Meditation

Self-regulation Strategy and Altered State of Consciousness

Rosemary A. Stevens

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351506168
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Psychiatry & Mental Health

Despite the increase in meditation studies, the quality remains variable; many of them are trivial, and most remain unreplicated. Research on meditation has been plagued by insubstantial theorizing, global claims, and the substitution of belief systems for grounded hypotheses. Meditation punctures some of the myths about meditation, while retaining a place of value for mediation as a normal human function.

In each chapter includes discussion of the major questions addressed, followed by a detailed critique of important theoretical, clinical, and research issues. In several instances the reader may find that questions seem to beget questions: research bearing upon certain issues may be contradictory, or not yet of sufficient thoroughness. In these cases, the author suggests the specific future research necessary to resolve the questions posed, so that claims about meditation are justified, and which are not. The profession of psychology itself is, and has been, in a polarized debate between the "practitioners" and the "experimentalists." The latter accuse the former of being "soft, non-empirical, non-scientific, " while practitioners accuse the experimentalists of conducting research which is essentially irrelevant to human concerns.

This approach provides a bridge between research and clinical practice. Meditation provides an encompassing survey of the topic--nearly forty tables and figures; sample questionnaires, evaluations and programs and a detailed overview of a controversial field. Shapiro separates self-regulation with self-delusion, to outline questions and possible answers.

1
Perspectives on Meditation

Clinical and Psychotherapeutic Applications

What effect does the teaching of meditation have on an individual who practices?

1.1 Effects

AT FIRST GLANCE, the answer to this question would be an overwhelming “several!” A brief review of the literature reveals that meditation has been found to influence an impressive number of different outcome criteria in a positive direction. For example, meditation has been shown to be effective for clinical concerns such as stress, substance abuse, fears and phobias (Shapiro & Giber, 1978), psychosomatic complaints (Udupa, 1973, Vahia et al., 1973), reduction of neuroticism and depression (Ferguson & Gowan, 1976; Vahia et al., 1973), increasing congruence between a person’s real and ideal self (Bono, 1980 in press), fostering self-actualization (Seeman, Nidich & Banta, 1972; Nidich, Seeman & Dreskin, 1973), helping an individual develop a sense of personal meaning in the world (Osis et al, 1973; Kohr, 1977; Goleman, 1971), a sense of personal responsibility (Shapiro, 19$78a, 1980 in press), increased internal locus of control (Hjelle, 1974), and an increase of positive self-statements, feelings of creativity, and a concomittant decrease of negative self-statements (Shapiro, 1978a).

In addition to the literature on positive effects, there has recently been a small, though growing literature suggesting some of the adverse effects which might occur with meditation (e.g., French et al., 1975; Lazarus, 1976; Otis, 1980 in press).

1.2 Clinician’s/Trainer’s Orientation

BECAUSE OF THE broad range of positive effects meditation seems to produce with different dependent variables, clinicians and therapists from several orientations have been attracted to it. Some have conceptualized it as a self-regulation strategy useful in behavioral medicine (Stroebel & Glueck, 1977; Schwartz & Weiss, 1977), or as a clinical tool for anxiety and the addictions within the behavioral framework (Shapiro & Zifferblatt, 1976a; Shapiro, 1978b, Berwick & Oziel, 1973; Woolfolk & Franks, 1980 in press). Some have conceptualized it as a useful means of becoming aware of one’s own self-actualizing nature, of developing increased congruence between one’s real and ideal self, as a way of taking more responsibility for one’s life and therefore useful in humanistic psychotherapy for clients and therapists (e.g., Keefe, 1975; Schuster, 1979; Lesh, 1970); as an integral part of holistic medicine (e.g., Hastings & Fadiman, 1980 in press). Others have conceptualized meditation as an “evocative” strategy which allows repressed material to come forth from the unconscious (e.g., Carrington & Ephron, 1975) and allows for controlled regression in the service of the ego (e.g., Shafii, 1973); and as therefore useful from a psychoanalytic viewpoint. From another viewpoint, meditation has been conceptualized as a technique that helps individuals let go of thoughts, become relatively egoless, yielding, present centered; and is therefore useful in transpersonal psychotherapy (e.g., Weide, 1973; Goleman, 1971; Clark, 1977; Shapiro, 1978b; Walsh & Vaughan, 1980).

From a historical perspective, this interest in meditation and Eastern thought by Western scientists and health-care professionals is relatively recent. For example, a little over thirty years ago Carl Jung (1947) wrote a foreword to D.T. Suzuki’s Introduction to Zen. This represented one of the first attempts by a psychologically trained Westerner to interact with and write about Eastern thought and philosophy. And as recently as the late sixties, Charles Tart (1969) noted in his book on altered states that by including two articles on meditation, he was including two thirds of the published English-language experimental work. Since Tart’s book, and a related book edited by Robert Ornstein (1972), the scientific literature on meditation has increased exponentially. Further, there have been increased attempts to look for theoretical insights, combinations, and blendings between Eastern thought and Western psychology, ranging across many theoretical orientations from Sullivanian interpersonal theory (e.g., Stunkard, 1951) through psychoanalysis (e.g., Fromm, 1960) and existentialism (e.g., Boss, 1965) to behavior therapy (e.g., Shapiro, 1978b).

Why this sudden interest? It appears that Western scientists and health care professionals have begun to look seriously at Eastern techniques such as meditation for four primary reasons. First, the interest of the Western scientific community was catalyzed in the mid 1960’s by reports from India and the Orient detailing extraordinary feats of bodily control and altered states of consciousness by meditation masters (Wenger & Bagchi, 1961; Gundu Rao et al., 1958; Kasamatsu et al., 1957; Anand, Chinna & Singh, 1961b). These reports from the East were not summarily dismissed because they paralleled a rather major shift in Western scientific Zeitgeist and models. For example, Miller and DiCara, among others, were showing that voluntary control of the autonomic nervous system was possible (Miller, 1969; DiCara, 1970; Shapiro, Tursky & Schwartz, 1970; DiCara & Weiss, 1969); and Tart (1971) was pointing out how a variety of arcane, seemingly incomprehensible phenomena of non-Western psychologies could be rendered understandable within the framework of state-dependent technologies. Further, increased sophistication in scientific instrumentation gave rise to the possibility of replicating and substantiating these anecdotal reports.

Second, there is a growing dissatisfaction among health-care professionals in our culture who find themselves treating stress-related disorders with pharmacological solutions (cf. Glueck & Stroebel, 1975, Benson, 1975). This has resulted in attempts to find non-drug-related self-regulation strategies by which individuals may learn to better manage their own internal and external behaviors. Meditation is viewed as one such potential self-regulation strategy.

Although Western psychology and psychiatry were born out of a concern with pathology (e.g., Freud’s index contains four-hundred references to neurosis and none to health; all the psychiatric diagnostic categories of the DSM [Diagnostical and Statistical Manual] are pathological), recently there has been a shift in interest toward exploring positive mental health (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Walsh & Shapiro, 1980). There is a recognition of the self-fulfilling power of scientific models in general (Kuhn, 1971) and of models of the person in particular (Bandura, 1974). This interest in models of positive health has led to a turning to other traditions, such as the Eastern, in which years of effort have already been expended toward developing and seeking to implement an expanded vision of our human potential.

Fourth, many individuals in this society are looking for values and meaning alternative to those of our competitive, fast-paced technological culture, and the Eastern tradition offers them one such alternative. A Gallup Poll in November, 1976 noted that nearly eight percent of the American population—sixteen million people—were involved with Eastern disciplines and Eastern techniques such as meditation and yoga. Further, according to the Transcendental Meditation organization, as of December, 1978 more than one million Westerners had been instructed in the specific TM practice. This large number of individuals provides Western science with a potential subject pool of meditators instructed in a standardized practice, thereby facilitating opportunities for research. Finally, more and more researchers, clinicians, and health-care professionals either meditate themselves or come into contact with clients or patients who do, and therefore need to be at least conversant with the meditation literature.

1.3 Areas of Potential Paradigm Clash: Science, Religion, Experience and Analysis

WHEN WE, as Western scientists and clinicians, attempt to understand, study, and/or utilize, either personally or professionally, a technique which originated in a different philosophical and cultural framework, some problems may occur. Although we may not be able to totally avoid them, a certain sensitivity to their potential existence becomes important.

First, it is critical to acknowledge that both science and religion are based upon belief systems. Acknowledging that religion is based on quite a strong belief system—i.e. faith—scientists are often less willing to acknowledge their own preconceptions— “paradigms”-of the world (Kuhn, 1971, Tart, 1972; Polanyi, 1958). These “scientific” belief systems (concepts, models, paradigms) not only may affect the content of what is observed, but also the process by which it is observed and interpreted. They may act as self-fulfilling prophetic filters for experimental and experiential knowledge, acquisitions, and interpretations.

Infrequently recognized by Western science, two basic types of knowledge exist—1) experiential (non-symbolic, direct) and 2) map knowledge (cartographic, conceptual, symbolic, inferential) —and three modes of knowledge acquisition: 1) physical (science), 2) conceptual (philosophy), and 3) contemplative (religion, spiritualism). Failure to recognize these fundamental distinctions results in a variety of errors (called category errors) which result in miscommunication and misunderstanding between Eastern and Western approaches (Wilbur, 1977).

For example, scientists attempt to gain conceptual knowledge of phenomena. This involves setting up hypotheses, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, empirical testing, and evaluation of results. From this process, we gain a map, primarily in linguistic or symbolic form. The meditation traditions point out the critical difference between conceptual and experiential knowledge and the danger of confusing them (category error) or of obliterating the experiential by the conceptual. They state that only through direct experience can “true” reality be understood. As D.T. Suzuki noted (1956, p. 9), true understanding involves, “a special transmission outside the scriptures: no dependence on words or letters.” Lao-tsu observed (1972, p. 56):

Those who know do not talk.

Those who talk do not know.

The type of approach represented by Lao-tsu, Suzuki and the meditation traditions in general is a scientist’s nightmare. How can we form testable hypotheses about experiences which cannot be conceptualized or talked about, and in which the practitioners themselves say that any attempt to analyze will cause one to completely lose the experience itself? This is a real dilemma. Unfortunately, scientists have often reacted by dismissing mystical experiences as “epiphenomena” not worthy of consideration, or by trying to place those experiences within their own Western paradigm, and calling them delusional, psychotic, catatonia-like (e.g., Alexander, 1931; Group for Advancement of Psychiatry Report, 1977).

The mystical traditions, on the other hand, have for the most part ignored scientific analysis and therefore have no scientific frame of reference for evaluating the efficacy of their hypotheses and practices. Scientists are expected to use the data from their research to evaluate the veracity of their hypotheses, and where data do not accord with belief, change their beliefs. Those who believe only on faith, use data (whether confirming or negating their beliefs) as a means of strengthening what they already believe.

Can these two models complement each other? Although my belief is that they should, the task is not easy. First and foremost, the very act of translating “holistic” (direct, non-symbolic knowledge) experiences into verbalizations about these experiences (symbolic, cartographic, knowledge by inference) is fraught with difficulty (Franks, 1977), perhaps analogous to the difficulties encountered in quantum physics in measuring the properties of a subatomic particle (e.g., Heisenberg, 1963). As soon as one begins to analyze one’s “altered state,” it changes. Therefore, the Eastern tradition is correct in admonishing us not to equate conceptual knowledge with subjective experience.

Nevertheless, it is true that the two modes may complement each other. For example, we may use pinpointed analysis to learn more precisely about the subjective experience of meditation (Osis et al., 1973) and how these experiences are influenced by a subject’s anxiety level, prior meditative experience, and adherence to meditation (e.g., Kohr, 1977). This can help us better teach and transmit the technique of meditation. Conversely, the experiential knowledge gained from practicing meditation can help us develop more sophisticated and sensitive research hypotheses and methodologies for scientific study.

What seems critical at this point is a complementary science which combines the experience of the practitioner with the experimental rigor of the researcher. Especially in studying meditation research and its clinical applications, we need to be careful not to make two errors: a) scientific and conceptual study without experiential knowledge; or b) experiential practice without scientific evaluation.

As scientists, we need to honestly and openly look with precision at the variables involved in the phenomena we are studying. In the case of meditation, this analysis does not need to negate the poetic, transcendent qualities and the visionary experiences that can occur. Although reading and writing about meditation are not meditation, I believe it is possible to feel and live the experiential and poetic and also be willing to honestly assess and evaluate the nature and causes of those effects. The scientific tradition requires this level of openness and intellectual honesty in its practitioners.

1.4 Overview of the book

WITH THE ABOVE context in mind, let us return to the question with which we opened this chapter: What effect does the teaching of meditation have on an individual who practices? What is the best way to answer this question? The approach utilized in this book is to look in a very precise, fine-tuned way at the key words of the sentence: 1. effect; 2. teaching; 3. meditation; 4. individual; and 5. practices. A useful analogy is to look at this sentence and these words under a microscope. We begin the inspection at a low power and then subject it to increasingly higher and more detailed examination.

For example, we have already looked briefly at the first key word in our sentence effects (Chapter One, 1.1). We then need to review in more detail the question does meditation work? For what types of concern? In Chapter Five we attempt to define self-regulation and then look at meditation as a self-regulation strategy to see its clinical effects for stress management, psychotherapy, dealing with the addictions, decreasing hypertension, and its general physiological effects. We then ask the next level of questions: How do the effects of meditation compare with other self-regulation strategies on these clinical and physiological parameters? Is meditation unique? How different is it from other self-regulation techniques? In Chapter Six we offer a model for comparing self-regulation strategies. We then attempt to define “altered states” and look at meditation as an altered state of consciousness to determine subjective experiences during meditation, concurrent validity for these changes, and subjective changes following meditation (Chapter Seven).

The next key word is teaching. Here we need to explore two issues. First, we need to look at the teacher’s (psychotherapist’s, clinician’s, guru’s) orientation. What are the teacher’s hopes, expectations (demand characteristics) in teaching the strategy? What is the teacher’s experience and style of teaching? A related issue is the relationship. Here we need to look at issues of trust and confidentiality, the establishment of rapport, the length of the therapeutic contact, how...