Talk:Meditation/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

how we include the concept of ruminating thoughts

Through a long conversation with Health Researcher, in tandem with independent research on the topic using Google Scholar, I have come to understand what he intended to convey by writing the sentence given below in Meditation#Definitions and scope, realized the importance of the idea behind that sentence, found a number of sources which clearly and explicitly talk about the idea, and changed my stance so that whereas before I felt the sentence should be removed altogether I now feel the idea should be included in a different way.

This article mainly focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind[58] (sometimes called "discursive thinking"[59] or "logic"[60]) into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state.

The topic of that discussiong with Health Researcher, seen in the section on this Talk page entitled quieting the thoughts, was what we called variously, ‘ruminating’, or ‘discursive’, or ‘reflexive’, or even, at one point, ‘logical’, thoughts, or ‘spinning’, which I feel now is best captured by the following phrase from a very well-cited article which was the product of several meetings that aimed at hashing out a clear and meaningful operational definition of mindfulness, a word, practice, and idea, which has become so popular in the West, in addition to its now almost two thousand five hundred year-old history in the Buddhist tradition, as step seven along the eightfold noble path, in addition to its role in other traditions as well.

"The self-regulation of attention also fosters nonelaborative awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations as they arise. Rather than getting caught up in ruminative, elaborative thought streams about one’s experience and its origins, implications, and associations, mindfulness involves a direct experience of events in the mind and body (Teasdale, Segal, Williams, & Mark, 1995). Note that mindfulness is not a practice in thought suppression; all thoughts or events are considered an object of observation, not a distraction. However, once acknowledged, attention is directed back to the breath, thereby preventing further elaboration. This is thought to inhibit secondary elaborative processing of the thoughts, feelings, and sensations that arise in the stream of consciousness. Thus, mindfulness practices are though to be associated with improvements in cognitive inhibition, particularly at the level of stimulus selection. This can be objectively measured using tasks that require the inhibition of semantic processing (e.g., emotional Stroop; Williams, Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996)." - Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition

So, I feel that this change needs to be made for a number of reasons,

  • 1) Clarity. An easy and honest way to do this would be to replace the sentence with the quote from the study given above. The current sentence leaves the uninitiated without much of an idea as to what is meant, quite simply. For instance, the use of the word ‘thinking’ is too vague, and ‘logic’ is just not quite appropriate either. I could go into further details, but I think that this point is clear enough.
  • 2) The topic is important enough to be included because of the details given earlier regarding the ancient history of the concept in Buddhism and its widespread use in modern Western therapy.
  • 3) The concept might be included as a part of the typologies section as well. For instance see Jon Kabat-Zinn’s highly cited article, Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future wherein he writes,

”In this regard, mindfulness certainly received its most explicit and systematic articulation and development within the Buddhist tradition over the past 2,500 years, although its essence lies at the heart of other ancient and contemporary traditions and teachings as well, approaches that can be of great value in refining one’s own practice, insight, and teaching (see, for example, Chuang Tsu, 1964; Krishnamurti, 1999; Lao-tsu, 1988; Maharaj, 1973; Maharshi, 1959; Thakar, 1972;Tolle, 1999).”

  • 4) The characterization of this aspect of mindfulness as applying to all the multitude of methods of meditation is simply incorrect. There is just very little, in practice, which one will find to be true of all the literally hundreds[1] of styles of meditation. The whole idea that’s being made, in the article quote above and in other sources as well, is that this is a corresponding result of specifically mindfulness-based practices. There are a number of practices that are specifically done to cultivate mindfulness, and there are a number of practices which are not done for the express purpose cultivating mindfulness, and this mindset, as well. For instance, compassion meditation is done to cultivate compassion and goodwill, and anapanasati is done to cultivate mindfulness and awareness of the present moment. There are several sources which verify that this change is associated specifically with mindfulness, including this excellent, explicit and brief video interviewing Mark Williams on Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy, in addition to many, many other sources.

At this point, I really feel that I have made what is an obvious point, and an obvious change to the page, in a clear and simple way, and that more conversation is simply not going to help the cause of changing this page in any meaningful way.

I appreciate, as nearly always, your constructive tone, Health Researcher. After all, I have benefited from these conversations and have been motivated and enlightened, so to speak, in my own practice with mindfulness.

makeswell (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Makeswell, thank you for your kind words. But with regard to your 900-word post above, please note that it is about 9 times the length recommended in WP:TALK for good practices. With regard to its advocacy of changes to the page: 1) I find it hard to figure out what precise changes it may be advocating, and 2) Over decades, the generic literature on meditation rarely if ever tries to define "nondiscursive" or "logic relaxation" in great detail. That strongly suggests that WP will have a hard time doing a whole lot better. 3) Meditation is not equivalent to mindfulness, and the mindfulness literature is mostly relevant only to Buddhism, so it won't solve our generic problem on this page. Personally, I suspect we can't do much better in explaining "nondiscursive" than we do already -- just as an article about musical tones can only go so far in explaining the musical scale to someone who is deaf. I think you should be prepared to "let go" of this issue. Health Researcher (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
My point is that we use the quote,

"The self-regulation of attention also fosters nonelaborative awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations as they arise. Rather than getting caught up in ruminative, elaborative thought streams about one’s experience and its origins, implications, and associations, mindfulness involves a direct experience of events in the mind and body (Teasdale, Segal, Williams, & Mark, 1995). Note that mindfulness is not a practice in thought suppression; all thoughts or events are considered an object of observation, not a distraction." - Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition

to replace,

"This article mainly focuses on meditation in the broad sense of a type of discipline, found in various forms in many cultures, by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind[59] (sometimes called "discursive thinking"[60] or "logic"[61]) into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state. The terms "meditative practice" and "meditation" are mostly used here in this broad sense."

and place this in the Typologies section. makeswell (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is not accurately portraying meditation. I have provided references to demonstrate this point, including several highly cited article, and one study funded by the U.S. government. Despite this, your blockades have shown the weakness of Wikipedia, that good edits can be stopped by bad reversions.
You have failed to recognize the central issue, that what you've been talking about as 'meditation' is actually 'mindfulness'.
More talk will not achieve anything, obviously. I have made my points simply and clearly. I have not let go of my opinions, but do realize that this much talking is fruitless. I really suggest that you try to formulate an argument as to why discursive thought is associated with mindfulness, contrary to an article cited 418 times. I also suggest that you try to formulate an argument as to why the sports analogy does not apply directly to the quotes given in the chart. Then, if you do not realize the faultiness of your logic, at least we can all have a good laugh at your expense.
You have been laughably off target, and I commend you, sir, for your good deeds at making this page worse in this respect. makeswell (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe we could add a few videos from youtube and improve the scholarly quality that way. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a joke that you try and use a study that's been cited by two other articles to refer to a topic that has been in the Buddhist traditions since 2,500 years ago. hahahahahahaha makeswell (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
You have failed to recognize the central issue, that what you've been talking about as 'meditation' is actually 'mindfulness'. -- Makeswell 19:55, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Makeswell, I think your sentence above about "the central issue" is quite revealing of how you are blind to your own POV-pushing. Suppose someone came along and wanted to insert into the definitions section the sentence "meditation is actually just developing Christ-consciousness". That might be true, in some sense, from their own philosophical perspective. But it wouldn't be appropriate for an article such as this which is centered, to borrow History2007's word, on a more "generic" approach (while leaving sections for tradition-specific perspectives). There is no body of scholarship that has determined that all forms of meditation reduce to mindfulness (though perhaps someone has hypothesized it). The definitions section needs to rely on scholarship that has addressed the question of common features of meditation across traditions, and that's what we've been doing -- despite your increasingly tiresome resistance. Health Researcher (talk) 00:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being unclear. I do not think that all the wonderfully diverse styles of meditation reduce to mindfulness. I think that mindfulness is just one of these many styles of meditation. Sincerely, makeswell (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a section on specifically mindfulness-based practices in the Western Typologies section. I did not remove the sentence which you have been saying belongs on this page in its current form. I would like to simply reword that sentence so that it does not refer to 'all' or 'most' meditation styles, but rather to specifically the mindfulness-based practices. It is a commonly understood fact that a lack of ruminating thoughts is characteristic of mindfulness-based practices. Although it is not likely I will find a source supporting this claim, and that is because there are a potentially infinite number of things that can be said, to which nobody would respond, at the same time, there are in fact a large number of books and teachings on the role of mindfulness in developing nonelaborative thoughts. I can and will provide specific books if asked to do so. makeswell (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that if I were to read the Shapiro and Bond studies which have been cited before in quieting the thoughts, then I may also have thought that all meditation practices lead to a state of 'logic relaxation' or a reduction in ruminating thought, and not yet realize that this is a part of a much, much, larger context of teachings.

I think lastly, there there is reason to believe that the Shapiro and Bond studies are referring to mindfulness and mindfulness-based practices. I can give specific reasons for this statement if called upon to do so. makeswell (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Create a separate page for postures?

In my opinion there is probably too much space given here to physical positioning -- i.e., separate subsections for crossing legs, uncrossed legs, hands, and eyes. Space on this page is at a premium. Someone has worked hard on those sections (maybe Makeswell?), and I don't see anything major wrong with their content. They are an asset to WP. But their length here strikes me as probably WP:UNDUE when space on this page is at such a premium. In many traditions, postures are not given a great deal of emphasis (since meditation is viewed as an internal discipline), and devoting so much space on this page almost sends the message that WP thinks postures should be given a lot of attention. And WP is not a "how-to" manual. I propose that a separate page be created for postures in meditation, created from the Postures section on this page (leaving aside chanting, which can perhaps stay here). Then the other page could be cited, and the postures material on this page could be summarized in about 1/4 to 1/6 of its current length. What do others think? Health Researcher (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Those sections are mostly unreferenced anyway. Yworo deleted them, then someone restored them! And they do not apply across the board, e.g. Islamic/Jewish/Christian meditation do NOT use them. I say send them into exile anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I like this idea. I could do this if you guys want me to. makeswell (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Please, be my guest. History2007 (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

-> Meditative_postures

Encyclopedia of youtube?

I have counted at least 6 youtube references here, the whole thing looks like a thinly veiled infomercial for the guy in the videos. It just looks shallow and less than intelligent to be doing this type of referencing with plenty of solid books on the topic out there. And I do not see these as WP:Reliable references at all. Not at all. And the points made in them, such as "there are many meditation methods" do NOT require a video. So why make Wikipedia look liek an infomercial for a specific person? I suggest replacing these with solid, WP:Reliabe references, to avoid the trend of this page hitting a new low in banality. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

History2007, I agree completely, as I said in a post a month ago (12 Oct 2010) that's now archived HERE. I can't imagine that anyone could win an argument that these references should be kept, or at least not kept when there are alternatives. I suggest a two-pronged approach: 1) Immediatly delete any new you-tube refs that are added; 2) When there's available time, delete (that'd be OK with me!!!) or replace the existing youtube references. It would be great if multiple people pitch in (even if just to wield the knife... since I don't see these as WP:RS reliable sources...). Health Researcher (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree that additional references are useful to back up video references.
I feel like the addition of YouTube references might depend on who is speaking in that video. For instance, a video of H.H. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama giving a public speech, on say, impermanence, would be credible, while, on the other hand! a reference from Chi-City saying that different girls like different drank, would not be appropriate to reference on Wikipedia!
In lieu of additional references, I feel that every effort needs to be made to preserve the material of all edits made here on Wikipedia. To give breath to diversity. makeswell (talk) 18:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, all that we need now are scholarly girl videos here.... How about a video of Janet Yellen on economics? Is that scholarly or girly? You decide. But what is clear is that your view is the minority here. In my view these videos are in the "infomercial zone". If we try to add a video of the Pope's Angelus address to a various pages in Wikipedia, hell will break loose. The same should apply here. Let us leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the deletion of numerous video references on Meditation. The video sources were fine in my opinion. Please do not revert my change until further discussion is made. makeswell (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC) The sources included: a Google Tech Talk given by Jon Kabat-Zinn; Yogis of Tibet, which is a documentary about the rare practices of Tibetan yogis; one of the talks given at a Mind and Life Dialogue, which is an annual meeting of leading scientists with The Fourteenth Dalai Lama. I feel like all of these sources are scholarly, and also understand that we should be cautious when including a reference from a video on YouTube. Thanks. makeswell (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the videos once again. They appear to be excessively promotional, unnecessary (used for citation on content that is already well-cited in academic sources) and of dubious reliability. It is also very difficult to verify the accuracy of a statement in a two-hour video when no context or timestamp is provided. I think we should stick to published sources, especially in an article like this where NPOV would seem to be an issue. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Uncle Dick. History2007 (talk) 19:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Is the concern with video references in general or with these specific video references? makeswell (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
My concern is both with these specific references and the context in which they are used. For the most part, they are completely unnecessary since there are already citations to support statements to the effect that there are many different methods of meditation. They are also unhelpful, since there is no way to discern where in a two hour lecture the cited content can be found. Finally, they appear to give undue weight to a specific school of meditative practice and their repetition throughout the article seems excessively promotional. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is a key point beyond the infomercial issue. Technically the difference between Sequential access vs Random access, as in page number. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
There is, unfortunately, no timestamp for the video of the speech given at the Mind and Life Dialogues. I don't think it's common place to delete references because they don't have a timestamp or a page number. Is it?
I actually agree entirely that the hundreds of styles sentence is written too frequently in the article.
There's a difference between dozens and hundreds, though maybe not mathematically, in language they seem to imply something different. Therefore there is not any other reference to support the claim of 'hundreds', which is much more than 'dozens'. I understand that this is nonmajor, but given that there isn't any substantial reason for deletion either, let's keep them.
By the sentence, "they appear to give undue weight to a specific school of meditative practice" are you referring to Buddhism as a specific school? In that case then, including the promotional point, let's simply reduce the number of times that the sentence occurs in the article.
The following source backs up the claim that mindfulness has become mainstream in Western psychology,
"In the last 20 years, mindfulness has become the focus of considerable attention for a large community of clinicians and, to a lesser extent, empirical psychology." - Mindfulness: A Proposed Operation Definition

This could be used in the Buddhism section to give a date to the increased use of mindfulness ideas in Western psychology. Do you guys approve?

Lastly the reference about tummo was also deleted. I see no reason why this should be the case nor has any been given. The reference is Yogis of Tibet, which is a documentary about Tibetan practices. 21:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, 3 editors have expressed the opinion that those videos are in effect infomercials. End it now. Are we having another verbosity Marathon here? History2007 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with the removal of the quote from the Mind and Life Dialogues about 100s of styles of meditation. makeswell (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I have gone through the trouble of finding new references to make similar, but distinct, sentences about tummo and mindfulness. I have added these new sentences along with their new references to the page. makeswell (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

M's attempt to define mindfulness as central (section for WP:BRD discussion)

I have reverted the material that Makeswell added today to the definitions/typologies section (DIFF). There are a number of issues raised by Makeswell's edits. I suggest this may be an occasion where the community should exercise extra caution about these issues, requiring that mindfulness-related material by Makeswell be developed first on the talk page and approved. He seems very attached to this issue, but his additions raise many questions. These include:

  • Mindfulness is already mentioned in the typology section in the (inset) quote from Bond et al. What is the basis for giving it more attention here, rather than, say, simply in the Buddhism section? (NB: I am not advocating we rule out more attention, but I am saying we must be clear on why)
  • M included a quote that "Mindfulness is a theme in a broad spectrum of traditions and individuals, including..." and seemingly cited it to Kabat-Zinn (2003), page 3 (the correct page is actually 146). So what? There are many shared themes across the world's religious wisdom traditions - such as cultivation of character strengths and virtues, etc. This page is about meditation.
  • Makeswell seems unaware that the psychological definition of mindfulness that he cites to a paper called "Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition" (by Bishop et al, 2004, not Shapiro et al) has been critized by Buddhist scholars as "oddly at variance" with Buddhist tradition itself. For example, B. Alan Wallace points out that the modern psychology mindfulness literature, and the Bishop paper in particular, use modernized definitions of mindfulness (sati) that are in some ways diametrically opposed to much of Buddhist tradition. This is in his book Attention Revolution (2006, on Google bookview, ISBN 0861712765), especially pages 59-66. I will put some longer excerpts below, but here is one example: "the modern understanding departs significantly from the Buddha’s own account of sati, and from those of the most authoritative commentators in the Theravada and Indian Mahayana traditions" (p. 62).
  • M's statement that "Mindfulness is popularly incorporated in both of the meditation styles, focused attention and open monitoring, described below" is unsourced. A key issue issue here and elsewhere with regard to Makeswell's material is whether people using a particular methods (e.g., focused attention) themselves conceive of their method as "incorporating" mindfulness. This nuance seems to escape Makeswell's (tin?) ear. If we want to make claims about an etic category (external external to a tradition) , it should be on the basis of careful/substantial scholarship that documents bases for claim in detail. Otherwise, why not say that cultivation of "Christ consciousness", or "Krishna consciousness" is at the heart of every method? Such claims might merit inclusion as philosophical views within the section on particular traditions, but not (unbalanced by views from multiple traditions) in the overall definitions section.

In sum, there are numerous problems with Makeswell's attempt to force WP readers to regard an etic (external) category, mindfulness, as central. About the only argument in favor of inclusion is that, indeed, "mindfulness" is a hot topic in modern psychology at the moment. If this were not the case inclusion of an etic (external) category from one contending tradition (ie Buddhism) would be a total nonstarter. So possibly there may be some notability derived from its current trendiness in science. But when one looks at the details, there are enormous questions about whether there is an appropriate scholarly fit with this page. Given Makeswell's apparent attachment to this issue, I suggest that the community ask him to propose all text first on the talk page and get approval.

I will need to be away from WP for a few days but before I go I will put some more excerpts from B. Alan Wallace's criticisms of modern psychological mindfulness in a collapsible box below. Regards -- Health Researcher (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, that was a correct application of WP:BRD to mindfulness by Health Researcher, it was done on a major edit which had no consensus, unlike the video issue that had pre-existing opposition and was non-major. History2007 (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a valid point Health Researcher. It does seem to be the case that mindfulness is defined in different ways in different traditions.
The reference from Jon-Kabat-Zinn frames his mindfulness in terms of other people's mindfulness, so that he supports his version of mindfulness with the writings of others, rather than vice versa, which could then be used as a typology. makeswell (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think that Bond (2006) is about mindfulness, then why don't we work together to include mindfulness in the typologies section? makeswell (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Mindfulness already receives significant coverage -- perhaps appropriate, or perhaps slightly too much, in the typologies section. Health Researcher (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
To be honest with you Health Researcher, it's silly that you are making the claim that there are numerous versions of mindfulness, that mindfulness is associated with 'logic relaxation', and yet also that, "This article mainly focuses on meditation... by which the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind (sometimes called "discursive thinking" or "logic")". If there are numerous versions of mindfulness then how much more numerous (and variously defined) are the styles of meditation, of which mindfulness practices are a subdivision?
If you think that Bond (2006) is about mindfulness then why not mention this explicitly in the article? Considering the article Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition, about how mindfulness and the, "self-regulation of attention fosters nonelaborative awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations as they arise. Rather than getting caught up in ruminative, elaborative thought streams...," why don't you want to link the idea of mindfulness to the sentence above about, "the reflexive, 'thinking' mind"?
Notice also the similarity between the sentence quoted above from Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition and the sentence you brought in from Shapiro (1982), "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.[2]" The single difference seems to be the use of the word 'mindfulness' where 'meditation' was previously used. Why do you resist this point? makeswell (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Makeswell, the topic of this page is meditation, not mindfulness. Your attempt to push mindfulness as central would, to borrow words from Uncle Dick, "give undue weight to a specific school of meditative practice", and be "excessively promotional". Portraying mindfulness as central to all meditation would also either be horrendously WP:UNDUE or would constitute prohibited original research. Your indiscriminant persistence in this issue makes me, and I suspect others, regard you more and more as a dedicated POV-pusher. Health Researcher (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay. It just seems that the inclusion of the idea of 'logical rumination' is the inclusion of the idea of 'mindfulness' and so what applies to one applies to the other. makeswell (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, you have not responded to my point that 'logical rumination' is the same as the concept of mindfulness. Why is that and how can we work together on that topic?
Please note that saying that 'logic relaxation' or 'reduced rumination' is the same as mindfulness is not original research because it is the position taken in Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition which was quoted above. makeswell (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Makeswell, I'm sorry, I simply can't support you in where you want to go. I think many of your statements reflect serious confusion. You seem to read into the texts the things that you want to see. The literature (e.g., Bond et al) views "mindfulness" as one approach that leads a meditator to refrain from "logical rumination", but there are others, such as concentration on a single focus ("concentrative meditation"), that also lead one to refrain from "logical rumination". Bond et al mention mindfulness only a small number of times (4 total). Their paper is intended to apply to methods of meditation that employ mindfulness, but it is not primarily about mindfulness -- it is about finding a generally applicable definition (or at least "demarcation criteria") for meditation. Isn't this obvious from the title? Bishop et al define mindfulness as "involving" reduced rumination, but also (if you read their whole "two-component" definition) involving other things -- so they are not defining mindfulness as equivalent to logic relaxation or refraining from rumination. These ideas should not be hard to grasp. Please try to assimilate them, and then move on (and avoid falling into WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - after a certain amount of repetition, we'll have no obligation to answer). Health Researcher (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay.

So, there are two points being raised here,

1) mindfulness practices are associated with (though not equivalent to) nonelaborative thought, in the general Western scholar community. Examples include Jon Kabat-Zinn's definition of mindfulness as 'moment-to-moment nonjudgmental awareness', where nonjudgmental means nonelaborative (or not ruminating, nondiscursive, logic relaxation, and so on) and the highly cited article Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition wherein the claim is made that mindfulness is characterized by, "nonelaborative," awareness, and the Bond et al. study, which, according to Health Researcher, labels as a component of mindfulness a reduction in judgmental, ruminating, elaborative thought processes.

2) nonelaboration is a characteristic of a larger number of practices than only mindfulness-based ones. This point seems true. Tibetan Buddhists believe in union with the nondual nature of reality, or Mahamudra. The Dalai Lama has described human cognition in his book The Path to Enlightenment as producing concepts from reality, which are then differentiated and we then like or dislike (please excuse any inaccuracies I have made in my attempt to paraphrase His Holiness' words.) Nondualism, or nonjudgmentalism, is prevalant, each in their own way, in Buddhist traditions. The nondual state has a correlate in Hinduism, and union of one's atman with the omnipresent and nondual Brahman is sought by this meditation. Eastern Orthodox Christians, who seek union with God through hesychia, believe that God is not accessible to the human logical intellect. In my limited knowledge the nondual is present in numerous traditions indeed. I would like to learn about nondualism in multiple cultures and the specific variations of this idea.

It seems that me and Health Researcher have agreed that nonelaboration is considered by Western scholars to be a characteristic of mindfulness. I'd propose then, that in the Western typologies section, we mention mindfulness alongside a mention of nonelaboration.

Health Researcher has pointed out that there are many considerations of mindfulness according to the many traditions of Buddhism. Because we are writing in a Western schemas section, I propose that we use a Western description of nonelaboration.

I am open to mentioning the prevalence of nondualism in multiple religious traditions. It seems almost funny to use Bishop et al. to introduce this point because it is so important to many traditions as mentioned above. How and whether nondualism is included in this page does not appear to bear on the question of whether mindfulness is commonly associated with nonelaboration and whether this is included in the article.

Lastly, anapanasati, or watching the breath, was taught by The Buddha 2,500 years ago, as described in the Satipatthana Sutta as cultivating mindfulness, or nonjudgmental awareness.

Health Researcher wrote above that concentrated attention, of which anapanasati is a subtype, also leads to the development of nonelaboration, but not of mindfulness. Health Researcher cited Bond et al. to support this claim which is contrary to the circa 2,500 year old Satipatthana Sutta given by The Buddha.

I do not wish to discourage Health Researcher from giving his opinion. I do wish to mention that the point I have been making since the beginning, that mindfulness is associated with nonelaborative awareness, is very common in Buddhist and Western thought.

Let's finish this enormous discussion (Talk:Meditation#quieting the thoughts, Talk:Meditation#how we include the concept of ruminating thoughts and now this section Talk:Meditation#M's attempt to define mindfulness as central (section for WP:BRD discussion)) by mentioning mindfulness alongside nonelaborative awareness.

"The self-regulation of attention also fosters nonelaborative awareness of thoughts, feelings, and sensations as they arise. Rather than getting caught up in ruminative, elaborative thought streams about one’s experience and its origins, implications, and associations, mindfulness involves a direct experience of events in the mind and body (Teasdale, Segal, Williams, & Mark, 1995). Note that mindfulness is not a practice in thought suppression; all thoughts or events are considered an object of observation, not a distraction." - a highly cited Western study, Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition
Note how they consider 'nonelaborative awareness' as an alternative to 'ruminative, elaborative thought streams' as a part of 'mindfulness' practice. makeswell (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. This page is about meditation, not mindfulness. Makeswell's enormous post offers no relevant arguments not already refuted. His enormous convoluted rambling comments are a chore to read, and discourage responses and wider participation on this page. His practice of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT constitutes disruptive editing. Health Researcher (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
My point is that if we mention a reduction in nonelaborative thought on the page then we should link this to mindfulness, which is appropriate given that this topic is in the Western schemas section.
Health Researcher has used a source to mention nonelaborative thought as if it referred to all types of meditation, yet himself says that the source article mentions mindfulness 4 times, while simultaneously claiming that the article is not talking about mindfulness, but about all meditation styles.
The further confusion of Health Researcher as to what constitutes mindfulness practices, including concentrated attention meditation, makes one wonder how well he has interpreted the study he has used to construct his argument that all meditation styles include an element of nonelaboration.
I have not read the study he has used as a source. As I mentioned above, his reason for believing that nonelaboration is a feature of more than only mindfulness-based practices is that the authors of his source mention other types of meditation involving nonrumination, such as concentrated attention. It is the case, however, that concentrated attention, such as watching the breath, is a type of practice that leads to mindfulness. My source for this is the Anapanasati Sutta and Satipatthana Sutta#Contents, two popular sutras given by The Buddha himself 2,500 years ago.
Therefore the whole point which he has been making, that 'all', or actually he's changed it to the weasel word 'most', types of meditation, involve, or as he put it, lead, to nonrumination, is thrown into question.
I've given his point of view perhaps too much credit by saying that perhaps the authors are referring to nondualism, which is broader than mindfulness. However, in a common sense way, it does not seem that the source he's using does actually refer to nondualism, but rather, that he is only misinterpreting the words of that single, poorly cited study.
Regardless of how and whether nondualism is included in this page, the concept of nonrumination or nonelaboration is commonly linked to mindfulness, as argued in the post above, and in the quote above, from a more well cited study (419 times versus 2 for the study sourced by Health Researcher) Mindfulness: A Proposed Operational Definition.
I usually try and keep to the topics, but Health Researcher has not responded, despite numerous appeals, to the point of how nonelaborative awareness is associated with mindfulness. Yes, the page is not about mindfulness, I know. Still, the inclusion of the idea of nonelaboration means that mindfulness, with which nonelaboration is commonly associated, should be mentioned as well.
The problem here of blanket statements about meditation, saying that 'most' or 'all' styles of meditation lead to nonelaboration, reflects a basic misunderstanding of meditation, shown, for one, by Health Researcher's ignorance of the basic fact that anapanasati was taught by The Buddha as a way to cultivate mindfulness. This is part of a larger problem, which Health Researcher has created, with the Western schemas section on this page as pointed out in this section of this Talk page.
I do not really intend to continue this discussion with only Health Researcher because, due to his ignorance of the basics, it ain't goin nowhere. makeswell (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Watchers of this page should know

Watchers of this page should know that Makeswell yesterday filed a request for a third opinion, HERE (DIFF), with regard to the BRD section issues (he also lists the "ruminating" section). He characterizes this as a disagreement between him and me. Unless it would constitute "forum shopping" (which I don't think it does), I would encourage editors already watching this page to register their perspectives on these issues -- even if only a subset of these issues -- here on this talkpage, whether or not any outside 3rd opinions are forthcoming. Health Researcher (talk) 18:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes.
I mentioned Talk:Meditation#how_we_include_the_concept_of_ruminating_thoughts in addition to this section of the Talk page.
Briefly, my aim is to include Mindfulness (psychology) alongside the concept of nondiscursive thought already present as the last paragraph in the Definitions and scope section of the article.
I also have made the case that nondiscursive thought is inappropriately applied to 'most' meditation styles. I am not moving to change this at this time, but would be open to more discussion on this topic, especially in relation to nondualism.
Happy editing! makeswell (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I will refrain from rebuttals. Other editors should weigh in - if only to ask for things that could help you participate more easily. -- Health Researcher (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

3O

Hello, I took up the 3O request and removed it from that list. I notice there have been other recent 3O interventions. The issues raised here are complex and, as in many cases, seem to me to rest upon a page and citation structure that has some basic problems of its own which, perhaps, exacerbate these difficulties. Let me please make a few remarks of my own, in order to invite comment and perhaps find clarity;

1) "Meditation", as is stated, translates various terms in various traditions but was not originated for this purpose, adding to the complexity of definition. It is, perhaps, mistaken to attempt to clarify these differences too much on a sect-by-sect basis as this prevents comparison and differentiation. It might readily be stated, for example, that the stated goal of spiritual practice (melite, sadhana) will differ radically in theistic and non-theistic systems of thought. On the other hand, use of means such as seclusion, chanting, beads, visualisation etc. are almost universal in major religions - though not, of course, in all forms of meditation.

2) "Mindfulness" is a major part of Buddhist meditation and Buddhism is perhaps the most widespread system that depends upon meditation. Without a doubt it should be mentioned here, yet there are many Buddhist pages on related subjects, while there are many forms of meditation that have little in common with "mindfulness" as Buddha defined it.

3) Blanking the mind - a very common notion of meditation, almost as common as the idea that one should join ones fingers and thumbs, sit cross-legged and chant "OM". And indeed the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra - perhaps the most complete list of methods in existence - includes both of these, more or less. However, a person like Krishnamurti will solidly deny that such things are "meditation". As I understand it, meditators hold that thought introduces a "veil" between subject and object. For example, I may be thinking about you with such concentration that I do not see you are there. The use of terms such as "rumination" and "discursive", which appear to carry a special but unspecified meaning in this context, is perhaps unwise. Further, it is often held, logically enough, that the aim of a "blank mind" is an aim of the mind itself that similarly creates a "veil", the mind being filled and preoccupied with this non-existential desire for "blankness" itself, which is absurd. "Blanking the mind" may be a meditation method, may be commonly cited, yet it can hardly be cited as necessary, either as a method or as a result. Other parameters, such as relaxation, awareness and so on must be seen as equally important at least.

4) What's worse, the word "meditation" is often used not only for the spiritual practice but for the resultant state of consciousness - for example, it might translate Patanjali's "samyama" and "samadhi". More generally all this raises the question of control, aim and intent. There's no doubt that Patanjali supports self-control as a part of yoga yet, once again, other schools might see this as creating mental activity rooted in non-acceptance. Hence the opening statement "Meditation refers to any of a family of practices in which the practitioner trains his or her mind or self-induces a mode of consciousness in order to realize some benefit" hardly applies to many methods, while the second para implies that meditation and prayer are one and the same, without discussion or citation - I'd suggest it would be far better to open with statements such as Naranjano's, which better prepare the reader for the controversy that is to follow. I do not doubt that the statement above is properly cited but, once again, someone like Krishnamurti would reject it completely as a definition. For myself, I am not sure even that consciousness has "modes" - as a reader I do not understand the statement, whoever said it: it requires clarification.

Enough for now. Please comment, if possible offering a CONCISE account of changes that are proposed and/or rejected. Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

there are many forms of meditation that have little in common with "mindfulness"
This means - and I agree completely - that there's no basis for saying in the "definitions" section that "mindfulness" is an intrinsic component of all meditation. Health Researcher (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Since Redheylin seems to want to open up lots of issues, I want to remind everyone that there is an actual body of scholarship that seeks to make statements that are valid across multiple (many) types of meditation. This includes books such as Goleman (1988), Shapiro and Walsh (1984), papers such as Walsh and Shapiro (2006), and others highlighted in the table of definitions. This is the body of scholarship that is closest to dealing with the special challenge of this page (i.e., addressing meditation in general). I contend that any conversation about the desirable structure of this page is off-track if it ignores this body of scholarship. I have no additional suggestions to make at this time, except to say that I suspect a lot of editors are tired of enormous posts, especially if they are rehashing old issues. Health Researcher (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
I apologise for the length of my own post: these issues are not "old" for me while it appears, as I say, that structural and citation problems are exacerbating things. The converse of the "mindfulness" matter may be found in the following rather sweeping comment from Osho on Vigyan Bhairav Tantra;
"These one hundred and twelve methods of meditation are exhaustive. There cannot be one hundred and thirteen. Everything that different human types will need is included in one hundred and twelve methods. And they are handed down from centuries. They are simple. The key in all those one hundred and twelve methods is witnessing -- in different forms, in different strategies -- but the innermost core is witnessing, awareness, watchfulness. You can call it anything, but it will be another meaning of witnessing."
"You can call it anything" - but "mindfulness" is certainly too much associated with Buddhism. And there are methods, such as Dervish whirling, that may bring about "blank mind" and "awareness" as a byproduct, but certainly do not in any way attempt them directly as a means.
Perhaps, User:Health Researcher, you'd be good enough to explain how you feel the body of work you mention relates to the present structure of the page. I am all for following an authoritative source for article structure itself. It's also arguable that "authority" in this matter may include first-hand experience of meditation, since many of the realities with which meditation claims to deal are subjective and cannot be otherwise studied - for example, nobody can decide, really, by thought and study and measurement, whether Buddha is "enlightened" or a "third eye" can really open! Redheylin (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I just think that there should be more sources and information there than there is now. The topic of nondualism is large, and there is alot to be said about it. I really don't have time to research the topic further, but I know that there are sources which discuss nondualism more in-depth, and it is present in many cultures, which I'm sure, as I've talked with my friends about, that this is a topic in modern scholarly works. So, I would propose that we broaden the topic and in the process mention and include the specific traditions/heritages in which nondualism or nonrumination, or something made clear on this page, in a cultural context, whatever whatever, ya know. makeswell (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe even just add a '(Also see Nondualism)' makeswell (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

5 cents

Immediately turned off by the beginning paragraphs of this article, which seem to promote a particular school of thought WRT what meditation proper ought to be. I've no qualms with the content per se (tho statements like "The purpose of meditation is based on the fact that the human mind is always in a state of flux" clearly needed to backed up). But such content needs to be placed in the descriptions of particular meditation styles/schools. I can see that there's already some discussion over this, but I haven't bothered to wade thru it all. I'm just going to add my 5 cents here in the hope of helping to prompt a more even-handed edit of this biased entry.

174.70.58.119 (talk) 04:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)jamie b.

I removed the text. I don't think it was appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Parking deleted text

I removed this text added to the lead a few days ago:

The purpose of meditation is based on the fact that the human mind is always in a state of flux. This constant restlessness prevents us from accessing our immense inner resources. Thus meditation practices, in general, aim at reducing mind chatter, so that we perceive reality as it is. Practitioners at various stages interpret the practice according to their levels of development. The term 'practice' can be questioned when looked at from the point of view of 'experience'. Meditation is not about verbalizing, it is about experiencing. Again, some amount of practice is required for the experience.

It's unsourced, and is in the style of a personal essay, especially with its use of first person. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this observation. It needs to be rewritten. --BwB (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Agree. makeswell (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

minor proposed change

The following sentence from the lede,

Meditation refers to any of a family of practices in which the practitioner trains his or her mind or self-induces a mode of consciousness in order to realize some benefit.

is redundant in that 'training the mind' is equivalent to 'self-inducing a state of consciousness to realize some benefit' where the training is the 'self-inducing' and the 'trained mind' is the 'benefit'.

I suggest that we change the sentence to,

Meditation refers to any of a family of practices by which a practitioner self-induces a state of consciousness in order to train the mind or realize some benefit.

makeswell (talk) 02:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. There is a bit of overlap in the connotations of those two phrases, but they are not equivalent. To show the mistakenness of conflating the two, one might argue that to learn calculus, or to memorize a poem song or a telephone number, one must "self-induce a mode of consciousness" that is focused on calculus, the song, or the telephone number, but such a claim is vacuous, since the phrase "mode of consciousness" word "experience" can be applied to almost anything. It overlooks the fact that sometimes the process of meditation is more like the drudgery of endless rehearsal than the ecstasy of an altered "mode of consciousness" or "experience" - why else does verse 6:26 of the Bhagavad Gita, in Sargeant's translation state "Whenever the unsteady mind, moving to and fro, wanders away, from there he should hold it back"? Furthermore, Makeswell's proposed change risks placing a misleading emphasis on the pursuit and inducement of spiritual "experiences", a view of spirituality and religion that is criticized in all major faith traditions. In the words of Huston Smith, for all major faith traditions, "the goal, it cannot be stressed too often, is not religious experiences; it is the religious life” (Forgotten Truth, 1992, p. 155). Smith also warns against the "religion of religious experiences" (Cleansing the Doors of Perception, 2000, p. 30). For such reasons, attempts to describe either meditation or spirituality/religion primarily in terms of inducement of experiences are misguided. Health Researcher (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

From non-Christian to Christian meditation

I've just read Christian and non-Christian meditation in New Elucidations by Hans Urs von Balthasar. Alan347 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The created human being is endowed with the basic inclination to set out in search for the Absolute (to seek God, and perhaps they might grope for him and find him says Paul in Acts 17:27). In revealed religion therefore, natural religion is presupposed as a basis and included; man's spontaneity toward God is needed but it cannot act according to its own plans. Rather, it is regulated by the grace freely encountering it and is thus protected from making itself absolute or becoming an inflexible "method". In contrast to non-Christian meditation which might focus on "method", Christian meditation aims only at an increasingly perfect availability toward God and his will. [3]
This part is just explanatory:
(What is common between Christian and non-Christian meditation is a dedication to exercises geared to essential freedom for the Absolute: purification from exterior and interior attachments; cutting the bonds of the passions that shackle us to external things; gaining distance from worldly fascinations; controlling the tongue, and also the imagination and wandering thoughts; relinquishing one's own personal interests as the core around which everything revolves; concentrating the spiritual powers in one's inmost heart in which that silence reigns which is the precondition for genuine, spiritual seeing and hearing.) [4]

I like your edit Alan347. makeswell (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You Need A Plan

First - my qualifications (only because my experience in life is that people value qualifications, and Wikipedia certainly does when it calls for "references", as if being published makes something true):

I have been meditating for over 30 years, I am an officially authorized meditation teacher in a major tradition mentioned in the article, I have had meditation instruction in about half a dozen traditions, and I have had studied the philosophical basis of most major religious traditions.

Okay. When you have a physical object, or a technology like "USB connections for computers", then you have "facts" like "USB 2.0 allows connection speeds up to ... " and then someone can give the information from the official international standards document.

However, "meditation" is a WORD. Writing anything more than a Dictionary Definition automatically implies a POV, because the definition is a philosophy.

Some people who are partisans of particular spiritual or religious organizations might feel that other groups' practices of meditation are insufficient or wrong. Certainly many people who follow Judaeo-Christian religions have that viewpoint (cf Crusades), but also atheists and scientific materialists also feel the same.

So, question 1 - How do you incorporate the views of those who are against Meditation of all types ?

Question 2 - How do you incorporate the views of those who feel that only their version of Meditation is "correct" or "works" and that all others' is "wrong" ? This is actually harder, because Question 1 can be done in the usual "Criticism" section at the bottom. But, those who think that only their version of Meditation is right, need for the whole article to be written with the idea that all the versions are different.

However, those who think that all the versions are merely different styles of the same process, are automatically shut out by writing the article from the point of view that the different versions are fundamentally different.

The only possible solutions are:

  • A short paragraph similar to a dictionary definition, followed by links to Meditation sections in each tradition or system. That way, you get real Mahayana people writing about Mahayana, rather than someone who happened to read a paragraph about it.

OR

  • A long article with those sections found here in this article, in other words:

Meditation from the Advaita Vedanta POV

Meditation from the Vaishnava POV

Meditation from the Theravadan Buddhist POV

Meditation from the Zen Buddhist POV

Meditation from the Syncretic POV

Meditation from the Krishnamurti POV

Meditation from the TM POV

Meditation from the Scientific Materialist POV

etc. etc. etc.

PS Is there a Wikipedia article about the phenomenon that knowledgeable people won't spend 20 hours writing authoritative information, because they know that within six months, it will all be edited out by some 19 year old who has taken one college course in the subject ?

Not necessarily. On really complicated topics in mathematical logic or advanced physics, there are excellent, really excellent articles within Wikipedia maintained by 2 or 3 authors. The 19 year olds you refer to do not even bother to read those articles, but I have seen some 19 year olds make very good edits. However, on obvious articles in computing there is absolute chaos with everyone and his brother offering an opinion. I would not even attempt to edit an article on general computing because everyone has an opinion there. Some advanced articles are, however, hopeless now. But Wikipedia does have a really good collection of articles now. This article is of the type that everyone can offer an opinion, but as an expert Health Researcher has done a great job of maintaining it. Wikipedia does work, 3 or 4 days a week. Eventually policies will change and it will work 6 days a week. If any reader does not like it, they can ask for a refund of the purchase price, and it will be instantly provided. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the page should mostly be like a hub to other resources and pages on Wikipedia. makeswell (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Need for mediation

I think this article needs external, mediation-based help. Having edited, and looked at the edit history here, I see no end to the unending (and in my view wasteful) debate between two separate groups. HealthResearcher (and at times myself) on one side and Makeswell on the other. How long is this going to continue? In my view, Makeswell's edits are incorrect over 70% of the time, but that is just my view. I see them not just as POV, but flat out incorrect edits - but again that is just my view. It is time for external help in resolving this issue. I think some type of help from the community at large is essential here. The ongoing addition of incorrect and less than WP:Reliable items is pushing the limit. As is WP:BRD is being invoked on top of WP:BRD? I see no logic in that. My suggestion here is to ask for mediation from the community at large, since WP:Third opinion has been invoked again and again too often. How long can this type of debate continue? It is time to stop and ask for help, and most importantly respect the suggestions provided by the community at large. The problem, of course, is that to help on this article knowledge of the topic is required - and that might be an inherent limit built into Wikipedia. I am not sure how to handle that, but suggestions will be appreciated. But I do think mediation is needed to stop this cycle. Self-imposed meditation by all parties involved may be a good idea too. History2007 (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great in theory. And I agree with you about a high frequency of edits added by Makeswell that are simply incorrect (witness the misinformation he re-inserted to the Buddhism section, contra WP:BRD, and ignoring my WP:BRD change-log comments). But since so many people wrongly regard themselves as experts on meditation, I think there's a possibility we may get a lot of bad advice mixed in with any helpful advice. I hope I'm wrong and it's all good advice, and helpful for improving the process here. Personally, I find it tiresome to be dealing with periodic onslaughts of recurringly confused edits (mixed in with some edits that are OK). I think the main thing needed is a somewhat larger number of ongoingly engaged people with good will and WP:COMPETENCE. Health Researcher (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
This may in fact bring out an inherent weakness in Wikipedia, so let us see how it plays out. The point is that there are no huge "policy breaches" here, but there are huge "factual breaches". Much of what you call "onslaughts of recurringly confused edit" are in my view just flat out incorrect edits based on the lack of research. Wikipedia does not have a clear policy about "many incorrect edits" and a WP:Do Proper Research First as far as I know. And to get outside help with knowledge seems to be hard right now. So I think we need help on what can be done in terms of suitable policy selection. Maybe someone knows of a remedy. So let us ask. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that I have added substantially to the Buddhist meditation section and the lede on this page. I am not Satan, and do indeed have good intentions on this page. We should encourage editors to contribute their valuable time and skills to the construction of this wonderful public resource Wikipedia.
In regards to the most recent blockade by Health Researcher in regards to whether Zen and Vajrayana constitute the general Mahayana, I was going to suggest that we simply remove only that sentence, since that is the piece which Health Researcher had opposed, rather than removing the entire edit.
I have always been introduced to two sections of Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana, and I think that Zen and Vajrayana are the two components of Mahayana, along with Pure Land (which I added to the to-do list on this page). Anyways, I'm not arguing this point, and the edit was done in such a way that the sentence incorporating Mahayana could easily be removed. makeswell (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Actually no one has accused you of having bad intentions or being a supernatural entity Makeswell. As I said, there are no major "policy breaches" here, just "factual problems". The only issue has been the lack of research to support various edits and the inordinate amount of time spent on debates. So no personal accusations have been made and in my view none are necessary. The issue being discussed is that of doing one's research carefully prior to edits to maintain article quality. History2007 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I should take that back Makeswell. We do have a policy breach now based on your last edit. Please do not double revert other editors while BRD takes place. Please self-revert now. History2007 (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Of the couple discussions me, you and Health Researcher have had
  • 1) the position of The Catholic Church on non-Christian meditation stated in the lede. I supported the removal of this and the community made it so by unanimous vote.
  • 2) including Theoria in the Christian Meditation section. I probably didn't know enough to carry on a real good discussion in that singular case. That section has since been amended in a mutually agreeable way through a third person opinion.
  • 3) the enormous discussion between HealthResearcher and myself about whether 'mental silence' is a consistent theme in every style of meditation, which I said it isn't. I essentially gave up trying to change this because idc enough. A definite lesson I learned in that case was that lengthy discussions on Wikipedia simply are not worth my time.
  • 4) A set of changes I made to the lede. Us three and another editor all discussed these changes on this Talk page and actually came to some pretty good conclusions, for instance the renewal of the sentence about scientific research on meditation, a rewording of the introductory sentence, and some other minor changes.
  • 5) the removal of the YouTube links, which I was not sure about why exactly, but in the end did replace those YouTube references with other, non-video sources. Again, a positive fruit of discussion on this Talk page.
I have just consulted with a helper on the mIRC channel, and have decided to revert my revert of History2007's revert until further discussion takes place. Hopefully we can make an agreement here, I believe that the issue would be solved by the simple removal of the sentence stating that Vajrayana and Ch'an are both part of Mahayana. I will wait for further action until Health Researcher gets back to us.
I think that if you look at all the edits that I have done, and all that we three have discussed on this Talk page, you will see a number of positive works. I understand, History2007, how you might have come to feel, because of our discussion on including Theoria in Meditation#Christianity. I totally agree (now) that I just didn't know that much about the broad topic of Christian meditation. That was a single case and I don't think that this is actually a trend in my edits or our discussions.
I would hope that by having highlighted our discussions on this Talk page above, and also just briefly mentioning how much I have added to Meditation#Buddhism and to the lede of Meditation, that you two would come to see my edits and our discussions on this Talk page in a new light.makeswell (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I too think we could all work towards less lengthy discussions. makeswell (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but let us wait to see what HealthResearcher says as well. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and happy new year. Let me first comment on the BRD issues from the last couple of days. They may function as a case example to illustrate some recurring issues:
  • BRD1) I'm glad Makeswell eliminated the sentence about Vajrayana being part of Mahayana (note that the readily accessable final=4th para in the Vajrayana article says that the two are distinct: "According to Vajrayana scriptures Vajrayana refers to one of three routes to enlightenment, the other two being Hinayana and Mahayana").
  • BRD2) I'm also glad Makeswell removed the statement that "Recently Buddhism has taken place in the West... through Western therapy." Usually people like Kabat-Zinn say that what they teach (ie MBSR) is "drawn from Buddhism" rather than "is Buddhism" (just like one can argue that yoga postures are just postures, and do not imply any particular beliefs). But if "Buddhism is taking place" in MBSR, which is not uncommon in publicly funded healthcare settings, that would raise blatant issues of separation of church and state. Makeswell didn't seem to realize that his awkward phrasing was raising such issues, which could confuse many WP readers.
I believe that Makeswell's intentions are usually quite good, but I believe there are issues of WP:COMPETENCE that arise from at least 3 sources. I think Makeswell:
  • a) often but not always writes unclearly and confusingly, or with unintended implications (e.g., BRD concern #2 above)
  • b) sometimes isn't careful in his research even when he has resources (e.g., BRD concern #1 above)
  • c) reasonably often doesn't know the limits of his own knowledge (e.g., seeks to overgeneralize ideas from Buddhism); This isn't helped by his being (apparently) largely unfamiliar with the scholarship that seeks to examine/generalize about meditation across diverse traditions (e.g., Walsh and Shapiro, 2006; Ospina and Bond's writings; Goleman, 1988; Shapiro & Walsh, 1984).
Now none of these problems are unique to Makeswell and we probably all fall into many of them at various times. But what frustrates me is that in Makeswell's case these lapses seem to blend together into a force that intermittently makes the WP page sections it touches worse rather than better (i.e., makes some previously clear phrasings less accurate and/or less clear, or adds novel misinformation, as in BRD1 and BRD2). Not all the time, but often enough that it's quite wearing. And then one never knows how huge a battle it will be to get the problem corrected (the level of emotional maturity also varies - sometimes highly mature, sometimes otherwise). Perhaps the killer for me is (a), the often confusing writing style, which compounds everything. So to be blunt (sorry, let me just say it), my view is that M has larger-than-average issues of WP:COMPETENCE (though this does not mean he can't become or isn't now an asset to WP).
When I saw M's change with the BRD1 & BRD2 problems, I reverted it per WP:BRD. Given my view of the overall situation, going the route of WP:BRD seemed the way most likely to conserve my time and energy, while fixing the page. But perhaps Makeswell has his own perspective about issues of WP:COMPETENCE. Makeswell reverted my reversion -- though happily WP:BRD seems to be getting back on track, partly through History2007's intervention.
Bottom line: I'd like to find ways so that M either doesn't cause so many problems on the page, or that it can take less of my energy to fix those problems. Hopefully this can happen through a bit of participation of more editors with good skills and knowledge and/or self-knowledge, and perhaps - dare I hope - from a less burdensome editing style by Makeswell. Best -- Health Researcher (talk) 03:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
PS By the way, if we were to have a separate discussion that is actually the "D" component in the WP:BRD process, I have additional concerns to mention about the paragraph at issue. Health Researcher (talk) 03:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Subsection for WP:BRD discussion (for 28 Dec 2010 revert of Buddhism sec. edits)

Okay, so I propose that we reinstate the material with both BRD1 and BRD2 appropriated. makeswell (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Please propose corrected versions here and discuss, before reinserting. Also, what do you mean by "appropriated"? In the interest of driving home my earlier point (re WP:COMPETENCE), let me add: To me, the sentence above using the word "appropriated" seems another example of strange and confusing (mis)use of the English language. If you refactor the above sentence, please use strikethrough, as per WP:TALK#Own_comments. Please do not regard this as a personal attack -- one can be a wonderful human being in a thousand and one ways, without being a clear writer. Health Researcher (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I am willing to read more comments on the edit in question so long as they are kept short. Thank you for your input Health Researcher. makeswell (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Gee, if sarcasm were my style, I could launch a few humdinger responses about Makeswell's imperious willingness to read comments, conditional on them being short. I hope, but certainly don't assume, that Makeswell in the future will serve as a wonderful example of concise clarity. Health Researcher (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

An additional concern about adding an introductory paragraph to the Buddhism section is the following: The Buddhism section -- despite the link to a "main article" elsewhere -- is getting bigger and bigger and bigger, disproportionate to the sections on other faith traditions. This is contrary to the sense of the earlier discussion a few months ago (now archived) about maintaining roughly equal space between traditions. So this occasion seems as good as any to start scrutinizing the Buddhism section, asking "what's essential here, versus what can be cut to maintain better space equity?" Do we really need this new paragraph by makeswell? If so, how can it be made most concise? Health Researcher (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You know Makeswell, I think the response you received from Health Researcher about "I am willing to read it if it is short" suggests that problems persist. I think he feels that if a statistical analysis of the length of posts is performed, the results will be obvious. I think you know that too, just looking at the length of talk page edits. So I do not see the root problem as having been solved, and clearly it is not just a question of agreeing on the facts, but that agreements on a few paragraphs here can take longer than many corporate discussions on million dollar contracts. So I do not see an immediate solution here, short of mediation. History2007 (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Here are the edits which I had done and Health Researcher had reverted, and then requested that I post here:

original: The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama is said to have achieved enlightenment while meditating under a Bodhi tree, after which The Buddha returned to the world where he founded the monastic way of life and taught the dharma, or truth, in order to liberate all living beings. Monks live a life of poverty, chastity, prayer, and meditation. The daily routine of a monastery differs from place to place, as does the sort of meditation practiced there. There are literally hundreds of specific Buddhist meditative methods.

revised: The historical Buddha Siddhartha Gautama is said to have achieved enlightenment while meditating under a Bodhi tree in India, after which he became The Buddha and returned to the world to teach others the path to enlightenment and to found Buddhist monasticism.

Buddhist monks live a life of poverty, chastity, prayer, and meditation. The daily routine of each monastery differs from place to place, but all take the vows outlined in the Vinaya. Within what has been called by Westerners 'Buddhism' there are found literally hundreds of specific styles of meditation.

original: Anapanasati, or watching the breath, has been practiced since the time of The Buddha, and is still practiced in Zen, Tibetan, and Theravadan Buddhism, as well as a part of multiple secular mindfulness programs in Western medicine. In this type of meditation one simply turns the attention to each breath. Anapanasati has been shown to improve one's ability to sustain one's attention to a particular stimuli as well as improving executive functioning and slowing the natural aging process of the brain. [citation needed]

revised: Anapanasati, or 'watching the breath', is a style of meditation originally taught roughly 2,500 years ago by The Buddha. Anapanasati continues today to be practiced wherever Buddhism is found, in Zen, Theravada and Vajrayana. In addition, anapanasati has made its way West to form a core practice of multiple modern, secular and therapeutic mindfulness-based teachings and practices. In Anapanasati the attention follows each breath, quite simply. Anapanasati has been shown by modern science to help one's ability to sustain attention to a particular stimuli for an extended period of time, to improve the executive functioning of the brain, increase the amount of grey matter present in the brain, and to slow down the natural aging process of the brain. [citation needed]

original: Meditation in Tibetan Buddhism grew up as an integral part of religious life, alongside other practices like mantra recitation, study of sacred literature, hand mudras, prostrations, and so forth. All Tibetan schools share the traditional preliminary practice of Ngondro. After ngondro one begins either with Dzogchen in the Nyingma school or with Mahamudra in the Kagyu. There is a fairly wide consensus among lamas of both the Nyingma and Sarma schools that the end state of dzogchen and mahamudra are the same,[5] that is, to awaken to the sky-like nature of mind.[6][7]

revised: Meditation is practiced by Vajrayana Buddhists alongside other practices such as recitation of mantra, sadhana, and other forms of prayer, Deity Yoga, study of sacred Buddhist texts, mudra, and prostration. All Tibetan schools share the traditional preliminary practice of Ngondro. After ngondro one begins either with Dzogchen in the Nyingma school or with Mahamudra in the Kagyu. There is a fairly wide consensus among lamas of both the Nyingma and Sarma schools that the end state of dzogchen and mahamudra are the same,[8] that is, to awaken to the sky-like nature of mind.[6][9]

original: The repetition of a phrase, a mantra, is common in Buddhism and especially in Tibetan Buddhism.[10]

revised: Prayers are common to Vajrayana, Zen and Theravada traditions, and mantras and sadhanas are found especially in Vajrayana.

(I also was the original author of the above original with the Jack Kornfield citation. I would generally not remove a citation placed by another author on Wikipedia.)

original: Metta, or cultivation of compassion and loving-kindness is common to the Tibetan and Theravada lineages of Buddhism. In this practice one generates strong feelings of love and the desire for others to have happiness. This practice has been studied by the scientist Richard J. Davidson, who has shown that it modulates areas of the brain previously linked to empathy, emotion, and theory of mind.

revised: Metta-bhavana, or 'the cultivation of compassion and loving-kindness', is common to both Vajrayana and Theravadan Buddhism. In this practice one generates strong feelings of love and the desire for others to have happiness and be from of suffering. This practice has been studied by the scientist Richard J. Davidson, who has shown through fMRI scans that metta-bhavana modulates areas of the brain previously linked to empathy, emotion, and theory of mind, such as the amgydala and the prefrontal cortex.

original: In Zen Buddhism there are three common styles of zazen, or meditation. They are, the effortful repeating in one's mind of a riddle-like koan, in a burning, zealous effort to find an answer, shikantaza, or 'just sitting', and watching the sensations of the breath, also known as anapanasati. Satori - a flash of awareness that the universe is whole - is an essential element of Zen Buddhism.[11] Some Zen people practice sitting with no thoughts, feelings, or anything, in pure awareness.[12]

revised: In Zen Buddhism there are three common styles of zazen, or meditation. They are, making zealous effort to answer a riddle-like koan, shikantaza, or 'just sitting', and watching the sensations of the breath, aor anapanasati. Satori - a flash of awareness that the universe is whole - is an essential element of Zen Buddhism.[13]

(Again, I originally added the citation which I then later removed for caution.)

original: Science has joined hands with Buddhism to study the effects of meditation on the brain. The Dalai Lama takes part in the Mind and Life Dialogues, an annual conference of monks and leading Western professionals, where scientists share their research on topics related to attention, neuroplasticity, and the like. More information on the research on meditation can be accessed at Research on meditation, as well as the individual pages of each meditation style, such as Metta or Anapanasati, which can in turn be found out about at Buddhist meditation.

revised: Science has joined hands with Buddhism to study the effects of meditation on the brain. The Dalai Lama takes part in the Mind and Life Dialogues, an annual conference of monks and leading Western professionals, where scientists share their research on topics related to attention, neuroplasticity, and the like. More information on the research on meditation can be accessed at Research on meditation, as well as the individual pages of each meditation style, such as Mettā or Anapanasati, which can in turn be accessed through Buddhist meditation.

new: There are three major subdivisions of Buddhism based on where Buddhism has taken root. In Southeast Asia there is Theravada Buddhism, in Japan and China, Zen, and in Nepal and the Indo-Tibetan region, Vajrayana. Further, Zen and Vajrayana together make up Mahayana Buddhism. Recently Buddhism has taken place in the West both in traditional forms and through Western therapy. This section of the page will discuss all of these subdivisions of Buddhism with particular emphasis on their meditative dimension.

After a comment by Health Researcher, we decided to remove the sentence below from the paragraph above.

I did not protest this because I didn't have a citation at that time and did not want to spend time finding one. Here is a source, http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mahayana.htm to prove that Vajrayana, Zen, and Pure Land are all considered a part Mahayana.[14]

Makeswell's original edit (DIFF) that I reverted per WP:BRD (DIFF) had a change-log that stated only "added intro section outlining three major subdivisions which will better prepare the reader for the rest of the section". Regarding that proposed new intro paragraph, categorization schemes differ on whether Vajrayana is a part of Mahayana, or is a separate third branch (see page on Buddhism). Many draft sentences (above) are also unclear (intermixing geographical locations and subdivisions of Buddhism in long confusing sentences). I also suspect internal features, rather than geographical location, is the "basis" for the categorizations. The Buddhism section is already overly long relative to other traditions. It should be edited for clarity and streamlined rather than expanded with confusing and misleading text. I agree with History2007 - "problems persist" "problems remain" -- Health Researcher (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine to inform others of problems we see with their work, but that this needs to be balanced with aim of preserving good writing and avoiding superfluous discussion on the Talk page so editors can continue to write. Do you guys want to have enormous conversations on the Talk page? Is it okay for editors to remove accurate information? If not, then should they be open to criticism of that revision?

If anybody has constructive criticism for me, then please come forth. I did not find any constructive criticism above, including Health Researcher's points a through c. makeswell (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we were having a discussion about "keeping it brief"... so what can I say now? History2007 (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I want to write well on Wikipedia and welcome any input about what I write. makeswell (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm basically done writing on this page, anyways. I think the most recent edit of mine should be placed back. Have a good day. makeswell (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreement

In regards to the specific edit on the Buddhist section that Health Researcher reverted, and was discussed above, I believe that both points were met and accommodated - sources were found to show that Vajrayana, Zen and Pure Land constitute Mahayana, and it was agreed that the sentence about the introduction of Buddhist-based practices to the West through secular mindfulness programs be rewritten to clarify that mindfulness programs are secular. I know that Health Researcher has experience with this topic, would you like to rewrite that sentence Health Researcher? makeswell (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Makeswell, your claim that "Vajrayana, Zen and Pure Land constitute Mahayana" is contradicted by the WP page for Mahayana, which also mentions several other strands of Mahayana (e.g., Nichiren, Tiantai). This is more evidence that History2007's statement that "problems persist" continues to apply (with regard to disagreements, and I would add, with regard to WP:COMPETENCE). Plus, I think the Buddhism section should not be expanded, but should be clearned up and trimmed to be closer in length to the other sections. Health Researcher (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
That's true. The problem is with the word 'constitutes', and the solution is to use a phrase like, 'are components of'. This source, http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mahayana.htm shows that Vajrayana, Zen, and Pure Land are all components of, but not the sole constituents of, the general Mahayana.
My original edit was not an expansion of the Buddhist section so much as a revision of that section. Regardless, I am open to shortening the Buddhist section.
If I may for a second comment on you, Health Researcher. You have, as we discussed above, reverted an entire edit of mine, because of your qualms with two sentences in my edit. I have discussed this sort of revising with you before on your Talk page, (User_talk:Health_Researcher/Archive_1#A_Better_Way:_Copy.2FPaste), where you agreed that you would not continue to revert an entire section because of considerations over a smaller portion of that edit.
If you have concerns with the length of the edit, then why would you bring this point up now, instead of along with BRD1 and BRD2? If you truly wish to shorten the Buddhist section, then why would you revert an edit of nearly the same length as what was edited?
Since I have written most of the Buddhist section, I would seem to be an ideal candidate to understand how and be able to easily shorten the Buddhist section. Please see me as an asset for this venture and others on this page.
I suggest we move the Buddhist section of Meditation to Buddhist Meditation. makeswell (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You do not have to move it all. You can move most of it and leave a Main. That is what the Main feature was designed for. As is, the Buddhist section is the longest of all, e.g. almost twice the size of the Hindu section. But the Buddhist Meditation page is not that long. So it makes sense to move most of the material there, leave a summary here the size of the Hindu section and it will be fine. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with everything History2007 said in the paragraph above. Note that concerns about the need to reduce the length of the disproportionately large Buddhism section had been expressed some time ago (DIFF). I haven't scrutinized Makeswell's other contributions that he mentioned. I just hope they are better than his recent stream of contributions that I have looked at (see problems with arguing from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Otherwise this page will need additional cleanup. Health Researcher (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I will, but please do not revert my edits. It is not worth my time, and is also frustrating as anything (LOL), to be reverted at every turn. If you need my help, then please remember that I am helping you to improve this page. That is all. makeswell (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Makeswell, This is the 2nd time you have used 4 letter words on this talk page. Delete this one now, as you deleted the other case. Not being an expert in all meditation techniques I do not know if these words achieve a specific form of tranquil meditation for some people, but their use is certainly not part of Wikipedia policy. Please ask someone at the help desk to clarify this for you. History2007 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
lol.
true. i did not know that was a part of wikipedia's guidelines. i will surely delete it. thank you for informing me. have a good day.
hahaha.
makeswell (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

So

So, are you guys both promoting that the edit to the Buddhist meditation section done by me, that was reverted by Health Researcher, be replaced, with the two points, BRD1 and BRD2 satisfied, as we discussed? (one by a new citation and the other by rephrasing it to show that Mindfulness (psychology) incorporates Buddhist techniques but is also nonreligious in nature)

Also, I need to balance the benefits of writing on Wikipedia with other aims in my life, so if the answer is 'maybe, but i have a dozen other concerns with the edit that i want to discuss' or something, then i may give up on this and won't move the Buddhist meditation section of this page to the Buddhist meditation page, and shorten it by doing so.

Overall, the process of reverting and then lengthy discussions does slow down the work on Wikipedia and thereby decrease the overall amount of work that we do. I hope that we all work together. makeswell (talk) 18:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that it needed to be done, I moved it to the Main and left a summary here the same size as the other approaches. Anyone can touch up/reshuffle it as they see fit. History2007 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Somebody done up undid yo do dat makeswell (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
That was ok with me. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ a Talk at Mind&Life Dialogues http://www.youtube.com/user/gyalwarinpoche#p/p/B99CDF90B3832607/1/Til4yRoe6Cs
  2. ^ Deane H. Shapiro (1982). "Overview: Clinical and physiological comparison of meditation with other self-control strategies". American Journal of Psychiatry 139 (3): 267-274. ISSN 0002-953X. (p. 6, italics in original)
  3. ^ Hans Urs von Balthasar, Christian and non-Christian meditation, in New Elucidations, 156, 157.
  4. ^ Hans Urs von Balthasar, Christian and non-Christian meditation, in New Elucidations, 156, 157.
  5. ^ Reginald Ray, Secret of the Vajra World. Shambhala 2001, page 304.
  6. ^ a b Sogyal, Rinpoche (1994) The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying. Patrick Gaffney and Andrew Harvey eds. New York: Harper Collins.
  7. ^ Ground, Path, and Fruition: Mind-Nature Teachings Concerning the View, Meditation, and Action of Dzogpa Chenpo, the Innate Great Perfection. Compiled by Surya Das with Nyoshul Khenpo. Retrieved on; August 25, 2007.
  8. ^ Reginald Ray, Secret of the Vajra World. Shambhala 2001, page 304.
  9. ^ Ground, Path, and Fruition: Mind-Nature Teachings Concerning the View, Meditation, and Action of Dzogpa Chenpo, the Innate Great Perfection. Compiled by Surya Das with Nyoshul Khenpo. Retrieved on; August 25, 2007.
  10. ^ Jack Kornfield said in "A Beginner's Guide to Buddhism", a 2 disc set, that prayers are especially common in Tibetan Buddhism.
  11. ^ D.T. Suzuki's "Zen Buddhism" where he wrote that without satori there would be no Zen
  12. ^ "The Three Pillars of Zen", edited by Philip Kapleau, pg. 141
  13. ^ D.T. Suzuki's "Zen Buddhism" where he wrote that without satori there would be no Zen
  14. ^ http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/mahayana.htm
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meditation/Archive_6&oldid=789537467"