Master of mindfulness, Jon Kabat-Zinn

[Kim OHara]

I discovered meditation through MBSR years ago and found Theravada Buddhism from there. At the end of the course, the teacher said "to learn more about where this comes from go to access to insight". For me this was perfect, but I realize there are many variations on MBSR. But I do feel it provides some tools for modern, secular people, which make it more likely to understand Dhamma. JKZ's books are a good starting place if you are coming from an atheistic and skeptical background. My only criticism is it is superficial if not deepened.

Agreed on all counts. I think this is the best way of looking at him and his value to western society.

Many non-Buddhists, like you, have arrived at Buddhism via MBSR - which is a good thing.
Many others have been helped by MBSR - which is a good thing - but not followed through to Buddhism - which is okay.
And I don't believe there have been many people who would have found Buddhism except that they found MBSR first and settled for the lesser teachings, so the existence of MBSR hasn't harmed or misled anyone much.


Kim

[dharmacorps]

Absolutely. I knew about Buddhism vaguely, but I never would have begun practicing it without the introduction to meditation provided by MBSR. So when people criticize "secular buddhism", they may have good points, but the fact is it is a fine stepping stone.

[Spiny Norman]

Many non-Buddhists, like you, have arrived at Buddhism via MBSR - which is a good thing.
Many others have been helped by MBSR - which is a good thing - but not followed through to Buddhism - which is okay.

It seems like a win-win situation.

[binocular]

It seems like a win-win situation.

If you ignore all those who weren't helped by MBSR.

[Kim OHara]

It seems like a win-win situation.

If you ignore all those who weren't helped by MBSR.

That's being unfair, I think. To be fair, we should also ignore all those who weren't helped by Jungian analysis, primal scream therapy, Christian Science, reiki, laying on of hands, etc, etc.
Really, if a course of action in anything to do with mental health offers a reasonable chance that it will be beneficial and a low chance that it will be harmful, that's about the best we can expect.


Kim

[dharmacorps]

Nothing is a panacea. By that measure, Buddhism doesn't "help" everybody. It works if you learn the skills.

[binocular]

Nothing is a panacea. By that measure, Buddhism doesn't "help" everybody. It works if you learn the skills.

When some people are excluded from learning the skills; or when some required skills are such that one must be born with them or learn them already as a small child, but cannot learn them later in life -- then the supposed "helpful solution" isn't much of a solution. How can that be considered a win-win situation?

That's being unfair, I think. To be fair, we should also ignore all those who weren't helped by Jungian analysis, primal scream therapy, Christian Science, reiki, laying on of hands, etc, etc.

Why unfair? Some moral philosophers propose that if a principle is such that only some people can act on it, but not others (because they are too poor, for example), then such a principle cannot be considered moral. How can that be considered a win-win situation?

Really, if a course of action in anything to do with mental health offers a reasonable chance that it will be beneficial and a low chance that it will be harmful, that's about the best we can expect.

Except that some such courses of action are marketed as being such that anyone, regardless of race, socio-economic background, education etc. supposedly can apply them, but the reality is that they cannot and that those courses of action are available only to people with a specific socio-economic background and mentality. And worse, those that cannot apply those courses of action get accused of being failures, not trying hard enough, or that there is something wrong with them.

For example, I find that much of what modern psychology teaches is such that only the secular (upper) middle class can relate to it and act on it. Religions, too, aren't necessarily egalitarian and democratic (in that, for example, those who aren't born into said religion cannot meaningfully apply its teachings or learn the required skills).

[Kim OHara]

I said earlier that, "if a course of action in anything to do with mental health offers a reasonable chance that it will be beneficial and a low chance that it will be harmful, that's about the best we can expect," and I think that's a perfectly reasonable position to take.
As you say, Binocular, none of these approaches is perfect, and none of them is equally available to all. That position is almost the same as mine, but you highlight the negatives and I highlight the positives.


Kim

[binocular]

As you say, Binocular, none of these approaches is perfect, and none of them is equally available to all. That position is almost the same as mine, but you highlight the negatives and I highlight the positives.

Highlighting the positives lends itself well to judging others (namely those for whom the proposed course of action didn't work) and to trivializing the resources and skills required to apply a certain course of action.

[chownah]

That's being unfair, I think. To be fair, we should also ignore all those who weren't helped by Jungian analysis, primal scream therapy, Christian Science, reiki, laying on of hands, etc, etc.

Why unfair? Some moral philosophers propose that if a principle is such that only some people can act on it, but not others (because they are too poor, for example), then such a principle cannot be considered moral. How can that be considered a win-win situation?

Mindfulness mediation is not a philosophical principle....it is not a principle of any kind that I know of. It is a techniques which has been found beneficial by a broad sampling of humans across many cultures and in many settings.
Similarly, the things kim ohara mentions are not philosophical principles either. I think you mention of philosophical principles is a strawman (a misrepresentation of someone's position which is then easily refuted which gives the impression that someone's position has been dealt with but in fact it is only a misrepresentation which has been dealt with.)
chownah

[binocular]

Mindfulness mediation is not a philosophical principle....it is not a principle of any kind that I know of. It is a techniques which has been found beneficial by a broad sampling of humans across many cultures and in many settings.
Similarly, the things kim ohara mentions are not philosophical principles either. I think you mention of philosophical principles is a strawman (a misrepresentation of someone's position which is then easily refuted which gives the impression that someone's position has been dealt with but in fact it is only a misrepresentation which has been dealt with.)

Philosophical principles are ubiquitous, different people having different ones. One such principle for secular mindfulness is that each person's life is worth living or worth improving. A stance that is far more controversial than it might seem at first glance, given that there is legal death penalty in at least some countries, widespread abortion, assisted suicide, "euthanasia", to name just a few phenomena that put into question the idea that each person's life is worth living or worth improving.

[chownah]

Mindfulness mediation is not a philosophical principle....it is not a principle of any kind that I know of. It is a techniques which has been found beneficial by a broad sampling of humans across many cultures and in many settings.
Similarly, the things kim ohara mentions are not philosophical principles either. I think you mention of philosophical principles is a strawman (a misrepresentation of someone's position which is then easily refuted which gives the impression that someone's position has been dealt with but in fact it is only a misrepresentation which has been dealt with.)

Philosophical principles are ubiquitous, different people having different ones. One such principle for secular mindfulness is that each person's life is worth living or worth improving. A stance that is far more controversial than it might seem at first glance, given that there is legal death penalty in at least some countries, widespread abortion, assisted suicide, "euthanasia", to name just a few phenomena that put into question the idea that each person's life is worth living or worth improving.

Mindfulness mediation is not a philosophical principle. Similarly, the things kim ohara mentions are not philosophical principles either.
chownah

[L.N.]

One such principle for secular mindfulness is that each person's life is worth living or worth improving. A stance that is far more controversial than it might seem at first glance, given that there is legal death penalty in at least some countries, widespread abortion, assisted suicide, "euthanasia", to name just a few phenomena that put into question the idea that each person's life is worth living or worth improving.

These people's lives are worth living. Why the attempt to tie secular mindfulness to such things as the death penalty, abortion, suicide, etc? The quoted comment makes no sense, lacks factual support, and appears to have nothing to do with a serious, fact-based discussion of the secular approach to mindfulness. Why the effort here to bash every approach to mindfulness which is not identical to one's own views?

[binocular]

These people's lives are worth living. Why the attempt to tie secular mindfulness to such things as the death penalty, abortion, suicide, etc? The quoted comment makes no sense, lacks factual support, and appears to have nothing to do with a serious, fact-based discussion of the secular approach to mindfulness. Why the effort here to bash every approach to mindfulness which is not identical to one's own views?

If I go to a MBSR presentation, will the presenters there teach me that my life is worth living? My guess is, based on what they say in their books and talks, they won't.
I don't care if something helps others or "works" for others. If it doesn't help me, it's worthless to me.

[binocular]

Mindfulness mediation is not a philosophical principle. Similarly, the things kim ohara mentions are not philosophical principles either.

It's based on some philosophical principles, which are usually not openly stated, but which can be inferred.