On the one hand, I think it's a good thing that there is a growing acceptance of meditation.

But, I think there are real concerns of mindfulness getting the pop culture makeover - something tragic like people saying, "That's so Zen" or "That is bad/good karma".

Without the proper foundation it will just turn into another thing for consumption in a materialistic society - "I'm so mindful".

Beyond McMindfulness

Awesome branding Win for McDonalds....

Ha. Nice ... That's certainly one way to look at it, I suppose.

Any publicity is good publicity?

Though I am sure there is some concern that the prefix "Mc" gets used to promote negative connotations - if McDonald's just let that type of use to go, eventually it's all just a negative.

I think that is really the point of article, if there isn't some push back over the removing of mindfulness meditation from it's original context, it can easily be just a form of crowd control - nevermind the cause of your stress, no need to examine the toxic conditions and their causes - just deal with the stress.

Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

I don't think it reflects negatively on McDonalds, their thing is being cheap, quick, accessible and easy and their brand becoming synonymous with that is a huge marketing win for them. Burger King, Wendies, and all the rest, can only wish for something like that.

Anyway, that's a digression, sorry. As regards the OP, I think anyone serious about meditation would soon discover the origins of Mindfulness and avoid the sanitized 'Mc' version.

I think that is a pretty good demonstration of the problem, you can try to ignore, whitewash and spin the negative connotations, but you are just putting on blinders to the problem. Namely, in a very broad sense, something not good masquerading as something positive.

That is the problem is not actually being addressed - you have toxic environments but it's your issue that you are suffering from them. Here is some mindfulness training to help you cope.


Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

It seems like the whole point of mindfulness is that the only things you can actually take care of is "your" stuff. What everyone else does is of no concern. By taking care of "your" stuff, you are supposedly making the world a better place, as soon as you are out of your business and into someone elses, thats when the problems start.

I mean, you could try telling them that they are doing it wrong, or whatever, but they will most likely think that YOU are doing it wrong.

I think this is also a connotation that arises when the practice is cut off from the principal and ethical foundations...

It's not an individualistic practice - one of the results of mindfulness is an awareness of interdependence.


Sent from my HTC6500LVW using 2+2 Forums

I think part of the problem here is the idea the being mindful is necessarily good. However, a thief can be mindful in stealing. There is a classification of Right Mindfulness and Wrong Mindfulness - mostly to do with the intent of actions.

It's almost as if the pop mindfulness is merely distracting people from the actual cause of suffering and placing the entire burden on the individual - it's only your "stuff" there are no other causes of conditions for your own suffering. We shouldn't try to transform, merely accept.

There is blame all around for suffering - it doesn't rest merely on the shoulders of individuals. Institutions have a part to play.

Oh far worse than that... I despise them as a company (have you read 'Fast food nation'?)and everything they represent, they never get any of my money, so I'm on the same page as you there.

Ok, do you have any resources that you'd recommend as not being 'Mc'mindfulness? This is something I've looked into in the past but never taken anywhere.

I disagree. It totally follows from mindfulness that you cant "change" anyone else . I may be thinking of something other than what you mean by mindfulness though.

Again, I guess it depends on what you mean by suffering. I know that, from my own experience, all my "suffering" ( which is really just 1st world suffering anyway) is caused by my own thinking, and my beliefs that reality should be other than how it is. I realise that my problems are small to non existent, and my ideas on this may change if I was starving, or had some horrible disease.

Sure, there are resources, but what I have been exposed to is mostly religious Tibetan Buddhism.

I think what the article is pointing to is that absent some ethical foundation - right mindfulness and wrong mindfulness - the point of developing the type of consciousness labeled as mindful can lead to a reinforcement of negative personality attributes. However, I don't think the whole thing is necessarily religious - there just needs to be a foundation of ethics. In that vein, I would suggest HH Dalai Lama's book, Beyond Religion, where he argues for a secular ethic.

Here is Thrangu Rinpoche's free books ... there is a guide to Shamatha Meditation that I have just started reading.


If we take interdependence as a fact, then a change in oneself would dictate a change in others. This is another point of the article - with out some of the philosophical underpinnings being taught, it merely becomes a way for institutions to avoid dealing with the problems that result in the suffering of others. These meditation techniques, isolated from the philosophical and ethical foundations, end up putting the everything on the individual to deal with the stress of this toxic work environment and not working with the interdependence.

Three things:

1. Physical suffering - sickness, broken bones, stubbed toes, etc ...
2. Anxiety from trying to hold on to things which are impermanent.
3. Dissatisfaction, the underlying feeling that nothing really ever measures up

then I guess they arent teaching mindfulness, but just another self help technique.....

I think it is good that the normative component has been stripped off. These practices can be a good tool for many to better cope with situations they face - and the normative component isn't really necessary to that end. Can it be used for "evil" like the article's author try to make it out? Perhaps, even though I think he is really stretching it there. But even so, then it is not different from a hammer. You can use it to fix stuff or bludgeon people. That doesn't mean that hammers should come with normative instructional leaflets.

All that being said I'm no fan of snake oil consultants who sell buzzwords or authors/networks/programs/youtubians who try to cash in on the fad by promising too much. This is more because I generally dislike fraud however.

Oddly enough, at the meditation center last night the Lama briefly touched on this subject.

To paraphrase, he said that the concept of ethics in at least Tibetan Buddhism is not a list of rules or blanket prohibitions, but rather that which is bad perpetuates the delusion of separateness. Also that while meditation has short term benefits, to have any long term benefits there has to be right intention. If mindfulness is taught just as a way for a person to deal with stress or for short term health benefits, the situation is one of possibly strengthening the habit of thinking of one self as a separate ego or the delusion.

It's not so much like being given a hammer and a list of rules on how to properly hammer, rather it's like being given a hammer and merely told "this is used to bang on things".

Well, then it doesn't seem like the good Lama agrees with the article you quoted and linked in your OP either.

I don't see it - you'll have to be more specific, where do you think there is disagreement?

Would you commenting on this paragraph?

In the mean time, here is a rebuttal ...

A Thoughtful Reply

Sure, here for example:
But perhaps I am reading your paraphrase wrongly, or you have worded it somewhat differently than what he stated.

Yes.

OK, I think I get where you are coming from ... I actually don't think what the Lama said and the article are in disagreement.

The idea of "greed, ill will and delusion" being wrong stem from the same thing - the intention behind the actions, with the notion that delusion is the root. You can accumulate wealth, there is nothing wrong with that - but the intention behind the accumulation matters, i.e., is it merely out of self-cherishing intentions? Are you accumulating wealth to help others?

In the larger sense - "self-cherishing" is result of the delusions that we are separate, my "I" matters and your "I" does not.

Well, I think the main problem with the article you linked in the OP is that one hand he says this:

So basically he debunks a lot of the myths of what this McMindfullness can achieve, but then...

... suddenly it works again, and can be used for "evil".


For me this collapses the article, since its author is not using a fair application of his own logic.

Well, I think this criticism maybe a bit unfair.

The point of the article is that without the underlying philosophical and ethical foundations, mindfulness can end up re-enforcing that "bad" habits. Indfulness and concentration are just mindfulness and concentration - the big question is how are you going to apply this state of consciousness.

So in the first paragraph saying "there is no evidence .... " the author is stating that there are no studies regarding organizational change by way of mindfulness, ethics or not. While there maybe studies regarding the effects of the individual - studies regarding organizations are lacking.

The second paragraph you quoted is discussing the idea of mindfulness, but using the mindfulness in one way versuses another.

The two paragraphs are making separate independent points. The statement that he is not applying his logic fairly is conflating the ideas conveyed in those sections.

If (big if) McMindfulness can make somebody a better bankrobber, I find it hard to believe it can't make them a better bankteller.

Mindfulness can probably do both, make a better teller and make a better thief. Whether it makes a better person more than likely depends on intention.

That's the point of the article, you can develop this state of mind but then what?

It might work if we see a bank robber is a really bad bank teller

LOL

Well played

I'm really twisting my head, but I still don't get it. I think you are trying to make fun of the hypothetical person filling contradictory roles, but that's just a working theory.

Anyway, let's get real. This McMindfullness isn't going to make anybody noticable better at anything. At best it will barely squeek past a placebo for treating mild anxiety and stress symptoms.