Talk:Walking meditation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 13 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chriscarroll58. Peer reviewers: Gallaz63, Olivia.bakken.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

In the rinzai school the walking is done fast, while in the soto school it is done in slow motion. Also the way that the start and end are announced seems to me to vary among the different groups. -- Pweemeeuw, Sept. 19, 2003

I am aware of a Rinzai group in Missouri that practices kinhin slowly, and different Soto traditions walk with varing degrees of slowness (but not as briskly as is traditionally associated with Rinzai kinhin, based on my experience). I have witnessed different ways of announcing the end of kinhin among different groups within the Soto school.U.b.i.k. 03:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)U.b.i.k.

Shouldn't the redirection from Walking Meditation, if there must be one, be the other way around? Zen walking meditation is just one form. --babbage (talk) 05:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

kinhin--meaning

In Chinese, 経行 (or in Japanese Kinhin) does not mean "to go straight". 経 (Japanese: Kin) means classic works or sutra or Buddhism teachings, and 行 (Japanese: Jin) means walk. Therefore Kinhin does not mean "to go straight". It literally means Buddhist teachings walk, or together it would basically translate as meditative walking. It refers nothing to "walking straight". 71.146.33.151 (talk)

No, 経 (經) does not only mean scriptures, it also --and I would contend primarily-- means 'to pass through' thus Chinese words such as 經受, 經常, and even the economic meanings are related to this sense flowing, e.g. 經濟, 經營. So, though I wouldn't translate 経行 as 'to go straight,' those translators have good reason; and it is misinformation to to say so definitely that it means "religious teachings walk." I'd say it might literally mean 'experiencing walking.' Or, perhaps the name was invented with both meanings in mind. --That would be quite Zen, after all. Useragain (talk) 06:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

extra sentence for potential future use....

feel free to use this quote, taken from the more broad Mediation page. i am sure there is some truth to this, but it does not seem to be simple enough, or historically based enough (i.e. is some dude's theory), for most readers to understand. nevertheless i have trouble just deleting it...

Walking meditation helps break down habitual automatic mental categories, "thus regaining the primary nature of perceptions and events, focusing attention on the process while disregarding its purpose or final outcome." makeswell (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont know wath is the historical truth about "Walking Meditation", but in the practice of the Plum Village, in the steps of THICH NHAT HANH, this is just one of the ways to meditate. This is particularly true when practicing in a garden or in the woods where one can really be in connection with the all world and have a glimpse at our real nature.

In our practice, a bell will start the walking, "leaving our brain between our toes", just feeling the earth rolling under our steps. Each step as if it was the first of our life. One sound of the bell will invite us to stop and come back inside of us, as its normal that the mind goes astray. If in a room, a double sound of the bell will warn us that this is the last round of the méditation and we should continue our walk until reaching our mat or zafu.

May be this is not historical, or traditionnal, but it is the way we, by ten of thousands, practice across the world in modern buddist ages.

(Renaud from "The Apple Village" - BRUSSELS)

Source: see "The little guide to the practices of the Village"

References

Chinese 經 vs hanji 経

In the description of the name of the article the hanji 経 is given for the Chinese character. 経 isn't Chinese. Is there a correct way to handle this Japanese vs Chinese issue? Leekohlbradley (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 August 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved DrStrauss talk 10:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

---

Kinhin → Walking meditation – In many traditions, walking meditation is taught, often under other terms than kinhin. Walking meditation is a pan-Buddhist term that is widely used throughout traditions. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support per The Complete Idiot's Guide to Meditation, 2nd Edition p182, but shouldn't zazen also be moved from Japanese name to sitting meditation? These practices are not limited to Japan. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
• Support, much clearer title, although the article doesn't mention the form of walking meditation where someone walks for at least 90 minutes as slow as possible without stopping (used in some Buddhist and other traditions). Randy Kryn (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

New Section on Health benefits

I have done a tiny bit of research on the health benefits of walking meditation. Please respond with feedback if I have made mistakes 22:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Revisions

I am in an undergraduate class at the University of Washington, which is studying successful online communities such as Wikipedia. You could go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chriscarroll58/Walking_meditation to find the final draft of my revisions and additions. I will move the article over tomorrow, 17 February 2020. Please excuse any beginner mistakes, but don't hesitate to let me know what I did wrong! Chriscarroll58 (talk) 15:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

See also

@ChouxMonster: I'm not really seeing the relevance of Peripatetic school as a see also item for this article. As that article says, while the name "Peripatetic" does have a connection to walking, the idea that Peripatetics were particularly inclined to philosophise while walking is probably apocryphal. What do you think? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: 2023SP Communication Research Methods

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kmdar0117, Andrewd0114, Spookeduke, Fdlopez2, Brittany814, Asolomon02 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Brittneyguizar.

— Assignment last updated by Brittneyguizar (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewd0114 and @Brittneyguizar, I just wanted to let you know why I have reverted the section you added on Worldwide involvement. It doesn't belong on this page. As I said in my edit summary, the text you created talks about meditation generally, and doesn't provide any details about about walking meditation, which is the subject of this article. It might be more relevant on the Meditation page, but I would suggest that you look for better, more scholarly, sources, as most of those you've cited are poor quality popular website articles giving no basis whatsover for the figures that they list. They do not represent reliable sources. By the way, as I expect you're aware, if another editor reverts your addition, giving reasons in the edit summary, you should never simply reinstate it without addressing the points raised; instead, you should open a discussion on the talk page. Please see WP:BRD. Good luck with your ongoing studies. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted another edit by student editor Brittany814. Unlike the edits discussed above this one was mostly on topic, but did have some of the same issues (poor-quality sources, leading to claims of unlikely veracity) and some additional issues like an informal (thus unencyclopaedic) tone and use of general references rather than in-line citations. Pinging course instructor Abideq and WikiEd person Brianda in case either is interested – I'm glad that students in this class seem to have been encouraged to work on existing articles rather than trying to create new ones, but the edits made to this article have regrettably been consistently unacceptable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Andrewd0114 and @Brittany814: Please take the time to read the edit summaries and the messages that @Arms & Hearts and @MichaelMaggs left on this talk page, rather than reverting their edits. They've been very kind and patient in explaining exactly why the edits made were reverted and what improvements need to be made for those edits to remain on Wikipedia. Please stop editing to the main page, and work on your contributions in the sandbox page until you've addressed the concerns mentioned above. Your instructor can still see your work in the sandbox page if it needs to be graded, so don't feel pressured to add work on the existing article if it's not ready. @Abideq

To emphasize: remember that when another editor undoes your edit in a way you disagree with, you need to stop and discuss the change on a Talk page. That's the rule for every Wikipedian: Never just re-insert the content without discussing it first. If you do, you can be blocked for edit-warring.

Thanks @Arms & Hearts and @MichaelMaggs for sharing useful feedaback and pinging me. Feel free to loop me in whenever issues arise with students from our Student Program. Appreciate yall. Brianda (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Brianda, I apologize for this confusing process on my end, as I was confused/worried at Michaels feedback at the time. I was under the impression that if my work was not submitted it would not have been graded. I did not realize my sandbox was visible to my professor. As for the editing, I further my apologies, as I thought I had fixed the problem, and resolved all the feedback given, even though I did not reply to Michael accordingly. I will use the given feedback and go ahead and make the needed corrections/edits, and also keep this in mind for future reference. I extend my apologies as I did not mean to be disobedient, I was just in a hurry to help my team when needed be! Thank you very much! Andrewd0114 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I have read the given feedback, and have already in contact with my other fellow article editors in my groups. I apologize for the lack of sourcing, as the articles used were not scholarly. We will continue to edit, improve, and also listen to the given feedback. I apologize for the delay in the feedback process, but the message has been received, and understood. Thank you! Andrewd0114 (talk) 22:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Michael, thank you for the message as it seems I made this process way harder than needed be. I have ha a crazy last couple weeks, with the last week being one of the hardest of my life. As I will agree, the sources I used were not scholarly articles, but the articles I did list, I felt gave me the best information needed to creatively write my section. I will go ahead, and fix, and also use this feedback for my future uses/publications. I apologize for the delay/inconvenience, and thank you for your time, and feedback. Take care! Andrewd0114 (talk) 22:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewd0114 for your responses. Just to additionally clarify – as well as being able to see your sandbox, your professor ought also be able to view your edits to the article, including reverted edits, via the article history or your contributions. Very few edits are ever permanently deleted, so it's never necessary to revert in order to make an edit visible for purposes of assessment or feedback.

More generally, I'd recommend that any student editors working on this article either familiarise themselves with WP:MEDRS or refrain from adding any claims about health benefits of walking meditation. Wikipedia has fairly stringent standards for verifiability and reliability of sources, and these requirements are more complex when it comes to biomedical information. I'd imagine there's research on social, historical and cultural aspects of walking meditation that could be used to expand this article; doing so would be simpler than trying to find good sources for medical claims. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)