The Legacy of Mindfulness: Has Science Failed to Understand Buddhist Meditation?

Has science missed the point of meditation?

Credible challenges to the reliability of mindfulness research have led to many attempts to explain how Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) developed. In particular, how mindfulness was adopted by health and social policy in the UK ahead of robust evidence for its benefits. Originally, MBSR was promoted as a fusion or bridge between Buddhist and scientific knowledge. Although few scientific studies repeated this trope, it has been influential in giving MBSR spiritual authority to support preliminary scientific claims. One of the most important reviews of the ‘bridging hypothesis’ was published in 2006. Mechanisms of Mindfulness was a paper by Shauna Shapiro and others for the Journal of Clinical Psychology and illustrates major problems in how science understands and treats religion.¹

MBSR was a paradigmatic concept that set the trajectory for many of the 30,000 peer-reviewed mindfulness studies published since 1981.² Psychology can easily measure the empirical effects of meditation, changes to heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen consumption, for example. However, research has illustrated that rather than ‘bridge’ science and Buddhism, mindfulness researchers failed to establish a coherent theoretical framework from either perspective. The idea that MBSR did not reflect Buddhist thought and practice is not new; dozens of academic papers have sought to explain what is missing from the mindfulness paradigm. Of these Mechanisms of Mindfulness may illustrate the profound limitations in how science understands Buddhist thought and practice.

The first point to make is that Mechanisms of Mindfulness took a favourable view of mindfulness’s potential health benefits; it was not a ‘critical’ challenge.

Over the past 20 years, the majority of research has focused on clinical intervention studies to evaluate the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions such as the Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program. This line of research has primarily addressed the first order question “Are mindfulness-based interventions effective?” These studies have led to promising data suggesting that MBSR is an effective intervention for treatment of both psychological and physical symptoms. p. 374

However, the main issue the paper raised is that MBSR created a conceptual vacuum in which treatment was delivered. That is, in the previous quarter of a century, mindfulness was being used without a clear scientific understanding of what it was or how it worked.

However, an equally important direction for future research is to address the second order question“How do mindfulness-based interventions actually work?” p.374

This uncertainty confirms that MBSR was not established using scientific or Buddhist rationales. However, Shapiro and her co-authors went further, claiming that key elements of Buddhist mindfulness (intention and compassion) were removed in the creation of the Western versions of the practice:

When Western psychology attempted to extract the essence of mindfulness practice from its original religious/cultural roots, we lost, to some extent, the aspect of intention, which for Buddhism was enlightenment and compassion for all beings. p. 375

Surprisingly, MBSR lacked the foundational elements, concepts, and methods of the Buddhist traditions it claimed to have had congruence with. When researchers pointed out these limitations, some mindfulness advocates, such as Jon Kabat-Zinn, doubled down on the unevidenced claims that MBSR reflected Buddhist values. Ignoring the criticisms of Buddhist scholars, Kabat-Zinn suggested his writings had synthesized, to some extent, the Buddha’s wisdom:

My intention and hope was that the book might embody to whatever degree possible the dharma essence of the Buddha’s teachings put into action and made accessible to mainstream Americans facing stress, pain, and illness. p. 282. ³

Despite the controversial nature of such a statement, the idea that MBSR and MBIs reflected Buddhist practices persisted. The failure of the scientific community to push back against unevidenced claims of Buddhist congruence was a major contribution to the crisis in mindfulness research. Lacking a stable theoretical framework, mindfulness was neither ‘scientific’ nor ‘Buddhist’. It was used pragmatically to demonstrate correlations between meditation and health rather than explain how it worked.⁴ Criticisms of the scientific quality of mindfulness research are widespread. The main issue raised here is the freedom with which religious thought and practice is presented in peer-reviewed literature.

By making unevidenced claims about Buddhist mindfulness, MBSR and MBIs were built on theoretical uncertainty. Perhaps even more problematic is the ease with which Buddhist thought and practice were adapted and misrepresented in the search for new health interventions. There are important issues here about the subordination of religion by science, which can lead to misunderstanding in the wider society. However, the great loss is that by manufacturing an imaginary of mindfulness rather than developing a comprehensive understanding, we know very little about the benefits of traditional forms of meditation. Most Buddhist meditation methods tend to a nondual view, while science is essentially dualistic. In reinventing meditation through a dualistic lens, the richness and potential benefits of nondual meditation have been removed from contemporary practices.

---

References

1. Shapiro, Shauna L., Linda E. Carlson, John A. Astin, and Benedict Freedman. “Mechanisms of mindfulness.” Journal of clinical psychology 62, no. 3 (2006): 373-386.
2. Morris, Stephen Gene. “The Scientific History of Mindfulness: 1938 to 2020.” PhD diss., University of Kent,, 2024. https://kar.kent.ac.uk/106240/
3. Kabat-Zinn, Jon. “Some reflections on the origins of MBSR, skillful means, and the trouble with maps.” In Mindfulness, pp. 281-306. Routledge, 2013.
4. Van Dam, Nicholas T., Marieke K. Van Vugt, David R. Vago, Laura Schmalzl, Clifford D. Saron, Andrew Olendzki, Ted Meissner et al. “Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation.” Perspectives on psychological science 13, no. 1 (2018): 36-61.