rara wrote:when I receive two separate messages saying that some think the forum should be "secular", what on earth does that mean? Where do we draw the line? I've certainly put Buddhist and Taoist references out there before.
As I was discussing with Omni - many non-secular or non-mindfulness quotes and practices appear to support the secular mindfulness methodology, and so such quotes can be considered worthwhile in a secular light. It's different to say, for example, "Einstein's mystical life gave his science practice power", rather than "Einstein's science practice was powerful even though he had mystical leanings". The main definition of mindfulness used by this forum is a secular one. On a Zen forum it's a Zen Buddhist one. On a Daoist forum it's a Daoist one. The Daoist mods wouldn't be too happy if I went on their forum and started telling them Daoism is all about God and speaking to God. There are overlaps, but they will want to ensure that when I mention the word 'Dao' - it's the same historical Dao that their forum has been set up to talk about. That's my understanding of it.
The advantage science has is that it's framework includes anyone interested in sharing the same demonstrable reality as anyone else. The disadvantage of mystical notions is that they create divisions between those who say they can see a truer reality and those who can't. That doesn't often promote equality and mutual respect it seems.
rara wrote:Again, as I said, no one HAS to read what other people put.
Trying to take part in discussions where people are making references to posts that one hasn't read, or has no interest in reading, is very difficult. This means that one can feel left out of a discussion thread because one person is bringing something divisive, mysterious, and undemonstrable into the mix and muddying the definitions of key phenomena one is dicussing. Again; that's my initial reaction to your question.
