Our theists of all labels please answer....

[emjay]

I agree... empathy is innate... can I go now?  

SILENCE!  No, not until I work you over with brass knuckles and pepper spray.

I thought you were already doing that  

If you agree empathy is innate, then why would you feel the need to point to any "teachings". If empathy is in us, and I agree it is us, then no need to follow or like anything. You can, sure, but why would you feel the need? If you like that then ultimately you are admitting it is merely something you like, and not something that is required. Empathy being innate, and I agree proves no label or writing is required to explain where our empathy comes from.

Because mindfulness is not about empathy, it's about recognising your own mental state, whatever it is... eg recognising when you're feeling angry... which is also an innate state... and therefore taking a step back from it. Once you recognise a mental state you're in objectively, it loses some of its power over you... you can then choose whether to get sucked into it or let it go.

You may like being in anger but I don't. To me, anger is a miserable state to be in and one I'd rather not be in if I can help it... and with mindfulness I can help it. It is a way of tackling suffering from the inside; of accepting that you can't control the world, only your response to it. If you're angry and you argue with other angry people, nothing good ever comes from it... both sides dig in... both sides suffer from tunnel vision... both sides want to be right... both sides don't want to back down etc. But if you objectively recognise all of that, you can nip it in the bud before it starts or let go of whatever fuels it later on... such as personal feelings of pride.

FOAM FOAM FOAM, FROTH FROTH FROTH..... FIST SHAKE, ........ ABBA VIDEO! 

Please do... we could do with some ABBA

Just something for you to consider. If it is simply a personal like, then admit it, that's all. 

But once you go beyond calling it something that is more than a like, then you cant simply claim objectivity, you have to produce a neutral method and allow it to have independent peer review.

It is a personal thing... 'like'... and that's all I've ever said. It's a psychological approach that works for me... something else may work for you. But it only appeals to me on logical/scientific grounds; I do not believe in gods, I do not believe in reincarnation, I am not superstitious in any way, shape, or form. I'm aware of all the tricks the mind can play... confirmation bias, self-fulfilling prophesies, gap-filling as you mention below. Mindfulness speaks for itself, wherever the idea comes from because at it's core it's simply a means of introspection. I've always been introspective, long before I learnt about Buddhism, so I was already being mindful in many regards... Buddhist teachings just built on that and that's why they appealed. As to peer review, I'm sure it's already been done, to the extent that it's used in modern psychological therapy. But as I said, it speaks for itself because it's just observation of your own mind.

Son of a bitch sorry emjay, all this time I thought you were female.

NOW SEE that is also part of this, our brains gap fill and our perceptions of reality can be flawed. I don't know how I got that idea, but I gap filled. But now that you have corrected me, I now know you are a bloke.

No worries... you're not the first I'm just a gay bloke and not particularly manly... I'd rather talk about feelings than football... so that's probably why