There are multiple flaws in the reasoning of your thinking. First off, Eastern practices do not exists in some void. Taoist, Buddhists, Vedic, Hindu, so on and so forth ideologies are culturally dominant in Eastern countries, right? Well, what is the frequency of people in those countries who historically and currently have any a large amount of say psychic ability? Not many. The reason why observable instances of psychic abilities large enough to be seen without analysis is so hard to believe is because it is so rare. If it were not, then it would be a common and familiar experience endemic to human society. But it is not! The same could be said for Western religion and spirituality. Inductively, this means there is no reason to think that supplementing your practices with Eastern ones will have any effect, because the frequency of people who actually have experiences that are large enough to observe without analysis is just about the same for either or. The majority of people on this planet are religious or spiritual in some shape or form; however, most people aren't moving objects around that can be seen without analysis, which is why people have a hard time believing that someone can make an object levitate.
Secondly, when you speak of a "lineage", you are speaking of how things are taught to people and how those things are further taught. You are speaking of a culture, essentially. Something is not true by virtue of having a particular culture. Abstractly, you can say how people learn things on line is indicative of a culture the same way you are learning where there is a difference in pedagogy and whether or not something is vetted. Besides cultural differences, though, it seems as if you are making an assumption that one culture is more likely to give results than another based on what appears to be age and how closely it matches up to some arbitrarily proposed cannon of beliefs. Think of technology. Technology is not just the end result, but it is also the ideas, concepts, and techniques taught to people to come up with that technology. This means there is a cultural component to it where current technology is very effective where those disciplines are relatively new.
This boils down to pretty much there being no logical reason, based on evidence, to think you will get better results if you supplemented or switched to Eastern practices and there is no logical reason to think one culture is more effective than another based on its age. Since culture is something that is taught and learned, all cultures technically have a lineage.
We have some pretty fundamental gulfs between our perspectives, so I doubt anything will come of a protracted discussion, but I'll try to address a few of your comments anyway.
- "Well, what is the frequency of people in those countries who historically and currently have any a large amount of say psychic ability? Not many."
Firstly, thanks to a century of immigration and globalisation (not to mention, in the case of Daoism and Chan & Tibetan Buddhism, violent persecution), we're talking less about a geographical "East" than the we are about the training methodologies which historically descend from that location, especially when discussing beginning and intermediate training. Of course it's an incredibly vague description no matter how we define it, but without going far more in depth, it'll have to do.
Secondly, we're not talking about the population at large, we're talking specifically about dedicated practitioners of what I'll group under the label of systems of metaphysical development (Yoga and Tantra, Qigong and Neigong, Internal Alchemy, assorted other systems of meditation, various systems of magic, etc etc), since I'm not a fan of the "psychic" label for a huge number of reasons.
Third, what matters in the context of the point I was making isn't the absolute number of people who have achieved success in these practices, but the relative number of people who have achieved that success using traditional Eastern training as opposed to training in the traditional Western esoteric current, attempted self training or bastardised syncretic methodologies. Of course, in absolute terms, such success is rare within any given general population group - just as successful authors, athletes, scientists or what have you are also rare in any given general population.
Fourth, as there has been very little in-depth scientific examination of these systems, East or West, let alone detailed polling of how many people have achieved what level of success with which systems, you're basically saying "well, in absolute terms success is rare everywhere, so it doesn't matter if it's more common, even by a large degree, in certain traditions/lineages." I'm sure I don't have to point out how flawed that line of reason is. There's also the issue of the definition of "success" varying from system to system - another of the issues I take with the Western traditions is that in the modern era, they hold the bar for success extremely low, and don't even have the conceptual framework, let alone practical methodology, for the higher levels of practice and attainment found in Eastern traditions. Even at the beginners level, there are huge holes, such as the complete lack of physical training in the Hermetic system prior to the adoption of Vedic Yoga by the Occult Revival era practitioners.
- "If it were not, then it would be a common and familiar experience endemic to human society."
Not necessarily. Nobody doubts that world class athletes can perform extraordinary physical feats, but if I walked into a random party and claimed to be an Olympic gold medallist, then people are likely to be sceptical unless I can back up my claims. They might be less sceptical if we instead met at a gym run by world class athletic coaches, but they would probably still maintain reserve until proof was provided either way. Metaphysical achievement is much the same - a surprising number of people believe it's possible, especially once you get outside the bubble of Western middle class reductionist materialism, but that doesn't mean they'll believe every asshole running around claiming to be a grand master (rightfully so).
In short, what you're ignoring is that the vast majority of Eastern traditional lineages maintain that to progress in these fields, extraordinary dedication and hard work is required, just like any other human endeavour.
This is another one of the flaws within Western esoteric teachings - due to misinformation caused by the problems I mentioned in my last post, and perpetuated by popular culture, many people are lead to believe that attainment is either purely a matter of luck (ie. that "powers" are something you're born or gifted with - one reason I avoid the word "psychic," since it has come to heavily imply this), or that it can simply be obtained by following spells and rituals the same way you would follow the recipe out of a cook book. This is less the case than it used to be, but it's an attitude which seems to still seep in at a subconscious level, as opposed to the emphasis on hard work and dedication generally found in Eastern lineages. Putting aside methodologies, this gap in approach alone is, imo, quite likely to account for a solid chunk of the difference in the levels of success found in Eastern schools v. Western schools.
- "The majority of people on this planet are religious or spiritual in some shape or form; however, most people aren't moving objects around that can be seen without analysis"
You can't equate "being religious/spiritual" with having success in metaphysical development. The former is simply a worldview, the latter is a result of hard work within the context of correct training.
- "Secondly, when you speak of a "lineage", you are speaking of how things are taught to people and how those things are further taught. You are speaking of a culture, essentially."
Not quite. I'm speaking of a specific practical methodology for training to attain certain results, being passed down correctly from one individual to the next across generations. These systems are obviously coloured by culture, and colour the culture they exist within, as with any field of human endeavour, but they're based on the demonstrated success of certain schools of training techniques. Roughly speaking, a pedagogy, as you more accurately termed it later.
- "Something is not true by virtue of having a particular culture."
Of course not - but something either achieves the desired results or does not based, at least to a large degree, on whether it consists of the proper methodology.
"it seems as if you are making an assumption that one culture is more likely to give results than another based on what appears to be age and how closely it matches up to some arbitrarily proposed cannon of beliefs."
No, I'm making the evaluation that one system of learning (or group of systems of learning) is more likely to provide results than another system (or group of systems) of learning based on the ability of the students of that system to demonstrate the relevant results.
To go back to analogies - If I wanted to be an Olympic athlete, I'd do it by looking to see which coach was having the best success at producing students capable of competing in, and winning, Olympic medals. If I wanted to be a silicon valley programmer, I'd do it by looking to see which University's tech department was producing students with the greatest hiring rate and career trajectory in silicon valley (and, obviously, move to America). If I wanted to be a world class surgeon, I'd look at world class surgeons and find out which medical schools they graduated from. All I'm doing is taking that same train of logic and applying it to metaphysical matters. I decided on what I wanted to achieve, I looked at who had achieved it, and then I went to them with the hope that they would guide me through the process of achieving it that they themselves had undertaken.
Show Posts
