MBSR and nirvana

[FeeHutch]

I think Jon & Pied have done an excellent job of setting out our position on this forum. I also think we will get others with similar questions as you tringlarido so thank you for this thread that we can direct them too.

[tringlarido]

I have a different perspective on this. I think it is always important to be critic with what you've been taught. That is even 1 important thing I have been teached, also through the vipassana teaching, to alway be critic with the teachings of meditation. Be critic about it, to not take things for granted, and through the practice you'll make your own observations. That's the way that suits me:).

[piedwagtail91]

sorry, but i think you're really going to struggle to understand the mindfulness we practice.
if you're reading JKZ then you'll come across the 7 pillars
http://mindfulness-sydney.com/seven-attitudinal-factors
on which our practice is based.
coming to mindfulness with a critical and analytical mind is not the way to learn mindfulness.
i've seen a lot of people fail to grasp what mindfulness is about, by over analysing and comparing.

[tringlarido]

ok from your perspective, I understand your point of view. For the practice of meditation itself, you need to be non judgemental. Does it mean we have to stop to think about the meditation practices, the history of meditation, the science of meditation ? Well then, this would mean that kabat zin and MBSR would not exist ! I think you can be a scientist like kabat zin, a doctor like christophe andre, and have a place in your mind to think about it with a rational mind the meditation practices. I mean it's their job right ? It all depends if thinking about it disturb your mind in regard to the practice. You have to make a clear distinctions with your intents. If it happens, well then maybe it is a good opportunity to meditate.

[piedwagtail91]

when i practice mindfulness meditation , the history and science are irrelevant, i'm here in this moment so what happened thousands of years ago is unimportant and has never entered my mind.
meditation 'is' ,mbsr 'is', mbct 'is'.
how they came to be doesn't really matter to me.
when JKZ 'invented' mbsr all other options as to it's existence or not went out of the window.
he made mbsr and thats good enough for me, arguing whether or not it would have happened is pointless, it did and it is.
mindfulness (mbct) is not about this sort of thing.

[tringlarido]

well that's my way to live it. I remember conclusion of my retreat was "you are your own master now". I think we all do this, nothing more.

[JonW]

"It's a stand alone, self-contained form of practice that's been developed over the years. Comparing it to what you already know is not the way to learn mindfulness, it's counter productive."
I agree with this whole-heartedly.
The general view on this forum is that it's more helpful for people, especially newcomers to Everyday Mindfulness, if we keep the dialogue as close to mindfulness as we possibly can.
Whilst the history and science of meditation might be potentially interesting topics in their own right, they don't really have a place here. As with mindfulness itself, we try to keep it as simple as possible and this approach seems to work.
Jon

[tringlarido]

in that sense, I completely understand, keep it close to mindfulness here as it is the nature of the practice . Next to this, I think it would to be good to have some space also for this type of questions too , maybe some forums for mbsr related researches. The practice is THE thing, but there should be a place for thinking too. I mean historian work on history, but they can make it too. Psychologist rationalise the mind, but they also happen to live as well. I don't believe both have to go necessarily against each others. Maybe that would be a good question for a mbsr researcher who practices. How does he deal with that ?

[JonW]

Hi tringlarido,
As Everyday Mindfulness has evolved and gathered many new members, we have discussed the parameters of the site and it was decided that we should adhere as closely as possible to mindfulness in its purest form. Otherwise, it was felt that it would be especially confusing for newcomers who might roam around the site and come away thinking that mindfulness was extremely complicated, which is not the case. It's simple but it's not easy. Therefore, the simplicity should be honoured.
For similar reasons, Jon Kabat-Zinn kept Buddhism pretty much out of the picture when he first introduced mindfulness in its modern form into the US in the late-70s. Simply because he wanted the practice to be all-inclusive.
For some people, mindfulness is an end in itself. For others, mindfulness is a springboard to Buddhism, Zen, non-duality etc. That's all good.
Here at Everyday Mindfulness, we feel that the site works best if we remain within the boundaries of mindfulness (as defined by Kabat-Zinn, Mark Williams, Danny Penman etc.) as closely as possible.
But please don't take this as a rebuke of any kind.
If you'd like to discuss mindfulness, please stick around and contribute to the site. And feel free to check out the main site, which includes interviews etc.
All good things,
Jon

[tringlarido]

hey jon,
thanks for the answer. I understand how this line of work can benefit indeed people coming to mindfulness. I'll keep on searching some resources on these questions
all the best