Tag: meditation

The Role of Refuge in Mindfulness Practice

Refuge – A Buddhist concept missed by meditation scientists

Why the Absence of Refuge Undermines Western Mindfulness

Western psychology has embraced mindfulness as a panacea, an intervention linked to reduced stress, treating clinical depression, and even improving cognitive function. However, despite its popularity, the lack of robust evidence for its clinical benefits has led many practitioners and scientists to speculate on why the presumed effects of traditional meditation have not been translated into clinical practice.

One of the key elements of traditional meditation, often missing from Western mindfulness, is the concept of Refuge. Refuge is a foundational concept in many meditation traditions, orienting the practitioner’s mind within a broader spiritual and relational framework. In Buddhist meditation, mindfulness is not a standalone technique; it arises within the context of the Refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma (the Buddha’s teachings), and the Sangha (the community of practitioners). Taking Refuge in these three elements provides an existential grounding and generates confidence in the meditation practice.

The precise nature of Refuge can vary according to the practitioner’s experience and Buddhist school within which the meditation is practised. However, in almost every case, it provides a mindset that serves as a stable base for meditation. Without Refuge, the act of mindfulness risks becoming an attentional exercise, uncoupled from many of the mental processes present in Buddhist meditation. There is growing unrest among some practitioner-scientists about the decontextualisation of mindfulness from traditional forms of meditation; that is, in Westernising and commodifying meditation, the benefits of traditional practice may have been lost.

Segall (2001) argues that when stripped of its Buddhist theoretical frameworks, Western mindfulness loses its transformative potential, becoming susceptible to institutional agendas and materialist objectives.1 Khong (2012) also highlights the limitations of detaching mindfulness from its Buddhist theoretical frameworks.2

Refuge in mindfulness practice
Refuge – The foundation of mindfulness practice

The absence of Refuge is likely to impact cognitive processes and mechanisms able to mediate wellbeing in several ways:

Firstly, a lack of existential orientation: Refuge provides a holistic and spiritual telos, enabling a sense of direction towards awakening and compassion. Without these processes, Western mindfulness tends to privilege mundane, dualistic awareness, overlooking its transcendent and ethical purposes.

Isolation and individualism: The concept of Sangha offers a broader sense of community and collective purpose. The tendency of mindfulness to focus on individual, solitary needs disrupts the balance between self and other, which is central to most nondual Buddhist meditation.

Cognitive reductionism: Buddhist Refuge engages the whole person in context, emotionally, ethically and spiritually. Western clinical meditation methods typically privilege the extrinsic brain network, overlooking mental processes rooted solely in the intrinsic system.

Commodification: The absence of Refuge enables the reconfiguring of mindfulness as a health product, enabling the technique to be co-opted by corporations and institutions, including the military. This shift reshapes the mental processes used in meditation, reinforcing systemic stressors rather than challenging them.

Refuge and the commidification of meditation
The commodification of meditation may have limited its health benefits

The commodification of meditation may have limited its health benefits compared to both traditional practices and scientifically validated interventions. Taking the bigger picture into account, these concerns are the tip of an iceberg.

There is growing disquiet about the cost of the ‘mindfulness experiment’. Estimates of the global bill for the scientific investigation of mindfulness from the 1970s to date range between £1 bn and £5 bn. Several billion more represent the cost of the proliferation of the technique and the investment in training teachers and providing wider support materials. Most scientists working in this field would agree, practising mindfulness brings a degree of relaxation equivalent to and sometimes slightly greater than hundreds of other mundane human behaviours, like art or gardening.

Refuge is a concept rooted in a dual/nondual tension. An issue that is ignored by almost all meditation scientists. The psychological sciences generally present consciousness as a dualistic enterprise. For psychologists, even a preliminary understanding of Buddhism’s theoretical foundations requires a reimagining of mindfulness to access the health benefits of traditional meditation methods. On the balance of evidence, Western versions of traditional meditation are oversimplified and entirely uncoupled from the original curative network that so attracted Western academics from the 1930s onward.

The results of 90 years of meditation research have demonstrated that focusing solely on technique has been a significant error. Integrating elements of Refuge, even from a secular perspective, is likely to restore depth and direction to meditation methods. For example, a starting point for the reintroduction of Refuge could include: The use of transdisciplinary research to establish the cognitive components present in traditional Refuge and to develop the relevant theoretical framework. Encouraging practitioners to understand the concept of Refuge and apply the theoretical framework to their own conditions. Framing mindfulness within a broader narrative of healing, ethical living and growth. Developing secular practices that can cultivate interdependence, compassion and shared community.

Khong has convincingly argued that the maturation of Western mindfulness requires a return to its roots, not to replicate religious forms, but to realign the Westernised practice with the original mental processes that may hold robust potential rather than the marginal benefits that most reliable, optimistic studies present.

The concept of Refuge reminds us that dualist presence alone is not transformative, not on the spiritual nor the clinical levels.  Its absence from Western practices, even in a secular form, evidences the current limitations in how psychology understands and engages with mindtraining originating in non-scientific domains.

References:

Khong, B. S. L. (2021). Revisiting and Re-Envisoning Mindfulness: Buddhist and Contemporary Perspectives. The Humanistic Psychologist, 49(1), 3 -18.  

Segall, S. Z. (2021). Mindfulness In and Out of Context of Western Buddhist Modernism. The Humanistic Psychologist, 49(1), 40-55.

Can Medicalised Mindfulness Evolve?

Could Mindtraining for Life be the long-awaited new dawn for contemplative science?

Most meditation scientists agree that significant progress is needed if contemplative practices are to meet the claims made for their benefits over the last 70 years. Medicalised mindfulness has established a role as a practice that can reduce stress, anxiety, and, in some instances, cognitive dysfunctions. While its clinical applications, especially in protocols like Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), have gained some traction, a growing body of critique highlights its limitations: conceptual vagueness, inconsistent outcomes, and detachment from its philosophical roots.

Robust correlations between regular spiritual meditation practice and improved happiness and wellbeing continue to be observed in peer-reviewed literature and society more generally. Psychology has been attempting to harness the curative power of spiritual meditation for over 70 years.1 It seems that whenever meditation and mindfulness are converted to mechanistic practices, and subject to empirical evaluation, most of the health and wellbeing benefits simply dissolve. In experiments, we frequently see modest changes used as ‘evidence’ that medicalised meditation and mindfulness work (an estimated 97% of mindfulness experiments lack adequate controls).

What will medicalised mindfulness evovle into
Religion and science remain ontologically incompatible

It’s probably not possible or desirable to prescribe religious practices as health interventions; that’s not how the spiritual path works. However, there is evidence that secular forms of meditation could still play a significant role in tackling the mental health crisis unfolding across many advanced economies. Medicalised meditation has consistently failed to establish the active cognitive components present in traditional meditation training. In my own private practice, Mindtraining for Life (MfL), we use rationales consistent with nondual Buddhism and psychology, and the benefits to clients’ happiness, wellbeing and success are clear.

Of course, MfL is one of several emerging frameworks that appear to offer a more structured, cognitively rigorous alternative to medicalised meditation. Its unique element is its integration of profound nondual knowledge outside of an explicitly Buddhist context.

If the mindfulness project has failed, what will replace it?
Science has failed to understand the relationship between meditation and consciousness.

At its core, MfL reframes mental resilience not as a passive state of “non-reactivity,” but as an active, trainable skillset grounded in attentional control, cognitive flexibility, and strategic self-regulation. Unlike medicalised mindfulness, which often relies on Westernised dualistic meditation, materialistic concepts of self and other, and ambiguous notions of “present moment awareness,” MfL emphasises goal-directed mental rehearsal, cognitive reframing, emotional regulation, and a basic training in nondual compassion. These techniques are not only more objectively measurable than current medicalised equivalents but also more compatible with neuropsychological models of executive function and emotional regulation.

From a scientific standpoint, this shift matters. Medicalised mindfulness has struggled with reproducibility, standardisation, effect size variability across populations and the concept of nonduality. Meta-analyses reveal modest benefits despite the creation of hundreds of mindfulness variants. Moreover, reliance on fragmented understandings of introspective phenomenology makes mindfulness impossible to standardise across clinical trials and other experiments. MfL’s protocols can be broken down into discrete cognitive tasks, such as attentional switching, scenario visualisation, nondual progression, and resilience scripting; these are likely more amenable to both behavioural and neuroimaging studies. By focusing on individual client needs as a starting point, MfL has retained the holistic and curative value of traditional nondual practices, complemented by reliable neuropsychology. From this platform, a degree of standardisation and operationalisation is likely. Another way to think about this, is in terms of a bottom-up model for contemplative science. After more than a decade of research in this field, I’m certain medicalised meditation needs a more reliable theoretical framework. By creating successful secular equivalents of nondual practices on a one-to-one basis, then scaling them up, we may be seeing the science of meditation turned on its head.

Another advantage of MfL lies in its philosophical neutrality. Medicalised mindfulness often inherits Western interpretation of Buddhist metaphysics (e.g., non-self, impermanence) without critical examination. It then seeks to place these concepts within psychology’s dualistic framework, leading to ontological confusion. Mindtraining sidesteps this by focusing on cognitive processes rather than spiritual insight. This makes it more accessible to diverse populations and more adaptable to transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary research.

Time to try a new approach to contemplative science

Importantly, mindtraining also addresses a key critique of mindfulness: its tendency to individualise systemic stress. By equipping individuals with tools to observe first and then strategically engage with psychological suffering, thus mind training fosters agency and contextual awareness. This aligns with contemporary models of psychological resilience, which emphasise dynamic interaction between person and environment.

In summary, while mindfulness meditation has opened the door to contemplative science, its medicalised form may have reached a conceptual plateau. Mindtraining, as exemplified by the WfL model, offers a promising evolution, one that is cognitively precise, empirically tractable, and philosophically grounded. For scientists and clinicians seeking robust and scalable interventions to work with, it may be time to shift their focus from passive awareness to active mental agility.

1 Morris, Stephen Gene (2024) The Scientific History of Mindfulness: 1938 to 2020. University of Kent,. (doi:10.22024/UniKent/01.02.106240) (KAR id:106240). https://kar.kent.ac.uk/106240/

Dr Stephen Gene Morris is a Consultant in Applied Neuropsychology and the founder of Mind Training for Life.

What Meditation Should You Choose?

The Most Important and Least Asked Question…

I’ve highlighted 100 of the most widely used forms of meditation below; however, please take a moment to read the explanation and context first.

At the start of my journey with meditation, I thought ‘meditation’ was just one thing, one practice, one method. But while, by definition, there is a general collection of behaviours we think of as ‘meditation’, the differences between practices can be unimaginable. Take the case of mindfulness meditation. In its original Buddhist form, it is a basic traditional practice directly connected to the spiritual path. There are, however, many forms of ‘mindfulness’ in different Buddhist traditions, some suitable for beginners, while others are regarded as advanced practices. Mindfulness meditation was reinvented by Western scientists as a form of medicalised therapy in the 1970s. We now have at least 50 different forms of mindfulness being used in Western clinical settings, each with a slightly different configuration that affects meditators in different ways. For almost all meditators, whether spiritual or secular, young or old, novice or experienced, the key issue when looking for a method is to be clear about your meditation goals and use a practice that can help you reach your objectives.

To learn more about the challenges and opportunities associated with the scientific appropriation of mindfulness, click here. To understand what the secularisation of meditation means to people practising meditation, read this article on the Mindtraining website.

I’ve catalogued over 500 distinct forms of meditation in my own research; the 100 listed below are among the most popular. For each method listed, there are dozens of variants. Some of those included have been scientifically validated, other techniques are unknown to psychology. Take these descriptions as relative and do some research before you commit to any meditation teacher or practice.

Core Meditation Techniques – Defining Practices

  1. Mindfulness Meditation – Split between traditional Buddhist and Western medicalised forms. Observing thoughts and sensations without judgment in the present moment.
  2. Focused Attention Meditation – Concentrating on a single object like breath, a candle, or a mantra.
  3. Open Monitoring Meditation – Maintaining awareness of all aspects of experience without fixation.
  4. Loving-Kindness (Metta) – Generating feelings of love and compassion for self and others.
  5. Vipassana – Insight-oriented observation of bodily sensations to develop self-awareness.
  6. Samatha – Calming the mind through focused attention, often on the breath.
  7. Zazen – Seated meditation from Zen Buddhism emphasising non-thinking and posture.
  8. Kundalini Meditation – Awakening energy at the base of the spine using breath, movement, and mantra.
  9. Transcendental Meditation (TM) – Using a personalised mantra to transcend thought.
  10. Mantra Meditation – Repeating sacred sounds or phrases to quiet the mind.

Yogic & Hindu Meditation Methods

  1. Yoga Nidra – Deep relaxation meditation conducted in a sleep-like state.
  2. Trataka – Gazing at a fixed point (e.g. candle flame) to develop concentration.
  3. Nada Yoga – Meditating on sound, either external or internal auditory experiences.
  4. Chakra Meditation – Focusing attention on energy centers to align body and mind.
  5. Tantra Meditation – Using ritual and visualization to integrate spiritual energy.
  6. Bhakti Meditation – Devotion-based meditation through prayer, chant, and surrender.
  7. Japa Meditation – Repetition of mantras using mala beads for counting.
  8. Raja Yoga Meditation – Combining ethical living, concentration, and absorption.
  9. Atma Vichara (Self-Inquiry) – Asking “Who am I?” to realize true self or consciousness.
  10. Sahaja Meditation – Effortless awareness focusing on spontaneous attention.

Buddhist Meditation Approaches

  1. Tonglen – Taking in suffering and breathing out compassion.
  2. Shamatha-Vipassana – Pairing calm abiding with profound insight.
  3. Walking Meditation – Practising mindfulness while moving slowly and deliberately.
  4. Dzogchen – Resting in the nature of mind, spontaneous presence.
  5. Mahamudra – Recognising awareness itself as the path and goal.
  6. Analytical Meditation – Reflecting intellectually to penetrate Buddhist teachings.
  7. Visualisation of Deities – Mentally constructing divine forms for transformation.
  8. Five Aggregates Meditation – Contemplating the components of personhood to dissolve illusion.
  9. Six Elements Meditation – Reflecting on earth, water, fire, air, space, and consciousness.
  10. Death Meditation (Maranasati) – Contemplating mortality to deepen presence.

Psychotherapeutic Meditation & Modern Adaptations

  1. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) – A Controversial clinical approach to managing stress through mindfulness. The dominant form favoured by health and social policy organisations and businesses.
  2. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) – Combines mindfulness with CBT to prevent depression relapse in limited cases.
  3. Acceptance and Commitment Meditation – Noticing thoughts while committing to values-led action.
  4. Body Scan Meditation – Progressive awareness of bodily sensations.
  5. Somatic Experiencing Meditation – Tuning into internal body signals to release trauma.
  6. ACT-Based Present Moment Meditation – Grounding in sensory awareness and defusion techniques.
  7. Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) Mindfulness – Cultivating nonjudgmental present awareness in emotion regulation.
  8. Compassion-Focused Meditation – Generating warmth toward self and others to counter shame.
  9. Interpersonal Mindfulness – Bringing awareness to real-time relational interaction.
  10. Reflective Meditation – Allowing thoughts to arise while exploring emotional resonances.

Esoteric Meditation Methods & Energy Based Practices

  1. Qi Gong Meditation – Coordinating breath, movement, and intention to cultivate life energy.
  2. Taoist Inner Smile – Sending smiling energy to internal organs to promote healing.
  3. Astral Projection Meditation – Guiding consciousness beyond the physical body.
  4. Crystal Meditation – Using crystals to amplify specific energies and intentions.
  5. Light Meditation – Visualising inner or external light for healing or illumination.
  6. Reiki Meditation – Channelling universal energy through hands or mind for self-care.
  7. Kabbalistic Meditation – Contemplating Hebrew letters, names of God, or Tree of Life.
  8. Merkaba Activation Meditation – Awakening geometric energy fields for ascension.
  9. Third Eye Meditation – Focusing between the brows to develop intuitive insight.
  10. Aura Cleansing Meditation – Visualising the purification of personal energy fields.

Technology Enhanced Meditation Techniques

  1. Binaural Beats Meditation – Using audio frequencies to synchronise brainwaves.
  2. Guided Imagery Meditation – Listening to narrated journeys to evoke relaxation or insight.
  3. VR Meditation – Immersing oneself in virtual landscapes to deepen sensory engagement.
  4. App-Based Mindfulness – Practising structured sessions via digital platforms.
  5. Neurofeedback Meditation – Real-time monitoring to enhance brainwave states.
  6. Sound Bath Meditation – Experiencing healing vibrations through instruments like gongs or singing bowls.
  7. AI-Guided Meditation – Interactive sessions with responsive virtual facilitators.
  8. Subliminal Audio Meditation – Listening to layered affirmations below the conscious threshold.
  9. Digital Detox Meditation – Mindfully disengaging from screens and digital noise.
  10. Eye Mask Meditation – Sensory deprivation to intensify inward attention.

Cultural Based & Devotional Meditation

  1. Christian Contemplative Prayer – Meditative silence in God’s presence.
  2. Hesychasm – Repetitive Jesus Prayer to enter inner stillness.
  3. Islamic Dhikr Meditation – Repetitive remembrance of divine names.
  4. Sufi Whirling Meditation – Physical rotation to induce spiritual ecstasy.
  5. Jewish Hitbodedut – Speaking spontaneously with God for inner clarity.
  6. Native American Vision Quest – Solitary reflection in nature to seek guidance.
  7. Shamanic Drumming Meditation – Entering altered states through rhythmic beat.
  8. African Ubuntu Meditation – Reflecting on interconnectedness and community spirit.
  9. Hawaiian Ho‘oponopono – Repeating forgiveness phrases for reconciliation.
  10. Vedic Fire Ritual Meditation – Meditating on the flame as a transformation symbol.

Specialized Meditation & Hybrid Techniques

  1. Sleep Meditation – Relaxation practices to support restful sleep.
  2. Gratitude Meditation – Focusing on positive experiences and appreciation.
  3. Goal Visualization Meditation – Envisioning desired outcomes to prime action.
  4. Stoic Reflection Meditation – Contemplating virtue, mortality, and control.
  5. Emotional Release Meditation – Allowing feelings to arise and dissolve mindfully.
  6. Productivity Meditation – Grounding and setting intentions before focused work.
  7. Decision-Making Meditation – Clarifying values and options through reflection.
  8. Micro-Meditation – Quick resets throughout the day for clarity.
  9. Habit Formation Meditation – Embedding new routines through intentional repetition.
  10. Creative Flow Meditation – Tapping intuition to support artistic expression.

Nature Based Meditation – Connected

  1. Forest Bathing (Shinrin-Yoku) – Immersing attention in natural environments.
  2. Sun Gazing Meditation – Safely gazing near sunrise/sunset for energy absorption.
  3. Ocean Meditation – Synchronising breath with wave rhythms.
  4. Mountain Meditation – Visualising grounded presence and strength.
  5. Rain Meditation – Listening to or imagining rainfall to induce calm.
  6. Earth Element Meditation – Connecting with soil and grounded energy.
  7. Sky Meditation – Embracing expansive awareness through open sky imagery.
  8. Animal Observation Meditation – Mindfully watching animal behaviour to mirror presence.
  9. Campfire Contemplation – Reflecting in silence near flickering flames.
  10. Seasons Meditation – Noting changes in internal and external cycles.

Meditation for Cognitive Enhancement

  1. Meta-Cognition Meditation – Observing one’s thinking patterns consciously.
  2. Neurosculpting Meditation – Rewiring thought through mindfulness and neuroplasticity.
  3. Synesthesia Meditation – Exploring cross-sensory imaginative states.
  4. Reverse Engineering Meditation – Analysing actions to understand their motivations.
  5. Memory Palace Meditation – Visualising spatial locations to encode information.
  6. Intuition Calibration Meditation – Fine-tuning inner signals for decision-making.
  7. Language Awareness Meditation – Observing mental language formation.
  8. Time Perception Meditation – Altering awareness.
  9. Mind Training Meditation – Changing brain function and structure.
  10. Emotional Regulation Practice – Mediating emotions with the Executive Function.

How Psychology Misunderstood Mindfulness and What We Do Now

Part 2: Evolution, not Revolution

This is part 2; part 1 can be found here.

Part 1 describes the processes through which mindfulness has been converted from a religious to a scientifically validated practice. On this page, I outline the implications of treating religious and scientific knowledge as congruent. This ‘congruence’ is an ‘imaginary’, an illusion created where scientific communities abandon rational thinking in favour of other motivations. Once the imagined form of mindfulness is created, it can be absorbed into psychology. The evidence suggests that the psychological sciences may need to reevaluate their underlying theoretical frameworks and reconsider how non-scientific knowledge is treated, particularly concepts and techniques originating in religious traditions.

If science and religion, in general, have incompatible theoretical frameworks, how was Buddhist mindfulness ‘transformed’ into a Western medicalised practice? The reality is that a few scientists and clinicians simply claimed that religious meditation and psychology were complementary. They provided no evidence or scientific explanation to support this position. They also appeared to lack the knowledge and experience necessary to make reliable generalisations about religious thought and practice. By focusing on meditation methods, not the underlying cognitive processes, psychologists could not evaluate the innate value of the traditional approaches for health benefits. In this way, psychology appropriated and relocated meditation techniques they never understood.

Western psychologists avoided meaningful, rational investigation of traditional meditation, preferring to ‘imagine ‘ what the techniques were from Western dualistic perspectives.

Why is this important? Science can measure the physiological effects of meditation, such as how it affects heart rate and blood pressure. However, because of the uncertainty regarding the boundaries between belief and science, early meditation and mindfulness experiments rarely progressed beyond a preliminary stage. Further, some psychologists overreached themselves by claiming they understood the essence of Buddhist meditation. These errors were compounded because the wider scientific community accepted unevidenced claims about the congruence between belief and science. These problems mean that much of the £5bn invested in researching meditation and mindfulness added little meaningful scientific value. Secondly, the actual curative potential of traditional meditation has been ignored. Primarily because researchers focused on meditation methods rather than the underlying mental processes engaged with by traditional meditators.

Before 2000, many scientists believed that they ‘instinctively’ understood traditional meditation without needing any meaningful training or research. Perhaps being part of elite academic institutions allowed them to feel they had the right or ability to subordinate religious thought and practice to dualistic scientific understanding. In relocating mindfulness, they stripped it of its most important cognitive components. Still today, many Western forms of meditation lack mental processes such as compassion, intention, and other concepts central to traditional meditations. Even where scientists attempted to ‘evolve’ mindfulness into a more compassionate or focused practice, the meditation nearly always remained dualistic and, therefore, distant from its original form.

Compassion for oneself and others is central to most Buddhist practices.

The fate of Western mindfulness, to have become a stripped-down dualistic version of a traditional practice, is not unusual. We have seen such approaches in relocating acupuncture, yoga and other traditional healing technologies. A subtle but observable pattern is documented in the History of Science of scientists reconfiguring nondual knowledge to sit within dualistic frameworks. As with mindfulness, this approach can lead to the original technique being misunderstood, mistranslated or distorted.

The problems evidenced in the ‘mindfulness revolution’ have complex causes, not least of which are decades of low-quality and often unreplicated research. However, the failure of scientists to recognise the presence of nondual thought and practice is also a significant concern. As a case study, mindfulness reveals a profound limitation in the psychological sciences and our understanding of the human mind. We experience life through a number of different mental states, including dual and nondual awareness. Science tends to privilege duality, which is adequate for most scientific disciplines but fails to fully explain human consciousness and experience. Duality became the default theoretical model for descriptions of human mental states, the ‘lingua franca’ of the psychological sciences. As such, non-dual concepts and practices are abstract to most psychologists and often considered superstitious or childlike. This worldview relies on evaluating nondual phenomena with dualistic instruments.

The presumption that dualistic approaches deliver ‘truth’ while nondual insights are irrelevant or inferior is possibly a continuation of the colonial mindset. Western ways of knowing are frequently assumed to be the ‘gold standard’ against which non-scientific thought and practice can be measured. There is little evidence that scientists thought Buddhist meditation methods were worth studying in their own right. Analysis indicates that the psychological sciences reduced Buddhist meditation to the terms they understood and could measure. In this way, the opportunity for scientists to identify different forms of consciousness, mental processes and health treatments in meditation was lost.

I’m sure many meditation scientists acted in good faith, but their inability to realise they were encountering different rather than inferior knowledge systems has been a costly mistake. This limitation was only possible because of a phenomenon called incommensurability. Incommensurability is the belief that one’s perspective of the world is an objective reality. The scientists first encountering Buddhist meditation may have been entirely unaware of nonduality. Presuming that their dualistic outsider view of Eastern religious practices was complete and informed. This is not simply an issue rooted in cultural misunderstandings; incommensurability likely limits encounters between science and Western spiritual practices. For example, the value of early esoteric Christian teachings was judged against the dualistic values of science and evaluated accordingly. Today, dualistic science is held to be the dominant knowledge system, and many alternative ways of understanding and experiencing the world have been subordinated without any systematic study or rational evaluation. There are almost no signs that the scientific community are aware of the potential value of non-scientific knowledge being lost.

This is part two of a six-part series. The Introduction is here.

Why the ‘Mindfulness Revolution’ Failed: Understanding the Boundaries Between Science and Religion

Part 1: Going Back to Basics: Dual and Nondual

Perhaps as much as $5 bn has been spent by scientists investigating the benefits of meditation and mindfulness over the last 50 years. Over 30,000 scholarly studies, primarily scientific, have been published in the peer-reviewed literature. In 2010, mindfulness enthusiasts and entrepreneurs announced the arrival of a new age of understanding through the ‘mindfulness revolution’. However, credible reviews of meditation research demonstrate that Western scientific understanding of mindfulness practices is, at best, preliminary. Further, almost no progress has been made in understanding what traditional Buddhist forms of meditation are, let alone how they work on the psychological level.

Scientists and clinicians initially appropriated religious meditation methods because of evidence that, in their original forms, they could provide profound health benefits. In the 1950s, long before the ‘Mindfulness Revolution’, psychologists were using Buddhist meditation to treat intractable mental health conditions. Since the early 1980s, Western scientists and clinicians developed hundreds of new versions of mindfulness. The best of these diverse forms can provide a degree of relaxation, often equivalent to or slightly more significant than a placebo effect. Unfortunately, the hope that mindfulness could be a powerful technique to treat and cure problematic mental health has evaporated.

Scientists gambling on a mindfulness miracle
Has the £5 bn mindfulness gamble paid off?

Today, the scientific understanding of mindfulness is fragmented, with growing scepticism about its benefits from many sections of society. Mindfulness is most frequently seen as a ‘welbeing’ intervention and is often taught by trained volunteers rather than psychologists or therapists. However, hyped claims of mindfulness’s benefits, supported by big business, politicians, and social policy, have ensured mindfulness’s popularity and longevity. Mindfulness has even been earmarked as a tool to keep people working and consuming when their material conditions are being eroded, a dramatic departure from the original purpose of Buddhist meditation.

The scientific history of mindfulness raises many problems. The most crucial issue is to consider how scientific engagement with religious meditation led to less rather than more understanding of the practices. By researching this question, we have started to gain much more insight into the fundamental nature of Buddhist thought and practice and the problems that arise when the boundaries between religion and science are altered.

No one factor can explain why thousands of scientists, spending a vast fortune in research funding, have made so little progress. Many studies have been critical of the scientific investigation of meditation. However, they often see the solution to the ‘mindfulness crisis’ as producing more, better-quality experiments. Fortunately, several academics have begun to question the nature of the relationship between science and religion, especially Buddhism.

In essence, the scientific method is part of a dualistic knowledge system based on certain principles, such as empiricism (all ‘true’ knowledge comes from sensory experience and empirical evidence) and reductionism (complex behaviours can be understood by isolating and understanding individual elements of the behaviours). Buddhism is divided into very different knowledge systems, most of which are explicitly and implicitly nondual. For example, Mahayana Buddhism is set in a theoretical framework where emptiness (all things are empty of intrinsic nature or existence) is held to be the underlying nature of reality. So, in any meaningful way, experimental psychology cannot understand Buddhism because they do not share the same frames of reference (ontology and epistemology). Psychology can see the effect of meditation but is unable to understand what it is.

Just to be clear, psychological science can measure the psychological and physiological effects of meditation. But it cannot currently understand what spiritual meditators do, the underlying cognitive processes, or what their spiritual goals are. Similarly a spiritual practice is unable to calculate the speed of light or the atomic weight of an element. By definition, different knowledge systems are incompatible because they address different human needs in different ways.

Dr Stephen Gene Morris

The second part of this article can be found here.

What is the Nondual View, and Why is it Important in Meditation?

A startling finding emerging from the groundbreaking Scientific History of Mindfulness is the failure of Western science to recognise the nondual nature of traditional forms of meditation. Experienced meditation practitioners may have been taught about the nondual view or nondual meditation methods, which are pivotal to many meditation traditions. However, most Westerners’ consciousness is dominated by explicitly dualistic frameworks. The ability of people rooted in a dualistic awareness, including scientists, to understand a nondual worldview is problematic, even if they have received instruction and training. One possible explanation for this problem is the concept of incommensurability found in Thomas Kuhn’s writings. A controversial term, incommensurability, describes how changing to alternative ways of knowing is problematic once we have been trained in a particular understanding of the world. Further, someone who is schooled in a specific understanding may not even know that they have been cognitively conditioned to see the world from one particular dualistic perspective.

A characteristic of the dualistic mind is that it believes its conscious experience is an objective reality. This misunderstanding is experienced by Western meditation scholars and scientists, even today. Many highly intelligent and well-intentioned academics make claims about the nature of traditional forms of meditation from a dualistic perspective without ever having recognised the role of nonduality in meditation methods. This problem is not restricted to modern materialistic societies but is present wherever people foster a ‘belief in self’ as an objective reality. Thus, many traditional meditation students train for years, or even decades, to appreciate that their consciousness can be either dual, nondual, or even an integration of the two.

Typically, humans flit between dual and nondual forms of consciousness without knowing or detecting the difference.  In this brief introduction, the critical thing to remember is that we all have access to dual and nondual ways of knowing; both are integral to the human experience. However, it is highly problematic to recognise and then cultivate a consistent nondual view without training and guidance. It is not possible to provide a comprehensive explanation of dual or nondual consciousness in this article, but I have written about these issues elsewhere.  So here, I will attempt to use simplified approximations to introduce this subject.

In a typical Western materialistic society like the UK today, most people spend significant time in dualistic consciousness.  We could characterise the dualistic state in many ways; as a starting point, let us simply regard it as the point of view where one believes, as truth, the conscious and subconscious impulses generated by our brain.  

We can all find examples of our irrational thoughts and baseless concerns that we recognise as meaningless. However, many of us accept unfounded opinions and erroneous perceptions as ‘reality’. While our thoughts and ideas often seem meaningful, the views of others can seem meaningless or even ridiculous. Without nondual awareness, our identity is partly made up of fabricated constructs with no reality other than what we attribute to them; I’d suggest this is the dominance of emotion over reasoning, although it is obviously an oversimplification. So, for example, thinking that others are responsible for your mental state (you make me angry) is usually an expression of dualism, as is the default belief that our wishes and goals are somehow more important than the wishes and goals of others. 

By contrast, a nondual view distinguishes between reliable mental phenomena and transient, unreliable thoughts and feelings. Once a stable and systematic nondual view is achieved, we can establish relative freedom in thinking, speaking and acting. This freedom is often associated with the happiness and stability observed in nondual practitioners. So, from a nondual perspective, we make the presumption that the thoughts and feelings of others may be just as important and meaningful as ours. A note of caution; the nondual view is typically achieved by abandoning limiting concepts, an exercise that usually requires a significant amount of time, effort and training. I will stop the preliminary definitions here for now and briefly discuss what these concepts mean for meditation practice.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is pexels-photo-7958245.jpeg

In traditional meditation, people often begin at the beginning; if they have a reliable teacher and methods and are diligent, they can progress.  However, until a practitioner realises which mental phenomena arising in their consciousness are transient and meaningless, all meditation can be seen as relative. That means your practice is relative to your mental state and other causes and conditions.  A practitioner with some modest experience of the nondual should be able to transcend belief in mundane phenomena, knowing their relative unimportance.  That is not to say that a nondual practitioner may have arrived at a transcendent mental state; it is simply that they understand the limitations of their own worldview.  That, in a nutshell, is my view of why the nondual is essential to progress beyond a preliminary stage in meditation practice.  Without nondual awareness, the inner world of our consciousness remains uncertain. While much Buddhist meditation is not explicitly nondual, it all, by its very nature, increases the ability of the student to understand nonduality. Nonduality is a central pillar in many spiritual and philosophical traditions, but it is mainly invisible to the psychological sciences; I wonder why…?

The Scientific History of Mindfulness: Unveiling the Paradox

The findings of a new four-year investigation provide comprehensive insights into how mindfulness developed and its current status. Despite significant scientific concerns, the research illustrates how mindfulness was promoted as an influential health and well-being intervention. The least known but most controversial aspect of the ‘mindfulness revolution’ is the reconfiguring of spiritual practices as tools for social and economic control.

The latest in-depth research explains why scientists and clinicians are rethinking the idea that mindfulness is a universal mental health treatment.

The most comprehensive scientific review of the popular Western form of mindfulness meditation, medicalised mindfulness, has just been completed. The Scientific History of Mindfulness (SHoM) describes the creation of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) in the late 1970s and charts the development of hundreds of Mindfulness-Based Interventions (MBIs) in the following decades. MBSR was part of a movement that sought to capture the health benefits of spiritual practices. Uniquely, MBSR was presented as a health intervention that ‘bridged’ scientific and religious knowledge. In 2004, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) was endorsed for clinical use in the UK, increasing public and scientific confidence in medicalised meditation. By 2010, mindfulness stakeholders declared that a ‘mindfulness revolution’, which would profoundly impact society, was taking place.

Politicians and health policy agents enthusiastically promoted the benefits of mindfulness, particularly in the UK. The hype also bled into social policy, where in 2014, mindfulness was presented as a tool for social control and improved economic performance. Under the concept of ‘mental capital,’ the rollout of mindfulness in UK schools was made a priority.

“The idea that mindfulness training could help to boost workplace productivity, even if employee working conditions were eroded requires much more research and discussion. Using mindfulness to pacify workers to benefit employers or the wider economy challenges the trope that medicalised mindfulness was Buddhist.”

Dr Stephen Gene Morris

By 2018, many meditation scientists were criticising the experimental findings on which mindfulness’s success had been built. Over the decades, reviews of meditation experiments have frequently highlighted limitations in mindfulness research. However, a tendency among some scientists and policymakers to ignore negative scientific evidence established misunderstandings about mindfulness and the benefits it could bring to practitioners and consumers.

“This SHoM goes some way to explaining why, despite over forty years of clinical and scientific activity, costing billions of pounds, we have little certainity about what mindfulness is and how it mediates health and wellbeing.”

Dr Stephen Gene Morris

The SHoM describes how reducing Buddhist meditation methods to Western psychological interventions created ontological conflicts. These conflicts helped sustain paradoxical positions where experimental studies were regarded as both reliable and unreliable. This permitted mindfulness stakeholders to pick and choose the ‘science’ supporting the use and deployment of MBIs. Mindfulness became widely accepted after 2000 despite its known weaknesses, which is a significant concern for scientific and clinical communities and their funders. As a case study, the history of mindfulness offers evidence of substantial problems in how knowledge is created and disseminated in the psychological sciences. Further, the review highlights how overstating scientific findings based on preliminary research can lead to problems in other domains, such as health care and social policy.

A clear understanding of the mindfulness paradox and research crisis offers new perspectives on the Western understanding of meditation. There is a pressing need to reevaluate and rationalise mindfulness research, a problem that SHoM addresses directly. This careful transdisciplinary investigation has also highlighted systemic issues in the areas where scientific and non-scientific knowledge intersect. In particular, scientists and scholars have often explained religious thought and practice empirically, subordinating their actual nature and obscuring their curative potential.

“As a case study, medicalised mindfulness has evidenced a sometimes corrosive relationship between religion and science that reduces knowledge to a very narrow scientific perspective. Recent scholarship supports the need for a major review of the scientific treatment of non-scientific knowledge.

Dr Stephen Gene Morris

One obvious conclusion from the SHoM is that a failure to establish reliable scientific foundations has been very costly. Thousands of peer-reviewed papers repeated the same experimental limitations, and unreliable ‘scientific’ narratives about religion and meditation have entered popular discourses. Today, a significant effort by the contemplative science community is needed to restore the reputation of meditation research and establish meaningful boundaries between scientific and religious knowledge systems.

(If you’re looking to understand why science has failed to understand religion, click here. The Legacy of Mindfulness: Has Science Failed to Understand Buddhist Meditation?)

Notes:

1 The Scientific History of Mindfulness: 1938 to 2020

Morris, Stephen Gene (2024) The Scientific History of Mindfulness: 1938 to 2020. University of Kent,. (doi:10.22024/UniKent/01.02.106240) (KAR id:106240). https://kar.kent.ac.uk/106240/

2. Dr Stephen Gene Morris is a Consultant in Applied Neuropsychology and has spent over 25 years understanding knowledge at the intersections of science and belief. In June 2024, he completed this PhD thesis, funded by a Scholarship from the University of Kent.

3. The SHoM will be officially launched on the 30th of September 2024. Press releases and summaries of findings will be distributed to relevant media outlets. To register for an electronic copy of the press pack, complete the contact form here with ‘Press Pack’. To contact Stephen directly on matters linked to

Three limitations in our understanding of meditation and how to fix them

Scientists are challenging claims being made for the benefits of mindfulness. A project to fill in the gaps in our scientific knowledge is an urgent priority.

Limitations in the understanding of meditation and mindfulness
Lack of understanding is limiting the study of meditation

Scientists studying the benefits of mindfulness meditation are still coming to terms with  a systematic review entitled ‘Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation.‘1 The criticisms made in that study pose questions for the use of meditation in contemporary secular settings. This crisis of confidence is not linked to a lack of clinical potential; there are preliminary indications of meditation’s curative effects. The problems rest in the widespread absence of replicated evidence for many of the claims made for meditation technologies. The overview now emerging from the scientific study of meditation is the lack of a ‘big picture’. Psychological science has studied the impact of meditation extensively over the last seventy years, but further progress appears limited by three intractable problems.

The long term sustainability of clinical meditation is threatened by an inability to reflect its successes and failures in equal measure. While it is not uncommon to find pilot studies with small numbers of participants hyped in the media, established theoretical and methodological problems receive modest scholarly or scientific interest. This is not a minor nor recent problem; issues of scientific reliability have stalked meditation research since the middle decades of the twentieth century.

man sitting on rock in front of water fountain

Reviews of published meditation research frequently cite flaws in the methodologies used. For example, many studies find an effect; that when people meditate some measurable change takes place. However, this effect is often established in isolation without any control group. Or on many occasions, the control is a ‘waiting list’ of participants who receive no appropriate intervention or placebo, meaning all the experiment can show is that in one instance the meditation appeared to have a more substantial effect than nothing. As any neuroscientist or neuropsychologist can tell you, a repeated novel activity of almost any kind can lead to an effect, and if continued for long enough new brain function and structure will be observed.

But the failure to establish strong scientific evidence cannot be only put down to an absence of scientific introspection and methodological flaws. The lack of a coherent theoretical framework presents the biggest obstacle to meditation research. Put simply, despite thousands of published papers over recent decades; we still can’t quite settle on definitions of what secular meditations are and how they should work. Many meditation studies reference religious traditions alongside scientific papers with little explanation of how positivism and spirituality can share a common world view. Peer-reviewed studies which contain limitations continue to be cited in recent work, their influence extending well beyond experimental environments.

Scientists working in this field are likely to be familiar with these three areas of concern (lack of reflexivity, methodological and theoretical weaknesses). But elevating the standard of published research remains a challenge. The Van Dam et al. study makes several recommendations, which if adopted, could improve matters, but the critical challenges haven’t been addressed; we lack authoritative accounts of what meditation and mindfulness are. This overarching question is directly linked to the gaps in our knowledge of how meditation relocated to science, what processes were lost and gained. A more rigorous epistemological and ontological understanding of the science of meditation may be our best hope to deliver the stable conceptual foundations urgently needed in the contemplative sciences.

Notes

1 Van Dam, N. T., Van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., … & Fox, K. C. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation. Perspectives on psychological science, 13(1), 36-61.

If mindfulness works, we have to be able to produce the evidence

The longer the science of mindfulness resists reforms, the greater the risks to the technology.

Buddhism and mindfulness
Making sense of mindfulness research

Leading UK economist Richard Layard has drawn further attention to the growing controversy surrounding mindfulness meditation. In his recent book Can we be happier?, Layard sends a number of uncertain messages about the role and benefits of mindfulness. The central premise contained in the Introduction is that by increasing levels of altruism, a new age of increased happiness can be established. Throughout the book, mindfulness and meditation are used as examples of technologies able to support the ‘happiness revolution’. But confusingly, Layard highlights concerns that the altruism present in traditional meditation methods, has been erased from secular forms of mindfulness. According to Layard’s hypothesis, if mindfulness decreases altruism it might reduce happiness. The same problem may be present with any self-focused form of mind training, self-compassion or CBT for example.

man wearing black crew neck top

Can we be happier? also misses the opportunity to discuss the lack of replicated data in mindfulness research. Several scientific reviews have argued that revisions to the methodologies used to study meditation are required.1 Given the status of Layard as a leading authority in the science of happiness, his failure to mention this growing problem is surprising. Leaving the book open to accusations of a lack of scientific objectivity.2 A tendency to ignore critical reviews from academics and scientists is causing increasing damage to the reputation of the contemplative sciences. If action isn’t taken by the scientific and clinical communities, there is a danger that the progress of mindfulness will be stalled further. There are three pressing issues that need to be addressed by professionals working in this field.

  • The body of research needs to be reviewed and a distinction made between reliable (fully replicated studies) and unreplicated (unreplicable) work.
  • Any systemic problems must be acknowledged and a plan of action to eliminate them agreed.
  • Robust theoretical frameworks need to be established.

“Those of us with a long experience of meditation, know how valuable a technology it is. But if we wish that meditation and mindfulness are treated as scientifically reliable, we must meet the required standards of evidence. Including a need for extensive replication.”

Stephen Gene Morris

Notes:

1 Nicholas T. Van Dam and others, ‘Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13.1 (2018), 36–61.

2 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jan/23/can-we-be-happier-richard-layard-review

Misunderstandings of mind

An ever changing relationship between psychology and Buddhism reveals the transient nature of mindfulness meditation in the West.

the relationship between Buddhism and psychology

In the Western history of Buddhist theory and practice, traditional forms of Buddhism have been relatively stable during the twentieth century. New Buddhist traditions and Buddhist inspired movements have emerged in that time, but many of the established schools have demonstrated a surprising continuity. However, since 1900 psychology has undergone radical transformations, leading to changes in both mainstream and peripheral approaches. Therefore the current engagement between Buddhism and psychology, in the form of the science of mindfulness, should be seen as transient and merely the latest stage in the relationship.

Research into the history of the West’s engagement with meditation led me in pursuit of a book written by Caroline Rhys Davids1 in 1914. I haven’t yet tracked down a copy of this work. But several published reviews can be found through resources such as Google Scholar. Without reading Davids’s treatise, I wouldn’t wish to suggest it was representative of any or all of Buddhist psychology; that’s not my point. Instead, the reviews of her work appear, in some quarters, to accept that Eastern understandings of mind might be able to contribute to Western scientific knowledge. In one such appraisal, Walter Clark from the University of Chicago wrote in 1916:

The study of Buddhist psychology is of much interest to us because of the fact that it gives us a carefully worked out analysis of mental phenomena from the point of view of an entirely different “tradition of thought.” Its parallelism to and difference from our own psychological thinking opens up many problems which are of the utmost importance in the study of thought in general.2

pile of assorted title book lot selective focus photographt

Clarke’s review indicates apparent scholarly respect for Eastern sciences of mind. Suggestive of the potential for collaborative rather than appropriative perspectives of Buddhist understandings. There have been several Western scholars that demonstrate an appreciation of traditional (Eastern) forms of psychology, but these are mainly found in the humanities rather than the sciences. A scientist investigating traditional meditation methods rarely links their work to underlying Buddhist concepts, citing relevant texts.

By drawing attention to the evolving nature of psychology, it is a reminder that Western science is in a state of flux in some regards. That what counts as ‘scientifically validated’ psychology today, may well be washed away by a ‘post-cognitive’ movement over the next decades. Conversely, much traditional Buddhist thought and practice has a core of knowledge that extends back hundreds and occasionally thousands of years. In this regard, Buddhist writings on mind, consciousness, and meditation are an underutilised resource in the study and use of meditation technologies.

 

Notes

1 Buddhist Psychology: An Inquiry into the Analysis and Theory of Mind in Pali Literature. By Caroline Augusta Foley Rhys Davids. London: G. Bell & Sons, 1914. 212 pages. 2s. 6d.

2 The emphasis is mine. Clark, Walter E. “Buddhistic Psychology.” (1916): 139-141.