> > > > > > 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.
Proprietary Source Software mantra meditation, How about 'non-sectarian' mantra meditation too? Appealing to the growing "Spiritual but not Religious" portion of the population, here is a group that has specifically tried stripping both the proprietary code and the religion out of TM. It is interesting to see. It is a brazen re-packaged segment marketing, Take a look at this: http://www.nsrusa.org/ "Natural Stress Relief " Meditation > > Open source meditation? Yep, this guy from UCLA in neuroscience is doing it. > With his "Time-in" meditation. He is dang close to secular and open-source. > > > Take a listen to his Google-talk: > > http://drdansiegel.com/resources/video_clips/ > > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
