MINDFULNESS & MORALITY 12: FINAL SESSION

It's the twelfth and final session in the Mindfulness and Morality course, offered by Christians Aware as part of their Faith Awareness programme. It's the time for summing up and reflection, looking back over the course and thinking about what might come next.

Since we got into morality via the springboard of mindfulness, we start with a little bit pf practice: five minutes of silence, during which we're supposed to be open to thoughts popping up unbidden about what we've heard and discussed throughout these twelve weeks. Funnily enough, after having the rear part of the building to ourselves all these Monday evenings, the first time we try to sit in silence, the corridor outside our room is like Sauchiehall Street on a Saturday night! (Well, I could hear three different loud voices, anyway).

Kevin Commons and Ian Grayling (of the Zen Serene Reflection Meditation Group), who have been facilitating the course as a whole, ask us to talk in pairs, then mention to the group one thing that we found positive, negative or neutrally interesting. Ian wrote these up on the flipchart - my categorisation below isn't necessarily the same as his. Some of those things that the group seemed to find positive, negative or just "interesting", I thought should go elsewhere.

Positive
Speakers have been excellent throughout; they focused on the theme, rather than merely giving an introduction to their own faith or belief system (which has often bedevilled this kind of course in the past); most of the speakers were honest about the gap between ideal and practice.

Commonality: how much each speaker demonstrated the interest of their belief system in the needs of others; each of the speakers and the cultures, traditions or systems from which they came, clearly support the assertion that, "the smallest deed is greater than the grandest intention".

The dilemmas presented to us were genuine, contemporary and uncontrived; they were about the quotidian rather than the cosmic; they were not "either / or" questions, but recognised (even sometimes revelled in) grey areas and the middle ground.

Negative
We were always short of time!

Some of the dilemmas could be said to arise more from particular cultural backgrounds than from belief systems per se - maybe showing how cultures are shared or cross over between two or more religions (e.g. the "dharmic" faiths, arising geographically and historically in India); some of the dilemmas weren't so much ethical in nature as cultural (sometimes arising from the clash of cultures - e.g. between more traditional value and those encountered in the west).

Perhaps, occasionally, we could (or should) have been tougher on a speaker, pushing them farther than we did. We should have had the courage of our convictions and maybe said, "I don't understand how you come to that conclusion, can't appreciate the meaning of it - and I would say it's just plain wrong". Not arguing for confrontation, or that such an approach should have dominated, but it was noticeable by its absence. Perhaps we should consider ways of challenging beliefs, concepts and practices without making it seem an ad hominem challenge to the person. But it might make future courses more enjoyable and rewarding if we were to toughen up a bit.

There's an ever present danger of over-intellectualising; our responses to dilemmas are often determined or driven by our emotions and feelings as much as by the mind (if not more so); we don't always have the luxury of discussion in small groups and whole class feedback before making such decisions!

Interesting
More difficult than expected to get into the mindset of someone from a different culture.

Discussion of the dilemmas made us aware of a huge burden of self-reliance. While this inspired some, it made others want to flee the need to make their own decisions.

Some of the dilemmas could have come from more than one of the speakers - not so much about belonging to a particular belief system as about being human.

If we really believe that choice is good, then we should look on dilemmas as offering choices.

Some of the belief systems represented (e.g. Bahá'ís, Quakers) described means or mechanisms within their community practice to help individuals and/or groups resolve dilemmas (in the case of the former, a particular kind of consultation; in the latter, "meetings for clearness").

To close the session, we have another handout reminding us of Kohlberg's stages of moral development. We first encountered these in the second session and they occasionally surfaced throughout the rest of the course. I'm not sure to what extent we've really got to grips with this by the end. Maybe the group as a whole is too tired to engage meaningfully with Kohlberg at this late stage.

In terms of what we do after this, the next course offered by Christians Aware goes under the title, "Meeting and Meditation". Starting Monday 23 May, we'll be going out to various places of worship around Leicester and joining in devotional and meditative sessions. Hopefully, that will build on some of what we've done in the course just finishing this evening.

At this final session, I record a few short video interviews with some of the participants, saying a little bit about what they've made of the course. Earlier in the evening, one attendee pointed out that the number of men who were speaking (and the amount of time they were taking to do so) far outweighed the women. In connection with that observation, I should say that I asked every person here this evening if they would say something short that I could video. The ones you see on the Council of Faiths YouTube channel were the only ones who consented. You can see the videos on our Mindfulness & Morality playlist.