Here is a clip of a news programme on PM, the BBC Radio 4 afternoon news programme describing the mindfulness courses that have been running in Westminster for MPs and Lords.
Listen NowThis is the first mainstream coverage of the courses I know of other than a blog on The Huffington Post. A similar course is also mooted for The Senedd in wales.
Another dimension of what is happening in Westminster is the exploration of policy applications of mindfulness. An All Party Parliamentary Mindfulness Group will launch soon, while the Wellbeing APPG will shortly be holding a session on mindfulness. There’s more on this topic here.
Thanks for this post Vishvapani. Interesting to know just how far the mindfulness trend has gone. But for me it throws up a whole gamut of problems, not just in relation to what you write here but also the more wider theme of politics, mindfulness and its relation to Buddhism that you have touched on previously . What is becoming clear to me is that, as much as it is unpalatable to Buddhists, it would seem that there is not a necessary connection between mindfulness as such, and skilful ethical behaviour. In the sound clip Subhadramati tries to suggest that there is such a link – but is this really so? To explore what I mean let’s consider a hypothetical example of a US marine – as it is mentioned in the clip and stated elsewhere on your site that the US Marine Corp is now undergoing mindfulness training. Suppose he is ordered to shoot someone (say, for purpose of the example, in Afghanistan). Afterwards the marine suffers a severe nervous response as a result of his actions. How will he interpret his reactions? Buddhist would like to think that he will make the connection that his response is a s a result of his unskilful behaviour. But that involves is the application of a performative idea of ethical behaviour which is independent of the actual psycho-nervous response he suffers. He may well interpret his response as being “not a good soldier”; or alternatively that he is “not patriotic enough” in the execution of his duty. He may then use the very mindfulness techniques taught to him to further the objectives of “being a good soldier” in the suppression of the more humanistic side of his feelings. Throw in a dose of misconceived Buddhist philosophy on the emptiness of shunayata and you have exactly the same toxic mix that allowed Buddhist Zen monks to teach the Samurai on how to kill more effectively or the ideology of support for militarism that the Japanese Buddhists gave to their government in the 1930’s -40’s. This is a scandal that simply won’t go away, and demands more clearer explanation on the part of Buddhists before they gayfully go ahead on the basis of unexamined assumptions and teach mindfulness to politicians and military men!
Dear Padmadipa,
I agree that mindfulness doesn’t necessarily make you ethical. The extra element, which is very clear in Buddhist teachings, is beliefs and views. However, I think mindfulness does support ethics in the sense that it helps people to avoid acting unskilfully out of instinct and reaction. That was very clear when I was teaching mindfulness recently to serious offenders. More generally, mindfulness fosters a kind of sensitivity to the relationship between actions and consequences which helps ethics, but is still affected by views and the interpretations you mention.
To suggest that acting ‘out of instinct and reaction’ lends itself to unethical ends seems to betray the bias of a rationalist. But we know rational thinking not only has failed to live up to it’s initial promise but that it fails in many ways on it’s own terms. I am not aware that ‘serious offenders’ are particularly prone to ‘instinct and reaction’. Many serious crimes are meticulously planned and executed or are as a result of a culmination of habituated, abusive behaviour. Finally, we must be careful not assume that any positive outcomes involving a handful of serious offenders can be used effectively as a basis for assuming that extending a similar set of theories or practices towards a much larger domain of, how shall I say it? ‘socially better adjusted?’individuals (who are likely to have very different needs and aims to the study group mentioned) would be proper or even desirable. Finally, the idea that mindfulness does not necessarily make you ethical indicates a secular rationale for the concepts which does not seem to share the sort of characteristics of Buddhist thought which has shown itself to be of a spectacularly persistent religious nature for thousands of years. The separation of ethics and procedure is I think the most worrying attitude I am finding among contemporary practitioners.