Talk:Meditation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Spirituality Portal This article is supported by the Spirituality WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

If you are interested in editing this page, you also may be interested in the Spirituality project. New members welcome.

Contents 1 A proper definition of meditation? 2 infobox? 3 Some edits 4 Intro overhaul 5 Specific traditions 6 Types of meditation 7 Adverse effects 8 rewires the brain 9 Origins of meditation; early images 10 Purposes rewording 11 Meditation and quantum mechanics 12 Re-edit, introducing new section 13 Removing section on Osho, awaiting a more comprehensive section on spiritual teachers 14 Spammy links 15 Source-critical observations 16 Removal of external links 17 Removing new section on Osho 18 Amygdala? 19 A whole lot of hoopla/flim-flam...Very one sided. 20 Questionability of Transcendental Meditation 21 Lead paragraph 22 Doubling of images on page 23 Claim on sufism 24 Descartes and Meditation 25 Objection To Removal of External Links As Spam 26 Gnostic (Modern) deletion 27 Citation needed 28 Minor edits 29 Sahaja Yoga and TM are not New Age 30 Too much emphasis on Buddhism 31 Moved edit by Skant from article page to here 32 Objection to repeated "cleansing" of External Links 33 Suggestion for link editing/organization 34 There should be more on stress. Also proposing a useful external link on meditation and stress. 35 Meditation 36 Meditation: Scientific Explanation 37 Who is maintaining this page??

[edit] A proper definition of meditation?

Meditation is the act of calming and focusing the mind while avoiding rationalistic thought processes and random fantasies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

kh7 12:53 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] infobox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Some edits

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

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

[edit] Intro overhaul

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

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

[edit] Specific traditions

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

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

[edit] Types of meditation

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

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

[edit] Adverse effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] rewires the brain

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

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

[edit] Origins of meditation; early images

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

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

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

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

                                                                       AARON R.
                                                                        AKA
                                                                       CHIEN
                                                                        AKA
                                                                      C2 AARONR

[edit] Purposes rewording

rewording Purposes of Meditation beginning mid-paragraph

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

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

Reworded other sentences only for readability, not content.

---

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

[edit] Meditation and quantum mechanics

This text is controversial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Re-edit, introducing new section

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

[edit] Removing section on Osho, awaiting a more comprehensive section on spiritual teachers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Spammy links

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

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

[edit] Source-critical observations

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

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

[edit] Removal of external links

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

See also:

• Wikipedia: External links
• Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming
• Meta-Wiki: When should I link externally?

--Hawol 21:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that a similar clean-up needs to be done again. There are literally dozens of links, some of which are not about meditation in general but for specific organizations. --65.147.4.151 01:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great link. If the section comes back, please add. http://www.shinzen.org/shinsub3/artHow.htm --Stevenwagner 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The position of external links has temprarily been moved up but what about Hawol's suggestion of peer review? --apers0n 09:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is a peer review, I'd suggest to keep in mind that this article is about meditation in general. So the external links should be about meditation in general, not about one particular method, as was common before. Those kind of links if appropriate should be in a corresponding sub article. Please check the above mentioned guidelines at WP:EL. --S.K. 13:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

How about this free meditation course offered by www.project-meditation.org - It has been featured in google news

[edit] Removing new section on Osho

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

[edit] Amygdala?

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Questionability of Transcendental Meditation

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Lead paragraph

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

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

His edit summary states: "remove unlikely claim."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Doubling of images on page

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

[edit] Claim on sufism

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

[edit] Descartes and Meditation

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

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

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

[edit] Objection To Removal of External Links As Spam

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

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

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

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

[edit] Gnostic (Modern) deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

EmersonSmalltalk 13:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed

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

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

[edit] Minor edits

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

[edit] Sahaja Yoga and TM are not New Age

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

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

[edit] Too much emphasis on Buddhism

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

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

[edit] Moved edit by Skant from article page to here

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

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

[edit] Objection to repeated "cleansing" of External Links

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

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

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

[edit] Suggestion for link editing/organization

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

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

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

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

Mrmoocole 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Mrmoocole 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Mrmoocole 14:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation

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

[edit] Meditation: Scientific Explanation

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

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

Mrmoocole 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who is maintaining this page??

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

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

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

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

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