Introduction to the Phenomenological Intersection of Transpersonal Hypnotherapeutic Processes and Tibetan Nature of Mind Precursor Practices
When I began practicing hypnotherapy, something remarkable became eminently and immediately clear. I had experienced this before. Temporally, the "before" took place during meditative practices within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition relating to meditative routines as taught to me by Tibetan masters of the "nature of mind." The following introduces nature of mind practices within the Tibetan tradition, and examines the phenomenological intersection of those practices with a transpersonal model of mind, and the associated practices used in hypnotherapy.
I. Tibetan Nature of Mind Traditions
There are essentially three modern Tibetan epistemological traditions that point to nature of mind. They are,
the Great Seal (Mahamudra),
the Middle Way (Madhyamaka), and
the Great Perfection (Dzogchen).
During his life, the Third Karmapa of Tibet, Ranging Dorje (1284-1339) addressed this question - do the practitioners within each of these three discrete "nature of mind" systems ultimately experience reality in the same way? With pith and poetry, Karmapa Dorje responded in this way:
Free of mental activity, it is the Great Seal;
Free from extremes, it is the Great Middle Way;
Comprising everything, it is called the Great Perfection —
Be confident that by knowing one you realize the meaning of all.
Taking the last first, the Great Perfection school (Dzogchen) recognizes three inner tantras, Mahayoga, Annuyoga and Atiyoga. These inner tantras are regarded as the means and methods of gaining ultimate control of one's mind. In such a state of control, the practitioner can deliberately and with precision place their mind in a locus beyond judgement and conceptualization, resting within a transcendent state.
Secondly, within the Great Middle Way school, Madhyamaka, the practitioner avoids the two extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. Realizations of this middle way are achieved through an understanding that all things are free of an inherent nature.
Finally, within the Great Seal or Mahamudra school, one masters the abandonment of discursive thinking in favor of resting within clear and luminous awareness.
By way of all three schools, one can directly realize the attainment of gnosis or in Sanskrit, jnana, the nature of reality.
The meditative experiences of all three Tibetan nature of mind traditions work through a variety of practices, including:
Visualizations;
Emphasizing a student-teacher relationship; and
Mantras.
II. Examination of the Intersection of Hypnotherapeutic Process and Mind Process Model to Tibetan Nature of Mind Precursor Practices
It is here, at an examination of the actionable practices of the Tibetan nature of mind traditions where one can readily see the how western hypnotherapeutic processes, particularly those within the transpersonal approaches, are related. The similarity of the techniques in both traditions is quite obvious to practitioners who have studied and practiced in both systems. By way of example, Dr. Ian E. Wickramasekera has written extensively on the hypnotic-like aspects of Dzogchen. Dr. Wickramasekera writes:
It would probably seem to us in the West that 200 years of clinical and experimental research in hypnosis is a pretty impressive amount of time to be investigating hypnotic phenomena. However, [one could argue] that we can greatly benefit from learning about how earlier cultures such as the yogis of Tibet viewed and utilized hypnotic-like phenomena for at least a thousand years before Mesmer ever picked up a magnet or Abbé Faria tried to hypnotize a canary.
Furthering the epistemological examination of Tibetan nature of mind practices as a precursor to western hypnosis, we can turn towards a comparison of models of the mind under both systems. Dr. Allen Chips, a respected western hypnotherapist, presents a "Mind Process Model" with ontological aspects of the mind relevant to transpersonal hypnotherapy, which he categorized into four segments, based upon function. They are (1) conscious, (2) subconscious (3) unconscious, and (4) superconscious.
In this schema, it is the (1) conscious mind that is identified as the "will" or action portion of the mind, while the (2) subconscious mind produces imagery that is available to the (1) conscious mind, and further, it is the (2) subconscious mind's function to filter through all of the signals coming through the senses, and selectively transfer those data that are relevant. The (3) unconscious mind produces imagery that is generally unavailable to the (1) conscious mind. In hypnosis, one can access the level of (3) unconscious thought, and in that expression, thought is transformed at the root level. Finally, within the Mind Process Model, it is the (4) superconscious mind that is the aspect of mind that expands into mass consciousness, spiritual influences, and intuition.
Within the transpersonal Mind Process Model, there are ostensibly dividing lines between mind segments, and in the hypnotherapeutic process, one is removing those lines to create a preferential pathway between relevant information and patterns held in one state such that the therapy can transform that information and as a consequence, the individual in the second state.
Similarly, within Tibetan epistemologies, a Tibetan mind model can be described and translated as (A) gross, (B) subtle, and (C) super subtle. (A) Gross mind is most closely aligned with the aspect of "will" or "conscious mind" within Dr. Chip's Mind Process Model's schema, while (B) subtle mind is a combination of the transpersonal (2) subconscious and (3) unconscious mind. Lastly, (C) super subtle mind can be equated to the (4) superconscious mind.
Yogis in the Tibetan nature of mind traditions work with removing obscurations that exist between these levels of mind. Simply stated, they remove the barriers between the gross, subtle and super subtle minds using meditative practices. Just as within the hypnotherapeutic process using the Mind Process Model, the removal of barriers between related levels of mind allows for a preferential pathway between states of mind. In both western hypnosis practice and Tibetan nature of mind practice, the removal of obscurations and barriers between levels of mind brings about a release of attachment to a concept or behavior that one clings to as a rarified thing, as an inherent aspect of oneself. The release of attachment to that thing then creates space to re-invent and re-imagine. In the case of a smoker wishing to let go of a habit of smoking, hypnosis gives the client access to a new imagining of themselves, free of the label of "smoker." In the Tibetan mind model, the re-inventing and re-imaging relates to releasing of attachments to conceptualization for the express purpose of embodying Buddhanature. In both examples, the Tibetan mind model and the Mind Process Model, both the yogi and the hypnosis client work at accessing mind states beyond the gross or conscious mind, and in doing so, remove mechanisms of grasping that have been patterned within the psyche.
How the yogi and hypnosis client actually access those mind states is remarkably similar. Within both the Tibetan nature of mind practices and the transpersonal hypnotherapeutic approach, certain practices are common. For example, both rely heavily on imagery and visualization.
Further, yogis have a unique relationship with the teacher or "guru" transmitting the nature of mind practice to the student, and this relationship is similar to the role of a therapist to the client. In both of these traditions, the relationship requires empathy, unconditional positive interrelation, and congruence as foundational.
Finally, mantras, which are words or sounds repeated frequently, are used in Tibetan nature of mind practices and are akin to the post-hypnotic suggestions used in the hypnotherapeutic context. The routine employment of post-hypnotic suggestion, such as 28 days of listening to the recorded hypnosis session, helps clients rapidly reestablish trance-like conditions which in turn facilitates the re-patterning of the behavior or thought process they used hypnosis to treat.
While there are certainly many highly relevant differences between the traditions of hypnosis and Tibetan nature of mind practices, the similarities are both obvious and potentially quite helpful to a more fulsome understanding of both practice traditions. Perhaps the continued examination of the intersections of hypnosis and nature of mind practice will fuel the expansion of awareness of one's own true nature beyond concepts of “west” and “east,” thereby enhancing the phenomenological and psychophysiological effects of hypnosis for the individual, and the collective.
Kimla Rose Desrosiers, MEng, RMT, CHt