![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]"
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)
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)
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)
"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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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)
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 [3] (sometimes called "discursive thinking" [4] or "logic" [5]) 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eastcreek ( talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 : /info/en/?search=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. /info/en/?search=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Silva_(parapsychologist) Church of the Rain ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Added Meditation in the workplace section Dimademashkieh ( talk) 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1%3A1%3A2005.paliWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
"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:
/info/en/?search=Energy_(esotericism) /info/en/?search=Qi /info/en/?search=Reiki /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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. [6]
References
feurstein06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Ronz ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 02:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [1]
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [2]"
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)
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)
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)
"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]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
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)
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 [3] (sometimes called "discursive thinking" [4] or "logic" [5]) 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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Eastcreek ( talk) 02:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 : /info/en/?search=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. /info/en/?search=Talk:Jos%C3%A9_Silva_(parapsychologist) Church of the Rain ( talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 05:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Added Meditation in the workplace section Dimademashkieh ( talk) 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
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.
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.1%3A1%3A2005.paliWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
"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:
/info/en/?search=Energy_(esotericism) /info/en/?search=Qi /info/en/?search=Reiki /info/en/?search=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)
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)
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. [6]
References
feurstein06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Ronz ( talk) 18:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC) – Paine Ellsworth put'r there 02:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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. [1]
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 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)
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)
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)
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)