Still Exploring the Middle Path: a Response to Commentaries

• Published in: Mindfulness 2016-04, Vol.7 (2), p.548-564
• Main Authors: Compson, Jane, Monteiro, Lynette
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Behavioral Science and Psychology; Buddhism; Child and School Psychology; Cognitive Psychology; Commentary; Ethics; Mindfulness; Natural law; Ontology; Pediatrics; Psychology; Public Health; Social Sciences; Traditions
• ISSN: 1868-8527; 1868-8535
• DOI: 10.1007/s12671-015-0447-y

(2015), for example, echoed our call that Buddhist and scientific communities work more closely together, and Davis (2015) supported a continued dialog between Buddhist and secular communities about “how it is best for human beings to be.” In particular, in response to Purser (2015), we explore the question of whether Buddhist teaching, of which mindfulness is a major component, is based on an understanding of a certain lawful structure of reality that exists whether a Buddha (or anybody else) had described it or not, or whether it is a concept that is a cultural invention of the Buddha—a “Buddhist teaching” that is only meaningful in the context of other Buddhist teachings and concepts. The first form is that it is not true that the dhamma is a natural law and that to make this claim is to make a category mistake—instead, it is part of a religion and this is necessarily a cultural, socially constructed reality, categorically different from the truths of the physical-ontological universe. (2015), where we made the case that the Eightfold Path, of which mindfulness is but one limb, refers to a universal cosmic law of nature and is therefore not something that is owned by Buddhists.