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. > > 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? >
