Re:Shamatha v. Vipassana v. TM v. Zen

I think your question is an imporant one. I believe there are significant differences between various meditation techniques, and they need to be appreciated when selecting one for personal or professional use (as in the applications of meditation for psychotherapy).

For instance, Zen meditation is geared toward full sensory absorption. This orients one's nervous system to be attuned to the moment at hand, and one's psychophysical reactivity will therefore correspond to the moment at hand. Not clinging to it, but fully experiencing it.

Yoga, by contrast, is often geared toward developing an equanimity, obtained by focusing on one's internal sense of calm. Such that whatever occurs on the outside, there will be a minimal effect on the inside.

Chi Kung focuses on balancing the flow of energy in one's system in order to maintain health and equanimity during alterations in one's system which will correspond to alterations in the environment. It is an adaptive approach, which like Zen helps one relate optimally to the moment at hand, but like Yoga, focuses on internal body processes.

Then again, a method might be chosen by a variety of different factors, such as degree of active engagement, physically and mentally. A person who tends toward adHd may be unable to initially engage in Zen Meditation, and may find Yoga or Tai Chi most effective. A person who tends toward intellectualing their world (and yet who finds that unsatisfying) may need to directly embrace Zen meditation to go beyond their intellectual limitations.

Certainly, more appreciation of the similarities and differences inherent in various meditative approaches needs to occur. Thank you for beginning this dialogue.

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.