Buddhist‐derived and Western psychological approaches to clinical mindfulness appear to vary in their understandings of the construct, even as training in each results in improvements in well‐being. I describe the similarities and differences in these approaches that lead to misunderstandings in the clinical literature, including the often unstated personal commitment some clinicians and researchers have in the Buddhist system and view of meditation practice. All the programs ask participants to attend to their experience in particular ways, however, and the more general and clinically profitable question is what, if any, are the therapeutic properties they have in common. This question can be approached by examining the instructions participants are asked to follow in the trainings and in their everyday lives. Patients of different temperaments and backgrounds will find one approach more attractive than another. By delineating the qualities of attending the programs share and considering the ways each approach can complement the other and patients will be better served. This approach can also result in a better understanding of processes common across other mind–body training programs.