Talk:Meditation/Archive 1

This page 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.

A properggg definition of meditation?

Meditationsss is the act of calming and focusing the mind and too calm the nerves while avoiding rationalistic thought processes and random fantasies.

<be>Is this a proper definition of what meditation is?

Meditation the way most people practice it seems to me little more than poitless. What is the good of freeing or calming or focussing or whatever the mind when the body that it inhabits is sitting or lying or whatever in a depressive heap or just as bad with a forced state of 'good posture'. It's like trying to clean up and organise the inside of a house while the walls are crumbling and the foundations cracked. (Critto, but unlogged)

Good name, but meditation depends also on 'opening one's mind' (all techniques excluding the trance-based ones, for the trance 'narrows' mind instead of 'opening' it). (Critto, but unlogged)

Some people experience random fantasies as part of the meditation experience, and I was under the impression that meditation could be a state of calming in order to experience rationalistic thought processes.

"Meditation is the act of calming and focusing the mind..." This is correct.
Anyone that may experiences fantasies while meditating is having difficulty in their practice. The outcome of a meditative mind may result in calmness and a more clear mind but meditation practices vary.

Exactly. For example, in TM (Transcendental Meditation) one must meditate with his (or her) eyes shut, and there are no 'visions' (well, there happen some) while in Raja Yoga (RJ, by the Brahma Kumaris methods), one must meditate with his (her) eyes open, IN ORDER TO AVOID VISIONS from coming to mind (mind's eyes). I have practised it myself for years (both methods), and I know many other people who did, so I tested it myself (Critto, but unlogged)

This is probably why the definition is so short.
I've yet to read or contribute to this topic but because of your inquiry, I'm sure things here will improve. Thanks for the question.

I agree the meditation description needs work. Right now it rather randomly selects two sets of meditation-practice to focus on, where there are probably hundreds of such.

Yes, and I think that it would be better to concentrate on those few main movements, while mentioning other ones. Well, I have once seen a book called "From dusk to dawn: 101 meditation techniques" (its title was in Polish, I have now re-translated it to English), so if one book containted 101 techniques, there are probably thousands around. But without TM (Transcendental Meditation), Raja Yoga, Hatha Yoga, and some other directions, discussion on meditation would make absolutely no sense. (Critto, but unlogged)

kh7 12:53 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Many hundreds indeed. Buddha even mentioned that there are 84000 righteous practices to reach enlightenment, of which his Buddhism is only one.

Only one word to sum up: _exactly_. (Critto, but unlogged)

What about introducing the concept that is basic to them all, namely detachment. Or, as in Gurdjieffian terminology: inner considering should be lessened, outer considering should be enhanced. Or meditation as a means to eliminate negative emotions, such as anger, worry, depression, envy, etc., each negative emotion betraying a particular attachment. What about the symbolism of Plato's cave illustrating how meditation can be a tool to enable a human being, imprisoned in his cave of illusions, to turn around a 180° towards the light (= insight and realisation of what reality truely is? Satrakshita 29.11.2003 15:19 CET

A useful and accurate definition of meditation is important. How else can a person judge if they are making progress. To offer my two cents worth, it is important to distinguish between meditation techniques and meditation. Everybody when they begin to practise find that their mind is constantly busy ("I cant meditate") but on closer examination the fact is their mind does not go flat outg all the time. There are those moments of calm. Meditation is the act of cultivating that experience of calm or silence. A meditation technique (if it is geniune and useful) is a method which helps one to gain the necessary skill to work directly with the mind as it is. Watching the breath for instance is not meditation but it does serve to slow the mind down a little and diverts one from ingrained repetitive habits. 3.1.06

A thoughtful comment. However, please note that the previous comment in this thread was from 2003. The definition that is currently there is the result of many different approaches. You are welcome to edit it if you wish. By the way, new comments are usually added at the bottom of the page. Also, it is a good idea to sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~, thus. Sunray 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

hmm "Meditation is the act of calming and focusing the mind..." ??

And so can be taking a nap or a little bit more sleep on a daily basis it would endup the same result over time.

Isnt therre something more then that, isn't it rather the awarnes of the thinking mind proces itself.

To get able to change and recognize thinking paterns (like some think in circles). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit different that "thinking patterns." Unlike Western Psychology, meditation is known as focusing one's mind on an object, ie a candle or meditating (or you might say "imagining") the negative imprints/thoughts being dispelled from one's body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prowikipedians (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

infobox?

Does anyone find the infobox bulky and noisesome? [1] It seems that almost every word points to one of two or three files.... Can't they be cogently in-linked naturally? Meditation is hardly just about medicine; shall we have infoboxes about every field that touches upon meditation? Trc | [msg] 03:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Shall we duplicate every article? Hardly just about medicine? Well the first section is entitled: Health Uses and Benefits. Then there is a See other section. This article is hardly about anything other than Health Uses and Benefits of meditaiton. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 05:18, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've edited to create a clearer outline of subjects. The infobox is partly under see also, and partly a category listing. Meditation is not just about health benefits, so I would counsel not having a huge box focused on just that aspect. Trc | [msg] 05:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The use of category:alternative medicine was created by me in order to provide alternatives in the few cases where a topic could be listed under more than one topic, such as in astrology and cognitive behavior therapy. I reserve the right to create Meditation (alternative medicine) at a later date. Meditation is not my top priority at the moment. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:40, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The article Meditation (alternative medicine) could well prove a good idea, as medicinal uses may be sufficiently distinct from traditional aspects of meditation to warrant a separate organization. Good thinking. For now content is sparse enough to have things together, and nobody will fail to recognize the Category link. If you do create a separate entry at some point, I would recommend leaving at least some information in this present entry about medicinal uses. Trc | [msg] 18:01, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Done. See Meditation (alternative medicine). -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 17:03, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add articles on Mindfulness meditation and Concentration meditation. -- [[User:Mr-Natural-Health|John Gohde | Talk]] 18:31, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Some edits

Some grammar problems, removed a sentence differentiating anapanasati from vipassana (since it can be practiced either as vipassana or as samatha), de-capitalized "enlightenment", some stylistic stuff, a little NPOV, redundancy. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 08:57, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I added some sentences making the article more NPOV and clarifying references to God, which are undefined, and POV if they refer to a specific one. I also fixed grammatical errors and some odd sentence structure, as well as tried to maintain active vs. passive voice.--naryathegreat 02:26, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)

Intro overhaul

I have made major edits to the inital sections of the article, following the "be bold" mantra. = ) As it was, the text was unacceptably POV, focusing on spiritual benefits with awkward lip-service to other viewpoints. It was a good-faith effort, but I have tried to introduce more succinct and objective phrasing.

Regarding the substantial amount of deleted text, most of it seemed specific to one particular view of meditation, and not appropriate for the introductory sections. The intro to the article should be a concise, objective summary of what meditation is, without descending into the labyrinths of spirituality proper. Improvements welcome as always. Jeeves 08:05, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Specific traditions

The "Specific traditions" section of this article doesn't seem very specific. The only direct mention of a tradition is the bullet for Theravada Buddhism, the rest are vague descritpions of technique followed by the names of the traditions themselves. I propose to rewrite this section, keeping the info but rearranging it more as a list of traditions first, then having the describing sentences after the names of the traditions. Comments? Fire Star 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page was a bigger mess than I'd noticed at first. I've tried to make the page more general, as there are many, many meditative traditions outside of the New Age stream of thought, and to concentrate on New Age approaches to all of them does them a disservice in the long run. There is certainly room for such approaches to be mentioned here, as they are relatively popular, but the mention should be in the context of their own recent history, not to shed light on traditions thousands of years older. Fire Star 16:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I am Buddhist... And I can tell you that if you're going to get into "what kind of meditation is practiced within each large subgroup of Buddhism", you'll have a problem. There are too many meditation techniques, and ltos fo misconceptions (like "Rinzai uses Koans and Soto uses Zazen"). For example, my school is that of Chinese Lin Ji ("Chinese Rinzai" if you want), and we have lots of breathing, visual, sound meditations, as well as meditations that focus directly on the body and energy channels and chakras, and several other forms of meditation. And BTW, although I am a Mahayana Lin Ji/Rinzai Buddhist, I was never given a Koan. :-) So... Maybe it'd be better to just talk about "some of the best known practices within Buddhism", and also say that "Vipassana has been traditionally practiced in the Theravada school", "Zazen in the Soto traditions", etc, but not give the impression that there is a one-to-one mapping of techniques to schools and vice versa. And also, please mention that there are several techniques that are not mentioned in the article for the sake of brevity. Getting into too much detail will only make some people feel that it's unfair and also give the (wrong) impression that different schools of Buddhism have one or two meditation methods each.

Types of meditation

I believe the section Specific traditions that is mentioned above has become the section Types of meditation. Somehow, this section attempts to classify the different meditations in terms of the practice itself and its connection with religion or lineage, perhaps an attempt to obtain some general organization. However, there is no consensus in reputable sources outside Wikipedia on such a general framework, and therefore we cannot have it inside. Moreover, other aspects such as the social impact of meditation are also interesting. I do not see that we can impose that the different accounts fit in a unique framework, except the general Wikipedia policies: verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. These policies will help a lot to guarantee that only well documented meditations are considered, and in a neutral way. Amrit 04:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The difficulty I see in writing on different meditations in Wikipedia is that there are a lot of small groups, some of them being anti-cult organizations, others being supporters of a given meditation, that tend to use Wikipedia as a way to compensate for the fact that they do not show up in reputable sources outside Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot be used that way. The no original research and verifiability policies make it clear that any contribution in Wikipedia must first be found in a reputable source outside Wikipedia. They should conduct their cruisade or campaign, which may or may not be valid, using reputable mechanisms outside Wikipedia such as a peer review mechanism in a reputable journal. Lumiere 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Adverse effects

With so many reported beneficial effects I found it necessary to also add a paragraph on the possibility of adverse effects of meditation. According to many teachers of meditation the practice of meditation is not a quick-fix, and not something to be handled lightly. In some cases the practice of meditation might expose the meditator to powerful existential problems that he/she is not ready to handle. --Hawol 17:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The first paragraph of this section has no information and is very confusing. [–Anon, 10 March 2005]

Hawol, I reverted your deletion of the avoidant meditation paragraph, after adding 2 scholarly references. If you have some further reason for wanting it deleted, please discuss that here. -Medawar 18:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The greatly expanded second paragraphs contain an enormous amount of information. I don't want to say "TMI", but I think they could be abbreviated. Also, there's a few NPOV violations (they're very psychodynamic, e.g.). The final "meditative traditions which include the use of drugs are generally considered to be harmful to the practitioner" makes me ask, "By whom?" (It also contradicts the next section and could be deleted: the alledged adversity is from drugs, not meditation.) -Medawar 18:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

"Another problematic feature of the modern New Age approach is its association with frauds and deliberate charlatans who promote themselves as "healers", promising miracle cures of any conceivable affliction for the right amount of money." -- this sentence strikes me as being (1) not NPOV (2) off-topic, since the article is about the practice of meditation, not about New Age groups. Can we delete this? –Anon, 7 December 2005

The entire paragraph seems like an NPOV violation, if not solely because this seems to reference what happens when you meditate for too long / in excess. (Cramps, muscle pain, etc.) The main symptoms aren't something that will happen if I sit down and meditate for an hour... not to mention that the paragraphs also cite that you'll be mentally scarred by dealing with an existential question

rewires the brain

Dr. James Austin, a neurophysiologist at the University of Colorado, reported that Zen meditation rewires the circuitry of the brain in his landmark book Zen and the Brain (Austin, 1999).

What is that supposed to mean? Exactly how does it rewire the brain, and what are the effects of the zen-rewired brain?

Origins of meditation; early images

One sometimes hears of very early images of meditation discovered by archaeologists. An image of a seal "from the Mohenjo Daro region of India, ca. 2,500 B.C.E." is visible on the cover of this pdf of the Fall 2004 issue of Biofeedback Magazine. Personally I find it regrettable that "This yogic seal is copyrighted, and utilized with the permission of J.M. Kenoyer, courtesy of the Department of Archaeology and Museums, Govt. of Pakistan." Another, somewhat similar image is visible about halfway down this page on "Tantra in Ancient Times". (Google Images is great. I just entered meditation harappa and that was the only hit.) I notice that T. N. Ramachandran in "Harappa & Jainism" identifies another citation namely "engraved seal from Mohenjo-Daro (Cambridge Hist. of India, 1953, Pl. XXIII) of the third millennium B.C". (Might be redundant with one of the above?)

However, Willard Johnson, in Riding the Ox Home points out that simply sitting crosslegged doesn't comprise evidence that Harappan civilization practiced meditation. He seems to think the earliest evidence of meditation was around 500 BC. I'd add that the images do not clearly depict Lotus posture at all, but are more similar to Yoga's bound angle pose (Baddha Konasana). If we publish an image, we should not represent it as early evidence of meditation without qualifying our statement. I have not yet consulted The Origin and Development of Early Indian Contemplative Practices, E. F. Crangle. Harrassowitz Verlag, 1994. Any opinions? --Munge 04:57, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  I meditate to think things over peacefully. And, when I'm stressed, I meditate. It helps, but I have

to work on, keeping concentrated. I got advice from a counselor to "CONCENTRATE ON ANYTHING WITH A STEADY BEAT"(HEARTBEAT, BREATHING, ETC). So, to anyone else who meditates, it helps and use this advice, or pass it on.

Purposes rewording

rewording Purposes of Meditation beginning mid-paragraph

"Many have found improved concentration..." NPOV'd to "Many report improved concentration..."

"Generally, there is religious meditation...and..." has to be "Generally, there are religious meditation...and focus mediation...."

Reworded other sentences only for readability, not content.

Could "The disciplined self-cultivation aspect of meditation..." be better phrased, "The cultivation of self-discipline in meditation..." ??

Meditation and quantum mechanics

This text is controversial:

In quantum mechanics when an observer views a system they may collapse the wavefunction of the system, that is reduce the possibility states of the system.

It is not the observer that causes the collapse. The act of observation is not even necessary; it is rather the amplification from microscopic to macroscopic that defeats the isolation of the quantum-mechanical system, and it is this non-isolation that leads to the collapse, through bifurcation of the chain of cause and effect. -- 70.28.153.5 28 June 2005 13:03 (UTC)

I think the more detailed technical description should go into quantum mechanics. For illustration purposes to an ordinary user, the observer is often introduced into the description to make it easier to understand. How about changing the sentence as follows:

In quantum mechanics when an observer views a system the wavefunction of the system may collapse, that the possibility states of the system are reduced to one.--Fenice 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)

This section also needs a first sentence to explain quantum superposition.--Fenice 28 June 2005 15:17 (UTC)

I think this entire section is bunk, and anyone with any background in quantum mechanics would agree that it is pseudoscientific nonsense. If no one can find any credible sources discussing the matter, I think the entire section should be removed. If no one objects in one week, I'm taking it out.--Pfau 9 July 2005 11:45 (UTC)

Agree. This has nothing to do with meditation as far as I can see. Shantavira 11:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

See decoherence. The observer is not an essential ingredient in collapsing the wave function. Yes it is pseudo scientific bunk. Banno 12:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

The Uncollapsing theorem article should probably be meged with Quantum mind. Maybe this material should go there, too. --goethean ॐ 17:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-edit, introducing new section

I have done a re-edit that places the different approaches to meditation under one heading. This article still needs a lot of work, in my opinion. We need to introduce more academical scholarship and more source-critical material. The article has potential to be a comprehensive article, but it needs more grounding in academic discourse, as well as an elaboration of the socio-cultural practices surrounding meditation. At least, that's my opinion. --Hawol 11:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing section on Osho, awaiting a more comprehensive section on spiritual teachers

Osho had a different view of meditation to the usual one. According to him, meditation is a state beyond mind. It is not concentration. It is not about spiritual thoughts; it is a state of thoughtlessness. It is something that can just happen, it is a state that one can be in, it is not something that one can do. But he said that it is very difficult for modern man to just sit and be in meditation, so he devised some active meditation techniques that naturally take one into meditation. These techniques allow a person to express whatever is repressed in him. Many of his techniques involve dancing too. But the meditation technique is not meditation. Meditation technique is just a method that takes one into a state of meditation.

I have removed the (above) section on Osho until further notice. I have given this edit a considerable amount of thought. Although the spititual teacher Osho might be said to have gained insight into the practice and dynamics of meditation I believe that the article remains a bit unbalanced if only the view of one particular spiritual teacher is presented in connection with the subject of meditation. I believe therefore that it is best to leave out this section until we have established a more comprehensive section that deals with the particular view of different spiritual teachers on the practice of meditation. That way the information on the spiritual teacher Osho can be re-integrated in the article within a more comprehensive context. If such a comprehensive section is formulated I believe that it is important to present the views of different spiritual teachers somewhat within the borders of western academic discourse. The reason why I believe that this is important is because many of the eastern contemplative concepts originally orginated from a cultural setting that is foreign to the western student of meditation. This means that western students are confronted with substantial hermeneutic (interpretive or explanatory) problems in their meeting with eastern traditions. --Hawol 14:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to Rajneesh. --goethean ॐ 15:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Osho's view of separating the technique, be it body postures, dancing, singing or reciting mantras has some validity still, whether attributed to him or not. Meditation is the mental state achieved by the practice of a certain technique, not the hollow practice of a technique by itself. I understand that using meditation to refer to the different techniques is a handy way of referring to the actual process, but it fails to make this very significant distinction.

Some of the most innovative techniques introduced by Osho are called Active Meditations which, I believe, is trademarked. Googling around I found several other groups promoting active meditations and, in that sense, certain techniques used by gestalt therapy and other modern psychological therapies are very close to these active meditations. As a technique, they serve the same purpose, leading the practitioner either to some desirable psychological state, in the case of therapy, or to a meditative state. As such, they are both a step in the preparation for the end result, a meditative or altered psychological state. Such is the case of sustained altered breathing (my apologies for lack of a better expression) used both in rebirthing and in Osho's Dynamic Meditation (also trademarked, I'm sure).

Thus, I believe that active meditations deserve some mention, related or not to Osho, though it would be unfair to fail to recognize his contribution in this.

--DevaSatyam 12:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Spammy links

I have removed spammy links a few times now when I've noticed someone adding multiple links to one site in the article. These sites are usually highly commercial places which sells books and CDs on their front page and that has very little value (arguable) to add to the subject of the article. There are some links to sites like these in the article already (e.g the external link Learn mind-body techniques from some of the most respected experts which goes to a page proclaiming FINALLY, A COMPREHENSIVE MULTIMEDIA COURSE FOR STRESS MANAGEMENT, and the Guided Meditation Audio link under which hides the The Jose Silva UltraMind System (with a customer support link in its corner)). Should they stay in the article? Andkaha 06:42, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried adding a link for a meditation program (a clock) that is free (published under GPL) and keeps being deleted. I changed the name, the position, the description but an admin keeps on deleting it (i can't find its email to ask why). I've added many other free/opensource programs to other subjects and none of them is deleted. I cannot understand why supporting an opensource/freesource program (and wikipedia is based on opensource model) which is about meditation is so wrong. Should a new category (perhaps Programs) be added? 195.251.76.196 15:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Jon

Source-critical observations

Some other studies of meditation have linked the practice to increased activity in the left prefrontal cortex, which is associated with concentration, planning, meta-cognition (thinking about thinking), and with positive affect (good feelings). There are similar studies linking depression and anxiety with decreased activity in the same region, and/or with dominant activity in the right prefrontal cortex.

It would be nice if these studies can be identified and cited in the text. Otherwise, informative! --Hawol 12:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal of external links

This article had far too many external links, so I chose to do a hasty clean up. I have therefore removed most of the links. Many of these links were either commercial, or they were speaking for a particular interest or religious/spiritual organization. The removal of the first category of links (commercial) is unproblematic. The second category is more nuanced, and I apologize if I have been too quick in my editing and removed links to an organization that presents well-balanced information on meditation. Any reader who thinks my editing has been too hasty is welcome to add the link back and we will put it through a Peer-review.

Removing new section on Osho

I have removed this section. See earlier discussion. The edit is not unproblematic and I can appreciate the view expressed by the contributor to the earlier discussion about the relevance of dynamic meditation techniques to this article. However, I must still maintain my objections against giving preference to one spiritual teacher over others (that are not mentioned), which I believe leads to an unbalance in the article. We might however solve this problem if we develop a separate section on spiritual teachers, were several different teachers are mentioned and discussed from a neutral point of view, NPOV. --Hawol 10:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Osho formally separates the technique from the meditation proper. The technique is what is done in order to prepare for the meditation itself, which can be considered a heightened state of consciousness and it is something that cannot be intentionally done, something that just happens given the right conditions. Accordingly he devised several new meditations combining several stages of preparatory exercises leading to a silent stage when meditation can happen. Some of these preparatory exercises can also be found in western psychological therapies (i.e. gestalt therapy), such as altered breathing, gibberish, laughing or crying. He also reintroduced several traditional meditations reducing them to their most minimal expression, stripping them off of ritual and tradition, retaining the most therapeutic parts. He also recognizes that, given sufficient practice, the meditative state can be achieved and maintained while performing everyday tasks.

Being the author of these paragraph allow me to be partial to its contents. First of all, there are mentions to other authors in the article (Descartes, Edgar Cayce (a psychic, of all things! (my POV))), including a brief and irrelevant mention to Osho incorrectly placed under Hinduism. Anyway, I believe, as you say you do, that the concept is valuable so it would be worth adding it and it would be unfair not to credit its originator. I am not praising Osho as a spiritual master, just giving him credit as the author of the concept and of several techniques after it. Had I mentioned any spiritual aspects in his teachings about meditation, I agree that it would be unbalanced, but I am strictly talking about very practical matters around the practice of meditation. If we ever have a section about spiritual teachers I could even expand this to more, let's say, esoteric subjects. --DevaSatyam 19:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can appreciate your view, and I am aware of the fact that you are giving credit to the originator. The problem actually has more to do with the contemporary spiritual and contemplative culture, than it has to do with our different viewpoints. Given the present confusion surrounding spiritual matters, and the topic of spiritual teachers, it is not easy to find good and credible ways to include perspectives from the spiritual and contemplative culture. Especially since the behaviour of some teachers (I will not mention particular names, but I believe most major religions and esoteric traditions are represented) has been found to be somewhat eccentric, and in some cases even controversial, as noted by observers in the psychological field (for more on this, see Chinen, 1996 & Deikman, 1996). Given the fact that the surrounding post-modern culture is highly suspicious of many of these spiritual teachers (often with good reason) this introduces some special challenges to an encyclopedic entry on meditation, and the credibility of the information that is presented. If we include information from spiritual teachers (eastern and western), without complementing the article with a larger review of the contemporary spiritual scene and some of the controversies surrounding particular teachers, we might compromize the credibility of the article. Although I do recognize the fact that you do not engage in praising, some readers (unaware of the present state of popular spiritual culture) might interpret the disputed passage as a promotion of one particular teacher. This is not your fault, but a result of our present post-modern dilemma (including the New Age phenomenon) where commercial discourse (aimed to sell spiritual books or promote spiritual techniques) blends with genuine spiritual and contemplative discourse. My edit is somewhat problematic, I agree, but I hope my argumentation makes sense.

References:

Chinen, Allan B (1996) The emergence of Transpersonal Psychiatry in "Scotton, Chinen & Battista (Editors) Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology". New York: Basic Books

Deikman, Arthur (1996) Treating former members of cults in Scotton, Chinen & Battista (Editors) "Textbook of Transpersonal Psychiatry and Psychology". New York: Basic Books

--Hawol 11:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Amygdala?

I don't know if maybe i'm just crazy, but how is the Amygdala responsible for emotions? I mean sure it's responsible for things like fear and anxiety. but you can hardly say that that is all emotion. The Limbic system is responsible for emotions. Anyways so if anyone knows how to clarify if the original writer actually meant to write Amygdala or got confused with Limibic system as that is "the emotional brain". ..... there was also no stated reason why there was any correlation between the "Amygdala" and the Neo-Cortex. oh well

You're right. I did mean amygdala, but I should have said "fight or flight" or fear & anxiety instead of "emotion." The point is, among other things, mindfulness aids the inhibitory centres (prefrontal cortex) in evaluating the fight or flight messages from the amygdala, and enhances communication between these parts of the brain. I'll fix it.--Pariah 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

A whole lot of hoopla/flim-flam...Very one sided.

This article is extremly one sided favoring the view that meditation actually has some supernatural effect. I think that someone with a real science background who has researched the claims needs to re-do the article and provide a "critiques" area espically of the parts dealing with "qi-gong" or meditation causing physical damage to people. The studies listed seem like alot of psuedo-science. Also EEG's picking up "gamma ray"'s from people who meditate??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.117.10 (talk • contribs) 08:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could summarize these contrasting viewpoints. I do think it's possible science remains unaware of certain things, but I'm not willing to say there's anything supernatural about meditation, either. But there is definitely credible research going on about meditation. The most concrete stuff has to do with the use of mindfulness in dealing with stress and anxiety, and preventing depression relapse. I'll work on this soon--Pariah 19:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything that occurs in a meditative state is within the reach of all human potential. The practice of a meditative state of being is about camling ones breath and thoughts which scientifically has a direct effect on heart rate and blood pressure which has an indirect effect on patience, comfortability, confidence, level of stress or focus and/or something different for everybody. A common form of meditation is taking ones mind off the physical characteristics of the world, once one is no longer concentrated on their body or the room around them, weightless or out-of-body feelins can occur - this is frequently and easily disclaimed as supernatural when in fact it is a mere perception change about life as it is commonly lived and taught. The only way to truely understand meditation is through its practice - it is not something that can be taught only guided.69.164.185.200 04:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Siobhan Sullivan

Questionability of Transcendental Meditation

There are many people who have left TM saying it engages in cultic practices. (Captive Hearts, Captive Minds by Lalich and Tobias.) Is this TM in general, or cultic offshoots, or what? It should maybe not be included on the page in order not to give credibility to a possible cult. Opinions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ellieilluminate (talk • contribs) 00:09 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I am aware of some of the written material that levels the charge that TM is a cult, I tend to treat such presentations with a fair amount of skepticism. However, whatever its status on the cult meter, TM has had a significant impact on the practice of meditation worldwide and for that reason should be included in the article, in my opinion. Sunray 09:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

So, why did you remove the impact of TM in its description. Instead you focused on aspects that have a religious connotation, which is not at all the way it is seen by those who practice it and is not related at all to its impact. I think that the social impact of a given meditation fits well in an encyclopedia, as long as it is a neutral description with a reputable source to support it. Amrit 04:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since the entries all briefly describe the form of meditation, I tried to do that, plus, I added a brief lineage connection to Vedanta. People who want to know more can click on that or the links to Transcendental meditation, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, If I have not summarized this well, please feel free to edit it, though we need to keep these statements brief, as the article is too long already. Sunray 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

If we have to cut on what should be written on any given meditation, we should focus on what is neutral and well supported by reputable sources. See #Types of meditation. I will try to do that. Lumiere 19:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support this approach. Sunray 20:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

A few days ago, Fire Star removed the lead paragraph, which was worded thus:

Meditation, like yoga, originated in Vedic Hinduism many centuries ago. It was much later adopted into a wide variety of practices of religious and non-religious formats which emphasize mental activity or quiesscence.

His edit summary states: "remove unlikely claim."

Perhaps he would discuss this here. Why is this an unlikely claim? Meditation is widely believed to have originated in Asia. We know that meditation existed in Vedic Hinduism. Do you know of a tradition in which meditation was practiced at an earlier date?

The lead, as it appears without that paragraph is somewhat nonsensical. It gives the latin root of the word meditation and then refers to Christian spirituality. Meditation has never, to my knowledge, been an important component of Christianity. It appeared in the Christian tradition much later than it appeared in Hinduism. For these reasons, I am putting the above paragraph back into the article. Sunray 10:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead sentence into one that actually defines meditation. But I did leave in that reference, so no big deal, right? Ashibaka tock 02:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That scans much better. Sunray 03:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Awhile back I opened the article by defining "meditation" as "any of a wide variety of spiritual practices which emphasize mental activity or quiescence." Since then a number of people have come by and revised this, almost always in a way which narrows the definition in the direction of some favored religious tradition.

Remember that "meditation" is an English word with a Latin root. We can't just assume that "meditation", whatever it is, comes from India. As a sociological fact, the word's modern meaning has diverged somewhat since the time of Pascal and Descartes, but I still don't see any reason to privilege some religions over others, and say that their forms of "meditation" (or, activities which are translated into English as "meditation") are somehow more authentic or important.

Nor ought we to place strict limits on what it encompasses. For instance, somebody revised the opening paragraph to emphasize practices that calm the mind; yet Tibetan Buddhism has plenty of meditative practices with other goals. Dawud 08:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I think that the lead is correct in its current wording, I do agree that the definition was a good one and covered a wide range of different traditions of meditation. I think that the definition should be added to the current wording. Any objections? Sunray 06:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Doubling of images on page

See User talk:Philothai#New_images_in_the_Meditation_article --- Andkaha^(talk) 13:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Claim on sufism

Claim that sufism developed meditation independent of Indic traditions is false. Sufism is strong precisely in those areas that were Buddhist strong holds before Islamic Invasion. These regions include Afghanistan, central asia. Sufism is considered heretic in Islam proper.

Descartes and Meditation

The Descartes entry in the introduction is out of context - in the Case of Descartes he is referring to the word's secondary meaning,(deep thought) rather than the spiritual practice.

The word Meditation, (especially in french) has taken on more intellectual connotations, and Descarte's Meditations on First Philosophy talks about thoughts he had, rather than any routine made to produce the thoughts. Sfacets 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. Rlitwin 22:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Objection To Removal of External Links As Spam

I disagree with the recent removal of many valuable links (my own among them). Providing a way for readers to find out more about specific meditation techniques and schools is not spam and is not advertising. If the links had included descriptions such as "world's best meditation taught by the most attractive teacher and available for free for the next two hours" or even "you must click this link now!" then I would have called them advertising.

In my case, I run a nonprofit corporation sincerely trying to get knowledge out to the world. I do not even receive a salary. I find removal of my links to be a disservice to all those who read the article seeking effective meditation instruction. David 18:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

+1 I agree David. <-- Who is this? David 15:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good external link. www.project-meditation.org - I found them on google news. They offer people a free meditation course.

Gnostic (Modern) deletion

The entire Gnostic (Modern) section needs to be rewritten in a more precise manner, or deleted in its entirety. The largest reason is use of the word gnostic. It's an overly fuzzy term when it comes to describing the Christian groups from the 1st to 3rd centuries for whom the term is usually meant. As it's used today in popular culture, it's totally meaningless without contextual or outright statements of a groups beliefs. Stating that "modern gnostics have practices based on x to achieve y" is similar to saying "monotheists have a love for wine and woodwork". Stephan Hoeller details the situation and proposes a system of guidelines for defining what constitutes gnostic belief in What Is a Gnostic?[2]. Admittedly, his position within a self-proclaimed gnostic church is going to add some bias to his views. As a result, the criteria should be taken with a grain of salt. The reasons for needing them, however, stand on their own.

Additionally, "There is an enormous range of techniques taught within the Gnostic tradition" is blatantly untrue, if tradition is here meant to imply some connection with ancient gnostic belief systems. While some groups which use the term gnostic to describe themselves might claim to have ancient oral traditions, to say it's unlikely would be to give the idea too much credit. The only tradition which remain are those written down, primarily in the Nag Hammadi codices. And of these documents, none give actual instructions on how to achieve altered states of consciousness through mental tasks. Gnosis is primarily described as something which comes through baptism, the Eucharist, and other sacraments not too dissimilar to what any modern catholic partakes in.

I think the sentence below shows even more reason to modify or delete the gnostic subsection of meditation.

A common quote circulating in Gnostic schools illustrates this: " When the esoterist submerges himself into meditation, what he seeks is information."

First of all, what gnostic school are we talking about here? The fact that it says esoterist instead of gnostic hints that the answer would be, none but organisations devoted to the teachings of the quotations author, Samael Aun Weor. It's debatable whether his philosophy had more than a glancing relation to gnosticism as the term is usually understood. One of the wikipedia pages describing his teachings, "Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)", can only offer a single book, published after his death, and also before the public release of the nag hammadi codices, as evidence of a connection. Indeed, his own definitions of gnosticism either define it so broadly as to include almost any ancient religion, or so narrowly as to only refer to his own. Either of these two would make application of a particular aspect of their belief of social dynamic to gnosticism as a whole to be inappropriate.

Now, this isn't to say the gnostic subsection can't be salvaged. But just call it for what it is. If it's specifically about Weor's gnostic movement, then label it The Gnostic Movement , or something along those lines. The organisation certainly seems to have a highly developed system of beliefs, rituals, and meditative techniques which would qualify it for individual attention. But to just lump it, and all the other groups claiming the gnostic title together is unfair to the individual merit which any might have.

EmersonSmalltalk 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed

Although this article is sourced, the sources are not cited in the article. See Wikipedia:Citing sources. I have added two footnotes for the EEG section. Although mixing reference styles in not recommended, it is allowed. The existing references in the Reference section could be used to site the article using Harvard referencing (see Wikipedia:Citing sources).—Who123 19:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's just plain switch it to the standard footnote system. It's more consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. -- Chris chat edits essays 18:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

I think some are using the minor edit flag for major edits. Please see: Help:Minor edit.—Who123 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga and TM are not New Age

Sahaja Yoga and TM are not New Age, but classical Vedantic / Tantirc meditations. These meditation technics are part of thousands of years old yogic traditions, where the teachings have been passed from master to disciple. The fact that Sahaja Yoga and Trancendental Meditation are "re-packaged" and marketed in the western world, does not make them "New Age". They are part of the ancient yogic tradition that is alive doing well still today. I would advise moving them under topic "Yogic meditations". --67.188.228.20 05:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, however there is little or no research made discussing this... if you find any sources, then please make the changes! Sfacets 12:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe that although some of Sahaja Yoga Meditation is as you say "part of thousands of years old yogic traditions, where the teachings have been passed from master to disciple." the basis of the meditation is not. there is no single source for my belief of this but the best place to look might be the www.sahajayoga.org but I dont think it will support my claim. Just putting that out there. Also I resent the fact that you say sahaja yoga is "re-packaged" and marketed in the western world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.193.138 (talk) 03:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this interesting. What's the definition of New Age? Sueyen 02:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on Buddhism

As usual in articles on meditation in the English speaking world, there appears to be a bias toward Buddhism in this article. It gets a nice fat entry in the "types of meditation" section, compared to, say, the Hindu entry which is little more than a stub, and then is followed up in a later section by a recommended meditation method from the Dalai Lama. I know a lot of Americans are enamoured of the D.L., but that's no reason to give his meditation technique pride of place, especially when his technique appears to be fairly atypical - for example the instruction to "keep the eyes open" and some of the other recommendations for posture which I have not encountered elsewhere.

Seems to me it would be more appropriate if the article suggested some sort of generic meditation technique which might possibly reflect a wider range of practice. Gatoclass 17:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved edit by Skant from article page to here

I've moved the following from the article page - it was placed there by User:Skant, who didn't seem to know that discussions should go on the talk page. - ॐ Priyanath 00:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The types of meditations should not be listed alphabetically. It should be in the chronological order. Chronological order also establishes facts properly in the mind of reader. The actual meditation in the context of current page started with Hinduism and is synonymous with Yoga. The starting should be re-arranged first to give clear understanding of this meditation or Yoga-types and then adding a list of other religions or sects that also started having something close to meditation (chronologically). The concept of Yoga or Meditation in Hinduism or Vedanta is very comprehensive, it was later adopted by Budhdhism. It is morally cheating on part of western media to deliberately hide name of Hinduism and details of Yoga, while talking about meditation in this context. On a site like wikipedia, there shouldn't be any fear in giving facts and telling truths (While it may be ok for religious people or sites to not to associate Hinduism with it or to make round-about comments about it and make it seem more like either a new concept or a Budhdhist concept with less of Yoga related stuff). Further someone commented about what scientific facts can be given on effectiveness and use of meditation. There are many researches happening around the world (many in US universities of repute) and preferably some information or a link to those researches should be there at the end.

Objection to repeated "cleansing" of External Links

I would like to add my disapproval of the constant removal of external links from the meditation article. As the previous poster, David says,

"I disagree with the recent removal of many valuable links (my own among them). Providing a way for readers to find out more about specific meditation techniques and schools is not spam and is not advertising."

These are my sentiments exactly, and I would appreciate a tempering of the purge urge. Tarakananda 17:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for link editing/organization

Perhaps we categorize external links by their respective traditions/viewpoints (Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, secular...) and even add categories that lean toward brain effects or stress reduction. If the number of links is a concern, we could self-impose a limit of links per category, and discuss which links would provide the most relevant information for further investigation of mediation. Johngberry 16:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

There should be more on stress. Also proposing a useful external link on meditation and stress.

I think there should be more on this page about stress. Meditation is commonly used to help stress and there doesn't seem to be much at all on the subject. I would be happy to write a bit on that subject as I have some knowledge in the area, although I haven't written much on wikipedia before. Anyone else think there should be more on meditation and stress?

Also I have a great external link to an article on stress and meditation, let me know if you think it should be put on the page. Here it is Proposed External Link

Mrmoocole 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

G'day. External link shoudn't really be in the article - there's no references and a fair amount of advertising - WP:EL states that external links should be kept to a minimum, and unless it's a really good article that can't be covered in a reference, shouldn't be included. Also, if possible, external links should be used as references to add information to the page (also not the best for that purpose since it doesn't have references). Feel free to add a section on meditation and stress, though reference it if you can (can also be paper references, not just web), and try to keep it short. As it is an article on meditation, a huge section on stress will overbalance the focus of the article. Any sourced info could also probably be put in Stress (medicine) too. WLU 23:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I definately think there should be at least one link about stress or some more in the article about stress as there is almost nothing there about it and it is one of the main western reasons to meditate. I have proposed a link on stress This One and the category idea sounds great. Also there isn't much about brain effects in the article and an external link about that wouldn't be a bad idea.

Mrmoocole 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

All of my previous objections still stand - the helium.com content has no sources, and a fair amount of advertisement. Any content that is useful should be integrated into the page as a reference rather than an external link. See WP:EL. WLU 16:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I accidentally put this comment in the wrong place it was supposed to be in the section above.

Mrmoocole 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Meditation

umm...its not natural to NOT have random thoughts/fantasies while meditating, I mean are we ever realy not thinking anything at all? I think having these random thoughts during meditation is normal, however u have to ignore them and let them pass and continue meditating, but I guess it just depends as I heard once that there are HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of different meditations.

Meditation: Scientific Explanation

Okay, so it seams people are confused about meditation that it works in "mysterious" ways and is hard to understand. However, here is a scientific explination I thought up. The act of Meditating is trying to train your lungs to breath in deeper so that your lungs get used to sucking in more air, which means more oxygen is transfered through that air into the lungs and into the blood, then from the blood to all the rest of your body's cells, not excluding your brain's which is were the stress relieving factor comes in. I think it is realy as simple as that. More over the reason you want to sit up straight is because the lungs operate better this way, I mean imagine trying to perfect your breathing in a realy akward and uncomfortable position, that would be distracting your mind wouldn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.255.201.205 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Thankyou for sharing your thoughts and knowledge but I think you may have a slightly distorted view of what meditation is. Meditation isn't the art of trying to perfect your breathing it is the art of complete relaxation whilst being fully aware. There are no breathing techniques in meditation only a spot of heavy breathing here and there. Other forms of health exercises such as yoga and tai chi etc do concentrate on breathing exercises a lot but not meditation.

Mrmoocole 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is maintaining this page??

"Meditation" in its modern sense, however, more generally refers to what in Christian monasticism is called contemplation. Here, awareness is brought to bear on the reality of the present moment without deliberately encouraging conceptual thought or imagination.

Is it not idiotic to start the introduction of mediatation in this context with Chriatianity. More stupid is the way you bring meditation to 19th century so quickly. And still more idiotic is the way you term "Yoga" as modern thing. The start of article itself is lacking facts and is in very bad shape.

If you want to have more than one meaning of medidation (like one dictionary meaning, if that is relevant for your wikipedia!!), then you can use "disambiguate" page (or whatever you call it) . But keep mediataion page with its actual contextual facts and meaning. Better have someone who knows what meditation or "Yoga" is. Refer to types of Yoga on yoga article on wikipedia.

Skant 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)skant

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Sfacets 03:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I generally check on this page every few months because the content here often changes dramatically and so I can read new things. William Ortiz 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing redundant words and forced association of "Christian monastic" phrase

Another line of some practise medtation and some yoga, is absurd. It makes no factual sense. You should refer to different types of Yogas, to understand that meditation is part of Yoga. The yogic exercises or "Asanas" are part of yoga. Yoga is the concept or philosophy that governs different kind of yogic meditations. Anybody willing to revert my changes, should first give arguments opn talk page, irrespective of your authority on wikipedia! Skant 21:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

fundamentalists?

Is it true that certain fundamentalist churches consider Eastern forms of meditation to be harmful? If there is some published source saying so, then this point of view should at least be mentioned, if not explained, keeping in mind a strict NPOV. 38.100.34.2 20:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You're going about this the wrong way. If you have facts that would benefit the article in some way, then add them citing proper sources. Also note that the aim of the articles here is to provide a balanced view of the topic of the respective article. Andkaha^(talk) 12:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Heart Rhythm Meditation

I'd like to request that Heart Rhythm Meditation be added to this entry under kinds of meditation. HRM is described in the book "Living from the Heart" by Puran Bair (my father). The method has an authentic lineage within Gnostic Christianity and Sufism, and the method is not described in this entry. I think it deserves a subsection. I can serve as a resource if anyone's interested (I'm a certified teacher of Heart Rhythm Meditation, with 18 years of experience of daily meditation practice). The school of meditation which teaches Heart Rhythm Meditation is http://www.appliedmeditation.org

Asatar Bair 19:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)Dr. Asatar Bair, City College of San Francisco

hi Asatar -- I am not familiar with HRM. I would caution you that you will need to support your addition with reliable sources, and that your father's book will not be sufficient -- I would look for references to it in other meditation guides, or to its use by other groups, etc. Please also be careful of WP:COI. If you can write a brief section on HRM that meets those standards, however, feel free to include it. best, bikeable (talk) 04:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks for your comments, bikeable! Very helpful. Perhaps I will post a few thoughts here for discussion first, to see if others feel everything is up to Wikipedia standards. Asatar Bair 22:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

anonymous user

Edit by anonymous user is not original research.Greetings, Sacca 15:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

hi Sacca. Assuming you are referring to it can be looked upon as inducing the original unaltered state of consciousness, while all non-meditative states are indeed themselves altered. -- I reverted again. This is uncited, and hopelessly vague ("it can be looked upon"? by whom? these are weasel words). I'm happy to have it in here if cited properly, but I don't have any way to tell that it's not original research at this point. best, bikeable (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The citation the anonymous user just provided was to [blacklisted link removed], which is self-published. Self-published books are certainly reliable sources for scientific subjects (or anything else). 159.33.10.92, please do not continue adding this without a proper citation. bikeable (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Krishnamurti in hinduism?

Putting J.Krishnamurti/Osho or anyone like them in any organized religion is not at all right. Krishnamurti does not belong to any "tradition", his parents may be be hindu or whatever, but this was a man absolutely against all tradition. But yes, there is a difficulty for creating one section for each person, but an enlightened person probably deserves a section. Or probably the sayings of Buddha, Krishnamurti, Osho can be clubbed into one section, because all of them have the core of meditation in common, despite the differences in outer approach. The core they all say is "choiceless awareness" and all of them emphasize that meditation is not concentration. Krishnamurti gave no "methods" for it, Osho said that without methods anyway it doesn't happen to most people, so he gave methods which put the person into that kind of meditative state, and he also gave therapies to cleanse the place so that meditation becomes easily possible, Buddha also gave methods, but the people of his time were probably different from today's man... Coming back to the original issue, putting Krishanmurti in Hinduism is just not right, but what shall we do? If we create a section for krishnamurti, many people may start creating sections for their masters/teachers, and there is no objective way for the wiki community to decide whether the person is an enlightened master worth a section or just another teacher. That is a minor difficulty, suggestions?

I agree. The paragraph on Krishnamurti does not belong in the "Hinduism" section. His comments might be better placed in the Meditation in context section. I will move them there, but am open to other ideas. Sunray 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ethics are causally related to the attainment of religious insight

Buddhism shares some meditative techniques with other traditions, but the idea that ethics are causally related to the attainment of religious insight is a purely Buddhist phenomenon.

With this is meant the dharma of buddism if I understand you correctly. But their also is a Dharma is hindusm, it is one of the four life goals(dharma, arth, kama, moshka), the dharma being ethical rules. And didn't Jesus have his sermont on the mount were he stated ethical rules to attain the kingdom of God.

So Buddism wouldn't be the only religion, or is my interpretation of your entry not correct? Teardrop onthefire 08:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that being ethical leads you to a deeper understanding of things. The source is saying that that is a Buddhist phenomenon. Arrow740 08:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Meditation on the brain

The section "Meditaion on the brain" now no longer has any fact tags. Please check the section for inaccuracies, add fact tags on challenged statements (or even better, add a reference). If all is checked and no new issues can be found, I suggest the "check sources" tag to be removed. Teardrop onthefire 09:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Since no requests or issues have been made, I will remove the tag as of 12/07/2007 Teardrop onthefire 09:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Health applications and clinical studies of meditation

I have deleted a large amount of text from the Meditation page that was repeated on the Health applications and clinical studies of meditation subpage. Even now the summary is probably still too long, but it's a much needed improvement. WatchAndObserve 00:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Meditation

I would like to see a section on the scientific aspects of meditation. I took part in a study at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in my city, where among other things, they taught us ways to initiate rapid eye movement thought and other meditation techniques, and measured the blood flow and electrical activity in certain regions of the brain. Perhaps a section that lists the scientific principles behind inducing an almost lucid-dream like state while meditating, the effects and regions of the brain that are active in meditation, scientific principles, etc.

This is a good idea. One challenge would be that different types of meditation have different neurophysiological markers, so it would be somewhat involved. But maybe we could just make a general statement and then give an example, perhaps using EEG coherence or something. TimidGuy 11:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

MBSR

Shouldn't MBSR be listed under secular forms of meditation? Fspade 12:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious Claim in Health applications and clinical studies of meditation section

The statement "Dr. James Austin, a neurophysiologist at the University of Colorado, reported that Zen meditation rewires the circuitry of the brain in his landmark book Zen and the Brain (Austin, 1999). This has been confirmed using functional MRI imaging which examine the electrical activity of the brain" is both dubious and incorrect.

fMRI does not measure electrical activity, it measures blood flow, and this is used to infere activity, I have changed the last sence to "which examines the activity of the brain". Furthermore, I can find no published source that shows that mediation rewires the brain. I can find studies that show alteration in brain activity, and alteration in brain anatomy, but "rewired" to me (someone doing a PhD in neuroscience), indicates a far more fundamental change, i.e. Part X of the brain, which is normally connected to part Y, is now connected to part A". If this sentance is ment to indicate the change in structure or activity, I believe it should be more specific. However, even if you disagree with that, it should definately cite a reference. Bilz0r 08:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really good that you've called attention to this. Thanks for making that change. We could reference the research by Lazar (2005) that showed permanent changes in brain physiology as a result of long-term practice of Buddhist Insight meditation. Compared to matched controls, the 20 subjects showed increased thickness in certain cortical regions, including the prefrontal cortex and right anterior insula. TimidGuy 11:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Buddhist <-> Christian

My previos account got compromised, so I'm using this one in stead: Dear Arrow740 In relation to the claim :Some of the Buddha's meditative techniques were shared with other traditions of his day, but the idea that ethics are causally related to the attainment of religious insight was original.

I have no intention on starting an edit war on this so lets discuss this the civil way.

Christianity and Buddhism can both be seen as "original" even though Buddhism predates Christianity. The two cultures where never in contact with each other in the time of Jesus. Christianity is not derived from Buddhism, nor does it uses the same concepts (the last statement is dangerous, I know, since all religions share some basic concepts, but I hope you will be open minded to see what I mean).
The statement does very much state religious insight, since attaining "The Kingdom of God" would mean attaining supreme religious insight. Don't take my word for it, read Tolstoy and Ghandi Teardrop inthewater 12:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd vote for deleting that sentence. I also would vote for deleting the sentence previous to the quote -- it sounds oddly promotional. The rest of the section is excellent. TimidGuy 14:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I'd suggest deleting that sentence is because the point about ethics being causally related to the attainment of religious insight doesn't seem directly related to this general article on the various kinds of meditation. TimidGuy 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Meditation is portrayed as a way to attain religious insight; that note points out that it is not the only one, and this is a Buddhist distinction that separates it from other systems, in which attaining various states of consciousness is the be all and end all. The stretched Christianity material does not belong here, and I never denied that something in Christianity that existed in Buddhism first is not necessarily a result of borrowing. Arrow740 12:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Got my account back!! But now on topic, the sentence is still there, what should we do with it? If there are no replies, I will delete it as of 29/08.Teardrop onthefire 11:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes to article

Some of the recent changes made by Jossi are questionable. He has arbitrarily eliminated several blocks of text (for example. the paragraph that begins "Meditation is usually defined as...") Some of that material was sourced and, although it needs improvement, the paragraph is useful in helping the reader to understand the varieties of approach to meditation. The other thing that stands out is the Section he headed: "Meditation in a Western context." This should not have been given such prominence at the beginning of the article. The Western context postdates and is much less important than Eastern traditions. Usually articles respect historical development of a concept. I think Jossi had better desist from editing this article unless he is willing to work in a consensus format. There is no way that major changes like these should be made at the whim of one editor. I am going to revert back to the last version before these major changes. Major changes should be discussed and agreed to here. Sunray 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would you remove good faith edits? If the Western context is too prominent, move it to a lower part of the screen. The article is a mess, and I am improving it. See WP:OWN ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt that some of your edits are an improvement. However, I don't think that what you did to the initial sections of the article falls into that category. I thought of moving that section, but you didn't leave much to work with at the top of the article. Why not work out what should go into the initial sections here? There is a great deal of good information in this article. It does need sources and it does need to be better organized. I would like to have some agreement before deleting large blocks of text, however. Could we agree on that? Sunray 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Meditation is usually defined" section was 100% unsourced OR. The need is for cleaning up the article, sourcing it and removing OR. See WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. If you want to restore that material please find sources for it. Consensus does not apply to unsourced material. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your approach is inconsistent. First you begin adding "citation needed" tags, then, later that same day you start deleting unsourced material. Since you have provided a rationale for placing that big tag at the top of the article, I take it seriously. I am willing to work on finding citations. However, I cannot do that if text is continually being deleted. Let me suggest an approach to this: 1) Look for sources. 2) Delete unsourcable material. 3) Regorganize and edit the article. Will that work for you? Sunray 15:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues: One is to do with sources, and the other is to do with OR. There was material, now deleted, that was obvious original research. There is material, which I have not deleted, which simply needs sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You complain about my attitude here, but I am only improving the article. I have further removed two sections that contained unsourced OR. Please re-add only after finding suitable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will go along with that if you will move the deleted text here, so it can be worked on. Sunray 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking a break from this discussion for awhile. I will await your response to my suggestions, above. Sunray 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The removed text is in the article's history and easy retrievable. The article now is at least, without obvious OR, just need sourcing. The Christianity section seems to contain quite a bit of OR, but may be salvageable if sources can be found to support the claims made about rosary and prayer as it relates to meditation. That section can be expanded, I am sure, with good material from some of the Christians mystics. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I will work on finding sources on material that can be sourced, such as Buddhist traditions, simran, etc. But I cannot work on finding sources for gems such as The basic premise is the acceptance of equality among all and consequent divinity of all and is intrinsically positive and affirming. It takes away many of the false constructs that are the reason for most misery and frames life as a gloriously positive thing. Since every Being is equal and equally divine, there is no reason to hate, fear, indulge in vanity, greed, pettiness etc. which is quite nice, but unattributed POV, or at best, original research. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Original research material, which has been removed:

Meditation techniques involve realizing one's spiritual self. The basic premise is the acceptance of equality among all and consequent divinity of all and is intrinsically positive and affirming. It takes away many of the false constructs that are the reason for most misery and frames life as a gloriously positive thing. Since every Being is equal and equally divine, there is no reason to hate, fear, indulge in vanity, greed, pettiness etc. When these preoccupations of the mind are removed, each Being's time and energy are now available to discover what fulfills the Self in truth and to align his or her actions and experiences in accord to that. This is not the same as saying one must repress normal life experiences and consequent emotions - it is to view them in the right context and with the right perspective and to let them pass if they are contrary to the true Being. This allows for normal life experiences in all their colorfulness without the associated attachment and long term baggage.

Although rooted in Hindu philosophy, meditation techniques may be regarded as secular in the same sense that the Mindfulness techniques based on the Buddhist tradition are. Even a very scientific person would not feel that the approach takes away from his or her curiosity about things, scientific scepticism and experience-based mode of learning.

The complete section on "frequency and duration": These vary so greatly that it is difficult to venture any general comments. On one extreme there exist monks and nuns whose whole lives are ordered around meditation; on the other hand, one-minute meditations are not out of the question. Twenty or thirty minutes is broadly accepted as being a typical duration. Experienced meditators often find their sessions growing in length of their own accord. Observing the advice and instructions of one's spiritual teacher is generally held to be most beneficial. Many traditions stress regular practice. Accordingly, many meditators experience guilt or frustration upon failing to do so. Possible responses range from perseverance to acceptance. Also, many meditators stress the importance of continual practice in order to strengthen concentration for prolonged meditation sessions as well as increased focus during their daily lives.

The complete section of "purpose and effects of meditation"

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. There is no doubt that you do good work. I will get back to the article in the next 24 hrs. Sunray 23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Overview section

An overview section cannot contain just a single viewpoint. As said above, creating an overview section, is not appropriate for this subject. We can have a good WP:LEAD and then describe the significant views on the subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I am working on a section that gives the reader a general understanding of the forms of meditation. It is intended to form a transition from the very broad generalities of the lead to the much more detailed descriptions of each specific form of meditation contained in the "Types of meditation" section. I've begun by using the very good overview article by by Alberto Perez-De-Albeniz and Jeremy Holmes in the International Journal of Psychotherapy. It is a survey article and summarizes a great deal of research by others. I fully intend to supplement it with other sources as necessary. Jossi tossed out large portions of the material I added and edited the references (making several errors in the process). If he cannot permit another editor to work on this article adding neutral, sourced material, I wonder if his own POV is interfering with his judgement. WP:CON states that "editorial decisions are made by consensus. I'm willing to work according to that policy. If he isn't, he should recuse himself. Sunray 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa! I am more than happy if you are willing to add good sourced material. As it stands now the "overview" section is a secular/Western view of this practice, which is is mainly based on Eastern traditions, and it cannot be labeled as an overview. That is why I changed it frm "overview" to a more appropriate description of the article's content. Note that I have not questioned your motives or POVs on the subject, so please do not question mine. See WP:AGF. Thanks. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Section marked as violating NPOV. The section to be a real overview, it needs to be sourced no only to a singular secular source, but include viewpoints of religious scholars as well, amongst other sources. I still object to an "overview" section that is quite unusual. We have a lead that summarizes the article, as per WP:LEAD. If the lead is not sufficient, it can be expanded as needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I will wait a couple of days to see what sources you found to warrant such "overview" section, and do some research myself during that time. Then I will return here and further comment. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How can one assume good faith when you drastically alter material added to the article without discussing it here first? It is obvious to me that you didn't even read the source of the information I contributed. If you had, you would have seen that it is a review of 75 studies of meditation from all over the world and includes most of the major forms of meditation. The study was published in a respected international journal. The research it reviewed included studies published in American, Canadian, Indian, Scandinavian and international journals. I left a commented out note at the top of the section stating that it was "under construction" and explaining that I intended to provide a general description of meditation. I used the heading "Overview" as a working title (but have since changed that). For these reasons, I am removing the neutrality tag.

One final comment: You are not the editor-in-chief of this article. As I said before, I am willing to collaborate on improvements to the article, but not if you are going to pounce on everything that I do. That is not my idea of collaboration. Sunray 09:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As you well know, there is no such a thing as a chief-editor in WP, so I will dismiss that argument. Sure, one source that condenses other sources is good material, but it still one source, and one that looks at this from a specific viewpoint. My argument is that an article on Meditation, needs a good lead, which is the way we summarize an article in WP. The material that you provided is very good, but not so much as an "overview". Rather, it could be an overview of meditation from a secular/psychological viewpoint, and should be labeled accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No question about the lead. I am working on this section (intended to follow the lead) as a general description about meditation. My view is that it should be useful to readers to highlight what is in common to various traditions of meditation. As you will note, I've changed the heading to reflect that. Yes it is from a psychological perspective. Most of the research into meditation has been by psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists. The article summarizes the research and makes general descriptive statements. Sunray 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Most of the research into meditation has been by psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists. Mmmm.... I think I can understand now our disagreement. If this article was an article on Meditation as studied by psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists, then I may agree with your approach. But the article is not about that, is it? That is why it would be better to create a section in which the viewpoints on meditation in these sciences can be explored and presented. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You lost me there. The article summarizes studies of meditation, including studies in each of those sciences, as will as other scientific studies. But those are not the only sources. Many of the studies are by practitioners. Sunray 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That section is still a mess. It starts with a general description based on one source, then follows a specific description by one author, continues with a statement about "walking meditation" and ending with a mention about Qi. What kind of "general description" is that? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jossi: I think we have discussed this long enough. For whatever reasons, you seem to wish to find fault with what I have added to the article. You have raised an endless stream of objections. My answers do not seem satisfactory to you. You continue to object to the "one source" and don't seem to understand why one would talk about mindfulness meditation, walking meditation and visualization of energy.

Do you know of a form of meditation that is not covered in those statements? If so, go ahead and add it (with appropriate citation, of course). Yes, it is one journal article, but summarizing many sources (as I said before, 75 studies). And by the way, what is the problem with using one source for this? What policy is being violated?

Would it be possible to do your own edits to this article, leave that section alone for now, and cease commenting on my edits? I would like to hear something from other editors about the "general description" section. I'm not married to that title or the contents of the section. I just think that it deserves consideration (I did spend some time on it, and I am not unskilled at writing Wikipedia articles). Thank you. Sunray 02:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not have any objections with the current "general description" section Teardrop onthefire 10:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

That section has now been incorporated into the "Forms of meditation" and "Health applications..." sections. Sunray 18:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Kriya Yoga

Would someone be opposed to me adding "Kriya" Yoga meditation under other types? This form of meditation is practiced by disciples of Yogananda (from the Self-Realization Fellowship). Cheers! --GoodGollyGuy 05:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if someone is, don't worry about it! Be Bold and add it in. Best of luck --Ben^chat 00:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

--GoodGollyGuy I apologise for having jumped you on your suggestion for Kriya yoga but it was pure coincidental. After having read the article I realised that there was no reference to Yogananda. cheers Peter Mombas 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence in lead

Moving a sentence here that was inserted in the lead. It doesn't make sense to me, and seems too metaphorical and stylized -- as if it's the language of a particular system -- rather than being a general, universal statement about meditation.

Inner meditation is also a practice where consciousness that is provoked by biological or mental influence, is controlled or made benign as if to emulate a temporary death state.

Eager to discuss. TimidGuy (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing this from the lead. Perhaps too complex for discussion here. cheers Mombas 09:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Jedi

I removed the Jedi section because it describes the use of meditation in an entirely fictional setting, unlike the rest of the article, which is about its use by real people in the real world. William, you've replaced this section; please justify its inclusion! I'm sure meditation has been used or referenced in countless fictional settings; why is Star Wars special, notable or otherwise relevant to the article? Oli Filth^(talk) 01:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I justified it in the article with Jedi census phenomenon. William Ortiz 01:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any more "real" (especially as the linked article is about a cultural phenomenon, i.e. a en-masse joke). As I've said above, the rest of the article is about real-world practice of meditation. The Star Wars reference is just throw-away trivia. Oli Filth^(talk) 02:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this shouldn't be included. TimidGuy 12:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

As would I. Mombas 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I just realized Oli Filth is the guy who used to follow my edits everywhere I went, wikistalking and reverting, and he's still doing it. Oli Filth never came to this article before except to go and revert me, whereas TimidGuy has been here before. William Ortiz 19:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many editors I've encountered in the past, yourself included, whose activities I occasionally check up on. To put it plainly, it's because the quality of their edits are questionable, at best. As for "wikistalking", the accepted definition here is "the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption". I'm not sure that correcting inappropriate additions, etc. counts as "disruption". Oli Filth^(talk) 20:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief section like "Meditation in Fiction" section could be added somewhere near the bottom of the article. It could note that meditation practices appear in the Jedi mythos of Star Wars, Vulcan culture in Star Trek, the Jaffa practice of "Kel no'reem" and practices leading to Ascension on Stargate SG-1, in the various practices of Bene Gesserit and Mentats in Frank Herbert's Dune, etc. If such a section seems unwarranted, we could instead make a link to the article Religious ideas in science fiction and create a section on meditation there--although that would exclude other genres. Thoughts, anyone?--Pariah 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'd be open to this. TimidGuy 12:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Force is similar to a concept that is in many religions and there was a Jedi census phenomenon, although how the meditation is done is something I have not seen discussed. Vulcan meditation I have seen it discussed as basically emotional suppression and one episode of Star Trek voyager taught a basic technique (a visualization technique for it) in the episode where people aged backwards from old age to kids. "Kel no'reem" I have never heard any idea of how it is discussed practically. The Bene Gesserit practice I have heard it discussed vaguely in the first Dune book, though I have not read every single Dune book though I plan to eventually. The Mentats concept I have only heard from books I read it is letting the mind run on its own, though I have not read all the prequels and it may have been explained in more detail in the ones where the sentient AI is the one that started it. The ascension meditation I have not heard much on the practice except a relaxation meditation to slow the brain frequency down to 1 or 2 hertz. Those are what I know of each type. William Ortiz 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oli Filth, you are arguing that just because you enjoy following others around for months to revert their edits, it is not stalking. It is stalking. I've read many writings that say following people around for the long term is the single most disruptive activity anyone can do. Following people around over the long term to revert their edits is what everyone calls Wikistalking and it is what gets all kinds of unpleasant activities like big threads on noticeboards, RFCs, ArbCom, and I think it got a person or two desysopped so point being it's generally considered bad. Nobody had a problem with the hard work I did here until you came by following me months after I incorrectly assumed you had stopped on an article you had never been before. William Ortiz 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I had noticed your insertion at the time you did it and didn't feel comfortable with it. Oil Filth articulated what I was feeling. Nevertheless, Pariah's solution seems appropriate. TimidGuy 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have created a Meditation#Meditation in popular fiction section in the article, and linked it to a Meditation in popular fiction subpage. Feel free to add to what you see there, as the list is by no means comprehensive. It is also lacking good references such as page numbers or episode titles; and so far there are no sources from genres other than science fiction. Anyway, it's a start.--Pariah (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicely done. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) Hopefully we'll be able to expand it over the coming months--Pariah (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga

I removed this section because there doesn't appear to be anything exceptional about this group to justify its inclusion. Kundalini yoga with the aim of self-realization is practiced by countless Hindu sects. Variations on the theme of "thoughtless awareness" occur in practically every mainstream meditation tradition. I would like to emphasize that my edit is not in the slightest motivated by any kind of hostility toward Sahaja Yoga - I know nothing whatever about it apart from what I've read here on the mainpage.

This article is not meant to be a list of all the different meditation groups in the world, it's just a thumbnail sketch of the range of different concepts of meditation that are out there. The Hindu section already mentions kundalini meditation, and kundalin meditation is mentioned in one or two other places, so I see no reason to single out one particular school that happens to practice it. If we do that we are opening the door for everyone else to add mention of their particular group, which is obviously not practical. Gatoclass 14:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The practices of SY contradict the definition given in the intro of the article - making it notable. It is very different from "kundalini meditation" mentioned in the article. Sfacets 11:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Sfacets will have to extrapolate a little so we can see what he's saying. Sure 95% of meditation groups think that what they do is special, but is it really when you hold it up to the cold light of day? Also the Sahaja Yoga medical studies do not appear notable, the epilepsy one only looked at proxy variables rather than the occurrence of seizures and the other 2 are authored by a Sahaja Yogi. --Simon D M (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well he didn't re-include the section about SY in the "Other" section, so I presumed he accepted the basic thrust of my arguments there.

I too am not comfortable with the "medical studies" bit though. "Junk science" studies that lend a patina of authority are suprisingly easy to create, as I learned in watching the arguments many months ago over content at the TM page. I'd prefer the mention of Sahaja Yoga to go in this context too, or if it is to stay, then it needs to be mentioned alongside other groups which make such claims like TM, along with some warnings about how unreliable these studies can be. Gatoclass (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The studies are reliable, peer reviewed and published. Enough said. Sfacets 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No, not enough said. The epilepsy study didn't find that SY helped epilepsy so is hardly notable. Manocha, the author of the other 2 is a Sahaja Yogi, and even attends to the medical needs of the guru/goddess of Sahaja Yoga, but his COI is not disclosed in the articles. Indeed, this is junk science. --Simon D M (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read: Peer reviewed. But thanks for your opinion ~~Vishnu~~ err I mean Simon Sfacets 15:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Talk:Sahaja_Yoga#Ramesh_Manocha where this discussion has gone on before. Thus the Sahaja Yoga article reads: It should be noted that the (senior) author of the above articles is a Sahaja Yogi and attends to Nirmala Srivastava's personal medical needs. [3] Sfacets backed out of that discussion there, but seems to want to revive it here. --Simon D M (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care if the organization isn't included - however please do not remove sourced and attributed content, thanks. Sfacets 15:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite backing out of any discussion on the topic, you are continuing to insert the disputed content.--Simon D M (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You are attempting to poison the Well against the researcher and the research, which was peer reviewed, published, and cited in multiple articles. I have backed out of no discussion. You seem to be unable to focus on one topic at any given time, finding fault and then criticizing every aspect of SY you can in your POV-pushing attempts. Sfacets 13:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That Ramesh Manocha is a Sahaja Yogi is reliably sourced and notable with reference to his research activities. You have no justification for suppressing that information. It is simple fact that the epilepsy study did not show any improvement in epilepsy, which is also notable, and balances the implication of the sentence you are repeatedly inserting. --Simon D M (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It isn't suppressing the information. The information can be found if you look up information on the author. No need to poison the well against him or his research. This is bias, pure and simple. Sfacets 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, Manocha does not disclose his COI. --Simon D M (talk) 13:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

video about scientific research on meditation

Is there a place in the article for the following video on scientific research on meditation? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vefh5e05d7A

Teardrop onthefire (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably in external links. I would think that any in-text reference to research would properly cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal. TimidGuy (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Change to the opening statement

The lead sentence - ie Meditation describes a state of concentrated attention on some object of thought or awareness - has been bothering me for quite a while. It is not only inaccurate - as this is only one form of meditation - but it is highly misleading for a Western audience, for whom the word "concentration" implies something quite different from the process we are attempting to elucidate here.

I have therefore changed the opening sentence to Meditation is a method of attempting to expand or enhance one's state of being or consciousness. I think that's a much broader description that pretty much encompasses all the schools of meditation, whether they emphasize concentration, awareness, relaxation or whatever. I hope this change meets with everyone's approval. Gatoclass (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've changed the second sentence too, which repeated the misleading statement of the first. Gatoclass (talk) 05:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your work on this. However, we must base what we write on verifiable sources. The lead has been challenged and re-written many times. Since there is a source for the lead sentence, we should stay close to that. The wording you have used is a departure from most definitions of mediation that I've seen. You describe meditation as: "a method of attempting to expand or enhance one's state of being or consciousness."

I'm not at all sure what that means. Have you got a source for that statement? I'm going to revert back to the previous lead but will take out the reference to concentration. In the meantime, let's discuss your concerns here. Sunray (talk) 06:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That so-called "verifiable source" is nothing more than a crummy blog that exists to flog someone's book to gullible people looking for the answer.

The point about this article however (which unfortunately, like so many Wiki articles on this subject, is arcane to the point of being unintelligible), is that it encompasses not one or two different traditions but a wide variety of them. In which case, the lead must adequately reflect that variety.

Certainly concentration-meditation, "a discipline in which the mind is focused on an object of thought or awareness" as the lead currently states, is one form of meditation but it's certainly not the only one canvassed in this article. Just to remind you of some of the other forms of meditation this article covers - we have Krishnamurti, disparaging any kind of "conscious, deliberate effort" as "a denial of meditation." We have Osho, emphasizing that "meditation is not concentration". We have Jacobson's Progressive Muscle Relaxation, which is not focussed on mental processes at all but on "reducing anxiety by learning how to relax...muscular tension." And so on. The lead needs to be broad enough to give expression to all these different techniques and traditions, not just one.

As for your difficulty with my broad definition of meditation as a method of "expanding or enhancing one's state of being or consciousness", quite frankly I am perplexed as to why you are having difficulty understanding it. Presumably you have meditated yourself, or you wouldn't be interested in the subject. Why do you meditate, exactly?

Finally, you've given no explanation as to why you reverted my other edit, which was as follows:

Different meditative disciplines encompass a wide range of spiritual and/or psychophysical practices which can emphasize different goals - from the achievement of a higher state of consciousness, to greater focus, creativity or self-awareness, or just simply a more relaxed and peaceful frame of mind.

and restored this:

Meditative disciplines encompass a wide range of spiritual and/or psychophysical practices which can emphasize development of either a high degree of mental concentration, or the apparent converse, mental quiescence. The problem with this statement is that it tells the reader precisely nothing about why people meditate, and the why of meditation needs to be stated clearly and concisely in the lead or the reader must be left bemused as to why people bother. Gatoclass (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like both versions have aspects that are good. I'd be inclined to mix and match. Seems like the first sentence in the version by Gatoclass is more about the purpose or goal, whereas it may be better to open with a description of the process, as in the current version. But the second sentence of Gatoclass's version does have merit in the way that it broadens the description of the process to include a wider range of types of meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable approach. However, I think we had better find a reliable source for the definition. I agree with what Catoclass has said about the definition that was there. However, we need to find a suitable replacement. I have no problem with Catoclass' other edit: The one that begins "Different meditative disciplines encompass..." —Though the word "different" seems redundant to me. Sunray (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OBVIOUS ERROR UNDER CHRISTIANITY

"Meditation is distinguished from contemplation in that the latter involves use of the intellect, focusing on the divine mysteries."

Contemplation - A long and thoughtful observation. Insight Meditation involves contemplation. Contemplation does not only focus on the divine mysteries. I am deleting the sentence above. --69.235.28.133 (talk) 06:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

But in this context it's specifically talking about Christian contemplation. TimidGuy (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of "meditation"

I was just wondering about the origins of the word meditation. The article currently states that it derives from the Latin root meditatio which refers to physical or intellectual exercise. I had a meditation teacher who claimed it came from the Latin word for "centre" or "middle" (which certainly seems to fit the activity of "centering" the mind & body). So I went looking into the matter, and found an online Latin dictionary which lists "consideration, pondering"; "meditation"; and "practice, preparation, getting ready," for the Latin word meditatio. I found an English etymology Q&A, on another site, where the word meditate is stated to not be related to Latin medius (middle)--so the "centering" definition is out--but instead comes from an Indo-European word for "measure." So I took a look on the American Heritage Dictionary's List of Indo-European Roots and found the root med-, meaning "to take appropriate measures," and found the word meditate, along with other words derived from the same root, like mete (to measure), medicine, modest, and moderate. Also, there was Medusa... (WTF?)

So, mystery solved; meditate comes from the Indo-European root med- through the Latin word meditari (or meditatio). If there's no objections, I'd like to alter the appropriate section in the article to reflect this. --Pariah (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential Hazards

Do not put it up there since it is only anecdotal, there is NO evidence. If somebody does get REAL evidence from a trustworthy source then go ahead and add that to the article because the "potential hazards" may scare some people from this practise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.183.226 (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone mention fraud?

1. I see the article makes claims about cancer. You had better have more modern and scientific bases for such claims; to my knowledge they are false. 2. Certain meditators have implied you can levitate your body into the air; however, there is an "extra charge" for that kind of teaching, and to date it has never been done. Period. 3. It seems 2,000 years of meditators has not produced world peace, or a cure for any serious disease; so you have to wonder about all the 'miracle discoveries' that are constantly being published as alleged science articles. Finally, re alleged 'changes in the brain', I understand even doing push-ups will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.144.79 (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

its hard

its hard not to not think or keep not thinking of a thought while meditating on another thought and it keeps comeing back any help for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loopy745 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll need to find a different Internet forum for asking this question. This Talk page is limited to discussion of changes to this article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No mention of meditation originating in India?

If you go to the Yoga article it says Yoga originiated in India. Yet on this page it doesnt say meditation orginiated in India. I mean isnt meditation similar to Yoga, if not close? 71.105.82.152 (talk) 07:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Meditation is a fairly general term, and it would be hard to say where it originated, since many traditions have had. and continue to have. some sort of meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that the section on Hinduism suggests it originated in India. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok come on. IN this article there is a picture of Bodhidharma who was believed to be from south India or Persia, and after the section of "forms of meditation" the next section to come up is HInduism. Then Buddhism. And both these religions come from ancient India. And meditation has links with yoga. I think it's fair to say that maybe meditation was first taught in India? I could be wrong. ARYAN818 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That's original research and not allowed. What we need is a reliable source discussing a) theories about where mediation may have started and b) that no-one knows where it actually started. Or basically any reliable source discussing mediation that we can summarize. WLU (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok so you dont have to say its a fact it started in India. Cant the article say it is believed, or thought, that meditation was first taught in India? I mean im not saying the articel should say India invented meditation. But surely it can say something that links it to India can't it? ARYAN818 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

using terms like believed, thought etc., will qualify as original research and POV. What WLU has said above is correct... You need a reliable source -- vineeth (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

There are lots of articles that say things on wikipedia using words "Thought to have come from" and/or "Thought to have originated" becuase sometimes you can't prove things but their is a consensus. I mean be logical. According to this article mediation comes from a Indo-European. Mediation is used in Hinduism, Buddhism, and maybe other religions/philosophies that are linked to India. Hinduism which is one of the oldest of the major religions in the world, and The Vedas, which are one of the oldest scripture in the world, have information about Yoga/mediation. So I mean isn't it fair to say that it may have started or first been taught in India? I mean even in this article meditation is mentioned in Hinduism as one of the first examples right? ARYAN818 (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Aryan, but those are are weasel words, and even if they exist in other articles, as you said yourself, there is consensus in those cases. But there is not consensus in this case. While the Indian traditions have certainly been influential, they are not likely to be the only source of meditative practice. The Stoics used various meditative techniques, many of which they probably inherited from the Greeks or other Mediterranean cultures (perhaps Egypt). Chinese meditation may have come from India, or may have originated in China. There's even evidence that many indigenous cultures had forms of spiritual contemplative practice--notably Indigenous Australians, and the Bushmen of the Kalahari. There are also references in Hopi mythology to contemplative practices designed to open the seven gates that allow a person to communicate with the creator--suggesting they understood the chakras without ever having contact with India. So, rather than originating in India, it is quite likely that meditation is universal, and can be figured out by anybody with enough free time--much like the invention of fire, or written language. I don't mean to lecture you, but if you want to claim in the article that all meditation originated in India, you've got to provide a creditable source as proof. I know it looks like there is support for your claim already in the article, but you are making a leap which other Wiki editors are not prepared to make.--Pariah (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Health applications

This section is starting to accumulate a lot of stuff, as editors add information about research on specific types of meditation. Seems like this material could be moved to the Health applications article, and that only the general review material remain in this article. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

researchingmeditation.org

A great deal of research has been conducted on the effects of Sahaja yoga Meditation on asthma, ADHD, epilepsy, and hot flushes. http://www.researchingmeditation.org/

What kind of source is researchingmeditation.org? It appears to be a blog or other self-published site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be better to cite the published studies. And per the thread above, I'd like to move this to the article on clinical applications of meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge discussion

I propose that Meditation therapy simply be redirected to Meditation. The unsourced article at Meditation therapy does not appear to add any useful information to the topic and is completely unsourced. Any objections? Wednesday Next (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That article has no sources and is entirely redundant with content in this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

We might want to consider redirecting it to Health applications and clinical studies of meditation. "Meditation therapy" seems to be an uncommon term in clinical applications and doesn't, in my mind, deserve an article. I'm somewhat familiar with research on health applications of mediation, and I've never seen that term used. If you do a search on that term in the Pubmed medical index, it only brings up 3 results, and none is an empirical study but are instead generalized discussions. By contrast, a search on the term "Transcendental Meditation" brings up 262 studies, and "mindfulness meditation" brings up 81 studies. TimidGuy (talk) 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Very nice TimidGuy! I am very agreeable with this(redirect to Health apps). I have slight high blood pressure. I believe I can lower my bp in almost 5 - 12 minutes when the need arises through meditation(not transcendental, but very unsophisticated and very simple). And it stays low for quite a while.(Not that I'm making any claims, but really many are doing the same thing) etc. I really would appreciate more medical investigation by doctors etc. Uhh the TM people seem to do a good job documenting and investigating clinical results of their version of meditation. However I will support the group consensus even if the vote is to delete/redirect.--Jondel (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That redirect would make sense too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I really would appreciate an article on the health/therapeutic application. Well I think there are few objectors now.--Jondel (talk) 08:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It now redirects here: Health applications and clinical studies of meditation. This article is itself problematic and could use work. But at least it has some fairly well sourced content. TimidGuy (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ok. The article will eventually be improved ut res ipsa loquitur(the thing speaks for itself), as people begin to realize the benefits. It 's not hard to see why fictional superbeings like the vulcans, jedis and stargate ascendants were depicted as meditators.--Jondel (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Beads

I don't think they are relevant to meditation. They are more used for praying and religion or for the Hindus, repeating mantras.--Jondel (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Repeating mantras can certainly be an element or technique used in meditation. Wednesday Next (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

ok--Jondel (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of Tibetan word "gom"

Regarding this recent addition to the lead. This is an interesting tidbit, but it doesn't seem like it belongs in the lead. Etymology is specific to language. Since this is the English language Wikipedia, the only really relevant etymology is for the English word "meditation." Maybe it could come later in the article, if at all. TimidGuy (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)