An Introduction to the Buddhist Underpinnings of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Buddha-Nature and Intrinsic Goodness

The Tathāgatagarbha doctrine, espoused by some but not all Buddhist traditions, holds that Buddha-nature, or Tathāgata, is a core feature of all sentient life. In other words, all beings have the potential to become a Buddha, or an enlightened being (7, 8). In a third-century Indian work, the Tathāgatagarbha Sūtra, the Buddha is said to have held that all living beings “are endowed with virtues, always pure, and hence are not different from me” (9, p. 51). It is said in the formative thirteenth-century Zen text Shōbōgenzō that “The Dharma is not to be found externally; it is inseparable from oneself, and the self is inseparable from the Dharma. If you seek it elsewhere, you fall into illusion” (10, p. 41). And in the sixteenth century Tibetan text Ocean of True Meaning, it states: “Buddhahood is in one’s own body. Nowhere else does buddhahood exist. Those wrapped in the darkness of ignorance believe buddhahood to be somewhere outside the body …. Nowhere in the outer world will you ever find buddhahood” (11, p. 210).

Many within this tradition make the stronger claim that we do not have Buddha-nature, but rather we are Buddha-nature. This position is not merely semantic, but rather underscores the immanence of Buddha-nature. It is not that all sentient beings have the Buddha-nature (or contain a Tathāgata), but rather, all sentient beings are Buddha-nature, or the Tathāgata (12). From this perspective, to say that a sentient being has or does not have Buddha-nature is a categorical mistake: all beings, without exception are Buddha-nature according to these traditions.

Altogether, these passages evince several core features of the doctrine of Buddha-nature. First, all beings inherently possess the enlightened qualities of the Buddha. Second, one does not need to look outside of oneself for these virtuous characteristics. Third, it is deleterious to the Buddhist path to attempt to find enlightenment outside of one’s own being. Finally, there is no Buddhahood anywhere but within oneself—it is the mind itself. While there are a number of different iterations of the Buddha-nature doctrine in the Buddhist world, these features hold true in most contexts.

The mindfulness-based stress reduction course consists of eight weekly teacher-led meditation instruction sessions. Daily mindfulness practices are assigned, 30–60 minutes in duration, building up to a full day of intensive silent practice. Most contemporary mindfulness interventions are structured in a similar way. Conceptual and methodological difficulties within the mindfulness literature abound, though research is still in its infancy. Nevertheless, mindfulness-based interventions are indicated in a number of settings, with some of the strongest data supporting the use of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for major depressive disorder relapse (13).

The passages below suggest that MBSR rhetoric relies on the assumption that all participants are intrinsically good. Innate goodness is often construed as one’s “true self,” rather than the damaged, stressed, or depressed person that many believe themselves to be. The notion of intrinsic goodness is important for at least two reasons. First, it assures practitioners that they do not need to cultivate any special qualities that they do not already innately possess. Second, participants merely need to reveal intrinsic virtues, rather than build them. The goodness is innate, always present, common to all and effortless to achieve, to the extent that we do not need to cultivate any qualities to attain it. In the context of psychiatry, innate goodness is of theoretical value because many patients with mood, anxiety, and personality disorders suffer from conscious and unconscious perceptions of self as unworthy of love, intrinsically bad, or damaged. By foregrounding intrinsic goodness, mindfulness-based interventions provide an antidote: a stable sense of well-being that precedes and undermines these maladaptive notions of self. A deep understanding of innate goodness can allow patients to safely construct a more adaptive, less pathological sense of self that is fluid, resilient, and worthy of affection.

In MBSR rhetoric, the wonderful qualities of our truest self need only to “be nurtured to unfold and be discovered … you don’t need to get anywhere …. You only need to really be where you already are and realize. In fact in this way of looking at things there is no place else to go, so efforts to get anywhere are ill conceived” (14, p. 94). Indeed, MBSR requires diligence, commitment, and perseverance when the practice becomes difficult during long periods of meditation. However, as one becomes more adept, it becomes a decidedly effortless process as conceived in certain Buddhist traditions (15). In fact, effort eventually becomes an impediment to practice. For one’s intrinsic goodness needs to be “nurtured” rather than constructed, “discovered” rather than built, and left to unfold naturally from within rather than laboriously assembled (4).

In MBSR teachings, one’s intrinsic goodness is often painted as a refuge for times of sorrow and stress. Participants are instructed to trust in this innermost identity as a means of alleviating anxiety, stress, and discomfort. When we feel at our worst, we need to rely on it: “Times of great emotional upheaval and turmoil, times of sadness, anger, fear, and grief, moments when we feel hurt, lost, humiliated, thwarted, or defeated, are times when we most need to know that the core of our being is stable and resilient and that we can weather these moments and become more human in the process” (14, p. 429).

Despite the emotional turbulence intrinsic to the experience of being human, the innermost core of one’s identity, so MBSR teaches, is intrinsically good, wholesome, and pure. Moreover, it can serve as a teacher during times of personal upheaval. Consider the following Kabir poem referenced by Kabat-Zinn:

One’s true self is taken to be present at all times—to be revealed, not constructed. Kabir implores the reader to recognize the teacher within oneself rather than searching afar. The implication in MBSR, of course, is that one already has all the qualities one needs to be happy. If we can just realize that we are intrinsically good, the true but dormant self can and will awaken, as long as we let it.

A comparison of Buddhist writings on Tathāgatagarbha and MBSR writings on intrinsic goodness suggests a considerable degree of overlap. And in fact, Kabat-Zinn, founder of MBSR, practiced in the Zen and Tibetan traditions before developing his program. In both instances, in any case, the inner goodness of the practitioner is foregrounded, betraying the enlightened mind within all human beings.

This similarity between Buddhist and MBSR pedagogy is important and relevant for at least three reasons. First, Buddhist apologists should take note that its teachings remain central, though implicit, to this popular contemporary meditation program; on the other hand, secular enthusiasts should take solace in the fact that the language used by MBSR instructors nevertheless remains agnostic. Second, the intertwined relationship between Buddhism and MBSR—an ostensibly secular, scientific, and Western phenomenon—effaces a number of unquestioned dichotomies in popular conceptions of medicine: East and West, science and the humanities, secularism and religion. The boundary between science and religion may be more porous than typically assumed. Finally, while it is widely known that mindfulness-based interventions are “Eastern” or “Buddhist,” clinicians should be aware that such facile references have deeper doctrinal roots. While not all psychiatrists and psychotherapists will use mindfulness in practice, it has become widespread enough to merit the basic understanding that veritable Buddhist principles, including Tathāgatagarbha, lie at the heart of contemporary mindfulness practices.