Necessary Roughness

It has been an interesting exercise to determine whether I should tag this post “religion” as well as instruction. Meditation advocates insist it is not religion, but the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in determining an Establishment Clause case determined for the sake of that argument that Transcendental Meditation is religious.

The argument that anger and regret are a function of the past and fear is a function of the future makes sense on a level, if it helps one to recognize that emotions are a by-product of a situation and should be set aside in the present to tackle problems.

The “what is good” question has two answers, one in natural revelation and one in Biblical revelation. Generally in natural revelation not harming anyone (and in some circles, yourself) is good. There is debate on what is harmful, but the general rule is to do no harm.

The Biblical answer to “what is good” begins first with everything that is of the trinitarian God. This includes his creation before the Fall, the Holy Scriptures, the prescriptions of law that keep us from harm, show us how to behave, and shows our sinful condition that prevents us from keeping his commandments perfectly and warrants us eternal and temporal punishment in hell; and the good news of the Gospel, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to atone for our sin and save us from hell.

The question about an absolute “right” (right in this case having a similar meaning of good) produced a strange answer from Bawa, a relative answer to the existence of something absolute. It seems to me that the “maybe” answer implies a “no,” and perhaps the teacher did not wish to offend people who answer this question immediately in the affirmative.

Does that mean that every question we ask has an absolute right or wrong answer? Some questions do, but not all questions. “Should I become a prostitute?” is a question that has an absolutely right and wrong answer, where “should I become an engineer?” would not.

The question of whether truth cannot be measured is an interesting one. It calls to mind Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Yet that principle applies for very precise measurements of related variables: position and momentum, for example. In the practical world truth is measured roughly enough that an observation does not change the fact significantly enough to deny the fact. If you watch me shoot a basketball, the ball will either go in, or it won’t. More often than not, it won’t. The only thing your observation changes is whether or not you know the ball went in.

I can see how lack of focus on one’s task makes one less efficient, and perhaps some time relaxing the mind before one takes on a task will allow one to focus on the task when it’s being done.

I can also see how consciously governing your breathing can alter emotions. We know that if one gets angry it’s often beneficial to step back, do some counting, and take some deep breaths before reengaging in a task. Perhaps doing this for 20 minutes may increase the benefit.

I was impressed by Bawa’s insistence (refuting one audience member) that meditation or breathing didn’t have to be used to seek a deity. Theologically speaking, if something interesting were to happen during this aware relaxation, it would need to be tested before it is to be believed (I John 4:1-6).

The power breathing and exercise in self-awareness was interesting. Throughout the whole session the instructor kept reminding us to accept things as they are: the sounds around us, the shape of our bodies, even our own thoughts. To the extent that these things aren’t directly involved with problems we are dealing with, this is fine.

I appreciate the invitation by my co-worker to witness another worldview. While I’m not planning to plunk down $375 to learn how to meditate, I do find it valuable for one’s mind to do nothing and let thoughts jump in without concentrating. Thanks, Arabinda.