Is constant mindfulness necessary (or even a good thing?)

Over on his fascinating blog, Daily Life as a Spiritual Exercise, Rick Hurst asserts a couple of things I found interesting in his latest post, "The Fine Line between Meditation and Hypnosis".

The first thing is that the difference between meditation and hypnosis is that meditation "leads us to full awareness of the present moment where Reality lives where hypnosis does the opposite. It puts us asleep to the present moment".

The second is that it is dangerous to be asleep to the present moment, and that the dangers are best illustrated with the example of a mother, in charge of watching a small child, who prefers to distract herself watching TV rather than actually watching the child, and therefore doesn't see him ingesting pills, thinking they were candy.

I'll look at each of these in turn below, because they each prompt very definite responses in me (and hey, what's a blog for if not for writing about responses you've had to things?)


The Difference Between Meditation and Hypnosis

I've actually asked myself this question before on my personal blog back in 2006 when I was first playing with hypnosis audios.

The answer I came up with (for those who find the mind-dump I wrote there a little too rambly) was a little fuzzy, but basically seemed to boil down to the concept that I used a given hypnosis session for a particular purpose. That purpose could vary: it might be to change a behaviour, to change an attitude, or to change a belief; but there was always an "in order to" about it, and it was always about changing something specific. Meditation, on the other hand, for me, was an end in itself. I might occasionally meditate upon a specific state with the aim of experiencing that state more often (which I grant you, is a kind of change). I might also start a journeying with the aim of finding the answer to a question I'd been struggling with too. But for the most part I meditate to meditate.

Rick's answer: that meditation is always about connecting with the present moment, doesn't work for me - probably because my definition of what meditation is seems far broader than his. I include under the umbrella term 'meditation' practices like breath counting, journeying, mantra meditation, mindfulness meditation, guided meditation, and visualisation. I'm not certain, but I think it's likely that Rick has a far more specific definition of meditation.

Under the definition I work with, of course, breath counting and mantra meditations are still meditations, and are all about narrowing your focus to a single object or concept. I suspect that, as such, Rick would say that you're cutting off awareness of all the other things around you; and therefore, opening yourself up to all the dangers he mentions in his example. As for guided meditations, journeying and visualisations? They're absolutely about letting go of where you are physically at a given time and letting your imagination take flight. Clearly then, these would be practices to avoid if you want to stay grounded in the present moment.

The truth about language is that it is subjective. The symbol is not the thing, the map is not the territory, and any given word is simply a symbol for the meaning we intend to encode within it. The dictionary definition of Term X is a description of the most common shared meaning for a given collection of syllables: it's not an absolute prescription of that meaning. Acknowledging this is what makes it OK for me to say "you and I have a different understanding of 'Term X' - but as long as we can both describe what we mean when we say 'Term X', and agree on a meaning for the duration of this conversation (or if I can accept that by 'Term X', you mean something I'd encode using 'Term Y', and then silently substitute Term Y for Term X in my brain) we can still communicate constructively".

So in this case, I'll accept that, for the purposes of communicating using shared terminology, under Rick's definition of meditation, many of the things I would class as meditation are, in fact, something completely different - some other kind of technique. Does that therefore follow that all these these techniques (which don't involve connecting with the present moment, and in fact involve deliberately divorcing myself from it, however temporarily) are dangerous?


Is Constantly Mindfulness Necessary (or even Desirable)?

I suspect that at this point, the differences between Rick's worldview and mine move from merely semantic to deep level conceptual. Rick seems to be making an absolute statement: being in a state of mindfulness is always a good thing; and being in a non-mindful state is always a dangerous thing. I did query this, and I'm not totally sure (at what point does disagreeing with someone and questioning them on on their blog become being argumentative?), but the impression I received was that yes, I'd understood Rick's statement correctly.

This doesn't gel as being true for my experience. Absolutely, there are times when it is necessary to be mindful: driving a car or looking after a small child are prime examples. But do we need this level of mindfulness every minute of every day? Is it so dangerous to allow ourselves to rest, to dream, to imagine, to fly, and to explore what's inside us? Aren't our inner worlds every bit as valid as territories to explore as our outer? And assuming, of course, we have taken responsibility for creating a safe spot for ourselves in the real world, in which everything we would usually be responsible for being aware of is being taken care of; isn't it perfectly permissible to let go? If not, surely we're being irresponsible by simply choosing to go to sleep every night?

In my understanding of the way the world works (such as it is), different paths work for different people, and the one that works best for me is one of balance. There are very, very few things I can say work best all the time. For the most part, the biblical concept of "a time for everything and everything in its time" has seemed to make sense to me as 'the middle path'. To move from the general to the specific, this means to me that, like everything else, mindfulness has its time and place, and that there are times when it's not only permissible, it's desirable to switch off.

I'm not sure - I'd love to hear Rick's take on whether I've understood what he was saying correctly - but I think in this case, it's fair to say that my 'balance in everything' clashes fairly solidly with the 'mindfulness in everything' stance I perceive from Rick's post. I acknowledge that not everyone lives in the same kind of 'balance in everything' subjective world that I do, and if Rick's world is one of absolutes where mindfulness is always right, that's fine too. It would be a boring world if we all saw things the same way.

I have to say, though, that concept clash or not, I'm grateful to Rick for prompting me to think hard, not just about the differences between meditation and hypnosis; but about the deeper questions around mindfulness, consciousness and practice, and what's desirable for me.

I'm also curious to know what other readers think. What are your definitions of hypnosis and meditation? In your understanding, are they diametrically opposed to each other, or are they simply different techniques, perhaps techniques that can even support each other? And in your understandings of mindfulness and spirituality, what's the "right" blend of mindful awareness of the world around you, vs awareness and exploration of the worlds within you?

Looking forward to hearing back from you!

Blessings




Starfire