Secular or God-based, what is the difference, really? Both make assumptions in order to create a path to ultimate freedom.
The more important point is, imo, how's that working for you, or me? 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. --- 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? >
