Meditation and hypnosis

One meditation class I once attended compared the mind to a vast, clear ocean (metaphor) and how we should try to watch bubbles come to the surface (observing self). I found my mind became very clear and I was able to sit and really focus my attention on deep philosophical questions - who am I who is watching, what is reality, the meaning and so on. I wasn't questioning, but accepting them as curious wonders which dwindled my problems.

I guess the aim of meditation is enlightenment, and the release from suffering. The aim of hypnotherapy is to cure a problem, and the release from suffering. Could we say meditation is philosophical, and hypnosis is psychological?

I often compare hypnosis and meditation in my practice. Clients have more usually had experience of the latter. I see no great difference between hypnotic and meditative states, save the frame that is put around them.

I'm in danger of repeating myself here - I hadn't noticed that this had become a separate thread, so apologies of this looks familiar!

Here's what I said:

I wonder whether the distinction between self-hypnosis and meditation is useful. Some people might argue that it depends on the ends, and distinguish between self-hypnosis to improve one's exam performance (or public speaking nerves or control pain or whatever) and meditation to enhance one's spiritual life, where there is no such clear cut outcome. However, both of those presuppose SOME kind of purpose for the activity, and it's arguable whether a spiritual purpose is any different from a non-spiritual one.

Sticking my head above the parapet, I will say that the un-useful part of the distinction is the part that separates the spiritual from the rest. Spirituality is an ASPECT of our complex totality, not a separate PART of it. It can't be isolated.

What do others think?

Kathleen

I'd agree that the general belief these days is that spirituality engulfs our whole existance and the daulist approach of Descartes (seperate mind and body) has had its day. With this in mind meditation is intended to affect every aspect of our lives as opposed to self hypnosis where we channel our efforts towards specific goals.

Perhaps meditation is a way of life and self hypnosis is a means to an ends?

Another difference could perhaps be that meditation aims at making us more ethical beings - not that I believe anyone can claim categorically what is right or wrong.

I like this story:

A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, "I wish I could give him this beautiful moon."

There are quite a few little stories like this on this site:
http://www.rider.edu/~suler/zenstory/zenstory.html

Andy.[/quote]

Great Zen story Andy. How can we define the word 'spirituality' as opposed to say 'emotionality' or the experience of feeling calm? It is a word much used as in: "I'm a very spiritual person!" (note this is in quotes not me saying this about me ).

Any one got any ideas?

MArk

Interesting question Mark, here's some dictionary definitions:

spiritual: relating to the spirit or soul and not to physical nature or matter; intangible.

soul: the spirit or immaterial part of man [or woman ], the seat of human personality, intellect, will and emotions ...

So spiritual is quite similar to emotional really, as in 'the not physical' part. It's the view that the physical and spiritual (or emotional!) are seperate which has changed in recent times.

With this in mind our personality/emotions are affected by genes and external causes and vice versa. So perhaps it's the observer, the seat of consciousness, which is the root of spirituality. Perhaps the observing self is the soul!!!

The mind/body problem and how much free will we have is ongoing in philosphical debates, so to pin down the meaning of 'spirituality' is perhaps impossible for us mere mortals!

Anyone else?

Andy.

I read this in an article by Timothy Schilling about faith and tradition:

We who live in the West enjoy tremendous freedom to choose, but this freedom is illusive and at times implosive. When all choices are open and all values are equal, one lives under a kind of tyranny of choice. I remember how difficult it was for me, as a young man as yet unexposed to the Church, to make my way through life without any kind of tradition to refer to. At a certain point I felt paralysed by the effort of it all: trying to generate energy to live up to ideals I felt I myself had conjured up, and fearing death, which could at any minute take everything away from me. What a relief it was to realise that there were people who still actually believed in something beyond themselves, and that it was possible to share the burdens of my life with God and with other people who were also struggling but nonetheless hopeful.

Apart from the difficulty of determining whether he meant to say that freedom is elusive or illusory (any takers?), his comments reflect, I think, the experience of many people. How do you choose a value to live by? Is having values to live by the same thing as 'spirituality'?

Kathleen

Choice, it's a funny thing. My dad can't stand driving into an empty car park, funny fella

Spirituality can certainly give life an aim. I wonder if that aim has to be dogmatic though? - something that many people think fuels wars. Can we have values that are flexible?

I like this part: "people who still actually believed in something beyond themselves." People often focus on the ego too much, focusing out to bigger powers helps decrease excessive introspection.

Is spirituality something that helps fill basic needs and keep people happy? If so, can we find purpose and ways of connecting to bigger things by other means? For example by doing charity work?

Going back to the initial post - perhaps meditation focuses on the ultimate meanings, giving that direction that may be lacking without spirituality. Self hypnosis makes small steps on that same path. A bit like looking at the whole picture or focusing in on the detail.

Andy.

All very interesting stuff. I reckon that having your basic needs met in life could be a starting point towards something spiritual. Because if certain needs (such as the need for attention) are not met in one's daily life then the completion and therefore feelings of satisfying something which was previously missing could produce a feeling which may be wrongly assumed to be spiritual. A cult for example will endeavour to be the sole source or provider of all the basic needs for an individual. So, for example an organisation (and this includes Nazism in Germany in the 30's/40's will 1, Give people a sense of purpose, 2, Meet attention needs, 3, Manipulate a person's emotions through fear and hope, 4, Give people aims and goals, 5, Give people a sense of exclusivity, 6, Focus on a personality (the cult of personality) providing paradoxiaclly the feeling of intamacy.

So if something claims to be 'spiritual' but can be seen to be fullfilling no more than basic human needs (the fullfillment of which of course feels 'significant' to the recipient) then how do we distinguish the by-products of this so called 'spirituality' from emotions produced through football clubs, political parties or any other cult like behaviour?

Was it the mysic Rumi who replied to a man demanding 'spiritual exercises': "If after a week without food you still want spirituality rather than food" then you'll be ready for them.

Meeting ones basic emotional needs met though the way one lives one's every day life means we are less pray to mock spiritual cults which can hook us in because they infact meet those very same needs. Once needs are met in normal day to day life then perhaps we can then have the 'spare capacity' to develop a spiritual self which we would need to distinguish from purely emotional responses which, after all, can be triggered through TV game shows.

Mark

RogerE wrote:In a previous thread, we had a question on the relationship between hypnosis and meditation.

Hi everybody,

My knowledge of both meditation and hypnosis is mostly "theoretical" but it seems to me that there is a bit of a difference.

At least theoretical defintions of hypnosis speak of a narrow focus of attention, whereas in meditation the focus of attention can be quite wide - even much wider than the normal waking attention.

And then there is of course the question with defining hypnosis and meditation before comparing them.

For example, we can say that hypnosis is characterized by a narrow field of attention and the generalized reality-orientation (GRO) stepping into the background. Then there is a question: what mechanisms become more apparent when the GRO
stays in the background?

One of them is obvious, and it has something to do with undoing old conditioned responses and establishing new ones. This has obvious therapeutic value, and it is also mentioned in books on meditation.

However, it seems that at least some people meditate with a second goal as well and it has to do with another mechanism, which is somehow related to creativity. Perhaps this is what is called in some religious/philosophical systems "innermost being".

Besides, some systems, e.g. eight limbs of yoga, speak of a sequence consisting of concentration, meditation and contemplation; and there is a hint that, without contemplation, meditation may have only medical or short-term benefits.

So that suggests the following theory: during the concentration stage the narrow field of attention forces GRO to step into the background (because it disrupts the normal scanning mechanism). Then comes the meditation stage when the (conjectural) "innermost being" comes into foreground, and the field of attention may actually become wide again. The final contemplation stage loads the "innermost being" with some useful work (without which it stays undeveloped).

I know that a theory is just a theory - but is there anything obviously wrong with it? If not, one could DEFINE hypnosis as the first stage of the above sequence and meditation as the process of "bringing out" the "innermost being". In some cases this additional process would not be necessary, while in other cases it would amount to some extra effort. If such definition is accepted, the "extra effort" would make a difference between hypnosis and meditation.

I understand that other people may insist on other defintions which would make hypnosis and meditation identical - but why waste a word "meditation" if it can be loaded with a useful function?

Perhaps this has something to do with Erickson's distinction between "clinically satisfactory hypnosis" and "experimentally satisfactory hypnosis" (somewhere in the 4 volumes of his works) - but who knows...

I would be grateful for your comments.

Best,
Vladimir

I'd agree with that Vladimir. When meditating you certainly do focus attention and block out all else to begin with. Classically this is on the breath. After everything has lost all emotional bias it's possible to step into the observing self and widen that focus again.

I'm wondering what the 'extra effort' is to enter this state. It seems to be something which you must try to achieve, but at the same time, don't try too hard! It's a bit like the idea of flow...

Another zen story from that site:

A student went to his meditation teacher and said, "My meditation is horrible! I feel so distracted, or my legs ache, or I'm constantly falling asleep. It's just horrible!"
"It will pass," the teacher said matter-of-factly.
A week later, the student came back to his teacher. "My meditation is wonderful! I feel so aware, so peaceful, so alive! It's just wonderful!'
"It will pass," the teacher replied matter-of-factly.

Andy.

A few interesting quotes on meditation from today's TIME magazine:

"In Japan a scientist showed that meditators were so focused on the moment that they never habituated themselves to the sound of a ticking clock. Most people eventually block out the noise, but meditators keep hearing it for longer."

That's really interesting I think. In a hypnotic state, not only is there a sensation of time becoming 'meaningless', but it seems that this sensation is borne out of/reflected in neural activity.

"Meditation helped people respond differently to their emotions. "Thinking about problems tends to dig people deeper in the hole", Teasdale says. "Meditation helps them regard negative thoughts simply as events in the mind, and free themselves from the effects."

This reflects precisely what myself and many of my colleagues do with people who are over-emotional. The ability to 'step back' into an 'observer' position and simply observe your own thoughts and anxieties can make a profound difference in how you experience them. In my opinion, it is a key psychological skill.

It is my personal view that regular relaxation in line with your body's natural ultradian rhythms can do more for your health (physical and mental) than any other single intervention. I predict that this will become increasingly obvious as more studies into the effects of relaxation are carried out. (It's down in black and white now, so you can hold me to account in future )

I think that anyone experiencing negative emotional states, particularly chronic anxiety or depression should experience deep relaxation for at least 20 minutes every day, and preferably twice a day. How they achieve this is irrelevant - self hypnosis, meditation, tai chi, chi gung, hot bath...

Chill out man...

Roger