Jokes are jokes ...

Is there a cite?

While the study of mindfulness meditation is still relatively young ... the short term physical benefits seem to be shown, you can start researching here.

However, the point of the article is not that without the underlying philosophy and ethical framework the physical health benefits and mental benefits, won't manifest, the increased focus and concentration won't manifest. The question in the article is what next?

Is it then that we view mcmindfullness and mindfullness as polar opposites

but it might be that mc and mindfullness are polar and mcmindfullness is in between?

I doubt either one confers much benefit in and of themselves, instead I suspect most of the measured benefits are byproducts of gaining more structure in your daily life, and for some this might also mean sleeping and eating more regularly (which can have very big positive impact on your physical and mental status). I have also noted that in the few clinical trials the test groups have live led very structured regimes throughout the trial period which I suspect can explain much of the results.

For mild anxiety and stress symptoms I would guess it can confer some benefit by teaching people to concentrate and focus. Of course some will note that indirect results are also positive outcomes for people involved in these practices, and that is true. I am merely offering my opinion on the clinical side of the matter. It should be noted that I am not a clinical or research psychologist however, my speciality is social psychology.

Personally I would recommend people to do physical exercise instead. The positive effects thereof are hugely supported empirically to much greater degree than mindfulness and the yield is also notably higher. Even in the cases where it doesn't confer and positive psychological effects it is almost a clinch in regards to giving very good physical effects. If one must have mindfulness, then combining it with yoga practices would therefore be my recommendation.

Isn't it the mindfulness brings this things into focus?


It might be said that anxiety comes from the lack of mindfulness.

It is the mcmindfulness peoples, or the mc, that have decided that yoga can be separate from mindfulness. I'm sorry if I am not yet in context, but these arts (taichi, martial arts, monastery work) are supposed to be different ways to the same mindfulness result and not separate or a process towards the result.

Not anymore than say, soccer. Which I suspect would do even better in the same type of clinical trials (collect two groups for two weeks, let one do soccer and let the control sit around and wait).

It might sound clever in robes, but implicitly it's just a tautology and not something that sounds impressive to my ears. Rather the opposite.

im still hoping im in context, but we'll get there if i am not, are we equating sitting around and waiting with mindfulness?

There is a book such as the zen of archery...we are to attain mindfulness in our daily arts, is this different than what you point to?
No not while you are trained in psychology.

No, that was a reference to the the control group, which was specifically stated. A control group does not receive treatment - it is a control group.

I don't know that book, sorry.

I doubt my profession has much to do with things. I wouldn't be very impressed if you looked at my car and noted that "it is broken, because it is not unbroken" either.

I think this is pretty reasonable - the commercial McMindfulness is just another tool. The thing is, one can practice the techniques of Mindfulness anywhere at anytime - it really isn't an intrusive practice, unlike going out and exercising. You don't need to schedule mindfulness into your schedule, you can practice it at your desk, on the train into work, waiting for the meeting to start, while exercising, etc ...

What the article is pointing out is this practices are really just focused on the individual and not paying attention to the toxic environments that are causing the stress and anxiety - its all put on the individual to just "deal with it." That mindfulness and anxiety/stress are a just a private internal affair - the reflection on any social suffering or dukkha is taken out of the picture.

To quote the article:

So, once an individual realizes some positive effects of mindfulness training - then what? Without the underlying philosophy and ethics - it would seem to just reinforce the status quo.

To quote a quote:

That was what I took away from the article as well. I read something a while back about an ex-executioner. He went on to describe a sort of mindfulness process he developed to help him, as t_d put it, “better cope” with the situations he faced. The end result left him currently coping with PTSD. So I guess the moral of the story is that there can be a boomerang effect when one employs meditative practices outside the schemas they’re just parts of, like the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism or the Eight Limbs of Yoga. I think for the people who practice either in a spiritual sense, they come to realize that the deeper stages of meditation aren’t accessible to a mind that hasn’t cleansed itself of wrong views or wrong intentions. So there’s a sort of safety valve or impetus to remove oneself from those stress causing situations or eradicate the world of the toxic situation itself. But just like motivating a person without imparting knowledge leaves us with a motivated idiot, teaching people to better cope with toxic situations leaves us with more toxic situations.

I'll concede that availability is a good selling point. That it can have mild therapeutic effects is also proven.

As for the question of ethics, I don't really have an opinion on that. Most variants of Buddhism strikes me as agreeable, but I don't personally see anything wrong with taking practices out of Buddhism and applying them in everyday life if it can help people. I do, however, understand why an adherent would feel this cheapens them.

I don't think there is anything wrong with taking the practices out of Buddhism and presenting it in a secular context. It's taking the ethics, secular or religious, out of the picture puts the practice as a whole out of context.

It does smell a bit like scare tactics to me. "Look at these practices without ethics" and then proceed to give the imagery of good and healthy ethical practice being sold out and adorned with the archetypical McDonalds logo. A logo that is often popularly used to symbolize the dangers of combining corporate greed with the ignorance of pop-culture.

It smells of recategorizing instead of proper argument.

I finally got to catch up on all this thread. I don't find these two are contradictory. Just sets up what is going on, and points out there is no empirical evidence, and in the 2nd points out the difference between using such teaching in the correct and incorrect direction.

The issue is words and understandings fall flat when we try to point out what mindfulness really entails. There might be intent to achieve mindfulness but mindfulness does not entail intent. So we point to certain practices that might lead someone to such an understanding, but the practices themselves are not mindfulness. Like telling someone to cross their eyes to see a stare-o-gram, it might help them see the 3d picture eventually, but if they use 'crossed eyes' as their new religion they might never see it.

In mindfulness we seek to abide in the present moment, practicing mindfulness as a goal to something is like putting our efforts into crossing our eyes. We exit the present moment in that way.

In any daily activity we might practice mindfulness, but in any daily activity the practice of mindfulness might be the hindrance from the mindful state.

Its debatable and confusing that practice might lead to mastery of mindfulness, although often taught this way. We are talking about being in the present moment which cannot then involve the past and the events leading up to the present. Otherwise we bring in process and becoming.

So we might learn eventually through trying to become, that such a process is just a process and we might eventually give up and process and try the 'other thing' we have outlined as 'not process'.

And other 'teachers' might just jump the 'student' past such 'eye crossing' and just say 'be in the moment' or look at the picture.

In terms of thought and concentration, we might practice focusing the mind on one thing, which in some ways quiets the mind from many different thoughts and direction. This might help someone with little experience in regards to focusing the mind.

But on the other hand focus on one thing for many means thoughts like "look at the candle" "im looking at the candle" "I see the candle" Such thoughts, while focusing on a single object" are still not mindfulness. As mindfulness would be more akin to "seeing" the object with no single thought in between the seer and the object.

Further still to deny such natural thoughts, through either effort or more thoughts becomes the opposite of mindfulness again.

It might be that these things are all on a scale from not so mindfullness to total mindfulness, but it seems better to point out that mindfulness is one side and all other things are 100% not mindfullness.

As for using a watered down version to help business or employees etc. it might be (and seems so) that such practices help such systems because they themselves are systematically based to some degree. It doesn't suggest that because it helps people conform and excel at system that it helps them in regards to mindfulness.

Possibly, if you just read the title and first couple paragraphs.

Here is another good article on pop meditation. It's asking the same questions... What are you reinforcing with the practice?

So in essence you named your thread ("McMindfulness") over a misleading concept that is not apparent from the article you linked? And you continued to use this term throughout, even though its apparent symbolism was not relevant to the issues you raised?

No, but as I said, you may get confused ...



And sometimes a phrase is just catchy.

The article is a cautionary tale ... So if you think it's a mere scare tactic, then I dunno - that's up to you.

I have not said the article is a scare tactic. Nor do I really see how my post could be construed that way. I criticized it (and subsequently you) for using scare tactics and relying on cheap symbolism instead of the core issue. "This is like McDonalds" instead of "This is bad because".

Doesn't sound very enlightened to me.

It's all good, though I am not sure about the logic - saying something smells like X is not the same as claiming it is X. Or saying that scare tactics being used is not the same as a scare tactic.

However, I think overall, my criticism still holds... In that, there has not been a close or full reading, so you miss the points of this is bad because ....

The article could have been 1200 pages. It still wouldn't remove the fact that its headline and selling point is cheap imagery. Yet your claim is that me pointing this out implies that I have not read the article, and you then proceed to critizice me for this.

I don't really think there is much to add. I can't argue with your imagination since I have no way of disproving your accusations, something you of course well know.

Good luck with enlightenment.

Well, the idea is someone could dismiss the substantive arguments if they only paid attention to the title, and then conflated the title as the whole argument being made.

The problem with your argument at this point is that it neglects the substantive points of the article and is deflecting any attempt to deal with the issues. In some sense, judging the book by its cover.

For instance, you could use your argument against someone who is criticizing a new real estate development as "McMasions," but you will also not get to the idea or substance of why that designation is good and/or bad.

Lastly, I don't think I should ignore your attempted gibes regarding "enlightenment." In that, I think you should be made aware - those kind of statements really demonstrate a lack of understanding about Buddhism broadly, and generally cheapens whatever point you are trying to make. This is because, when you try to make these backhanded insults, and you don't understand what you are actually commenting on, it really serves to highlight your own ignorance.