Talk:Meditation

Template:WikiEd banner shell This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sydanne7 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Marleywdunn.

Better definition?

Please can I suggest "Meditation is a practice in which an individual operates their conscious mind in a way that is different from that used in normal day to day life. " as this includes many other practices widely considered as meditation, e.g. 'no thought' and single point concentration practices.JCJC777 (talk) 18.07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)JCJC777)

The concentration of mind on an impulse without any divergence is called meditation Aakash8474 (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Any WP:SOURCES for that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

CRITICISM

Dear editors of this lovely page. Do you not find it unsettling that the only criticism of meditation that this page seems to allow is the idea that one commentator worries that it's been corrupted? I do. It's like in a job interview when you claim your only flaw is that you work too hard. One starts to seem unreliable, no? Drawing from this page alone I can find a number of criticisms. I have attempted to include a few of them under criticism but I keep being reverted. The criticism section needs to be beefed up if we are to claim NPOV, don't you agree?

The following material was cut under the assertion that it didn't achieve WP:MEDRS, however, on a page that also quotes the Buddha and the Kabbalh, I don't think we can have a selective and opportunistic application of WP:MEDRS. See below that you can't get a better pedigree on researching meditation than Richard Davidson, if he takes a cautionary tone, I think we should too. And please don't claim that podcasts aren't WP:RS, they absolutely are...

"According to Bret Stetka, "many psychologists, neuroscientists and meditation experts are afraid that hype is outpacing the science." Richard J. Davidson, director of the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, and founder of the Center for Healthy Minds at the Waisman Center, cautions against expecting too much of meditation for the treatment of illness:

With respect to physical illness I would say that the data there really are not very strong and certainly do not show that meditation is better than any other method for any disease. I don’t think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that. And with respect to psychiatric illness as we talked about earlier there is some evidence for depression, but for the most part, except for this limited case of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy with depressive relapse, the evidence suggests again that mindfulness based interventions are no better than any other empirically well validated treatment. So, while someone may prefer a mindfulness based approach, it’s not necessarily going to be any better. And this is a sobering reminder that these practices were not originally designed for treating psychopathology or treating physical illness.

DolyaIskrina (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I am about to add the following beefed up version to the CRITICISM section. Please help me make it to your liking. DolyaIskrina (talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for Criticism-section

Because meditation is an umbrella term encompassing a wide range of claims -- from spiritual to psychological to medical -- the criticism are also wide ranging, depending on the specific assertions being examined. Methodologically, it is difficult to create a placebo controlled double blind study of a practice that purports to elicit a specific first-person state, and that can be done alone, in a group, while seated, standing, moving, verbalizing or silent. For example, researchers were concerned about distinguishing meditation from hypnosis, because despite having very different theoretical and historical origins, "there appears to be an overlap between the interventions based on these two approaches." The initial research showed an encouraging disassociation between mindfulness and the hypnotizability but more research is needed to confirm the results.

Health claims

"According to Bret Stetka, "many psychologists, neuroscientists and meditation experts are afraid that hype is outpacing the science." Richard J. Davidson, director of the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, and founder of the Center for Healthy Minds at the Waisman Center, cautions against expecting too much of meditation for the treatment of illness:

With respect to physical illness I would say that the data there really are not very strong and certainly do not show that meditation is better than any other method for any disease. I don’t think there is a shred of evidence to suggest that. And with respect to psychiatric illness as we talked about earlier there is some evidence for depression, but for the most part, except for this limited case of Mindfulness Based Cognitive Therapy with depressive relapse, the evidence suggests again that mindfulness based interventions are no better than any other empirically well validated treatment. So, while someone may prefer a mindfulness based approach, it’s not necessarily going to be any better. And this is a sobering reminder that these practices were not originally designed for treating psychopathology or treating physical illness.

For example, a systematic review of mindfulness and addiction concluded that "Significant methodological limitations exist in most studies."

Counter examples in contemplative cultures

The claim that meditation will overcome tribalism and other social ills are countered by the observation that Buddhist and Hindu societies are not demonstrably less prone to social ills, such as, war, crime, racism, sexism, and social injustice, than non meditation promoting cultures. Defenders of meditation argue that these are merely manifestations of human nature, or bad practices, or a low rate of actual meditation in those societies. Defenders of Buddhism also sometimes counter that Enlightenment is not synonymous with morality.

Sexual abuse and misconduct

Both religious and secular meditation schools have not been immune from sexual abuse and misconduct scandals, with victims coming forward in Zen, Buddhist, Hindu and Tibetan schools. “There are huge cover ups in the Catholic church, but what has happened within Tibetan Buddhism is totally along the same lines,” says Mary Finnigan, an author and journalist who has been chronicling such alleged misdemeanors since the mid-80s.

Negative outcomes

Meditation has been correlated with unpleasant experiences in some people. More than a quarter of meditators report negative experiences, such as anxiety, fear, and distorted emotions and thoughts. Meditators with high levels of repetitive negative thinking and those who only engage in deconstructive meditation were more likely to report unpleasant side effects. Adverse effects were less frequently reported in women and religious meditators.DolyaIskrina

(talk) 22:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Scientific evidence

Meditation hasn't proven it's (presumed) benefits, there is no strong scientific evidence, so, it's basically a pseudoscience. As Steven Novella wrote on Science-Based Medicine: "Any positive association between meditation and clinical outcomes goes away when you include confounding factors.", in particular he wrote on NeuroLogica Blog that Mindfulness "is just a ritualized form of relaxation, with no specific benefit beyond that" Digressivo (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

References

References

Discussion

Criticism is preferably to be included into the main body, not as a aeparate section. What you are proposing here may be too much essay-like. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the material is close to being suitable for incorporation; if "Criticism" is considered too strong, then dividing it into short sections on "Claims" and "Adverse effects" might work better. On the MEDRS issue, the 'Health claims' section does probably have to meet that standard: citing systematic reviews is certainly ok, the rest of it possibly not. The other sections are surely not MEDRS-relevant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Change lead sentence towards exercise/cite-link...

Change from:

Meditation is a practice where an individual uses a technique – such as mindfulness, or focusing the mind on a particular object, thought, or activity – to train attention and awareness, and achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable state.[1]:228–29[2]:180[3]:415[4]:107[5][6] Scholars have found meditation difficult to define, as practices vary both between traditions and within them.

Change to (1):

Meditation is exercise and practice toward focusing the mind on a particular object, thought, or activity – to train attention and awareness, and achieve a mentally clear and emotionally calm and stable state.[1]:228–29[2]:180[3]:415[4]:107[5][6] Scholars have found meditation difficult to define, as practices vary both between traditions and within them.

Change to (2): Meditation, as a concept in self knowledge, is one's own attitude toward continuous mediation in life. (Wiktionaryen.wiktionary.org...mediate borrowed from Late Latin mediatus, past participle of mediare (“to divide in the middle”) (in Medieval Latin, also “to be in the middle, be or become between)

References

Arnlodg (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Arnlodg: The WP:ONUS is upon you to show that that's a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: ONUSLY then, if meditation is introduced as a concept and reliably sourced, primarily, in mediation, google-mediation synonym (third party): the article's lead premise changes but would continue with the existing lead...the word 'technique' seems, more, to be the non-sourced issue, thank you.Arnlodg (talk) 16:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Arnlodg stop this disruptive editing. You keep placing these improperly sourced requests for changes to the lede on multiple articles, noneofyour changes are ever accepted. I'm going to request your indefinate ban be reinstated if you don't stop now.-----Snowded ^TALK 18:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Unclear text, unclear and useless slurce, unclear explanation. In one word: no. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Both these definitions are inadequate to the point of being not merely useless, but misleading. Meditation is essentially a practice aimed at stilling the mind, not "training attention and awareness", and its object is not to achieve an "emotionally calm and stable state". The object is to obtain detachment from the mind and emotions, which is what is said to lead to inner peace, it's not about trying to impose emotional calmness on oneself, that is just another form of egoic striving. The major problem with this lead is that it feeds into Western misconceptions that meditation is a kind of doing, implied by the word "training". Meditation is learning not to do, but just to be, neither trying to escape from or hang on to or achieve any particular state. The lead of this article is chronically misleading and just never seems to improve no matter how many times it is adjusted. Gatoclass (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I generally agree; I now would rephrase the the lead sentence to: Meditation, as a concept, is one's own attitude toward continuous mediation in life.Arnlodg (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

There is nothing to discuss: ordinary WP:OR and ordinary removal of sourced content. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I edit conflicted on one attempt to undo this. User is attempting to replace sourced general content with unsourced specifics. Meters (talk) 01:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal with "Guided meditation" article

I propose to merge Guided meditation into Meditation. I think that the content in the Guided meditation article can easily be explained in the context of Meditation. Jarmihi_GOCE (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to mention guided meditation somewhere in the meditation-article. But what is the additional motivation for removing the guided-meditation-article all together? The Category:Meditation list various "stand-alone" articles for specific meditation techniques. Phlsph7 (talk) 01:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:Merging, the two subjects overlap (i.e. there does not need to be separate articles for meditation with and without a guide); the guided meditation article is very short, and its information can be incorporated in this article; and understanding guided meditation requires understanding meditation in general. Also, the history and benefits of meditating with and without a guide are too similar to warrant a separate article. Jarmihi_GOCE (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you have a point here: The "Guided meditation"-article doesn't really add much & could easily be incorporated into the "Meditation"-article. Generally speaking, it seems to me that a separate article for guided meditation can be justified. But it would have to go more into detail to justify the separate treatment.Phlsph7 (talk) 01:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Jarmihi. Errantius (talk)

• Support As per nom and above. Namkongville (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom Notfrompedro (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The two subjects though related, aren't the same. ShellPandey (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)