That is good. Take a look at Janet Sussman for example. There are others. Her teaching fulfills a lot of what you peg as a more secular meditational/spiritual non-religious practice. She has been at it for a long time as a spiritual teacher. You can google her name. She also has a page at
http://timeportalpubs.com/about.htm --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Thought I'd take a shot at answering some of my own questions: > > "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?" > > No teacher reverence, and no hierarchy. There would almost certainly be > teachers, but IMO students would perceive and treat them more as friends > or mentors than "spiritual teachers." In my mythical secular org, the > emphasis would be on the pragmatic and the practical, not on philosophy > or intangible subjective goals like enlightenment. The way I figure it > is that if you get your meditation cookin' and your life workin' well, > either the enlightenment stuff will take care of itself or you can find > some more traditional path to help you get there. Also, there would not > only be no prohibitions against psychiatry or other therapies, if > they've proved of value they would be integrated into the recommended > set of practices. Needless to say, the org's finances should be > completely transparent and available to the public. Romantic or sexual > relationships between teachers and students would be completely > verboten; if a teacher chooses to pursue one he or she should step down > as a teacher with the org. Most important, the whole recommended set of > techniques should be FUN; students should *want* to be practicing them, > not feel as if they had to. > > "Which elements from traditional spiritual practices would you preserve, > and which would you not?" > > I would include some form of sitting meditation, mindfulness, some > suggested form of bodywork such as yoga or martial arts, and talks on > the pragmatic aspects of spiritual practice. The latter might include > talks on "work as sadhana" (how to extend your spiritual practice into > the realm of career and make work itself a form of meditation), and > "ethics from the inside out" (no list of do's and don'ts, more training > in how to become more aware of minor shifts in your state of attention, > so that you can use those shits to clue you in as to whether you're > doing the "right thing" or the "wrong thing"). As with FFL, any topic > would be fair game as long as the students have an interest in it and > all agree that discussing it would help them in their own self > discovery. No question would ever be considered heretical or Off The > Program. > > "If the meditation practices you suggest use mantras, where would they > come from?" > > If I were to try to create a true secular spiriuality, I wouldn't > recommend meditation that used mantras at all. I'd teach a simple form > of meditation that involved a light focus on the heart chakra, followed > by "letting go." I'd probably demo such a method both meditating to > music and in silence, and suggest that students practice the one that > feels best to them. I've taught such a method before and found that > students can learn it very quickly and effectively, and that they report > many subjective benefits from that form of meditation, as many as were > ever reported to me when teaching TM. In talks my mythical secular org > would then describe other forms of meditation and encourage the students > to try them out if they felt they wanted to. There would be zero > restrictions on "seeing other teachers" or performing other techniques. > > "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?" > > I doubt I'd recommend heavy visualization techniques to folks just > starting meditation, but again my mythical org would discuss the various > types and their supposed benefits and tell students where they could > learn them. If we had to recommend a starting point, I suspect that a > lot of the geometric yantra designs would pass the secular "sniff test." > More traditional mandalas or images of holy folks definitely would not. > > "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?'" > > Word of mouth. Success stories. And, if anyone wanted to do some > research, that would be gravy. I don't value "lineage" the way that many > do, and I suspect most people in the real world don't either. Bottom > line is that the recommended set of techniques would either work in the > lives of the students or they wouldn't. If they do, then the students' > lives are the best advertisement. > > "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 think it would be a Good Thing. I suspect that a truly secular form of > spirituality would be just as beneficial as any traditional approach, > especially if done well, and cleanly, avoiding many of the pitfalls > we've discussed ad nauseum on this forum. >
