How “Buddhist” is Mindfulness in the West?
[Written by Connor for a philosophy Masters. We've also done a follow-up podcast on this]
Mindfulness, in its historical context is a practice originating within Buddhism. The more traditional role of mindfulness, or sati, is intended to work within the broader ethical framework of Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist teachings, alongside a reflective morality. With a variety of translational definitions including ‘memory’, awareness, attention, recollection and ‘inspection’, mindfulness is often contextually combined with meditative practices.[1] These practices include practical breathing techniques such as Ānāpānasati as well as more existential and ethical undertakings like Satipaṭṭhāna, that relates to a wider reflectional sense of being and relation to others. Mindfulness is often described as a function, quality or state of mind, but it is also described as something to be practiced or cultivated; even perpetually evolving sense of being or growth. Seen as a factor of enlightenment, “correct” or “right” mindfulness (sammā-sati) is the seventh part of the Noble Eightfold Path or ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo.[2] Thus, the conceptually appropriate framing of sammā-sati in contrast to wrong-mindfulness (michha sati) is against the backdrop of a holistically ethical or spiritual worldview and way of life. This is in contradistinction to serving an instrumental purpose like relaxation, clarity of thinking or a more “grounded”, unconsidered and unexamined notion of “wellbeing” that is more aptly characterised as simple stress reduction.
Beginning at the turn of the 20th Century with more accessible reworkings of meditative practices under Mahasi Sayadaw and later Nyanaponika, the roots of the modern language and conceptual understanding of mindfulness were established. The work of John Kabat Zin and other aggregations building on these ideas through the 70s and 80s resulted in the “mindfulness explosion” as we know it today.[3] As the West experiences this increased interest in the practice of mindfulness, in a variety of contexts, it can be argued that this part of an attempt to “commodify” Buddhist beliefs and practices. This narrative in turn can be seen as part of wider motifs that include orientalist appropriation, hyper-capitalism, secularisation, demythologisation, proto-utilitarianism and an increasingly individualistic and syncretic approach to religiosity that ultimately, or at least partially, brackets conventions such as theology. That is, such “commodification” is owed to several factors and can be seen in a variety of concepts, many of which share an interrelationship. Indeed, the convention most criticised is one of stripping Buddhism of its metaphysical and ethical themes, whether for medical, entrepreneurial, existential or pseudo-spiritual gains. Not only, is mindfulness often decontextualised but by virtue of this separation and employment within these new settings, mindfulness can often become paradoxically conflicting with its intended purpose within the Buddhadharma. Indeed, mindfulness in its modern framing is often utilised to supplement the very ethical and existential themes (i.e. dukkha or suffering and Kleshas, desires, worldviews and mental states that lead to dukkha) that it contends with in its original context.
Despite widespread criticism from ethical and philosophical standpoints, interest in mindfulness continues to grow, it having ‘become part of the cultural firmament’; even playing a critical role in modern psychology, medicine, workplace-ethos, prisons, schools, and private environments.[4] Seemingly, in spite of the apparent conceptual irony, there are voices that vehemently, (if not somewhat clumsily) insist that religiosity is open to interpretational revision - denying the charges of appropriation, cherry-picking and commodification. This is similar, and quite possibly relational, to more holistic and considered attempts to secularise Buddhism, such as Stephen Batchelor’s proposal of a secular Buddhism; though these are not also without their own problems. And finally, to say nothing of the acutely vigorous demand (and even effectiveness) for such secular mindfulness in modernity, despite its ethically inappropriate use, would be remiss.[5]
Perhaps the first context to examine this decontextualization of Buddhist thought is a more traditional notion of Orientalism. This phenomenon should be seen against the contextual backdrop of borrowing practices and ideas from the “East”, in order to enrich the “West”, whether respectful and positive or outright exploitive. As well as medical and business contexts, similar uses of Buddhist ideas pervade into a more common lay-existentialism, with meditative practices and basic understandings of anatta (non-self), yoga, avatars or samsara (life, death and rebirth) featured across popular culture or practiced within households. [6] One stronger and more outright example of this would be the explosion of the popularity of ninjutsu across various television shows and comics that ahistorically objectified traditions for entertainment, reducing them to clichés.[7] Another example of how the ideas of the East trickle down into the popular culture of the West is the use of the concept of Karma. For instance, Karma (albeit a soteriologically-simplified, misappropriated understanding of it) forms the central premise for the narrative of My Name is Earl, a well-received American TV Situational Comedy.[8]
Of course, much of the problem of Orientalism is more linguistic and/or conceptual, rather than a case of nefarious ideational thievery. We thus inherit the clumsy lexicon of these projections of Western conventions and terms to a fundamentally different culture. Coupled with this is an internal linguistic issue, that of an evolving, dynamic understanding of mindfulness and meditation. Peacock noted, there is no word for meditation in the early Buddhist lexicon, though it is often taken to be the defining Buddhist practice. Instead, the Buddha encouraged his followers to "cultivate", to "grow", to "bring something into being". He deployed a host of agricultural, not existential, metaphors.[9] This is part of the wider problem of understanding religious language.
There have always been attempts to democratise meditation and even equate mindfulness with wisdom, largely bypassing epistemic ideas of non-self. Indeed, Robert Shaf notes this historical conflict as far back as early Chan movements, claiming that this approach to mindfulness parallels modern practices.[10] However, the discernible roots of modernity’s first real exposure to what we might recognise as mindfulness today arguably come from Mahasi Sayadaw’s reworking of Theravada practices, with a focus on Vipassana meditation and a novel accessibility. What we might later call mindfulness, Sayadaw calls ‘moment to moment lucid awareness of whatever arises in the mind’.[11] Framed to appeal to non-Buddhists and lay-people, this non-esoteric, exportable take on Buddhist practice not only transformed discourse of meditation but laid the groundwork for how mindfulness would appeal to the West.
As with Sayadaw’s practical and grounded reworking of meditation, we see a further evolution of language in Nyanaponika Thera and his focus on “bare attention”. Both seem to, at least partially, secularise the term in the sense of the saeculum, the here and now. According to Nyanaponika, ‘bare attention is single minded awareness of what actually happens to us at the successive moments of perception’.[12] Critically, these examples frame Buddhist practices in a way that doesn’t necessitate a familiarity with wider Buddhist understandings. Though this makes such endeavours immanently and widely exportable we also see issues whereby concepts begin to become detached. Namely, “bare attention” being equated with the sammā-sati of a holistic Buddhism; focusing on the here and now replacing an ethical path.
Enter John Kabat Zin and the mindfulness revolution that not only permeates to wider culture in conjunction with the New Age movement but begins to affect our medical understanding and practices in the West from the late 70s to the modern day. Specifically, these take the form of Mindfulness-based stress reduction and Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy which are therapeutic applications based on mindfulness for aiding people experiencing a variety of psychological conditions. Examples of such conditions include the symptoms of depression, stress, anxiety and the treatment of drug addiction.[13] More applied extensions of this see mindfulness-based methodology incorporated into mode deactivation therapy and dialectical behaviour therapy.[14] In the latter of these practices, its creator, Marsha M. Linehan claims ‘this emphasis in DBT on a balance of acceptance and change owes much to my experiences in studying meditation and Eastern spirituality. The DBT tenets of observing, mindfulness, and avoidance of judgment are all derived from the study and practice of Zen meditations’.[15] While never entirely gone, the Buddhist origins of mindfulness are vastly underplayed in these modern employments in relation to more traditional settings. Supplemented by writers like Jack Kornfield and Joseph Goldstein, emerging ideas of transcendence, objectivity, clarity and saeculum began to transformatively characterise language and thought around meditative practices. We can thus think of mindfulness as something of a lexicographic neologism. This new paradigm takes conventional religiosity out of the definitional equation, opting instead by characterising it with taglines such as ‘the most direct way to understand our life situation’.[16]
Often medical institutions, such as the NHS deliberately avoid any reference to Buddhism, yet alone terminology relating to Buddhist ethics and existentialism like sīla, karma or dharma. Instead it is offered as ‘knowing directly what is going on inside and outside ourselves, moment by moment’ and other such language that we might consider “demythologised” or irreligious.[17] Despite this, it is no secret that mindfulness has its origins in Buddhist meditative practices and is indeed, common knowledge. Mindfulness in these contexts of clinical psychology and psychiatry are thus typically “secularised”, with little to no mention of Buddhism or its associated lexis. As a result of this, their contextual meaning is often lost in order to be utilised in either professional or private contexts, dissected from its parent religion.[18]
It should perhaps be noted that while mindfulness is often presented without the lexis of religion, other “borrowed” practices like ‘Yoga and tai-chi’ are openly mentioned in the same context.[19] Indeed, the NHS openly makes note not only of yoga’s Indian origins and antiquity but also the styles of ‘Ashtanga, Iyengar and Sivananda’, making mindfulness an interestingly unique case of language and conceptuality, emphasising the case for explicit de-contextualisation.[20]
Before evaluating whether we might adopt a critical take on the popularity of Western mindfulness, it should be noted that a wealth of evidence has shown mindfulness-based interventions to be incredibly effective in the reduction of both rumination and worry.[21] Beyond medical contexts, studies have shown mindfulness benefits to the operation of businesses and even more personal aspects of life such as healthy aging, weight management and athletic performance.[22] Clearly we see an ethical intent here, even if it is not an explicitly Buddhist one.
The term commodity, when applied to mindfulness, is often meant as a criticism (Lay and Purser use the term critically for example).[23] After all, being mindful to gain clarity to commit theft or murder is palpably not Buddhist, but some examination of what we mean by commodification, what leads to the phenomenon and whether we might consider this good or bad is warranted. Contrary to these critical voices one may conversely argue that the Western re-framing of mindfulness actually goes some way to handle Buddhist ideals with acute reverence and sensitivity. It should be noted that not all Western uses of mindfulness omit Buddhist language, with many fully acknowledging its roots and relevance as central to the practice. Though, there is an obvious limitation in seeing scattered retreats and meditation centres as truly indicative of wider Western mindfulness. Yet, we could even say that for many of those examples that do leave the religion’s ideas out of their taglines and welcome packs, that they ultimately act as gateways into a wider world of exploring Buddhism, providing people with the means to enter a Buddhist life. This links to the Buddhist idea of upaya, or skilful means of reaching people and providing a relatable and accessible way into Buddhism such as metaphors; with suggested modern examples being music, technology and others have posited that mindfulness programmes fit this category.[24] Yet there is an obvious limit to how far this Trojan horse of Buddhism can convey any real religiosity in and of itself while having little to no overt recourses to wider Buddhist themes, or indeed the Buddha himself.
One interesting counter to this condemning critique of mindfulness requires us to reframe mindfulness against the wider contextual backdrop of secularisation – that is, secularisation of wider society and of religious beliefs and practices, with Buddhism being no exception.[25] Despite an ambiguity of what we might call “secularism”, there is an extant broad range of concepts and thoughts bringing to light the fact that Secular Buddhism is already a firmly established notion.[26] The question remains; can these two ideas be blended in a way that is legitimate, in contrast to being syncretic or unconsidered?
One such interesting project that attempts to do just this is Stephen Batchelor’s, who can be seen as partially at odds with critics of commercialised mindfulness in that he is less critical of practices like mindfulness being “secularised”. While Batchelor seems to resist shallower de-framings of Buddhist practices he is ultimately more optimistic (and less holistically critical) of what this secularisation and even detachment can lead to.[27] Exactly what secularisation of Buddhism means for Batchelor requires us to conceptually examine Buddhism further.
Principally, we can understand Buddhism as a multiplicity of scholastic traditions with a soteriological basis and the identification of dukkha, or suffering - the confrontation of which is its ‘central preoccupation’.[28] Indeed, the ‘understanding of dukkha, was central to the Buddha’s enlightenment’.[29] It is true that at a basic level, this salvific worldview is shared with post-Vedic Hindus and Jains too, though the resulting implications of action in Buddhism are ‘less-ritualistic and deity-dependent’.[30] Ideas such as dharma, nirvana, karma and samsara are all common in Eastern religions at some fundamental level. Some differences from these older religions include its obvious reliance upon the Pali Canon, the middle way (or Madhyamāpratipad) and Noble Eightfold Path (āryāṣṭāṅgamārga) to achieve enlightenment. Any resulting sectarian divisions are largely differences in ritualistic and meditative practices, doctrinal ideology or ethics that have evolved over time. Working from this therefore, amalgamating these ideas with secularism involves examination of the epistemic claims of this worldview, including; how and why they are valued in Buddhism, and how they relate to engaging with “worldly” experience.[31]
Though many have claimed that Buddhism is ‘not supernatural’ nor does it command ‘worship (or) allegiance’ or ‘demand blind faith from its adherents’ it is not as easy as saying that Buddhism is effectively “already secular” and therefore Western mindfulness is no dramatic conceptual change.[32] There is a strong case to be made that this ostensible difference is in fact the result of the misuse of secular language in modernity, one that has similarly confused our understanding of Buddhism in general. Batchelor postulates a Buddhism that moves beyond propositional understandings of divinity that are so present in our conceptions of Western religiosity. Not only does he argue this post-metaphysical understanding of Buddhism is coherent but puts forward a convincing case that this can be done through interpretation of the Pali Canon itself. This (partially) internally grounded secular Buddhism is centred upon asking not “what is true?”, but “what works?”.[33] In this context mindfulness begins to look more thematically apt, cleansed of its unnecessary historical metaphysical and cultural baggage.
Batchelor argues that, contrary to Orientalist thought, a secularity in this Buddhism does not come from external ideas of the secular, but from reworking the dharma internally. That is, for Batchelor, secularism comes from inside Buddhism, not an outside projection. Central to this argument is the reworking of the four noble truths as existential tasks rather than epistemological statements. Ultimately, this process involves fully engaging with Buddhism’s adoption of secular language and understanding the true nature of epistemology. McMahan notes how this process began around the time of and subsequent to colonialism.[34] Yet as Buddhist schools sought to globally legitimate their discourses to the West by adopting the objective language of the Enlightenment, they, like Judeo-Christianity, failed to recognise the non-propositional nature of faith-based claims.[35] As such, we might not see such a problem with taking practices from Buddhism and using them elsewhere if they do indeed work. So, the problem of commodifying mindfulness is not necessarily that it is stripped of its mythology and metaphysics, as Batchelor puts forward an interesting, somewhat compelling counter to this. The issue of course, is whether Batchelor’s desired functionality is true of Western mindfulness. To examine whether our accusation of commodification is necessarily a negative one, critical theories that appear to deny this functionality and appropriateness of mindfulness‘ use must be explored.
In further unpacking this idea of commodity we can identify a variety of ways it is viewed critically, tying into several narratives. Firstly, we have that of hyper-capitalism and the appropriation of religiosity to fit motifs of monetisation and entrepreneurship. One of the most prevalent is a growing trend towards hyper-capitalism, whereby all aspects of society, including education, religiosity and even a sense of being, are relationally dictated by an entrepreneurial sense of self-worth and objectification.[36] Buddhism is not the only religion to fall victim to a thorough scouring for market opportunities, as we shall see. Buddhist monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi notes that ‘absent [of] a sharp social critique, Buddhist practices could easily be used to justify and stabilize the status quo, becoming a reinforcement of consumer capitalism’, cheapening an otherwise enriched and enriching tradition.[37] Lay and Purser famously coined the phrase ‘McMindfulness’ arguing that while ‘the mindfulness revolution appears to offer a universal panacea’ its commodification robs the Buddhist practice of its critical ‘transformative’ and ‘liberative’ purpose.[38] For them, mindfulness acts as a ‘safety valve’ for dukkha, rather than eliminating it, even going as far as to call it a ‘Faustian bargain’.[39] The apparent economic utility of mindfulness is supported by a similar situation of other Eastern practices, yoga among them.[40]
This also plays out in more drastic forms whereby we see a more exploitative and ethically-nefarious usage (though not usually characterised by intentionality); whereby mindfulness is a commodity utilised to nullify the anxiety of the modern workplace. Finding its way into the discourse of neo-Marxist milieus and more holistically critical analyses, this transformation of mindfulness and its language is often likened to a kind of ‘opium’ that ‘supplements consumerism.[41] One of the most vocal and prominent exponents of this view is Slavoj Žižek who argues that mindfulness movements focus on short-term stress-relief over holistic wellbeing. He argues, ‘[Western Buddhism allows us to] fully participate in the frantic pace of the capitalist game, while sustaining the perception that you are not really in it’.[42] Rather than enquire into all aspects of a person’s life, here mindfulness does the opposite – A Friday evening meditation class has no impact upon Monday morning’s work.
An often-cited example of one (of countless) business systemically adopting mindfulness programmes into its regimes is Google. It’s programme, entitled “Search Inside Yourself: Mindfulness Based Emotional Intelligence” has been heralded as ‘life-changing’ and (surprisingly for a business) promotes compassion… of course we have to be reminded that compassion has a utility in the business world; that ‘goodness is good for business’. [43] Intrinsic and unconditional compassion would seemingly be beyond such justifications! The brainchild of the programme, Chade-Meng Tan, has even stated ‘I'm not interested in bringing Buddhism to Google (…) I am interested in helping people at Google find the key to happiness’.[44] Such ideas lend to a narrative of utilitarian and entrepreneurial reframings of Buddhism that are, at best, unfocused on the sufficient good of altruism.
Jeremy Carrette and Richard King, in their book Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, as well as picking up on a broader Orientalist/entrepreneurial trend of hijacking “Asian Wisdom Traditions”, engage with this idea in relation to mindfulness. They argue that mindfulness’ commodification must be seen in a kind of political context and describe its commercialised use as the ‘accommodationist’ subduing of employee unrest, promoting a tacit acceptance of the status quo and as an instrumental tool for keeping attention focused on institutional goals.[45] Although it should be noted that here we hit upon a possible distinction between genuine and authentic practice and an overt perversion of practice for ulterior motives. Certainly, this does not speak for the vision of Batchelor and Zin. The latter of which, (though arguably purporting a somewhat amoral or ethically unfocused mindfulness), would likely see the use of mindfulness to serve as part of an immoral ideology a far cry from mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.
In some cases, the de-aggregation of mindfulness can lead to startling thematic disconnects, whereby the use of mindfulness directly contrasts conventional Buddhist principles like non-violence and transcending greed. There are numerous cases of more exploitative uses of mindfulness, particularly when the Western ideas and language of efficiency are interwoven. One such phenomenon is the Headspace App, which encourages its users to partake in daily meditation and mindfulness activities. However, rewards and penalties, a linear system with targets and “levels” and continual heteronomous tone seem misplaced at best. One user remarks ‘it intensified the anxious behaviours I was hoping it’d eradicate‘.[46] In his anecdotal critique he remarks it remains ‘rooted in concepts of productivity and efficiency that are tied to them’ and ‘it’s telling that the app’s co-founder comes from a background of marketing and brand development’.[47] While such examples veritably allow one to decouple from stress, the causes of said stress are left very much intact, making it fundamentally distinct from more conventional Buddhist philosophy. Some limited research appears to show that mindfulness can have a more altogether adverse effect on mental health. Outside of business contexts, many people, particularly young Western men, reveal the roots of inner-anxieties and begin to engage with the realities of stress through mindfulness. Unfortunately, without acute attention this can be a short-lived process, seemingly only revealing insecurities and having neither the time or means to fully address them, essentially making the problem worse.[48] Writing for The Guardian, Dawn Foster notes perhaps the most potentially dangerous element of Western mindfulness so far – that ‘there is currently no professionally accredited training for mindfulness teachers, and nothing to stop anyone calling themselves a mindfulness coach’ (‘though advocates are calling for that to change’).[49] This points to a mindfulness exponentially removed from the rigidity and resolute ethical focus of Buddhism, vulnerable to unprofessionalism and abuse, albeit in rarer cases.
Then we have the “militarisation” of mindfulness which sees mindfulness employed across the armed forces, but entirely confuting Buddhist notions of ahimsa, or non-violence. While undoubtedly useful in this setting the often-nominal recourse to Buddhist ethics is entirely abandoned here in favour of it being ‘essential to mission success’.[50] This is not a conceptual “watering down” as it were, or simplification of Buddhism, but one entirely denatured. This may seem heavily critical, but with its central purpose removed (and even countered in some instances) mindfulness begins to look less like a compromise or attenuation but a wholly different concept with very different ultimate goals. Indeed, this seems to present itself as michha sati or wrong-mindfulness when placed against Buddhist ideas. In these examples, the roots of dukkha are not only ignored by mindfulness but can even be caused by it.
There is also another narrative which sees this commodification in a less economic sense. That is, the intense personalisation and arguable cheapening of religiosity as it moves from the collective and the institutional to the spiritual (not to mention the shop window).[51] Mixed in with a internalised and constructive approach to philosophy it is the recent doubling down on the financial side of the new age movement whereupon spirituality is not just a trendy fad but (as such) a profitable business market for spiritual ‘accessories’ in a narcissistic age.[52] This phenomenon drags religiosity from the East and West, appropriating the plethora of idols and icons from a plethora of cultures.[53] This syncretic pick-and-mixing, is what fuels the innumerable trinkets of Glastonbury, pseudo-science of astrology and libraries filled with “self-help” books, allowing various spiritualities to be co-opted through mass-advertising’, ‘commodified in the extreme’ in order to be popularised and ‘sold to the masses’.[54] In such examples, as with mindfulness, artefacts and concepts are uprooted from their respective credos.
Flood links this trend of consumer spirituality to mindfulness and notes ‘The UK’s “mindfulness mega-trend” shows no sign of running out of breath, with sales of “mind, body, spirit” books booming, against a background of slowing sales elsewhere on the shelves’.[55] Rather than part of some considered project to deconstruct, reframe and amalgamate a variety of ideas, (perhaps along the lines of Batchelor’s functional Buddhism), these items and beliefs are often little more than mass-produced aesthetics. Like many other such trends (homeopathy), when practiced with theological insensitivity and intellectual apathy there can be repercussions to poorly handled mindfulness, mainly that it is ineffective. David Webster identifies a trend toward the apolitical an lack of ‘collective sensibility’.[56] Again, this has less to do with an intrinsic detriment to appropriating religious ideas and more to do with the repercussions of thinking behind such appropriations.
Such ethically-challenging, banal and/or outright paradoxical applications of mindfulness seem to be at odds with Batchelor’s considered vision of an informed and functional philosophy based on the Pali Canon and other authoritative Buddhist sources. Though undoubtedly effective, mindfulness presents a fundamental disconnect in contrast between the areas it supplements and its ethical lineage. As we have seen, for medical settings this is less of a problem and not necessarily opposed to a broader idea of Buddhism.[57]
Batchelor’s secular Buddhism, while compellingly offering a potential place for mindfulness to work without this disconnect, leaves something to be desired in that rebirth and other epistemic ideas that underpin mindfulness are arguably a connate aspect of Buddhism, even in just informing experiential practice.[58] Whether any “non-religious” Buddhism can still be referred to by the name of Buddhism is a matter of discretion, and intellectual tolerance given the criticisms of mindfulness – some may feel its essence has been lost through this reimagination of the concept. After all, this is not just modifying the practices or ideology of a particular Buddhist school, but partially redefining the basis of Buddhism.[59]
One danger here is that, when we talk of secularising a religion’s usefulness in this way we often adopt too much of an outsider view. As Robert Shaf aptly claims, ‘proponents of mindfulness often have little interest in, or understanding of, the Theravāda roots of their practice—they treat it as a non-sectarian, empirical, and therapeutic exercise in self-awareness’.[60] Outside of cultural appropriation, we have the problem of effectiveness, ironic detriments and elements entirely lost in translation. Though there is certainly contention over whether we should view “commodification” so holistically critically. Whatever the case – whether some reworking of Batchelor’s Buddhism or Zizek’s denunciation is most appropriate, if a “secular Buddhism” is indeed possible, it is probably not to be found anywhere too close to Western mindfulness.
[1] Thomas William and Rhys Davids, William Stede, Pali-English Dictionary (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ., 1921) p. 700
Mark G. Williams, Jon Kabat-Zinn, Mindfulness: Diverse Perspectives on Its Meaning, Origins and Applications (London: Routledge, 2013) p. 264
[2] Williams, Kabat-Zinn, Mindfulness: Diverse Perspectives on Its Meaning, Origins and Applications p. 264
[3] Fabrizio Didonna, Clinical Handbook of Mindfulness (Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2008) p. 24
[4] David Gelles, Mindful Work: How Meditation is Changing Business from the Inside Out (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015) p. 9
[5] Sarah Gilmartin, Irish Times, Mindfulness Books Prove a Goldmine for Booksellers, 13 January 2015,
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/books/mindfulness-books-prove-a-goldmine-for-booksellers-1.2062965 [Accessed 3 February 2018]
[6] Colin Campbell, Easternization of the West: A Thematic Account of Cultural Change in the Modern Era (London: Routledge, 2015) p. 35
[7] Frances H. Early, Kathleen Kennedy, Athena's Daughters: Television's New Women Warriors (New York: Syracuse University Press, 2003) p. 101
[8] MajayjayOpenSky, [Karma] My Name is Earl, YouTube, 31 January 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTsKf6ii_Zo [Accessed 6 April 2017]
[9] Todd T. Lewis, Subarna Man Tuladhar, Sugata Saurabha An Epic Poem from Nepal on the Life of the Buddha by Chittadhar Hridaya (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009) p. 373
[10] Robert Shaf, Mindfulness and Mindlessness in Early Chan Buddhism, Philosophy East and West, 64, 4, October 2014, pp. 933-964
[11] Halvor Eifring, Meditation and Culture: The Interplay of Practice and Context (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017) p. 63
[12] Nyanaponika Thera, The Heart of Buddhist Meditation: Satipaṭṭhāna: A Handbook of Mental Training Based on the Buddha's Way of Mindfulness, with an Anthology of Relevant Texts Translated from the Pali and Sanskrit (Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society, 2005) p. 32
[13] Alberto Chiesa; Serretti, Alessandro (2013). "Are Mindfulness-Based Interventions Effective for Substance Use Disorders? A Systematic Review of the Evidence". Substance Use & Misuse. 49 (5): 492–512.
Bassam Khoury; Sharma, Manoj; Rush, Sarah E; Fournier, Claude (2015). "Mindfulness-based stress reduction for healthy individuals: A meta-analysis". Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 78 (6): 519–28.
[14] Joan Swart; Apsche, Jack (2014). "Family mode deactivation therapy (FMDT) mediation analysis". International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy. 9: 1–13.
[15] Marsha Lineham , Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment of Borderline Personality Disorder (New York: Guilford Press, 1993) p. 21
[16] Jack Kornfield in Williams, Kabat-Zinn, Mindfulness: Diverse Perspectives on Its Meaning, Origins and Applications p. 267
[17] National Health Service, Mindfulness, 06 January 2016, https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/stress-anxiety-depression/mindfulness/ [Accessed 27 February 2018]
[18] Ziauddin Sardar, Postmodernism and The Other: New Imperialism of Western Culture (London: Pluto Press, 1998) p. 260
[19] National Health Service, Mindfulness
[20] National Health Service, A Guide To Yoga, 11 July 2015, https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/fitness/Pages/yoga.aspx [Accessed 27 February 2018]
[21] Dawn Querstret; Cropley, Mark (2013). "Assessing treatments used to reduce rumination and/or worry: A systematic review". Clinical Psychology Review. 33 (8): 996–1009.
Jenny Gu; Strauss, Clara; Bond, Rod; Cavanagh, Kate (2015). "How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies". Clinical Psychology Review. 37: 1–12.
[22] Shian-Ling Keng; Smoski, Moria J; Robins, Clive J (2011). "Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies". Clinical Psychology Review. 31 (6): 1041–56.
Creswell J.D. (2017). "Mindfulness Interventions". Annual Review of Psychology. 68: 491–516.
[23] Ron Purser and David Loy, HuffPost, Beyond McMindfulness, 7 January 2013, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ron-purser/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289.html [Accessed 2 February 2018]
[24] Arnie Kozak, Buddhism 101: From Karma to the Four Noble Truths, Your Guide to Understanding the Principles of Buddhism (Berlin: Simon and Schuster, 2017) p. 27
[25] Typically in three ways (often simultaneously):
Relational, in direct contrast to religiosity, offered as an alternative to religion -
Michael Heng Siam-Heng, Ten Chin Liew, State and Secularism: Perspectives from Asia (Singapore: World Scientific, 2010) p. 7
saeculum, meaning “’this age” and can be seen as an engagement with the “here and now”; everything that has to do with the quality of our personal, social, and environmental experience of living on this planet, often in distinction to eschatological, mythological or celestial concerns -
Craig Calhoun, Mark Juergensmeyer, Jonathan VanAntwerpen, Rethinking Secularism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) p. 8
And as in the sense of political secularism and being neutral in matters of state and religion. This is a question of state power, or authority of the church as a social institution -
Brenda J. Norton, A Question of Balance: A Study of Legal Equality and State Neutrality in the United States, France, and the Netherlands (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2009) p. 23
[26] Secular Buddhist Association, 2017 http://secularbuddhism.org/ [Accessed 2 April 2017]
[27] Williams, Kabat-Zinn, Mindfulness: Diverse Perspectives on Its Meaning, Origins and Applications p. 167
[28] Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhism: Teachings, History and Practices (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 196
[29] Matthew J. Walton, Buddhism, Politics and Political Thought in Myanmar (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) p. 42
[30] V. S. Bhaskar, Faith & Philosophy of Buddhism (New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House, 2009) p. 5
Here “post-Vedic Hinduism” is used to denote the phenomena as it developed beyond Brahmanism and an intense focus on ritualism and into a more ethically concerned religiosity.
[31] Such as political and societal questions like religion and state relations as well as ethics.
[32] Minh Thanh, Communicative English for Buddhism-Elementary and Intermediate Levels (Raleigh: Lulu.com, 2009) p. 331
[33] Stephen Batchelor, After Buddhism: Rethinking the Dharma for a Secular Age (Yale: Yale University Press, 2015) p.94
[34] McMahan, David L, The Enchanted Secular: Buddhism and the Emergence of Trans-traditional 'Spirituality', The Eastern Buddhist, ns 43 no 1 - 2 2012, pp 205-223
[35] James Taylor, Introducing Apologetics: Cultivating Christian Commitment (Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006) p. 31
Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought (New Jersey: John Wiley & Son, 2012) p. 101
[36] Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009) P. vii
Roberta Sassatelli, Fitness Culture: Gyms and the Commercialisation of Discipline and Fun (New York: Springer, 2010) p. 18
[37] Bhikkhu Bodhi in Robert Rosenbaum, Barry Magid, What's Wrong with Mindfulness (And What Isn't): Zen Perspectives (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2016) p. 75
[38] Purser and Loy, HuffPost, Beyond McMindfulness
[39] Ibid.
[40] Jo Confino, The Guardian, Google's head of mindfulness: 'goodness is good for business', 14 May 2014, https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/google-meditation-mindfulness-technology [Accessed 1 April 2018]
[41] Mark Vernon, Buddhism is the New Opium of the People, The Guardian, 22 March 2011, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/22/western-buddhism [Accessed 02 February 2018]
[42] Slavoj Žižek in Ethan Nichtern, Radical Buddhism and the Paradox of Acceptance, 25 May 2011, https://www.huffingtonpost.com/ethan-nichtern/radical-buddhism_b_671972.html [Accessed 02 February 2018]
[43] Drake Baer, Business Insider, Here's What Google Teaches Employees In Its 'Search Inside Yourself' Course, August 5 2014, http://www.businessinsider.com/search-inside-yourself-googles-life-changing-mindfulness-course-2014-8?IR=T [Accessed 25 March 2018]
Jo Confino, The Guardian, Google's head of mindfulness: 'goodness is good for business'
[44] Ibid.
It should be noted, in examining the modern mindfulness explosion it is necessary to gauge popular opinions and trends, not just scholarly work, this leads to the partial reliance on journalistic articles.
[45] Jeremy R. Carrette, Richard King, Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion (London: Psychology Press, 2005) p. 5
ibid. 176
[46] Amrou Al-Kadhi, iNews, Mindfulness App ‘Headspace’ Just Made Me More Stressed, 14 December 2016 https://inews.co.uk/opinion/mindfulness-app-headspace-just-made-stressed/ [Accessed 20 February 2018]
[47] Ibid.
[48] MK Lustyk, Chawla N, Nolan RS, Marlatt GA., Mindfulness meditation research: issues of participant screening, safety procedures, and researcher training, Adv Mind Body Med. 24(1) pp. 20-30.
Dawn Foster, The Guardian, Is Mindfulness Making Us Ill?, 23 January 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/is-mindfulness-making-us-ill [Accessed 17 March 2018]
[49] Ibid.
[50] Carolyn Gregoire, Huffington Post, Mindfulness Training Improves Resilience Of Active-Duty Soldiers, 18 February 2015, https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/mindfulness-military-_n_6704804 [Accessed 2 March 2018]
[51] This is a motif that lends itself to the idea of the commodification of Buddhist practices is a more general sense of commodification rather than thinking in terms of bare-use or economic commodity (but one we can also see critically). This “casual-shopper’s” approach to existential religiosity, typified in modern lay-undertakings of spirituality also ties in with our financial narratives too, of course.
[52] Elaine Cheasley Paterson, Susan Surette, Sloppy Craft: Postdisciplinarity and the Crafts (London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2011) p. 131
David Webster, Dispirited: How Contemporary Spirituality Makes Us Stupid Selfish and Unhappy (Winchester: Zero Books, 2012) p. 51
[53] Mysticism, Native America, Germanic folk religions, Christianity, Paganism are common examples.
[54] Helen A. Berger, Witchcraft and Magic: Contemporary North America (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001) p. 167
[55] Alison Flood, The Guardian, Sales of Mind, Body, Spirit Books Boom in UK Amid 'Mindfulness Mega-Trend', 31 July 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jul/31/sales-of-mind-body-spirit-books-boom-in-uk-amid-mindfulness-mega-trend [Accessed 3 February 2018]
[56] Webster, Dispirited: How Contemporary Spirituality Makes Us Stupid Selfish and Unhappy p.43
[57] Mindfulness is usually either de-moralised or perhaps re-moralised into clinically based ethics, rather than being in its original ethical dimension with a reflective morality.
[58] Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Truth of Rebirth and Why it Matters For Buddhist Practice (Bangkok: Mahāmakut Rājavidyālaya, 1982) p. 2
Gombrich, Richard, F. What the Buddha Thought (Sheffield: Equinox, 2009) p. 70
Another “more secular” engagement with Buddhism is the work of Michael Foucault.
[59] Even if this were the case, more radical changes have happened within extant religions which have retained their terminology and, arguably, their essence too. A veritable example of which being Christianity’s transformation from a small, counter cultural, underground movement with intimate and clandestine rituals to the Roman Catholic Church.
Lest we forget that fluid interpretation and scholastic deviation already characterise global Buddhism
Philip Esler, The Early Christian World: Volume 1 (Oxon: Taylor & Francis, 2000) p. 231
Mark Unno, Buddhism and Psychotherapy Across Cultures: Essays on Theories and Practices (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2006) p. 125
[60] Shaf, Mindfulness and Mindlessness in Early Chan Buddhism, Philosophy East and West, 64, 4, pp. 933-964