People from all walks of life pay taxes to support a shared government system. This is why public services need to be fair and accessible to everyone. Out of respect for diversity, we don’t let public schools, hospitals, legislatures, or any other public services evangelize a belief system.

Police officers from the Peel region in Canada meditate at a Buddhist temple (source). A police mindfulness program is also being explored in Hillsboro, Oregon (source).

Mindfulness-based programs show a lot of potential to help our society. As scientific studies reveal tangible, measurable benefits, public officials are taking notice. Secular mindfulness programs are slowly integrating within governments, schools, hospitals, businesses, and more. As a practitioner myself, I believe this is a good step, but I can’t help feeling a little uneasy.

The fact is, these programs are based on practices found in a wide range of ancient religious and spiritual traditions. Are they truly appropriate for a public setting? In this article, I am putting forward a guideline to help us be sure: public mindfulness programs should stay away from making statements of absolute infallible truth.

Avoid ideological conflicts out of a respect for diversity.

Scientists exploring secular mindfulness have published promising early results around stress, anxiety, depression, and pain. Doctors and therapists are already recommending it. Growing concern around mental health and attention deficits justify mindfulness in education. And since the practice itself emphasizes clarity and kindness, those in leadership and government are also starting to use it to handle the complex decisions of our time.

Mindful Nation UK is a bipartisan parliamentary report advocating for policy related to mindfulness in education, healthcare, work, and criminal justice at the highest level of government in England. (source)

When teaching mindfulness in a public setting, many rely on neutral secular language like ‘mindfulness’ or ‘non-judgment’. This approach definitely makes things more accessible, but only in a superficial way. The nature of what is taught determines if a program is appropriate for public systems. If we change the language but still push our beliefs, we have merely disguised an ideological approach. This is why some have accused secular mindfulness programs of “stealth Buddhism.”

In private mindfulness groups, participation is voluntary. The approach is up to the facilitator, who may choose to share their beliefs or hold ideological discussions. Once a mindfulness program becomes public service, we have to be careful about how it’s taught. We need more than to simply remove the language of religion or spirituality. We should do our best to create programs which do not conflict with belief systems or ideologies. Sessions must be universally accessible out of a respect for diversity. Difficult, but not impossible.

Jon Kabat-Zinn — the creator of mindfulness-based stress reduction — leads a session with leaders in our society at the World Economic Forum 2015 in Davos, Switzerland. (source)

A guideline to keep public mindfulness programs accessible.

There’s nothing too controversial about the core values of mindfulness: learning to concentrate, reflecting on experiences, and setting kind intentions for ourselves and others. However, religious and spiritual leaders often go one step further, motivating students with guaranteed truths. They create a sense of certainty that we will discover something specific, reach an expected outcome, find ourselves on a predetermined path, or connect with some higher power.

A Buddhist may describe four noble truths, a Christian may talk of an infallible holy spirit, or a Hindu might imply chakras as a certain reality. In a public setting, claiming truth with absolute certainty does not respect diversity. When abstract concepts are discussed as if they are absolute truths, they inevitably conflict with existing beliefs. This isn’t just about religious leaders, either. I’ve seen many secular mindfulness teachers inadvertently cross this line, too. It’s not easy to avoid making truth claims. It takes a lot of vigilance. When you believe something, that means you think it’s true. Naturally, you wouldn’t think twice about sharing that belief as truth.

“When teaching a public mindfulness program, one should never claim to know any absolute truths. Our public systems shouldn’t prejudice anyone based on their beliefs in this way.”

Imagine 10 diverse people listening to a mindfulness teacher proclaim that the concept of a ‘self’ is an illusion. Based on their existing beliefs and previous experiences, some may find themselves left with a deep ideological conflict with this Buddhist concept. This isn’t fair. When teaching a public mindfulness program, one should never claim to know any absolute truths. Our public systems shouldn’t prejudice anyone based on their beliefs in this way. I feel the same rule should also apply in private settings, unless the facilitator gets explicit consent to represent their personal belief system in the organization.

Bethune Collegiate Institute in the Toronto District School Board is one of many schools bringing secular mindfulness programs into the classroom (source)

How can we teach anything without claiming it’s true?

Avoiding truth claims may seem paralyzing, but not to worry. In secular public institutions, mindfulness programs still represent a common ground for exploration. Facilitators can create a safe space where anyone is welcome to try diverse practices without facing ideological conflicts. If they choose to pursue a certain practice further, they can do so in a private setting.

For example, you could pull a practice from anywhere, give people instructions to try it, and even suggest values or attitudes to bring to the practice. You could say something like “This practice is often done with a sense of curiousity, so try that and see what happens.” At the end, you could lead a discussion of personal experiences, and share what others have experienced. If you do decide to present a concept, frame it clearly as a belief that some have found useful, instead of an absolute truth. You might say something like “Buddhists believe that this practice leads to…” or “Christians often teach that…” to qualify your statement.

“The key lies in having the humility to accept that your beliefs may not be true — or even productive — for everyone.”

The key lies in having the humility to accept that your beliefs may not be true — or even productive — for everyone. Participants should feel like they are free to draw their own conclusions. They might find the program useless and never come again, they might want to try a few more times, or they might be so moved that they want to continue in a private setting. In any case, that is their right — trying to convince them otherwise crosses an important line.

I strongly support building space in our public systems for mindfulness. In today’s world, so many of us feel overwhelmed and thirst for peace and connection. However, our thirst does not give anyone the right to evangelize beliefs in a public setting. We all believe in different truths, but claiming them as infallible absolutes takes things a step too far. A step which I believe is inappropriate for hospitals, governments, schools, and other public organizations.

As the scientific consensus continues to grow, our public systems can serve as a vehicle to make effective programs more accessible. But when it comes to teaching those programs, we need to take care not to leverage power structures to push our beliefs as absolute truth.

—

In a follow-up piece, I will cover how science can also lead us to make inappropriate truth claims if we don’t clearly understand it. Stay in touch!