Talk:Meditation/Archive 5

Studying meditation
Meditation can be studied under the three categories: Who/what,how and why. As in: For Christianity the answer would be: Alan347 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Who or what is the object of meditation?
 * How is the meditation carried out? and
 * Why is it done?
 * Jesus Christ
 * Various methods: Biblical mediation, Rosary, Divine Mercy chaplet, other chaplets, spontaneous. Yet always centered in Jesus Christ.
 * Because of love of Jesus Christ and also our own benefit.

Postures in specific traditional religious traditions
It'd be nice if the physical postures section related postures to specific religious and meditative traditions. Right now it contains many phrases of the sort, 'Many religions,' and 'Several of these,' and so on. makeswell (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Avoid video links for references
Fellow editors, is it good that this article on meditation relies in part on citations to videos? Currently, I count 5 footnotes that are cited to youtube (refs # 3, 65, 70, 75, 81), and there is at least one other that is cited to a different website (ref #51). I believe that these were all added in good faith by editors sincerely striving to improve the page. And maybe in some cases they are an asset, at least temporarily. However, I also see problems with any reliance on citations to videos:
 * 1. They cannot be verified in the usual manner used for online textual sources. Attempting to verify a video often involves time-consuming waiting for the video to get to the relevant part. Even on occasions -- none in the present refs -- that min:sec times are provided for the relevant info, verification is still generally a much more painstaking process than when, say, page numbers are given for textual sources. Nor, unless transcripts are provided, can electronic searches be used to hone in on the relevant info. (in a sense, one becomes a captive of the speaker for the duration of the video.)
 * 2. More importantly, few videos are vetted in a scholarly way, and they would not generally seem to be reliable sources for scholarly claims. Even a good scholar or eminent teacher can say something on the spur of the moment in a talk that is misunderstood, is badly phrased, or is correctly interpretible only by the audience in the room. In a textual publication, especially a book or a journal, one expects such errors and parochialisms to be corrected... but who would go back and correct words in a video?? Note that WP:VIDEOREF states that "In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. YouTube and similar sites do not have editorial oversight engaged in scrutinizing content".

My inclination is to discourage, perhaps strongly discourage, the additional use of videos in the present article as citations to support factual claims. And over time, we should move to replace existing video citations with more reliable (WP:RS textual citations. What do others think? Health Researcher (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Problems with recently inserted material
The following material was inserted in good faith by Makeswell into the definitions section:
 * these two are often considered to be identical. That is, meditation is often considered to be a familiarizing with a subjective state and an associated increase in that skill. Meditation is associated with structural and functional changes in the regions of the brain that are utilized by that type of meditation practice. similar to how practicing juggling changes the brain in a way which causes the practitioner to improve their ability to juggle and likewise with extensive practice driving a taxi. Thus, training in compassion meditation, for instance, leads to an increase in felt compassion as well as changing how the brain works in regions associated with emotions and altruism.

I reverted it because I see multiple problems. Before reinserting, please address the following concerns: If Makeswell seeks to address these concerns, I hope that others besides myself and him will weigh in. Thank you. Health Researcher (talk) 06:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Evidence about brain effects is not appropriate for a definitions section
 * Saying "often considered to be identical" requires evidence that a belief is widespread; a single reference to a single CD does not constitute a WP:RS for such a claim.
 * While some of the refs do not appear WP:RS for what they are adduced to support (e.g., CDs - see talk page section above about lack of scholarly vetting of videos - same applies to CDs), others are poorly formed/incomplete (e.g. Begley) and consequently may be difficult to evaluate for their relevance/reliability.
 * In some cases the language is unclear and it is hard to understand what is being said (e.g., "in that skill" - in what skill?).


 * I agree, roughly, with your points. I rewrote the reverted section. The new version is below. I may use it on the page Research on meditation. If you see any other problems, please let me know. Thanks man.
 * Similar to how juggling changes the brain in a way which causes the one to improve at juggling and how taxi drivers have bigger brains in regions known to be associated with spatial navigation,., meditation too is associated with structural and functional changes in the regions of the brain that are exercised by that sort of meditation. So, for instance, training in compassion meditation trains the brain in a way which changes the way it responds to emotional stimuli.
 * Makeswell, I think the above paragraph is clear exposition, and the point it makes about meditation research is, I believe, very correct. Also, please remember that there are nuances to be respected with regard to Wikipedia's demand for no original research (WP:NOR). I wonder, does your phrase "just as" constitute an original claim(synthesys?WP:SYNTH)? I'm not sure... I just wanted to flag the issue for you, so you could double-check, and maybe tweak the paragraph if necessary. Also, I think the last sentence should probably be rephrased to acknowledge that this is something observed in recent studies (e.g., it has not been demonstrated as an invariant universal law). Health Researcher (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I also rewrote the portion below, so let's look at it and see what we think, aye?


 * In Tibetan the word for 'meditation' means something along the lines of familiarization, so it is thought that one accustoms themselves to the state or feeling involved in that practice of meditation.
 * makeswell (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Tibetan meditation is certainly one of the important forms of meditation, so the etymology of the Tibetan word for meditation would seem likely to merit a place in the article (e.g., in the section on Buddhism). I think a more reliable source than a CD is desirable, however. Perhaps you could track one down through Google Book search, or if necessary, through the Wikipedia Village Pump? Health Researcher (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

stockpiling this for future use, "Practitioners understand “meditation,” or mental training, to be a process of familiarization with one's own mental life leading to long-lasting changes in cognition and emotion." - http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16369.full —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.182.98 (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Universal Vibratory Meditation
The paragraph, which is blockquoted below, was previously reverted, as seen here. I'm moving it to this page to discuss.

I'm placing the quote here because I feel like it still has value, the quote is about a meditational practice, yet there is no specific page dealing with Universal Vibratory Meditation or with Her Holiness Swami Jai Sathya, for that matter. The appropriate steps seem to me to be that the person interested in placing this material on Wikipedia, would first need to establish a specific page to discuss and illuminate the topic of Swami Jai Sathya and her meditation practice (which would probably go together in the same page, at first at least, as Swami Jai Sathya. If there is someone interested in doing this, then that would be my recommended course of action, and then after that, to link the created page to Meditation with a more brief summary of the practice itself. Thanks, good luck, and have fun.

Also, the original reversion cited as a reason for the revert that this paragraph has no references. It is very important, if you add information to Wikipedia, to add reference tags, so that your material is not reverted. How to add reference tags can be read about on this page, Citing_sources. All additions are treated equally, and we all appreciate and work towards adding to and improving our website, Wikipedia, so thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

"====Universal Vibratory Meditation==== -	Vibratory Meditation is a unique type of Meditation formulated by Her Holiness Swami Jai Sathya. Swami Jai Sathya chants mantras and makes sounds when generating the Cosmic Vibrations necessary to heal any type of illnesses and to bring peace in the minds of participants. In the initial part of each session, Swami Jai Sathya starts the purification of thoughts. This helps in encouraging the participants to still their minds and to put their focus with in themselves and to the Spiritual forces which has created and move the Earth. The participants are to imagine that their are one with nature. The second part of the session is the injection of the Cosmic Air into the bodies of the participants. For this to be successful, the participants are asked to remove all tight jewelry and belts (anything that may obstruct the movement of air). This type of Meditation can only be executed by Swami Jai Sathya."

p.s. I will contact the original author to let him/her know of this development regarding their work. makeswell (talk) 18:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

quieting the thoughts
Hey guys,

I removed this piece, "This article focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state."

My reasons were that
 * 1) this quote doesn't represent the full spectrum of meditative practices. My source for this is Matthieu Ricard on his album Happiness: A Guide to Life's Most Important Skill CD2 Track 4: "What is meditation?", "... So it's a very fascinating journey, then to know better about your mind and to try to transform it... So meditation is not simply blanking your mind of all thoughts, it's not either just mere relaxation, those are two concepts or understanding of meditation we often hear about. Literally meditation means to cultivate something, that's the Sanskrit root, bhavana, to cultivate, cultivate a new way of being, cultivate some qualities, cultivate compassion. In Tibetan the root word for meditation is something that means more, 'familiariziation', we become more familiar with, again, a new way of being or more familiar with a quality."

and
 * 2) the 'warning' or whatever, with the <---PRECEDING..., is no longer accurate.

My personal belief is that this type of meditation is practiced most often in Shikantaza, a type of Zen meditation. For instance, in The Three Pillars of Zen, a Zen roshi is quoted saying that Zen meditation is about quieting the thoughts, quieting the mind while still remaining aware. I think, but am not sure, this is called Quietism in Zen, and has a long history of support or criticism, depending on who you ask, ya know.

We've had one conversation about this sentence before, I think with HealthResearcher and me, and we basically in the end were like, 'yeah, that probably refers to some sort of meditation, but not all'. I think that this is an important note, and in my life it has been, quite seriously. Quietism is not the same as Mahamudra, yet the confusion is potentially there. I hope this quote from Matthieu Ricard (and also Lama Gursam, see has said to my sangha that Mahamudra is not to keep the mind free from thoughts) clears up this issue, both for myself and other Wikipedians. Thanks!

makeswell (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have reverted (per WP:BRD) the recent removal of material re discursive thought (plus extra, sorry...). Contrary to the implications of those recently edits, I argue that meditation generally or perhaps invariably involves attempts to go beyond discursive thought, and this article should continue to be explicit about this nondiscursiveness. That is, within every major religious tradition, there are systems of practice that help take a person beyond discursive thought (ie, compulsive reliance on discursive thought). These are often called "contemplation" in western tradition and "meditation" in the east. The focus of this page has long been upon such disciplines (in popular culture, these practices are more often called 'meditation -- hence the name of this page).


 * Getting beyond discursive thought has been a very explicit element in some influential definitions of meditation. Consider this: The second page of the first chapter of Shapiro and Walsh's Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives (1984) states the following:
 * Using attentional mechanisms as the basis for the definition, therefore, we may state that meditation refers to a family of techniques which have in common a conscious attempt to focus attention in a nonanalytical way and an attempt not to dwell on discursive, ruminating thought (p. 6, italics in original).


 * This chapter happens to be a reprint of the highly-cited article (91 citations in Google Scholer) where the quote first appeared:


 * A perennial problem with this WP page on meditation is its tendency to lose focus and to encompass anything and everything. I argue that this WP article will benefit by: 1) Retaining its explicit affirmation that meditative systems of practice ("contemplation" in the west, "meditation" in the east) characteristically help a person go beyond (become free from compulsive dwelling) on discursive thought; and 2) explicitly quoting the above definition from Shapiro (1982) within the article -- perhaps by adding it to the table of definitions.


 * What do others think? -- Health Researcher (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're correct that many types of meditation help people to get beyond discursive thoughts.
 * Reducing compulsive dwelling is central to mindfulness-based practices. See, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf6Q0G1iHBI and I've bookmarked a specific place where Philippe introduces the practices. Philippe mentions how MBSR practice reduces the, "negative spinning," which occurs, especially in patients with social phobia, while they are going through an episode. Dwelling, or spinning, is actually a common feature of depression and social phobia.
 * There's also a practice called Shikantaza which means just sitting. So, for instance in The Three Pillars of Zen by Phillip Kapleau a roshi is quoted talking about how we must sit in a state of not thinking so that our Buddha-nature develops naturally. This process is to cut off all discursive thoughts, while remaining aware.
 * The meditation where one stops thoughts is common to the Northern School of Chan, whom Huineng criticized for their method of 'dust-wiping' and is also part of the Samye debates in Tibet, where the Tibetans decided to go with the teachings from India, rather than the Northern School.
 * So, there's certainly a good bit to say about styles which have to do, somehow, with reducing thoughts [speaking very roughly]. In reference to really ruminating thoughts, spinning, it makes good sense that the Shapiro quote would say such a thing. I think that certainly, using, "attentional mechanisms as the basis for definition," one would say such a thing about attentional training resulting in less rumination. The main point which Philippe makes, and he's talking about MBSR, is that attention is used to cultivate an attitude, of which less rumination is a part. This is common to all the mindfulness-based practices that I am aware of, and of course this comes from Buddhist meditational practices based in thousand year old traditions, especially Anapanasati and Insight meditation (though some breath-related practices are common to most all traditions and attention plays a large role in many Buddhist psychological schemas).
 * The point must also be made that there are certain meditational practices which do not lead one to less discursive thoughts. A rather obvious example of this is Analytical meditation, where one thinks about a topic. Examples that The Dalai Lama has given include thinking about impermanence, interdependence, and so on. The preliminary practices in Tibet, Ngondro, include an internal reasoning in order to come to a deep understanding, about topics such as the impermanence of life, the preciousness of human birth and opportunity, and so forth. There's also the Buddhist practices of thinking about the body, or about death, or about a corpse, and so on. I believe there's also a Christian practice of Lectio Divina where people read scripture and think about it.
 * Anyways, I think the Shapiro quote would have a place in this article, perhaps in relation to a more specific meditational practice, such as MBSR. If you have the Shapiro study then perhaps you can get this information. makeswell (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When I get time -- it may be several days -- I'll go ahead and add the Shapiro definition to the article. I think it probably meets the criteria for the table. There's no implication that every element of the table is in 100% agreement with every other element, or with the article as a whole. The point is that the tabled defintions are influential definitions and should be given much more weight (WP:DUE) than definition that have rarely or never been cited. Health Researcher (talk) 07:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * p.s. I think that spinning is different from analytical thought.
 * The point that attentionally-based practices lead to less spinning, less dwelling, is commonly made. Mindfulness is and leads to less rumination.
 * Other meditation practices, such as visualizations, lead to less spinning, perhaps, but no more than say, playing piano, or learning how to paint, lead to less spinning. This is probably a good point, that staying busy leads to less spinning, less rumination, but I think that the point could be made about any activity, and misses the very strong link, perhaps even equivalence, between mindfulness and a mental attitude where spinning is less frequent or not present at all. makeswell (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lastly, the point I was trying to make is that not all meditation practices lead to going, "beyond the reflexive, 'thinking' mind," which could be understood as referring to Mindfulness or to stopping thoughts as mentioned before. Not even all meditation practices lead to less rumination, necessarily. So, since not all practices lead to less discursive thinking, it is not accurate to define meditation in this way, which Matthieu Ricard addressed in the quote I placed above.
 * I would certainly encourage any other efforts to talk about the changes in one's brain resulting from attention-based practices, known collectively as mindfulness, of which less rumination is a part. makeswell (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Definitions section seems OK. Makeswell, the definitions section as written already largely or perhaps entirely allows for the phenomenon of discursive elements of meditative practice systems -- just not as the central element/goal. I don't see a clear need for the section to be changed (if that is what you are still arguing). Even prior to your example of "analytical meditation", we already were dealing with the fact that "meditation" is sometimes applied to the third step of Lection Divina, calleed 'meditatio' -- a practice which does generally imply a certain amount of discursive/reflective thinking. Now, you are pointing out a similar phenomenon: that someone has chosen to apply the word "meditation" to an activity called "analytic meditation". Such uses of the word "meditation" are addressed in the following sentences in the definition section:
 * this article focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state. The terms "meditative practice" and "meditation" are mostly used here in this broad sense. However, usage may vary somewhat by context - readers should be aware that in quotations, or in discussions of particular traditions, more specialized meanings of "meditation" may sometimes be used (with meanings made clear by context whenever possible).
 * If so-called "analytic meditation" had nothing to do with going beyond discursive thought, I would argue that it should be excluded from this page, because this page's mission is not to exhaustively describe everything that someone may seek to advertise with the trendy word meditation. However, it appears that "analytic meditation", like the 'meditatio' step in lectio divina, is a component of a larger set of practices which are ultimately intended to take a person to states beyond ordinary discursive thought. I say this based on a quick google search that unearthed this page HERE which includes such statements as 'When Western translations use the term analytical meditation for "discerning meditation," it gives the impression that this first phase of the meditation, inferential cognition, is the only phase. A state of vipashyana, however...'
 * If we accumulate additional examples of "meditation" being used to refer to the initial steps of such practice systems -- that is, additional examples beyond 1) 'analytical meditation' and 2) lectio divina's 'meditatio' - then perhaps we can create a sentence that better clarifies this variant usage of the word "meditation". But such exceptions do not contradict the fact that the page has evolved to focus on practice systems aimed at ultimately taking people beyond ordinary discursive thought. Health Researcher (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My basic point is that the goal of all types of meditation isn't to achieve what you have called, "going beyond discursive thought". There are many goals of meditation beyond this single one, such as liberation from samsara or improving one's health. The goal of all types of meditation is not only to 'go beyond discursive thought'.

Ruminating thought is a symptom of depression and social phobia. Philippe Goldin has said this of social phobia, here: Cognitive Neuroscience of Mindfulness Meditation and a very clear, good and quick introduction to this, by Mark Williams, is here: Mark Williams talks about Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy and this point has been raised elsewhere, specifically in regards to mindfulness-based practices.

Because mindfulness-based practices involve the regulation and maintenance of one's attention, the singular quote you have provided, "Using attentional mechanisms as the basis for the definition, therefore, we may state that meditation refers to a family of techniques which have in common a conscious attempt to focus attention in a nonanalytical way and an attempt not to dwell on discursive, ruminating thought (p. 6, italics in original)." supports the view that mindfulness-based practices do indeed lead to less dwelling on ruminating thoughts. This does not mean that all types of meditation lead to reduction in rumination. It also doesn't mean that they don't lead to less rumination, but as of yet no source that I have seen or that has been presented on this page has made the claim, or supported the claim, that every single type of meditation practice leads to less rumination and dwelling. makeswell (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, even if it were found that all meditation styles do lead to less ruminating thought, it would remain the case that there are many benefits of meditation in addition to a reduction in rumination. Even for the mindfulness-based practices alone, there are many benefits in addition to a reduction in ruminating thought, such as - an improved immune system, better executive functioning, and a slowing of the aging process of the brain. I see no reason that meditation should be defined in such an arbitrary way. makeswell (talk) 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Makeswell, I think you're getting fixated on particular "trees" and failing to see the bigger picture. Perhaps it would help if you tracked down the Shapiro paper and read it. The Shapiro paper is certainly not claiming that the only purpose of meditation is to overcome discursive thought, although that is the defining feature --- just as one may claim that the defining feature of dining is eating food, even though there are many many good things besides caloric intake that arise from dining together. And the Shapiro definition does not mean 'rumination' in the sense of clinically depressive rumination - it means a type of everyday discursive thought that the meditative traditions claim affects almost everyone. Finally, the Shapiro definition is not an "arbitrary" definition -- you may notice that it has similarities with classical definitions, such as Patanjali's definition of Yoga as the stilling of the thought waves. And a case can be made that when Buddhism speaks of training the mind, one of the high-priority needs for mental training that it identifies is cultivating the ability to refrain from wasteful and compulsive discursive thought (which in many ways is the opposite of mindfulness). I think you're really failing to see the big picture here. Also, please remember that youtube videos, such as the ones you just cited, are not generally vetted in a scholarly way, and for many purposes cannot be regarded as reliable sources (WP:RS). Health Researcher (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Hi, I'm here to offer you a third opinion. Hope this helps. Gigs (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Shapiro, in the referenced book, specifically states that "One of the problems in studying meditation is a lack of a clear definition". He attempt to construct a definition, but ultimately, he bases it on what he views as the intersection of most techniques, and surrounds his working definition with lots of caveats and context.  I don't think this should be taken as a definitive definition, and I suspect Shapiro might object to his definition being treated as more encompassing than he intended.
 * The Shapiro definition is a narrow one: It does not speculate about the eventual goal of the meditation, it only attempts to define the attentional characteristic.
 * Shapiro does consider mindful methods but still fits them in his attentional definition.  I suggest that Makeswell review the Shapiro work at the link I provided above in order to increase the quality of the conversation.
 * In the end, though, Shapiro is just one source. His definition is a personal one, it doesn't carry any real weight other than the extent that other sources agree with it.
 * The more inclusive definitions that are in the lede paragraph currently seem to me to be more appropriate for the lede, but I think Shapiro's attempt at a cross-cutting definition should definitely get some coverage, though probably not in the lede. I don't think it should be given undue weight, since it seems to mostly be Shapiro's opinion.
 * Keep in mind we don't necessarily need to declare certain things to be "meditation" and certain things "not meditation". The concerns about unbounded scope of the article might be addressed by a general standard that the practice must be identified as a form of meditation in third-party reliable sources before it could get coverage here (rather than mere self-identification as meditation).  It's a low bar, but it's not unbounded, and would exclude "marketing buzzwords".
 * Thank you Gigs. These are useful ideas, and I think I agree with everything, or at least almost everything, that you say. I think your observation that we do not need necessarily to declare everything either "meditation" or "not meditation", dichotomously, is good. I suspect that the page will need (actually, already in many ways uses) more types of screens and "bars" than the one you suggest, but your point is very valid. We're not aiming at a dichotomous inclusion/exclusion, but at constructing a portrait of a broad area of practice -- a portrait that should shed some light on how practices are related to each other, and that is regulated non-dichotomously by WP:DUE. Health Researcher (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, in time, we might incorporate Shapiro's definition in the Meditation. I would like to read the Shapiro book(?) when I have more time available. makeswell (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What are we going to do in regards to the sentence found in Meditation,
 * "This article focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state."
 * ? makeswell (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the beginning of the Shapiro study. Shapiro seems to be referring to what Lutz et. al refer to as, "focused attention meditation," in this article, Attention Regulation and Monitoring in Meditation in part because of the mutual emphasis on both attention and effort. You may want to read the article linked here, Health Researcher, and anybody else interested in this change on Meditation. The study by Lutz et. al was published over 40 years after the Shapiro study. I think the role of attention in meditation should be incorporated in the Meditation section, and would be happy to work together with other editors to accomplish this. makeswell (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * On that note, it appears that Meditation refers almost exclusively (sans a sentence or two) to the modern effort in the West to define meditation. So, it seems that the section should be relabeled as 'Western definitions' or just 'Western models'. Also, the numerous self-conscious problems of scientists in defining meditation, and calls from members of the scientific community for more precise definitions, needs to be more plainly connected to the Western typologies section. The difficulties pointed out in defining meditation in the West (described in the first section of Meditation, that is namely, Meditation) are actually referring in large part to the typologies being developed in the Western world (described in the second section of Meditation, namely Meditation). These two sections should be more clearly and explicitly linked together.
 * Also, I feel like the definitions/typologies are valuable, but also seem to be too definitive and conclusive. Perhaps while linking the first and second sections we should also mention that the effort to find connections between historically distinct and spatially separated traditions, taken up by modern Western intellectuals, especially scientists, is very much in the embryonic phases, and self-admittedly so. The definitions should be seen as a sort of guideline, a rough outline, but not a complete and sure picture, like the maps of Columbus had sea monsters and no idea of The Americas as to how today I can see my house from outer space. makeswell (talk) 13:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it's been a good 6 days since the last response about this sentence, I'm gonna go ahead and remove the following sentence from Meditation, "This article focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, 'thinking' mind into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state." There are many reasons for this action, including the two that follow. In the Shapiro study, which was the main (only?) reference for this sort of idea, the following is found in close proximity to the above quote from Shapiro (1982) "Overview: Clinical and physiological comparison of meditation with other self-control strategies, which notes the variety in meditational practices, "“There is a continuum of instructions from very strong to very mild in terms of how to deal with thoughts. For example, Benson instructed students to ignore thoughts, Deikman said to exclude them, and a 5-th century Buddhist treatise said...”" Secondly, the idea that the goal of meditation is to silence the thoughts is not new, as the following paragraph, which I've taken from Talk:Anapansati, and is still relevant, details, "In brief response to the idea that the goal of anapanasati is to, "achieve inner silence," I'd like to say that this point has been raised in several key moments throughout history, notably by proponents of The Northern School, who professed that to sit without thoughts was the goal of Buddhism and equivalent to enlightenment. This position was refuted by Hui-neng, the semi-legendary leader of The Southern School, who was later revered as The Sixth Patriarch by many of the modern schools of Zen as the founder of the lineage. A similar argument occured in Tibet, in an event Tibetans know as the Samye debates, where a member of the Northern School of Ch'an debated with a member of Indic Buddhism, and from these debates the Tibetan tradition sees its origins in Indic Buddhism, the winner of the debates. So, the point has some relevance to anapanasati and Buddhism and so on, but it is a complex point at least. Therefore if it is to be mentioned on this page then it needs to have proper references and all significant sides of the debate as it has occured in Buddhist history. Thanks. makeswell (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)" As I wrote earlier, these are only the two biggest reasons, out of many, for removing this sentence from Meditation. I hope you understand. makeswell (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the discussion of how to change the definitions and scope section, as well as how to incorporate the ideas of attention-training and perhaps also mindfulness, and so forth.... into the current Western typologies section, will, I hope, be continued. I would not be very surprised if I create a new section discussing this very topic on Talk:Meditation. Have a good day. makeswell (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. Hello Makeswell, thanks for your earnest engagement with the topic of the definitions. In the next few minutes, I intend to 1) restore the definitions sentence on "getting beyond the reflexive, thinking mind" that you removed (I am restoring it for various reasons to be explained shortly); 2) modify the restored sentence slightly in ways that hopefully will add clarity; 3) come back to the talk page and offer additional explanations. As a preview: I think you may not be adequately distinguishing between "reflexive thought" (sometimes called discursive thought) and any thought. More shortly. Health Researcher (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing 'discursive'/'logical' thoughts from all thoughts
This is a follow-up to the some of Makeswell's comments, and to my restoration (and then modification) of the sentence that he removed. It is my hope that the quality of our conversation may be improved by recognizing this key distinction used by the definitions. Regards Health Researcher (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, I do not see that there was any clear consensus for removal of the sentence (e.g., I did not see the third opinion as offering a clearcut reason to remove the sentence). Thus, I do not regard Makeswell's removal of the sentence, while a validly bold step (WP:BRD), as having a basis in consensus.
 * Second, I have modified the sentence to say the page "mainly" focuses on modes of meditation that try to get beyond discursive thought (which more explicitly allows wiggle room for exceptions), and added references to the Shapiro definition as well to the much more recent 2009 paper by Bond et al, which to my mind is more or less the state of the art in terms of a scientific/scholarly defnition of meditation in general (as opposed to how the term may be used within particular traditions or contexts). Please note how Bond et al emphasize the suspension of "logical" thinking, a concern very similar to Shapiro's concern with suspending "discursive" thinking.
 * Third, I think it may be useful to emphasize that discursive or logical thinking (sometimes also called analytic thinking) -- the focus of the definitions - is not the only type of human mental activity. That is, saying that meditation attempts to suspend logical aspects of the thinking process does not mean that one is attempting to enter a state of "Nirvikalpa samadhi" (to use Ramakrishna's terms) or to experience a "pure consciousness event" (in the language of the modern scholar Robert K.C. Forman, 1990), or perhaps to immediatly enter one of the highest jhanas (in Buddhism). Refraining from discursive thought does not mean the cessation of all mental images. Rather, it means the lack of pursuing logical processes. As with most topics related to meditation, this has been described different ways in different traditions and by different scholars. But all 7 of the meditation scholars/experts who participated in the Bond et al (2009) project aggreed that this was an essential feature of meditation. And Bond et al is the state of the art. Perhaps the confusion has arisen if some of the editors participating on the current page have misinterpreted these definitions as meaning that all meditation intrinsically involves an attempt to enter an imageless ("mind blank") state of consciousness. No... it is discursive/logical thought that meditative methods seek to suspend. I have added a footnote seeking to make that clearer.


 * This is clearer, but still the point remains that to go beyond 'discursive thoughts' does not apply to every single type of meditation. You, Health Researcher, have pointed this out yourself,
 * "'That is, saying that meditation attempts to suspend logical aspects of the thinking process does not mean that one is attempting to enter a state of 'Nirvikalpa samadhi' (to use Ramakrishna's terms) or to experience a 'pure consciousness event' (in the language of the modern scholar Robert K.C. Forman, 1990), or perhaps to immediatly enter one of the highest jhanas (in Buddhism).'"


 * The Bond article to which you are referring is Defining a Complex Intervention: The Development of Demarcation Criteria for “Meditation”, correct? This article has been cited twice, according to a search on Google Scholar.
 * One of the two articles which cites Bond (2009) contains in the title, "...Mindfulness- And Acceptance-Based Therapies", and the other article contains the words in the first sentence of the abstract, "...mindfulness and meditation." So, both deal with mindfulness-based strategies. So, this is the same point which I made before, that yes, there is a reduction in the rumination and discursive thoughts of those practicing mindfulness meditation, mindfulness strategies, and so on, all of which are categorized as containing an element of reducing the 'logical', or 'discursive', or 'deciding', or 'ruminating', or 'worrying', or 'judgmental' aspect of thoughts.


 * This point has already been made. :/
 * and i quote...
 * "'You're correct that many types of meditation help people to get beyond discursive thoughts. Reducing compulsive dwelling is central to mindfulness-based practices. See, for instance, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf6Q0G1iHBI ...Philippe mentions how MBSR practice reduces the, 'negative spinning,' which occurs, especially in patients with social phobia, while they are going through an episode... makeswell (talk) 20:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)'"


 * The whole section regarding the Bond et. al study needs to be removed. The study has only been cited by 2 other articles!


 * Makeswell, I appreciate your concern with citations. However, the weight that should be carried by a very recent article is not determined by solely its citation count. Please note that the first 6 authors of this paper were also authors on the influential review of meditation research, Ospina, Bond et al (2007), which was already cited briefly in the notes, and which I have added to the bibliography (it is also currently reference #34 at WP's Research on meditation, where it is the subject of most of the section entitled "State of the research"). The Bond et al (2009) paper clearly grew directly out of the state-of-the-art methods developed for the Ospina et al (2007) review. As a researcher looking at the paper, I found that it clearly uses methods that are more sophisticated than any I have seen elsewhere in the literature (e.g., "Delphi" method for attempting to amalgamate diverse expert opinions). Please note also that they did not only rely on "mindfulness" experts -- as already quoted in footnote 60 of the current page, of the 7-member expert panel employed: "Each member had specific expertise and training in at least one of the following meditation practices: kundalini yoga, Transcendental Meditation, relaxation response, mindfulness-based stress reduction, and vipassana meditation". Far from removing the Bond et al and Ospina et al definitional references, we should if anything give them more prominence. Health Researcher (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To illustrate this point, here is another article which has only been cited by 2 other articles, An Exploration of Degree of Meditation Attainment in Relation to Psychic Awareness with Tibetan Buddhists.


 * The point that I've made is that, though a reduction in ruminating, or discursive, or logical thought, may characterize a number practices, particularly mindfulness-based practices, this point is not characteristic of the goals and direction of every single one of the many, many, many, literally hundreds, of types of meditation in the world today. Please respond to this point in particular, please. Thanks Health Researcher, for your respectful words. Much appreciated. Sincerely, makeswell (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "mainly" that I added allows for the possibility of exceptions when appropriate. However, as I stated earlier, I think that real exceptions may be rare and of little notability if they exist at all. That's because practices that may contain a discursive component (such as the 'meditatio' step in "lectio divina" or the Buddhist so-called "analytic meditation" to which you have drawn our attention) are introductory steps in a sequence of practices that are very much indeed aimed - among other things - at reducing discursive/"logical" thoughts. So they could be discussed here, subject to WP:DUE, as long as they are discussed in proper context (or at least not in ways that obscure their context). Furthermore, as I noted in my comment above on this talk page, the Bond Ospina et al criterion of "logic relaxation" was not developed mainly by mindfulness practitioners, but was developed by a panel that included representatives from a diverse range of traditions, including TM and kundalini yoga. Furthermore, the Shapiro definition, was certainly not dominated by mindfulness perspectives, as it was offered at a time (1982) when Mindfulness research was in its infancy and was a much much smaller proportion of meditation research. Based on the best scholarly work (corroborated, FWIW, by my own impressions of a diverse range meditation literature), it seems clear that something akin to "logic relaxation" should indeed be of central importance to defining the scope of this page. Failure to acknowledge this and enact its implications would be a disservice to Wikipedia. What else can I do (in the regretfully limited time I have) to help make this conversation progress? Let's try not to keep repeating the same issues over and over again. Health Researcher (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * p.s. Do you have the full .pdf for Bond et al (2009)? I could only find the abstract. Thanks, man. makeswell (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For privacy reasons I do not share my email, so I do not know how I could get a pdf to you. I suggest going by a library, or getting a friend who has an institutional link or subscription to send it to you. You can see the relevant table, however, from where a key quotation is drawn, in the highly influential report by Ospina, Bond et al, 2009, which I've added to the Bibliography and worked into the notes. Health Researcher (talk) 17:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

a golden nugget
I found this while panning in the river Google Scholar. It is cited by 415 other articles. It was published in 2004. By the way, Shapiro is one of the co-creators. Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition.

After you read it then we shall return with the crystal dagger of wisdom and entirely full mana reserves to slay the beast of confusion and despair which dwells in the land of Meditation.

! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

makeswell (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on Makeswell's comment here on my talk page, I think he would like me to comment about the paper he has linked in his previous comment above (Bishop, Lau, Shapiro, et al, 2004, "Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition"). I see that the paper is already cited in Wikipedia in the article on "Mindfulness (psychology)", which seems very appropriate. Bishop et al don't seem to be offering a general definition of meditation, so I don't see the paper as directly relevant to the overall definitions section of the current page. But perhaps it is relevant to this articles subsections (e.g., Buddhist meditation; secular meditation) that mention mindfulness (though I see that both of those two sections I mentioned already link the "Mindfulness (psychology)" page). Also, a minor point, FWIW: note that the coauthor on the Bishop paper is Shauna Shapiro, whereas the author of the 1982 paper we were discussing earlier is Deane Shapiro. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Qigong and Tai chi chuan
I think that this page would be improved by the addition of a section on Traditional Chinese medicine covering Tai chi chuan and Qigong. makeswell (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Community input needed--> A Proposal to more explicitly tie together the two subsections of Meditation.
I'm proposing a new change to this page, specifically in the section Modern definitions and Western models.

I have seen several new scientific studies pointing out a lack of rigor in defining meditation, in numerous studies. Largely as a result of this, new typologies have been proposed.

For example, in Meditation and the Neuroscience of Consciousness: An Introduction Lutz et. al note, "the need for a more precise understanding of meditation as a scientific explanandum," and especially they argue, "for the importance of distinguishing the particularities of various traditions."

The article then goes on to describe the 'shamatha/vipassana' explanandum of meditation, borrowed from the Buddhist tradition, as a possible solution to this problem.

Perhaps this new call by scientists to scientists is largely a modern development. Perhaps this call is point of view, but I think that it is more likely a response to the heretofore lack of consistent and clear definitions. I think that this is the case because I have never encountered anything which said that defining all of the types of meditation in the same way is a valid construct, but there are numerous articles which say that it is not accurate to speak of meditation in this way.

It seems to me that the first half of Meditation, namely Meditation, discusses how there have been problems in clearly defining meditation by referencing numerous members of the scientific community.

For example in Meditation we find the sentence, "Taylor...noted that to refer only to meditation from a particular faith... "is not enough, since the cultural traditions from which a particular kind of meditation comes are quite different and even within a single tradition differ in complex ways. The specific name of a school of thought or a teacher or the title of a specific text is often quite important for identifying a particular type of meditation."

A study by Lutz et. al echoes this observation, "The term ‘meditation’ refers to a broad variety of practices, ranging from techniques designed to promote relaxation to exercises performed with a more far-reaching goal such as a heightened sense of well-being. It is thus essential to be specific about the type of meditation practice under investigation. Failure to make such distinctions would be akin to the use of the word “sport” to refer to all sports as if they were essentially the same. For example, the overly generic description of meditation as a mere relaxation technique becomes extremely problematic when one attends to the details of many practices."

Then, in the second half of Meditation, namely Meditation, we read of the several proposed typologies, or explanandums, or categories, of meditational styles. Focused attention meditation and mindfulness meditation are mentioned, as well as a study by Bond et. al named, Defining a Complex Intervention: The Development of Demarcation Criteria for “Meditation”.

The observation I would like to make is that these two sections are not explicitly linked.

So, there is a mention of ambiguities in defining meditation, and of a clear need to attend to the specifics of the many styles of meditation, as in how all sports have particular characteristics, and then there is a discussion of the typologies of meditation, definitions of meditation, to which those calls for rigorous definitions have been referring, and these two parts are not explicitly linked together.

For example, the chart contains the phrases, "is the single invariant ingredient in... every meditation system," and, "We define meditation...," and so on, to which the sports metaphor is directly referring to.

I propose that we link the two sections of Mediation#Modern definitions and Western models. I also feel that we must clearly explicate how the definitions shown in the chart are proposals, and that at least one point of view, though perhaps the majority position at this later date, is that these proposed typologies are neither comprehensive nor are they always clear and well-constructed.

makeswell (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In response to community input, although I have been absent from this meditation community for a while, let me offer apologies first, then frankly express my condolences to the readers. I think the article's quality has been dropping rapidly, and poor HealthResearcher has been doing his best to save a sinking ship in the face of video additions, etc. The lead now no longer says that meditation is not scientifically understood and the whole article is beginning to tilt toward an infomercial. But I am doing other things now, so can not elaborate. But do count me among the disappointed, and opposed to further major changes. History2007 (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, in many sections of the article, such as Buddhism and Postures, I have not been up to the task of trying to maintain any quality control -- it's beyond my limited time and energy, too (lately, I've been concentrating on the definitions section). Health Researcher (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep responses on topic. Please also keep them brief and policy-based, to encourage community engagement. makeswell (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I read "brief"? Well... History2007 (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, History2007, other than vaguely in the title, Makeswell only actually made a proposal of any kind in his thirteenth (and last) paragraph! Health Researcher (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions: [substantive response] : Makeswell, in the first paragraph of the definitions section, we already quote Naranjo (1971) and Bond et al (2009) on the "intractable"/"intractability" of defining meditation. What clearer statement do you want of the need to regard all current definitions as provisional? If implications of an idea are obvious to 99% of readers and only need to be spelled out in detail - spoon-fed, as it were - to 1% of readers, perhaps the spoon-feeding is best done in a footnote. If you think the provisionality of definitions needs needs further clarification, please briefly propose specific text here on the talk page. Health Researcher (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Typologies [substantive response] : With regard to the provisionality of meditative typologies, I think we should again be careful avoid cluttering the section with overkill. Readers have been told that the task of definitions is "intractable", and most will therefore likely be well-prepared for a similar lack of conclusiveness with regard to typologies. If the page explains that several different typologies have been offered, most readers will, I strongly suspect, get the idea pretty quickly if not instantly. Still, if a quote can be found from a reliable source (e.g., a scholar) stating that typologies should all be taken provisionally, perhaps its inclusion could further strengthen the page. But your two quotes from the Lutz publications don't really seem to address typologies (they are more focused on definitions). If you have any specific changes to propose to the typologies section to address this issue, please propose specific text here on the talk page. Health Researcher (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that the sentences in the chart, such as,

"'We define meditation... as a stylized mental technique... repetitively practiced for the purpose of attaining a subjective experience that is frequently described as very restful, silent, and of heightened alertness, often characterized as blissful'"
 * are exactly what other researchers are referring to as imprecise and inaccurate, such as in the Lutz et. al study, which says, again,

"'The term ‘meditation’ refers to a broad variety of practices, ranging from techniques designed to promote relaxation to exercises performed with a more far-reaching goal such as a heightened sense of well-being. It is thus essential to be specific about the type of meditation practice under investigation. Failure to make such distinctions would be akin to the use of the word “sport” to refer to all sports as if they were essentially the same. For example, the overly generic description of meditation as a mere relaxation technique becomes extremely problematic when one attends to the details of many practices.'"
 * So, I am proposing that the section be rewritten in order to refer directly to these quotes which attempt to define meditation. There is a disconnect between the chart and the information which follows.


 * There's simply no way to include, in a NPOV way, the definitions given in the chart with the material that follows, unless they are given as an example of precisely that which scientists are referring to when they write about definitions of, or ways of looking at, meditation, that are imprecise and thus largely inaccurate, as in several studies, including the Lutz. et al study quoted above, and the AHRQ review, Meditation Practices for Health: State of the Research quoted below,

"The field of research on meditation practices and their therapeutic applications is beset with uncertainty. The therapeutic effects of meditation practices cannot be established based on the current literature. Further research needs to be directed toward the ways in which meditation may be defined, with specific attention paid to the kinds of definitions that are created. A clear conceptual definition of meditation is required and operational definitions should be developed. The lack of high-quality evidence highlights the need for greater care in choosing and describing the interventions, controls, populations, and outcomes under study so that research results may be compared and the effects of meditation practices estimated with greater reliability and validity. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. It is imperative that future studies on meditation practices be rigorous in the design, execution, analysis, and reporting of the results."
 * makeswell (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Meditation/ Vipassana at Dhammgiri Igatpuri by Vipassana Acharya Satyanarayan Goinkaji
Vipassana Meditation, as taught by S.N.Goenka and his assistant teachers in the tradition of Sayagyi U Ba Khin. Pradip.vinkare (talk) 11:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are suggesting that this page needs a mention of the Vipassana movement, then I agree. makeswell (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Excuse me guys, but is there a "verbosity Olympics" going on here and no one told us? But jokes aside, Pradip.vinkare please try to build a page for it on its own, to see if it survives, and has WP:Reliable references, then if that page flies, can summarize it here if appropriate and non-commercial . History2007 (talk) 14:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pradip, please read and follow WP:TALK. Note it says "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article." We shouldn't have to be guessing why you inserted that enormous amount of material -- you should have made it clear (BTW, I see that S. N. Goenka and Vipassanā already have WP pages). And please also beware of what WP:TALK recommends about length of contributions. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 17:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro
Makeswell made a large number of changes to the lead section in his edit HERE(diff) from two days ago. They could not be undone because of intermediate edits, but I have restored much of the original material per WP:BRD. Please discuss, justify those proposed changes, if you still wish to do them. Thanks. Health Researcher (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I support Health Researcher's edit. History2007 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Me also Alan347 (talk) 08:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1
this part, "Meditation is generally an internal, personal practice and most often done without any external involvement, except perhaps prayer beads to count prayers. Meditation often involves invoking or cultivating a feeling or internal state, such as compassion, or attending to a specific focal point." is equally well-captured by the phrase, "'meditation is self-induced'"


 * Response to point #1. I disagree. The proposed "Self-induced" is ambiguous. Original also explicitly clarifies relation with beads, which is a desirable clarification because beads are widespread historically and cross-culturally. Health Researcher (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC


 * By the way, why are compassion, and attending to a specific focal point linked to Buddhist items? If this is a general lede and discusses Jewish to Muslim methods, why link to Buddhist items only in the lede? History2007 (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, History2007, I like your change, the removal of the links. Now that I think about it, I agree that what they offered in terms of information, the links more than sacrificed in terms of universalism and inter-cultural self-restraint (which is needed in a page like this where so many traditions intersect). Health Researcher (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase 'external involvement' seems to miss the type of meditation including prayer, because it implies that one does not interact with the outside world. I think that the original idea was simply to write that there is little external aid. Perhaps then we should change it to, "...and most frequently done independent of external aid," or, "independent of interactions with the world outside oneself."
 * The second sentence rephrases the first sentence of the lede, "Meditation refers to... in which the practitioner trains his or her mind or self-induces a mode of consciousness..."
 * I think it's redundant.


 * Another point is that there seems to be two ideas here. One is that meditation is a manipulation of his internal situation by the practitioner, and the other, that this manipulation is done repeatedly over time, as part of 'training' and 'cultivation', in order to benefit. Perhaps these two related yet distinct ideas might make up two sentences that define meditation, or one that links both together. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Changing "external involvement" to "external aid" sounds OK to me. The sentence Makeswell calls "redundant" introduces important new elaboration (e.g., compassion, focal point), helping with a stepwise introduction of the topic, and should be kept. Health Researcher (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, for now..... !!!!!!
 * You have not heard the last of me. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!! makeswell (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

2
this part, "The term can refer to the state itself, as well as to practices or techniques employed to cultivate the state." is not extraordinarily significant and is already a part of the page in the Meditation section.


 * Response to point #2. I disagree. This distinction is indeed very important. Clarifying this dual usage of the word "meditation" could prevent a lot of confusion. A common phenomenon observed both east and west, in many (or perhaps most?) systems of meditation is that as they continue practicing over time, people enter dry spells. In dry spells, they are doing the "work" of meditation (ie applying the method), but don't feel that they are experiencing any elevated state. Other methods (e.g., some approaches to bhakti yoga) place greater emphasis on experiences. I'll stop there to stay brief. Health Researcher (talk) 18:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Please do go on. Personally, in my limited experiences, I have never heard of this sort of 'common phenonmenon'. Does this refer to a single type of meditation, or to a single lineage?
 * The reference for that sentence, http://www.santosha.com/moksha/meditation1.html, seems to point to a need for numerous prepatory exercises done for the purpose of reaching 'samadhi' or the absorption state. The page also mentions how meditation changes in levels, from a beginning to an advanced stage of meditation.
 * I simply have never heard of 'dry spells' in my five year long practice, nor do I see any mention of them in this reference for the sentence we have discussed. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon re-reading the sentence, it seems that what is being referred to are the preparatory techniques. Indeed, this is common, for instance in Christianity a period of fasting and moral restraint are seen as necessary to make one pure for God's grace and the experience of Hesychia. Likewise, in Tibetan Buddhism, Ngondro is traditionally completed before one is given the esoteric teachings in Mahamudra or Dzogchen. In the reference for that sentence, Yoga and other techniques are seen as necessary to prepare one for samadhi.
 * Most likely the sentence needs to be reworded in order to clarify this. It seems wiser that we phrase it like,

"In numerous traditions, hopefuls are known to participate in activities designed to prepare them for meditation."
 * After all, it still seems that this idea is hardly important enough to be included in the lede. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Makeswell, I suspect you could find ample documentation about dry spells of all sizes, if you spend time looking. We cite Goleman (1988), who mentions "Though my intellect was delighted by the system underlying the practices, I found myself becoming dry and resistant to the meditation itself." (pp. xvi-xv). Or check out WP's page on Spiritual dryness. Long-lasting, severe, and dramatic dry/negative spells are often involved in the Dark Night of the Soul. You could check out Underhill's classic text Mysticism (1911), available various places online, which discusses such Dark Nights and indexes "aridity". She discusses different was that such "dark nights" can manifest, depending on temperment. For example, "Progress in contemplation is marked by... an alternation of light and shade... between 'consolation' and 'aridity'.... in selves of extreme nervous instability, each joyous ecstasy entails a painful or negative ecstasy. The states of darkness and illumination coexist over a long period..." (p. 383 in some editions). In a famous verse of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna laments that trying to train his mind is like trying to tame the wind. For the present WP page, what's important is simply that people may put in the work of adhering as best they can to their meditative practices - such as trying concentrating their mind on a particular focus - but not feel like they are experiencing an elevated state. Therefore it's helpful to explain that "meditation" is sometimes used to refer to the experience, and sometimes to the practices. Health Researcher (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

True. Would you clarify this on the page Meditation? makeswell (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

3
this part, I feel very strongly that it would confuse an reader who has just heard what the word 'meditation' means, for their first time. "There are hundreds of specific types of meditation. The word, 'meditation,' means many things dependent upon the context of its use." a better place to discuss this, as is already the case, is in the etymology or definitions and scope sections.


 * Response to point #3. I am fairly strongly inclined to disagree, but would appreciate 3rd, 4th, etc. opinions. Emphasizing only one method is highly appropriate for a meditation teacher who is teaching how to meditate. But that's not WP's goal, and most readers will already know that there are many different methods of meditation (ever since the Beatles did TM...). At your initial suggestion, we're already incorporating the word "family" (as in "family of practices") into the opening sentence. This just makes it clearer what that means, without (in my opinion) adding significant additional burden to the reader's understanding. What do others think? Health Researcher (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is necessary to say that the word meditation is like the word "art" - easy to recognize, but means whatever you like. But a more serious issue is: why on earth is the reference for this a youtube item? Is that a WP:Reliable video? This is just getting to be a comedy here, with youtube link coming in and making the whole thing like an infomercial. Health Researcher, although I agree with you on your point, do you have a non youtube, non-infomercial link we can use here? This lede is rapidly delving to the depth of shallow banality with all these youtube informecials. History2007 (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * History2007, that's a great question about references. Yes, let's replace youtube with something more reliable. I suspect that scholars have never tried to count or even exhaustively list the types of meditation (partly there's the issue of whether small changes make a method "different"). But I think that we can find reliable sources to establish that there are dozens. For example, Goleman (1988), already cited in REFERENCE 16 and in the Table, lists (and describes in detail!) 11 types, which I'd feel comfortable citing to support a claim of "dozens". Another compendium is Jonathan Shear (1988), currently REFERENCE 17, which describes 9 types (including some not listed by Goleman). I'd vote to scrap the You-Tube reference and cite those two to state there are "dozens". Health Researcher (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dozens <<<<<<<<< hundreds. Too small -> misleading readers to think that there are only dozens, not the truly hundreds. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could say "dozens or more", or something along those lines. But in the absence of scholarship that actually counts them, how can we say within WP that there are hundreds? Can anyone point me to a list of 100s of kinds? (e.g., not just somebody's confident hand-waving in a video, but an actual list?)? Health Researcher (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

4
this part, was essentially kept the same, and slightly less confusing in regards to the first sentence, which is just vague at best, "People practice meditation for many reasons, within the context of their social environment. Meditation is a component of many religions, and has been practiced since antiquity, particularly by monastics." and was rewritten as, "Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of various religious traditions. Meditation is often associated with eremetic and monastic lifestyles." and sounds better. :)
 * Response to point #4. I have some specific concerns: The proposed revision de-historicizes the link between monasticism and meditation. Outside of the modern West, meditation has often been predominantly monastic. But in modern America, most meditation is done by householders (laity). Thus the revision's claim that "meditation is often associated with eremetic and monastic lifestyles" is misleading for modern West (or at least US). The original was better at conveying these nuances (or at least not mangling them). Also, the word "eremetic" seems too obscure in this context (many people wouldn't understand it). Although it might be improved, I don't favor changes that make the passage worse. Health Researcher (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree.
 * The first sentence is vague though. It's like saying, 'people do alot of things on their days off," on a page about vacations.
 * I think we might link the whole... hermit lifestlye, somehow. Good point about 'eremetic'.


 * I think it's enough simply to mention the monastic connection, which largely if not entirely subsumes hermits as a subtype ("in Christian tradition the eremitic life[2] is an early form of monastic living" from WP article on Hermit). Even if the Hermit category is not entirely subsumed by the Monastic category, the lede doesn't need to make the distinction, and is better off shorter. Plus, hermits don't like to reside in prominent places, and the lede is a prominent place. Health Researcher (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

5
the edit shown here, is more detailed in that it refers to the studies done, rather than just general 'is of interest'

and also

mentions Neuroplasticity which is a big deal in the science of meditation, and how it has changed the thinking of the scientific community in a dramatic way as a result of new studies. the old idea was that the brain was largely unchanged after a certain age, around 2 or 3 years. so it's a significant point.

then also, it is not okay that this page says that 'the results of those studies are unclear' because that would be like saying that 'the results of experiments done on the gravitational force in physics are unclear despite a large number (think Newton and Einstein) of things that have indeed been discovered regarding the gravitational force, or any other matter in science.

the fact of the matter is that there is a large amount of information out there which scientists have discovered about meditation and which is valid, so despite the fact that not every single one of the details has been disovered, there is still some clarity to the picture of the effect of meditating on the brain.

I think that when we include the fact that research has been done, without a discussion about the claims of that research, in the lede, that we are discussing the import of the article itself well enough, in addition to saying something that is credible/clear.

also, the word 'unclear' gives the impression to an uninitiated that scientists have found out nothing about meditation, it almost sounds like there is no clear evidence about the positive transformative role of meditation practice on the structure and the function of the human brain.

makeswell (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If those were "brief reasons" I wonder what the long version looks like. But there were clear references which stated that the underlying mechanism remains unclear and some of those references were removed. It is clear that there is no clear explanation of the underlying mechanism, so clearly we must say it is unclear. History2007 (talk) 18:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Clear' is a weasel word.
 * Here was the reference I believe you were referring to, which was removed, and had been used, see, to support the claim that the underlying mechanisms of meditation are unclear, ref name="George S. Everly pages 201-202">A clinical guide to the treatment of human stress response by George S. Everly, Jeffrey M. Lating 2002 ISBN 0306466201 pages 201-202</ref


 * For now, I have replaced the current sentence in the lede, which says that the underlying mechanisms of meditation are unknown, with another sentence. I realize that someone may have an issue with this, but also think that this was not the original version of the lede, and that the new word 'unknown' is simply false. Please do not simply revert this change. I will give reasons supporting the claim that the underlying mechanisms of how meditation works are not 'unknown' if asked on this Talk page. In addition, the claim that the underlying mechanisms of how meditation works are 'unclear' is a weasel word, and therefore there is no way to prove or disprove that claim. The word is 'unclear' is imprecise. The word 'unknown' is easily disprovable. Consistent with WP:Expressions that lack precision I feel that we should remove this sentence, and perhaps to then replace it with the sentence which I have made, and which I originally did replace it with before the revert occurred.


 * P.S. Another reason for my removal of the sentence that used the word 'unknown' was that the references which I had provided to support the claim that research had been done, but not to say what the results of that research were, were used to support a different claim, which they did not in actuality support. makeswell (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, your statement is 100% wrong. Many places in Wikipedia say that various items or concepts are unknown or unclear. I added that back with 2 references and the quote is an EXACT quote from the source that says it remains unclear. There are many people who study unusual phenomena but scientifically their underlying causes remain unclear. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to point #5. I think we should punt! . (See revised response below. -H.R.) Why do we have anything about research in the lede at all, when there's almost nothing about scientific research on meditation in the article? The answer, I suppose, is that we feel that meditation research has enough prominence that we should say something about research in the lede (thereby clarifying that in part the article is about a topic that has been scientifically studied as reported in the media). If that's the only reason to mention scientific research, I suggest that we wholly avoid the issue of mechanisms, and say something simple like: "Since the 1960s, meditation as been the focus of increasing scientific research (see separate article){cite to a review, such as Murphy}". Health Researcher (talk) 19:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OOPS, apologies! - see retraction below! I overlooked the Meditation section. Health Researcher (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Either say nothing, or say there is no known mechanism. Saying there is research but not summarizing it is like letting people smell food, then go hungry. So I think it is an all or nothing game really. History2007 (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the state of the WP article on Research on meditation. But in my opinion saying only that the "exact mechanism" of meditation is not known is a misleading statement. First, it begs the question of mechanism with regard to which effect? Perhaps more important, it is secondary to the question of what are the effects? And summarizing that can be hard. If the Research on meditation page has a good summary, perhaps we could borrow it. Unfortunately, I regard the sentence about "exact mechanisms" from Everly & Lating, 2002, HERE, p. 201 as being liable to being interpreted out of context. If you continue reading, you see that Everly & Lating on page 202 describe a whole list of mechanisms for which there is some support. I suspect that one could also validly claim that the "exact mechanism of physical exercise" is not known - and used out of context, that phrase would be misleading. Bottom line: Right now, the research is a negligible part of the page content, so let's give it real estate in the lede that is at most minimal, and not misleading. Health Researcher (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at the state of the WP article on Research on meditation. But in my opinion saying only that the "exact mechanism" of meditation is not known is a misleading statement. First, it begs the question of mechanism with regard to which effect? Perhaps more important, it is secondary to the question of what are the effects? And summarizing that can be hard. If the Research on meditation page has a good summary, perhaps we could borrow it. Unfortunately, I regard the sentence about "exact mechanisms" from Everly & Lating, 2002, HERE, p. 201 as being liable to being interpreted out of context. If you continue reading, you see that Everly & Lating on page 202 describe a whole list of mechanisms for which there is some support. I suspect that one could also validly claim that the "exact mechanism of physical exercise" is not known - and used out of context, that phrase would be misleading. Bottom line: Right now, the research is a negligible part of the page content, so let's give it real estate in the lede that is at most minimal, and not misleading. Health Researcher (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revised response to point #5. Gear the lede to the body! My apologies, somehow in my previous remarks I overlooked the section on Meditation. Since that section exists, the lede should I think quite appropriately briefly summarize main ideas of that section. I think the current lede places too much emphasis on the brain, and too much emphasis on the part of the "glass" that is empty. Here's draft alternate text (which also borrows a tiny bit from the history section):
 * "Since the 1960s, meditation as been the focus of increasing scientific research, of uneven rigor and quality. In over 1000 published research studies, various methods of meditation have been linked to changes in metabolism, blood pressure, brain chemistry, and other bodily processes, and meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction." ((with appropriate references to be included, and perhaps a clarifying footnote to explicate "uneven quality")).

Comment: Based on my own familiarity with the meditation research, independently of the current section, I also think the sentence above is an adequate summary of the history of scientific research on meditation -- even though it omits some fascinating and important but very recent topics that I personally like alot, such as attention span. Health Researcher (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems too long for the lede.... History2007 (talk) 03:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Shorten "changes in metabolism, blood pressure, brain chemistry, and other bodily processes" to "changes in the human body"
 * change "various methods of meditation" to "numerous methods of meditation" which implies various and also implies more than one, more directly
 * more directly link "meditation has been used in clinical seetings as a method os stress and pain reduction" to Mindfulness (psychology), perhaps just by an internal link.
 * I particularly like the date. typo in word "as" in first sentence. the word "increasing" could have any of several meanings. the way you put "of uneven rigor and quality" seems like a good way to write something about a tricky subject. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * p.s. I agree that there was too much emphasis on the brain in the first version.
 * I would like to include the idea of Neuroplasticity, perhaps, and there is actually a section on Neuroplasticity about meditation, as seen here, Neuroplasticity. The idea of neuroplasticity seems important to the field of science, thought perhaps this would best be kept for the article Research on meditation. makeswell (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Too long? The proposed (inset above) was 58 words, and the current is 51 words. Going from 51 to 58 suddenly raises length issues? With regard to neuroplasticity, let's keep the cart before the horse. There's very little in the current article body about neuroplasticity. The small section at Neuroplasticity only says that meditation-produced activation changes "may be caused" by neuroplasticity. WP and a WP lede are not forums for anticipatory hype - see WP:DUE and WP:LEDE. Health Researcher (talk) 22:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)