You're a Mindfulness Teacher, Right?

The other day, I was in a meeting at the yoga center I teach meditation at, and the other meditation teacher and I were talking about student numbers. I said I had a few regulars in my class now, and he said "That's because you teach mindfulness, right?" I had a very odd reaction. Almost straight aversion. I responded that I teach a lot of practices, not just mindfulness. But the response was muddy at best, and I've been left with this curious feeling about it all.

I'm almost certain he wasn't thinking of Sati, the Pali word for Buddhist mindfulness, which is steeped in ethical considerations as well as development of attention skills. He was probably more thinking of the pop mindfulness that I've written so much about in recent years. At the same time, the classes I've been teaching haven't been highly focused on social ethics or connecting big picture issues. That's more one element among many. Nor could what I've been offering be reduced to mindfulness of any variety. Again, that's one element among others. My whole goal has been to offer a diversity of gates into meditation, and the classes has focused on everything from grief for recently lost pets to reflecting on our roles in supporting the health of the planet.

Anyway, as I was reading this article - yet another critique piece on the Wisdom 2.0 conference - I thought of this odd feeling I had being labeled a "mindfulness" teacher, and how corrupted that word seems to have become. To the point where part of me doesn't even want to claim it, because doing so without an explanation doesn't seem right anymore.

Continuing the Discussion on Corporate Mindfulness and the Wisdom 2.0 Conference

Today, I would like to highlight part of an ongoing discussion happening over at Turning Wheel Media about corporate mindfulness and the recent protests at the Wisdom 2.0 conference. Instead of writing a full post, I want to offer parts of recent exchanges between three commenters: myself, Katie Loncke, and Mario Pedroso. Please visit the original post to read the rest of the exchanges. It's a really good discussion!

Mario Pedroso:

"Google, like all of us, is a symptom and cause of Capitalism and other systems of injustice. We are all forced to participate and therefore perpetuate. It doesn’t mean we are evil, we are all trying to survive in a system that inherently deprives us of our fullest potential.

Action is necessary, and it has to happen simultaneously with change of hearts and minds. If action only leads us to become more entrenched in our camps (good activist, evil capitalist) we do more harm than good. If our actions are born from the desire to challenge patterns of suffering, we must see the humanity in all beings. G-Dog, Jesuit priest Father Greg, points to this beautiful when he refuses to look at gang members in East L.A. as merely being murderers and thugs, but connects with God’s presence within each, even those some may demonize and fear the most.

It’s important to hold people/corporations accountable, and sometimes we have to take strong actions to do so, but ultimately if we don’t engage hearts and minds as well, we will never overcome the separation and division that underlies our capacity to perpetuate oppression."

Katie Loncke:

"Marlo, thank you for this — such an important dialogue to have. I think we agree more than not! And thanks for your example of the work with gangs; that’s powerful stuff in a social climate that demonizes and criminalizes poor men (and women, and trans folks) of color.

On our shared views, I agree than in one sense political movements for justice are born out of political consciousness. It’s essential to keep working at the level of consciousness raising, critical thinking, education: which we could call hearts-and-minds. (There’s a whole other conversation to be had here about historical materialist views of the world, versus idealist views of the world — we don’t necessarily have to go into that but I love that conversation too and just wanna flag it.)

But while agreeing on the importance of ideological work, a very general agreement, what I want to avoid is the idea that we can slowly perfect society by creating compassionate capitalists. As Assata Shakur said,

'Nobody in the world, nobody in history, has ever gotten their freedom by appealing to the moral sense of the people that were oppressing them.'

Instead of appealing to capitalists to be kinder, can we question why we need capitalism in the first place?

Joshua Eaton also put this well in a response to his recent article criticizing the corporate commodification of mindfulness:

'Let me set the record straight: I don’t think elites shouldn’t practice Buddhism or meditate. I think they shouldn’t be elites.'

Part of what I hear you saying, which I agree with (and please correct me if I’m wrong), is that we expect that most of the elite wouldn’t cede their outsize power willingly — hence the reference to guns and force for unseating them. And that’s such an important question: what are our options? Is it our responsibility to try to patiently educate elites into redistributing power and resources, in order to minimize the force that would be required for such a redistribution? OR does this ignore the tremendous amounts of violence and force that are *inherent* and *ongoing* in our current systems of capitalism and injustice? Whose timeline are we on, here? Who are we trying to make comfortable?"

Mario Pedroso:

"Hey Katie,

First off, thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply. It’s true that we are mostly in agreement. I’m super grateful that these dialogues are happening more and more in the online sphere. I’ve been having them in my own small ways in my Sangha. I love what Josh Korda (Mindfulness is Not Enough), yourself, and others have been posting more constructive dialogues that seek to bring issues like ethics, justice, and right lively-hood into the more secularized spheres of Mindfulness. Another good example:

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/08/apple_and_amazons_big_lie_the_rebel_hacker_and_hipster_nerd_is_a_capitalist_stooge/?source=newsletter%2F

I think we are seeking, here and beyond, to integrate the materialist and idealist spheres, no? And I agree, to quote another fierce sister, Audre Lord: ““For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change.”

Yet, and this may be naive, while I don’t believe mindful capitalists will solve the problems we face, I’d rather they be mindful, to whatever extent they are, than not. To some degree, I believe that mindfulness takes us for a ride, and where we end is not where we intended on going. In other words, Mindfulness is not the master’s tool, it’s a powerful spiritual practice, and what comes out of practicing it may not be what we expect. (but shhhh let’s not spoil it)

In the meantime, I won’t hold my breath. But I also think, and I know you agree, that there are bigger fish to fry than getting mad at the upper middle class for using mindfulness. Let’s show them how much better it gets! Besides I’d rather challenge the major systems that are contributing the problem. It seems more valuable than confronting people for trying to ameliorate the destructive effects of this machine on our all of our souls, top and bottom. And unlike Zizek I don’t think this keeps the machine going longer. I think we need to do whatever we need to do to keep our souls intact, until something more sane and healthy comes into being."

Nathan Thompson:

"'And unlike Zizek I don’t think this keeps the machine going longer. I think we need to do whatever we need to do to keep our souls intact, until something more sane and healthy comes into being. '”

Mario, this is the crux of challenge for me these days. I’m more inclined to agree with someone like Zizek that corporate mindfulness is just another prop to keep folks from totally falling apart in environments that are hostile to their very humanness. After over a decade and a half volunteering, working, and even leading in various non-profit settings, I started to overwhelmingly sense that so much of what I was doing was helping folks cope with injustice, and/or navigate our horrorshow economic and social systems. Whether it was counseling abused children from broken homes, or teaching English to recent immigrants – everything was framed in terms of helping folks function, adjust, be productive, etc. within the current systems. Which doesn’t mean that nothing beneficial happened, nor that all my work was a waste of time. But I’m hard pressed to see something like corporate mindfulness as anything other than a coping mechanism.

The fact that the response to the protest from the folks on the stage at the Wisdom 2.0 conference was to individualize the whole thing speaks volumes. Turning a complex set of issues into an exercise of being aware of your feelings around conflict basically neuters thoughts and reflections about social ethics. I personally think its dangerous to assume that anyone who practices some form of mindful awareness will naturally become more aware of (and perhaps willing to act on) social injustices and systems of oppression.

... a lot of what is trotted out as mindfulness these days isn’t complete. It’s very similar to what’s happened to yoga. Instead of a profound spiritual path, a single element – asana – has been pulled out, and then reduced to something that is mostly about exercise and stress reduction.

So, like you, I’d like to think that capitalists being more mindful is a positive. But is that actually happening as a result of these programs? I honestly don’t know, but there’s really no good evidence to suggest that corporate leaders are really acting more ethical because of practicing what they call mindfulness. The best that might be said at this point is that some leaders have better relationships with their employees. They care a little more for each other while continuing to exploit and destroy the planet. (Sorry if that sounds crass, but that’s kind of what it boils down to in my mind.)

'Besides I’d rather challenge the major systems that are contributing the problem. It seems more valuable than confronting people for trying to ameliorate the destructive effects of this machine on our all of our souls, top and bottom.'

Here’s what I think. You’re right in one way. Getting too fixated on corporate mindfulness isn’t terribly helpful. On the other hand, it can be a gateway into understanding the broader systems. Specifically by illuminating the way mindfulness is being used, and how it functions within corporate settings, people can come to see what the broader systems are about. How they warp everything in the name of power over and profits.

I guess I wonder how we might both support some efforts to help people cope, while also remaining radical enough to keep challenging systems of oppression and create true, more beneficial societies?

When I see all the energy put into trying to maintain food stamps programs or to get modest gains in the minimum wage, I feel so damned torn. Because it seems like we’re just sucked down the rabbit hole of doing whatever we can to cope – or even be allowed to cope. We’re basically playing their game. The elite’s game. How do we shift the frame, and operate from a grassroots power base that is diverse enough to handle all the needed prongs?"

-----

A few things to note here. One of the difficulties with this discussion on the whole is that the underlying philosophies people are entering it with frequently clash, making it even more difficult to tease out the particulars when it comes to corporate mindfulness. Consider that all three of us above essentially reject the capitalism economic system, a starting point which allows for a certain kind of dialogue to unfold. Whereas, when I see a more mixed crowd discussing corporate mindfulness, it's much more likely that the whole discussion gets lost in things like battles over whether corporations are "good" or "bad," or whether or not mindfulness can be a "great change agent" force in the corporate world. It strikes me that if the conversation were limited to folks who are either ok with capitalism or fully support capitalism, then perhaps discussions might unfold around the efficacy of programs in relieving stress, improving relationships between leadership and workers, and perhaps doing research that might "prove" or "not prove" that mindfulness improves business ethics.

I think both of the philosophically similar based discussions can offer useful information. Whereas, with more mixed discussions, it's vital that some of us learn to recognize the mixed quality and perhaps figure out ways to engage from that knowing so that new ideas and experiences can arise.

In the meantime, I tend to think that the corporate mindfulness trend will continue to gain steam, even as those of us who are in opposition to it become more clear about our reasoning for doing so. The titanic of the American Empire is slowly sinking, regardless of what side you're on in this discussion. Many people are suffering and desperate. And the elite are desperate to keep the gravy train going for another generation or two at least. Until they're dead anyway.

In my view, the planet is calling us forth right now to step beyond our limited, often trapped in binaries frameworks. It's not enough to just be pro-mindfulness or anti-mindfulness for example. We need to collectively move beyond that place, not to some middle ground between the two poles, but to some entirely new Middle Way.

What do you think?

The Mindfulness Wars

Over at American Buddhist Perspective, Justin offers a goodbreakdown of recent articles in response to the brief protest that occurred at the recent Wisdom 2.0 conference. Odds are the "mindfulness wars" are only beginning to heat up, as more and more areas of the military industrial complex adopt mindfulness programs. While Justin's post offers excellent insight into some of the highly thorny issues coming up when mindfulness enters the world of big business, the ending offers at least a mildly optimistic tone, citing research suggesting mindfulness alone can increase ethical behavior.

First off, let's consider the source of two of the three studies: the University of Chicago and the Wharton School of UPenn. The former is home to the Milton Friedman Institute, while the latter is one of the highest ranked business schools in the world, with numerous alumni leading Fortune 1000 corporations around the globe. On the one hand, it makes sense that they would be doing research on mindfulness in the workplace. On the other hand, these are places with a vested interest in maintaining our current economic system, including many of it's numerous abuses.

I would really like to see some significant research from universities and other organizations that aren't driven by highly pro-capitalist models. In addition, what I find problematic about much of the research on mindfulness that I ave seen is that it tends to focus on individual benefits and changes in intrapersonal and/or interpersonal dynamics. It's fairly easy to find articles on psychological and therapeutic benefits, and I'm guessing that folks who get upset with the wholesale rejection of secular mindfulness by some Buddhists (and others) are thinking in part from this place. And the fact that mindfulness programs clearly do seem to offer folks stress relief, healing or significant improvement of depression, anxiety, and similar conditions. In addition, there seems to more and more articles and perhaps research on the improvement of intrapersonal and/or interpersonal dynamics in groups such as large workplaces. I frequently see appeals from secular mindfulness proponents that point to better boss/employee relationships, as well as less hostile work environments in general. Which, if it's true that mindfulness programs are doing this, is certainly a positive in my book.

However, none of this readily translates into systemic social change. Just because the corporate workplace is filled with more caring and less stressed people doesn't mean they'll be more likely (in my view) to act (individually or collectively) in ways that significantly reduce manufactured economic inequality, environmental destruction, and numerous other issues. Not when the main, even sole purpose of corporations is to make profits for the elite.

What incentive does a corporation like Google have to actively address (from their own sense of conscience) something like gentrification? Why would they bother to do anything unless public pressure threatened to cave their financial bottom line?

Google has been at the forefront of corporate mindfulness programming for a good decade now, not only influencing programming incorporate Silicon Valley, but numerous other places. And yet, Google's ethical track record is fairly lousy. From avoiding taxes to exploiting the digital commons in Africa, Google isn't exactly demonstrating the supposed social ethics of a mindfulness-based business.

Overall, I think this discussion needs to move beyond the mindfulness produced "zombies" and "mindful sniper" examples that keep being brought up by folks on both sides of the table. These extreme, individualistic memes are highly charged distractions that keep us from taking a deeper look at the interdependent systems that mindfulness programs are plugging into, and how the oppressive forces within those systems impact whatever programs are being offered, regardless of how good the intentions are.

Witnessing Absurdities: Deep Seeing as a Skill for Decolonizing Activist Work

From my new post over at Turning Wheel:

" I want to take a look at one of the elements I think has been lacking in many other American social change efforts: deep seeing or right mindfulness. By right mindfulness I’m speaking of it both as awareness of what’s present “inside” each of us, and also skillful attention to what’s present in the social, collective realm. The first step to waking up, and breaking the chains of a destructive pattern or social system, is simply being able to see what’s present. Not what we think is there. Not what someone else told us is there. But actually witnessing and taking in fully what’s there before us."

Head over there now to read the rest of it.

Also, I have a few other topics I'd like to write something about this week. Hopefully, I'll have time to put up another post here soon. We will see.

Marketing the Self

Genju, over at 108 Zen Books, has a post about experiences at a recent mindfulness conference she attended. The following stood out for me:

in various encounters, the rumble of territorial markings became audible. Well surely I couldn’t have filtered out the human tendency to want, to crave, to feel unsafe and therefore to bare fangs, set boundaries, and draw lines. Apparently, I did. I do. This is where the practice of simply noting is a good one; it helps negotiate through the conversations that circle the marketing of the self and poorly masked rhetorical questions. I mean noting that in myself as well because certainly there were many, many times when I caught myself falling into being the product rather than the person.

Marketing of the self. Aren't we taught to do that pretty early on in life? You gotta stand out or you'll be forgotten, right? You better promote or you will never be successful, right?

I believe there is a double bind around all of this in modern societies. The human tendency to self cherish is the main dish. Humans have been eating it, probably since the beginning of our species. In addition to the main dish is a set of side dishes called consumerism, capitalism, and commodification. Ever seductive, they add endless flavors and textures onto the main dish. I suppose it might be the case that plain old self cherishing gets kind of dull after awhile. It's so much more exciting to be the hot, new product on the block. Or the respected, reliable old one.

The pressure to be a product is damn strong, so much so that even spiritual teachers are falling for it in droves. Being a person with some wisdom mixed with a bag full of delusion doesn't feel good enough. Being a person who takes a shit and can't quite wipe it all clean isn't sexy enough. Being a person who is articulate one minute, and has nothing helpful to say the next just doesn't cut it. And so, we end up with teachers with trademarks at the end of their names. Teachers who spew endless amounts of flowery, high fullutent language. Teachers who market themselves as healers, and then end up abusing the hell out of anyone who gets close to them.

It is any wonder that so many of us are so confused in this life?

Some people get really irritated with me when I start talking about systems and collective conditions. They say things like "Zen practice is about you. Focus on yourself and stop pointing the finger at others." But this isn't about simple judgment. This isn't about damning those trademarked teachers to hell. It's about cultivating an awareness of the larger patterns that are influencing our thinking and behavior. About seeing much of what we see as "normal" isn't, and that to the extent that we continue mindlessly eating it, we'll be used and controlled by it.

As Genju points out, simply noting that this is occurring is a major step towards breaking the pattern. Every time you see through the story, it's influence on you becomes weaker. What I am suggesting here, though, is that we need to recognize the main dish, and also the side dishes as well. They all play a role in keeping each of us oppressed.

We need to re-learn the sources of true nourishment. And the first step is simply seeing how so much around us is not that. How so much in our minds is not that.

What Saved Our Ancestors Often Is a Hindrance to Us Now

Suspicious, among other things, is:

"inclined to suspect, esp. inclined to suspect evil; distrustful"

Paying attention to suspicion in my own mind that comes and goes, I'd like to add that it is a desire to pin down, fix, name, and control the unknown.

I have a fairly strong desire for clarity. I want to be able to see through the muck of the world, and live and breathe the truths of my life. Not a terrible thing, in itself. Yet, how much of this clarity seeking is really just trying to solidify what can't be made solid?

Furthermore, how much of this clarity seeking is just creating an artificial division between that which I deem "clear" and that which I deem "unclear"?

Take a simple sour looking look spilling forth from a driver of a car waiting for me to pass on my bicycle. Sometimes, it doesn't take much for my mind to be swamped in worst case scenarios. He's pissed at me. I'm in the way. He probably hates bicyclists.

At the end of the day, the reasons for that look are rarely fully made clear. Even if the guy shouts at me out his window, I don't know the true origin of his anger. In other words, clarity is something usually different than the fixed story I have about it. And whatever it is in a given situation, it's not knowing every last fact and detail about what's happening.

It's likely that this very mind - suspicious mind coupled with a desire for clarity- saved our ancestors from being destroyed by countless numbers of events or predators. however, now it's more likely to be used as a means of standing back from the world. What worked to keep our ancestors alert and clear seeing, now often works to keep us from being fully alive.

Time for some retooling.

What's Mindfulness Got to Do, Got to Do With it?

A few days ago, Trevor had a post on mindfulness I enjoyed. Mindfulness has become one of those spiritual words that has entered the popular culture, been applied to almost anything, and now is virtually meaningless. It's been really interesting to be studying the Anapanasati Sutra - mindfulness of breathing - under these circumstances. Trevor writes:

I don't practice mindfulness. That is, I don't practice mindfulness in the way we often talk about it. One does the laundry or sweeps the floor, or answers the phone, or types a blog entry, and one says, "I should do this mindfully." This gives you another thing to do, maybe even two more things to do. First, there's the task at hand, and then there is the task of bringing mindfulness to the task, and then there is some ideal state of "doing things mindfully," which - according to some folks - means you're smiling at your breath, or something like that.

I've noticed this adding on experience at times while working with verses from the tetrads of the sutra. This afternoon, I sat with the phrase "gladdening the mind," saying it to myself as I breathed in and out. Basically, I found that I would ride it with the breath for a few rounds, and then go silent, watching what was there. A few minutes would go by, and then I'd say it again a few times and then go silent. What I found was that if I went beyond saying the phrase to myself more than a few times, it felt forced and contrived. Added on. However, I found that once I had done the pattern I just described a few times, then out of the silence, the phrase just started coming now and then. In other words, once I let go of trying to focus on "gladdening the mind," it came up on it's own.

This is where I find a certain rub in formal practice. There seems to be a need at times for a bit of effort to turn yourself in the "right direction." And yet, I'm guessing that a lot of the time, we fail to let go of that efforting, and think that it's all about maintaining such activities.

Trevor continues along similar lines:

This makes me wonder, Is it helpful for us to suggest that someone do something "with mindfulness"? I've often found that to be a confusing instruction. I remember visiting a communal house here in Austin, where a group of young people live and practice together. The gate of their fence had a sign on it that read something like, "Please enter mindfully." And I thought to myself, Well, crap! I was doing OK until you told me to 'enter mindfully'! I was just walking through the gate, and now I'm all self-conscious! Well, that might sound angry when you're reading it, but I wasn't angry, just a little confused. I think that's when I started thinking a little more critically about how we talk about the practice of mindfulness.

I have two reactions to this example he brings up. The first is that it's interesting from a practice standpoint to examine what happens in these kinds of moments. This "enter mindfully" sign triggers a self focus for Trevor. I'd imagine it might for many of us. So, what's that about exactly?

Secondly, though, I think the instruction that's trying to be given by the sign here isn't clear. Just how does one "enter mindfully"? Screw pat answers, and consider it for real the next time you enter a door or gate. Every entry point is different, and thus a single approach isn't going to fly.

I think this, for me, is one of the main troubles with all this talk about "mindfulness." It tends to be pre-packaged. And kind of lifeless in a certain way.

The Dharma of Fish Paste and Stupid Golf Books

My girlfriend, her kids, and I were having a little picnic behind my apartment yesterday afternoon. It was kind of a hazy day, cloudy and humid, but still enjoyable enough to be outside. Among the food they brought over was a spicy noodle dish that I was offered and immediately turned down. The fishy smell was extremely strong, so much so that I struggled to take it in for a good ten minutes. It was a surprise to me, how strongly I reacted, and got me thinking about how humans often take such reactions, insert some commentary about "hating," and then end up transforming something neutral into suffering.

This morning, I came across this post about one of those golf books that applies spiritual concepts to golfing in an attempt to do something - make one a better golfer?, better person? - I don't know for sure. I'm not fond of golf. In fact, I associate it more with colonialism, uber-capitalism, and environmental destruction, than with being a sport. It would be a stretch to say I hate golf, but I don't like it much, and I find these Zen Golfing, Spiritual Art of Golfing, Golfing with God kind of books vacuous at best.

In fact, although I usually try to spin that everything is a dharma gate, with golf and spiritual golf books, I find I have nothing positive to say. When I came upon the post this morning, the second about a golf book I've seen in the past week or so, the first thought was "I'm tired of seeing these damned books." Seems pretty trivial as I write it. I mean, who cares if there are zen golf books out there and that some rich guy with a club thinks he's so spiritual because he is "in the moment" with his ball?

It's interesting how different objects hook different people in different ways. And of course, then there's the internal reactions to being hooked. Oh, why don't you calm down! It's just a book. No one cares that you don't like golf anyway, don't go on and on about how bad golf courses are for the environment. There can be a lot of chatter, often long after the original object has disappeared from your life.

Back to the fish paste. I had a physical reaction to the smell. A bodily intensity that is, I suppose, linked to past encounters with strong fish smells. But it really had nothing to do with where I was, or who I was with. I had a few minutes of muddled thoughts around feeling bad that I was "disrupting the harmony" of our time together. As if every moment must be about harmony and easy-goingness.

At some point, my girlfriend said something about the fish paste, and I just blurted out "Yeah, it's just a really strong smell. That's why I'm acting odd." Somehow, she seemed to understand this with ease, and we all talked about food for a few minutes before moving on whatever it was we moved on to.

What's interesting about the whole thing is that I saw how easy it could have been for me to have gotten completely hung up on this rejection of the food. And I also saw how, in many situations, we don't have to do all the work ourselves to break through - that moving beyond stuckness is a relational thing. My girlfriend said something that opened the door for me to say something which opened a door for a short conversation that allowed us all to go on with our day.

In a way, this is an aspect of "don't know mind," don't you think? Seeing the relational quality of living every moment, you can't help but let go of thinking you, alone, have to figure it all out.