Talk:Meditation

Prayer and Meditation, or Prayer as Meditation?

One dimension of this page that stood out to me when I first saw this page was how meditation refers both to prayer and to other forms of meditation. Do you guys know if this is how Christians talk? I have heard the word 'prayer' being used By Christians to denote speaking to God and meditation being used to refer to contemplation and thought. I know that Buddhists differentiate between prayer and meditation. Perhaps we should mention this in the lede, or combine this page somehow with Prayer. makeswell (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Any suggestion to merge this page with prayer is likely to result in fervent prayers by those who edit that page - hoping that it will not happen. Anyway, given that there is secular meditation, that will not even be possible. I think we may have even discussed this and intercession (with you) some time ago, but I can not be bothered to search for it now.

Anyway, in various approaches meditative practices usually have a far less intercessory nature than prayer. And it is not just Christians who pray as well as meditate, but as Prayer in the Bahá'í Faith and Prayer in Hinduism state prayers in those contexts may also overlap meditation. Monks may pray and meditate, but someone whose uncle just got sick usually does not meditate for the recovery, but prays to some supernatural entity for intercession or mercy.

So what is certain is that the equation "prayer = meditation" is not valid, even in approximation. But "non secular" meditation can at times be preceded by prayer, and vice versa. History2007 (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Cool. makeswell (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it was partially the sentence in the Baha'i section that made me think the page included prayer as a type of meditation,

"Although the founder of the Faith, Bahá'u'lláh, never specified any particular forms of meditation, some Bahá'í practices are meditative. One of these is the daily repetition of the Arabic phrase Alláhu Abhá (Arabic: الله ابهى‎) (God is Most Glorious) 95 times preceded by ablutions. Abhá has the same root as Bahá' (Arabic: بهاء "splendor" or "glory") which Bahá'ís consider to be the "Greatest Name of God".[72]

I do not know the exact Bahá'í position on that, the expert on that is user:Jeff3000 and I left him a message to see if he will comment on that. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, in Baha'i practice, mediation and prayer are separate but linked practices. Prayer is the act of communicating with God, usually through the use of what is considered revealed material written by Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l-Baha or the Bab. Meditation, on the other hand, can refer to multiple things, which typically has the characterisitic that one is reflecting on one's state. For example, Baha'u'llah asked everyone to reflect at the end of each day on their deeds and their worth; this is quite different that communication with God. However, I would say that prayer puts one in a meditative mood, and people usually start to meditate after the act of prayer, but it's not necessarily true. Hope that clears up the Baha'i viewpoint. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What you typed here is interesting, but not in the article. Instead there is a long quote there that does not give a clue as to what Baha'i meditation looks like. Your text here seems better. I think this will say more than the quote there and in general, I think the article is overdosing on long quotes anyway, also in other sections - so those should be replaced by descriptions of what the practices are, rather than long quotes. And the statement you made about prayer being the first step in meditation is interesting - and not in that section. So if we can replace the quote by what you wrote will be better. History2007 (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

When I have some time (maybe this evening, or maybe on the weekend), I'll find some sources to actually back up my statements, and rewrite the section. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and no rush. It has been there for a while and just a long quote does not say that much. So if you add sources etc. and replace it with what you wrote here then we will declare it stable and leave it. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention that in Tibetan Buddhism also prayer is done before meditation. makeswell (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Contemplative prayer covers this a bit more. These various meditation/prayer methods seem to be a "meditation/reflection first, then use that reflective mind to initiate prayer/communication with a higher power". At least this seems to be the case in Christian meditation. I haven't come across anything that says that meditation is a form of prayer, or vice versa, but rather that one compliments the other. - SudoGhost™ 13:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. That sums it up well. But regarding the Contemplative prayer article in Feb 2010 I said on the talk page there: This article needs help, and big time help. And said that I would do it in a few days.... It has been over a year, never got to it! So for now, it does have its own problems - but that is another story. History2007 (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Meditation and monasticism

The following two sentences are in the lede,

"Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions, especially, in Western countries, in monastic settings. In the Eastern spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, meditation is more commonly a practice engaged in by many, if not most, believers."

Ya know, this isn't exactly correct, because Buddhist monks for meditate, in the East, and lay people meditate in the West. I don't anyone would disagree with that.

This conversation brings to mind how in Hinduism there aren't any monks, yet there is meditation. So, perhaps we should consider that the statement is POV (unless we were super specific about which groups did/didn't meditate etc etc lengthy sentence in the lede blah blah blah). How can we make sure the sentence is not POV?

The lede should encapsulate the major points of the page. I think that one of the big features of this page is how religion and meditation are associated. We could state this fact in the lede without mentioning monasticism. This would be easier than listing those traditions in which monastics meditate, those that don't, etc etc... makeswell (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

That statement is partially correct about early trends in Western approaches, but no longer true in the 20th century either in West or East. It needs to be clarified, with something that has source. History2007 (talk) 06:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that meditation is not practiced by a majority of lay believers in eastern countries (unless perhaps one uses a very broad definition of what counts as 'meditation'). I suspect that what can be said about both East and West is that monastics tend to meditate more than the laity (whether one uses tighter or looser definitions of 'meditate'). Good citations may be hard to find but maybe we'll get lucky. BTW, misinformation-correction: Hindiusm does have monks (see matha). -- Presearch (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, the statement is true, to a degree. Western religions typically have monastics meditating more than lay followers. With eastern religions its typically more common to see lay followers engaging in meditation than their Western counterparts. I think the quote could be clarified, perhaps to something along the lines of "In the Eastern spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism, meditation is largely engaged in by the laity as well as the monastic orders." - SudoGhost™ 15:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, I think this quote is in a historical sense, and Western meditation outside of the monastic orders is a very new concept, whereas in the Eastern practices the laity have been meditating alongside the monastics for much longer. Maybe it should be de-quoted and clarified. - SudoGhost™ 15:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I will "say no more" on this for I am not sure it will help the article - and it begins a discussion of per capita based habit analysis that most users will not be able to follow. In the west there are many Catholics who meditate on the rosary and they do that many times a day - many of them are older ladies. Hard to know the numbers of those all across South America. There is an old Catholic joke: "there are two things that only God knows: how many nuns there are, and what a Jesuit is thinking". I guess this is the 3rd one: how many rosaries are prayed per day. I am not sure how that can be measured. Anyway, I will not try to count those myself. I suggest you guys trim that claim as you see fit, if you find sources. But what I can measure is article improvements vs the length of these recent talk page discussions. Not a high number. History2007 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Better that these take place on the talk page, rather than the article. - SudoGhost™ 17:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Modern western lay Buddhist meditators who see meditation as a widespread lay phenomenon should be cautious in assuming their observations apply elsewhere and to historical Buddhism. See Robert Sharf: "Mahasi Sayadaw provided the Theravada world with more than simply an easy-to-learn meditation technique; he also provided a model of an urban meditation center that became a catalyst for the spread of meditation among the laity.45 One cannot overemphasize the significance of this development: Buddhists traditionally held that meditation was a risky business that should be undertaken only under proper supervision, i.e., within the confines of the samgha. Prior to the modern period there was virtually no opportunity for laypersons to study meditation..." (pp. 256-257, Sharf, 1995, Buddhist modernism and the rhetoric of meditative experience. Numen 42, 228-283). I think additional context can likely be found in Smith & Novak (2003). Thus, I believe the generalization still stands that in most contexts and in most of history, monks have meditated more than the laity. But, as History2007 says, what's the bottom line for this page? The foregoing reference notwithstanding, all the lede really needs is a good reference at a suitable level of generality that will be comprehensible to the reader. Presearch (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it a "widespread lay phenomenon" by any means, but I can only speak from what I know. Sōtō Zen emphasizes Zazen for both monastics and laity. This is not a modern phenomenon within that school, it was emphasized by Dōgen Zenji in the 13th century. I'm not saying it applies to historical Buddhism as a whole, but there are certain schools that emphasize meditation for the laity. - SudoGhost™ 17:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Regards lay meditation in Buddhism, Smith and Novak (2003) do seem to have material, possibly relevant as a citation -- see, e.g., chap 15 "Adaptations: The New Buddhism". "Down through twenty-five Asian Buddhist centuries, monks and nuns have been the tradition's vanguard, and meditation has been almost exclusively their province (and often only for an elite fraction of them)" (p. 143) Presearch (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

But more importantly, in regards to the above, should it just be reworded to "Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous religious traditions, especially in monastic settings."? Seems like the best and most accurate change (to me at least). - SudoGhost™ 18:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost, I like that wording. Personally I'd look the other way if it was inserted even without citations. But in terms of citations, maybe one east and one west would be useful to support the claim "especially in monastic settings". (Or possibly someone like Goleman (1988), The meditative mind, could provide one-stop shopping?) Presearch (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

a propsal

i'd say we replace the phrase about monasticism with one about religion, because religion covers monasticism too. makeswell (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

i made the edit by just speaking about religion. makeswell (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) if you guys want to put a phrase in 'especially in monastic settings' then feel free. i think we also had a phrase there at one point about associations between meditation and an eremtic lifestyle. it is true, btw, that retreats are common times to meditate across various religious orders. makeswell (talk) 04:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "religion" is specific enough, because I think the point of the sentence is that meditation is, historically at least, practiced by the priests/monks/what have you of the various religions, and that the laity did not practice meditation. - SudoGhost™ 04:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

yeah. what do you think might be a fitting solution? makeswell (talk) 04:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure. What do you think of "Meditation has been practiced since antiquity as a component of numerous monastic traditions."? - SudoGhost™ 05:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think the lede needs to reflect the import of the page, and that the page links religious traditions to meditation. There isn't much about monasticism on the page. makeswell (talk) 05:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It's kind of a stylisic edit. We could come up with reasons for one side or another. But, I do think if we removed mention of religions entirely, that would be POV. I think, you proposed earlier in the discussion to combine monasticism and religion in one sentence, or I proposed after that, that we mention religion alone in a sentence, so either one works, in my view. I think either one is totally cool and groovy. Like I said, monasticism isn't mentioned much on the page, so I'd just write 'religion' if it were just my writing. That's what I'd do. I'm ambivalent enough to not filibuster any changes along the lines of what we've already discussed, either 'especially monasticism' or just religion. makeswell (talk) 05:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ A really minor issue in my view, and will hardly affect the readers. Monasticism is probably better, but no big deal at all. History2007 (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Same here. makeswell (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why a picture of a statue of something called Buddha?

Why is there a picture of a statue of something called Buddha in an article about meditating? Or at least, why does one dominate this article. That picture should be in an article about Buddhism.

This prominent picture creates a totally unnecessary and misleading association between Buddha and meditation.

Meditation can be defined / explained / taught / described without any reference to Buddha.

However, I am not sugesting that Buddha/Buddhism shouldn't form some part of this article, but the picture's size and very prominent position at the top of the article is misleading: it serves, or could tend - quite misleadingly, to create an instant association between Buddha/Buddhism and meditation in the mind of the reader of this article, as though meditation is something predominantly 'belonging' to Buddhism.

109.149.155.212 (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a better one? makeswell (talk) 03:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the picture on this page should be one that is clearly not religious in nature. I have come across a couple of alternatives, but I don't know how to post pictures in the edit box for review. Olive pearl (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

here are a couple ideas: http://blog.nutri-living.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/meditation-benefits-wellness1.jpg or one of the brain: http://lauraschenck.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Mindfulness-Meditation-Regulates-Alpha-Rhythms-300x231.jpg

Olive pearl (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please read this: Wikipedia:Image use policy, and then this: Wikipedia:Wikimedia_Commons#Embedding_Commons.27_media_in_Wikipedia_articles. (In short: it's usually not allowed to take random images off the internet and post them here.) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 23:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

To most Westerners, Buddhism and meditation are already popularly linked and so I don't necessarily think it matters. However, I think that this article is doing a disservice in that it is highly western biased, and is obviously written from a western worldview... the way it's written, the examples used and the language used.

Although I don't think this is a big issue, I agree that it could be nice to have more balance across traditions at the top illustration. There are different ways this might be done. If we can find evocative images from multiple traditions (e.g., both east and west), then perhaps we could make them be the same size and create a sort of panel with multiple images. But the images would need to go together. And I've had a hard time finding a really evocative Western image of meditation (if only we could find more like this-1, or like this-2, which may not be usable due to copyright or b/c a living person...).

Another approach might be to use (at the page top) an image of someone who clearly looks like they are meditating, but in which the image is not as clearly associated with a single tradition. One possibility might be

this image (at right) from Wikimedia Commons, although it is not perfect. Or something like the first image, here, identified by Olive pearl (perhaps not usable due to copyright). Or possibly even the "man meditating in garden" image that is further down in the present article. All of these have a somewhat eastern connotation. But their particularities and links to specific traditions seem (at least to my eye) a bit toned down from what we have now, and thus perhaps more appropriate as an introduction to an article about multiple traditions. I doubt we'll find anything perfect. But might any of these be an improvement? -- Presearch (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

consistency in the Definitions and scope section

The section Meditation#Definitions_and_scope needs to be rewritten so that it is more consistent. The chart at the top begins by defining meditation as involving attention, for instance,

"[M]editation refers to a family of self-regulation practices that focus on training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control and thereby foster general mental well-being and development and/or specific capacities such as calm, clarity, and concentration."

and also,

"the need for the meditator to retrain his attention, whether through concentration or mindfulness, is the single invariant ingredient in... every meditation system"

then there are four paragraphs about the ambiguity of the word meditation and the variety of styles it covers,

"There remains no definition of necessary and sufficient criteria for meditation that has achieved universal or widespread acceptance within the modern scientific community..."

then there is a statement at the end defining meditation as when,

"the practitioner attempts to get beyond the reflexive, "thinking" mind (sometimes called "discursive thinking" or "logic") into a deeper, more devout, or more relaxed state. The terms "meditative practice" and "meditation" are mostly used here in this broad sense."

There are statements defining meditation and statements like, "There remains no definition... that has achieved universal or widespread acceptance within the modern scientific community." It's almost comical.

Do you guys think that we should rewrite this section somehow?

I'd propose we mention the ambiguity first and then lead into some definitions that have been proposed over the ages - admitting the difficulties in finding a workable definition and also the attempts at surmounting them. Specifically I'd propose moving the chart beneath the discussion of the ambiguities and writing a sentence at the end of that discussion stating something like, "Despite these difficulties, there have been several proposed definitions, as follows..." makeswell (talk) 02:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. I just wanted to quickly add that over the course of writing the post above I realized that the ambiguity claims weren't contradictory to the definitions, but that there's some challenges to defining meditation as well as attempts to surmount those challenges. makeswell (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In order to see if a new version improves the article, one has to see the new version. So please post a suggested new version here, so everyone can make comments on it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, remember that mentioning "some definitions that have been proposed over the ages" would mean essentially mentioning definitions that are specific to one tradition, once we get much before the 20th century. If there are notable definitions that should be mentioned within each tradition, I say let them first be integrated into the tradition-specific sections. Then this fact could first be mentioned briefly in the definitions section (e.g., "see also definitions within specific sections, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam..."). At that point we could assess if a new table also needs to be added. Otherwise, in terms of attempts to define meditation that cut across traditions, that's already done by the current table, in a very systematic way. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Perhaps you (Makeswell) find the current definitions section a bit like a koan? First you find it contradictory, then you see that it makes sense, then you laugh? -- Presearch (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I also agree with History2007 that we would want to first see a proposed new version (posted here). -- Presearch (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section by adding information about why there's a need for the endeavors to define meditation, adding a short two sentence, 'And here are some of these endeavors...' paragraph above the chart, and reordered things so the ambiguity section comes before the chart with definitions. I think it's essential that we keep the ambiguity section first because then the reader will see how the definitions fit within the context of the argumentative and strenuous attempts by scientists at finding a definition to meditation.

Presearch, by 'definitions over the ages' I meant the chart that was already in the Definitions and scope section.

If I were to make another edit I'd change how much mention there is in the section about the various types of meditation and thus the problems in finding a common working definition. I think the first two paragraphs go into this a bit too much as is. makeswell (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)