명상도서관
Still Exploring the Middle Path: a Response to Commentaries
자세히보기
- 자료유형학술지논문
- 저자명Compson, J.,Monteiro, L.
- 학회/출판사/기관명Springer Science and Business Media
- 출판년도2016
- 언어영어
- 학술지명/학위논문주기Mindfulness
- 발행사항Vol.7No.2[2016]_x000D_
- ISBN/ISSN1868-8527
- 소개/요약This commentary addresses responses to our previous article (Monteiro, Musten and Compson, Mindfulness 6: 1-13, 2015) about the relationship between traditional and contemporary mindfulness. After surveying the responses we take issue with some criticisms, particularly those from Purser (Mindfulness 6: 23-45, 2015). We argue that stealth Buddhism critiques (which maintain that mindfulness in secular contexts amounts to attempts to stealthily infiltrate secular contexts with Buddhist values) and McMindfulness critiques (that mindfulness has been co-opted by corporate agendas which are antithetical to its ethical roots) make some unjustified assumptions. They assume essentialist views of religion and secularism, and a dichotomous understanding of mindfulness as either Buddhist or universal. We challenge these assumptions as both philosophically dubious and pragmatically unhelpful and call for continued mutually enriching dialog between traditional and contemporary mindfulness communities. With reference to the Pali canon, we make the case that at least according to Theravada Buddhist self-understanding, there is a normative reality that the Buddha described and the truth of this reality is not contingent on whether or not it is described, or by whom. We introduce an analogy of fitness or physical training to explain this model and then apply it to the current debate about the relationship between traditional and contemporary mindfulness.
TOP
사전신청
오시는길
명상챗봇
