The Popularization of Mindfulness: Fears Unfounded and Otherwise

I recently came across an interesting set of notes from a speech about current innovations in Buddhism/mindfulness. About 3/4 of the way down the page, the author gets into what he calls the problem of "yogification"--so named because, "In just thirty years, yoga has seen itself move from being a genuine spiritual discipline into a mundane stretching exercise available at every gym." Similarly, he worries that one potential problem is that mindfulness practice could become "merely a stress-reduction trick".

This worry is nothing new, it's been expressed in every generation, and there is certainly a place for vigilance. I have a respectful but differing perspective. I am hard-pressed to see a difference between what could be framed as a superficial sort of meditation--by just staying plugged into your electronic, virtual brain (like with his Buddhify app or Rewire, for example)--and the popularization of elementary aspects of hatha yoga as problematic. We could similarly worry that kindergarteners' language skills are generally not Pulitzer-worthy.

At a time when physical education programs are being dropped from our schools and mindfulness app creators are speaking of "innovating" mindfulness teachings in such a way that they feel adapted to each new Zeitgeist and local culture, how bad is it that ANY form of exercise has a certain, trendy shine or spin to it? We have too many fat kids and adults as is, and a hard enough time getting good food on our tables, so I would encourage almost anyone to stretch, sweat, and enjoy their bodies as is generally recommended even by "yoga" teachers who are "only" supportive stretching coaches. Basically, "yoga" has been Americanized/Westernized and modernized, creating some sense of connection to our universal history and to specific traditions and the current communities who are hardcore about those traditions. It's gonna be ok.

The question is not whether hard cores are watered down by popularization--generally they have more opportunities for advertising and recruitment and the inner circles retain a sense of exclusivity anyway. Anyone not steeped in the culture, education, and practice of these traditions will interpret them in a somewhat uninformed, elementary manner. That's how we begin learning most things. It is not a problem that kindergarteners aren't Ph.D-level English academics or globetrotting, adventurous writers or weirdly creative recluses. It's actually great that kids learn to read and write. What's more, you don't need to care AT ALL about: the origins of our 26-letter alphabet, the English language (for myself and my readers), the history of spoken and written language, or the evolutionary developments that led humans to language--in order to be an awesome writer or orator.

The reality is that people will continue to put on their "Zen faces" and pretend to know more than they do, practice better/harder than they do, and place themselves above other people who do/know less. This has always happened and it is hard to see any end in sight. Social status is part of what we do as social animals. To the same extent that I'm sure the creators of these apps have had to address the criticism that what they're doing isn't "the real thing", the worry about yogification may be unnecessary. The same quest for status will continue to push individuals interested in mindfulness to compare their practices and insight to other folks' practices and insight; the same hubris that pushes for inflated grandiosity will push for critique (see this post or Rohan's comments for examples:). Transparency and familiarity allow one to trade out worry for clarity and allow one to trust oneself in these open, mutually supportive communities. If stretching or checking your iPhone can get you started or keep you involved, head on down to the local studio or download that app today! We will continue to check out whether your pants are cool, whether you're as poised as I am in tree pose, and whether your Android is better than my chosen gizmo...and breeeeathe.

Really, Nonconceptuality Again?!

I've been meditating on a pretty steady weekly basis with Soryu Forall lately. During one of these last few weeks he brought up the difference between conditional and unconditional happiness. It reminded me of a few connections I never finished putting together for the attentional stage developments beyond Clarity. I felt like I had plenty of time to work out some of these details for a couple reasons. First, only so many people are living from Clarity anyway and fueling or crafting their own sense of consistent inspiration. And second, while I'm willing to say some things that I'm not all that sure of, I try not to take that habit too far. But working with Shinzen has really helped clarify Mindful Appreciation, and that pushes the envelope concerning clarity about, well, Clarity. In one sense, acting from the stage/structures of Clarity can mean living/acting from a sense of an inspired self. Described from a different direction, we could say it has a lot to do with consistently acting from beyond the limited/individual sense of self. There is a very real, salient feeling of transcendence--moments of being absolutely just your authentic self and other moments of being so absorbed in what you're doing that it is as if there is no self "there" to speak of. But there are limits to the personal sense of inspiration and clarity as well, and I was less sure how to speak about this prior to hearing the term "unconditional"/"unconditioned" again in the right context. Since I was less sure about describing psychological structures or common states and ways of being beyond inspiration than I was with describing inspiration--which I'm now thinking of calling personal inspiration--it took a while of just letting theory sort of simmer on the back burner without paying it much attention. Part of what i had right was that I was using the term "joy" to describe this next stage of Nonconceptuality. It seemed important and somehow related to what I identified as the chief attentional skill for this stage--justice. Now, I have to say that I was somewhat confused by these two standing out together as distinguishing this stage from others, but having ground through a ton of contemplative material--much of it taken in without really grasping it--this apparently odd juxtaposition struck me as just right, even though I didn't know why it was right. I had little faith in my ability to figure it out by trying too hard to do so, so I set it down for a while. Why justice and joy since you rarely see joyful judges? Well, I knew that something along the lines of "joy" was right because I met contemplative folks who weren't that joyful, and their emotional stance actually seemed like a sign of a lack of fulfillment. Fulfillment is probably quite different from realization or actualization, so I don't really claim any ability or feel much interest in classifying who is at which level. But I knew that if I was going to continue to encourage folks to put a lot of continued effort into becoming better people, then it seemed like that path should at least eventually include a sense of fulfillment of some sort. Here's the simple breakdown. It's okay to be motivated, but it's impossible to recognize justice as just when working from a motivated, grasping-oriented mindset. It's impossible to live beyond grasping without largely living beyond a sense of limitation. Dealing with limitations and looking at limited resources, etc. generally makes sense but it is not totality. If you get beyond the lived sense of limitation with some undertones of positive emotionality (which is our birthright as mammals), something of indescribable beauty has been waiting there for you the whole time, living right there the whole time. (In Rumi's words, "The others would be jealous if they knew of this.") In contacting that beauty, only compassion makes sense. (In Soryu's words, "Mindfulness is seeing everyone as wonderful." If mindfulness also involves accurate perception, how can that be true?) Without knowing the limitlessness of this beauty, there can still be some fear of loss; but if you taste this truly, if you soak in it, it becomes impossible to fear any loss because there are no bounds. And this is the other "part" of totality. Now for justice as a skill. Probably every human being I have met has been sure that they are somehow being cheated by other people, life, the universe, or something if they are not living an authentically inspired life ("jealous"). Just as emotionality is our birthright as mammals, inspiration is our birthright as human beings. We know, at a very deep level, that we are being cheated if we are not feeling the love, tasting the beauty, "sharing" in the feeling of limitlessness itself. But because of whatever reasons--and there are many--we either settle for cheap knock-off imitations or we focus on the more superficial ways in which we are dissatisfied. Any conception or feeling of justice that does not direct others to the literal best that they can be may be justifiable retribution (and understand that I am not knocking retribution) but it is not something that I could call justice. It is by going completely beyond limitation itself that we can completely "contact" a joy that surpasses conditions, that is neither inside or outside of conditions.