Om
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Buck" <dhamiltony2k5@...> wrote:
>
> 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?
> >
>
