddhism, it is shallow.

If you listen to her carefully, what she is saying is that the New-Age traditions is appropriate as a gateway to Buddhism. If it helps someone live a better life, then all the better. But in the Buddhist view, it does not address the total and complete cessation of the three poisons, therefore it is something like a band-aid on that deep festering wound. It helps treat that wound, but not completely.

And she hopes that the New-Age movement techniques guide those who want a much deeper experience to Buddhism. Which I'm very sure many of us experience. I know many people who came to Buddhism through yoga and Wicca and Paganism and so on.

zenff

The term New Age was used as early as 1809 by William Blake who described a coming era of spiritual and artistic advancement in his preface to Milton a Poem by stating: "... when the New Age is at leisure to pronounce, all will be set right ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

Just do one Google search on New Age, or start reading in Wikipidia, and I think you will find very soon that such a variety of loose ideas and developments are labeled as New Age that the term is quite meaningless.

Maybe the term is derogative like Hinayana.
The definition of New Age could be this:

New Age is every Western type of religious belief or spirituality outside the established Christian churches; with the exception of MY religious belief/spirituality which - of course - is completely unique and ancient and authentic and is definitely not New Age.

compassionate_warrior

Thanks for the historical perspective, @zenff. The term "New Era" was also floating around intellectual/spiritual circles in Russia in the time of Gurdjieff, the Roerichs, Ouspensky and Blavatsky. So New Age thought was not confined to the West, but was in the East as well. When Nicholas Roerich moved to the US on the invitation of the Chicago Art Institute, the US Secretary of Agriculture was so impressed with him, he addressed him in letters as "Dear Guru". Just a curious side note to history.

Dakini

The term New Age was used as early as 1809 by William Blake who described a coming era of spiritual and artistic advancement in his preface to Milton a Poem by stating: "... when the New Age is at leisure to pronounce, all will be set right ..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age

Now there's an interesting reference--William Blake. He was part of a tantric movmentent in the West that grew out of the practices of the Moravian Church, and was popular in Europe in the 1700's, and on into Blake's time. This makes me wonder if the concept of a New Age originally arose from those tantric practices involving the Kundalini. see:
http://www.dosenation.com/listing.php?id=5220

FoibleFull

She's right ... most New Age pursuits are for "feel good" purposes, and actually encourage our attachments and aversions. She was very kind to New Age.

New Age is not every religious concept/spirituality outside of Christianity ... Islam is not considered New Age.
New Age is the adoption of Eastern concepts, or Native American concepts, or any fringe concepts ... milked down to make them easy to swallow, effortless to follow. Just like Christianity, in the modifications, the essence is often lost.

Unfortunately, with New Age endeavours, no real behavior change occurs, no actual growth. But we get to feel pretty darn good about ourself, to move around with ethereal smiles on our faces, until something happens that annoys us.

Hon, my mom became "New Age" back in 1930 ... I've grown up in this culture and still move through it. The only ones I've seen who have overcome their knee-jerk emotional reactions and have actually cultivated inner peace and compassion ... are the ones who had been serious and dedicated Buddhists and have had a primary teacher to guide them.
Sorry ... but that's how I call it after 62 years of moving within the New Age sub-culture (I've only been a Buddhist myself for 11 years).

Dakini

New Age back in the 30's? I've never heard of that. The Progressive movement in the 30's, yes. What was New Age like back in the 30's?

zenff

She's right ... most New Age pursuits are for "feel good" purposes, and actually encourage our attachments and aversions. She was very kind to New Age.

New Age is not every religious concept/spirituality outside of Christianity ... Islam is not considered New Age.
New Age is the adoption of Eastern concepts, or Native American concepts, or any fringe concepts ... milked down to make them easy to swallow, effortless to follow. Just like Christianity, in the modifications, the essence is often lost.

Unfortunately, with New Age endeavours, no real behavior change occurs, no actual growth. But we get to feel pretty darn good about ourself, to move around with ethereal smiles on our faces, until something happens that annoys us.

Hon, my mom became "New Age" back in 1930 ... I've grown up in this culture and still move through it. The only ones I've seen who have overcome their knee-jerk emotional reactions and have actually cultivated inner peace and compassion ... are the ones who had been serious and dedicated Buddhists and have had a primary teacher to guide them.
Sorry ... but that's how I call it after 62 years of moving within the New Age sub-culture (I've only been a Buddhist myself for 11 years).

That’s what I mean.
” These New Age people are hypocrites, but we... no we the Buddhists we are the sencere ones.”
Move around in Buddhist circles and you will find the same thing: human nature.
And it’s not just Buddhists who feel superior. It’s universal.

Jeffrey

I noticed that she gave her opinion in a collected nice way rather than snearing or such. I think she is being mature in her expression. I only hope that 'new age' practitioners or whatever they self label as do not get offended. Thats a tall order, but keep in mind that everyone goes through criticism. The Tibetan tradition certainly has its share of critics.

Sile

To me, New Age often describes people who are looking for spirituality and feel somehow it should be more connected to the earth and to nature than their current religion is/was.

Even those for whom "New Age" means "Eastern" have, I think, a sense that the Eastern traditions are somehow more grounded in the earth, energy associated with the earth, etc.

Most if not all humans come from cultures which traditionally had a greater interaction with nature, and whose spirituality reflected this. A second characteristic of these traditional religions, I think, is a deep belief in the unseen--whether that means unseen spirits, unseen energies, etc.

For some reason, in "modern Christianity," as an example, I think we feel cut off from nature, and perhaps cut off from the "unseen" as well. I don't know if longing for nature is a genetic thing--is there something in our DNA that recognizes that the earth is the source of medicine, for example?

I see New Age urges then as reflecting the desire/instinct to be more immersed in nature--whether by using crystals or observing a calendar that follows the earth's rhythms or by eschewing our tons of belongings and spending more time in places without roofs blocking our view of the sky.

I think we get the urge--and then don't know what to do with it, since our own Indo-European traditional religions are long gone. So we hunt around seeking for answers, and in a lot of the New Age cases, inventing them.

People feeling this urge could find some relief, I think, in spending time with cultures which haven't yet lost their traditional spiritualities (for example the few Native American tribes who are still practicing their traditional religions--not many left, sadly). That way, you are reconnected to the earth but in a way that has a very deep past. Most people only go so far, and then get turned off by something and leave.

That's the problem with "going deep" or committing to anything--we want the benefit of going deep, but we're afraid of the commitment, and as soon as we encounter something scary, our temptation is to run away. So we continue to surf religions, and not ever get that depth we hunger for.

I think "New Age" ends up being a habit of "going wide" instead of "going deep."

tsewang

I appreciate her respectful tone but she, like most people giving opinions on the New Age Movement without delving into it, is ill-informed. There are profound things happening in the New Age community including enlightenment. And there are Buddhists who are not interested in enlightenment and pursue it out of intellectual curiosity or to help them cope, or to just become better human beings. I think it depends more on the person than on the particular path as to how deep or far ones goes.

Invincible_summer

In terms of the New Age stuff that goes on around these parts, the people tend to also be into yoga and whatnot.

I do think it's shallow - at least from what I've seen/heard/discussed. Meditating on mantras like "I am" and "I am strong" and even "Success." Definitely not anything a Buddhist would encourage, and even to the non-Buddhist, very narcissistic.

DairyLama

The definition of New Age could be this:

New Age is every Western type of religious belief or spirituality outside the established Christian churches;

But that would make Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism "new age".

DairyLama

I think "New Age" ends up being a habit of "going wide" instead of "going deep."

That's been my experience of New Age. It seems mostly to be a vague mish-mash of "ancient wisdom", folklore, psuedo science and hippy thinking.