What would it be? Secular Meditation? A race in the marketplace (particularly for a publicly funded meditation taught and used in school for good reasons of science) is evidently on. Whoever succeeds at developing it proly should get a Nobel Prize in science. If they succeed in getting it past religion with a wide acceptance throughout culture then they ought to have the Nobel Peace Prize also, for good reasons. At least a Nobel Prize in public health.
-Buck > > > > > > > good critique Turq that gets at a problem. Right up there along with > > > with that economic short-selling one of yours before too. Original. > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > > "The debate between secularists and religious believers is now hopelessly out > of date and obscures a much more important perspective in contemporary > religious culture. This new perspective is best described as "spiritual but > not religious", or holistic." > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/02/holistic-religious-atheist-census > > > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > >
