Unlikely. MN 61 says:
So you should train like this: ‘I will not tell a lie, even for a joke.’
MN 26 says:
This teaching is not easily understood
These ideas sound like American McMindfulness, where there is the self-suggested hallucination that insight (vipassana) is occurring while simultaneously drowning in defilements. AN 4.49 says:
They have seen what is non-self
as non-self and the unattractive as unattractive.
By the acquisition of right view,
they have overcome all suffering. ”
AN 4.49 does not say:
They have seen what is self as non-self
and the attractive as unattractive.
In other words, the ‘self’ & the ‘not-self’ are not discerned simultaneously.
Mindfulness remembers & brings to mind learned past knowledge. Mindfulness does not directly “see” the unrevealed/unseen truth.
I think the onus falls upon the supporters of Hillside to substantiate their ideas about the role of mindfulness via sutta quotes.
The above is a strange idea. Is there a sutta to support this idea?
It seems the notion of STREAM-ENTRY means the mind INCLINES towards Nibbana therefore there is no “resistance” requiring becoming “accustomed”. 
Personally, the above attempted connection between the unwholesome & the wholesome seems tenuous. To reiterate, from my reading of Hillside, the impression is:
- There is mind that discerns
- There are objects discerned.
Hillside said:
Mindfulness done correctly is when the mind is anchored in something. That something must be a thing that is not directly attended to, but instead, has to be a reference point to the attended thing (hence we call it “anchor”). If a thing is not directly attended to but there, we call that thing to be a “background”. It’s a background to a thing we attend (which makes that thing a “foreground”). This is the basic principle of mindfulness, on which we can expand here below.
Now, the above is papanca to me. However, this attempted principle is explained by the suttas with the following example from AN 9.36:
There is the case where a monk, secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born of seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He regards whatever phenomena there that are connected with form, feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness, as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a disintegration, an emptiness, not-self. He turns his mind away from those phenomena, and having done so, inclines his mind to the property of deathlessness: ‘This is peace, this is exquisite — the resolution of all fabrications; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding.’
AN 9.36
If the above is not understood, SN 48.9 says:
A noble disciple, relying on letting go, gains immersion, gains unification of mind.
SN 48.9
If the above is not understood, returning to topic, Bhikkhu Buddhadasa said:
As for samadhi, an empty mind is the supreme samadhi, the supremely focused firmness of mind. The straining and striving sort of samadhi isn’t the real thing and the samadhi which aims at anything other than non-clinging to the five khandas is micchasamadhi (wrong or perverted samadhi). You should be aware that there is both micchasamadhi and sammasamadhi (right or correct samadhi). Only the mind that is empty of grasping at and clinging to ‘I’ and ‘mine’ can have the true and perfect stability of sammasamadhi. One who has an empty mind has correct samadhi.
Bhikkhu Buddhadasa - Heart-Wood from the Bodhi Tree
While the papanca of Hillside is difficult to follow, my impression is, per the topic, the interpretation of Hillside is the opposite of Buddhadasa and the opposite of the suttas.
Buddhadasa & the suttas say:
- The primary meditation object is non-attachment.
- The secondary meditation object is body, factors of jhana, etc.
To repeat, Hillside said:
Mindfulness done correctly is when the mind is anchored in something.
Buddhadasa reply: Yes, the mind is anchored in non-attachment, per AN 9.36 & SN 48.9.
That something must be a thing that is not directly attended to
Buddhadasa disagrees. Buddhadasa says: “That something/non-attachment must be a thing that is directly attended to”, per SN 47.20, for example.
but instead, has to be a reference point to the attended thing (hence we call it “anchor”).
The above idea of a “reference point” seems unrelated to what must be directly attended to. The impression is Hillside here have been influenced by the idiosyncratic idea of “Frames of Reference” concocted by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
If a thing is not directly attended to but there, we call that thing to be a “background”.
As previously said, the above is difficult for me to follow. But according to both Buddhadasa and the Suttas, non-attachment is the “primary object” and body, feelings, citta & realities are the “background”.
It’s a background to a thing we attend (which makes that thing a “foreground”).
The thing we attend to, according to Buddhadasa and the Suttas, is non-attachment, as stated in MN 10, SN 48.9 and AN 9.36.
The thing Hillside is saying we attend to remains unclear to me.
This is the basic principle of mindfulness, on which we can expand here below.
Buddhadasa said the basic principle of mindfulness is to bring wisdom to a specific situation; this specific wisdom for the situation being “sampajanna”. This sati-sampajjana, per the Suttas (MN 117), is a “support” for the development of samadhi & the direct seeing of Right Knowledge. The role of mindfulness is not to convince/brainwash the mind things are not-self. The perception of not-self is a direct perception. 
Thus MN 149 says:
When the noble eightfold path is developed… these two qualities proceed in conjunction: serenity and discernment (samatho ca vipassanā ca)
MN 149
MN 117 says:
Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right immersion. Right immersion gives rise to right knowledge. Right knowledge gives rise to right freedom.
MN 117 does not say:
Right effort gives rise to right mindfulness. Right mindfulness gives rise to right knowledge.
AN 11.2 says:
It’s only natural to truly know and see when your mind is immersed in samādhi.
AN 11.2 does not say:
It’s only natural to truly know and see when your mind is immersed in mindfulness.
AN 10.61 says:
In the same way, when the factor of associating with good people 
is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the true teaching. When the factor of listening to the true teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … proper attention … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom.
AN 10.61 does not say what Hillside seems to be saying, namely:
In the same way, when the factor of associating with dog-patting 
people is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of listening to the idiosyncratic Satre Nietzsche 
teaching. When the factor of listening to the idiosyncratic teaching is fulfilled, it fulfills the factor of faith … mindfulness and situational awareness … sense restraint …the three kinds of good conduct … the four kinds of mindfulness meditation … proper attention (yoniso manasikara)… the seven awakening factors. When the seven awakening factors are fulfilled, they fulfill knowledge and freedom.
As I previously, my impression is yoniso manasikara is merely a preliminary practice in the Suttas, in AN 10.61 and why SN 45.50–55 calls it “the dawn” that is the “forerunner” of the Eightfold Path.
