lenrek

Take your time, there is no need to be hurry.

wordy

Lenrek may I ask you what difference you see between Dignism soo far and Buddhism.

I am not sure which of Buddhism or Taosim that I am most skeptical to. Buddhism is more known here in west I live in northern part of Europe so I am brought up within a secularized christian culture and I am atheist but have need for emotional religious feelings. But not so much the extra-ordinary claims of religion but the feelings, the community.

lenrek

As far as I can understand, ultimately, the motivation and goal of both Dignism and Buddhism are different. However, I am comparing them from Buddhist Orthodoxy point of view.

Skeptical? This is an interesting word. Some people use the word skeptical synonymously as doubtful; some take the word skeptical as disbelief (which mean taking a stronger stand than just being in doubt); some use the word as unsure (means unwilling to take a stand) - so which one of these do you mean?

I guess, this is something we should not be surprised - since Buddhism is one of the major religion in this world, and it has established itself as an international religion. Taoism is more of a local Chinese religion/philosophy. I think, it should be considered only recently, Taoism is spreading beyond main land China.

Even though I am Chinese, my understanding of Taoism is still much more academical and traditional. What I mean by academical here is, knowing some of its teachings, but rarely applying them. What I mean by traditional is, just following what our elders are doing (during traditional Chinese festivals or events).

I see, but what do you mean by "emotional religious feelings"? Why do you think you need it?

What do you mean by "extra-ordinary claims"? How do you know it is an "extra-ordinary claims"?

I am guessing that you are more interested into the religious festivals?

Chris Weimer

Rituals - Sorry, wordy, but perhaps this should wait until later. Only in rare cases are rituals deliberately made up for the whole religion - the only case I can think of doing such is LeVay's Satanism, but that was mainly a mock Christianity anyway. Most religious rituals have evolved. The best thing for the current time is to build it on sound principles and the rituals will naturally show themselves.

Scriptural Interpretation - I've set down a core foundation for the religion which must stay the same, else it's not the religion anymore. I also offer guidelines, making its use explicit, to help with the understanding in case a passage is unclear. The only part that would remain very strict would be the "monks" (or whatever you'd like to call them - those reclusive). The laity is very lax and should focus on the core.

Unlike the Christian canon, the Dignist canon contains very little history and almost nothing literal. The mythological stories are there to serve as fables or poetry. However, the scripture is needed lest the heart of the religion be forgotten. No worse tragedy can befall a religion than those who, ignorant of what the scriptures mean, abuse a religious doctrine.

As for the Three Virtues v. Universal Love, there really isn't that much of a problem regarding emphasis. The three virtues need to be heeded, and the three duties need to be done, all with the inspiration of love. But I would caution against substituting the three virtues and three duties merely for love, after all, what is love? The six necessities are my interpretation of love. It would be too dangerous not to include these. Look at Charles Manson's group - they all claimed that they killed for love. Without a guideline, love can do the worst atrocities - people will justify anything.

If two people totally alone from the world, are they not reclusive together? There's nothing explicitly stating that the two must be apart, or that recluses must be singular, especially if they are one. I consider my beloved to be one with me. And please bear in mind that the reclusive life is not mandatory. If you're a social creature, Dignism also welcomes you.

Taoism is really two religions often confused into one. There is Dao Jia, and there is Dao Jiao. However, since the parallels might make certain people uncomfortable, there's no reason to really keep doing so. We don't have to compare Dignism to Taoism or Buddhism. The religion stands on its own ground. It's true that there may be similarities, but it's even more true that there are differences. Dignism shares beliefs with many religions, but it is not really like any of them.

Pescifish - I appreciate the warm comments. Feel free to chime in whenever you please.

wordy

lenrek, maybe I hog the thread too much if I continue this exchange about my personal needs. I just feel them! Back to OP and Dignism.

Chris Weimer, thanks for this text. I had hope you took time and read the citations of Roy Rappaport.

I am a bit disappointed you compare what Roy Rappaport says to rituals in Satanism. that you even do such ref show I failed to get you interested in what he summon? as the knowledge he gained through all his academic life.

If it is good or bad to compare Dignism with other religions I don't know.

I am too close to my own needs and preferenses to know how others will act.
Looking forward to read your Dignism FAQ here. No hurry.

Pescifish, please chime in cause the more thoughtful comments the better the end result will be I guess.

Chris Weimer

But Rappaport doesn't necessarily advocate inventing an entire ritual system, does he? So the comparison wasn't there.

wordy

Maybe every reader of Rappaport have their own take on what he stress as most important. My personal take on the importance of what he tell us is that rituals as he understands them are most important. what to give highest priority within a religion.

As I remember him he claims that rituals made us human and continue to keep us human, will develop our ability to stay human. But that is my reading of his texts.

But your the one most motivated to support Dignism and it would be outrageous of me to expres myself as an authority on what role ritual should have.

Hope you still don't get me wrong how I use the word ritual. I don't talk about the formal side of them. I mean what they establish when performed.

Take how important the silent meeting has been for Quakers to be a glue to their more liberal branch. To sit still and silent for a long time. an hour maybe and to listen within themselves for what the Inner light tells them is common to them all. Such ritual is not about the formal or literal adherence, it is about the social and individual effects of those who participate and those who knows about them. They do this every sunday the world over.

Maybe you and me are too different in personalities so my words never reach you? Could be my lack of skill in expressing myself. So I gave citation and links to Rappaport. He has an abstract english that I hardly grasp and I hoped you could gain knowlegde from his texts.

Best regards

Fred

aupmanyav

Chris started with 'what questions would you ask' and later started ennumerating the principles of a new religion. I found it unusual. Even gave a name to it, Dignism.

wordy

Maybe a pedagogic tool? A way to gain knowledge before more formal out reach?

Chris Weimer

What's so unusual about it?