Hilgard’s neodissociation theory is a psychological model that seeks to explain hypnosis and divided consciousness. It builds upon earlier dissociation theories (especially those from Pierre Janet) but formalizes the idea into a hierarchical cognitive control system that allows for different streams of consciousness to operate independently.

Core Components of Hilgard’s Neodissociation Theory

1. Central Control Structure (Executive Ego)
   According to Hilgard, consciousness is normally unified under a central control structure. This executive system manages subsystems responsible for perception, memory, and motor control (Hilgard, 1977).
2. Subsystems and Modular Processing
   During hypnosis, these subsystems can become dissociated or compartmentalized from central control, operating semi-independently. For instance, a person might report no pain during a hypnotic procedure, even though part of their cognitive system registers the sensory input (Hilgard, 1973).
3. The Hidden Observer
   A famous aspect of this theory is the idea of the hidden observer, a covert part of the mind that is aware of experiences even when the hypnotized person is not consciously aware of them. For example, in experiments involving hypnotic analgesia, subjects reported no pain but could sometimes be prompted to acknowledge a separate “hidden” awareness of discomfort (Hilgard, 1977).

 

Experimental Support

Hilgard conducted experiments in which participants were hypnotized and asked to place their arm in ice water (a painful stimulus). Many reported no pain under hypnosis. However, when a separate line of questioning was introduced to engage the “hidden observer,” participants often acknowledged that some part of them was aware of the pain (Hilgard, 1973; Hilgard, 1977).

This phenomenon suggests that conscious experience can be split, allowing certain mental processes to occur without the involvement of conscious awareness.

 

Applications and Implications

• Pain management: The theory supports the clinical use of hypnosis for pain control, showing how certain sensations can be dissociated from conscious awareness.
• Cognitive psychology: It paved the way for understanding modularity and parallel processing in cognitive systems.
• Forensic psychology and trauma studies: It provides a framework for understanding dissociative disorders and how certain memories or experiences may be compartmentalized.

 

Criticisms and Alternatives

Critics have argued that the hidden observer may be a demand characteristic rather than a genuine cognitive partition (Spanos, 1986). Others posit that the model underestimates the role of social and interpersonal variables in hypnosis (e.g., social-cognitive theory by Kirsch & Lynn, 1997).

 

Citations (APA format)

• Hilgard, E. R. (1973). The domain of hypnosis: With some comments on alternate paradigms. American Psychologist, 28(12), 972–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035600
• Hilgard, E. R. (1977). Divided consciousness: Multiple controls in human thought and action. New York: Wiley.
• Spanos, N. P. (1986). Hypnotic behavior: A social psychological interpretation of amnesia, analgesia, and “trance logic.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(3), 449–467.
• Kirsch, I., & Lynn, S. J. (1997). Hypnotic involuntariness and the automaticity of everyday life. American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 40(1), 329–348.

 

 

 

Part 1: Diagram of Hilgard’s Hierarchical Control Structure

+————————-+
| Central Control | ← Executive Ego (Conscious Self)
+————————-+
/ | \
/ | \
+—————-+ +—————+ +——————+
| Perception | | Motor Ctrl | | Memory Sys |
+—————-+ +—————+ +——————+
| | |
V V V
(Dissociable subsystems during hypnosis)
\ | /
\ | /
\ | /
+————————-+
| Hidden Observer | ← Covert Monitoring (Split Awareness)
+————————-+
 

• Normal waking state: Central control integrates all subsystems.
• Hypnotic state: Central control may delegate or dissociate certain processes.
• Hidden observer: Acts like a “black box recorder,” retaining access to dissociated processes.

 

Part 2: Contrast with Janet’s Classical Dissociation Theory

Feature	Janet (1889–1907)	Hilgard (1977)
Core concept	Pathological dissociation due to trauma/weakness	Functional, adaptive dissociation in hypnosis
Mechanism	Failure of integration of psychological functions	Hierarchical splitting of conscious control
Focus	Hysteria, trauma, dissociative identity disorder	Hypnosis, pain control, voluntary vs. involuntary
Hidden observer?	Implied but not articulated	Explicit “hidden observer” construct
Role of suggestion	Less emphasized	Central to triggering subsystem dissociation
Therapeutic implications	Re-integrate fragmented psyche	Use dissociation therapeutically (e.g., analgesia)

Key Insight:

Hilgard expanded dissociation from a pathological concept (Janet) into a neutral or adaptive mechanism used in controlled settings like hypnosis.

 

Part 3: Comparison to Modern Trauma and Dissociation Models

Let’s compare Hilgard’s theory with modern approaches, particularly van der Kolk and Structural Dissociation Theory (Van der Hart, Nijenhuis, and Steele):

Feature	Hilgard (1977)	Van der Kolk / Structural Dissociation (2006–2014)
Use case	Hypnosis, pain control	PTSD, trauma, dissociative disorders (e.g., DID, OSDD)
Hidden observer equivalent	Explicit “hidden observer”	Implicit traumatic parts; emotional vs. apparently normal parts (EP/ANP)
Voluntariness	Often under voluntary control (hypnosis context)	Largely involuntary, post-traumatic splitting
Control structure	Central control with temporary splits	Structural fragmentation into separate part-identities
Therapeutic frame	Use dissociation functionally	Gradual integration and trauma resolution

Key Insight:

Hilgard sees dissociation as useful and reversible; modern trauma theory sees it as adaptive but potentially impairing, rooted in survival responses (fight/flight/freeze/fawn).

 

Integrative Reflection

• Cognitive Model Insight: Hilgard’s model provides a valuable bridging theory between classical pathology (Janet) and contemporary trauma science (van der Kolk), showing that dissociation is not inherently maladaptive.
• Clinical Utility: His “hidden observer” foreshadowed current discussions in trauma therapy around meta-awareness, self-observation, and compartmentalized parts (as in IFS or EMDR).

 

Mapping all three frameworks (Hilgard, Janet, modern trauma models) to Internal Family Systems (IFS) and the Plutchik wheel of emotions, with case-study vignettes for applied therapeutic use.

 

 

Phase 1: Mapping Hilgard, Janet, and Modern Trauma Models to IFS and the Plutchik Wheel

A. Mapping to Internal Family Systems (IFS)

Framework	Dissociative Construct	IFS Equivalent	Function/Purpose
Hilgard	Hidden Observer	Self-energy (meta-awareness)	Observes parts without judgment; can act with clarity
Hilgard	Dissociated Subsystems	Managers / Firefighters	Carry out functions automatically, sometimes reactively
Janet	Automatism / splitting	Exiles	Wounded parts carrying trauma, often inaccessible
Modern Trauma	Apparently Normal Part (ANP)	Manager	Maintains day-to-day function, avoids triggering memories
Modern Trauma	Emotional Part (EP)	Exile / Firefighter	Holds traumatic affect or defends against pain

Insight:

• Hilgard’s hidden observer ≈ IFS’s Self—compassionate, curious, centered.
• Janet’s hysterical automatism ≈ IFS exile—a fragment frozen in time.
• Structural Dissociation’s ANP/EP ≈ IFS protector/exile dynamics.

 

B. Mapping to Plutchik’s Emotion Wheel (and Survival Drives)

Here’s how dissociative processes reflect on Plutchik’s 8 core emotions and their survival purposes:

Plutchik Emotion	Survival Function	Dissociation Type	Example in Theory
Fear	Protection from threat	Freeze / splitting off	Hidden observer monitors while subsystem withdraws
Anger	Defense / boundary-setting	Reactive parts / Firefighters	EPs or Hilgard’s dissociated motor subsystem
Sadness	Connection to loss	Exile state	Janet’s automatism or Hilgard’s memory subsystem
Disgust	Rejection of contamination	Over-control / suppression	ANP avoids triggers, Firefighters block feelings
Anticipation	Planning, scanning	Hypervigilance	Hidden observer’s role in safety monitoring
Joy	Bonding, social sharing	Suppressed when unsafe	Exile with joy buried under shame or fear
Trust	Attachment & bonding	Fractured in trauma states	Structural dissociation disables secure relational bonds
Surprise	Orientation & novelty	Startle → disconnection	Subsystems react independently when overwhelmed

Insight:

Dissociation blunts or distorts these adaptive signals. IFS and Plutchik together help reintegrate emotional survival information into a coherent self-system.

 

Phase 2: Case-Study Vignettes for Applied Therapeutic Use

Case 1: Hilgardian Dissociation in Hypnosis (Medical Procedure)

Scenario:

Ana is undergoing a dental procedure using hypnotic analgesia. She reports no pain during the operation, but the hypnotherapist later engages her “hidden observer,” who acknowledges mild discomfort.

• Hilgard: Subsystem for pain perception was dissociated; hidden observer retained access.
• IFS: Manager part cooperated; Self was calm and centered; pain-aware part wasn’t overwhelmed.
• Plutchik: Fear and trust were held in balance—adaptive protective monitoring was active.

Clinical Use:

Tap into Self to hold the painful subsystem with compassion—build trust in internal parts.

 

Case 2: Janetian Dissociation after Early Childhood Trauma

Scenario:

Ben, age 30, frequently loses time during stressful events and reverts to childlike behavior. Therapy reveals an internal 6-year-old “part” stuck in a trauma narrative.

• Janet: Dissociation as psychic automatism; no integration of traumatic memory.
• IFS: Exile holding developmental trauma; protector suppresses contact.
• Plutchik: Sadness (loss) and fear (threat) are bypassed through freeze/fawn patterns.

Clinical Use:

Use Self to approach the exile with curiosity. Build trust with protectors before integrating the exile.

 

Case 3: Structural Dissociation in Complex PTSD

Scenario:

Lena has two distinct internal modes: a high-functioning “nurse mode” and a shutdown “frozen girl.” She feels emotionally numb in caregiving roles and overwhelmed by intimacy.

• Modern trauma model: ANP (nurse) vs EP (frozen trauma part).
• IFS: Manager vs Exile dynamic; Firefighters emerge during intimacy.
• Plutchik: Trust and joy suppressed; fear and disgust dominate under stress.

Clinical Use:

Gradual titration of emotional tolerance. Use imagery and somatic tracking to connect Self to both parts.

 

Summary: Therapeutic Takeaways

• Hilgard’s framework works within hypnotic, voluntary dissociation.
• Janet’s model and structural dissociation highlight involuntary, trauma-related splitting.
• IFS maps these into a coherent parts-based system with healing via Self-leadership.
• Plutchik offers emotional compass readings, helping identify protective distortions.

 

Comparative Matrix: Dissociation Models + IFS + Plutchik Framework

Dimension	Hilgard (Neodissociation)	Janet (Classical Dissociation)	Structural Dissociation (van der Kolk, van der Hart)	Internal Family Systems (IFS)	Plutchik Emotion-Survival Framework
Volition	Semi-voluntary (e.g., hypnosis)	Involuntary (trauma or weakness)	Involuntary (adaptive trauma response)	Mixed (Protectors act reflexively; Self is voluntary)	Involuntary adaptive emotion triggers
Primary Domain	Hypnosis, analgesia, suggestion	Hysteria, trauma, automatism	PTSD, complex trauma, dissociation	Internal conflict, part-system imbalance	Emotion regulation for survival
Core Dissociative Structure	Hidden Observer & Modular Subsystems	Automatism / Fragmented Ego	ANP (Apparently Normal Part) vs EP (Emotional Part)	Exiles, Protectors (Managers/Firefighters), Self	8 Basic Emotions (Fear, Anger, Sadness, etc.)
Internal Awareness	Hidden Observer is aware even if conscious self is not	No conscious access to split-off experience	EP holds affective memory not accessible to ANP	Self can access all parts with curiosity	Emotions often split/compartmentalized in trauma
Origin of Dissociation	Induced (e.g., through hypnosis or suggestion)	Result of psychic fatigue/trauma	Early trauma + lack of integration	Overwhelming affect leads to polarizing parts	Unresolved fear, shame, grief, anger split off
Therapeutic Goal	Use functional dissociation (e.g., pain control)	Re-integrate ego functions	Gradual reintegration of EP into unified self	Restore Self-leadership; heal Exiles and unburden Protectors	Recognize emotional signals, reintegrate adaptively
Emotional Focus	Neutral on emotion; focuses on function	Focus on emotional collapse	Focus on dysregulated emotional memory	Emotional coherence across system	Emotion as survival signal and energy
Integration Path	Suggestion, hypnosis, conscious monitoring	Strengthening ego function	Phased trauma therapy (stabilization, processing, reconnection)	Unblending, Self-to-Part relationship, unburdening	Reassociation of emotions to meaning & agency
Clinical Examples	Hypnotic analgesia; hidden awareness in suggestion	Conversion disorder; fugue states	Flashbacks; personality fragmentation	Inner conflict; dissociative parts; protective polarizations	Emotional triggers; shutdown; explosive reactions
Conscious vs. Unconscious	Consciousness is tiered; observer watches subsystems	Mostly unconscious automatic acts	EPs unconscious to ANPs	Parts can be unconscious until welcomed by Self	Emotions may be unconscious until triggered

 

Highlights from the Matrix

• Hilgard gives us a clear modular structure for dissociation, useful in structured, clinical settings like hypnosis.
• Janet provides the origin story of pathological dissociation, focusing on fragmentation under stress.
• Structural Dissociation updates Janet for trauma research, showing how the mind organizes around traumatic roles.
• IFS brings it together in an accessible model of internal diplomacy, encouraging compassion and dialogue.
• Plutchik anchors it in biological survival drives, helping us understand why certain emotions are split off.

EMDR, Hilgard, and hypnotic states

EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is not considered a hypnotic state in the same sense that Hilgard discusses in his neodissociation theory. However, both involve altered attentional states, and they share some similarities in how they access dissociated or compartmentalized memory systems—though they operate via different mechanisms and theoretical underpinnings.

 

Detailed Comparison: EMDR vs. Hilgardian Hypnosis

Aspect	Hilgardian Hypnosis	EMDR Therapy
Altered state?	Yes – trance-like, dissociated, with hidden observer active	No formal trance; attention is dual-focused and structured
Mechanism of access	Suggestion → temporary dissociation of subsystems	Bilateral stimulation + focused recall → memory reconsolidation
Volition	Often passive or externally guided	Active collaboration; client retains full agency
Goal	Use dissociation for symptom control or exploration	Reduce traumatic memory distress via reconsolidation
Memory model	Modular subsystems (some out of awareness)	Adaptive Information Processing (AIP) model
Use of suggestion	Central to effect (e.g., hypnotic analgesia)	Not suggestive; therapist follows client’s content
State of consciousness	May include narrowed awareness or altered bodily sensations	Eyes-open, alert, but emotionally engaged and focused
Role of “Hidden Observer”	Explicit, often accessed during deep hypnosis	No direct analog; however, parts-work and dual awareness may evoke similar phenomena
Neuroscience alignment	Older, pre-fMRI models; theoretical compartmentalization	Backed by current neuroimaging studies of memory processing, e.g., reconsolidation, thalamic integration (Pagani et al., 2017)

 

Shared Features

• Dissociation-aware: Both acknowledge that parts of experience can be “split off” or inaccessible.
• Nonlinear access to memory: Both bypass standard cognitive defenses.
• Emotional regulation during activation: Each method creates a safe-enough environment to access painful material while maintaining present awareness.
• Emergence of “unexpected material”: Just as Hilgard’s subjects might be surprised by the hidden observer’s awareness, EMDR clients often process deeper-than-expected associations during sets.

 

Distinctive Clinical Framing

Hilgardian Hypnosis	EMDR Therapy
“I can’t feel the pain.”	“I remember the pain but it doesn’t feel overwhelming.”
“A part of me knows what’s going on (hidden observer).”	“I can observe the memory from a distance (dual awareness).”
Often used for symptom suppression	Geared toward memory reconsolidation and resolution

 

Citations

• Hilgard, E. R. (1977). Divided Consciousness: Multiple Controls in Human Thought and Action. Wiley.
• Shapiro, F. (2018). Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) Therapy: Basic Principles, Protocols, and Procedures (3rd ed.).

 

 

Bottom Line:

While Hilgard’s hypnosis and EMDR both work with dissociated material, EMDR is a non-hypnotic, structured, and empirically supported therapy based on current models of neuroplasticity and memory reconsolidation—not on induced trance or suggestibility.

 

 

Why EMDR is an Embodied Modality

1. Bilateral Stimulation Engages Sensorimotor Processes

• Eye movements, tapping, or auditory tones stimulate both hemispheres of the brain.
• This engages sensorimotor loops and vestibular systems, fostering integration between implicit (body-stored) and explicit (cognitive) memory systems.

Somatic implication:

The body’s orientation and rhythmic movement are not symbolic but directly affect arousal regulation and limbic discharges.

 

2. Trauma is Felt in the Body—EMDR Engages It

• EMDR explicitly accesses somatic sensations during memory recall (e.g., “Where do you feel that in your body?”).
• The Standard Protocol invites interoception—body-based awareness—into every phase, especially Desensitization and Body Scan phases.

Key quote (Shapiro, 2018):

“The body stores unprocessed trauma. EMDR must include the body to complete the loop.”

 

3. Polyvagal Theory and Arousal States

• EMDR is increasingly understood within a polyvagal-informed framework:
  • Clients oscillate between activation and safety.
  • Dual attention and bilateral stimulation help mobilize and discharge arousal while anchoring in ventral vagal safety.

Embodied insight:

The therapy allows the nervous system to complete interrupted defense responses (fight, flight, freeze), a core idea in somatic experiencing as well.

 

4. Memory Reconsolidation is a Neuro-Somatic Process

• EMDR operates not through cognitive reappraisal but through bottom-up integration of sensory, emotional, and motoric elements of memory.
• This reconsolidation is both cortical (cognitive) and subcortical (felt experience, muscle tone, breath, etc.).

 

Comparison to Other Embodied Modalities

Modality	Embodied Feature	Comparison to EMDR
Somatic Experiencing	Titration of body responses; orienting; pendulation	Very similar in goal; slower pacing
Sensorimotor Therapy	Movement + affect tracking	Complementary; both use procedural memory
IFS (Somatic branches)	Self-to-part somatic tracking	IFS + EMDR often combined
TRE (Tension Release)	Involuntary body tremors to release trauma	EMDR does not induce tremors; more cognitive-motor
Yoga Therapy	Body posture and breath for emotional regulation	EMDR is less movement-based but uses rhythm

 

Citations

• Shapiro, F. (2018). EMDR Therapy: Basic Principles, Protocols, and Procedures (3rd ed.).
• Ogden, P., Minton, K., & Pain, C. (2006). Trauma and the Body: A Sensorimotor Approach to Psychotherapy.
• van der Kolk, B. A. (2014). The Body Keeps the Score.
• Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation.

 

 

Understanding Drishti and EMDR

Drishti in Yoga: In yoga, drishti refers to a focused gaze used during meditation or asana (posture) practice.It serves to direct the practitioner’s attention inward, fostering concentration and mindfulness

EMDR Therapy: EMDR involves guided eye movements while recalling traumatic memories, aiming to reduce the emotional impact of those memories. The bilateral stimulation (often through eye movements) is believed to facilitate the processing of distressing experiences

 

Potential Overlaps and Differences

While both drishti and EMDR utilize focused visual attention, their purposes and methodologies differ:

• Intent Drishti is primarily a meditative tool to cultivate inner awareness, whereas EMDR is a therapeutic technique aimed at processing traumatic memorie.
• Movement Drishti typically involves a steady, unmoving gaze, while EMDR requires rapid, side-to-side eye movement.
• Application Drishti is used within a broader spiritual or physical practice, whereas EMDR is a structured psychotherapy modality.

 

Research and Clinical Observation

While no studies directly link drishti and EMDR, some research highlights the role of eye movements and visual focus in emotional regulation and cognitive processing. For instance, studies on EMDR have shown that eye movements can reduce the vividness and emotionality of traumatic memories.

Additionally, practices like “eye yoga,” which involve specific eye movement exercises, have been explored for their potential benefits in stress reduction and mental focus. However, these are distinct from both drishti and EMDR and have not been directly compared in clinical settings.

 

Integrative Approachs

Some mental health practitioners incorporate elements of yoga, including drishti, into therapeutic settings to enhance mindfulness and body awarness. While anecdotal reports suggest benefits, empirical research on combining drishti with EMDR is lacking.

 

Conclusion

Although both drishti and EMDR involve aspects of visual focus, they are fundamentally different practices with distinct goals and method. Currently, there is no clinical research directly correlating them. Future studies could explore whether integrating drishti into EMDR sessions offers additional therapeutic benefits, but such investigations have yet to be done.

 

Alternative Forms of Bilateral Stimulation in EMDR

While traditional EMDR utilizes guided eye movements, research and clinical practice have validated the use of other BLS methods

• Tactile Stimulation: Involves alternating physical sensations, such as tapping on the knees or using handheld buzzers. This method engages the sense of touch to facilitate processing.
• Auditory Stimulation: Utilizes alternating sounds delivered through headphones, engaging the auditory system to achieve bilateral stimulation. These alternative BLS methods are particularly beneficial for clients with visual impairments, those who find eye movements distracting, or individuals who prefer to close their eyes during sessions.

 

Mechanisms and Efficacy

The underlying mechanism of BLS in EMDR is believed to involve the taxation of working memory, which reduces the vividness and emotional intensity of traumatic memories. Studies have shown that both tactile and auditory BLS can effectively facilitate this process, leading to symptom reduction in conditions like PTSD, anxiety, and chronic pain.

Conclusion

EMDR therapy has evolved to include various forms of bilateral stimulation, accommodating diverse client needs and preference. Tactile and auditory BLS are clinically validated alternatives to eye movements, expanding the accessibility and applicability of EMDR across different populations and therapeutic context.

While there is no direct clinical research explicitly examining the correlation between drishti—the yogic practice of focused gaze—and Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, both practices engage visual attention and focus, suggesting potential areas for exploration.

 

Pratyhara (yoga’s fifth limb): mastering the senses

Pratyahara, the fifth limb of Patanjali’s Ashtanga Yoga, is often poorly understood and underrepresented in modern literature. Yet, modern sensory-based therapeutic modalities like EMDR, bilateral stimulation (BLS), somatic experiencing, and neurofeedback do, in many respects, offer practical gateways into the embodied mechanisms that pratyahara describes in more abstract terms.

 

Why This is Guardedly True

1. Both Involve Disengagement from Automatic Sensory Reactivity

• Pratyahara is the withdrawal of the senses from external objects—not suppression, but mastery through awareness.
• EMDR/BLS trains the nervous system to engage with previously overwhelming sensory-affective content without becoming dysregulated. This is a form of disengagement from habitual reactivity.

In both, the goal is not numbing, but re-integrating volitional awareness and presence in the face of potentially destabilizing stimuli.

 

2. Both Require Witnessing Without Identification

• The “hidden observer” in Hilgard’s model or the Self in IFS mirrors the sakshi bhava (witnessing consciousness) essential to pratyahara.
• EMDR’s dual-attention model helps cultivate this skill in a structured, reproducible way.

 

3. Somatic Modulation as a Bridge

• Pratyahara begins to manifest when the practitioner can modulate inner sensory impressions (e.g., breath, body scan, visualizations).
• EMDR and somatic therapies make these inner cues explicit and trainable.

 

4. Polyvagal Theory Aligns with Yogic Nervous System Models

• The withdrawal of the senses in pratyahara corresponds neurophysiologically to a shift toward ventral vagal dominance: calm, reflective, open states.
• Bilateral stimulation and EMDR often help complete fight/flight responses and bring clients into the reflective phase that pratyahara aims to stabilize.

 

Why It’s a Qualified “True”

1. Different Epistemologies and End Goals

• Pratyahara is a sādhana (spiritual discipline), aiming at inner silence and liberation.
• EMDR is a trauma-focused therapy aimed at reprocessing personal memory for psychological healing.

Implication:

One may train with EMDR-like methods, but without intentional stillness and ethical integration (yama/niyama), it won’t become true pratyahara.

 

2. Pratyahara is Sustained, Not Contextual

• EMDR is episodic, protocol-driven.
• Pratyahara is a continuous state one cultivates over time, ideally leading to dharana (concentration) and dhyana (meditation).

Tools like EMDR can be excellent training wheels, but they don’t constitute pratyahara unless integrated into a spiritual and ethical framework.

 

Conclusion

EMDR, BLS, and other sensory-based therapies can be effective applied technologies for cultivating the inner mastery over sensation that pratyahara aims to refine. However, the spiritual context and sustained inner discipline remain essential for these practices to fully align with the yogic goal of pratyahara as described in the Yoga Sutras (PYS II.54–55).

 

EMDR and BLS are capable of exposing the skandhas (khandhas in Pali}

 

The five aggregates (form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness) that construct what we experience as “self.” In fact, the deconstructive and integrative processes inherent in EMDR often directly touch each skandha during memory reprocessing, especially:

• Vedana (feeling/sensation): EMDR always asks where in the body the disturbance is felt.
• Saññā (perception) and Sankhāra (mental formations): Negative beliefs and distorted interpretations arise naturally.
• Viññāṇa (consciousness): The witnessing Self or dual-awareness mirrors the yogic concept of sakshi.

In this way, BLS can dislodge or decondition the klesha-driven clinging to the skandhas, especially when the process is done with contemplative intent.

 

Best Practice Caution: Why the “Guru” Parallel is Apt

Just as a guru in Yoga guides the aspirant through dangerous or disorienting inner terrain, a skilled EMDR therapist (or someone trained in trauma-informed care) provides the necessary attunement, containment, and repair.

Without this, self-practice can risk:

• Re-traumatization
• Overwhelm or dissociation without resolution
• Misinterpretation of inner content (especially early childhood memories)

 

Safe Solo EMDR/BLS-Inspired Practices for Yogic Self-Inquiry

The following solo protocols are safe, non-triggering, and intended for general stabilization, not trauma processing. They can be framed as antaranga sadhana (inner disciplines).

 

1. Butterfly Hug + Mantra Tracing (Tactile + Sankhāra)

How: Cross your arms over your chest and gently tap your upper arms alternately (left–right–left…)

Add: Mentally repeat a grounding affirmation (e.g., “I am safe,”) with each tap.

What it does: Anchors form, sensation, and thought into witnessing awareness. Helps trace recurring thoughts without clinging.

 

2. Auditory BLS + Mindfulness of Vedana

How: Use a BLS audio app (e.g., alternating tones in headphones).

Focus: Notice bodily sensations (pleasant, unpleasant, neutral) as they arise and pass, without judging or analyzing.

What it does: Trains dis-identification from vedana, key to undoing the second skandha and reducing tanha (craving/aversion).

 

3. Eye Tracking with Visual Mandala (Form + Perception)

How: Place a simple yantra or mandala in front of you. Slowly trace it with your eyes left to right, then back again. Note: Can do something similar for each major sense, see one for auditory below.

Focus: Observe internal shifts—memories, associations, emotions—but keep returning to the visual anchor.

What it does: Calms the default mode network and allows perceptions and sankhāras to be witnessed rather than reacted to.

 

4. Bilateral Walking Meditation

How: Walk slowly and deliberately, paying attention to the alternation of the feet, sensation, and breath.

Use: Internal phrases like “step… here” or “inhale… exhale.”

What it does: Introduces bilateral body rhythm, attention training, and tracking of mental habits as they arise.

 

5. Pratyahara-Informed Sound Tracking (Auditory Skandha Dissolution)

How: Sit in a quiet space and use binaural beats or natural bilateral soundscapes (e.g., flowing stream or chirping birds alternating).

Practice: Observe the arising of mental images, storylines, or emotional tones, then let them fall back into silence.

What it does: Builds awareness of perception and consciousness as constructs—not truth.

 

✅ Final Cautions & Guidelines

• Never use these techniques to process known trauma without professional support.
• Keep sessions short (5–15 min), followed by grounding.
• Always have a return anchor: breath, mantra, physical object.
• These practices are best framed not as “fixing” tools, but as inquiry tools—“What is arising now?” not “How do I fix this?”

 

Refined Mapping: EMDR/BLS-Inspired Practices through Mussar, Yamas/Niyamas, and Pratyahara

Practice	Skandha Addressed	Mussar Middah	Yama/Niyama Parallel	Mitzvah Theme	Purpose for Pratyahara
1. Butterfly Hug + Mantra Tracing	Sensation (vedana) + Formation (sankhāra)	Menuchat Hanefesh (equanimity), Savlanut (patience)	Ahimsa, Svadhyaya	“Know what is in your heart”	Grounds body and mind; reduces reactivity; connects touch with inner mantra
2. Auditory BLS + Sensation Tracking	Sensation + Consciousness	Yirah (awe), Zehirut (mindfulness/attentiveness)	Shaucha (purity), Ishvarapranidhana	“Be still and know”	Builds refined perception of emotional impulses; trains observer awareness
3. Eye Tracking with Mandala/Yantra	Form (rupa) + Perception (saññā)	Seder (order), Hitbonenut (contemplative insight)	Brahmacharya, Tapas	“You shall not turn after your eyes”	Regulates visual craving; transforms perception into focus
4. Bilateral Walking Meditation	Form + Mental Formation	Zerizut (alacrity), Shiflut (humility)	Asteya (non-stealing time), Svadhyaya	“Walk humbly with your God”	Bilateral movement balances nervous system; walking becomes contemplative
5. Pratyahara-Informed Sound Tracking	Perception + Consciousness	Sheket (silence), Anavah (humility), Kavod (honor)	Satya, Ishvarapranidhana	“Let every soul be silent to You” )	Cultivates inner stillness; untangles attention from desire for control

 

Integration as Mussar Practice

These practices can be embedded within the classic Mussar cycle:

1. Cheshbon Hanefesh (Daily Soul Accounting):
   After practicing, journal: What part of me reacted? What middah was challenged or strengthened?
2. Hitbonenut (Contemplative Reflection):
   Use the practice as a pause-point in the day to reflect on a single trait—e.g., what does menuchah (inner calm) feel like in my body right now?
3. Kabbalot (Resolutions):
   Let insights from EMDR/BLS practice inform your concrete next action in middot work—e.g., “Today, I will listen fully before responding.”

 

Linking to Yamas/Niyamas as Mussar Foundations

• Yamas (restraints) → Ethical Middot like Anavah (humility), Kavod (honor), Shmirat Halashon (guarding speech)
• Niyamas (observances) → Inner Middot like Menuchah, Zehirut, Savlanut, tied to ritual mitzvot like brachot, Shabbat, tzedakah

By using these embodied practices, we engage the skandhas not as metaphysical abstractions but as Mussar entry points—concretely touching the yetzer hara and yetzer tov through the nervous system, not just intellect.

 

Weekly Sadhana: Anavah (Humility)

Day	Focus	Practice	Skandha Activated	Mussar Anchor	Yama/Niyama Parallel	Reflective Prompt (Cheshbon Hanefesh)
1	Form (Rūpa)	Bilateral Walking Meditation	Body, breath, gait	Anavah through embodied presence	Asteya (non-stealing time)	“Did I inhabit my body without judgment?”
2	Sensation (Vedanā)	Butterfly Hug + breath mantra (“I am, and I am enough”)	Sensory grounding	Menuchah (stillness in self-worth)	Ahimsa (nonviolence toward the self)	“Where did I feel enough-ness today?”
3	Perception (Saññā)	Eye tracking across a neutral visual field (e.g., mandala, horizon)	Visual reprocessing	Zehirut (discernment), Kavod (honoring boundaries)	Satya (truth), Brahmacharya (channeling perception)	“What self-image shifted in that moment?”
4	Mental Formation (Sankhāra)	Auditory BLS + self-dialogue journaling (“Who am I protecting by being small?”)	Beliefs, schemas	Anavah vs. Gaavah (ego inflation)	Tapas (discipline)	“Did I confuse shrinking with humility?”
5	Consciousness (Viññāṇa)	Sound tracking (e.g., binaural beats + mantra)	Witnessing mind	Yirah (awe), Bitachon (trust)	Ishvarapranidhana (surrender to the Divine)	“What could I release into stillness?”
6	Integration Day	Pratyahara Sit (5 senses inward): List 1 input from each sense, then withdraw attention	All five skandhas, harmonized	Sheket (silence), Savlanut (patience)	Shaucha (purification), Svadhyaya (self-study)	“What story arose? What stillness replaced it?”
7	Kavvanah Day (Intention)	Ritual act of humility (e.g., serve without credit, journal about being part of a whole)	Consciousness & formation	Anavah, Chesed, Shiflut (lowliness before God)	Yamas as relational practice	“What did I learn from being small and whole?”

 

Bonus: Daily Mitzvot Suggestions to Deepen Anavah

Category	Practice	How It Builds Anavah
Interpersonal (Bein Adam L’Chaveiro)	Avoid interrupting others in speech	Trains the humility of space-giving
Ritual (Bein Adam L’Makom)	Say Modeh Ani slowly upon waking	Begins the day with gratitude for borrowed breath
Self-Development	Learn from someone “less accomplished” than you	Breaks ego-assumptions; invites awe and curiosity

 

Add-On: IFS Self-Inquiry Prompt (Sankhāra-focused)

“Is there a part of me that fears being invisible—or visible? Can I meet it from Self, without shrinking or inflating?”

 

Outcome

By cycling through the skandhas, using Mussar inquiry and BLS/EMDR-style modulation, you create a week-long embodied arc that grounds Anavah not in passivity but in a dynamic presence—a humility that is active, awake, and in service.