In working in the opposite direction of the fight-or-flight response, the relaxation response involves the lowering of the heart rate, the reduction of oxygen consumption, and the frequency of breath. A modest decline in blood pressure, the lowering of the skin conductance, and the muscular tone were later also included. These changes were considered to be the physiological basis of the positive effects that meditation had on things such as musculoskeletal pain, headaches, the cardio-vascular system, anxiety, sleep disturbances, and asthma, as well as on creativity and productivity. In general, the relaxation response involves a decline in the stress hormones as well as an increase in alpha activity in the brain. In clinical studies, the relaxation response has been linked to the treatment of several conditions, as well as substance addictions and the rehabilitation of prisoners.
Kovoor Behanan, an Indian graduate student in psychology at Yale, undertook quantitative studies of his own yogic breathing and published the results in a widely reviewed book in 1937.32 Since the 1930s, there has been a focus on the physiological effects of the postures and breathing exercises of Yoga and Pranayama. In spite of this, when the relaxation effects of meditation were made the subject of physiological studies in the 1970s, they were conceived of as being quite new.
In the 1970s, most of the technology used in exploring the physiological changes of meditation had been around for decades. The blood pressure meter (sphygmomanometer) had been widely used within the medical community since 1901, electrocardiography (ECG) was invented in 1903, skin conductance was measured scientifically in the early 1900s, and electroencephalography (EEG) was invented in 1924 and popularized in the 1930s. The radioimmunoassay that measured hormone levels in the blood, however, and the measurement of oxygen uptake in the body relied on more recent inventions, the former being developed in the 1950s, and the latter in the late 1960s. Apart from these two instruments, the new wave of meditation research was not primarily technology-driven.
The focus on the physiological aspects of relaxation came partly from the general biological orientation of the medical community, in particular its interest in hypertension. The fact that even mild hypertension could in the long run lead to cardiovascular disease and eventually death had been known since the 1950s. The links between hypertension and the various forms of stress was a highly debated topic. Before Benson began exploring meditation, he studied blood pressure in monkeys.
An extra impetus for the scientific study of meditation came from an interest in biofeedback that was at the outskirts of the medical establishment. A famous conference on biofeedback held in 1969 supported the idea that even the autonomic nervous system could be influenced by volitional activity. In the 1970s, several scientific studies focused on both meditation and biofeedback.
However, the focus on the physiology of relaxation was not just a product of trends in the medical community. Both the TM movement and its many offshoots are what later have been termed “nondirective” techniques. Nondirective techniques emphasize nonconcentration and the acceptance of thoughts as important elements of the practice, and relaxation as the most immediate effect of meditation.33 Similar ideas were also present in a few other schools of meditation, but much less consistently. When the TM movement began to advocate nonconcentration as a meditation principle at the beginning of the 1960s, this was in opposition to the prevalent yogic emphasis on concentration and directed attention. Buddhist practices usually emphasize concentration rather than effortlessness, though some seek to combine the two. Both Yoga and Buddhism often look upon stray thoughts as a disturbance rather than as part of the process. The emphasis on bodily and mental relaxation as a prerequisite for progress is a characteristic of several practices.
Two features of the TM movement may also have facilitated the focus on the physiology of relaxation. First, the emphasis on the automatic generation of effects, from the most basic form of relaxation to the highest levels of consciousness, seemed to fit well with the mechanistic approach of modern science. Second, in the majority of the TM studies, a critical attitude toward psychological views of meditation has underlain a clear focus on physiology rather than psychology.
The Brain and the Wandering Mind
The brain has been of central interest in meditation research since the first electroencephalographic (EEG) study of Zen meditation in 1966.34 The investigation of alpha waves and, to a lesser extent, theta waves during meditation was a prominent issue in the relaxation-oriented physiological research on TM and other techniques in the 1970s. Alpha waves are believed to reflect relaxed wakefulness, while the slower theta waves are associated with drowsiness and shallow sleep but also with emotional processing and personality development.35 In addition to showing these brain waves, EEG also helped to some extent in identifying the location of the brain activity during meditation.
In the twenty-first century, EEG technology has retained much of its importance. In addition to studying alpha and the theta waves, some focus has also been directed toward the much faster gamma waves,36 though their relevance has been controversial. Gamma waves have been associated with the management of emotions linked to Buddhist and Buddhist-inspired techniques.37
The emergence in the twenty-first century of new technologies within the field of neuroimaging has had considerable relevance for meditation research, in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), but also single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) and positron emission tomography (PET). In contrast to EEG, fMRI can produce images of any active brain area, not just in relation to the cortex but also deeper inside the brain. The high resolution and great accuracy of fMRI images makes it easier to interpret more of what is going on in the brain. For meditation research, one downside is that the subjects must lie in a large noisy machine—hardly conducive to any meditative practice.
As mentioned, the first fMRI study of meditation made by Lazar and co-workers came in the year 2000; it is still one of the most-cited articles on the topic. In general, the frequently cited fMRI-based studies have explored issues such as brain plasticity, brain networks, neural circuitry, neural connectivity, and cortical thickness. They are typically concerned with the use of attention, as well as with the clinical effects of meditation on emotional disturbances. This is a part of the general orientation of Mindfulness studies, which by the turn of the century had begun to dominate the scientific study of meditation.
Some years into the century, many brain studies of meditation began to focus on the “default-mode network” and its psychological correlate, mind wandering. The default-mode network includes parts of the brain where activity goes up rather than down during rest. This network has plausibly been linked to the kind of spontaneous, stimulus-independent thought that is often referred to as “mind wandering” and the brain “at rest.”
At first, the focus on this network was almost completely on the negative effects of such mental activity, as reflected in the title of a frequently quoted article: “A Wandering Mind Is an Unhappy Mind.”38 Mind wandering was linked to depressive rumination. However, the psychological literature gradually also included more favorable views. Focusing on the “emotional cost” of mind wandering, the article cited above also called mind wandering “a remarkable evolutionary achievement that allows people to learn, reason, and plan.” An even more recent article, “Ode to Positive Constructive Daydreaming,”39 argues that the positive aspects of mind wandering have been underreported, and quotes several studies to this effect, suggesting that mind wandering may be beneficial for creativity, memory, planning, adaptation, empathy, and problem solving. Gradually, an increasing number of neuroscientists have taken for granted that the default-mode network and its corresponding mental activities also have positive functions, otherwise these cerebral activities would not have survived evolutionary selection.40
The negative view of mind wandering fits well with the strong skepticism toward digressive thoughts that characterizes Buddhism and many other meditative traditions. It also tal
lies well with the idea that meditative absorption, presumably the opposite of mind wandering, leads to happiness or even “bliss.” For a long time, therefore, studies of meditation focused almost exclusively on the negative aspects of mind wandering and disregarded its positive effects. In this light, research suggesting that Mindfulness meditation reduces mind wandering has been favorably interpreted.41
Of the few studies reporting higher default mode network activity during meditation than during rest with the eyes closed, one has attributed it to “the experience of contentless thought with continued self-awareness during TM practice,”42 and not to mind wandering. The notion of “contentless thought” may be inspired by concerns within the TM movement about differentiating TM from the “concentration meditation techniques.” Seeing mind wandering as negative seems to reflect a bias prevalent among researchers attracted to the schools related to Mindfulness meditation.
A more recent fMRI study suggests that Acem Meditation and other forms of nondirective meditation differ from Mindfulness and most other Buddhist practices in increasing rather than decreasing the activity in the default-mode network, when compared both to simple rest and to concentrative practice.43 The increased activity takes place in areas linked to episodic memory and emotional processing. The study speculates that the activation “might be associated with emotional processing related to mind wandering” and that it “may possibly serve to modify stressful emotional memories.” Such an interpretation is in line with the psychological focus on Acem Meditation as a method for working through unresolved personality issues. In contrast to TM and other forms of counterculture spirituality, the Acem technique had already been placed in a psychological framework in the early 1970s.44
Conclusion
Several factors have been shaping the meditation cultures linked to the scientific studies that have emerged since the 1970s. Broadly, these factors may be divided into three: the focus of popular culture, the scientific orientation and the available technology at the time, and the meditative traditions and the features of meditation practices.
When the scientific study of meditation rose to prominence in the 1970s, this was a delayed response to the widespread general interest in meditation of the previous decade. Similarly, the downward trend for meditation research from 1979 to 1989 was also a delayed response to the popular disillusionment with the counterculture in general and with the TM movement in particular of the 1970s. When the second wave of meditation research began, the link between popular and scientific interest went both ways. Not only did the new rise in interest in meditation spark an increase in scientific writings on the subject, but this scientific activity in turn also contributed to a more positive image of meditation in the mainstream culture. The focus in the second wave of meditation research has primarily been on Buddhist techniques, in particular the diverse methods referred to as Mindfulness meditation.
Developments within general scientific methodology and thinking have affected scientists’ choice of research topics. First, the strong focus in the 1970s on physiology and relaxation partly reflected a long-term scientific interest in the relationship between mind and body, for example, stress, blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, and mortality. Second, the changing orientation of the academic psychology from psychodynamics to cognitive psychology triggered a similar change in the research focus of the study of meditation. And third, the focus on the default-mode network in the early 2000s stimulated interest in the brain’s response to meditative practices. Equally important was the availability of new neuroimaging technologies, in particular fMRI. Technology-driven trends within the field of meditation research also included the use of the radioimmunoassay to measure the levels of stress hormones in the blood.
A bias from the classical meditative traditions on research orientation is most clearly seen in the attitude toward mind wandering. The widespread skepticism toward stray thoughts in Buddhism and related meditative traditions has stimulated an almost exclusively negative view of mind wandering. This tendency filtered into the general psychological and neuroscientific literature. However, the larger field also recognizes a number of beneficial functions of mind wandering that are not frequently mentioned in the Mindfulness chapters of meditation research.
It is worth noting that the two above-mentioned meditation studies reporting an increase rather than a decrease of the default-mode activity both focus on techniques that are explicitly nonconcentrative and relaxation-oriented: TM and Acem Meditation. Together with many Mindfulness techniques, these nondirective methods have in common an accepting attitude toward random thoughts during the practice. However, they go further than most schools of Mindfulness in accepting even drowsiness, dozing off, and a naturally slumped body posture as aspects of meditation. Furthermore, in contrast to many Mindfulness practices, they instruct meditators not to actively “let go” of thoughts but to simply gently return to the meditation object. These techniques’ emphasis on relaxation and a free mental attitude contrasts with the focus on alertness or mindfulness in most Buddhist practices.
This difference may also underlie the shift in orientation between the first and the second wave of meditation research. As we have seen, the first wave focused on the relaxation response, while the second wave has been more concerned with mindfulness and the management of attention and emotions. Part of the reason for this shift may lie in the differences between the nature of the meditation techniques that have been studied the most: TM during the first wave, and Mindfulness during the second.
It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the effects of the meditation technique and the effects of the framework surrounding meditation. As mentioned, the skepticism toward psychology in TM may be why so few of the psychological studies from the 1970s involved TM, despite its central position at the time. That this was an effect of the TM teachings rather than of the practice itself becomes clear when comparing TM to Acem Meditation, which is technically similar to TM but is regularly understood in a psychological context.
This chapter has focused on the various elements that have shaped the cultures surrounding the scientific studies of meditation. Many of the elements involved have come from society at large, but also from scientific environments, and from the movements and traditions engaged in meditative practice, and include cultural attitudes, technological innovations, and aspects of technical practice.
However, influence has also run in the opposite direction. The scientific focus surrounding meditation has itself been an important contributor to the development of modern meditation cultures. By encouraging a technical view of meditation, science has stimulated decontextualization and the subsequent recontextualization of meditative practices. The physiological and psychological focus of scientific research has linked meditation more to the effects of general popular interest than to traditional spiritual goals. Finally, the prestige of science has contributed to a positive image of meditation and thus to the popular dissemination of such practices. In these ways, science has played an important part in creating space for and showing the relevance of meditation in a modern cultural context.
Notes
1. Sharf, “Buddhist Modernism”; Houtman, “Vipassanā in Burma.”
2. Taylor, Confucian Way of Contemplation; Kohn, “Quiet Sitting with Master Yinshi”; Kohn, Taoist Experience, 135–141.
3. Stange, “Inner Islamization in Java.”
4. Ospina, “Meditation Practices for Health.”
5. Based on searches done in February 2014. See http://apps.webofknowledge.com. In most of these searches, the main search word was “meditation,” which was sometimes combined with other terms. Terms such as “yoga” and “biofeedback” were searched separately. The following periods were searched separately as well: 1900–1959, 1960–1969, 1970–1979, 1980–1989, 1990–1999, 2000–2009, and 2010–2014. To decide which articles were most influential, results were sorted according to “times cited—highest to lowest.” For some periods, particularly 1970
–1979, the results were analyzed further using citation reports showing which of the citations actually occurred in that particular decade.
6. Cf. also Deikman, “Implications.”
7. Kasamatsu and Hirai, “Electroencephalographic Study.”
8. Wallace, “Physiological Effects”; Wallace and Benson, “Physiology of Meditation”; Wallace et al., “Decreased Blood Lactate”; Wallace et al., “Wakeful Hypometabolic Physiologic State”; Benson, “Decreased Alcohol Intake”; Benson, “Transcendental Meditation”; Benson and Wallace, “Decreased Blood-Pressure”; Benson et al., “Physiologic Correlates of Meditation.”
9. Another best-selling book on meditation in the same year was Bloomfield et al., TM: Discovering Inner Energy.
10. Eight meditation studies were cited more than thirty times in this decade, and all of them focused on TM.
11. Cf. Davanger, “Natural Science of Meditation.”
12. Holmes, “Meditation and Somatic Arousal Reduction”; Holmes, “To Meditate or to Simply Rest”; Holmes, “To Meditate or Rest?”; Suler, “Meditation and Somatic Arousal”; West, “Meditation and Somatic Arousal Reduction”; Shapiro, “Clinical Use of Meditation”; Benson and Friedman, “Rebuttal”; Smith “Meditation, Biofeedback.”
13. Goleman and Schwartz, “Meditation as an Intervention”; Davidson and Goleman, “Attentional and Affective Concomitants”; Schwartz et al., “Patterning.”
Asian Traditions of Meditation Page 39
