Eclecticism vs. Traditionalism
Jun. 12th, 2009 08:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zombi posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
spiritual_wooI saw this question on a message board, and it caused a lot of debate -- I'd like to ask it here, too, to see what all of you have to say.
In your opinion, is it wrong to stray from specified guidelines within a path? Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"? Should we adhere to the rules?
Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?
To answer my own question, I think that if you don't follow tenets within a Tradition, then you are not of that Tradition. If you take parts of it and parts of another -- then you are following a completely different path. When you take parts from one and then another and combine them, you have something new, and in my opinion, you should name it something entirely different so as not to be confused with either original. But I don't think it's "wrong".
In your opinion, is it wrong to stray from specified guidelines within a path? Will doing so tarnish a given practice? Will doing so show disrespect to those that have "done the work"? Should we adhere to the rules?
Conversely, does holding onto the traditions from maybe thousands of years in the past keep us from moving forward? Should we take what we like, what is of use, and discard the rest?
To answer my own question, I think that if you don't follow tenets within a Tradition, then you are not of that Tradition. If you take parts of it and parts of another -- then you are following a completely different path. When you take parts from one and then another and combine them, you have something new, and in my opinion, you should name it something entirely different so as not to be confused with either original. But I don't think it's "wrong".
no subject
Date: 2009-06-13 02:19 am (UTC)Most paths, it's not morally wrong to follow parts of, or borrow pieces of and assemble with other pieces, as long as you're honest about what you're doing. (And "being honest" involves a bit more than just the basic declaration; it involves making yourself understood as eclectic if other people are involved or being told about it.)
But for some forms of spirituality, it's near blasphemy to take them piecemeal. Think of it as a form of cultural appropriation--it can be a way of saying "I wanted the shiny parts of these people's culture, but I don't care about them or their way of life, so I'm ignoring those parts." It is implying that the shiny parts (whichever you might think those are) exist separately from the rest of the tradition... that they are unsupported, that the less-than-shiny parts are discardable, and the people who follow paths of privation and restriction are wasting their energy, when they could be just using the pretties.
Details depend on the path, and the person. There aren't any over-arching rules, no neat checklist list of guidelines (even for any one path) that someone can follow to be sure they're being ethical.
Ethics are not a matter of following lists. Ethics involve sound central principles, and deriving one's actions & choices from those.