Debate is Not Mindful

BL00 - debate not mindful

By Mo Edjlali, Founder and CEO, Mindful Leader; Author, Open MBSR

Open MBSR isn’t even out yet, and already the backlash is here. But it’s not loud. It’s soft. It comes dressed in spiritual language and smiling concern, feedback that sounds supportive but subtly works to shut down critique.

“I was surprised by the language… it risks alienating those who might otherwise be open to conversation.”

“True dialogue eliminates the need for debate… conversation should evolve through mutual understanding, not opposition.”

And this is just a sample of the responses that I'm getting, for the book, for the articles leading up to the book, from conversations.  And it got me thinking...

Why such similar reactions, almost predictable. What is underneath this?  Seems that if you challenge anything directly, you’re being unkind. If your tone isn’t soft enough, your ideas don’t count.

This is how the mindfulness world polices dissent, not through open conflict, but through spiritualized gaslighting. Raise a critique, and suddenly you’re the problem. Your tone and language are off. You’re “in resistance.” You’re “not trauma-informed.” You need to “trust the process.” The substance of your critique disappears. The focus shifts to diagnosing what’s wrong with you for bringing it up.

The system doesn’t need to engage with your point. It simply reframes your discomfort as evidence of unreadiness. Your expression was unkind, your approach unmindful. The result? The message is ignored. The concepts are overlooked. Accountability is avoided, and conformity is reinforced. All in the name of mindfulness and compassion. 

This isn’t about one comment or one community, it’s a pattern. It reflects what psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton called thought reform: the quiet ways groups replace honest inquiry with subtle control. It’s not brainwashing. It’s self-policing. Rewarding compliance. Punishing dissent. Using insider language to signal belonging and shut down real questions.

And it shows up in mindfulness all the time.

4 Questions to ask yourself

  1. Can you disagree without being labeled?
    When you question something in your mindfulness community, does the conversation stay focused on your ideas, or does it shift to your motivation, your “readiness,” your “resistance”? This is what Lifton called thought-terminating clichés—phrases that shut down inquiry by making the questioner the problem. In mindfulness circles, it sounds like: “You’re not ready for this teaching,” “That’s your ego talking,” or “You’re in resistance.” The content of your critique vanishes. What matters is what's wrong with you for asking it.

  2. Do you self-edit to belong?
    Have you found yourself softening your language, avoiding specific topics, or adopting a particular tone just to stay in good standing? Lifton observed how people in controlled environments begin to monitor their thoughts and speech, not because they’re forced to, but because they’ve learned what is rewarded and what is punished. In mindfulness spaces, you begin to notice: which questions get warm nods? Which get redirected? Eventually, you begin to unconsciously speak in the approved dialect of gentle inquiry and humble sharing—even when you want to challenge something directly.

  3. Where’s the real debate?
    When was the last time you saw Jon Kabat-Zinn or Jack Kornfield seriously questioned in public, without the questioner being dismissed as spiritually immature? This reflects what Lifton called sacred science, the idea that a group’s beliefs are both scientifically validated and spiritually elevated, making them untouchable. In mindfulness culture, MBSR isn’t just an intervention, it’s a sacred protocol. The eight-week format isn’t just one model, it’s the standard. Challenge it, and you’re not engaging in inquiry, you’re betraying a lineage.

  4. What happens to the troublemakers?
    In your community, what happens to people who ask uncomfortable questions? Are they engaged with—or slowly sidelined? Lifton described how groups maintain purity by gradually excluding those who ask too many hard questions. It’s rarely explicit—no one’s excommunicated. However, the questioners receive fewer invitations, less attention, and eventually become peripheral. Their concerns are recast as personal baggage. Over time, they either fall silent or drift away. And what’s left is a more compliant group that validates the system’s wisdom.

Mindfulness was meant to wake us up. But too often, its communities are designed to keep us comfortably asleep. Honest dissent gets framed as ego. Critical thinking gets dismissed as aggression. And the result? A movement that grows more fragile with every unspoken question.

But there’s another way.

The strongest systems aren’t the ones that avoid stress. They’re the ones who grow stronger because of it. Anti-fragile communities welcome challenge, reward feedback, and improve when their assumptions are tested, not collapse under pressure. That’s what Open MBSR is about.  Not a new dogma, but a new ethic. Transparency over performance. Debate over deference. Inquiry over image.

5 Reasons we need to Debate

To recognize that debate isn’t the enemy, it’s an essential part of actually awakening. Here's why:

  1. In Buddhism, debate is a tradition. From the Buddha’s early discourses to Tibetan monastic debate, rigorous questioning was a central path to insight. It was never a threat—it was a tool for awakening.
  2. In science, debate is foundational. Peer review, critique, and falsifiability aren't distractions—they’re how knowledge evolves. Without challenge, inquiry devolves into ideology.
  3. In communities, debate is a form of respect. It says: your ideas matter enough to engage with honestly. Strong communities aren’t afraid of disagreement—they grow from it.
  4. In psychology, debate builds resilience. It sharpens thinking, expands cognitive flexibility, and supports dialectical reasoning—exactly the capacities mindfulness claims to foster.
  5. In ethics, debate protects integrity. It prioritizes truth over hierarchy, gives voice to the marginalized, and prevents power from insulating itself behind politeness.

So Here’s the Real Question:

Will you keep performing mindfulness...saying the right things, avoiding the wrong questions, deferring to the right voices?

Or will you practice it. Fully, freely, with doubt, discernment, and your whole mind?

What this field doesn’t need is more carefully modulated voices tiptoeing around hard truths in the name of compassion.

It needs people willing to think for their goddamn selves.

To stop performing.
To start questioning.
To remember that debate isn’t a breakdown of the practice.
It’s proof that it’s alive. 

And if you disagree with that?
I’d be happy to debate you. 🙂


The tone-policing, conformity, and silencing of dissent explored here aren’t isolated issues; they’re symptoms of a deeper crisis in the mindfulness world. What we’re facing is not just a debate about delivery style or community norms. It’s about the erosion of critical thinking, the spiritualization of power, and the slow drift from integrity to image management. These dynamics are entangled with larger systemic failures: Buddhist authority embedded in supposedly secular programs, oligarchic governance models that resist transparency, and a cultural aversion to discomfort masquerading as compassion. Open MBSR: Reimagining the Future of Mindfulness offers more than critique. It introduces a transformative framework built to confront these challenges head-on. This isn’t a gentle update. It’s a bold departure. A call to stop performing mindfulness and start reclaiming it.


This is part of our Wackfulness Series: a thoughtful critique of the mindfulness field.

16 comments

Rafael
 

This message is so refreshing. I have noticed that mindfulness teachers tend to behave and be the same, they have become a cookie cutter type of person who easily get triggered when mindfulness is challenged. It is like a cult type of approach which is dangerous. 

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

Thanks for naming it—you're right, it starts to feel cult-like when challenge is met with offense, and everyone performs the same persona. That’s not mindfulness, that’s mindless conformity.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
Kaffie McCullough
 

I am new to MBSR and am grateful for the challenges that this series of articles have raised. Having left the Catholic Church because of its indoctrination tendencies and being a science nerd who has struggled with indoctrination tendencies of science that discounts any intuitive knowing because it can’t be proven, I have no desire to be indoctrinated into mindfulness. Bring on the debate. 

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

Grateful you’re here - and yes!, let’s keep mindfulness free from dogma, from gurus and from woo woo. Debate isn’t a threat to mindfulness, it’s what keeps it honest.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
Irene Brown
 

I experienced all of the above when I questioned the training I was involved with in a well known UK Mindfulness organisation. In the end I had to choose to walk away from £2000+ of fees paid and accept their version that 'maybe this training isnt right for you', or toe the line. I chose to toe the line, got my accreditation and have been questioning on all occasions I can ever since. I once made the 'mistake' of questioning MBSR and JKZ in a european meeting online and was howled down. I cannot wait to read Open MBSR ( published in uk in August coming!). At long last the breath of fresh air I have been at times gasping for! When I asked in my training about the origins of a certain model of 'what happens in mindfulness', which I knew to be lifted directly from Buddhist philosophy, unresearched, non-evidence based, I was told 'this isnt an academic training'. Ok, so we can just spout any theory we happen to adhere to? I was told this was evidence based and secular. It was neither. 

Read more
Read less
Melanie Underwood
 

Irene, I had the exact same expereince, but I ended up leaving the program. I am grateful to hear from others who question, as well :)

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

You’re not alone!  We may be the minority—or maybe just the quiet ones—but when truth meets power, truth wins. It just takes time, courage, and a willingness to stand together.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
Siobhan
 

I couldn't agree more!

If mindfulness trainers lose the ability to 'sit with the discomfort' that challenges to 'the normal way we do things' will inevitably bring, then there is real danger that mindfulness becomes a 'belief system' rather than real engagement with 'what is'.

Challenges bring opportunities to learn/discover more about ourselves. Always a good thing in my opinion.

Of course, this doesn't mean that challenge has to be done in a confrontational way. In a 'mindful debate' everyone is respectful of other opinions and hopefully...if we feel challenged we can recognise the need to investigate that challenge for ourselves. This way everyone learns something.

'Change is the only constant'...Hericlitus.


Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

Love this, Siobhan. If we can’t sit with discomfort, what are we even teaching? Respectful challenge is not the enemy, it’s part of the practice.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
RJ Kenworthy
 

Your article has resonated deeply with me for more than a decade within the wellness and holistic communities. In my humble perspective, many of us are searching souls, yearning for a sense of belonging to something—anything. Along this journey, we often find ourselves entangled in the didactic narratives of the paths we pursue, which not only leads us astray but also silences our individual voices, as you so eloquently articulated. I appreciate you articulating what I have observed and felt. Here’s to fostering future critical thinking and evolving through the insights of our social circles. 🙌🏽🫶🏽

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

Appreciate this—beautifully said. That search for belonging can pull us into scripts that aren't ours, and suddenly we're performing instead of practicing. Glad this resonated. Here's to staying critical, staying awake, and keeping our voices intact.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
Mindful Sloth
 

First thing that went through my mind, while reading your words, was Asch conformity experiment. The power of conformity...of social power. Then went to Maslow's needs, the need to be loved and appreciated. And the fear of "disturbing" others with "differences". While these are human traits (the same with the wandering mind, what actually brought mindfulness to be a "need") that are often unconscious, I couldn't but realize that acting from those psychological biases is anything BUT mindful. 

And then I remembered that years ago, after being certified in channeling, I joined a community of channelers. At first glance, spiritual people. What I found in that group is that in each and every one of us lives a human being, with ego, fears, wishes and maybe even traumas. It was a lesson to me, to always remember humility and modesty. I can say I like something, or not. But deciding someone else should feel the same, "because I know how it SHOULD be"... that's... not mindful.

Since mindfulness shouldn't be judgmental, I wonder how many of those that expressed these opinions stopped to contemplate on them. To understand the resistance to a reality. Or the need for it to be different...

Thank you for your voice! 

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

@Mindful Sloth Thanks for your comments and for contributing to the conversation! One thing that I wanted to respond to is the idea that mindfulness means avoiding judgment, which is a common misinterpretation. “Non-judging,” as originally described by Jon Kabat-Zinn, is a meditative attitude—a way of observing inner experience without immediately reacting. It was never meant to be a moral or social imperative to suspend discernment. When applied that way, it stops being helpful and starts being harmful. I wrote about it here: Can the 9 attitudes of Mindfulness do Harm.  

Read more
Read less
Mindful Sloth
 

@Mo Edjlali , I completely agree with you. After receiving my teacher certification, I started contemplating over the attitudes. I asked myself "what exactly non-judgmental means? I cannot say "this is good, this is bad"? Have to accept everything? The result was that I decided where to draw the line between observing an event and judging it.

Looking inside myself, I use my emotional state to see if an event is pleasant (elevates my emotional state) or unpleasant (lowers it). In both cases, there's the need for that mindful moment to acknowledge it, observe it and start emotional regulation processes, if they are needed. 

Judgment for me starts in the moment I start calling names (usually, derogatory) either the person (i.e., "jerk"), or the act itself ("that was a stupid/selfish/horrible thing to do/say"). Using your example from the cited article, in the case of a friend's disrespectful behavior toward me, it is my duty to tell them "that made me feel bad/uncomfortable, let's see how it won't happen in the future". That's ok. Saying "dude, you're a jerk for doing/saying/behaving like that!" is judgmental, thus not mindful (IMO).

That's how I see things and works for me since.

Read more
Read less
  Cancel
Jessica Magnus
 

I am so impressed with how you so clearly and rationally expressed these issues! I fully agree with the relevance of these ideas to the MF community!! These exact things occur. All. the. time. in mindfulness circles  (in any sort of group, really.). And, while I had a good experience with MF teacher-training using the European MBI:TAC, etc., I also have had numerous experiences where what appears to be the application of  objective guidelines are really being interpreted through the lens of the evaluators' own spiritual, political, sustainable, judgmental, etc., etc., perspectives. I have had experiences (both as a student and as a facilitator/teacher-trainee) that would have led me to believe MF is really a Buddhist indoctrination tool OR for liberals/Democrats only; conservatives/Republicans need not participate OR for people who are always compassionate and kind, not you money-hungry capitalists (or whatever group difference) OR for enlightened people, not those who are still questioning life OR OR OR OR. 

As a psychologist, business management professor, active researcher of MF, etc., I can differentiate these interpretations colored by the individual differences of the teacher or teacher-trainer from the essence of the MF construct and the 'objective guidelines' they are supposedly teaching. I think this may in part be because MF facilitation is not a profession for me but rather a fulfilling 'hobby'. These evaluators'/teachers'/leaders' interpretation/evaluation of me as a MF teacher do not affect my self-concept, self-efficacy, self-esteem, etc. as a MF practitioner. However, I think this is much more difficult for many individuals who may be more strongly tied to the MF community or for those who depend on acceptance within the community for their profession. 

I also think that the rapid proliferations of "re-imaginations" of the basic MBSR framework for narrower or broader applications (for example, mindfulness for depressed or anxious people, or for those who are suffering heart disease, or for healthcare providers, or for the workplace, or for "everyone", for self or other-compassion development, older/younger participants, for stress reduction, for relaxation, for pregnancy, for menopause, etc.) has perhaps unintentionally diversified the essence of the MBSR concept so much that even the teachers/facilitators/teacher-trainers aren't really sure what it is and have possibly solidified impressions that you need to have certain problems or be from a specific demographic to benefit from and practice mindfulness. So, if you think of it this way, the rampant discouragement of dissent and discussion is really an effort by these various groups to feel more solidly grounded in (1) their understanding of MF, (2) their own self-concept as it relates to MF, and (3) the group culture/purpose. Perhaps dissent is really the symptom of a wider issue... that no-one really knows "what MF is" because there have been so many interpretations derived from the basic concept the construct has lost meaning. 

Thanks for the thought-provoking article, Mo!         

Read more
Read less
Mo Edjlali
 

Thank you Jessica for this thoughtful and candid response. You put words to dynamics that are so often felt but rarely named—especially how “objective” standards in mindfulness are often shaped by personal, political, or spiritual filters. Your point about identity really resonated. When your livelihood or sense of belonging is tied to the MF world, it’s much harder to speak up or push back. And yes—the wave of adaptations and niche applications has created so much diffusion that even teachers seem unsure what mindfulness is anymore. That’s a big part of why I wrote Open MBSR – Reimagining the Future of Mindfulness.  I hope you will continue to be part of this conversation!

Read more
Read less
  Cancel

Leave a comment