Questions about secular mindfulness practice

In the previous entry I talked of the mindfulness conference I helped to organise at the University last month. This was the annual conference of the British Psychological Society's Transpersonal Psychology Section, and was on the theme of "Contextualising mindfulness: Between the sacred and the secular." My brother monk, Shinro, wanted to know a bit more now that he conference was over. He has, he says, "a lot questions about secular mindfulness ... and no formulated answers," and I have much sympathy with that view.

I wrote a long response to his comment, but it turned out to be too long to publish as a comment, so I've tweaked it a little and it's turned into this new post.

First - reflecting on Shinro's concerns, I will admit that I also have a lot of questions about secular mindfulness. I think perhaps it would help me if I were to prepare a 'position statement', to force me to clarify for myself where I stand on mindfulness.  I find myself very torn - and the conference served to express both my reservations and my enthusiasms in equal measure. I'm afraid I too have few formulated answers myself.

The evidence is very clear that there is something in mindfulness that has a reliable, replicable effect on people which seems to relieve their suffering in a wide variety of ways, but chiefly in the management of stress and notably also in the prevention of relapse of depression. In psychological terms, exactly what mechanisms are involved have yet to be entirely mapped out, and much of the work to understand what mindfulness does is clothed in modern cognitive language around emotional reactivity, cognitive appraisal and regulation of mechanisms of attention. However, underlying much of modern psychology is, I repeatedly find, a harmonisation of views with those of Buddhist psychology: notably the refutation of a fixed self (anatta) and a focus on process and change (anicca). Dukkha, it seems, has yet to be found by psychologists! (Interestingly I always thought the existentialist philosophers of the early 20th century certainly discovered dukkha an even its causes - but never quite made it to Noble Truths Numbers Three and Four!)

My reservations around this secular thing, like those of many others, are around issues of instrumentality (mindfulness for something) and also very much around ethics. The Buddha talked not only of mindfulness but of Right Mindfulness. Is it OK that the US Marine Corps teach their troops mindfulness? This is the equivalent of "Godwin's Law" when discussing mindfulness, so apologies! But... one response to this prototypical reservation that I've come across (and I wish I could find the source, but it's slipped away!) was from a westerner ordained in the Thai tradition, who wrote not too long ago that he was entirely fine with Marines learning mindfulness. He wrote that his faith in the Buddha's teaching was strong enough that he is of the opinion that should a Marine engage steadfastly in mindfulness training that he will come to a point where he will put down his weapon.

Right now, I think it's important that these conversations are happening, that enough people are asking questions about the nature of this thing - what one (actually pro-secular-mindfulness) speaker at the conference called the "mindfulness epidemic"! - that they can serve as a brake on the van, not perhaps changing course and certainly not moving backwards, but keeping speeds down to so that the curves ahead can be negotiated safely.

Soon, hopefully, we'll have audio & video of the keynote speakers up on a Youtube channel - I'll definitely share the link here - and perhaps you'll get a flavour of the range of opinions expressed at the conference. Tellingly, Peter Malinowski (a mate of mine from Liverpool days, pictured below) talked in his keynote about his dual role as neuroscientist and as teacher of Diamond Way Buddhism and the tensions and contradictions involved there. Think you may find that of particular interest.

I do worry that some of the people teaching people to meditate right now have very limited experience of their own. In some cases, it seems they're not even regular practitioners at all, and yet are introducing what is potentially a very powerful transformative tool to people without having experienced much (or any) of what can come to pass on the cushion. I also worry about the current model, based on Kabat-Zinn's model (which in turn was based on the length of an academic term at U Mass Medical School!!!) of an 8-week intervention with little or no follow-up (and certainly no life-long supervision).

I've actually recently started delivering a 'secular mindfulness' programme myself at work. It's called MEOW (not my acronym...) - Mindfulness for Enhancing Ongoing Wellbeing. The notion here is to start with a standard length eight-week programme that focuses very strongly on a core mindfulness technique (observation of the breath) rather than a bunch of 'toys' / 'tools' (though we do cover some of those too). This will then be followed by the establishment of some form of ongoing engagement with a community of practitioners - what I'm calling for now a 'secular sangha' but feel I need to rename! Exactly what form of ongoing support this becomes is something that will be decided upon between the participants, not handed down from on high by myself.

I will admit, though, that I'm not entirely at ease with this programme. I worry that I've not gone far enough in redressing some of the possible harm done by 'secularisation'. I worry that the institution is getting mileage out of my programme both in the hope that it will reduce resistance to changes currently ongoing at the uni and in serving as an 'easy tick' on the 'are you looking after your staff' checklist. I worry that my roles as researcher, secular mindfulness "teacher"/guide, practitioner and Zen priest may become blurred. I worry that I'm not serving the attendees as well as I could in how I've designed MEOW, and I worry that I'm not being a good servant of the Buddhadharma by engaging with this secular space at all.

So - no easy answers here either.

But some fascinating questions!