The research literature on mindfulness and meditation (MM) practices in psychology is replete with descriptions of the meditative process and its possible mechanisms of action. The mainstreaming of MM has endeavored to shed its practices of Buddhist truth claims, appealing to the universality of introspection and attentional control. However, ostensibly secularized studies and practices on MM may be committing to unsupported epistemic and metaphysical arguments through their use of language. This critique broadly addresses language used in the field of research psychology and clinical practice that suggests a level of epistemic accuracy of descriptions of MM practices—or the level to which a person is able to perceive truth in the world, as well as metaphysical claims about personal identity and the universe. The epistemic accuracy and metaphysical aspects of MM practices are not supported in secular research studies. Examples of these possible claims in secular research are presented and critiqued. Ethical considerations of language use in MM studies and instructions are also discussed. This commentary cautions against the use of poorly defined terms and calls for a broader philosophical review of epistemic and metaphysical claims in secular literature.

心理学中关于正念和冥想 (MM) 实践的研究文献充满了对冥想过程及其可能的作用机制的描述。MM的主流化努力摆脱其佛教真理主张的实践，诉诸内省和注意力控制的普遍性。然而，表面上对 MM 的世俗化研究和实践可能会通过语言的使用致力于不受支持的认识论和形而上学的论点。这种批评广泛涉及研究心理学和临床实践领域中使用的语言，这些语言表明对 MM 实践的描述具有一定程度的认知准确性——或者一个人能够感知世界真相的程度，以及关于个人身份和宇宙。世俗研究不支持 MM 实践的认知准确性和形而上学方面。这些在世俗研究中可能的主张的例子被提出和批评。还讨论了 MM 研究和指导中语言使用的伦理考虑。这篇评论警告不要使用定义不清的术语，并呼吁对世俗文学中的认识论和形而上学主张进行更广泛的哲学审查。