Is Meditation an Illusion? The Meditation vs. Rest Controversy Or how meditation can be best explained with a knock-knock joke. |
....or putting the above in another way In the mid 1980's the psychologist David S. Holmes published two major journal articles that surveyed the literature of meditation, and concluded that the psychological and physiological correlates to meditation were no different than passively resting. In other words, just sitting passively and resting does the same thing as sitting passively and focusing on a nonsense word (e.g. the procedure for the relaxation response) or a mantra (e.g. the procedure of Transcendental Meditation). This ignited a firestorm of controversy that called into question Holmes' methodology, the adequacy of his research, and even his integrity as a researcher. Nearly all of this was hot air, and Holmes defended his position quite well (follow hyperlink on this page). However, there was one issue that Holmes did not address, mainly because at the time he could not address it. Namely what are the neurological correlates of meditation? Since at the time there were no tools available that could peer into the brains of meditators, the question remained unanswered. But the question nonetheless was of crucial importance, since 'resting' connotes a state that is a purcursor to sleep, yet meditators consistently report not a drowsy state, but rather a state of enhanced alertness and reasoning power. Recently, with the introduction of non-invasive tools that can peer into the brain (e.g. frmi, or functional magnetic resonance imaging), the validity of meditators common claim of enhanced reasoning capabilities was confirmed, but ironically, so was Holmes' position. Recent research has demonstrated that individuals who were instructed to sit passively with eyes opened and closed or when passively focusing on a stimulus (i.e., meditating) have identical patterns of neural activity that do not approximate patterns similar to drowsiness of sleep, but rather reflect the activation of an array of neural structures that in sum accentuate or increase semantic reasoning or rational thought. In other words, to think better and feel better, one need but sit passively and rest. Since presumably one's musculature correspondingly relaxed, as is well demonstrated from meditation research, simply sitting passively and resting results in relaxation, but also in a concurrent ability to think more clearly and effectively. Again, there was no need to postulate a unique evocative stimulus, such as a mantra or nonsense word, thus demonstrating that cognitive focusing was not necessary for relaxation or its concomitant neural benefits. So Holmes' position was validated, but for the concept of meditation, a whole new anomaly arises that neither he nor anyone else had anticipated. The problem is simple. If sitting passively and resting allows one to think more effectively, why is it that sitting passively and thinking, which most of us do during our working days, is more associated with muscular tension and muddled thinking? What's the difference between sitting in a corner and passively resting and sitting in front of a computer screen (as in work) and passively thinking what to do next? The only difference I submit is that in workaday activities, one is not only passively thinking about alternatives, but is also consciously and nonconsciously aware of other choices that have value not because they are reasonable, but because they are novel or have an otherwise appetitive value (as in appetites like food or sex). In other words, meditators necessarily eliminate not thought, since thought is enhanced anyways during meditation, but rather novel distractions to thought. To be relaxed, it is a truism that we must control for major distractions. Thus, working at the office is far less stressful than working at home because we control for such distractions as whining children, TV shows, and a beckoning refrigerator. Although we know that major distractions get us tense, minor distractions (e.g. checking email, gossiping, reading the newspaper) are thought of as innocuous time wasters that have little or no impact on how we feel or think. But this is most likely not true. To continually and nonconsciously decide between minor distractions and more rational endeavors, one will llikely get marginally tense, and be correspondingly less effective when thinking. The key therefore to relaxation and maximizing one's cognitive resources is to eliminate or avoid all major and minor distractions entire. Thus, if an individual simply 'times out' and sits rather than submitting to distractions as the alternative to working effectively, sustained muscular relaxation will occur, and one will think more effectively to boot. This procedure, which I call 'radical relaxation' is hypothetical, and is explained in far greater detail in papers hyperlinked below. Nonetheless, anyone can test it and see for his or her selves. That is worth far more than endless theorizing, which this author would rather do without. |
Scene: You, at work doing a homework assignment, taxes, housecleaning, etc. Knock! Knock! Who's there? a. Britney Spears! b. Pizza Man! c. Best Buddy! d. Godzilla! Response: Can't (play, eat, talk, run) now, my door has a time lock. Come back at 5! Response: Can't (play, eat, talk, run) now. Got to do my work, but on second thought! |
Who comes rapping, slightly tapping, on my window pane? |
So what's the difference between both responses? Why the second thought of course. The proverbial 'second thought' is the killer, and represents a novel, appetitive, or otherwise distracting event that elicits a state of attentive altertness that primes one to act. Whether the ultimate goal is food, sex, a conversation with a friend or the avoidance of an impending threat, a state of attentive alertness occurs to prime us to behave in one way or another. The irony is that this 'priming', which represents the emission of neuro-chemicals in the brain that direct or arouse attention, adds incentive value to the objects of that attention. Whether we call it the thrill of danger, of the hunt, the game, or the pepperoni, life certainly becomes more interesting and fun. It also provides us with sort of a dilemma, since we must make a decision between a rational act (e.g. doing taxes) and a stimulating act (greeting Britney) that is more valuable because it is stimulating. There is no logical rule that avails one to choose between these very different alternatives. So what happens? We get tense, which in its own special way forces us to make a decision, any decision, so that we may get on with our lives. In other words, we get tense because when we have to decide to attend to reasonable things (or work) and unreasonable distractions (Britney, Godzilla, etc.). We can't logically make up our minds for the simple fact that distractions are affective (i.e. emotional), not logical. Eliminate distractions and you will eliminate these dilemmas and you will eliminate the tension that acccompanies them. This, if our worker had a five hour time lock on his door, Britney's visit among other distractions would have to wait until after work, and you'd feel more relaxed as you continue your working day. It is trivially true that to get relaxed, we must avoid the major distractions that divert us from what we know we should rationally do. But what we don't know and don't consciously understand is that minor distractions get us tense too. Of course, that doesn't stop us from constructing procedures that in effect avoid those distractions for us. The problem is that procedures like meditation or rest lead us to misconstrue the cause of tension to reflect not just conflicts, but thinking itself. Thus when meditating or simply sitting alone or resting, we in effect 'time out' from or avoid all distractions, but end up intentionally timing out everything else, namely thinking about our daily routine (this is called throwing the baby out with the bath water). But, as modern neurological research demonstrates, you can time out and rest by simply eliminating distractions, and not by eliminating the rational thinking that isn't the cause of your tension to begin with. In other words, you don't have to dial out of your workaday world to get completely relaxed, you simply have to sort out and avoid all distractions large and small that represent events that are attractive in large measure by their novelty alone. The proof though is in the pudding, or in the doing. So try it out. During the day, take a four or five hour period in which you pursue only activities that have a primarily rational purpose, and every other distraction large and small (e.g. checking email, make social phone calls, watching Britney Spears videos, etc.) is avoided. In other words, you can do something constructive, our you can just sit. You'll notice that you will be very relaxed, very productive, that you can think more clearly and better, and that you don't need to meditate or otherwise sit in a corner and avoid the world. So there's your stress and self-control procedure. Now go away, I've got work to do. |
Back to Dr. Mezmer |
Back to meditation page |
