Philosophy and mindfulness 

I am doing a course on mindfulness through Coursera.  The balance created by looking at non-Buddhist sources on the topic of mindfulness was for me inspiring and brought me much closer to the ideas that had been presented. It seems that the term mindfulness has been drawn from Buddhist origin but the concept of mindfulness is certainly not a concept that is new to the West. As was shown in the discussion on Stoicism the idea of being mindful might be viewed from a slightly different perspective but it definitely deals with the topic of mindfulness. Since Stoic philosophy is basic to my own philosophy I can relate strongly to the stoic definition of mindfulness. My own mindfulness practice was drawn primarily from Western thought and less from the east. I personally think that the Western Esoteric tradition and mystical movements has a lot to contribute to the mindfulness debate. I fully understand that this course cannot tap into all the sources.

 

On the temple of Delphi in ancient Greece above the portal was inscribed the injunction “know thyself”, is that not in part a call for mindfulness. The Western mystery traditions have for ages focused on tools and techniques to acquire a better or more mindful perspective of who we are through self knowledge. Plato’s students used the hypomnemata as the foundation to his philosophic approach to knowledge. The hypomnemata constituted a material memory of things read, heard, or thought, thus offering these as an accumulated treasure for rereading and later meditation. Plato’s concept of idealism claimed that reality is fundamentally mental…and gave within its definition emphasis to mindfulness. Plato was a student of Socrates who taught us much about critical thinking…or an awareness not to take things at face value but to critically question things. That ability to question is another vehicle to mindfulness. Pythagoras taught his students to be quiet for 5 years as part of their philosophical training and showed the importance of silence as a means to mindfulness. We might even see that as a very extreme approach to achieve mindfulness from refraining to speak. Thus if we look at the cauldron of Western thinking as it is given down from ancient Greece we see how an approach to mindfulness has shaped and developed itself.

 

Plato, Socrates and Pythagoras had a certain influence on the development of Stoicism in ancient Roman thinking since they are quoted by Stoic philosophers. We see that central to stoicism is the mindfulness of what is important and what is not, what is within our control and what is not. This is a mindfulness that is a practical day to day awareness. Combine that with the two Stoic practices to envision the day ahead in the morning and to evaluate the day at the end of the day are further tools brought to the front to mindfulness on a practical level. The Stoics extended mindfulness to an even higher conception by putting virtue as the ultimate focus that should pervade our lives in order for us to be truly happy and taste the Ultimate Good.

 

Hermeticism is a religious, philosophical system based on writings attributed to Hermes Tresmegistus. These writings had a significant impact on Western philosophical development. Hermetic tradition holds that all is mind and mind is all.  Thus the whole tradition puts another strong emphasis on a reason to be “mindful”. The maxim “As above so below” reflects something of the mindfulness that reflects from the Hermetica for it states that whatever happens in reality also happens on every other level, which includes the mental level. Thus for the Hermetic practitioner mindfulness is an awareness of how our thinking impact on our perception of reality and visa versa. The Hermetic Arcanum for example says: “Let him that is desirous of this knowledge, clear his mind from all evil passions, especially pride, which is an abomination to heaven, and is as the gate of Hell; let him be frequent in prayer and charitable; have little to do with the world: abstain from company keeping; enjoy constant tranquillity; that the Mind may be able to reason more freely in private and be highly lifted up; unless it be kindled with a beam of Divine Light, it will not be able to penetrate these hidden mysteries of truth”. This might sound over religious but it is still a clear call to clear the mind in order to fill it with a different type of thinking.

 

If we jump to a a later age we find that even Sir Roger Bacon who started the idea of a scientific method with the maxim “Knowledge is power” was born from a concept of a call for a more mindfulness of what truly is. Until Sir Roger Bacon the scientific thinking was mainly based on what people thought and said and not through an experiential search. The product of science was a product from Western thought to become more mindful of what actually can be observed, tabulated and tested. That is in itself a call for greater mindfulness not just by asking critical questions but also by a scientific process of investigation.

 

We can trace back the idea to more recent Western philosophers like Descartes who proclaimed the adage: “Cognito ergo sum” or “I think therefore I am”. With it he placed at the centre of Western mindfulness the idea that we can doubt everything but we can be certain that we exist through the knowing that we are thinking. It is no wonder that Descartes writing is called “Meditations on first philosophy” We gain a deep sense of certainty when we focus our attention on our selves and more specifically our thinking. That certainty is the ultimate leverage from where man can begin with a certainty that is self-evident and not a deduction. We can continue and look at a plethora of Western Philosophers that brought some insight to a Western conception of mindfulness. 

 

A deeper search will also show that traditional world religions e.g. Christianity, Judaism and Muslim all have approaches to mindfulness although it might be coloured through different lenses. The principle I want to convey is that almost all religions and traditions had some view on mindfulness and that if one really want to develop an appreciation of the richness within the idea of mindfulness there is still much more to be extracted into the cauldron of “constructive mindfulness” as a learning method that continues to evolve the concept of mindfulness.

 

There is too much to go into in more detail. I am quiet amused how much emphasis “constructive mindfulness” places on Buddhism as the source of mindfulness and mentions other traditions as more peripheral ideas that might be considered. It will bode well for constructive mindfulness in a modern jacket to consider the rich tradition and thought from the West.  The result might be an approach even more suited for modernity that is neither Western nor Eastern but a true investigation in all traditions. 

Buddhist mindfulness

I can categorically state that I am not a Buddhist even though I can associate with many of the Buddhist practices. I would like to look into each of the practices and reflect how they relates to my own understanding and practice of mindfullness. But before I do that let me qualify why I am not a Buddhist. The first is that I do not agree with the supposition of Buddhism that suffering is a key concept and that we need to escape from this world in order to escape suffering. In my view this material world is a place filled with opportunity for the growth and development of the human being on all levels of existence: material, psychic and spiritual. Consequently my main departure point from Buddhism is not in their methods but rather in the fundamental assumption of the nature of the material world. Where the Buddhist sees suffering as the foundational problem that must be addressed my view sees self-mastery as the fundametal challenge. Selfmastery that leads to living a a beautiful life fully. Maybe a closer imagination will show however that I have more in common with Buddhism than what might be suggested by this preamble. 

That being said lets look at Buddhist practices starting with the Satipatthana. The concept of sati as it relates to remembering is a familiar concept for me as a student of GI Gurjieff. Gurdjieff had firstly promoted self observation in that we need to learn to observe our thoughts, emotions and sensations as part of our normal day to day operations, secondly he emphasised a self-remembering where it is remembered that there is an “I” or an observer that is observing what is being experienced, felt and thought. So rather than sitting down and practicing “bringing to mind” Gurdjieff taught a practice of continually striving to practice self observation and self remembering on a continual basis. However while it seems that sati is founded on the notion of non-dualism between mind and body, Gurdjieff seperated the body, emotions and mind first before attempting to redirect them to function as a unity.  The whole argument of Gurdjieff is that these “component” are not functioning correctly in normal human beings and therefore need to be rectified to work in conjunction towards optimal being. The aim of Gurdjieff is therefor not avoidance of suffering but rather to develop a consciousness that stop man from operating mechanically like an automaton. For Gurdjieff the foundational problem is mechanicalness or the lack of consciousness rather than suffering. The focus of Gurdjieff on the body, emotions, thought and ultimate observer fits well with the four meditations of Buddhism on the body, feelings, thoughts and mental events. I am not yet sure to what degree the last of the components mentioned by each shares in terms of definition and meaning.

I can appreciate it that the Satipatthana puts Sati (Mindfulness) alongside elements like concentration and wisdom. Indeed almost all the traditions that I have encountered places concentration as a fundamental building block towards any notion of increasing mindfulness. Wisdom is maybe the ultimate goal of enlightenment depending on how one decides to define it. The point is that all the traditions I have encountered concurred that ultimately some type of state of wisdom will be attained through the practice of mindfulness.

I concur fully with the idea that  sati (mindfulness) works together concepts like sampajanna (discrimination) and appamada (conscientiousness) which is clearly in alignment with my own concept of mindfullness defining it as a increase both of our consciousness and conscience.  In my own practice the two concepts are totally interlinked and has to work in conjunction.  In Gurdjieffian theory it is not as apparent but Gurdjieff places the focus on growing both in knowledge and being. Stoics focus on mindfulness of what they can control but balance it with the concept of virtue. It seems therefore that most of the schools of thought I adopted as useful and coherent with my own viewpoints will concur that mindfullness must happen in conjunction with some type of moral cauldron that guides and shapes the blooming of mindfullness.

I came across similar notions that that of vipassana (insight meditation) and smatha ( calm- abiding meditation) in Rosictrucian ontology. Within Rosicrucian ontology there is the concept of active meditation that relates to vipassana and passive meditation which relates to smatha.  Often in practice active and passive meditation is practiced in conjunction as two complementary rather than two seperate forms of meditation. From this perspective in my own experience concentration meditation seems to focus the mind on something specific while Insight meditation allows the insight to emerge naturally from the brain without placing any particular outcome expectation to the mind. As a practice active meditation is used to focus the mind on a particular focus point through conscious effort while passive meditation releases the mind to allow the subconscious to blossom and raise clear thought to the foreground to provide insight. As much as concentration is foundational to mindfullness, so is it also important that mindfulness a sense of equanimity or peace or calm result from mindfullness. Equanimity provides the balance and harmony within the mind that allows it to deepen the practice of mindfulness.

I can relate well with the idea that Zen Buddhism expound that the human mind is natrually pristine and clear – containing the perfect Buddha nature. Within Gurdjieffian teachings there is the concept of the central or true “I” which is the observer that is neither our thoughts, emotions or sensations but that aspect that is aware of them all. In Rosicrucian ontology it relates to the concept of “the Master within” or in other occult traditions “the guardian angel” which are seen as as some concept higher than normal thinking. In Christian mysticism it is often referred to as a Christ consciousness. Zen buddhism with its practice of allowing mental events and activities to arise and pass without infolving ourselves seems again closely related to my idea of passive meditation where the conscious mind discard its own thought process to become totally receptive to receive thoughts from the subconscious mind. It seems that Zen buddhism also moves towards the goal of a profound sense of peacefulness. Passive meditation shares the idea with Sikantaza as a discipline to just observe whatever arises from a metacognitive standpoint without judging or analysing it but rather to allow it to freely present itself.  Many Western traditions as well as the Rosicrucian ontology adds the concept of contemplation into its fold as a later means to process the insight that was gained through passive meditation and is an important link between active meditation and passive meditation to gain practical insight that can effect our quality of life in a measurable format as the scientific approach would like to see.

From this brought analysis of the Buddhist tradition and its approach to mindfullness it is clear that in means and methods there is much that I can relate to on a superficial level. If one looks deeper into these concepts some additional differences might become clear. However on face value some basics are in common e.g. the need for concentration and a resulting condition of peacefulness and consequently a type of active and passive consciouness that works in conjunction to facilitate mindfulness. Although I cannot claim to be a Buddhist we have much in common and much. Maybe I should not be to quick to judge or draw conclusion fit I do not know enough.