As the mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) spread globally and scientific studies continue to grow in numbers, more and more Buddhist scholars start to investigate these contemporary mindfulness programs. One debate is about whether or not the mindfulness training as taught in MBPs the same as Buddhist mindfulness, if not, what are the diff erence? Robert Sharf and Kin Tung Yit both explore the issue from a critical perspective and try to demonstrate how mindfulness in MBPs is not the same as traditional Buddhist mindfulness. This article introduces their criticism, examines their validity by analyzing relevant Buddhist literature, history of modern Buddhism, and the works of the founder of MBSR, Jon Kabat-Zinn. It concludes that a part of criticism by Kin Tung Yit seem to based on sectarian view of Theravada doctrine, ignore the diversity of Buddhist thoughts, and selectively favor certain literature and interpretation. Robert Sharf’s comments present a similar phenomenon in terms of textual selection and interpretation, and give one-sided presentation of ethnographic data. Their criticisms are lack of evidence and unfair. Such one-sided comments might be explained by a common phenomenon discussed in social science, that is, “confi rmation bias” and “motivated reasoning.” With the whole picture of Buddhism in view, I argue, mindfulness as taught in MBIs, especially MBSR, is not only western but also Buddhist, not only modern but also traditional. The contribution of this article is from the perspective of a MBSR teacher, giving an analysis of some scholars’ criticism against MBIs and pointing out how their rhetoric is problematic in terms of its validity.
