Talk:Monkey mind

Hinduism???
The website says that in the Ramayana, the monkey king Sugriva says about his "monkey mind". Linking this to the origin of the term "Monkey mind" is WP:OR. The article needs an explicit reference saying clearing that "monkey mind" is Hindu. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this in Wikiproject Hinduism and they said they hadn't heard of it either. There was a reference, but they looked at it and said the reference wasn't very good. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the article by Carr ("'Mind-Monkey' Metaphors in Chinese and Japanese Dictionaries," International Journal of Lexicography 6.3)? It says (1993:155) Chinese xinyuan first appears in Kumarajiva's translation of the Vimalakirti Sutra (citing a note in Dudbridge's Journey to the West translation 1970:168). Can someone check into the original? Keahapana (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Title?
I'm wondering if this "Monkey mind" title should be moved to "Mind monkey". Although "monkey mind" has more Google hits (92,300) than "mind monkey" (11,400), some of the contexts are irrelevant (like the famous Darwin quote under Evolutionary argument against naturalism). "Mind monkey" reflects the word order in the Chinese and Japanese (心猿, 意猿, and 情猿) and specifically refers to this Buddhist metaphor. What do you think? Keahapana (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the English Wikipedia, so we should title articles in the way that is most common in English usage and reliable sources. IMHO the move to "Mind monkey" was ill advised and should be reversed. From the Manual of Style, WP:NAMINGCRITERIA:
 * Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.
 * A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:
 * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
 * Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Holy moly
Somebody did a lot of work. There is definitely way too much Chinese, but for those of you who added stuff, good job! &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was me. I've heard of "TMI" but not "TMC". Many thanks for the Barnstar. Keahapana (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Monkey brain?
A friend of mine told me about this concept, but initially used the term "Monkey brain", which is about a (to me) not-too appealing kind of food. A minute later she corrected herself and said it was properly called "Monkey mind" in English. Still, I'm thinking that perhaps the "Monkey brain" article should have a pointer added to it, referring people to this article, in case the misunderstanding is not unique. --Peter Knutsen (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, adding the pointer to the About header template already in place on Monkey brains for other senses. And the redirect from "Monkey brain" to "Monkey brains" should be removed.
 * --Thnidu (talk) 15:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Article or encyclopedia article???
This article has been filled up completely with translations and year by year breakdowns of what monkey mind has meant in a historical perspective. I think this is good and is needed in more articles but has been over done here. There is not even a real contemporary explanation of what monkey mind means to people today and how it is generally used. This is the kind of information that most users looking at an encyclopedia article would be looking for, not how the term monkey mind was written and pronounced in the year 406 in China or in the year 1223 in Japan. Instead this article looks like it is research for an academic article on the topic of monkey mind. Most of its content goes way above the head of anybody who is not an academic doing research in this field.

I suggest that some of the content in this article be dummed down a bit as it is an encyclopedia article and not research for a dissertation. Also and more importantly, I think it would be useful to re-insert the following simple and appropriate information saying

"denoting the tendency for the mind to become unsettled and confused. The metaphor used in the term is that the mind is like a monkey, swinging from one tree to another, that is, from one thought to another. It is said that this confusion, in turn, can lead to childish, ape-like behavior, with attachment to pleasurable objects and distress when such objects are taken away. The monkey mind is personified in the Chinese epic, Journey to the West as Sun Wukong."

Or if said information is not accurate and this is not the contemporary common use of the term, then such a definition be given.

I really feel bad having to write this as somebody put so much time into making this article so accurate, and how often have I run into or contributed to articles that have the exact opposite problem, but I do think it is overkill so I thought it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning it. Yes, we can agree that some WP articles are unencyclopedic (evidenced by the special template), but disagree whether there are overencyclopedic ones in need of dumbing down. Do you mean content that violates WP:NOT generally or content that doesn't interest you personally? Thanks again. Keahapana (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does say that articles should not be Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.


 * To me, an average reader with no previous history of studying religion would read this article and not understand it. A goal of wikipedia articles are to be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood a regular literate reader with complex terms able to be inferred.  Is that true for this article?  I didn't think so, so I made this discussion.  I understand you put a ton of work into this thing.  Really it is good work, but I just feel like for the average reader, it doesn't make a lot of sense, and for that reason is different than any article I have ever seen on wikipedia. Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you might be right. I've repeatedly searched for, but can't find, this WP guideline about articles not being "scientific journals and research papers". Would you please hyperlink it? Thanks. Keahapana (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for finding that reference, Jeff. I recently came across WP:MTAA that says, "Do not "dumb-down" the article in order to make it more accessible. Accessibility is intended to be an improvement to the article for the benefit of the less-knowledgeable readers (who may be the largest audience), without reducing the value to more technical readers." Keahapana (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I found it close to impossible to figure out what the concept actually means, and the article is pretty much as unreadable as some of the maths articles here. Articles should be aimed at as general a readership as possible. You're not writing a textbook on Chinese linguistics, after all. Grace Note (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The link above http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MTAA#Write_one_level_down now clearly says to make the article accessible for one level down of the normal reader, or in other words "dumb it down". This article is inaccessible to almost all people that are not earning a PhD in the field. I would imagine that the normal reader reading this article would be a college educated person interested more in Eastern Philosophy. That means it should be written at the level a high school student could read and understand. Few high school students, let alone college students would be able to digest this entire article. Jeff.t.mcdonald (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I apologize for this belated response, and must have overlooked my watchlist. Readability tests provide an empirical way to settle our disagreement. According to The Readability Test Tool, "This page has an average grade level of about 10. It should be easily understood by 15 to 16 year olds." Keahapana (talk) 02:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeff & Grace. Keahapana, your work on this article is appreciated and your expertise is unquestionable. There's some awesome stuff here. But it's untrue that the readability test has settled the disagreement in an empirical way. (I suspect the readability test you used merely indicated that the English words in the article are at a 10th grade vocab level. But this article presupposes, for example, that readers already know what Chinese xinyuanyima and Japanese ibashin'en are. That's a big stretch.) However, the real problem isn't readability but focus. The current focus is almost solely on linguistics. It has the stilted feel of academic research rather than the flow a general-purpose encyclopedia entry. Yet despite the focus on linguistics, the article doesn't seem to mention "kapicitta," which other sites claim was the origin of "monkey mind," coined 2,500 years ago by Siddhārtha Gautama himself. And there are no quotes from the Tripiṭaka. But there's an easy way to fix this article without losing any of the rich content you've created. What are currently sections 1, 2, and 3 should be demoted into a single section called "Linguistic and Cultural Background," and the current introduction should be moved down to introduce that section. Section 3.2 "Popular Culture" should be promoted into it's own section. A new introduction should be put at the top containing language more along the lines of Jeff's. This introduction should focus on modern usage of "monkey mind" in Buddhism/psychology/etc. It might reference quotes such as these: "Just as a monkey swinging through the trees grabs one branch and lets it go only to seize another, so too, that which is called thought, mind or consciousness arises and disappears continually both day and night." "The monkey mind (kapicitta) is a term sometimes used by the Buddha to describe the agitated, easily distracted and incessantly moving behaviour of ordinary human consciousness (Ja.III,148; V,445)." "Scientists report that over 70,000 thoughts go through our minds each day... [I]t's safe to say that most people are plauged with a never-ending stream of thoughts, commonly referred to as 'mind chatter,' or 'the monkey mind.' Most of us have only seen monkeys in captivity, but even in the wild, the behavior of monkeys appears very erratic. In their enclosures, monkeys seem to be in perpetual motion, constantly climbing, swinging wildly from one branch to another. In the wild, they are in their element... racing through the tree tops, scattering, squaling, and screeching, nonstop! Sometimes it seems the noise in our heads can be compared to the antics of our primate cousins." If you're cool with these suggestions, maybe we can draft the new intro together here in the talk pages. Lemme know. Thanks! Williambloom (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)William Bloom
 * Having looked at this Wiki article again, I don't think the problem is that it's too technical. The style of the article matches that of encyclopedic content in general. For those who are concerned that the English is not simplified enough for the uneducated reader, please refer to the Wikipedia in simplified English instead (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). This website is legitimate, it's not meant as a joke or something.
 * Having said that, the Wiki article here is too detailed. Encyclopedic articles should provide a summary of related scholarship. Secondly, the article contains possible original research that is a synthesis of different articles and books, and possibly draws conclusions that are not drawn in such studies themselves.
 * I have therefore changed the tags of the article. Perhaps someone would like to rewrite and cut out some detail. However, the sources referred to above (Ramsey and Buddhism a2z) do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources such as sutras can be used, provided relevance can be shown through citing reliable, secondary sources.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain details of perceived original research and irrelevance. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014164826/http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/monkeym.pdf to http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/monkeym.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

WTF?
I'm sorry, it looks like someone put a LOT of work into this, but this is a linguistic paper, not an ecyclopedic article. It lacks a basic explanation of the concept itself, I have no frickin' clue what it is...
 * Yes, it needs a lot of copyediting for readability. Still, the subject is notable.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mind monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20020613032004/http://www.meditationproject.org/Monkeys.html to http://www.meditationproject.org/Monkeys.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Title change
In accordance with the discussions above, especially my own comments, I've moved the page from "Mind monkey" to "Monkey mind", following the procedures outlined in WP: MOVE. There were no links to the page, so it's an orphan. I hope to work on the text, which desperately needs improvement, and to find this orphan some parents. --Thnidu (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

To date, the worst Wikipedia article I've seen
The article never once says what monkey mind is, preferring to go on a 9-paragraph tirade about how interesting animal metaphors are. Even in the very opening sentence, the article is more concerned about musing on Chinese characters than being informative in any way. This article needs to be gutted, but as far as I can tell, there is so little useful information to someone who isn't a Master's degree student of Chinese etymologies, it'd be a stub. And that's probably for the best, because nobody is going to read this in the current state. IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree, it doesn't really say what Monkey Mind is. –– Sandiooses (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2023 (UTC)