In entering this area it is prudent to state whether as Christians it is proper to use a specifically Buddhist mindfulness or to adopt a 'mindfulness' that is built on a Christian worldview.
When put this way, I don't think any doubt exists that many Christians would stand with those in the latter camp. I would be one of them because the aims of Buddhist mindfulness do not comport with the Christian faith.
What is Buddhist Mindfulness?
This question is not as easy to answer as it may at first appear. For the original word 'sati' usually translated as 'mindfulness' in the Pali language (an important literary Indian sub-continent language) has, more recently, been rendered as 'recollection' or 'nonforgetfulness' (here).B. Alan Wallace, a Buddhist scholar, says,
This ['sati'] includes retrospective memory of things in the past, prospectively remembering to do something in the future, and present-centered recollection in the sense of maintaining unwavering attention to a present reality [such as the breath].Adoption of this definition means that the use of the English word 'mindfulness' may be misleading, although a connection between Buddhism and the English word, 'mindfulness', is still maintained by many Buddhist authorities.
The further implication of using the definition of 'sati' as 'recollection': while its emphasis upon the present remains, it introduces- as in the above quote -the idea that mediators are encouraged to attend to the past and the future within the structure of the present moment.
Why do Buddhists emphasise 'staying in the present'?
We should remember in particular that Buddhist practice aims to rid its practitioners of suffering or dissatisfaction (Pali, 'dukkha'). That aim is central to all forms of Buddhism and needs to be borne in mind constantly.In Buddhism, human life is suffering or dissatisfaction ('dukkha') precisely because of its stubborn clinging to the question of the soul-self. To escape 'dukkha' one must enter 'nirvana' (Pali, nibbana) which is beyond the suffering of birth, death and 'rebirth' (note, not reincarnation), beyond 'karma'.
Buddhism espouses the unusual belief that man has no permanent, enduring soul-self, no-thing that is either annihilated at death or lives on after death. Or, more accurately, that once 'enlightenment' is reached, one no longer asks the question of whether one has a soul or not. The question is considered unduly and excessively speculative.
The connection between 'dukkha' and awakening to the non-self is promoted by staying in the present for by staying in the present the 'illusory self' will be revealed as generated moment-by-moment, and therefore insubstantial, just a mental construct.
Each instance of 'self' is unconnected to any previous one so the 'self' has no continuous existence. Therefore, the self is an episodic, virtual and fleeting quality.
Western Psychology's Adaption of Sati
Western psychology is enamoured of 'mindfulness', in some cases acknowledging its Buddhist origins; in other cases almost wishing it had no such connections at all!The latter group need not worry too much because they have effectively 'secularised' the practice so that its ethical-religious associations with Buddhism have been removed.
It should be mentioned at this point that 'mindfulness', variously defined, is touted as being germane to the efficacy of at least four well-known therapy systems: Acceptance-Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT), Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT). In these approaches, 'mindfulness' is taught as a technique to calm the mind.
None of these approaches has any wish to involve a human self because they are all part of the behaviourist tradition whereby human action is conditioned by external events or internal thoughts. (However, it should be said that Marsha Linehan [developer-pioneer of DBT] at least builds her use of mindfulness openly on Zen Buddhist practice.)
No comments:
Post a Comment