编辑“覺察”（章节）

== 關注與批評 ==
=== 學術研究 ===
以上所引用的許多綜述研究還表明有必要在該領域進行更多高質量的研究，例如使用更大的樣本量進行干預研究，使用更多的隨機對照研究，以及在報告的研究中提供更多方法細節的必要性<ref name="Creswell" /><ref name="KengSmoskiRobins2011"/>。大多數研究也把覺察作為一種特質以作衡量，並且在臨床實踐中使用覺察干預的研究中，缺乏真正的隨機化對理解覺察的真正有效性造成了問題。然而，使用隨機樣本的實驗方法表明，覺察作為一種狀態或臨時做法可以影響厭惡等感受情緒並促進抽象決策<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.014| vauthors = Chan EY|year=2019|title=Mindfulness and willingness to try insects as food: The role of disgust|journal=Food Quality and Preference|volume=71|pages=375–383| s2cid = 150289273}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Chan EY, Wang Y | title = Mindfulness changes construal level: An experimental investigation | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology. General | volume = 148 | issue = 9 | pages = 1656–1664 | date = September 2019 | pmid = 31355654 | doi = 10.1037/xge0000654 | s2cid = 198965872 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Wachs K, Cordova JV | title = Mindful relating: exploring mindfulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-marital-and-family-therapy_2007-10_33_4/page/464 | journal = Journal of Marital and Family Therapy | volume = 33 | issue = 4 | pages = 464–481 | date = October 2007 | pmid = 17935530 | doi = 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x }}</ref>。還有一些評論研究表明覺察干預組與對照組之間幾乎沒有區別，儘管它們也確實表明他們的干預組接受的治療時間太短，以至於研究無法得出結論<ref name= McLean2017 >{{cite journal | vauthors = McLean G, Lawrence M, Simpson R, Mercer SW | title = Mindfulness-based stress reduction in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review | journal = BMC Neurology | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 92 | date = May 2017 | pmid = 28506263 | pmc = 5433018 | doi = 10.1186/s12883-017-0876-4 }}</ref><ref name=Taylor2016>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lever Taylor B, Cavanagh K, Strauss C | title = The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 11 | issue = 5 | pages = e0155720 | year = 2016 | pmid = 27182732 | pmc = 4868288 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0155720 | doi-access = free | bibcode = 2016PLoSO..1155720L }}</ref>。在例如運動的某些領域中，跨研究之間缺乏內部有效性，因此無法對覺察的影響作出任何強而有力的主張<ref name=Noetel2019 />。這些研究還列出了進行更強有力的研究調查的必要性。這還確定了與覺察評估有關的幾個問題，包括目前正使用的自我報告問卷<ref name="Creswell" /><ref name="KengSmoskiRobins2011"/><ref name=Grossman_2008>{{cite journal | vauthors = Grossman P | title = On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-psychosomatic-research_2008-04_64_4/page/405 | journal = Journal of Psychosomatic Research | volume = 64 | issue = 4 | pages = 405–408 | date = April 2008 | pmid = 18374739 | doi = 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.02.001 }}</ref>。潛在的偏見也存在於該領域的研究人員，他們也是該領域的從業者，可能會受到壓力而發表正面或顯著的結果{{R|"Nisbet"}}。

許多學者批評了近年的西方心理學出版物中有關覺察的定義或表現方式{{sfn|Bishop|Lau|Shapiro|Carlson|2004}}<ref name="wallace06">{{cite book |title=The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind |last=Wallace |first=B. Alan |name-list-style=vanc |author-link=B. Alan Wallace |year=2006 |publisher=Wisdom Publications |location=Boston |isbn=978-0861712762 |url=https://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip065/2005037195.html |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2007-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070212192746/http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip065/2005037195.html |dead-url=no }}</ref>。這些現代理解與早期佛教典籍中有關於覺察/正念的描述，以及[[上座部佛教]]的權威評論與印度大乘傳統大相逕庭<ref name="wallace06" />{{rp|62}}<ref name="chiesa13">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s12671-012-0123-4 |title=The Difficulty of Defining Mindfulness: Current Thought and Critical Issues |journal=Mindfulness |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=255–68 |year=2012 |last1=Chiesa |first1=Alberto |s2cid=2244732 | name-list-style = vanc }}</ref>。亞當·瓦萊里奧（Adam Valerio）提出了這樣的一種觀點，即學術與學科之間關於覺察的定義、理解和普遍呈現方式的衝突可能表明個人、機構或典範式爭奪對覺察(正念)的擁有權，學者、研究人員和其他作家跟宗教團體以個人的身份作出大致相同的方式投入<ref name="Valerio 1–27" />。

=== 缺點 ===
覺察作為一種「商品{{sfn|Safran|2014}}」的普及遭到批評，被一些評論家稱為「麥克覺察（McMindfulness）」<ref group=web name="McMindfulness">{{Cite web|last1=Purser|first1=Ron|last2=Loy|first2=David|date=July 1, 2013|url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289|title=Beyond McMindfulness|website=HuffPost|access-date=2023-02-05|archive-date=2023-08-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230807140858/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beyond-mcmindfulness_b_3519289|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref group=web name="TriMc">{{Cite web |url=https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/trike-contributing-editor-david-loy-takes-mcmindfulness/ |title=Trike Contributing Editor David Loy takes on "McMindfulness" |first=Alex |last=Caring-Lobel |name-list-style=vanc |date=July 2, 2013 |website=Tricycle: The Buddhist Review |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2022-07-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220706223441/https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/trike-contributing-editor-david-loy-takes-mcmindfulness/ |dead-url=no }}</ref>{{sfn|Bazzano|2014}}。根據約翰·賽峰（John Safran）的說法，覺察的普及是營銷策略的結果{{sfn|Safran|2014}}：「麥克覺察是對構建夢想的營銷；是一種理想化的生活方式；一種身份改造{{sfn|Safran|2014}}<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/677842 |title=Creating the Responsible Consumer: Moralistic Governance Regimes and Consumer Subjectivity |year=2014 |last1=Giesler |first1=Markus|last2=Veresiu |first2=Ela | name-list-style = vanc |author-link1=Markus Giesler |author-link2=Ela Veresiu |journal=Journal of Consumer Research |volume=41 |issue=October |pages=849–67 |s2cid=145622639 }}</ref><ref>Safran, Jeremy D., PhD. "McMindfulness." Psychology Today. n.p., 13 June 2014. Web. 2 April 2015. <https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/straight-talk/201406/mcmindfulness>.</ref>。」心理學家{{le|湯馬士·喬伊納|Thomas Joiner}}認為，現代覺察冥想已被自助名人「腐蝕」以獲得商業利益，並暗示它鼓勵不健康的自戀與自我迷戀的心態<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bond |first1=Michael |url=https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531430-900-lost-in-meditation-two-books-argue-over-mindfulness/amp/ |title=Lost in meditation: Two books argue over mindfulness |journal=New Scientist |date=13 September 2017 |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2022-06-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627221702/https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23531430-900-lost-in-meditation-two-books-argue-over-mindfulness/amp/ |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mindlessness-9780190200626?cc=gb&lang=en& |title=Mindlessness: The Corruption of Mindfulness in a Culture of Narcissism |first=Thomas |last=Joiner |year=2017 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-020062-6 |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2023-03-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230306145540/https://global.oup.com/academic/product/mindlessness-9780190200626?cc=gb&lang=en& |dead-url=no }}</ref>。根據珀澤（Purser）和洛伊（Loy）的說法，覺察並沒有被用作喚醒對「貪婪、惡意、妄想的不善根源」的洞察手段<ref group=web name="McMindfulness" />，但它被重新塑造成一種「平庸的、治療性的、自助的」技術，這具有增強這些熱情的反效果<ref group=web name="McMindfulness" />。雖然覺察被宣傳為減輕壓力的一種方式，但在佛教語境下，它是一個包羅萬象的道德計劃的一部分，旨在培養「明智的行為、社會和諧和同情心」<ref group=web name="McMindfulness" />。覺察私有化忽略了對社會和組織原因感到的壓力與不適，而是對這些情況的傳播適應<ref group=web name="McMindfulness" />。根據菩提比丘所說，如果沒有尖銳的社會批判，佛教修行很容易被用來證明和穩定現狀，成為了消費資本主義的強化力量<ref group=web name="McMindfulness" />。這個覺察新品牌的流行正透過自助書籍、冥想指導課程和覺察靜修使冥想變得商業化。

{{Cquote|覺察據說是一個價值$40億美元的產業。亞馬遜上出售的超過60,000多本書籍的標題中都包含著「覺察」的變體，宣傳著覺察育兒、覺察飲食、覺察教學、覺察治療、覺察領導、覺察財務、覺察國家和覺察狗主......的好處，僅舉幾例<ref>{{cite web |last1=Purser |first1=Ronald |name-list-style=vanc |title=The mindfulness conspiracy |url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/14/the-mindfulness-conspiracy-capitalist-spirituality |website=The Guardian |date=14 June 2019 |access-date=15 January 2020 |archive-date=2023-09-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230921201408/https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/14/the-mindfulness-conspiracy-capitalist-spirituality |dead-url=no }}</ref>。}}

佛教評論家批評該運動被描述為等同於佛教修行，而實際上它很可能已變質並產生不良後果，例如沒有傳統反思道德的基礎，因此偏離了傳統佛教倫理。批評建議將其道德化或重新道德化為基於臨床的倫理學。這衝突通常跟導師的資歷和資格有關，而不是學生的實際實踐。受佛教影響的改革實踐正在標準化和手冊化，與佛教截然不同—這被視為一種以寺院為基礎的宗教—並在現代冥想中心實踐新的心理學倫理中表現為「覺察/正念」<ref>{{cite book|last1=Shonin|first1=Edo | name-list-style = vanc |title=Buddhist Foundations of Mindfulness (Mindfulness in Behavioral Health)|date=August 27, 2015|publisher=Springer|pages=90–94|edition=1st}}</ref>。

=== 風險 ===
在媒體報導中，人們把練習覺察後所增加的恐懼和焦慮、恐慌或「崩潰」歸因於意想不到的效果，他們認為這可能會暴露於[[雙相情緒障礙症]]或壓抑的[[創傷後壓力症]]症狀<ref>{{cite news|last1=Foster|first1=Dawn|name-list-style=vanc|title=Is mindfulness making us ill?|url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/is-mindfulness-making-us-ill|access-date=2016-01-23|work=[[The Guardian]]|date=2016-01-23|archive-date=2016-01-23|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160123163827/http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/is-mindfulness-making-us-ill|dead-url=no}}</ref>。然而，根據已發表的同行評審學術文章，冥想的這些負面影響對於覺察冥想來說是罕見的<ref name="Creswell" /><ref name= SHONIN2014>{{cite journal |doi=10.2217/cpr.14.23 |title=Are there risks associated with using mindfulness in the treatment of psychopathology? |journal=Clinical Practice |volume=11 |issue=4 |pages=389–92 |year=2014 |last1=Shonin |first1=Edo |last2=Gordon |first2=William Van |last3=Griffiths |first3=Mark D |name-list-style=vanc |url=http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25868/1/221391_2996.pdf |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2020-09-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930072549/http://irep.ntu.ac.uk/id/eprint/25868/1/221391_2996.pdf |dead-url=no }}</ref><ref name=Wong2018>{{cite journal | vauthors =  Wong SY, Chan JY, Zhang D, Lee EK, Tsoi KK |title= The Safety of Mindfulness-Based Interventions: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials |journal= Mindfulness |pages=1344–1357 |date=2018 |volume= 9 |issue= 5 | doi = 10.1007/s12671-018-0897-0 |s2cid= 255783169 }}</ref>，並且似乎是由於對真正構成覺察／冥想練習的的實際理解不足而發生的<ref name="Karunamuni2017" /><ref name="SHONIN2014" />。