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 co

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.