7 ms·

Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherw

Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. While to some extent it’s true that teachings have been adapted and the adaptations are sometimes (maybe often) problematic, the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me. Attention and acceptance training (the two fundamental aspects of mindfulness in my research supported but not definitive view) don’t belong to Buddhism or any other system or set of teachings. The underlying science of mind training can be applied wherever we see fit. There’s no “what mindfulness is about and what it’s not” in a corporate versus holistic sense. There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me. What we’re teaching is an awareness of what’s happening inside of experience. Mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch. It’s simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state. That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions. And to the extent that we have a large number of poorly trained teachers selling a poorly designed product AS mindfulness, THAT in my mind is the larger issue, rather than the context or clientele. I saw a teacher once tell a student that her overwhelming obsession with her physical pain WAS her being mindful. This and the reverse problem whereby mindfulness is equated with dullness, sleepiness, or numbness are the real dangers in my view.

Ididntdothis 7y ago
”if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that.” I think what’s wrong is that they don’t realize that the environment that’s causing stress is very damaging and they should change that environment instead of putting a bandaid in the form of mindfulness on it. Even worse is that they keep pushing that stress down the hierarchy causing harm to their employees.
- jes 7y ago
  It may also happen that as they wake up they discover other aspects of Buddhism that lead them to continue to evolve their practice so they are not harming others.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    When I look at famous business people that claim to be practicing Buddhism and meditation I have my doubts. They still run greedy, selfish and exploitative companies. Steve Jobs is a good example.
    - collyw 7y ago
      Steve Jobs jumped into my mind as I read your first sentence. Then I see you were thinking of the same person.
  - anbende 7y ago
    Yes, and while I don’t teach corporate mindfulness currently, I have colleagues who do, and I believe they do so responsibly. When done well, it will sometimes pick up speed and initiate rather profound changes in corporate culture. Not always or even often (usually it just fizzles), but sometimes. Corporate executives are people too, and somd of them (certainly not all) are good-hearted and honestly looking for a way to change their mild to severely toxic culture. And mindfulness training can help if done well, which it often isn’t.
    - sudosysgen 7y ago
      The very idea of "corporate mindfulness" goes against the logic that led to mindfulness, and ultimately it only helps in misdirection as to what the issue really is.
- anbende 7y ago
  Yes, and I saw that the author made this point as well. But again, mindfulness isn’t a stress lowering switch, it’s literally training in awareness of what is happening in one’s field of experience which includes a toxic environment if present. Awareness training should NOT render one insulated against your surrounding environment. It should highlight it as you become more aware and attentive. Now, a LOT of mindfulness programs and teachers ARE essentially selling relaxation practices as mindful attention training, and I would agree that THAT is a problem. But the problem there in my view is not that the practice is being taught without morality or moral principle, but without actual awareness training. It’s relaxation sold as mindfulness. And I think that’s a shame, but I still wouldn’t deny anyone tools to relax. I just wish they wouldn’t call it mindfulness.
StuffedParrot 7y ago
> There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. Mindfulness cannot fix the underlying problems that lead to mindfulness being useful to capital in the first place. Personally I’d rather my CEO make work less miserable and sleep that way (say, hire people for fewer hours and raise wages) than sleep well because they paid for someone to soothe them through the arduous travails of being a high paid executive. That said, anyone who didn’t see capital swallowing this is dense. Anything that can be commodified will be. Arguing over it is pointless.
- anbende 7y ago
  I wholeheartedly agree, and to the extent that a program is simply soothing, then there isn’t any actual mindful attention training happening. That’s my primary point, that attention training isn’t a salve, it’s awareness building. The problem with a lot of mindfulness “training” is that it’s really just group relaxation without training the kind of awareness that should be useful in any context.
  - TheCowboy 7y ago
    Do you recommend any books or resources that are, in your view, teaching mindfulness more effectively?
gerbilly 7y ago
> I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. Buddhism teaches that you should tackle the coarser causes of suffering first. If there is a thorn in your foot, no one is suggesting you should go do a good sit to deal with the pain. First you remove the thorn, then you sit. In my opinion mindfulness at work (or anywhere) can be beneficial, but if we only use it to paper over the structural problems that make work life stressful for so many, we are losing the opportunity to eliminate the coarser causes of suffering. Think of it as an 80/20 rule. Probably eighty percent of the suffering at work comes from twenty percent of the causes. We should be tackling those, and that requires political engagement. It may even require oppositional methods in some really bad cases.
- anbende 7y ago
  I agree that in a larger sense, there are often greater problems at work than the internal regulation of attention and stress. From working with clients however, you might be surprised just how often people come in not realizing that they have what is essentially a giant thorn sticking out of their foot! Usually this looks more like chronic lack of sleep, a bad relationship with their spouse or even a toxic work environment, but shut inside their ball of stress and the narrow anxious attention that accompanies it, they miss the forest of causes for the more immediate trees of anxiety, tension and panic. You might be surprised how often a person says “oh my god I’m tired and stressed because I haven’t gotten a good nights sleep in 10 years!” after a little awareness training.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    What we're all really looking for in most workplaces is love and attention [edit: acceptance], but we express that by working harder and harder in order to 'earn' it. In my opinion this is the most beneficial buddhist 'practise' for western society: "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere." If that were taken to heart, believed and practised, you would get rid of 80% of most people's suffering.
kungito 7y ago
No, that is not ok. You cannot take a name from a thousand year philosophy and change it's meaning to suot your needs but keep the name for marketing purposes. Just call it a different name then and don't mention the other thing
- anbende 7y ago
  Two things. The first is that mindfulness is a Western word inspired by Eastern teachings. The word mindfulness didn’t exist 2000 years ago, and the Buddhist concepts are always very nuanced and often hotly debated inside the various schools. For an example, do a little reading on whether Anatta means “no self” or “not self”. Second, no one is “changing its meaning to suit your needs”. Mindfulness in Buddhism is a way of attending with full and non-judgmental awareness. It is typically taught alongside teachings on morality and philosophy and so forth, but I believe that it is a confusion to claim that these things are “part of” mindfulness. Instead mindfulness is part of a larger system of teachings from which it has been removed in the more secular West. The author of the linked piece believes this is a problem but also inevitable. I personally believe as many others do that Buddhism does not own mindfulness, because mindfulness is a way of training and relating to attention. You might argue that it is unskillful or even harmful to practice or train mindfulness without some or all of the other pieces that Buddhism offers, but that is very different from saying that you’ve redefined mindfulness. Of course many people and groups also distort the definition and training in mindfulness and at that point you’re right and I agree that one would be “taking the namd and changing the meaning” though in my experience this is virtually always out of ignorance (perhaps willful) rather than intentional profiteering and disregard for truth. Mindfulness as a concept and discipline is actually incredibly deep and challenging and most people who think they understand actually don’t or don’t to the extent they think they do.
mistermann 7y ago
I have a feeling that you've somewhat missed the author's intended point. Or, I don't think the two of you are in disagreement on the fundamentals, but you haven't noticed some of the intended nuance, which I think is where the intended message lies. > the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me Technically, the author didn't say this, but rather pointed out some criticisms (holistic shortcomings) of the manner in which it has been deployed in corporations, specifically: >> For example, corporate mindfulness programs are now quite popular. And as we all know, most employees these days are extremely stressed out. The Gallup poll that came out about four or five years ago said that corporations — and this is in the U.S. — are losing approximately 300 billion dollars a year from stress-related absences and seven out of ten employees report being disengaged from their work. So there's certainly a problem. There's no doubt that people are suffering from anxiety and stress and depression. No one no one is going to argue that that's not the case. >> The problem is: what is the remedy? The remedy has now become mindfulness, where employees are then trained individually to learn how to cope and adjust to these toxic corporate conditions [rather than launching kind of a diagnosis of the systemic causes of stress not only in corporations but in our society at large. That sort of dialogue, that sort of inquiry, is not happening.] To my reading (interpretation) of the article, that last portion is the main point the author is trying to make. > Attention and acceptance training (the two fundamental aspects of mindfulness in my research supported but not definitive view) don’t belong to Buddhism or any other system or set of teachings. The underlying science of mind training can be applied wherever we see fit. There’s no “what mindfulness is about and what it’s not” in a corporate versus holistic sense. There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. All (mostly) of this is true, but it misses the point the author was trying to make, and I think the author would take exception with your closing: "there’s nothing wrong with that", his assertion seemingly being ~"actually, there is something ~"wrong" (less than perfect) with that". > The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me. Fair criticism, but the degree to which such things are actually true is unknowable, with any sort of accuracy. > What we’re teaching is an awareness of what’s happening inside of experience. Different people teach different things, and different combinations of things. This is one of them. > Mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch. It’s simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state. Here I will respectfully disagree. Indeed, the physical practice is "simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state", but "mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch" seems to be (based on my personal experience and reading of anecdotal experience) an incorrect assertion. Rather, it often (but not always) seems to be described as just that, some sort of a "magical" way to lower stress and raise consciousness, without explicitly (consciously) setting those two outcomes as goals. > That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions. Again, I don't think this is what the author is saying. Rather, he seems to be saying that if you teach only the mindfulness portion of these traditional practices, they can be used to the benefit of "improper" greater causes, like individual/corporate greed. Whereas, if some of the additional teachings that have historically accompanied mindfulness are included in the package, this exploitative approach would be less successful. > And to the extent that we have a large number of poorly trained teachers selling a poorly designed product AS mindfulness, THAT in my mind is the larger issue, rather than the context or clientele. Maybe. But maybe not. It is certainly "an" issue, but imagine a parallel universe where mindfulness along with some of the other traditional practices was adopted to the same degree that only-mindfulness has been adopted in this universe. Which scenario would have the greatest difference in positive outcome? Again, this is one of those things we have no way of knowing, but perhaps the simple act of thinking about things in this manner might yield positive results. Who knows, but it's fun to think about. I happen to believe well intentioned mindfulness advocates like Sam Harris are also overlooking the potentially important truths contained in the authors words. I'd be interested to know whether he disagrees with this sentiment, but my perception is that it currently isn't even on his radar, due to his aversion (ironic, if you think about it) to religion.
jdavis703 7y ago
> That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions. I had a therapist who basically told me that mindfulness means accepting harmful and immoral actions (of others). On the one hand this does make it easier to go through the day without getting caught up in q
depr 7y ago
Mindfulness is Buddhist, as Ajahn Brahm explains here: https://youtu.be/fq-nVhcn-dM?t=80 https://youtu.be/fq-nVhcn-dM?t=80 >I did hear recently [someone saying] that Buddhism doesn't own mindfulness, giving a simile, that just because Newton discovered the law of gravity, it doesn't mean that it's English. [..] not a very clever simile. Yes, Isaac Newton was English, but he was a scientist. So the law of gravity is science, in the same way that mindfulness is Buddhist. If you want attention and acceptance training then call it that. If you want mindfulness then see it in the proper perspective, which is not ripped out of its context to serve consumerist/capitalistic goals.
riskneutral 7y ago
I strongly agree. Anyone who tries to create a monopoly on meditation and mindfulness is misguided. The author is a self-described Buddhist, and some Buddhists can be a bit dogmatic to be perfectly honest. The military issue is a great example. The author is trying to impose his own opinions about morality on the rest of humanity. This is misguided, there are other credible views that differ from his. For example, in ancient Japan, there was no conflict between the martial arts and Buddhism. Instead there was a synthesis. For example, there a 17th century Buddhist monk wrote a book about applying mindfulness to sword fighting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind).
- salty_biscuits 7y ago
  Not just ancient Japan apparently https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War
crispinb 7y ago
> The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me Read Brian Daizen Victoria's Zen At War. OK, Zen, but the principle's the same. Effective mind training techniques sans ethical critique can create cooler killers & greed mongers. Mindfulness' popularity amongst the ethical hellscape of contemporary SV culture is surely also at least a tad suggestive?
hypewatch 7y ago
> Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. The author has been practicing Buddhism for 4 decades. > the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me But the author never makes this assertion. His point is that mindfulness training is hypocritical and inauthentic when used in a corporate environment.
- hypewatch 7y ago
  Why the downvote...? I’m a brand new user. Please help me understand how I can improve.

Ididntdothis 7y ago

”if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that.” I think what’s wrong is that they don’t realize that the environment that’s causing stress is very damaging and they should change that environment instead of putting a bandaid in the form of mindfulness on it. Even worse is that they keep pushing that stress down the hierarchy causing harm to their employees.

jes 7y ago
It may also happen that as they wake up they discover other aspects of Buddhism that lead them to continue to evolve their practice so they are not harming others.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  When I look at famous business people that claim to be practicing Buddhism and meditation I have my doubts. They still run greedy, selfish and exploitative companies. Steve Jobs is a good example.
  - collyw 7y ago
    Steve Jobs jumped into my mind as I read your first sentence. Then I see you were thinking of the same person.
- anbende 7y ago
  Yes, and while I don’t teach corporate mindfulness currently, I have colleagues who do, and I believe they do so responsibly. When done well, it will sometimes pick up speed and initiate rather profound changes in corporate culture. Not always or even often (usually it just fizzles), but sometimes. Corporate executives are people too, and somd of them (certainly not all) are good-hearted and honestly looking for a way to change their mild to severely toxic culture. And mindfulness training can help if done well, which it often isn’t.
  - sudosysgen 7y ago
    The very idea of "corporate mindfulness" goes against the logic that led to mindfulness, and ultimately it only helps in misdirection as to what the issue really is.
anbende 7y ago
Yes, and I saw that the author made this point as well. But again, mindfulness isn’t a stress lowering switch, it’s literally training in awareness of what is happening in one’s field of experience which includes a toxic environment if present. Awareness training should NOT render one insulated against your surrounding environment. It should highlight it as you become more aware and attentive. Now, a LOT of mindfulness programs and teachers ARE essentially selling relaxation practices as mindful attention training, and I would agree that THAT is a problem. But the problem there in my view is not that the practice is being taught without morality or moral principle, but without actual awareness training. It’s relaxation sold as mindfulness. And I think that’s a shame, but I still wouldn’t deny anyone tools to relax. I just wish they wouldn’t call it mindfulness.

StuffedParrot 7y ago

> There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. Mindfulness cannot fix the underlying problems that lead to mindfulness being useful to capital in the first place. Personally I’d rather my CEO make work less miserable and sleep that way (say, hire people for fewer hours and raise wages) than sleep well because they paid for someone to soothe them through the arduous travails of being a high paid executive. That said, anyone who didn’t see capital swallowing this is dense. Anything that can be commodified will be. Arguing over it is pointless.

anbende 7y ago
I wholeheartedly agree, and to the extent that a program is simply soothing, then there isn’t any actual mindful attention training happening. That’s my primary point, that attention training isn’t a salve, it’s awareness building. The problem with a lot of mindfulness “training” is that it’s really just group relaxation without training the kind of awareness that should be useful in any context.
- TheCowboy 7y ago
  Do you recommend any books or resources that are, in your view, teaching mindfulness more effectively?

gerbilly 7y ago

> I often hear the argument that the current applications of mindfulness in corporate or otherwise commercial settings are a perversion of the original teachings. Buddhism teaches that you should tackle the coarser causes of suffering first. If there is a thorn in your foot, no one is suggesting you should go do a good sit to deal with the pain. First you remove the thorn, then you sit. In my opinion mindfulness at work (or anywhere) can be beneficial, but if we only use it to paper over the structural problems that make work life stressful for so many, we are losing the opportunity to eliminate the coarser causes of suffering. Think of it as an 80/20 rule. Probably eighty percent of the suffering at work comes from twenty percent of the causes. We should be tackling those, and that requires political engagement. It may even require oppositional methods in some really bad cases.

anbende 7y ago
I agree that in a larger sense, there are often greater problems at work than the internal regulation of attention and stress. From working with clients however, you might be surprised just how often people come in not realizing that they have what is essentially a giant thorn sticking out of their foot! Usually this looks more like chronic lack of sleep, a bad relationship with their spouse or even a toxic work environment, but shut inside their ball of stress and the narrow anxious attention that accompanies it, they miss the forest of causes for the more immediate trees of anxiety, tension and panic. You might be surprised how often a person says “oh my god I’m tired and stressed because I haven’t gotten a good nights sleep in 10 years!” after a little awareness training.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  What we're all really looking for in most workplaces is love and attention [edit: acceptance], but we express that by working harder and harder in order to 'earn' it. In my opinion this is the most beneficial buddhist 'practise' for western society: "You can search throughout the entire universe for someone who is more deserving of your love and affection than you are yourself, and that person is not to be found anywhere." If that were taken to heart, believed and practised, you would get rid of 80% of most people's suffering.

kungito 7y ago

No, that is not ok. You cannot take a name from a thousand year philosophy and change it's meaning to suot your needs but keep the name for marketing purposes. Just call it a different name then and don't mention the other thing

anbende 7y ago
Two things. The first is that mindfulness is a Western word inspired by Eastern teachings. The word mindfulness didn’t exist 2000 years ago, and the Buddhist concepts are always very nuanced and often hotly debated inside the various schools. For an example, do a little reading on whether Anatta means “no self” or “not self”. Second, no one is “changing its meaning to suit your needs”. Mindfulness in Buddhism is a way of attending with full and non-judgmental awareness. It is typically taught alongside teachings on morality and philosophy and so forth, but I believe that it is a confusion to claim that these things are “part of” mindfulness. Instead mindfulness is part of a larger system of teachings from which it has been removed in the more secular West. The author of the linked piece believes this is a problem but also inevitable. I personally believe as many others do that Buddhism does not own mindfulness, because mindfulness is a way of training and relating to attention. You might argue that it is unskillful or even harmful to practice or train mindfulness without some or all of the other pieces that Buddhism offers, but that is very different from saying that you’ve redefined mindfulness. Of course many people and groups also distort the definition and training in mindfulness and at that point you’re right and I agree that one would be “taking the namd and changing the meaning” though in my experience this is virtually always out of ignorance (perhaps willful) rather than intentional profiteering and disregard for truth. Mindfulness as a concept and discipline is actually incredibly deep and challenging and most people who think they understand actually don’t or don’t to the extent they think they do.

mistermann 7y ago

I have a feeling that you've somewhat missed the author's intended point. Or, I don't think the two of you are in disagreement on the fundamentals, but you haven't noticed some of the intended nuance, which I think is where the intended message lies. > the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me Technically, the author didn't say this, but rather pointed out some criticisms (holistic shortcomings) of the manner in which it has been deployed in corporations, specifically: >> For example, corporate mindfulness programs are now quite popular. And as we all know, most employees these days are extremely stressed out. The Gallup poll that came out about four or five years ago said that corporations — and this is in the U.S. — are losing approximately 300 billion dollars a year from stress-related absences and seven out of ten employees report being disengaged from their work. So there's certainly a problem. There's no doubt that people are suffering from anxiety and stress and depression. No one no one is going to argue that that's not the case. >> The problem is: what is the remedy? The remedy has now become mindfulness, where employees are then trained individually to learn how to cope and adjust to these toxic corporate conditions [rather than launching kind of a diagnosis of the systemic causes of stress not only in corporations but in our society at large. That sort of dialogue, that sort of inquiry, is not happening.] To my reading (interpretation) of the article, that last portion is the main point the author is trying to make. > Attention and acceptance training (the two fundamental aspects of mindfulness in my research supported but not definitive view) don’t belong to Buddhism or any other system or set of teachings. The underlying science of mind training can be applied wherever we see fit. There’s no “what mindfulness is about and what it’s not” in a corporate versus holistic sense. There’s only the strength of the programs and how much value people derive from them, and if 20 executives are able to sleep and handle their stress a little better, there’s nothing wrong with that. All (mostly) of this is true, but it misses the point the author was trying to make, and I think the author would take exception with your closing: "there’s nothing wrong with that", his assertion seemingly being ~"actually, there is something ~"wrong" (less than perfect) with that". > The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me. Fair criticism, but the degree to which such things are actually true is unknowable, with any sort of accuracy. > What we’re teaching is an awareness of what’s happening inside of experience. Different people teach different things, and different combinations of things. This is one of them. > Mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch. It’s simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state. Here I will respectfully disagree. Indeed, the physical practice is "simply greater awareness of the nuances of our internal state", but "mindfulness is not a magical stress and conscience lowering switch" seems to be (based on my personal experience and reading of anecdotal experience) an incorrect assertion. Rather, it often (but not always) seems to be described as just that, some sort of a "magical" way to lower stress and raise consciousness, without explicitly (consciously) setting those two outcomes as goals. > That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions. Again, I don't think this is what the author is saying. Rather, he seems to be saying that if you teach only the mindfulness portion of these traditional practices, they can be used to the benefit of "improper" greater causes, like individual/corporate greed. Whereas, if some of the additional teachings that have historically accompanied mindfulness are included in the package, this exploitative approach would be less successful. > And to the extent that we have a large number of poorly trained teachers selling a poorly designed product AS mindfulness, THAT in my mind is the larger issue, rather than the context or clientele. Maybe. But maybe not. It is certainly "an" issue, but imagine a parallel universe where mindfulness along with some of the other traditional practices was adopted to the same degree that only-mindfulness has been adopted in this universe. Which scenario would have the greatest difference in positive outcome? Again, this is one of those things we have no way of knowing, but perhaps the simple act of thinking about things in this manner might yield positive results. Who knows, but it's fun to think about. I happen to believe well intentioned mindfulness advocates like Sam Harris are also overlooking the potentially important truths contained in the authors words. I'd be interested to know whether he disagrees with this sentiment, but my perception is that it currently isn't even on his radar, due to his aversion (ironic, if you think about it) to religion.

jdavis703 7y ago

> That internal state is where moral judgment and discernment live, so it’s hard for me to see how that would systematically produce harmful or immoral actions. I had a therapist who basically told me that mindfulness means accepting harmful and immoral actions (of others). On the one hand this does make it easier to go through the day without getting caught up in q

depr 7y ago

Mindfulness is Buddhist, as Ajahn Brahm explains here: https://youtu.be/fq-nVhcn-dM?t=80 https://youtu.be/fq-nVhcn-dM?t=80 >I did hear recently [someone saying] that Buddhism doesn't own mindfulness, giving a simile, that just because Newton discovered the law of gravity, it doesn't mean that it's English. [..] not a very clever simile. Yes, Isaac Newton was English, but he was a scientist. So the law of gravity is science, in the same way that mindfulness is Buddhist. If you want attention and acceptance training then call it that. If you want mindfulness then see it in the proper perspective, which is not ripped out of its context to serve consumerist/capitalistic goals.

riskneutral 7y ago

I strongly agree. Anyone who tries to create a monopoly on meditation and mindfulness is misguided. The author is a self-described Buddhist, and some Buddhists can be a bit dogmatic to be perfectly honest. The military issue is a great example. The author is trying to impose his own opinions about morality on the rest of humanity. This is misguided, there are other credible views that differ from his. For example, in ancient Japan, there was no conflict between the martial arts and Buddhism. Instead there was a synthesis. For example, there a 17th century Buddhist monk wrote a book about applying mindfulness to sword fighting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unfettered_Mind).

salty_biscuits 7y ago
Not just ancient Japan apparently https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

crispinb 7y ago

> The idea that mindfulness creates better killers or justified immoral behavior also seems spurious to me Read Brian Daizen Victoria's Zen At War. OK, Zen, but the principle's the same. Effective mind training techniques sans ethical critique can create cooler killers & greed mongers. Mindfulness' popularity amongst the ethical hellscape of contemporary SV culture is surely also at least a tad suggestive?

hypewatch 7y ago

> Clinical psychologist who teaches and practices mindfulness here. The author has been practicing Buddhism for 4 decades. > the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me But the author never makes this assertion. His point is that mindfulness training is hypocritical and inauthentic when used in a corporate environment.

hypewatch 7y ago
Why the downvote...? I’m a brand new user. Please help me understand how I can improve.