Abstract

Based on evidence of parasympathetic activation, early studies
defined meditation as a relaxation response. Later research attempted to
categorize meditation as either involving focused or distributed
attentional systems. Neither of these hypotheses received strong
empirical support, and most of the studies investigated Theravada style
meditative practices. In this study, we compared neurophysiological
(EEG, EKG) and cognitive correlates of meditative practices that are
thought to utilize either focused or distributed attention, from both
Theravada and Vajrayana traditions. The results of Study 1 show that
both focused (Shamatha) and distributed (Vipassana) attention
meditations of the Theravada tradition produced enhanced parasympathetic
activation indicative of a relaxation response. In contrast, both
focused (Deity) and distributed (Rig-pa) meditations of the Vajrayana
tradition produced sympathetic activation, indicative of arousal.
Additionally, the results of Study 2 demonstrated an immediate dramatic
increase in performance on cognitive tasks following only Vajrayana
styles of meditation, indicating enhanced phasic alertness due to
arousal. Furthermore, our EEG results showed qualitatively different
patterns of activation between Theravada and Vajrayana meditations,
albeit highly similar activity between meditations within the same
tradition. In conclusion, consistent with Tibetan scriptures that
described Shamatha and Vipassana techniques as those that calm and relax
the mind, and Vajrayana techniques as those that require ‘an awake
quality’ of the mind, we show that Theravada and Vajrayana meditations
are based on different neurophysiological mechanisms, which give rise to
either a relaxation or arousal response. Hence, it may be more
appropriate to categorize meditations in terms of relaxation vs.
arousal, whereas classification methods that rely on the focused vs.
distributed attention dichotomy may need to be reexamined.

....

Despite the limitations, we were able for the first time to show that
Vajrayana and Theravada styles of meditation are correlated with
different neurophysiological substrates. More generally, the current
findings undermine the prevalent view that all meditation practices
bring about the same results, of enhancing cognitive performance and
reducing stress levels. Indeed, it shows that the physiological and
cognitive influences that meditations induce can vary greatly between
traditions. Even though the benefits that can follow from different
types of meditations of different traditions are often similarly
described, leading to the widespread belief that they are in fact highly
similar and that the choice to practice one meditation over another
would not greatly influence the outcome of the practice, the current
research shows not only that this is a misconception, but also that it
has greatly hindered the progress of the scientific study of meditation.
Our research shows that the large body of research on Theravada
meditation is not generalizable to Vajrayana meditation, and thus
Vajrayana practices should receive a greater emphasis in future
research. Indeed, we show that the term “meditation” is in many ways too
general, and have taken a step toward establishing a terminology that
can appropriately distinguish the various practices from different
traditions.

But, I think this study is useful for establishing empirical evidence that different techniques can be measured to correlate with radically different neurology. This supports a nuanced view of meditation in contrast to an oversimplified mainstream view one hears that goes something like "I meditate when I ride my bike and I get like peaceful and mindful and relaxed and yoga, ya know?" Or, you could say it contributes empiricism to the claim "You get what you optimize for"