In the Samyutta Nikāya, a devata asks:
“What is the source of light in the world?
What in the world is the wakeful one?

And the Nikāya Buddha responds:
“Wisdom is the source of light in the world;
Mindfulness, in the world, is the wakeful one;
– Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi.

As many of you are aware, mindfulness is very popular right now; or, at least, a kind of mindfulness is very popular. There’s talk of the U.S. under-going a ‘mindfulness revolution.’ So, how is mindfulness presented in the new market? Its message might be represented by Jon Kabat-Zinn: “paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally.” (1994)

That’s probably a pretty flexible definition. The key to its flexibility lies in the phrase “on purpose.” In other words, what kind of mindfulness you cultivate depends on your purpose. Most of the industry-oriented books which I have read or perused, however – and sadly some Buddhist books, too – define mindfulness much more superficially as: “being present,” “staying in this moment,” “becoming aware of what’s going on around you or within you,” and “being in the here and now.” (These quotes are given in Mindfulness for Borderline Personality Disorder, by Aguirre & Galen.)

No-one would argue that being in the present isn’t a part of mindfulness; that’s definitely the case. However, we need to include the “on purpose” phrase, to leave room for an approach to mindfulness which includes its role in the discovery of the deathless element.

Because mindfulness is being used in (and sold) in many fields, I’m going to simplify my presentation and call the ‘staying in this moment’ kind of mindfulness: “unit model mindfulness.” That probably needs an essay to justify itself, but I’ll say simply for now: the mindfulness taught by the Nikāya Buddha undoes the normal model of reality. The popular, modern version, of course, doesn’t do that, and isn’t meant to do that.

The deepening of mindfulness follows a pattern, discernible after years of practice, in which the early phases of the development of Buddhist mindfulness parallel the therapeutic uses of unit-model mindfulness (I don’t know about sporting use or business use of mindfulness). If we introduce the purpose of becoming intimate with the mind’s dynamics (as is generally the case in therapeutic uses of mindfulness), then the following description of phases applies to both Buddhist mindfulness, and to unit model mindfulness. We could think of the development of mindfulness as having three levels:

1. A person practising mindfulness begins to see that there is a relationship between emotion, thought, and action. As a result, it’s easier to moderate their behaviour. For example, your partner says something insensitive, and you see certain thought patterns and certain feelings arising. You recognise them (from mindfulness practice) as reactivity. So, you learn to leave the room rather than insult your partner. Pretty basic.

2. After this phase there is a phase where you can actually stay with the interactions, to watch your mind and learn what the mind does in such situations. In our domestic instance, you might stay put, feeling into how uncomfortable you feel about your partner’s behaviour. And, having learned to breathe, and calm, you initiate a more respectful interaction than usual: “When you say that, it hurts. It reminds me of my childhood.”

If this second phase is allowed to go deeper, then troublesome conditioned states of mind can be worked with, to the extent of reshaping personality patterns, which came from the interactions in your family of origin. This is a major achievement. I’m a pretty deeply wounded person, and can say I have experienced these two phases intimately.

It seems to me that the unit-model mindfulness (in therapeutic contexts) and Buddhist mindfulness can have these two phases in common. I also think, from my teaching experience, that many Buddhists only want to go this far. Most people want a better life, not one that is turned inside out by the next phase. The next phase is rarely suggested by the unit-model mindfulness teachers.

3. As an introduction to the last and less common phase, I’ll say: From childhood, we – all cultures – are thoroughly inducted into a trance state, the cultural norms, which leaves us believing that we live in serial time, and in Euclidian space. These are constructions, derived from an experience more open, yet we have been taught to think about our life in this way. So, our self-knowledge has become distorted by dualistic models of the universe. On this basis, we think that perceptions present reality, and that the world is made up of ‘things’ (entities). In the Buddhist mindfulness we investigate whether these assumptions are valid, or not. Consistent com-bodied meditation particularly opens up this level.

This level of mindfulness is radically transformative, because we address the species conditioning. Here we inquire into the nature of perception itself, and learn to dis-identify with the ego-system. Here, we aren’t so interested in the translation of personality (nama-rupa: name and form) into something more comfortable; but we are interested in investigating our experience to the point of (as it does turn out is necessary) ceasing to identify with our personality – to cut the cause of dukkha at the root. This means, too, that our experience of space, time, knowledge, and language are all transformed.

Only then can death be a sacrament.

In the Samyutta Nikāya, a devata asks:

“What has weighted down everything?
What is most extensive?
What is the one thing that has
All under its control?”

And the Nikāya Buddha responds:

“Name has weighed down everything;
Nothing is more extensive than name.
Name is one thing that has
All under its control.”

– Translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi.