[chillacy]

The article doesn't claim that it doesn't work, it merely decries the secularization of meditation.

> All of which raises a question: Is mindfulness meditation, as it’s practiced by millions of Westerners, bullshit? Not bullshit in the sense of being worthless. Even Adam Grant admits that meditation has benefits and that, for some people, it’s the best way to get them. But has meditation practice strayed so far from its Buddhist roots that we might as well just call it a therapy or a hobby... Is there any good reason—in ancient Buddhist philosophy or for that matter in modern science—to consider mainstream mindfulness practice truly spiritual?

[pmoriarty]

The article starts by asking those provocative questions. It's important to note that they're questions, though, not answers.

The author then goes on to say:

"...the average mindfulness meditator is closer to the ancient contemplative tradition, and to transformative insights, than you might think. Though things like stress reduction or grappling with melancholy or remorse or self-loathing may seem “therapeutic,” they are organically connected to the very roots of Buddhist philosophy. What starts out as a meditation practice with modest aims can easily, and very naturally, go deeper. There is a kind of slippery slope from stress reduction to profound spiritual exploration and radical philosophical reorientation, and many people, even in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street, are further down that slope than they realize."

[chillacy]

Thus fulfilling Betteridge's law of headlines

[Shikadi]

[didn't read the article yet] I can't help but think that's like asking if yoga is bullshit, and should be called a hobby instead of being considered spiritual. Yoga is yoga, whether you're doing it spiritually or not.

[chillacy]

I don't know what to say except you should read the article if you want to have a decent discussion.