Vipassana is a central part of Theravada Buddhist meditation practice. So it's definitely religious in that sense. But the way that it's being taught in some cases, such as to these prisoners, might be largely independent of the rest of the Buddhist content. I guess at some point the question probably arises whether it's still meaningful to call it 'vipassana'.
If calm is somebody's only goal, a whole variety of meditations will probably have similar gross effects. My guess is that concentrative meditations might be more effective than vipassana in calming and centering people, but the formal object of the meditation probably makes less difference. There are studies showing that Maharishi's TM with its meditation on meaningless mantras has beneficial effects in that regard.
I don't think that religious rituals are psychologically interchangeable. Zen sitting and Dionysian frenzies are both religious rituals, after all, but with almost diametrically opposed results. I don't think that taking Catholic communion is the same thing as singing hymns. Islamic prayers are something else again. Even if we restrict ourselves just to meditation, I think that there's going to be a significant neurological difference between concentrative and mindfulness meditations. It probably makes an important difference whether a concentrative meditation has love of God as its object, or whether it's a meditation on one of the higher formless jhanas. There's going to be a very different emotional component to those two at the very least, and probably much more subtle and significant differences as well.
Science's ability to measure those kind of subtleties is limited at best. Our intellectual states can't as yet be read with instruments either. So at some point the whole subject of meditation (and religious experience more broadly) leaves the realm of physiological measurement entirely, and becomes a more subjective and descriptive kind of spiritual psychology. And at some point it's very likely going to pass beyond words entirely.
Nice post, I agree, though I do think in time our ability to measure intellectual states will be more and more exact. Take sex for instance. An fMRI can reliability measure if a woman is faking an orgasm
You're a biologist, I think. Can you think how, at the level of signalling, one form of meditation can be distinguished from another? That is why I used the example of exercise and muscle. Once again, I recommend you read Newberg's work and you'll understand why he reached the conclusions he did.
I find it really silly to have to point out to atheists who talk about superstition that most valid conclusions are based on the results of hypothesis testing, rather than personal opinion
Actually, you're exactly wrong. The
way you think GREATLY affects your brain. Your brain is not like a muscle. Just these last couple years new cognitive techniques are using what we know about neuroanatomy, neurochemistry and neurophysiology to treat diseases such as schizophrenia, OCD and PTSD.
In the case of schizophrenia the right and left brain hemispheres are exposed to stimulus separately. For example, the right side sees and/or hears something, this is communicated to the left hemisphere homotopic region, this is then passed to the motor cortex, the person has to make a movement before a certain time. The test is made to appear like a game that is played. But it specifically designed to strengthen connections between left and right hemispheres. The reason why is because schizophrenic patients have delayed communication between the homotopic lobes. In short, their brains don't communicate well. Which may be why they "hear voices" as one side is doing something out of sync with the other. Some individuals, who just stated hearing noises (like the iPhone ringing when it wasn't) have been treated and are now symptom free. As most brain modification, this may only work at an early age (which is why children are taught religion at such young ages whereby they have no real choice in what they will believe [even if later in life they think they did/do - 99.9% don't]).
Anyway, the treatment for PTSD is completely different. A person recounts their tragedy and it's recorded. The then have to listen to it. Initially it's confronting. But, about 3 months of listening to your own voice and you stop "feeling" emotional because you know everything that's going to be said, as you've heard this over and over and over. At this stage your forebrain begins to analyzing the information. The connections between the amygdala and forebrain weaken (changes in presynaptic membrane - not well understood) as you no longer feel the fear emotion and your higher order cortical regions process the information. So, in this case it's completely different. Almost the opposite. You're not trying to strengthen connections by weaken or break them.
As for OCD, the treatments can involve repeated exposure which continuously stimulate the hippocampus and deplete the neurotransmitters on the pre-synaptic membrane. This has varying levels of effectiveness. It's not well understood. But, again, the treatments (or ways of thinking) are all different depending on the neurological problem. Which, regardless of whatever LG like to think, are rooted in ionic movements salts and upregulation of lipids and proteins in real live cells in the brain.
Admittedly there's a lot we need to learn - YET we are learning a hellaovalot. The WAY you think changes YOU. Daily rituals, like praying 7 times a day facing Hollywood, changing your name to Blinky27, and fearing a Xenu who can read your thoughts, IS changing the "YOU", you think of when you say YOU. Meditating in contemplation is doing something altogether different. Being exposed to violence, again, is doing something different. Think with compassion is, again, changing your brain.
It is obvious to me, that the Indians who made these forms of meditation were extremely clever people. I can't begin to imagine the numbers of centuries of trial and error that this came down to. Perhaps one very insightful person made a big push forward, but, either way, they created a system for modifying the brain that really works. In a way other ways of thinking does not work.
Now think about this: These Indians. They obviously weren't idiots. They COULD have used a God, and seemingly would have IF it were helpful in their reaching their goals. I mean, they do describe things in ways that, for lack of a better term, is blatant superstition. But they decided against inventing a God.
Have you ever wondered why, in a world of Gods, they chose to specifically NOT include a God centerpiece?
Something to think about.
