![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Great start!
I do think that we should extend this page. It should include other common Buddhist meditation methods, visualisation meditation for example. Also there should be mention of non-conceptual vipashanna. Then these terms should be related to their Tibetan counterparts. Also should we include a section about Mahamudra and Dzogzen meditations, etc. Maybe we should relate the meditation practices to the different schools of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayanna and Vajrayanna), maybe even list them under these headings. What do you think? 150.203.2.85 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC) R.Sok
It seems reasonable to separate it into sections either for the various schools (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) and then their subdivisions; and then the various schools in those countries. Alternatively one might structure it by areas/countries, and then for various schools in those areas, but that seems more complicated and not really necessary.
One may also want a section delineating the historical development. Or maybe better one main section dealing with the historical bit (development of meditation in the various schools until the encounter with the west in the 19th century). Then the development until the 1950ies, and finally what we have now.
(I’m running late for a meeting, but here are some) rough suggestions for possible topics:
• Earliest history and sources (maby including what other sramana groups practiced). • Expansion through central Asia. • History & development in the Theravadi countries. • History & development in the Mahayana countries. • History & development in the Vajrayana. • Modernity and encounter with the west. • Contemporary developments. -- Mindzpore 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.-- Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it does need a lot of work. First of all I suggest that the articles on
samatha and
vipassana be merged with this one. I know that one might argue that neither is exclusively Buddhist, and that there may be historical issues (see J. Bronkhorst, The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India) as well as modern applications (MBSR; S.N. Goenka) that might warrant the separate articles. Still, I believe that as the terms (samatha & vipassana) are so strongly connected to the Buddhist tradition, those articles should be merged with this one, and then be further clarified here.--
Mindzpore
17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, nice article - I'm no expert but I thought it more likely to be "Supreme vehicle" (saijōjō) – the realization of buddha-nature as immanent in all beings (see shikantaza). not "Supreme vehicle" (saijōjō) – the realization of buddha-nature as imminent in all beings (see shikantaza). so I changed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.102.22.231 ( talk) 15:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Today, the following lines were inserted as the very first lines of the section, " Types of Buddhist meditation" (which are the article's very first lines after the introduction):
These lines are well-written and informative. I am grateful for the anonymous editor's desire to add his or her knowledge and skills to benefit others and happy to know of another's joyful engagement with the recollections. Personally, I suspect that if I were to meet these lines' author, I'd be deeply impressed by her or him.
Nonetheless, I am undoing these newly added lines for the following reasons:
Per WP standards, I ask that these concerns be addressed here before an attempt is made to reinsert the information. I'd be happy to discuss alternatives (e.g., possibly putting the above information in a sidebar and/or adding the information, with citations, to the Anussati article).
I hope my basis seems rational and actions reasonable, whether or not one initially agrees with them. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Today User:New22 (who appears to be the same editor who made the above-identified problemmatic edit — based on writing style, word preference (e.g., "earliest"), obsessive focus ( Anussati), place of insertion, etc.) added the following text in the same location:
The reference is to: Bimalendra Kumar, ANUSMRITI IN THERAVADA AND MAHAYANA TEXTS, Buddhist Himalaya VOLUME XI 1999-2005(COMBINEDISSUE) http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11anusmrit.htm.
The associated Edit Summary states: "The article makes it sound as if there is nothing in common with all schools of Buddhism. This is wrong."
There are many reasons for why this newly inserted material is an improvement over the former version including:
I applaud these improvements. In addition, the Edit Summary's rationale, if earnest, provides a basis for better resolving User:New22's most fundamental concern.
However, still problems exist. First from the above list, the fourth concern (previously identified as "perhaps most important") continues to be unaddressed:
In addition, there is another basic problem: The cited article does not provide the support needed. In particular:
Another minor problem with this newly inserted text is that it talks about "at least ten basic meditations known as 'recollections'...." In terms of the referenced canon and the article cited, there are not "at least" but "at most" ten recollections. Such an error throws into question the initial editor's knowledge about this practice. (FWIW, just to emphasize that I have nothing against anussati practices, I have found them valuable in my own practice and, as a result, contributed significantly to the existing WP anussati article).
I would be interest in addressing the Edit Summary issue, if sincere. Also, I hope User:New22 responds here — I feel I have given far more thought and time in providing a reasonable basis for reconsidering his/her edits than he/she has taken in simply inserting them. Regrettably, I have to go now and thus cannot elaborate further (or even review what I have written). However, if these concerns are not addressed here in the next day or two, the new edit will again be reverted for these reasons.
With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your work and your sincerity, but any article should generally go from the basics to the later schools. You begin with a sentence implying there is no commonality in Buddhist meditation. Something COMPLETELY WRONG and factually incorrect.
The work I cited clearly indicates that the anusatis were common to all the schools (they are even in Tibetan).
The question is Buddhism is about the Buddha, and only later about different schools. Buddhaghosha is not Buddha, but a mere disciple. There are plenty of Buddhist texts with Buddha emphasizing the Anusatis as being a major component. In Buddhism, the Anusatis are basic and should be mentioned in beginning. It's the most basic teachings and meditations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.130 ( talk) 16:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thoroughly misleading. Gives the impression that most of Buddhaghosa's 40 subjects don't appear in the Pali Canon. In fact all but 2 of them do. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources for this section appear to be entirely based on a book written by a member of this group. [2] This is an obvious case of COI (Conflict of Interest) [3] I would like to nominate this section for deletion unless there is a mention of FWBO meditation technique in third party sources. As I understand it, the group has its own publishing house. Vapour ( talk) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
[...deleted, deleted, deleted...] alright so i edited the original Zen entry, "five styles of zen in my view" which had originally caught my eye and pissed me off, edited it for discrimination and a self-centered worldview....
so basically just two sections: one as "views on meditation" where views refers to the whole: 'i've experienced this before so now i'm telling you about it, and since we're both human, here is kinda what it's like to be a human: so here's my advice' which is the basis of meditation practices (or most any practice on that note) so one category just as "views on meditation" which has to be sensitive to other people's points of view on a wikipedia article, not only is that lack of sensitivity very offensive and going to turn a lot of people away from wikipedia, it is also completely against the spirit of buddhism, completely the opposite of something like interdependence: further it is simply a very small, very biased view. granted, all views are biased, but we should at least through our eyes see that somebody else has eyes as well, so to speak. i mean did we not have racism for the past darn 200 years in America?
hopefully the point is well-received/understood. then i mean i feel like 'views' is a better word than 'types' because views includes that whole life as a series of events leading one to see something in a particular light by relating it to their past experiences... which is what a type is: that sum relation. so perhaps a section like, "Views on Meditation" instead of "Types of Meditation", where 'views' expresses that experience already summed up... in the writing that came before 'views'. i am going to change that now if everybody's cool then let's keep it that way. Makeswell ( talk) 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
this is a good bit from the Meditation page, but it didn't exactly fit with the flow of the Buddhist section at the time I am editing it. Therefore I am placing it here for safekeeping in the hope that it will one day be used somewhere on wikipedia... All Buddhist traditions recognize that the path to Enlightenment entails three types of training: virtue ( sīla); concentration (dhyāna); and, wisdom ( paññā). [2] Thus, meditative process alone is but one aspect of the path to Enlightenment. [3] makeswell ( talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
also, same with this... Monks may regularly train in meditation for 10 or 12 hours a day. The Dalai Lama spends 2 hours a day meditating every morning, but says that he is not very serious of a practitioner. For many lay practitioners, 2 hours a day is too much, and 10 or 15 minutes might be fine.
this is not about meditation... One particularly influential school of Buddhist meditation in the 20th century was the Thai Forest Tradition which included such notable practitioners of meditation as Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Maha Bua and the Ajahn Chah. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this stuff actually work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.196.133 ( talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I enter a meditative state where I see blue colors, about once a day for an hour. It feels blissful, gives me more intense dreams, and so forth.
There also studies done by scientists these days, studying the effects of meditation on the brain. If you would like to learn more then look up names like Matthieu Ricard and Richard Davidson, and scientific articles like, for one, 'Neural correlates of attentional expertise in long-term meditation practitioners' --makeswell 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This new page is so confusing. The old layout from 2007 was so much easier to understand. Do you Buddhist meditation "experts" ever think that laymen are trying to understand and research about this and you people have thoroughly confused them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.58.232 ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Great start!
I do think that we should extend this page. It should include other common Buddhist meditation methods, visualisation meditation for example. Also there should be mention of non-conceptual vipashanna. Then these terms should be related to their Tibetan counterparts. Also should we include a section about Mahamudra and Dzogzen meditations, etc. Maybe we should relate the meditation practices to the different schools of Buddhism (Theravada, Mahayanna and Vajrayanna), maybe even list them under these headings. What do you think? 150.203.2.85 23:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC) R.Sok
It seems reasonable to separate it into sections either for the various schools (Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana) and then their subdivisions; and then the various schools in those countries. Alternatively one might structure it by areas/countries, and then for various schools in those areas, but that seems more complicated and not really necessary.
One may also want a section delineating the historical development. Or maybe better one main section dealing with the historical bit (development of meditation in the various schools until the encounter with the west in the 19th century). Then the development until the 1950ies, and finally what we have now.
(I’m running late for a meeting, but here are some) rough suggestions for possible topics:
• Earliest history and sources (maby including what other sramana groups practiced). • Expansion through central Asia. • History & development in the Theravadi countries. • History & development in the Mahayana countries. • History & development in the Vajrayana. • Modernity and encounter with the west. • Contemporary developments. -- Mindzpore 17:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.-- Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it does need a lot of work. First of all I suggest that the articles on
samatha and
vipassana be merged with this one. I know that one might argue that neither is exclusively Buddhist, and that there may be historical issues (see J. Bronkhorst, The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India) as well as modern applications (MBSR; S.N. Goenka) that might warrant the separate articles. Still, I believe that as the terms (samatha & vipassana) are so strongly connected to the Buddhist tradition, those articles should be merged with this one, and then be further clarified here.--
Mindzpore
17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, nice article - I'm no expert but I thought it more likely to be "Supreme vehicle" (saijōjō) – the realization of buddha-nature as immanent in all beings (see shikantaza). not "Supreme vehicle" (saijōjō) – the realization of buddha-nature as imminent in all beings (see shikantaza). so I changed it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.102.22.231 ( talk) 15:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Today, the following lines were inserted as the very first lines of the section, " Types of Buddhist meditation" (which are the article's very first lines after the introduction):
These lines are well-written and informative. I am grateful for the anonymous editor's desire to add his or her knowledge and skills to benefit others and happy to know of another's joyful engagement with the recollections. Personally, I suspect that if I were to meet these lines' author, I'd be deeply impressed by her or him.
Nonetheless, I am undoing these newly added lines for the following reasons:
Per WP standards, I ask that these concerns be addressed here before an attempt is made to reinsert the information. I'd be happy to discuss alternatives (e.g., possibly putting the above information in a sidebar and/or adding the information, with citations, to the Anussati article).
I hope my basis seems rational and actions reasonable, whether or not one initially agrees with them. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 02:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Today User:New22 (who appears to be the same editor who made the above-identified problemmatic edit — based on writing style, word preference (e.g., "earliest"), obsessive focus ( Anussati), place of insertion, etc.) added the following text in the same location:
The reference is to: Bimalendra Kumar, ANUSMRITI IN THERAVADA AND MAHAYANA TEXTS, Buddhist Himalaya VOLUME XI 1999-2005(COMBINEDISSUE) http://www.nagarjunainstitute.com/buddhisthim/backissues/vol11/v11anusmrit.htm.
The associated Edit Summary states: "The article makes it sound as if there is nothing in common with all schools of Buddhism. This is wrong."
There are many reasons for why this newly inserted material is an improvement over the former version including:
I applaud these improvements. In addition, the Edit Summary's rationale, if earnest, provides a basis for better resolving User:New22's most fundamental concern.
However, still problems exist. First from the above list, the fourth concern (previously identified as "perhaps most important") continues to be unaddressed:
In addition, there is another basic problem: The cited article does not provide the support needed. In particular:
Another minor problem with this newly inserted text is that it talks about "at least ten basic meditations known as 'recollections'...." In terms of the referenced canon and the article cited, there are not "at least" but "at most" ten recollections. Such an error throws into question the initial editor's knowledge about this practice. (FWIW, just to emphasize that I have nothing against anussati practices, I have found them valuable in my own practice and, as a result, contributed significantly to the existing WP anussati article).
I would be interest in addressing the Edit Summary issue, if sincere. Also, I hope User:New22 responds here — I feel I have given far more thought and time in providing a reasonable basis for reconsidering his/her edits than he/she has taken in simply inserting them. Regrettably, I have to go now and thus cannot elaborate further (or even review what I have written). However, if these concerns are not addressed here in the next day or two, the new edit will again be reverted for these reasons.
With metta, Larry Rosenfeld ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your work and your sincerity, but any article should generally go from the basics to the later schools. You begin with a sentence implying there is no commonality in Buddhist meditation. Something COMPLETELY WRONG and factually incorrect.
The work I cited clearly indicates that the anusatis were common to all the schools (they are even in Tibetan).
The question is Buddhism is about the Buddha, and only later about different schools. Buddhaghosha is not Buddha, but a mere disciple. There are plenty of Buddhist texts with Buddha emphasizing the Anusatis as being a major component. In Buddhism, the Anusatis are basic and should be mentioned in beginning. It's the most basic teachings and meditations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.4.108.130 ( talk) 16:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Thoroughly misleading. Gives the impression that most of Buddhaghosa's 40 subjects don't appear in the Pali Canon. In fact all but 2 of them do. Peter jackson ( talk) 17:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Peter jackson ( talk) 12:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The sources for this section appear to be entirely based on a book written by a member of this group. [2] This is an obvious case of COI (Conflict of Interest) [3] I would like to nominate this section for deletion unless there is a mention of FWBO meditation technique in third party sources. As I understand it, the group has its own publishing house. Vapour ( talk) 13:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
[...deleted, deleted, deleted...] alright so i edited the original Zen entry, "five styles of zen in my view" which had originally caught my eye and pissed me off, edited it for discrimination and a self-centered worldview....
so basically just two sections: one as "views on meditation" where views refers to the whole: 'i've experienced this before so now i'm telling you about it, and since we're both human, here is kinda what it's like to be a human: so here's my advice' which is the basis of meditation practices (or most any practice on that note) so one category just as "views on meditation" which has to be sensitive to other people's points of view on a wikipedia article, not only is that lack of sensitivity very offensive and going to turn a lot of people away from wikipedia, it is also completely against the spirit of buddhism, completely the opposite of something like interdependence: further it is simply a very small, very biased view. granted, all views are biased, but we should at least through our eyes see that somebody else has eyes as well, so to speak. i mean did we not have racism for the past darn 200 years in America?
hopefully the point is well-received/understood. then i mean i feel like 'views' is a better word than 'types' because views includes that whole life as a series of events leading one to see something in a particular light by relating it to their past experiences... which is what a type is: that sum relation. so perhaps a section like, "Views on Meditation" instead of "Types of Meditation", where 'views' expresses that experience already summed up... in the writing that came before 'views'. i am going to change that now if everybody's cool then let's keep it that way. Makeswell ( talk) 19:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
this is a good bit from the Meditation page, but it didn't exactly fit with the flow of the Buddhist section at the time I am editing it. Therefore I am placing it here for safekeeping in the hope that it will one day be used somewhere on wikipedia... All Buddhist traditions recognize that the path to Enlightenment entails three types of training: virtue ( sīla); concentration (dhyāna); and, wisdom ( paññā). [2] Thus, meditative process alone is but one aspect of the path to Enlightenment. [3] makeswell ( talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
also, same with this... Monks may regularly train in meditation for 10 or 12 hours a day. The Dalai Lama spends 2 hours a day meditating every morning, but says that he is not very serious of a practitioner. For many lay practitioners, 2 hours a day is too much, and 10 or 15 minutes might be fine.
this is not about meditation... One particularly influential school of Buddhist meditation in the 20th century was the Thai Forest Tradition which included such notable practitioners of meditation as Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Maha Bua and the Ajahn Chah. [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Does this stuff actually work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.196.133 ( talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I enter a meditative state where I see blue colors, about once a day for an hour. It feels blissful, gives me more intense dreams, and so forth.
There also studies done by scientists these days, studying the effects of meditation on the brain. If you would like to learn more then look up names like Matthieu Ricard and Richard Davidson, and scientific articles like, for one, 'Neural correlates of attentional expertise in long-term meditation practitioners' --makeswell 19:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
This new page is so confusing. The old layout from 2007 was so much easier to understand. Do you Buddhist meditation "experts" ever think that laymen are trying to understand and research about this and you people have thoroughly confused them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.58.232 ( talk) 14:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)