By Michael Lifshitz 

Introduction 

The first time I sat down to meditate I was living in my parents’ basement on the cusp of high school graduation. I had stumbled on an online meditation manual written by a respected Buddhist monk and was keen to try the simple instructions for myself. I crossed my legs on the floor and closed my eyes, resting my attention on the cool breeze passing in and out of my nose. Far from an experience of single-pointed concentration, it took just about two minutes before I grew restless and opened my eyes to keep reading. Yet, I knew I would be returning to this prac- tice. During those two minutes, something shifted in my rapport with my own experience. A new relational space opened in my mind—a personal laboratory for exploring the movements of atten- tion and consciousness from the inside out. 

Three years later, I attended an undergraduate course on the varieties of attention taught by none other than Amir Raz, now my dear mentor and co-editor of this volume. A firm believer in the pedagogical value of direct experience, Amir devoted an entire lecture to a recording of the classic Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility (Shor & Orne, 1962). As I focused on the drone of the recorded voice, my eyelids began to feel heavy and my attention drifted freely with the suggestions. When the voice proposed that my arm become a rigid metal bar and asked me to try to move it, my arm trembled but would not budge. Paradoxically, I felt as if I could have moved my arm if I had really needed to, and yet somehow it would not move. I experienced for the first time the peculiar sensation of my agency split in two—a phenomenon frequently addressed in the empirical literature on hypnotic dissociation (Woody & Sadler, 2008). As an avid meditator committed to examining the nuances of my experiential world, I was intrigued at how quickly and profoundly a few words of suggestion could alter this fundamental feature of my subjectivity. 

Whereas most scholars and practitioners of hypnosis or meditation typically isolate their study to one technique or the other, my own empirical work and first-hand experiences have persist- ently shuttled me to the borders between these contemplative practices. Thus, the research path that began almost a decade ago in my parents’ basement has led me to a sunny library, drafting the introduction to an academic volume bridging the realms of hypnosis and meditation. I am fortunate, through the graces of colleagues, teachers, and friends, to walk a path that merges my passion for exploring consciousness with an approach grounded in rigorous scholarship and empirical research. The vision for this book was shaped as much by late-night conversations on the front porch of the Mind and Life Summer Research Institute and practical workshops at the Society for Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis as by ongoing neuroimaging experiments and exploration of the scholarly literature. As a highly suggestible individual with a longstanding meditative practice, compiling the chapters in this volume has shifted how I approach my own daily investigation into the patterns of my experience. I hope it will do the same for you. 

The evolving science of contemplative practice 

Human beings have mobilized attention and suggestion to shape the stream of consciousness for millennia (Cardeña & Winkelman, 2011). In recent years, the evolving tools of cognitive research and clinical science have helped to illuminate the power of contemplative experience and high- light the remarkable flexibility of the human mind (Oakley & Halligan, 2013; Schmidt & Walach, 2014). While neuroscientists once viewed the brain as a static organ, recent empirical findings demonstrate that lived experience, from the thoughts we think to the cultures we live in, leave lasting imprints on our biology (May, 2011). Hypnosis and meditation offer powerful tools for observing and orchestrating the continuous remoulding of our bodies, brains, and minds (Lutz, Slagter, Dunne, & Davidson, 2008; Raz, 2011). 

Research over the past decade has helped to demystify hypnosis and meditation, bringing these practices into the light of the scientific and clinical mainstream (Lifshitz & Raz, 2012). Contemplative experience has emerged from under a shroud of misconceptions at the fringes of academia to find a place on the front pages of our most hallowed scientific journals and popu- lar news outlets. In only the last two years since we began work on this volume, mindfulness has featured as a cover story for Time magazine (Pickert, 2014) and a special issue of American Psychologist (Anderson, 2015), while both hypnosis and meditation have showcased separately as review articles in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature Neuroscience (Oakley & Halligan, 2013; Tang, Hölzel, & Posner, 2015). Publication counts in both fields continue to rise, with hundreds of new scientific papers appearing each year. Hospitals, schools, and corporations increasingly offer contemplative training to patients, students, and employees alike (Alderman, 2011; Bunting, 2014; Schumpeter, 2013). It would appear that Western culture as a whole—from scientists and clinicians to schoolteachers and chief executive officers—has opened its arms wide to the power of the contemplative mind. 

Research and discussion surrounding hypnosis and meditation have often brought along a wor- risome propensity toward oversimplifications and exaggerated claims. While we have come a long way from the colonial orientalism and animal magnetism of yore (Harrington, 2007), the situa- tion today reflects many of the same old trappings. In the rapidly expanding field of mindfulness research, critical communities have begun to address concerns centering on the appropriation and dissemination of contemplative practices (North, 2014). Such critical voices, working from both within and outside the research community, highlight the potential risks of oversimplifying concepts, biasing research with a priori assumptions concerning efficacy, and appropriating prac- tices and terminology from foreign traditions, most notably Buddhism (Farb, 2014; Kirmayer, 2015; Purser & Loy, 2013). The concerns are manifold. For example, how do we operationalize and examine complex culturally embedded practices without unfairly reducing them or overlook- ing crucial elements in the process? Given the current mindfulness vogue, how can researchers protect their findings from over-blown interpretation in both scientific and popular circles? In our excitement to apply mindfulness in secular settings from the hospital to the boardroom, are we watering down or mishandling teachings and practices from age-old traditions? 

Bridging the domains of hypnosis and meditation 

An integrative approach—addressing a gamut of related practices through a range of comple- mentary scholarly and applied disciplines—can help to refine discussions, nuance terminology, bolster methodology, and highlight shades of meaning (Stehr & Weingart, 2000). Hypnosis and meditation overlap on many levels; however, few scholars have explored their complementary rapprochement (cf. Davidson & Goleman, 1977; Grant & Rainville, 2005; Halsband, Mueller, Hinterberger, & Strickner, 2009; Holroyd, 2003; Lynn, Das, Hallquist, & Williams, 2006; Spiegel, White, & Waelde, 2010; Otani, 2003; Yapko, 2011). Despite cultural and historical differences, hypnosis and meditation share common phenomenology, cognitive processes, and potential therapeutic merits (see Chapter 8 by Waelde, Thompson, & Spiegel). Yet, experts today typically study such practices separately, while hardly addressing points of intersection. This volume thus provides a synthesis of scholarly knowledge concerning the bridging of hypnosis and meditation. 

Amir Raz and I have invited a diverse group of leading scientists, scholars, and practitioners to unravel the conceptual riches at the interface of hypnosis and meditation. In drawing together this distinguished group, we intend to shed light on consciousness research, including elements of attention, self-regulation, culture, neuroplasticity, and the relationship between brain and mind. At the heart of our vision lies a transdisciplinary approach bringing social, historical, and philo- sophical perspectives into dialog with contemporary advances in cognitive, neurobiological, and clinical science. In this chapter, I describe our vision for this present collection and discuss how the specific parts fit into a larger integrative approach to the science of self-regulation. 

Definitions and divergences in fluctuating contexts 

Hypnosis and meditation are blurry categories with diverging narratives. Rather than neatly delineating separate silos, these labels encompass a range of techniques and rituals emanating from diverse cultures, geographies, and worldviews (Johnson, 1982; P & Lynn, 2008). Part 2 of this volume explores these nuances from a historical, anthropological, and philosophical per- spective. The forms of meditation most popular today derive from millennia-old soteriological traditions of the Indian subcontinent and only recently gained prominence among clinical and research settings (Lutz, Dunne, & Davidson, 2007). Indeed, the science of meditation is still in its infancy. Only a few scattered accounts appeared in the empirical literature on meditation before the surge of research over the past decade (Harrington, 2007). Conversely, hypnosis as we under- stand it today emerged as a clinical tool in Western Europe and occupied a central position in prominent psychological and medical laboratories up until the second half of the twentieth cen- tury (Green, Laurence, & Lynn, 2014). Thus, the hypnosis literature provides a rich and largely untapped treasury of laboratory methods, empirical findings, and tractable theories probing the influence of attention and suggestion on consciousness and behavior (for an excellent overview of the empirical domain of hypnosis, see Kihlstrom, 2008). 

While often overlooked, shifting contexts have tangible ramifications for the application and scientific understanding of contemplative practices. Hypnosis researchers have amassed a wealth of findings revealing how social variables such as culture, expectation, and motivation interact with cognitive styles and attention dynamics to co-create conscious experience (Benham, Woody, Wilson, & Nash, 2006; Lifshitz, Howells, & Raz, 2012; Lynn & Green, 2011). For example, hyp- nosis typically involves an induction procedure wherein the hypnotic guide encourages the par- ticipant to let go of everyday concerns and focus on responding to ensuing suggestions (Cardeña, 2014a). While researchers disagree as to the importance of the length and specific contents of the induction, merely labeling an intervention “hypnosis” appears to enhance reported depth and strengthen the influence of subsequent suggestions (Gandhi & Oakley, 2005). In short, the culture and context of hypnosis matters (Cardeña & Krippner, 2010; Kirmayer, 1992). Similarly, Buddhist traditions have long emphasized the importance of philosophical view and motivational framework in shaping the outcomes of meditative training. Right view and right intention consti- tute the first and second steps along the classic eightfold path toward enlightenment shared by all Buddhist traditions (Bodhi, 2011). Moreover, Mahayana Buddhists, including Zen and Tibetan practitioners, typically begin and end meditation sessions by formally affirming their intention through chant or prayer (Leighton, 2012). 

Practitioners of meditation may dedicate thousands of hours to deepening and refining their motivation before ever crossing their legs to follow their breath (Zopa, 2012). While such attitudinal parameters have received comparatively little attention in mindfulness research (cf. Farb, 2012), at least two recent studies indicate that motivation and effort play an impor- tant role in fostering the cognitive improvement typically attributed to mindfulness training (Cardeña, Sjöstedt, & Marcusson-Clavertz, 2014; Jensen, Vangkilde, Frokjaer, & Hasselbalch, 2012). Such personal-level attitudes, moreover, reflect the larger and strikingly diverse socio- cultural contexts through which we collectively enact contemplative experience. For example, cognitive anthropologist Samuel Veissière (see Chapter 5) presents an exploration of an online community of “tulpamancers” who adapt Tibetan Buddhist visualization practices to conjure imaginary sentient companions. Drawing on extensive Internet ethnography, he argues that joint attention and social interphenomenality shape our most private bodily experiences and sense of narrative self, both within and beyond contemplative contexts. Whenever we engage with meditative or hypnotic practices—whether to unravel cognitive processes, treat chronic pain, awaken wisdom and compassion, or invoke imaginary friends—we simultaneously engage with a historical milieu, a context of tradition, a framework of beliefs, and a network of expectations. 

Researchers interested in either hypnosis or meditation have long wrestled with the challenge of fitting such multifaceted phenomena into concise definitions and coherent theoretical frame- works (e.g., Bishop et al., 2004; Cardeña, 2014a; Chiesa, 2013; Kirsch et al., 2011; Lutz et al., 2007; Schmidt, 2014; Wagstaff, 2014; Williams & Kabat-Zinn, 2011). In Chapter 2 of this book, historian of science Anne Harrington outlines how scholars throughout the twentieth century leveraged the monolithic concept of “trance” to make sense of complex behaviors such as hypnosis and meditation. Whereas researchers today largely eschew such catch-all reductionism, Harrington’s piece points to parallel trends in contemporary practice and research. For example, scientists may propose a particular pattern of brain activity as a biological marker of a prototypical hypnotic or meditative state or trait (e.g., Brewer and Garisson, 2014; Hoeft et al., 2012). While this kind of approach can promote theoretical simplicity and help to distil complex traditions, it may also risk obscuring the profound heterogeneity among forms of meditation and hypnosis (Lifshitz, Campbell, & Raz, 2012; Terhune, Cardeña, & Lindgren, 2011). Furthermore, as Michael Connors and Vince Polito discuss at length in Chapter 10, doing good empirical work on these practices demands careful attention to a range of conceptual and methodological issues, from the role of individual differences to the choice of control conditions and the distinction between a procedure and its outcomes (see also Davidson, 2010; Grant, 2012). 

If, for a moment, we set aside the tags of hypnosis and meditation and focus on parsing out the underlying phenomenological qualities, cognitive processes, brain signatures, and behavioral outcomes, we are left with a diverse assortment of practices that show broad family resemblances. Part 3 of this volume presents a breadth of perspectives directly juxtaposing the domains of hyp- nosis and meditation to highlight relevant intersections and divergences. Crucially, a given state or practice that we term “meditation” may overlap more with a certain form of “hypnosis” than with another variant of so-called meditation. Consider the popular notion of mindfulness. This term may conjure images of an individual sitting peacefully on a cushion with eyes closed, follow- ing the breath, letting go of thoughts, and engaging in non-judgmental awareness of the moment- to-moment stream of experiences. Yet, this widespread modern usage of the word differs from many traditional views. (For a range of perspectives on this topic, see the recent special issue of Contemporary Buddhism; Williams and Kabat-Zinn, 2011.) 

The concept of mindfulness originates from a translation of the Pali sati—a technical term from the early canons of Indian Buddhism relating to the retention of awareness on a chosen object or theme (Analayo, 2003). In addition to the familiar practice of breath awareness, the original scrip- ture on the foundations of mindfulness describes a range of techniques, including, to name but one striking example, imagining one’s own body as a corpse progressing through ten vivid stages of decomposition. While largely absent from current discussions of mindfulness, such techniques play important roles in the originating traditions (see Chapter 3 by Thupten Jinpa and Chapter 4 by Quinton Deeley). Moreover, some oft-overlooked meditative practices—from intricate visuali- zations to the cultivation of positive mental states such as compassion—may appear more akin to forms of autosuggestion than to widespread notions of mindful breathing. Extending the domain of contemplative experience beyond the narrow confines of contemporary mindfulness practice promises to deepen the dialog between cognitive and clinical science and the rich lineages of hypnosis and meditation. 

Illuminating self-regulation 

Hypnosis and meditation are unique in their ability to profoundly impact a wide range of cogni- tive processes (Kihlstrom, 2014; Sedlmeier et al., 2012); as such, studying contemplative practices can shed light on fundamental features of human psychology. Part 4 of this volume focuses on unraveling the cognitive processes that underlie the transformative potential of hypnosis and meditation. A close cross-examination of these techniques serves both to clarify their intrinsic mechanisms and to refine understanding of a wide range of basic psychological processes from mind-wandering and meta-awareness to attention, absorption, delusion, suggestion, insight, and emotion (see Chapter 13 by Vervaeke & Ferraro and Chapter 14 by Ott; also, Cahn & Polich, 2013; Cardeña, 2014b; Hölzel et al., 2011; Landry, Appourchaux, & Raz, 2014; Lutz et al., 2008; Oakley & Halligan, 2013). 

Hypnosis and meditation provide a means of regaining control over processes that are usually considered automatic and impervious to conscious will (Lifshitz, Aubert Bonn, Fischer, Kashem, & Raz, 2013). Chapter 11 by Kieran Fox and colleagues shows how examining the empirical nuances of de-automatization can clarify ongoing debates concerning the self-regulation of spontaneous thought. In recent years, a string of high-profile studies proposed a link between daydreaming and unhappiness (Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010; Wilson et al., 2014; cf. Fox, Thompson, Andrews-Hanna, & Christoff, 2014), resurrecting a well-worn misinterpretation that construes meditation as a form of thought suppression (cf. Hurley, 2014). However, an accumu- lating science of mind-wandering reveals both costs (i.e., unwanted distraction from a task) and benefits (i.e., unprompted creative insight) of this pervasive habit (Smallwood & Andrews-Hanna, 2013). Moreover, this research trajectory is beginning to unravel the specific characteristics that make certain thoughts more or less pleasant and productive (e.g., past-oriented thinking appears linked to negative affect while prospective thought tends toward optimism; Smallwood & Schooler, 2014). 

A close examination of meditative traditions shows that while certain forms of calming meditation may indeed quiet the discursive mind, these practices typically aim to facilitate a deeper first-person inquiry into the stream of conscious experience (Lodro, 1998; Thanissaro, 1997). Many practices strive not to stop thoughts but rather to promote a new attitude toward them—to experience the thoughts without clinging, like “clouds drifting through a clear sky” or “a thief passing through an empty house.” Furthermore, active rational analysis and repeated verbal aspirations form the crux of many meditation techniques. Thus, similar to cognitive hypnosis therapy (Alladin, 2012), meditative practices appear to foster a degree of awareness of and choice over the frequency and type of thoughts we think, as well as promote a healthier relationship to those thoughts, rather than eradicate spontaneous thought altogether from daily life (Schooler et al., 2014). Cognitive psychology offers empirical tools for theorizing about and empirically probing into such contemplative mechanisms while simultaneously gleaning new insights for a general understanding of human psychology (see Chapter 12 by Mooneyham and Schooler). 

Subjective experience and the brain 

The advent of tools for imaging the living human brain was perhaps the most important fac- tor in propelling the recent surge of scientific interest in contemplative practice (e.g., Kosslyn, Thompson, Constantini-Ferrando, Alpert, & Spiegel, 2000; Lazar et al., 2000; Lutz, Greischar, Rawlings, Ricard, & Davidson, 2004; Newberg et al., 2001; Rainville et al., 1999; Raz & Shapiro, 2002). While the brain seems to have eked its way into nearly every corner of this volume, Part 5 highlights chapters that specifically explore the interaction of contemplative experience with emerging views of brain structure and function. As cognitive neuroscience matures, method- ological advances have refined knowledge of regional brain specialization (Shackman et al., 2011), opened avenues for exploring distributed cortical networks (Bressler & Menon, 2010), and fostered comprehensive models for guiding research (Park & Friston, 2013). Leveraging such methodological and theoretical advances, a rapidly growing contemplative neuroimaging literature is beginning to unravel how practices such as hypnosis and meditation influence a host of neural functions, from sensory processing to the sense of agency (Oakley & Halligan, 2013; Tang & Posner, 2012). Moreover, examining distributed brain networks provides new avenues for comparison across diverse planes of consciousness (see Chapter 18 by McGeown; see also recent efforts contrasting connectivity profiles induced via distinct psychedelic substances—Roseman, Leech, Feilding, Nutt, & Carhart-Harris, 2014). 

The chapters in Part 5 demonstrate how synthesizing the contemplative imaging literature can mutually enrich theories of cognitive neuroscience and brain regulation (e.g., see Chapter 16 by Tang and Posner). For example, chapter 17 by Graham Jamieson reframes findings concerning hypnosis and meditation in terms of an emerging “predictive coding” model of brain function. Whereas earlier theories construed self-regulation largely as a form of hierarchical top-down processing, this predictive coding approach highlights the dynamic reciprocal interplay between incoming sensory signals and ongoing cognitive-affective brain states (Todd, Cunningham, Anderson, & Thompson, 2012). 

Hypnosis and meditation offer potent instruments for elucidating the relationship between subjective consciousness and objective brain function (Lifshitz, Cusumano, & Raz, 2013; Thompson, 2006). Yet, whereas scientists have access to a plethora of advanced methods for investigating brain and behavior, they face a dearth of techniques for the empirical analysis of phenomenology (Hasenkamp & Thompson, 2014). Integrating such phenomenological approaches with the tools of cognitive and brain science poses yet a further challenge (Varela, 1996). Throughout this volume, contributors repeatedly emphasize the imperative of developing methods for describing and operationalizing the nuances of lived experience (e.g., Chapter 9 by Tart and Chapter 15 by Cardeña). In Chapter 6, philosophers Jelena Markovic and Evan Thompson juxtapose hypnosis and meditation using an innovative neurophenomenological state-space model (Lutz, Jha, Dunne, & Saron, 2015) that plots contemplative practices along various experiential dimensions (e.g., meta-awareness, attentional aperture, and object orien- tation). This phenomenological neurocognitive matrix—a synthesis of traditional meditation manuals and cutting-edge findings from cognitive neuroscience—marks a major step forward from previous models that construed meditation along a single axis from concentrated to recep- tive attention (Lutz et al., 2008; for another recent approach to categorizing meditative states, see Schmidt, 2014). 

Fine-grained phenomenological models will likely prove vital for an emerging wave of contemplative studies integrating experiential self-reports with the tools of brain science (Deeley et al., 2012; Hasenkamp, 2014). For example, a recent study leveraged a neurophe- nomenological approach to demonstrate that subjective ratings of hypnotic depth correlated with global connectivity changes in the electroencephalography signal. Furthermore, distinct patterns of connectivity tracked specific experiential dimensions (Cardeña, Jönsson, Terhune, & Marcusson-Clavertz, 2013). Another inventive study employed neurofeedback to relate meditative experience with activity in the posterior cingulate cortex—a major node of the default mode network associated with internal attention (Garrison, Scheinost, et al., 2013). Expert meditators focused on their breath while in an fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) scanner as they viewed a graph that displayed real-time feedback from activity in their posterior cingulate. Following each meditation scan, participants described what aspect of their experience seemed most related to the displayed brain fluctuations. This approach allowed researchers to pinpoint the specific phenomenological quality most tightly linked to altered activity in the posterior cingulate cortex during meditation—namely, the quality of undistracted effortless awareness (Garrison, Santoyo, et al., 2013). Such studies illustrate how paying due attention to phenomenology can advance the cognitive neuroscience of contempla- tive experience and consciousness at large (Lutz & Thompson, 2003). 

Therapeutic synthesis 

Both hypnosis and meditation originated as instruments of self-awareness designed to ease suf- fering. Part 6 of this volume explores the therapeutic applications of hypnosis and meditation from a range of perspectives including cognitive neuroscience, personality theory, clinical intui- tion, psychoanalysis, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. As our understanding of the underlying mechanisms deepens, so does our ability to apply these practices in the treatment of a wide range of ailments, from chronic pain (Accardi et al., 2013; Chiesa & Serretti, 2011) to substance abuse (Brewer, Elwafi, & Davis, 2013; Lynn, Green, Accardi, & Cleere, 2010) and major depres- sion (Lynn, Barnes, Deming, & Accardi, 2010; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2012; Yapko, 2013). Moreover, recent findings highlight the impact of contemplative practice on health and physi- ology down to the level of gene expression and immune function (Jacobs et al., 2011; Kaliman et al., 2014; Kovács et al., 2008; Rosenkranz et al., 2013). 

While researchers and practitioners have long utilized hypnosis and meditation to treat a similar range of conditions, variants of these practices likely operate through distinct mechan- isms and thus cater best to different patients. Along these lines, Joshua Grant and Fadel Zeidan offer (in Chapter 21) a detailed neurobiological account revealing the unique and overlapping mechanisms that subserve hypnotic and meditative analgesia. From a more cognitive behavioral perspective, Norman Farb explores (in Chapter 20) the different aspects of personality targeted by mindfulness and hypnosis. Adopting a pragmatic approach to the bridging of hypnosis and meditation would likely help tailor interventions to specific individuals and foster integrative approaches to optimize healing (see Chapter 22 by Toneatto and Courtice; Alladin, 2014). In this respect, we are delighted to include contributions from active clinical researchers and therapists who have crossed the boundaries of tradition and begun synthesizing suggestion and mindful- ness approaches to discover what helps real patients heal best (e.g., see Chapter 19 by Yapko and Chapter 23 by Lynn and colleagues). 

Conclusion: toward an integrative science of conscious planes 

The present collection rekindles a rich lineage of integrative research on contemplative experience (Cardeña & Winkelman, 2011; Erickson, 1965; Goleman & Davidson, 1979; Tart, 1972; Vaitl et al., 2005). One of my favorite stories from this colorful history concerns the little-known friendship and collaboration between Milton Erickson and Aldous Huxley. Erickson, arguably one of the most prominent hypnotists of the twentieth century, was famous for his ability to unlock latent insight in his patients through open-ended, non-directive suggestions. Huxley, on the other hand, was an intellectual with wide-ranging knowledge and first-hand experience of meditative techniques and psychedelic states (including his experiments with the mescaline cactus reported in The Doors of Perception). Less appreciated today is the fact that Huxley was also a gifted hyp- notic subject; indeed, his ability to dissociate was so strong that, as a boy, he could simply ignore the school bullies until they left him alone. Putting Huxley’s innate talent to good use, early in 1950, Erickson, serving the role of master hypnotist, guided him through a series of contempla- tive experiments probing the depths of internal space. Although sadly the bulk of their detailed notes perished in a California brush fire, the surviving documents report a meticulous explora- tion of diverse absorptions, dissociations, insights, time distortions, and mind–body phenomena (Erickson, 1965). To be sure, the scientific article that resulted from this rare crossing of minds hardly meets the hard-nosed criteria of contemporary behavioral psychology; nevertheless, these nascent explorations showcase empirical phenomenology in action and highlight the merits of uniting hypnosis and meditation to elucidate the boundaries of consciousness. Sixty-five years later, we have developed many new tools and nuanced theories for a science of consciousness— and still I cannot help but admire the open-minded spirit of these early pioneers. 

I hope this book will serve to encourage a science of experience that takes integrative, cross- cultural, and phenomenological approaches seriously (for a pioneering example of such work, see Thompson, 2014). After all, human beings developed the remarkable powers of hypnosis and meditation not through brain imaging experiments or reaction time analysis but, rather, by adopting an empirical approach toward and from within their own subjective experience. Further exploring the profound pliancy of our minds will require linking subjective and sociocultural methodologies with the tools of behavioral and biological research, as well as building meaningful bridges to span the full range of contemplative practices (extending beyond hypnosis and medita- tion to encompass dreams, psychedelic states, prayer, and so on). I envision this book as a stride in that direction. 

Cutting across disciplinary boundaries, the present collection offers a fresh outlook on con- templative research and practice. Synthesizing trailblazing neuroscientific findings with leading scholarship from the realms of cognitive science, phenomenology, psychiatry, history, religious studies, and anthropology, the chapters in this book illuminate empirical work on hypnosis and meditation to unravel underlying mechanisms and foster new therapeutic prospects. There is much work left undone, and with the 20/20 vision of hindsight I am compelled to point out at least a few things I would have done differently: I wish we had invited more contributions from underrepresented voices in these fields; I wish we had included more discussion of embodiment and movement-based practices such as Hatha Yoga and Tai Chi; and I wish we had focused more on compassion, altruism, and the ethical dimensions of contemplative experience. Alas, this book is but one step down a longer path. 

My co-editor Amir Raz and I are indebted to our distinguished contributors for sharing their forward-thinking perspectives in a manner that is both scholarly and relevant to a wide audience spanning a range of expertise. Whether you are a seasoned specialist or a novice dipping your toes into the waters of contemplative practice, I would encourage you to scan through the table of contents, peruse the chapters, and explore the many complementary and, indeed, sometimes diverging, viewpoints herein. It is my sincere wish that this multifaceted collection will enrich the transformative potential at the heart of human experience with new theories, fresh awareness, and, with any luck, a deepening of wisdom and love. 

References 

Accardi, M. C., Hallquist, M. N., Jensen, M. P., Patterson, D. R., Lynn, S. J., & Montgomery, G. H. (2013). Clinical hypnosis for chronic pain in adults. The Cochrane Library.

Alderman, L. (2011, April 15). Using hypnosis to gain more control over your illness. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Alladin, A. (2012). Cognitive hypnotherapy: a new vision and strategy for research and practice. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 54(4), 249–262.

Alladin, A. (2014). Mindfulness-based hypnosis: blending science, beliefs, and wisdoms to catalyze healing. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 56(3), 285–302.

Analayo, B. (2003). Satipatthana: the direct path to realization. Birmingham, UK: Windhorse. 

Anderson, M. (Ed.) (2015). The emergence of mindfulness in basic and clinical psychological science [Special issue]. American Psychologist, 70(7).

Benham, G., Woody, E. Z., Wilson, K. S., & Nash, M. R. (2006). Expect the unexpected: ability, attitude, and responsiveness to hypnosis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(2), 342–350. 

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., . . . Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. 

Bodhi, B. (2011). The noble eightfold path: way to the end of suffering. Washington, USA: Pariyatti. 

Bressler, S. L., & Menon, V. (2010). Large-scale brain networks in cognition: emerging methods and principles. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(6), 277–290.

Brewer, J. A., Elwafi, H. M., & Davis, J. H. (2013). Craving to quit: psychological models and neuro-biological mechanisms of mindfulness training as treatment for addictions. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 27(2), 366.

Brewer, J. A., & Garrison, K. A. (2014). The posterior cingulate cortex as a plausible mechanistic target of meditation: findings from neuroimaging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1307(1), 19–27. 

Bunting, M. (2014, May 6). Why we will come to see mindfulness as mandatory. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com

Cahn, B. R., & Polich, J. (2013). Meditation states and traits. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1, 48–96.

Cardeña, E. (2014a). Spinning in circles. The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation, 2(2), 121–123. 

Cardeña, E. (2014b). Hypnos and psyche: how hypnosis has contributed to the study of consciousness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 123.

Cardeña, E., Jönsson, P., Terhune, D. B., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2013). The neurophenomenology of neutral hypnosis. Cortex, 49(2), 375–385.

Cardeña, E., & Krippner, S. (2010). The cultural context of hypnosis. Handbook of clinical hypnosis (2nd ed.), pp. 743–771.

Cardeña, E., Sjöstedt, J. O., & Marcusson-Clavertz, D. (2014). Sustained attention and motivation in Zen meditators and non-meditators. Mindfulness, 1–6.

Cardeña, E., & Winkelman, M. (Eds.). (2011). Altering consciousness: multidisciplinary perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: current thought and critical issues. Mindfulness, 4(3), 255–268.

Chiesa, A., & Serretti, A. (2011). Mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain: a systematic review of the evidence. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 17(1), 83–93.

Davidson R. J. (2010). Empirical explorations of mindfulness: conceptual and methodological conundrums. Emotion, 10, 8–11

Davidson, R. J., & Goleman, D. J. (1977). The role of attention in meditation and hypnosis: a psycho-biological perspective on transformations of consciousness. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 25(4), 291–308.

Deeley, Q., Oakley, D. A., Toone, B., Giampietro, V., Brammer, M. J., Williams, S. C., & Halligan, P. W. (2012). Modulating the default mode network using hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 60(2), 206–228.

Erickson, M. H. (1965). A special inquiry with Aldous Huxley into the nature and character of various states of consciousness. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 8(1), 14–33.

Farb, N. A. (2012). Mind your expectations: exploring the roles of suggestion and intention in mindfulness training. The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation, 2(1), 27–42.

Farb, N. A. (2014). From retreat center to clinic to boardroom? Perils and promises of the modern mindfulness movement. Religions, 5(4), 1062–1086.

Fox, K. C., Thompson, E., Andrews-Hanna, J. R., & Christoff, K. (2014). Is thinking really aversive? A commentary on Wilson et al.’s “Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind.” Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1427.

Gandhi, B., & Oakley, D. A. (2005). Does “hypnosis” by any other name smell as sweet? The efficacy of “hypnotic” inductions depends on the label “hypnosis.” Consciousness and Cognition, 14(2), 304–315. 

Garrison, K. A., Santoyo, J. F., Davis, J. H., Thornhill IV, T. A., Kerr, C. E., & Brewer, J. A. (2013). Effortless awareness: using real time neurofeedback to investigate correlates of posterior cingulate cortex activity in meditators’ self-report. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. 

Garrison, K. A., Scheinost, D., Worhunsky, P. D., Elwafi, H. M., Thornhill IV, T. A., Thompson, E., . . . Brewer, J. A. (2013). Real-time fMRI links subjective experience with brain activity during focused attention. NeuroImage, 81, 110–118. 

Goleman, D., & Davidson, R. J. (Eds.). (1979). Consciousness, the brain, states of awareness, and alternate realities. Ardent Media. 

Grant, J. A. (2012). Towards a more meaningful comparison of meditation and hypnosis. The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation, 2(1), 71–74. 

Grant, J. A., & Rainville, P. (2005). Hypnosis and meditation: similar experiential changes and shared brain mechanisms. Medical Hypotheses, 65(3), 625–626. 

Green, J. P., Laurence, J. R., & Lynn, S. J. (2014). Hypnosis and psychotherapy: from Mesmer to mindfulness. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 199. 

Halsband, U., Mueller, S., Hinterberger, T., & Strickner, S. (2009). Plasticity changes in the brain in hypnosis and meditation. Contemporary Hypnosis, 26(4), 194–215. 

Harrington, A. (2007). The cure within: a history of mind–body medicine. W.W. Norton & Company. 

Hasenkamp, W. (2014). Using first-person reports during meditation to investigate basic cognitive experience. In S. Schmidt & H. Walach (Eds.), Meditation–neuroscientific approaches and philosophical implications (pp. 75–93). Springer International Publishing.

Hasenkamp, W., & Thompson, E. (2014). Examining subjective experience: advances in neurophenomenology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 466.

Hoeft, F., Gabrieli, J. D., Whitfield-Gabrieli, S., Haas, B. W., Bammer, R., Menon, V., & Spiegel, D. (2012). Functional brain basis of hypnotizability. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69(10), 1064–1072. Holroyd, J. (2003). The science of meditation and the state of hypnosis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 46(2), 109–128.

Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559.

Hurley, D. (2014, January 14). Breathing in vs. spacing out. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com 

Jacobs, T. L., Epel, E. S., Lin, J., Blackburn, E. H., Wolkowitz, O. M., Bridwell, D. A., . . . Saron, C. D. (2011). Intensive meditation training, immune cell telomerase activity, and psychological mediators.Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(5), 664–681.

Jensen, C. G., Vangkilde, S., Frokjaer, V., & Hasselbalch, S. G. (2012). Mindfulness training affects attention—Or is it attentional effort?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 106. 

Johnson, W. (1982). Riding the ox home: history of meditation from shamanism to science. London: Rider & Co. 

Kaliman, P., Álvarez-López, M. J., Cosín-Tomás, M., Rosenkranz, M. A., Lutz, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2014). Rapid changes in histone deacetylases and inflammatory gene expression in expert meditators. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 40, 96–107.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (2008). The domain of hypnosis, revisited. In M. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), Oxford handbook of hypnosis (pp. 21–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kihlstrom, J. F. (2014). Hypnosis and cognition. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(2), 139–152.

Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is an unhappy mind. Science, 330(6006), 932–932.

Kirmayer, L. J. (1992). Social constructions of hypnosis. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 40(4), 276–300.

Kirmayer, L. J. (2015). Mindfulness in cultural context. Transcultural psychiatry, 52(4), 447–469. 

Kirsch, I., Cardeña, E., Derbyshire, S., Dienes, Z., Heap, M., Kallio, S., . . . Whalley, M. (2011). Definitions of hypnosis and hypnotizability and their relation to suggestion and suggestibility: a consensus state- ment. Contemporary Hypnosis, 28(2), 107–115. 

Kosslyn, S. M., Thompson, W. L., Costantini-Ferrando, M. F., Alpert, N. M., & Spiegel, D. (2000). Hypnotic visual illusion alters color processing in the brain. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(8), 1279–1284. 

Kovács, Z. A., Puskás, L. G., Juhász, A., Rimanóczy, Á., Hackler Jr, L., Kátay, L., . . . Kálmán, J. (2008). Hypnosis upregulates the expression of immune-related genes in lymphocytes. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 77(4), 257–259. 

Landry, M., Appourchaux, K., & Raz, A. (2014). Elucidating unconscious processing with instrumental hypnosis. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. 

Lazar, S. W., Bush, G., Gollub, R. L., Fricchione, G. L., Khalsa, G., & Benson, H. (2000). Functional brain mapping of the relaxation response and meditation. Neuroreport, 11(7), 1581–1585. 

Leighton, T. D. (2012). Faces of compassion: classic Bodhisattva archetypes and their modern expression—an introduction to Mahayana Buddhism. Wisdom Publications Inc. 

Lifshitz, M., Aubert Bonn, N., Fischer, A., Kashem, I. F., & Raz, A. (2013). Using suggestion to modulate automatic processes: from Stroop to McGurk and beyond. Cortex, 49(2), 463–473. 

Lifshitz, M., Campbell, N. K., & Raz, A. (2012). Varieties of attention in hypnosis and meditation. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(3), 1582–1585. 

Lifshitz, M., Cusumano, E. P., & Raz, A. (2013). Hypnosis as neurophenomenology. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. 

Lifshitz, M., Howells, C., & Raz, A. (2012). Can expectation enhance response to suggestion? De-automatization illuminates a conundrum. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(2), 1001–1008. 

Lifshitz, M., & Raz, A. (2012). Hypnosis and meditation: vehicles of attention and suggestion. The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation, 2(1), 3–11. 

Lodro, G. G. (1998). Calm abiding and special insight: achieving spiritual transformation through meditation. Snow Lion Publications. 

Lutz, A., Dunne, J.D., & Davidson, R.J. (2007). Meditation and the neuroscience of consciousness: an introduction. In P.D. Zelazo, M. Moscovitch, & E. Thompson (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of conscious- ness (pp. 499–554). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

Lutz, A., Greischar, L. L., Rawlings, N. B., Ricard, M., & Davidson, R. J. (2004). Long-term meditators self-induce high-amplitude gamma synchrony during mental practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(46), 16369–16373. 

Lutz, A., Jha, A. P., Dunne, J. D., & Saron, C. D. (2015). Investigating the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related practices from a neurocognitive perspective. American Psychologist, 70(7), 632–658. 

Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163–169. 

Lutz, A., & Thompson, E. (2003). Neurophenomenology integrating subjective experience and brain dynamics in the neuroscience of consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 10(9–10), 31–52. 

Lynn, S. J., Barnes, S., Deming, A., & Accardi, M. (2010). Hypnosis, rumination, and depression: cata- lyzing attention and mindfulness-based treatments. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 58(2), 202–221 

Lynn, S. J., Das, L. S., Hallquist, M. N., & Williams, J. C. (2006). Mindfulness, acceptance, and hypnosis: cognitive and clinical perspectives. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 54(2), 143–166. 

Lynn, S. J., & Green, J. P. (2011). The sociocognitive and dissociation theories of hypnosis: toward a rapprochement. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 59(3), 277–293. 

Lynn, S. J., Green, J. P., Accardi, M., & Cleere, C. (2010). Hypnosis and smoking cessation: the state of the science. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 52(3), 177–181. 

May, A. (2011). Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(10), 475–482. 

Newberg, A., Alavi, A., Baime, M., Pourdehnad, M., Santanna, J., & d’Aquili, E. (2001). The measurement of regional cerebral blood flow during the complex cognitive task of meditation: a preliminary SPECT study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 106(2), 113–122. 

North, A. (2014, June 30). The mindfulness backlash. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www. nytimes.com 

Oakley, D. A., & Halligan, P. W. (2013). Hypnotic suggestion: opportunities for cognitive neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(8), 565–576. 

Otani, A. (2003). Eastern meditative techniques and hypnosis: a new synthesis. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 46(2), 97–108. 

Park, H. J., & Friston, K. (2013). Structural and functional brain networks: from connections to cognition. Science, 342(6158), 1238411. 

Pickert, K. (2014, February). The mindful revolution. Time, 183(4), 40–49.

Pintar, J., & Lynn, S. J. (2008). Hypnosis: a brief history. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Purser, R., & Loy, D. (2013). Beyond McMindfulness. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www. huffingtonpost.com

Rainville, P., Hofbauer, R., Paus, T., Duncan, G., Bushnell, M., & Price, D. (1999). Cerebral mechanisms of hypnotic induction and suggestion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11(1), 110–125.

Raz, A. (2011). Hypnosis: a twilight zone of the top-down variety: few have never heard of hypnosis but most know little about the potential of this mind–body regulation technique for advancing science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(12), 555–557.

Raz, A., & Shapiro, T. (2002). Hypnosis and neuroscience: a cross talk between clinical and cognitive research. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59(1), 85–90.

Roseman, L., Leech, R., Feilding, A., Nutt, D. J., & Carhart-Harris, R. L. (2014). The effects of psilocybin and MDMA on between-network resting state functional connectivity in healthy volunteers. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8.

Rosenkranz, M. A., Davidson, R. J., MacCoon, D. G., Sheridan, J. F., Kalin, N. H., & Lutz, A. (2013). A comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and an active control in modulation of neurogenic inflammation. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 27, 174–184.

Schmidt, S. (2014). Opening up meditation for science: the development of a meditation classification system. In S. Schmidt & H. Walach (Eds.), Meditation–neuroscientific approaches and philosophical implications (pp. 137–152). Springer International Publishing.

Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (Eds.). (2014). Meditation–neuroscientific approaches and philosophical implications. Springer International Publishing.

Schooler, J. W., Mrazek, M. D., Franklin, M. S., Baird, B., Mooneyham, B. W., Zedelius, C., & Broadway,J. M. (2014). The middle way: finding the balance between mindfulness and mind-wandering. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 60, 1–33.

Schumpeter. (2013, November 16). The mindfulness business. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www. economist.com

Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S., & Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of meditation: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(6), 1139.

Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2012). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. Guilford Press.

Shackman, A. J., Salomons, T. V., Slagter, H. A., Fox, A. S., Winter, J. J., & Davidson, R. J. (2011). The integration of negative affect, pain and cognitive control in the cingulate cortex. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(3), 154–167.

Shor, R. E., & Orne, E. C. (1962). Harvard group scale of hypnotic susceptibility: Form A. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists’ Press. 

Smallwood, J., & Andrews-Hanna, J. (2013). Not all minds that wander are lost: the importance of a bal- anced perspective on the mind-wandering state. Frontiers in Psychology, 4. 

Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2014). The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology. 

Spiegel, D., White, M., & Waelde, L. C. (2010). Hypnosis, mindfulness meditation, and brain imaging. In D. Barrett (Ed.), Hypnosis and hypnotherapy (pp. 37–52). Santa Barbara: Greenwood Publishing Group. 

Stehr, N., & Weingart, P. (Eds.). (2000). Practising interdisciplinarity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Tang, Y. Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(4), 213–225. 

Tang, Y. Y., & Posner, M. I. (2012). Special issue on mindfulness neuroscience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8(1), 1–3. 

Tart, C. T. (1972). States of consciousness and state-specific sciences. Science, 176(4040), 1203–1210. Terhune, D. B., Cardeña, E., & Lindgren, M. (2011). Dissociated control as a signature of typological variability in high hypnotic suggestibility. Consciousness and cognition, 20(3), 727–736.

Thanissaro, B. (1997). One tool among many: the place of vipassana in Buddhist practice. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), March 8, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.accesstoinsight.org

Thompson, E. (2006). Neurophenomenology and contemplative experience. In P. Clayton & Z. Simpson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of religion and science (pp. 226–235). Oxford University Press. 

Thompson, E. (2014). Waking, dreaming, being: self and consciousness in neuroscience, meditation, and philosophy. New York City: Columbia University Press.

Todd, R. M., Cunningham, W. A., Anderson, A. K., & Thompson, E. (2012). Affect-biased attention as emotion regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(7), 365–372.

Vaitl, D., Birbaumer, N., Gruzelier, J., Jamieson, G. A., Kotchoubey, B., Kübler, A., . . . Weiss, T. (2005). Psychobiology of altered states of consciousness. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 98–127.

Varela, F. J. (1996). Neurophenomenology: a methodologicalremedy for the hard problem. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3, 330–349.

Wagstaff, G. F. (2014). On the centrality of the concept of an altered state to definitions of hypnosis. The Journal of Mind–Body Regulation, 2(2), 90–108.

Williams, J. M. G., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011). Mindfulness: diverse perspectives on its meaning, origins, and multiple applications at the intersection of science and dharma. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(01), 1–18. 

Wilson, T. D., Reinhard, D. A., Westgate, E. C., Gilbert, D. T., Ellerbeck, N., Hahn, C., . . . Shaked, A. (2014). Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind. Science, 345(6192), 75–77.

Woody, E. Z., & Sadler, P. (2008). Dissociation theories of hypnosis. In M. Nash & A. Barnier (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of hypnosis: theory, research, and practice (pp. 81–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Yapko, M. D. (2011). Mindfulness and hypnosis: the power of suggestion to transform experience. W.W. Norton & Company.

Yapko, M. D. (Ed.). (2013). Hypnosis and treating depression: applications in clinical practice. Routledge. Zopa, L. R. (2012). Bodhisattva attitude: how to dedicate your life to others (Vol. 1). Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archive. 

Keywords; meditation, mindfulness, hypnosis