Mindfulness and Modern Mindfulness: Considering Buddhist Communities and Personal Salvation from Depression

Abstract

This thesis aims to consider some of the differences between mindfulness as a Buddhist practice and mindfulness-based programs. The primary difference considered is the individualistic perspectives taken by mindfulness-based programs. If modern mindfulness-based techniques are meant as a treatment for depression, and depression is in part caused by isolation then these programs must also consider mindfulness as a project, which does not accentuate the self as distinct from others. Personal salvation from deficits of the mind is a regular theme of modern mindfulness. This initial goal-oriented, self-interested perspective is potentially threatening to a depressed person who secludes her- or himself in a private world of the “fix it” self-project. With interdependent origination (緣起) as a tenet and the sangha (僧) as one of the three jewels (三寶), Buddhism emphasizes community where salvation is defined as the liberation of all beings from suffering. Therefore, this thesis suggests that mindfulness practices initiated from a self-help perspective are troubled to the extent that they isolate the practitioner. Therefore, a Buddhist interpretation of modern mindfulness, especially regarding individualism and isolation as a cause of depression, is desirable.

1. Introduction

Depression continues to be a growing concern, affecting an estimated 280 million people (Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation 2019), making it the leading cause of disability worldwide (World Health Organization 2021). The roots of depression are various, including social, psychological, and biological causes among others. With so many facets, depression is difficult to understand fully; however, the mindfulness-based approach, especially mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT), shows that depression is caused by negative repetitive thinking or rumination and avoidance (Teasdale 1999, pp. 63–64). The purpose of this article is to consider the causes of depression beyond a cognitive approach focusing particularly on loneliness. This is significant because loneliness as a contributing factor to depression has been well established and yet is not necessarily an explicit part of mindfulness-based programs. If modern mindfulness programs, especially those which aim to prevent or reduce depression, are to be optimized, they require an in-depth consideration of isolation and its effect on mental health. This article not only considers isolation and loneliness in the context of group activities (or a lack thereof), but also the underlying effects of isolation which result from mindfulness as a goal-oriented practice for personal salvation. Furthermore, this thesis is primarily concerned with depression and its relationship with mindfulness and modern mindfulness. Therefore, MBCT will be of particular interest; however, other forms of modern mindfulness will be referenced insofar as they are related to the topic at hand. Particularly important are the foundations of modern mindfulness as found in mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and the more recent developments of mindful self-compassion (MSC) which have incorporated such themes as compassion and loving-kindness with attention-focused practices.

MBCT has consistently shown to be effective at reducing rumination and avoidance, which cause depression, especially for those who have already experienced a depressive episode and utilize MBCT training as a means to prevent depressive relapse (Kuyken et al. 2016). MBCT is one of the most widely used treatments for managing depression. Fennell and Segal distinguish it from its predecessor, CBT, in three main points: methodology, language, and trajectory (Fennell and Segal 2011, pp. 134–35). The reworking of cognitive therapy with mindfulness distinguishes CBT from MBCT in the following ways. CBT is a goal-oriented approach which uses language that enforces a dichotomy between healthy and unhealthy functioning, where depression is considered the latter. Furthermore, the treatment of depression is relatively short-term. MBCT approaches depression with curiosity instead of a problem-solving approach and, therefore, uses language of a more accepting nature. Furthermore, MBCT manages depression with adjustments to the way one lives their daily life and, thus, aims for long-term effectiveness.

Influenced by mindfulness as presented in MBSR, MBCT also abides by the eight-week program structure, which aims to bring curiosity, acceptance, and a non-judgmental attitude toward difficult thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, both programs share a common understanding of mindfulness defined as paying attention “on purpose in the present moment and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn 2013, p. xxvii). However, MBCT is distinct from MBSR as it has an “explicit focus on turning toward low mood and negative thoughts early in the program so that participants gain experience with recognizing these symptoms and confidence in their ability to respond skillfully” (UMASS Memorial Health 2022). Thus, MBCT defines mindfulness as “being able to bring direct, open-hearted awareness to what you are doing while you are doing it: being able to tune in to what’s going on in your mind and body, and in the outside world, moment by moment” (Teasdale et al. 2014, p. 5).

Furthermore, as MBCT has been influenced by the modern phenomenon known as mindfulness it also contains elements of Buddhist teachings. However, it is a point of contention just how “Buddhist” modern mindfulness-based practices are. Thus, it is necessary to distinguish between mindfulness in the context of Buddhist normativity and mindfulness in the context of clinical psychology where the element of soteriology has not been maintained. Regarding the former, this thesis will simply use the term “mindfulness” to indicate normative mindfulness as it occurs within the ethical context implied by such Buddhist principles as interdependent origination (緣起). For the latter, the term “modern mindfulness” will be used to refer to informative mindfulness or “utilitarian mindfulness” (Brazier 2016). Although there are plenty of instances of those who identify as Buddhist and practice modern mindfulness practices as well as instances of psychologists, counsellors, etc., who incorporate core Buddhist teachings in clinical practices regardless of their religious identity, the distinction made here between mindfulness and modern mindfulness is necessary, as there are significant differences between the two. While some claim that modern mindfulness results in part from cultural borrowing or appropriation, others confer that it is an example of the Dharma reaching new cultures (for more on this see (Poceski 2020)). However, this thesis focuses less on questions regarding how modern mindfulness came to be and more on the discrepancies, whatever their cause.

Therefore, in addition to contrasting secular with non-secular meditation practices where ethical norms are present in the latter and absent in the former, this thesis aims to consider modern mindfulness insofar as it is an individualistic-based practice, how this differs from the sense of community present among Buddhists, and what that means for depression. As depression is the primary ailment in question, MBCT is particularly relevant and, thus, most frequently referenced; however, other mindfulness-based practices are also included. Finally, this topic has been chosen because isolation and loneliness are crucial discussions of the treatment of depression, yet they are often overlooked when Buddhist teachings make the shift into a clinical setting.

2. Mindfulness and Modern Mindfulness

One of the main reasons why there is a gap between mindfulness and modern mindfulness is a change in the context of practice. Mindfulness for the Buddhist practitioner is inseparable from Buddhist ethics. Not only a practice to discover and alleviate psychological suffering, mindfulness is inextricably intertwined within a moral framework at the core of Buddhist soteriology. Removing mindfulness from Buddhist normativity amounts to creating the practice anew. The removal of mindfulness from Buddhism is borne out of the discourse between science and religion where, evidence is necessary for the former and faith for the latter. There have been numerous ways of managing this issue so that Buddhist practices can find new life in a clinical setting. As Helderman (2019, p. 17) points out, the therapist approaches Buddhism through one of six methods where Buddhist teachings are therapized, filtered, translated, personalized, adopted, and integrated. This essay argues that the removal of certain elements of Buddhist teachings through any of these six methods, has resulted in a kind of secular Buddhism or Buddhist Modernism (McMahan 2008), which has served as a vehicle for countless people to manage ailments like depression, foster wholesome acts like compassion, and become acquainted with the teachings of the Dharma. However, through the process of extracting mindfulness from Buddhism, modern mindfulness has left behind some integral pieces that have rendered mindfulness ethically sterile relative to its traditional roots. Mindfulness outside the context of Buddhist normativity is no longer mindfulness, but modern mindfulness. This, it will be argued, is unfortunate as some of the elements left behind can contribute to the clinical agenda to minimize depression.

Modern Mindfulness Is Practical

In correspondence with Kabat-Zinn, Teasdale writes, “I have been very impressed by your ability to extract the essence of Buddhist mindfulness meditation and to translate it into a format that is accessible and clearly very effective in helping the average U.S. citizen” (Segal et al. 2013, p. 42). This extraction of the essence of Buddhist mindfulness to help average Americans may sound unfavourable, describing mindfulness as if it was a resource to be mined in foreign lands. However, Buddhist teachings and the reworking of Buddhist teachings as modern mindfulness have a common goal: to reduce suffering. The motivation to extract from or translate the teachings comes from a need to make foreign teachings accessible to those not versed in the philosophy that underpins the practices.

Concepts such as interdependent origination (緣起), and the emptiness (空) of inherent nature it infers, are essential to Buddhist teachings and thus Buddhist meditation practice. Yet, there are several reasons why programs like MBCT would not engage with such metaphysical concepts. First, mindfulness-based programs must maintain a degree of practicality. MBCT aims to effectively help people (who are presumably unfamiliar with Buddhism) in a relatively short period. Mindfulness-based programs are usually divided into 2.5-hour sessions, once a week, for eight weeks (however, some sessions can run up to three hours, as is the case with mindful self-compassion). Although a significant commitment for the novice participant, this is likely insufficient time to examine philosophical concepts without sacrificing time designated for experience-based practice. Furthermore, MBCT is meant to be primarily practiced-based. These practices, which include breathing meditations, body scans, eating meditations, etc., are usually based on physical sensations which fasten the mind to a particular experience and foster stillness. Therefore, introducing thought-provoking, philosophical questions and concepts are, to some extent, at odds with the aim to decenter from thoughts as reality and reinterpret them as events.

Next, emptiness insofar as it describes the impermanence of all phenomena including the self can easily be misinterpreted, especially for one unfamiliar with such concepts. The term “emptiness” may itself be used to describe a state of depression. Given that MBCT aims to help people suffering from depression—teaching that all things, including the self, are empty—has the potential to intensify despair. As has been debated since the time of Nagarjuna (150–250 CE), some continue to interpret the teachings surrounding emptiness as a form of nihilism (Matilal 2002, p. 204).

Finally, modern mindfulness aims for evidence-based results backed by randomized control trials and, more recently, brain scans have also held a favoured role. Metaphysical discourse does not garner evidence-based results and, thus, may be overlooked in favour of an empirically robust investigation that has thus far been associated with modern mindfulness. However, focusing exclusively on empirical evidence will miss valuable insights that arise out of experiences such as feelings and intuition. Despite the lack of a thorough metaphysical investigation, modern mindfulness is the result of the application of Buddhist teachings as techniques that are scientifically justifiable and compatible with teaching novice practitioners. As such, modern mindfulness may maintain a distance from Buddhist philosophy sometimes justified with an appeal to skillful means (方便) as a necessity for teaching laypeople.

Although some Buddhists and Buddhist sympathizers may dislike modern mindfulness, claiming it to be a diluted version of Buddhist traditions, it has been this author’s experience that modern mindfulness is generally accepted by the monastic community and even embraced with enthusiasm as a way to help others. Bhikkhu Bodhi expresses this well when stating,

I feel that if psychotherapists can draw upon Buddhist mindfulness practice to help people overcome anxiety and distress, their work is most commendable. If clinicians find that mindfulness helps patients accept pain and illness, that is wonderful […] At the same time, I also believe that it is our responsibility, as heirs of the Dhamma, to remind such experimenters that they have entered a sanctuary deemed sacred by Buddhists. Thus, respectful towards their sources, they should pursue their investigations with humility and gratitude. They should recognize that while the Dhamma bids everyone come and take what they need, they are drawing from an ancient well of sacred wisdom that has nourished countless spirits through the centuries and whose waters still retain their potency for those who drink from them today.

(Bodhi 2011, p. 36)

3. Mindfulness, Individualism, and Depression

The question remains if the goal of MBCT is to reduce the risk of depressive episodes, and if there are Buddhist teachings that help to do this but are not used by MBCT then why have these teachings been left behind while others utilized? This article suggests the reason for this is partly based on the individualistic context within which modern mindfulness is often practiced. Furthermore, it is suggested that a modern mindfulness more inclusive of Buddhist teachings would be even more effective at preventing/reducing depression.

Perhaps overemphasized, especially as once distant lands have now become more intimately connected with the advancements of modernization, Eastern and Western cultures have often been considered to have fundamental differences. One such difference was conceptualized by German philosopher Tönnies in the late 19th century when he used the terms “Gemeinschaft” and “Gesellschaft”. Respectively, Tönnies used these terms to distinguish between a tightly knit, organic community on the one hand and a large-scale, impersonal, commercial society on the other (Tönnies 2001, p. xli). Such a distinction has been considered regarding the contrast between Eastern and Western cultures where Westerners tend to be more individualistic and Easterners are more collectivistic (Nisbett 2004, pp. 56–68). The degree to which this distinction is accurate is a question for another research project; however, it is a noteworthy point to begin with when considering depression as caused by loneliness and in the context of different cultures (for more on this see (Chentsova-Dutton et al. 2014)). This is especially relevant for an inquiry into modern mindfulness practices, which are said to be influenced by Buddhist wisdom but adapted to flourish in the secular and capital-driven West.

3.1. Nature and Connection

The human species has been able to prosper because of cooperation in the face of competition. The more tightly knit and cooperative a coalition was the greater the chance of survival for the members of that tribe not to mention added benefits like the appropriation of land and goods from other groups. “[C]oalitional coordination and commitment were crucial to group success, tribes punished and ostracized defectors and rewarded loyal members with status and resources (as they continue to do today)” (Clark et al. 2019, p. 587). As such, it has been concluded that humans are tribal by nature. However, the beginning of the European Enlightenment marked a radical shift in the way humans would interact. Due to various advancements in science, individuals could rely more on technology and less on each other. In highly industrious societies, it became less necessary to cooperate in the same ways the species had been accustomed to in the distant past. Many tasks which once required a cooperative group could be carried out alone or by groups with fewer members.

The Protestant Reformation and the work ethic that arose alongside the rise of science and technology emphasizes competition for progress promoting individual freedom and personal growth apart from the group. European and North American cultures in particular hold a strong sense of individualism. Eighteenth-century English philosopher Thomas Hobbes described humans as being nasty, brutish, and short, continuously waging war on one another to gain more material and survive more efficiently. The West, at least in part, continues to be influenced by the Hobbesian view that supports and reinforces competition among individuals as is seen in the socio-economic system of global capitalism. However, biologically speaking, unregulated competition is concerned with gene propagation, not individual progress. Despite changes in the culture that reduce our reliance on one another and encourage an independent way of life, humans are at their root obligatorily gregarious. As Cacioppo and Patrick (2008, p. 61) note, “connection and social cooperation did not have to be imposed by a primitive form of the state… Nature is connection”. This is particularly relevant to this discussion on modern mindfulness because understanding depression as a form of loneliness broadens the list of potential causes which range beyond the individualistic, cognitive approach.

3.2. Depression and Isolation

With the tribe so essential to survival, it is not surprising that isolation has a significant negative effect on human psychology. Not only has loneliness been considered a risk factor for depressive symptoms (Cacioppo et al. 2006), it has been shown that loneliness plays a major role in the decline of physical health as well (Berkman 1995). With the growing innovations of technology that allow for hyper connectivity worldwide, one might assume depression and other ailments occurring because of loneliness are at an all-time low. However, as Turkle points out, the opposite is often the case, as more intimate relationships and in-person interactions are needed for fully satisfying connections. According to Turkle, technology, although helpful in maintaining some relationships, can lead us to believe that we are nourishing meaningful relationships when we are connecting in a merely superficial way (Turkle 2015, p. 27). Turkle’s findings agree with Cacioppo and Patrick, who point out that loneliness is prevented by being with others in a meaningful way. The degree to which a meaningful relationship can be maintained remotely is uncertain, as loneliness can also be experienced in the physical presence of others. Regardless of the degree to which in-person meetings are needed, the best predictor of loneliness is an issue of quality: the individuals’ ratings of the meaningfulness, or the meaninglessness, of their encounters with other people (Cacioppo and Patrick 2008, p. 94).

As Junger points out in his book Tribe, there is a seemingly contradictory phenomenon among soldiers who, in life and death situations, experience post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including depression upon returning home, rather than during the time of danger. He explains that the psychological struggle may be less a result of a traumatic experience (many soldiers who do not see combat still suffer PTSD) and more about the re-entry into a society that lacks the same meaning and sense of community that soldiers experience (Junger 2016, p. 90). A modern soldier returning from combat “goes from a close-knit group that humans evolved for back into a society where […] families are isolated from wider communities, and personal gain almost completely eclipses collective good” (Junger 2016, p. 93). In other words, it may be more important for one’s psychological wellness to connect with members of their coalition in a meaningful way where there is a common goal, even if that means taking other types of risks. This is not to say that being in combat with fellow soldiers is preferable, but the type of relationship that results from meaningful situations like combat seems to be less conducive to loneliness and depression, whether that means protecting the members of your company or volunteering at the local school or fire department.

4. Self-Projects and No-Self Projects

4.1. Self-Projects

An integral part of eight-week modern mindfulness programs is shared experience. Courses are carried out in a group setting, ideally, 8–14 participants, (https://www.londonmindful.com/8-week-mindfulness-course-faqs accessed on 25 January 2022) where interacting and sharing is an essential part of the reflecting and healing process. For MBCT, the program is divided into three primary stages: the course structure or guidelines, reflection or the space needed to pause and see the events of the mind, and the insight or discoveries that are made after practicing and hearing other peoples’ experiences (Teasdale et al. 2014, p. 8). Sharing with others garners insights by affording additional opportunities to reflect on one’s own experiences and learn from those of others. Furthermore, the sense of mutual support often felt among program participants is often cited as an essential component when learning how to deal with difficult emotions. This is particularly true in mindfulness-based courses which include compassion practices. One such program is Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC) where the connection between participants is explicitly included. Co-founder Kristen Neff refers to “common humanity” as a tenet of the MSC program. Based on compassion, which is an essential element of Buddhist wisdom and morality, Neff focuses on the importance of “feeling connected with others in the experience of life rather than feeling isolated and alienated by our suffering” (Neff 2015, p. 41). Furthermore, MSC also encourages connection through phrases of loving-kindness for self and others. These phrases include “may you/we/I be happy”, “…be peaceful”, “…be healthy”, “…be with ease” (Neff and Germer 2018, p. 66).

However, while mindfulness courses are group activities they are often practiced individually, the degree to which they prevent or reduce depression by diminishing loneliness is unclear. Although loneliness may be mitigated in the group atmosphere, modern mindfulness is often taught as a technique that can be practiced alone outside of the program facilities. For example, the three-minute breathing space is meant to be a respite in a busy day (Teasdale et al. 2014, p. 97). Among the bustle of our work-a-day lives, it is helpful to disconnect from the whirlwind of thoughts and re-engage with the world from a more emotionally stable platform where the runaway thoughts and worries are slowed and thus rumination and depression is hopefully prevented. However, this disengage–re-engage practice is used within the private theatre of one’s mind to help me to manage my thoughts and emotions to get through the difficult parts of the day. Accordingly, some researchers are concerned that modern mindfulness may cause a decrease in prosocial behaviour in participants with independent self-construals (Poulin et al. 2021).

Apart from mindfulness-based programs being group activities, another example of connection in modern mindfulness is found in the term “oneness”. Jon Kabat-Zinn, in his book Wherever You Go, There You Are, writes about connection and its significance for mindfulness practice referring to connection as “feeling at one with”. He writes, “When we are in touch with being whole, we feel at one with everything. When we feel at one with everything, we feel whole ourselves” (Kabat-Zinn 2005, p. 226). In Full Catastrophe Living, a similar statement is made when Kabat-Zinn writes, “Wholeness and connectedness are what are most fundamental in our nature as living beings” (Kabat-Zinn 2013, p. 177). Continuing a few pages later, “While every living organism is a whole in itself, it is also embedded in a larger wholeness” (Kabat-Zinn 2013, p. 185). However, connectedness here resembles a kind of cosmic connection echoing the ascetic practices of hermit monks or the transcendental philosophy of Emerson and Thoreau. Kabat-Zinn describes feeling whole by feeling at one with everything, which begs the question, is “feeling at one with” enough or does one have to, in-person, “be at one with” to avoid loneliness and minimize the depression it causes?

Insofar as its main goal is to alleviate difficult thoughts and emotions and cultivate well-being, modern mindfulness is an individualistic practice. Although many modern mindfulness techniques include the well-being of others, they are usually practiced as a form of therapy to help alleviate difficult emotions. However, modern mindfulness has been described not as therapy but as therapeutic (Germer 2016). This classification establishes modern mindfulness as goal-less insofar as mental well-being is not the main objective but a benefit that accompanies the practice. Nonetheless, as many promotions for mindfulness-based programs confirm, the intention is usually based in the goal-oriented world of therapy where people are attracted to the program as a way to improve their own lives. Insofar as modern mindfulness is promoted as a therapeutic fix, it can be considered as a self-project. One study found that 94.7% of participant responses to why they decided to take a mindfulness meditation course referred to coping with or reducing negative experiences, especially negative emotional experiences involving stress, anxiety, panic, and depression” (Pepping et al. 2016, p. 544). The same study showed that just 6.3% of participants mentioned taking the course for spiritual or religious reasons (p. 544). Despite claims that modern mindfulness is practiced without goals, most participants seem to take the course to develop personally by reducing stress, increasing well-being, improving mood, or strengthening memory, decision making and communication skills, etc. As Gilpin points out, regarding MBCT modern mindfulness has “distinct goals (paradoxically couched in terms of goalless-ness) and so inevitably departs from the ‘not-Self project’ its primary practices were originally designed to realise” (Gilpin 2008, p. 247). Mindfulness (Buddhist), however, maintains the “not-self project” as a primary component of its practice.

4.2. No-Self Projects

The Buddhist interpretation of no-self refers to no inherent self or no individual who is independent of others. The importance of interconnection and the emptiness of inherent self-nature is referenced throughout Buddhist teachings and highlighted in the three jewels. Along with the Buddha (佛) and the Dharma (法), the Sangha (僧) is the third of the three jewels (三寶). From the perspective of modern mindfulness, the Buddha and his teachings are often recognized as an influence of the practical techniques it teaches; however, the community of practitioners receives less attention as an inherent element of the practice. Impermanence, selflessness, and emptiness make up the core of these teachings but they lack meaning without the cause and effect relationship between individuals. The sangha as one of the three jewels is representative of this. Based on their interconnected nature with each other, all sentient beings share an emptiness of inherent nature. To have such a connection with others and to know one is not alone in his suffering is an important realization that itself can help in the alleviation of loneliness and thus depression.

While the teachings of early Buddhism, and the Satipaṭṭhāna sūtra (念處經) in particular, are where one finds the groundwork for mindfulness, the teachings of Yogâcāra are especially fitting for this discussion on lonliness as they not only focus on human psychology but also on the ontological nature of self, other, and the relationship between them. The interdependent relationship between self and other is highlighted in the teachings of Yogâcāra, the central tenet of which, describes external objects as being unable to exist without contact (觸) with consciousness. Thus, the school of Yogâcāra is often referred to as vijñapti-mātratā or consciousness-only (唯識). Regarding seperation between self and other Vasubandhu (4th to 5th century CE) explains in the first verse of the Triṃśikā (三十唯識論) that when one foolishly thinks of “self” and “other” as existing independently all types of phenomenological shapes occur. Reciprocally, the variety of phenomenological differences, which express differences between “you” and “I”, only emerge because of the development of a dualistic perception and subsequent understanding of the “self” and “other” (this is my translation of Ven. Seogwang’s interpretation of the Triṃśikā; Song 2019, p. 48). This dualistic perception of self and other is the result of the fabricated nature of the mind. Although sometimes interpreted as a form of idealism Yogâcāra does not regard phenomena as a creation of the mind, this is merely the first nature of the mind which Yogâcāra means to overcome.

According to Yogâcāra, the mind consists of three natures including fabricated nature (遍計所執性), other-dependent nature (依他起性), and complete understanding (圓成實性). As explained in verses 20–22 of the Triṃśikā, fabricated nature is a dualist understanding of phenomena where subject and object are understood to be inherently distinct (Hsüan-Tsang 1999, p. 381). This presumed distinction leads to grasping and thus various kinds of suffering. In the beginning stages of the five paths of Yogâcāra (唯識修道五位), which are described in verses 26–30, fabricated nature grows to include an understanding of all phenomena as interdependent. This nature of mind is known as other-dependent nature, and it represents the state by which one understands cause and effect and the deep connection among all beings and phenomena. After recognizing this interconnected relationship fabricated nature is released leaving behind a state known as complete understanding. As our habits of the fabricated nature of mind are difficult to break, the third nature is difficult to understand, especially using an intellectual approach. The Triṃśikā refers to other-dependent nature and complete understanding as being the same and different, simultaneously. This description is confusing, but that is partly the point. This non-dualist description is non-conceptual, which provides nowhere for the listener to (intellectually) grasp to the thought object. Further emphasizing the central role that interdependent origination plays, verse 21 states, “The perfected nature [or complete understanding] is the eternal privation of the former [fabricated] nature from that (dependent nature)” (Hsün-Tsang 1999, p. 381). In other words, complete understanding is other-dependent nature without the fabricating nature of the mind. Furthermore, Connelly explains, “[W]e only see the other-dependent nature if we are seeing the complete, realized nature and vice versa. When we see the infinite, timeless connection of all things in their immediate, vivid, dependently arising nature, we see through our imaginary [fabricated] world” (Connelly 2016, p. 154).

The practices, as described by the five paths of Yogâcāra, begin with substantial consideration for other people because “other” is not, metaphysically speaking, distinct from self. For Buddhism, mindfulness is a practice not sufficient in itself but as a support for other practices, which foster merit through connection. For example, the six perfections (六波羅蜜) and the four acts of loving-kindness (四攝法), assist practitioners to realize the other-dependent nature of mind and become liberated from the fabricated nature. These practices include charity (布施), morality (持戒), forbearance (忍辱), effort (精進), meditation (禪定), and wisdom (智慧) in the case of the six perfections and charity (布施), loving words (愛語), beneficial conduct (利行), and working together (同事) as the four acts of loving-kindness. Unlike some forms of modern mindfulness, which tend to emphasize the development of wisdom to overcome cognitive hindrances, moral practices are also essential as afflictive hindrances are overcome with merit. Here, merit refers to virtues accumulated in the form of karma through good actions. Wisdom (智) and merit (功德) are tools needed to remove the barrier between self and other, also referred to as moral provisioning (Hsüan-Tsang 1973, p. 669) and that which is connected with liberation (順解脫分).

The first of the five paths of Yogâcāra emphasizes the habit to distinguish between self and other as inherently distinct, and how this causes suffering. The belief in separate selves is characterized by what is known as the two graspings (二執), which are comprised of the grasping subject (我執) and the grasped object (法執). This distinction is further compounded as a result of the two hindrances (二障) mentioned above: afflictive hindrances (煩惱障) and cognitive hindrances (所知障), which represent barriers in the form of passions or vexations and barriers that hinder absolute knowledge, respectively. Merit and wisdom are developed with regard to the distinction between self and other. Cognitive errors are the foundation of obstacles associated with a dualistic conception of subject and object. Moral practice is needed to uproot afflictive hindrances, while the cultivation of wisdom dispels cognitive hindrances. As Ven. Seogwang points out, the methods for cultivating morality and wisdom are numerous but can be divided into those, which are useful for the individual and those that are useful for others. Methods commonly associate with the first of five paths of Yogâcāra are, but are not limited to, the six perfections and the four acts of loving-kindness, where the six perfections are practiced for the self and the loving-kindness is practiced for others (Song 2019, p. 193). Ultimately, the reason for implementing these methods is to better understand self and other and to challenge dualistic assumptions associated with them.

4.3. Self-Projects and Connection through Values

The goal of this essay is to distinguish between mindfulness and modern mindfulness, focusing on the collective and moral attitude necessary to the former and the individual attitude held by the latter. To what extent are individualistic approaches to mindfulness effective at treating individual suffering like depression caused by isolation? In other words, responding to the question posed above, is “feeling at one with” (as opposed to “being at one with”) sufficient to counter depression? To answer this one must consider what it means to be isolated and lonely as well as the overall scope of mindfulness practice. On the one hand, as described by Kabat-Zinn, oneness or connectedness can be experienced while alone especially when spending time in nature (Kabat-Zinn 2005, pp. 226–27). On the other hand, loneliness and isolation are frequently experienced even while living amongst hundreds of thousands or millions of other people. What role then does face-to-face interaction with other beings play in the experience of loneliness? As Macià et al. (2021, p. 2) point out, loneliness is very subjective and involves “a judgement of the meaning and adequacy of one's social connections that necessarily presupposes an individual's cognitive framework of values and expectations”. Loneliness is not just an absence of social connection but an absence of connection with people who share values. Human connections have to be meaningful and satisfying for each of the people involved, and not according to some external measure” (Cacioppo and Patrick 2008, p. 240). As mentioned in Section 3 soldiers who have a clear sense of meaningful objectives have a sense of connection and comradery. Furthermore, the shared, meaningful objective is less likely to be fighting for lofty political ideals, but for more immediate, personal goals such as fighting to protect the other members of one’s cohort. Therefore, if one values solitude and the insights it brings, they must also do so, to some extent, with others who also share those values for solitude. Otherwise, they risk feeling isolated. Assuming the need for in-person connection the oneness or wholeness that is described by Kabat-Zinn as “a feeling of being with” must be “with” insofar as it is a shared experience with others who also value the importance of that experience and the insights it accompanies. While some people need less face-to-face connection than others, a sense of meaningfulness and thus relationships with others is crucial to well-being.

The experience of wholeness or oneness, as explained by modern mindfulness, is often found in solitude. As important as solitude, reflection, and spiritual experiences are they are not sufficient in treating an episode of depression at least not insofar as the episode is provoked by loneliness. Glimpses into a state where one feels at peace with the world can be misleading possibly causing the practitioner to chase the experience by diving more deeply into solitude. This is fine so long as the individual does not mistakenly think they need more private meditation when they would benefit more from connection with others. Thus, regular guidance from a mentor and reflection with others is indispensable. While this is effectively offered by modern mindfulness programs in a group setting, the groups are dispersed after the eight sessions conclude. Furthermore, the individualistic approach is maintained, even while practicing with others, in the form of goal-oriented therapy. Therefore, insofar as modern mindfulness reinforces the self-project it could conceivably be a cause for loneliness where moments of clarity arise but could, for some, cause further despair through loneliness brought on by a lack of meaningful connection with others. The causes of depression are multiple and reach far beyond the individual.

The aim of Buddhist practice is not to alleviate individual suffering (although it is a welcomed side effect) but the suffering of all sentient beings (which includes individual suffering). Furthermore, it aims at enlightenment through practice based on metaphysical concepts, which encompass the techniques that alleviate individual suffering. As such modern mindfulness can be said to utilize elements from Buddhist teachings repurposed as secular techniques. Religion is replaced with spirituality and terms like “enlightenment” and “interdependent origination” come to be known as “insight” and “interconnectedness”. Insofar as mindfulness programs are influenced by Buddhism this influence has been through Buddhist Modernism. Buddhist Modernism is individualistic as a result of interpreting Buddhist teachings from the point of view of a culture that recently experienced a religious reformation in part brought about by the need for political independence. The reinterpretation of mindfulness from the modern perspective has led to lost connections with community as well as lineage. The ethical foundations of the practices, which are centralized around the sangha and the easing of suffering for all sentient beings are not considered explicitly. As Brazier points out, “[a] basic misunderstanding is that many people have come to see Buddhist training as no longer about bringing compassion to the whole world, and have, instead, started to see it as a means to a private and personal salvation” (Brazier 2002, pp. 16–17).

Implementing some of the elements of Buddhist teachings that have been filtered out, modern mindfulness continues to adjust. Regarding depression, MBCT has been one of the primary “go-to” methods for cognitive treatment. Given the impact that isolation has on depression, modern mindfulness programs, and MBCT in particular, would do well to include a collectivistic approach in the form of merit building or moral practices and a stronger sense of community that lasts beyond the eight-week program. Thus far, these elements have been implemented by including compassion and loving-kindness into the practice; however, this could be more beneficial if individualism was not reinforced.

5. Conclusions

This thesis has been a consideration of the differences between mindfulness and modern mindfulness in the context of individualism and the role it plays in causing depression. Despite the role individualism plays in modern mindfulness as a psychological treatment the self-project is useful in attracting participants to a program that has the potential to expose them to collectivistic perspectives and less lonely lives. This is potentially problematic if a shift toward collectivism does not occur within the program and instead reinforces the individualist perspective. This thesis has not intended to claim the superiority of no-self projects and conclude that modern mindfulness programs are insufficient. On the contrary, as mindfulness-based programs continue to develop adjustments to the traditional are necessary. Traditions cannot be expected to maintain rigid uniformity as the cultural backdrop changes. However, it is the responsibility of the heirs of the teachings to receive them with sensitivity. This is not just to respect the tradition but also to garner potential for improved practice. One of the elements of traditional mindfulness that modern mindfulness might consider more thoroughly is the importance of community and the shift from individualism to collectivism. As has been discussed above, liberation from suffering as a goal for the group as opposed to a personal project fosters meaningful connection amongst people who share similar values. This, it has been suggested, is an essential part of easing depression. That being said the current socio-economic context of modern mindfulness, particularly in the West, is based on individualism and capitalism. This is the dilemma that modern mindfulness faces as many Buddhist insights and practices assume a different kind of society. Some of these insights and practices can be adapted but without questioning some of the fundamental assumptions in our own society there will be a limit on how much extracting can be carried out from Buddhism in its natural context. One of the most pressing issues regarding this point is the implementation of mindfulness programs into our healthcare systems. While tradition is important the treatments still need to reach the people.

Currently, the modern mindfulness approach to depression treats the condition as a phenomenon that takes place inside the head, in both the brain and the mind. Enforced by ever common studies including fMRI scans which relate mindfulness with the brain, as well as cognitive-based approaches which relate mindfulness with the functions of the mind, modern mindfulness might be disproportionately favoring internal causes over environmental causes. It has been argued that modern mindfulness is misguided insofar as it frames its practice as inward awareness of the mind and assumes mindfulness is best studied by observing the interior. As Thompson (2020, p. 122) reminds us “People are mindful, not brains”. An internalist approach should be reconsidered in favour of one that defines the mind as “a relation between you and the world, including society and culture” (Thompson 2020, p. 123). Cognitive and metacognitive practices are an essential part of managing an unruly mind; however, if the causes of the unruliness are environmental it will be necessary to do something about those causes rather than be with them. As modern mindfulness courses continue to develop some of the issues regarding individualism and the need for a collectivistic approach are addressed. As mentioned above, MSC emphasizes compassion and sites community as one of the tenets of the practice. Furthermore, MBSR is developing into what is known as MBSR 2, one of the key themes of which is “our relationship with the environment”. The updated program “emphasizes kindness and compassion” and points out that “responding wisely to choices in our lives means considering, and engaging with, our internal, individual, social, global and natural environments” (Brown School of Public Health 2019). The modern mindfulness emphasis to look inside yourself has begun to shift to included looking outside yourself as well. If this important shift is further developed, it will be helpful to reflect on the roots of the practices. While modern mindfulness is largely practical it could find further support from the Buddhist teachings which have influenced it. This support could garner not only a more philosophically robust theory but also an even more effective means of easing suffering for all, including the individual.