--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > Sure it does. Anyone who doesn't participate in the > > > > traditional religious interpretation of meditation > > > > experiences can enjoy it as a secular practice. And > > > > it is also not required to believe that you are > > > > experiencing something trans-personal just because > > > > it feels that way. > > > > > > Wait. How does this jibe with your objection to Lynch's > > > program? > > > > I am talking about how I approach Meditation,not how > > it is taught which is the relevant thing for schools. > > None of what you describe is required for TM. It's > taught *as a secular practice*. And it's not required > that you believe you are experiencing something > transpersonal, whether it feels that way or not.
Invoking Narayana is not secular. And although it is not "required that you believe" in the religious concepts that are taught, they are still not appropriate for school outside of world religion class. TM could be taught there alongside creationism. > > > The basic 3 days checking course is full of religious > > belief about what is happening in TM > > Such as, specifically? The whole trans-personal premise of the home of all the laws of nature is Hindu theology. And despite the physics terms used as poetry to describe it, it is not scientific. > > (In any case, we don't know yet exactly how the follow- > up is going to be taught in Lynch's project.) Let's see movement running it...the ball is gunna get dropped. In any case where are the people trained in physiology so determine if a student is having the kind of reactions Singer treated in TMers? Teachers are not trained to handle anything not in the checking notes. > > > If I was hanging out with monks and joined them in the > > Jesus prayer (using the name of Jesus as a mantra to > > transcend) then I would be doing it as a secular > > practice. But that doesn't mean that it is OK to teach > > the Jesus prayer in schools does it? > > Bad analogy. "Jesus" is the name of a (probably) > historical personage well known to almost everyone > to be central to a specific religion, not a > semantically meaningless Sanskrit sound. So if we use the Greek word we can teach the Jesus prayer in schools followed by an invocation of Yaweh? I'm surprised you don't see the problem here. > > > Despite TM teacher's denials, I believe TM is a > > religious practice supported by traditional religious > > interpretations of the experience. > > But they're taught to teach it as a secular practice > supported by nonsectarian metaphysical principles. This term "nonsectarian metaphysical principles" has personal meaning for you but not for me. To me, TM teaches Hinduism with new names. That doesn't make it nonsectarian. You really can't get around the sectarian nature of the Puja which the person participates in using the only method of any Hindu Puja participation, you pay for it and you bring offerings. I am not unsympathetic to finding out if meditaton can help kids in schools. I just don't think TM is the right one for the job with it's belief baggage. >
