Message Boards Message Boards

Meditation Culture

New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser

Threads [ Previous | Next ]
Toggle
New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Paul 6/15/19 2:06 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian Edward 6/15/19 1:59 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/15/19 8:11 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Chris Marti 6/15/19 8:21 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/15/19 11:54 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Nick O 6/15/19 2:20 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/15/19 2:37 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/16/19 8:03 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 9:30 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/16/19 12:29 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 2:49 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Chris Marti 6/15/19 3:32 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/15/19 5:01 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Nick O 6/15/19 5:04 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/15/19 5:27 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Nick O 6/15/19 7:09 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 2:31 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 3:01 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 4:23 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 4:33 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Dani Rose 6/16/19 4:57 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 5:31 AM
Accessible meditation and collective action Dani Rose 6/26/19 4:20 PM
RE: Accessible meditation and collective action Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/27/19 3:30 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 6:44 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 7:41 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 5:21 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/16/19 11:39 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 5:36 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Dani Rose 6/26/19 4:40 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/26/19 7:54 PM
Thanks for your extra input Dani Rose 7/14/19 10:03 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 6:55 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Chris Marti 6/16/19 7:59 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/16/19 8:26 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/16/19 9:39 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Daniel M. Ingram 6/17/19 10:11 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Paul 6/17/19 11:19 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Anna L 6/17/19 9:17 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/17/19 8:46 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Nick O 6/26/19 8:02 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Ryan 6/29/19 12:08 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Stickman2 6/30/19 4:26 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 6/30/19 5:53 AM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Stickman2 7/1/19 12:20 PM
RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö 7/14/19 1:05 PM
This new article by Ronald Purser 14 June 2019 is longer and more damning of the McMindfulness culture than the previous article shared here by Daniel and which garnered a very long discussion. 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/14/the-mindfulness-conspiracy-capitalist-spirituality

My posting of the article is only to share it for discussion, not to promote its content. 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian
Answer
6/15/19 1:59 AM as a reply to Paul.
Adapted from McMindfulness: How Mindfulness Became the New Capitalist Spirituality by Ronald Purser, published by Repeater Books on 9 July and available at guardianbookshop.com

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 8:11 AM as a reply to Paul.
I said it before and I’ll say it again. Being this blatantly political about the spread of secular mindfulness really, really rubs me the wrong way. 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 8:21 AM as a reply to Ryan.
What's the political part that bothers you, Ryan?

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 11:54 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
There are two parts that are particularly problematic for me: the anti-capitalist slant and the promotion of “revolutionary” change. On the first point, just take the author’s primary criticism of JKZ’s book ‘Coming to Our Senses”, is that it only mentions capitalism once, and that is an insufficiently negative mention. He claims that mindfulness advocates are promoting a false view, specifically that “It is not the nature of the capitalist system that is inherently problematic; rather, it is the failure of individuals to be mindful and resilient in a precarious and uncertain economy. Then they sell us solutions that make us contented, mindful capitalists.” Say what?? Life is precarious and uncertain! I mean, look, I get it. The current socio-economic systems have their shadow sides and don’t work perfectly for everyone. But this unambiguous anti-capitalism suffers from the “baby with the bathwater” problem. In the modern world, non-state collective action of any significant scale is organized through legal entities, often corporations. That includes everything from Apple to the ACLU.

I assume the author wrote this piece on a computer. The materials in that computer were mined/extracted by corporations, those were manufactured in to raw materials and later components by more corporations, those components where then transported by yet more corporations, and then assembled and transported to the store the computer was purchased from by, you guessed it, still more corporations. And the energy that made all of that possible? Yup, extracted, refined, and transported by corporations. The platform he’s writing on? Again a corporation. My point here is that all the trappings of modernity we take for granted, from vaccines to the food it takes to feed 7 billion people, are only here because of the economic systems that have evolved along with the rest of society over the centuries. Maybe the economic efficiencies provided by the profit-motive are something of a Malthusian trap, but the way out of a Malthusian trap is forward, as going backward entails the deaths of millions.

Of course, the author doesn’t seem to acknowledge any of this type of complexity. And that’s typical of this viewpoint. The author isn’t the only person to hold this viewpoint obviously, but why does he have to get mindfulness mixed up in this? That mindfulness is making inroads in these organizations/corporations strikes me as a good thing, as it exposes many more people to the potential for that level of relief from suffering, even if to start it is necessarily shallow end of the pool stuff to start. And the problem with standardization he complains of is nonsense. First he complains about McDonalds level of sameness, but then sites the 60,000 different books with Mindfulness in their title, I doubt those all have the same viewpoint on the topic, so which is it? Moreover, a cursory google search on mindfulness or meditation can give you a plethora of diversity unheard of in human history (what brings this miracle of information to us all around the world right now? Well, it’s not non-profits, but I digress). As far as the mindfulness without ethics issue, we debated this to death last time but again, I don’t think combining ethics with sati is any panacea, look at the Zen kamikaze, etc. His negativity will cause more people to be mired in suffering than would be the case without it, and that’s my main problem with this article.

Now, on the “revolution” thing, while I can at least understand where the anti-capitalist sentiment comes from, the idea that we must have some sort of “revolutionary” social change is not only misguided, but dangerous. Revolutions have the distressing tendency to kill people, often in staggering numbers. Anyway, the above is a long rant already so I won't belabor that point, but if you found yourself nodding along to everything in this article, try to have a little humility about the fact that there are other viewpoints and that even those ‘evil capitalists’ are just people like you that want to alleviate their own suffering and be happy. Okay? /rant

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 2:20 PM as a reply to Ryan.
I agree with Ryan. It's pretty typical of this viewpoint to disregard complexities, interconnectedness and to project politics on anything that casts a shadow. It's utterly painful how simple the author paints a endlessly complex situation. 
    

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 2:37 PM as a reply to Ryan.
The word ”revolution” in this reasoning came from the claims that there is a mindfulness revolution going on, as I interpreted it. He isn’t saying ”let us make a revolution!”, but rather ”you claim that you are making a revolution, but you are not”.

Are you saying that profit and personal gain are the only possible driving forces for a society? Would it be totally impossible to develop technology without it? I thought computors were originally created by people with a genuine interest in the technology and in making it accessible to people.

Does he say explicitly say that capitalists are evil? I though he was just pointing to the shadow sides of cravings for profit, and that he was talking about impact rather than intent.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 3:32 PM as a reply to Ryan.
Thanks for the detailed reply, Ryan. I'm of the opinion that the problem with the article isn't buried in missing the complexity of modern society but because he just gets mindfulness wrong. He attributes political motives to the movement that I don't think exist in the minds of its creators and advocates. It might be possible to argue that mindfulness helps people cope and thus allows them to come to terms with untoward circumstances but I think that's a lot of hooey to foist in the mindfulness movement. Mindfulness advocates just aren't that political, at least in my experience.

I think mindfulness is "meditation lite" and should be criticized on that basis without all the political and economic silliness in Purser's critiques.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 5:01 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
I think the issue with mindfulness ultra light, typically when taught by people with little or no actual insight practice as is pretty common in Sweden, is that problems that need to be changed on a collective level are individualized. I have seen that happening far too many times. The problem isn’t that it is working, because it isn’t. The problem is that when it doesn’t work, the individual is guilt-tripped for not making enough of an effort to change their attitude.

Mindfulness is far from the only phenomenon in history that has played a part in conveniently individualizing problems in the society for the benefit of those that would otherwise need to come out of their comfort zone. Medicalization has very commonly been used that way, and that doesn’t make medicine a bad thing per se. Cognitive behavioral therapy is often far too often used in the same way, and yet that’s a great therapeutic method when done correctly and for appropriate purposes.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 5:04 PM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:

He attributes political motives to the movement that I don't think exist in the minds of its creators and advocates.


That too. If I remember correctly, Michael Taft and Shinzen have both taught meditation to people in corporate settings, probably mostly at a depth of "meditation lite". They have also touched others at extraordinarily profound levels, like myself. I started off wanting to meditate for just 10 or so minutes a day to not feel so unstable (meditation lite?). It ended up opening a whole new universe I didn't even know existed. Everyone has to start somewhere and we can't expect every individual who wants to benefit from a little stilling of the mind to dive into the deep end of transformation.      

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 5:27 PM as a reply to Nick O.
I don’t know if the criticism entails every single attempt at teaching mindfulness in corporate settings. That would indeed lack nuances. I just know that I have seen discourses about mindfulness and applications of so called minfulness that definitely serve to individualize problems that need to be adressed on a structural level.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/15/19 7:09 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
The work under discussion definitely lacks nuance, to say the very least.

I'm not denying that there are instances where structural problems are "individualized" but you can see how far we've whittled down the scope from the broad brush strokes painted by the article. What they fail to mention is that mainstream mindfulness can and does lead to so much more than the mere creation of complacent worker bees.       

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 2:31 AM as a reply to Paul.
I really enjoyed the article and I think Ron Purser is an excellent scholar. It’s great that he is raising these points and taking this oppositional position. While it might seem extreme, I think it’s a necessary counterbalance to the pro-mindfulness movement and someone’s gotta do it. It inspires deep thought and critical debate. 

I really enjoyed reading Ryan’s response on this thread as it also raises excellent points and highlights just how complex this issue is. (And how much fun we can have debating it! Haha). My mind tends to be overly critical and head towards doomsday scenarios at times, so it was good to read Ryan’s view and be reminded that once again the closest thing to an answer probably lies somewhere in the middle. 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 3:01 AM as a reply to Anna L.
I agree that it is a much needed counterbalance. I think the strong reactions to it, while valid, illustrate that there may be some perceptual barriers in our socialisation to question things that as I see it should be reasonable to question from a dharma point of view, such as the central role of self-related cravings in a society. Of cource I agree that a violent revolution is not the solution to that, and as long as people have the fears that they/we have, we cannot do much about it. Raising debate to question is one thing we can do, though, and that is what Purser does. Debate in general tends to be polarized. It kind of comes with the genre. I would welcome more nuances to basically all public discussions. That goes for all sides of them. Writing something off completely for lacking nuances is not a very nuanced approach in my book (unless the work in question is aggressive towards an oppressed group; then I believe it’s warranted, but that is not the case here). A more nuanced approach as I see it is teasing out the important points from the exaggerations and misdirected overgeneralizations. I think we are getting there. Judging a single piece of the debate as either right or wrong is irrelevant.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 4:23 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
 I would welcome more nuances to basically all public discussions. That goes for all sides of them. 

Yes, me too. I think Purser did a pretty good job given his word limit and I’m sure he will expand the argument in his forthcoming book. 

He also edited this book, which is excellent. Linda, I know you are a researcher so you might be able to get a copy of it at your library? 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 4:33 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Interesting! I have a vaste reading list already, but yeah, I probably could and maybe will. I’ll save the link.

So - it seems like Purser has an appreciation for and knowledge of mindfulness, then. That indeed seems promising for a more nuanced discussion.
Word limits are tough when it comes to nuances. That’s a continous struggle for me in my research.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 4:57 AM as a reply to Paul.
Hello there!  New to the forum today, and hoping to continue a new meditation habit that started this morning  emoticon

I have read the article (admittedly rather skimmed it) and enjoyed reading the quite nuanced discussion here.

Points that stand out for me are:
  1. Is it a problem when meditation/mindfulness (M/M) teachings are simplified for greater accessibility? 
    (And if so, why/how much?)

       My experience (own and with therapy clients) suggests that different things work for different people.  I'm inherently skeptical towards gurus and anything institutionalised, trademarked or commercialized.  So I can't help wondering whether the idea that M/M has to be taught in particular, pure or highly proficient way is largely motivated by the need to validate one's own greater experience and expertise (on the spiritual / Buddhist / traditional end), or to protect one's franchise (on the commercial end).  See also ' Vedic Meditation', a re-branding of TM which is now trying to make out it's somehow better and more effective that mindfulness meditation (look up London Medication Centre, FAQ page). 
      To further back up this point, refer to video/podcast: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/pierre-capel.  Pierre Capel is a Dutch professor of immunology who has studied the effects of meditation (among other things) and has found it is a powerful agent in changing the expression of around 200 genes.  But to do this, all that is required is to have 'present awareness' as opposed to ruminative, busy-mind kind of thoughts, which can be achieved with various methods and points of focus.
       My wish would be for M/M to be accessible and available to everyone - to help with the inherent difficulty of life, which is certainly  not limited to the capitalist system!  If they have better mental health and more self-discipline, people generally will be more, not less, able to take positive action to change the status quo than if they are struggling to cope with everyday life!  Maybe this for me is the biggest flaw in Purser's argument, and more on this in point 2. below...
  2. While criticising the alleged collusion of mindfulness promoters with an oppressive or brainwashing capitalist system, what is the alternative Purser proposes?
      He seems to be promoting a more 'revolutionary' stance (while this might not be intended to mean a violent, bloody revolution) without specifying how this more radical stance would effect positive change in society. 
      My current heart- and headache is the paralysing ineffectiveness of the generally accepted stance that governments, corporations and the capitalist system are responsible for everything wrong in the world.  Yes, they are very powerful agents, but they depend on the population to keep functioning in the way they do. 
       It makes me despair how people jumped on the Greta Thunberg bandwagon, stayed off school, protested in London or said how inspiring she is, but I've yet to see people use less single-use plastic cups, cut down on flights abroad or stop using multifuel stoves.  The most powerful thing we can do under capitalism is to change our own behaviour as consumers and citizens.  Refuse to consume and buy so much sh!t, and if a few others catch on and start doing that too, boy what a change we would see!
       Short of this kind of change, 'revolution', ie more severe social unrest will predictably occur when enough people are physically empoverished enough to have so little to lose that rioting and looting become the most attractive option for them.  You only have to read a bit of history to notice this pattern.  So watch out, Boris Johnson.
      What does Purser's critique of admittedly impefect initiatives like recycling achieve but to make people feel okay about not recycling and even more powerless?  Maybe I'm missing something in his argument, and I haven't ready the book.  If I have I would be interested to hear.

Sorry, this has become a longer and more meandering
post than first intended! 

Be the change.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 5:31 AM as a reply to Dani Rose.
I agree that meditation techniques need to be accessible. I have no problem with that. As long as there are still advanced teachings available, and resources that enable people to make informed choices as well as learning about risks and limitations, I don’t have a problem with light relaxation techniques being readily available. What got me to this forum was a chain of events that started with some very watered down youtube advices at a time when my netflix access wasn’t working and I was desperate for something to do, so I’m definitely not one to judge. emoticon

Personally, I think we need to make efforts both on the individual level and a collective level in order to make significant changes. I do recycle and avoid plastic cups and buy second hand clothes and I have turned down job conferences and vacation options because I would have to fly. I think those things do matter. They are not enough, though, and believing that they are isn’t getting us anywhere. Often being able to make individual ethical choices, at least without having to go very far outside one’s comfort zone, is also a privilege. There is a need for changes that would make ethical choices more accessible. I would love to have a discussion about what those changes could be. I tried to start one before, in another thread, but the framing of the questions was apparently inadequate.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 6:44 AM as a reply to Dani Rose.
Is it a problem when meditation/mindfulness (M/M) teachings are simplified for greater accessibility?  
(And if so, why/how much?)

I would say “yes” there are problems that arise when mindfulness is overly simplified. E.g. 

1. People over promise and under deliver on what basic mindfulness can achieve - it’s not a panacea
2. Mindfulness, or any meditation, practiced without a competent teacher, an ethical framework, some sort of cosmology, and a supportive community can lead to a variety of problems. See my thesis! http://annalutkajtis.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/ANNA_LUTKAJTIS_Final_Thesis.pdf
3. What Purser is saying in the article - there’s a risk of shifting the onus of responsibility to the individual to adapt to an environment that may have larger systematic problems that need to be addressed (e.g. inequality, poverty, lack of opportunity). Plus many other issues that can occur when religious-derived meditation techniques are secularised and commodified for a popular audience. E.g. check out a book called Selling Spirituality by Carrette and King.

Granted, this is all quite high level stuff and I get it when people say “shouldn’t we just start by trying to get everyone to meditate and then think about changing the system when everyone is 'woke.'” In some respects I agree with this approach but I also think we need to remain aware of the larger picture in order to get the most out of meditation. I think meditation is actually undersold and has transformational potential way beyond basic McMindfulness. 

Also, MBSR has been trademarked by Jon Kabat-Zinn (2000) so I don’t think we can view mainstream mindfulness as somehow more “pure” or less corrupted than Vedic meditation. Every form of meditation that we have available to us today has been influenced and filtered by an individual teacher, certain texts, intellectual paradigms (e.g. religion, Western psychology or science) and culture (e.g. mindfulness as we know it is largely a product of Ledi Sayadaw’s insight tradition combined with ideas from Western psychology and was arguably heavily influenced by counter cultural ideals of the 1960s and 1970s).

I think the argument the vedic meditators make is that their specific technique (which is said to be a self transcending technique) is somehow superior to mindfulness (which could be described as an “open awareness” technique). In truth, that is like comparing apples to oranges - they are completely different techniques. I would argue that there are as many different meditation techniques as there are meditators, and each individual will probably require a combination of different techniques based on their own unique predispositions. This also evolves and changes during the lifetime of a practitioner. I do not understand how one technique can be branded as a panacea - this has not been my own personal experience of meditation (I practice a combination of yoga asana, pranayama, fire kasina, visualisation and noting. I started with TM but no longer practice it.). 

I think most academics who are critical of “McMindfulness” are proposing more research and critical dialogue regarding what mindfulness actually is, and how it might best be utilised in a ‘secular’ society in order to promote good and minimise harm. Interestingly Purser is also an ordained Buddhist teacher. Everyone is coming at this from so many perspectives, which certainly makes it endlessly fascinating! 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 6:55 AM as a reply to Dani Rose.
Dani Rose:

  What does Purser's critique of admittedly impefect initiatives like recycling achieve but to make people feel okay about not recycling and even more powerless?  

Yeah, I agree that this article and others like it can be a bit too "doomsday" and possibly just serve to make people feel more helpless. I guess he is just arguing the more extreme viewpoint and worst case scenario (and extreme views are the ones that get published, often go viral and (on the plus side) stimulate further debate). 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 7:41 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Anna, you express what I wish to express so much better than I am capable of. I’m thankful that those points were conveyed with such clarity and in such a respectful way. _/\_

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 7:59 AM as a reply to Anna L.
I guess he is just arguing the more extreme viewpoint and worst case scenario (and extreme views are the ones that get published, often go viral and (on the plus side) stimulate further debate). 

Now that's a big problem. It's helping us form insular groups and not talk to each other. I'm pretty sure the Facebook and the Twitter I use are different systems than the ones some of my relatives use.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 8:03 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
From the article: “A truly revolutionary movement would seek to overturn this dysfunctional system, but mindfulness only serves to reinforce its destructive logic.” No, he’s not outright calling for revolution (that’s not his topic here), but he’s clearly implying it’s needed. I happen to believe that this type of thinking is dangerous, and it alarms me every time I see it, which is why I pointed it out as one of my problems with the article.

I’m not saying that profit is the only driver of society, I’m saying that unambiguous anti-capitalism is a silly position to hold. However, it is also true that the advances of modernity we all enjoy would not be possible without the profit motive. It turns out that it probably is not possible to design a system of account that can work across great social distances that doesn’t also look very much like money. The designers of computers you reference grew up in and contributed to an industrialized society, enjoying all of its fruits along the way. Put another way, an early agrarian or hunter/gather society does not develop Turing machines. Period.

No, but he attributes all of society’s ills to the terrible specter of capitalism, so that’s pretty close to the same thing. I was being a bit cheeky, so feel free substitute “those terrible capitalist systems are populated by people just like you …” if that seems a more skillful phrasing. 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 8:26 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
Chris Marti:
I guess he is just arguing the more extreme viewpoint and worst case scenario (and extreme views are the ones that get published, often go viral and (on the plus side) stimulate further debate). 

Now that's a big problem. It's helping us form insular groups and not talk to each other. I'm pretty sure the Facebook and the Twitter I use are different systems than the ones some of my relatives use.



That’s one of the things that might be interesting to find alternative solutions to. How do we go about to make public discussions more nuanced and less insular? I wish I knew.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 9:30 AM as a reply to Ryan.
I get the feeling that you are attributing standpoints to me that I do not have. Maybe we could explore that? I appreciate your clarifications, because I do not wish to fall into the trap of mistakenly attributing standpoints to you that you don’t have. We come into this with different fears, but maybe if we go into the nuances our standpoints are more alike than what they seem to be at first glance. If not, maybe we can at least understand each other’s viewpoints better. That could possible benefit us both in our wish for a less polarized debate.

I think he is implying that more significant changes are needed, not that violence should be used to get there. I don’t know enough about him, though, to be sure exactly where he draws the line. I can only speak for myself there. I am no fan of revolutions, as they tend to transform assumed heroes into their own enemies. I am however a huge fan of thinking outside the box, and I share Purser’s conviction that thinking outside the currently available boxes is urgent. Keeping status quo is dangerous too. I think it is more dangerous than we wish to admit to ourselves. Also, there is great risk that keeping status quo is exactly what will lead to bloody revolts. I don’t think that would be good for anyone. I actually share your worries there, but from another angle.

Personally, I don’t think there is such a thing as a perfect system. The very things that make societies need systems are also what limit them. I do hope, though, that someone will come up with a system that has less shadow sides than the systems we have seen so far. I believe that such a system would rely less on profit and more on other driving forces, less on separation between people and more on shared goals. Getting to shared goals is a very tricky part. It cannot be forced. Yet, our time may be running out. That is something that alarms me.

I think that unambiguos pro-capitalism is silly and I see that far more often than I see unambiguous anti-capitalism. But sure, they are both silly, or misinformed and naive. People have the coping mechanisms and defence mechanisms that they have, and as long as people are operating from fear, no system works and the elimination of all systems sure as hell does not work. Also, I don’t believe in eliminating fear, as that would be dangerous to attempt. It would be helpful for more people to be less reactive, though, and preferably more of those people who have a lot of influence. I think that may be what both Shinzen Young and Michael Taft are trying to achieve, although I don’t know their political standpoints. I respect that. What I don’t respect is when people who are stressed out due to an unreasonable working load and poor leadership are sent on intensive mindfulness courses on top of their already too heavy workload and are supposed to cope with all of it thanks to hours and hours of listening to raisins without any other support and with the attitude that the person is just neurotic if that doesn’t automagically solve all problems (authentic example from Linköping University, Sweden, at a research division that no longer exists). That’s one part of the mindfulness movement that needs problematizing. Health packages that enable employees to learn meditating without that kind of toxic context are great, I think. My employer pays part of my yoga classes and I’m thankful for that. Context is important.

All systems are populated by people just like you and me, with our strengths and limitations, our good intentions and our reactivity. I don’t understand how that translates into people being either good or evil.

I know very well that computors were invented in an industrialized society. I pointed out the very same thing in the other McMindfullness thread just the other day. I just wanted to make the point that profit is not the only possible driving force. I’m glad we agree on that. Yes, we are all products of the industrialized society, and that in turn was invented by people who were products of an agrarian society, which was in turn invented by people who were products of a hunter/gatherer community. Hopefully this is not the end point.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 9:39 AM as a reply to Chris Marti.
[quote=Chris Marti]
I guess he is just arguing the more extreme viewpoint and worst case scenario (and extreme views are the ones that get published, often go viral and (on the plus side) stimulate further debate). 

“Now that's a big problem. It's helping us form insular groups and not talk to each other. I'm pretty sure the Facebook and the Twitter I use are different systems than the ones some of my relatives use.”

Yes, the “silo effect” exists across all industries - academia, business, medicine - and then social media creates “echo chambers” where our “news” is curated and our own opinions are reinforced. Not only that, stories that go viral on social media are often taken to be true just due to the fact that they are repeated so many times. 


Cheery stuff! ;)

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 11:39 AM as a reply to Anna L.
I would say “yes” there are problems that arise when mindfulness is overly simplified.

The first two points of detail you give are certainly fair, but don't we have to balance out the risks of those harms with the benefit that comes from 1) the moderate level of suffering relieved by something like MBSR, and 2) the potential these programs have to introduce people to the dharma that would never have been exposed to it otherwise? On the third one, I think that comes back to the mage/sage debate. A Western, Leftist, Mage might look at this very much like Mr. Purser does, while someone with a different backgound/views might veiw it very differently, no? 

That said, it is certainly true that branding any one technique as a panacea is misleading, but isn't that only a fraction of whats out there in the marketplace (be it spiritual, economic, or other)? 

Your thesis looks really interesting by the way. I read the abstract and have now put the full thing on my reading list. emoticon 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 12:29 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply Linda. It wasn’t my intention to attribute a particular standpoint to anyone other than attributing the one in the article to Mr. Purser. His was the anti-capitalist stance I was refuting, not whatever your stance might be. As far as our differences, I think we’re just on different sides of the mage/sage divide, though you seem to have read much of what I’ve said on this particular topic somewhat uncharitably.

I know Mr. Purser wasn’t calling for violence, however he does want to “overturn” a system powered by “destructive logic.” That’s just one example of the way he frames his whole argument, and that to frame it in such a way as to induce anger (or at least self-righteous indignation) in people, which is a stepping stone on the way to violence. At the end, I was saying “if you read that article and nodded your head the whole way…”. If that described you, then and only then was the following clause directed at you, specifically that you should remember that capitalists, even the gung-ho kind, are people also. The intention behind that was to dial down any anger the article may have instilled in people and tune them into some interpersonal kindness, not to say anyone is good or evil – I tried to do this with a humorous overstatement, but obviously that can fall flat in a text only format like this one.

Bringing things back around, my main point in my reply to Chris was not that “Mr. Purser’s anti-capitalist politics are dumb” (in many ways they are I think, but that’s beside the point), it is that his mixing those politics up with the spread of secular mindfulness issue is harmful. It sows discord, is needlessly divisive, and will ultimately lead to fewer people being exposed to meditation/mindfulness than might otherwise be the case. That’s all.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 2:49 PM as a reply to Ryan.
I very rarely read a whole article and nod the whole way. Do people do that? For me it’s more often something like this: ”Hm, yeah, I see a point there... blah blah blah... hm, good point... blah blah blah... well, that was an odd expression... blah blah blah... okay, there’s at least some nuance to that earlier statement... blah blah blah... well, that’s overly simplistic, but I’ll see what point they are trying to make, what fears they are addressing... well, that’s actually a good point...” if I’m lucky. I don’t expect more, especially since I know what limitations the writers have to adhere to in order to get published.

It didn’t inspire any anger in me. Maybe I’m just not violent enough to see such risks. It just made me think about how nice it would be if such great techniques, such as mindfulness can be, were always used for the benefit of all sentient beings and never used in attempts at satisfying cravings that in the end make nobody truly happy. Because, you know, the people who fall victim to other people’s cravings are people too. And the people that give into those cravings as an attempt at being happy would perhaps be better off with less cravings. Win-win.

It also motivated me to investigate my own cravings even more, because living in contemporary Sweden I am part of the system that is criticized.

As for the criticism leading to fewer people being exposed to mindfulness, I don’t believe so. Some say that all publicity is good publicity, and although that is probably a simplification, the state of affairs in the world tells me that there is at least some truth to that.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 5:21 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Anna, you express what I wish to express so much better than I am capable of. I’m thankful that those points were conveyed with such clarity and in such a respectful way. _/\_

Thank you, Linda! That is very kind of you to say, but you express yourself extremely well and I always get a lot from your posts. _/\_

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/16/19 5:36 PM as a reply to Ryan.
Ryan:
I would say “yes” there are problems that arise when mindfulness is overly simplified.

The first two points of detail you give are certainly fair, but don't we have to balance out the risks of those harms with the benefit that comes from 1) the moderate level of suffering relieved by something like MBSR, and 2) the potential these programs have to introduce people to the dharma that would never have been exposed to it otherwise? On the third one, I think that comes back to the mage/sage debate. A Western, Leftist, Mage might look at this very much like Mr. Purser does, while someone with a different backgound/views might veiw it very differently, no? 

That said, it is certainly true that branding any one technique as a panacea is misleading, but isn't that only a fraction of whats out there in the marketplace (be it spiritual, economic, or other)? 

Your thesis looks really interesting by the way. I read the abstract and have now put the full thing on my reading list. emoticon 

Yes, in the case of mindfulness and meditation in general, I think the benefits greatly outweigh the harms. 

Regarding the branding of meditation as a panacea, I think that can be largely attributed to the media. I actually think the biggest risk with this type of oversimplification is that meditation is portrayed as "all good" then there is a backlash and it is seen as "all bad" (similar to what happened with psychedelics in the 1960s) and then it just fades out and becomes another trend that people have fatigued from. But this is all just me projecting "worst case" ideas - I haven't been keeping up to date with meditation coverage in the media lately.

Thank you re the thesis - I hope you enjoy it! It was certainly a labour of love emoticon

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/17/19 10:11 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Some might appreciate this article: Sitting with Demons - Mindfulness, Suffering, and Existential Transformation, from 2016, by Sebastian Voros. 

It has some historical, paradigmatic, pantraditional, anthropoligical, political, contextual, and metacognitive value.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/17/19 11:19 AM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Thanks Daniel! Great article.

That link isn’t working. It seems to be here instead:

https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/as/article/view/6416/6687

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/17/19 8:46 PM as a reply to Paul.
The Guardian published some critical letters sent in response to Mr. Purser's article (I particularly like the first one): 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/16/mindfulness-can-be-an-active-force-for-change-in-the-world

Also, while I'm sharing links, this tangentially related webcomic made me laugh: 

https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/death-5



RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/17/19 9:17 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Great article, Daniel. 

"In the long run, this might have a deleterious effect on the overall attitude towards mindfulness meditation. For example, the rapid spread of meditative techniques (without proper guidance, know-how, etc.) and consequent rise in “unwanted side effects” may instigate a shift from the mythiza-tionphase, in which mindfulness is presented as a panacea for all the ills and evils of contemporary society, to the demonizationphase, in which it will be stigmatized as something too unpredictable and hazardous for clinical purposes. The rise and fall of enthusiasm for the therapeutic use of hallucinogenic drugs in the 1960s and 1970s is a telling (if extreme) example of how easily the pendulum can swing the other way."

I would suggest that the more likely possibility is that "McMindfulness" (as we currently see it) will either:

- go the way of TM, progressive relaxation etc. - a slow fade out to the alternative fringes - and be replaced by whatever the next trend in psychology, spirituality and wellness is

Or

- adapt and evolve into a more nuanced and robust version of itself ("Mindfulness 2.0" with added ethics?!) 

;)

Accessible meditation and collective action
Answer
6/26/19 4:20 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Thanks Linda, I agree with everything you say - the individual responsibility and action are important but currently not enough.  It would be good to take this further in some way that inspires and empowers more people to act and compaign for larger scale changes.

I'm sorry I'm only replying now.  I am new to this forum and thought I would be sent an email if someone replied to my post or this topic (I thought I'd switched that on!?), but I received no notifications at all.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/26/19 4:40 PM as a reply to Anna L.
Hi Anna,

(As I said to Linda - apologies for this very tardy reply, I need to figure out how to be emailed when there is a post to a topic I've participated in!)


Thanks for the informative and thought-provoking response.  You clearly have studied and practiced meditation in greater depth than I have. As someone a very 'anti-guru' stance I am always at first suspicious of teachers or promoters of any technique or practice who claim that their way is the best or only way.  I can appreciate though that having a more experienced guide or teacher can be helpful in any field and I am sure meditation is no exception!

I'm open to there being more to life than what science can currently account for, so in that sense open to spirituality but, like with religion, have never felt at home in any organised spiritual practice or discipline, not even Buddhism, which theoretically really appeals to me.  Therefore I feel I have to find my own way of doing it, and comparing mindfulness meditation with TM-style mantra meditation to me there isn't a huge difference.  The TM style is maybe a bit more hypnotic and sleep inducing, sometimes one of my eyes waters, something my mother has also reported, which is interesting and I've not found an explanation for online. 

When people talk about those finer spiritual or other differences it's like my brain switches off, I don't actually get what they are talking about as for me meditation is experienced as something fairly normal and mundane, and I rarely have unusual experiences during it, let alone transcendental ones.  It may be that I simply haven't meditated long / frequently enough, or is it that I don't particularly believe in those things and therefore don't ecperience them?  Any thoughts appreciated.

Like you say, everyone has to find their own way to salvation or at least sanity - and it is indeed a fascinating process   emoticon

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/26/19 7:54 PM as a reply to Dani Rose.
Dani Rose:
Hi Anna,

(As I said to Linda - apologies for this very tardy reply, I need to figure out how to be emailed when there is a post to a topic I've participated in!)


Thanks for the informative and thought-provoking response.  You clearly have studied and practiced meditation in greater depth than I have. As someone a very 'anti-guru' stance I am always at first suspicious of teachers or promoters of any technique or practice who claim that their way is the best or only way.  I can appreciate though that having a more experienced guide or teacher can be helpful in any field and I am sure meditation is no exception!

I'm open to there being more to life than what science can currently account for, so in that sense open to spirituality but, like with religion, have never felt at home in any organised spiritual practice or discipline, not even Buddhism, which theoretically really appeals to me.  Therefore I feel I have to find my own way of doing it, and comparing mindfulness meditation with TM-style mantra meditation to me there isn't a huge difference.  The TM style is maybe a bit more hypnotic and sleep inducing, sometimes one of my eyes waters, something my mother has also reported, which is interesting and I've not found an explanation for online. 

When people talk about those finer spiritual or other differences it's like my brain switches off, I don't actually get what they are talking about as for me meditation is experienced as something fairly normal and mundane, and I rarely have unusual experiences during it, let alone transcendental ones.  It may be that I simply haven't meditated long / frequently enough, or is it that I don't particularly believe in those things and therefore don't ecperience them?  Any thoughts appreciated.

Like you say, everyone has to find their own way to salvation or at least sanity - and it is indeed a fascinating process   emoticon
Hi Dani

Thanks for your reply. 

Regarding experiences during a meditation sit, the more you practice meditation, the more nuanced your practice becomes and the more subtle differences you will notice during a sit. There might be differences between techniques, and even differences between various sits using the same technique. It just takes practice and repetition, along with an intention to notice these subtleties. It is interesting that you have already noticed a few ways in which TM and mindfulness differ for you. 

You say:

When people talk about those finer spiritual or other differences it's like my brain switches off, I don't actually get what they are talking about as for me meditation is experienced as something fairly normal and mundane, and I rarely have unusual experiences during it, let alone transcendental ones.  It may be that I simply haven't meditated long / frequently enough, or is it that I don't particularly believe in those things and therefore don't ecperience them?  Any thoughts appreciated.

When I first read MCTB, I only understood some of it. Experiences that Daniel described regarding more nuanced aspects of practice literally read like another language to me - I couldn't understand a word of what he was saying! Then a year or so later, at a later point in my own practice, I would pick up the book again and go "ah ha! I get that now!" This still happens. So it could be that you just need a bit more time meditating in order to notice some of the more subtle phenomena that people talk about. 

Also, there is the factor of individual differences. Some people tend to more easily have "absorption" experiences or have what Tanya Luhrmann calls a "talent" for spiritual experiences. Other people might meditate for hundreds of hours and still not report any such experiences and that is fine.

I would just keep practicing (if you feel to) and use the experience of others as a helpful guide but don't feel you have to be replicating their experiences emoticon

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/26/19 8:02 PM as a reply to Ryan.
Ryan:
The Guardian published some critical letters sent in response to Mr. Purser's article (I particularly like the first one): 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/16/mindfulness-can-be-an-active-force-for-change-in-the-world



A quote from the link above:
"Without inner peace, outer peace is impossible. If we first establish peace within our minds by training in spiritual paths, outer peace will come naturally; but if we do not, world peace will never be achieved, no matter how many people campaign for it.”

I think about this almost daily and while my mind often guilt trips me under the tyranny of "should do x", I cannot come to rest with seeing it any other way. It's a tough pill to swollow but also great motivation to deepen practice. There's so much action taken with good intentions that simply fuels the madness.  

RE: Accessible meditation and collective action
Answer
6/27/19 3:30 AM as a reply to Dani Rose.
Dani Rose:
Thanks Linda, I agree with everything you say - the individual responsibility and action are important but currently not enough.  It would be good to take this further in some way that inspires and empowers more people to act and compaign for larger scale changes.

I'm sorry I'm only replying now.  I am new to this forum and thought I would be sent an email if someone replied to my post or this topic (I thought I'd switched that on!?), but I received no notifications at all.



Oh, no problem. And yes, that would be great.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/29/19 12:08 PM as a reply to Nick O.
Nick O:
Ryan:
The Guardian published some critical letters sent in response to Mr. Purser's article (I particularly like the first one): 

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/16/mindfulness-can-be-an-active-force-for-change-in-the-world



A quote from the link above:
"Without inner peace, outer peace is impossible. If we first establish peace within our minds by training in spiritual paths, outer peace will come naturally; but if we do not, world peace will never be achieved, no matter how many people campaign for it.”

I think about this almost daily and while my mind often guilt trips me under the tyranny of "should do x", I cannot come to rest with seeing it any other way. It's a tough pill to swollow but also great motivation to deepen practice. There's so much action taken with good intentions that simply fuels the madness.  


Agreed. And we shouldn't discount the fact that finding some peace within can create a ripple effect where there is more likely to be harmony with your spouse, kids, parents, etc. But once you go much beyond that, things get complicated. For example, I agree with the sentiment of that quote, although a more realistic phrasing might read, "If we first establish peace within our minds by training in spiritual paths, outer peace may come more naturally." As should be obvious, highly realized people can still misbehave. Moreover, people have been engaging in spiritual practices since time immemorial and world peace nevertheless remains elusive. That's not to say the picture is hopeless though. The world we live in now is vastly safer and healthier than 50 years ago, and 50 years ago was vastly safer and healthier than 200 years ago. The world is getting better and better, though I don't think spirituality, at least as that term is used here, has much to do with it. 

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/30/19 4:26 AM as a reply to Paul.
Paul:
This new article by Ronald Purser 14 June 2019 is longer and more damning of the McMindfulness culture than the previous article shared here by Daniel and which garnered a very long discussion. 
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/14/the-mindfulness-conspiracy-capitalist-spirituality

My posting of the article is only to share it for discussion, not to promote its content. 

It's an article void of personal experience of the benefits of mindfulness, no empirical data as to the effects, and absolutely no description of what capitalism should be replaced with - therefore not much use.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
6/30/19 5:53 AM as a reply to Stickman2.
That’s good points. Such nuances would be more beneficial. But do you think it is possible that this kind of criticism could sow the seeds to inspire others to elaborate the criticism in those directions? Or does it only contribute to polarization? I’m thinking that maybe it does both (it seems like it, looking at the responses in this thread). It’s hard to predict which of the effects it will contribute to the most. Debate in general tends to be very polarized, regardless, unfortunately.

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
7/1/19 12:20 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
That’s good points. Such nuances would be more beneficial. But do you think it is possible that this kind of criticism could sow the seeds to inspire others to elaborate the criticism in those directions?
I don't know, it's too warm to think about that. But if people are going to insist, vaguely, on having an anti-capitalist revolution then it would be nice if they also lay out how it won't turn bad like the others.
Mind, it wouldn't surprise me if a search through (probably obscure)  literature revealed people going through the A&P at the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, or Mussolini's march on Rome and other such revolutionary moments when mental structures crash down.
I think social turmoil may cause more awakenings (used in a broad sense - temporary or permanent) than contemplation paths, and if anyone disagrees they should show the numbers emoticon

Thanks for your extra input
Answer
7/14/19 10:03 AM as a reply to Anna L.
Hi again Anna,

Thanks for the additional comments; this makes sense of course, I just currently wonder if I'll ever get there as I lose discipline so quickly (this time the daily practice lasted a bit more than ten days and is flagging again now), and if I'm honest I've never really noticed much difference/ change/ progress within the periods I have regularly practiced!

On another note, have you got any idea why I don't get notifications when someone has replied to my post, or how I could switch this on?  Or whom to appropriate;y contact for tech support?

Sorry to come over all-round clueless at present!  emoticon

Dani

RE: New Mindfulness article in the Guardian by Ronald Purser
Answer
7/14/19 1:05 PM as a reply to Stickman2.
Stickman2:
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
That’s good points. Such nuances would be more beneficial. But do you think it is possible that this kind of criticism could sow the seeds to inspire others to elaborate the criticism in those directions?
I don't know, it's too warm to think about that. But if people are going to insist, vaguely, on having an anti-capitalist revolution then it would be nice if they also lay out how it won't turn bad like the others.
Mind, it wouldn't surprise me if a search through (probably obscure)  literature revealed people going through the A&P at the storming of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, or Mussolini's march on Rome and other such revolutionary moments when mental structures crash down.
I think social turmoil may cause more awakenings (used in a broad sense - temporary or permanent) than contemplation paths, and if anyone disagrees they should show the numbers emoticon


I totally agree that we need solitions for how a new system would avoid causing damage. I don’t think a revolution would work at all, as that tends to cause polarization. People need to be on board and feel safe. I think ideally it would sort of develop organically as people stop chasing material cravings and find that compassion is a more constructive driving force.

I don’t know what to think about what causes more awakenings, and I definitely haven’t got any numbers, but I’m sceptical that being violent would cause awakenings. Witnessing social turmoil might leed to A&P and darknighting, though. On the other hand, at the same time, those who turn to violence may get farther away from awakening as hinderances increase. But that’s just speculations.