Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The mindfulness conspiracy
mindatrisk
Veteran
Interesting article in The Guardian.
The hypothesis seems to be that how mindfulness is being adopted plays into the hands of those with vested interest in how the world (supposedly) is because it encourages people to accept things for how they are and to change themselves rather than change a world that (supposedly) needs to be changed.
Thoughts?
0
Comments
I think its true that that is what mindfulness does, but...
1) “Where would I find enough leather
To cover the entire surface of the earth?
But with leather soles beneath my feet,
It’s as if the whole world has been covered.”
That idea goes back to way before capitalism, so I don't think it can be said to be a capitalist conspiracy.
2) Changing the way people think about and react to the world does change the world. If mindfulness makes people less addicted to consumption that quite directly weakens a consumerist society. Its about whether change comes from within or without, I'd say it can come from both.
The side-effect of mindfulness is compassion. This benefits society.
But I doubt if mindfulness will ever become an epidemic in society!
I did write a huge post here, but I’ve decided to edit it down because it seemed too much.
Basically I think this author has based his criticism of mindfulness on some very shallow versions as taught in places like Google to pacify exploited workers. It’s a fair criticism of those corporations but not representative of the whole movement, I hope.
It’s been said again and again, accepting things as they are and seeking to improve them are not mutually exclusive. In fact in my experience, seeing things clearly and un-reactively usually produces the most skilful responses.
I don’t think that accepting things as they are is necessarily a bad outcome, after all things really are like that. But if you look at advanced mindfulness practitioners like Thich Nhat Hanh before he had his stroke, he was a strong proponent for the practicalities of peace between peoples, he gave a beautiful retreat in 2013 to which a number of Israeli’s and Palestinians were invited together. So it seems that mindfulness and activism can go together.
Perhaps the problem is how mindfulness teachers are themselves taught. Mindfulness does not mean you ignore difficult issues, instead it provides a different blade for separating what is important from what is not.
I agree that there is a danger of things like mindfulness being used to prop up exploitation and oppression. In this case, it can be used to help people accept things as they are and the suffering they're enduring so that they can be exploited more. I've seen many programs and apps designed for this purpose. Mindfulness can do more, however, and can be a great tool for seeing things as they are and helping us to see new and better ways of doing things, ways that can fundamentally reduce the stress and suffering and unsatisfactoriness we experience on a daily basis. We don't have to passively accept the material conditions surrounding us just because that's what capital would prefer us to do.
A few random thoughts from reading this article:
Capitalism can turn anything into a commodity. I mean, they sell Leninade at Safeway, so it's no surprise that the same is true of mindfulness meditation and Buddhist aphorisms, which I think generally become devoid of their original substance when commodified.
I agree with Bhikkhi Bodhi that, "absent a sharp social critique, Buddhist practices could easily be used to justify and stabilize the status quo, becoming a reinforcement of consumer capitalism." Mindfulness itself is a tool, and like any tool, its usefulness depends on how it's utilized. In Buddhism, mindfulness of one of seven other factors utilized to develop insight into the mind and body, cultivate skillful states of mind (compassion, generosity, harmlessness, sympathetic joy, etc.), and reduce suffering. It's part of a larger way of life aimed at making our lives as happy and our actions as skillful as possible. When divorced from that framework, it can serve to help increase attention and memory as well as reduce stress, but doesn't go much deeper than that. Couple that with capitalism, with its protestant work ethic, focus on 'efficiency,' and need for higher quantities of labour-time above what's actually needed for production to create profit, and mindfulness can become a useful tool/commodity for capital serving to keep workers more productive as well as passive.
I've seen a lot of critiques of Buddhism and/or Buddhist practices from leftists in past couple of years because it's not revolutionary enough for them and I can sort of understand where they're coming from. Buddhism is a contemplative religion/philosophy. It's extremely introspective, so it's not as socially engaged as other spiritual traditions. That said, the practice is meant to make the practitioner more generous, compassionate, and mindful of the external world and the effects of their actions (i.e., whether they cause pleasure/happiest or pain/suffering for themselves and others), so there is the space for radicalism and social engagement even if it's not an explicit tenet of Buddhism proper. Plus, capitalism didn't exist 2,500 years ago, so I don't think we can really blame the Buddha for not adding 'abolish capitalism' to the eightfold path.
The term 'mindfulness revolution' reminds me of an article I read a while back, "Occupy Buddhism: Or Why the Dalai Lama is a Marxist" (http://tricy.cl/1WuFrba), which explores the rather unlikely partnership of Buddhism and Marxism, and the need for Buddhism to consciously "enter the movement of the real and be engaged with the struggle to end suffering, and man's inhumanity to man" instead of continuing its transformation into "a fetish that ultimately enables the status quo to maintain its continuing control, dominance, and expansion."
In the article, Smithers asks, "Does [Buddhism] have the legs of an emancipatory religion, a religion of liberation with the power to transform societies and cultures?" and seems to answer in the affirmative. And from my own experience, I'm inclined to agree. Buddhism definitely has that potential.
Before I became interested in Buddhism, for example, I didn't really have any political-economic views to speak of. In fact, I was more or less completely uninterested in politics whatsoever. After years of studying and practicing Buddhism, however, I began to take more of an active interest in the world. This was partially due to cultivating compassion and being more sensitive the suffering of others, as well as Buddhism's encouragement to analyze our actions and their effects in the world in an effort to make ourselves and the world a better place. And in this aspect, I've found the seemingly unrelated aims of Buddhism and Marxism to be quite complementary.
To me, the main difference between the approaches of Buddhism and Marxism is one of focus; whereas the Buddha's focus was primarily on how to liberate the individual from their mental suffering by mastering the process of 'I-making and my-making' involved with our conception of self, Marx's focus, the bodhisattva that he was, was primarily on how to liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it.
But for me, it's not about turning Buddhism into some kind of revolutionary political philosophy; it's about applying the ideals of Buddhism in all that we do, which for me includes trying to help society overcome and advance beyond what Thorstein Veblen called 'the predatory phase' of human development. So for me, instead of canceling the full impact of reality and making me "indulgent, pleasure-seeking, distancing, and largely apathetic to worldwide suffering and misery," Buddhism has done the exact opposite, leading me to become more disciplined, involved, open, socially engaged, and sensitive to worldwide suffering and misery.
I think Thich Nhat Hanh sums up my own thoughts on the potential of the 'mindfulness revolution' when he says:
Just as mindfulness can be used to pacify workers and help them cope with the day-to-day stresses of wage labour, I think it can also help workers become more aware of the socio-economic conditions they find themselves subjected to and give them the mental strength needed to deal with the day-to-day stresses of combating a socio-economic system characterized by consumerism and exploitation.
You can use mindfulness to pay attention to anything. You can become a better gardener or sniper.
But if the mindfulness is used to attend to our experience with clarity and perceive the true nature of ourself and the world then it is a good use of mindfulness surely.
A second thing comes to mind is that Buddhism does not try to "fix samsara"... Samsara cannot be fixed. But that doesn't mean we go to some extreme of doing nothing political just we know we cannot fix samsara. Nirvana doesn't need to be fixed. There is a story of Milarepa who was meditating in a cave. He did not uproot the stinging nettles that were outside his cave and instead meditated. I suppose maybe he uprooted a few. But if he set on the course to uproot all stinging nettles on earth he would still be doing that until his death and would never have meditated in retreat... There are always endless crap to do. That doesn't mean we can't be political etc just that if we are too focused on that we are "trying to fix samsara".
I'm not really concerned with what others use mindfulness for ...I'm under the impression that the wholesome karmic seed will germinate and grow when the time is right...
Karma's funny that way
Is it?
Some have noted that minedfoolness makes us potentially a better stock exchange shark, sniper, Mistress of Zen or consumerist unboxer
Strangely enough I believe increased attention/awareness/meditative mind is exactly where we are moving towards ... in time ...
Mindful? Pah! Heartful!
Iz plan.
Apparently there is a difference in philosophy around this point between Mahayana and Theravada. From what I've heard when this topic came up in one of HHDL's Mind and Life conferences Theravadins say that mindfulness has a positive quality to it and Mahayanists say it is neutral.
Some might, but that's not true across the board. Theravada doesn't consider all forms of mindfulness or recollection as wholesome, only those arising out of wholesome mental states. For example, forms that are connected with tahna, such as recollecting something out of lust, aren't considered wholesome or sati in the proper sense used in the practice (samma sati). The same with those arising out of anger or hatred. Sati, while commonly called mindfulness, is a technical term denoting a specific form of recollection involving wholesome mental factors (i.e., the Abhidhammic literature defines sati as "non-forgetfulness of what is wholesome"). Recollection (sanna) itself is neutral, however, taking its moral colour from the mental factors conditioning it.
So it technically isn't sati unless it is directed towards something wholesome, otherwise it would be considered sanna?
I wish I could remember exactly where in the conferences this topic came up. It was between Mattieu Ricard and a Pali scholar who was presenting that session.
From the Theravadin standpoint, yes. Mindfulness as a factor of the path (sati) is wholesome. General mindfulness or recollection varies depending on the mental factors conditioning it.
Here are the 14 Precepts of Engaged Buddhism: http://viewonbuddhism.org/resources/14_precepts.html
They're quite a counterpoint to the view that Buddhism is a religion of self-absorbed navel-gazers. And I'd say they're tantamount to a pamphlet on how to start a revolution!
Also we use the English word mindfulness sometimes for shamata and sometimes for sati of the five indiryas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indriya
In Mahamudra (unless I'm mistaken) the indiryas are quite important and they are related to the three bodies of Buddha essentially with sati being related to Openness/dharmakaya.
Shamata as in the meditation technique which when developed later becomes a support to insight
So when a western psychologist talks about "mindfulness" is what they are saying consistent with shamata or sati or none of the above?
@opiumpoetry
Revolution, internal jihad, genuine spirituality changes us for the better. It is a high calling. Useful precepts
Perhaps a different sort of revolution, one of internal transformation. Half of that runs pretty contrary to most political revolutions.
Regarding mindfulness, my understanding and experience is that Buddhism has greater understanding and nuances than psychology. However psychology can provide useful understanding and verification of some mind states. Buddhist teachings go way beyond 'being attentive to the moment' ...
Good point. My rejoinder is that if you internally transform enough people, you end up with an army to carry out the revolution.
I guess I would say that the internal transformation of enough people IS the revolution.
I guess I'm wary of political revolutions as they ultimately rely on external pressure or force and demand a fair degree of ideological conformity to gain traction and success, and those forces have often taken on a life of their own.
Not much different from the status quo.