-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@...> wrote: > > Secular or God-based, what is the difference, really? Both make assumptions > in order to create a path to ultimate freedom.
This is the problem, there actually is a huge difference including the embedded belief like the one above. The secular viewpoint does not assume teleology like that we are on a path to eternal freedom. And as long as religious people don't agree on what that means and even include strapping on bombs to die as a martyrs for their ultimate freedom, secularist will have to be vigilant to keep religious creep into secular institutions. People who assume a religious POV have assumptions that run like spyware under the surface and it comes out innocently as it did for you in that statement. And while it is of course true that secularist have plenty of assumptions about reality that come out too, they are not in a class of beliefs that society deeps a protected class. So if a secularist has a bad idea we can all point our finger and say "wrong moron, bad idea." > > The more important point is, imo, how's that working for you, or me? Pragmatic philosophy is not always the best standard for beliefs. Nazi Germany worked fine till it didn't. What you seem to be implying is a form of cultural relativism. The problem is that there is nothing that doesn't work for a society that believes in female genital mutilation. Works out fine for everyone but the woman. > > Why can't we have our God and secularize it too? Perhaps enjoy our rational > secular viewpoint at times, and at other times revel in the joy of God's > magnificent and overwhelming creation, or secularize that creation into the > humanity we feel for each other? Doesn't have to be an either/or situation. That is fine as your personal solution but the issues around how we approach these ideas for schools is a completely different issue. And there are even conflicts between the God believers about what he wants so the word God is kind of useless since we can't assume everyone agrees on what the word means or is referring to. So it is a legitimate desire for a Christian to not want to repeat a Hindu god's name and all the subtle parsing about seed mantras and the Vedic tradition are not gunna fly. The problem with religion for me is that it covers up many really bad ideas with the cloak of protection that we do not afford any other class of human knowledge. We don't say "hey he just does not believe in the holocaust, that is just a personal belief and we don't have a right to challenge it as total bullshit." > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > Today I found myself remembering something Vaj said -- that one of the > > reasons mindfulness is making inroads into PC-sensitive environments > > such as publicly-funded schools, in which other techniques such as TM > > might encounter difficulties, is that mindfulness can be completely > > secularized. It can be divorced from its origins in a tradition that can > > be seen as religious and presented without any of its original trappings > > in Buddhism. You don't even need a Buddhist to teach it; any layman or > > teacher or therapist can learn its principles and teach them to others. > > It's the spiritual equivalent of open source software. > > > > In comparison, TM is very much proprietary source software. It cannot > > really ever be completely divorced from its origins in Hindu (or, if you > > prefer, Vedic) trappings. To teach it, a person has to not only be > > specially trained by the organization that holds the copyrights > > (literally) to the source code of its tradition, he or she has to > > perform rituals that can easily be construed as religious, prior to > > imparting mantras that can just as easily be construed as being the > > names of gods and goddesses. You can argue that this isn't true all you > > want, but I suspect that even the arguers will admit that there is a > > strong case to be made for a 1-to-1 link being present between TM and an > > established religious tradition. > > > > That creates problems in some environments. The dedicated people in > > those environments -- teachers, therapists, health care professionals > > and even law enforcement or prison officials -- are DYING for techniques > > that would help the people they're dedicated to helping. But many of > > these people are also very Politically Correct savvy, and realize that > > if they introduce a technique or set of techniques into their > > environment that is PC-controversial, the controversy is pretty much > > guaranteed to hit the fan. That's just the nature of the times we live > > in. > > > > All of this thinking about Vaj's mention of this idea of a secularized > > spiritual practice got me to thinking up questions, which I pass along > > to Vaj or to anyone else here: > > > > "What would a completely secularized set of meditation and > > self-development techniques LOOK LIKE? If you were to design one or > > speculate about one, what would it involve and not involve?" > > > > "Which elements from traditional spiritual practices would you preserve, > > and which would you not?" > > > > "If the meditation practices you suggest use mantras, where would they > > come from?" > > > > "If the meditation practices don't involve mantras, what would they be? > > For example, some techniques rely on visualization, either inwardly or > > with the eyes open, on certain designs (yantras, mandalas) or > > individuals (gods, goddesses, saints). Would you use these same objects > > of focus, or others? If others, what would they be?" > > > > "How would you make this technique or set of techniques attractive to > > people who could benefit from them without relying on the appeal to > > 'lineage' or 'tradition?'" > > > > "Do you feel that such a secularized spiritual practice would be a Good > > Thing or a Bad Thing? Would one approach be inherently "better" or "more > > effective" and the other...uh..."less?" And if so, WHY?" > > > > I have no easy answers. If you do, fire away. I am interested both as a > > "spiritual sociologist" and as a fan of science fiction. Writers in the > > SF genre have speculated about secularized spirituality for decades. > > Heck, one SF author even went out and created his own version of one, > > and has gazillions of followers. But in the process he copped out and > > called it a religion. What would you come up with if you were trying to > > do the opposite? > > >
