- The two are not equally unintelligible. It is not difficult to understand Judeo-Christian doctrine because the concepts are very intuitive and straightforward. That is, one is created by a God, one accumulates merit or demerit in the eyes of the God, and one enters either a pleasant or an unpleasant afterlife according to the judgment of God.

Correct me if I am oversimplifying it, but there is nothing difficult to understand about that concept, even to the oriental mind. For example, a Chinese Muslim or a Korean Christian would have much less trouble understanding the Christian concept of a common creator and an afterlife than an American Buddhist understanding the concept of non-duality and mindfulness.

It is doubtful even that many Asian Buddhists understand the concept of non-duality. It is completely counterintuitive, not only to the mind nurtured on Greek-style inquiry into the external world but also to the practically-oriented Chinese mind. The Chinese went through similar problems absorbing Buddhist concepts.

Buddhism is essentially an Indian religion using distinctly Indian philosophical concepts such as non-duality and illusion of self. The only community who we can say is remotely comfortable with these concepts is the Brahmin priesthood of the Vedanta community. This is the intellectual tradition which took non-duality as a premise and it is the tradition from which Buddhism sprung.

You might have something with the cultural unintelligiblity argument, but you have not yet applied it to the right facts.

2. “Rather then concentrating on their own personal well-being, though, it would be far more socially useful for students of mindfulness to do something practical like volunteer to help the homeless…”

-You bring up a very good point here. You seem to be making a social policy argument, That no religion can have merit or be desirable if it does not promote socially useful behavior.
It is a very important question with no easy answer. But I will bring up some considerations.

a) We do not all agree on what is socially useful. Many of us cause great harm to the world in pursuing what we think is socially useful, e.g. Islamic Fundamentalist fighting the good fight against the US in order to beat off US imperialism and oppression of Muslim countries.

With 6 billion people in the world who have 6 billion different ideas of what needs to be done, keeping to yourself and not harming others maybe the most socially useful thing you can do.
b) You put people in quite a dilemma by asking them to stop doing something they deem as necessary because it requires them to pass up the opportunity to do something immediately useful. But we do this all the time when we decide to work overtime instead of helping the needy, or spend time with our families instead of helping the needy, or cultivate ourselves through private study instead of helping the needy. Surely, even the most productive, saintly people have their personal time for hobbies and contemplation.

3. “Would Judaism have been able to survive for thousands of years under some of the most adverse circumstances imaginable if everybody had been in a sitting meditation, concentrating on being mindful? Would Islam have been able to become the dominant religion of the Middle East if they were walking around with their heads facing the ground, performing a walking meditation? Would Catholicism have been able to repel the Ottoman Empire’s invasion of Vienna in 1529 under similar conditions? Had it not been for this singular event there is a significant possibility that Northern Europe (and the New World) all would have become Muslims.”

Before I reply, I must take issue with some of the implicit assumptions of this argument:
a) By Judaism/Islam/Christianity, do you mean the ideas or the institutions?
b) What would be wrong with Northern Europe being Muslim? Is it not a religion of the book as Judaism and Christianity? If it serves to make people follow the one true God and brings all people to Heaven, how would it differ from the end goal of Judaism and Christianity?

-Consider the Roman conquest of Greece in the 180s BC, after which Rome adopted Greek ideas and spread them throughout the Mediterranean world and beyond. The Greeks achieved immortality through their conquest by the Romans. The Roman conqueror became the conquered.

But would you have rather had the Greek world cast out the influences of Periclean Athens for the example of the Spartans? To trade the weakness of intellectual refinement for the strength of constant military preparation. Would it be worth it to protect Greece from the Macedonians and the Romans?

4. “The discipline and practice of mindfulness makes far more sense in the context of circular religions as opposed to linear ones (as I have defined them).”
-This is a very good insight and something I have never considered.

You have some insightful observations on this site. You have a very good understanding of Judaism/Christian/Islamic doctrine and you apply it in an even-handed manner. It does not appear that you have spent as much time examining Buddhist doctrine as you have Judaism/Christian/Islamic doctrine, which is unfortunate because it looks like you have some useful points to add.

If you are trying to criticize the shallowness of the Western practice of Buddhism, you could take more care to not expand criticism of its practitioners into criticism of the doctrine. However, if you are just hoping to disparage Buddhism to deter people from pursuing it, you would only be deterring the people who are aimless and easily deterred to begin with. I hope this is not the case and I am looking forward to your thoughts on the actual doctrinal roots of Buddhism.

Axial

http://www.nypost.com/pagesixmag/issues/20100211/Monk+y+Business+Controversial+NYC+guru+Michael+Roach

Sounds like a sad, B version of the Zen Center

Many experts, especially in sports, spend significant time learning “basic” movements before attaining mastery. For example, Bruce Lee initially learned Wing Chun, which, similar to most martial arts practices begins with very basic moves and forms. With disciplined practice, as the body and brain learn these movements–expertise develops–everyone starts somewhere.

In that respect, the mindfulness exercises do help, even out of their cultural context–as exemplified by Jon Kabat-Zinn’s work. But again, the people helped by these exercises may be far outnumbered by office workers with screen savers saying “I am Love” and desperately reading Deepak Chopra.

(I’ve ordered the 1st two books from your “recommended reading” posted in the ‘response’)

It is also dangerous to quote any one of the four noble truths out of context. While the first noble truth is, indeed, that life is suffering (though you should get a teaching on this to understand its full meaning), the next three, which should be taught along with it, are as follows:
2) There is a cause for this suffering
3) Therefore there can be and end to this suffering
4) There is a means to achieve this goal

It would also behoove you study bodhicitta as it is defined by the Tibetan Buddhists: the desire to reach total enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. Of course, to understand this you would need to understand the definition of enlightenment.