Noumenal Net

A lot of “traditionalists” accuse those who practice “blended spirituality” of being “fluffy”. I use the word a lot myself, but only concerning people who ‘read a book once’ and is now an expert, or worse, practices some watery melange insipid religious extracts.

Blended spirituality doesn’t have to be that way. It can be as deep and fulfilling as any traditional spirituality. I don’t consider my own spirituality to be “blended”, its more organically grown on the basis of my values and my experiences. I refer to it as “creative spirituality” or when I’m feeling particularly mysterious, Hychechorian Gnosis, being a derivitive of a revealed word I received some months ago.

Though I don’t particularly consider my personal religion to be blended, I also don’t limit the sources of my personal inspiration. Inspiration can come from anywhere, any time, and I don’t think any source should be taboo, as long as it is approached with respect and a willingness to learn.

But if the traditionalists aren’t screaming about fluffiness then they’re jumping on the PC bandwagon and going on about cultural appropriation. However I don’t think the issue of cultural appropriation should merely be dismissed as PC thuggery. Its an important topic, one that potentially effects all spiritual seekers and its something that I think should be discussed.

The term Cultural Appropriation has negative connotations, and refers to the borrowing of elements of one culture by another. Often the culture borrowed from is an indiginous or minority culture, and elements borrowed can include anything from artifacts to mode of dress, from customs to religious beliefs. For the purposes of this article, I am of course focussing on religious beliefs.

Over the centuries the world has seen plenty of religious cultural appropriation, or aculturation, or syncretisation. Especially in pagan cultures, one nation, culture or tribe might adopt the gods and traditions of a neighboring tribe or nation, and blend it with their own. Egyptian deities found their way to Greece, Greek gods found their way to Rome, Christians often borrowed traditions and imagery from pagans, and so forth and so on.

In a more ancient world, these cultural syncretisations happened slowly, grew organically, but now in the age of instant information, a person can grab a new religion right off the internet. I can go online this very moment and have a conversation with a Muslim in Turkey, a Copt in Egypt, a Buddhist in China, or a Hindu in India. I don’t have to travel halfway across the world to learn about someone’s culture. The question is, is this a bad thing? I think the free availability of information is a magnificent leap for humankind, but its not without its problems.

It has the potential to contribute to greater understanding between people, but also can be perceived as threat by those who are striving to preserve their way of life against the tide of globalisation.

Is Culture Sacred?

In a word, no.

Cultures have risen and fallen, born and died, been absorbed, changed or destroyed many times over, throughout the centuries. Culture is not only not sacred, its also not static. Culture is fluid, it changes.

And no culture is sacred, because nothing is sacred. Sacredness is in the eye of the beholder; sacredness is bestowed by the observer.

Does a god exist whom no one believes in? The host may be sacred to my Catholic neighbor, but to me its just a bad-tasting cracker. A giant and ancient oak might have once been sacred to a group of druids, but to the guy who’s house sits under it, its just a fire hazard.

Now I may just think the host is a crappy tasting cookie, but I still wouldn’t spit on it. I recognise that it is sacred to some people, perhaps to some people I care about, and though I don’t hold it sacred, I respect the fact that they do.

The same goes for culture. There are people who do hold their own culture sacred, and this needs to be recognised and respected by those who are not a part of that culture. Many cultures are fighting to preserve their traditions, their language, their religions, and their task is made more difficult by people who appropriate, water-down, and sell various aspects of their culture.

This especially seems to pertain to the ongoing struggle between the various Native American spiritualities, and the New Age practitioners.

Where does the line get drawn?

I think the question, when approaching, exploring, or adopting any new spirituality is “Who am I hurting?”

If I want to smudge my home with sage or tobacco, then I’m not hurting anyone. The burning of herbs for cleansing purposes is found in many different cultures anyway. One culture does not have dibs on smudging.

I once saw Ganesh dancing in my living room. I was not, nor am I now, a Hindu, yet there he was large as life. This vision had a profound impact on my personal spirituality, and since then, Ganesh has been a part of my personal pantheon. My personal dialogue with Ganesh, however, doesn’t hurt anyone.

If you don’t want me worshipping your god, tell him to stay out of my living room.

I think the trouble arises when New Agers appropriate aspects of different cultures - and this applies especially to Native American cultures - water down the teachings, or worse yet, make stuff up. And then make a mockery of these traditions by selling it at exhorbitant prices.

A lot of these people are pretty appalling. But they’re also meeting a demand. Much of the public wants to know about diverse spiritualities, the various Native American ones included. Gurus, yogis, etc come to the west and fill the demand for eastern teachings. But so many of the Native tribes are close-lipped about their own spirituality. This is, of course, their right.

Plenty of religions are exclusive, or demand difficult indoctrinations or initiations. Jews rarely accept converts, but anyone can become a Southern Baptist just by getting dunked. Yezidis never accept converts, but many religions will actually try to force conversion. Traditional Haitian voodoo requires learning and initiation, but some american forms of hoodoo are fairly easy to pick up, if you know where to look.

But where there’s a demand, there’s going to be someone to meet that demand. And these New Agers, putrid as they are, are meeting a demand.

Personal Systems

I recently ran across an article by Lupa over at Witchvox and found it very interesting. She claims that she’s interested in systems, rather than a particular culture and this resonates with me. She has an affinity with animal magick and totemism, and explores her passion in the context of many cultures.

I have an acute interest in Otherworld myth and experience, regardless of the cultural context. And in my exploration of this subject am I merely to concentrate on the european traditions and leave out the myths and lore of other cultures? I feel I would be narrowing my knowledge severly if I were to do so.

I think it all comes back to knowledge and respect. I don’t think anyone should limit their knowledge, and I don’t think any knowledge is taboo. But I don’t think picking up a nifty name and tacking it onto yourself is being very respectful of the name’s culture of origin. I know many many American Buddhists. They’ve studied, they’ve delved into their path, they’ve practiced with great intensity and devotion. If you’re going to call yourself a Buddhist, this is what you do.

The same goes for any of you who practice blended spirituality. Just because you blend spirituality, doesn’t mean you dilute it. Learn, explore, practice and respect.

——————————

This article is a part of the Creative Spirituality series. Past articles in this series include:

Creative Spirituality