Science and Art of Meditation

On yesterday's study day we had a talk from Jonah about meditation.

One of the most interesting things was the overview of the dozens of different meditation techniques that there are. The old attitude of "most people off the street don't really understand what meditation is" has been turned round on us, and it appears that our knowledge is pretty narrow. When we split from the Maharishi it was he who popularized meditation; and now the Dalai Lama and other Buddhist teachers have taken the initiative.

Perhaps 'narrow and deep' is all one needs, but there was more. A few studies have recently been done that appear to show wide differences in the effects of different types of meditation. Broadly speaking, techniques can be divided into "single-pointed" and "open". Ours is the former; Zen methods are generally the latter, focussing on awareness of the wider universe. ... Click below for more ...

It appears that the single-pointed style of meditation has the effect of reducing the meditator's connection with the senses immediately afterwards, while the open style strengthens it. In a study at the University of Kentucky, 'open' meditation was the only intervention that was effective in speeding up reaction times to a 'psychomotor' test, even for inexperienced meditators. I gathered that the opposite effect would arise from 'our' approach, and this fits with the experience of coming out of a deep meditation and taking a few minutes to 'come round'. This does not, of course, mean that single-pointed meditation does not have practical benefits.

For a few years now I've suspected that 'our' meditation is problematic for the School. We don't seem to have learned a lot about the practice in 40 years. I've begun to suspect that it does not mesh perfectly with our older (for us) practices of giving attention outwards. Except for meditation and other practices gleaned from HH, we focus very much on physical work, giving attention, achieving targets both in the School and in the world (such as making money!) I have heard it said that we should promote meditation by emphasising that it is said to make one more efficient in daily life, including helping one to be 'successful', because that is what people want. I think this is a mistake, because although there may be beneficial side effects to meditation, it is not possible to meditate for a worldly aim. It's like two horses pulling in opposite directions. I also think it is too cynical about people's motives.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the exercise and other outward-directed practices that we got from the Gurdjieff-Ouspensky tradition are wrong or unhelpful. I think they're excellent, and in many ways the thing we do most successfully. All I would like to say is that there is a gap between these 'outgoing' practices and the more 'introspective' ones we got from the East - meditation, reflection, pausing, etc. It would be useful if we could recognise this, because it is holding us back.

These problems persist because historically we haven't liked to talk about our actual experience of meditation, or about our genuine responses to the practices. After a while, all that is expected is that one says how "useful" School practices are. OK, they're useful. But there might be some refinement needed, because some people, even after 20 or 30 years of trying, are unable to meditate even for five minutes. I don't think that's 'their problem'. I think that the problem of one of us is the problem of all of us.