The big news in the Buddhist world recently was a gathering of Buddhist teachers and leaders at the White House – yes, that White House. My heart leaped with joy when I saw photos of members of the group holding up three banners with these words:
The Karma of Slavery is Heavy
I vow to work for racial justice
The Whole Earth is My True Body
I vow to work for climate justice
U.S. Militarism Breeds Violence Not Safety
I vow to work for peace and freedom
The banners were lovingly hand-painted by members of the Buddhist Peace Fellowship in the San Francisco Bay Area. BPF is an organization near and dear to my heart – I worked there for many years, and served as its executive director from 2004 – 2007.
This dharmic-based activism is a good lead-in to something I’ve been intending to write about for a very long time.
Even though I often use the word “mindfulness” to describe the principle at the very foundation of my work, I have to confess that I have a lot of resistance to using the ‘m’ word.
Over the past few years as mindfulness has taken root in the public discourse, I’ve felt grateful that this practice which has long been part of my life is being widely shared and made accessible to many more people. Yet at the same time I am concerned, with others, that its original intention is becoming distorted. We’ve all observed how our capitalist/consumerist culture can take anything and turn it into a commodity.
Many months ago, I had a vision of creating a “Socially Responsible Mindfulness Manifesto,” a document that I imagined could serve as a rallying point for those of us who hold mindfulness in a larger context and see its potential as a vehicle for personal and collective liberation. Part of the manifesto would be a pledge signed by people who teach mindfulness in secular settings — a vow that we would hold awareness of social and environmental issues as we do this work and not be complicit with unjust conditions.
I thought of a number of people who I deeply respect to be part of a working group on this document and sent them a first draft. I want to especially acknowledge two people who took time to give the document a thorough read and responded with important feedback. Mushim Patricia Ikeda, whom I’ve known since our days working together at BPF, contributed a perspective of inclusivity, reminding me of the importance of writing a document that was relevant to Buddhists from all backgrounds, not just Zen practitioners. Ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi – a respected Buddhist scholar, Theravadin monk, and founder of Buddhist Global Relief – contributed the gift of integrity. He pointed out places where the document was at odds with the teachings of the Buddha, and helping to contextualize mindfulness both historically and doctrinally.
When the first round of feedback came, I was unsure how to move forward or if it even made sense to continue with this effort. However, the more I considered the insightful comments that were offered, the more I realized that this process might be worth sharing with you. Even if there isn’t a “Socially Responsible Mindfulness Manifesto” to show yet, there is a lot of good thinking about what this might look like and what purpose it can serve. Stay tuned.
And I still passionately believe in the reason for the document in the first place: If mindfulness is indeed a ‘movement,’ I want to be part of a movement that supports people to wake up to the connections between us, that helps us to see that personal stress reduction is not separate from fair wages and safe working conditions, that does not hide from questions about power and privilege.
Both Mushim and I thought it might be beneficial to share the email conversation that Bhikkhu Bodhi and I had about this subject. My thanks to Mushim for putting this in a dialogical format that helps to illustrate the important points. I certainly learned a lot from this engagement!
Maia: For socially-engaged spiritual activists, secular mindfulness practices seem to offer a liberatory potential, in terms of helping to create more embodied and mindful social justice movements. What’s your take on this idea?
Bhikkhu Bodhi: From a Buddhist perspective, “the most emancipatory context” for the practice of mindfulness is one dedicated to the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice—which from the early Buddhist perspective is the attainment of emancipation from sams?ra—and for me it is questionable that the use of mindfulness practice in secular settings has this aim. I don’t begrudge the efforts to find new applications of mindfulness, and I agree that these applications should be bolstered by an ethical framework and used for salutory purposes. But I think one has to be cautious about assuming that these modernist applications are identical with—or even congruent with—the practice of mindfulness in its original context.
Maia: Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of Mindfulness-based Stress Reduction (MBSR), defines mindfulness as “paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally [emphasis mine] to the unfolding of experience moment to moment.” Some might say that the practice of mindfulness allows us to increase our awareness of aspects of wellness and disease as they manifest within our individual bodies and emotions, and also within our social systems as well. From that place of increased awareness, we are in a better position to take skillful action to address the causes of disease. Do you think that the practice of mindfulness meditation automatically or inevitably leads to social responsibility?
Bhikkhu Bodhi: There is the rub: the idea that mindfulness is inherently nonjudgmental. In the Pali texts, mindfulness is always conjoined with the faculty of judgment (dhammavicaya), through which one engages in assessment, evaluation, and discrimination, and thereby endeavors to eliminate what is harmful and to arouse and strengthen what is wholesome and beneficial.
Maia: Because of a cultural tendency to focus on private wellbeing rather than collective wellbeing (a tendency more often present in people with economic and other kinds of privilege), we may overlook one of the teachings of the Buddha: the teaching of interdependence. In the words of Thai Buddhist activist and author Ajahn Sulak Sivaraksa,
“Buddhism is not concerned just with private destiny, but with the lives and consciousness of all beings… Any attempt to understand Buddhism apart from its social dimension is fundamentally a mistake. Until Western Buddhists understand this, their embrace of Buddhism will not help very much in the efforts to bring about meaningful and positive social change, or even in their struggle to transform their ego.”
From our perspective, Buddhadharma was never intended as an escape from reality, rather it is a way of being present to reality. This includes the reality of unhealthy working conditions, low wages, and environmental destruction. Therefore, our understanding of mindfulness in the Buddhist sense is not limited to personal wellbeing; it is inclusive of social, economic, and environmental concerns. What’s your take on this?
Bhikkhu Bodhi: Technically, I don’t think this wider sphere of concern is the domain of mindfulness but of its companion, sampajañña, “clear comprehension.”
Maia: Our primary concern is that the concept and practice of mindfulness is all too often co-opted to serve as a diversion from dealing with issues of social, economic, environmental, gender, and racial injustice.
Dr. Funie Hsu (postdoctoral fellow at UC Davis School of Education) eloquently articulates this concern: “The particular brand of mindfulness that is gaining widespread acceptance serves to bolster long-standing systems of power: making them more efficient, potent, and acceptable under the pretext of inner peace.”
We are deeply concerned about this tendency to use secular mindfulness to move away from difficult questions about power and privilege.
It appears to us that mindfulness can be used as a spiritual bypass – or it can be a vehicle to raise awareness of injustice and structural oppression in all its forms, including classism, racism, and sexism. Do you think that mindfulness has the potential to create spaces for authentic (and often difficult) conversations about these realities as well as for meaningful and effective responses to them?
Bhikkhu Bodhi: I’m not so sure that the above is the function of mindfulness itself. It seems to me that recognition of these forms of injustice and oppression is incumbent on us as citizens in today’s world, but I’m uncertain whether and to what extent this is actually fostered by mindfulness in the meditative sense. It seems to me that this awareness develops by paying close attention (through active cognitive engagement, not meditatively) to events happening around us. Perhaps mindfulness practice establishes the ground for greater sensitivity and responsiveness in relation to the suffering of others, but I’m not sure that the practice itself “raises awareness” of these things.
The great leaders of social transformation, both in theory and action, for the most part do not practice the meditative mode of mindfulness, and the foremost exponents of meditative mindfulness in a Buddhist setting hardly promote large-scale social transformation. Contrast for example the African American Christian clergy involved in human rights campaigns, or the Christian and Jewish clergy who have led the campaigns against US military involvement around the world, with the Buddhist meditation masters. The former, with perhaps a few exceptions, don’t practice meditative mindfulness, while the latter show only a marginal concern with social justice issues.
Perhaps a type of awareness different from Buddhist meditative mindfulness is what is needed to foster recognition of these issues. Of course, adding meditative mindfulness to the arsenal of techniques may be helpful in some respects, but let’s not assume that it is intrinsically the sufficient antidote. It seems meditative mindfulness can swing either way, even among earnest practitioners: toward or away from greater awareness of justice issues. The catalyst must therefore be something other than mindfulness itself, perhaps an awakening of the sense of conscience and responsibility for the fate of others.
As part of this conversation, Bhikkhu Bodhi showed us a document he created on “Modes of Applied Mindfulness.” He gave his permission for it to be shared, recognizing that it is a work in progress. I am including it here because I find it a very helpful way to see the nuances inherent in bringing mindfulness into diverse domains, and that each mode has its openings and limitations.
Function: to facilitate insight
Ultimate aim: enlightenment, liberation from birth and death
Problem: may lead to narcissistic self-absorption, indifference to inequities of social- economic institutions and policies and ecological destruction
Function: to help people deal with physical ailments, psychological traumas and stress, addictions and conflicts, alienation and hopelessness
Ultimate aim: to enable people to become more peaceful, hopeful, equanimous, patient; less reactive, more considerate and compassionate
Problem: people may be conditioned to deal solely with their individual challenges without being moved to confront larger structures of social and economic injustice
Function: to help people become more effective in their roles and assignments: more effective as corporate leaders, workers, athletes, students, soldiers, etc.
Ultimate aim: to enhance productivity within the boundaries of existing social and economic institutions
Problem: May acclimatize people to unwholesome roles, sustain corporatist, militaristic, consumerist programs
Function: as a Buddhist practice, to provide a means of fostering structural transformation toward the social ideals of the Dharma: greater social and economic justice, environmental stability, peace, equality, etc.
Ultimate aim: to promote realization of a just, peaceful society and world
Problem: to ground these ideals on textual sources and develop a theoretical foundation for an ethic of Buddhist engagement in the world.
Possible tensions between this application of mindfulness and its classical role that need exploration and resolution.
Please share your thoughts on “socially responsible mindfulness” in the comments below — do you find this a helpful construct? Not so helpful? If you teach mindfulness practice in secular settings, what’s your take on addressing social justice issues that may arise in the course of your work?
I think that what Ven. Bodhi is trying to say is that efforts to wrangle the Buddha’s teachings on samma sati, or what has been called “mindfulness,” into a social transformation movement or corporate coaching platform, are all just variants (some ethical, some not) of “McMindfulnesss.” Some of these secular efforts may be ethical, and some may be driven by a profit motive, but most all of them really have very little to do with the Buddha’s foundation of mindfulness with respect to meditation, on the path to liberation from the fetters of suffering.
In a way, once Jon Kabat-Zinn redefined mindfulness so that he could apply his variant in the healthcare context, he opened the door to this secularization of mindfulness practices, most of which have little to do with what the Buddha was teaching. And that’s OK, so long as people are truly being helped, but as Bhikkhu Bodhi points out, it’s not samma sati that is the fuel toward social transformation or mindful management of businesses, but something else more akin to a secularized awareness or altruistic catalyst.
Leaving aside the aspects of social responsibility, as a Mindfulness novice I find it interesting to read that, contrary to Kabat-Zinn’s often quoted “nonjudgmental” quality of Mindfulness, Bhikkhu Bodhi states that Mindfulness is judgmental indeed.
The way I understand this is that, during meditation (= on the way to mindfulness) one observes the wanderings of the mind & physical feelings in a nonjudgmental way, whereas when one is in a mindful state of mind one “one engages in assessment, evaluation, and discrimination, and thereby endeavors to eliminate what is harmful and to arouse and strengthen what is wholesome and beneficial”, to quote Bhikkhu Bodhi.
Am I right?
I’m not sure I fully agree with Bhikkhu Bodhi on this, Peter. He’s right in saying “In the Pali texts, mindfulness is always conjoined with the faculty of judgment (dhammavicaya), through which one engages in assessment, evaluation, and discrimination, and thereby endeavors to eliminate what is harmful and to arouse and strengthen what is wholesome and beneficial.” Mindfulness allows for Dhammavicaya to function, but Dhammavicaya (skillful judgement, if you will) is not mindfulness.
Mindfulness as one of the five spiritual faculties allows all the other faculties (insight, viriya, etc) to function, but I don’t think that means that mindfulness has the qualities of the other faculties—otherwise why enumerate them separately?—but functions alongside them.
But the important point is that we do need to “judge” in a positive sense while being mindful. Perhaps that’s the main point he’s making.
Of course I stand to be corrected. Bhikkhu Bodhi knows far more about these terms than I do.
Thanks Bodhipaksa & Anagarika, I appreciate your taking time to answer me.
I don’t quite understand Bodhipaksa’s answer, but Anagarika’s elucidates it well. Without having studied the subject, I think I can agree that the original teachings of the Buddha must be quite different from the modern, Westernised versions, such as the one developed by JK-Z.And it is sad to see that the likes of Google, Goldman Sachs & others have gone further on JK-Z’s concept in order to make even more money than are already making by squeezing more out of their employees. Because 1 thing is sure: they do not offer Mindfulness sessions to their employees out of social responsibility.
Good comments, above. I sometimes see samma sati being referenced in the context of judgment when it is juxtaposed with, for example, “nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment.” It is more than sati, when it is samma sati, in that mindfulness in the Buddha’s terms involves evaluation of what is right, skillful, ethical. We keep these qualities and aspects of the Eightfold Path in mind as we cultivate the tranquility/insight in meditation. Without this foundation of purity, our meditation is bound to produce unsatisfactory results.
So, it seems to me that what separates samma sati from a mindfulness employed in social justice movements or corporate trainings is that the Buddha’s mindfulness is employed as a foundation for meditation that leads to liberation. That’s not to say that mindfulness that involves ethics and compassion isn’t good…it is…but that it’s not what the Buddha taught, and more often it’s what we in the west are inventing from whole cloth.
And now, the (required for us EBT types…) Sutta reference:
And what is right mindfulness? There is the case where a (meditator) remains focused on the body in & of itself — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. He remains focused on feelings in & of themselves… the mind in & of itself… mental qualities in & of themselves — ardent, alert, & mindful — putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world. This is called right mindfulness…
“This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding — in other words, the four frames of reference.”
— DN 22