Nevada
There is more and more in my mind a similarity in the many traditions that I read about. Sometimes it's a more esoteric lane in a path, such as the Gnostic or contemplative paths of Christianity rather than mainstream Christianity. But more and more I think that all paths are one and the same, simply experienced differently through different traditions, perspectives, and philosophies.
So many times I've seen New Age thought derided because it attempts to tread so many paths, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I think for me the biggest problem with New Age thought I've come across is the refusal to look at the whole, the insistence on "positive" focus, which I see as entirely out of balance.
I also think that in many cases it's important for a person to follow just one path. Sometimes I even think maybe the path one thinks fits best isn't the best. We learn so much from challenges.
But in the end don't they all boil down to one path? For instance at the moment I'm looking at the ideas about Awakening in three different teachings:
1) Christ in the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas speaking of becoming fully human or Anthropos. (ETA: I'm thinking specifically of the Jean-Yves Leloup commentaries on these, especially that in his book, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which he also discusses the Gospel of Thomas.)
2) Buddha talking about awakening.
3) Carl Jung talking about individuation. (Yes, I think of him as a spiritual teacher.)
Aren't these three teachings talking about the same thing?
Then there's the Golden Rule. It exists in more traditions than I can count or even know about.
The idea of return, which is basically the whole point of spirituality to begin with, that we start out life with a goal that once reached helps us to return whence we came but with something new, some improvement either in experience or wisdom or growth. I see this everywhere, with special focus on techniques or visualizations in some traditions such as Kabbalah.
I think a lifelong study of comparative religion, along with awareness and learning from many other kinds of lessons in life, can be a path in itself without the need to throw a label on it because, well, which label would I choose?
I'm wondering how many others here have come to any of these same conclusions? Or do you disagree, and why?
So many times I've seen New Age thought derided because it attempts to tread so many paths, but that's not really what I'm talking about. I think for me the biggest problem with New Age thought I've come across is the refusal to look at the whole, the insistence on "positive" focus, which I see as entirely out of balance.
I also think that in many cases it's important for a person to follow just one path. Sometimes I even think maybe the path one thinks fits best isn't the best. We learn so much from challenges.
But in the end don't they all boil down to one path? For instance at the moment I'm looking at the ideas about Awakening in three different teachings:
1) Christ in the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Thomas speaking of becoming fully human or Anthropos. (ETA: I'm thinking specifically of the Jean-Yves Leloup commentaries on these, especially that in his book, The Gospel of Mary Magdalene, in which he also discusses the Gospel of Thomas.)
2) Buddha talking about awakening.
3) Carl Jung talking about individuation. (Yes, I think of him as a spiritual teacher.)
Aren't these three teachings talking about the same thing?
Then there's the Golden Rule. It exists in more traditions than I can count or even know about.
The idea of return, which is basically the whole point of spirituality to begin with, that we start out life with a goal that once reached helps us to return whence we came but with something new, some improvement either in experience or wisdom or growth. I see this everywhere, with special focus on techniques or visualizations in some traditions such as Kabbalah.
I think a lifelong study of comparative religion, along with awareness and learning from many other kinds of lessons in life, can be a path in itself without the need to throw a label on it because, well, which label would I choose?
I'm wondering how many others here have come to any of these same conclusions? Or do you disagree, and why?