Daniel Siegel from UCLA has been working on the secular part of this for a while. Reference a look at this old FFL posting and thread for Daniel Siegel.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/235500 > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > > > --- 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. > > > > > > 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?" > > > > As a friend of mine said to me, some 40 years ago he encountered Werner > > Erhard (est), whose first words in that self-development seminar were > > something like 'you are all a bunch of goddamn assholes'. Whoops, the > > word 'god' was mentioned, and damnation too. > > > > Maharishi never was able to completely disassociate the Hindu elements > > of TM. It could be done, but then no one would own it. > > > > > "Which elements from traditional spiritual practices would you > > preserve, > > > > > and which would you not?" > > > > The main problem is how do you 'advertise' the practice without the > > metaphysical claptrap, which is one of the traditional hooks. > > > > > "If the meditation practices you suggest use mantras, where would > > they > > > > > > > come from?" > > > > No one has really experimented thoroughly with finding out if mantras > > really have any special qualities. Dr Herbert Benson, in creating the TM > > knockoff, the Relaxation Response did do something like this, but how > > well documented were the results I am ignorant of. There are so many > > mantras, and the feeling I get is they may be less specific in their > > effects than claimed by spiritual adherents. From a research > > perspective, it would be a good guess to start testing mantras comparing > > shorter ones to longer ones. Some would feel such a process would be > > unethical, for supposing it is true that some mantras could create > > disastrous effects in some people, you know, resulting in their jumping > > off buildings or walking in front of trains, or murdering others. This > > is a factor that might plague any system. > > > > Maharishi's masterpiece, the checking notes, could probably be > > rewritten, but even then lawsuits might follow. I feel that this piece > > of work is really the heart of why TM has been successful. But these > > instructions were created and evolved by Maharishi, we are not certain > > just how much come from 'tradition'. Early on meditators have told me > > the wording was quite different and more religiously oriented in the > > beginning. > > > > http://www.relaxationresponse.org/ > > > > http://www.relaxationresponse.org/steps/ [at the bottom of this page is > > a picture of the study he, as second author, did with RK Wallace in > > 1971] > > > > > > > > "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 think mindfulness meditation would be the best shot at a mantra-less > > meditation system. Systems that involve eyes open, or visualising result > > in more mental stimulation. > > > > > "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?" > > > > If a spiritual practice is completely secularised it would neither be > > good or bad, but the absence of a metaphysical component might be a > > stumbling block for some. 'BAT or boundary attenuation technology: Your > > brain is malfuctioning. It is focused on small things, you need to widen > > its focus using BAT. When you apply BAT to your brain, it will soften > > and create more neurological flexibility in your grey matter, and in > > fact create more grey matter and restructure its signal processing > > capacity so that you will eventually feel completely integrated with > > your environment and live a life of maximum fulfilment. Free case of > > Barry's favorite beer if you learn this week.' > > > > Effectiveness could only be determined by large scale, well controlled > > comparitive studies. > > > > > 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? > > > > This probably would depend on how resistant one is to adulation. If you > > create something that makes people more fulfilled, this problem might > > develop. > > > > Science fiction might be a source of ideas. 2001: A Space Odyssey (the > > novel) had a Darwinian evolutionary theme. In the Kubrick motion > > picture, created with Clarke at the same time, and which is very visual, > > leaving out a lot of the back story and other details, the story has a > > strong metaphysical feeling to it even though it was not intended to be > > so. What is the relationship between the individual and the universe at > > large? It might be difficult to present this without getting gushy and > > compromising science and objectivity. > > > > May be is just science as spirituality and not fiction. The experience of the > (U)nified (F)ield in the human bio-physiologic experience. Nomenclature of > description to follow the secularized experience. I know people who have > been experimenting with teaching secularized effortless transcending > mindfulness without any overlay of buddhistic or hindu. Seems to work and > folks seem to appreciate it. > > Recommending 'meditation' is certainly part of Obama-care as legit > healthcare. Evidently, many are the 'meditations'. I am curious what the > UCLA folks who research this with big-guns modern equipment are going on to > develop and look at. A while ago they were working on how to teach > meditation practices for research purposes. Particularly looking at young > brains and meditation. I think they were trying to crack the secular nut to > be able to broaden the application. >
