meditation as psychotherapy

[Rajan Arulganesan]

Is it harmful in the long run for one's spiritual development to use yoga and meditation techniques as psychotherapeutic tools? I have always been tempted to seek out a yoga instructor or meditation advisor to calm my psychological and emotional unbalance, but,been fearful that this may simply treat the superficial 'existential' crisis and create a false sense of well being. The doctors are always Prozac happy and I do not want to go down this route. Is it better, in the long run to persevere with the various psychological phenomena that plagues you so that you may eventually work out what you are about? Any thoughts are welcome.

[Rajan Arulganesan]

'That said, I know a woman who is a therapist whose intuition is truly extraordinary. People come to her with psychological difficulties but her 'spirituality' allows her to understand and help her clients to make amazing changes in the lives. She seems to be working at a psychological level but I can't help thinking it has more to do with Spirit.'
Jane,
yes, I certainly agree that a modern therapist who is spiritually aware will definitely be more effective than someone who is strictly approaching problems from a biological or clinical perspective. However, therapists of this nature are the exception than the rule. What has become clear to me following this discussion is that I have in my mind created an artificial, 'black and white' separation of emotional, psychological and spiritual matters and this may necessarily not be the right approach. This, I suspect is to do with me misinterpreting what Shah has written on this subject. As Kareana points out in an earlier response, the reason I have, along with lot of other people seeking spiritual truth have turned towards 'the path or paths' is precisely because we can't reconcile the various idiosyncracies of this human existence, but, then we have to at this point , realise that you can't alleviate the confusion and anxiety without certain experiences in the path and this is not the end product of the endeavour, a much higher goal needs to be aimed for. I think this is what Michael has been alluding to when he talked abot the 'donkey' that brought us here.
kareana, on a diffrerent note, one of the things I have originally intended to find out has to do with what you were saying about certain yoga practices interfering with Sufi techniques. I came across something like this idea in Irina Tweedie's 'Chasm of fire' when her teacher speaks about having difficulty awakening someones 'spiritual' organ as this person was practising Hatha yoga before. I do not regard meditation as superficial, but, my understanding is that yoga, meditaion, tai chi etc, are specific techniques developped for certain times and people and only teachers who are aware of an individual's inner state are able prescribe the most suitable technique and the correct 'dosage' for that individual.

[Kareana Kee]

This is a very interesting subject for me, coming from a background of psychotherapy (ie as client :)) and in looking into it as much for my own understanding it seems the two main differentiations that ive been able to discover are frame of reference (ie the individual or the One) and a personal relationship with God.

Helenski, who by the way is a representative of the Mevlevi tradition, has a lot to say on psychology and devotes a whole chapter to "Sufi psychology". To follow on, here is some further contribution from him on this subject:

"The dominant themes of transpersonal psychology - work on self-esteem, creative visualization, affirmation, intuition, and awareness of archetypes - maybe useful, but is this work necessarily or essentially transpersonal if it all proceeds from that self which exists in seperation? is the transpersonal another ingredient in the recipe for self-esteem and success, or is it something that we surrender to and serve, to which we totally belong?

We have taken the individual human personality as the primary unit of reality, and this leads to profound failure and disillusionment. This is the central problem of our existence. Our American culture on the whole, and the so-called New Age movement in particular, shows many signs of being still immature and naive in relation to this central question. If we look at the offerrings of any New Age center, we will see that most of them are aimed at helping us to receive consolation and relief from stress through mustical pacifiers; or to be more empowered and effective in attaining our goals, or to be more attractive and interesting people, or to contain greater control through a magical knowledge. Many of these offerings can be divided into three categories: Band-Aids for the wounded (self-esteem seminars, meditation for stress-relief); tools for do it yourself reality builders (affirmations, creative visualisation); narcotics for the spriritually addicted (estactic techniques, recreational trantra, pampering the body).

In recent decades we have used the word holistic, thinking that it merely means eating whole foods, or integrating stress reduction techniques and bodywork into psychotherapy. Or we may think of holistic as not seperating the bran from the kernel of the grain: or not seperating the mind from the body, or the individual from nature. But there is a much more comprehensive wholeness, which is seeing the individual as integral to the wholeness of Being. What if we could recognise that there is a continuity between the core of individual consciousness and all levels of Being?"

Im wondering if this last question Michael relates back to your idea of a continuum and what we were previously discussing about the overlap of different realms. I myself am wondering about the notion of a system and how that might look different to the idea of a continuum. It does seem that how we conceptualise has a significant impact on with how one engages with "lifes problems" or whether we even see a problem as existing. :)

[Kareana Kee]

Hi Jane and Michael,

After pondering this for awhile a couple of things occurred to me that raised questions about how spirituality is applied. One is that I understand the Sufi's of old where quite renowned for their healing practices and that people were known to line up at their doors requesting healing's of various ailements. I heard this was one of the reason's for their persecution and being outlawed in Turkey (i think)? Secondly, I know there exists a Sufi healing order in the US, and have met a representative from this order here in NZ, who undoubtedly use spiritual practice or the bringing of divine awareness to a problem, whatever it's nature. Perhaps this may be considered heretical by some other orders? I dont actually know. Any thoughts on this?

Jane, your comments on sprititual persons who work in the theraputic realm is interesting also. Wolinsky who i have been speaking of describes the intuitive way he works with clients, and in fact it is the person themeselves that provides the key to their own healing. Wolinsky works with the client as subject rather than object and speaks in some examples of going into trance like states himself accessing the unconscious and collective unconscious in search of resources that will help shift the clients subjective experience of a problem state. The direction or level of working always comes from the client. He says applying a one size fits all technique doesnt work and that he uses the knowledge of how in quantum physics the role of the observer acts beyond and behind the experiement. This particularly relates to your research on what it actually means to meditate. Very interesting that med means to measure! Because in quantum physics the uncertainity principle says that you can never accurately measure something, because quantum experiments have shown, that the observer and observed are not seperate. The act of observering/measuring, bringing your attention to something actually changes the thing being observed. On a macro level this may not be apparent, but on a micro level an interaction is taking place.

I also had a quick look in the book im reading "the knowing heart - A sufi path of tranformation". Helminski makes a very good differentiation between meditation and zikr I think worth sharing.

"Westerners who are familiar with various spiritual paths may ask, " What is the difference between zikr and meditation?" If by meditation is meant that refined "listening within," the activation of a presence capable of witnessing inner and outer events without becoming absorbed in them, then there is much in common. We can, however, distinguish zikr fromthe more superficial techniques of concentration. Rememberance is more than an exercise performed for individual purposes such as attaining calmeness, clarity, or relaxation. While zikr must include that state of concentration, it is more than that. Rememberance of God is establishing a relationship with infinite Being, which is both nearer to us than ourselves and, at the same time, greater than any-thing we can conceive. It is also experienced as loving and being loved by Love.

I once received a letter from a person who was in the midst of years of intensive practice withing what he described as a "nontheistic tradition." During a three year solitary retreat he began to practice a Sufi zikr using the name Allah. He described how in all his years of spiritual practice, and despite the many benefits of his practice, his heart had not found rest. "Perhaps there is somehting in approaching a God who can be named. My heart, for the first time, has found rest." Little did he know that he was quoting the Qur'an almost verbatim. Is his experience valid, or is it merely settling for some lesser satisfaction? Our understanding of rememberance is that the Divine has the qualities of indefinabable transcendence, as the nontheistic approaches emphasize, and at the same time the Divine has a personal, intimate aspect, which is experience as profound relationship."

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Jane,

A very thoughtful and much appreciated post. You are right, we bandy words about and maybe don't fully understand what even we mean by them, let alone the dictionary definitions. Thinking about it, what do I understand by “meditation”? I like that notion of “to gauge” that you mention. It’s a procedure by which we stop to gauge the situation; a conscious effort to arrive at the truth.

You can slice that different ways: it may be in the sense of quiet reflection, for example; or, seeking to still the mind to arrive at a less troubled state which is truer to what we are. Rajan’s power walks and people engrossing themselves in gardening may be examples of the latter, every bit as much as sitting in a static yoga posture mentally repeating a mantra.

I think you are right that in the calm and relaxed state that may result, we may be more pleasant, effective and mentally alert. The kinds of things that we could be all the time if we were permanently in that state.

As for “spirituality”, well, I mentioned earlier that I think there’s a continuum from the physical to the psychological to the spiritual, albeit that one can very usefully distinguish, in principle, different zones or realms. Because, broadly speaking, each zone needs to be understood and dealt with in its own terms. But I’m not denying overlaps or that influences may go from one to the other, or that they form, in the end, one integrated whole.

To me, that seems a little bit different from saying that when operating in one zone with the aim of growing as a spiritual being, it’s counterproductive to act with the intention of effecting the cure of a physical or mental illness.

Yes, someone with spiritual insight may be able to perceive others’ psychological issues, but when they act on that, as, say, a therapist, are they seeking, necessarily, to promote the spiritual growth of the patient?

Certainly, it seems possible that the cure of a psychological problem may lead to a certain amount of spiritual growth, just as spiritual growth may lead to psychological healing. But intention is all: what is the aim? Get it wrong, and the results may be poor.

Sufis, says Shah (and I don’t see why it shouldn’t apply to other traditions), are primarily concerned with spiritual growth. A lot of time and effort will be wasted if a teacher concentrates on “lesser” aims, which in any case, especially in modern times, have many useful avenues to be explored.

Render unto Caesar, so to speak. It is perfectly legitimate to seek, in moderation, the fulfilment of lesser aims, such as the desire to feel loved or respected, and certainly to seek the cure for ailments. There are many perfectly adequate sources for that, and there’s no harm in the seeker seeking those things as well as spiritual growth, so long as s/he doesn’t confuse the two.

[Jane]

This is just my meanderings and they don't really fit neatly into the thread.

You know how if you say a word so many times it begins to feel odd and bulky in your mouth and meaning seems to slip away? I felt like that about 'meditation' this morning and so I read the wiki page on meditation and found it really interesting. The root med in meditation and medicine comes from to measure (maybe in the sense of gauge). It was also interesting to read about differences and similarities across cultures in meditation practices and to see that there are secular forms too.
I remember hearing of a trail where children meditated before school their results, concentration and behaviour improved. The wiki article has some links to medical trials with meditation which appear to show improvements in health conditions linked to the autonomic system.
For myself I know that when I am calm and relaxed I am more intelligent,more pleasant and more effective. This equilibrium is not superficial it is really important. If a sensible, moderate form of meditation helps to calm and relax a person in this way I can't see how it can be harmful.
I don't see it as necessarily a spiritual thing either, but that would depend on the particular type of meditation.
I have really liked this discussion particularly with regards to the idea that there are different levels eg physical, spiritual, psychological and the need to differentiate and I think it is a very useful point particularly where people are after power, magic, advancement but I think healing might be a case apart. These days it is more accepted that the mind and the body is a two way street, what happens to the body affects the mind and vice versa.
I'll have to read the wiki page on spirituality too because I am very vague about what it is. (But I am thinking 'that'll be a three way street then' which is a terrible mixed metaphor but kind of nice too how does that third lane work.) That said, I know a woman who is a therapist whose intuition is truly extraordinary. People come to her with psychological difficulties but her 'spirituality' allows her to understand and help her clients to make amazing changes in the lives. She seems to be working at a psychological level but I can't help thinking it has more to do with Spirit.

[Michael Larkin]

...and as a rider to that, I think that we may spend a lot of time initially in our spiritual endevours dealing with the fallout from approaching them for the wrong reasons. Fallout that includes general confusion about what realm particular issues belong to, and attempting to understand and solve them using the methods of an inappropriate realm. Which links in with the main theme of this thread.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Kareana,

I don't think Shah says it is wrong. What he does say is: "Leave the donkey [a code word for the commanding self] that brought you to the door outside". The initial impetus may be a desire to solve existential problems, but the purpose of the teaching isn't to do that, even if therapy is a by-product.

Wolinsky, I think you said, “framed” his therapy in spiritual terms. Thinking about it, that’s not the same as “applying spirituality”. It’s one thing to suggest to the man that what he was seeking was God, but mistakenly chasing nirvana through alcohol. It’s another to, say, prescribe meditation or other spiritual exercises to effect a cure for alcoholism.

Spiritual exercises, in my understanding, don’t have therapeutic purposes; they exist not to effect cures for illness, but to encourage spiritual growth. It may well be that spiritual growth indirectly leads to improved health, but if spiritual exercises are pursued for the express purpose of effecting cures, then they probably will result in neither spiritual growth nor cures.

Wolinksy seems to be a therapist who is open to the possibility that some problems may have their origin in spiritual dissatisfaction, and that the most productive line for some patients may be to investigate that avenue. He isn’t necessarily thereby attempting to apply “spiritual therapy”. As I’ve pointed out, that may be an oxymoron.

If people have existential problems that arise from spiritual dissatisfaction, then the correct course of action is for them to seek spiritual satisfaction using the correct method, not an incorrect one (such as alcoholic or drug-induced oblivion). As a minimum, that may entail entertaining the possibility that some higher power or deity exists; it will be up to the individual whether or not s/he takes things further, for example by seeking out a spiritual teacher.

At which point, again, they must leave the donkey that brought them (e.g. problems with alcoholism) outside the door of the teacher.

[Kareana Kee]

Hi Michael, Mike and Pedro,

just a brief note as I am on the hop, but I am interested in this idea of Shah that one should only seek higher consciousness for the sake of it and not for alternative agenda's. I get the impression that many people come to the path because of a lack of contentment and indeed it is people's problems that largely provide the impetus for seeking? Would shah say this is wrong?

I was also reflecting on the example of Wolinsky and the alcoholic. It seemed to me that in the process, it wasnt so much that he used spirituality to fix the problem of the alcoholic, but that he helped the alcoholic see that actually what he was actually seeking was a relationship with God, but was essentially barking up the wrong tree. With that realisation the alcohol seemed to just become reduntant. Perhaps this is what Shah means? maybe if he had been trying to apply spirituality as a direct remedy, it would have been a different scenario and only perpetuated the struggle with alcohol he was already having?

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Pedro,

Thanks for the vote of confidence! :-)

Also, I've added the book you mention to my Amazon wish list. I may get round to reading it eventually.

I seem to recall reading Peter Kingsley's account (I think it was him, anyway), of how he would get physically very ill when he failed to follow the path he was supposed to be following, and mentioning that many Shamans insist that illness is all part and parcel of the path.

That doesn't mean that illness is always part of the path, of course. But I can see opportunity, not only difficulty, in illness. Luckily, the universe seems so arranged that we can benefit from anything, however painful it seems.

[Michael Larkin]

Hi Kareana,

I take your point. The different "realms", the "different zones of the spectrum" do, I think, interact and interpenetrate. If you have a physical problem, that may affect you psychologically, and that interfere with you spiritually. And there's no a priori reason to assume that the system can't work the other way round, too, that spiritual issues can't lead eventually to psychological and/or physical ones.

Yes, on the face of it, one needs to identify the root cause and treat that. Maybe some therapists are open to the possibility of the source being spiritual and prepared to focus treatment on that (with maybe the auxiliary help of psychotherapy and/or drugs), but a key question is whether or not the therapist is actually able to identify definitively in which realm the ultimate cause lies. This is part of my reservation. Get the identification wrong, and the treatment may be ineffective at best and positively harmful at worst.

Where we are talking about severe illness such as schizophrenia, then the medics clearly have to do something, even if it’s only trying to control symptoms through the use of drugs rather than investigating all possible causes, which could conceivably include a spiritual malaise. Mind you, my guess is that for many accredited therapists, potential spiritual causes aren’t even on the map.

That said, there’s a lot of angst out there that isn’t severe enough to be labelled and deemed to merit intense treatment, though medics are ready enough to dispense psychotropic drugs when what people really need is just a sympathetic ear and human compassion. These drugs, no doubt about it, sometimes cause more problems than they solve.

Those with everyday “existential” problems (and that may be most people in crazy modern society), can’t rely on the medical profession, who are just as confused as they are. They may have to look to themselves as their own therapist. That might sound like an inferior option, but actually, I think we all have it in us to be our own best physician. For a start, we care more about our problems than anyone else, and have a vested interest in sorting them out. Our motivation so to do is high. And as I keep banging on, we can all develop a faculty which is objective, detached, dispassionate. A faculty that isn’t biased towards viewing all our problems as spiritual, psychological or physical, but is simply looking to discover the truth, whatever that might prove to be.

I’d argue that this faculty is actually the beginnings of a real spiritual centre within us. Spirituality is concerned with Truth above all else, and that begins with the realisation that we know very little for sure. It can be very painful, after maybe years of fancying oneself as a highly spiritual being already, to admit most or all of that could be imagination. It might seem like taking a step backwards, but I think it’s the first true step forwards. Let us admit and celebrate our ignorance, and take delight in investigations that will help reduce it. Let us realise that imagined knowledge stops those investigations dead in their tracks, and ensures our continued ignorance – mainly ignorance of ignorance.