The “New Age” movement as we know it today derives strongly (and majorly) from buddhistic, hindu, esoteric, and other eastern, oriental sources. “Blame” Helena Blavatsky and the Theosophical movement for that, which grafted eastern philosophies/religions into christian concepts. That and occult ideas going (supposedly) back to Lemurian and Atlantean times.
The New Age itself has atheistic overtones, in case you didn’t know. At least bordering on it. Study Eckhart Tolle’s writings. They are pantheistic but with a strong buddhistic (atheistic) flavor.
Understandable. However, when you cast Buddhism in amongst that crowd, you do so without making distinctions within the whole tradition as if it were monolithic.
To me its like trying to hold you and all of Christianity as a wider tradition accountable for the actions and belief systems of David Koresh.
As for its categorization as “atheistic” - my only reply to that (and please bear in mind the label i carry) is to say “Which Version?”
that’s a very important question.
If your saying that Buddhism is atheistic in the sense that it denies an all powerful creator deity, sure…but i can point a bunch of tribal and shamanic religions who follow in suit and still would be more properly called Polytheistic.
The predominant forms of Buddhism in Asia are
devotional. The whole subsection of Mahayana Buddhism believes in buddhas and bodhisattvas in as much as you believe in your Saints.
Case in point, Pure Land Buddhism which is an incredibly popular version of Buddhism in East Asia (possibly the most popular version) is built around the promise of Buddha named Amithaba who would build a pure land outside of space/time wherein if you are reborn into such a place by placing devotion in his name - you will escape the cycle of reincarnation.
Nichiren, Tendai, and other forms of Buddhism believe in the revelation of the Lotus Sutra, which states that the Buddha is “omnipresent, omniscient, and eternal.” Having Faith in the Lotus Sutra can save you from a bad reincarnation and put you on the path toward enlightenment.
And I think the most glaring observation to be made is Tibetan Buddhism, which has a similar institutional structure. I would be hard pressed to call the Dalai Lama an atheist when he’s supposed to be an emanation of the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara. I mean heck, there’s a reason why he gets invites to the Vatican under JPII and the current occupant of the papal throne - he gets invited not as a philosopher but as a religious leader.
If the characterization of Buddhism is solely in that phase of "New Age-ism,"if the two could be equated together totally, i swear to you the Dalai Lama wouldn’t even make it past the front door in the same way no NeoPagan leader has ever had an audience within the Vatican.
I’m starting to wonder if this is a matter of some sort of cognitive dissonance between the way Western Catholics view eastern religion versus Eastern Catholics.
For you folks, Eastern religion in general is bound up in some bizarre occultism.
For your Catholic brethren living in China or Japan, etc. They are simply different religions - like Islam or Judaism.
There’s a distinct lack of a sense of threat coming from them. They’ve also been noted to work together politically in places like South Korea against what you might describe as “liberal secularists”
A thought occurs to me - the New Agers are usually identify themselves amongst the liberal secularists in the West…while the traditional practitioners of Buddhism tend to be seen as the stalwart defenders of a conservative morality in the East.
I guess where i’m getting confused is there’s something paradoxical about the picture you paint in regards to Buddhism as practiced in the West versus its original stomping grounds.
it as different as night and day…or Catholicism and Protestantism if you like
