Talk:Meditation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Article schizophrenia?

The section "Modern definitions and Western models" ONLY deals with oriental meditation and does not even mention western meditation. Hence it is incomplete. Overall, the article seems to have schizophrenia with respect to the term meditation - most of the time meditation means "oriental meditation" in the article, but once in a while the western character surfaces, but it is rather quickly suppressed back into the subconscious of the article and the more dominant oriental theme wins over. So how does one deal with this? Either the text changes throughout or a split in which oriental and western get distinguished? I think within the article we need two section: oriental and western where Jewish/Christian/Islamic meditations are discussed vs the other oriental approaches. Ideas please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is one way to do it. Perhaps we also need to take into account the difference uses of the word "meditation". Sometimes it refers to contemplation type activity - "to meditate on the concept of love" for example, while at times it refers to some sort of mental technique, and again at times refers to a state of consciousness. So even if we split the article into "Orient" vs. "Western", we still face the challenge of defining what meditation is. --BwB (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the usage of the word in cases such as "to meditate on the concept of love" needs to be addressed. The article is, however, mostly focused on the use of systematic meditation in which a deliberate attempt is made to alter the practitioner's state of mind. History2007 (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let us do this systematically

I am trying to clean up items that a new reader can not understand, so please provide answers below, if you have the answers. I will start making a list, then cross items off as we go along:

  • Was the application of the term meditation to dhyāna post 13th century? And when was the first translation to apply it to Eastern methods post Guigo II? It was probably well before the 20th century, but when? Marco Polo does not seem top have brought it back, and Medieval Europe with the less than friendly inquisitors was certainly no place to discuss that type of thing. Even John of the Cross had a terrible time at the hand of the authorities just because they thought he was stepping out of line. So when did it arrive. Schopenhauer was clearly aware of Buddhism, and Voltaire asked for toleration towards them, [1] but it i snot clear if they taught meditation. In any case, it seems post 17th century, and 18th at the earliest. Ideas?
  • In a separation for Eastern and Western meditations, what goes where? {Jewish, Christian, Islamic} probably go into the Western group, and {Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism, Taoism} into the Eastern Group. Where does Bahá'í go? Seems more western. And New Age? Secular practices? Or do we need 3 groups where {New Age, Transcendental, etc.} form the 3rd group. Or it may be that Eastern meditation has two subgroups, one of which is secular, the others such as Buddhism, Hinduism are religious. Ideas?

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to make a dichotomizion between eastern and western traditions a structural feature of the page, and I am strongly opposed to that idea. There are already separate sections for different traditions, and that is an adequate structural foundation for characterizing the major loci of common patterns. In sections that discuss the historical change and spread of meditative practices, then a variety of descriptors of those patterns can be brought in as needed - various traditions borrowing from each other, sometimes general movements from one geographical region to another (e.g., eastern practices being brought west recently), etc. Health Researcher (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
But given that the term Eastern meditation is used, a reader will ask: "what is Eastern?" and what is not. SO an answer needs to be there. History2007 (talk) 14:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
History2007, it sounds to me like you may be urging us to embark on a program of original research to dichotomize East and West in ways that don't really exist and are not supported by scholarship. In fact, just before noticing these talk page comments, I was noticing that you used added the phrase "a definition of Eastern meditation", which seems to imply uniformity among traditions developed east of Europe, which is silly. There are many traditions from that eastern geographical region that would not accept that definition, which emphasizes mindfulness. The terms "eastern" and "western" have their uses for describing a few overall patterns - loose generalizations - but they become obstacles to understanding if they are pushed too far. Let's not reify them. Health Researcher (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I have no idea if what I type on the talk page is original or not, given that I do not know the field. That is why I am editing on egg-shells within the article. But I guess you have figured out by now that I am trying to get you to give all of us a tutorial on this topic, and clean up the article in the process. That idea is NOT original research I assure you, it was Tom Sawyer's idea long ago. So perhaps you would paint this idea in clear words and help us all. Thanks. By the way, why is the sentence "Meditation has been defined as: "self regulation of attention, in the service of self-inquiry, in the here and now" floating in the Religion section outside the definition? I think it should either move up or be deleted, for it is a definition. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I will try to do more later today when I hope I'll have time, try to sort it out further. I agree that the def you moved up should eventually be consolidated but since there are a gazillion defs I will suggest possible ways to handle their diversity without overwhelming page. (FWIW, the sentence wasn't on talk page, but was on main page... but that's now water under the bridge...) -- Health Researcher (talk) 21:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Now, I think a definition is as hard as that of sport. That analogy and the multiple approaches discussed in the Lutz article helped me understand the problem. By the way, your sentence that Eastern uses of the term meditation = Christian contemplation is exactly right. The Wiki article Contemplation is very low quality, and I will eventually rewrite it, but the use of the terms are as you stated. History2007 (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I like that analogy of sport too. It's a more colloquial (and clearer to most people) way of saying more or less what Bond et al were saying when they said meditation might be a "family resemblance" (see "Similarities" section of article). Before too long, I expect to try to better integrate that paragraph's ideas into what's evolved above it. Health Researcher (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, one technique used in many scholarly papers on hard-to-define topics is to create tables of definitions. For example, there are scholarly articles that show tables of how different scholars have defined "spirituality" and "religion". I suspect that's a technique that could be useful here - we could float it off to the right. We could take that definition that we've recently moved back and forth, and it could be one entry in the table. Of course, we wouldn't want the table to grow gigantic, nor claim it as anything but "examples". If we can find some sort of limiting principle (maybe drawing primarily from scholars, for example?? Or maybe a stern warning??), then we might be able to keep such a table under control, and not have it be a magnet for continual drive-by additions. -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, tables are a "drive by nightmare". People who can not type sentences just add links to the table, and everyone with a web site that sells a self-help item will add an entry. We will be asking for janitorial duties if we add that. History2007 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Scope of article - new paragraph added

Colleagues, I have boldly gone so far as to insert a paragraph on the article page (paragraph #3 in the definitions section) that attempts to explicitly state the scope of the article. I think that the paragraph more or less merely ratifies what has evolved on the page over the past several years since its creation. Note also that it echoes the first sentence in the lede. I think that making the scope of the page explicit could be very helpful over the long run for stabilizing the page, facilitating responses to the numerous well-intentioned editors who encounter the page and modify it without realizing the delicate balancing act that the page must maintain between numerous traditions, definitions, and meanings of basic terms. I am bold enough to hope that this paragraph, or something similar, might be livable for everyone - and that I might proceed with such a thing as a basis. (If you think I'm far off base, please let me know) -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Separate issues:
  • Boldly? I think you are not going anywhere near bold, just touching up. That edit was a good idea, but what is holding you back? You know the topic, so please type more and expand.
  • What is your assessment of the Wikipedia article on attention? Given that the elusive definitions of meditation all hint at attention, should some mention of attention be made? That Wikipedia article says: "Everyone knows what attention is", but obviously that excludes your truly. I have no idea what attention is and that article did not help. Anyway, what is your rating of that article on a scale of 1 to 10?
  • The sentence: Meditation has been defined as: "self regulation of attention, in the service of self-inquiry, in the here and now is floating outside the definition section. It should either be with the other attempts at definition, or gone. Unless there is a specific objection, i will just delete that.
  • Jainism is getting a lot of real estate compared to Hinduism etc. Why? It i seven longer than the Main that it refers to. Why not move the quotes and Q&A to the main? Unless there are reasons, I will do that later.
Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your encouragement wrt the new paragraph, glad you like it (and so far others haven't objected). I will continue in a few days or perhaps sooner, though RL (real life) demands much time and leaves less than I'd like for WP. Quick responses to other Qs: I know nothing re "attention" article, may someday look; I see it as immaterial if that floating def is deleted, so go ahead - we can retrieve it if we need it later for any set of examples of meditation; Yes Jainism looks inappropriately huge (I have no further thoughts on that), Health Researcher (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But regarding a Table of (Examples of) Definitions of Meditation: I think it will be hard for us to avoid being a magnet for drive-by additions of everybody's favorite definition one way or another, because the topic of meditation is so inherently fascinating/attractive for many people. A table could pose advantages of at least allowing 1. Inclusion/exclusion criteria could be made explicit in a table (e.g., in title and in a note at bottom) - for definitions I would suggest that from a review article be a criterion - this might even deter some spam; 2. Spam to a table with clear criteria might be easier and less energy to detect than spam that is embedded into text where it might take more time to detect/evaluate/weigh it in-context, in order to determine that it is just spam/ barnicles. For these reasons, I still find myself keeping the table option alive. Unless powerful counterarguments are advanced, I'm inclined to go at least as far as drafting something for this talk page so people could look at it, and evaluate the idea less in the abstract. Health Researcher (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you will do a good job in creating the table - just need to block out time to stop the spammers. So let it be. History2007 (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I've now created and added a table as discussed above. You can see that I've added a footnote indicating that these are all publications that have been cited more than 50 times in PsycINFO. That should create a threshhold so that in principle the table should not grow indefinitely. In fact, I think it's quite possible that the table already contains all of the reviews that meet that thresshold, except for The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation (Murphy, Donovan, Taylor, 1999), which didn't have a quotable definition I could find. Perhaps it's overdoing it, but to further discourage spam, I inserted non-displaying comments (<!---like this--->) that several places restate the threshhold requirement, and ask people to use this talk page when in doubt. -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
On a separate note, there is this issue of "aggression reduction" that keeps coming up within this article. A few people keep stating that in so many words, and I think because they believe it to be true: that those who meditate seem less likely to behave like Hulk Hogan. Do you, off hand, know of any reliable studies in that area? The key challenge is to avoid the pre-selection biases and stratified sampling errors that general perceptions almost always include, e.g. that for all we know Mr Hogan has never tried meditation- although I could be wrong. I have never been inside Gold's Gym in Venice, but I doubt if they have a meditation room therein. So the concept of "loving kindness" keeps associated with meditation, and seems intuitively reasonable to assume, but do we have encyclopedic references for that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Response to Question about Aggression Research. There seems to have been some research done on how TM relates to aggression. Walsh and Shapiro (2006) in their important American Psychologist review of meditation mention this research: "TM is reported to alleviate anxiety, aggression, and recidivism in prisoners and to reduce the use of both legal and illegal drugs" (p. 230). They cite it to a 1991 study by Gelderloos et al, and to a book: Alexander, C., Walton, K., Orme-Johnson, D., Goodman, R., & Pallone, N. (Eds.). (2003). Transcendental Meditation in criminal rehabilitation and crime prevention. New York: Haworth Press. There also seems to have been a special issue the same year in a professional journal - see section intro article abstract by Hawkins: DOI 0.1300/J076v36n01_03 (click also on "vol 36 issue 4" tab at top to see TOC for other relevant articles, perhaps especially Walton). I would regard this as very much encyclopedic material, i.e., the journal is well-established (36th volume). We shouldn't overplay it, but there's no need to underplay it either (ie as you point out, the research designs may not be perfect, but no science is infallible, and to pretend otherwise is scientism). This special issue is the main thing of interest that shows up when I search in PsycInfo for "meditation" in title and "aggression" in abstract. Hawkins in turn states that TM practice has been associated with "reduced hostility and aggression (Abrams, 1989; Abrams & Siegel, 1978; R. E. Ferguson, 1989a, b; Gore, Abrams, & Ellis, 1989; Hahn & Whalen, 1989; Ramirez, 1989)" (p. 51). I don't have significant prior familiarity with this literature. I don't have time to sort this out further for people - and to scrutinize whether these designs are experimental (meriting stronger inferences and language about causality) or primarily correlational, but these at least confirm it's not a vacuous topic. But are people thinking it should go on this page? Given how long the current page is already, it strikes me that we should be sparing in discussing effects from meditating. Maybe a very terse mention at most, if that. Health Researcher (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, and a terse mention is enough. But it keeps getting mentioned and just one good reference makes it a problem already addressed. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Def table: content vs form

I think the table content is a very good idea, but the fonts are just too small. Somehow it needs to be reformatted or even merged to the text because tables are for comparison, here we have no element by element comparison, so it is best merged as a subsection I think. And will cause less eye strain to read. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Font-size is certainly a pragmatic issue where we need to fall within everyone's comfort zone, and I think that the increased font looks fine (thanks for having given it your attention!). I do find myself thinking it would be better if we can keep the material outside of the main text -- whether it is called a table, or a sidebar, or some other term that we come up with. That's because I think the material itself is important in the aggregate to have available, but not something that every reader will want to read in detail. Put another way, I think it's nice to have a structural feature in the article that encourages that "you should only read these in detail if you are interested." And I'm not sure what you mean "no element-by-element comparison", because the sidebar format does suggest and facilitate the reader in casually comparing and contrasting the different definitions, and seeing their stability over time. And in being able to glance back at them later if so desired. So for these reasons I find myself leaning towards trying to keep a table/sidebar format. -- Health Researcher (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
No problem my friend, I will just clean my glasses again. Wink. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Material on marginalization of contemplative traditions in Western Christianity

I have started adding material about post-reformation status of contemplative practices in Western Christian traditions. This material, though historical, seems directly relevant as background for understanding the status of Western meditative practices, and how it may contribute to Western interest in Eastern practices. I don't see how we can ignore it (and I don't think we should). Possibly (?) some of the historical interpretations I have cited may be contested, in which case we should (if a significant alternative view exists) seek to incorporate diverse views. I have put much of this material in the Christianity section, though I suspect some of the key ideas may also need to be mentioned (more briefly, and citing the Chr sect), in the "Modern cross-cultural dissemination" section. Best regards to all -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Balancing the lede, avoiding POV

I am concerned that the lede - in particular, the 2nd paragraph - gives too much attention to the Vatican POV. This 2-sentence paragraph begins with a sociological statement about a recent trend in Western culture ("Eastern meditation techniques have been adapted and increasingly practiced in Western culture."). Then it appends an instructional response from one very particular religious POV ("However, in a 1989 document called Aspects of Christian meditation the Catholic Church advised Catholics against mixing Christian meditation with eastern approaches"). This latter sentence - regardless of how wise and valid the Vatican's perspective might actually be - strikes me as inappropriate for the lede in a number of ways.

  1. First, if we are going to mention how people with various religious POVs have instructionally responded to the spread of meditation in the West, we should not without evidence convey the impression that the Vatican speaks for all Western religious thinkers/leaders/instructors, or even all Roman Catholics (some of whom may have principled disagreements). Ideally, the article (and lede) should attempt to convey the range of responses. This may be a challenge if other Western religious groups have not made official statements (since stating that they have been silent would presumably need to be sourced). But one way or another, I think we should avoid giving the impression of a Western uniformity in response that does not exist. Currently, I think this is correctly avoided in the article (because the Vatican POV is just one paragraph within one section), but not in the lede.
  2. Thus, by WP criteria (WP:LEDE), we seem to be giving the Vatican POV undue (WP:UNDUE) attention in the lede as currently phrased.
  3. We should also bear in mind that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (WP:NOT), and certainly not a Catholic instruction manual, so that would not constitute a reason for keeping the Vatican POV in the lede.
  4. It seems questionable whether we should even include religious reactions in the lede at all (unless they end up being a larger part of the article). It may be irrelevant that the Dalai Lama and the pope sat next to each other, as History2007 recently wittily pointed out, but what if the Dalai Lama has made statements saying that it is good that meditation is spreading in the West? What if a chorus of such evaluations could be found among Eastern spiritual leaders? My instinct is to think that such quotes would not be appropriate for the lede, which raises the question of why the Vatican POV should be regarded as more relevant (if this is a 'controversy', then presumably both sides of the 'controversy' should be alluded to more clearly). It may be worth noting that the lede to Wikipedia's article on Christian missionary activity does not conclude with a sentence along the lines of "however, such-and-such non-Christian leader has condemned this activity, and issued a fatwa against it". And I suspect it is almost surely correct to keep such statements out of the lede of a WP article on missionary activity, even if such religious resistance is viewed as a "controversy." But such a comparison brings me back to wonder why such evaluative statements are included in the lede here.
  5. Finally, if the Vatican POV represents one side in a controversy, then that controversy would seem to be about mixing of eastern methods of meditation with various certain religious traditions (e.g., certain types of Christianity). But such mixing is only a very small part of this page (e.g., the word "syncretism" only appears in a transcluded template). Thus, since mixing is only a small part of this page, any controversy about mixing would seem to be an even smaller part of this page, and less relevant to the lede.

It strikes me that perhaps the simplest thing to do is merely drop the Vatican's POV from the lede, even though it may constitute very valid and good advice, while keeping the presentation of the Vatican's position in its present position in the body of the article. That seems to me the best way to proceed. But if my reasoning here is mistaken, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Health Researcher (talk) 19:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Then the statement that all is happy with the spread of the eastern meditation in the west needs to come off too. For that is just not true that everyone accepts it. The edit that led to the French kissing comment was just unrealistic for it assumed that evryone loves everyone - not so. History2007 (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree - assuming you mean stay off the lede, since the statement about the leaders sitting next to each other was removed by you yesterday (correctly, in my view). My reasoning suggests that unless the body of the article changes in substantial ways, both statements should be kept out of the lede. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Which two statements are you referring to? Myu point is that the "social trend" referred to, is not going along unopposed. But in any case, the intro is the last thing to worry about here since the body needs to change, given the comments below and above. Let us discuss the article's problems first, then as they change intro should reflect it. I will type more below.
(above unsigned, but inserted by History2007 at 22:23, 2010 June 20)
I was saying that I thought the following two statements should both stay off the lede: 1) the Vatican's perspective; 2) the Dalai Lama / Pope meeting. The third statement, that "Eastern meditation techniques have been adapted and increasingly practiced in Western culture," is neutral on the face of it; on the face of it, it does not state that the trend is good or bad. Something about the fact that eastern meditation methods are getting increasing attention in the West seems relevant per WP:LEDE#Opening_paragraph as helping to introduce the topic and establish its basic contours as a phenomenon. But perhaps you feel that the neutrality of the statement could be improved? Or maybe something should be said alongside it about revivals of interest in Western meditative practices (e.g., lectio divina, Centering prayer, etc.)? In fact, now that you raise the issue, an additional sentence or phrase along those lines, if it is also neutrally phrased, strikes me as adding desirable balance and context. What do you think? -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I think this effort aims to summarize a body of work in flux - i.e. the article itself. Reminds me of one engineer who once told me that he had memorized the entire RCA specs for vacuum tubes just before semiconductors were invented! Praising Lectio Divina's successes in the intro would not be true, for it is losing out to Dancing with the Stars every night. What is true is that there is resistance to the Eastern approach, based on advice to 1 billion Catholics who are told to look the other way. So we may think of WP:XYZ etc. for guidance, but in general WP:truth should trump them all. History2007 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is resistance to the Eastern approach, and there is also enthusiasm for the Eastern approach, just as there is resistance to Christian messianic activity in the nonWestern world, and there is also enthusiasm for Christian messianic activity in the nonWestern world. If you read the literature on Centering Prayer, it is very clear that this represents a revival in the past few decades (the first modern books on it were only published in the late 1970s, I believe). Yes, the lede will need to be sculpted to introduce an article that is still in flux, we'll just have to deal with it and do the best we can. Fortitude! :-) Health Researcher (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So why not say that exactly as you have? "The eastern approach is promoted in the west, but there is resistance to it, based on religious issues." That happens to be true. History2007 (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
History2007, Many descriptions of the western uptake/adaptation of eastern approaches speak of it as partly motivated by a hunger for that type of practice (in part because discursive prayer had been emphasized for centuries in Western church teachings). Presenting the uptake as being "promoted" without speaking of the eager receptiveness ("hunger" in some phrasings) is neither "exactly" as I phrased it, nor in my view a neutral phrasing. Thus, though I appreciate your attempt to include two sides, I do not think the phrasing is a balanced representation of a nonsimple process.
The reason I initially suggested that it would be "simpler" to leave such evaluative POVs out of the lede is partly that 1) it seems likely to be quite hard to find a phrasing that is short and neutral/balanced, and partly that 2) I don't think such material needs to be in the lede, since at present it is a miniscule part of the article.
Let me offer another analogy, although, as I'm sure we'd both agree, no analogy is perfect. In a WP article about personal computers, it is unlikely that we'd want to say something in the lede about "Microsoft warned that trying to link Apple peripherals with a Microsoft CPU could be dangerous and unwise". Such advice might be valid, and might merit inclusion in the body (within constraints imposed by Wikipedia not being an instruction manual - WP:NOT), but such a warning by one group against who it may regard as its competitor would not merit inclusion in the lede. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I really like the last part. Translation: the only way to explain something to a computer nerd like History2007 is to use a computer analogy, then maybe, just maybe it will get into his skull. But your point about hunger is VERY interesting and I will try to research and write a section on that. For the rest give me a day to think. I will ask my computer for advice and respond. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 17:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
History2007, I think your edits to the lede address most of my concerns, perhaps all of them. Your rewording has greatly enhanced the neutrality in my view. At this point I'm truly neutral/ambivalent about whether the reactions to the trend should actually be in the lede at all, given they are such a small part of the article. But that issue feels reduced in importance in view of your fixes; barring a change in appraisal, I'm very happy to let your greatly improved or possibly optimal text stand. Thanks again for your efforts. -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
See what happens when you give an engineer an engineering example: they may understand it! It was only because you used the computer analogy... just kidding. But anyway, your point about hunger and "filling a need" started a thought process that I need to follow up on. It is actually amazing how much one learns by editing Wikipedia. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like it as it is. I know a couple that are both Buddhists and Christians, so why can't their view be included as well?makeswell 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Shouldn't the sentence just be put under the already present 'Christianity' section?makeswell 18:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC) --makeswell 18:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody diplomatically rephrased the sentence as, "Eastern meditation techniques have been adapted and increasingly practiced in Western culture[3] resulting in some opposition from organizations such as the Catholic Church." That actually does sound a bit less just in your face rejecting your lifestyle. Perhaps now we should consider rephrasing the sentence again as, "Everybody loves meditation except The Catholic Church" or something of the sort. For that matter what exactly did they say, that you will go to hell if you stretch? I specifically remember the Pope saying that it's okay to meditate just don't confuse the relaxation with the feeling of God. brb... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 03:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I added, "An excerpt from "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on some aspects of Christian Meditation" by Pope Benedict XVI follows, 'The majority of the 'great religions' which have sought union with God in prayer have also pointed out ways to achieve it. Just as the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions, neither should these ways be rejected out of hand simply because they are not Christian. On the contrary, one can take from them what is useful so long as the Christian conception of prayer, its logic and requirements are never obscured. It is within the context of all of this that these bits and pieces should be taken up and expressed anew…'" and referenced it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 03:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Markswell, please see [2] which also states that that letter was "a warning". The letter was not an invitation to mix the two, but a warning not to. As for Julia Roberts in the lead - well that left me speechless. History2007 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I read that page you linked. On that page it reads, "I shall explore positive theological support for interreligious prayer within the framework of the Catechism's teaching on prayer, and the church's official teaching regarding other religions to be found in and since Vatican II... While this position makes John Paul II an advocate of multireligious prayer, not interreligious prayer, the point he is making regarding the action of the Holy Spirit as inspiring and moving all genuine prayer, be it Christian or otherwise, is extremely significant to my argument. It supports the point I am making: prayers from other religious traditions can be moved by and be authentic promptings by the Holy Spirit... Holy Spirit may move the hearts of men and women in their prayer and meditation...," then it goes on, "For example, one might learn the benefits of breathing techniques and posture for prayer and meditation used by Hindus and Buddhists. The careful incorporation of such techniques into Christian practice can sometimes help to cultivate prayer and meditation centered around the triune God. This is not a simple matter..." So your book actually supported the practice of Christians doing yoga, as is seen to be so popular today that there is a Christian Yoga trend. Therefore I assume that by "warning not to," you are referring to his advice to be careful in mixing the techniques of the religions of The East with Christianity, such as, "'battle'...against the wiles of the Tempter who does all he can to turn man away from prayer, away from union with God'- and interreligious prayer [or meditation as quoted above] is certainly no exception," and other statements supporting taking caution. Therefore there needs to be a statement of how The Church has previously supported learning from other religions, which I added, and assume was then deleted, in the lede, to balance the other statement. However I'd wonder how precise that first statement, to which this whole schpeel is a reaction to, is considering that other evidence is to be found which refutes that claim, such as the book you've linked, which itself quotes John Paul II, and the quote which was previously there from John Paul II.--makeswell 18:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

Yo! Whoever wrote that first sentence in the lede, this, "Eastern meditation techniques have been adapted and increasingly practiced in Western culture[3] resulting in some opposition from organizations such as the Catholic Church.[4][5][6]" and then cited as reference (what is actually a meaningful, relevant, and authoritative source)this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm which is a letter about non-Christian methods of prayer and meditation from The Vatican Church (and also available on their website in German) did not properly summarize the import of that letter. AND I QUOTE, "That does not mean that genuine practices of meditation which come from the Christian East and from the great non-Christian religions, which prove attractive to the man of today who is divided and disoriented, cannot constitute a suitable means of helping the person who prays to come before God with an interior peace, even in the midst of external pressures." So this is Obviously, almost the opposite of what was claimed in the lede in the sentence that was quoted. Furthermore, later in the article we can read, "The expression 'eastern methods' is used to refer to methods which are inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism, such as 'Zen,' 'Transcendental Meditation' or 'Yoga.' Thus it indicates methods of meditation of the non-Christian Far East which today are not infrequently adopted by some Christians also in their meditation. The orientation of the principles and methods contained in this present document is intended to serve as a reference point not just for this problem, but also..." Therefore I am going to change the sentence in the lede to say the opposite, as is actually in line with the position of The Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 18:56, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

So I did that, the sentence accurately reflects the referenced article from The Catholic Church to Catholic Bishops, it seems. There's possibly more to this discussion, as is reflected here: http://www.bodymindmeditation.ie/yoga.htm which I don't have enough time to read, and I feel it's slightly ridiculous, though worth it since this is an important discussion for a large number of Wikipedia readers, that we've spent so much time refuting what was, in the first place, a misinterpretation. I actually referenced the exact same sources as we're used to say that The Catholic Church condemned meditative practices from non-Christian traditions. I have not read the entirety of these articles but the quotes from above are very easy to understand, very plain, and very clear that meditative practices from other religions are accepted. I would further like to know the context of this letter being sent for all I know now is that it was sent by somebody to all the bishops of The Catholic Church. I would be open to change the current sentence in the lede, of course, to more meaningfully reflect the position of all the various Christian churches on meditation so that all perspectives are accounted for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs) 19:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, as the book I pointed out stated that is ABSOLUTELY, absolutely not the case. The whole point of the letter as pointed out in the references provided is that Christian prayer should have "Christ at the center", while Eastern style prayers bypass Christ and focus on the "universe" or whatever it might be. That is the heart of the objection to those methods, the dilutaion of the attention to Christ - hence the warning. And please, please do use your common sense. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is not, repeat NOT, in the business of encouraging a move towards other religions. While at that office, Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) was known as "The Enforcer" - he was tough and very, very systematic in his approach of maintaining the status quo. He signed that letter. It is obvious that you are not familiar with that office in Rome and its history. My friend, that office used to run the inquisition! The are the defense department of the Vatican. Hence, please do not try to interpret their actions on your own. History2007 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

By your statement, History2007, that "Cardinal Ratzinger...signed that letter," I assume your reffering to LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON SOME ASPECTS OF CHRISTIAN MEDITATION found here http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfmed.htm which contains the statement, "That does not mean that genuine practices of meditation which come from the Christian East and from the great non-Christian religions, which prove attractive to the man of today who is divided and disoriented, cannot constitute a suitable means of helping the person who prays to come before God with an interior peace, even in the midst of external pressures." Am I correct in assuming this? If so, and you're right that I don't know much about The Catholic Church, and in fact have some questions about this letter as I mentioned earlier, then please, "interpret their actions," as you put it, as to how this letter, which contains the direct quote above, can be used as [the only] support AGAINST Christians using meditative techniques garnered from other religions? For all I can see, and perhaps I am just a simpleton, that letter, and specifically that quote, are actually SUPPORT, for "the man of today," using, "genuine practices of meditation which come from... the great non-Christian religions," as, "a suitable means of helping the person who prays to come before God with an interior peace." Perhaps if you cannot interpret the meaning of this statement for us more simple folk, then perhaps a direct quote from this letter, along with some information regarding it's delivery, who wrote it, etc., would suffice in place of a simple 'no-no' type sentence in the lede.--makeswell 14:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

WP:BRD

Markswell, I am objecting to your proposed deletion by invoking WP:BRD. Your assessment of the letter is clearly cherry picking sentences and does not reflect an understanding of how these letters are issued by the Vatican. The interpretation you assign to the letter is clearly, outside of the charter of the organization which issues it. The Roman Curia has multiple organzations and each has a specific task. The task of promoting inter-faith cooperation is managed by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (CID), not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF). The CDF does not promote interfaith activities, the CID does. In other words, when the Church in Rome wants to offer other religions Vin Santo and Cantucci they use the CID, when they want to whip Catholics to get into line (in previous centuries physically) they use the CDF. The letter, as I stated, and as teh references stated was a "warning". The references I provided clearly, clearly used the word "warning" and the need for the Christocentric nature of Christian prayer. As you see in the intro it says:

Christian prayer is always determined by the structure of the Christian faith, in which the very truth of God and creature shines forth. For this reason, it is defined, properly speaking, as a personal, intimate and profound dialogue between man and God. It expresses therefore the communion of redeemed creatures with the intimate life of the Persons of the Trinity. This communion, based on Baptism and the Eucharist, source and summit of the life of the Church, implies an attitude of conversion, a flight from "self" to the "You" of God. Thus Christian prayer is at the same time always authentically personal and communitarian. It flees from impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself, which can create a kind of rut.

So it emphasizes that " impersonal techniques or from concentrating on oneself" result in rut. I think their position is clear. History2007 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Solution

Oops, didn't see your talk down here. So, this topic has already been covered on Wikipedia here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga#Christianity Read it for yourself, it uses the letter we've been discussing as one of the two main references, the other being an entry in The New York Times.--makeswell 14:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

And clearly, as I sated the letter is NOT an invitation to Eastern methods, but the word "warning" keeps being used. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the quote you've made from that article, I can see how it is related to meditation, and yes there are a lot of warnings in the letter. Also there is a sentence in there which I quoted, which says that non-Christian meditation techniques may be, though this is oversimplifying, 'good' for Christians. I think the article on the Yoga->Christian section of Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga#Christianity accurately and fairly covers both sides, does everyone agree with this? Therefore perhaps we simply link to that page since it does fine and equates exactly to the topic of this page, meditation, as one of the, "'eastern methods'," written about. Does this sound agreeable to everyone? Does anybody have any more ideas?--makeswell 14:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I was just about to go and edit that Yoga page and add the NY Times article to the Aspects of Christian meditation. The Yoga page just covers yoga, the letter has its own page and any link needs to be to there. By the way, the warning: "meditation, which should be a flight from the self, can degenerate into a form of self-absorption" clearly tells you that very different mindsets exist in the Church of Rome vs elsewhere. But really if you knew the Vatican the CDF vs CID difference could have told you that. History2007 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Makeswell, The facts are even harder than stated above. The Vatican's position on mixing things is actually MUCH tougher than I had thought. I just realized that in 2003 they also launched a full-scale attack against all that is New Age. BBC Vatican. So I guess the handshakes between Popes, Lamas and ex-hippies at state funerals will not turn into deep embraces and kisses any time soon. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Those links didn't work, I think this is the article you were trying to link to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2722743.stm --65.32.180.165 (talk) 14:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey History2007,


I think I learn more by writing too, it's almost like taking flashcards on a book.

I talked to Chzz this morning about how the page Aspects of Christian meditation and the page Yoga#Christianity both talk about the same letter but are on separate pages. Chzz is on the wikipedia help chatroom. So he said that I needed to copy the information from the Yoga page to the Aspects of Christian meditation page, then recommended that I link from the Yoga page, with a short summary of the topic, to the Aspects of Christian meditation page, where then all the information is located.[1]

I went to go do this and thought better of it, that perhaps I should let you do it since you have spent so much time on this issue and are intimate with it, as well as care about it. So, would you like to help do that? Then we could simply link to the Aspects of Christian meditation page from the Meditation page.

Sincerely, makeswell 03:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. In any case: A Christian reflection on the New Age is the overview as of yesterday. I learn by writing I guess. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey History2007,

I think I learn more by writing too, it's almost like taking flashcards on a book.

I talked to Chzz this morning about how the page Aspects of Christian meditation and the page Yoga#Christianity both talk about the same letter but are on separate pages. Chzz is on the wikipedia help chatroom. So he said that I needed to copy the information from the Yoga page to the Aspects of Christian meditation page, then recommended that I link from the Yoga page, with a short summary of the topic, to the Aspects of Christian meditation page, where then all the information is located.[2]

I went to go do this and thought better of it, that perhaps I should let you do it since you have spent so much time on this issue and are intimate with it, as well as care about it. So, would you like to help do that? Then we could simply link to the Aspects of Christian meditation page from the Meditation page.

Sincerely, makeswell 03:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Softening the facts

I can not agree to the softening of the facts in the lead as it was discussed above. Moreover, there is not a single reply, e.g. if you look at A Christian reflection on the New Age which also addresses meditation, it is so hard hitting it is not a "reply" it is attempted murder. Moreover, the statement that there has been an increase in research ignores the fact that the research still remains miniscule at best. There is very little research with almost NO conclusive results about what meditation is. It is like saying that the number of right hand drive cars in Japan has increased. It is insignificant. History2007 (talk) 06:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

History2007, please be more clear as to what you mean by, "softening of the facts". I linked to the article you've been working on, as we had talked about on your Talk page. Then you reverted my change.
If by softening you are referring to my change from, "some opposition," to the phrasing, "a reply," and then a link, I can understand your point but at the same time I propose that
a) Aspects of Christian meditation be linked to
b) "some opposition" be replaced by another phrase, as I mention below
c) Research on meditation be linked to in that starting sentence, as part of the increase in The West of interest in meditative practices. I don't think this is a very controversial point, but if so, then we can start a new thread discussing this point.
I am mostly agreeing with you on the point that The Catholic Church has issued, as you've said, essentially, 'warnings,' about the use of non-Christian meditative techniques by Christians. I would like to link to the letter which we are citing. I had mentioned my intention of doing this and you had agreed on your Talk page. So is that point still alright with you? Do you agree that it is o.k. to link to that letter in the lede?
I also think that the phrasing of the original sentence, where it is written that there is, "some opposition," from The Catholic Church, is not really completely accurate. So, "opposition," sounds to me like they are saying, "no, don't do this." In Christian terms, this would mean that it is a sin. So that is my point, that this sentence makes it sound like The Catholic Church is saying, in their opposition, that it is a sin to utilize meditative techniques from non-Christian traditions.
Then also, on the Yoga page, and I'm pretty sure that you added this yourself, it says that in their letter Aspects of Christian Mediation, The Catholic Church is, "mostly critical of eastern and New Age practices". Also, on the page dedicated to this letter we may read that the whole topic of this letter was the, "differences, and potential incompatibilities between Christian meditation and the styles of meditation used in eastern religions such as Buddhism."
So then, being, "mostly critical," and pointing out, "potential incompatibilities," does not mean the same thing as showing, "some opposition," to, "Eastern meditation techniques," which is what the sentence in the lede says right now. I would like then, as part of b), along with linking to the letter on which you have worked to edit, that we also change the wording to something more clear to the reader. In fact, as it now stands, the reader can't even be sure if The Church is opposing the changes by sending out letters, or by telling Christians not to do it, or a Priest was excommunicated, or what is meant by, "some opposition". I think, as I mentioned above, that one important question which should either be not addressed, or if addressed then addressed clearly, is whether Yoga is in fact considered a sin by The Catholic Church. I think this is an important question to many Christians and thus to many of the readers of the English Wikipedia.
I think it is important then, to have in this sentence that,
b1) a link to The Catholic Church's letter
b2) the phrasing, "some opposition" be changed
I am leaving b2 open at this point for further discussion on specifics. I would like to see it changed to something like, "issued a letter," and for that to be linked like, "issued a letter," to the page which is about the letter itself. That is in fact what I had written, that The Church had made, "a reply," to the increase in meditation practice.
I would be open to discussion on this point, History2007 your input would be valuable because you have read the sources and edited on Wikipedia elsewhere on this same topic. I would like whatever we decide the final form of the sentence to look like, that it addresses the issue of whether The Catholic Church considers meditation and Yoga to be a sin. The current sentence seems to say that meditation is a sin, and therefore contradicts what has been written elsewhere; all of this was mentioned earlier in this talk post.
Do you agree with my point a, b and/or c? Do you have any other comments, ideas, suggestions, queries, postulations, points, hopes, desires, words of wisdom, or perhaps just an exclamation of pure joy, that you would like to add?
makeswell 09:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, since you asked for an "an exclamation of pure joy", that one is for free. However, I do think that the situation is simpler than you make it: There have been several edits by you that try to make it sound like the Vatican and the Lama are friends, that the Vatican is just "responding" to the issues on meditation/Neeage, etc. But the facts of the documents teh Vatican (and the Baptists support that as in the 2003 document) is that they have STRONG opposition to it, and have stated that: "Church avoids any concept that is close to those of the New Age". That is not just a reply, it is strong opposition.
The adding of a reference about the nascent Research on meditation within the same sentence makes it look like the Vatican or the Baptists are sponsoring the research - they are not. Moreover, it remains unclear if these handful of mostly semi-conclusive studies belong in the lede anyway - given that they are a very small part of the article itself, by WP:DUE they do not.
And given my invocation of WP:BRD on this, you can not re-invoke it on the same paragraph. History2007 (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Meditation in Health Science

I just realized that Meditation in Health Science exists. How accurate is the treatment of the subject therein and how does it relate to this article? If the articles are to get cleaned up, might as well be coordinated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Looks like it needs a WP:MEDRS cleanup. --Ronz (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it does look disorganized to me. History2007 (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
That page has been renamed to Research on meditation. There is also the Buddhist meditation page, which is missing some of the information which is present on this page, the Meditation page. There are also other pages on similar topics, like the Mindfulness_(psychology) seems relevant to this Meditation page, amongst others. makeswell 03:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makeswell (talk • contribs)

meditation not always done to the exclusion of thought, seriously

This quote, "to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind into a deeper," as an attempt to describe the aim/method of meditation, has been deleted and then re-appeared. This quote will not die! [So I'm writing about it here...]

Meditation is not always done in order to quiet the thinking mind, as this quote says. In fact, there are certain types of meditation which are done in order to louden the thinking mind, I guess you could say. For example, analytical meditation, which is talked about by John Dunne, here: http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21 and also found, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Buddhism#Analytic_meditation_and_fixation_meditation . Certainly there are also sometimes when thoughts may be like an obstacle. For example, in anapanasati, the thoughts will distract one from one's breath and then one must return to the breath. Also, and I think this gets more to the root of the issue, to what we're really referring to, as mentioned by a respected scientist during the Mind and Life Dialogues, here: http://www.youtube.com/user/gyalwarinpoche#p/c/B99CDF90B3832607/2/QxutKTfJVQo it is actually true that pure sensory experience somewhat 'competes' with our thoughts and mental processes. This can actually be seen in the brain during 'top-down processing', as is pointed out in that linked presentation. Thus, I think, in attending to the breath, there is some degree of not thinking because one is attending solely to the primary, raw data, experience of the senses. Nevertheless, this quote I shared at the start of this talk page is not an accurate survey of all the various meditation styles, most notably analytical meditation being an exception to this definition. Also, transcendental meditation is another case where this quote might have some truth but would certainly be, at the least, confusing to the reader. Basically, I would like to delete this sentence about how all meditation is an attempt to get beyond the reflexive and thinking mind because it is simply false. Perhaps the information from the Mind and Life Dialogues, linked above, would help especially on the anapanasati page itself. makeswell 03:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Something akin to getting beyond thought is a frequently cited theme in defining meditation. Here is a quote from chapter 1 of the influential book (Shapiro and Walsh, 1984, Meditation: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives):
  • "Using attentional mechanisms as the basis for the definition, therefore, we may state that 'meditation refers to a family of techniques which have in common a conscious attempt to focus attention in a nonanalytical way and an attempt not to dwell on discursive, ruminating thought." (p. 6 italic in original, bold added).
  • Similarly, Patanjali's Yoga Sutras state in perhaps the first substantive verse (I think it is verse #3 or #4) that "Yoga chitta vritti nirodaha" (sp?), or "Yoga [similar to what this page means by 'meditation' or meditative practice] is stilling the waves of thought"
Other similar quotations from highly prominent sources can most likely be found. Therefore something along these lines deserves a great deal of prominence on the page, and I would argue that our discussion should be focused on how to include such a notion, not whether. It seems conceivable that if we articulate these concepts more carefully on the page then your disagreement with the page may dissolve. Or perhaps not. I have not yet looked at what you mean by "analytical meditation" (which sounds an oxymoron from the perspective of Shapiro & Walsh's definition), but will try to do so. Remember that people like to climb on the bandwagon of using popular words (and 'meditation' is a popular word), but we are not bound to give equal honor to every new and promotional usage. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
PS After glancing at your links (minus the videos) it appears to me that what you are discussing falls into the same category as currently mentioned on the page with respect to the use of "meditation" to refer to the 3rd stage of lectio divina, as mentioned in the definitions section. In that instance the issue arises more from differences in how terms are used (i.e., which step or stage of practice happens to be called "meditation") rather than in substantive differences in methods of practice. So the challenge is to create enough clarifications and road-signs (so to speak) on the page so that people are not confused. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

General comment about the above: Not only do I agree with almost all of what you wrote, I think it is pretty nice analysis that can perhaps be repackaged into article text somewhere. The comments on the talk page are getting better than the article itself. And since you mentioned lectio divina etc. it may make sense to mention that those "euphoric states" that other methods deliver is less present in these situations. On a separate joking note, the title of this section comes to mind when I look at edits elsewhere across Wikipedia. The question is: "Is Wikipedia editing mostly done to the exclusion of thought?" I guess 40% of the editors must be meditating when they edit elsewhere, for the edits exclude thought. History2007 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree Health Researcher, and I probably didn't fully need to start a new section on the Talk page in the first place about it. I too have seen mentions of, 'quieting the mind' and so on from prominent books, namely The Tibetan Book of The Dead and also Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind. I agree wholeheartedly that it is a matter of how to include this idea rather than of whether or not to include it. The truth seems to be that there are certain meditators who, as part of their meditative tradition, have taken meditation to be whatever they themselves have learned. This can sometimes be advantageous especially when we find similarties between traditions and then can save ourselves the time of unecessarily exploring more of the 84,000 teachings of The Buddha, or some other prescriptive system of thought and guidelines. So, anyways, I think that if the sentence were to read something more to the effect that, 'many types of meditation aim at quieting the mind', and perhaps then also added some links to specifically name the certain practices which do aim at a goal like this. The first quote you gave, Health Researcher, seems to be like Mindfulness (psychology) practices, where one practices moment-to-moment awareness of thoughts and feelings without accepting or rejecting them. There is also anapanasati, which I mentioned earlier, and perhaps that relates to quieting the thoughts, and could therefore be quoted. There have also been certain schools which have refuted an attempt to 'dust-clean' or wipe the mind by practicing a sort of Quietism, most notably The Sudden School of Hui-neng, from whom Zen then developed. makeswell (talk) 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Because the consensus was not clear in this discussion, with some people conditionally or partly supporting the change, a new proposal has been made below. See Second discussion on suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation.

I propose we change the lede section from;

  • Eastern meditation techniques have been adapted and increasingly practiced in Western culture[3] resulting in some opposition from organizations such as the Catholic Church.[4][5][6][7][8]

To;

Based on these reasons: First of all, this sentence does belong in the lede because it frames the whole rest of the article in reference to The Church, and because it is an important question for the many Catholic Christians who read English Wikipedia - it addresses something at the very heart of their motivation to practice meditation. Then, the current phrasing of, "some opposition," from The Church is not clear, and may also be interpreted as saying that The Church has declared meditation to be a sin. This is not quite the case, as can be seen in the following excerpt from the letter from The Catholic Church which has been cited to support the sentence,

"That does not mean that genuine practices of meditation which come from the Christian East and from the great non-Christian religions, which prove attractive to the man of today who is divided and disoriented, cannot constitute a suitable means of helping the person who prays to come before God with an interior peace, even in the midst of external pressures."

Also, the page about this letter from The Church, says that the letter is in respect to, "differences, and potential incompatibilities between Christian meditation and the styles of meditation used in eastern religions," and also, on the Yoga page on Wikipedia we read that The Vatican is, "mostly critical of eastern and New Age practices". So the phrasing of, "strong admonition," is therefore more consistent with the other statements that are present on Wikipedia, along with the letter which is used as a reference to support the sentence. Linking to the page which is about the letter will let those readers who wish to read more details about this letter and the advice of The Vatican to do so easily. Lastly, two of the references are the viewpoints of Christian authors, but not of The Vatican Church per se. Therefore they have been removed from the proposed revision and are available above for potential future use.

Based on the amount of discussion around this sentence, I believe this is a somewhat 'controversial' change, and am asking for some discussion leading to consensus for or against this change.

Please state below your support or opposition, with brief, policy-based support. Many thanks, makeswell (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as the person proposing this change, based on the reasons given above. makeswell (talk)
  • Support, and suggest we use some simpler word than admonition so more people will understand, like opposition. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to Makeswell, I see it as a drawback rather than an asset to give so much attention in the lede...

Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment This discussion did ask for brief, policy-based reasonings; in the interests of keeping this on-track and avoiding TL;DR, I have collapsed the above Chzz  ►  18:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Touché - point well-taken Health Researcher (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
All this to oppose it? This is getting to be a long discussion about one parag while the rest of the article still has citation and quality problems we all know about. But I do disagree with several statements you made. Just comparing Christians in the west to the Bahá'í is like comparing the United States to Lichtenstein. There are over 1 billion Catholics alone, and that is probably 10 to 100 times more people than meditators in the west. Think of meditation as "spiritual tourism" for new people. So travel instructions issued to them matter. Think of it this way, the number of Catholics alone is larger than the population of the United States and the European community combined. Now if the governments of the US and Europe jointly told their 1 billion people not to travel somewhere, is that not important in tourism? Of course it is. And it is also important in spiritual tourism. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well then, to use your metaphor, let's characterize all the relevant tourism guidelines in the "modern cross-cultural dissemination" section, and then guage the lede to best reflect the collective group of guidelines, along with other relevant material about the modern scene, such as Western attempts at revival (I'm not sure how the Bahai got into it...). Health Researcher (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment This discussion did ask for brief, policy-based reasonings; in the interests of keeping this on-track and avoiding TL;DR, I have moved the lengthy discussion of points raised here (by Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs) into a section below this one. This is a simple, clear, direct proposal for a small change to the lede; do you support or oppose this specific change? Other suggested improvement and discussion is most welcome, but not in THIS discussion. If you believe that the lede needs a rewrite, that's great - suggest it, or rewrite it. But please, stick to the request in this section. Thanks. Chzz  ►  13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove sentence from lede. Catholicism need not be in the lede; the apparent controversy can be later in the article. Also, I agree with -Ludwigs2: the whole lede can be tightened up and made less peculiar. - Steve3849talk 03:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion re. rewriting of the lede, moved from the above

Note: The following comment was made in the above section, "Suggested change to lede regarding position of The Catholic Church on meditation" - but in the interests of keeping that specific request for brief' comment on=-track, I have moved this more lengthy discussion down here.  Chzz  ►  13:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment: Unfortunately, the lead (and the article) need some major revisions. I mean seriously, even the first line - "Meditation is a holistic discipline during which time the practitioner trains their mind in order to realize some benefit" - is bizarre. 'holistic' (while vaguely applicable) is not a conventional understanding of meditation, and 'training [the] mind [...] to realize some benefit' is either deeply misleading or actually violates the core teachings of most Buddhist and many Hindu sects. the particular line about the Catholic Church is also misleading - reading the sources it's clear that the church is not anti-meditation, they simply want to make sure that meditation is practiced within the confines of Catholic doctrine (i.e., that foreign practices do not water down the teachings of the church). Is this really a contentious page, or can I wade in and start some revisions? --Ludwigs2 19:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs, before you "wade in" and do a lot to the lede I suggest that you read the Definitions section, and look at its table, which displays a variety of the most highly cited characterizations of meditation that appear in scholarship. While none of them use the word "holistic" (which has received previous discussion on the talk page), they do not shrink from saying that meditation is undertaken for various purposes. While there is a good degree of cooperation (though some disagreement) on this page, there is also a long history with many nuances. Health Researcher (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ludwigs, The long and short of it is this: This topic seems simple, but is in fact pretty complex and Health Researcher has researched this topic far more than the rest of the editors - I have learned a lot from him already. But he is too busy to work on this full time on the current salary Wikipedia pays him. His definitions section is in fact very good, although I joked about the font size. Best solution would be to discuss how to improve the page first, then modify the lead to reflect that. And we need to construct a strategy to get more free work out of Health Researcher on the article page instead of wasting his time on the talk page. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(e/c) @ Health Researcher: Meditation is sometimes undertaken for various purposes, and that is definitely a bias in western literature on the subject (westerners have very strong identifications with a sense of 'purpose'), but again, the core teachings in theravada and most forms of chan/zen see attachment to goals as a major failing (and a major impediment to a meditation practice), While Hindu gurus generally teach some form of ideal-identification that obviates the particular identifications of the self (including 'purposes').
Ludwigs, are you familiar with the concept that human goals are often structured in hierarchies -- e.g., short-term, middle-term, long-term, each instrumental for the next? Texts that discuss meditation -- such as Kabat-Zinn's "Full Catastrophe" book - often tell people to forget all about their goals. But then in the next breath (in KZ's case, a couple of pages later), they talk about how if the meditator steps back, and observes over the long term, they can see progress on their goals. One way to interpret this is that a practice of meditation subserves a long-term goal (of attaining nirvana, surrendering oneself to God, etc.), but in order for it to be effective, the practice requires the training of attention: you must adopt short-term goals of turning your attention away from (ie forgetting about, not dwelling upon) your long-term goals. The bottom line is that the language of meditative traditions both affirms and rejects goals at different places, and we should judge each usage in context. Health Researcher (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
at any rate, my question - is this a contentious page? - was serious and well-intentioned, if blunt. I would like to wade in, but I don't particularly want to start any fuss and bother, so I'm trying to gauge the temperament of the editors here.
Ludwigs, here's another suggestion re hidden reefs and pitfalls to be aware of before "wading in": If you can access it, check out the Bond et al paper that is cited on the page, and (at the moment) discussed in the "Similarities among disciplines" section. It shows how challenging the definitions problem is, and suggests that the construct may be more of a "prototype construct" or a "family resemblance" (please check out link to "prototype" if you are not familiar with it). To make matters even more complicated, meditatioin is a high interest concept, and also one where everyone starts out with an understandable partiality for thinking that the rest of the world can benefit from not only their own methods of meditating, but also their own conceptions of definitions (which may have been used by their own spiritual teacher or scholarly mentor). And there are so many methods and even definitions that it's impossible to list them all and have the page be readable. Therefore the page presents a structural challenge: How to be neutral and reasonably comprehensive, while simultaneously preventing the endless accumulation of well-intentioned "fixes" (barnacles) by people with an understandable but naive affection for their familiar definitions and methods? I am keeping my fingers crossed that maybe with the use of such structural features as the table in the definitions section, in combination with definitions text that gives justice to the prototype nature of the construct, plus some hard-nosedness about squelching well-intentioned barnacles when they appear, we might bring some stability to the page while keeping it fair and informative. But this remains to be seen. Bottom line: there are nuances to this page. Health Researcher (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
@ History: I'm not overly focused on the lede, except that the lede has some serious misconceptions in it. I intend to give the whole article a review. I'm know a bit about these matters myself, so I'm sure it will work out alright. --Ludwigs2 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if you know the topic Ludwigs, can you clarify for me what attention is and what is meant by its regulation? I have no idea. And what are the "categories" of meditation styles? The whole field is complex I think and what one person considers misconception is clarity for another. I have learned a few things here, but as a start, have no answer yet to: How many people meditate, what attention is, what the categories are and how the approaches relat eto each other. Do you? History2007 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Attention is just what it sounds like. most forms of meditation aim for a state of alert but unattached attention. you need to 'regulate' it (I don't usually hear that particular terminology), because the natural tendencies of the mind will be either to wander off into thoughts or fantasies, or to collapse into sleep. mostly people will talk about observing the mind or focusing the attention; regulating it sounds a little structured. 'Categories of meditation' is a Western meta-concept that tries to organize different practices; it's a little misguided, in my opinion, but understandable. In situ, most faiths with a meditation component will provide different forms of meditation for people at different levels of competence. New meditators will be given mantras to repeat, asked to count their breaths, told to scan their bodies, given strings of beads to count prayers on: particular tasks of no great import that help keep the mind from wandering off into distraction. for those who are a bit more advanced, and can maintain attention for a reasonable period, you get some more sophisticated tools: visualization devices, physical postures or practices... There are also differences in the conception of what the end-state should be: for instance there's a fairly distinct philosophical split between jhana-style meditation (which seeks absorption into the absolute) and 'presence'-style meditation (which seeks full but detached awareness). and that's just the Eastern styles. there are parallels with prayer leading towards knowledge of God in Abrahamic religions. The problem is that such categories often confuse philosophical differences with developmental differences (e.g., they will equate different forms on superficial similarities, when those forms might actually be intended for very different uses across the population of worshipers).
As far numbers, well... meditation is probably practiced by relatively few people, but it's hard to estimate. Buddhism and Hinduism encourage meditation, but really only monastics and the more 'saintly' lay people engage in it as a regular practice. normal buddhists and hindus (like normal christians) have an assortment of prayers and rituals they observe, and may meditate on occasion, but not with great dedication. In the west (at least among non-Asians), the monastic traditions got imported without the conventional lay practices so much higher proportions of Western buddhists meditate than Asian buddhists, but there are much smaller numbers of Western buddhists, so... I don't know the actual numbers of people in 'meditative' faiths off hand, but it would surprise me if as much as 10% of them meditated even irregularly, and I can't imagine that the number of dedicated meditators in the world is even more than a fraction of a percent of that number. --Ludwigs2 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think I agree with everything that Ludwigs just said. I would add that the term "regulate" is commonly used in psychology (and where such terms as "self-regulation" are commonly used), so that's probably where we're most likely to encounter them e.g., here: [3]. Off the top of my head, it could perhaps can be viewed as a synonym for to control, or to govern. Health Researcher (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure where new comments are supposed to go and I'm not going to pretend that I have read and absorbed all the arguments, but suggesting that the Catholic church opposes meditation is clearly false no matter how many WP:RELY citations you come up with. Are there differences in medication? Yes. I would imagine the article would describe them. One Catholic mediation is called "Centering Prayer." There is no intent of "losing" the practitioner into the cosmos. There is a focus. It is not the navel!  :) But the lead isn't focusing on the general but into the specifics with a WP:POV in mind. "Eastern meditation is just fine except for those nasty Catholics criticizing it." Clearly WP:BIAS. Student7 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts and Number of meditators

Do we have facts about ho wmany people meditate in the west? Probably more than 1 million. Over 10 million? I have no data. Close 200 million? No way. So do we have any data on that? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how you define and measure meditation. I think I've seen a US nationally representative survey that I could probably dig up, in which people were asked something along the lines of "do you meditate", or "how often do you meditate". Since meditation is defined in so many different ways, it's hard to know exactly what that means. If we dig up such factoids and cite them in the article, we should include sich caveats (by the way, thanks for you kind and humorous remarks about my article contributions, and thanks for helping set a good tone and atmosphere for working on this page). Health Researcher (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Knowing psychology I am sure you have already categorized me as someone who missed his calling to be a standup comic and wasted his life in sillyclone valley instead... sigh... But the numbers would help. I have no idea if it is 100,000 or 10,000,000. Do you? History2007 (talk) 21:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Look at page 92 of this book, available as a PDF online: Multidimensional measurement of religiousness / spirituality for use in health research. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute (NB: book also has a Wikipedia page). It gives General Social Survey (1998) responses to the question, "within your religious or spiritual tradition, how often do you meditate?" It says that only 48.2% said never, 9.0% said more than once per day, 13.7% said once a day, etc. Thus, about 22.7% said they meditate daily or more often. But what exactly does this mean? (e.g., even leaving aside differences in traditions, do the respondents mean the same thing as their own religious leaders?) As emphasized before, it's hard to know... Health Researcher (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
PS - I suspect we can all agree that the 22.7% daily meditators is hard to interpret, and if included, should be accompanied by a caveat along the lines of the previous paragraph. Question: Are we in a dilemma if no published commentaries on this data point this out? That is, the original publication that I linked did not comment on this result - it only gave a lot of raw data, mostly without commentary. Wouldn't WP rules prohibit us from stating the caveat, because that would be "original research"? If so - if we can't find a way to include the caveat in the article - then in my opinion it would be better to omit the statistic from the article altogether, so as not to be misleading. Health Researcher (talk) 14:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If 22% of the US population meditates every day, then that must be some type of meditation I had not been aware of. I had often wondered what the crowds were doing during Nascar races.... they must be meditating. But seriously, let me understand this now. The Wikipedia page says that: it was found that 24.4 percent of US adults reported engaging in private prayer "more than once a day", and 9.0 percent reported engaging in meditation "more than once a day" which does not seem to be supported by the table on page 92. Because of the way the data on page 92 is presented. Moreover, given that the survey lumped "private prayer" and meditation together, the answers run the risk of being tilted towards "prayerful meditation" such as a rosary or Bible meditation, rather than meditation that delivers a euphoric state such as Buddhist meditation. I have to look at the table more carefully, but quite often these multidimensional scaling issues can be interpreted in several ways. I would have guessed that one would find a lot of Buddhist meditation in Berkeley, California or Santa Monica, California, but not among the corn farmers in Iowa, but I may be mistaken. So I am not sure what those numbers mean at all, given that they hav enot defined meditation. History2007 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
unless I'm reading this paper incorrectly, the question actually asks participants to rate their "involvement in private religious practices such as prayer, meditation, and study of religious materials" and thus makes no particular distinction between meditation, prayer, contemplation, reading religious text, or sitting over a cup of coffee thinking about God. it can be used to draw some general conclusions about religiosity, but nothing specific about meditation as a practice. I think they just used the word 'meditation' as a table keyword, so we shouldn't read too much into it. --Ludwigs2 15:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page says that: .... 9.0 percent reported engaging in meditation "more than once a day" which does not seem to be supported by the table on page 92
I assume History2007 means the book's Wikipedia page, HERE. I'm not sure he means that 9.0% figure is unsupported by the book page 92 (linkable above). There were two separate questions, one for private prayer, another for meditation (in fact, the entire dataset is freely downloadable by the public). The full text appears as questions 13 and 14 on page 86, with response options. The full text is also abbreviated on page 90. Notice that in the book, the row-percents for the meditation question add up to 48.2+6.9+3.4+4.4+5.0+9.5+13.7+9.0=100.1%, which is 100% plus rounding error. I think the questions themselves were indeed probably asked sequentially. Anyway, it seems like more than one of us are agreeing on the bottom line: It's hard to know exactly what it means when people say they were meditating in response to this question (Q14, p. 86 in book). But I strongly suspect we'll find it hard to locate any national statistic that is more interpretable or reliable than this. If incorporated WITH an appropriate caveat (and only then), I'm inclined to think this statistic is better than nothing, partly just because it shows readers how little is known. But how to include the caveat??? Health Researcher (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's an anticlimax on this counting-meditators question: Time Magazine states in its online version HERE (Aug 4, 2003) that an estimated ten million people meditate. But they don't attribute it to anyone (much less a known scholarly source), and that paragraph doesn't appear in the print version (not the print copy I have anyway). So I regard Time's statistic as utterly worthless. As a scholar in this area I'd love to find truly reliable estimates, but I'd have to throw my discernment out the window before I trust a snarky reporter's final online cut in a popular magazine, unattributed, when I've waited years for a truly reliable estimate and never heard of one. Health Researcher (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
PS You can probably find some statistics on meditation use that appear in surveys of alternative medicine. I can't remember if any of them were nationally representative. But the question is phrased in terms of using meditation for health, so it's only a lower bound (since some people may use it only spiritually). Methodologically, none would be better than the General Social Survey, which is the statistic we've been discussing above. Health Researcher (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both comments above. As Ludwigs said, in the survey the definition of meditation was just too vague, and could have meant they meditated for calm or thought of God on the freeway as they drove to work. So I think the survey numbers can not really be used within this article. We may not know what our exact definition of meditation is here, but we can be sure it is different from that survey. If I start complaining about surveys in general, be they this or dietary cholesterol, etc. it will take for ever, so I will not. I also agree with Health Researcher that the rest of surveys around are hopeless. I just wanted to know if you guys had any specific ideas. We must, however, accept that hard numbers are impossible to come by for activities without financial records, in general. To estimate how many people play Tennis in a state, the sales of Tennis balls and equipment is actually a useful item in the analysis, and various marketing companies use those. The number of men who use non-electric shavers is even easier to estimate. However, there is no physical meditation device that I know of. Is there? I have not looked at Claritas Prizm for a while, but from what I recall, meditation was never an element in the clusters. So we may have no answer here, but it may lead us to say in the article that we have not been able to find good estimates. Now how do we say that within the rules of Wiki-grammar? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Previous attempts of Madison Avenue to whip up a market for meditation devices have been a source of humor and deprecation in some circles (e.g., $200 zafus, etc.). But there is nothing universally or perhaps even widely used or needed. I agree, we can no more count meditators through economics than we could count the number of people who "pray in their closet" by adding up sales of closets. Health Researcher (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
So how do we say that, or something to that effect in the article. I did some rough calculations that are WP:morethanOR and to my amazement the Time Magazine number is not that far from my guess. But that can NOT be used for it was a back of envelope calculation. So how do we say we have no number, or that Time said so, but we do not trust them. History2007 (talk) 19:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we are making a category error here. meditation is not a faith, meditation is a practice undertaken in many different faiths. If we turn it around and ask how many people in the world pray to God we would have the same problem: Christians pray to God, Muslims pray to God, Jews pray to God, Hindus pray to God(s), even some Buddhist sects pray to figures that are very similar to gods, and not everyone who says they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist prays with any regularity (even though their religions say they ought). There is no 'count' of the number of people who pray on the prayer page, so why should there be such a count on the meditation page?
And I just discovered that saying the word 'pray' repeatedly sounds really weird. interesting... --Ludwigs2 20:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant eastern styles of meditation that produce a euphoric state. The page Islam says that there are 1.57 billion Muslims comprising about 23% of the world's population. So those pages have that. As a reader that was interesting to me. As an encyclopedia, i would expect Wikipedia to tell me if there are 123 million muslims or 1.5 billion. And it does. As an activity, if I look up Soccer in the United States, I would like to get a hint that it is more popular than Croquet. As an encyclopedia reader, I would like to know numbers, whenever I read these articles. Some people may not want it, I would like to see them as a reader. I think many others will too. History2007 (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but that still has a category error. The fact that there are 1.57 billion Muslims does not tell us anything about how many people engage in Muslim versions of prayer. Ultra-devout muslims pray 5 times daily, run-of-the-mill Muslims might pray once a week at mosque, or not at all. There are statistics available for how many Buddhists, Hindus, Sufis, New Agers, and etc. exist, and we can cite those statistics as "people whose beliefs include meditation as a practice", but we can't really assert that all those people meditate any more than we can assert that all Muslims pray. --Ludwigs2 21:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Euporic states"? History2007, I'm not sure what you mean by "euphoric states," but it seems to be something that you identify primarily with spiritual practices that have come to the West from elsewhere. Therefore, I would call to your attention the following quote from Evelyn Underhill's Mysticism (1911). Whether or not one agrees with all of her arguments (she draws significant scholarly respect, although the book is now a century old and much has no doubt happened in the meantime), this passage would seem to indicate that "ecstatic experiences" are not uncommon among spiritual aspirants of some types in the West:

True ecstasy is notoriously life-enhancing. In it a bracing contact with Reality seems to take place, and as a result the subject is himself more real. Often, says St. Teresa, even the sick come forth from ecstasy healthy and with new strength; for something great is then given to the soul. 95 Contact has been set up with levels of being which the daily routine of existence leaves untouched. Hence the extraordinary powers of endurance, and independence of external conditions, which the great ecstatics so often display. (Mysticism, p. 48)

Underhill, of course, was writing at a time when the "new age movement" was far in the future; she knew very little about Eastern (perhaps also Islamic) religion, so we can read her as essentially only talking about the West. Both Eastern and Western traditions speak in various ways (varying between traditions) about uplifted states; both, as it turns out, also speak about a role for grace (with regard to grace in Theravada Buddhism, see remarks by Huston Smith in his book on Buddhism). So I'm not sure how it could be possible to gather separate counts of people who engage in "euphoric" versus "non-euphoric" forms of meditation/contemplation, since I don't think that these are categories that are likely to stand up to close scholarly scrutiny. Very best regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I have some basic facts based on the study of this article, as well as the private tutoring I have received here:
  • We do not know how meditation works. The underlying mechanism is unclear.
  • We do not even know what meditation is, exactly speaking - we only have rough definitions.
  • We can not categorize the types of meditation.
  • We can not know how many people practice meditation.
Am I correct so far? Is this exact definition of meditation likely to describe the situation? Will the general reader feel the same way? History2007 (talk) 22:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it's quite as bad as the elephant parable, but the texture of this topic is indeed different than what one finds in mathematics and the natural sciences, where one can often formulate precise definitions that are widely accepted. But, to use another (imperfect) analogy, just because nobody has a precise and universally-agreed-upon definition of what constitutes "baldness" does not mean that WP cannot write an article about baldness. I wish I had more time to contribute to helping sort this out.... Health Researcher (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
PS In my opinion it might be appropriate to construct a similar table (parallel to the definitions table) about how scholars have categorized meditation. A lot of the categorizations seem to involve concentration, mindfulness, and some sort of third residual or mixture category. But if it were to work, I think the table would need to be restricted to categorizations used in highly-cited reviews... otherwise it would degenerate into a free-for-all. I frankly don't know what we'd discover if we constructed such a table, and whether or not it would "work". But it might be worth exploring. It's likely to be at minimum a couple of months before I could take the time to do so in depth. But if it works, it might be a nice way to respectfully stabilize the issue of categorizations. Health Researcher (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the Definitions section a bit, reorganizing it, after reading the above post by History2007.

  • Yes, not exactly, yet.
  • Yes, it seems that the fact that we don't know how to define meditation is not weird, since the scientific community has trouble doing that as well. More traditional definitions are possible to come by perhaps, like dhyana, or whatever the words are in other places and other times.
  • Yes, I don't think anyone can categorize the types of meditation, in like say, their physiological correlates, from a Western perspective, if that's what you mean by, 'types of meditation'. I don't think this is a problem since the page is organized by religious tradition, so the definitions of meditation within that religious context are already clear, and should then be edited on that section of the page. At some point I think it will be more clear if there are similar practices across religious traditions, and we could expect perhaps something like this to come from scientific study, but at the time the proposed Western categories are very preliminary.
  • I guess so, I have no idea how many people meditate. I would assume that all Hindus have meditated at some point, for the most part, and that mostly all Christians have prayed sometime during their lives.

If I were to read this page for the first time, which I feel like is a good question to return to, I think I would probably love the chart on the Western definitions section, and skip the rest of that section. I would then feel like there was a dearth of information on the Buddhist section and that it needs to be added to and cleaned up. I would make an effort to do this, and get caught up in an epic battle about something The Catholic Church thinks about other religions, forgetting the Buddhist section all the while... makeswell (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ [10:34] <+Chzz_> makeswell you need to copy the reference(s) over. And I would suggest a summary, and a wikilink to the other page
  2. ^ [10:34] <+Chzz_> makeswell you need to copy the reference(s) over. And I would suggest a summary, and a wikilink to the other page
  3. ^ Tart, C. "Adapting Eastern spiritual teachings to Western culture". The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 22: 149–166.
  4. ^ a b See Aspects of Christian meditation and A Christian reflection on the New Age
  5. ^ a b Vatican website: Letter on certain aspects of the Christian meditation (in German), October 15, 1989
  6. ^ a b EWTN: Letter on certain aspects of the Christian meditation (in English), October 15, 1989
  7. ^ Catholicism in dialogue: conversations across traditions‎ by Wayne Teasdale 2004 ISBN 0742531783 Page 74
  8. ^ The meeting of religions and the Trinity by Gavin D'Costa 2000 ISBN 0567087301 page 152
  9. ^ Tart, C. "Adapting Eastern spiritual teachings to Western culture". The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology 22: 149–166.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meditation/Archive_3&oldid=1137001460"