Challenging and Adverse Meditation Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Challenging meditation experiences have been documented in Buddhist literature, in psychological research, and in a recent qualitative study by the authors. Some of the central questions in the investigation of this topic are: How are meditation-related challenges to be interpreted or appraised? Through which processes are experiences determined to be expected or “normative” aspects of contemplative development versus undesirable “adverse effects” or psychopathology? And is it possible to differentiate or disambiguate the two? A review of available research suggests that distinguishing between experiences that are religious or mystical and those that indicate psychopathology depends on detailed knowledge of the specific contexts in which these experiences occur. Furthermore, research that specifically examines meditation-related challenges shows that interpretations, causal explanations, and recommended responses are often negotiated between practitioners and other people in their practice settings and larger social communities. This chapter considers some of the social dynamics of these appraisal processes and explores some of the consequences of adopting different appraisals. However, because there can be a lack of consensus around how experiences should be interpreted or appraised, a more useful question may be: What type of support does this particular experience require? Systematic attention to social context can both inform research on meditation-related challenges and provide guidance on the issues surrounding their appraisal and management in both clinical and non-clinical contexts.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".