Is the "Mindfulness" Movement a dangerous new cult religion?

http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9355692/whats-wrong-with-mindfulness-more-th...

It's relatively new; it was invented by a Burmese Buddhist monk in the last century. It's a religion which should be called Buddhism Lite (or Buddhism Without The Important Bits). It sneakily fills that gap left by the withdrawal from traditional western religions. It's dangerous because meditation is definitely not for everyone; it can cause serious harm to some. It's bad because it is all about "me", not about "us". It's bad because it's used as a band aid to what ails us in our modern lives. Let's not make work more rewarding and less stressful for all by hiring more people and giving each less to do; let's have the overworked go "om" in their lunch break (on their own time.)

Wow, nice abuse of "dangerous new cult religion". It doesn't seem pointful to continue discussion on the matter with someone who identifies the practice of meditation as a "cult religion", given that it's not a religion, and doesn't remotely come close to any definition of cult. Cults are all about the "us".

>2 prosfilaes:

cult: a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society

A graph.

Celebrities who do mindfulness.

A Cult. Check.

Meditation is practiced by Buddhists, a religion.

A Religion. Check.

Mindfulness. "Modern teachings on mindfulness are almost exclusively derived from a peculiar 20th century interpretation of one \Buddhist\ text, the Pali Satipatthana Sutta." By Burmese Buddhist monks. A religious based practice.

A New Religion. Check.

Has no proven medial benefit compared to simple relaxation or exercise.

Not medicine. Not scientific. Check.

Is Dangerous. Check.

We all should be highly skeptical. Where's the outcry?

Edited to fix links.

>3 rrp: cult: a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, especially among a particular section of society

What is your goal in posting this? Do you think that anyone in your audience will have a problem seeing through that shameless piece of equivocation? I will remember that you consider the Southern Baptists and Roman Catholics cults, though.

>4 prosfilaes:

Like Melanie McDonagh, the author of the article in >1 rrp:, I am concerned about something that seems to me to be a bad thing and is not receiving enough critical attention.

My goal is to bring it to everyone's attention in case you missed that fact that it is a BAD THING.

>5 rrp: To use the Wiktionary definitions, you obviously used "cult" in the sense of "(offensive, derogatory) A group of people with a religious, philosophical or cultural identity sometimes viewed as a sect, often existing on the margins of society or exploitative towards its members." and then when pressed on the point claimed you were using the "(informal) A group of people having an obsession with or intense admiration for a particular activity, idea, person or thing." definition, which makes no sense in this context.

Eating is practiced by Buddhists; does that make McDonald's a religion?

If your links in #3 were meant to go back to the article, the article wasn't convincing. It turns out a Christian perspective from a conservative journal is not the best way to reach most of the people here. I have no problem believing that there are some people for whom meditation isn't helpful or is actively bad, but for what isn't that true? There are people for whom Mother's Day is a horrific flashback to Mommy Dearest; there are people for whom bread or shrimp is a potential trip to the hospital.

>1 rrp: It sounds like you're biased against Buddhism, that's all.

>7 theoria: No. I have nothing against Buddhism. I have something against the Mindfulness cult.

>6 prosfilaes:

I didn't know that eating was a central ritual in the practice of Buddhism. You learn something everyday.

I fixed the links now to present some of the evidence that mindfulness is a BAD THING.

>6 prosfilaes: BTW. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Time issue that proclaimed that eating shrimp was the cure for all modern ills. Maybe they ran a similar issue touting the benefits of Mother's day. I missed that one too.

I was wrong. Time thinks Mother's Day is wrong.

3 Historical Arguments Against Mother’s Day

In its 101 years as a national observance, Mother's Day has made its fair share of enemies

http://time.com/3842561/mothers-day-history

>12 rrp: I don't see how anyone could read that article and come away with the view that "Time thinks Mother's Day is wrong."

This is not a winning thread.

I don't know about a Mindfulness "Movement", but "mindfulness" itself can basically be found under different names in strands of Christian spirituality. Three 20th century Catholics who spring to mind immediately are Thomas Merton, John Main and Antony de Mello, but you can go back to the mystic tradition (Julian of Norwich, John of the Cross, Nathaniel's favourite Hildegard of Bingen, Meister Eckhart, the author of The Cloud of Unknowing, etc) and arguably to the early Desert Fathers. Some even speculate what Jesus was doing during his forty days and forty nights in the desert; meditation, contemplation and yes, mindfulness, do not seem impossible. What Thich Nhat Hanh refers to as "mindfulness" is akin to de Mello's Awareness.

I know it's not the same thing, but Yoga has also been attacked by some Christians, so this interested me:

In Mumbai, a Catholic priest-yogi attacks Western propaganda against yoga

Anti-yoga propaganda, says Pereira, is the work of a specific lobby of fundamentalist, “born-again” Christians who he describes as “God addicts”...

And let me add to my list in >14 John5918: of 20th century Catholics who had some familiarity with "mindfulness" the Benedictine monk Dom Bede Griffiths.

>14 John5918: "mindfulness" itself can basically be found under different names in strands of Christian spirituality.

Is there some inherent tension there, I wonder, between the call for a contemplative mind and the call for obedience and/or the surrender to the will of God?

>16 southernbooklady: Christian spirituality has a number of areas of tension, hopefully creative tension. Apophatic spirituality thinks of God in terms of negation, or what God is not, while cataphatic describes God in terms of words, ideas, symbols and images. The immanence of God within us is often in tension with the transcendence of God outside ourselves. The contemplative way tends to favour apophatic and immanent spirituality, while the more visible Church tends towards cataphatic and transcendent.

But I don't think there is necessarily tension between the contemplative mind and obedience/surrender to the will of God. Contemplation can bring one close to God, and thus closer to knowing God's will for oneself.

At what point does the authority of the Church, or of a sacred text, become less a manifestation of the will of God and more a manifestation of worldly concerns, do you think? The thing about all those God-addicted fundies mentioned in your link above -- as a rule they regard the authority of Scripture paramount, and thus interpretation of Scripture is frowned on beyond certain fairly narrow guidelines. That doesn't leave much room for a contemplative mind to roam freely.

>13 theoria:

>6 prosfilaes: drew the analogy between the negative aspects of Mindfulness and Mother's Day. Time magazine recently

featured a cover story on "the mindful revolution," an account of the extent to which mindfulness meditation has diffused into the largest sectors of modern society. Used by "Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, Fortune 500 titans, Pentagon chiefs, and more," mindfulness meditation is promoted as a means to help Americans work mindfully, eat mindfully, parent mindfully, teach mindfully, take standardized tests mindfully, spend money mindfully, and go to war mindfully. What the cover story did not address are what might be called the revolution's "dirty laundry."

I was unaware that Mother's Day was viewed in the same way, but was amused to discover that Time had also run a piece about some people who thought Mother's Day a BAD THING.

My point wasn't about Mother's Day, but about Mindfulness and how silly the analogy in >6 prosfilaes: was.

>15 John5918:

It isn't the same thing, as you quite rightly start out saying. The modern Mindfulness craze is pretending not to be religious at all, when in fact, it is. The danger is that it leads people astray.

The true contemplative religious life is certainly not for everyone, and can in fact be dangerous to some.

If "Mindfulness" were a drug, it wouldn't get past the FDA or any authority. If it were advertised on TV, the authorities would make them do one of those disclaimers, read very fast but very scary if you listen carefully, listing all the bad things that might happen if you are taken in by it.

Leads people astray from what?

Well, given that this is a thread on "mindfulness" and was started by rrp, I'm going to guess that they'll be lead astray of mindlessness.

>21 Marissa_Doyle:

Astray into participating in an activity that is falsely sold as a panacea, at least wasting their time, at worst doing serious harm.

Huh. Sounds just like religion.

Or college football.

>24 Marissa_Doyle: Sounds just like religion

Or rather, sounds just like some manifestations of religion?

>20 rrp: The true contemplative religious life is certainly not for everyone, and can in fact be dangerous to some.

That might need a little unpacking.

While it's obviously true that the life of a full-time contemplative monk or nun is not for everyone, and indeed is only for a very small minority in any religion, I'm not sure it's true that contemplation could not be for everyone. Contemplative prayer is widely recommended and quite widely practiced. I think of Taize, or the silence of the Quakers, or Buddhist and Hindu practices, or Islamic Sufism, or the centering prayer of John Main. A couple of decades ago when I was actively involved in spiritual ministry it was being taught to parish groups.

Can it, in fact, be dangerous for some? Well, I suppose almost anything can be dangerous in certain extreme circumstances, but in moderation I'm not sure how contemplative prayer can be seen as dangerous any more than any other form of prayer.

But I understand from the context that you are referring to some extreme "movement" which I have not come across?

Edited to add: Another well-known contemporary Christian exponent of contemplation who has just come to mind is Richard Rohr.

>26 John5918: Or manifestations of some religions? ;)

I guess I simply don't understand the OP's issues with this, and can only deduce that it's a matter of prejudice against any religious traditions that aren't his own. *shrug*

>28 Marissa_Doyle:

You don't see anything wrong with a semi-religious, pseudo-scientific, cultish practice which is harmful to many being touted everywhere as a cure for whatever?

>29 rrp: being touted everywhere as a cure for whatever

I would question whether it is being "touted" everywhere as such. In many respectable mainstream Christian, Buddhist and other circles it is being taught as a method of prayer and contemplation.

I am sure we can frame "prayer and contemplation" as a cure for something, but I concede. It's not Buddhist meditation practice I am talking about but lunchtime mindfulness for three to ninety year olds which has taken the place of nap time. Naps work just as well. There is no better way of just being in the moment.

>31 rrp: I've spent much of the last 30-odd years in a country where afternoon siestas are de rigueur, so no argument with you about naps!

Edited to add: But if what you're claiming is that this "extremist" mindfulness is basically just the equivalent of an afternoon nap, where is the danger? Why is it more dangerous to "be in the moment" while awake than it is while sleeping?

Every time this thread pops to the top of my feed, I just think of this article and start laughing my somewhat slight ass off.

>33 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Brilliant. Thanks, Jesse.

>29 rrp: You don't see anything wrong with a semi-religious, pseudo-scientific, cultish practice which is harmful to many being touted everywhere as a cure for whatever?

You don't see why describing a practice as cultish is problematic? I run it through "The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame" and on a scale from 18-180, it scores about a ... 18. Maybe a 20 or 22. There's probably some creepy group out there using it that scores much higher, but I see no reason as a whole to consider it in the least bit cultish.

As for "semi-religious", whatever. I don't see "semi-religious" as a very clear way of communicating anything about the subject, and I'm not going to freak out over the religious origins and current connections it does have. At worst, I might be questioning of government support for Mindfulness programs that I feel are a cover to sneak religion into the public sphere, but that certainly doesn't seem to be true of all of them.

rpp claiming something is pseudo-scientific. I'm less than interested. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124344 is a peer-reviewed metareview that claims that mindfullness can help a lot of mental problems. It's not the end-all and be-all of anything, but it's pretty good evidence against claims of "pseudo-scientific".

"harmful to many". The previous study seems to be good evidence the negative effects, if any, to be exaggerated.

"a cure for whatever": I don't go attacking the drinking of fruit juice because people have claimed fruit juice to be a cure for whatever.

>29 rrp: I have more of a problem with wholly-religious, anti-scientific, cultish practices which are harmful to many being touted everywhere as "a traditional American value."

>35 prosfilaes: -> >10 rrp:

Is the "Mindfulness" Movement a dangerous new cult religion?

Betteridge's law of headlines is an adage that states: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no"."

This story is a great demonstration of my maxim that any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word "no." The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably bullshit, and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.

Then there's the book The Buddha Pill

Millions of people meditate daily but can meditative practices really make us ‘better’ people?

In The Buddha Pill, pioneering psychologists Dr Miguel Farias and Catherine Wikholm put meditation and mindfulness under the microscope. Separating fact from fiction, they reveal what scientific research – including their groundbreaking study on yoga and meditation with prisoners – tells us about the benefits and limitations of these techniques for improving our lives. As well as illuminating the potential, the authors argue that these practices may have unexpected consequences, and that peace and happiness may not always be the end result.

Offering a compelling examination of research on transcendental meditation to recent brain-imaging studies on the effects of mindfulness and yoga, and with fascinating contributions from spiritual teachers and therapists, Farias and Wikholm weave together a unique story about the science and the delusions of personal change.

>37 rrp: That article doesn't support your claims. It says that for some people, meditation can be dangerous. It doesn't say that it is a "new cult religion" or that it's pseudo-scientific. I've been frustrated about this the whole thread; if you wanted to discuss how meditation can be dangerous for some people, there's interesting discussion there. When you fire all barrels at it, you hide any real evidence under a pile of shit.

>39 rrp: the delusions of personal change.

Right, I'm sorry. I shouldn't enter this discussion as if you were going to change your communication style.

An interesting quote from someone who was taught by Thomas Merton in the 1960s:

I looked on Thomas Merton as the living embodiment of the mystical, contemplative heritage of my own Christian tradition.... This ancient tradition is not simply about believing in Jesus, nor is it simply to live as Jesus lived--a life of love for God and for others. Beyond that, the Christian way is also a life in which we are called to follow Jesus in a process of self-emptying by which we come to realize that ultimately there is nothing real in us that is less or other than God's infinite love, which is our life. In other words, we are called to realize the mind of Christ. That is, the mind of the boundless oneness of love--knowing that in the end, love alone remains. That God is love, and all that we really are is a manifestation of the eternal love of God.

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=bb9253a2-0d4c-49a2-9e3a-a70666...

Uh oh! They are targeting the children!

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/08/mindfulness-education-schoo...

>42 southernbooklady:

That's precisely what I am talking about. Bringing unscientific, religiously based practices in to schools, of all places!

From the article ---

"Even when the concept of mindfulness was created it was slightly nebulous; now, as it is reappropriated and circulated in the media, it has become even more so. The lack of a universal definition for mindfulness, along with its increasing association with celebrity and vague implications of spirituality, health, and happiness leave some skeptics dismissing it as a superficial, hokey fad. Meanwhile, practicing Buddhists and others who believe strongly in the spiritual roots of mindfulness are concerned that the meditation techniques are being poorly adopted without a proper understanding of the principles behind them, and the long-term commitment they require—a phenomenon they call “McMindfulness.”"

"In a review last year of 47 different randomized clinical trials, The Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that mindfulness training wasn’t any more effective than other types of therapy, like drugs." (and, for children, naps.)

"But the lack of evidence demonstrating the long-term academic impact of mindfulness has raised concerns about its role as an educational tool. Given the inherent nebulousness of mindfulness as a concept, and the grassroots status of the movement, these concerns are understandable."

"serious questions remain about the overall efficacy of such programs on non-subjective measurements of well-being and academic performance, such as test scores, graduation rates, mental-health referrals, and overall life outcomes."

And don't forget, it can cause serious harm to some.

Some one should bring this thing under control.

I wonder how many people that practice 'mindfulness' think that it has anything to do with religion at all... If at all.

>43 rrp: religiously based practices

Nobody cares. Nobody else is stressed that at some point in the past, it derived from a practice that was part of various religions. So. What.

"In a review last year of 47 different randomized clinical trials, The Journal of the American Medical Association suggested that mindfulness training wasn’t any more effective than other types of therapy, like drugs." (and, for children, naps.)

I see. Is that what the review said, or is that your unscientific, religiously biased addition? You've so impressed us with your love of science in the past, you know. Certainly no more effective then drugs is praising with faint damns, giving the effects that drugs can have and the difficulty and expense of medication. (Ritalin and Adderall are especially hard to use, since you have to get a new prescription every time you need a refill.)

This is life; in life, we do a lot of things that seem to work for us without a full scientific survey. You want to get into a discussion about how much evidence we need before using them in certain cases, that's fine; again, the full attack is working against you.

And don't forget, it can cause serious harm to some.

I see. I hate to repeat myself, but if you want to expand that, maybe find some good sources, that is an issue worth talking about. But neither the JAMA article mentioned above or the article I mentioned warned of such effects, so I'm not feeling like they're a real issue for a significant number of people.

>43 rrp: Also from that article:

“First, sit up straight, put your feet flat on the ground. Let your eyes close.” Gonzalez demonstrated as he instructed. Most of the 15 or so students followed suit—though a few scribbled surreptitiously to finish overdue assignments. Gonzalez tapped the bowl and a rich, metallic sound rang out. The class fell quiet as the note reverberated.

Frankly, I'm just impressed he got the kids to all sit still and be quiet. Using a Tibetan gong doesn't seem like the worst of possible evils when the other options are Ritalin, detention, or going back to jail.

>43 rrp: >45 prosfilaes: The naps are an addition. If mindfulness is as effective as drugs for these conditions, I'm impressed. Most of the drugs used have side effects ranging from uncomfortable to deadly. Teenagers like those described in the article cannot take naps in the middle of the school day.

Nobody cares. Nobody else is stressed that at some point in the past, it derived from a practice that was part of various religions. So. What.

So if they were praying instead of meditating, but the organizers called it non-religious praying, would it really be non-religious?

Certainly no more effective then drugs is praising with faint damns

You skipped right over the "other types of therapy" bit. The other types of therapy could include relaxation, or taking a nap. The paper didn't specify.

This book The Buddha Pill goes into more detail. From one of the reviewers on Amazon, the book explains why

"Clinical research is poorly conducted: has small sample sizes, lacks control groups, and is rife with problematic biases."

and

"There is a dark side to meditation--psychosis, breakdowns, and violent behaviors--that seldom is spoken of by meditation advocates and practitioners."

>46 southernbooklady: "when the other options are Ritalin, detention, or going back to jail"

There are plenty more options than that.

>47 MarthaJeanne:

Teenagers like those described in the article cannot take naps in the middle of the school day.

If they can do mediation, why can't they take naps? I am sure the naps would be at least as effective if not better for them. But the "clinical research is poorly conducted", so no one has asked the question or bothered to find out.

>50 rrp: I am sure the naps would be at least as effective if not better for them. But the "clinical research is poorly conducted",

Clinical research is poorly conducted, therefore we should be interested in claims you have pulled out of your ass. Do you not understand why this is not convincing?

>48 rrp: This book The Buddha Pill goes into more detail. From one of the reviewers on Amazon, the book explains why

We have two scientific surveys for meditation, so you pull out a minor (held by one person on LibraryThing) popular science work against them. A book that you've never actually read, so you quote from one of the reviewers on Amazon.

Again, you fail to make a strong argument. The question, as always, is What's the frequency, Kenneth? If in 10,000 severely depressed individuals, 500 got worse, sometimes severely, and 7000 made complete recoveries from depression as long as meditation continued, it would the first-line tool against serious depression, because nothing else comes close to 70% full recovery. If 0.1% of people react negatively to meditation and recover shortly after quiting it, there's no real concern. What percentage of people are affected, and how severely, particularly after quiting? Those are crucial facts.

>50 rrp: Because this was 5 minutes sitting at their desks.

>52 MarthaJeanne: Have you not heard of "The Power Nap"?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2869.2008.00622.x/abstract

>51 prosfilaes: No. I haven't read the book yet. But I did read, in one of the papers cited by the one in your >35 prosfilaes:, of evidence of mindfulness theapy increasing the risk of recurrence for depression with subjects who had fewer than three prior episodes of depression. I hope someone checked that those kids had a sufficient number of prior episodes of depression before putting them at risk.

You know, reading this stuff leads one to extend the old saying -- the are lies, damned lies, statistics, medical statistics and then there are statistics compiled from medical statistics. But for what it's worth, I'll see your

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0124344

meta analysis and raise you with

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3964149/#!po=38.1098

which is merely about medical statistics (all be it of reasonable power.)

Their conclusion showed that mindfulness showed "no significant advantage in comparison to an active control treatment and usual care over the whole group of patients with recurrent depression."

From Richard Rohr's Daily Meditation:

Being peace is an absolute prerequisite for making peace. And by "being peace," . . . Thich Nhat Hanh means deepening the practice of mindfulness, both formally in regular meditation as well as throughout the day as we receive every person and every event that enters our lives...

Dangerous stuff? Actually it is; working for peace in the world is dangerous.

Is this the sort of stuff you are concerned about, rrp?

The mindblowing expense of mindfulness (Guardian)

Is there a link between vibrators, colouring-in books and Buddhism?

I think it trivialises mindfulness, and I certainly am not impressed at the commercialisation of it, but I'm not sure I'd call it dangerous.

>57 John5918:

That is certainly one valid criticism. The people who do real meditation call it McMindfulness. I have no objection to Buddhists meditating, nor those of other religions where meditation is a traditional part of their religious rituals, so long as they are trained and supervised properly (I understand it take many years of dedicated effort to get right.)

What I object to is both McMindfulness and all the hoopla that surrounds it, but also those who encourage others to attempt meditation, in informal situations, as a pseudo-medical salve, when it has been shown, scientifically, to be dangerous.

but I'm not sure I'd call it dangerous

Did you not follow the scientific evidence?

>58 rrp: Did you not follow the scientific evidence?

As i pointed out in #35, the scientific evidence seems pretty solidly for mindfulness. You've offered hearsay and pop-science against actual peer-reviewed articles.

>59 prosfilaes:

Ah. So you didn't bother to read the articles cited by your "meta" paper. Didn't think you had; just pulled it off the internet without really working out if the stuff it was based on was valid. You really shouldn't believe everything you read without a small dose of skepticism and a lot of critical thinking.

See >55 rrp:, read the science cited there, and practice your skills.

>55 rrp: The article whose conclusion is MBCT provided significant protection against relapse for participants with increased vulnerability due to history of childhood trauma, but showed no significant advantage in comparison to an active control treatment and usual care over the whole group of patients with recurrent depression. disproves your claim that mindfulness is dangerous. "Participants reported 15 SAEs to the research team, five arising from MBCT and 10 from CPE." (Significant adverse events and cognitive psychological education for the acronyms.)

Stop pretending that the scientific evidence supports that MBCT is dangerous.

>61 prosfilaes:

This is good. We have walked you back some. You have noticed that I have done more than "offered hearsay and pop-science"; I actually linked you to peer-reviewed articles. Then we have moved the science from "mindfulness works" to "mindfulness doesn't work". Actually, it's "mindfulness is helpful, but only to a very limited population". So all we have to do now is get to "mindfulness is harmful to a limited population", which isn't beyond the realm of possibility, and then show that the "harmed" population is bigger than the "helped" population. You'd agree then that mindfulness is, taken overall, harmful. No?

>62 rrp: You linked to a peer-reviewed article and misstated what it said. The article says "showed no significant advantage in comparison to an active control treatment and usual care over the whole group of patients with recurrent depression." That's "it works". The studies are pretty clear that no red flags are jumping up during them.

I give up on this discussion. You don't care about the science, or about the facts as far as I can tell. You have your opinion you're pushing, and to hell with the facts.

>63 prosfilaes: That's "it works"

And there was I thinking you were making progress. You didn't read the article in depth, did you?

By "in comparison to ... usual care" they meant that they were comparing using mindfulness to not using mindfulness. (Mindfulness was always used with the usual care.)

"showed no significant advantage" means that using mindfulness was no more effective than not using mindfulness.

That is a long, long way from "it works". They could have compared mindfulness to any other treatment that didn't work and got exactly the same result. They proved it doesn't work.

Now, sure, that particular article didn't show that mindfulness was harmful (just useless). For that you have to go back to the article you originally linked and follow the "meta" studies back to the original studies. There you will find the evidence that mindfulness is harmful to many.

If you cared about the science, you would follow the trail. But you won't do that because you put your blind faith in something you read which was about what someone else read somewhere else.

Actually, the dangerous treatment for depression is drugs. The most commonly used drug used for depression causes patients to commit suicide, and as this is most likely to happen in teenagers, can't be used for them. Luckily I knew about the danger and was able to stop taking the drug when it started affecting me that way.

>65 MarthaJeanne: All treatments for all ailments are dangerous to some degree. We need good evidence of what works and what does not. Unfortunately, in medicine, that is hard to obtain due to a confluence of reasons, not least of which is that it is so hard to get to perform decisive studies on human beings, particularly where the human mind is both subject, object and agent. Great care must be taken not to violate the "first do no harm" rule.

It also doesn't help that medical researchers have such a hard time with statistics.

Mindfulness is not a "treatment". To be very purist about it, if you're using it to achieve something then you are probably missing the point. Anthony de Mello clearly implies this when using his term Awareness. The aim of mindfulness is to be mindful... or just to be.

>67 John5918:

You are probably right, but I am not sure why anyone would do anything that didn't have a purpose. But I find your "if you're using it to achieve something then you are probably missing the point" is logically incompatible with "The aim of mindfulness is to be mindful". Either is has an aim or it doesn't. It's this sort of mumbo jumbo that I find impossible to understand.

Besides that, for all of the things we have heard about above, mindfulness has an aim. In the case of the school children it is supposed to be "a means of improving kids’ attention and emotional regulation". In the case of the doctors using it with patients who had depression, it is meant to be a treatment which prevents the reoccurrence of that depression. Of course, since it doesn't work, one could legitimately claim it's not a treatment, in the same way that a medicine that doesn't work is not a medicine.

>67 John5918: As I say, you're missing the point.

>69 John5918:

I am probably missing your point about "Mindfulness has no aim. The aim to be mindful" which I have a hard time parsing. Please help, if you can.

I don't think I am missing the point that every other use of mindfulness here has been as a "treatment".

>70 rrp: Not everything has to have a point. But I'm not sure I can summarise thousands of years of the mystical tradition in a satisfactory way.

>72 rrp:

Not everything has to have a point.

I thought that this was a central tenet of most religions. That everything has a point.

But I'm not sure I can summarise thousands of years of the mystical tradition in a satisfactory way.

No worries. I fear, in my case, it would be like trying to explain redness to someone who is colorblind. (It's probably something like poetry.)

>70 rrp: I thought that this was a central tenet of most religions. That everything has a point.

Only if one insists on being mindful about everything.

>73 jburlinson:

Ah. Maybe I see it. >73 jburlinson: points to >70 rrp:, but the text quoted was in >72 rrp:. A complete confusion about what refers to what. Mysticism in a Nutshell.

>64 rrp: By "in comparison to ... usual care" they meant that they were comparing using mindfulness to not using mindfulness.

Right, my mistake. Thus their evidence is that it has no effect, good or bad.

For that you have to go back to the article you originally linked and follow the "meta" studies back to the original studies.

You're cherry-picking. You can't complain about statistical effect in the meta study and pound on the original studies it's based on. You certainly shouldn't be referring to a study you're not willing to cite.

If you cared about the science, you would follow the trail. But you won't do that because

Because I don't really care about mindfulness. If I was worried about it one way or another, I might poke harder.

What this is watching you fail at rhetoric and fail at science. Not once have you pointed to a scientific study that said that it was bad for you, and yet you claim that's what the "science" says. >62 rrp: is an incredible fail at convincing me that there's anything the science could say that would convince you, and the title itself leads this off in making it risible.

>75 prosfilaes:

Oh. I thought you had given up. Welcome back.

Right, my mistake. Thus their evidence is that it has no effect, good or bad.

Good. You are back on track backing up. We will get you there in the end.

You're cherry-picking.

Guilty as charged. That's the real problem here.

"... very, very few studies, particularly on mindfulness, are actually asking participants if they have suffered any negative effects from meditating. So we are not asking participants this information. And because there is this whole hyped belief that meditation is always good for you, as a researcher what I think we're dealing with is a massive lack of information. People are not simply coming forward and saying, "Actually, I felt rather bad at a certain stage." They're either not saying anything or dropping out of the studies."

"A practice that a few decades ago was hippie is now hip—it has made its way into the NHS, schools, and parliament, and a multitude of scientists are churning out new studies on its health merits. The positive reports of mindfulness are given wide coverage, but this can’t be said for the published contradictory evidence."

Both quotes from Miguel Farias.

But a few make it through the peer pressure to conform.

This one shows, that despite what people say, their biological stress levels (as measured by the quantity of the stress hormone cortisol), goes up in people who take brief mindfulness meditation training (compared to a control). The authors try to spin it away, but the data don't lie.

http://www.kirkwarrenbrown.vcu.edu/wp-content/pubs/Creswell%20et%20al%20PNE%2020...

And this one, reports that nearly 2/3 of people who practice long term meditation, report adverse effects.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Shapiro+meditation+1992

>76 rrp: And this one, reports that nearly 2/3 of people who practice long term meditation, report adverse effects.

Jesus, that's weak tea. The abstract to which you link (full article is unavailable to me, as far as I can tell) is a "preliminary investigation" with 27 subjects. The abstract fails to define "adverse effects." From the abstract, I can't even tell what specific practices are covered by the term "meditation." The authors, to their credit, include "Limitations of the study and suggestions for future research" as a significant topic of the paper.

To generalize as you do from these data is pathetically tendentious. The research question is certainly worth asking, but for you to treat it as settled on the basis of this sort of evidence is not cricket. "The data don't lie," but you're lying about them.

I haven't been here in years and it's quite funny to me that some of the same people are arguing with the same poor tactics they were using at least 5 years ago....

Roughly put that concept seems to be:

Science is bad and scientists all lie about their data, except for these couple of people I've found who stand bravely in the face of all the other scientist.

hmmmm....

I'm not a fan of mindfulness but this characterization of it as a cult and as dangerous seems like nothing more than a witch hunt. It's the religious equivalent of a neo-con red scare. We need an enemy to keep the masses stirred up and thinking unclearly. In the 50's it was comics, then came rock-n-roll, later it was actually witchcraft and devil worship, the new age practices, and so on and so on.... None of these turned out to be much of anything of a threat of any kind to anyone or anything, and mindfulness is a laughable corporatization of meditation which will amount to a hill of beans in the long run.

>74 rrp: Ah. Maybe I see it. >73 jburlinson: jburlinson: points to >70 rrp: rrp:, but the text quoted was in >72 rrp: rrp:. A complete confusion about what refers to what. Mysticism in a Nutshell.

It can't be "complete" confusion, since you were able to sort it out, albeit after, presumably, considerable effort. (BTW -- one can't achieve mysticism via a typo.)

>64 rrp: If you cared about the science, ...

Do you care about the science? If so, that's news, of a sort, considering your longstanding antagonism to the scientific method.

If you've made your peace with science, you might be interested in this literature review:
"Mindfulness Research Update: 2008" -- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2679512/

which, among other things, points to research on the efficacy of mindfulness-based training on such pathologies as borderline personality disorder and substance use disorder.

Picking just one of the CBTs that incorporate mindfulness, let's look at Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). A couple of articles, from a large literature on the subject:

-- "Dialectical Behavior Therapy for Substance Abusers" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2797106/
-- "Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Current Indications and Unique Elements" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2963469/

>77 paradoxosalpha:
Since all >76 rrp: has given us is an abstract, we're forced to study its few words very carefully.

Here is a phrase that probably deserves considerable attention: "At both time one and time three subjects reported significantly more positive effects than negative from meditation."

It is hard for me to see why rrp seems to feel so confident in citing this as a scientific refutation of meditation.

On a more personal note, however, I have to say that I've noticed, on certain occasions, that longer periods of meditation tend to be positively correlated with an elevated likelihood of a bout of flatulence, which, in turn, could be registered as an adverse effect by anyone else practicing in my vicinity.

>77 paradoxosalpha:

The research question is certainly worth asking.

In every post, you move a little nearer. Keep going ...

>78 inkdrinker:

mindfulness is a laughable corporatization of meditation which will amount to a hill of beans in the long run

Play it, Sam.

>79 jburlinson:

Do you care about the science?

Yup.

If so, that's news, of a sort, considering your longstanding antagonism to the scientific method.

It shouldn't be -- because I have no antagonism to the scientific method; after all, it doesn't exist. What I do have is the desire to spread the good news to the un-enlightened that there is no one "scientific method", there are many methods used by scientists. This seems to come as a bit of a shock to those stuck in the past. But you should take note that organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences are endorsing teaching that "avoids the mistaken impression that there is one distinctive approach common to all science—a single “scientific method”".

>80 jburlinson:

It's curious that both you and >77 paradoxosalpha: went after the easy piece and totally ignored my other link, which I would have thought was better fodder for you to chew on. It's complete, it has reasonable statistical methods (not the raw data though.) Maybe it's too tough for you, but have a go, do.

And your links in >79 jburlinson: also miss the point, again. None, as far as I can tell talk about any adverse effects from mindfulness or mediation. I am going to repeat the quote from >76 rrp: because you obviously missed it the first time.

"... very, very few studies, particularly on mindfulness, are actually asking participants if they have suffered any negative effects from meditating. So we are not asking participants this information. And because there is this whole hyped belief that meditation is always good for you, as a researcher what I think we're dealing with is a massive lack of information. People are not simply coming forward and saying, "Actually, I felt rather bad at a certain stage." They're either not saying anything or dropping out of the studies."

You know, if you ask any smoker, they will report "significantly more positive effects than negative from" smoking. And not all smokers die from smoking related illnesses. Maybe we should be encouraging school children to take up smoking. (Do you see what's missing now?).

Here are two more sites to provide food for thought

http://cheetahhouse.org
http://skepticmeditations.com

>81 rrp: In every post, you move a little nearer. Keep going ....

I'm being lumped in with someone else here, I guess. (Everyone who doesn't swallow your claims at face value?) Because your reply there was to my first post in this thread.

The fact is, as soon as you use the phrase "dangerous cult religion," you've lost me. Not because I don't think there are abusive religious groups or dangerous religious practices, but because the three-word phrase is stock rhetoric from people who use scare-mongering expressly in order to vilify and attack newer religious groups.

>81 rrp:: In every post, you move a little nearer. Keep going ...

Rhetoric. Fail. You are not some wise teacher; you are arguing for your position. Telling us "you don't agree with me, change your position" is not a way to advance a discussion.

>84 rrp: None, as far as I can tell talk about any adverse effects from mindfulness or mediation. I am going to repeat the quote from >76 rrp: rrp: because you obviously missed it the first time.

No, I didn't miss it the first time. The significant phrase in your first sentence above is "as far as I can tell", which means: "I don't know because I haven't really read the primary research, so I can't tell whether or not anyone was asked about adverse effects. I'm just making assumptions about all this." 'Fess up, now -- you haven't read any of the primary material cited in the various literature reviews dealing with the efficacy of mindfulness-based training, have you? You don't know what their protocols were, do you?

BTW -- Miguel Farias and Catherine Wikholm do not deny any efficacy to meditation/mindfulness. They're happy to acknowledge that these practices can be shown to contribute to lowering of psychological distress. What they point out, however, is that this does not necessarily translate into reducing aggressive behavior or making a person better or nicer. I once heard Farias say something like mindfulness makes for happier assholes.

As for adverse effects, there are all kinds of effective therapies that entail unpleasant consequences -- think chemotherapy.

Insofar as this has anything to do with religion, there are plenty of people who talk about the hardships and perils of the contemplative approach. So where are you really going with all this? Are you just trying to say that simplistic "mindfulness" is just as bogus as simplistic anything else?

>88 jburlinson: What they point out, however, is that this does not necessarily translate into reducing aggressive behavior or making a person better or nicer.

This conclusion tallies with my anecdotal observations.

RRP

"mindfulness is a laughable corporatization of meditation which will amount to a hill of beans in the long run

Play it, Sam."

If you agree that it is a "laughable corporatization of meditation", then why are you hyping it as a dangerous cult? It's not a cult... It's a consumer packaging of a medical practice in a way which makes it a silly product and devoid of purpose.

>90 inkdrinker: It's a consumer packaging of a medical practice in a way which makes it a silly product and devoid of purpose.

I don't want to put words in rrp's mouth, but my guess is that rrp would question the validity of the "medical practice" itself. Otherwise, like you, I can't figure out why anyone would spend so much time excoriating a pop version of mindfulness lite, which doesn't seem any more than counting to ten or taking a deep breath.

Some of us struggle to get much past 4.

I struggle to think of mindfulness as a medical practice. That's not how I have ever viewed it.

>93 John5918: Mindfulness training has been incorporated into a number of cognitive based therapies (CBTs), used by many clinical psychologists and social workers. They call it Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT). A number of these were built upon the use of mindfulness training for stress reduction programs developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn.

>87 prosfilaes: "you don't agree with me, change your position"

That's odd, because I thought you had changed your mind at least once in this thread.

Fess up, now -- you haven't read any of the primary material cited in the various literature reviews dealing with the efficacy of mindfulness-based training, have you?

Not every single one, no. But a number.

I once heard Farias say something like mindfulness makes for happier assholes.

And so does smoking. But the big difference is that no one, as far a I know (that phrase again) is encouraging school children to smoke.

As for adverse effects, there are all kinds of effective therapies that entail unpleasant consequences -- think chemotherapy.

This is true. But then the medical profession has done a lot to find out what those adverse effects are. Very few are doing anything about the adverse medical effects of mindfulness.

>90 inkdrinker: >91 jburlinson:

I certainly do question the validity of mindfulness as a medical practice, and as a practice that some are encouraging everyone at large to try, including school children. It is silly, it is wrapped in cultish (as in a cult film) consumer packaging. But those who advocate it are not devoid of purpose. They are inflicting something potentially dangerous on innocents.

>96 rrp: Very few are doing anything about the adverse medical effects of mindfulness.

Simply not true. The Melbourne Academic Mindfulness Interest Group, for one, take a very empirical approach.

See Mindfulness Training and Problem Formulation
for a sober discussion.

Also, a very recent publication: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms of Change in Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy in the Treatment of Recurrent Major Depressive Disorder

Researchers take this very seriously.


If you don't believe me, consult the literature cited at http://www.oxfordmindfulness.org/mbct/publications/

The first paper in the Oxford list gave me a 404.

The second yielded this great quote.

"It is remarkable that after decades of psychotherapy research, we can not provide an evidence-based explanation for how or why even our most well studied interventions produce change."

Some would argue it ain't science unless you can provide "an evidence-based explanation for how or why" \the WHATEVER IT IS\ produces change.

"Researchers take this very seriously."

I would say some researchers take this very seriously. Which we can agree is a GOOD THING.

Here's another good quote from that second paper.

"As negative findings may not always be published, it is currently not possible to estimate the potential prevalence of a "file-drawer phenomena" or publication bias in the field."

The first paper in >98 jburlinson: gives this

"Patients with only two previous episodes showed a nonsignificantly greater tendency to relapse following MBCT than patients who continued with treatment as usual."

(this was the result I was prompting prosfilaes to find BTW.)

So what do you think the probability is, that someone, somewhere, tomorrow, is encouraged to try mindfulness AND has two or fewer episodes of depression? Greater than 50%?

jburlinson 91:

My point in 90 was that rrp seems to be agreeing with me that mindfulness is a silly corporatization of meditation and that it will amount to a hill of beans in the long and yet he is all concerned that it is dangerous and a cult... I don't spend a great deal of energy worrying about things I think are trite and likely to amount to nothing... RRP does...

I'm guessing the real purpose here is one that rears its head often with RRP. He wants to discount science that doesn't agree with his world view. Oddly enough, he often uses (bad) science to try to prove his points. He will cherry pick the bits which fit what he wants to say, or pick the two scientist who disagree with hundreds if not thousands of other scientists to make his case. The arguments are in bad faith and seek simply to discredit what he doesn't like without actually considering the real science.

>102 rrp: "nonsignificantly"

>103 inkdrinker: rrp seems to be agreeing with me that mindfulness is a silly corporatization of meditation

While you and rrp might agree on this, I don't. At least I don't agree that mindfulness training, when incorporated into some cognitive-based therapy programs, has no efficacy in relieving psychological distress. There's just too much evidence supporting its value. I, for one, have known many people whose suffering has been alleviated. People in the grip of disabling anxiety disorder, for example, can get significant benefit from using systematic mindfulness techniques to re-orient their thinking. At least it has a better track record than telling someone to "snap out of it".

It's easy to say that some watered-down, half-digested version of anything is silly. Think of chaos theory.

>100 rrp: I would say some researchers take this very seriously. Which we can agree is a GOOD THING.

So what in heaven's name are you carrying on about? First you say that nobody is trying to deal with mindfulness in an empirical way. Then you pick nits with phrases you find in the literature where researchers are doing just that.

It's like complaining about how easy it is to shoot ducks in a barrel and then criticizing the ducks who fly out of the barrel.

>106 jburlinson:

First you say that nobody is trying to deal with mindfulness in an empirical way.

No. I didn't say nobody is trying to deal with mindfulness in an empirical way. A few are definitely trying. I said that few were taking the negative effects of mindfulness seriously. There are many, many people out there doing things like making school children do "mindfulness" without sufficient training and without taking into account the risks involved.

>103 inkdrinker:

Which is and isn't the "bad" science is a matter for debate. I happen to believe that most of the stuff I have read about mindfulness research would be labeled as "bad science" by anyone in the hard sciences or by anyone who understands statistics. Maybe "bad science" would be going too far, "weak" is maybe a better adjective, "extremely tentative" would work.

105:
I don't think that meditation is useless or bad... I do think that the "mindfulness" trend being sold as a solution to just about everything is just a pointless fad. It's a repackaging and trivialization of an actually useful tool.

Meditation has been used in therapy and other medical practices for ages and has been shown to have positive effects for many.

I have no horses in this race. So, sans prejudice, I took a look inside myself to see what I thought prima facie.

I started by finding out the meaning of the word. Mindfulness is a non-judgmental acknowledgement of one's internal responses, otherwise referred to as an awakening.

Its opposite is mindlessness, which should hardly need defining.

I, for one, favor mindfulness in all cases over mindlessness.

It's difficult to pay attention to one's immediate moments as life unfolds and avoid judging them. Mindfulness, as defined, sounds like the immediate precursor to what is commonly known as conscience, where/when the judging gets done.

Mindlessness is not the precursor to anything beneficial, good, or wise. It's the top of the spiral into stupidity, lack of judgment, absence of self-censorship, and disregard for right and wrong.

If mindfulness is a cult, then it appears on the face to be the most harmless cult in the history of mankind.

How can you determine what it is you think without paying mindful attention? The mindless do not know there own mind, by definition. They are the first line of potential receptacles for the minds of others whose ideas are dangerous, evil, and venal.

How is that ever good?

So, fanaticism aside, mindfulness sounds about as un-cultish as a cult could be. Mindfulness combined with the wisdom of ancient Greece, moderation in all things, sounds ultimately wise underpinnings for a philosophy -- religious or secular.

>110 Limelite: I started by finding out the meaning of the word. Mindfulness is a non-judgmental acknowledgement of one's internal responses, otherwise referred to as an awakening.

So when asked about the Peoples Temple, do you say "people are good, temples are good, it's all good"? The "Mindfulness" Movement has a somewhat specific meaning which can sort of be handwaved as meditation-lite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mindfulness goes into some specifics about it, which is far more complex then what you're mentioning.

Mindfulness, as defined, sounds like the immediate precursor to what is commonly known as conscience, where/when the judging gets done.

As per >88 jburlinson:, some scholars think that "mindfulness makes for happier assholes". It's quite easy for some people, when they are taught to focus on the present, to imagine that everyone should get off their back for their past transgressions, instead of being conscious of what they did wrong and that people may not forgive or trust them for bad actions.

>111 prosfilaes:

Did you overlook, "fanaticism aside"?

Once mindfulness becomes redefined to mislead the gullible and corrupted into a craze of the crazed, it's nothing less than mindlessness.

Twisting the meaning of mindfulness to mean a self-satisfied state of faux bliss is not what I'm discussing. As I said, I have no horse in this new fad. Nor do I feel aroused to rescue the gullible from their gullibility. I have learned from life (and from LT threads) that the gullible are always with us.

Yes, fanatics of all stripes are dangerous to the gen pub. But how much danger do happy assholes pose in comparison to so many other fanatics of other stripes? I think it's inescapable human nature to despise assholes and frankly hate happy ones. How dare they?

This "movement" probably should be characterized as "evolving Buddhism," or as a book title calls it, "Evolving Dharma." Dharma being loosely defined as "protection" -- in the case of "movement' folks, probably protection from thinking ill or badly about oneself, one's existence; from feeling numbed by one's problems or misery. It reminds me of nothing more than a retread of the Hippie culture of my youth (substituting meditation for mind-altering drugs) and occasionally dressed in the rather thin robes of (misinterpreted?) neuroscience.

Speaking of which, I'd like to see the recorded brainwaves of people deep in a video game trance. Don't you imagine there must be some startling similarities?

>112 Limelite: I can't tell whether you're equivocating or playing "no true Scotsman"; some of both, I guess. There is something we're discussing here, and despite the disagreements, and the fuzzy lines with no clear center, we seem to have a common understanding of what we're talking about. Acting like you're disagreeing with someone when in fact you're using your own definition of one of the words is not helpful.

>113 prosfilaes:
There's probably a much simpler solution. I'm no dogmatic ideologue. I don't disagree with anyone whose commented one way or another; I'm mostly against misappropriating the use of good words, already well defined. And I'm advocating for a measured and pragmatic reaction to an ill-defined movement, that hardly is capable of posing more permanent danger to society than Hippy and EST fads once did.

Moderation in reaction to things we disagree with is probably a good thing, too. I'm trying to be mindful of that.

Mindfulness has huge health potential – but McMindfulness is no panacea (Guardian)

More from the Guardian

Mindfulness? I’d rather live life to the full.

Mindfulness for mental health? Don’t hold your breath.

Maybe we need less mindfulness and more making their mind up.

And there's this from the less radical New York Times.

Can We End the Meditation Madness?

After careful consideration, I've decided that YES, MINDFULNESS IS A DANGEROUS NEW CULT.

>118 Jesse_wiedinmyer:

Jesse, I am pleased you have seen the light.

Considering mindfulness to be a dangerous new cult has itself become a new missionary cult.

This just in, understanding that considering mindfulness to be a cult is a cult is now also a cult... and trying to think as clearly as one can is a religion... Science is fantasy... and frivolous belief systems are critical thinking.... It's madness I tells ya... madness...

Considering mindfulness to be a dangerous new cult has itself become a new missionary cult.

Have you considered joining? You get really nice robes, and most of the people that you meet at the airport are really nice.

Our leader, rrp, can be quite messianic, but only in the best of possible ways. And the kool-aid is delicious.

Cool. We made it to cult status!

Do we really need more guides to mindfulness? (Guardian)

>125 John5918:
In the Guardian article, on mindfulness, Oliver Burkeman says:

"And for all the debunking, there’s now plenty of evidence that cultivating this state is associated with lower anxiety and depression, and improved physical health.....

Contrary to the debunkers, the point certainly isn’t that mindfulness is rubbish. It’s that it’s so non-rubbish – so much a crucial foundation of a fulfilling life – that you shouldn’t relegate it to the status of a minor hobby, something to be done with your downtime. And that you might already be doing it."

>125 John5918:

What I got from that article was:

1. "I have a personal theory that almost everyone secretly meditates".

which he explains is paying attention. Apparently anyone who pays attention is "secretly" meditating. I am all for paying attention; but I ain't meditating when I do it, sorry.

2. "We could get sucked into some philosophical quicksand here: after all, is it really possible to be aware of anything except your present conscious experience?"

Duh! Obviously not. Give us a break.

3. "Still, most of us intuitively grasp the difference between being distracted, or daydreaming of being somewhere else, and the feeling of full, multisensory engagement in the moment. paying attention."

True.

"in which thoughts, whether positive or negative, are seen as passing weather"

but that is psychobabble.

4. I think I might check out the Ladybird Book of Mindfulness.

>127 rrp: "in which thoughts, whether positive or negative, are seen as passing weather" -- but that is psychobabble.

Hardly. In the 1950's, there was a suicide epidemic in Great Britain, with over 2,500 people annually asphyxiating themselves by putting their heads in stoves run by coal gas -- more than half the number of all national suicides. The oven was known as “the execution chamber in everyone’s kitchen.” In the 1960's, the British government phased out coal gas in favor of the much cleaner natural gas, and by the early 1970s, the amount of carbon monoxide running through domestic gas lines had been reduced to nearly zero. During those same years, Britain’s national suicide rate dropped by nearly a third, and it has remained close to that reduced level ever since.

>128 jburlinson:

I am missing your point. The full sentence from the article was

"Still, most of us intuitively grasp the difference between being distracted, or daydreaming of being somewhere else, and the feeling of full, multisensory engagement in the moment, in which thoughts, whether positive or negative, are seen as passing weather."

That sentence is psychobabble. Everyone can tell the difference between someone else being distracted and paying attention. However, if you are being distracted, you do not noticed that you are no longer paying attention to what you are supposed to be paying attention to, until your attention is drawn back. Of course, when you are being distracted, you are indeed paying attention, just to the wrong thing. When I am distracted, I am often have a "feeling of full, multisensory engagement in the moment". See, that sentence is nonsense.

My comment was about the statement, not a value judgment on whether negative thoughts should or should not be seen as "passing weather".

Your thread's point and purpose, which are important, got "LibraryThing"ed--that's a term I just coined to describe the ------ and their ------- ------ reactions to the quite valid points you raised.

Being "LibraryThing"-ed is about as far as one can get from useful, fair and disinterested questions from people who are simply being curious. It's mean-spirited "axe-grinding" from -------- --------.

___________________

(dashes are used to self-censor the more frank, honest descriptive terms which this site's rules of censorship prohibit.)

For your readers' information:

https://samharris.org/subscriber-extras/waking-up-course-the-dark-side-of-medita...

https://www.brown.edu/research/labs/britton/sites/britton-lab/files/images/Linda...

Since someone has resurrected this thread now, I can report that I was on the Camino last year and one of our fellow travellers was someone who has a big international job teaching mindfulness in one of the biggest and most visible corporations in the world. I have rarely met a less mindful person in her own self, but apparently she is being paid a huge salary to teach it to the company's employees. God help them.

Such people teaching things like mindfulness reminds me a bit of the parody video If Gandhi Took A Yoga Class

>130 proximity1: Given that you've given us a link to a site one can't read without payment, one might ask: Is Sam Harris the leader of a dangerous new cult religion? I'm sure that's the right way to phrase that if one wants a reasonable discussion.

>132 prosfilaes: :

"Given that you've given us a link to a site one can't read without payment, one might ask: Is Sam Harris the leader of a dangerous new cult religion? I'm sure that's the right way to phrase that if one wants a reasonable discussion."

Typical of you--you go off half-cocked, not knowing WTF your're talking about.

To be precise, the link requires that a reader subscribe to have access (with regard to these parts of his site). But anyone who is actually and in truth unable to afford the price of a subscription may, upon a simple request, receive a regular subscriber's access. No questions are asked--it's based on the honor-system, which, of course, leaves those like you who have no honor free to abuse it. But that's the way Sam wants it. All requests are granted.

Being among those who genuinely couldn't afford to pay a subscriber's fee, I, after a long time resisting, finally requested a free access. As Sam routinely says,

"I never want money to be the reason why someone can’t get access to my digital content. If you really can’t afford a monthly or annual subscription to SamHarris.org, just contact us, and we’ll give you a 1-year membership for free."

(renewable by request if your circumstances have not improved.)

"Can’t Afford a Subscription?" Contact Us.