The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by binocular »

Lazy_eye wrote:Then why worry about secular mindfulness movements, or companies borrowing meditation techniques from Buddhism? Obviously these trends reflect the interests of puthujjana, who as you say are inclined towards the world. The objection that "such practices will not lead to cessation/liberation" is not relevant to these practitioners, because that's not their goal to begin with.

Conversely, since your goal is liberation, as opposed to, say, better productivity at work, nothing is stopping you from following a more authentic Buddhist path and avoiding these "lite" versions. Where is the cause for dispute?
Because there is the fear that the Dhamma that actually can liberate a person from suffering, could disappear.

More and more of what is forwarded under "Buddhism" is becoming a secularized, materialistic effort. So we get (at least nominally) Buddhist establishments where the people in positions of power openly express their skepticism about key Buddhist concepts, such as karma and rebirth, or who openly speak about their dilemmas about end-of-life issues. Things that, as self-declared Buddhists, they should reasonably have settled long before claiming to be Buddhists, and long before taking on those important positions of power as teachers or leaders.

By all means, people can do what they want. But not just anything can be called Buddhism and publicly forwarded as such.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by beeblebrox »

ancientbuddhism wrote: ◦What distinguishes secular mindfulness from Dhamma?
  • – Perhaps revisiting the question raised here & here on the connection between practice and ethics would help lead this part of the discussion.
Hi All,

Just because someone mentioned Thich Nhat Hanh in this thread, I feel like I should clarify what he actually teaches (or at least what my impression is of it). He speaks about sila quite a bit, to the point of seeming to treat it as equivalent to the mindfulness.

He even calls the five precepts as "five mindfulness trainings." A monastic in this tradition once shared with me that Nhat Hanh had some concern that the English translation of the Vietnamese version of his five precepts were not strict enough, or maybe that it was "too soft" (my paraphrasing).

I get the impression (it could be wishful thinking) that Nhat Hanh is fairly strict as a monastic, despite his gentle appearance, or the leeway that he seems to give to others. I think this is just due to his practice, more or less.

:anjali:
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Lazy_eye »

binocular wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:Then why worry about secular mindfulness movements, or companies borrowing meditation techniques from Buddhism? Obviously these trends reflect the interests of puthujjana, who as you say are inclined towards the world. The objection that "such practices will not lead to cessation/liberation" is not relevant to these practitioners, because that's not their goal to begin with.

Conversely, since your goal is liberation, as opposed to, say, better productivity at work, nothing is stopping you from following a more authentic Buddhist path and avoiding these "lite" versions. Where is the cause for dispute?
Because there is the fear that the Dhamma that actually can liberate a person from suffering, could disappear.

More and more of what is forwarded under "Buddhism" is becoming a secularized, materialistic effort. So we get (at least nominally) Buddhist establishments where the people in positions of power openly express their skepticism about key Buddhist concepts, such as karma and rebirth, or who openly speak about their dilemmas about end-of-life issues. Things that, as self-declared Buddhists, they should reasonably have settled long before claiming to be Buddhists, and long before taking on those important positions of power as teachers or leaders.

By all means, people can do what they want. But not just anything can be called Buddhism and publicly forwarded as such.
It looks to me as though there are two different issues here. To begin with, the "'mindfulness" programs that we see at companies or in other secularized settings do not always identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact, I would guess that the majority of them don't. The people drawn to these movements are interested in meditation and mindfulness the way they might be interested in yoga, as a mostly non-religious practice. So if we are talking about these groups, the objection that they are "misrepresenting the Dhamma" does not really apply, because they aren't claiming to represent the Dhamma to begin with.

So, okay, then we have groups that do identify themselves as Buddhist, but orient themselves towards the laity. The Insight Meditation Society, for example. Some teachers within this movement do emphasize kamma and rebirth, some don't. There are two points I might make here. One has to do with the well-known tug of war betweem modernism and orthodoxy that we find in all religions. Modernizing/Westernizing trends in Buddhism have a long history.

Of course, "modernist" Buddhism is highly selective in terms of its scriptural sources. But here's my other point: so is conservative/orthodox Buddhism. In parts of South Asia, it looks as though people rely on the Jataka tales as much if not more than on the actual suttas. A good deal of mainstream Theravada is based on the Visuddhimagga rather than the suttas. Then there are people who accept only the suttas and nothing else; and within that group you have folks who accept some suttas but not others, or prioritize some and not others. How many people on this board view the Agganna Sutta as central to their practice?

The point is, the situation is just too complex to justify making such simple, black-and-white judgements. Some of the self-styled "defenders of the true Dhamma" need to get off their high horse. Besides, it's a fairly obvious example of clinging, no?
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by daverupa »

Lazy_eye wrote:So if we are talking about these groups, the objection that they are "misrepresenting the Dhamma" does not really apply, because they aren't claiming to represent the Dhamma to begin with...

Of course, "modernist" Buddhism is highly selective in terms of its scriptural sources. But here's my other point: so is conservative/orthodox Buddhism.
Modernist Buddhism vs Orthodox (?) Buddhism, in terms of textual emphasis, is probably a confusing way to approach the conversation, however. The main issue I see everywhere is over where the line is drawn between primary and secondary source material by a given practitioner.

Theravada is one scholastic set which draws its lines in certain ways, but in addition to this & the other scholastic groups we now have a few Western sets as well some other modern sets. They each use a set of material, and near-universal overlap only begins to occur with the four main Nikayas, though even here a set of differences between these schools can be noted.

For example, accounting for chronological stratification is either attempted or ignored by these groups, to various degrees, but nevertheless these D-M-S-A Nikayas/Agamas form the basic framework supporting the claim that what one is doing (or at least attempting to do) is BuddhaDhamma.

Whether approaching this material with the aid of modern commentary, traditional commentary, or combinations of these, those attempting to put this material to work are truly 'Buddhists'. They all allow for this textual layer's primacy as a Dhamma source (the alternative is ahistoricism, but discussing e.g. chronological stratification with such a person is impossible - truly an example of strict black-white thinking).

---

So, if mindfulness courses and miccha-meditations make the corporate circuit, emblazoning their pamphlets with the Sanskrit letter 'om' and seated Buddha figures and Bodhisattvas and lotuses and Zen calligraphy, are they appropriating Buddhist imagery in ways that are liable to facilitate the belief that the course will offer specifically Buddhist lessons & techniques? Will beginners incorrectly feel that they have given the Dhamma a try when they have not actually done so?

Certain iterations of Mahayana & certain traditional ideations (e.g. momentariness) are more troubling in this respect than secular mindfulness courses, I think, but the problem obtains in any case, even without a high horse.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Lazy_eye »

daverupa wrote: So, if mindfulness courses and miccha-meditations make the corporate circuit, emblazoning their pamphlets with the Sanskrit letter 'om' and seated Buddha figures and Bodhisattvas and lotuses and Zen calligraphy, are they appropriating Buddhist imagery in ways that are liable to facilitate the belief that the course will offer specifically Buddhist lessons & techniques? Will beginners incorrectly feel that they have given the Dhamma a try when they have not actually done so?
It depends on the particular instance, but I doubt that people enrolled in such courses believe they are giving dhamma a try. They may be aware that meditation practices are found in Buddhism, but they would be ikely to see these practices as extractable from a religious context. Of course, my assertion here is just based on anecdotal evidence. Maybe you or someone else here has seen a company offer a course in "The Dhamma of the Elders" or what not. But I doubt it. Companies don't generally want to be seen as foisting a religion on their employees.

It seems to me the emerging trend is driven more by developments coming out of psychotherapy and by the findings from neuroscience that meditation has measurable, beneficial effects. That, plus the ongoing fascination with yoga. If we look at some examples (below) of the "new mindfulness", we can see that there's an acknowledgement of the "Buddhist context" but that's about it.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006226 ... harri02-20

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/taming-the-mind

http://m.samharris.org/blog/item/how-to-meditate

Even if there are some people out there who embrace a casual, not very well-examined "Buddhism", it is probably not Theravada Buddhism per se. In relation to Theravada, would you say that Kabat-Zinn and so on are any farther astray than Nichiren?

Buddhism has no copyright on the letter om, and much of the imagery you mention comes from later movements in Buddhism that were fairly syncretic in their own day and age. There's probably an argument to be made that the entire history of "folk" or "ordinary people" Buddhism is fundamentally syncretic.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by binocular »

Lazy_eye wrote:It looks to me as though there are two different issues here. To begin with, the "'mindfulness" programs that we see at companies or in other secularized settings do not always identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact, I would guess that the majority of them don't. The people drawn to these movements are interested in meditation and mindfulness the way they might be interested in yoga, as a mostly non-religious practice. So if we are talking about these groups, the objection that they are "misrepresenting the Dhamma" does not really apply, because they aren't claiming to represent the Dhamma to begin with.
"Mindfulness" programs in workplace settings - that introduces a whole new dynamic, as the workplace power hierarchy gets implicated into whatever "mindfulness" practice may be pursued.

One of the more difficult workplace scenarios I can imagine is to have a boss who has a fake Buddha quote on his wall and claims to adhere to it. As an employee, you can't really point out it's a fake quote, and as an employee, you probably must agree with it. Now, if you do have some background in Buddhism, what do you do?

And even if some workplace policy or practice is not propagated as Buddhist although the original idea is from Buddhism, if one has some background in Buddhism, one will probably have to figure out some creative way to deal with it.
I wonder what I would do if some new-agey "coach" would come to teach mindfulness in the workplace and we would all have to adhere to his instructions.
The point is, the situation is just too complex to justify making such simple, black-and-white judgements.
Agreed.
Some of the self-styled "defenders of the true Dhamma" need to get off their high horse.
Or people who don't fancy those 'self-styled "defenders of the true Dhamma"' need to rethink and redo their own approach.
Besides, it's a fairly obvious example of clinging, no?
No. One should, by all means, cling to the raft until one has crossed to the other shore.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by ancientbuddhism »

ancientbuddhism wrote:What does the English term ‘mindfulness’ (Pāḷi sati) mean within the context of Early Buddhist contemplative endeavor, and within the contexts of secular modalities?
Cittasanto wrote:Here is a direct description of mindfulness from the canon
  • SN 48.10 ...And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains focused on the body in & of itself...
And in the Satipaṭṭhāna S. sati is given a refined definition within the context of how it is applied …
  • “...abides contemplating body in the body (etc.); with intense endeavor, attentiveness and mindfulness; for the relinquishment of covetous and grievous states.”

    “…kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ.”
… which is helpful by telling us that sati retains its meaning and function as ‘recollection’ in (sarati) by staying on task through the catalyst of ‘intense endeavor’ (ātāpa), to bring ‘attentiveness’ (sampajāna) to carefully examine the objects that have arisen.

But I have to wonder if this emphasis is conveyed in mainstream ‘mindfulness’ systems as they are taught?
ancientbuddhism wrote:What distinguishes secular mindfulness from Dhamma?]
Cittasanto wrote:Wheras Dhammic mindfulness will shy away from sensual pleasure, secular mindfulness will (at times) focus on it.
Actually, the fourth satipaṭṭhāna, first section on Hindrances (nīvaraṇapabbaṃ), covers 'sensual pleasure' (kāmacchanda) in the list. And as with all of these hindrances, it is to be abandoned (pahāna) to the point where one directly knows that that thing that has been abandoned does not arise again in the future ( āyatiṃ anuppādo hoti tañca pajānāti).

But again, I have to wonder if this emphasis is conveyed in mainstream ‘mindfulness’ systems as they are taught?
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Lazy_eye wrote: To begin with, the "'mindfulness" programs that we see at companies or in other secularized settings do not always identify themselves as Buddhist. In fact, I would guess that the majority of them don't. The people drawn to these movements are interested in meditation and mindfulness the way they might be interested in yoga, as a mostly non-religious practice. So if we are talking about these groups, the objection that they are "misrepresenting the Dhamma" does not really apply, because they aren't claiming to represent the Dhamma to begin with.
The programs that meet the public may not make reference to the Buddhist origin of ‘mindfulness’ as the system they teach has borrowed it. But the developers of these modalities have, and I suppose should have considering their backgrounds as practitioners, such as Jon Kabat-Zinn.

Whether they mention it or not, this connection is available for anyone to Google. The question about misrepresentation of the Dhamma is that information on the term ‘mindfulness’ yields a term coined by Buddhist tradition. But the information connecting this ‘mindfulness’ to mainstream modalities is controlled by those who may acknowledge the Buddhist connection, but have redefined the term, its usage and its goals – however benign the intention may be. This is what defines this as a misrepresentation of the Dhamma and false speech. And this is what rebukes at least the developers of these systems as moghapurisā who have misrepresented the Dhamma.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Lazy_eye »

ancientbuddhism wrote: The programs that meet the public may not make reference to the Buddhist origin of ‘mindfulness’ as the system they teach has borrowed it. But the developers of these modalities have, and I suppose should have considering their backgrounds as practitioners, such as Jon Kabat-Zinn.

Whether they mention it or not, this connection is available for anyone to Google. The question about misrepresentation of the Dhamma is that information on the term ‘mindfulness’ yields a term coined by Buddhist tradition. But the information connecting this ‘mindfulness’ to mainstream modalities is controlled by those who may acknowledge the Buddhist connection, but have redefined the term, its usage and its goals – however benign the intention may be. This is what defines this as a misrepresentation of the Dhamma and false speech. And this is what rebukes at least the developers of these systems as moghapurisa who have misrepresented the Dhamma.
Now wait a second here.

If these programs called themselves Buddhist, they would be misrepresenting themselves because what they teach differs from authentic Buddhism (for the sake of simplicity, let's agree there is such a thing).

If they don't call themselves Buddhist, then according to you they are misrepresenting themselves because the term "mindfulness" is coined by Buddhist tradition, Google searches might bring up Kabat-Zinn instead of Access to Insight, and these people's notion of mindfulness differs from a Buddhist definition of mindfulness.

So it seems to be damned if they do, damned if they don't (call themselves Buddhist). That implies that Theravada Buddhism has some sort of copyright on the term mindfulness and a patent on meditation practices. But that's simply not the case. Buddhism is not the only spiritual tradition that includes meditation practices. And the term "mindfulness" was introduced into popular usage in the West by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Mahayana Zen teacher, and he uses it in ways that differ from its usage in Theravada (where a better translation might be heedfulness).

Theravada isn't the only denomination of "Buddhism"; it could be argued that even the most secularized mindfulness practices are closer to what the Buddha taught than, say, Nichiren or Shin Buddhism. Let's face it, "Buddhism" is an umbrella term covering a very diverse array of beliefs and practices. Unless companies and organizations are fraudulently passing something off specifically as "Theravada Buddhism" or "The Teachings of the Buddha as Found in the Pali Canon", the charges of false speech don't have a very stable footing.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Lazy_eye »

Plus, let's not forget that Eisel Mazard has been arguing at length in another thread (and in his essays and videos) that Theravada Buddhism is shot through with inauthenticity. So perhaps some Theravada critics of inauthentic secular Buddhism are vulnerable to accusations of False Speech as well?

http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20387
Last edited by Lazy_eye on Wed Apr 16, 2014 11:01 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Cittasanto »

Hi Ancientbuddhism.
To my understanding sensual pleasures are attended too. Do do a search for the instruction for the raisin and chocolate meditation. The instruction does ask practitioners to see the pleasure.

I would wholeheartedly advocate MBCT , for it's treatment for depression. But that is where I see tje demarkation between dhamma and secular meditation here at least.

I have been looking at MBCT and its research recently as I have just finished finding peaxe in a frantic world. And am just starting mindfulness for health.
ancientbuddhism wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:What does the English term ‘mindfulness’ (Pāḷi sati) mean within the context of Early Buddhist contemplative endeavor, and within the contexts of secular modalities?
Cittasanto wrote:Here is a direct description of mindfulness from the canon
  • SN 48.10 ...And what is the faculty of mindfulness? There is the case where a monk, a disciple of the noble ones, is mindful, highly meticulous, remembering & able to call to mind even things that were done & said long ago. He remains focused on the body in & of itself...
And in the Satipaṭṭhāna S. sati is given a refined definition within the context of how it is applied …
  • “...abides contemplating body in the body (etc.); with intense endeavor, attentiveness and mindfulness; for the relinquishment of covetous and grievous states.”

    “…kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ.”
… which is helpful by telling us that sati retains its meaning and function as ‘recollection’ in (sarati) by staying on task through the catalyst of ‘intense endeavor’ (ātāpa), to bring ‘attentiveness’ (sampajāna) to carefully examine the objects that have arisen.

But I have to wonder if this emphasis is conveyed in mainstream ‘mindfulness’ systems as they are taught?
ancientbuddhism wrote:What distinguishes secular mindfulness from Dhamma?]
Cittasanto wrote:Wheras Dhammic mindfulness will shy away from sensual pleasure, secular mindfulness will (at times) focus on it.
Actually, the fourth satipaṭṭhāna, first section on Hindrances (nīvaraṇapabbaṃ), covers 'sensual pleasure' (kāmacchanda) in the list. And as with all of these hindrances, it is to be abandoned (pahāna) to the point where one directly knows that that thing that has been abandoned does not arise again in the future ( āyatiṃ anuppādo hoti tañca pajānāti).

But again, I have to wonder if this emphasis is conveyed in mainstream ‘mindfulness’ systems as they are taught?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Lazy_eye wrote:If these programs called themselves Buddhist, they would be misrepresenting themselves because what they teach differs from authentic Buddhism (for the sake of simplicity, let's agree there is such a thing).

If they don't call themselves Buddhist, then according to you they are misrepresenting themselves because the term "mindfulness" is coined by Buddhist tradition, Google searches might bring up Kabat-Zinn instead of Access to Insight, and these people's notion of mindfulness differs from a Buddhist definition of mindfulness.
I have no idea how you came up with that. They learned meditation practice from established religious tradition, repackaged it, and call their product ‘mindfulness’ which is a helpful marketing buzzword to use for a meditation practice already known by that name. I suppose something could be said for Google packaging their program differently as Search Inside Yourself, but wait a minute, that’s Vipassanā isn’t it?
Lazy_eye wrote:So it seems to be damned if they do, damned if they don't (call themselves Buddhist). That implies that Theravada Buddhism has some sort of copyright on the term mindfulness and a patent on meditation practices.But that's simply not the case. Buddhism is not the only spiritual tradition that includes meditation practices.
But that isn't the point I was making, was it?
Lazy_eye wrote:And the term "mindfulness" was introduced into popular usage in the West by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Mahayana Zen teacher, and he uses it in ways that differ from its usage in Theravada (where a better translation might be heedfulness). ...
It may be a bit of a stretch to say that Thích Nhất Hạnh made mindfulness popular. There was T.W. Rhys Davids who used ‘mindfulness’ for sati in the PED in 1921 & Nyanaponika Thera was using it when he wrote The Heart of Buddhist Meditation published in 1954. I think what TNH was presenting was pretty much in tandem with the what the Vipassanā Movement was doing then, just going in quite different directions.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10184
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by Spiny Norman »

Cittasanto wrote:To my understanding sensual pleasures are attended too. Do do a search for the instruction for the raisin and chocolate meditation. The instruction does ask practitioners to see the pleasure.
Yes, from what I've experienced the focus seems to be on enjoying the experience, and I've never seen this exercise done with something that tastes unpleasant. Though you could look at this approach as skillful means I suppose.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
dxm_dxm
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 2:32 am
Location: Romania, Bucharest
Contact:

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by dxm_dxm »

Excuse me for been a little offtopic but are they using concentration meditation or vipassana ?

I understand from you that they are using vipassana. If so, I can not see how vipassana could bring more working qualities that they look for than concentration practices. I would also like to ask if there is list of qualities that are improved as a side effect by both practices
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: The Science Delusion and New Mindfulness

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Cittasanto wrote:Hi Ancientbuddhism.
To my understanding sensual pleasures are attended too. Do do a search for the instruction for the raisin and chocolate meditation. The instruction does ask practitioners to see the pleasure.

I would wholeheartedly advocate MBCT , for it's treatment for depression. But that is where I see tje demarkation between dhamma and secular meditation here at least.

I have been looking at MBCT and its research recently as I have just finished finding peaxe in a frantic world. And am just starting mindfulness for health.
I recall reading about the ‘raisin’ technique in the article in Time cited in the OP The Mindful Revolution. The article didn’t go into what you mention that the practitioner ‘see the pleasure’, but have you taken one of these courses, or do you know where MBCT/MBSR material mentions this technique? I am interested because of the origins of MBCT/MBSR in RET. When I was using RET in 1980 I thought then that all this modality needed to be ‘Buddhist’ was meditation. Where RET has been criticised for their application of ‘rational’ when challenging their clients beliefs about life events and underlying emotions, as being to stringent, to me looks rather similar to the approach of Dhamma. How RET has evolved into an actual merging with ‘mindfulness’ meditation in MBCT/MBSR is perplexing because the former strict RET approach to emotive events seems to have changed in the latter.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
Post Reply