Defining Contemplative Science: The Metacognitive Self-Regulatory Capacity of the Mind, Context of Meditation Practice and Modes of Existential Awareness.

Dusana Dorjee

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01788

Abstract

The term ‘contemplative’ is now frequently used in the fast growing field of meditation research. Yet, there is no consensus regarding the definition of contemplative science. Meditation studies commonly imply that contemplative practices such as mindfulness or compassion are the subject of contemplative science. Such approach, arguably, contributes to terminological confusions in the field, is not conducive to the development of an overarching theory in contemplative science, and overshadows its unique methodological features. This paper outlines an alternative approach to defining contemplative science which aims to focus the research on the core capacities, processes and states of the mind modified by contemplative practices. It is proposed that contemplative science is an interdisciplinary study of the metacognitive self-regulatory capacity (MSRC) of the mind and associated modes of existential awareness (MEA) modulated by motivational/intentional and contextual factors of contemplative practices. The MSRC is a natural propensity of the mind which enables introspective awareness of mental processes and behavior, and is a necessary pre-requisite for effective self-regulation supporting well-being. Depending on the motivational/intentional and contextual factors of meditation practice, changes in the metacognitive self-regulatory processes enable shifts in MEA which determine our sense of self and reality. It is hypothesized that changes in conceptual processing are essential mediators between the MSRC, motivational/intentional factors, context of meditation practice, and the modulations in MEA. Meditation training fosters and fine-tunes the MSRC of the mind and supports development of motivational/intentional factors with the ultimate aim of facilitating increasingly advanced MEA. Implications of the proposed framework for definitions of mindfulness and for future systematic research across contemplative traditions and practices are discussed. It is suggested that the proposed definition of contemplative science may reduce terminological challenges in the field and make it more inclusive of varied contemplative practices. Importantly, this approach may encourage development of a more comprehensive contemplative science theory recognizing the essential importance of first- and second-person methods to its inquiry, thus uniquely contributing to our understanding of the mind.

Highlights

Research investigating meditation-based techniques has over the last two decades greatly expanded and grown – in the simple terms of study numbers, and considering the variety of meditation techniques investigated, quality of research, its applications and understanding of possible underlying mechanisms
All these developments suggest that the field is moving away from initial questions investigating whether meditation can produce measurable changes in health and well-being, and toward increasing research rigor of studies with closer focus on how meditation techniques modify the mind and brain
Many of the terminological problems relate to differences in meaning of constructs within the traditional Buddhist context and current research – the term ‘mindfulness’ is a prominent example of this (Williams and Kabat-Zinn, 2013), together with constructs such as ‘direct perception,’ ‘insight,’ etc. (Rosch, 2007; Dorjee, 2010)

Summary

Introduction

Research investigating meditation-based techniques has over the last two decades greatly expanded and grown – in the simple terms of study numbers, and considering the variety of meditation techniques investigated, quality of research, its applications and understanding of possible underlying mechanisms. Understanding of the possible mechanisms leading to the well-being enhancing effects of meditation has improved, due to theoretical advances (e.g., Shapiro et al, 2006; Garland et al, 2015) and neurocognitive research (e.g., Tang et al, 2015) All these developments suggest that the field is moving away from initial questions investigating whether meditation can produce measurable changes in health and well-being, and toward increasing research rigor of studies with closer focus on how meditation techniques modify the mind and brain. Such confusions have tangible implications for research; for example, if definitions of mindfulness differ across traditions is it appropriate to combine studies on secular mindfulness, studies with Zen practitioners, Insight meditators, and Tibetan Buddhist practitioners in reviewing the impact of mindfulness on neurocognitive mechanisms (e.g., Tang et al, 2015)?

Objectives

Methods

Conclusion