Mindfulness: Not a Pink Practice

This morning I read an op-ed piece from the New York Times by Judith Warner called Being and Mindfulness. I heard about the article yesterday while acquainting myself with Twitter. I'm a very late adopter of the service and only found a reason to use it a week ago when I launched cycle one of the 108 days [the Remix] blog. So I was searching for recent tweets on meditation, mindfulness, buddhist blogs and the like and I took note of the following:

robertahill: NYT Judith Warner: Being and Mindfulness http://twurl.nl/jn1tvw Must read.

A glowing endorsement. A news source I often find engaging. Okay... I'll bite.

As I read, I wondered if Ms. Warner really understands what mindfulness is all about. She seemed to be talking more about a New Age spirituality than anything else. She complained of her mindfulness-leaning friends appearing to be replaced by pod people. She championed the importance of the edge... a personality that understands the art and science of sarcasm, is skilled in flippant remarks and dark humor and is not afraid to yell. She expressed concern about the loneliness and disenfranchisement she has felt being on the receiving end of a friend's foray into mindfulness, and she wondered if mindfulness (while it is supposed to bring people together) only loosens the bonds between people and pushes them further apart which she summed up in the following statement:

I have no doubt that this meta-connectedness feels real, and indeed is real, in the abstract at least. But in real-life encounters, I’ve come lately to wonder whether meaningful bonds are well forged by the extreme solipsism that mindfulness practice often turns out to be.

Really? Solipsism?

Solipsism is a term that is common in circles of academic philosophy but arguably lesser known outside those circles. While the NYT's dictionary pop-up feature does provide a brief definition of the term:

sol·ip·sism (sŏl'ĭp-sĭz'əm, sō'lĭp-)
n. Philosophy.

1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified.
2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality.

[Latin sōlus, alone + Latin ipse, self + –ISM.]

A dictionary of philosophy will provide definitions with more context and breadth:

solipsism, epistemological (from Latin, solus, alone, single, sole + ipse, self)
1. the theory that one's consciousness (self, mind) cannot know anything other than its own content, see egocentric predicament. 2. one's consciousness alone is the underlying justification for, and cause of, any knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of anything at all. Contrasted with OBJECTIVISM (EPISTEMOLOGY).

soliphsism, metaphysical literally, "I myself only exist"; the theory that no reality exists other than one's self. The self (mind, consciousness) constitutes the totality of existence. All things are creations of one's consciousness at the moment one is conscious of them. Other things do not have any independent existence, they are states of, and are reducible to, one's consciousness.

[...from The Harper Collins Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition]

I would've preferred the use of another term, like say self-centeredness or egocentricity in place of soliphsism in this article. I think the inherent error that the premise of this article expounds can be summed up by the use of the word as much as by the content of the article itself. Just because one can use the word solphisism in a sentence does not mean they are stating a well thought or reasonable premise. That is just the type of egocentricity that Warner appears to be trying to warn us against.

Mindfulness is not a pink practice. There are too many Buddhist teachers in the world who are skilled in mindfulness to point to who are edgy and funny and sharp and biting... whose personalities are still intact while their teachings are sincere and true to life. MIndfulness practice doesn't lead us away from who we are, it turns us in on who we are... not because we need to be the sugary embodiment of a new age affirmation, but because we can't touch connectedness or concern for the world if we are out of touch with what is truly going on right now in the moment in our own lives.

Looking Up an Old Friend

This month I've been attemping this crazy project called National Novel Writing Month (affectionately referred to as NaNoWriMo by participants). By the weekend after Thanksgiving, I had only amassed a word count of 22,207 of the required 50,000 words in order to be counted a winner. My story idea exhausted itself and there was no where else to go with it, but it ignited my love for reading and writing and sent me on a hunt for new reads to devour.

During the process, I looked up an old friend—The Sun Magazine—because I've often been inspired and informed and moved by the stories, articles, poems and personal essays that are printed on its pages. The Sun was introduced to me by my high school creative writing teacher—a thin rail of a guy with long greying hair. He was kind of a hippie (and no, I don't have a problem with hippies... he just stood out in the conservative district where he taught and I attended school)—but he had good taste in literature. He would bring copies into the classroom to show us how "real writers" exercised the craft. He would tell a group of us later while we were working on the school's literary magazine that critiquing high school writing was often an unfulfilling experience. I produced my share of really bad essays, so I suppose I contributed to his pain... But during those classes I understood that writing was very important to me and that one day I hoped to craft my words well. I think he was grateful to those of us who tried because we had respect for language even when we jumbled it badly.

So maybe two weeks ago I was surfing online and found the magazine's recently updated website. As an IT professional, I am in awe of the design work on the site. It really is perfect and flawless. But even if the site was devoid of elegant Cascading Style Sheets, I would still read the content. It doesn't need a nice dress to look good.

Endorsements aside, there is an article out there that I wanted to share. It was written by Stephen T. Butterfield in the March 1988 issue. It is currently published in the Favorites from the Archives section, but I don't know how long it will be available. If you find this post years from now and they've pulled it from the site, this particular article is also published in the third Best of the Sun collection.

Just trust me on this—it is a thought-provoking read.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava

This BuddhismNews.it article is an interesting read. It discusses Ghandi's and Ambedkar's views on Nationalist Muslims. The article begins with a statement by Ghandi:

Scriptures cannot transcend reason and truth. They are intended to purify reason and illuminate truth. Every formula of every religion has, in this age of reason, to submit to the test of reason and universal justice if it is to ask for universal assent. Error can claim no exemption even if it can be supported by the scriptures of the world.

Buddhists would find nothing to disagree with here. Buddha himself suggested that we try the teachings on... that we experiment with thoughts and actions, that we evaluate the results of our thoughts and actions to determine their merit. Everything in Buddhism is subject to the test of reason. Each practitioner is encouraged to be a thorough examiner.

Sarva Dharma Samabhava means equal validity of all religions. This was a concept that Ghandi believed strongly. Ambedkhar dissented. In this post 911/post 77 world, Ambedkhar's words feel somewhat prophetic. Seeking answers to his questions Do the Islamic scriptures pass the tests of reason and universal justice and brotherhood? Do these scriptures allow its adherents to live peacefully with persons professing other faiths? his findings were not in tune with Sarva Dharma Samabhava. He believed:

Islam [is] an exclusive, intolerant and monopolistic religion.

Well, arguably it can be... but we can't count out the non-violent, peace-seeking Muslims who promote Islam as a religion of peace. Despite the violent demonstrations we see that contradict this (unfortunately more frequently as of late) I'm holding out for Sarva Dharma Samabhava. I agree with Ghandi... we can work towards a world where muslims and non-muslims can live in peace with respect and understanding. Perhaps, as we work towards that world, we should also listen to and heed Ambedkar's concerns. I found some truth in what both men were saying.

So, It's a Black Thing? v. 2

The discussion continues. Yesterday, I posted a message in the Black Buddhists Yahoo! group asking bloggers (if they are out there) to let me know about their blogs. I included a link to a past entry, Blogging while Black (and Buddhist). A couple of comments have been posted there regarding the more recent post So, It's a Black Thing?. In fact, Choyin, the author of Black Buddha: A Diversity Perspective, stopped by to share his thoughts. An excerpt:

Let's us be free of the shackles of racial separateness that has so plagued our human love and compassion for one another. We are one, and have always been. To think of one's self as having a lineage stemming from Africa is not a curse; rather it is liberation into a truth that eradicates pigment as a point of difference.

I have not read Choyin's book. Though I can't speak for him with any authority, I think this excerpt points to the intent of his book. If an understanding of anthropology can bring people closer together, causing them to see themselves as more similar than different, I'm all for it. Personally, I think we can connect more to our similarities by looking at our minds and hearts. That belief is one of the reasons why I tltled my blog "Zen Under the Skin." Bodies and their pigments are both similar and different. I think we find more sameness in what's going on under the skin.

So, It's a Black Thing?

Today, I picked up a copy of the Summer 2005 issue of Buddhadharma magazine. Two of the pieces published this month deal in some way with Black Buddhists and diversity in practice centers.

In Legitimate Heirs, Not Invited Guests, Rebecca Walker reviews Choyin Rangdrol's self-published book Black Buddha: A Diversity Perspective. I was familiar with the book, as I am marginally familiar with Choyin Rangdrol. I have skimmed his website, and provide a link to it on the "Resources for Black Buddhists" page on this site. Like Rebecca was before an apparent change of heart, I am somewhat skeptical of Rangdrol's work. In her book review, she states:

When I first read Black Buddha, I was skeptical. I found it too close to Afrocentricity, which itself is an expression of cultural bias. And then there was the fact that I didn't feel alienated from Buddhism, and I had my malas and pashminas to prove it.

I have not read Rangdrol's book. In fact, before reading Rebecca's review I was probably completely closed to the idea of reading it. The book's premise felt like a distraction... a controversy that would not add to my practice. From what I understood, Rangdrol was attempting to set forth an Asa Hilliard-like hypothesis that the founders of Buddhism were as much African as they were Indian or Asian. Browsing his site a couple of years ago, I wondered... Could there be some truth to the hypothesis? I also asked myself... What difference would it make?

I've studied the African diaspora. I also had college courses that delved into the origin of man and explored the academics... the science that suggests that humankind came forth out of Africa. I found it all fascinating. Yet it concerns me when people use these facts as arguments for the "Africanization" (yes, I believe I just made that word up) of all things. I don't agree with the argument that because the human story began in Africa, all things are African. I don't believe it is practical to suggest that African Americans should feel that they are legitimate heirs to the Dharma because the people of India who founded Buddhism may have had some ancestral connection to Africans. The argument seems to assume that Buddha intended the Dharma for people who were just like him, that the legitimate heirs to Buddha's Dharma were people that had to look like him. This is problematic on so many levels. Even the most basic accounts of the life of the Buddha refute these notions.

I'm concerned that people seem to want to transpose Afrocentricity and Buddhism. I'm worried. If the goal of this juxtaposition is to increase diversity in the sangha, I question the wisdom of the approach. We are, all of us in this human realm, legitimate heirs to the Dharma. We don't need to extrapolate anthropological connections to make our connection to the Dharma more real or substantial than it already is. Let's not make Buddhism an African thing, an Asian thing, a thing for middle-class White Americans, a Black thing, or any other thing that does not embrace or celebrate everything.

What does interest me about Rangdrol's book after reading Walker's review is his "personal story of finding liberation through the dharma." Isn't that what the dharma is really about... learning to free ourselves from suffering? Can't we just leave it there? Isn't that enough?