Trauma & Dissociation discussion

June 2025 BOTM:
Trauma-Sensitive Mindfulness: Practices for Safe and Transformative Healing by David Treleaven (2018)


Publisher’s Summary
"[A] rare combination of solid scholarship, clinically useful methods, and passionate advocacy for those who have suffered trauma." ―Rick Hanson, PhD, author of Buddha's Brain: The Practical Neuroscience of Happiness, Love, and Wisdom From elementary schools to psychotherapy offices, mindfulness meditation is an increasingly mainstream practice. At the same time, trauma remains a fact of life: the majority of us will experience a traumatic event in our lifetime, and up to 20% of us will develop posttraumatic stress. This means that anywhere mindfulness is being practiced, someone in the room is likely to be struggling with trauma. At first glance, this appears to be a good thing: trauma creates stress, and mindfulness is a proven tool for reducing it. But the reality is not so simple. Drawing on a decade of research and clinical experience, psychotherapist and educator David Treleaven shows that mindfulness meditation―practiced without an awareness of trauma―can exacerbate symptoms of traumatic stress. Instructed to pay close, sustained attention to their inner world, survivors can experience flashbacks, dissociation, and even retraumatization. This raises a crucial question for mindfulness teachers, trauma professionals, and survivors everywhere: How can we minimize the potential dangers of mindfulness for survivors while leveraging its powerful benefits? Trauma-Sensitive Mindfulness offers answers to this question. Part I provides an insightful and concise review of the histories of mindfulness and trauma, including the way modern neuroscience is shaping our understanding of both. Through grounded scholarship and wide-ranging case examples, Treleaven illustrates the ways mindfulness can help―or hinder―trauma recovery. Part II distills these insights into five key principles for trauma-sensitive mindfulness. Covering the role of attention, arousal, relationship, dissociation, and social context within trauma-informed practice, Treleaven offers 36 specific modifications designed to support survivors’ safety and stability. The result is a groundbreaking and practical approach that empowers those looking to practice mindfulness in a safe, transformative way

Thank you for this! 🙏

Questions for the group:

Do you meditate?

Has trauma posed an obstacle to mediation for you or anyone you know?

I do a sort of meditative practice frequently, and enjoy walking meditation, but the sitting and breathing in a formal way never worked great for me.

Not sure if it trauma, personality, screen addiction etc..

But I do get quiet often so maybe it's just my style.

Interesting. I also have my own practice that I prefer to do walking.

However, I can do it normal ways too. I don’t have trouble per se, but don’t necessarily feel profound benefits the way others sometimes report.

I don’t seem to have problems with it, and chose this book because my daughter does, though trauma doesn’t seem a part of her story.

I get that for someone significantly traumatized, participating in group or individual therapy can be like kicking a hornets nest. I have never been stung by a hornet, but it’s pretty difficult to get through anything you might want to do if hornets are swarming about … which I have literally experienced. When I meditate, I don’t feel like I’ve kicked the hornets nest. It’s not triggering per se … but I guess that’s what this author is suggesting.

He is talking about trauma as being an inability to integrate an experience. I’m channeling Gary Coleman and his line from Different Strokes: Whatchyu talking’ ‘bout, Willis!?

This line of reasoning is bizarre and isn’t working for me.

He is trying to say trauma is ubiquitous.
Whatchyu talkin’ ‘bout Willis?!

He is talking about how eye opening it was to him to have an experience where people were asked to step into a circle when they ______. Instead of experienced trauma, he is pulling in the blank with things like “if you have witnessed violence” or “know someone who ____”. Knowing someone who experienced trauma is NOT experiencing trauma. Seeing someone get hit is not necessarily trauma, but might be or is getting closer depending on the situation. If you saw two boys at school get in a fight, … that is not necessarily trauma. If you know of someone who got raped … some girl in my class at school … how on Earth is that trauma for you, if you are not related, are merely acquainted, and don’t know anything about how it happened or who the offender even was. What does this prove?

Just for the record, I am 100% opposed to this big tent interpretation. Nope. And if you’re a therapist hearing my trauma, not having experienced it, not having ever been under any personal threat, … that’s not trauma. Nope. Might be uncomfortable. Discomfort is not trauma. Might be a trigger reminding you of your own personal trauma, but it is not trauma itself.

That’s just offensive to equate the full mountain of a traumatic experience with having heard of or about a recounted story … a relative molehill. These are not the same thing.

He says 90% of people will have been exposed to a traumatic event over the course of their lives. I think I’ve read 70% in global studies from the WHO. The numbers in the US seem to be a bit lower. He says 90%. He says it is very important, if you are to consider yourself trauma informed, to know the statistics. Yet, it seems he is intent on maximizing this number. I don’t agree with that (the maximization of statistics) and would take it as minimizing my experience. What purpose does that serve? Is he trying to say his take on meditation is needed by 90% of people? Is he trying to suggest that by insulting all of those people? Baffled. That is not being “trauma sensitive”. I will share another statistic. I’ve read that about 10% who’ve experienced a traumatic event go on to have significant post traumatic stress corresponding to that same event. WHO puts it at 5.6%. My point is, the percent of people who in their lifetime experience significant post traumatic stress … is not 90%. The National Institute of Health in the US put an estimated lifetime experience of PTSD at 6.8%. WHO puts the number at 3.9%. A book can still be really important even if only 3.9% of the 7 billion of us might personally benefit.