Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 6
When the Mediterranean sea became a means of transport, a very important culture and
religion developed around this sea. The Roman civilization and the Roman Catholic Church
was the paradigmatic result, the Mediterranean paradigm.
Later --after the Reformation --the Atlantic Ocean became the means for the development
of mainly Anglosaxon culture and Protestantism. This Atlantic paradigm became --and still
is --the major source for the international society that is the paradigmatic base for nearly
all people today, at any rate in principle. Civil rights, human rights, the claim for justice and
a new world order: these are all expressions of the Atlantic paradigm.
Another paradigm, however, is coming into being. We can call it the Pacific paradigm, for it
combines East Asian cities, with their millions of inhabitants, and the western part of the
American civilization, most notably California, a state crowded with Christian names but now
a melting pot of syncretism, a new metropolitan.
The Pacific Paradigm
The Pacific Ocean --with Hawaii in the middle --is the new center of power in the world. A
new republic of grand cities (a metropolistan) is coming into being, beyond all national
boundaries and beyond all political control.
From its Pacific base, this new culture is spreading all over the world. It can be
characterized as a mixture of the light from the East and the enlightenment from the West.
It comes into being as a fusion of the light of mysticism with the enlightenment of
rationalism. The result of this fusion is not yet clear, but it seems to be a sort of "trans-
syncretism," in which a strong holistic trend brushes aside classical eastern religions as well
as classical Christian faith. In fact, however, this holism is monism, and it is much closer to
its Hindu-Buddhist-Occult roots than to its Christian origins, in which personal engagement
is at the heart of life.
A red thread in this new trans-religion is its emphasis on divinization. Man has become his
own divinity, or is able to become so. Human beings are all gods and goddesses in process.
"There is no other god than man" echoes through most of the thousands of new religious
movements all over the world. This hubris has also come to mean that anything which is
possible is also necessary. If euphoria is possible, then it must be tried out. There are no
limitations to human capacity.
This mental attitude, of course, has external consequences. In many ways it fits in well with
capitalism, which had its birth during the Atlantic paradigm but has come of age during the
first period of the Pacific paradigm. Both models of capitalism are characterized by belief in
the limitless nature of man. In the Atlantic version of Capitalism, a lonely hero works his
way through all sorts of trials on a road to the stars. In the Pacific version of capitalism,
success is more communal, epitomized by the multinational corporation with its anonymous
top.
The various religious models of the Pacific paradigm --often related to forms of Neo-
Hinduism and Neo-Buddhism and mediated by various forms of theosophy and occultism --
have arrived in the West, where they have adopted a communal, multinational approach.
Although in their first generation, during which a charismatic guru is usually at the top,
these groups are not anonymous, after the guru's death a camarilla takes over, and the
conversion to anonymous multinationals is complete.
It is interesting to examine what happened to the Godmen from Asia. They came barefoot
and simple-minded, accustomed never to touch money and women. In a short time,
however, they were swallowed up by the market mechanism and consumerism of the West.
They certainly looked for and developed disciples, but the disciples, who had imbibed the
principles of capitalism, also made their gurus.

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1991, Page 7
The transformation of the godmen into moneymen was swift and effective, for the market
had already been created by Christian salesmen, the rightist fundamentalists with whom
they began to compete for money, influence, and souls. Thus, the high tide of the Pacific
paradigm has, ironically, incorporated the waning Atlantic paradigm to accommodate to the
possibilities of the new world marketplace.
This new religiosity came as a surprise for most people. They had settled down to the belief
that the time of religion had ended and the time of secularism had arrived. Yet suddenly,
religion flared up unexpectedly. The simple fact is that this new boom in religion has not
come about in spite of secularization, but because of secularization. As noted earlier, secular
models --whether civil religion, fascism, or communism --do not adequately address
death, love, and boredom. The new religious movements have stepped into this void. But
they also are failing. They too are pseudoreligions.
Many specialists in religion do not recognize these counterfeits for what they are. They
seem to assume that all expressions of religion are genuine, that counterfeits do not exist.
Tell that to an art specialist who has to own up to buying a counterfeit painting!
Counterfeits do exist. And learning to distinguish the genuine from the fake is a challenge
that offers true religosity and true religion an opportunity for renewal.
"Recoding"
The quotation with which we began this essay dealt with Iceland in 1000 A.D. If we should
apply it to Europe and North America in the year 2000, it might read as follows:
The religious change to an oriental religiosity in the year 2000 was something
quite different from conversion from one faith to another. It was not the
content of the Hindu-Buddhist faith that was central in the religious change.
It was rather the recognized need for a new code. The new era was marked
by the oriental world view much more than by faith.
With this understanding of what is already happening in 1991, but which may well find its
culmination at the end of this decade, we can explain why so many deny the confrontation
between Christianity and Hinduism-Buddhism. They do not experience it as a question of
their faith. They see it rather as a question of a new world view, and for them it has nothing
to do with religion or faith or conversion.
This skewed understanding obviously has nothing directly to do with conversion. The
pioneers in the coming religious change have no desire to undertake a conversion to
Hinduism-Buddhism. They do not wish to become Hindus or Buddhists, much less to be
considered Hindus or Buddhists. Many of them, indeed, wish to stay in the Church and be
reckoned as Christians. Some believe, furthermore, that they have become better Christians
by accepting the new world view.
The distinction between religious change and conversion is the key to the situation, for in
1991 a comprehensive religious change in Europe and North America is undoubtedly taking
place, yet there are only a limited number of conversions to oriental religiosity. Moreover,
the content of the religious change is discussed in terms of a new vision of the world.
The process of religious change is most apparent in the religious education in schools. A
debate has been set into motion by a group of educators who have undergone religious
change, even though they have not been converted to anything at all. Of course, they will
not admit this, for it is characteristic of the process of religious change that it is not
recognized. There are, nonetheless, some prominent representatives of the process who
honestly admit that there is a "conspiracy" (see Ferguson, 1980), but most do not see it and
participate unknowingly.