The Science of Meditation: From Mysticism to Mainstream Western Psychology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychological applications of meditative practice have become the ‘third-wave’ tools in the psychology clinician’s therapeutic tool kit. Meditation techniques for numerous psychological disorders, as well as the psychological impacts of chronic medical conditions, are being used by a growing number of mainstream clinicians in Western healthcare contexts, which were previously the domain of alternative practitioners, and formerly the sometimes secretive and mysterious domain of the orthodox and esoteric spiritual traditions. Many questions arise regarding how this conversion has taken place and why. \n \nThis thesis explores some of the issues surrounding the adoption, reduction, and application of meditation practices from the Eastern and Western origins and transmission to mainstream Western healthcare contexts. By tracing the history of the rise in popularity of meditation in the mainstream Western health sciences, particularly within the mental health sector over the past century or so, it is intended to contribute to an answer to, in part, the question of ‘why’ and, in part, the question of ‘how’. \n \nA further question of whether sufficient cognizance has been taken of the subjective experiences and understandings of long-term meditation practitioners and what they can contribute to Western psychological understanding of meditation—its application potentials and pitfalls—is explored. Why is this important? At present, being intelligent, and highly trained, as most clinicians have come to believe they are, it has become somewhat taken for granted that reading journal articles or books on meditation, and attending a workshop or two, perhaps even a week-long residential training retreat, qualifies one to begin using meditation processes with clients. However, is clinician training and competency in the use of meditation currently sufficient to ensure its safe and appropriate use, particularly for psychologically impaired clients, given the phenomena reported by long-term meditators and the judicious preparatory processes required by teachers in the wisdom traditions of origin? \n \nUsing qualitative methodology and a social constructionist viewing lens, I elucidate whether Western psychology’s reductive approach may create barriers to the growth of a knowledge-field of the potential of meditation for personal and collective development and wellbeing—which has existed since antiquity, but which current psychological interest indicates is by no means antiquated. \n \nTwenty three semi-guided indepth interviews were conducted with 18 long-term meditators from diverse backgrounds and nationalities, to explore their subjective experiences—the phenomena they encountered and the meanings they ascribed to their meditation practices. What became apparent through the course of this research was the divergence that exists between the positivist Western scientific literature on meditation and the experiences and understandings of this sample of meditators. \n \nThe implications that arise from a paradigm clash between the fundamental premises of a positivist approach to a Western science of meditation for the healthcare sector and those of the wisdom traditions of origin are discussed. Finally, potential paths of resolution to enable contributions to the development of a knowledge-field of meditation for Western healthcare contexts from the understandings and technologies of both ways of knowing are mooted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it