--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > Invoking Narayana is not secular. And although it is not "required that > > > you believe" in the religious concepts that are taught, they are still > > > not appropriate for school outside of world religion class. TM could be > > > taught there alongside creationism. > > > > > > > Just as an exploratory counter point - > > > > If a "religion" doesn't reveal God in its Fullness and Completeness to me > > -- within a year, month is better -- then its just so many words. A fraud. > > Not a religion. >
And as a preface, I am out on a tangent - not debating TM in schools. I am simply pondering a more basic question -- when does interaction with a religion or religious group make me a participant in their religion. And by whose critera? Theirs or mine? Or a bystander? > Most religions don't share this criteria. For a guy like me, even the > "experience" of some version of god doesn't make it less of a fraud. It is > the "certainty" of religious knowledge claimed that I object to. I interact with falsely certain people all the time. If I know their claims are false, they are not going to pull the wool over my eyes. If I don't know they are false -- I might get "taken" but that may be of large, but also perhaps small consequence. If a woman says she is the greatest lover in the world -- and she is certain about it I may not believe her and be with her. Or I might fall for her claim and be with her. Is there much difference to me? Am I really hurt if I realize in the morning her claim was not true? (and this is not a counter to what you aid -- i am just exploring the boundaries of this theme.) If the guy at the fruit stand tries to convince me that he is God -- I still buy fruit from him, unharmed. Whether I believe him or not, the fruit is still good. > So who cares if some drunk like characters proclaim themselves a religion. It > doesn't make what they do, believe or teach a religion. Its just perpetuation > of a scam, calling itself a religion when it can't produce the goods. > > You are presupposing an experience of God in a yogic way. Most religions are > a collections of beliefs that are not necessarily "experienced" in that way. I am just using my def of religion. if they produce the goods, I go along with it -- "Its a religion". If they dont produce the goods, its not a religion. Why do I care if they think they are part of a religion or not? > > But if that same group has something else to offer of value -- ok -- I'm game > -- and I have no qualms or concern that the thing of value that they offer is > religious. Its not. How can a non-religion offer something religious? > It is the source of their claims that defines a religion, not whether the > claims are true. I don't follow. Why should care at all about their source or epistimology? > Religions use an authority based epistemology. Modern society has given this > up in every single area of life except for religion because it has been found > to be wrong to many times whenever evidence is available. (Men don't have one > less rib than women cuz God made women out of one of them.) I am still not following. The fruit stand guy believes he has an extra rib. I humor him. Or maybe debate him. Doesn't matter -- the mango is still juicy. > > > > A separate point. If I eat at a HK temple, is it a religious meal? > > I don't think those words naturally go together. Last Supper? Why does religion not go with meal. Catholics offer up tasty snacks every week. >But in the Krishna view it is because they have offered the food as prasad to >a statue before you eat it. So in the context of their beliefs it is. My fruit guy did woo woo on my mangos. Who cares if the mango is great. >But food is different from beliefs which is what TM sells along with its >meditation. > < Is it counter to my religion? Are Christians at risk for eternal damnation > by eating at a HK temple?> > > Some Christians believe yes. Some fundamentalist groups would believe that > the food conveyed the demonic quality of the Krishna's beliefs and influence. > But I think we have mixed up logical levels by trying to include a physical > object like food in a discussion of beliefs taught in schools. Which is fine, but I am not part of that discussion. I (rudely perhaps) am off on a tangent of interest. Which in my view are at the core of the TM / religion thing. That is, I would need a larger context and understand when I interact with any religion or religions person, or religious food, when do I cross the line and become a participant in their religion. I don't care if they think I am part of their religion. I don't care, but I am polite and smile, when my nice older neighbor lady says the angels are joyous and will bless me today. I humor her, but don't look for angels. > In other words, it isn't the flower used in the puja that the initiate keeps > that is the religious problem with teaching TM in schools. > > > > > > > > >
