--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_re...@...> wrote:
I appreciate your thought exercise. I don't have much of an opinion about your personal beliefs. I interact with religious people in a similar way outside of the legal and educational systems. Then these distinctions matter to me. YMMV > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
