Mindfulness is intimacy with life; to really connect with it in a deep way, to see it clearly for what it is.
– Michael Stone
During our final Friday class, our cohort had a stimulating debate over questions posed by Oren Ergas in his article, Mindfulness in Education at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Healing. For me, the essential question that arose was: is the secularization of mindfulness from its Buddhist foundations, a danger both to the teachers and students of mindfulness practice? Within our class we are being trained as contemplative practitioners, which is ultimately a training in mindfulness. The latter can be defined as: to “…not dwell on your thoughts…but just pay attention to them rising and vanishing, all the while anchoring your attention to your in-breaths and out-breaths (Bai 100). Is it enough to train in the practice alone, without in-depth knowledge of the wisdom tradition it comes from? Or is that a superficial rendering of a practice associated with an ancient religion? These are the questions I will address in this paper.
In his article, Oren Ergas cites Jon Kabat-Zinn, doctor, meditator, and founder of the MBSR[1] program. In the 1970’s, Kabat-Zinn revolutionized the medical world by introducing mindfulness in a secularized format into medical centres, with the sole intention of reducing stress within patients. Had this program been pitched in an original Buddhist framework, it would be “…virtually inconceivable that [it] would find any legitimate role, no less widespread acceptance, in academic medical centres and hospitals (Ergas 62). Knowing this, Kabat-Zinn strategically presented it so that it was compatible with the scientific community, and furthermore, yielded measurable results. Since then, mindfulness research has continued to grow to the point that “science itself is now being shaken by its own venturing into the ‘dangerous’ waters of the religious experience” (Ergas 58).
It is interesting that the religious experience is considered the “dangerous waters.” I would argue that the secularization of mindfulness – away from the “religious experience” – is the more treacherous territory. This is because the practice of mindfulness needs to be rooted in the ethical framework of the religion it has come from. While it is important that science proves the validity of mindfulness for legitimate medical research, this does not mean the key practice of a 2500 year old tradition should suddenly be stripped of its religious roots and, alongside that, the religion’s ethical framework, just so the “practice-framework” (Bai 99) can be utilized. Secularization in this manner can lead to an instrumentalization of mindfulness, which we are already observing in its use as a performance enhancer. Take for example, its use in the military, where “the U.S. Army touts the advantages of mindfulness practice in the battlefield…emphasizing it as a component of readiness and stress-reduction” (Stone, Salon). In short, a practice that embodies the “first ethical principle [precept] that the Buddha taught…not killing” (Stone, Salon) is being used to supplement the very activity it stands against.
As a Buddhist practitioner myself, I am taught that mindfulness is not simply a concentration exercise or mental training. True, this is part of the training, but just one aspect. A much larger portion of the training consists of metta practice or loving-kindness. The main reason we are practicing a form of mental training through meditation, is to cut through the delusions that inhibit us from giving full loving-kindness to all beings. If we turn to Kabat-Zinn’s definition of secular mindfulness designed for the MBSR, metta practice does not seem to feature at all. Instead, the practice simply begins and ends at: “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally” (Ergas 61). Returning to the military example, when a soldier is paying wholehearted attention on the enemy, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgementally, in preparation for attack, is he acting with mindfulness? By Kabat-Zinn’s definition, yes; but without the framework of the five precepts[2] there is an ethical paradox: the activity intended to train the practitioner in loving-kindness, can instead be used for the very opposite. Mindfulness practice alone – when removed from the ethical discourse in which it is embedded – may not always trigger in its practitioner the spark of loving-kindness. For the practice is merely a tool to cultivate our capacity for compassion. But in order to cultivate this compassion we have to have a clear ethical intention. If out intention is deluded, it is all too easy to use the power of mindfulness to pay attention to self-serving matters: selfish-gain, endless self-improvement, or even escapism. With this intention, the so-called wisdom inherent in a wisdom tradition, like Buddhism, is lost.
In contrast, there is historical evidence of mindfulness, in its non-secular form, being used for selfish gain through violent action. Mindfulness has, in fact, being used in the military when the practice-framework was still embedded in Buddhist ethics. During World War 2, many Japanese Zen priests were infamously pro-war and not only gave their support, but actually encouraged Japanese soldiers to maintain a ‘Zen’ mind-set – whole-hearted, non-judgemental concentration on the present moment – when in battle. Historian Brian Victoria demonstrates this in Zen War Stories. He cites countless incidences of how Zen served as a powerful foundation for the fanatical and suicidal spirit displayed by the Japanese military. For example, the Kamikaze bombers “practiced meditation with the novice monks and chose a posthumous Buddhist name” (Victoria 139) before having to “hurl themselves into enemy ships…” (Victoria 139). Such an example shows how religious ties to the practice of mindfulness do not automatically cultivate the loving-kindness practice that the Buddha hoped to inspire. It should be stated that war propaganda manipulated Buddhist teachings to suit the destructive desires that Japanese war advocates maintained (Victoria 68). Thus, the Buddha’s ethical teachings were heavily altered making it difficult for soldier’s to understand the original ethical framework that the five precepts are based upon. Perhaps if there was a deeper understanding of this original ethical foundation of Buddhism, soldiers may have acted differently. Even so, it is undeniable that mindfulness even when connected to its religious roots, does not always prevent the practice from being used against the precepts it was founded upon. As practitioners we must always ask ourselves the question: are we training in mindfulness to pursue acts of altruism and loving-kindness, or rather, acts resulting from selfish delusion?
This debate brings up far more questions than answers, most of which cannot be addressed in this short paper. I can conclude, however, that mindfulness originally embedded in its Buddhist foundations, came with an ethical code of conduct: the five precepts. Nowadays, with a commercialization of a more secular mindfulness, the Buddhist ethics at the core of this practice are not considered as closely, if considered at all. The secularization of mindfulness is important so that the training is accessible to all people no matter what their religious backgrounds. No doubt, mindfulness in its original non-secular form would come weighted with religious baggage that would lead to confrontation and inaccessibility; nonetheless, without its embodiment in an ethical framework, the practice of a more superficial mindfulness – whereby one simply “pays attention, non-judgementally” – could be a slippery slope to its use for the wrong reasons, even to the point of immoral actions. Therefore, it is essential to have mentors and teachers (not necessarily Buddhist) who have an immaculate understanding of the ethical framework of mindfulness in its original format. Mindfulness can be taught in a secular format provided it remains in close contact with its ethical-religious roots.
Footnotes:
[1] Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
[2] The five precepts constitute the basic Buddhist code of ethics. They are abstinence from:
killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants that cause heedlessness.
Works Cited
Bai, H. & Scutt, G. “Touching the Earth with the Heart of Enlightened Mind: The Buddhist Practice of Mindfulness for Environmental Education.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 2009: 92-106. web.
Ergas, Oren. “Mindfulness in education at the intersection of science, religion, and healing.” Critical Studies in Education 55:1 13th Dec 2013: 58-72.
Stone, Michael. “Abusing the Buddha: How the U.S. Army and Google co-opt mindfulness.” SALON. n.p. Web. 17 March 2014
Victoria, Brian. Zen War Stories. New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004. Print.
– Michael Stone
During our final Friday class, our cohort had a stimulating debate over questions posed by Oren Ergas in his article, Mindfulness in Education at the Intersection of Science, Religion, and Healing. For me, the essential question that arose was: is the secularization of mindfulness from its Buddhist foundations, a danger both to the teachers and students of mindfulness practice? Within our class we are being trained as contemplative practitioners, which is ultimately a training in mindfulness. The latter can be defined as: to “…not dwell on your thoughts…but just pay attention to them rising and vanishing, all the while anchoring your attention to your in-breaths and out-breaths (Bai 100). Is it enough to train in the practice alone, without in-depth knowledge of the wisdom tradition it comes from? Or is that a superficial rendering of a practice associated with an ancient religion? These are the questions I will address in this paper.
In his article, Oren Ergas cites Jon Kabat-Zinn, doctor, meditator, and founder of the MBSR[1] program. In the 1970’s, Kabat-Zinn revolutionized the medical world by introducing mindfulness in a secularized format into medical centres, with the sole intention of reducing stress within patients. Had this program been pitched in an original Buddhist framework, it would be “…virtually inconceivable that [it] would find any legitimate role, no less widespread acceptance, in academic medical centres and hospitals (Ergas 62). Knowing this, Kabat-Zinn strategically presented it so that it was compatible with the scientific community, and furthermore, yielded measurable results. Since then, mindfulness research has continued to grow to the point that “science itself is now being shaken by its own venturing into the ‘dangerous’ waters of the religious experience” (Ergas 58).
It is interesting that the religious experience is considered the “dangerous waters.” I would argue that the secularization of mindfulness – away from the “religious experience” – is the more treacherous territory. This is because the practice of mindfulness needs to be rooted in the ethical framework of the religion it has come from. While it is important that science proves the validity of mindfulness for legitimate medical research, this does not mean the key practice of a 2500 year old tradition should suddenly be stripped of its religious roots and, alongside that, the religion’s ethical framework, just so the “practice-framework” (Bai 99) can be utilized. Secularization in this manner can lead to an instrumentalization of mindfulness, which we are already observing in its use as a performance enhancer. Take for example, its use in the military, where “the U.S. Army touts the advantages of mindfulness practice in the battlefield…emphasizing it as a component of readiness and stress-reduction” (Stone, Salon). In short, a practice that embodies the “first ethical principle [precept] that the Buddha taught…not killing” (Stone, Salon) is being used to supplement the very activity it stands against.
As a Buddhist practitioner myself, I am taught that mindfulness is not simply a concentration exercise or mental training. True, this is part of the training, but just one aspect. A much larger portion of the training consists of metta practice or loving-kindness. The main reason we are practicing a form of mental training through meditation, is to cut through the delusions that inhibit us from giving full loving-kindness to all beings. If we turn to Kabat-Zinn’s definition of secular mindfulness designed for the MBSR, metta practice does not seem to feature at all. Instead, the practice simply begins and ends at: “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment and non-judgmentally” (Ergas 61). Returning to the military example, when a soldier is paying wholehearted attention on the enemy, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgementally, in preparation for attack, is he acting with mindfulness? By Kabat-Zinn’s definition, yes; but without the framework of the five precepts[2] there is an ethical paradox: the activity intended to train the practitioner in loving-kindness, can instead be used for the very opposite. Mindfulness practice alone – when removed from the ethical discourse in which it is embedded – may not always trigger in its practitioner the spark of loving-kindness. For the practice is merely a tool to cultivate our capacity for compassion. But in order to cultivate this compassion we have to have a clear ethical intention. If out intention is deluded, it is all too easy to use the power of mindfulness to pay attention to self-serving matters: selfish-gain, endless self-improvement, or even escapism. With this intention, the so-called wisdom inherent in a wisdom tradition, like Buddhism, is lost.
In contrast, there is historical evidence of mindfulness, in its non-secular form, being used for selfish gain through violent action. Mindfulness has, in fact, being used in the military when the practice-framework was still embedded in Buddhist ethics. During World War 2, many Japanese Zen priests were infamously pro-war and not only gave their support, but actually encouraged Japanese soldiers to maintain a ‘Zen’ mind-set – whole-hearted, non-judgemental concentration on the present moment – when in battle. Historian Brian Victoria demonstrates this in Zen War Stories. He cites countless incidences of how Zen served as a powerful foundation for the fanatical and suicidal spirit displayed by the Japanese military. For example, the Kamikaze bombers “practiced meditation with the novice monks and chose a posthumous Buddhist name” (Victoria 139) before having to “hurl themselves into enemy ships…” (Victoria 139). Such an example shows how religious ties to the practice of mindfulness do not automatically cultivate the loving-kindness practice that the Buddha hoped to inspire. It should be stated that war propaganda manipulated Buddhist teachings to suit the destructive desires that Japanese war advocates maintained (Victoria 68). Thus, the Buddha’s ethical teachings were heavily altered making it difficult for soldier’s to understand the original ethical framework that the five precepts are based upon. Perhaps if there was a deeper understanding of this original ethical foundation of Buddhism, soldiers may have acted differently. Even so, it is undeniable that mindfulness even when connected to its religious roots, does not always prevent the practice from being used against the precepts it was founded upon. As practitioners we must always ask ourselves the question: are we training in mindfulness to pursue acts of altruism and loving-kindness, or rather, acts resulting from selfish delusion?
This debate brings up far more questions than answers, most of which cannot be addressed in this short paper. I can conclude, however, that mindfulness originally embedded in its Buddhist foundations, came with an ethical code of conduct: the five precepts. Nowadays, with a commercialization of a more secular mindfulness, the Buddhist ethics at the core of this practice are not considered as closely, if considered at all. The secularization of mindfulness is important so that the training is accessible to all people no matter what their religious backgrounds. No doubt, mindfulness in its original non-secular form would come weighted with religious baggage that would lead to confrontation and inaccessibility; nonetheless, without its embodiment in an ethical framework, the practice of a more superficial mindfulness – whereby one simply “pays attention, non-judgementally” – could be a slippery slope to its use for the wrong reasons, even to the point of immoral actions. Therefore, it is essential to have mentors and teachers (not necessarily Buddhist) who have an immaculate understanding of the ethical framework of mindfulness in its original format. Mindfulness can be taught in a secular format provided it remains in close contact with its ethical-religious roots.
Footnotes:
[1] Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction
[2] The five precepts constitute the basic Buddhist code of ethics. They are abstinence from:
killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, false speech, and intoxicants that cause heedlessness.
Works Cited
Bai, H. & Scutt, G. “Touching the Earth with the Heart of Enlightened Mind: The Buddhist Practice of Mindfulness for Environmental Education.” Canadian Journal of Environmental Education 2009: 92-106. web.
Ergas, Oren. “Mindfulness in education at the intersection of science, religion, and healing.” Critical Studies in Education 55:1 13th Dec 2013: 58-72.
Stone, Michael. “Abusing the Buddha: How the U.S. Army and Google co-opt mindfulness.” SALON. n.p. Web. 17 March 2014
Victoria, Brian. Zen War Stories. New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2004. Print.