My Thoughts on the New Age, and How It Differs from Mysticism

I am not fond of much of the New Age movement. Sometimes my thoughts about mysticism may seem like the New Age, but I think that is because the New Age has adopted a lot of mystical language and concepts, not that classical mysticism inherently belongs to the New Age. They are two different fields, which have some overlap. The New Age developed just in the 1970s. Mysticism has been around for millennia, indeed, for all of human history, in every part of the world.

I am not fond of much of the New Age movement. Sometimes my thoughts about mysticism may seem like the New Age, but I think that is because the New Age has adopted a lot of mystical language and concepts, not that classical mysticism inherently belongs to the New Age. They are two different fields, which have some overlap. The New Age developed just in the 1970s. Mysticism has been around for millennia, indeed, for all of human history, in every part of the world.

I think the New Age is often too far irreconcilable or incompatible with science. It seems to often use methods which are unsupported by scientific study, and often veers into pseudoscience. Practices which are entirely unsupported or even shown to be erroneous by science seem to often be embraced by the New Age. And I think this can be dangerous, because it can make it seem that practices are spiritually, mentally, or physically effective when they may not be, and these can be marketed and commercially exploited.

Some New Age interests which I think are problematic are:

  • crystals
  • vibrations
  • channeling, mediumship, afterlife communication
  • astrology, horoscopes
  • out-of-body practices
  • homeopathy, alternative medicine
  • past life regression
  • paranormal and psychic phenomena
  • reiki

It’s not that I think these are entirely false, fake, or ineffective, but I think that what the New Age thinks about them is often mistaken, and people can be easily misused and abused into thinking these practices are doing things that they are not.

Take crystals, for example. I don’t think crystals have a hidden energy within them that we can tap into to heal people. Nothing like that has been substantiated by science. Not that everything has to be substantiated by science for us to take it seriously or for it to have effect, but things like this are not only unsubstantiated but have often been invalidated by scientific studies. Crystals simply don’t have a hidden energy inside them.

The effects that some people feel with special crystals or stones I think should be attributed to other means, such as the placebo effect or cognitive bias. If we think crystals will be healing, then they will be (but it is actually our belief that is healing). I think it could also have something to do with the way our consciousness is dazzled by the light that reflects off of crystals. The beauty, reflections, and refraction of light within a crystal may have an effect on our conscious state, perhaps even leading to an alternate state of consciousness. But these are optical effects, the way our vision is deeply interconnected to our experience of consciousness, that causes these changes, not because there is a hidden energy that is being absorbed or transferred.

I have noted before how I think seer stones may work, not that they have a hidden energy inside them, or magical powers of some kind in and of themselves, but because they may be an aid to us altering our consciousness, a focus of attention, like many other kinds of meditation objects (a flame, flower, dish of water, mirror, rosary, mala, mantra, breath), fostering one-pointed concentration and bringing about a different state of thinking and perceiving which allows deeper access into the unconscious or subconscious mind, not unlike hypnosis.

I don’t think the truth of God is irreconcilable with nature. Many of our spiritual experiences and mystical intuitions may go beyond the limits of what the rational logical mind can comprehend, but that doesn’t mean that they are contrary to nature. Science has not investigated all of nature, is far from it, and there are some areas where science has difficulty exploring, such as the human psyche. But science can tell us much about the natural world, and I think it is unwise for us to disregard the insights of science, medicine, rationality, or academia. That won’t bring us closer to the Divine, and may actually lead us away from it. God is truth, all truth, from whatever source it comes. As I recently read from religious scholar Karen Armstrong, if spiritual interpretations “contradict current scientific discoveries, the [seeker] must interpret it differently” (The Case for God). Going directly against science should never be the solution in our spiritual journey.

Much of the New Age is likely harmless, and inspires many to be better people, loving others and doing good in the world. Many of its general ideas and philosophy I may agree with. But I think we should remain cautious and careful in accepting things just because they may seem good, or are part of a larger system that seems good.

To me, mysticism means experientially coming into full union with the Real, with reality, with nature, with the truth of being, with what actually is, coming to realize what we really are as human beings, and this will not conflict in any great degree with the findings of science, but is often complementary and mutually supportive. Mysticism is not about realizing a supernatural state beyond the natural world, going to a different spiritual plane or dimension, leaving the physical body, communicating with disembodied spirit beings (whether divine or post-mortal), entering a vague state of irrationality, occult phenomena, etc. Mysticism may be regarded as such because of the New Age, but classical mysticism reaches far back beyond the beginnings of the New Age as it developed in the 1970s, and relates how humans have experienced intimate encounters with ultimate reality, even finding themselves merging with that reality in oneness or nonduality. And these mystical traditions can be found in all religions, and I think mysticism may be the source of those religions.

Genuine mysticism is about changing the mind, having a shift of consciousness in which one may perceive things as they really are, the world as it really is, our own being in truth. Our egoic “self” consciousness which is often at the forefront, thinking of all things in terms of “me” and “mine” takes a back seat or falls away, and one becomes conscious of a unity which underlies all reality, an interconnectedness which pervades all the universe and ties all things together into a comprehensive Whole. Instead of seeing things in a dualistic mode of subject/object, with “me” here and everything else “out there,” all things become One or nondual, as one single process of becoming and experience. We realize that we are not fundamentally separate from the world or nature, but are one with it at a deep level, as we are one with all other beings in the world and nature. We realize we are a manifestation of nature, of the world, of the Cosmos, but this manifestation does not leave the Cosmos or God, but remains part of it, within it.

Our identity which before was in the ego changes to be with the ground of Being itself, with that deepest essence of Life within us. We realize we are not our ego, but something much greater, more universal, more eternal. The mystics, prophets, sages, and saints have called this realization salvation, exaltation, awakening, enlightenment, nirvana, moksha, liberation, resurrection. We are no longer debilitated by our egos, ashamed of our past, or overly worried or concerned about the future (or our death), but we live peacefully in the present, where life always and only happens. We seek the well-being of all people, seeing our Self in them, alleviating suffering wherever possible, because when we are One, where any suffers, we suffer. Where others rejoice, we rejoice. This is Love. We accept reality as it is in the present, so we can work towards a better future for all.

I live in a gift economy, so I give all of my writing freely to you. I depend on your good will and generosity so that my family and I may live, and so that I may continue to write, share insights, and build community. If you were inspired by this, I invite you to also give, to participate in "the Gift". It only takes a moment. I express my deepest gratitude to you for your Gift! (Transactions are securely processed through Stripe.)
You may also participate in this community and give in other ways: comment on posts, subscribe to email updates, like the Facebook page, follow my personal Facebook profile, ask to join the community's Facebook group, ask me a question, submit a scripture for me to translate, submit a "First Vision" experience, or contact me to talk about something else, or to offer your gifts in another way. I look forward to getting to know you!

6 thoughts on “My Thoughts on the New Age, and How It Differs from Mysticism

    1. I think that channeling is not what many think it is. I don’t think mediums communicate with disembodied spirits. I think what may be happening, in cases that are not fraudulent, is that they are entering into a trance state of consciousness from which they may access depths of their own subconscious mind to communicate messages of meaning.

      I don’t think Jesus was a channel/medium. I think he was a profound mystic, preacher, healer, reformer.

  1. So, mysticism is science. It is nature. The scientific method is great – logical, repeatable, predictable, dependable – and slow. It requires belief (the hypothesis), which by the S.M. adds trust. Belief + trust = knowledge. Mysticism is knowledge. That includes scientific knowledge, or knowledge gained by the scientific method, plus knowledge gained by “the spirit” – which is my definition of knowledge that cannot be proven by the scientific method. Mysticism does not reject knowledge gained by the scientific method, but it include knowledge gained by the spirit.

    1. In my mind, mysticism is not science, per se, but is complementary to science. Science investigates the outside world, mysticism investigates the inside world. But it is all one world, one reality, and we are One with it, and are It. I like what you said that mysticism includes knowledge gained by the spirit, which is an understanding or intuition that goes beyond what science is capable of investigating, perhaps even beyond the capacities of the rational logical human mind and perceptions. It is a “knowing” that is different than all other knowledge. It is not intellectual, but experiential, intuitive, felt, sensed in a way that cannot be expressed in words.

  2. Thanks for your thoughts on this subject. I must say that they are well timed as we move toward Halloween.
    I have often found Ken Wilber’s typology of mystical states to be useful in orienting toward my own experience and the experiences of others. He sets out four basic types – nature mysticism, psychic/subtle mysticism, causal mysticism, and nondual mysticism. These correspond roughly to experience in the third person, second person, and first person – and then integral experience (without trying to overstate this comparison).
    The psychic/subtle realms are not that present in my experience. When we speak of the New Age, I am reminded of the difference between spirituality and spiritualism in Emerson’s time – the Transcendentalists were drawn to a perennial type of spirituality but were also intrigued by spiritualism. I certainly feel that there are subtle levels of energy and information that are most often outside of my experience, but appear as powerful states for others.
    When I think of mystical community, I recognize that different people dwell in different parts of the mystical typology. Just as there are different types of personalities, so there are different types of experience and we each find our own way along, hopefully guided more and more by our own experience, while also recognizing that much experience is true but partial.
    I lingered over your powerful closing statements, while also recognizing some differences in my own experience. I accept reality as it is in the present so that I can be more deeply at one with it. Whether all that leads to a better future for all is something that I can be hopeful of, but I tend to “let go and let god” as they say and let the future be as it will, while I keep my focus in my experience of and response to the moment.

Add your thoughts, comments, & questions below