Well, the mindfulness community–if there is such a thing–is celebrating this week after an article appeared in The New York Times on Sunday about mindfulness training in two public schools–one in Oakland, California and one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.
The problem? The article features a photo of kids meditating and starts out with this sentence:
“The lesson began with the striking of a Tibetan singing bowl to induce mindful awareness. “
Oh, boy. See, that’s a problem. And those who’ve been reading my ezine and blog are aware of the fact that my work–Real-World Mindfulness Training–has evolved from the idea that mindfulness needs to be stripped of its religious overtones in order to go mainstream.
I have no problem with Buddhism. Quite the contrary–I majored in Asian Studies in college, spent time in Buddhist monasteries, and have been meditating since I was 15. I have no issues with meditation as a powerful vehicle for taking us to the state of mindfulness.
But I DO have issues with the fact that meditation is but ONE vehicle for taking us there–and we’re missing out by not focusing on the others–and also that if we continue to frame mindfulness as something associated with Buddhism, we are going to lose thousands–no, MILLIONS–of people who will simply tune out the possibility of mindfulness altogether.
And I guess what’s at the root of this is that there is something inherently mindLESS in promoting mindfulness without being aware that there is a diverse population who can benefit from it and if we are truly compassionate, we’ll figure out ways to make sure they are welcomed and supported instead of angered and defeated.
And believe me–while the Buddhists have been smiling this week, there are Christians across the US who are absolutely outraged that any public school should allow a Tibetan singing bowl to be featured and Buddhist concepts to be taught. The blogosphere is absolutely abuzz–people are calling for concerned Christians to contact their principals and let them know in no uncertain terms that if a brief prayer before lunch or a football game cannot be permitted, then they will not tolerate any Buddhist teachings to be included in the curriculum, either.
And that’s a very valid point. It’s also quite sad that now “mindfulness”–and it’s printed with quotation marks in most posts, making it sound like some sort of snake-oil technique–is seen by so many as something to be AVOIDED.
So, listen. If we’re going to be mindful–and yes, let’s try that, shall we?–we must recognize that if we want mindfulness to be incorporated in diverse settings–public schools, hospitals, businesses–we’d better lose the props.
No Tibetan singing bowls–PLEASE.
No incense.
No need for cushions, chanting, or words that are affiliated with Buddhism (especially not in Sanskrit).
Those kids could start their mindful awareness sessions with the sound of a kazoo and include no mention of Buddhism whatsoever and it would be just as effective–wait, MORE SO because there wouldn’t be any irate parents calling the school the next day.
Buddhism is based on the concept that attachment leads to suffering. So, my question has always been, why be so attached to teaching mindfulness via Buddhist meditation?
And if mindful awareness is about seeing the world–and our responses–more clearly, why can’t we apply that to the process of coming up with effective, secular and creative ways to teach it to people of all ages and religions?
I guess I should be happy that more people are talking about mindfulness training because of the article. That falls under the “any publicity is good publicity” umbrella. And yet, when I read posts from those who are angered by the idea of mindfulness training, it just makes me sad. This is all so avoidable. And all it takes to make mindfulness mainstream is, well, a bit more mindfulness regarding how it’s presented to the world.
If you’d like to read the New York Times article, go here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/16/us/16mindful.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1&oref=slogin
Thoughts? Leave a comment! 
Thanks.
