TITLE: Does Meditation Foster Differentiation of Self?
Erik Thompson, MA
Licensed Psychologist-Masters
Principal, Thompson Leadership Development, Inc.
and
Executive Director, Vermont Center for Family Studies
“Just as a solid rock is not shaken by the storm,
even so the wise are not affected by praise or blame.”
-The Yoga Vashishtha, 6th Century BC
Bowen theorists have developed a unique set of tools for expanding personal, family, and organizational health, including seeing the group as a system, managing self, de-triangling, and strengthening overall relationship capital with original members. More “self” decreases chronic anxiety and reactivity to others. The experiencer is more stable amidst pressures such as praise and blame. A less reactive member changes the emotional field of the group, effecting everyone. I have devoted 22 years to these “technologies of self”.
Meanwhile, I have been practicing a different “technology of self”, Transcendental Meditation (TM), a form of silent meditation, twice a day, for 34 years. How complimentary are these technologies? Is their version of “self” comparable? Can meditation become a distraction from the real work in family? Is transcendence merely a warm bath in the milky ocean of togetherness? In the past 7 years I have found that meditation is more than a relaxation technique, but can it raise basic self as defined by Bowen theory?
The Vedic tradition describes the effect of meditation this way: “He does not need an external light for he is awake in his own light.” I am intrigued by the distinct resonance between such descriptions and differentiation of self.
WHAT IS MEDITATION?
There are many types of meditation. Dr. Fred Travis, an NIH funded meditation researcher and author of “Your Brain is a River Not a Rock”, has studied over 100 forms of silent meditation. Using sophisticated brain imaging techniques, Travis has categorized them into three groups:
- Focused Attention
- Open Monitoring
- Automatic Self-Transcending
Focused attention involves the effort to concentrate on a mental or physical object, such as a candle or a calm lake. This is what most people assume meditation involves. But open monitoring is different, it involves the effort to witness our body or mind, such as our breath, or thoughts, trying to dis-identify from them so they roll past us like clouds in the sky. This second type includes mindfulness meditation practices, which are the subject of increase scientific attention, by researchers such as Charles Raison.
TM is Travis’ third type, automatic self-transcending, and it is quite different from the other two. Like the Zengar neuro-feedback tool that has been explored by Bowen researchers such as Priscilla Friesen, TM does not involve trying to do anything- believe it or not. TM is effortless and automatic. With Zengar, a computer offers the brain feedback about its activity, which the brain is said to integrate spontaneously. With TM a specific sound is introduced in a structured but effortless manner. TM does not involve concentration on the sound, or contemplation of the sound. There is no effort to try to focus the mind on the sound. The effortless introduction of the sound has the documented effect of quieting mental activity such that TM produces a distinct state of deep metabolic rest, called transcendence.
TM has been the subject of a large body of peer-reviewed scientific studies. In a recent review of meditation research by the American Heart Association, TM was given a superior rating for the quality of evidence that it lowers blood pressure. A Stanford meta-analysis of 146 studies on meditation and relaxation techniques found that TM had a significant effect not merely on state anxiety, but on trait anxiety. The NIH researcher and Georgetown Psychiatrist Dr. Norman Rosenthal has written a readable review of this literature in his book “Transcendence”.
WHAT IS TRANSCENDENCE?
We observe our minds to have a range of alertness. We are not alert during deep sleep, semi-alert during dreaming states, and in a fog after an all-night flight. But near the end of a vacation by the ocean, after getting many nights of high quality sleep, we wake up one morning and the world looks different- fresher, less threatening and more alive. Transcendence produces a similar experience of restful alertness. Repeated studies have documented the rest to be deeper than deep sleep. Transcendence, some argue, represents a distinct fourth state of awareness.
The Vedic tradition of India, from which TM is derived, offers a definition of transcendence that uses a word central to Bowen theory. It is known as an experience of the “Self”. Self, according to modern Vedic experts is “pure awareness.” Transcendental awareness is “pure” because the mind is fully awake, fully conscious, but purified of any object of attention other than itself. Deep sleep is a condition where one has no object of attention, but also no awareness. The state of transcendence is just the opposite; fully aware but without thoughts.
If that sounds hard to achieve, Travis research suggests that this is not the case. Transcendence, or pure consciousness, is tasted when the mind, during TM, naturally settles to its least excited state, where thought and breath grow quieter. During this process there are moments when the experiencer is left alone with the experience of “Self”. This is repeatedly described as a natural, pleasant experience. Coming out of this state, many feel uniquely refreshed, less stressed, more whole. Perhaps Einstein had a similar experience of self when he wrote: “There are moments when one feels free from one’s own identification with human limitations and inadequacies … Life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only being.”
Such intriguing descriptions, though quite precise, and supported by data, are about as useful to most of us as a poem about strawberries to a hungry person. TM is effectively learned in-person, from a rigorously trained instructor. It cannot be learned from an article or book.
It would seem a stretch to assert that the restful alertness of transcendence fosters the connected separateness of differentiation of self. Can TM fundamentally increase a person’s tolerance of being bumped to the outside of a triangle? Is TM based in individual thinking? Many have asked me if meditation is a distraction from the real work of defining a self to one’s family of origin? Others wonder if communities of meditators are getting their mental high from the togetherness of the meditation group, and not an increase in basic self. Is pure consciousness merely high minded, fanciful talk that binds anxiety, but doesn’t stop one from projecting anxiety onto others? These are valid questions, and no doubt the answer is often yes. I assume that people all along the scale of differentiation of self are interested in meditation, but so are those with an interest in healthy food, or Bowen theory for that matter. Some are binding anxiety with these things; are others progressing in differentiation?
The Vedic traditional literature notes that knowledge in the book stays in the book. To understand the state of transcendence, the experience of it is required. How does one familiarize oneself with this experience? “This is possible by bringing the conscious mind through the subtle states of experience of thinking to eventually transcend the subtlest thought and arrive at the transcendental state of Being. Coming out into the field of relative existence, the mind emerges familiar with the state of Being.” (Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, The Science of Being and the Art of Living)
In writing this introductory piece, I am not seeking praise. I welcome questions and challenges. How would you think about proving the null hypothesis: “Transcendence does not increase basic self”?
I look forward to discussion of such questions in Chicago at the CFC’s “Bowen Theory and Mindfulness” conference on July 22nd.
Hi Erik, I thought about this when C Raison came to Chicago. To begin to prove the hypothesis, or null hypothesis, I would get a group of individuals who are beginning to practice transcendence and do a family evaluation interview with them about their functioning in their family and as they continue their practice, continue to evaluate their functioning in the the context of events and shifts their nuclear and families of origin family systems over time. I would also like to look at some who are practiced at transcendence and do a family evaluation interview retrospectively looking at the history of their practice up to the present in the context of shifts in their functioning in the context of their nuclear and family of origin. Often people miss the family system shifts that impact their functioning and mistakenly identify the source as whatever it is that they are doing and are focussed on. I would have as a question does transcendence in itself lead to functioning up in the family as a self over time even without theory.
I’ve always been impressed that BT defines success with a multi-generational outcome.
I suspect that the experience of transcendence (vs. joining a TM group) does lead to functioning up in the family as a self over time without theory. The distinction is referred to in the line “When I was a Buddhist, my family was annoyed. When I was a Buddha, they were happy.”
I’ve put 10,000 hours into three disciplines: TM, BT and Basketball. All three are have their uses.
How about them Warriors?!
Best team ever?
Erik
Maybe someone will actually do the study sometime. It will take someone who knows how to observe emotional process.
Erik,
I enjoyed reading this excellent summary of your thinking on this. Your use of quotes and the conciseness of your own writing is inviting. I was drawn in. But instead of answers to your questions, I have more questions. How do you measure DoS and how do you measure transcendence? Is the characteristic you identify they have in common less reactivity to praise or blame? What are other characteristics, ones they may not have in common? A guess is that the practice of transcendence would contribute to increasing DoS for some, yet not for others. Knowing Bowen theory or not and other factors would likely contribute to that outcome.
I also was curious how it is that there is no effort involved in the use of a sound. Perhaps it starts with a wisp of an effort or attention before becoming effortless?
Laurie
Measure?: I suppose the traditional measure of DOS is expert observations of functioning in the family over time. Transcendence can now be measured with sophisticated tools, but the most important measure is the subjective experience of it. It is said, and I have verified this, that the experience is unmistakable to the experiencer. But it is also said that the experience itself is not the goal. The goal is the effect on the experience of the person, and their effect on the group. The unfolding of individual experience is carefully defined in Vedic science as the awareness of the transcendental aspect of self alongside the “relative” aspect during waking, dreaming and eventually sleeping as well. Recent research has worked toward objective measures of this. The hardest one to measure is the BT standard, effect on the family over multiple generations.
No effort?: TM is a fine art of effortlessness.
Erik,
Your years of experience in the practice of the disciplines that go with Bowen theory and parallel practice of TM come through in your summary of both, the distinctions between them, and the questions you raise. I have little knowledge of the conceptual foundation of TM, and no experience in its practice, so am very open to learning. From what you say, it would seem that meditation could be a “technology” for managing anxiety as part of the effort toward more solid self, but I also see in your questions the possibility that it could be co-opted into serving the anxiety-binding mechanisms, becoming part of distancing, avoiding issues, cutting off. My colleagues and I are delighted that we will have an opportunity to hear your ideas and explore the muitiple facets of meditation at the CFC summer conference on 7/22.
Erik, I do not practice TM, but I do practice yoga and mindfulness meditation with fair frequency. All I have to do is drive by the yoga studio I attend to feel a sense of peace and well being. I have seen the practice as an important “technology” (to steal your great term) for managing self, as well as an indicator of how well I am managing self. When I am practicing regularly, I tend to be doing well in other areas of my life. You have articulated the questions that have been floating unformed in my mind about the possible connection with Bowen theory. It is a fascinating idea that TM could contribute to differentiation of self – apart from quelling anxiety and allowing thinking to occur. Would you see TM as so different from other forms of meditation that your questions would relate to TM only? Would you say that TM might contribute to differentiation without the (sometimes mean, grueling) work that the practice of Bowen theory demands? If so, how would you measure that? How would you isolate the effects of TM? You mention Zengar. Would you that regular practice of Zengar training, too, could contribute to increased differentiation of self? Thanks for an interesting post.
I appreciate the conversation and all these comments and questions.
Quick answers to Barbara’s thought-provoking questions:
TM Different? I gave traditional mindfulness a college try for a few years, and I have read some on this topic. I think they are different. I think many practices have great value for people. Based on my level of study, I think TM is easier to use to access transcendence regularly than mindfulness, that is one big reason I’ve been so steady with it.
I will focus on TM in my next phase of writing and speaking mostly because I have gradually become an expert in it- and I am far from expert in other methods. Also because I believe TM is different, and it is incorrect to generalize across meditation practices too freely. I would hope the questions about DOS could be stimulating to other BT theorists with different practices. TM goes straight after silence, which, it turns out, really is golden. (There I go sounding “woo woo” as my dear sister says.)
Can TM contribute to DOS without the grueling work? If DOS is part of nature, then there must be many ways to move it around. I’m convinced that the ancient practice of TM is one of many. Our traditional methods in Bowen theory are not good enough. The theory is largely correct, but the methods don’t work well enough.
Measurement?: TM’s effect is part of accepted science, whereas BT’s is not. Measuring…OY! Our methods in BT, even Bowen’s, were essentially subjective. He was one of those people who could see reality…but did he measure it? Not in the way science likes. BT is on an Odyssey towards objectivity that is just out of port. TM is further along, and has been the subject of a 40 year tradition of disciplined scientific inquiry including extensive physiological and neurological inquiry, but also disciplined qualitative studies that I find more fascinating still. I wonder if the 21st century will bring a newfound scientific respect for disciplined subjective enquiry? Most people already respect it. After all, what we experience is what really matters. I think self-study can be a valid form of inquiry. It is the one I have always used in my journey with BT.
Zengar?: I would assume many regular practices could contribute to basic DOS. I have respected colleagues who have confirmed this in their own subjective inquiries. It would be interesting to see Zengar vs. TM contrasted well. I always appreciate it when two experts can differ skillfully.
Meditation and Bowen theory have certainly been useful to many people. For both, I ask the questions: under what circumstances are each of them not helpful, and under what circumstances do each of them make things worse?
Erik, thanks for the background thinking on TM.
Would one want to give BT to a psychopath?
If we consider use of each to mean using the tool with the guidance of an expert (vs. joining the BT or TM group), there is the traditional understanding that BT can’t be used by people below a certain level of self, but it could benefit them via a family member. With TM there is a traditional understanding that the practice is not suitable for certain people in unbalanced states. I am not an expert on this area. Perhaps the experience of transcendence would be beneficial to almost anyone, as would the experience of being around a highly differentiated person.
Yes, a subgroup of psychopaths are already quite expert in the use of triangles.
Who said that about BT not being useful to lower differentiation individuals?
Your observation about meditation and individuals with “unbalanced states” is in accord with my experience. Can be very useful to those with a decent level of differentiation and disastrous for some who have a low level.
Jim Edd….on BT not being useful to those with low DOS:
Maybe I’m mixing in Freud? I thought Bowen wrote that of those low on the scale…I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone I thought of as quite low on the scale who could progress along the established BT pathway toward more basic self, let alone manage functional self. Have you?
The clinician or family leader can use BT to structure an environment that will help such a person to function at their best.