CHAPTER 4: THE MINDFUL LEARNER • 73and humanism in America, and naturalism as it was manifest in later Western European
thought. McCown, Reibel, and Micozzi (2010) trace the European connection to Eastern
spiritual thought and practice back to ancient Greece circa 327-325 BCE. In 1784, British
scholars and magistrates of the Asiatic Society of Bengal authored the first translations of
Hindu scriptures from Sanskrit to English (McCown et al., 2010). As these scriptures became
more widely available, they dovetailed with and influenced other movements rising up on
both sides of the Atlantic. In early 19th-century Europe, for instance, Romanticism brought
an intensely emotional and visionary character to the arts—marking a break from the calm
restraint of Classicism. And, often, the Romantics looked to the East for exotic, faraway
themes and spiritual inspiration (Cook-Cottone, 2015; McCown et al., 2010). Concurrently,
in New England, transcendentalism arose—shaped and driven by such notable thinkers as
Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau. As it sought to elevate the individual’s
relationship to the world and to existence, transcendentalism likewise tapped into Eastern
teachings (Cook-Cottone, 2015; McCown et al., 2010).
Beginning in the 1950s, Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki, a Zen scholar, as well as a scholar of
Western philosophy and psychology, was influential in bringing Zen to the United States
and to the field of psychoanalysis (Harrington & Dunne, 2015). For Suzuki, “Zen was a radi-
cally antiauthoritarian practice and philosophy that was concerned, not with textual author-
ity and scholastic training, not with ritual, dogma or even ethics, but with the transformative
effects of experiencing the world as it really was” (Harrington & Dunne, 2015, p. 623). The
“Zen Boom” of the 1950s and 1960s permeated both academic studies and popular cul-
ture (McCown et al., 2010). In a twist of fate that Harrington and Dunne (2015) describe as
“Simply put, the sixties arrived” (p. 625), the Harvard LSD studies marred the narrative of
mindfulness interventions (McCown et al., 2010), and Zen was appropriated by a counter
culture movement in psychotherapy (Harrington & Dunne, 2015). Ultimately, mainstream
integration of Zen declined substantially (Harrington & Dunne, 2015).
The 1980s and 1990s are considered the “painful passage into maturity” as mindful
practices were scientifically assessed and accepted by academics, practitioners, and the
mainstream public (McCown et al., 2010, p. 54). What has transpired over these many years
is considered the movement toward a universalizing and secularizing discourse in order to
create accessibility (McCown et al., 2010). Tension continues as the practices and traditions
are extruded through Western constructs, such as the scientific method and practical and
medical applications (Cook-Cottone, 2015). Some refer to the use of mindfulness in treatment
as the medicalization of the practices, and some see it as further appropriation of valued tra-
ditions (Harrington & Dunne, 2015). In my personal practice, I am working to understand
and know the heritage of the practices that have brought me great peace and happiness.
However, in practice, especially in schools, it is important to maintain a clear distinction
between historical traditions, mindfulness philosophy, and mindfulness practices that have
been shown to be effective for student learning and well-being (e.g., Rechtschaffen, 2014;
Waters et al., 2015).
The Evolution of Secular Mindfulness Practice
Felver et al. (2013) state that it is a misconception to identify mindfulness as a form of
Eastern religion. They acknowledge that mindfulness and many of the mindfulness tech-
niques have their roots in Eastern religion and philosophical schools of thought (Felver
et al., 2013). However, they make a clear distinction between the concept of mindfulness