As a Western academian, it frustrates me that bhikkhu(ni)s (Buddhist monks and nuns) and upāsakas/upāsikās (almost-monastic Buddhist householders) who either come from Asia or train in Asia seem to spend most of their time in the West interacting with New Age, hippy, seeker, etc. types of people, instead of working with more mainstream academians/scientists to reconcile Buddhist psychology with Western psychology. Both Buddhists and psychologists seem to acknowledge each other’s theories and methods superficially, but neither side seems very interested in engaging the other very deeply. Mindfulness is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg. Go deeper!
First, what is “religion”? The word has many meanings around the world, far beyond how Americans often equate it with the three largest Abrahamic religions. People usually mean some kind of everyday/mundane expressions or representations of faith in, or past experience of, “numinous” (i.e., somehow going beyond everyday experience) things. The expressions often include traditional concepts, stories, institutions, rules, practices, rituals, relics, statues, images, talismans, etc. To the degree that one actually experiences numinous states of consciousness, it usually is not called religion, but instead is called spirituality, attainments, visions, feelings, trips (if drugs are involved), exploration, or just experience. Religious expressions often have as much to do with mundane things (nationality, culture, history, politics, etc.) as they do with numinous things, and experiences that people call numinous sometimes feature mundane religious elements (e.g., Christians sometimes see visions of Jesus or angels, Buddhists sometimes see visions of the Buddha, etc.). To what degree that back-and-forth is accurate, or is people’s brains/minds constructing what they want to see to some degree, is hard to say. Arguably, like much of science, the mundane vs. numinous distinction assumes a conventionally “normal” or “healthy” human perspective. Some people’s everyday experiences may include what others would consider numinous. Also, what humans call everyday experiences are the result of specific evolutionary processes in land-based environments only on this planet, so other species might consider different experiences normal.
Buddhism is often said by Western scholars to have a philosophical or psychological monastic core, which is similar to (and much more developed than) phenomenology in the West, as well as a more religious pop-culture periphery. People usually encounter the pop-culture periphery first, so get the impression that Buddhism is quite religious. Buddhist bhikkhu(ni)s (monks and nuns) are the people who most often and seriously study, engage, and experiment with the Buddha’s theories and methods in empirical or intellectual ways. Lay (non-monastic) people can be anywhere on the spectrum of more experience- or knowledge-oriented to more faith-oriented. Whereas a monk might only deeply revere the Buddha, a lay person might worship and pray to the Buddha. Like many religions, the pop-culture periphery probably has become increasingly embellished with dramatic folklore, ornate artwork, etc., as non-monastic people have elaborated upon Buddhism over more than 2,500 years. There can be quite a stark difference between a spartan forest monastery, which can feel more like a psychology laboratory, and an ornate city temple, which can feel like a shrine or art gallery. Later forms of Buddhism (Mahayana, Vajrayana, Pure Land, Zen, etc.) seem to have drifted the monastic core in more religious of directions, with the Buddha(s) being made more god-like and salvation-oriented.
What is there to life, other than re-arranging physical and social things?
Can you think or feel something not in terms of social constructs (i.e., socially agreed-upon words/symbols, styles/genres, conventions, concepts, etc.)?
What about not in terms of physicality (i.e., sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, pressure, temperature, cravings, pleasure/pain, brain states/moods, etc.)?
I wish that STEM people would focus on better understanding the human brain and on helping humans transcend our biological limitations (e.g., by building non-invasive neural interfaces, organizing hive minds (without loss of individuality), consciousness archives to cheat death and mentally live on without struggle to some degree, etc.), rather than on building super-intelligent artificial intelligence(s) (AI) that could lead to mass unemployment and Terminator-type scenarios. I understand the desire to have robots do things for us, but doing things for ourselves, even if on only some mental level, keeps us relevant. Do we really value AI more than our own I?
… if only you could see things as them, with their past, how they have been taught and treated, how they have understood things and felt about things over the years, their mental and physical qualities, etc.
They don’t have to be forcibly controlled.
Just watch them from a mental distance and don’t give them any mental energy/encouragement, and they will pass away eventually.
Without our (more-or-less unconscious) consent, others are mentally powerless over us.