Talk:Meditation/Archive 2

Dating the appearance of meditation in Hindu scriptures
I changed a reference in the Hinduism section concerning the appearance of meditation in Hindu scriptures. The original read: "Indian scriptures dating back 5000 years describe meditation techniques." This is incorrect. Meditation does not appear in Hindu scriptures until the Upanishads. The earliest Upanishads are dated c700BCE. --Rstudstill (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the 5000 year claim from the intro as well, it doesn't seem to be sourced. Mitsube (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think any serious scholar thinks any Hindu scriptures are 5000 years old. Peter jackson (talk) 08:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested addition to section "Transcendental Meditation"
The Transcendental Meditation technique is given a section of its own because it is unique as compared with most other meditation techniques. I very much support this. What the practitioner does is unique:


 * The nature and/or method of use of the mantra is different from most other mantra meditation techniques


 * The technique employs deep rest as a means of dissolving stored stresses


 * As stored stresses are eliminated, the technique rapidly brings about the state of samadhi (pure, unbounded bliss consciousness), a fourth major state of consciousness


 * As samadhi is alternated with activity, life improves and higher states of consciousness become possible


 * Scientific research on TM support these subjective claims through physiology, psychology, and many other fields of experimental study

However, Transcendental Meditation is not the only technique that shares all of these unique qualities. I would like to suggest that other transcending techniques be added to this section, so Wikipedia reflects accurately what is available to the student or potential student of meditation.

A specific example of another transcending technique is Natural Stress Relief (NSR Meditation), although it is not the only one. I would like to add NSR and other transcending techniques to this section. I know that this article is of interest to many Wikipedia editors, so I am formally proposing this here.

Disclaimer: I am president of one of the volunteer and nonprofit corporations that advocate the use of NSR Meditation. David spector (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see that someone has created a Secular Meditation section, containing TM, NSR, and several other techniques. That's better than before, so I won't strive for perfection. I know that Wikipedia must be a compromise between the views of many different editors. For the record, though, I really wish that transcending techniques were distinguished from contemplation and concentration techniques. It is the distinction between something that really dissolves daily stress efficiently, improving the physiology and mental functioning significantly, and something that merely provides relaxation, similar to a soak in a tub, listening to relaxing music, or sleep at night. David spector (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Hindu Meditation section
Referenced work in this section is being repeatedly vandalised by an editor called Mitsube. In one of his efforts he deleted almost all the referenced article and then the first footnote he/she inserted suggested that Hindu meditation began with Buddhism-this was either a malicious error, indicates ideological bias or ignorance. That the latter may be the case is suggested by that editor not knowing that different types of samadhi are described in the later chapters of Patanjali's yoga sutras and his/her comments that it is a confusion to regard yoga as meditation (despite yoga being a specific school of Hindu philosophy (see main Wiki entry) and the word itself being a description of meditation). I have reported him/her formally for vandalism as he/she continued despite warning. If this has been going on for long no wonder this section read like gibberish when I first looked at it and calls for an expert were being made (deliberate prolonged Vandalism).Fauncet (talk) 09:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hindu Meditation Vandalism
Same vandalism (deletion of half the referenced article over the top of a level 3 vandalism warning). Now by Anishshah19 Fauncet (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Advertsing in the Meditation Bazaar
My concern about this article is that without careful scrutiny editors will seek to advertse particular forms of meditation by removing critical analysis of their own or tampering with others to make them seem bland or contradictory Fauncet (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Meditation in Hinduism
I have copied above the text of the meditation in Hinduism section which was recently expanded by User:Fauncet and has been subject of an incipient edit-war. IMO, while some of the added content is indeed useful, other parts are not relevant to this article. Yoga is an extremely polysemous term, and is used to refer to both meditative and non-meditative prectices, so the confusion is only to be expected. Can we discuss the issue on this talk page calmly, so that we can help improve the section ? Abecedare (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

All the practices of yoga are designed to lead to meditation, your assertion that a subcategory of them has some other purpose is incorrect from a textual point of view and only has some credence in contemporary misunderstandings. I can't see why you people are afraid of critical analysis and balanced scholarship. What sort of article are you trying to produce here?Fauncet (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, most of the practices of yoga are now seen as an end in themselves—a misunderstanding this is not just contemporary. The misunderstanding is so widespread that it can longer be said that "All the practices of yoga are designed to lead to meditation". Sad, but true, since I personally hold that as the loftiest view of "yoga". Priyanath talk 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected you'll soon delete all this work and references I thought I'd include them here ^ Barbara Stoler Miller. Introduction to Yoga: Discipline of Freedom: The Yoga Sutra Attributed to Patanjali. New York: Bantam, 1998 ^ Georg Feuerstein The Yoga Tradition: Its History, Literature, Philosophy and Practice, with a foreword by Ken Wilber, Hohm Press (2001) ISBN 1-890772-18-6 ^ Ariel Glucklich, The Strides of Vishnu: Hindu Culture in Historical Perspective. Oxford University Press US, 2008 ^ Randall Collins, The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual Change. Harvard University Press, 2000, page 199. ^ Isayeva, Natalia (1993). Shankara and Indian Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press (SUNY) ^ Mircea Eliade. Yoga. Immortality and Freedom. Bollingen Foundation. NY 1958. ^ Miller Stoler, Barbara. Yoga Discipline of Freedom. The Yoga Sutra attributed to Patañjali. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995 ^ Georg Feuerstein The Yoga-Sûtra of Patanjali: A New Translation and Commentary, Inner Traditions International; Rochester, Vermont, 1989 ^ Sri Swami Satchidananda. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Yogaville, Va. : Integral Yoga Publications, 1984. ISBN: 0932040381 ^ B.K.S. Iyengar, Light on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, South Asia Books; 1 edition (August 1, 1993), trade paperback, 337 pages, ISBN 1-85538-225-3 ^ Romain Rolland.Swami Ramakrishna.(Vie de Ramakrishna), 1929 ^ Romain Rolland. Swami Vivekananda (Vie de Vivekananda, ou l’Évangile universel) 1930 ^ Life and Works of Swami Sivananda, by Sivananda, Divine Life Society (W.A.). Fremantle Branch. Published by Divine Life Society, Fremantle Branch, 1985. ISBN 0949027049. ^ Suparna Gooptu. Woodroffe, Sir John George (1865–1936)’Sept 2004, 820 words, with portrait illustration. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/41052 (last accessed 20 June 2009) ^ Mircea Eliade. Yoga. Immortality and Freedom. Bollingen Foundation. NY 1958 ^ Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-43878-0. ^ Jackson, Carl T. (1994). Vedanta for the West. Indiana University Press. p. 134. ISBN 0-253-33098-X. ^ B.K.S. Iyengar, Light on Yoga, Schocken Books; Revised edition (January 3, 1995), trade paperback, 544 pages, ISBN 0-8052-1031-8 ^ Jacobsen KA and Larson GA (Eds. Theory And Practice of Yoga: Essays in Honour of Gerald James Larson. Brill Academic Publishers. 2005. ISBN 9004147578. ^ Sri Swami Sivananda. Karma Yoga. The Divine Life Society, 2007.ISBN 8170522196 ^ Storr A. Feet Of Clay: Saints, Sinners, And Madmen: A Study Of Gurus HarperCollins, London 1996 ^ John Woodroffe. The Garland of Letters. Motilal Banarsidas ISBN 8185988129. ^ Pechilis Prentiss, Karen (1999). The Embodiement of Bhakti. US: Oxford University Press. p. cover. ISBN 9780195128130. http://books.google.com/books?id=Vu95WgeUBfEC&pg=PA21. ^ Robbins T; Zablocki BD. Misunderstanding cults: searching for objectivity in a controversial field. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-8020-8188-6. ^ Langone MD, ed (1993). Recovery from cults: help for victims of psychological and spiritual abuse. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 0393701646. ^ Storr A. Feet Of Clay: Saints, Sinners, And Madmen: A Study Of Gurus HarperCollins, London 1996 ^ Sir john Woodroffe. The Serpent Power. ISBN 8185988056. ^ Gita Metha. Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East. 1979. New York: Vintage, 1994 ^ Sri Swami Satchidananda. The Yoga Sutras of Patanjali. Yogaville, Va. : Integral Yoga Publications, 1984. ISBN: 0932040381 ^ Swami Vivekananda. Complete Works Vol 4. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Complete_Works_of_Swami_Vivekananda/Volume_4/Lectures_and_Discourses/Meditation~ Fauncet (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the vast majority of the contested material is unfortunately a combination of WP:UNDUE, Original Research (WP:OR), and use of sources which are not Reliable Sources WP:RS on Meditation in Hinduism — all resulting in some information that is only narrowly held or incorrect. I'll mention a few of these, but only as examples.
 * WP:UNDUE: the cautions about brain-washing and charlatans, and gurus using disciples for free labor, is extremely undue for a summary of Meditation in Hinduism; long sections on certain specific selected styles of meditation is undue for any article such as this; there is much more.
 * Incorrect: "Raja Yoga meditation also widely called Hatha Yoga meditation"? I've never seen a reliable source refer to Raja Yoga as "Hatha Yoga meditation". I couldn't even find any widespread use of the term in a Google Books search. Same with "Karma Yoga meditation". Singling out Ramakrishna, Swami Sivananda and John Woodroffe as prominent exponents of "Yoga meditation" is not supported by reliable sources. There are many who are as prominent or moreso. This article's purpose isn't to push forward personal favorites, even though two out of the three are favorites of mine.
 * There is also a great deal of synthesis (WP:SYN). For example, "Two highly revered exponents of Yoga meditation in the late 19th century were Swami Ramakrishna" - using Google books, there is not a single Reliable source that ties together Ramakrishna and the phrase "Yoga meditation". There is much more, but too much to go into detail. I support the removal of all of this material. Priyanath talk 21:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Fauncet could make a list of the points he wants to make. We can then evaluate their truth and verifiability. His recent claim on my talk page that the Yoga Sutras pre-date the Buddha is a bad sign but he may nevertheless have some valid points to make. Regarding the "invention of meditation", while it is absent from pre-Buddhist texts (with the possible exception of one vague sentence in the BU), the Buddhist texts say that the Buddha learned about states of samadhi from teachers. These teachers have been identified as almost certainly within the Brahmanical tradition, which was the dominant tradition of the Buddha's time, though not the only one. Wynne's recent work The Origin of Buddhist Meditation discusses these issues in detail and it is a very interesting read, for those interested in such things. Bronkhorst's earlier work The Two Traditions of Mediation in Ancient India makes the claim that the Buddha discovered samadhi but I find his argument unconvincing and Wynne's argues well against it, so I have not incorporated material from Bronkhorst in articles on the subject. Mitsube (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding sourcing, Feuerstein is a proponent of certain new-age ideas, is not a qualified scholar, and does not have his works published by reputable presses. One can find all sorts of ridiculous statements regarding history in his books and they are not reliable sources. Mitsube (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree re: Feuerstein. On another note, I think that it is unnecessary to get into all the different "yogas", some of which use meditation only as an adjunct or aid. Better, imo, would be to mention different types of meditation in different schools/sects of Hinduism, such as meditation on sound, on an aspect of God (Krishna for example), God without form, etc. I'm not finding any good reliable sources online at the moment, but will keep looking. I also think it's ok to have a couple of notable yoga school/teachers giving a definition of meditation. Vivekananda is one example, but that long block quote is surely not the best from him. Avalon/Woodroffe is also not a reliable source, imo. Priyanath talk 03:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've removed the lengthy quote from Shankara since it doesn't directly address meditation, and is unnecessary here. Also the Peacock language about "most eminent", etc. Please discuss, Fauncet, and wait for others to give their opinion. Priyanath talk 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agenda in Edits == ==

Just to highlight the apparent duplicity in edits here (yes I know WIKI policy) but it is really frustrating to find text I have worked on for some time and referenced carefully and in a scholarly way deleted without any prior consultation with me and messages then left saying I should consult before it is reinstated...implying that there is some de-facto heirarchy in editorial status. Well, if there is that should be made explicit. If there isn't then I deserve to have text I've worked on for some time discussed with me before it is deleted.

As an example of what has been going on. Although Priyanth made the above comment, this is also what Priyanth deleted. Without any explanation, or prior discussion with the editor who placed it up.

The different types of Yoga in Hinduism are designed to appeal to varieties of personality types, but to take the sincere practitioner to the same destinations in each case: first samadhi in which non-dual consciousness is experienced only in meditation[15] and then samadhi where non-dual consciousness is experienced throughout waking activities.[16] As the eminent authority on Hindu meditation Barbara Stoler Miller states in her commentary on the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali: "Even meditation and certain levels of pure contemplation are based on past experiences that leave traces, which Patanjali calls 'seeds' (bija) (BkI vv41-46). Contemplation without seeds (nirbija samadhi) is a hyperconscious condition in which thought is tranquil and totally integrated; so that it leaves no 'seeds' to mature into further thoughts."[17] References 15 Patanjali Yoga Sutras Bk III Verse 3: "When the perceiving consciousness in this meditative is wholly given to illuminating the essential meaning of the object contemplated, and is freed from the sense of separateness and personality, this is contemplation (samadhi)." Patañjali; James Haughton Woods (transl.) (1914), The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali, Published for Harvard University by Ginn & Co., http://books.google.com/books?id=Fc4oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP18&dq=yogena+cittasya 16 Patanjali Yoga Sutras Bk III V10. "Through frequent repetition of this process, the mind becomes habituated to it, and there arises an equable flow of perceiving consciousness."Patañjali; James Haughton Woods (transl.) (1914), The Yoga Sutras of Patañjali, Published for Harvard University by Ginn & Co., http://books.google.com/books?id=Fc4oAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP18&dq=yogena+cittasya 17 Barbara Stoler Miller (trans) Yoga. Discipline of Freedom. The Yoga Sutras Attributed to Patanjali. Uni of California Press (1996) p5.Fauncet (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Shankara and eminence on Hindu meditation
Priyanth claims it is "still open for debate whether scholarly consensus considers (Shankara) notable on *meditation*)" According to who? Please provide some authoritative academic source for this statement that you used to justify deletion.Fauncet (talk) 18:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shankara is notable for many, many things, but regarding meditation "Sankara specifically refutes the system of yoga and its disciplines as direct means to moksa. He specifically rebuts the argument that moksa can be attained through concentration of the mind." - (Anantanand Rambachan, The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pages 124, 125.) He is certainly notable for Advaita Vedanta, the math system, the Swami order, and more, but as a teacher of meditation there are probably many who are more notable. I did leave a mention of him in the article, by the way, so please demonstrate some honesty and inegrity. Priyanath talk 19:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never heard of this scholar, or this view (what is his claim to authority...is he as eminent as Barbara Stoler Miller?). I note Rambuchan provides no evidence of citations from Shankar's works to back this up (at least they're not mentioned) so we have the logical fallacy of an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam), always troubling to the analytic mind. To directly counter it we have there words from Shankara's Crest Jewel of Wisdom verses 327 and 362-363:

'''Hence than this wavering there is no worse death, for one who has gained discernment, who has beheld the Eternal in spiritual concentration. By right intentness he at once gains success; be thou intent on the Self, with all carefulness.

When purified by the power of uninterrupted intentness, the mind is thus melted in the Eternal, then ecstasy is purified of all doubt, and of itself enjoys the essence of secondless bliss.

Through this ecstasy comes destruction of the knot of accumulated mind-images, destruction of all works; within and without, for ever and altogether, the form of the Self becomes manifest, without any effort at all.'''

My view is that refutes your claim that Shankara made a specific argument against moksha through concentration of the mind. It is hardly a specific refutation, indeed he appears here to be encouraging concentration of the mind (instead of allowing attention to wander amongst mind-images). By the way, invoking Vivekananda's authority to support the authority of the academic who cited him is a logical fallacyFauncet (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fauncet, your posts are becoming increasingly hard to decipher; for example I have no idea what you mean by, "invoking Vivekananda's authority to support the authority of the academic who cited him". Can you please slow down, gather your thoughts and state calmly what exact content you wish to add, so that it can be discussed on the talk page. Editing warring, assuming bad faith, being uncivil and starting new sections for each new post are hardly useful in getting your point across. Abecedare (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you also properly indent your talk page comments ? See my earlier message on your talk page. Abecedare (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go over it slowly for you. You wrote: "Shankara is notable for many, many things, but regarding meditation "Sankara specifically refutes the system of yoga and its disciplines as direct means to moksa. He specifically rebuts the argument that moksa can be attained through concentration of the mind." - (Anantanand Rambachan, The limits of scripture: Vivekananda's reinterpretation of the Vedas. University of Hawaii Press, 1994, pages 124, 125.)" You then wrote: "He is certainly notable for Advaita Vedanta, the math system, the Swami order, and more, but as a teacher of meditation there are probably many who are more notable." I doubt the opening "He" is this sentence refers to Anantanand Rambachan. It must therefore refer to Vivekananda. You did not indicate you were quoting from Vivekananda...if so you would surely have also given the specific text quoted from so one could verify that Vivekananda said this and in what context, it being such an unusual claim. Instead the way you presented this quote it was from Rambuchan..hence the logical fallacy of appealing to Vivekanada's authority. If you are expecting someone to accept you can win an argument this way, without actually citing the speciifc place where Vivekananda said what you claim, then that is an instance of argumentum ad verecundiam on your partFauncet (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't write that, User:Priyanath did.
 * Your reading and understanding of Priyanath's comment is completely wrong. The "He" refers to Shankara and Priyanath is quoting a secondaryt source on that. That is how we verify facts on wikipedia; not by analyzing primary sources like you are trying.
 * Could you again, please indent your posts ?
 * Abecedare (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is still an argument from authority...you are placing the view of this Rambuchan person ahead of actual textual evidence of what Shankara said. If you do intend to do that then it will only make sense if this Rambuchan is an extremely eminent scholar and is himself able to cite his evidence (or are you saying that Wiki cites secondary sources regardless of how they use primary sources). One would need to see the actual reference Rambuchan gives for a claim that I have never heard beforeFauncet (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia we always argue from authority of reliable secondary sources. That is not a fallacy, it is the norm that you'll have to accept if you wish to continue editing. Please see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PSTS. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And you should also take a look at the wikipedia article on "this Rambuchan person" (and also WP:CIVIL). Abecedare (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * but the reference is insufficient and seems contradictory to other eminent scholars (see Barbara Stoler Miller). If you read the words of Shankara it is also clearly wrong...surely although you can't cite primary sources you can use them to make a judgement about the eminence of the authority you are citing and in this case they don't suggest Rambuchan knows what he is talking about (ie: not authoritative)Fauncet (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the reference to Miller discussing Shankara and his being the most eminent exponent of meditation in Hinduism ? Abecedare (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * the problem is you don't seem to understand the nature of the system Shankara set up. Its all about meditation and the teaching and practise of meditation. Its not organised around the communication of religious dogma. Your request is like asking someone to provide some evidence that Einstein is an authoritative scientist or Leonardo an authoritative painter. I cited some references but you deleted them. There doesn't seem to be any point carrying on here. What you are doing is very unfair to Hindus. Bye.Fauncet (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange searching

 * I've also noticed some disturbing indications of a possible lack of reading real books or experience in this area in some of the comments above. Tell me it is not so and let's be friends who actually meditate. Fauncet (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Random personal commentary/lecturing
In the Buddhism section, there's the following odd bit.

"The Japanese haiku poet Basho saw poetry as a process of meditation concerned with the art of describing the brief appearances of the everlasting self, of eternity, in the circumstances of the world. We get a sense of this ethical purpose in his writing at the commencement of his classic work Narrow Roads to the Deep North. In a more lonely and perhaps more profound pilgrimage than Chaucer depicted in the Canterbury Tales, Basho reflects on mortality in intermingled poetry and prose as he journeys north from shrine to shrine."

Obviously those comments have no place in this article, and this section needs to be reworded. I'd go ahead and do it myself, but I thought I'd bring it up here first. --JasonAdama (talk) 06:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Poisoning the well
It would not escape an attentive reader that another logical fallacy being engaged in here is Poisoning the well (see wiki entry). You make emotivist assertions that lucid comments are hard to decipher, that I need to gather my thoughts, that I'm assuming bad faith etc etc chiefly to discredit my suggestions. The real question for example is...did I misquote from the Crest Jewel of Wisdom. If not...do those quotes suggest Adi Shankara is refuting that Moksa can be attained from ^concentration. If they suggest the opposite then it is of minor significance what Vivekananda (if he did say it) might have said at some point about Shankara. Why don't you address that and stop trying to win the argument by attacking me personallyFauncet (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with Vivekananda. Please try to understand this. Mitsube (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * and that is an example of the logical fallacy of Ad hominem (see wiki entry). You attempt to win the argument not by addressing the merits but by claiming that I have some personal interest in Vivekananda and Hinduism. I don't (as you would have seen by my earleir rejected comments about Guru's exploiting bhakti, and kundalini and karma yoga)(I'm not a Hindu). But I do think that the Hindus should have a chance to have their system of meditation presented on its own terms and not blanded out by Buddhists. I have felt a lot of injustice about the way quite a few of you have (in what appears to be a type of editorial clique or cabal) deleted work without prior consultation and to my mind have failed to presnet a 'Hindu' version of meditation.Fauncet (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These comments are out of line. I have added a lot of material to wikipedia regarding pre-Buddhist meditative practices. Mitsube (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, Mitsube, Hinduism kept on going after Buddhism was founded. In fact, it's still going on today, and they teach an entirely different system of meditation to any of those taught of in Buddhism, either Classical or Modern.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.185.44 (talk) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI regarding reversions
To add to the confusion here, User:Discospinster reverted 13 edits here, calling a "minor" edit with the summary "no more links". I've added back a couple of things that were removed with that edit, one is a rewrite of a paragraph on yoga, and some sourcing. Priyanath talk 16:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Forms section
Order of entry. Is there any reasoning to the order of entry as such:-
 * 1) Hinduism
 * 2) Buddhism
 * 3) Christianity
 * 4) Islam
 * 5) Jainism
 * 6) Judaism
 * 7) New Age
 * 8) Sikhism
 * 9) Taoism
 * 10) Bahá'í Faith
 * 11) Other

What are the objections, if any, on ordering the entries as this:-

~ R.T.G 22:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bahá'í Faith
 * 2) Buddhism
 * 3) Christianity
 * 4) Hinduism
 * 5) Islam
 * 6) Jainism
 * 7) Judaism
 * 8) New Age
 * 9) Sikhism
 * 10) Taoism
 * 11) Other
 * OK I don't see any objections so I'll make the edit ~ R.T.G 21:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In wikipedia when you talk about armies or per-capita income you don't do it alpabetically. There was a reason for the original order. Hinduism (and Buddhism) have introduced Meditation and taken it to its heights. No other religion has so much focus on meditation as a path to spritual enlightenment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.153 (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"In a Western context" section
It says things like:


 * "...limited use in Christianity." - (See: Christian_meditation for instance)
 * ""Meditation" in its modern sense refers to Yogic meditation that originated in India."
 * "...being brought to the West ..."

It is poorly sourced (1 source) and vague. For instance, what is The West? Our article Western world refers to an ancient history (which does not place with the paragraph at all giving claims such as "...in its modern sense" which need to be well sourced) whereas the article Western culture says "The concept of Western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of the Western world." Which is a good definition but unfortunately makes the "In a Western context" section very vague. What is "a" Western context? Obviously the section could be improved but if it cannot be sourced and defined suitably it should be deleted. ~ R.T.G 21:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sprituality and Religion section
I would like to suggest that we split this section into two parts; one for spirituality and one for religion as these two terms do not mean the same thing. the New Age subsection, for example would go under the Spirituality section. We could also add a paragraph or two on Transcendental Meditation to the Spirituality section. TM has been around for 50 years, is practiced by millions and is the most highly researched form of meditation in the world and deserves a few paragraphs in this article. Does this sound like a good idea?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Language in buddhist section
The buddhist section freely mixes Pali with sanskrit, for example paññā (Prajñā) and Dhyāna(Jhāna or probably more commonly samādhi), I'd like to see what everyone prefers before I go a fixing it, sanskrit, pali, or both? right now it would probably confuse people.Kungfukats2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC).

This sentence must be a practical joke
I read in the Buddhism section: "In a more lonely and perhaps more profound pilgrimage than Chaucer depicted in the Canterbury Tales, Basho reflects on mortality in intermingled poetry and prose as he journeys north from shrine to shrine."

The Canterbury Tales are bawdy and irreverent. This can't be right.69.108.162.59 (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Amusing! It's copied from this website: http://www.muddywaterzen.org/meditation.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.7.2 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I presume you mean the article and not the bit about "Canterbury Tales" above. And yet at the bottom of that page, it reads: "- Information from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." We haven't copied from them; they've copied WP content. :)  Esowteric + Talk  14:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Simplification
The article on meditation should be more concise. It focuses mostly on the different religious meanings, techniques, ect., but does not give a lot of general information.96.248.163.187 (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation
All of the material on Transcendental Meditation was removed from the article along with a more obscure technique, with the comment "no specific schools in this article thanks". Since the article contains many sections on meditation as practiced by various groups, I don't understand the distinction. While we shouldn't include an exhaustive list of every traditional or new age technique, a few lines on some of the more prominent ones is appropriate. Perhaps just list TM under "Others" without a heading. It's so well-known, at least in the West, that leaving it out entirely looks like an oversight. Thoughts?  Will Beback   talk    00:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, this should be mentionned in the article, as well as Osho Meditations. Sud Ram (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, but they are hard on "specific schools of thought" here - especially recent ones. I agree TM, OSHO, Yogi Bhajan are well known Western meditation teachers, but that's just a few... There's many prolific teachers (Buddists included). Once you include them, do you have to include all schools by name - or just the ones that have had the most impact and reach - and how does one determine "popularity"?--Fatehji (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, one easy way to determine notability is the existence of a Wikipedia article.   Will Beback    talk    11:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Strongly opposed to the inclusion of such groups. Size and success have nothing whatever in this field to do with legitimacy. Some of these groups, such as TM for example, are quite controversial and we should certainly not be doing anything on this project to lend them an air of legitimacy or imply that they are somehow more valid than other schools or techniques by including them in this article or other articles of the type. I'm sure there is a list of yoga and meditation schools somewhere on this project, where they can be listed along with all the other schools. Gatoclass (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that objection, but I don't understand why we'd delete TM but leave "Meditation according to Krishnamurti", "New Age" meditation, and "Secular practices", all of which include references to specific schools, some less well-known than TM.   Will Beback    talk    20:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The "New Age" section does not mention any specific schools. I understand the point about Krishnamurti, and have had some doubts about his inclusion myself, but he's very well known in the West and many people feel he had a unique "spin" on the meaning of meditation and other spiritual concepts. Also, I am not aware of any group that stands to benefit financially from the inclusion of Krishnamurti, which is not the case for some of these other groups.
 * As for the "secular" section, certainly it does mention some specific groups, but then unlike the other sections, one cannot really talk in general terms about secular meditation because of the variety of groups and approaches. Most of the groups mentioned however would I think be unlikely to benefit financially to any great degree from their inclusion here. Also, there has never been any suggestion, as far as I am aware, that any of these groups are cults or have cultic elements, so I think there is probably little potential harm in including them in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Coincidentally, there is an RFAR case now open and one of the accusations is that some editors have called the TM movement a cult. (Feel free to comment there if you have an opinion). Be that as it may, just because a group is or isn't a cult doesn't seem to be a consideration for this article. The movement itself claims to be secular, though some U.S. courts have ruled that it is a religion. Taking it on its own terms, we could insert a line in the "Secular practices" section.    Will Beback    talk    07:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TM is not a secular practice in my view, and IIRC the practice includes references to what are clearly spiritual or religious concepts. TM is basically Hinduism repackaged for Western consumption. Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many sources describe it as being inspired by or derived from Hinduism. We could include it in that section.   Will Beback    talk    08:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Look, the point is, its status as a "secular" technique has been challenged. If we included it in the "secular" section we would essentially be taking the POV of the organization itself, rather than an NPOV position, which would be misleading the readership. And most probably it would just start an edit war in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So how about the "Hinduism" section? Or, we can have a section with a name like 'Other', to cover difficult-to-categorize items. However, since there are sources that call it "New Age", that may be the best place for it. We might move some of the other "secular" methods there too so it won't be alone.   Will Beback    talk    11:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are you so insistent on having it in the article? The meditation page simply doesn't need a link to TM. The TM article is scarcely even worthwhile - it's been in the hands of adherents for years, and now it looks like an attack page. I don't believe there is any good reason to have TM or any of the other new religious movements in the article, once we let one in we no longer have any ground to exclude the rest. Gatoclass (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have any proof beyond personal experience, but I believe it is one of the most famous forms of meditation in the Western world. I'm not proposing adding a long section, or even a whole paragraph. But I think it merits at least a sentence.   Will Beback    talk    08:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I can't help thinking that this is more about the fact that you have worked hard on the TM article and would like to get some extra exposure for your work than it is about what's good for this article. If it's "just a sentence" for this particular group, it will be "just a sentence" for one after another, and then it will be more than "just a sentence", it will be a paragraph, and then a section. One cannot contain the phenomenon once the principle is dispensed with. Gatoclass (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you give me a little more credit than that? I first added a section to this article in April, before I'd done almost any editing to the TM topic, to replace some lopsided text. I now see, in checking the history, that the earlier text was added in January of that year by a one-edit account.
 * I've worked on the articles of other meditation techniques too, such as Sahaja Yoga and Techniques of Knowledge, without seeking any special treatment for them or even checking to see if they were mentioned here. I just think that TM is far more widely known than Jacobson's Progressive Muscle Relaxation, Acem Meditation, or Natural Stress Relief (which is apparently a cheap, unauthorized variation of TM).
 * I know how articles like this can accumulate "barnacles" that have to be scrapped-off regularly. I maintain several articles like this the same way, so I appreciate your effort and dedication. We obviously disagree as to the relative notability of one of the schools. I can see that I'm not going to change your mind so I won't keep trying. If others want to add it I'd support them but otherwise I'll go back to working hard on the TM article. ;)   Will Beback    talk    11:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering why Gato's opinion has to be taken as gospel. If other editors want to include a sentence on TM in this article, surely that is acceptable according to Wiki policy?  Is not TM a type of mediation and thus could be included in an "umbrella" article on meditation? --BwB (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of different schools of meditation out there. But this is not an article about schools of meditation, it's an article about meditation. TM has its basis in Hinduism and we already have a section on Hinduism. Why should we single out just one school of Hinduism for attention above all the others? Gatoclass (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Mental Discipline?
The opening sentence defines meditation as mental but it encompasses all aspects of the human experience. Mental, emotional, physical and spiritual. So I changed this to "holistic". Sud Ram (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Query
I've heard it said prayer is talking to God. Meditation is listening to God. Seems meditation is more important than prayer. What can we say to God that He doesn't already know? Listening to Him would seem to me to have much more worth. One learns more when one listens than when one speaks. Does this make sense? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.133.253.21 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That's one way to look at it. Another is that meditation prepares you for prayer.--Fatehji (talk) 08:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead section needs expanding
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic and summarize the most important points. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. WillMall (talk) 15:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

'Higher states of consciousness' does not entail 'enlightenment' or 'knowledge of ultimate reality'. The lead needs to summarize main points of article, so its not redundant to mention those things in the lead. WillMall (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that concepts like "enlightenment" and "knowledge of ultimate reality" will be opaque to many people. We don't want jargon in the intro. "Higher states of consciousness" is a readily understandable concept that encompasses all such states. Gatoclass (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I see what you’re saying, but, in truth, the term "Higher states of consciousness" is no more meaningful than "enlightenment" or "knowledge of ultimate reality". If anything, it’s a much vaguer term whereas the other two are more explicit. Anyway, the lead could do with another paragraph or two to help adequately summarize the article. See : Lead_section.  Thanks. WillMall (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Enlightenment" and "knowledge of ultimate reality" are very abstract concepts. "Higher state of consciousness" by contrast is something that I think most people will be able to relate to, to some degree at least.
 * The point is, a lot of people who come to this article will know very little about meditation, and may just have been told that it's a good aid to relaxation. Do we really want to scare them off with high-falutin' notions about "knowledge of ultimate reality"? Right now the intro strikes a balance between spiritual approaches to meditation and secular, pragmatic approaches. I would like to see that balance maintained. Gatoclass (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology
In trying to understand this topic, I started looking at the article. As a start, Etymology does not seem to be quite right, maybe partly so. References for it are:


 * Melanie & Mike say... Take Our Word For it Archive of Etymology Questions: This is not a WP:Reliable source at all. And seems to be the main source for the definition.
 * American Heritage Dictionary: List of Indo European Roots: Bad link.

A more WP:Reliable source I had seen before gives a different history:


 * In the Old Testament hāgâ (Hebrew: הגה‎), means to sigh or murmur, but also to meditate. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, hāgâ became the Greek melete. The Latin Bible then translated hāgâ/melete into meditatio.

And the reason we can not take the word of Melanie and Mike is that "An universal etymological English dictionary" also says that the root is from the Latin meditatum, i.e. to ponder, not from measure as Melanie and Mike suggest. Ideas/suggestions on how to fix it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this really inappropriate for the article lead-in?
This seems relevant to me, but it was deleted as inappropriate. Anyone else have a comment?

Some religious leaders consider meditation to be a state in which we are more likely to hear the "voice" of God or to receive spiritual inspiration. Spiritual leaders answer on prayer/meditation

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meditation&diff=361726400&oldid=361709543 Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems reasonable and relevant to me. --BwB (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not appropriate for the lede. Gatoclass (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is it not appropriate, Gato? --BwB (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Because what "some religious leaders" might think about meditation is not the sort of thing that is appropriate for a lead. That sort of information might be appropriate to the body of the article somewhere, but it looks out of place in the lead. Gatoclass (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is not only relevant, but essential. I do not know about all possible approaches, but in the Western tradition, meditation is a step before contemplation whose aim is to achieve closeness to God and inspiration therefrom. Many references therein and in fact I would suggest a good deal of that in the article. I have been meaning to look at mysticism articles alongthe same lines, but have not had a chance yet. But it is an essential issue. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is not about "the Western tradition" of meditation. It's about meditation in general. That's the whole point. Particular views about a topic belong in the body of an article, not in the lead where they are almost certain to raise issues of WP:UNDUE. Gatoclass (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Meditation was being used by religious seekers LONG before it became a secular activity. Not mentioning this in the lead in is like not mentioning that the U.S. is a former colony of Britain, or that Roman numerals came from Rome.Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Your addition was not about the history of meditation, it was about a view purportedly expressed by "some religious leaders". That's not the same thing at all. Gatoclass (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We should probably add "achieve enlightenment" to the list, too. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, maybe so, but one of the problems is that Wikipedia's article on Enlightenment is actually not very, um, enlightening. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that the religious uses of meditation are worth mentioning in the lead in. These modern religious leaders are just continuing in that long tradition. If you prefer, we could find a reference that states its historical roots, and use that as a reference instead. We could start the line, "In some religions, meditation is considered to be a state in which...." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There's already plenty of mention of religion in the intro. I don't see why we need still more. Gatoclass (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion is the manifestation of a deeper issue. The term "meditation" has been used to refer to a wide range of activities across the planet and across cultures. I do not know all the approaches, east north and south, but it is clear to me that the activities described by the term meditation are inherently different. And I do not (repeat not) have scientific evidence for the next statement, so just consider it a passing remark: but I am ready to bet that brain scans of people performing meditation in different cultures will show different patterns. Now that comment aside, I think the handwriting is on the wall that this article is on its way to split 3 or 4 ways within a year or less, with a shorter "general meditation" introduction at the beginning and each of the separate "types of meditation" being given its own focus. For instance I do not know how Indian approaches differ from what the Japanese do in Shinto. I do not know the needed categorization and the required ontology, but I am sure all participants herein will learn about them over the next year as this doscussion inevitably expands. It will be interesting to learn these issues. That is Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, what I've done is to just add to the list of goals of meditation to include communing with God, plus a bit more. How's that? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This looks good, Ghosto. --BwB (talk) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It reads better to me as well. But I think the larger issue still remains unclear to myself. It seems (and I am no expert on the eastern approaches) that "state of peace" that the eastern meditations use is actually called "contemplation" in the western approach and follows meditation, which is a somewhat intensive activity. E.g. Raniero Cantalamessa characterized the difference between Christian meditation and contemplation as follows: "In meditation, the search for truth prevails while in contemplation, delight in the found truth prevails." So again, not knowing the entire eastern spectrum, it seems that the tranquility that the eastern meditation seeks is called contemplation in the western approach. Next question: if there is a general issue of God being involved or not, then the Shinto angle will open. But I think in the long term if those who understand the "whole picture" address these issues, we will all become clear on these questions. History2007 (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Source for the lead
By the way, I was looking up meditation items and you guys may be interested in this link:. It is a definition and the classes of approaches by the United States National Research Council and clarified my view about what meditation classes are. These people cleanly distinguish between meditation aimed at relaxation vs that aimed at spiritual elements both east and west. The current source for the lead seems less than WP:Reliable, and comments on this link will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

History?
As I started to read this article, I realized that I know nothing about the history of meditation and that the article teaches me exactly the same amount: nothing. If anyone knows this topic, please have a go at it, else I will try it. An encyclopedia written by a total novice is not a great idea, but it has happened before in Wikipedia a couple of times i guess. So help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For a guy who "knows nothing about the history of meditation", that is an excellent addition to the article! How you managed to put that together so quickly I don't know, but I'm certainly impressed. My congratulations :) Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I am not sure if I have it all complete, however. I may have missed some things (e.g. Jewish history) because some very interesting books were not accessible on Google books. I will have to touch that up later. And there is an underlying phenomenon here that I will have to think about: there is more knowledge buried within Wikipedia than any editor has any idea about. The article Silk Road transmission of Buddhism is an example for it helped a lot in this case. It is a common sense idea when you think about it that "more than tea" was carried along that route, but I had never seen it until today. I think eventually a bot that prompts editors with "automatic and personalized DYK" ideas will be interesting. As is, DYK is a one for all item, but a personalized DYK will eventually be done. One just needs to keep thinking about it. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This article deals mostly with religious beliefs regarding meditation, not with meditation itself.
Meditation is an exercise, it can be described quite well as a physical activity. There is broad agreement as to how it is done. This may not be apparent to those unfamiliar with the subject, as there exist a variety of techniques. This article would be greatly improved if it were divided into sections dealing with sitting meditation, relaxed meditation, and stress meditation. Others may have other ideas of how best to divide it, but I think this way would be sufficient to cover the broad range of techniques used.

The religious significance of the activity is an abstract discussion not directly related to the activity itself. One can meditate without knowing anything about what it is believed to signify in metaphysical terms. Discussions of this aspect of it should come after descriptions of the activity itself, and perhaps should be on a separate page, called perhaps 'beliefs about meditation', or something of that sort. Discussing this matter on this page has just made it long and confusing.Briligg (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in this link: . It is a definition and the classes of approaches by the United States National Research Council. It does not seem to support the view you stated above. Do you have references to support the view above, e.g. that meditation is well understood? According to Everly and Lating, "After 60 years of scientific study, the exact mechanism at work in meditation remains unclear." I have been trying to understand meditation by reading this article and searching references, and I can not see how "There is broad agreement as to how it is done" for it seems to be a different activity in different circles, e.g. is Dhikr and its fiker adjunct well understood and similar to Zazen? Probably not. And as I have looked into this topic, I have come across practices such as Hitbodedut to which the term meditation is applied, but are quite different from Zen. History2007 (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Briligg Zzzmidnight (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreemet is fine, but do you have any references please beyond personal agreements? History2007 (talk) 02:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There is clearly not "broad agreement as to how it (meditation) is done", according to Bond, Ospina et al (2009), in material and a citation added today to the article. Furthermore, according to Bond et al's synthesis of views of a group of 7 experts trained in diverse methods/traditions (including "relaxation response" and "mindfulness-based stress reduction"), all but one expert agreed that "being embedded in a religious/spiritual/philosophical context" is "important but not essential" (see tabulation in Table 3, page 134). I regard the fact that this WP page gives extensive attention to the religious/spiritual context as highly appropriate. Health Researcher (talk) 03:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Holistic discipline?
Please define what a "holistic discipline" is and its meaning in the context of the opening sentence.Zzzmidnight (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that statement in the lead is in fact incorrect in the "general sense" in any case. I knew very little about this topic a few weeks ago, and I am still learning, but it is clear to me that the term "meditation" is applied (both in the article and elsewhere in literature) to activities such as Hitbodedut which are:


 * not a holistic discipline
 * not an attempts to get beyond the reflexive thinking mind


 * In Hitbodedut the "practitioner may scream". That is probably not holistic by any definition of holistic! In general it seems that the introduction was written with specific methods of Zen in mind, although the article has a section on Jewish meditation to which the introduction does not apply.


 * It seems clear that:
 * Different sections of the article were written by different people.
 * I have heard from no one on this page who claims to understand the "whole field"
 * The introduction was written for a Zen type approach, ignoring other sections


 * Hence the introduction does not reflect the content of the article. I do not want to put a tag on it yet, for I do not have a better alternative yet, but the only thing that seems to describe meditation, based on respectable research sources is that:

Meditation is generally defined as a class of techniques designed to influence an individual's consciousness through the regulation of attention. However, there is less agreement on its conceptualization than is commonly thought.


 * Note that the key here is "the regulation of attention". That research report then chracterizes three types of origin for meditation:


 * Eastern mysticism, e.g. Buddhist types of meditation that started in India over 3500 years ago and spread elsewhere in Asia.


 * Secular techniques developed in the 1950s as adaptations of the first approach, by removing the religious components.


 * Western mysticism, e.g. over 2,000 years of Jewish meditation and the approaches in Christian meditation developed from the 10th century onwards.


 * I think that may be a good characterization in part, given that it agrees with other WP:Reliable sources. However, there have been overlaps, e.g. hesychasm does use the repetitive techniques of eastern mysticism, but is part of western mysticism.


 * The article even has a section on Bahá'í meditation, which is unspecified in nature, but seems to have come from a modified Islamic tradition. The article also has a section on meditation in Islam, and clearly sufi meditations such as Muraqaba and Dhikr are not subject to the holistic definition in the lead of this article. I also recently came across meditation in Korean Buddhism and the article does not even mention that topic.


 * I think the lead needs to change. Suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know how you could come to some of these conclusions. Meditation is certainly an holistic discipline in my view, and I think, would be considered so by most sources. I think you are totally mistaken to argue that Hitbodedut is neither holistic nor an attempt to get beyond the thinking mind. Just because it employs the thinking mind does not mean it is not an attempt to get beyond it, indeed, the article clearly states what the goal of Hitbodedut is: to free oneself from all negative traits that obstruct the spiritually-transforming non-dual realization of the "Imperative Existent," which is the Divinity inherent in all being. You can't get much more holistic than that!


 * I might add that I have never been comfortable with the "regulation of attention" phrase, meditation is not an activity one carries out, it is more like something that just happens, like sleep. That's why it is sometimes described as "non-doing". The "regulation of attention" is more like a technique one can use to get into meditation, it isn't necessarily synonymous with meditation itself. Gatoclass (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good, I got someone worked up enough to try and teach me this topic. Secondly, I did not add these items to the page yet exactly because I am not 100% sure yet. So first, let us answer the question that the midnight fellow asked: "what is holistic"? is there a clear definition for that? The fact is that I was "really" surprised to learn about Hitbodedut. It involves screaming, so it is not a purely repetitive activity. Next, what is the "thinking mind"? I am really not sure what that means either. In fact, I think that field is unclear to me, and as a reader explanations will be appreciated. My problem is that I do not understand how meditation works, and do not seem to be getting answers from this article, or the literature. The books that "sell meditation" seem to be too soft in their logic, and most of the academics seem to be drawing blanks. Any solid ideas will be appreciated. In fact, I left a message for teh Health researcher who started editing, to see if he/she has any ideas. Anyway, better explanations are certainly needed. By the way, how about the 3 classes that reference had, eastern/secular/western. Do you like that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You really wouldn't want to try and understand meditation by reading this article :) It gives a really poor explanation in my view. Most Wikipedia articles on spiritual topics are badly written in my experience.


 * In regards to the word "holistic", I don't know if there is a "clear definition" but Websters Online defines it as:


 * 1 : of or relating to holism
 * 2 : relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts  


 * As for the "thinking mind", I would have thought that was self-evident. It is, basically, your habitual thought process as it occurs from moment to moment. Meditation seeks to transcend this thought process and take the practitioner into a deeper experience of being.


 * In regards to "not understanding meditation", the only way to really understand it is to learn how to do it :) Reading about it may give you some idea but since it's an experiential discipline the only way to really understand it is to experience it. Gatoclass (talk) 11:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First, let us be "equal opportunity critics" please. It is not just the spirituality articles that need serious help, that is also true of scientific and technical topics, e.g. please see Talk:Semantic_reasoner that was on my mind today. Then, some of the highest quality articles I have seen are gems like the article on Britney Spears with 237 (yes, 237) references, well researched and fully encyclopedic. But that joke aside, I think Iam already learning a few things here (e.g. I have already learned about the history) so let the process continue, I would say. Your comments gave me a few ideas in fact, I will look into them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

New Lead
Is it fair to say: Meditation is a devotional exercise of intention, practiced in order gain insight and achieve higher levels of self-awareness"? Rolyatleahcim (talk) 03:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This whole "define meditation" problem reminds me of the old story about the definition of artificial intelligence. In the end, the only thing that everyone could agree on was: "when the behavior of a program is well understood, it is no longer AI. Everything else is AI". That seems to apply well here. History2007 (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can do something special....Rolyatleahcim (talk) 06:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What is due coverage of "automatic self-transcending meditation"? (re WP:BRD process)
Hi, I'm creating this space to allow for discussion of the appropriate coverage to give to the category of "automatic self-transcending meditation", which Gatoclass has reinserted after I recently deleted it (though I am now deleting again by WP:BRD). Having read a great deal of meditation research literature, I had never before seen this category until I saw it highlighted here in Wikipedia. Inspection of the Travis and Shear (2010) paper, which has not yet even been assigned a volume, issue, and page numbers, indicates that they are "proposing" this category (the opening words of the abstract are "This paper proposes a third meditation-category — automatic self-transcending"). Thus, in contrast to the broad division of mindfulness vs concentrative, which I have seen cited very widely in the meditation literature for decades, we are proposing to elevate a newly concocted category to equivalent prominence. This seems like WP:UNDUE prominence. Furthermore, when you actually look at the Travis & Shear paper, you see that out of 7 or 8 studies of this "category" of meditation (in Table 1), all but one are examples of Transcendental Meditation. Thus, the category appears to function largely as a vehicle to give TM extra attention.

Now in my opinion, TM researchers have done a lot of notable work over the years, but they've also proposed a lot of concepts (such as yogic flying, for example) that have never caught on with the wider meditation research/scholarly community. I see no reason to elevate into great prominence another TM-generated concept that has not yet shown it will stand the test of time, or generate interest among meditation scholars outside of TM -- or perhaps even among other TM scholars (to the extent they function independently)! Given that I don't think the tripartite category scheme merits prominence on this page, I also believe that providing "example instructions" for this newly spawned category is inappropriate by WP:DUE. Like methods of meditation, I think that typologies of methods should also be governed by WP:DUE.

Have I missed an important consideration for why this category deserves attention? If so, please help me see the error in my ways! Health Researcher (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the tripartite category scheme? Was that the 3 levels that National Research report had? In any case, do you have a good categorization of types of meditation? George S. Everly, Jeffrey M. Lating 2002 have a categorization of the types of repetition, e.g. words, breathing etc. That seems missing as well. So my questions are:


 * What is "meditation"? The article does not define it.
 * What are types/categories of meditation?
 * How are types/techniques similar or different?
 * I think the answer to "how does it work" is that no one knows. Is that right?


 * I understand some of the history now that I made an attempt at History of meditation. But the rest I do not understand. Help and clarification will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Health Researcher - I was not aware of the TM link, the source looked fairly innocuous and independent to me. I take your point regarding WP:UNDUE, and in fact agree with it, having recognized the problem myself.

The reason I restored the material is, quite frankly, because as I said to History2007 above, the article as it currently stands gives a very poor description of meditation in my view (one which History notes he can't understand, and I'm sure he's not the only one) and the quote from that particular source was the one quote which I felt was reasonably accurate and comprehensible. I mean, just look at the quote about mindfulness meditation:

''... The meditator, with a 'no effort' attitude, is asked to remain in the here and now. Using the focus as an 'anchor'... brings the subject constantly back to the present, avoiding cognitive analysis or fantasy regarding the contents of awareness, and increasing tolerance and relaxation of secondary thought processes''

- it's not only jargon ("secondary thought processes"?), but IMO it's also quite misleading. Is meditation all about "remaining in the here and now"? Not in my experience. I would describe meditation as a process of letting go, how can you let go if you are hanging onto the "here and now", or anything else for that matter? Practically the only useful quote in the article that I have read, and that is not terribly accessible, is the quote from J. Krishnamurti, and that is way down in the article. In short, I was pleased to see the "auto-transcending" quote because it's the only one that resonated with me, and while by no means an ideal source, I thought that until something more appropriate is found, it's better than nothing. Gatoclass (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean. Indeed, it seems desirable to have a some examples of instructions in meditation - more than one, to give a sense of the diversity of methods. I think this problem should ultimately be reasonably though perhaps not elegantly solvable. To avoid privileging a single tradition, perhaps for describing the process we will need to resort to quoting texts from clinical (e.g., work by Herbert Benson or Patricia Carrington), or the interdenominational / interfaith sources who don't propogate any particular method (e.g., work by Roger Walsh or Daniel Goleman). I'm short of time for now, but I think I've found some reasonable texts there adaptable to describe concentrative methods. I'll keep looking for a mindfulness / open focus text.


 * In the meanwhile, if you've never looked at it before, you might find Daniel Goleman's (1988) book The Meditative Mind: The Varieties of Meditative Experience useful. He has chapters on a variety of methods of meditation, East and West (though I think History2007 will find them lacking in a full Western representation), and Goleman makes some attempt to characterise both the diversity as well as the common features of the different meditative systems he looks at. Of course, he only looks at about 12, and in the real world there are hundreds. Still, his findings are helpful. He writes "there is the least common ground among meditation systems on the preparatory groundwork the meditator requires.... ideas about the best setting for meditation likewise cover a full spectrum..." (pp. 102-103). Later he says "different meditation systems may espouse wholly contradictory views from one another on the necessity for virtually every preparatory act" (p. 107). But "the strongest agreement among meditation schools is on the importance of retraining attention. All these systems can be broadly categorized in terms of the major strategies for retraining attention described (earlier): concentration or mindfulness" (p. 104; Table 2 on p. 106 also includes a category of "integrated", ie, a combination of concentration/mindfulness).


 * Thus, I think Goleman's approach has substantial similarities to Bond et al's (which is now briefly summarized in the article). Goleman's material might be more quotable than Bond et al's and more suitable for the lede. But on the other hand, I suspect that Bond et al's speculation (now quoted in the article) that meditation systems may represent a "family resemblance" with no single defining feature, may in fact be correct. In that case, we would need to face the fact that no definition or set of examples that we give could keep everyone 100% happy. Perhaps the best we can do is to try to keep most of the people happy most of the time, so to speak, and to make sure that caveats are mentioned (e.g., Bond's ideas about family resemblance, though perhaps we'll want to re-express them in simpler language if we can). I've run out of time for now, but I wanted to mention that book as a potentially useful resource. Health Researcher (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mini-instructions (merely examples) for meditation categories
Gatoclass asked (above) how we can include short little mini-instructions in meditation that are better than what's now in the article (currently only a hard-to-understand paragraph on mindfulness). My self-assigned task the last few days was to find a short (2-5 sentence) instruction for each of the two most often-cited categories, 1. concentrative, and 2. mindfulness (or open-focus). Here are some of my findings and observations:
 * A. As I noted above, we don't want to show favoritism for particular traditions. Therefore an ideal source for describing the attentional processes that define each category might be from something outside of religious traditions - for example, from a more "clinically" oriented source.
 * B. I've looked through a lot of books on my shelf and it's been surprisingly hard to find descriptions that are very short, but also sufficiently evocative and general that they could serve reasonably well to exemplify the category.
 * C. One possible source for both major categories is sequential chapters in an edited bookby Goleman and Gurin (Mind Body Medicine, 1993). Chap 14 by Benson has short description of concentrative meditation on page 240. Chap 15 by Kabat-Zinn has brief description of mindfulness meditation on page 265. Neither of these is perfect, and we'd probably want to condense them with ellipses (...) to preserve only what is essential for our purposes.
 * D. We should keep our purpose in view, and remember that Wikipedia is not a guidebook (WP:NOT). Thus, our purpose in including such quotes should not be to actually give the reader the basis to begin each type of meditation, but to help clarify the nature of the methods in each category.
 * E. The fact that it's been so hard to find good brief summaries makes me wonder if there's some systematic reason. Perhaps - and here I am just speculating - publications for general audiences tend to give longer instructions than we'd want, but publications for scholarly audiences tend to assume that the reader is already somewhat familiar with different categories (or can become familiar).
 * F. Before inserting the Benson and Kabat-Zinn material, we might want to keep looking awhile longer to see if anything better arises (I have some additional sources I'd like to track down too). Imperfections with Benson and Kabat-Zinn cites include the fact that they are from purveyors of particular methods, and might be seen as favoritism; but at least they are from an edited book that embraces multiple methods. My hunch is that nothing will be perfect. Once we've settled on texts for the concentrative and mindfulness methods, we could move on to try to find the best text for the "other" category (e.g., Bond et al's category for both the field and focal points).
 * G. Finally, I happened to look up the original source (Perez de Albeniz and Holmes, 2000, p. 49) of the currently quoted mindfulness instructions. And I found that what's in the article now is partly a misquote (or perhaps intended as a paraphrase, but misleadingly set off as a blockquote)! The original reads:
 * "In mindfulness meditation, the subject sits comfortably, in silence, centring attention by focusing mental awareness an object or process (either the breathing process, a sound, a mantra koan or riddle evoking questions, a visualisation, or an exercise) and then consciously is encouraged to scan their thoughts in an open focus, shifting freely from one perception to the next (Kutz et al., 1985a, b). No thought, image or sensation is considered an intrusion. The meditator, with a `no effort’ attitude, is asked to remain in the here and now. Using the focus as an `anchor’ (Teasdale et al., 1995) brings the subject constantly back to the present, avoiding cognitive analysis or fantasy regarding the contents of awareness, and increasing tolerance and relaxation of secondary thought processes." (p. 49)
 * We should probably fix this error soon, since the page at present seems misleading.

So these are my observations/findings. Any thoughts about next steps? Shall I post the Benson and Kabat-Zinn material here on the talkpage for closer scrutiny? Health Researcher (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

adding links, and brief and simple descriptions, of physiologically distinct practices
The section entitled, "Physiologically distinct categories of practice" seems to me like it's really appropriate for this webpage, as it could include traditions from various branches of religious practice, as well as including their scientific studies. I think the average reader of this page would oftentimes be looking for something exactly like this. Do you guys agree?

As it is the section is certainly incomplete and mainly includes two types of proposed categories, concentrative and mindfulness meditation, as well as some similarities amongst all sorts of meditation pointed out by "7 experts" in meditation, the second of which I like as is.

The two types of meditation are not only vastly underscoring the diversity of meditation practices in the world today, but the information seems to be added by HealthResearcher around May 28th, 2010 (as he indicates an intention to do in the Talk section above, Mini-instructions (merely examples) for meditation categories) which, as of now, was nearly a full year ago. Seeing as how this section has largely remained unaltered in over a year and also is vastly incomplete, it seems we might just want to link to other webpages on Wikipedia with more specific types of meditation information and include here a two or three sentence blurb about the meditation style.

That way people would have a short description of the meditation practice along with an internal link to more information about whatever practice they're interested in pursuing. That's what this page seems to me to be: a short introduction to various, diverse meditation styles, designed to be simple and clear so that a beginner could easily access this information, along with links to more detailed information elsewhere on Wikipedia. This page also has the potential of becoming a sort of thematic overview of the various meditation styles practiced around the world today, which would promote tolerance and acceptance of the religious sentiments of others as well as fitting the modern Western mind of empiricism turning inward. makeswell 00:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)


 * Hello Makeswell, thank you for your thoughts about ways to convey the diversity of meditation methods (though May 28, 2010 is less than 4 weeks ago!). I agree with your view that describing only 2 generic methods under-represents the diversity of methods. The puzzle, though, is where to draw the line, so to speak. Previous discussions on this talk page -- such as remarks by Gatoclass HERE -- raise concerns about "opening the door for everyone else to add mention of their particular group, which is obviously not practical." So I think we should be cautious and circumspect, and "look very carefully before we leap" to take on the potentially divisive and potentially highly energy-consumptive task of trying to convey details of multiple methods. An advantage of only trying to convey a sense those two generic methods (concentrative and mindfulness) is that those 2 categories, for better or worse, have long been identified in the meditation scholarly literature (back to the 1970s at least, I think).


 * However, I still sympathize with your impulse to try to convey more information, if it's feasible (a "big if" in my view). With regard to particular methods, you have suggested a potentially useful limiting principle: as a general rule, only attempt to convey a specific method if it is described (and thus found 'notable') elsewhere in Wikipedia. Personally, I think your suggestion of "a two or three sentence blurb" is probably way too long. I'd envision something more like a 2- or 3-column right-floating table, perhaps in small font, in which col 1 is the name of the method (with an internal link), col 2 is the name of the tradition/source (e.g., something like "Roman Catholicism", "Buddhism", "non-Sectarian", "Clinical", etc.), and col 3 could be a very succinct neutral, non-puffed-up description of the method or what is distinctive about it (perhaps with a strict word limit - maybe 15 words?).


 * If feasible, such a table could indeed function as a useful hub of information (giving added value beyond what is now available in Category:Meditation). But is it indeed feasible to create and maintain such a table? It could give rise to divisiveness on issues such as: Which method gets listed first? (perhaps the default could be alphabetical by method name, but with the table sortable by tradition); Should there be a threshhold for the quality of a method's description elsewhere in Wikipedia? (maybe the internally linked page should have existed for at least a month, and satisfy certain criteria, so that we don't deal with a stream of spam); A tougher challenge -- often a deal-breaker in other off-Wiki contexts - is that people might try to barge in by calling anything and everything "meditation" (can we be sure this would be prevented by the requirement that a method be found notable, as meditation/contemplation, elsewhere in Wikipedia? Could criteria from the 7-expert paper, already quoted on the page, be used for default screening?). Finally, perhaps there are other pitfalls I haven't yet thought of. Is the chance of solving these difficulties sufficient to justify the potentially costly experiment of drafting and perhaps including such a table? What do other editors think? -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Copy edit of referenced sentences
I undid some copy edits of referenced sentences. If a sentence is referenced, we have to be very careful as editors. We cannot just change it because we feel (or know) something is better. For instance, if a reference says: various types, we cannot just edit this into: two types and still keep the same reference. Lova Falk    talk   08:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Still an inadequate description
I intended to say this earlier, and I guess I should have, before HR's latest additions. But something that's been bothering me for a long time about this article is the conflation, or lack of distinction, between methods of getting into the state known as meditation, and meditation itself.

I don't pretend to know the rationale behind every practice of meditation, but my understanding of so-called mindfulness meditation is that mindfulness is a technique for getting into meditation, it isn't meditation itself. You aren't supposed to sit there for half an hour just watching your thoughts and sensations go by. That is just a means by which you learn not to identify with, or be distracted by, such phenomena. Once you have ceased to be distracted, then you are able to drop into the state known as meditation, which I would describe as akin to sleep, except that you retain a level of awareness at some level. Gatoclass (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, Gatoclass, the distinction you are making sounds familiar to me (perhaps as a translation of the Patanjali dharana/dhyana distinction, or maybe some other schools' distinctions??). But for building the page, I'd be inclined to accommodate this distinction as part of acknowledging the fact that the term "meditation" gets used in many different ways. For example, although I don't think this is currently addressed on the page, scholars sometimes say that what's translated as "meditation" in Eastern traditions is closer to what's called "contemplation" in Western traditions (see, e.g., p. 161 of Kristeller, 2010). Maybe in the recently created "Definitions" section we should add some material that notes that the word "meditation" is used in diverse ways (even leaving aside differences in actual practices). For example, perhaps we could say that "meditation" often refers to a method of practice, but sometimes also refers to a "state" (your word) that is attained (or in some views gifted by grace) in the midst of a period of practicing the method. Of course, we'd want sources, but I think sources for something along these lines should be comparatively easy to find. Health Researcher (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As a reader, I think this article fails. Period. As a reader, I have been advised not to try to understand meditation by reading this article. That means that the article has failed. I think it is a haphazard collection/collage of subsections, with no coherence, and really needs a "low quality" or "let it be rewritten" flag at the top. It does not define what the topic is, what types of it there are and how they relate or differ from each other. So it needs a serious cleanup anyway, not all this discussion of details. History2007 (talk) 05:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is a haphazard collection/collage of subsections, with no coherence


 * That sort of sounds like most of Wikipedia :)


 * Unfortunately, when you have an "encyclopedia anyone can edit", articles do tend to turn into a mishmash of different viewpoints, often added casually, and lacking in focus and coherence. It tends to be even worse with spiritual subjects, because of the lack of scientific research and difficulty in defining reliable sources. The best articles in my experience are usually authored by one person with clue, or perhaps a small number of competent collaborators. Articles which just "evolve" bit by bit are rarely much good.


 * Maybe someone competent will eventually put up their hand to do a total makeover. Speaking personally, I'm not really motivated enough to give it a try on this topic. In the meantime, I'd be happy to hear any suggestions on improving it H2007. Gatoclass (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First, let us not sell Wikipedia short my friend. Hilbert space (I did not write it) is actually a really well written, and informative article, as are many, many other detailed technical articles. When I first heard of Wikipedia in 2006 I thought it was a joke. It has become less of a joke every year since then and it will eventually become good. So do not give up yet. I think this article needs much work, but eventually it will get there. History2007 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with Health above. The article is a mish-mash of different ideas and pieces about different meditation techniques and traditions and lacks overall coherence.  The idea of a "Definition" section would be helpful, I think. --BwB (talk) 10:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. History2007 (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually Bigweeboy, I must now disagree with myself. Lutz, Dunne and Davidson, page 498-450 provide the very reasonable analogy with the use of the term "sport" to refer to all sports as if they were all essentially the same - that would be difficult. So perhaps a clear definition is as hard as a definition of sport, which is also not provided in Wikipedia, except in very very vague terms. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)