Talk:Meditation/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Stress

By chance I came across a book on stress published by the British Medical Association. It gives a good recommendation to meditation and its a very good source. It is written by Professor G Wilkinson at Liverpool University.Oxford73 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is this. There are a few more as well. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The stress issue reminded me of an old joke/truism: "the only people who can borrow money with ease are those who do not need it." Similarly, it seems like the case that those who can be helped by meditation are those "ready to meditate" and that a very nervous and stressed person can hardly begin. Is there any referenced basis for that?

Traditionally monks were kept separate so they would not be subject to the "corrupting" stress of others, and the Rule of Benedict did not even allow them to eat with seculars unless they were too far away from the monastery.

So is there a basis to the statement that benefiting from meditation may need a "conducive state" beforehand? Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be empirical documentation for some of those ideas that you mention, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. In the jargon of health/social science research, you are suggesting that various conditions such as pre-existing stress might be a "moderator" (aka "effect modifier") of benefits from meditation. Some "moderators", such as level of preexisting spirituality/religiousness, have been seen in some populations with some methods. Offhand, I don't recall such documentation for stress level as a moderator; and in terms of the most stressed people, often they are the ones most motivated to enroll in something they think they might help them, so I suspect there's ample documentation that highly stressed people can benefit from meditation. Remember also that quite a number of meditation studies are randomized, which means that there are clearly benefits; the question is how widely they generalize to other people. Because meditation studies (like other studies of human subjects) rely on voluntary enrollment, one may, within reason, validly question whether such benefits would generalize to people who would never consider enrolling in such a study (but the same is true for other human subjects studies). Of course, to the extent that meditation is an activity where "you get out what you put in" - like so many human activities - then one important moderator may be one's readiness to seriously put in effort and follow instructions. -- Presearch (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But in passing I should remark that "one's readiness to seriously put in effort" is itself often affected by the initial payback encountered. Given an initial effort L, some people get back X while others get back (X + delta), and the second group is more likely to spend more effort to continue, if delta pushes them over some threshold. As for randomization, one can not randomize based on variables one does not know about, e.g. if First name is a modifier (who said it is not) then they had probably not randomized based on that. But I will not start on that topic... it could take a year pf discussion. And given that there are no major studies, based on your experience, we should pass on this, but I would conjecture that in time it will emerge that different people also have different levels of ability to "experience meditation". As GBS said: "men are wise not in relation to their experience, but in relation to their ability for experience". History2007 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that "one can not randomize based on variables one does not know about", but one doesn't need to randomize on them. In fact, simple randomization does not involve dealing with subject variables at all. On average, randomization equalizes between groups both measured and unmeasured variables of all kinds. That's part of why it's regarded as a gold standard for causal inference. --Presearch (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had not commented on that. I really wish. So I will stop after this. But I used to be in the business of utilizing the general errors made by the statistical community at large - and I consider that an error by the community at large, i.e. 90% of statistical users believe in it. So I will leave it there. the heart of that also goes to the heart of bell curves, and these fellows had an interesting take on bell curves. But it is really beside the point on this page. So I will just stop on that topic given that it is unrelated to meditation. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this talk page isn't a proper location (we could adjourn to your or my talk page if we want to continue). But I'd agree that RCTs are not the only important story in town for inferring causality (even within science, see Bradford-Hill criteria, and Levin, 1996). -- Presearch (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say the Wilkinson source is in effect a tertiary source.Oxford73 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not about Wilkinson in itself, but wanted to see if anyone had studied the "inherent ability" and "current positioning" of a person with respect to meditation. Some people will make better musicians than other, regardless of training. I wondered if some people make better meditators than others - regardless of training. History2007 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recently posted the following: In his book Understanding Stress, Professor G, Wilkinson of Liverpool University,notes that meditation in general is good for coping with migraine and high blood pressue and that Transcendental Meditation reduces tension, lowers anxiety and increases work performance and satisfaction. Presesearch decided to delete it. Don't mind posts being reverted but would appreciate an explanation. Without any explanation then I will repost it.Oxford73 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Ox wants to know why he was reverted, and here's what happened. Ox posted HERE on the talk page saying that "by chance" he'd "come across" a book by such-and-such a professor that "gives a good recommendation to meditation" etc. History2007 responded in an understated way HERE, linking to the book, and saying "there are a few more as well", and linking to a Google Scholar record that brings up over 160,000 hits. To me, History's understated response posed the obvious question: Why does Ox make mention of this particular book? What's this leading up to? Since I'd seen Ox wanting to push TM research before, I suspected that maybe the book was somehow useful for that agenda. And I suspected that Ox might say a bit more on the talk page.

Instead, Ox went right in and posted the book as a new reference HERE. Not unexpectedly, the post was clearly promotional of TM, mentioning the Transcendental Meditation method by name, and listing several purported benefits. This pushing of one specific program was contrary to previously established consensus on this page, such as reflected in the comment HERE by User:Gatoclass, part of a larger discussion here. Since Ox's change had no specific justification (why this book out of >160,000? Is it the best for the purpose? What was the purpse?), and was clearly promotional, I reverted it with a changed-log statement "revert promotional material". This reason was clarified to Ox earlier, but he has asked for a more detailed explanation here, which I am now supplying.

I would add that users of this page should be aware that Ox takes a great interest in editing pages related to the TM movement (see his contributions). To me, his behavior to date on this page, including "by chance" discovering literature that highlights TM, dovetails almost perfectly with the mode of operation long used by those seek to promote TM. I am grateful to TM for all the research it has done; but I see no need, or merit, in special mention on this page, particularly in view of the observation by Gatoclass (HERE) among others that "If you mention one [meditation group], sooner or later they will all be trying to gain a foothold". I think the sooner Ox understands this, and desists from promotional efforts, the better for him, and the less trouble for everyone on the page. Meanwhile, I would encourage those who care about balance on this page to carefully vet Ox's posts (as well as all other posts) to ensure they are non-promotional. -- Presearch (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually what Oxford has done on other pages can not officially label him as a salesman for TM, and the edits on this page should stand on their own. I do not see him as a salesman, but someone whose edits show a lot of interest in TM. Then there is the fellow who added a large quote about Meher Baba with no encyclopedic content, and there is a huge quote about Jiddu Krishnamurti also just a preaching statement. So if anything is to be fast-axed it is those huge quotes. That said, TM is not the only game in town, and by WP:DUE should not dominate. But it is well known that the TM crowd are pretty aggressive at using studies which are just borderline science, so those need to be managed. I think Gatoclass already expressed that concern, that if one opens the door, any of the groups may not hesitate to claim 90% of the attention. It is not just TM, but if the door is opened Meher Baba quotes may take over 90% of the page anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything you say, although individually I lack the time to follow up on all those valid points. The one possible point of difference is that on this particular page I tend to think that a minimalist position (as enunciated by Gatoclass) is probably best, so that "managing" may need to be close to "excluding"... because otherwise it's impossible to be equal. -- Presearch (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

PS I would add that my above-mentioned lack of surprise at Ox's including explicit mention of TM in his edit is not unique to that sequence of edits. Other times I have also felt a sense of knowing where he was going. Yes this might reflect merely an "interest" in TM. Clarification may come with the passage of time; and WP:AGF does not require blindness to long-term patterns. -- Presearch (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, you might be psychic... kidding. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note Presearch's point and concerns. I would say I was summarising. Here is what the book says and then you can judge for yourselves. I think this is a good source but very happy for someone else to use it and make a post." Meditation This consists of a number of techniques of concentration and contemplation, which can be effective in controlling pulse and respiratory rates, and in the control of migraine and high blood pressure. Transcendental Meditation has been reported to help through reduction of tension, lowering anxiety and increasing job satisfaction and work performance. Meditators spend two daily 20-minute sessions in a quiet comfortable place, silently repeating their mantra." I thought I gave a fair and accurate summary of this without giving undue weight to TM as the author has two of 3 sentences about it and I think I had one on each but happy for other eds to amend. The key point is that a book published with the BMA, which is immensely prestigious in the UK, is confirming the value of meditation in dealing with stress and by a well qualified author at a good university. Reading talk pages on TM there sometimes seems to be a tendency to go to extremes and this comment by Wilkinson seems quite balanced. Re the "by chance" if you must know I was taking my mum out shopping who was looking in the health and beauty section of a supermarket we do not ususally go to as she had been give a voucher and saw this whole range of family doctor books in the pharmacy section and started thumbing through and decided to buy a copy of the Understanding Stress book. Is it really neccessary to go into such details?Oxford73 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess I must not be psychic after all... I was sure you'd encountered the book while out shopping with your aunt. Just kidding. :-) -- Presearch (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion; Put my post back up but delete the reference to Transcendental Meditation and just leave it about meditation in general as this is the meditation in general page. Any objections to that? Oxford73 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ox, thanks for the constructive suggestion. To me the suggestion seems workable but in somewhat modified form. That section on "scientific studies" is certainly not perfect. Even so, it strikes me as better to keep the stress-related material together, so wouldn't the post be better restored a couple of paragraphs earlier than your original placement at the section end? I think 2 paras earlier would be good, since the 2 existing refs (Kabat-Zinn et al, Davidson et al) are both mindfulness-related, and Wilkinson's book seems more general. However, I see no need to give the name of the author in-line, since that too seems a bit promotional, and I think we really must run a tight ship (else the other 160,000+ authors may seek to put their names in-line). BMJ as a publisher is good and helps validate the book as a WP:RS, but no need to fall overly in love with this one book - I'll bet we could find such material in many other books by prestigious publishers ranging from top-notch university presses to other physician associations to, for example, the American Psychological Association. -- Presearch (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I am off on holiday today so just go ahead. Note it is BMA not BMJ. J is their Journal A is their association. Two different but related organisations. Oxford73 (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

In the 2nd para of the intro there is note asking for more clarification on the sentence that the same word meditation can be used for both the path and the goal. I assume that the person who wrote the sentence was meaning that the word meditation can be used to signify both the process of the mind becoming less excited and the state of the mind when it reaches the point of least excitation. Any suggestions.Oxford73 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If no comments then will post something along the lines above.Oxford73 (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To me the 2nd para is fairly clear as it stands and needs no further clarification. To me, the "clarification needed" tag could be removed. More language, unless quite carefully chosen, can make things worse. How do others feel? -- Presearch (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it seems fairly clear to me, but then again I'm familiar with the subject. I asked a third-party (that knows nothing, if anything, about the subject) and she said it seemed clear as well. - SudoGhost™ 05:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is good that we are getting some new opinions. Could we talk you into hanging around and commenting more often? History2007 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case shall we remove the note about clarification?Oxford73 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a heated agreement to remove it. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I heatedly agree. --Presearch (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes posted. Not an expert on the matter by any means, but familiar enough to comment from time to time. However, if my comments have a particularly Buddhist slant, please forgive me, it's the basis of my meditation knowledge (so feel free to correct me if I make a change that is too specific). :) - SudoGhost™ 04:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thnaks. It is, in general, good to have multi-perspective discussions anyway. History2007 (talk) 05:59, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarifying the lede - difference between samadhi and dhyana

This sentence from the lede,

"The term can refer to the state itself, as well as to practices or techniques employed to cultivate the state."

cites the article online at, [1] which states,

"The Sanskrit word dhyana, derived from the verbal root dhyai ("to contemplate, meditate, think"), is the most common designation both for the meditative state of consciousness and the yogic techniques by which it is induced.... The term dhyana is widely used to refer to the contemplative process that prepares the ground for the ecstatic state (samadhi), though occasionally the term is also employed to signify that superlative state of consciousness."

and so it thus seems that the sentence in the lede is referring to the use of the word 'meditation' to describe both the meditation styles of dhyana and of samadhi.

I agree that the word 'meditation' may be used to refer to the practice of 'dhyana' and also to 'samadhi'. I don't think that there are ways to cultivate a different style of meditation, like anapanasati, which means 'mindfulness of one's breathing'.

The meditative state of samadhi is not always attained by everyone. So, dhyana is practiced with the hope that one day one will achieve that state known as 'samadhi'. When we practice like anapanasati, it's possible to begin with doing anapanasati, and 40 years later, to still be doing anapanasati.

So, basically, I think this sentence is over general because it refers to some vague type of meditation 'state', rather than specifically to the states of dhyana or of samadhi. If we want to include how meditation is used to refer to dhyana and samadhi, then we should say it. We should cite this article in the Etymology section or wherever, stating that 'meditation' may refer to either 'dhyana' or 'samadhi'.

by being over general and vague we may make it out that some 'techniques designed to reach that state', such as virtue, which in some traditions it is believed will aid one in reaching the state of samadhi, is described with the word 'meditation'.

It's like citing an article that states that all dogs like Kibbles N' Bits by writing on Wikipedia, 'all animals like Kibbles N' Bits'. makeswell (talk) 18:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

In fact "meditation" may be used to refer to the practice of 'dhyana' and also to 'samadhi', as well as 12 other things given the diverse range of other approaches in the article. The reference may need to be beefed up, but that is a different story. Given the very general term meditation, the only way will be to be very general, i.e. vague. I think we have had that discussion only 127 times now. History2007 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

We could go looking for references to support the claim that there is a technique that leads to anapanasati which is referred to as meditation and there is anapanasati itself as the meditation state we aim for, but they wouldn't exist. It'd be like hunting for bears in Mexico, there just wouldn't be any. It'd be like throwing hooks at a dead fish, it just wouldn't bite. makeswell (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The lede does not mention anapanasati. That term appears only once in the article: "An example of concentrative meditation is anapanasati". So exactly why should the lede deal with it given that it is one item in a larger set of items? And teh revert you did was based on te "heated agreement" among several editors above, after Oxford suggested it, so I must revert it back. History2007 (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way History2007, I didn't remove the clarification tag, I restored a reference that was (I believe) accidentally removed along with the tag. Sorry if that caused any confusion. - SudoGhost™ 19:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, but an edit that maintains a state is generally viewed as accepting it. In any case, if you want to keep the tag there, please say so, and we will factor that into the consensus. As I said above, it is good to have multiple views.History2007 (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree 100% with History2007 (and the others agreeing with him), and feel that his approach here reflects WP:COMPETENCE. --Presearch (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I may be reading this entire discussion the wrong way, but I figured I might throw my two cents in. I think the reason that sentence in the lead is written that way is because meditation is not specific to jhana/samadhi. Read the section for Christianity, it appears to be completely different than the goals of Buddhist meditation, for example. If that lead sentence were to be rewritten to this overly specific way, it would basically be defining meditation based on one method/practice, as opposed to a general method/practice, effectively shutting out the others. (That's not to say it would not be a good clarification in the Buddhist meditation and other applicable articles) - SudoGhost™ 19:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you are reading it right as far as I can see. And I would add that the Judaism section also supports that statement. History2007 (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I might not have made my point clearly. I agree with your statement SudoGhost, and meant to point out that this cited article refers only to samadhi and dhyana and not to meditation as it is defined in the context of this page. The sentence in the lede improperly summarizes the cited article by stating that meditative techniques lead to a meditative state. The author of the article does not mean that Judaic meditative techniques lead to Judaic meditative states, but only that dhyana leads to samadhi. Therefore the sentence is overbroad by including within its language all the meditative states, rather than only the Hindu states.

I do not think that we should rewrite this sentence and leave it in the lede. I think that, because the cited article (and therefore the sentence which summarizes it) refers only to dhyana and samadhi, that it should therefore be a) re-written to reflect this, or b) be removed because it is not important. makeswell (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, thanks for reverting my edit History2007. I did not see the discussion above and would not have made that edit if I had. makeswell (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Or c) we need to find sources that show the comment is relevant to all meditations. If not it should appear within the relevant section and not in the intro. Oxford73 (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I also don't know that those sources would exist, like bears in Mexico. makeswell (talk) 05:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for not expressing myself properly earlier. I meant, by bringing up anapanasati, to illustrate that the sentence about a means and ends wouldn't apply to all meditative states, such as anapanasati. makeswell (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of the sentence in the lede is to alert the reader that the word "meditation" is used in different ways. Such a sentence is needed, should stay, and is relevant to more than one tradition - it doesn't matter exactly how many. The sentence does not claim that the word "meditation" is used these two ways in every tradition, even if some present editors want to misread the sentence that way. To prevent such misunderstanding by a possibly tiny minority of readers, we could change the word "can" to "may sometimes", so that the sentence would read: "The term can may sometimes refer to the state itself, as well as to practices or techniques employed to cultivate the state". Or do some other minor tweak. This is really not so hard. Let's keep our common sense. -- Presearch (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we should make a big deal here. I think dinner usually means whatever comes on the plate, but the process of making it disappear from the plate may also refer to that. I do not see a discussion on dinner about the process vs the meal, etc. So we should somehow just say that and be done with it. History2007 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The sentence should be removed rather than making it more generic.makeswell (talk) 08:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Prayer and Meditation, or Prayer as Meditation?

One dimension of this page that stood out to me when I first saw this page was how meditation refers both to prayer and to other forms of meditation. Do you guys know if this is how Christians talk? I have heard the word 'prayer' being used By Christians to denote speaking to God and meditation being used to refer to contemplation and thought. I know that Buddhists differentiate between prayer and meditation. Perhaps we should mention this in the lede, or combine this page somehow with Prayer. makeswell (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestion to merge this page with prayer is likely to result in fervent prayers by those who edit that page - hoping that it will not happen. Anyway, given that there is secular meditation, that will not even be possible. I think we may have even discussed this and intercession (with you) some time ago, but I can not be bothered to search for it now.

Anyway, in various approaches meditative practices usually have a far less intercessory nature than prayer. And it is not just Christians who pray as well as meditate, but as Prayer in the Bahá'í Faith and Prayer in Hinduism state prayers in those contexts may also overlap meditation. Monks may pray and meditate, but someone whose uncle just got sick usually does not meditate for the recovery, but prays to some supernatural entity for intercession or mercy.

So what is certain is that the equation "prayer = meditation" is not valid, even in approximation. But "non secular" meditation can at times be preceded by prayer, and vice versa. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. makeswell (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was partially the sentence in the Baha'i section that made me think the page included prayer as a type of meditation,

"Although the founder of the Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, never specified any particular forms of meditation, some Bahá'í practices are meditative. One of these is the daily repetition of the Arabic phrase Alláhu Abhá (Arabic: الله ابهى‎) (God is Most Glorious) 95 times preceded by ablutions. Abhá has the same root as Bahá' (Arabic: بهاء "splendor" or "glory") which Bahá'ís consider to be the "Greatest Name of God".[72]

I do not know the exact Bahá'í position on that, the expert on that is user:Jeff3000 and I left him a message to see if he will comment on that. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, in Baha'i practice, mediation and prayer are separate but linked practices. Prayer is the act of communicating with God, usually through the use of what is considered revealed material written by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha or the Bab. Meditation, on the other hand, can refer to multiple things, which typically has the characterisitic that one is reflecting on one's state. For example, Baha'u'llah asked everyone to reflect at the end of each day on their deeds and their worth; this is quite different that communication with God. However, I would say that prayer puts one in a meditative mood, and people usually start to meditate after the act of prayer, but it's not necessarily true. Hope that clears up the Baha'i viewpoint. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What you typed here is interesting, but not in the article. Instead there is a long quote there that does not give a clue as to what Baha'i meditation looks like. Your text here seems better. I think this will say more than the quote there and in general, I think the article is overdosing on long quotes anyway, also in other sections - so those should be replaced by descriptions of what the practices are, rather than long quotes. And the statement you made about prayer being the first step in meditation is interesting - and not in that section. So if we can replace the quote by what you wrote will be better. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When I have some time (maybe this evening, or maybe on the weekend), I'll find some sources to actually back up my statements, and rewrite the section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no rush. It has been there for a while and just a long quote does not say that much. So if you add sources etc. and replace it with what you wrote here then we will declare it stable and leave it. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that in Tibetan Buddhism also prayer is done before meditation. makeswell (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Contemplative prayer covers this a bit more. These various meditation/prayer methods seem to be a "meditation/reflection first, then use that reflective mind to initiate prayer/communication with a higher power". At least this seems to be the case in Christian meditation. I haven't come across anything that says that meditation is a form of prayer, or vice versa, but rather that one compliments the other. - SudoGhost™ 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That sums it up well. But regarding the Contemplative prayer article in Feb 2010 I said on the talk page there: This article needs help, and big time help. And said that I would do it in a few days.... It has been over a year, never got to it! So for now, it does have its own problems - but that is another story. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Meditation and monasticism

The following two sentences are in the lede,

"Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions, especially, in Western countries, in monastic settings. In the Eastern spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, meditation is more commonly a practice engaged in by many, if not most, believers."

Ya know, this isn't exactly correct, because Buddhist monks for meditate, in the East, and lay people meditate in the West. I don't anyone would disagree with that.

This conversation brings to mind how in Hinduism there aren't any monks, yet there is meditation. So, perhaps we should consider that the statement is POV (unless we were super specific about which groups did/didn't meditate etc etc lengthy sentence in the lede blah blah blah). How can we make sure the sentence is not POV?

The lede should encapsulate the major points of the page. I think that one of the big features of this page is how religion and meditation are associated. We could state this fact in the lede without mentioning monasticism. This would be easier than listing those traditions in which monastics meditate, those that don't, etc etc... makeswell (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That statement is partially correct about early trends in Western approaches, but no longer true in the 20th century either in West or East. It needs to be clarified, with something that has source. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that meditation is not practiced by a majority of lay believers in eastern countries (unless perhaps one uses a very broad definition of what counts as 'meditation'). I suspect that what can be said about both East and West is that monastics tend to meditate more than the laity (whether one uses tighter or looser definitions of 'meditate'). Good citations may be hard to find but maybe we'll get lucky. BTW, misinformation-correction: Hindiusm does have monks (see matha). -- Presearch (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the statement is true, to a degree. Western religions typically have monastics meditating more than lay followers. With eastern religions its typically more common to see lay followers engaging in meditation than their Western counterparts. I think the quote could be clarified, perhaps to something along the lines of "In the Eastern spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, meditation is largely engaged in by the laity as well as the monastic orders." - SudoGhost™ 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think this quote is in a historical sense, and Western meditation outside of the monastic orders is a very new concept, whereas in the Eastern practices the laity have been meditating alongside the monastics for much longer. Maybe it should be de-quoted and clarified. - SudoGhost™ 15:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will "say no more" on this for I am not sure it will help the article - and it begins a discussion of per capita based habit analysis that most users will not be able to follow. In the west there are many Catholics who meditate on the rosary and they do that many times a day - many of them are older ladies. Hard to know the numbers of those all across South America. There is an old Catholic joke: "there are two things that only God knows: how many nuns there are, and what a Jesuit is thinking". I guess this is the 3rd one: how many rosaries are prayed per day. I am not sure how that can be measured. Anyway, I will not try to count those myself. I suggest you guys trim that claim as you see fit, if you find sources. But what I can measure is article improvements vs the length of these recent talk page discussions. Not a high number. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Better that these take place on the talk page, rather than the article. - SudoGhost™ 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern western lay Buddhist meditators who see meditation as a widespread lay phenomenon should be cautious in assuming their observations apply elsewhere and to historical Buddhism. See Robert Sharf: "Mahasi Sayadaw provided the Theravada world with more than simply an easy-to-learn meditation technique; he also provided a model of an urban meditation center that became a catalyst for the spread of meditation among the laity.45 One cannot overemphasize the significance of this development: Buddhists traditionally held that meditation was a risky business that should be undertaken only under proper supervision, i.e., within the confines of the samgha. Prior to the modern period there was virtually no opportunity for laypersons to study meditation..." (pp. 256-257, Sharf, 1995, Buddhist modernism and the rhetoric of meditative experience. Numen 42, 228-283). I think additional context can likely be found in Smith & Novak (2003). Thus, I believe the generalization still stands that in most contexts and in most of history, monks have meditated more than the laity. But, as History2007 says, what's the bottom line for this page? The foregoing reference notwithstanding, all the lede really needs is a good reference at a suitable level of generality that will be comprehensible to the reader. Presearch (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "widespread lay phenomenon" by any means, but I can only speak from what I know. Sōtō Zen emphasizes Zazen for both monastics and laity. This is not a modern phenomenon within that school, it was emphasized by Dōgen Zenji in the 13th century. I'm not saying it applies to historical Buddhism as a whole, but there are certain schools that emphasize meditation for the laity. - SudoGhost™ 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Regards lay meditation in Buddhism, Smith and Novak (2003) do seem to have material, possibly relevant as a citation -- see, e.g., chap 15 "Adaptations: The New Buddhism". "Down through twenty-five Asian Buddhist centuries, monks and nuns have been the tradition's vanguard, and meditation has been almost exclusively their province (and often only for an elite fraction of them)" (p. 143) Presearch (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But more importantly, in regards to the above, should it just be reworded to "Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions, especially in monastic settings."? Seems like the best and most accurate change (to me at least). - SudoGhost™ 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, I like that wording. Personally I'd look the other way if it was inserted even without citations. But in terms of citations, maybe one east and one west would be useful to support the claim "especially in monastic settings". (Or possibly someone like Goleman (1988), The meditative mind, could provide one-stop shopping?) Presearch (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

a propsal

i'd say we replace the phrase about monasticism with one about religion, because religion covers monasticism too. makeswell (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

i made the edit by just speaking about religion. makeswell (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) if you guys want to put a phrase in 'especially in monastic settings' then feel free. i think we also had a phrase there at one point about associations between meditation and an eremtic lifestyle. it is true, btw, that retreats are common times to meditate across various religious orders. makeswell (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "religion" is specific enough, because I think the point of the sentence is that meditation is, historically at least, practiced by the priests/monks/what have you of the various religions, and that the laity did not practice meditation. - SudoGhost™ 04:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah. what do you think might be a fitting solution? makeswell (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. What do you think of "Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous monastic traditions."? - SudoGhost™ 05:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the lede needs to reflect the import of the page, and that the page links religious traditions to meditation. There isn't much about monasticism on the page. makeswell (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of a stylisic edit. We could come up with reasons for one side or another. But, I do think if we removed mention of religions entirely, that would be POV. I think, you proposed earlier in the discussion to combine monasticism and religion in one sentence, or I proposed after that, that we mention religion alone in a sentence, so either one works, in my view. I think either one is totally cool and groovy. Like I said, monasticism isn't mentioned much on the page, so I'd just write 'religion' if it were just my writing. That's what I'd do. I'm ambivalent enough to not filibuster any changes along the lines of what we've already discussed, either 'especially monasticism' or just religion. makeswell (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A really minor issue in my view, and will hardly affect the readers. Monasticism is probably better, but no big deal at all. History2007 (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here. makeswell (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why a picture of a statue of something called Buddha?

Why is there a picture of a statue of something called Buddha in an article about meditating? Or at least, why does one dominate this article. That picture should be in an article about Buddhism.

This prominent picture creates a totally unnecessary and misleading association between Buddha and meditation.

Meditation can be defined / explained / taught / described without any reference to Buddha.

However, I am not sugesting that Buddha/Buddhism shouldn't form some part of this article, but the picture's size and very prominent position at the top of the article is misleading: it serves, or could tend - quite misleadingly, to create an instant association between Buddha/Buddhism and meditation in the mind of the reader of this article, as though meditation is something predominantly 'belonging' to Buddhism.

109.149.155.212 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better one? makeswell (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the picture on this page should be one that is clearly not religious in nature. I have come across a couple of alternatives, but I don't know how to post pictures in the edit box for review. Olive pearl (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

here are a couple ideas: http://blog.nutri-living.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meditation-benefits-wellness1.jpg or one of the brain: http://lauraschenck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Mindfulness-Meditation-Regulates-Alpha-Rhythms-300x231.jpg

Olive pearl (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read this: Wikipedia:Image use policy, and then this: Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Embedding_Commons.27_media_in_Wikipedia_articles. (In short: it's usually not allowed to take random images off the internet and post them here.) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To most Westerners, Buddhism and meditation are already popularly linked and so I don't necessarily think it matters. However, I think that this article is doing a disservice in that it is highly western biased, and is obviously written from a western worldview... the way it's written, the examples used and the language used.

Although I don't think this is a big issue, I agree that it could be nice to have more balance across traditions at the top illustration. There are different ways this might be done. If we can find evocative images from multiple traditions (e.g., both east and west), then perhaps we could make them be the same size and create a sort of panel with multiple images. But the images would need to go together. And I've had a hard time finding a really evocative Western image of meditation (if only we could find more like this-1, or like this-2, which may not be usable due to copyright or b/c a living person...).

Another approach might be to use (at the page top) an image of someone who clearly looks like they are meditating, but in which the image is not as clearly associated with a single tradition. One possibility might be

this image (at right) from Wikimedia Commons, although it is not perfect. Or something like the first image, here, identified by Olive pearl (perhaps not usable due to copyright). Or possibly even the "man meditating in garden" image that is further down in the present article. All of these have a somewhat eastern connotation. But their particularities and links to specific traditions seem (at least to my eye) a bit toned down from what we have now, and thus perhaps more appropriate as an introduction to an article about multiple traditions. I doubt we'll find anything perfect. But might any of these be an improvement? -- Presearch (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

consistency in the Definitions and scope section

The section Meditation#Definitions_and_scope needs to be rewritten so that it is more consistent. The chart at the top begins by defining meditation as involving attention, for instance,

"[M]editation refers to a family of self-regulation practices that focus on training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control and thereby foster general mental well-being and development and/or specific capacities such as calm, clarity, and concentration."

and also,

"the need for the meditator to retrain his attention, whether through concentration or mindfulness, is the single invariant ingredient in... every meditation system"

then there are four paragraphs about the ambiguity of the word meditation and the variety of styles it covers,

"There remains no definition of necessary and sufficient criteria for meditation that has achieved universal or widespread acceptance within the modern scientific community..."

then there is a statement at the end defining meditation as when,

"the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind (sometimes called "discursive thinking" or "logic") into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state. The terms "meditative practice" and "meditation" are mostly used here in this broad sense."

There are statements defining meditation and statements like, "There remains no definition... that has achieved universal or widespread acceptance within the modern scientific community." It's almost comical.

Do you guys think that we should rewrite this section somehow?

I'd propose we mention the ambiguity first and then lead into some definitions that have been proposed over the ages - admitting the difficulties in finding a workable definition and also the attempts at surmounting them. Specifically I'd propose moving the chart beneath the discussion of the ambiguities and writing a sentence at the end of that discussion stating something like, "Despite these difficulties, there have been several proposed definitions, as follows..." makeswell (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just wanted to quickly add that over the course of writing the post above I realized that the ambiguity claims weren't contradictory to the definitions, but that there's some challenges to defining meditation as well as attempts to surmount those challenges. makeswell (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to see if a new version improves the article, one has to see the new version. So please post a suggested new version here, so everyone can make comments on it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, remember that mentioning "some definitions that have been proposed over the ages" would mean essentially mentioning definitions that are specific to one tradition, once we get much before the 20th century. If there are notable definitions that should be mentioned within each tradition, I say let them first be integrated into the tradition-specific sections. Then this fact could first be mentioned briefly in the definitions section (e.g., "see also definitions within specific sections, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam..."). At that point we could assess if a new table also needs to be added. Otherwise, in terms of attempts to define meditation that cut across traditions, that's already done by the current table, in a very systematic way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Perhaps you (Makeswell) find the current definitions section a bit like a koan? First you find it contradictory, then you see that it makes sense, then you laugh? -- Presearch (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I also agree with History2007 that we would want to first see a proposed new version (posted here). -- Presearch (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section by adding information about why there's a need for the endeavors to define meditation, adding a short two sentence, 'And here are some of these endeavors...' paragraph above the chart, and reordered things so the ambiguity section comes before the chart with definitions. I think it's essential that we keep the ambiguity section first because then the reader will see how the definitions fit within the context of the argumentative and strenuous attempts by scientists at finding a definition to meditation.

Presearch, by 'definitions over the ages' I meant the chart that was already in the Definitions and scope section.

If I were to make another edit I'd change how much mention there is in the section about the various types of meditation and thus the problems in finding a common working definition. I think the first two paragraphs go into this a bit too much as is. makeswell (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Meditative brain alpha wave dominance

I just speed read meditation, and didn't see brain wave studies. Did I miss, or should I add? 32cllou (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If you can do so following WP:RS & other appropriate Wikipiedia guidelines, please add this information. Lentower (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

If it wasn't science based or Wikipedia qualified I wouldn't care to ask or suggest. I need to find and buy more research, or do you have access if I provide the reference links?32cllou (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You should be able to find what you need in List of open-access journals on the web, and using these sites, with the search terms modified:

Lentower ([[User talk:Lentower|talk]

Thank you, those sites will come in handy for other subjects too. Here's the study that caught my interest http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/apjcn/volume17/vol17suppl.1/167-168S8-4.pdf while working on Tea. Love meditating.32cllou (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the current article has a section entitled "Scientific studies" (perhaps needing cleanup?). It links to a main article entitled Research on meditation, which has a subsection called "Brain waves during meditation". So perhaps 32cllou should devote his/her available efforts to ensuring that that section is well done.

In terms of mentioning scientific findings within this main article on meditation, I recall that our thinking has been that there's too much scientific research, and there are too many different points of view on it, to fit it all into this main article. Only highlights are possible - and I do see that "brain activation" is mentioned here as one of the findings about meditation. That could be expaned a bit, I'm sure, if there are secondary sources that can give a clear sense of what the nature (i.e., major and sustained findings) of those brain activation studies have been. But most if not all of the details and citations to single studies should be relegated to the other article on Research on meditation. Ideally, that article should be made high-quality, and this article's subsection can condense its most relevant key points. -- Presearch (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll only put in a very short sentence re finding that drinking tea can enhance brain alpha wave dominance, which relates to the meditative state.32cllou (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which meditation?

Hi guys,

I think that the following quote from this article is clearly POV and go into detail about why I think this after the following blockquote.

This article mainly 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 (sometimes called "discursive thinking" or "logic") into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state. The terms "meditative practice" and "meditation" are mostly used here in this broad sense.

It would make sense for us to say that several Western scholars believe that one quality of meditation is to go beyond the reflexive, thinking mind. This claim is supported by the citations presented. If you would like you can see two of the sources cited in the paragraph here and here. Note that the former is the opinion of several Western scholars, and even says in the methodology section, "Due to the lack of general consensus on a definition of meditation in the scientific literature...," and the latter source is also a study published by Shapiro, a scientist.

It seems obvious that the view that all the types of meditation mentioned on this page are done in order to 'go beyond the reflexive, thinking mind,' is not universally shared by all, or a majority, of people who practice or think about meditation I have provided a quote before on this talk page of the Buddhist monk Matthieu Ricard stating very clearly that he believed meditation is not only about quieting the mind, and I think that in general the idea that there might be some sort of consensus amongst all the religious and secular groups mentioned on this page as to what are the qualities of meditation is hard to support. The sources cited in the paragraph from the article quoted above do support the claim that the viewpoint of several Western scholars is that the goal of meditation is to move beyond the thinking mind, but don't support the claim that this aim is expressed by all, or most, of the people who concern themselves with meditation.

The quote above is already within the Western definitions section. I suggest we simply add in the fact that 'moving beyond the reflexive mind' is a quality of meditation in the viewpoint of several Westerners. Without this change the section is POV. makeswell (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So you want to reopen this issue. The last time around, your arguments were found unpersuasive, although you kept persisting in them, often erecting big walls of text. If you get little response this time, there is a very real possibility that people are reluctant to spend time on this issue again. Do NOT change the page itself unless there emerges a clear consensus on the talk page, supported by something more than your own arguments and the silence of almost everyone else. -- Presearch (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes I would like to open discussion on this topic again. The previous conversation on this topic was almost entirely between me and Health Researcher (your alter-ego Presearch?). It's true that hearing from others would help to move this conversation along. Any opinions would be appreciated and listened to. makeswell (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 June 2012

Eastcreek (talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

• Not done: This contained copyvio of this page in addition, I don't feel that it was an appropriate addition to the article. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to note, I blanked the information due to the copyvio. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

the lead

The lede has become very messy and redundant as well. Do we really intend to list examples of meditative practices in the lead? If so, perhaps we should group them by religious tradition as we do in the article, for instance, "In Judaism people do _(insert type of meditation here)_____ and _(insert type of meditation here)____, in Buddhism _____ and ______, and in Islam _____ and _______." makeswell (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Benefits of meditation

Meditation is a way to possess spiritual energy.Most of the people do not believe this because they do not know how to meditate.To meditate,one should first sit in a yoga posture called Padmasana.In which one has to do following steps;

Sit erect, stretching the legs out fully. Bend the right leg. Place it high on the left thigh at the juncture of the thigh and hip, with the sole of the foot turned upward. In the same way, get hold of the left leg. Put it on the opposite thigh. The heels are opposite to each other. Both the thighs and knees are pressed against the floor. It may be possible the beginning that one of the thighs is slightly off the ground, but with practice it is easy to perform the āsana in the correct way. Let the index finger touch the tip of the thumb. Place the hands on the knees. Keep the spine, neck and head erect. Fix eyesight on the nose. Breathe slowly, deeply and rhythmically.

And now a person should start meditation.It may be difficult at first but believe me,it is fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.62.151 (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation that shows that meditation lowers blood pressure

I noticed that rather early in the meditation Wikipedia article it listed that meditation lowers blood pressure and helps with depression and anxiety. I found a citation to support the blood pressure statement and added the citation for it. The article was for trancendental meditation (TM) and indicates that it does statistically lower blood pressure.Gustav38 (talk) 00:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Defining meditation

Meditation is such a widely practiced thing that not one definition can encapsulate it. I've done some research to widen the definition of meditation here. Meditation is inextricably linked to awareness. To meditate is to be purely aware.Matipop (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for GA status

Would anyone object to me nominating this article for GA review?

I noticed in the Talk archives there is mention of Good Article status being a good thing to go for "My intention is to have an excellent article that can achieve GA status. Not an easy process, but a rewarding one. ≈ jossi ≈"

I think this article is really great, so a Good Article review can only make it better, right?

I'll nominate it soon if no-one has any objections. Let me know. Thanks. CathMontgomery (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I've nominated it now as there were no objections. I have checked the article is ok for GA review (It's completely alright with the "immediate fail" GA criteria). Maybe during GA review some sections might move to sub-articles. But it has many fine sub-articles already, like Research on meditation. CathMontgomery (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Meditation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC) This is a tough article to do. So let me start off with the small things. The lead does not follow WP:LEAD and needs to include a good summary of this page. Some early issues are the lack of inline citations after claims. I will give a few examples now:

• When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek, hāgâ became the Greek melete.
• ...but in many cases, practices similar to modern forms of meditation were simply called 'prayer'.
• "Some authors have even suggested the hypothesis" - Who, be specific.
• "Wilson translates the most famous Vedic mantra 'Gayatri' thus : "We meditate on that desirable light of the divine Savitri, who influences our piuous rites" (Rgveda : Mandala-3, Sukta-62, Rcha-10)." MINREF cite
• The table shows several definitions of meditation that have been... - Editorializing
• This article mainly focuses on meditation in the broad sense - Editorializing
• Other typologies have also been proposed,[69][70][additional citations useful] and some techniques shift among major categories.[71]

Evidence from neuroimaging studies suggests that the categories of meditation, defined by how they direct attention, appear to generate different brainwave patterns.[69][70][additional citations useful] Evidence also suggests that using different focus objects during meditation may generate different brainwave patterns.[72] - Two calls for additional citations.

• Thus the English word "meditation" does not exclusively translate to any single term or concept, and can be used to translate words such as the Sanskrit dhāraṇā, dhyāna, samādhi and bhāvanā.[citation needed]
• Meditation may be for a religious purpose, but even before being brought to the West it was used in secular contexts.[citation needed] Beginning with the Theosophists meditation has been employed in the West by a number of religious and spiritual movements, such as Yoga, New Age and the New Thought movement. - Citation needed at end as well.
• "Various postures are taken up in meditation. Sitting, supine, and standing postures are used. Popular in Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism are the full-lotus, half-lotus, Burmese, and kneeling positions. Meditation is sometimes done while walking, known as kinhin, or while doing a simple task mindfully, known as samu. - Citation needed and has an issue with layout and paragraph size.
• "Various forms of meditation have been described in popular culture sources. In particular, science fiction stories such as Frank Herbert's Dune, Star Trek, Artemis Fowl, Star Wars, Maskman, Lost Horizon by James Hilton, and Stargate SG-1 have featured characters who practice one form of meditation or another. Meditation also appears as overt themes in novels such as Jack Kerouac's The Dharma Bums and Herman Hesse's Siddhartha." - Same as well.
• Disamb fix: Ashtanga
• Broken refs:

1. John Dunne's speech (info) [stanford.edu]
2. There has been a dramatic increase in the past 10 or 15 years or so of studies on the impact of meditation upon one's health. Translator for The Dalai Lama, interviewed in a video here (info) [stanford.edu]
3. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/08/local/me-relignewage8/2 (info) [latimes.com] - incomplete ref
4. Mount Athos: History (info) [macedonian-heritage.gr] - Long dead and known deadlink
5. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: Scientific Studies of Contemplative Experience: An Overview (info) [noetic.org] - same
6. Om Yoga: Its Theory and Practice (info) [atmajyoti.org] - same
7. The organization Contemplative Outreach (info) [contemplativeoutreach.org], which teaches Christian Centering Prayer, has chapters in non-Western locations in Malaysia, Singapore, and South Korea (accessed 5 July 2010) - Same
8. Overview: Clinical and physiological comparison of meditation with other self-control strategies (info) [psychiatryonline.org] - Dead
9. Meditation: concepts, effects and uses in therapy (info) [onwww.net] This one too.

All references should be uniform and standard, i.e., not "published in 1970!" Quite a few are questionable sources as well, but that's another matter. I'll place this on hold now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

quick questions from nominator

The crux of the issue seems to be things which can be solved methodically. Finding citations with Google and fixing broken REFs. Could each "editorializing" item be cut down to size / deleted? That leaves several sentences/paragraphs to create for the Lead, so the whole article is summarized. If these 3 items are addressed in this way, would it then pass? Or have I missed some more work required? Let me know, thanks. CathMontgomery (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, methodical checking is part of the GA review process. I do suppose some amount of notes are required on such a subject, but the reader should not be aware that Wikipedia is well... lecturing. Its a fine balance, but the tone of "this article" and "this table" in the text goes from it being a bit more off in tone once it is in text - its like a textbook. By itself, its not something I'll really worry over. The deadlinks and some issues with the lead are far more difficult and this comes with the territory - a very broad article is the hardest of all subjects to do. Simply because so much needs to be summarized and so much cannot be easily explained and done in a simple fashion. I'll give you all the time you need, but do ask for some extra eyes and any questions. GAs are not just supposed to be you and me, anything that helps rectify the issues now puts it closer to featured and makes the article stronger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

textbook error

Haha, I was aiming for the authoritative tone of a textbook. Thanks for your insight, luckily you have put me right. I’ve read a lot of textbooks recently. I need to get my head around a different style. It will take me quite a while to look over a few featured and good articles in this new light to see how they manage it. I appreciate the lack of time pressure. Thanks, CathMontgomery (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I don't think anyone is going to be on me about the length of this one. This is a really difficult and important article to have at GA. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, if I don't get some updates on this, I will have to fail this for inactivity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Stoicism

An interesting addition to this article would be the ancient Greek practice of meditation. That may evolve into its own article, but it's just a thing to consider for those who want to make this article better. To be honest, I'd have to do a little bit more research to see if that article exists, but I don't think it does. Something to chew on. Lighthead ^þ 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jose Silva redirect

Why is there a redirect to "Meditation" for the entry "Jose Silva"? Church of the Rain (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone 'boldly' redirected. See section of redirect : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy

Redirection Policy shortcut: WP:ATD-R See also: Wikipedia:Redirect § Redirects that replace previous articles Sometimes an unsuitable article may have a title that would make a useful redirect. In these cases, deletion is not required; any user can boldly blank the page and redirect it to another article. If the change is disputed, an attempt should be made on the talk page to reach a consensus before restoring the redirect.Church of the Rain (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I located the discussion here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Silva_(parapsychologist)Church of the Rain (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100615031520/http://noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch1.htm to http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/ch1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502073229/http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21 to http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140502073352/http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf to http://compassion.stanford.edu/pdf/Dunne_Ch%2019%20Lutz%20Dunne%20Davidson-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111103193809/http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/site/PageServer?pagename=community_chapters_international to http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/site/PageServer?pagename=community_chapters_international

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/5/625

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100729005209/http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr:80/Athos/General/AthosHistory.html to http://www.macedonian-heritage.gr/Athos/General/AthosHistory.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/5/625

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Meditation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090214010249/http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org:80/cgi/content/abstract/60/5/625 to http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/content/abstract/60/5/625

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Meditation in the Workplace

Added Meditation in the workplace sectionDimademashkieh (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Policy misunderstanding

This action is _______ and policy use per Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform is not listed. This doesn't mean it should be added to the list without consensus for proving a point. There is no WP:BURDEN or WP:SPAM too. Ref. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not about winning and always be in check in ambiguous situations on whether actions are bordering with pettifoggery and if possible facilitate WP:FRIENDLYSPACE.

It is a company engaged in self-publishing and it is listed in the Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business. JimRenge (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Special status for Transcendental Meditation?

A large section about the virtue of Transcendental Meditation (TM) with the title "Effects of meditation in schools" was spammed into the article eight months ago by an SPA. At first blush, the section seems respectable because it is accompanied by a flurry of research citations. But, as our own article on TM points out, research concerning TM is of poor quality and includes "a high risk for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization". Consequently, I have removed the section. The main thing setting TM apart from other meditation techniques is the intensity with which it is commercially promoted. Otherwise there is nothing particularly special about TM forms of meditation, which are essentially traditional Hindu forms. Wikipedia should not be functioning as an advertising arm for the TM organisation. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. JimRenge (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. JCJC777 (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meditation. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1%3A1%3A2005.pali
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090225175425/http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf to http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meditation. 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/20130714054602/http://vitalwarrior.org/the-program/step-7-meditation/ to http://vitalwarrior.org/the-program/step-7-meditation/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Misleading definition

"The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation, build internal energy or life force (qi, ki, prana, etc.) and develop compassion,[3] love, patience, generosity, and forgiveness."

That sentence contains 5 actual (existing things): compassion, love, patience, generosity, forgiveness and one not proven by anyone to exist: qi/prana/life force.

The sentence should be rephrased because it makes it appear as if qi/life force/prana is a real thing to the average unsuspecting person. It's the exast same thing as telling 5 obvious truths and one not-so-obvious lie in the same sentence.

Since Wikipedia should not have the point of view of the "designers" of meditation (or any other practice for that matter), the definition should not be from meditation's point of view. If one visits the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prana

you will notice that in each and every one of them it says either "alleged" or "believed to be by" or "according to this/that religion"

Thus, in the same sense of NPOV the definition of meditation should stop sticking something not proven to other existing things and become something in the lines of: "The term meditation refers to a broad variety of practices that includes techniques designed to promote relaxation, build an alleged internal energy or life force (qi, ki, prana, etc.) and develop compassion,[3] love, patience, generosity, and forgiveness." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad tepes 999 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Surprised this part stayed here for so long

I have removed the following from the Buddhism section:

"According to Manmatha Nath Dutt, there is hardly any difference between mainstream Hinduism's Dhyana, Dharana and Samadhi with the Buddhist Dhyana, Bhavana, Samadhi, especially as both require following the precepts (nayas and niyamas)."

No sources and this is clearly wrong, Buddhist and Hindu meditation share similarities, but at their core their theoretical background is quite different (anatta vs atman). To say there is "hardly any difference" is a gross exaggeration.

I also fleshed out the description of Buddhist meditation a bit more in that section as well.Javierfv1212 (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Kirtan Kriya content moved to talk

I removed the following because I am unclear if the source meets WP:MEDRS at all, and even if it does I don't see how this presentation and wording could be appropriate.

Other forms of meditation such as Kirtan Kriya (KK), is proven to be an effective prevention method of Alzheimer's disease. This practice is proven to improve sleep, decrease depression, reduce anxiety, down regulate inflammatory genes, upregulate immune system genes and increase telomerase by 43%. This specific practice, uses focused breath, chanting, finger movements and visualization. These activations of the brain have proven highly beneficial in AD prevention practices. Examples of results of the study include increased cerebral blood flow and PCG activation, both providing protection against neurodegeneration.

References

--Ronz (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

yeah that is not acceptable. thanks for removing it. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

This article is now too long

Can someone move the 'religions' section into a new article? or shorten the 'history of' section by moving some of that content into the actual 'history of' wiki article? JCJC777 (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone update the PsychINFO ref?

Reference 21;

Number of citations in PsycINFO: 69 for Walsh & Shapiro, 2006 (2 July 2010); 95 for Cahn & Polich, 2006 (2 July 2010); 57 for Jevning et al. (1992) (3 July 2010); 103 for Goleman, 1988 (2 July 2010).

Thanks

Reference 31 (was 21);

Have updated the citation counts.  The Goleman book is not in the PsycInfo database anymore.  In the footnote to the table, I noted that it is a classic text.  Should I support that assertion?  I might be able to find a reference somewhere saying that, or I could just note the huge number of editions issued.  Thanks for any guidance! Vale6674 (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Follow-up note about footnote; I've removed the phrase "classic text" as I'm still not sure about calling it classic without an generally-accepted way to support that. I've left the Goleman quote in, even though his book is not listed in the PsycINFO database, just because it has been reissued at least 32 times and Goleman is a well-respected and highly cited researcher. Vale6674 (talk) 18:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meditation. 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/20111103193809/http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/site/PageServer?pagename=community_chapters_international to http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/site/PageServer?pagename=community_chapters_international

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) –  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  02:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

This is my first time seeing a bot. Can someone please explain what it has done? Thanks, Laurence U Chicago Lpwarner (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing evo4soul

The individual is attempting to promote his page through wikipedia and this should not be tolerated as he is unverified and unreliable.

"Piyush Kumar Nahata,[90] an ex-Jain Monk created a meditation technique by the name of evo4soul.[91] He worked more than two decades to understand the process of evolution theory in the context of ancient Indian wisdom provided by Rishis, Tirthankaras and Buddhas. After a deep analysis of both systems he designed a genius system to evolve the soul. It’s a complete guide to align the body, mind and soul." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaias92 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for pointing it out. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary definition

The lead opens witj the following statement:

Meditation is a practice where an individual uses a technique, such as focusing their mind on a particular object, thought or activity, to achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm state.

References

Yet, this is what Merriam-Webster actuualy says:

intransitive verb

1 : to engage in contemplation or reflection He meditated long and hard before announcing his decision.

2 : to engage in mental exercise (such as concentration on one's breathing or repetition of a mantra) for the purpose of reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness<br.
transitive verb

1 : to focus one's thoughts on : reflect on or ponder over He was meditating his past achievements.

2 : to plan or project in the mind : intend, purpose He was meditating revenge.

So, MW actually gives two definitions, only one of which is being used. And it does not say "to achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm state," but "reaching a heightened level of spiritual awareness." That's not exactly the same. If MW is being used as a source for the lead, then it should reflect this source accurately.

Since the lead summarizes the article, it would be better to move the MW-definition to the definition-section, and expand the three dictionary-statements with this other deifinition: thinking deeply on something. The lead, then, can summarize, the definitions given below the dictionary-definitions. Something like:

While the term "meditation" may refer to prolonged and deep thinking on a subject, in common usage it mostly refers to a family of techniques, such as mindfulness and concentration, to train attention and awareness. These practices bring bodily and mental processes under greater control, fostering subjective well-being, and resulting in a calm and watchful mind.

This is better than a dictionary definition, and a one-sided focus on concentration-meditation, while the scholarly definitions clearly speak about attention-training and heightened awereness. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, but I do think that a definition may be mentioned in the lead and not in the body, because it is the sort of general information that may be mentioned only in the lead.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

That's my intention also. I just think that the lead-definition should be a summary of the extensive scholarly definitions given in the body of the article, and not a dictionary-definition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that's true.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Bond-definition

I think that the Bond-definition would be better of at the end of the table with often-cited definitions. Theirs is based on other definitions, and, in that respect, more like a 'summa' of previous definitions. Also, the explanatory notes ("*Influential reviews encompassing multiple methods of meditation"; "(The first 3 are cited >80 times in PsycINFO.[30]"; etc.) would better be treated as such, namely notes, and moved into proper notes.

Also, but that's a personal opinion, the Bond-list contains repetitions: "logic relaxation" spunds to me like "mindfulness" (in it's limited meaning as "bare attention"), which is akin to "the use of a self-focus skill or anchor" and "the presence of a state of suspension of logical thought processes"; and "a self-induced state/mode" is basically the same as "a state of psychophysical relaxation" and "a state of mental silence." So, basically their definitoon comes down to 'techniques for self-observation from a religious/spiritual/philosophical context which induce a state of psychophysical relaxation and mental silence. Which pretty much sums up the Pali canon description of dhyana. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Article length is too long -- looking for feedback on a possible solution

This article is over 140 kB, whereas according to WP:SIZERULE articles over 60 kB probably should be divided and articles over 100 kB almost certainly should be divided. I think Wikipedia clearly needs an article for meditation, so the best solution seems to be turning the largest sections into articles and leaving shorter versions of them here with links to the new articles.

The "Religious and spiritual meditation" section is by far the longest, so one possibility is to create an article called something like "Meditation in religion and spirituality". The article could also contain the section currently called, "Meditation, religion, and drugs." Shorter versions could stay here. This would be quite a bit of work, though, so I don't want to do it without making sure this would be a durable change. Alternately, the material here could just be integrated into the individual religions' mediation articles (e.g., Christian meditation, Meditation in Buddhism, etc.). Not sure the best way to proceed here so feedback would be great. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs to be trimmed. IMHO, the section Meditation#Forms of meditation should be merged with Meditation#Religious and spiritual meditation. Also, Meditation#Instances of sexual abuse in meditative practices needs to go, not because of whitewashing of course, but because it's way out of scope. On a more general note, there are too many sections and too little integration.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

The sexual abuse thing should probably be made into a separate article. I've made such a thing for Sexual abuse by yoga gurus for the same reason, to avoid cluttering the main articles, but these things need to be covered.

The sections on 'Secular applications', 'History', 'Research in meditation' have "main" links but the text here does not summarise those articles, so the sections should be replaced with actual summaries. With luck that can be done by copying the articles' leads and adding citations, but that demands very good summarizing leads, often not the case. Best is actually to copy the entire article into a sandbox, delete the lead and images, and cut down every other section to a sentence or two, leaving all the important citations. That will shorten this article considerably, and make the tree of articles much better balanced.

The same could be said for the meditation sections with "main" links. I think Buddhist m. and Hindu m. are fairly well summarized, whereas Christian m. probably needs a complete rewrite - in this case I think the lead section of that article could be copied across to replace the current section.

The "Pagan and occult religions" and "Modern spirituality" sections are wholly uncited and clearly need work: these could become longer, and probably deserve main articles of their own.

The "Forms of meditation" section is inadequate, bitty with excessively short sections, and the last part is much too list-like and should probably be moved to a list article and perhaps to a template. The subject is a major one (indeed, it probably should form the meat of the article, or a main article in its own right, leaving yet another summary here), and it needs serious work.

The "History" section is problematic for another reason: it overlaps largely (as it admits) with the religion sections. I suggest these be merged into a single "History" with subsections for the major religions (e.g. the Islamic paragraph in the current History is merged into the Islamic section, etc), with a single subsection at the end of that for "Secular".

I'm sorry to say this, given the amount of work that's been done, but starting off with a lengthy section on what the dictionaries say is rather missing the point for an encyclopedia article. The dictionaries are trying to do one small part of the job of an encyclopedia - identifying alternative senses of the term used for a concept - when what we are trying to do is to explain the concept itself. We should talk not about the word "meditation" and whether it's a substantive referring to a practice or whatever, but what meditation is, suitably sourced, so the definitions fit in naturally as part of the discussion in each section. In short, a hived-off Definitions section is basically always clutter in an encyclopedia article - at best, it duplicates what the rest of the article does; if it's at all effective as a summary, it's a duplicate of the lead; and at worst, it's off-topic as Wikipedia is "not a dictionary". I think we should use the definitions as footnotes at most, elsewhere in the article; or we just keep the citations and use them wherever needed (so the work won't have been wasted).

Overall, the article is trying to cover too many bases; more "main" articles are needed, and this article needs to consist mostly of summaries of those articles. It will then be both shorter and more informative. My tuppence 'orth. I've chopped some of the worst of it, and merged a lot of short sections. And copy-edited a bit. Oh, and the lead needs rewritten to summarize the article now or in some near-future state. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with everything that's been said above except I'm still unsure over what to do with the "Religious and spiritual meditation" section. The two above comments suggest merging it either with the "Forms and techniques" section or with the "History" section. It seems to me, though, that the section as it exists now combines 1) techniques, 2) historical elements, and 3) information on the underlying philosophies—so it will probably have to be split up. The historical elements could be moved into the "History" section (though I think most of it can just go to the specific articles), but the rest would be hard to integrate with the "Forms and techniques" section as it currently exists. This is because the sub-sections (e.g., frequency, posture, use of prayer beads) cut across many religious traditions, and don't cover the underlying philosophies. I wonder if it might be best to merge things together into a large "Forms and techniques" section divided into 1) Classifications (currently 2.1), 2) General elements (currently 2.2-2.6), 3) Religious and spiritual forms (currently 3.1-3.6), and 4) Secular forms (currently 4.1 and 4.3). My concern with that would be that it could be too large a section. Once again, thoughts would be appreciated. --Gazelle55 (talk) 22:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

i went bold and deleted the sexual abuse bit; it has no apparent significance in the context of this article. it belongs in articles about buddhism and/or sexual abuse. k kisses 19:37, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The article has focus on one kind of meditation mindfulness which it should not. Also, many sources are non reliable for health related content and are primary sources; they should be removed. In addition this review has been archived and is no longer Wikipedia compliant. Deal with these issues and the article will be shorter as well as more WP compliant. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

infobox?

I would like to add this infobox as it links to wikidata:

Meditation/Archive 8
MeSH	D019122

Notgain (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Chiswick Chap: This has been resolved by Chiswick Chap.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meditation&diff=907211117&oldid=907079604&diffmode=source] I didn't know of the new template. It is better down there under external links. Notgain (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2019 (UTC)