Up Close and Personal…

NEW AGE, SACRED LAW…

It never seems to end.

All you have to do is open a newspaper, and there it is: inquest, enquiry, investigation, revelation, demands for answers, evidence of cover-ups—one ‘truth’ after another, revealed in all their glory for the benefit of the masses. Our demands for truth have created a sellable product: information.

But in our pursuit for truth and openness, have we lost sight of the parameters of propriety, wandered far from the core of human dealings, and lost ourselves in an impersonal concept of what matters and what doesn’t? OK, so that’s a big question. Perhaps I can break it down …

In the latter part of the twentieth century, the new age market expanded beyond all reasonable expectations. Every manner of self-help book appeared on the shelves of bookstores, encouraging readers to see things in a new way; to question, speak out, demand truth from others; to establish our ‘rights’, ‘feel the fear and do it anyway,’ or any number of clichés all designed to encourage us to break down the boundaries, set our own limits, be undeterred by convention, break free from the constraints of social and familial duty, and so on. Confrontation, communication, getting it ‘off your chest’—all methods encouraged as a means to achieving peace of mind, a balanced stress system, and a clear, unfettered, guilt-free mind. But what are the limits to these ‘rights’ that we so insolently demand? How far can we go before we’re overstepping the boundaries of etiquette and demanding entry into a realm where we don’t belong? When do our questions about personal details lead us into the murky waters of impersonalism?

One situation to which these questions can be applied was the publicity surrounding the recent impeachment of the President of the United States, who was subjected to intense public scrutiny for his alleged sexual impropriety(ies?). It can certainly be said that his actions were wrong in a moral or religious sense—there wouldn’t be much argument there. But where is the line drawn between public knowledge, and knowledge for the good of the people? Has the revelation of his errant behavior, and the resultant demands for admissions of guilt, liability, corrective behavior, apology, and so on, improved the country in any way, benefited its millions of residents, decreased poverty, stress, and pollution, or increased the general well-being of the nation he ruled? Uh-uh. Nothing like it. In fact, it could well have had the reverse effect. The subsequent enquiry cost the US Government millions of dollars; a man who some claimed was a fine President—personal habits aside— was removed from office; his wife and daughter publicly humiliated, shamed by daily revelations of his private acts in public office with a female member of his staff.

But what’s wrong with wanting to know? Well, boundaries, for one thing. There is such a thing as confidentiality. Of course it can be argued that we have a right to demand, as members of the voting public, a certain level of moral correctness and decent behavior from the person who is running the country. But confidentiality has its own ‘religion’, so to speak—those inherent qualities of something that establish its very nature. The religion of confidentiality is privacy; everyone knowing everything means confidentiality loses it’s nature, it is no longer confidential, and when confidentiality is abandoned, then we cross from the personal to the impersonal, and we lose sight of what we’re trying to achieve through our [sometimes excessive] demands.

The intrusion of the media into every aspect of life—welcome or not—is a dubious one, at best. The question of whether the possession of information makes things ‘better’ depends on who has the knowledge, and what they do with it. If it’s a free-for-all, which it often is when the media is involved, then the results are questionable. If we accept the axiom that the goal of an action is to establish a higher purpose, then we have to observe a certain set of ‘rules’ surrounding the accumulation and dissemination of information. So what are these ‘rules’ that govern behavior? It’s a giant lateral step to consider that a person questioning the immoral actions of another is the one who should be thinking about the rules surrounding their own behavior. But human beings—whether they’re behaving properly or not—are defined by the unique set of rules they follow. These rules—or sacred laws—are the ‘tools’ by which one can understand their nature: male or female, king or subject—President or constituent. Understanding what these laws are, and where they come from, gives the vision to see the delicate line between ‘confidentiality’ and ‘cover up’; the difference between personal, and impersonal.

The Vedic scriptures—Bhagavad-gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, Sri Isopanisad, to name a few—are guidebooks for those seeking a higher level of consciousness and behavior. They’re basically the “manual for the human body,” and are the source of the sacred laws that govern the universe and those who inhabit it—whether they’re conscious of being governed or not. When we understand a little better how things work, and our place in the workings of the universe, we gain a little tolerance for the behavior of others, and our tendency to blame others for our misery is diminished somewhat.

Fear of change, of things being different, of deflecting attention away from our own inebrities and onto the behavior of others is a device that has been resorted to more than once before the time of Presidential impeachments. In the 16th century, the little town of Salem was rocked by a group of people who possessed an ability to understand things beyond the realm of physical perception—or so it was claimed. The refusal by their peers and authorities to accept that something existed beyond their own limited understanding of all things holy resulted in the persecution of this small group, often culminating in a death sentence. Were they the “witches” they were accused of being? In today’s society, such a reaction would be unheard of. The new age market considers itself an enlightened crowd, yet in essence they are possessed of the same ability as the witches of Salem: appreciation for subtle things not perceived by the gross senses. Yet while a greater percentage of today’s population may have caught on to topics of a more ethereal nature, still there is a long way to go before this portion of the human race understands that there is something even more beyond what they perceive to be spiritual, but which is merely a vague, groundless speculation known as mysticism.

But perhaps this new age market has created a convenient niche where the majority wish to stay: a questionable plateau of understanding that fills some corners, calls itself ‘realized’ or ‘spiritual’, yet leaves a multitude of blanks that take a sturdy level of braveness to overcome. Worship of demigods; denial of the existence of a personal God; stopping at the realization of universal oneness that seems to be so popular in new age circles these days: all these things prevent us from experiencing or attaining the very thing we seem to want—yet fear—the most: personalism. The Bhagavad-gita explains this fear of personalism as a symptom of attachment to the material realm. New age books can give a clue to what is out there, but only the Vedic scriptures offer solutions to removing attachment. As Bhaktivedanta Swami writes in his purports to the Bhagavad-gétä, “One has to get rid of all three stages of attachment to the material world: negligence of spiritual life, fear of a spiritual personal identity, and the conception of void that arises from frustration in life. To get free from these three stages of the material concept of life, one has to take complete shelter of the Lord, guided by the bona fide spiritual master, and follow the disciplines and regulative principles of devotional life. The last stage of the devotional life is called bhäva, or transcendental love of Godhead.”

There are a variety of choices available to practitioners of new age, none of which expound a philosophy of a personal God. Although monism is an option within the new age literature genre, there is no specific guidance towards one ultimate, Supreme Being: it’s mostly referred to vaguely as Divine Energy. Perhaps the most popular secondary option is pantheism, or the belief that all that exists is God, which naturally leads to the concept of “I am God.” Pantheists don’t acknowledge sacred texts or spiritual realms, but claim that God exists within themselves and throughout the entire universe. There’s also the concept of a universal religion: since all is God, then ultimately all leads to the ultimate reality. Strangely enough, there’s no information on what that ‘reality’ is—it is up to the individual to decide. Which I guess makes sense, since you’re God and you’re now qualified to make such decisions…

I visited one new age website recently where they make the claim that a new age will soon develop. This will be Utopia, where world government rules, there are no wars, disease, hunger, pollution or poverty, and all issues such as race, religion and gender bias will cease to exist. A rather remarkable claim—since there is no Absolute Supreme Person, and no acknowledgement of sacred texts or sacred law, where is the ultimate administrator to undertake this mammoth task of organizing the universe? I am assuming there will be a rather large explosion and suddenly, no more war, no poverty, poof! Peace on earth…?

Utopia indeed. A nice vision, but rather unrealistic. Of course, it’s a commendable desire to establish peace and a harmonious universal atmosphere. Bhaktivedanta Swami noted this endeavor, and made the following comment:

“The endeavors human beings have made to establish a close and harmonious relationship with one another have culminated in the United Nations. This organization is based on the concept of the family unit. The gradual expansion of the family unit to a large community, to a village, to a state, to a country, and finally to a continent has given the clue for the formation of the United Nations. The thing to be noted, however, is its center. What is the central attraction? If the process of expansion were reversed, we would end up with the human body as the basic unit. The senses are of prime importance in the body; more important than the senses is the mind, then intelligence, and finally the false ego. And more important than the false ego is the real self, a pure spiritual being that is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord.”

This recipe for personalism removes the mystery, shadows, and sleight-of-hand tricks that the illusory material energy constructs to have us believe that impersonalism is a wonderful thing. Ultimately there is no hope of understanding anyone—even ourselves—without acknowledging that the source of everything is not some mystical divine energy, a vague concept, or an imagined universal energy. Nor is knowledge of a person’s private life, including the ins and outs of a President’s love life, going to change the world. Only an understanding of the source of everything can give enlightenment, truth, openness, and true knowledge. That source is Krishna, the Supreme Person, from Whom all things emanate. And Krishna is the source of understanding how to achieve the universal harmony that a great percentage of the population seek so desperately. In the Bhagavad-gétä, Krishna gives a clear definition of knowledge, which leaves a lot to be desired in the new age genre, or the headlines of daily newspapers:

“Humility; pridelessness; nonviolence; simplicity; approaching a bona fide spiritual master; cleanliness; steadiness; self-control; renunciation of the objects of sense gratification; absence of false ego; the perception of the evil of birth, death, old age and disease; detachment; freedom from entanglement in family life; even-mindedness amid pleasant and unpleasant events; constant and unalloyed devotion to Me; aspiring to live in a solitary place; detachment from the general mass of people; accepting the importance of self-realization; and philosophical search for the absolute truth — all these I declare to be knowledge, and besides this, whatever there may be is ignorance.”

In our insistent demand for ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ about everyone and everything, we are moving away from human culture, from personal human dealings, and into an impersonal void. The glut of new age material is a step in the right direction, perhaps, but it is merely a means to an end. You can’t stop on the 15th floor of the Empire State Building and claim to be at the top—someone would say you were insane. It’s the same with knowledge, with truth: at the top is Krishna, His instructions and guidance from Bhagavad-gita, the ultimate handbook for human dealings and personal culture.

Do yourself a favor—don’t stop at the 15th floor. The view from the top is much nicer…