So far, the large and expanding body of research on meditation has mostly focussed on the putative benefits of meditation on health and well-being. However, a growing number of reports indicate that psychologically unpleasant experiences can occur in the context of meditation practice. Very little is known about the prevalence and potential causes of these experiences. The aim of this study was to report the prevalence of particularly unpleasant meditation-related experiences in a large international sample of regular meditators, and to explore the association of these experiences with demographic characteristics, meditation practice, repetitive negative thinking, mindfulness, and self-compassion. Using a cross-sectional online survey, 1,232 regular meditators with at least two months of meditation experience (mean age = 44.8 years ± 13.8, 53.6% female) responded to one question about particularly unpleasant meditation-related experiences. A total of 315 participants (25.6%, 95% CI: 23.1 to 28.0) reported having had particularly unpleasant meditation-related experiences, which they thought may have been caused by their meditation practice. Logistic regression models indicated that unpleasant meditation-related experiences were less likely to occur in female participants and religious participants. Participants with higher levels of repetitive negative thinking, those who only engaged in deconstructive types of meditation (e.g., vipassana/insight meditation), and those who had attended a meditation retreat at any point in their life were more likely to report unpleasant meditation-related experiences. The high prevalence of particularly unpleasant meditation-related experiences reported here points to the importance of expanding the scientific conception of meditation beyond that of a (mental) health-promoting and self-regulating technique. We propose that understanding when these experiences are constitutive elements of meditative practice rather than merely negative effects could advance the field and, to that end, we conclude with an overview of methodological and conceptual considerations that could be used to inform future research.

In the article, I critically evaluate some common objections against contemporary approaches to mindfulness meditation, with a special focus on two aspects. First, I consider the claim that de-contextualized contemporary approaches may have serious ethical consequences (the so-called problem of "mindful sniper/zombie"); second, I investigate the suggestion that it may be misleading to construe mindfulness meditation as (simply) a relaxation and/or attention-enhancing technique, as it is sometimes accompanied by unpleasant, even terrifying phenomena (the so-called "dark night of the soul"). In the last two sections, I weave the two narratives together by putting forward the following claim: traditionally-minded criticisms of contemporary approaches are ultimately correct, but for the wrong reasons--the historical context is not important in itself, but because of the role it plays in confronting the practitioner with the fundamental existential questions. In this sense, mindfulness meditation can be conceived as an important, but not the only element of a broader process of overcoming existential angst, whose ultimate goal is not relaxation or enhanced attention, but rather a radical existential transformation.Keywords: Buddhism, mindfulness meditation, ethics, intercultural dialogue, suffering, Kabat-Zinn IzvlečekČlanek kritično pretrese nekaj pogostih ugovorov zoper sodobne pristope k čuječnostni meditaciji s posebnim poudarkom na dveh vidikih: prvič, obravnava kritike, ki pravijo, da bi dekontekstualizirani sodobni pristopi utegnili imeti resne etične posledice (t.i. problem »čuječega ostrostrelca/zombija«); in drugič, raziskuje ugovore, da bi bilo čuječno-stno meditacijo problematično pojmiti (zgolj) kot tehniko za sproščanje ali izboljševanje pozornosti, saj jo občasno spremljajo neprijetni, celo zastrašujoči pojavi (t.i. »temna noč duše«). V zadnjih dveh razdelkih se oba vidika združita v trditvi: tradicionalni kritiki sodobnih pristopov imajo v zadnji instanci prav, a iz napačnih razlogov -zgodovinski kontekst ni pomemben zaradi samega sebe, temveč zaradi vloge, ki jo igra, ko praktikanta sooča s temeljnimi bivanjskimi vprašanji. V tem oziru bi lahko čuječnostno meditacijo označili za pomembno, a nikakor ne edino prvino širšega procesa preseganja eksistencialne

This article is a response to Ule's ideas on the (im)possibility of naturalizing the mind. After providing a brief overview of some of the main inconsistencies in Ule's account, I argue that a naturalistic explanation of the key feature of the mind as construed by Ule ("experiential perspectivity") is, in fact, feasible, but only if it is complemented by an equally important shift in our conception of nature. The central part of the article consists of two steps. First, following the line of thought developed (predominantly) by Jonas and Varela, the article attempts to outline a route to the naturalization of "perspectivity" along the lines of the so-called autopoietic theory and the corresponding double dialectic of identity and sense making. Secondly, I emphasize that this is merely the first half of the story, and that the second element in Ule's construal of the mind, "experientiality", cannot be explained within the metaphysical framework of modern naturalism, but calls for a radical restructuring of our field of inquiry in terms of the fundamental circularity between lived experience and scientific endeavour. Thus, the process of the naturalization of life and mind needs to be reciprocated by the process of the phenomenologization of nature and reconceptualization of naturalism.

This paper consists of two parts. In the first part (Section 1, part of Section 2), I put forward a critique of what I refer to as the ‘received’ or ‘standard’ view of mindfulness in the Western cultural milieu. According to the received view, mindfulness is the acontextual ‘core’ of Buddhism whose determining characteristic is bare (present-oriented, non-judgmental) attention to the flow and content of experience. As noted by many researchers, this conception is in stark contrast to the traditional Buddhist understanding, where mindfulness is not only embedded in a broader context that provides it with a specific philosophico-existential orientation (normative aspect) but is also construed as a reflective activity (noetic aspect). In the second part (part of Sections 2–4), I argue that one of the main issues with the standard view is that it frames experience in terms of what Maurice Merleau-Ponty calls ‘objective thought’ (using objectivity, or ‘thinghood’, as an onto-epistemological standard of reality), which makes the two aspects of the traditional conception (normative and noetic) unintelligible. I then provide an alternative view based on the phenomenological work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty that attempts to integrate the two aspects into a broader conception of experience. By drawing on Merleau-Ponty’s notions of ‘phenomenal field’ and ‘radical reflection’, I argue that mindfulness needs to be understood as a reflective attitude that allows one to discern not only the content but also, and primarily, the context of each experience, and that this also includes seeing itself—the act of reflection—as an act that stems from, and returns back into, the pre-reflective current of existence.

The main aim of this article is to shed light on the intricate relationship between Buddhism and science by focusing on what is becoming an increasingly popular area of contact between the two domains, namely the study of consciousness in the field of cognitive (neuro)science. First, three fundamental ways of approaching the relationship between Buddhism and science are outlined: (a) rejection (Buddhism and science are not, and cannot be, compatible); (b) acceptance (Buddhism and science share important commonalities); (c) construction (Buddhism and science are compatible because they have been made compatible in the course of specific historical processes). It is claimed that which of the three stances one takes depends ultimately on how one construes the two parties involved and the nature of their (potential) interaction. To exemplify this, the scope of the discussion is narrowed to the domain of consciousness research and a general overview of some of the main arguments for and against the collaboration between Buddhism and cognitive (neuro)science ("Three Turnings of the Wheel of (Non)Interaction") is provided. Finally, in light of the tentative results of our analysis, a short reflection of some of the most pertinent presuppositions and entailments of different stances towards Buddhism-science dialogue is laid out, with special emphasis on the distinction between construing Buddhism as "living" versus "dead" tradition.Keywords: Buddhism, cross-cultural cognitive science, contemplative science, consciousness studies, religion-science debate, dialogue, integration, construction IzvlečekGlavni cilj članka je osvetliti zapleten odnos med budizmom in znanostjo. Problema se lotim tako, da se osredotočim na področje, kjer postaja preplet med omenjenima domenama v zadnjem času vse bolj izrazit, se pravi na področje raziskovanja zavesti. V članku najprej očrtam tri splošne pristope k odnosu med budizmom in znanostjo: (a) ovržba (budizem in znanost nista in tudi ne moreta biti kompatibilna), (b) sprejemanje (budizem in znanost imata specifične skupne lastnosti) in (c) konstrukcija (budizem in znanost sta kompatibilna, saj sta se povezala v specifičnem historičnem kontekstu). V članku zagovarjam stališče, da je izbira med tremi držami v zadnji instanci odvisna od tega, kako pojmujemo oba akterja in naravo njunega (potencialnega) medsebojnega odnosa. Da bi to lažje ponazoril, diskusijo zožim na polje raziskovanj zavesti in podam splošen pregled ključnih argumentov za sodelovanje med budizmom in kognitivno (nevro)znanostjo (»trije obrati kolesa (ne)sodelovanja«) in tudi proti njemu. Na koncu z upoštevanjem provizoričnih ugotovitev predhodne analize podam še kratko refleksijo o ključnih predpostavkah in posledicah, ki določajo različne drže do dialoga med budizmom in znanostjo, pri čemer poseben poudarek namenim razliki med tem, ali budizem razumemo kot »živo« ali »mrtvo« tradicijo.Ključne besede: budizem, medkulturna kognitivna znanost, kontemplativna znanost, raziskovanje zavesti, razprave med religijo in znan...