Driven to Distraction - What is Meditation, Anyway?

As I discussed in a previous post of this series, Driven to Distraction - A Counterinfluence, meditation is trending in the US (as well as many other parts of the world). So, naturally, the word ‘meditation’ is one that gets thrown around a lot lately, particularly in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. It’s also a word that has rich cultural meaning and is tightly bound to several world religions. Given the cultural meaning associated with the word and the casual nature with which it sometimes seems to get thrown around these days, I think it’s worth putting some effort into addressing the semantics of the term, insofar as I tend to use it. In other words, what is meditation, anyway?

Merriam-Webster dictionary offers several definitions of the verb ‘meditate’, first as an intransitive verb:

1. to engage in contemplation or reflection;

2. to engage in mental exercise (such as concentration on one’s breathing or repetition of a mantra) for the purpose of reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness;

and second as a transitive verb:

1. to focus one’s thoughts on : reflect on or ponder over;

2. to plan or project in the mind.

First of all, I’m not a meditation expert in the classical sense. I have had little formal training. But I have had a fair amount of practice, the nuance of my understanding of meditative practice being primarily rooted in my studies of psychology, rather than in ‘spirituality’, in the conventional sense of the word. With this in mind, I offer my opinion, which is that three of these definitions deal with the more colloquial use of the word. In contrast, the second definition listed in the first group offers a meaning that more closely approximates the word’s use in formal and intentional contexts – such as in relation to spiritual practice. But there is, in my opinion, an issue with it. The first part of the definition – ‘to engage in mental exercise …’ – is pretty solid; it implies the use of specific mental behaviors in a systematic fashion, but is broad enough to cover the many forms of formal meditative practice (e.g., samatha, vipassana, zen / ‘zazen’, or more recently developed techniques like transcendental meditation). Though, the second part of the definition – ‘…for the purpose of reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness’, is subjective and does not map on to all the contexts in which the term is used today.

It is not commonly questioned that meditation first evolved for a ‘spiritual’ purpose – the earliest evidence of meditative practice can be found in wall art on the Indian subcontinent that dates to between 5,000 and 3,500 BCE, as well as in the Vedas (Hindu religious texts; 1,500 BCE). And much later in the west, presumably uninfluenced by practices from the far east, meditation also developed in Judeo-Christian traditions. Thus, meditation’s original purpose was spiritual in nature. Though, in discussing the spiritual origins of meditation, it’s important to acknowledge historical circumstances. At the time of its development, in both east and west, spiritual or religious practices composed the majority of someone’s worldview. There was no scientific method, not in the formal sense, so any practice designed to alter one’s subjective state was likely assimilated into a spiritual frame of reference.

More recently, however, western science has taken up a keen interest in meditative practices, particularly those formalized in eastern traditions. These investigations have examined everything from the health effects of meditative interventions to the response of cognitive and physiological markers to both acute and chronic meditative practice. In parallel, elements of meditation and mindfulness have been incorporated into many secularized interventions and many have sought out meditative practice for the express purpose of health benefits. That is, the functional practice of meditation has, in many contexts, been progressively divorced from spiritual origins. But might this just be a change in our frame of reference? If meditation developed in a context wherein the only frame of reference with which to explain its effects was spiritual in nature, isn’t it natural that our explanation of its effects has over time bent toward science, along with our understanding of both ourselves and other natural phenomena?

 Ethically, I think that what is important in the current climate – that is, one in which the word ‘meditation’ can seem to take on so many different meanings – is that we are clear about what the specific intentions and purported benefits of a given ‘meditative’ practice are. For example, there are neurofeedback devices such as Muse that measure EEG activity and use that to provide guidance and feedback to the user as they use meditative techniques to cultivate different brain states. But is the measurement of one set of markers sufficient to claim that the product enhances ‘spiritual’ practice? Not really, and they don’t advertise it as such. I would argue that the word ‘spiritual’ is too subjective and that what is important is that what is being advertised is the use of a product in conjunction with systematic mental activity to cultivate a particular cognitive or physiological effect. ‘Spiritual’ claims should be respectfully left to the traditions that spawned them. When it comes to science-driven products, it’s up to the user to determine whether the ends that are advertised justify the means of trying the product or practice. And, if enough users decide the ends justify the means, it theoretically may become the focus of independent investigators if they are not already involved. After all, that’s how western science eventually became interested in meditation to begin with, isn’t it?