Comments on: I Dunno–What Do You Think?

By: Danny Fisher

Danny Fisher — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:30:00 +0000

The secular prayer thing is just a hypothetical. You're right, though, in fact prayer has not been shown to be beneficial the same way meditation has.

It's really the precedent set here that concerns me. If it's OK to teach meditation as long as it's "secularized" (whatever that means) and scientifically verified, that kind of opens the door for any other religious practice that might be able to present itself as "secular" and similiarly beneficial.

Now, if I may recycle/re-word my comments from elsewhere...

Regardless of whether or not meditation can be scientifically validated, aren’t religious ideas still the driving force behind meditation instruction? Put another way: Would you say that TM and zazen and shamatha-vipassana are the same in their understanding and instruction of meditation? Personally, I don’t think so, and that’s where I think Gombrich makes an essential point: when you get right down to it, what’s being “secularized” are religious soteriologies.

I’m not debating the benefits of mindfulness meditation. Science has given us every reason to see the benefits as enormous. But, as I see it, mindfulness meditation has religious ideology all over its DNA, and is therefore inappropriate for teaching as part of the curriculum in American public schools. As I said, though, it would be appropriate for voluntary before-or-after school programs. The U.S. Department of Education has been very clear on all this:

Students may...participate in before or after school events with religious content, such as ’see you at the flag pole’ gatherings, on the same terms as they may participate in other noncurriculum activities on school premises. School officials may neither discourage nor encourage participation in such an event.

The right to engage in voluntary prayer or religious discussion free from discrimination does not include the right to have a captive audience listen, or to compel other students to participate. Teachers and school administrators should ensure that no student is in any way coerced to participate in religious activity.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 08:08:00 +0000

The difference is, there has been a consistent stream of prayer studies that show unambiguously that prayer is ineffective. Nearly all studies in support of the idea that Person A's prayers have a measurable effect on Person B have been exposed as shoddy or fabricated. They are usually funded by groups with a vested interest in religion, not knowledge.

Whereas there have been many reputable scientific studies that clearly show the benefits of meditation. It seems to be a question of framing- schools can talk Buddhism, religion, or they can talk psychology. If the process and benefits of meditation are introduced as neurological phenomena, then the question of the Establishment Clause would be moot. Religion really doesn't need to be a part of it, now that science has weighed in in the affirmative.

(yay science!)

By: Danny Fisher

Danny Fisher — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:07:00 +0000

The Venerable Loden Jinpa has posted a reply at his blog. Please take a look.

I have one thought in response to his comment “It seems to me that regardless of origins of mindfulness meditation. If it is going to benefit kids then why not have such a program.”: If scientific studies similar to the ones referenced in Street's article were to appear tomorrow suggesting that, say, prayer offered similar benefits, then should we allow teachers and administrators to lead students in prayer too?

By: Danny Fisher

Danny Fisher — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:40:00 +0000

Here's a comment emailed to us:

Hello Chaplain Fisher,

I don't have a log-in for Blogger, so I thought I'd email in my response to your recent post, "I Dunno..."

Good, thought-provoking post. Your comments on "cultural trappings" really caught my attention. I find that many conversations with Americans about Buddhist meditation practices often walk a very thin line between either ignoring the cultural backgrounds each practice grew in and out of, or trying to sideline "cultural elements" as somehow inconsequential.

Neither is correct, since both do Buddhist practice the disservice of ignoring its long history within culture, shaped by and shaping its environments--environments that, it really ought to go without saying, experienced Buddhism as religious.

Granted even that the West (usually unwittingly) treats secularism like a religion, trying to fully adapt Buddhism to a "secular" society by elimination of religious or cultural elements strips something vital out of the experience of Buddhist practice.

I'm with Ivy: if we're going to call the shift in attitude and approach we in the West have to Buddhism, let's call it post-Buddhism--though you won't catch me calling myself a "post-Buddhist." Perhaps because I live and train in Asia, where Buddhism is Religion in all the good and bad ways, I've found that deliberately cultivating the unseen but palpable sense of the sacred that we commonly associate with religions (but not "transhistorical sets of techniques") is central to my ability to practice mindfulness and compassion.

Buddhist meditation doesn't belong in public-school curriculum, post- or otherwise; but what I'm more concerned about is losing the sense of sacred that enlivens and enriches any spiritual/religious life, including Buddhism. Not that I think you have to "be" Buddhist to practice meditation, or that there's not benefit from meditation regardless of one's own religious (non-)affiliation... But you're right: the conversation wouldn't have gotten this far if it were prayer or worship instead of meditation, and that says a lot about the difficult in-between place Buddhism in the West is in right now.

I enjoy your blog, and am especially pleased to see the number of Buddhist Chaplains on the slow increase! Thank you for all your work and practice--

Yours in the Dharma,
Soen Joon Sunim hapchang