I don't think the comparison can be applied here because habituation in the behaviourist sense does not include what you call the 'habitual cognitive scheme' and is merely an observation that we tend to produce a diminished response to a certain event after repetition.

By stating the term habituation, I found interesting the notion that meditation can break the cycle of habituation such as re-instilling a heightened positive response to long-lasting luxuries in our lives that we probably got used to and took for granted.

I would like to apologise for my first comment as your article simply invoked the behaviourist notion because of the wording.

Nonetheless, I still find the 'habitual cognitive scheme' interesting - this brings me to my next question. I am still not clear about what you exactly mean when using the term 'habitual cognitive scheme'.

You said that 'we tend to think and act in the same way because of this karmic/habitual force' and 'we identify our selves as unchangeable substances because it is our habitual way of cognition'.

To me it seems like this 'habitual cognitive scheme' can be more or less equated to what psychoanalysts call the Ego. It seems to be our sense of self (or at least the inclination to have a sense of self) which we often regard as concrete and unchanging because it provides us with order and coherence.

If I were to take this interpretation, it would make sense when you suggest that meditation is a form of 'dishabituation of the habitual cognitive scheme'. Because in other words, meditation fulfils its purpose of inching closer to self-actualisation as it aims to break and expand past the Ego and cause one to be aware of the Self in Jungian terms, the totality of their being.

I would greatly appreciate if you don't mind explaining in a more concrete fashion what you exactly mean by 'habitual cognitive system' because I found the explanation of it being constructed through experiences and the habitual force to be rather ambiguous (although that might just be me). Thanks!