The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: questions of comparison and assessment.

Western behavioral scientists have recently assessed non-Western consciousness disciplines, but the author argues that conceptual, methodological, experiential, and content inadequacies make these investigations' conclusions of doubtful validity. The author describes the models of human nature postulated by these disciplines and Western behavioral sciences, suggesting that comparing them results in a paradigm clash. Failure to recognize this clash has led to inappropriate pathologizing interpretations. Attention is drawn to the relevance of recent findings in state-dependent learning, meditation studies, peak and transcendental experiences, transpersonal psychology, and quantum physics for assessing these disciplines, and suggestions for more adequate investigation are provided.

Study at a glance

Abstract

In recent years a number of assessments of the non-Western consciousness disciplines have been undertaken by Western behavioral scientists. The author suggests that a variety of conceptual, methodological, experimential, and content inadequacies render the conclusions of these investigations of doubtful validity. He then describes the models of human nature postulated by these disciplines and the Western behavioral sciences, suggesting that comparing them results in a paradigm clash. The failure to recognize this clash seems to have resulted in inappropriate pathologizing interpretations. Attention is drawn to the relevance of recent findings in state-dependent learning, meditation studies, peak and transcendental experiences, transpersonal psychology, and quantum physics to an assessment of the consciousness disciplines, and suggestions for more adequate investigation are provided.