Cited by 53Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyIndian and Buddhist Studies

Sustainable Compassion Training: Integrating Meditation Theory With Psychological Science

Open access
Condon, Paul, Makransky, John·2020·Frontiers in Psychology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Meditation programs continue to proliferate in the modern world, with increasing participation from scientists and many others who seek to improve physical, mental, relational, and social flourishing. In developing such programs, the meditation practices have been adapted to meet the needs of modern cultures. However, through that adaptation, important contextual factors of traditional contemplative cultures are often dropped or forgotten. This article presents a system of compassion and mindfulness training, Sustainable Compassion Training (SCT), which is designed to help people cultivate increasingly unconditional, inclusive, and sustainable care for self and others. SCT aims to recover important contextual factors of meditation that flexibly meet the diverse needs of modern secular and religious participants. SCT draws on Tibetan Buddhism in dialogue with caregivers, other contemplative traditions and relevant scientific theories to inform meditative transformation for secular contexts. We provide an overview of SCT meditations that includes both contemplative and scientific theories that draw out important features of them. Each meditation includes novel hypotheses that are generated from this dialogical process. We also provide links to audio-guided meditations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02249

Cites

108 of 108 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 112 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Condon, P., & Makransky, J.
Affiliations
  • Southern Oregon University (US)
  • Boston College (US)
Corresponding author
  • Condon, Paul
  • Makransky, John
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2020-09-11
Volume
11
Pages
2249-2249
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3086457396
Cited by
53
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 3
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Boston College
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
Keywords
compassion training, mindfulness training, meditation, Tibetan Buddhism, contemplative traditions, inclusive care, dialogic process

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review