Meditation

Classic and Contemporary Perspectives

Deane H. Shapiro Jnr., Roger N, Walsh, Jr. Shapiro

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781351506137
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Many claim that meditation is effective in the treatment of many ailments associated with stress and high blood pressure, and in the management of pain. While there are many popular books on meditation, few embrace the science as well as the art of meditation. In this volume, Shapiro and Walsh fill this need by assembling a complete collection of scholarly articles-- Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives.

From an academic rather than a popular vantage, the volume takes the claims and counterclaims about meditation to a deeper analytical level by including studies from clinical psychology and psychiatry, neuroscience, psychophysiology, and biochemistry. Each selection is a contribution to the field, either as a classic of research, or by being methodologically elegant, heuristically interesting, or creative. Original articles cover such topics as the effects of meditation in the treatment of stress, hypertension, and addictions; the comparison of meditation with other self-regulation strategies; the adverse effects of meditation; and meditation-induced altered states of consciousness.

Concluding with a major bibliography of related works, Meditation offers the reader a valuable overview of the state and possible future directions of meditation research. Today, in the popular media and elsewhere, debate continues: Is meditation an effective technique for spiritual and physical healing, or is it quackery? Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives weighs in on this debate by presenting what continues to be the most complete collection of scholarly articles ever amassed on the subject of meditation.

I
INTRODUCTION

Research Overviews: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives

Meditation is a technique which has been used for thousands of years within the religious and philosophical traditions of the East and only within the last 30 years within the medical, health care, scientific, and psychotherapeutic traditions of the West. As would be expected, the goals for which meditation is used often differ markedly depending upon the cultural context in which it is practiced, and the specific orientation of the person teaching and/or learning it.

The first two articles (1 and 2) in this introductory part look at the empirical literature as it relates to both the classic and contemporary perspectives. The first article reviews studies comparing meditation on both clinical and physiological dimensions with other self-control strategies. These clinical and physiological dimensions are the primary concerns for which contemporary, scientific, medical, and health care scholars and professionals utilize meditation. However, meditation has classically been utilized by religious traditions to produce profound phenomenological changes in which individual perceives self, other, and the world in a radically new way. The second article explores research bearing on ways to understand this classic perspective of meditation: as an altered state of consciousness.

The final two articles (3 and 4) in this introductory part look at empirical models which may help give us better understanding of meditation research: both an historical and evolutionary overview (Article No. 3) as well as a systems model for clarifying and refining future efforts in meditation research (Article No. 4).

1

OVERVIEW: CLINICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISON OF MEDITATION WITH OTHER SELF-CONTROL STRATEGIES

Deane H. Shapiro, Jr.

In 1977 the American Psychiatric Association called for a critical examination of the clinical effectiveness of meditation. The author provides a review of the literature bearing on clinical and physiological comparisons of meditation with other self-control strategies. He begins by providing a definition of meditation and then cites the literature comparing meditation with such self-regulation strategies as biofeedback, hypnosis, and progressive relaxation. He pays particular attention to the “uniqueness” of meditation as a clinical intervention strategy as well as the adverse effects of meditation. Finally, he offers suggestions and guidelines for future research.

To my knowledge, there have been four major reviews of the meditation literature. Woolfolk (1) and Davidson (2) reviewed the physiological effects of meditation, and Smith (3) and Giber and I (4) reviewed the psychotherapeutic and clinical effects. All four of these reviews are substantial and provide a thorough discussion of the literature available at the time they were written. However, in the past few years there has been a dramatic increase in the empirical literature. This new literature is methodologically more sophisticated and goes beyond comparing the effects of meditation with baseline observations or comparing a group trained in meditation with a control group. Instead, the newer studies compare meditation with other self-regulation strategies such as biofeedback, hypnosis, and progressive relaxation. These more recent studies are in keeping with the following recommendation of the American Psychiatric Association (5):

The Association strongly recommends that research be undertaken in the form of well-controlled studies to evaluate the specific usefulness, indications, contraindications, and dangers of meditative techniques. The research should compare the various forms of meditation with one another and with psychotherapeutic and psychopharma-cologiç modalities.

In a previous paper (4) Giber and I reviewed the literature to determine whether meditation might be a clinically effective strategy for certain clinical problems, such as stress and tension management, the addictions, and hypertension. We reviewed “first-round studies,” which generally consisted of anecdotal single case studies or a comparison between a meditation group and a control group rather than between groups given different self-regulation strategies. The more sophisticated question that clinicians and psychotherapists now need to ask is not just whether a technique “works” but when that technique is the treatment of choice for which particular patient with what type of clinical problem.

In order to help clinicians make that determination, and following the recommendation of APA’s position statement, in this paper I review the literature comparing meditation physiologically and clinically with other self-regulation strategies. I then comment on the adverse effects of meditation so that clinicians might be sensitive to indications and contraindications. Finally, I offer guidelines and suggestions for future research.

MEDITATION! TOWARD A WORKING DEFINITION

One of the problems in studying meditation is the lack of a clear definition. Because of its effects, some have tried to define it as a relaxation technique (6). This raises problems similar to those encountered in the literature on relaxation (7), in which a relaxation technique is defined as one producing certain effects—decreased skeletal muscular tension and decreased sympathetic arousal, for example. However, defining the independent variable by its dependent variable—its effects—is tautological and unsatisfactory as a complete definition.

Another problem with defining meditation is that there are so many different types of meditation techniques. Some involve sitting quietly and produce a state of quiescence and restfulness (8). Some involve sitting quietly and produce a state of excitement and arousal (9, 10). Some, such as the Sufi whirling dervish, tai chi, hatha yoga, and Isiguro Zen, involve physical movement to a greater or lesser degree (11, 12). Sometimes these “movement meditations” result in a state of excitement, sometimes a state of relaxation (2, 13).

Accordingly, depending on the type of meditation, the body may be active and moving or relatively motionless and passive. Attention may be actively focused on one object of concentration to the exclusion of the other objects (14). Attention may be focused on one object, but as other objects, thoughts, or feelings occur, they too may be noticed and then attention returned to the original focal object (Vipas-sana and transcendental meditation, for example). Attention may not be focused exclusively on any particular object (Zen’s shikan-taza, for example) (15, 16). However, there seem to be three broad general groupings of attentional strategies in meditation: a focus on the field (mindfulness meditation), a focus on a specific object within the field (concentrative meditation), and a shifting back and forth between the two. This fits in nicely with brain attentional mechanisms, which Pribram (17) described as similar to a camera and of two types. The first type is a focus similar to a wide-angle lens—a broad, sweeping awareness taking in the entire field (mindfulness meditation). The second type is a focus similar to a zoom lens—a specific focusing on a restricted segment of the field (concentrative meditation).

Using attentional mechanisms as the basis for the definition, therefore, we may state that meditation refers to a family of techniques which have in common a conscious attempt to focus attention in a nonanalyti-cal way and an attempt not to dwell on discursive, ruminating thought.

There are several important factors in this definition. First, the word “conscious” is used. Meditation involves intention: the intention to focus attention either on a particular object in the field or on whatever arises. Second, the definition is noncultic. It does not depend on any religious framework or orientation to understand it. I do not mean to imply that meditation does not or cannot occur within a religious framework. However, what meditation is and the framework within which it is practiced, although they are interactive, are two separate issues and need to be viewed as such. Therefore, although there may be overlap in terms of the concentration on a particular object or repetition of a sound or phrase, we should not a priori equate meditation with prayer. This is particularly true when the intent of the prayer has a goal-directed focus outside oneself (e.g., asking a higher power to absolve one of one’s sins).

Third, the word “attempt” is used throughout. This allows us to deal with the process of meditation. Because meditation is an effort to focus attention, it also involves how we respond when our attention wanders, or how we respond when a thought arises. There is a continuum of instructions from very strong to very mild in terms of how to deal with thoughts (18). For example, Benson (6) instructed students to ignore thoughts, Deikman (19) said to exclude them, and a 5th-century Buddhist treatise said, “With teeth clenched and tongue pressed against the gums, … by means of sheer mental effort hold back, crush and burn out the thought” (20). The Vipassana tradition instructs one to merely notice and label the thought (thinking thinking) and Zen to merely notice, observe with equanimity, and, when weary of watching, let go (21).

Fourth, there is an important “metamessage” implicit in the definition: namely, the content of thoughts is not so important. They should be allowed to come and go. Consciousness, or awareness of the process of thoughts coming and going, is more important. The context—conscious attention—is the most important variable. Although cognitions and images may arise, they are not the end goal of meditation. Thus, although there may be overlap in content, we should not a priori equate meditation with techniques of guided imagery (22), daydreaming (23), covert self-instructional training (24), hetero-hypnosis (25), self-hypnosis (26), or other cognitive strategies (27).

By describing meditation techniques precisely and by having experimenters report accurately all procedures used, meditation techniques are described be-haviorally and may be compared both clinically and physiologically with other cognition-focusing, relaxation, and self-regulation strategies.

PHYSIOLOGICAL COMPARISONS

There was initial enthusiasm that meditation might be a unique self-regulation strategy (28). This position was based on certain first-round clinical studies and physiological findings. However, Benson (6, 29) argued that the physiological response pattern found in meditation was not unique to meditation per se but common to any passive relaxation strategy. This view has been supported and replicated by a number of studies that suggest no physiological differences between meditation and other self-regulation strategies and, often, no differences between meditation and “just sitting.”

For example, early first-round studies suggested that skin resistance significantly increased within subjects (8, 30) and in a transcendental meditation group compared with a control group (31). Recent studies (32—37), however, showed no significant differences in galvanic skin response between meditation and other self-regulation strategies, including self-hypnosis, progressive relaxation, and other modes of instructional relaxation. Further, the studies cited also showed no difference between meditation and other self-regulation strategies in heart rate or respiration rate.

Morse and associates (32), in a rather complex study, noted that neither respiration rate, pulse rate, nor systolic and diastolic blood pressure differentiated experimental conditions. These author^noted that the physiological responses to transcendental meditation and simple word meditation were similar and concluded that “relaxation, meditation, and relaxation hypnosis yield similar physiological responses suggestive of deep relaxation.” Other studies found no difference in effect on respiratory rate between meditation and progressive relaxation (unpublished data of Pagano and associates) or between meditation and listening to music (38). Fenwick and associates (38) noted that subjects who were tense to begin with showed greater relaxation in response to both meditation and listening to music than subjects who were not and suggested that Wallace and associates’ findings of increased skin resistance in meditators (8) may have been due to high initial levels of metabolism and tension.

Glueck and Stroebel (39) also suggested that meditation might be characterized by a unique EEG pattern—the synchronization of slow alpha. However, Travis and associates (37) noted that a striking effect was the lack of alpha EEG during transcendental meditation, and Morse and associates (32) noted that when synchronization of slow alpha occurred it was not unique to transcendental meditation but was found in all the relaxation conditions they studied.

A similar lack of metabolic uniqueness has been found by other investigators. Michaels and associates (40) attempted to differentiate meditators from resting control subjects biochemically. Because stress increases blood catecholamines, the experimenters looked at plasma epinephrine and norepinephrine as well as plasma lactate. Twelve experienced meditators (more than 12 months’ experience) were compared with control subjects matched for sex and age who rested instead of meditating. There were no significant fluctuations of plasma epinephrine during meditation. No significant differences were observed between control subjects and meditators. The same held true for plasma lactic acid concentration. These findings failed to replicate Wallace’s earlier findings on transcendental meditation (30).

More recent studies further call into question the uniqueness of meditation’s effects. In 1976, Goleman and Schwartz (41) showed increased responsiveness of meditators to an upcoming stressful event on a film and a quicker recovery time in comparison with a relaxing control group. However, from a cognitive standpoint, in terms of number of poststress intrusive thoughts, significant differences between meditators and control subjects have not been detected (42). Further, theories suggesting that transcendental meditation is unrelated to sleep have recently been called into question by Pagano and Frumkin (43) and Younger and associates (44), who noted that at least beginning meditators may spend an appreciable part of their time in sleep stages two, three, and four.

Thus it appears that the original belief that we would be able to discriminate meditation as a unique physiological state has not been confirmed—on either an autonomic or a metabolic level or in terms of EEG pattern. Although it seems clear that meditation can bring about a generalized reduction in many physiological systems, thereby creating a state of relaxation (2, 4), it is not yet clear from the available data that this state is differentiated from the effects of other relaxation techniques, whether they be hypnosis (33) or deep...