Is it bad to dumb-down or simplify practices or beliefs?

[CharmingOwl]

If India is the land of spirituality than America is the land of cultism, because so many movements and organizations here are operating at least partially with simplified syncretic belief systems that come from Asia, Europe, or other philosophies. Most people probably know about the new age chakra alignment, kundalini, and yoga and things which I hear many dharmic fatih practitioners call appropriation. However other faiths such as Scientology have things like the ARC triangle which seems to be influenced by Greek philosophy (Pathos Ethos Logos) but made more palatable to a larger group of people. Obviously there are a lot of distorted practices and things made up for money, but for the purpose of this conversation I just want to focus on the simplification of beliefs. Another thing that tends to happen with western spirituality is that the simplified practices tend to take a backseat to the ones the group cares about more, like how the People's Temple was technically Christian but their practice and ideology was more inspired by communism than the actual Christian theology. As a person myself whose religion is based on communism, I also feel that Jim Jones really simplified communism as well, because he did not seem to have his followers read actual political theory or theorize on actual economics and solutions to political issues which is a huge part of communist practice.

I think simplified practices will have broader appeal to a larger group of people to get them practicing it, but it becomes devoid of real content after a certain point. I don't think it's bad and I personally have adopted various beliefs and practices from American and Japanese cults myself, but I wanted to ask you guys what you think about simplifying complex and sometimes even culturally rich practices so more people can grasp it. Personally, I don't see harm in it as long as the less simplified version still exists for those who want it.

 

[Heyo]

I think simplified practices will have broader appeal to a larger group of people to get them practicing it,

Simple religions for simple people.

Personally, I don't see harm in it as long as the less simplified version still exists for those who want it.

... and the beginners know that there is an extended version.

When you learn something, say maths, you get the simple version first. You can add all numbers but you can't subtract a greater number from a smaller one.
Then you learn that negative numbers exist and that you can subtract greater numbers from smaller ones.
You can't distribute 5 apples to 3 people, there remains a rest. - Fractions exist, you can cut up the apples.
You can't draw a root from negative numbers. - Complex numbers exist, you can draw a root from negative numbers.

There are always things a beginner can't or shouldn't do until they have learned the basics. And there is almost always something more to learn.

 

[sun rise]

Maybe but my practices are very simple: practice the presence of God and practice kindness as much as I'm free to do. I don't personally find much value in complicated theologies and complex rituals. Maybe I'm just simple minded

 

[Twilight Hue]

The simpler the better.

I like the saying, "Easy to learn, lifetime to master".

 

[SalixIncendium]

I can put tomato sauce and mozzarella cheese on a slice of white bread and call it pizza. Is it going to satisfy as much as a Chicago Deep Dish or a New York Style slice?

One gets out of their spiritual practice what one puts into it.

 

[Quintessence]

One does not learn calculus without first learning basic arithmetic.

Further, not everyone needs to learn how to do calculus.

It's been said by some far wiser than myself that the advanced stuff is just repackaged basics. If you don't know your fundamentals and revisit them often, your practice will falter.

 

[vijeno]

... Most people probably know about the new age chakra alignment, kundalini, and yoga and things which I hear many dharmic fatih practitioners call appropriation. ... Obviously there are a lot of distorted practices and things made up for money, but for the purpose of this conversation I just want to focus on the simplification of beliefs....

I think simplified practices will have broader appeal to a larger group of people to get them practicing it, but it becomes devoid of real content after a certain point. ...

In general, I don't like the framing of "is it bad..."? Maybe somewhat ironically, I developed a rather utilitarian approach during my fling with zen buddhism.

I.e., I think almost all things have upsides and downsides, depending on context and intensity, and we should always try to figure out ways to create more good and less evil, but there is no one clear recipe to achieve that. Certainly not through "authenticity" or trying to avoid "appropriation".

As you said, there is a certain point at which it becomes useless and even ridiculous. Where that point lies, depends on a lot of factors. It's hard to generalize.

For example, my own practice regarding chakras is definitely dumbed-down, extracted, European, simplified. I am well aware that the usual "correspondences" with colors and feelings and psychological functions are 19th/20th-century madey-uppey thingies. (I suspected such for a long time, and then got convinced by some reading.) And I don't care. After all, I don't believe the chakras are real anyway. What I do, seems to work for me (to some degree), and I keep on learning. That's all there is to it.

The same goes for tantra. I know that my "tantric" practice has little to do with what a 2nd century CE hindu ascetic would call "tantric", but so what. I don't claim to be "authentic". I just claim that it works well for me, for some definition of "well". I don't need to be ye olde enlightened guru with special insight. All I want from it, is some calm and some relaxation, a bit of softening of my ego, and a bit of sexual excitement.

Another example would be "western buddhism". I know a lot of people rail against it, but if more people sit down and mind their breath for a few minutes each day, I can only see that as a good thing. Of course, when they then go on and on about how enlightened they are, and that I have to read the lotus sutra or else... that is ridiculous and potentially destructive, but then again, haven't we all had our weird phases and ego-trips? I know I have.

Since I don't believe that the "original" and "authentic" teachings are True(TM), I don't see how the "dumbed down" versions are false(r). In both cases, thinking you have The Truth(TM) is a bad idea, and some humility goes a long way.

The same goes for the kabbalah, by the way, which tends to be the point at which people can get really defensive and gatekeepy. I understand it, but there's little I can do about it. I cannot magically transform into a 16th century Jew, I can't stop my fascination with those teachings, and since I don't claim to be a teacher, I see little reason to not engage with it.

In short, I am deeply eclectic and like to take things from many sources, and I think there is little "bad" in it, as long as I remain aware that it is eclecticism, that it cannot replicate "authenticity", and that it doesn't magically make me superior to anyone else.

 

[PureX]

Simple and complex are relative to the context being applied.

It might be wise to beware of applying your own context to someone else's religious experience or understanding. It's an automatic means of generating a bias.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Making a religion complicated is selfish and a disservice toward those with disabilities and cognitive issues unless that religion is only intended for people who like and enjoy the sense of exclusivity and even superiority over others who could never be in their "club".