IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v36y2025i1p361-386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Buddhist Mindfulness View of Paradox: Silence and Skepticism of Language to Dismantle Paradoxes

Author

Listed:
  • Hee-Chan Song

    (Sasin Major grant, Chulalongkorn University, Sasin School of Management, Pathum Wan, Bangkok 10330, Thailand)

Abstract

This study explores how Buddhist mindfulness as a self-reflective practice helps individuals respond to a paradox and ultimately dismantle it. To deeply immerse myself into this context, I conducted a nine-month ethnographic fieldwork in three Korean Buddhist temples that confront the paradox between the need for financial resources and spiritual values that disavow money. The findings show a series of cognitive mechanisms that reveal multiple roles of mindfulness, manifested as silence and skepticism of language. First, the monastic environment enables monks to become familiar with a life of silence that turns their attention to the inner mind from the external-empirical world. The silence serves as a mental buffer when monks switch between their sacred role and their business role. Over time, deep silence directs them to skepticism of language that triggers doubt on preexisting linguistic categories, boundaries, and separations. When the preexisting linguistic categories finally disappear in their mind, monks no longer rely on any differentiating or integrating tactic to navigate their paradox. In other words, they no longer perceive a paradox, which means the paradox has disappeared from their life. These cognitive mechanisms construct the monks’ worldview on contradictions, conflicts, and dualities, leading them from the experience of paradox to a unique mental state, the nonexperience of paradox. Integrating this mental state and the worldview of Buddhist monks with paradox research, this study theorizes a Buddhist mindfulness view of paradox.

Suggested Citation

  • Hee-Chan Song, 2025. "A Buddhist Mindfulness View of Paradox: Silence and Skepticism of Language to Dismantle Paradoxes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 361-386, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:361-386
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2023.17606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17606
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.2023.17606?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:36:y:2025:i:1:p:361-386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.