--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nice post, Rick. This, in an odd way, is exactly the subject I have > been trying (unsuccessfully, because it's a snakepit) on > alt.meditation.transcendental. > > My theory, which is not entirely mine (it has its antecedents in > traditional Buddhism and other traditions) is that there is something > inherently "wrong" with one particular spiritual teaching. > > That teaching is that "we" (the tradition, the teaching, the > technique, the practitioners) are "the best." > > Some Buddhist traditions hold that this is a manifestation of a > particular state of mind (think mini-state of consciousness, in MMY > terminology) which is completely understandable (pandering, as it > does, to ego, which we all have in spades). But they also hold that, > viewed over a long period of time (centuries) that this state of mind > is potentially poisonous. It leads the traditions that espouse it > into Questionable Karma (the Crusades; the Inquisition; "off the > program"). And it leads the followers into equally Questionable > Karma (TM is the "highest teaching" and anything else is lesser and > to be avoided and demonized; anyone who goes "off the program" is to > be shunned and demonized even more; anything...ANYTHING...is > permissible when protecting the "purity of the teaching"). >
**** This is an interesting theme I have been pondering also. The way of thinking that our religion, our belief system, is the best, and peace and happiness for all humanity (or heaven on earth), is attained only, when we have got victory over the other religions, belongs to certain stages of moral development, most notoriously the mythical fundamentalist stage. Only when you develop beyond that stage you start to see the general pattern in it that is similar in many other religions and what is created by that pattern. I belong to a spiritual organization, that doesn't see itself to be the best. Rather seeing itself to be contributing to the progress of humanity and the individual. It doesn't accept rigid doctrines at all, only some general moral principles, one of which is to see the differences between people as richness rather than a threat. This kind of approach doesn't attract too many people. People tend to be thriving in organizations that correspond to their own developmental stage. I have been wondering why there are so many stable democracies only in the part of the world where Christianity has prevailed for a long time. Also those countries have been most successful in eliminating poverty. I consider true democracy to be the most advanced form of governance created by humanity so far. Has this progress happened because Christianity has allowed more real human rights for women than other religions? Or has this part of the world been capable of maintaining those rights in spite of the religion? Irmeli To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
