View, meditation, action: A Tibetan framework to inform psychedelic-assisted therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whether occasioned through careful, consistent meditative practice or through quicker means like the ritual ingestion of psilocybin or ayahuasca, global contemplative practices have established effective systems of implementing, directing, and integrating the very kinds of non-ordinary experiences central to psychedelic use. However, contemplative traditions are largely absent from the present discourse on psychedelic therapy. This paper addresses this gap and offers a novel analysis of psychedelic-assisted therapy through the lens of the Tibetan Buddhist contemplative tradition. It first establishes a baseline for comparing the non-ordinary experience occasioned by Tibetan Buddhist meditation and the psychedelic experience by referencing the phenomenological literature of both. It then articulates the Tibetan contemplative framework of view, meditation, action (Tib. lta sgom spyod gsum ) as the way Tibetan Buddhism directs its non-ordinary meditative experience towards its desired ends and suggests how this framework may be applied to psychedelic-assisted therapy. Finally, this paper uses this Tibetan Buddhist lens of analysis to compare and assess two protocols for psychedelic-assisted therapy and to make recommendations for future clinical protocols. Given the phenomenological similarity of Tibetan Buddhist meditative experience and the psychedelic experience, this article suggests that a more intensive preparatory session where maladaptive conceptual narratives are worked through and beneficial ones are introduced, repeated dosing sessions, and a more directed psychedelic experience may increase the efficacy of psychedelic-assisted therapy. It thus argues that the insights of the Tibetan framework of view, meditation, action can improve future protocols and allow for psychedelic-assisted therapy to be of even greater benefit.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".