Talk:Meditation

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

infobox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some edits

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

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

Intro overhaul

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

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

Specific traditions

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

This page was a bigger mess than I'd noticed at first. I've tried to make the page more general, as there are many, many meditative traditions outside of the New Age stream of thought, and to concentrate on New Age approaches to all of them does them a disservice in the long run. There is certainly room for such approaches to be mentioned here, as they are relatively popular, but the mention should be in the context of their own recent history, not to shed light on traditions thousands of years older. Fire Star 16:57, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

rewires the brain

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

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

Origins of meditation; early images

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

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

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

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

Purposes rewording

rewording Purposes of Meditation beginning mid-paragraph

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

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

Reworded other sentences only for readability, not content.

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

Meditation and quantum mechanics

This text is controversial:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

Removal of external links

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

Removing new section on Osho

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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