Yep, *everything* is already here. :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote:
>
> " ... or secularize that creation into the humanity we feel
> for each other? Doesn't have to be an either/or situation."
>
> Already here. Its called Buddhism.
>
>
> --- 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.
> >
> > 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?
> > >
> >
>
