Keywords

Introduction

Mindfulness has become mainstream. Hospitals and prisons offer “Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction” (MBSR), public schools teach students to put their “MindUP,” and Google trains employees to “Search Inside Yourself.” Mindfulness entered the American cultural mainstream as marketers tactically muted religious-sounding Buddhist terminology by foregrounding secular-sounding scientific and commercial linguistic frames (Woodhead 2014, p. 15). Thus, many Americans have embraced mindfulness as a secular, scientific, fee-for-service technique to reduce stress, support health, and perhaps even cultivate universal ethical norms. Asking “Can ‘secular’ mindfulness be separated from religion?” suggests several related questions: What does it mean for a practice to be religious, spiritual, and/or secular? Is Buddhism a religion? What is mindfulness? Is mindfulness inherently Buddhist and/or religious? If mindfulness can theoretically be separated from religion, have particular “secular” programs disentangled mindfulness from religion?

This chapter questions the supposition that “secular” mindfulness programs teach a purely secular, universal technique. It argues that nominally secular programs instill culturally and religiously specific and contested worldviews, epistemologies, and values. To be clear, this chapter does not argue (or deny) that mindfulness is “inherently” religious (or secular) or that it has some intractable “essence.” Such claims, though made by some (including both mindfulness advocates and detractors), tend to be analytically flattening and embedded in metaphysical ideas that are empirically unfalsifiable. The more fruitful question may be how, in particular cultural contexts, “mindfulness” might be conceptualized, communicated, and practiced in ways that explicitly or implicitly convey religious meanings and/or facilitate religious and spiritual experiences. After defining key terms, this chapter explores three common patterns: (1) Code-Switching, (2) Unintentional Indoctrination, and (3) Religious and Spiritual Effects.

Defining Practices as Religious, Spiritual, Buddhist, or Secular

There is no single, universally accepted, historically stable, politically neutral definition of “religious,” “spiritual,” or “secular.” Many people assume that they “know it when they see it,” but often common-sense definitions obscure cultural blind spots and charged agendas. Historian Jeff Wilson aptly notes that such terms are not “mere statements of fact,” but “markers of value employed strategically by agents” who, in speaking of mindfulness as secular or religious, are “making an argument” to serve particular projects (Wilson 2014, p. 9). One need not throw up one’s hands at recognizing that every concept—including the religious and the secular—is an “arbitrary construct” that “never corresponds fully with reality,” because such concepts can nevertheless be useful in facilitating the classification of “real phenomena” and finding out “empirically where the classifications break down” (Berger 2014, p. 17). An important caveat is that the classificatory project itself reflects a distinctively modern, and in a certain sense metaphysical, assumption that the religious and the secular can be objectively identified, distinguished, and potentially disentangled (Taylor 2007, p. 13). Particular individuals or groups may, regardless of such classifications, retain deep convictions about the inherent or essential nature of practices in question that cannot be negated by analytical fiat.

This chapter understands religion as encompassing beliefs and practices perceived as connecting individuals or communities with transcendent realities, aspiring toward salvation from ultimate problems, or cultivating spiritual awareness and virtues (Durkheim 1984, p. 131; Smith 2004, pp. 179–196; Tweed 2006, p. 73). Religion may be identified by the presence of “creeds” (explanations of the meaning of human life or nature of reality), “codes” (rules for moral and ethical behavior), “cultuses” (rituals or repeated actions that instill or reinforce creeds and codes), and “communities” (formal or informal groups that share creeds, codes, and cultuses), or by “ultimate ideas,” “metaphysical beliefs,” “moral or ethical system,” “comprehensiveness of beliefs,” and “external signs” such as an enlightened founder, sacred writings, gathering places, keepers of knowledge, and proselytizing (Albanese 2013, pp. 2–9; Adams in Malnak v. Yogi, 1979, at 208–210; U.S. v. Meyers 1996, at 1483).

Such definitions do not sharply distinguish religion from spirituality, both of which make metaphysical (more-than-physical) assumptions about the nature of reality. Confusion arises because, in recent decades, the term religion has accrued negative cultural connotations that induce many people to substitute euphemisms such as “spirituality” or “scientific” to deny that practices have a religious nature. Identifying as “spiritual, but not religious” signals one’s rejection of religious (and especially Christian) dogmas and institutions, and may be tactically employed to overcome cultural resistance, gain access to state-funded institutions from which religion has been legally barred, or qualify for health insurance coverage. Definitions that differentiate religion and spirituality tend to associate the former with bureaucracy and the latter with individual quests for ultimate reality, while noting that overlaps are so extensive that they are difficult to disentangle (Shapiro 1992, p. 24; Stratton 2015, p. 101).

Modern classifications of world religions—Buddhism included—have a complex history tied to European colonialism. Europeans invented the term Buddhism in the nineteenth century, though religious traditions now identified as Buddhist have a much longer history. Modern Buddhisms, out of which contemporary mindfulness practices developed, took shape through encounters between European orientalists and Asian reformers (McMahan 2008, p. 20). Buddhist modernizers have often found it useful to deny that Buddhism is a religion at all—preferring the language of science, universal spirituality, or philosophy (Lopez 2008, p. 32).

Historically, the word “secular” emerged in the context of Roman Catholic Canon Law to differentiate a priest who lived in the world (saeculum) from a priest who lived in a religious cloister. The term sometimes separated the religious from the secular world, and sometimes distinguished between the observable and unseen worlds (Casanova 1994, pp. 13–14). Today, the secular most often gets defined in relation to religion and spirituality: “either the absence of it, the control over it, the equal treatment of its various forms, or its replacement by the social values common to a secular way of life” (Calhoun et al. 2011, p. 5). Although people imagine the secular as the opposite of the religious—and assume that a practice can either be one or the other, not both—concepts of the secular, the religious, and the spiritual have often intermingled and co-constituted one another (Asad 2003; Taylor 2007; Jakobsen and Pellegrini 2008).

It is important that “secularization” may denote not the disappearance of religion, but the relabeling of religion to scaffold religious perspectives on ultimate reality while addressing practical concerns with health and commerce. Often the same individuals oscillate between secular and religious language in talking about the same practices depending upon audience or purpose at the time. Mindfulness marketers may employ religious and secular discourses simultaneously: describing religious concepts with language of science and spirituality; through self-censorship, selecting certain concepts or practices to omit disclosing while emphasizing others; and by means of camouflage, or concealing followed by carefully timed, gradual introduction of spiritual nuggets as perceived benefits win over cautious novices (Bender 2010, p. 42; Zaidman et al. 2009, pp. 605–606).

Assertions that mindfulness is secular beg the question of what it means to secularize a Buddhist practice. Marketers insist that mindfulness has been secularized, without defining the terms religion or secularity, explaining how mindfulness has been secularized, or exploring the corollary that a secularized practice presumably started off religious. Promoters employ one or more of six linguistic tactics: (1) Mindfulness passes as “purely secular” through circular speech acts of linguistic substitution; this is not religion, it is secular. (2) Spokespersons may avoid the terms Buddhism, religion, spirituality, or meditation altogether, or disavow that mindfulness is Buddhist, New Age, or religious. (3) Some concede that Buddhists have practiced mindfulness for millennia. This serves a two-fold function of, first, authenticating mindfulness as empirically validated, and, second, communicating that modern mindfulness has been unmoored from ancient religion. (4) Promotional texts signal that advocates are knowledgeable about religion and undeserving of the criticism that mindfulness is backdoor Buddhism. Analogies characterize such worries as irrational: Misperceiving mindfulness as making one Buddhist is akin to worrying that eating pizza will make one Italian or drinking coffee will make one Ethiopian. In addition to making fears of religious contamination seem ridiculous, such analogizing associates Buddhism with foreign ethnicity and implies that Americanized mindfulness is free from Buddhist cultural and religious “baggage.” (5) Rhetoric categorizes mindfulness as a scientific technique rather than a religious ritual. It does so by referencing brain anatomy and fMRI studies showing changes in brain structure and function, and by employing terms with scientific cachet, such as neuroplasticity, awareness, stress reduction, cognitive skills, and social and emotional learning. (6) Marketers assert that mindfulness cultivates universal virtues, such as compassion, and can be practiced by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and atheists without religious conflict. As this chapter explores, none of these tactics fully disentangles mindfulness from religion.

Defining Mindfulness

The etymology of the term “mindfulness,” as commonly employed in twenty-first-century American culture, can be traced to Pali language Buddhist sacred texts, especially the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta, or “The Discourse on the Establishing of Mindfulness.” Sammā sati, often translated as “right mindfulness,” comprises the seventh aspect of what is frequently translated as the “Eightfold Noble Path” to liberation from suffering, the fourth of the “Four Noble Truths” of Buddhism (Wilson 2014, p. 16).

The best-known contemporary definition of mindfulness, coined by Jewish-American molecular biology Ph.D. Jon Kabat-Zinn, is “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (1994b, p. 4). Kabat-Zinn privileges the term mindfulness precisely because it is capacious enough to carry “multiple meanings,” both seeming to denote a universal human capacity and also functioning as “place-holder for the entire dharma,” an “umbrella term” that “subsumes all of the other elements of the Eightfold Noble Path” (2009, pp. xxviii–xxiv; 2011, p. 290). He authenticates his decision to feature mindfulness with “the words of the Buddha in his most explicit teaching on mindfulness, found in the Mahasattipathana Sutra, or great sutra on mindfulness.” It is the “direct path for the purification of beings, for the surmounting of sorrow and lamentation, for the disappearance of pain and grief, for the attainment of the true way, for the realization of liberation [Nirvana]—namely, the four foundations of mindfulness” (2009, p. xxix). For Kabat-Zinn, mindfulness is a Zen Buddhist “koan” that invites deep questioning (2015, para. 3).

The term mindfulness does “double-duty,” signifying a stripped-down, therapeutic technique for “regulation of attention” and potentially evoking a “comprehensive” Buddhist worldview and way of life—Buddhadharma (Kabat-Zinn 2009, pp. xxviii–xxix; Stratton 2015, p. 103; Winston in Wilks et al. 2015, p. 48). It is significant that secularized mindfulness programs purge much identifiably Buddhist terminology, yet retain mindfulness. For instance, savoring a single raisin is not particularly meaningful—until framed as mindfulness. The term makes room for certain teachers to introduce normative frameworks and metaphysics that they imported from Buddhism whether consciously or culturally, and directs initiates to where they can find resources to go “deeper.” As one secular mindfulness teacher admitted, “we can’t hide” the Buddhist roots, since novices “only need to Google ‘mindfulness’ to find out!” (Wilks 2014b, December 8).

Pattern #1: Code-Switching

Certain of the foremost promoters of mindfulness switch back and forth between describing the practice as “completely secular” and embodying the “essence” of Buddhadharma. They do so not only to offer therapeutic benefits to a culture resistant to non-Christian religion, but because they are confident that mindfulness—even stripped of Buddhist vocabulary—is inherently transformative. When speaking to Buddhist audiences, promoters describe their tactics as “skillful means,” “stealth Buddhism,” a “Trojan horse,” or a “script.” These spokespersons exhibit what linguists term “Code-Switching” and sociologists call “frontstage/backstage” behavior—moving between vocabularies of multiple cultures to achieve complex goals (Chloros 2009; Goffman 1959; Laird and Barnes 2014, pp. 12, 19). As psychologist Daniel Goleman boasts of his own efforts, “the Dharma is so disguised that it could never be proven in court” (1985, p. 7).

Skillful Means

No individual leader or program model better illuminates the skillful means tactic than Jon Kabat-Zinn’s promotion of “secular” Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR). Indeed, the unsurpassed influence of Kabat-Zinn and MBSR merits extended discussion. Founded in 1979 as the Stress Reduction and Relaxation Clinic, as of 2015, the University of Massachusetts Center for Mindfulness in Medicine, Health Care, and Society (CfM) had enrolled 22,000 patients, certified 1000 instructors, spawned more than 700 MBSR programs in medical settings across more than thirty countries, and become a model for innumerable mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in hospitals, prisons, public schools, government, media, professional sports, and businesses (CfM 2014b, para. 1; Wylie 2015, p. 19). MBSR has, moreover, been cited by legal and policy analysts as a primary example of “secular meditation techniques” that “seem not to contain any spiritual or religious teachings” (Masters 2014, p. 260), “do not make any metaphysical or religious assumptions,” and are “not committed to substantive ethical standards about what is good, bad, right or wrong” (Schmidt 2016, pp. 451–452).

In an article for Contemporary Buddhism, Kabat-Zinn frames MBSR as skillful means for mainstreaming Buddhadharma. He developed MBSR “as one of a possibly infinite number of skillful means for bringing the dharma into mainstream settings. It has never been about MBSR for its own sake” (2011, p. 281). In an interview with Buddhist monk Edo Shonin, Kabat-Zinn says of MBSR that “what it is—now I have to use some Buddhist terminology—it is the movement of the Dharma into the mainstream of society. Buddhism really is about the Dharma—it’s about the teachings of the Buddha.” Denying that MBSR is “McMindfulness” (one of a number of critiques Kabat-Zinn’s rhetoric has provoked among Buddhist scholars, e.g., Purser and Loy 2013), he insists that “what is practiced in Buddhist monasteries is essentially no different from what is taught in MBSR” (2015, para. 6). MBIs are “secular Dharma-based portals” opening to those who would be deterred by a “more traditional Buddhist framework or vocabulary” (Williams and Kabat-Zinn 2011, pp. 12, 14). An “example of ‘skill in means’ (upāya-kauśalya): it provides a way of giving beings the opportunity to make a first and important initial step on the path that leads to the cessation of suffering” (Gethin 2011, p. 268). Merely stripping what Kabat-Zinn summarily dismisses as “unnecessary historical and cultural baggage,” MBSR preserves what is “essential” of the “universal dharma that is co-extensive, if not identical, with the teachings of the Buddha, the Buddhadharma” (Williams and Kabat-Zinn 2011, p. 14; Kabat-Zinn 2011, p. 290). As he put it in another interview, “what we’re really trying to do is to create an American Dharma, an American Zen” (1993, p. 36). Kabat-Zinn felt comfortable “glossing over important elements of Buddhist psychology (as outlined in the Abbidharma, and in Zen and Vajrayana teachings),” reasoning that these “could be differentiated and clarified later” once the practical benefits of mindfulness had been demonstrated (2009, pp. xxviii–xxix).

MBSR focuses on “stress” as a catch-all malady to which most people can relate, yet can also be presented as “authentically” Buddhist since it “has the element of dukkha embedded within it” (Kabat-Zinn 2011, p. 288). According to Kabat-Zinn, MBSR aims to “elevate humanity” by instilling “fundamental teachings of the Buddha about the nature of suffering and the possibility of the sort of transformation and liberation from suffering” (2015, para. 7). The “invitational framework” of “stress reduction” encourages MBSR participants to:

dive right into the experience of dukkha in all its manifestations without ever mentioning dukkha; dive right into the ultimate sources of dukkha without ever mentioning the classical etiology, and yet able to investigate craving and clinging first-hand, propose investigating the possibility for alleviating if not extinguishing that distress or suffering (cessation), and explore, empirically, a possible pathway for doing so (the practice of mindfulness meditation writ large, inclusive of the ethical stance of śīla, the foundation of samadhi, and, of course, prajñā, wisdom—the eightfold noble path) without ever having to mention the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Noble Path, or śīla, samadhi, or prajñā. /In this fashion, the Dharma can be self-revealing through skillful and ardent cultivation (2011, p. 299).

In Kabat-Zinn’s formulation, although framed as “secular” therapy, MBSR reveals each and every one of Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths and cultivates the Eightfold Noble Path to the cessation of suffering. The “particular techniques” taught in MBSR are “merely launching platforms or particular kinds of scaffolding to invite cultivation and sustaining of attention in particular ways” that bring one to “ultimate understanding” that “transcends even conventional subject object duality” (Kabat-Zinn 2003, pp. 147–48). Kabat-Zinn aims at nothing less than “direct experience of the noumenous, the sacred, the Tao, God, the divine, Nature, silence, in all aspects of life,” ushering in a “flourishing on this planet akin to a second, and this time global, Renaissance, for the benefit of all sentient beings and our world” (1994a, p. 4; 2011, p. 281).

In the early years, Kabat-Zinn “bent over backward” (in his words) to select vocabulary that prevented both patients and hospital staff from recognizing MBSR as the “essence of the Buddha’s teachings” (2011, p. 282). In addressing the public, Kabat-Zinn has steadfastly insisted that “you don’t have to be a Buddhist to practice” mindfulness (1994b, p. 6). Over time, as scientific publications (which Kabat-Zinn pioneered in publishing) lent credibility to mindfulness, he felt it was safe to begin to “articulate its origins and its essence” to health professionals, yet “not so much to the patients,” whom he has intentionally continued to leave uninformed about the “dharma that underlies the curriculum” (2011, pp. 282–83).

Despite secular posturing, Buddhism pervades MBSR and many offshoot MBIs. This can be seen through a closer examination of: (1) program concept, (2) systematic communication of core Buddhist beliefs, (3) teacher prerequisites, training, and continuing education requirements, and (4) resources suggested to MBI graduates.

MBSR Program Concept

Kabat-Zinn first trained as a Dharma teacher with Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn. Eclectically inclined, in developing MBSR Kabat-Zinn drew from Soto Zen, Rinzai Zen, Tibetan Mahamudra and Dzogchen; a modernist version of Vipassana, or insight meditation, modeled after Burmese Theravada teacher Mahasi Sayadaw; as well as hatha yoga, Hindu Vedanta, and other non-Buddhist spiritual teachers (Kabat-Zinn 2011, pp. 286, 289; Dodson-Lavelle 2015, pp. 4, 47, 50; Harrington and Dunne 2015, p. 627). Although he still trains with Buddhist teachers, Kabat-Zinn stopped identifying as a Buddhist when he realized that he “would [not] have been able to do what I did in quite the same way if I was actually identifying myself as a Buddhist.” Kabat-Zinn also insists that “the Buddha himself wasn’t a Buddhist,” since “the term Buddhism is an invention of Europeans.” Yet, Kabat-Zinn views his “patients as Buddhas,” since “literally everything and everybody is already the Buddha” (2010, para. 4; 2011, p. 300).

In the “origins” story narrated by Kabat-Zinn for Buddhist audiences, while on a spiritual retreat at the Buddhist Insight Meditation Society in 1979, he had a flash of insight to “take the heart of something as meaningful, as sacred if you will, as Buddhadharma and bring it into the world in a way that doesn’t dilute, profane or distort it, but at the same time is not locked into a culturally and tradition-bound framework that would make it absolutely impenetrable to the vast majority of people” (2000, p. 227). Kabat-Zinn refers to his development of MBSR as his “karmic assignment” and “personal koan” (2011, p. 286).

Systematic Communication of Core Buddhist Beliefs

MBSR consists of eight 2.5–3.5 h classes, plus a 7.5 h retreat and 45 min daily of personal practice. Classes foreground instruction in three easy-to-learn techniques: hatha yoga, body scan, and sitting meditation. On February 28, 2015, Bob Stahl, Adjunct Senior Teacher for the CfM’s Oasis Institute and co-author of A Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Workbook (2010), posted a two-page unpublished document (probably written much earlier) to a secure online CfM forum for MBSR teachers, under the topic “MBSR Underpinnings.” The document details session by session how the MBSR class sequence provides a “full expression” of “the essence of the dhamma,” including the “4 noble truths, 4 foundations of mindfulness, and 3 marks of existence.” Page one, “The Heart of the Dhamma,” enumerates key Buddhist doctrines, citing their sources in Buddhist sacred texts: “1. Four Noble Truths (Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta),” beginning with “Suffering/Stress” and culminating with the “8-fold Path to freedom,” “II. Three Marks of Existence (Anattalakkhana Sutta) … Suffering, Impermanence, No Self,” and “III. Four Foundations of Mindfulness,” including mindfulness of the “Breath,” “postures of the Body,” “Teachings (Dharmas),” and the “7 Factors of Awakening.” The second page, “Central Elements of MBSR: The Essence of the Dhamma,” begins with an explanatory note:

Without explicitly naming the 4 noble truths, 4 foundations of mindfulness, and 3 marks of existence, these teachings are embedded within MBSR classes and held within a field of loving-kindness. MBSR is a full expression of the 4 noble truths: suffering, its causes, and the path to freedom.

For instance, “Class 1 contains the 1st noble truth and marks of existence … suffering, impermanence, and the selfless nature evoked by body scan … Class 4 begins to investigate the causes of stress/suffering (2nd Noble truth) … Class 5 points to the 3rd noble truth. …. Classes 6–8 draw from the 4th Noble Truth, the 8-fold path.” Stahl presumably circulated this insider document to remind MBSR teachers of the principles that they should be communicating in each class session and to respond to potential criticisms that MBSR is a dilution of the Dharma.

Margaret Cullen, one of the first ten CfM-certified MBSR instructors, confirms many of the details of Stahl’s unpublished summary in an article published in Mindfulness (2011). In Cullen’s account:

The intention of MBSR is much greater than simple stress reduction. Through systematic instruction in the four foundations [as defined by the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta] and applications in daily life, as well as through daily meditation practice over an 8-week period, many participants taste moments of freedom that profoundly impact their lives.

For example, the body scan is “designed to systematically, region by region, cultivate awareness of the body—the first foundation of mindfulness.” Sitting meditation begins with “awareness of the breath,” proceeding to “systematic widening of the field of awareness to include all four foundations of mindfulness” (p. 188). This promotes “insights into no-self, impermanence and the reality of suffering,” dispels “greed, hatred, and delusion,” and leads “automatically” to “enlightenment” (p. 192). MBSR also has “elements of all of the brahma vihāras [loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, equanimity] seamlessly integrated into it” (p. 189). Cullen concludes that MBSR represents a new “lineage” of Buddhism, a distinctively “American,” though no less Buddhist, formulation of the Dharma (p. 191).

Melissa Myozen Blacker, who spent twenty years as a teacher and director of programs at CfM, corroborates key statements by Stahl and Cullen. Blacker recalls that “the MBSR course was partly based on the teachings of the four foundations of mindfulness found in the Satipatthana Sutta … and we included this and other traditional Buddhist teachings in our teacher training.” Yet, “for the longest time, we didn’t say it was Buddhism at all. There was never any reference to Buddhism in the standard eight-week MBSR class; only in teacher training did we require retreats and learning about Buddhist psychology” (Wilks et al. 2015, p. 48). Given the need to present MBSR as secular in order to achieve its mainstreaming, Kabat-Zinn and other movement leaders have had to rely heavily upon MBI teachers to “embody” the Dharma.

Teachers do so, in part, by reading poems that “evoke particular feelings and moods”—favoring spiritual poets such as thirteenth-century Sufi mystic Rumi and American metaphysical authors Walt Whitman and Mary Oliver. An MBSR teacher interviewed by this author in 2015 observed that the choice of whether to use poems seems to determine if participants report spiritual experiences. MBSR and MBCT teacher Jenny Wilks recalls that one participant objected to a poem read in a colleague’s class as “New Agey” and “brainwashing” (Wilks in Cheung 2015, p. 7). Wilks acknowledges that “key Dharma teachings and practices are implicit … even if not explicit” in secular classes, which present “more of a distillation than a dilution”—a form of “highly accessible Dharma” (2014a, September 8, Sect. 4–6). By contrast, Wilks worries that “explicitly Buddhist ethics could potentially offend participants who are atheist, Christian, [or] Muslim” (2015, p. 7).

The MBSR model relies on teachers to convey not only techniques, but also worldviews to students. MBI teacher training includes “cultivation of a particular attitudinal framework” and “assimilating a particular view of the nature of human suffering” (Crane et al. 2010, p. 82). The CfM “Standards of Practice” guidelines specify that MBSR teachers cultivate “foundational attitudes” of “non-judging, patience, a beginner’s mind, non-striving, acceptance or acknowledgement, and letting go or letting be” (Santorelli 2014, p. 10). These attitudes are, according to psychologist Steven Stanley, “related to core virtues found in early Buddhist texts, such as generosity, loving-kindness, empathetic joy and compassion” (2015, p. 99). Instilling these attitudes is important because the “insights that arise for MBI participants” do so within the “scaffolding created by the teacher and the curriculum. It is the job of the skillful teacher to engage directly with the students, challenging beliefs, inviting deeper exploration, suggesting where and how to pay attention, all within the framework of a secular articulation of the four foundations of mindfulness” (Cullen 2011, p. 190). As one MBSR teacher interviewed by this author in 2015 explains, MBSR class discussions are not “open-ended.” If a participant shares an experience at odds with MBSR assumptions, that person gets “corrected,” encouraged to “look again,” or “given a different answer.” Participants are “very, very carefully guided to land at a certain answer” and “given a way of understanding experiences” that “set up what people are supposed to value and change.”

Teacher Training

MBSR has rigorous—and specifically Buddhist—prerequisites, training, and continuing education requirements for teachers. Teaching Mindfulness: A Practical Guide for Clinicians and Educators, with a foreword by Kabat-Zinn, lists as prerequisites for MBSR teachers a “3-year history of daily meditation practice; participation in two 5-day or longer mindfulness retreats in the Theravada or Zen traditions; [and] three years of body-centered practice, such as Hatha Yoga” (McCown et al. 2010, p. 15). Although there are variations in requirements for the growing number and range of MBIs, many urge personal mindfulness practice, retreat experience, and ongoing supervision. This is true, for instance, of Mindful Schools and UCLA’s Mindfulness Awareness Research Center (Mindful Schools 2016, Sect. 7; Winston in Wilks et al. 2015, p. 50). Requirements for “continuing professional development” of MBSR/MBCT and other MBI teachers in the UK Network for Mindfulness-Based Teacher Trainers include annual residential retreats and “an ongoing and regular process of supervision/peer supervision of teaching, and inquiry into personal practice by an experienced teacher,” with the goal of integrating insights gained through personal practice into teaching (Crane et al. 2010, p. 81).

Movement leaders emphasize the personal mindfulness practice of instructors because they envision mindfulness as “not simply a method,” but “a way of being” (2003, p. 149). Specifically, Kabat-Zinn insists, “all MBIs are based on … Buddhadharma” (2011 p. 296). The MBI instructor must “translate” meditation into a “vernacular idiom,” but “without denaturing the dharma dimension. This requires some understanding of that dimension, which can come about only through exposure and personal engagement in practice—learned or deepened either through meditation retreats at Buddhist centers or through professional training programs in MBSR with teachers who have themselves trained in that way, or, ideally, both” (2003, p. 9). The CfM “Principles and Standards” require that the MBSR teacher be a “committed student of the dharma, as it is expressed both within the Buddhist meditation traditions and in more mainstream and universal contexts exemplified by MBSR” (Kabat-Zinn and Santorelli, n.d.) In other words, Buddhist training constitutes a necessary qualification for teaching secular mindfulness in the MBSR model.

Retreats at Buddhist centers play a prominent role in training MBSR teachers. Kabat-Zinn describes the “periodic sitting of relatively long (at least 7–10 days and occasionally much longer)” retreats as an “absolute necessity” and “laboratory requirement” for MBSR teachers (2011, p. 296). He recommends retreats in the “Buddhist Theravada tradition (vipassana),” such as those offered by the Insight Meditation Society: http://www.dharma.org (2003, p. 154). The CfM—the fountainhead of MBI training—requires silent, residential, teacher-led “vipassana retreats (or an equivalent)” as a prerequisite for interns (Kabat-Zinn 2003, p. 154). To be considered for MBSR Oasis Teacher Certification, two of at least four retreats must be nine days or more. The CfM’s Oasis Institute for Professional Education and Training lists fourteen acceptable retreat centers—all of which are Buddhist (CfM 2014c, Sect. 3).

Certain Buddhist retreat centers, such as Spirit Rock, California and the Insight Meditation Society, Massachusetts, host 9-day retreats specifically for MBI professionals. According to Margaret Cullen, MBI retreats share with other retreats offered at these centers “the same reliance on the original teachings of the Buddha, and Dharma talks are offered to illuminate essential components of Buddhist philosophy. Sitting and walking practice are taught much as they would be at any other vipassana retreat.” Participants may be asked to observe the Five Buddhist Precepts (abstaining from killing, stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, or intoxication) for the duration of the retreat (Hickey 2010, p. 174). The primary distinctive of MBI retreats is that they draw more international participants, and the leaders are more actively involved in modeling practices such as walking meditation and silent meals (Cullen 2011, p. 192).

As an example of an MBI retreat, a CfM listserv advertised “Convergence: An Insight Meditation Retreat with Saki Santorelli, Carolyn West and Bob Stahl, May 8–15, 2015,” in West Hartford, Connecticut. The retreat invites “anyone teaching or aspiring to teach mindfulness in healthcare, psychology, education, science, government, or in the business and corporate sectors” to explore how the “Insight (Vipassana) Meditation Tradition influences MBSR and all MBIs.” The ad promises that “through the direct practices of the four foundations of mindfulness you will learn how the essence of these wisdom teachings (Dharma): the four noble truths and the three characteristics of existence intersects and informs all MBIs.” Perhaps reflecting worry about mission drift, the retreat focuses on instructing secular mindfulness teachers in the Buddhist foundations of “all” MBIs.

Graduate Resources

MBSR offers graduates resources to maintain and deepen their meditation practice. The program ends with an invitation to join an ongoing meditation community such as an Insight Meditation Society, which Kabat-Zinn describes as having “a slightly Buddhist orientation” (1990, p. 436). The CfM’s MBSR “Authorized Curriculum Guide” directs teachers in week eight to encourage participants in “keeping up the momentum and discipline developed over the past 7 weeks” through “books, recordings, graduate programs, free all day sessions for all graduates 4 times per year; mention retreat centers” (Blacker et al. 2015, p. 28). The CfM FAQs webpage recommends that graduates “expand” their understanding by reading; suggested books explain Buddhist and metaphysical doctrines (2014a, para. 28). For example, Kabat-Zinn’s Wherever You Go, There You Are (1994b) devotes chapters to “ahimsa” (non-harming) and “karma” (consequences), suggests placing the hands into “mudras” that are “associated with subtle or not-so-subtle energies” or turning the palms up in receptivity to the “energy of the heavens,” and alludes to the chakra system by explaining that the “solar plexus” helps contact “vitality” (pp. 113–14, 154, 217–19, 220–25).

Guided meditation audio recordings supplement the MBSR course. The CfM website links to Kabat-Zinn’s website, which sells three four-CD (or MP3) series. The first series, designed for use during MBSR, suggests particular ways of framing and interpreting meditation experiences. Listeners hear repeatedly that “judgmental and critical thoughts” are “afflictive,” whereas “non-conceptual” meditation on this-moment bodily sensations offers access to a “realm of oneness” that is “awareness itself” (1.1, 1.2).

As one progresses from the first through the third series of meditations, the content becomes progressively more explicit in its Buddhist references. Third series recordings teach foundational Buddhist beliefs, for instance that suffering is caused by “greed or aversion or delusion or ignorance,” and mindfulness offers a path for “freeing ourselves from all our conditioning of mind and heart and the suffering it brings with it” (3.1, 3.2, 3.8). Guided meditation 3.4 reveals that what MBSR terms “Choiceless Awareness” is “known in the Chinese Zen tradition, in the Chan tradition, as silent illumination or the method of no method. In Japanese Zen it is sometimes called Shikantaza, which translates literally as just sitting nothing more. In the Tibetan tradition it is often called Dzogchen or mind essence or the great natural perfection. … The Tibetans refer to this as self-liberation.” Thus, Kabat-Zinn insists that MBSR teaches the same authentically Buddhist practice, “secularized” only by renaming.

Kabat-Zinn’s “Heartscape” meditation opens by framing loving-kindness meditation as an authentic Buddhist practice: “Loving-kindness or metta in the Pali language is one of four foundational practices taught by the Buddha known collectively as the heavenly abodes or the divine abodes: loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy, and equanimity … used for the most part to cultivate Samadhi, or one-pointed concentrated attention” (3.2). The “evoked qualities emerge”—both from the formal practice of metta and from “all the mindfulness practices” since they contain the same “essence”—with a “power” for “transfiguring the heart,” resulting in the “heart’s liberation.” Because all beings are interconnected in the “lattice structure of reality,” the “world benefits and is purified from even one individual’s offering of such intentions.” Individuals “literally and metaphorically” possess a “capacity for love” that is “limitless,” and thus “the web of all life” may be “shifted” through one person’s practice.

This metta meditation begins by speaking blessings over oneself: “May I be safe and protected from inner and outer harm. May I be happy and contented. May I be healthy and whole to whatever degree possible. May I experience ease of wellbeing.” The “field of loving-kindness” expands first to loved ones and ultimately to “our state,” “our country,” “the entire world,” “all animal life,” “all plant life,” “the entire biosphere,” and “all sentient beings.” “May all beings near and far … our planet and the whole universe” be “safe and protected and free from inner and outer harm,” “happy and contented,” “healthy and whole,” and “experience ease of wellbeing.” It is worth noting the similarity in phrasing between this guided meditation and those used in a growing number of secular programs, for instance Mindful Schools and Inner Kids. Such programs typically “secularize” the “May I/you be” blessings by labeling them “heartfulness” or “friendly wishes” instead of metta (Bahnsen 2013; Greenland 2013, Sect. 4).

Stealth Buddhism

Certain of Kabat-Zinn’s numerous disciples refer to their favored tactic as “stealth Buddhism” (and some Buddhist commentators credit Kabat-Zinn with coining the phrase). Trudy Goodman, founder of Insight LA, in California, describes her approach as “Stealth Buddhism” in a podcast interview by that title aired on Buddhist Geeks.com (2014). Goodman teaches secular mindfulness classes in “hospitals, and universities, and schools, and places where as Buddhists we might not be so welcome especially state places,” given the “separation of church and state.” Although advertised as secular, such classes, in Goodman’s view, “aren’t that different from our Buddhist classes. They just use a different vocabulary,” but “anyone who practices sincerely, whether they want it or not,” is going to experience “healing from the delusion that we have about who we are, this fundamental illusion that we carry, about the ‘I’ as being permanent and existing in a real way … I think it’s inevitable.” Interviewer Vincent Horn concurs that the effects are “independent of whether one is trained in a Buddhist context, or in a new, non-Buddhist Buddhist context,” what Emily Horn describes as the “new American religion.” The interview ends with all three laughing aloud at their promotion of “stealth Buddhism.”

Trojan Horse

Stephen Batchelor, meditation teacher and advocate of “Secular Buddhism,” popularized the phrase “Buddhist Trojan horse.” Once mindfulness has been “implanted into the mind/brain of a sympathetic host; dharmic memes are able to spread virally, rapidly and unpredictably” (2012, p. 89). In a Buddhist Geeks.com podcast titled “The Trojan Horse of Meditation,” Kenneth Folk identifies his teaching of meditation in the Silicon Valley as a “stealth move” in which he “sneak[s]” into mindfulness training his own Buddhist “value systems” of “compassion and empathy” (2013, para. 13–18). Buddhist Geeks producer Kelly Sosan Bearer adds that just getting elites on the cushion is enough because meditation is an “inherent process” that leads to awakening (para. 33).

Scripting

Actress and movie producer Goldie Hawn boasts of writing a “script” to sneak Buddhist meditation “into the classroom under a different name because obviously people that say ‘oh meditation’ they think oh this is ‘Buddhist’.” Hawn’s script is The MindUP Curriculum for K-8 classrooms published through Scholastic Books. In an address to Buddhist insiders at the Heart-Mind Conference of The Dalai Lama Center for Peace-Education, Hawn says that MindUP “all started” with “His Holiness” (who “gave me my mantra”) and the Dalai Lama Center (“it’s karma”). Hawn explains: “I’m a producer, I’m gonna put this show on the road … and I got the script written, and I call it a script because it is, it’s one step of how the story gets told of how you’re able to facilitate the best part of you” (2013). The MindUP script replaces the terms “Buddhism” and “meditation” with “neuroscience” and “Core Practice.” Hawn’s goal is to see MindUP “absolutely mandated in every state … that’s our mission” (2011, para. 67–68).

The Hawn Foundation hired a team of educators, neuroscientists, and psychologists to work with Buddhist meditators in constructing the MindUP curriculum. The result might be described as “bricolage”—a loose assemblage of cultural symbols and rituals, some secular and others religious (Hatton 1989, p. 75). The bulk of the content has little to do with the “signature” Core Practice of meditation or broader understandings of mindfulness, despite the frequent peppering of lessons with this term. Simplified instruction in brain anatomy (“reflective, thinking prefrontal cortex” = good, “reflexive, reactive amygdala” = bad) and exhortations to be kind to others (pause for a moment before hitting another kid back), oneself (if you actually try your vegetables you might like them), and the earth (recycle instead of littering) may produce educational and social effects regardless of whether students do or do not engage in the Core Practice, conceive of what they are doing as “mindful,” or are even introduced to this term.

The MindUP curriculum promises that what makes it distinctive is three-times-daily “brain breaks” of “deep belly breathing and attentive listening” that instill “empathy, compassion, patience, and generosity,” virtues derived from though not credited to Buddhist ethics (Hawn Foundation 2011, pp. 11–12, 40–43, 57). The curriculum emphasizes that “to get the full benefit of MindUP lessons, children will need to know a specific vocabulary,” chiefly the term mindfulness—circularly defined as the opposite of “unmindfulness”—and repeated multiple times per lesson, suggesting that mindfulness is the key to any positive attitude or behavior. Lessons encourage children to think of role models who act in mindful ways—the custodian who picks up trash, a doctor who keeps calm in emergencies, or an imaginary dinosaur who eats its vegetables—though none of these role models may ever have meditated. But defining mindfulness as synonymous with virtue makes it seem urgent to use the Core Practice.

Frequent repetition of the term mindfulness also points children and parents to where they can find resources to deepen their practice. Following links from The Hawn Foundation website leads to Buddhism. The website includes a “Science Research Advisory Board” page that, as of August 2016, lists exactly one board member: Kimberly Schonert-Reichl, Associate Professor of Human Development Learning and Culture and Special Education at the University of British Columbia (Hawn Foundation 2016). This page links to biographical sketches describing Schonert-Reichl as a “long-time partner with the Dalai Lama Center for Peace-Education” and to videos of Schonert-Reichel reassuring Buddhist audiences at the Vancouver Peace Summit and at the Garrison Institute that “secularized” classroom mindfulness effectively advances “Buddhist Contemplative Care” (2009, at 1:11:28; 2011, at 38:35; 2012, para. 2).

Buddhist Critiques of Deception as Wrong or Unskillful Speech

Certain Buddhist religious leaders and scholars have sharply criticized the “secular” mindfulness movement as self-contradictory or deceptive (Shonin et al. 2013; Purser 2015). Thupten Jinpa Langri, translator and interpreter for the Dalai Lama, has “often told” movement leaders that they “cannot have it both ways. It is either secular, or you want to say it’s the essence of Buddhism, therefore it’s a Buddhist practice” (2013, quoted in Purser 2015, p. 26). Brooke Dodson-Lavelle, director of the Mind and Life Institute’s Ethics, Education, and Human Development Initiative, calls attention to a Mindfulness in Education Network e-mail list on which “regular postings appear that either blatantly or suggestively describe ways in which program developers and implementers have ‘masked’ or ‘hidden’ the Buddhist roots of their mindfulness-based education programs.” Dodson-Lavelle elaborates that “The sense is that one needs to employ a secular rhetoric to gain access into educational institutions, and once one’s ‘foot is in the door,’ so to speak, one is then free to teach whatever Buddhist teachings they deem appropriate.” Threads also imply that “discussions concerning secularization are merely semantic games designed for ‘them,’ because ‘we’ all really know what is going on here” (2015, p. 132). Such critiques indicate that not all Buddhists consider stealth approaches to be right or skillful speech.

Pattern #2: Unintentional Indoctrination

Despite semantic games self-consciously played by some, many secular mindfulness promoters are convinced that the mindfulness technique is non-religious, produces scientifically validated health benefits, and instills universal values. They may nevertheless unintentionally communicate more than a religiously neutral technique. This is because suppositions about the nature of reality can become so naturalized and believed so thoroughly that it is easy to infer that they are simply true and universal, rather than recognizing ideas as culturally conditioned and potentially conflicting with other worldviews. Stephen Batchelor observes that “although doctors and therapists who employ mindfulness in a medical setting deliberately avoid any reference to Buddhism, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out where it comes from. A Google search will tell you that mindfulness is a form of Buddhist meditation.” Thus, Batchelor continues, an “unintended consequence” of even an eight-week secular MBSR course can be that it opens for participants “unexpected doors into other areas of their life, some of which might be regarded as the traditional domains of religion” (2012, pp. 88–89).

Calling attention to the “fallacy of values-neutral therapy,” Buddhist mindfulness teacher Lynette Monteiro argues that “regardless of the intention to not impose extraneous values,” it is problematic to define MBIs as secular because Buddhist values are “ever-present and exert a subtle influence on actions, speech and thoughts,” potentially disrespecting client values (2015). Monteiro is not alone among Buddhist commentators in worrying that purportedly secular mindfulness programs fail to present “truly belief neutral” programming that respects the religious diversity of participants (Oman 2015, p. 52; Warnock 2009, p. 477; Farias and Wikholm 2015). As psychologist Stephen Stratton concludes, the presumed “distinction between the secular and the religious and/or spiritual when it comes to meditation in general and mindfulness in particular” may be “simplistic. A more culturally aware perspective might suggest that religious-spiritual dimensions are always potentially present, even in overtly secular processes,” an observation that calls for ethical reflection (2015, p. 113).

Buddhist and Christian Assumptions Compared

Secular mindfulness programs instill a religious worldview that clashes with other worldviews. This can be illustrated by a comparison with historic Christian teachings: Christian scriptures encourage meditation not on the breath or body, but the Bible’s revelation of God as Creator of breath, body, and everything else. Rather than non-judgmental, accepting awareness of the present, Christian teachings encourage rejection of certain thoughts and feelings as wrong; repentance of past sins and grateful remembrance of God’s redemptive work in history; faith in God’s future promise of eternal life and striving to live a holy life. Instead of envisioning life as suffering or seeking to extinguish attachments or escape the cycle of death and rebirth, Christians view life as a good gift from God and anticipate that God will grant individuals the desires of their heart as they delight themselves in God. Contrary to waking up to realize that everything is impermanent, there is no self, or that awareness itself is the ultimate reality, Christians affirm that a personal God created each individual as a unique, enduring self for the purpose of eternal relationship with God. For Christians, the source of suffering is sin, or disobedience to God, and the only path to end suffering was paved by God’s love for humanity, demonstrated through Jesus’s atoning death and resurrection, and which can only be appropriated through repentance and faith in Jesus as one’s personal Savior. In place of locating the source of compassion in the non-dual realization that everyone is part of the same Buddha nature, Christians adopt a dualist belief that a transcendent God is love and the source of human compassion.

Although many Buddhists and Christians share certain vocabulary, such as “compassion” and “loving-kindness,” they may define these terms so differently that they aspire toward competing ideals. For example, Christians place a high value on sacrificial love—purportedly demonstrated by Jesus’s willingness to sacrifice his life for the sake of fundamentally other “selves.” Christians view their own highest calling as to love others—even when doing so means sacrificing one’s own needs for those who give nothing in return. To imply that compassion and loving-kindness relieves one’s own suffering and promotes one’s own happiness because everyone shares the same nature may be perceived as conflicting with central Christian values.

Differences Among Buddhist Schools

The universality of assumptions and values communicated by secular mindfulness is further belied by disagreements among Western convert Buddhists. For instance, Buddhists differ about whether the goal of mindfulness should be sensory enhancement or detachment (Purser 2015, p. 30); stress reduction or induction (Lopez 2012, para. 14); non-judgmental acceptance or ethical discernment (Dreyfus 2011, p. 51); happiness or dissatisfaction (Heuman 2012, para. 1). Brooke Dodson-Lavelle systematically compares three major “secular” meditation programs: MBSR, Cognitively-Based Compassion Training (CBCT), and Innate Compassion Training (ICT) in her Emory University dissertation (2015). Although all three employ secular, universalist “rhetoric,” they stem from “competing,” yet all “very Buddhist,” understandings of the causes and solutions of stress and suffering, and rival expectations about the innate capacities for compassion in human nature. None of these programs are morally or ethically neutral, but rather “tell people, at least implicitly, stories about what they ought to be thinking, feeling, or doing” (Dodson-Lavelle 2015, pp. 7–10, 21, 95, 161, 163).

The Dalai Lama’s interpretation of “secular ethics,” used to validate such programs as secular, accepts as self-evident that all people share goals and values such as avoidance of suffering and compassion—and, in so doing, may “dangerously overlook the natural capacity humans possess for violence and evil” (Ozawa-de Silva 2015, p. 1; Dodson-Lavelle 2015, p. 168). In Dodson-Lavelle’s experience teaching all three programs, the notion that “all beings want to be happy and avoid suffering” has “failed to resonate” with many participants, further calling into question the universality, and hence the presumed secularity, of the values communicated (Dodson-Lavelle 2015, pp. 17, 96–99, 162).

What Kabat-Zinn seems to mean in asserting that “the dharma” is “universal,” thus non-religious, is that dharmic assumptions are universally true (Davis 2015, p. 47). This claim may, however, be undercut by his choice of an “untranslated, Buddhist-associated Sanskrit word” (Helderman 2016, p. 16). Jeff Wilson argues that “Dharma is itself a religious term, and even to define it as a universal thing is a theological statement” (2015). Stephen Batchelor suggests that each of the Four Noble Truths is a “metaphysical statement” that can neither be proven nor refuted (2012, p. 93). As professor of counseling David Forbes (2015) explains, the “myth of the given” is that reality can be objectively presented and directly perceived. Exhortations to “wake up” and “see things as they are” gloss hidden cultural constructs and the favoring of one set of lenses with which to view and interpret reality over another. For instance, seeking to attenuate desire and cultivate equanimity reflects a culturally specific ideal affect that values “low-arousal emotions like calm” (Lindahl 2015, p. 58). Universalist rhetoric privileges the perspectives of mindfulness promoters, many of whom are white and economically privileged, as “objective and representative of reality,” “standing outside of culture, and as the universal model of humans” (DiAngelo 2011, p. 59; Ng and Purser 2015, para. 4). This is not only a culturally arrogant position; it is precisely a religious attitude—a claim to special insight into the cause and solution for the ultimate problems that plague humanity.

Pattern #3: Religious and Spiritual Effects

Promoters of secular mindfulness cite scientific research to support their claim that mindfulness is an empirically validated technique rather than a religious ritual. Regardless of the strength of the scientific evidence, appeals to science are beside the point of this chapter. The same practice can exert both secular and religious effects simultaneously. Abundant scientific research demonstrates that religious and spiritual practices promote physical and mental health (Koenig et al. 2012; Aldwin et al. 2014). Historian Jeff Wilson observes that Buddhism has repeatedly gained access to new cultures by offering “this-worldly or practical benefits” that make Buddhist religion seem relevant and appealing (2014, p. 4).

Anecdotal Reports

Anecdotes can be cited of individuals finding their way into Buddhism after being introduced to mindfulness through a secular course. As one MBSR graduate testified, “I took an 8 week Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction Course two years ago without knowing anything about Buddhism. …That program spurred my curiosity and here I am learning all about the Four Noble Truths” (JKH 2015).

Secular mindfulness teachers often attest that secular classes provide a doorway into Buddhism. Dharma teacher Janette Taylor reflects that “there are different levels of the Dharma to be taught,” and that “taking the more secular approach at first, gives more people a doorway that they can enter easily. Then, once they gain their footing, they become more willing to explore the more transcendent aspects of the Dharma” (2013). Trudy Goodman says the “really interesting question” is what people “do after” they take a secular class, answering that some “sort of migrate into Buddhism” (2014). Melissa Myozen Blacker recalls of her experience at CfM that “after eight weeks,” MBSR participants were “transformed,” further noting that the Boundless Way Zen Temple where she now serves as abbot attracts people who “even ten years ago, wouldn’t have come to a Zen temple” (Wilks et al. 2015, p. 54). Jenny Wilks likewise recounts that Buddhist retreat centers have “seen an increase in the numbers of people coming on retreats and many of them have started with a secular eight-week course” (2014a, Sect. 4). Stephen Batchelor observes that “on every Buddhist meditation course I lead these days, there will usually be one or two participants who have been drawn to the retreat because they want to deepen their practice of ‘secular mindfulness’” (2012, p. 88). Neuroscience researcher and MBSR teacher Willoughby Britton reports that a number of students who have been introduced to mindfulness through college courses have subsequently taken off time to go on long retreats, often in Asia, and/or ordain as Buddhist monks/nuns (2011, para. 37). In both her research on “the Varieties of Contemplative Experience” and her MBSR/CT clinic, she has seen a number of individuals who came to meditation through MBSR describe a meditation-induced loss in sense of self that was accompanied by significant levels of distress and impairment of functioning (2014, para. 30). Kabat-Zinn seeks to soften his admission that “a lot of patients do go deeper into Buddhism and do retreat practice” by adding that some “also go to Catholic and Jewish retreat centers” (2010, para. 32). Similarly, Margaret Cullen suggests that many MBI graduates “report a deeper connection to their own faith tradition, and its attendant moral code” (2011, p. 189). Although intended to distance MBIs from Buddhism, these latter statements undermine the assertion that MBIs are fully secular or non-religious.

Research Studies

Research studies confirm anecdotal reports of an association between secular mindfulness and increased religiosity. Psychologists Tim Lomas and colleagues conducted in-depth narrative interviews with thirty Buddhist meditators. Most had first tried meditation for secular reasons, such as stress management, but for many of them, “meditation became their gateway to subsequent interest in Buddhism” (2014, p. 201).

Quantitative survey research by psychologist Jeffrey Greeson and colleagues of participants in MBSR classes (2011, n = 279; 2015, n = 322) taught by CfM-trained instructors found a significant correlation between increased mindfulness and spirituality. Most participants in the 2011 study enrolled wanting improved mental health (90 %), help managing stress (89 %), and improved physical health (61 %); half (50 %) agreed that “exploring or deepening my sense of spirituality” motivated enrollment. After eight weeks, 54 % reported that the course had deepened their spirituality, including personal faith, meaning, and sense of engagement and closeness with some form of higher power or interconnectedness with all things. The study concludes that mental health benefits of secular mindfulness can be attributed to increases in daily spiritual experiences. In 2015, Greeson’s team replicated the finding that “increases in both mindfulness and daily spiritual experiences uniquely explained improvement in depressive symptoms” (p. 166). Smaller studies (Astin 1997, n = 28; Carmody and Kristeller 2008, n = 44) also report associations between MBSR and increased spirituality scale scores.

In a study of Vipassana retreat participants (n = 27), Deane Shapiro found that practitioner intentions shifted over time along a continuum from self-regulation, to self-exploration, to self-liberation (1992, pp. 33–34). Shapiro also found a statistically significant relationship between religious orientation and length of practice. Longer-term meditators were less likely to be religious “Nones” or monotheists and more likely to identify as Buddhist or with “All” religions.

Reaching an apparently conflicting conclusion, a study of prisoners (n = 57) participating in a 10-day Vipassana retreat found no significant change in post-intervention scores on the Religious Background and Behavior Questionnaire (RBBQ). From this, the authors conclude that “mindfulness meditation, even when taught in a traditional Buddhist context, may be attractive and acceptable to those of other religious faiths, and involvement in such practices does not threaten engagement in non-Buddhist religious practices” (Bowen et al. 2015, p. 1461). It is important that the authors measured religious affiliation before the retreat, but not afterward, so it is possible that participation induced unrecognized changes in religious affiliation. The authors excluded the meditation item from their analysis (because it would have increased the post-intervention scores), reporting only a composite score for the other five items: “thought about God,” “prayed,” “attended religious services,” “studied holy writings,” and “had direct experiences with God” (p. 1458). It is therefore possible that decreases in certain measures (for instance of Christian spirituality) offset increases in others (such as Buddhist spirituality), or that the contents within measures shifted (for instance from study of Christian to Buddhist holy writings). Such shifts would reconcile the study’s findings with other research suggesting that even secularized Buddhist meditation increases reported spiritual experiences.

Research on mantra meditation offers additional insight. Psychologists Amy Wachholtz and Kenneth Pargament (2005, 2008) compared groups focusing on a spiritual phrase (e.g., “God is good”) with “internal” secular (e.g., “I am good”), “external” secular (e.g., “Grass is green”), and progressive muscle relaxation groups. Although the spiritual meditation groups reported “significantly more daily experiences of a spiritual nature,” the authors were surprised to note that the other groups also reported increased daily spiritual experiences. The authors ponder that “if secular meditation was truly devoid of spirituality, then the number of spiritual experiences should not have been affected by this ostensibly secular meditation technique.” They infer that “secular meditation tasks represent less-spiritually oriented, rather than non-spiritually oriented, meditation tasks” (2005, p. 382). The authors suggest that because “historically, meditation has been embedded in a larger spiritual matrix … it may be impossible to disconnect meditative practices fully from this larger context. Thus, the distinction between ‘secular’ and ‘spiritual’ meditation may be overdrawn” (2008, p. 363). These findings suggest difficulties with the project of secularizing meditation.

Conclusion

Although it may be theoretically possible to separate mindfulness from religion, and specifically Buddhism, this has often not occurred despite the use of secularizing rhetoric. Upon closer examination, the asserted boundaries between Buddhist and secular mindfulness in many instances dissolve. A basic difficulty is that the term mindfulness, in the contemporary American cultural context, does double-duty—opening onto a comprehensive Buddhist worldview and way of life even when introduced as a mere therapeutic technique. The problem is made worse because secular mindfulness movement leaders have intentionally engaged in Code-Switching tactics (skillful speech, stealth Buddhism, Trojan horse, scripting). Jon Kabat-Zinn’s MBSR model is a prime example of an MBI infused at every level—concept, structure, teacher training, and graduate resources—with carefully camouflaged Buddhist content. It is not enough, however, to eschew deception. Advocates may truly believe that mindfulness is secular because its values seem to them self-evidently universal and science validates its practical benefits. But it is easy to confuse culturally and religiously specific diagnoses and prescriptions for the ultimate problems that plague humanity with universally shared goals, values, and human capacities. Given the pervasiveness of explicit and implicit Buddhist content in many MBIs, it should come as no surprise that research suggests that even nominally secular mindfulness programs produce religious and spiritual effects.

Returning to definitions of the religious, spiritual, and secular that opened this chapter, the secular mindfulness movement may provide a potent illustration of the difficulty, if not impossibility, of disentangling these co-constructed categories. Mindfulness is steeped in transcendent beliefs and enacted through practices that purportedly connect individuals with ultimate reality, trace a path to salvation from suffering, and cultivate spiritual awareness and virtues. The mindfulness movement has its own creeds or compelling explanations of what is real; implies codes of moral and ethical behavior; reinforces its creeds and codes through cultuses or repeated words and actions; and is practiced through formal and informal communities. Ultimate ideas, metaphysical beliefs, a comprehensive worldview, and external signs of religion and spirituality can all be identified. Mindfulness might be understood as secular if one reduces religion to rhetoric and secularity to this-worldly effects. However, if one means by secular the absence of religious and spiritual beliefs and practices, this is a harder case to make. Like the Catholic priest who is secular because he lives in the world rather than a cloister, the secular mindfulness movement continues to carry Buddhist religious influences into the mainstream. Whether or not mindfulness can be separated from religion, in today’s cultural milieu secular and religious mindfulness seem conjoined twins.