Mindfulness.

In response to Scott Rogers' August 1 mindfulness column, you might expect that a "nationally recognized leader" in the practice of mindfulness would be able to tell us what it is, but that isn't the case.

Rogers can't define or describe mindfulness in any concrete understandable way. Instead, what Mr. Rogers does is select just a few of the many questions suggested by reasonable inquiry and then dismisses those questions by saying: "The most important and helpful answers to most of these questions comes from practicing mindfulness, for it is a method rooted in self-sufficiency."

If it is rooted in self-sufficiency then why do we need Mr. Rogers or any of the other gurus to write articles or lead retreats or do any of the other commercial activities associated with mindfulness?

After reading almost an entire Bar Journal devoted to mindfulness and now Mr. Rogers' column in the News, there are several recurring themes that the proponents of mindfulness share:

* Ignorance (or maybe avoidance) of the underlying principles of mindfulness. Mindfulness is Buddhist meditation rebranded for commercial promotion. The origin and conceptual underpinnings of mindfulness come from Buddhism. I have read that sincere practitioners of Buddhism view mindfulness as crass commercialization at best and at worst an affront. I am not a Buddhist, but it seems that the commercialization of mindfulness is contrary to Buddhist detachment. But regardless of how it is packaged for sale, mindfulness is still Buddhist meditation. The Bar leaders that are promoting mindfulness ignore the underlying principles of mindfulness so they can claim that they are just promoting a secular exercise intended to help Bar members. Mindfulness is not simply a physical or even mental exercise like jogging or puzzle-solving. Mindfulness is a spiritual exercise. That is why its proponents avoid any mention of its...