My reading of this is quite different from yours. To me he wants to 'share' the experience in the way he might that of a vista or a startling character. Not by

My reading of this is quite different from yours. To me he wants to 'share' the experience in the way he might that of a vista or a startling character. Not by giving you the experience (surely impossible) but by the literary stratagem of evoking an image of it in the imagination, by careful use of language. I think he's trying to pique interest or curiosity. It's up to the reader (if their curiosity is so piqued) to do their own work (whatever that may be) to see if related experiences might be relevant to them. I see nothing in this passage or in those of Iyer's works that I've read to suggest he believes anyone can attain the states he's describing simply by reading his writing. There are certainly suggestions from other quarters (Zen, Sufism) that poetry in particular can sometimes (but rarely) trigger transient states of heightened awareness. But I'm not aware of Iyer subscribing to this. As for analytical approaches to 'mindfulness', perhaps they're out there; I personally haven't done enough of a literature search to be sure. In a popular rather than academic vein, Sam Harris is probably as rigorous you'll get (he is always, at a minimum, very clear). Robert Wright (a secular Buddhist) has recently written a book whose title (Why Buddhism is True IIRC) strongly suggests persuasive (therefore analytical or at least purportedly rational?) intent, but I haven't read it. But all that's a bit beside the point for most 'proponents' of mindfulness I have come across, because they are little interested in persuasion. They're not trying to argue for a Truth in the marketplace of ideas. They're just offering practices and associated reflections that might be useful to some. A curious party can pick these up and try them, and do as they wish from there. Persuasion really has no part to play.