Talk:Meditation/Archive 9

Ethnocentric propaganda vs Facts
As the article Dhyana mentioned, the "meditation" in the Vedanta was in fact a mere and vague citation to contemplation, not the modern meditation we know today(a mental exercise of focusing on a single object ). The meditation we know today was invented by Taoists, not Hindus.

We know that Indians and "Aryan nationalists" like to say that they created everything and that their culture has existed for millions of years, but Wikipedia was supposed to be a neutral place, not another platform for chauvinistic propaganda. Barbar03 (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We take no "side", certainly not nationalism of any kind. However, Dhyana was not the whole story; Dhāraṇā, concentration or concentrative meditation, was also involved, and of course Samadhi was there as a further state.


 * Equally importantly, Wikipedia is based on the evidence of reliable sources, not what editors "know". Articles must be entirely evidence-based. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitions
With these two edits, the carefully crafted "Definitions" section was moved downwards, and renamed "Historiography." Apart from the renaming, to have In the West, meditation techniques have sometimes been thought of in two broad categories: focused (or concentrative) meditation and open monitoring (or mindfulness) meditation. as an intriduction to what meditation is, is a (misleading) simplification. The definitions-section gives a carefully balanced introduction, with a series of definitions which make clear that meditation is about consciousness- c.q. awareness-training; classifications like focus- versus monitioring techniques have their place within this description, and should not be the starter of the article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That looks good to me. Thanks for improving the page. I'm not sure about "historiography" though. Wouldn't "definition" still suffice? I'm proposing changing the title of the section to "definition" or "classification." Historiography is a fairly arcane term, at least to me. Before your edit, the distinction between "dictionary" and "scholarly" definitions was unhelpful. Specifically because WP:DICTIONARY. This page should not be an exhaustive look at the word "meditation" in all it's lexicographic manifestations, but an attempt to give a encyclopedic explanation for the practice of meditation.DolyaIskrina (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for your response. I've already changed "Historiography" back to "Definitions," since the term "Historiography" seemed inapt to me. Regarding the dictionary definitions: dictionary definitions are often not the best, is my experience. Yet, in this case, they give a good intro, because they introduce the original western meaning of meditation, namely "think[ing] deeply about (something)", as well as the limited understanding of meditation as being a concentration-exercise. This forms a contrast with the scholarly definitions, which are broader, and yet, in a sense, also more precise, despite the fact that scholars are struggling to define what "meditation" is. So, it seems to me that the dictionary definitions give a nice intro to broadening the reader's understanding of what "meditation" is. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Removed from lead and parked here
However, this "meditation" briefly mentioned by the Hindus was actually a mere contemplation; the first description of meditation the way we know today (an exercise in concentration on a single object) was invented by Taoists in 700 B.C.

This statement is not sourced in the article at all as far as I can tell. It is also inaccurate.

"...Briefly mentioned by Hindus": This doesn't mean anything. Forms of meditation might have been used in Hinduism but briefly mentioned by whom where. "...this meditation" doesn't mean anything since there are multiple kinds/forms of meditation; this stament does not reference a specific form of meditation. "...was invented by Taoists in 700 B.C." Unsourced anywhere in the article as it turns out. Meditation forms where not really invented but often based on teaching/ writing/ philosophies.

Because this content was removed then returned I am posting it here so as not to edit war but it is poorly written and unsourced anywhere in the article body nor does this content summarize anything in the article body, so in any other instance I'd have just removed it.

As an aside this article is packed with MEDRS noncompliant sources. Littleolive oil (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comment. Unsourced or inappropriately sourced content (MEDRS noncompliant sources) should be removed. JimRenge (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree they have to be removed. However, I am not the person to do the job given I have a long history with a specific meditation technique and my input here might be seen as conflicted in terms of other techniques. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I looked at WP:MEDRS and it's unclear how much of the article it should cover. It seems clear to me that the "Research" section as well as the "Clinical applications" section should be covered, but how about the rest? For example, the section breaking down techniques by religion and the history section would appear to be more of religious studies topics than medical ones. Would be great if you could help clarify. Then I would be happy to help remove non-compliant sources and shorten the article. (It appears another user has already trimmed the research section quite a bit, though.) Gazelle55 (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that WP:MEDRS applies for research into the effects of meditation. As for the history, or the meaning within various religious traditions, WP:RS suffices. I have also re-inserted the more exact info on Bond et al's (2009) study; it's really good and exact. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  05:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, thanks! Hope to get to that soon. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Better definition?
Please can I suggest "Meditation is a practice in which an individual operates their conscious mind in a way that is different from that used in normal day to day life. " as this includes many other practices widely considered as meditation, e.g. 'no thought' and single point concentration practices.JCJC777 (talk) 18.07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)


 * The concentration of mind on an impulse without any divergence is called meditation Aakash8474 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Any WP:SOURCES for that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Change lead sentence towards exercise/cite-link...
Change from:

Change to (1):

Change to (2): Meditation, as a concept in self knowledge, is one's own attitude toward continuous mediation in life. (Wiktionaryen.wiktionary.org...mediate borrowed from Late Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare (“to divide in the middle”) (in Medieval Latin, also “to be in the middle, be or become between)

Arnlodg (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The WP:ONUS is upon you to show that that's a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * @Tgeorgescu: ONUSLY then, if meditation is introduced as a concept and reliably sourced, primarily, in mediation, google-mediation synonym (third party): the article's lead premise changes but would continue with the existing lead...the word 'technique' seems, more, to be the non-sourced issue, thank you.Arnlodg (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Arnlodg stop this disruptive editing. You keep placing these improperly sourced requests for changes to the lede on multiple articles, noneofyour changes are ever accepted.  I'm going to request your indefinate ban be reinstated if you don't stop now.-Snowded TALK 18:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Unclear text, unclear and useless slurce, unclear explanation. In one word: no. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Both these definitions are inadequate to the point of being not merely useless, but misleading. Meditation is essentially a practice aimed at stilling the mind, not "training attention and awareness", and its object is not to achieve an "emotionally calm and stable state". The object is to obtain detachment from the mind and emotions, which is what is said to lead to inner peace, it's not about trying to impose emotional calmness on oneself, that is just another form of egoic striving. The major problem with this lead is that it feeds into Western misconceptions that meditation is a kind of doing, implied by the word "training". Meditation is learning not to do, but just to be, neither trying to escape from or hang on to or achieve any particular state. The lead of this article is chronically misleading and just never seems to improve no matter how many times it is adjusted. Gatoclass (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I generally agree; I now would rephrase the the lead sentence to: Meditation, as a concept, is one's own attitude toward continuous mediation in life.Arnlodg (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

CRITICISM
Dear editors of this lovely page. Do you not find it unsettling that the only criticism of meditation that this page seems to allow is the idea that one commentator worries that it's been corrupted? I do. It's like in a job interview when you claim your only flaw is that you work too hard. One starts to seem unreliable, no? Drawing from this page alone I can find a number of criticisms. I have attempted to include a few of them under criticism but I keep being reverted. The criticism section needs to be beefed up if we are to claim NPOV, don't you agree?

The following material was cut under the assertion that it didn't achieve WP:MEDRS, however, on a page that also quotes the Buddha and the Kabbalh, I don't think we can have a selective and opportunistic application of WP:MEDRS. See below that you can't get a better pedigree on researching meditation than Richard Davidson, if he takes a cautionary tone, I think we should too. And please don't claim that podcasts aren't WP:RS, they absolutely are...

"According to Bret Stetka, "many psychologists, neuroscientists and meditation experts are afraid that hype is outpacing the science." Richard J. Davidson, director of the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, and founder of the Center for Healthy Minds at the Waisman Center, cautions against expecting too much of meditation for the treatment of illness:

"With respect to physical illness I would say that the data there really are not very strong and certainly do not show that meditation is better than any other method for any disease. I don’t think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that. And with respect to psychiatric illness as we talked about earlier there is some evidence for depression, but for the most part, except for this limited case of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy with depressive relapse, the evidence suggests again that mindfulness based interventions are no better than any other empirically well validated treatment. So, while someone may prefer a mindfulness based approach, it’s not necessarily going to be any better. And this is a sobering reminder that these practices were not originally designed for treating psychopathology or treating physical illness." DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I am about to add the following beefed up version to the CRITICISM section. Please help me make it to your liking. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Criticism-section
Because meditation is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of claims -- from spiritual to psychological to medical -- the criticism are also wide ranging, depending on the specific assertions being examined. Methodologically, it is difficult to create a placebo controlled double blind study of a practice that purports to elicit a specific first-person state, and that can be done alone, in a group, while seated, standing, moving, verbalizing or silent. For example, researchers were concerned about distinguishing meditation from hypnosis, because despite having very different theoretical and historical origins, "there appears to be an overlap between the interventions based on these two approaches." The initial research showed an encouraging disassociation between mindfulness and the hypnotizability but more research is needed to confirm the results.

Health claims
"According to Bret Stetka, "many psychologists, neuroscientists and meditation experts are afraid that hype is outpacing the science." Richard J. Davidson, director of the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, and founder of the Center for Healthy Minds at the Waisman Center, cautions against expecting too much of meditation for the treatment of illness:

"With respect to physical illness I would say that the data there really are not very strong and certainly do not show that meditation is better than any other method for any disease. I don’t think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that. And with respect to psychiatric illness as we talked about earlier there is some evidence for depression, but for the most part, except for this limited case of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy with depressive relapse, the evidence suggests again that mindfulness based interventions are no better than any other empirically well validated treatment. So, while someone may prefer a mindfulness based approach, it’s not necessarily going to be any better. And this is a sobering reminder that these practices were not originally designed for treating psychopathology or treating physical illness."

For example, a systematic review of mindfulness and addiction concluded that "Significant methodological limitations exist in most studies."

Counter examples in contemplative cultures
The claim that meditation will overcome tribalism and other social ills are countered by the observation that Buddhist and Hindu societies are not demonstrably less prone to social ills, such as, war, crime, racism, sexism, and social injustice, than non meditation promoting cultures. Defenders of meditation argue that these are merely manifestations of human nature, or bad practices, or a low rate of actual meditation in those societies. Defenders of Buddhism also sometimes counter that Enlightenment is not synonymous with morality.

Sexual abuse and misconduct
Both religious and secular meditation schools have not been immune from sexual abuse and misconduct scandals, with victims coming forward in Zen, Buddhist, Hindu and Tibetan schools. “There are huge cover ups in the Catholic church, but what has happened within Tibetan Buddhism is totally along the same lines,” says Mary Finnigan, an author and journalist who has been chronicling such alleged misdemeanors since the mid-80s.

Negative outcomes
Meditation has been correlated with unpleasant experiences in some people. More than a quarter of meditators report negative experiences, such as anxiety, fear, and distorted emotions and thoughts. Meditators with high levels of repetitive negative thinking and those who only engage in deconstructive meditation were more likely to report unpleasant side effects. Adverse effects were less frequently reported in women and religious meditators. DolyaIskrina

(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Scientific evidence
Meditation hasn't proven it's (presumed) benefits, there is no strong scientific evidence, so, it's basically a pseudoscience. As Steven Novella wrote on Science-Based Medicine: "Any positive association between meditation and clinical outcomes goes away when you include confounding factors.", in particular he wrote on NeuroLogica Blog that Mindfulness "is just a ritualized form of relaxation, with no specific benefit beyond that" Digressivo (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Criticism is preferably to be included into the main body, not as a aeparate section. What you are proposing here may be too much essay-like. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  03:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the material is close to being suitable for incorporation; if "Criticism" is considered too strong, then dividing it into short sections on "Claims" and "Adverse effects" might work better. On the MEDRS issue, the 'Health claims' section does probably have to meet that standard: citing systematic reviews is certainly ok, the rest of it possibly not. The other sections are surely not MEDRS-relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit war
There is nothing to discuss: ordinary WP:OR and ordinary removal of sourced content. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I edit conflicted on one attempt to undo this. User is attempting to replace sourced general content with unsourced specifics. Meters (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal with "Guided meditation" article
I propose to merge Guided meditation into Meditation. I think that the content in the Guided meditation article can easily be explained in the context of Meditation. JarmihiGOCE (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea to mention guided meditation somewhere in the meditation-article. But what is the additional motivation for removing the guided-meditation-article all together? The Category:Meditation list various "stand-alone" articles for specific meditation techniques. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Merging, the two subjects overlap (i.e. there does not need to be separate articles for meditation with and without a guide); the guided meditation article is very short, and its information can be incorporated in this article; and understanding guided meditation requires understanding meditation in general. Also, the history and benefits of meditating with and without a guide are too similar to warrant a separate article. JarmihiGOCE (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you have a point here: The "Guided meditation"-article doesn't really add much & could easily be incorporated into the "Meditation"-article. Generally speaking, it seems to me that a separate article for guided meditation can be justified. But it would have to go more into detail to justify the separate treatment.Phlsph7 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Jarmihi. Errantius (talk)


 * Support As per nom and above. Namkongville (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Notfrompedro (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The two subjects though related, aren't the same. ShellPandey (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with above statements that this article can be easily explained in Meditation. The7Guy (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Earliest references to meditation
The article states "Some of the earliest references to meditation are found in the Hindu Vedas of India." Source: A clinical guide to the treatment of human stress response by George S. Everly, Jeffrey M. Lating 2002 ISBN 0-306-46620-1 pp. 199–202. EWhat thats ource says is the following (p.202 2012 edition):

That's quite a collection of inaccurate formulations in just two sentences: Obviously, this is a lousy source for this topic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  17:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Vedantism" is an unusual phrase; it seems to mean Vedanta source source. The history of Vedanta may go back to the late first millennium BCE, or the early millennium CE, but not 1500.
 * The Rig Veda is dated at roughly 1500-1000 BCE. It's a collection of mantras, hymns dedicated to the various Indo-Aryan gods; they do not document the "meditative traditions of ancient India." At best, the earliest references to meditation can be found in the Upanishads, the oldest of which date to the 7th-6th ventury BCE.

History
I;ve merged the History-secton into the section on meditation traditions; it was a superficial bricolage of some passing remarks. History of meditation may as well be merged back to this artciel; it adds nothing extra. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:39, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dimademashkieh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2020 and 6 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ASCXX.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gfernandez01.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 May 2021 and 6 August 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zweathersby. Peer reviewers: JilianJoyner, M4c9s0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydanne7. Peer reviewers: Marleywdunn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Further reading pruning
Somebody should probably go through the further reading sections and do some pruning. What kind of books do we want to be mentioned there anyway, as a general rule? Megaman en m (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * You got a good point. I suggest giving primacy to academic literature (i.e. not self-help or courses) that ideally talks about meditation in general (i.e. not only about one specific type of meditation and not from the ideosynchratic perspective of one particular tradition). Phlsph7 (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Earliest mention of meditation
this addition is plain WP:OR. You're interpreting a primary source, suggesting that this is the oldest mention of meditation. What exactly is meant here with "meditative"? Besides, you mention a dating between 9th-6th century; Olivelle says 7th-6th century, and doesn't use the phrase "meditative," but says "he becomes a sage." What's more, the Wiki-article on meditation already says:

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  18:27, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if the "earliest clear reference " quote you mention refers to the earliest clear reference within Hinduism (not in all human literature). JCJC777 (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Overweighting a flimsy reference?
Use of the Rossano paper in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation#Origins ? No other supporting refs? Far fetched and speculative? JCJC777 (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Cambridge University Press is a prestigious publishing entity. I'm not sure why this source could be called flimsy. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent edits and revert on opening sentence
This article has so many issues I wasn't even sure where to start and I've been looking at it for years. These are my concerns: "See also" don't usually belong in the sections under headings especially when they link to a specific meditation type- looks a lot like POV. The opening sentence is not accurate nor is it "crippling" to make sure an opening is both a summary and accurate. I'd note again that a specific meditation type shows up and links almost immediately in the lead. As the lead read, before I reverted, to label all mediation types as those which train attention and awareness does not include multiple other meditation types; that lead sentence is therefore inaccurate. The article is loaded with sources of a dubious nature in terms of compliancy. I removed one. I have no interest in fighting this out or reverting again. This article has issues and my intent was to begin to deal with them.

The problem with a topic or subject as large as this is that it must when introduced, be general in its wording, must include everything in a few succinct words. The lead sentence does not do this. As I said I have no desire to fight over this. I left this article alone for years and happy to leave it alone for more years to come. As an aside there is a slight but distinct push to illuminate Mindfulness meditation which slants the article. IMO. Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The article gives a number of definitions, which mention the training of attention; the lead summarizes this. What kinds of meditation do not train attention? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  20:32, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * From: Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Madhav Goyal, MD, MPH1; Sonal Singh, MD, MPH1; Erica M. S. Sibinga, MD, MHS2; et al:
 * Automatic transcendence is not considered mind training.
 * Automatic transcendence is not considered mind training.


 * As to the complexity of defining "meditation" techniques. From https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02276/full#B10. Impact Factor of journal, 2.9.


 * I'd suggest a slight overhaul of the lead opening paragraph to account for the complex nature of defining meditation techniques. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Automatic self-transcendence " seems to be a specifically associated with (or promted by) TM. It looks more like a result than a technique, akin to sahaja samadhi, Buddha nature, etc. Is it a common denominator in, say, textbooks? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  11:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am referencing the article/ meta analysis which delineates three kinds of practice. The source is very good so I suggest we use it to open the article with. The same content should be added to the article then summarized in the lead. It's clear from the paper that there isn't a great deal of clarity on classification of meditation techniques and the article should say that while noting the paper's attempt to classify. There are hundreds of mediation techniques and I'm certainly not familiar with them all. The need for a source that attempts to classify while noting the difficulties seems ideal. TM is a form of mantra meditation and possibly falls under self transcendence, but I don't see that as important in this very generalized article. Self transcendence as I understand from the sources is both a technique to transcend and an experience. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have very little time for Wikipedia these days, very busy, so I can't really discuss this further. Since we have a very good source I suggest we use it. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not meaning to sound pushy here. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Travis and Shear do indeed admit that "automatic self-transcending" is a result of sustained practice. As such, they conflate types of practice and ways of practice. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  19:44, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * TM advocates for years have favored the tripartite typology that includes "automatic self-transcending", but that typology has gained little traction in broader communities of scholars or researchers (whether oriented toward mindfulness or other methods). I suggest we continue to not highlight the TM-advocacy-convenient definition. --Presearch (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that there should be no focus any single type of meditation which is why I have included a compliant source that attempts to classify meditation which, as far as I can tell, is not focused on any meditation type. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Table of Definitions - Time to Bring it Back?
This article used to include a table showing several major definitions of meditation (link to a version from August 2018). Why was it removed? Is it time to bring it back? Before it was removed (for some unknown reason), it had been kept for nearly a decade. --Presearch (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Those definitions are still there, but as a bullit-list. Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Section on "no thought"
A fine piece of original research. After removing some info, this is left for now:


 * IEP on Hui-Neng: "Huineng stresses the perspective of “no-thought” (wu nian), an open, non-conceptual state of mind that allows one to experience reality directly, as it truly is. As he states, “No thought is not to think even when involved in thought... To be unstained in all environments is called no-thought." That's not the same as the ceasing of all thoughts.
 * Yaoshan Weiyan:
 * Is "sīliàng gè bùsīliàng" the same as "wu nian"? Which source says so?
 * Is "sīliàng gè bùsīliàng" the same as "wu nian"? Which source says so?


 * Huang Po: "Not till your thoughts cease all their branching here and there, not till you abandon all thoughts of seeking for something, not till your mind is motionless as wood or stone, will you be on the right road to the Gate." Is this the same as "sīliàng gè bùsīliàng" and "wu nian"? Which source says so?
 * Manocha, Black and Wilson:
 * [12] = R. Manocha, “Intervention insights: meditation, mindfulness and mind-emptiness,” Acta Neuropsychiatrica, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 46–47, 2011:
 * The Zen-tradition abounds with warning against precisely this kind of (mis)understandinmg of meditation: becoming like a log. Hui-Neng's approach does not seem to fit with this 'definition', nor does Yaoshan Weiyan. As for Huanf Po, maybe he does, but then, again, according to which source?
 * The Zen-tradition abounds with warning against precisely this kind of (mis)understandinmg of meditation: becoming like a log. Hui-Neng's approach does not seem to fit with this 'definition', nor does Yaoshan Weiyan. As for Huanf Po, maybe he does, but then, again, according to which source?
 * The Zen-tradition abounds with warning against precisely this kind of (mis)understandinmg of meditation: becoming like a log. Hui-Neng's approach does not seem to fit with this 'definition', nor does Yaoshan Weiyan. As for Huanf Po, maybe he does, but then, again, according to which source?

What it really means is detachment. I've removed the rest of this subsection as well, as it is organized around a misunderstanding of the term "no thought" as the ceasing of thought. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  19:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Agree the underlying strength of the section was flimsy. Thanks for your analysis. JCJC777 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * late response, but thank you for your understanding. "No thought" etc. in Chan is an interesting developed; while related to Buddha nature thought and luminous maind, it seems to be a new development. John McRae (1986), The Northern School and the Formation of Early Chʻan Buddhism, p.115-116, has an interesting observation and quotes in this regard, namely the rejection of satipatthana and body contemplation sin 6th century China as "petty complexities." Obviously, these "petty complexities" were replaced with directly recognizing the nature of mind - which somehow seems to be different from the Buddha's reasonableness, and his conviction that investigation (dhamma vicaya, Vitarka-vicāra) will naturally lead to detachement. NB: the satipatthana-formulae is complex, to my opinion, and clearly a later composition meant to give an overview of meditation practice; it may partly explain the 'rejection' of scripture in the Zen-tradition: back to basics. Interesting question: what did the Buddha teach - and practice? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  06:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising
— Assignment last updated by Achacon19 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu
— Assignment last updated by Rheaxx666 (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Psychology Capstone
— Assignment last updated by Rahneli (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * I reassessed the article as being in the categories "Articles lacking reliable references from August 2020" and "Articles with unsourced statements from January 2023", as maintenance. This was reverted with the edit summary, "such as?". The evidence was already in the article (and easy to see) but I added some "Citation needed" tags on unsourced content.
 * The B-class criteria (#1) states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The last sentence in the second paragraph of the "Taoism" section uses the word xian then "immortality" and needs a source for clarification. The last sentence of the last paragraph states, "Also the unification or middle road forms such as Wuxingheqidao that seeks the unification of internal alchemical forms with more external forms." is unsourced.
 * The article is also tagged as "needing clarification since June 2019. I did not look but the article may have been bot assessed to show the same classification across all included WikiProjects.
 * The last paragraph of the "Modern dissemination in the West" subsection goes into detail but is unsourced. The bottom line is the article fails the "B-class criteria without considering how "well-written" it may be. --  Otr500 (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Self-Inquiry
A section talking about the technique by Sri Ramana Maharshi should be added to the Meditation article. 186.22.18.101 (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Applause!
I am impressed with this articles scope, detail, sourcing, structure and quality of style! It is a pleasure to read. After having read on the subject for years, I have sill come away with new information. Nothing is ever perfect and apparently there are still quality criteria to be met. However, as an author currently working on the meditation article in the German wikipedia, I have to accept that the present article is leagues above where we currently stand in the German edition.

So I'd like to express my respect and thanks to all the authors who have contributed in however small ways to this very informative article! I will use it as an inspiration - or outright steal from it ;) Thank you for your work! -- Happycow (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Effects of meditation improvement
Comparing the main article "effects of meditation" to the subsection in this article with the same name, I would suggest that it needs some improvement. While the main article is rich in proof of positive effects, this section seems to imply differently.

I have just added another source with proof and would like to continue to do so if there is no objection from your side.

Best regards Sahel108 (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Have you read WP:MEDRS? The claims you added are overly broad for a single study to bear out. Here is the important part of MEDRS. "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article, including those on alternative medicine" Be careful with the idea of "proof" when it comes to medical claims. Single PRIMARY studies don't usually cut it. It sounds like I need to go over to "effects of meditation" and explain this there too. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #1
Meditation is not the same as mindfulness. Mindfulness is a subset of Meditation, and it is circular to define each in terms of the other.

The article is about many contemplative traditions. However, even were this page solely about the Buddhist practices, the lead is still too dismissive of the vast majority of Buddhist meditators throughout history and the world, even today. Before my edit, the lead was in disagreement with the body of the article. WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

Health claims are primarily associated with mindfulness, so to emphasize health claims in the lead, especially at the cost of the spiritual aspects is Euro-centric and WP:NOPROMO.

Maybe if you have only meditated in Brooklyn or work retreats or therapy you might think meditation is merely tangentially related to religious practices, but if you've ever lived in Asia or your grandparents were Buddhists you might find this page to be a type of erasure.

The fact that the term is hard to define should remain in the lead, as that is critical to the definition, not just a curious sub topic. MOS:LEAD.

However, I may have overcorrected by not having mindfulness mentioned it the lead at all. Let's find a way to put it back in per WP:DUE. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This edit screwed-up th definition in the lead; thanks for noticing. It was carefully crafted, in a neutral way, to avoid phrases like "to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment," which you added, but is not how these authors define meditation, nor how it is described in the definitions-section.
 * The fact that '"meditation" is difficult to define' is not in the lead is because Wikipedia-articles start with a definition, and this definition is broadly acceptable. But, I'll have a second look. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The lead starts with the definition, but it doesn't stop there. The lead is a summary of the body. Please read MOS:LEAD and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. But let's go with your notion of a lead as only including the definition. The fact that it is hard to define belongs in the lead, beecauset he difficulty in achieving the definition is itself integral to the definition. Are you really arguing that it isn't germane to the definition?
 * Mindfulness is defined as meditation and meditation is defined as mindfulness. This is a circular definition. Do you not see the issue?
 * Yes, the lead was carefully crafted to avoid mention of enlightenment, etc. That is a grave error that is unwarranted. It is ahistorical and insulting. All those meditators who are seeking enlightenment are doing it wrong? All those sources that talk about meditation and enlightenment or not relevant how?
 * This has been discussed before and I do not see a consensus supporting the removal of this historically critical religious aspect of meditation. Do you see such a consensus here in talk?
 * It is only through a careful pruning of the literature that you can leave a enlightenment shaped hole in the definition.
 * The lead needs to change. I'm happy to work with you to find a better version, but what is there now won't work. DolyaIskrina (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The lead sumarizes the artice; you'll first have to offer concrete proposals, based on WP:RS, to change the body. And if you want to reach WP:CONSENSUS, you better change your tone. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is my proposed change to the lead.

"Meditation is a wide ranging practice of focusing on a particular thought, object, activity, or sensation to train awareness and achieve a mentally stable, clear and calm state. It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment. It has proven difficult to define because its techniques and goals vary widely, even within a single tradition."

This already greatly downplays the enlightenment aspect of meditation without totally erasing it. Let me know what parts you would like RS for. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Why omit "is a practice in which an individual uses a technique"? Technique is a core aspect of the definitions given in the body of the article. Why not mention the open techniques? The body explains that there are two main classification of meditation techniques, namely focused and open methods; mindfulness is an example of an open method. And where do those sources, or the body of the article, speak of "usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment"? Only the the Merriam-Webster does say, stating "for the purpose of reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness," without defining what "a heightened level of spiritual awareness" is; and dictionaries do not trump scholalry sources. Did you actually read the body of the article? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with putting "is a practice in which an individual uses a technique".
 * Yes, I've read the body. Here are some quotes from the body:
 * "Meditation is practiced in numerous religious traditions." Interesting half thought. I wonder WHY it's practiced in a religious context. Let's just finish this thought (which occurs in the lead) and then I'll be happy.
 * Oh you want more?
 * "The history of meditation is intimately bound up with the religious context within which it was practiced."
 * "Jain meditation and spiritual practices system were referred to as salvation-path." I like the word salvation. Should we add that to the definition? People meditate to achieve all those secular things you like AND to obtain "enlightenment, a view of reality beyond illusion, salvation and other spiritual boons."
 * "Buddhists pursue meditation as part of the path toward awakening and nirvana."
 * I'm sure you know that the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating. Do you need RS for that? Check out any biographical account of the Buddha and it will be there. It's kinda a pivotal moment in the story. Are you saying that all those who follow the Buddha and emulate him don't see this as an example?
 * The Jewish prophets meditated. WHY? To lower their blood pressure?
 * "In Catholic Christianity, the Rosary is a devotion for the meditation of the mysteries of Jesus and Mary." Why are they meditating on the mysteries of Jesus and Mary?
 * I'm afraid you are trying to shift the burden of proof, when in fact, it's you that need to come up with an RS that says "secular meditation is the real and important form of meditation."
 * Please just drop the stick and relax your sense of ownership. The lead needs to reflect the body. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You've answered only one out of three questions. Regarding your other suggestions:
 * Salvation: no, that's an Eurocentric term.
 * 'Obtaining' a "mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable state" is not just a secular goal; see Nirvana and Dhyana in Buddhism.
 * Enlightenment: is it just a 'view of reality'? What is nirvana, then? You enter a swamp when you want to define what "enlightenment" is, let alone define it as the "goal" of meditation.
 * "the Buddha attained enlightenment while meditating. Do you need RS for that?" - yes. It's a completely legendary story, and it's not even clear what he "attained" in these stories. And those stories contain a fundamental error: they state that the Buddha relaized that the eightfold path was the path to release, but he was thoruoughly liberated by the insight that this path is the way to liberation: where does the eightfold path say that one is liberated by recognizing the path to liberation? It's like finding a recept for baking a cake, and the cake is there by simply discovering the recept.
 * The Jewish prophets meditated to obtain Nirvana? Or realize Brahman?
 * Are Buddhists 'meditating' on "the mysteries of Jesus and Mary"? Would they even define this as "meditation"?
 * No, I'm not shifting the burden of proof; the WP:BURDEN lies with you. The lead gives a workable definition of meditation, based on multilple WP:RS; you want to add unclear statements which are not in the body of the article, and which are without references. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Buddhists believe the Buddha meditated and became enlightened. It's in every story about the Buddha from the Pali Canon to Nagarjana. There's your RS, Pali Canon. We aren't here to argue the historicity of the Buddha's life. It's kinda disturbing that you think so. You seem to be WP:POVPUSHING on this page. DolyaIskrina (talk) 05:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * So we need to put mention of religion and enlightenment in the lead. I've proposed text above. Do you have a modification you would like to make to that text. You suggested adding "a practice in which an individual uses a technique." Anything else? DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we do not need to put mention of [...] enlightenment in the lead. And religion is already mentioned. See WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DONTGETIT. The lead is fine as it is. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  20:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary header #2
This is the result of a lazy google search. Do you still need more RS? DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * "Meditation, private devotion or mental exercise encompassing various techniques of concentration, contemplation, and abstraction, regarded as conducive to heightened self-awareness, spiritual enlightenment, and physical and mental health."
 * "Abandoning the life of extreme asceticism, the prince sat in meditation under a tree and received enlightenment, sometimes identified with understanding the Four Noble Truths."
 * "Principally, mindfulness in Buddhist teaching is viewed as a fundamental pathway through which to become aware of the causes and sources of suffering and to attain enlightenment or an awakening, thereby enabling the individual to be less egoistical and obtain insight into the state of “no self.”
 * "Continuing his catechesis on Christian prayer during the weekly General Audience, Pope Francis explains the importance of meditation, highlighting that it is a means of prayer that helps us encounter Jesus and find ourselves."
 * "In his book Meditation and Kabbalah, Rav Aryeh Kaplan suggests that meditation is a practice that is meant to bring spiritual liberation through various methods that can loosen the bond of the physical, allowing the practitioner to reach the transcendental, spiritual realm and attain Ruach HaKodesh (Holy spirit), which he associates with enlightenment."
 * Thomas Aquina:“The first requirement, then, for the contemplation of wisdom, is that we should take complete possession of our minds before anything else does, so that we can fill the whole house with the contemplation of wisdom."


 * The WP:LEAD summarizes the article. You'll first have to convince the editors here to amend the definitions from the broad overview articles we're using now with the random sources you've found. The logical place to do this is the second paragraph, not the first.


 * But then, you'l have to define more exactly what the "aim" or "goal" of those various religious traditions is, and how it is related to meditation. And you'll also have to find very solid sources which define what exactly "enlightenment" is. Ergo, you'll first have to improve the body of the article. Lazy Google-searches, and throwing in some random quotes, doesn't suffice; you'll have to do real research, and think about what exactly those traditions are, and about the complexities of their terminology - and our translations of that terminology.


 * Regarding your sources:
 * "Private devotion" - Zen Buddhists typically engage in group practice. The Brittanica-article is a potpourry of snaps of info;
 * Legendary account, as noted before;
 * "mindfulness in Buddhist teaching is viewed as a fundamental pathway" - your objection against the term "mindfullness" has vanished?
 * "helps us encounter Jesus and find ourselves" - how does that translate to enlightenment and higher consciousness?
 * The Kaplan-quote links enlightenment to Divine illumination, yet another meaning; how does this relate to enlightenment in Buddhism?
 * And how "contemplation of wisdom" relate to "enlightenment"?


 * You see, many terms, many meaning, and a lot of work if you want to explain all of them, and relate them to each other. That's why we use broad overview-articles to define what meditation is. As it is now, the lead is fine; the definition is solid, while it also mentions that "meditation plays a salient role in the contemplative repertoire of Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism." Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The Pope is a random source? He is THE source, for crying out loud.
 * We can't use the biography of the Buddha because it's, checks notes, "legendary". Yeah, that's the nature of any story of the Buddha. How could it be otherwise? It's like arguing we can't say "Jesus was crucified" because historicity. We are not here to determine what the Buddha actually did. We are here to tell the general reader what most Buddhists think he did. Period.
 * I'm sorry but you are essentially demanding original research (WP:OR) and have a deep sense of OWNERSHIP based on your own particular sense of the topic. You might be 100% correct, but that doesn't erase all the people who have used meditation for non secular purposes. Wikipedia is for the general reader and not a place to exclude all but your favorite definition of meditation. You may prefer the modern secularized sense of the the word, but that's just not the whole story. I'm not asking for much, but you are fixated. DolyaIskrina (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * "Fixated"? Again: hear, hear (or should I say hear, hear? Let me repeat myself: if you want to add "elightenment" (for Buddhism, the preferred term is "awakening") and "higher consciousness" to the lead, you'll first have to adapt the body of the article, with good secondary and tertiary sources.
 * And no, we don't count the Pope among those sources, nor do we regard legendary tales as a good summary of what "most Buddhists think he did" - even less as a summary of what Buddhists actually practice. Not meditation, what you probably won't believe.
 * To give you another hint: in Soto-Zen, meditation is explained not as a means to gain awakening, but to express awakening, that is Buddha-nature. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  03:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

SUMMARY for Third Party Opinion
Editor A proposed the above revision to the lead, arguing that the current version of the lead uses "mindfulness" in the definition, but mindfulness is itself defined as meditation, which is circular. But the bulk of the dispute seems to be about the inclusion of the phrase "It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment." Editor B argues that the new version of the lead does not match with what is in the body, and B finds the proposed RS from A to be unsatisfactory. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I do not see any reason to change the existing wording in the lead. However, the lead should be a good four paragraph summary of the article, so there is no reason that additional summarizing material could not be added to the lead. Skyerise (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Where is mindfulness defined as meditation? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  03:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 * From "Mindfulness" where the SHORTDESCRIPTION is "a meditative practice":
 * "According to Steven F. Hick, mindfulness practice involves both formal and informal meditation practices, and nonmeditation-based exercises."
 * I agree, Skyerise, that the lead should be expanded. The sentence that I'm most keen on adding is "It is practiced in many religious traditions, usually to achieve a higher state of consciousness or spiritual enlightenment." I believe there is a lot of RS to support that sentence. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)