A Declaration of Interdependence: No Kings. No Dogma. No Gurus.

By Mo Edjlali, Founder and CEO, Mindful Leader; Author, Open MBSR: Reimagining the Future of Mindfulness

A few days ago, we celebrated the 4th of July, that extraordinary moment when a group of rebels dared to imagine something different. I've always loved Thomas Paine, that brilliant troublemaker who had the audacity to challenge kings and question the divine right of rulers. "Common Sense" didn't just critique monarchy; it awakened people to the absurdity of being governed by those who claimed authority simply because they were born into it.

Like Paine, I want to challenge the status quo. But this time, it's not about political monarchy, it's about mindfulness oligarchy. And it's not just about independence, it's about interdependence.

Let’s name the obvious: some will object to the tone. “This feels aggressive.” “Isn’t mindfulness about non-reactivity?” “Couldn’t this be said more gently?” These are the familiar voices of tone-policing, disguised as spiritual concern but functioning to silence critique.

This dynamic isn't new. As I explored in Debate is Not Mindful, dissent in mindfulness spaces is often shut down by shifting focus from substance to tone. Raise a concern, and suddenly you’re “in resistance.” You’re told to “trust the process.” Your point vanishes, replaced by an analysis of your spiritual maturity.

But honest debate isn’t a threat to mindfulness, it’s a sign it’s still alive. In Buddhism, questioning was central to awakening. In science, critique drives progress. In thriving communities, honest disagreement is a strength.

The original Declaration spoke of independence, breaking free from tyranny. But what we need in mindfulness is deeper: interdependence. We need communities where knowledge flows in all directions, where teachers and students learn from each other, where challenging questions are welcomed rather than spiritually bypassed, and where no one person or institution holds all the power because we recognize that collective intelligence emerges from diverse perspectives working together.

This is a call to all the rebels, the outcasts, the refugees from mindfulness orthodoxy who sensed something didn't smell right. You know who you are. You're the ones who raised your hand in teacher training and got shut down, not through argument, but through spiritual gaslighting. You're the practitioners who couldn't afford the $10,000 certification but knew you had valuable insights to share. You're the students who asked hard questions about the Buddhist roots of "secular" programs, and were met not with open dialogue, but with dismissal, told simply that "this is how it's done."

You're the community teachers who've been working in the trenches for years but have no voice in how these practices evolve. You're the ones who notice that the same small circle of names appears on every advisory board, every curriculum committee, every research grant, while millions of actual practitioners remain voiceless in decisions that affect their own practice communities.

What voice do you actually have in the mindfulness oligarchy?

Think about it. When was the last time anyone asked what you needed from your practice? Who decided that recordings are necessary for meditation? That 8 weeks is the magic number? That certain institutions get to determine who's "authorized" to teach while communities have no say in who serves them?

What happens when you challenge the oligarchy's control?

Try questioning expensive retreat pricing in mindfulness circles. Suggest that guided meditations create dependency rather than building community knowledge-sharing. Point out the hidden Buddhist doctrine in supposedly secular programs. Watch how quickly your tone becomes the issue, not your point. Notice how "non-judgment" becomes a weapon to silence dissent, how "acceptance" gets weaponized to shut down legitimate feedback from the very communities these programs claim to serve.

The oligarchy has perfected the art of using mindfulness language to protect itself from the accountability that collective intelligence requires. They've made debate itself seem "unmindful."

Who really controls the mindfulness movement?

It's not a conspiracy, it's something more structural. What began as necessary small networks to establish mindfulness's credibility has never evolved beyond its origins. The same informal relationships that helped MBSR gain legitimacy in hospitals and universities four decades ago, and that brought mindfulness into mainstream culture, still govern how these practices develop today. These decisions happen in conference rooms shaped by historical connections rather than current community needs, through relationships formed in the early days when the field was smaller, by people who may have deep practice experience but little connection to the economic realities facing today's practitioners.

The challenge isn't malicious intent, it's institutional inertia. The scaffolding that supported mindfulness's early growth became permanent architecture. What was once adaptive has become calcified. Whether we're talking about MBSR's curriculum development, mindfulness research priorities, or the broader movement's direction, the foundations that served the field well in its infancy were never reevaluated as millions of people began practicing and new needs emerged.

This isn't about vilifying the pioneers who built something remarkable. It's about recognizing that structures designed for a movement's startup phase rarely serve its mature phase. The informal networks that made sense when everyone in mindfulness knew everyone else become bottlenecks when the community grows to millions. The decision-making processes that worked for a small group of committed innovators, whether in MBSR programs, retreat centers, or research institutions, become oligarchic when they remain unchanged as the field expands globally.

A Declaration of Interdependence: No Kings. No Dogma. No Gurus.

When, in the course of developing human understanding, it becomes necessary for practitioners to dissolve the oligarchic bonds that have disconnected them from their own collective intelligence, and to assume among communities of practice the interconnected and equal station to which evidence and democratic principles entitle them, a decent respect for shared learning requires that we declare both what we're moving away from and what we're building together.

The mindfulness movement stands at a crossroads. What began as Jon Kabat-Zinn's revolutionary approach to democratizing contemplative practices has calcified into rigid hierarchies that not only contradict what research shows us about how knowledge advances and communities thrive, but that actively suppress the kind of rigorous inquiry that drives innovation and prevents stagnation.

This isn't gentle course correction. This is a fundamental return to evidence-based community building: that collective intelligence emerges from diverse perspectives engaging in honest debate, that innovation requires open dialogue, including uncomfortable dialogue, and that communities thrive when knowledge flows freely and criticism is welcomed rather than spiritually bypassed.

We Hold These Truths to Be Self-Evident:

• That all humans possess innate capacity for present-moment awareness
• That collective intelligence emerges when diverse perspectives engage openly, including through debate and disagreement, with shared challenges
• That communities are endowed with certain unalienable rights
• That among these are transparent governance, accessible knowledge, rigorous inquiry, and the pursuit of understanding through open debate
• That institutions exist to serve collective flourishing, not to control it through tone-policing and spiritual bypassing
• That when oligarchic governance disrupts the flow of collective intelligence by silencing dissent, communities have the right, and responsibility, to restore it

Our Grievances Against the Oligarchy:

They have weaponized mindfulness language to suppress legitimate critique, using "non-judgment" and "acceptance" to silence the very communities they claim to serve, making questioning itself seem "unmindful."

They have broken the natural flow of collective intelligence by concentrating power in a small network of institutions and celebrity teachers, making decisions that affect millions through hidden relationships rather than transparent, community-engaged processes that welcome dissent.

They have turned knowledge into luxury commodities, pricing teacher training at $10,000+ while the communities most in need of these tools remain excluded, creating artificial scarcity where abundance should flourish through shared learning and open debate.

They have practiced stealth Buddhism, embedding specific cultural content in supposedly secular programs without the informed consent of diverse communities seeking inclusive approaches, then dismissing questions about this as spiritual immaturity.

They have created economic gatekeeping where access to beneficial practices depends on financial privilege rather than community need, preventing the diverse participation that collective intelligence requires and silencing voices that might challenge this model.

They have fostered teacher-student dependency through guru dynamics that disrupt the natural peer-to-peer learning and knowledge-sharing that builds resilient communities, making questioning the teacher seem like spiritual failure.

They have privatized collective knowledge, turning freely shared practices into intellectual property, disrupting the open knowledge-sharing that has sustained these traditions across cultures and centuries.

They have reduced complex practices to one-dimensional products, creating McMindfulness that fragments what should be integrated, evidence-based approaches to human flourishing, while dismissing critiques of this reduction as "negativity."

They have excluded practitioners from governance, making the people who actually implement these practices invisible in decisions about how they evolve, eliminating the essential feedback loops that innovative systems require and the honest debate that drives improvement.

They have built exclusive networks that operate through privilege and connection rather than merit or community contribution, creating barriers that prevent the natural flow of insights, innovation, and the kind of challenging questions that systems need to stay healthy.

Therefore, We Declare Our Interdependence:

NO KINGS

We reject the elevation of individual teachers to positions of unquestionable authority. Evidence shows that collective intelligence emerges from communities where diverse perspectives engage openly, including through respectful debate and disagreement, not from hierarchical structures that suppress dissent.

NO DOGMA

We reject rigid adherence to unexamined beliefs and practices. We embrace evidence-based approaches that welcome the critical inquiry, honest debate, and diverse viewpoints that drive innovation and improvement, even when, especially when, they challenge comfortable assumptions.

NO GURUS

We reject teacher-student relationships built on manufactured dependency and the suppression of student questions. We choose mentorship models that recognize the peer-to-peer learning and knowledge-sharing that build strong, resilient communities, including the capacity to respectfully disagree and debate.

We Establish Instead:

Collective Governance: Decisions emerge from transparent processes that include all stakeholders and welcome rigorous debate, recognizing that diverse perspectives and honest disagreement improve outcomes.

Abundant Knowledge-Sharing: Open-source resources, sliding scales, and community-supported programs that embody the natural abundance that emerges when information flows freely and is openly debated and refined.

Radical Transparency: Every influence, origin, adaptation, and decision clearly documented and publicly available, creating the open information flow and honest critique that collective intelligence requires.

Evidence-Based Dialogue: Embracing the complexity, diverse perspectives, and rigorous debate that drive innovation, where disagreement enhances rather than threatens collective understanding.

Mutual Learning: Teaching methods that build both individual competence and community capacity for constructive debate and knowledge-sharing, creating resilient systems that don't depend on external authorities or suppress questioning.

Cultural Integrity: Transparent acknowledgment of all influences and origins, creating the honesty that allows diverse communities to engage authentically with these practices and debate their applications openly.

Community Ownership: Practitioners and communities control how these practices evolve through open processes that welcome critique and debate, ensuring they serve collective flourishing rather than individual or institutional accumulation of power.

Our Commitment to Interdependence:

We pledge our practice, our communities, and our commitment to collective learning, including the sometimes uncomfortable process of honest debate, in service of a mindfulness movement that applies what evidence shows us about how communities thrive.

We choose:

• Collective intelligence over isolated expertise
• Honest debate over spiritual bypassing
• Transparent critique over tone-policing
• Community governance over concentrated authority
• Open knowledge over artificial scarcity
• Evidence-based evolution over protected orthodoxy
• Community service over institutional comfort
• Rigorous inquiry over performed compliance

This is our Declaration of Interdependence with each other and with evidence-based community building that welcomes rather than suppresses challenging questions.

This is our commitment to mindfulness that embodies collective intelligence and honest dialogue.

This is Open MBSR.

Beyond Declaration: Building Learning Communities That Welcome Debate

The tone-policing, oligarchic control, and suppression of legitimate critique explored here aren't just institutional problems, they're violations of what research shows us about how communities learn, innovate, and thrive. What we're facing is not just a debate about teaching methods or governance structures. It's about whether our mindfulness institutions will apply what we know about collective intelligence and community resilience, including the essential role of constructive conflict and debate.

As I explored in "Debate is Not Mindful," these dynamics are entangled with larger systemic failures: using spiritual language to suppress legitimate questions, governance models that treat dissent as spiritual immaturity, and patterns that mistake performative compliance for genuine wisdom.

"Open MBSR: Reimagining the Future of Mindfulness" offers more than critique. It introduces frameworks for building genuine learning communities that welcome rather than suppress challenging questions. This isn't a gentle update. It's an application of what research shows us about collective intelligence, community resilience, and the essential role of constructive debate in preventing stagnation and promoting innovation.

The book provides concrete tools for interdependent communities: governance structures that harness collective intelligence through inclusive debate, teaching methods that recognize peer-to-peer learning and questioning, and economic models that embody the abundance that emerges when knowledge flows freely and is openly examined.

To all the rebels, outcasts, and refugees from mindfulness orthodoxy: Your questions aren't obstacles, they're essential contributions to our collective understanding. Your challenging perspectives matter because diverse viewpoints and honest debate improve outcomes. Your voice is needed because communities thrive when all perspectives are included and rigorously examined, not just the comfortable ones.

The mindfulness revolution doesn't need permission from the oligarchy, and it doesn't need to moderate its tone to make them comfortable. It needs our collective action and our willingness to engage in the kind of honest debate that drives real progress.

No kings. No dogma. No gurus. We choose evidence-based interdependence. We choose communities that welcome debate. We choose collective intelligence over spiritual tone-policing.

The future belongs to learning communities that grow stronger through challenge, not institutions that grow weaker by avoiding it. To collaborative innovation through honest dialogue, not control through spiritual bypassing. To all of us, learning from each other, including through respectful disagreement.

Join the interdependent revolution. The future of mindfulness is in our hands, all of our hands, working together, questioning together, debating together and ultimately growing together.

Discover how mindfulness can break free from hierarchy and dogma. In my upcoming book, Open MBSR: Reimagining the Future of Mindfulness., I explore how dialectical thinking and community-driven principles can help us create a more open, transparent, inclusive, and resilient mindfulness movement.