Theoretical Foundations to Guide Mindfulness Meditation: A Path to Wisdom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mindfulness interventions are becoming increasingly popular across a wide variety of clinical and non-clinical settings where they are often employed to promote psychological well-being. Mindfulness in its original context presented in Buddhist practice is used to systematically understand one’s moment-to-moment experience, and to gradually develop self-knowledge and wisdom. Buddhist teachings describe wisdom as seeing things just as they are - a requisite for the complete freedom from suffering. In psychological writings, although the construct of wisdom lacks a commonly accepted definition, direct experiential self-knowledge is considered to be an essential element of wisdom. The purpose of this article is to examine the three major trainings of the Buddhist path, as well as some of the key Buddhist theoretical constructs, in order to explore their contribution to the gradual development of experiential self-knowledge and wisdom. In Buddhist traditions, mindfulness is practised in the context of a moral and philosophical system, and the mind is described as a sequence of momentary mental states, each distinct and discrete, their connections with one another being causal. We explain how a clear understanding of mindfulness within the context of this broader theoretical framework can be helpful to individuals engaging in different levels of the mindfulness meditation practice, and how this understanding can result in more sustained outcomes for mindfulness interventions. Further explorations are made into how various barriers and motivators to mindfulness meditation can be better understood by linking the theoretical aspects with current research literature on mindfulness.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".