Medytacyjne praktyki formalne treningów uważności (mindfulness) i ich buddyjski kontekst

Electronic version of the publication available under CC BY-SA 4.0 license after 12 months from the date of release: July 2025

Printed version of the publication can be purchased in the store of the University of Szczecin Press: wn.usz.edu.pl/sklep/

FORMAL PRACTICES OF MINDFULNESS TRAINING AND THEIR BUDDHIST CONTEXT

The aim of this monograph is to distinguish the main formal meditation practices present in mindfulness trainings and to show their place and function in the original Buddhist context.

In the fi rst chapter, we analyze the four most popular and best known mindfulness trainings in Poland, i.e. MBSR, MBCT, MBLC and P. Gilbert and Choden’s mindful compassion training, presenting their genesis, structure and distinguishing the central formal practices. In the last point of this chapter, we divide formal meditation practices into four categories: based on concentration, open awareness practices, analytical/insight practices and practices based on working with imagination. Then we present the results of contemporary research on the eff ectiveness of specifi c practices. As the research shows, the greatest positive eff ectiveness in terms of psychology is characterized by open awareness/open monitoring practices, followed by practices based on concentration. The development of research on mindfulness trainings, related to the use of achievements in neuroscience and psychology, also leads to important observations, emphasizing the need for greater personalization of the meditation techniques used.

In the second chapter, we present selected formal practices of mindfulness training in the context of Theravada Buddhism, the most widespread form of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. In the fi rst section, we outline the historical background of the development of Theravada, and in the second section, we present the main doctrinal ideas, i.e. the four noble truths, the idea of non-self, the chain of dependent origination, and the basic meditation practices according to classical sources such as the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (MN.010), which describes the establishments of mindfulness, the Sallekha Sutta (MN.008), which discusses the four meditative absorptions (Pāli jhāna), and Buddhagosha’s treatise Visuddhimagga, which clearly separates practices based on concentration (San. śamatha, Pāli samatha) from insight meditation (San. vipaśyanā; Pāli vipassanā). In the third point of this chapter, we show what place and function the practices of sitting meditation and walking meditation have within the framework of a 30-day retreat in the spirit of Theravada, led by J. Goldstein, and how mindfulness of breathing and body scanning are embedded in S.N. Goenka’s 10-day course of insight meditation.

Chapter three is devoted to Japanese Zen Buddhism, as the most widespread representative of Mahayana Buddhism. Here, too, we begin by presenting the traditional history of Chan Buddhism in China and its transmission to Japan as Zen. Then we discuss the main doctrinal ideas such as the bodhisattva ideal, the concept of the Buddha nature present in all sentient beings, and the doctrine of emptiness, and we note the presence of Taozi infl uences. As the main meditation practices in Zen Buddhism, we present zazen with an object of concentration on the breath, shikantaza, and zazen with a koan. In the third section, we focus on analyzing the place and function of mindfulness of breathing, open monitoring, and mindful walking in the context of an intensive Zen retreat called sesshin.

In the fourth chapter, we discuss Tibetan Buddhism. Similarly to the two previous chapters, we present an outline of this branch of Buddhism and its main doctrines and practices. In discussing doctrinal aspects, we focus particularly on showing the importance of tantra in Vajrayana Buddhism, as Tibetan Buddhism is also called, and the dzogchen teachings of the Nyingma school. Due to the fact that in this branch of Buddhism there is a huge number of meditation practices, largely based on visualization and transmitted in an individualized way by the guru/lama to a specifi c disciple, we have discussed the so-called preliminary practices, called nyndro, i.e. prostrations and taking refuge, Vajrasattva meditation, mandala off ering, and guru yoga. In the third section, we present the formal practices of creating a safe place, compassionate imagination, compassion for the self, and tong-len and their relationship to Tibetan Buddhism. We focus in particular on the role of visualization and imagination within Vajrayana practices and mindfulness and compassion trainings. We also show the similarities and diff erences between some Dzogchen practices and open monitoring as a practice developing mindfulness.

The last chapter is devoted to the assessment of the mindfulness movement from a Buddhist perspective. We narrow this perspective to the voices expressed by representatives of Zen Buddhism on mindfulness training. The starting point for the considerations in this section was an essay by a Zen master of the secular Empty Cloud Line, Aleksander Poraj-Żakiej, entitled Zen and the practice of mindfulness, published on the blog wszystkoJEDNO.org. The fi rst clear diff erence between Zen Buddhism and mindfulness training concerns the purposefulness and benefi ts associated with these two paths of development. In this context, we address the problem of the degree of secularization and adaptation of Zen Buddhism to the Western mentality and the problem of the secularity of mindfulness. In the case of the mindfulness movement, this is related to the discussion on the development of the so-called second-generation mindfulness-based interventions (SG-MBIs), emphasizing the need to take greater account of the Buddhist roots of this trend without giving up secularity. The second area that diff erentiates Buddhism from mindfulness training is the role and signifi cance of the subject/observer. In the context of this remark, we show that the understanding of the subject is closely linked in Buddhism to a broader doctrinal background, assuming a specifi c ontology and anthropology. We also discuss the signifi cance of the master in Zen Buddhism also asking about the competence of mindfulness teachers in this matter. The last area of diff erence indicated by Aleksander Poraj-Żakiej is the role of breathing, and thus the role of formal meditation techniques.

The considerations and analyses carried out in fi ve chapters allow us to answer the research problems posed in the introduction, resulting from the proposed topic of the issue.

First, in all branches of Buddhism we can note a clearly soteriological orientation of all meditation practices. Of course, this soteriological goal is described using diff erent concepts, taking into account the specifi city of individual branches of Buddhism.

Secondly, the individual meditation practices that have become the source basis for formal secular mindfulness training practices are integrally connected to the entire doctrinal system of a given branch of Buddhism, including its ontology, anthropology and psychology. Through the process of extracting individual meditation practices from their Buddhist world and placing them in a new, secular and scientifi c context, it has inevitably led to the need to develop new theoretical frameworks or paradigms in which they now function. An example of this type of new paradigm is, for example, the scientifi c verifi cation of the eff ectiveness and benefi ts of mindfulness training practices based on the tools of psychology and neuroscience.

Third, in the context of recommended meditation practices and evaluation of their eff ectiveness, the roles of a mindfulness teacher/instructor and a Buddhist master/teacher are completely diff erent. A mindfulness training teacher basically follows the structure of the program. Their task is to organize and conduct group sessions, convey content related to a given stage of the program, accompany and support students. Apart from programs such as MBCT, completing psychology studies is not required. Courses for individual mindfulness training instructors contain modules related to teaching and working with students, which allow them to acquire suffi cient competences to conduct them. In any crisis or diffi cult situations related to the mental health of participants, the teacher should recommend consultation with a psychologist, therapist or psychiatrist. On the other hand, a Buddhist teacher has defi nitely diff erent competences. This diff erence in roles was clearly visible in chapters two, three and four. First, obtaining the title of teacher is associated with practicing a given form of Buddhism for many years. In Thai Theravada Buddhism, to obtain the title of teacher, i.e. ajahn, one must live in a monastic community for 10 years. To become a Zen master in the Rinzai school, one must have an experience of awakening confi rmed by one’s own master, undergo koan training, and integrate this experience into many years of training after awakening. In Tibetan Buddhism, both one’s own experience of insight into the nature of mind and the entire path of a given tradition are also of key importance. This process also takes many years and requires receiving confirmation from one’s own guru/lama. Secondly, since the practice of meditation in a given tradition of Buddhism is not limited to a specifi c period of time, such as 8 weeks in many mindfulness courses, the master accompanies and supports the student for many years. It is the authentic master who is able to assess the student’s state of advancement, the experiences they have had, or their actual awakening. If a mindfulness practitioner has a deeper experience, the instructor has a real problem of assessing this phenomenon. He or she does not have the tools and procedures to verify the experience of insight or the experience of some states that may falsely pass for insight (makyo in Zen Buddhism). It seems very likely that this state of aff airs is a consequence of placing Buddhist practices in a secular, scientifi c paradigm. This paradigm is characterized by a systematic naturalistic approach to reality, in which concepts such as “insight into the nature of things” or “awakening” may not fully fi t, due to their religious, ontological provenance. Of course, such a person can be referred to a psychologist or psychiatrist, but even there it is not possible to really verify the experience of insight. Hence, it seems very useful for mindfulness teachers to have some knowledge about Buddhism and the Buddhist sources of mindfulness training so that they can at least to some extent recognize what types of experience they may be dealing with during their courses. In addition, it is also benefi cial for participants of mindfulness programs to obtain a certain amount of knowledge about the connections between mindfulness and Buddhism.

The mindfulness movement will continue to develop and gain popularity. The development of psychology and especially neuroscience will enable, and already does enable, increasingly personalized selection of specifi c meditation practices to a given psychological profi le of a person developing mindfulness. There will probably be more new programs. However, as the discussion related to SG-MBIs shows, the mindfulness movement cannot and should not forget its Buddhist roots. While maintaining its secular and scientifi c character, it should continue to enter into dialogue with Buddhism, searching for its own ethical foundations and protecting itself from the constant temptation of commercialization and instrumentalization.