To learn about a meditation technique or experience, it is essential that researchers consider understandings of experts within the meditation tradition (Gyatso, 2016; Lindahl et al., 2014). Traditional understandings of experts, in written form, are a major source of information about meditation practices. Where researchers have regard to these expert accounts, they typically concentrate on a small subset of the total publications (e.g., Lindahl et al., 2014; Lutz et al., 2015; Wahbeh et al., 2018). There are often thousands of traditional publications for a particular practice, and it is not practicable to review them all. To the best of our knowledge, there has not been any research that has identified the features of the techniques and interim-states in Shamatha, TM or Stillness Meditation using expert texts selected and reviewed by way of a formal, structured, and transparent process.
This paper addresses these two gaps in research. In Sections 2.1 to 2.3, we describe the main features of the Shamatha, TM and Stillness Meditation techniques and interim-states, based on expert texts selected and reviewed using an evidence synthesis process. Evidence synthesis is a rigorous and transparent method, and in the present context is aimed at achieving a precise and reliable understanding of how the techniques and interim-states are described in the relevant traditions. In Section 2.4, we compare the techniques and interim-states across the practices on a number of key dimensions.
PDF Expert 2.3.1 (487)
In TM, the meditator repeats a mantra silently in their mind (TM 1.4.1; Roth, 2018, p. 2; Shear, 2006b, p. xvi), and that involves bringing attention to the mantra (Shear, 2004, p. 86, 2006b, p. xvi, 2011a, p. 156). The mantras are words or sounds that have no meaning for the meditator (Rosenthal, 2011/2012, pp. 16, 279; Roth, 2018, p. 2). A specific mantra is selected for the meditator by their TM teacher (TM 1.5.3; Rosenthal, 2011/2012, p. 16; Roth, 2018, p. 57). To be effective, the mantra must be repeated in the proper way (Shear, 1990b, p. 101; Shear & Jevning, 1999a). That means the repetition must be effortless, and involve no concentration or control (TM 1.6; Faber et al., 2017; Rosenthal, 2011/2012, p. 16; Roth, 2018, pp. 35, 57; Shear, 1990b, p. 101). The TM experts tend to use the term concentration interchangeably with the term focus (e.g., Rosenthal, 2016/2017, p. 160; Travis & Shear, 2010a).
The absence of effort, concentration and control is said to be a feature of both the repetition of the mantra, and TM as a whole (TM 1.6; Pearson, 2013, p. 29; Rosenthal, 2011/2012, p. 18; Roth, 2018, p. 29; Travis & Shear, 2010a). From the expert texts we have identified four main aspects of this understanding.
Shear refers to pure individuality and pure bliss as highly abstract stages that immediately precede the goal-state (TM 1.8.2; Shear, 2011a). However, he notes that meditators may simply move through them without noticing them, particularly if they are beginners (Shear, 2011a). Those stages are not discussed by the other TM experts.
In Sections 2.4.1 to 2.4.7 we provide a detailed comparison of the techniques and interim-states across the three practices on key dimensions. The dimensions are distinct from one another but there is a degree of overlap. The comparison is based on the understandings from the expert texts set out in Sections 2.1 to 2.3, but rather than merely taking the expert texts at face value, we also apply critical analysis where appropriate.
By deliberately repeating the mantra, the TM meditator brings their attention to it (Section 2.2.1). The repetition is said to initiate the movement of the mind towards the goal-state (Section 2.2.2). The TM experts present TM as involving no focus (Section 2.2.2), but it seems that at least some degree of focus is involved in bringing attention to the mantra. The main reason the experts say that there is no focus is that, once the movement towards the goal-state has been initiated, it is said to be automatic (Section 2.2.2). Since the movement is automatic, unless it ceases spontaneously no further deliberate bringing of attention to the mantra is required in order to progress to the goal-state (Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.3).Footnote 5
For the mind to move towards the goal-state, the mantra must remain in awareness (Section 2.2.3). The TM experts do not see this as involving focus, whether deliberate or otherwise. Their understanding seems to be that, as the meditator moves automatically towards the goal-state, the mantra is within awareness, but the meditator is not focused on it (Travis & Parim, 2017). They make clear that it is fine for other mental content such as thoughts, perceptions and images to be present at the same time (Section 2.2.2).
Although it is not spoken about by the TM or Stillness Meditation experts, it seems likely that beginner meditators in those practices would engage in a small degree of monitoring. Those meditators will have been instructed as to what is required in order to practise correctly, and it seems unrealistic to think that during the early sessions they would not occasionally check their practice against the instructions. TM meditators may wish to check, for example, that their posture is comfortable, and that they are repeating the mantra in an unforced manner (Sections 2.2.2, 2.2.4). Stillness Meditation practitioners might check that their posture is correct, and that, besides maintaining the posture, they are giving up the effort of doing anything (Section 2.3.3).Footnote 8 It also seems plausible that experienced meditators in the two practices might engage in a similar, but more subtle and abbreviated, form of monitoring right at the beginning of a meditation session.
In cognitive science it is understood that control refers to the guiding of mental or physical experience or action (Christoff et al., 2016; Markovic & Thompson, 2016), and that it can be deliberate or automatic (Lutz et al., 2015). Effort refers to the degree to which something is experienced as difficult, as opposed to easy (Lutz et al., 2015; Stan & Christoff, 2018). The expert texts analyzed in this paper rely on the constructs control and effort, but the experts tend not to formally define them. To facilitate discussion we will therefore employ the cognitive science understandings above, while at the same time explaining the particular ways in which the constructs are applied in the expert texts.
There is one form of deliberate doing/control that tends not to be highlighted in the expert texts, but that may be required to some degree in the earlier interim-states in all three practices. This is the very basic form of deliberate doing/control involved in continuing in a meditation session rather than simply giving up. In Stillness Meditation, continuing in a session means maintaining the posture and essentially doing nothing. Once the meditator gains an initial familiarity with the practice, it is said to be easy and pleasant (Section 2.3.6), and it seems that little or no deliberate doing/control would be required to continue in a session. However, in the initial familiarization phase, a meditator may encounter anxiety, boredom or discomfort due to their not yet being used to the experience of non-doing (Section 2.3.4). The meditator does not need to do anything about these negative feelings. They simply ignore them, and in time they pass (McKinnon, 1991, 1983/2016). Nonetheless, the meditator does need to continue in the meditation session, rather than giving up. One would expect that the simple act of continuing in a session when experiencing negative feelings may involve at least some minimal deliberate doing/control and effort.
Based on the expert texts, the TM and Stillness Meditation goal-states are accessed much more easily, quickly, and frequently than the goal-state in Shamatha (see Sections 2.1.7, 2.2.6, 2.3.6). For meditators who have achieved an initial familiarity with the practices, up until advanced stages Shamatha requires more non-postural effort within meditation sessions than the other two methods (Section 2.4.6).Footnote 9 If the meditator is serious about achieving the goal-state/s, Shamatha also involves much more practice per day. Unlike in TM and Stillness Meditation, progressing to the Shamatha goal-state requires fulfilment of various highly demanding preconditions, and these are usually taken to include withdrawing from active life. Achieving the goal-state/s is said to be exceptionally rare in Shamatha, but usual in TM and Stillness Meditation provided meditators maintain their practice.
If the Shamatha preconditions are satisfied, it is estimated that around 5,000 to 10,000 hours practice will be required for meditators to transition through the interim-states and access the Shamatha goal-state. The TM experts imply that most meditators will achieve the TM goal-state within 60 hours practice.Footnote 10 It appears that meditators regularly access the Stillness Meditation goal-states within a similar time frame (see Sections 2.3.5 and 2.3.6).
TM experts often state or imply that the practice aims for a single goal-state, but their descriptions elsewhere suggest that there is variation in the experience that is aimed for (Woods et al., 2022a). Stillness Meditation also refers to there being a range of goal-states (Woods et al., 2022a). It appears that, with practice, TM and Stillness Meditation practitioners may progress within the goal-states, and that this involves moving from shallower goal-states to deeper ones. Taking Stillness Meditation as an example, in the shallower goal-states the meditator may still have very dull sense or body perceptions. As the meditator goes deeper, they lose those perceptions, and may eventually get to the deepest goal-state/s which they report as the simplest and most natural experience possible.
One challenge for neuroscientists is to understand the cognitive mechanisms or processes involved in achieving contentless experiences. Meditation techniques may be different, but the underlying mechanisms could be the same. Understanding the techniques, interim-states, and goal-states in detail based on expert texts provides a foundation for these investigations. Our work suggests a distinction between practices that aim for contentless experiences with exceptional/perfect attentional stability and vividness, and practices in which stability and vividness are substantially lower. The former includes practices like Shamatha, which access contentless experience by cultivating exceptional focusing of attention over the course of the interim-states. The latter includes TM and Stillness Meditation, in which there is little or no focusing in the interim-states. Our work also indicates similarities across the three practices. For example, each practice treats relinquishment of control as fundamental, although there are differences in how control is relinquished and these are intertwined with the differences in attention. Homing in on the similarities and differences in attention and relinquishment of control may provide a fruitful starting point for researchers interested in the cognitive mechanisms. 2ff7e9595c
Comments