McMindfulness or elixir to life’s ills: What arethe implications of practicing mindfulness in a secular context?

Thomas Barton

BA (Hons) Education Studies & Theology

Abstract

Of the numerous mindfulness practices and courses currently available in the West, few encapsulate the full spectrum of teachings in the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path from which they were spawned. This study investigates the original situation of mindfulness meditation within Buddhist psychology, sewn up as it is with ethical conduct and wisdom. This is juxtaposed with the way mindfulness is now often presented and practiced in the West as a standalone treatment, particularly for mental disorders. While research into the application of mindfulness to treat mental disorders has given some promising results, the depth and quality of current research is questioned and complicated by varied definitions of the term mindfulness. The lack of research into the relationship between mindfulness and morality is noted, as is the difficulty science has in understanding morality. The door has thus been opened for neo-liberal organisations to appropriate mindfulness practices for their employees to improve efficiency and save money, in disregard of the employees’ wellbeing. Nevertheless, there are examples of secular mindfulness courses that do incorporate morality and wisdom both implicitly and explicitly, with further research into their relationship required.

Introduction

The mindfulness practices that have been proliferating in the West over the past few decades are born out of Buddhist practices and psychology. In this assignment, the original cultural, psychological, and practical paradigm in which mindfulness took place is explored, clarifying what mindfulness means in Buddhist terms and where it fits into the Buddha’s teachings. Contemporary secular applications of mindfulness in the West and its benefits will be summarized as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the supporting research. The varied extent to which those secular courses include ethical practices that formed part of the original Buddhist context is also investigated, and the varying implications of this relationship, or lack of, are considered. This includes the possibility that the cultural appropriation of mindfulness practices divorced from its original context, and being employed in neo-liberal corporations to relieve stress and improve productivity, is now helping to perpetuate the structures that are causing the very suffering mindfulness was designed to dissipate. Conversely, examples of secular courses that attempt to walk the narrow tightrope of shedding religious dogma and retaining the power inherent in the Buddhist path are given.

What is mindfulness and how does it fit into Buddhist psychology?

In the Buddhist tradition, mindfulness is the English translation of a Pali word, sati (Shaw, 2020, p.9). Early translations of the word mindfulness associated it with memory or recollection (Gilbert, 2017, p.69). This would be an accurate translation of the term when applied to its usage before or outside of the Buddha’s teachings, since it described the memorization of certain texts (Shaw, 2020, p. 9). However, the Buddha used the word differently, altering its meaning. Sati, or mindfulness, in Buddhism refers to an activity which can only be experienced, not understood, and therefore cannot accurately be described since language works on a symbolic level, not the experiential (Gilbert, 2017, p.69; Shaw, 2020, p. 9). Nevertheless, Shaw (2020) attempts to describe what is implied through the Buddhist use of the word, ‘mindfulness’: ‘It now becomes a quality needed for the awake and free mind, a way of relating to the world that seems to have a sense of presence, apparently more than, and even instead of memory’ (p. 28). Neves-Pereira, Carvalho and Aspesi (2018, p. 221; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011) propose that, with mindfulness being a noun, which suggests a fixed attribute, ‘to be mindful’ might have been a more appropriate translation of sati, as it better describes the meta-cognitive awareness of oneself. According to Buddhist psychology, the mindful state is a result of training that transforms the student on all levels of their being, from the physical to the emotional, cognitive and spiritual, impacting on their instantaneous and distant reality (Neves- Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018).

The goal of mindfulness in Buddhist teachings is to free oneself from suffering, or dukkha , and reach the state free from suffering known as nirvana (Nhat Hanh, 1975). However, mindfulness is not presented as a solitary practice or quality required to reach that goal (Kingsland, 2016, p. 12; Nhat Hanh, 1975). The Buddha taught the Noble Eightfold Path, which can be split into three stages: sila, ethical conduct; samaddhi, mental discipline; and panna, wisdom (Goenka IN Hart, 1987). All eight aspects of the path are essential for the attainment of the goal of nirvanna, and mindfulness, which comes under the samaddhi stage, is an essential but interdependent part of the whole. In Buddhist traditions, mindfulness would not, and indeed should not, be taught as a standalone practice (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018).

How is mindfulness being used in the West?

Since the latter stages of the 20th century, an outpouring in interest in mindfulness in the West has thrust it into the limelight and includes a wide variety of mindfulness meditation courses, self-help books, in-company group practices, talks and online courses (Purser, 2019; The Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group, 2015). Nevertheless, in the fields of psychology and science, ambiguity persists around the semantics of the word. According to Kabat-Zinn’s (1994) formative definition, mindfulness means, ‘paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally’ (p. 4). Mindfulness meditations, extricated from Eastern religious philosophy and practice, have attracted increasing attention in the fields of Western psychology and medicine, with thousands of papers published to date (Greco & Hayes, 2008; The Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group, 2015). Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), the most recognized of which are Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (Segal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013), are secular courses intended to treat psychological conditions.

According to the Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group (2015), there is great potential in the use of mindfulness to alleviate suffering, particularly for those with mental health disorders and those who undertake the responsibility to treat them. There is currently a mental health crisis in the UK (Flores et al., 2018), one that has only been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and related lockdowns (Bao et al., 2020). Several clinical randomized controlled trials have been undertaken for both MBCT and MBSR, with both returning some positive results suggesting the courses can be effective in treating depression, particularly relapses for those who have already experienced depression, and stress (Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013). Considerable evidence now suggests that mindfulness-based interventions can successfully prevent relapses of depression (Michalak & Heidenreich, 2018; Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013). However, though there is an abundance of research into the effects of mindfulness on subsections of society, such as school children, there is still a distinct lack of depth (Dimidjian & Segal, 2015).

Existing research into MBIs

There are concerns about the quality and reliability of research into mindfulness. Purser (2019, p. 14) is critical of the fact that much of the available research is conducted by those with a vested interest in the field: authors of mindfulness literature; teachers on mindfulness courses; and researchers in search of grants (Purser, 2019, p. 14). However, this argument appears to ignore the stronger aspects of the current research, for example that mindfulness interventions prevent relapses in patients with depression is now considered strong (Michalak & Heidenreich, 2018). In the case of the MBCT course, the authors themselves recognised the early deficiency in their work, since they conducted the research, however, a subsequent independent RCT supported their findings (Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013). Purser’s (2019) observation about the potential for bias present in current mindfulness research are noteworthy, nevertheless, that is not evidence in itself that secular mindfulness courses are not effective.

An ever-increasing amount of research in the fields of psychology, education and science into mindfulness are being undertaken. However, many of the research projects returned inconclusive results and are further complicated by the plethora of definitions of mindfulness and scales used to measure mindfulness (Dimidjian & Segal, 2015; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011). Furthermore, being inextricable from the other conditions of the Buddhist path, mindfulness is difficult for conventional scientific methods to study (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011, p.220). Grossman (2011, p. 220) argues that new non-linear models for measuring mindfulness, which take into account the coactive relationships between mindfulness and qualities such as compassion and equanimity, are necessary for a scientific understanding of how mindfulness works and should be applied.

Mindfulness and morality, ethics and conduct.

In Western psychology, the idea of mindfulness as a powerful tool for improving lives in all manner of ways has gained a foothold, often distinct from its context within a greater Buddhist psychology and spirituality, including ethical, behavioural, cognitive and social dimensions (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011, p. 220; Purser, 2019; Shaw, 2020). Some mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) do acknowledge the Buddhist roots of mindfulness and its entanglement within the other aspects of Buddhist teachings, from which, according to Grossman & Van Dam (2011, p. 220) it is likely impossible to separate the practice. Gilbert (2017, p. 70) asserts that the ethical basis of Buddhist teachings is implied in the terms ‘non-judgement’ or ‘acceptance’ employed on some courses, but that emphasis is given to mindfulness meditations over qualities relating to ethics. Many other Western courses, seemingly unaware of the origins of mindfulness, may be looking to exploit the current trend and overlook questions of morality and compassion altogether (Purser, 2019; Van Dam, 2020).

An overabundance of courses has appeared in the West, many of which cater for those who are being overstimulated, overworked, and stressed by the capitalist society they find themselves in (Purser, 2019). While Buddhist traditions emphasized the ‘renunciation of pleasures’, Western society is the antithesis of renunciation (Shaw, 2020, p. 29). Many of the behaviours that are acceptable in contemporary Western society, such as consumption of mind-altering substances or consumerism, are perceived as harmful within Buddhist psychology, and counterproductive in the journey to end suffering.

This emphasis on attention over compassion is often related to the Theravada school of Buddhism, while an emphasis on compassion can be found in Mahayana Buddhism, yet both schools stress the need for a combination of attention and compassion (Tan, 2020). Whether accentuating the cognitive or emotional schools, the shared assumptions about mindfulness practice in the West are that it is ‘individualistic’ and distinct from culture or morality (Tan, 2020, p. 4). A common critique of the Western approach to mindfulness is that the cultural paradigm that fashioned and supports mindfulness in the East is discounted in favour of a ‘non-evaluative and normatively neutral approach’ (Tan, 2020, p. 4; Shaw, 2020, p. 15). This refers to unskilful cultural appropriation that attempts to find benefits in a practice without looking at the paradigm with which it is practiced. The general attitude is that mindfulness is ‘the ability to dispassionately observe the experience of the present moment with non-judgemental openness’ (Sauer et al. 2013, p. 3). Yet, it should not be dismissed that mindfulness is rooted in a spiritual tradition with moral and ethical foundations. This extraction distorts the original aims of Buddhism: freedom from attachment, cravings, and aversions (Gethin, 2011, p. 268; Hart, 1987; Nhat Hanh, 1975). The problem with this approach, according to Kirmayer (2015), is that the exclusion of spirituality, and morality from mindfulness practices potentially risks becoming a tool for pursuing harmful goals. This is not, however, implying that mindfulness must be tied to dogmatic or religious systems, but that, for its benefits to come to fruition, mindfulness must be applied alongside an ethical code of practice and compassion (Tan, 2020).

The mindfulness courses most directly associated with research in the field recognise the necessity of a quality of compassion being present when practicing awareness. Those behind the MBCT and MBSR courses, the most widely disseminated secular courses, do insist that compassion should be incorporated into practice and even that not to do so is harmful (Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013, p. 137; Gilbert, 2017, p. 72). According to modern science, compassion is an ‘inner strength’, that improves mental health and can be heightened through practice (Gilbert, 2017, p. 72). Though not explicit, its inclusion is a positive example of Buddhist psychology being employed in a secular mindfulness course and, in the convergence of contemporary psychology and traditional Buddhist practice, compassion is the next logical step (Gilbert, 2017, p. 72; Kingsland, 2016, p. 12). Yet, MBCT falls short of offering specific practices designed to cultivate loving kindness, over fears they could trigger vulnerabilities in students, many of whom are suffering from depression (Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013; Gilbert, 2017, p. 72). Instead, the course relies on the embodiment of loving kindness in the instructor and the environment which they create on the course (Seagal, Williams & Teasdale, 2013). No code of conduct is incumbent on students undertaking either MBCT or MBSR courses, both of which last for eight weeks. The founders of these more recognised mindfulness programmes, supported by RCTs, realise the necessity of including an ethical element to their courses, but fall short of providing significant, overt practices to support that quality.

The significance of morality in conjunction with mindfulness is so comprehensive that each student’s level of piety is the biggest indicator of their ability to cultivate mindfulness (Hart, 1987). The more selfishly driven a practitioner is, the harder it becomes to control one’s own mind, since his or her desires or fears are more intensely present in it. The ethical dimension is not only a realm of social refuge against the effects of ignorance and egotism, but is also a source of support to practice. The quality of a person’s relations is inseparable from his or her meditation (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 150).

Here it is clear that the ability for a student to cultivate mindfulness is in fact incumbent on them sustaining a pious and selfless attitude.

The therapist must decide whether their commitment is to treating the dysfunctional human being, or, together, to question the inherent dysfunctions in ‘normal’ society (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). However, this leads the practitioner to conflict as questioning established views on the nature of self and of scientific understanding goes beyond the paradigmatic limitations of many schools of psychology and science, and causes tension within their theoretical basis (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151; Taylor, 2018). Yet, this inability to include the underpinning psychology behind mindfulness practices leads to comparatively superficial results (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). According to Neves- Pereira, Carvalho and Aspesi (2018, p. 151), at the centre of this incompatibility between Buddhist and Western psychology is the concept of ‘inner-peace’ and of ‘ego’. Within Buddhist schools of thought, regular, prolonged, and intensive mindfulness practice should lead to peace and wisdom, both of which lie beyond the limits of scientific understanding (Neves- Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). Equally, the Buddhist attitude towards ego, to think of others’ wellbeing over one’s own, leading to experiences of compassion, is incoherent with the Western attitude, which tends to attempt to refine the functionality of the way one experiences themselves (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). The process by which Western schools of psychology are incorporating Buddhist mindfulness practices is ongoing, and current limitations in the scientific understanding, rooted in materialism, need to be overcome before the amalgamation can be complete (Taylor, 2018).

Research into the relationship between mindfulness and morality

There is currently a dearth of research investigating the relationship between mindfulness and morality, despite the growing body of literature on mindfulness itself (Tan, 2020). According to Tan, (2020, p. 1) in a recent literature review, only two papers explicitly analysing the relationship between ethics and mindfulness were found. Kabat- Zinn’s early representations of mindfulness were explicit in their reference to the original context within which it was practiced (Kabat- Zinn, 1994). However, as the practice was taken from one cultural paradigm and school of psychology and practiced within another, there is reason for further scrutiny of this ‘appropriation’, despite the benefits being observed in the field of mental health (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). Significantly, there are concerns that the Eastern practice of mindfulness is being manipulated for more sinister purposes.

McMindfulness

The neo-liberal project to transform socio-economic forms into structures acquiescent to a competitive, ‘free-market’ ideology (Wilson, 2017) has appropriated mindfulness practices (Purser, 2019; Smallen, 2019). The consequences of neo-liberal policies that focus of privatization and short-term profits are unstable and hostile social systems and increased inequality (Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Recent years have seen a sharp increase in the use of mindfulness practices being employed to reduce stress and promote wellbeing in neo-liberal organisations and has become known by its critics as ‘McMindfulness’ (Purser, 2019; Smallen, 2019).

According to Purser (2019, p.17-18), this ‘laissez-faire’ attitude to mindfulness enables the neo-liberal narrative to dominate and dictate the narrative of what is ethical and unethical behaviour. Purser (2019) goes on to argue that the assumption that the teacher’s modelling of compassionate behaviour will in turn lead participating students to behave in an ethical way, or that changes in moral judgement necessarily follow from mindfulness practice is flawed. Nevertheless, though, it is unilaterally agreed across Buddhisms that mindfulness must be accompanied by other traits, because of the centrality of mindfulness within Buddhist psychology, there is an argument that the cultivation of mindfulness necessarily cultivates qualities such as compassion (Nhat Hanh, 1975). Purser’s criticisms here are directly aimed at the MBCT and MBSR courses, which, we have seen, do acknowledge and, to an extent, apply Buddhist psychology. Because of the centrality of mindfulness withing, Buddhist psychology and the implicit presence of ethics and compassion within the course, Purser’s argument holds less weight than when applied to mindfulness courses and teachings that are entirely disconnected from Buddhist traditions or are specifically designed for a corporate clientele.

Some scholars argue that the cultural appropriation of mindfulness practices from a tradition where austerity and piety are sacred into a neo-liberal society in which, consciously or not, success is associated with and consumption, is incompatible. Neves-Pereira, Carvalho and Aspesi (2018, p. 151) explain that, even if offered as purely a health practice associated with mindfulness, there exist a contradiction relating to the Buddhist attitude to material wealth. Rather than breaking down the destructive human relationship with pleasure and addiction, which Buddhists believe are aspects of dukkha, or suffering, this form of appropriation of mindfulness is working to help sustain the structures and way of life that create suffering in the first place (Grossman & Van Dam, 2011; Purser, 2019).  Since mindfulness is an organic part of an understanding about how to live the human life, the attitude of selecting some of its aspects such as attention, presence, concentration and breathing and then applying them to interventions that are coherent with a reductionist paradigm, as if they were a specific remedy for a specific disease, is not only problematic from an epistemological standpoint (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151). Greater sensitivity is needed in the West in the application of mindfulness and other associated traits within Buddhist psychology.

At the heart of this argument is the assertion that, applied in the context of a corporation, mindfulness practices are putting the responsibility on the individual to foster their wellbeing in the service of increased efficiency, yield and harmony within the a company or society, notwithstanding the socio-political structures that impact on the individual’s wellbeing (Purser, 2019; Smallen, 2019, p. 122). By encouraging employees to self-regulate their stress and improve wellbeing, these courses can strengthen the existing conditions that contributed to poor mental health in the first place, (Purser, 2019; Smallen, 2019). This, according to Smallen (2019) and Connell and Messerschmidt (2005), includes the reinforcing of gender inequality through neo-liberal hegemonic masculinity, woven into mindfulness courses through complex structures and disguised by neutral, non-gendered language. The context of mindfulness here has become a neo-liberal corporation and the goal, the company’s increased productivity. The impact may be a short-term reduction in stress and increased wellbeing; however, it is in the name of an economic and political system that effects suffering, inequality, and ecological destruction at the causal level. According to Buddhist psychology, this brand of mindfulness practice therefore lacks the ethical underpinnings, or sila, thought necessary for a true mindful state and the cessation of suffering to occur (Hart, 1987; Nhat Hanh, 1975; Kornfield, 1994).

Purser (2019) asserts that the issue is not mindfulness practice itself, which, reduced to a basic form of mental training, still offers some mental health benefits. The issue is the way mindfulness has been packaged and sold by many as a cure-all, yet cut off from the ethical cord that once sustained it as a way of dissolving attachments and nurturing compassion for all beings (Purser, 2019). Neoliberalism has been surreptitiously imposed over the past half a century resulting in greater inequality (Wilson, 2017). According to Purser (2019), if the mindfulness movement were truly the radical and innovative force it claims to be, it would work to break down those neo-liberal structures. Instead, stress has been pathologized and treated as a psychological condition prevalent in capitalist corporations and mindfulness courses are employed as a treatment. Purser (2019, p. 18) argues that mindfulness is just one of a number of examples of spirituality being used by capitalist institutions dating back to the reconciliation of faith with science. Over time, the Asian wisdom traditions were colonised and commodified, resulting in an individualistic form of ‘spirituality’, meticulously adapted to the dominant Western values and therefore necessitating no change in lifestyle and resulting in limited benefits (Purser, 2019, p. 18).

Secular mindfulness courses that provide a balance of mindfulness and morality

There are examples of secular courses that better reflect the breadth of Buddhist psychology (Van Dam, 2020). In the 1970s, the renowned Burmese meditation teacher, S. N. Goenka, began teaching ten-day mindfulness courses in India (Hart, 1987). Goenka claims that the courses teach students the original undiluted teachings of the Buddha, free from unnecessary dogma (Hart, 1987). Students are expected to strictly adhere to the five precepts; indeed, nine of the ten days are in silence in order to ensure the precept of abstaining from false speech is upheld (Hart, 1987). This is because, according to Goenka (cited in Hart, 1987), ‘Anyone who wishes to practice Dhamma must begin by practicing Sila. This is the first step without which one cannot advance. We must abstain from all action, all words and deeds, that harm other people.’ (cited in Hart, 1987, p. 21). This is not just mindfulness training; it is an induction into the Noble Eightfold Path. Serious students cultivate ethical behaviour and must stick to a code of conduct, which means a strict monastic code for monks and, for lay people, means keeping the five precepts: not killing, stealing, indulging in harmful sexual practices, lying, or becoming intoxicated (Shaw, 2020, p. 50-51; Hart, 1987).

Goenka’s ten-day retreats are not the only secular courses offering a balanced induction into the Eightfold Noble Path, the late Thich Nhat Hanh and many others have set up similar courses. Since the original Buddhist teachings are indeed secular, not pertaining to a deity but more a psychology, the true Buddhist teachings are secular (Hart, 1987). As we have seen, mindfulness appears to enjoy the presence of other aspects, to the extent that they are in fact inseparable from mindfulness (Shaw, 2020, p. 29). While this sounds religious, it is not. Though Goneka’s course uses the Buddha’s teachings, there are no physical representations of the Buddha necessary and people of all faiths and denominations are welcome, encouraged to and do attend; it is a secular course of which there are now over 300 centres in 94 countries globally (Dhamma.org, 2021). Here is a secular mindfulness course that stringently applies the full spectrum of Buddhism teachings within a paradigm familiar to its origins, yet available to all. Other, more westernized course could look at incorporating more of these features and conducting further research.

A new relationship between spirituality and science

Over the past century, the stewardship of knowledge, once the domain of religion and philosophy, has been passed to science. This growing authority given to science had all but ended the communication and investigation between science and religion (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018; Taylor, 2019), yet psychologists are now reopening these investigations, enabling the testing and evaluation of spiritual practices. Taylor (2018) points out that many believe what remains is a choice between an ‘orthodox materialist’ world view or and orthodox religious view. This is a false dichotomy. Taylor (2018, p. 3) argues that a paradigm that recognises the limitations of materialism yet is free from the dogmatic assertions of religious belief, is possible. Post-materialism proposes that more fundamental than matter is ‘spirit’, otherwise known as ‘mind’ or ‘consciousness’ (Goff, 2019; Taylor, 2018, p. 3). In this paradigm, spirit, or consciousness is the fundamental quality of all beings and indeed the whole universe.

This understanding is entirely consistent with the Buddhist notion of dharmakaya, the fundamental reality of the cosmos from which everything arises, and the idea of compassion for all living things (Taylor, 2018, p.44). Though incompatible with a neo-liberal, materialist paradigm, according to Taylor, is not beyond the limits of scientific understanding, and is particularly popular within the field of quantum physics (2018, p. 48; Goff, 2019). Concerning the application of mindfulness, a new relationship between spirituality and psychology is possible, in which the materialist and dogmatic belief systems are discarded and a fuller spectrum of ethical teachings are incorporated (Taylor, 2018). Yet, in many cases, the opposite is currently happening in the West; the appropriation of mindfulness as an instrument in a futile attempt to douse the flames of a mentality in crisis (Neves-Pereira, Carvalho & Aspesi, 2018, p. 151).

Conclusion

Western psychology is beginning to appreciate that Buddhist teachings offer a powerful tool for overcoming suffering in many forms. Mindfulness has been extracted from the Buddhist Eightfold Path and applied to improve wellbeing or treat a growing number of conditions in a wide range of settings in the West. The field of research into Mindfulness is growing fast and has offered some positive results, however, despite the large number of studies, much of the research lacks depth or is complicated by bias. Further, in depth research could help, but a broader appreciation of the context of mindfulness practice within Buddhist teachings is necessary. According to Buddhist psychology, mindfulness should not be applied as a standalone ‘treatment’ but combined with the other aspects of the Eightfold Path, notably sila, or morality, a strong foundation of which is necessary to cultivate mindfulness and enjoy its benefits. Many western mindfulness courses or teachings have ignored or are ignorant to this, while the more prominent courses, such as MBCT and MBSR include ethics only implicitly. It is likely that these courses are not offering the full benefits of the original Buddhist teachings. Science and psychology have further struggled to understand this relationship between ethics and mindfulness, because the materialist scientific paradigm that emerged in the 20th century hinders the understanding of ideas such as compassion. Significantly, a popular movement of mindfulness teachings within corporations is aiding workers in managing stress and being more productive, but in doing so reinforcing the very structures that create their suffering in the first place. Some in the mainstream world of science are beginning to transcend this barrier (Goff, 2019; Taylor, 2018). There are examples of Eastern secular mindfulness courses that teach the full spectrum of the Buddha’s teaching unincumbered by dogmatic beliefs or customs. As Western fields of psychology and science increasing understand Buddhist psychology, it is likely the West will offer more complete versions of mindfulness courses, that fully encompass the Eightfold Path.

References

Bao, Y., Sun, Y., Meng, S., Shi, J., & Lu, L. (2020). 2019-ncov epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. Lancet, 395(10224), 38. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(20)30309-3

Connell, R. W., & Messerschmidt, J. W. (2005). Hegemonic masculinity: rethinking the concept. Gender and Society, 19(6), 829–859.

Dhamma.org. (2021). Worldwide Directory. https://www.dhamma.org/ en/locations/directory

Dimidjian, S., & Segal, Z., V. (2015). Prospects for a Clinical Science of Mindfulness-Based Intervention. American Psychologist. 70(7), 593- 620. DOI:10.1037/a0039589

Flores, E. C., Fuhr, D. C., Bayer, A. M., Lescano, A. G., Thorogood, N., & Simms, V. (2018). Mental health impact of social capital interventions: a systematic review. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology : The International Journal for Research in Social and Genetic Epidemiology and Mental Health Services, 53(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-017-1469-7

Gethin, R. (2011). On some definitions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 263–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639947.201 1.564843

Gilbert, P. (Ed.). (2017). Compassion: concepts, research and applications (1st ed.). Routledge.

Goff, P. (2019). Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness. Rider.

Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and tribulations of sati in western psychology and science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 219–239. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14639947.2011.564841

Hart, W. (1987). Vipassana Meditation- The Art of Living: As Taught by S. N. Goenka. Vipassana Research Institute.

Johnson, W. (1982). Riding the Ox Home: a History of Meditation from Shamanism to Science. Rider.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. Hyperion.

Kingsland, J. (2016). Siddhartha’s Brain: The Science of Meditation, Mindfulness and Enlightenment. Robinson.

Kornfield, J. (1994). A Path with Heart. Rider.

Layard, R., & Clark, D. (2014). Thrive: The power of evidence-based psychological therapies. Penguin Books.

Mindfulness All-Party Parliamentary Group. (2015). Mindful Nation UK Report. The Mindfulness Initiative.

Neves-Pereira, M. S., Carvalho, M. A. B. de, & Aspesi, C. de C. (2018). Mindfulness and Buddhism: Contributions of Buddhist philosophical and religious teachings to the fields of psychology and education. Gifted Education International, 34(2), 144–154. https://doiorg/10.1177/0261429417716347

Nhat Hanh, T. (1975). The Miracle of Mindfulness: The Classic Guide. Rider.

Purser, R., E. (2019). McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality. Repeater.

Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., & Kohls, N. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12671- 012-0122-5

Seagal, Z., Williams, M., & Teasdale, J. (2013). Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Depression. The Guildford Press.

Shonin, E., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2016). This is not McMindfulness. Psychologist, 29(2), 124–125.

Skilton, A. (2013) (IN Bullivant , S., & Ruse, M. (Eds), 2013) The Oxford Handbook of Atheism. Oxford.

Smallen, D. (2019). Mindful masculinity: positive psychology, mcmindfulness and gender. Feminist Review, 122(1), 134–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141778919849638

Tan, C. (2020). Mindfulness and morality: educational insights from Confucius. Journal of Moral Education, 1-12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1 080/03057240.2020.1779045

Taylor, S. (2018). Spiritual Science: Why Science Needs Spirituality to Make Sense of the World. Watkins.

Van Dam, N. T. (June, 3, 2020) https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=LundGyqTDAU

Wilson, J. A. (2017). Neoliberalism (Ser. Key ideas in media and cultural studies). Routledge.