Q&A: Negative consequences of meditation
Spiritual Bypassing, Equanimity, and Action
Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah. Salutations to all the teachers.
In this post, we will go over a question that one reader asked anonymously at r/EmptyYourCup. Anyone can join and anonymously ask questions about any of the articles, the subject matter, or life in general.
In order to make the most of this kind of post, please make sure to thoroughly understand the question before diving into the answer. We may find that we had questions we did not know about.
If you have any additional questions, objections, or responses, feel free to respond to this email, leave a comment below, or add to the thread anonymously at r/EmptyYourCup.
Question from u/cybersaintly:
Counter-productive consequences of Yoga and meditation
Yoga provides a simplistic framework for the categorization of thoughts, with the purpose of reducing the identification of the self with these thoughts. However, our thoughts and feelings can carry useful information and feedback from the external world. By distancing ourselves from our thoughts we may lose certain important nuances. For example, guilt or regret has a significance that can be related to an unwanted situation in ones life that can be corrected, which may lead to further happiness.
In Yoga, there is a focus on equanimity. It proposes this to be the ideal state. As our mediation practice develops, this state inadvertently becomes the objective. As we achieve equanimity or some form self-induced bliss, we may lose our urge to react to a situation that should be reacted to. The following recently published study further validates this fact, it states that mediation draws people’s focus inwards and reduces negative emotions. But negative emotions provide useful social feedback.
What are your thoughts on this? There may be certain nuances worth highlighting when it comes to meditation or Yoga that can help overcoming these outcomes.
Response:
You are absolutely right!
You have beautifully described one of the dangers of jumping straight to Dhaarana (the sixth limb) without first addressing the Yamas and Niyamas (the first two limbs of the eight-limbed Yoga), as well as the preliminary practices such as the four attitudes (friendliness, compassion, gladness, and equanimity).
The phrase for this kind of behaviour is “spiritual bypassing”, where the practitioner uses the techniques of Yoga and related philosophies to distance themselves from the world around them.
Additionally, distancing yourself from negative thoughts is not the goal of Yoga. One must notice and acknowledge them as they are, but also see them for what they are. Rather than suppressing them, acknowledge them and let them go. If a problem needs to be solved, solve it. If you feel something, don’t avoid it - feel it completely and viscerally.
Yoga simply disentangles the mind from getting worked up about our thoughts, allowing the Yogi the mental clarity and focus (aka sattva) to address underlying problems effectively.
In terms of Yoga psychology, this kind of behaviour is due to, and leads to, a strengthening of avidya - specifically the boundary between “self” and “other.” In terms of the gunas, it is tamas, which can look very similar to sattva, but is actually its exact opposite.
There is an interesting study on this topic which is actually referred to in the article you mentioned, where it was found that a brief mindfulness practice had an opposite effect on prosocial behaviour in groups with independent self-construals versus those with inter-dependent self-construals.
Said simply, for participants who viewed themselves as separate from others around them, the effect of a short mindfulness practice was that they stuffed less envelopes (in the same generosity-related experiment), but for those who viewed themselves as interconnected with others stuffed more envelopes than the control group!
Basically, the effect of the practice on how you deal with those around you depends on how you view yourself in relation to others (ie. your self-construal).
The bad news, and something to be (pardon the pun) mindful of, is that meditation can indeed have harmful effects when isolated from the other Yogic practices.
The good news, however, is that it is very easy to change the self-construal of an individual from independent to interdependent.
In fact, it was found in this study and this study, that changing a person’s self-construal is as simple as making participants read a paragraph with collective pronouns (e.g. us, we, they) as opposed to a paragraph with individual pronouns (e.g. I, me, you).
In terms of Empty Your Cup, what you are pointing out is one of the main reasons that we have spent so much time and attention on the preliminary practices and the first two limbs before jumping into meditation. The goal of Yoga is to reduce avidya, not strengthen it.
Furthermore, jumping to later limbs without first addressing the preliminary practices and the earlier limbs can result in exacerbating the other kleshas as well, not just avidya.
Now on to the subject of equanimity.
First of all, equanimity, while certainly important, is not the goal of Yoga. It is a result of the goal (ie. one who has “achieved” Moksha is naturally equanimous), and it is something to strive for, but it is not the ultimate aim.
Now remember, when we discussed the four attitudes (ie. friendliness, compassion, gladness, and equanimity), we introduced the concepts of near and far enemies for each. Briefly, the far enemy is the opposite of the attitude, and can be clearly seen to be so. The near enemy, on the other hand, looks very similar to the attitude, but is opposed to it in a much more subtle way.
Equanimity has a near enemy - apathy. They look very similar, but are actually poles apart. In terms of the gunas, when sattva is dominant, equanimity occurs. On the other hand, when tamas is dominant, you get apathy. This is the case for each of the attitudes and their near enemies.
The difference is that while equanimity takes into account the interdependence between all beings, apathy ignores this interdependence and focuses only on the “me” idea. Equanimity is sattvic, whereas apathy is tamasic.
In terms of self-construals, equanimity creates and derives from an interdependent self-construal, whereas apathy creates and derives from an independent self-construal.
The truth of the matter is that we are interdependent. What you call “me” does not exist without the air, sunlight, water, food, and so many other factors. Even our thoughts, ideas, and identities are entirely interdependent on our teachers, our parents, our friends, the books we read, the shows and movies we watch, the songs we listen to, and so on. Seeing this interdependence, or even just being aware of it, is a necessary step before jumping into the later limbs of Yoga (such as meditation).
In practical terms, notice your own tendencies carefully, and be honest with yourself (remember, one of the four keys to practice is satkaar, or internal honesty). If you find yourself feeling apathetic rather than equanimous, spend your time focusing on the preliminary practices and the first two limbs before spending time in meditation.
To quote the great Swami Satchidananda Saraswati,
“Closing your eyes and sitting in meditation isn’t useful if you become useless as soon as you open your eyes. Real Yoga is applied equanimity, applied psychology, applied spirituality.”
Reply from u/cybersaintly:
What you say about the interdependent self-construal resonates with me. But there is a big leap between just acknowledging interdependence and actually discerning what is specifically needed in a situation.
You say in the beginning that Yoga enables you to not get entangled or not get worked up. This is what my point is, that maybe it’s important to get worked up, to feel the specific emotions that are distressing and find meaning in them. Having said that I have found your article about stopping rumination useful in the past. Dwelling on something is counter-productive. Maybe this is what you mean by letting go?
One more thing, does equanimity mean non-reaction? When someone does apunya [ie. “bad” deeds] do we simply stand-by or do something about it? I feel like this is not clear in its definition and can be misleading.
Response:
Regarding the leap between the acknowledgement of interdependence and action - the really interesting thing about the research is that even just suggestion (not even a full acknowledgement) of interdependence is sufficient to lead to heightened prosocial outcomes (ie. actions).
Having said that, there is a place for the rewiring of me-focused tendencies to be more we-focused (ie. dissolving the boundary between self and other).
This is where pratipakshabhaavanaa comes in - an intentional rewiring, once you know the goal, and prior to jumping in to later limbs such as meditation. Intentionally rewiring our tendencies is how the leap between knowledge and action is solved in practice, so that regardless of the situation, the natural tendency becomes “selfless.”
You are right - Yoga enables you to not get entangled in your thoughts. Additionally, it enables you to not get worked up about your thoughts.
But, this doesn’t mean that you should or shouldn’t get worked up. It also doesn’t mean that you never get worked up about a given situation. It is just that getting worked up is now an explicit choice that you can make.
Simply said, you are no longer swept away by your thoughts by default, but you can always go along for the ride if you want.
This brings us to the final point around equanimity and non-reaction. We should certainly not stand by if someone is doing something harmful. If you recall the story about the robbers, the merchant, and the Yogi in the article on ahimsa, allowing violence to occur is in itself violence (specifically, it falls into the category of anumoditaa, or “allowed”). Stand up and act. The difference is that equanimity allows you to act from a place of wisdom rather than simply blind reactivity.
I hope this helps, and please don’t hesitate to reach out with further questions, comments, or objections. Thank you for your question, and may you be free from suffering 🙏🏽
Next time: Aasana, the third limb of Yoga
Hello Kunal!
Could you please share the research(Who is this "We"? Levels of collective identity and self representations.)? Seems like I don’t have access to read it for free.
Thank you! :)