Transcendent vs Secular Interfaith

S

Snoopy

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,405
Reaction score
177
Points
63
How can one tell these two apart? Isn’t “Secular Interfaith” a non sequitur?

From the Cambridge dictionary:

Secular –

“Not having any connection with religion.”

Faith –

“A particular religion.”

:confused:

s.
 
[SIZE=-1]"Fool’s gold exists because there is real gold." –Rumi.[/SIZE]


Fool's gold is the imagination and self justifications of secular Interfaith while transcendent Interfaith refers to the actualization of human potential, real gold, hidden within all the great religious traditions initiating from a conscious source.
 
Paladin said:
Where did you find the term secular interfaith Snoops?
Click to expand...

Maybe someone else did also but i invented it from necessity. After becoming familiar with the transcendent unity of religions, it became obvious that it was impossible on the exoteric or secular level and human nature being what it is would just result in more harm than good. I use the term secular Interfaith and its concepts of unity to distinguish from the transcendent unity of religions

On The Transcendent Unity of Religions
 
Hi everybody!

The difference between transcendent interfaith and secular interfaith is the same as the difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism says my country is great. Nationalism says my country is better than your country.

Transcendent interfaith principles say that religion is great. Secular interfaith says that my religion is better than your religion. We have seen some recent, horrible name-calling on this Forum, where some people think that other people who disagre with them are stupid. We can only hope that such people can make the transition to transcendent interfaith principles.
 
So secular interfaith would be an example of relativism usually ascribed to the members of the "green meme" (spiral dynamics)
 
Paladin said:
So secular interfaith would be an example of relativism usually ascribed to the members of the "green meme" (spiral dynamics)
Click to expand...

If by green you mean how it is described in Wiki, I would agree. It is the dominance of the Great Beast.

Green

Relativistic-personalistic—communitarian/egalitarian
  • From 1850 AD on (surged in early 20th century)
  • "Sacrifice self interest now in order to gain acceptance and group harmony."
Click to expand...
This new Christmas slogan would be classic

Group's new Christmas message: Be good, not godly - CNN.com

Ads proclaiming, "Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness' sake," will appear on Washington buses starting next week and running through December.
The American Humanist Association unveiled the provocative $40,000 holiday ad campaign Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Transcendent Interfaith is aware that though this sounds good it is impossible for man's collective being which regardless of such platitudes must follow the cycles of nature. Transcendent Interfaith is aware of the necessity of the help of grace from above. Simone Weil's classic quote describes the value of transcendent interfaith that opens itself to "grace" however it is superficially defined at the exoteric level but experienced at the esoteric level.

"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." Simone Weil
Click to expand...

Secular Interfaith as I've read it expressed, lacks the humility to admit its limitations. Transcendent Interfaith begins with those willing to admit our individual and collective limitations regardless of platitudes and strives to be able to receive help from above.

 
I actually meant the green meme as used in Spiral Dynamics Nick. Its an interesting model, been around since the 70's.
Its a little difficult for some to grasp, but I find it as useful a model as Kohlberg's Maslow's and Gilligan's models respectively.
Spiral Dynamics Integral - Dr Don Beck
 
A rudimentary explanation, but essentially correct Nick. Funny thing about the model, it never got as popular as some of the others for some reason. Going back to the work of Clare Graves was helpful for me as Don Beck tweaked the model a bit.
 
Paladin said:
A rudimentary explanation, but essentially correct Nick. Funny thing about the model, it never got as popular as some of the others for some reason. Going back to the work of Clare Graves was helpful for me as Don Beck tweaked the model a bit.
Click to expand...

The entire model is secular for me. It shows how mechanical man adapts to the environment. Memes create mindsets. Secular Interfaith would be the collective results of appropriate memes for the present external conditions.

The secular is mechanical reactions while the transcendent level is the domain of consciousness and conscious action. The esoteric level is the gradual awakening to the reality of sleeping humanity including oneself reacting by memes. Memes seem to me to create our attachments to the shadows on the wall in Plato's cave. There is no meaning for the heart from this life of reaction which is why people ask if that is all there is. Then it doesn't matter what path one is on since all these people regardless of path have felt a certain disappointment. That is when they can begin to enter the esoteric level since the heart becomes attracted to what has transcended this life of mechanical reactions. The higher on the esoteric level, the less the division between the paths.
 
Like any model, it can only be of use as a tool. It isn't nor was it intended to be a tool for transcendence, just a model to understand the rather broad brush of sociological interaction. In that it does quite well. Of course if one has no interest in sociology I suppose it would seem dull.
Before Maslow died he did add self-transcendence to his pyramid if that helps any. Many people eschew the use of models because it smacks of hierarchy which it is my understanding was never the intent. Similar to Ken Wilber's model of all lines all quadrants: Integral model.
 
Paladin said:
Like any model, it can only be of use as a tool. It isn't nor was it intended to be a tool for transcendence, just a model to understand the rather broad brush of sociological interaction. In that it does quite well. Of course if one has no interest in sociology I suppose it would seem dull.
Before Maslow died he did add self-transcendence to his pyramid if that helps any. Many people eschew the use of models because it smacks of hierarchy which it is my understanding was never the intent. Similar to Ken Wilber's model of all lines all quadrants: Integral model.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. I'm not being critical. I'm just trying to make the difference between the transcendent and secular perspectives. The secular is concerned with the past and future and the transcendent with the quality of NOW. There are many fine sincere people on secular paths that don't use it as an ego trip. They proceed along human evolution more then some imaginary gurus since they don't hurt themselves on the inside as do these false guides though they sell a lot of books.

Some people I know years back visted the Dalai Lama when he was in America and spoke with an associate. They asked what he thought of esoteric Christianity and were told it really is the same as esoteric Buddhism. That for me is real Interfaith accept who knows it?
 
Yes exactly so. I also enjoy listening to Brother David Steindl Rast. He was a friend of Thomas Merton.
 
Only small minds would consider them so Nick. I have read much of the dialogues between Merton and DT Suzuki and enjoyed it immensely.
Merton met him back in the days before he allowed himself to venture too far from accepted doctrine. Suzuki once told him "Tom, if you ever want to understand Zen, you must study Eckhart" Of couse then Eckhart was still off limits for a "good" Catholic, according to Merton.
 
Paladin said:
Only small minds would consider them so Nick. I have read much of the dialogues between Merton and DT Suzuki and enjoyed it immensely.
Merton met him back in the days before he allowed himself to venture too far from accepted doctrine. Suzuki once told him "Tom, if you ever want to understand Zen, you must study Eckhart" Of couse then Eckhart was still off limits for a "good" Catholic, according to Merton.
Click to expand...

But Paladin that is precisely the trouble. A lot of small minds are very influential in secular Interfaith. They like to pacify people with a lot of BS. That is all some people need or want. My concern is for the minority that feel more but cannot find it. You know that you can make a sandwich with bad meat taste good by loading it down with mayo. My concern is for the minority that are willing to experience the bad meat for what it is rather than delight in the mayo. These people are on all paths.

My heart really goes out to the young ones in universities that are having their spirit killed by this trendy secular education. It is a horror that will have to be dealt with by providing alternative private education but that is still a long way off.

This is one of the reasons I appreciate Simone Weil. She had Merton's transcendent depth but also this developed scientific mind. The West is oriented to science and she is one of the few voices that truly understood the union of science and religion and are able to communicate it in a special way since for her it is experiential rather than theoretical.
 
Yes, and it is ever so. Feel good spirituality is in all faiths, all religions. But here's the thing, it is what people want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top