Let me see if I can address or clarify a few of these points: >> the assertion that mindfulness training doesn’t belong in the boardroom seems silly to me > T

Let me see if I can address or clarify a few of these points: >> 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: I concede that the author did not say this directly but did seem to imply that this wasn't a good use of mindfulness training or that it acted as an unhelpful smokescreen for the real problems, and I don't fully agree with that. Instead, I believe that most mindfulness programs are shallow and taught be people who aren't deeply trained and so don't convey the principles of mindfulness well. My read of the author was that the problem was that other core pieces of Buddhist practices and/or thought are missing. In my view it's that the programs themselves don't convey even the core mindfulness principles well or deeply. I think this covers your next point about whether "there's nothing wrong with that". I think I do agree with the author that these programs are often not particularly useful, but I view it as a lack of depth rather than a lack of context or ancillary teachings. >> 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. Here I think you've mischaracterized my argument or I've been unclear. I'm saying that mindfulness training is teaching awareness/acceptance. I recognize that people are teaching other things and calling them mindfulness, and I agree that that is a problem. Of course there's also a split between mindful meditation and "everyday mindfulness" which is often not explained or taught well. >> 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. I'm describing (a perspective on) what mindfulness is rather than how it's portrayed or described. Mindfulness is not a magical stress switch, it's an attention technique that often has the effect of lowering stress. Your follow up that it often described as such does not disagree with my assertion of what it actually is. It seems that we are agreed that a lot of what is being described and sold as mindfulness really isn't or isn't mindfulness taught well. I suspect as you've alluded that I agree far more with the author than we disagree. >> 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. Right, this statement was meant to be my answer to that assertion by the author that the problem is that mindfulness is taught out of context. At this moment, and I may be wrong, I don't believe that the problem is the lack of training in morality or other Buddhist-style principles as the author asserts. Instead, I think that mindfulness itself is taught without proper nuance or depth. In my own work the ability to attend intensely while also accepting deeply is a profound practice the brings one into contact with the full import of one's experience. And I agree, and I suspect the author would as well, that this depth is rarely taught. I think the author and I may draw the line differently both at what is mindfulness and what is context and also what context is necessary. The author has a stronger affiliation with Buddhism than I do, though I do have an affiliation there. >> 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? I would love to see it taught in different ways. I actually appreciate the steps that have been taken to pull mindfulness OUT of Buddhism. At the same time, I would love to see it in a variety of contexts so we can assess the differences. Within the Buddhist tradition, I see a lot of depth and value but also an awful lot of what I would view as baggage. And I say this as a self-professed Buddhist. I see a lot of what I would view as clinging to the packaging, and I think it's important to strip that packaging away to see which parts of it are as important as people might claim. And I say that as someone who's personally trying to learn it both inside and outside of it's original context myself. As a clinician rather than a Buddhist teacher, I want to be competent to help my clients as directly and efficiently as I can without sacrificing what's most important.