From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Mindfulness, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

General noting of things[edit]

I want to get this discussion page started because I'd like to see some expansion of this page. Mindfulness is an important concept in Buddhism and there are sutras devoted to it's practice. The non-Buddhist, non-religious uses of mindfulness are of interest as well, and could be expanded. As the page stands it's quite basic, and I think it could become far richer in information. Nightngle 13:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Special note: I have removed the banners for both the "Buddhism" and "Religions" Projects because it is yet to be determined what focus this article will take. The word "mindfulness" is not, in and of itself a religous term. It is only with it's application that it can take on religious significance. I would recommend that any religious tradition that uses this term to start a separate article on that context, as well as the psychological methods that are springing up using this term. Nightngle 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

______________________________________ New topic; and I hope this will be a useful place to describe two edits I just now made. ____________________________

I noticed in the 'Related terms and practices' section, the table had two items whose Roman transliterations did not match what purport to be the same terms, as written in Devanagari. Both are in the Sanskrit column. I corrected those two items in the column.

Specifically, I changed the 'samprajaña,संप्रज्ञान' pair to 'samprajñāna, संप्रज्ञान ; And I changed the former 'apramāda,ज्ञानकोश' pair to 'apramāda,अप्रमाद'.

The reasons are, first, that संप्रज्ञान is spelled as 'samprajñāna' when transliterated into Roman script. The original error appears to me to be nothing more than a typo.

And second, I could not find the word 'ज्ञानकोश' , which transliterates to 'jñānakośa' , as a relevant term in this context. I find myself baffled as to how that word got introduced here. The word 'apramāda' is however relevant in this context. So I chose the transliterated word 'apramāda' as the one to retain -- the point being, the word written in Devanagari did not match the word, which should presumably have been the same word, as written in Roman script; so one had to choose between them. Savitr108 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Later note: I also noticed an oddity concerning this pair: manaskāraḥ मनस्कारः which, until I changed it just now, also did not quite match since it was written as manaskāraḥ मनस्कार .

For some reason this term is shown with a grammatical ending -- namely, it is shown in the nominative singular. Or the transliterated version was so shown; see above. Just now I corrected the Devanagari version so it also has the same -aḥ ending; it did not.

I first tried correcting the transliterated version, but it then came out highlighted in red font-colo, to show that there is no Wikipedia entry for that term. Evidently the Wiki entry has the term with the grammatical ending. Who knows why.

If anyone cares for such minute detail, and wants to further correct this pair manaskāraḥ मनस्कारः here, I am sure there is a way to do it so that one writes manaskāra मनस्कार . That way it will be 'out of grammar' so to say, as all the other terms in this table are. If and when I have time I will research how to do that myself. It will be some simple formatting command which at present I do not know, perhaps a re-direct command. Savitr108 (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Spam external links issues[edit]

I have a big concern about the external links on this page. Except for the link to "Mindfulness in Plain English", they are all sites promoting services. To me, this violates the spam policy. I would like to see only sites that have material that supports understanding mindfulness, not links that promote signing up for a course.Nightngle 13:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for expanding the article and branching off with a mindfulness based cognitive therapy page. Because this page is part of articles on Buddhism, the secular work on mindfulness really should take a back seat here, but should indeed have it's own section for folks who want to branch off in that direction.Nightngle 15:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I am glad that you have raised this Nightngle it seems to me that there is a danger that mindfulness will be adopted by the "sham" artists who offer the secrets to happiness, success etc. The NLP reiki etc etc "experts".Alnpete (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Many meanings of "mindfulness"[edit]

  • I would like to see this article split into Mindfulness proper perhaps with some digression into Buddhism as suggested above and also Mindfullness-based Therapy where the incorporation of mindfulness into more modern psychoanalytical approaches can then be elaborated upon as mentioned in the article as this seems to be the leading edge in psychology for those at least who are mindful of it (pun intended ;-)). Mindfullness-based Therapy can be considered a therapy in its own right but is usually incorporated as an adjunct or component to other approaches with the possible exception of Dr. Jon Kabat-Zinn's and is also proving to be extremely effective in the treatment of one of society's most serious and prevalent mental illnesses of today: Depression. Well I did bite the bullet, created an account, added mention of Thich Nhat Hanh and may be back to split the article as I suggested. Anyone like to message/email me to point me to a style guide? User:Mattjs
    • That would be great if you could work on the, for lack of a better term, secular use of the term "mindfulness" a la Mindfulness Based therapies and stress reduction. I've been doing some work with the goal of expanding this article as a Buddhist term - talking about the Four Foundations of Mindfulness, etc and as a Buddhist meditation form. I would recommend clicking on the "help" link on the left and reading the manual of style for more information about how to write a wiki style article. Drop me a note on my talk page if you have further questions. Thanks! Nightngle 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • After doing some reading this morning, it strikes me that the term Mindfulness is clearly used in two distinct ways - one as a Buddhist practice Sati, the other in Western psychology as mindfulness as an attribute of consciousness that contributes to a person's well-being. Perhaps an article on Mindfulness practice would be better for the Buddhist use of the term, this article to explain the various usages for the term, and then other more specific articles about the various mindfulness-based therapies. What do you think? Nightngle 17:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Good idea. So the question is whether to split as Mindfulness and Mindfulness practice or as Mindfulness and Mindfullness-based Therapy. I dont know if there really is a difference between Buddhist concepts (or practice) of mindfulness and psychotherapeutic conceptions of same (except in depth of the concept which certianly belongs to the former). Seems to me that mindfulness of any kind is a concept directly imported into psychology largely from Buddhist practicioners over recent decades ie. if you go back a few decades through the literature psychology I am sure that you will find very little mention of it if at all. If then Mindfulness is an original Buddhism term and one less explicated in the modern scientific tradition and terminology of psychology why then should we give it over to phychology and relegate the Buddhist concept to an alternative terminology or description such as Mindfulness practice as if it were an inferior and less scientifically precise conception. Though I do in fact prefer this phrase as it indeed emphasises practice and not mere ideas which itself is both very buddhist and in keeping with what mindfulness really is ie. a practise in daily living... I look forward to your next response, Cheers. Mattjs

BTW: I am one who also thinks that the Timeline of psychotherapy should contain Siddhartha Shakyamuni as one of the first psychotherapists and I am working the courage up to edit it this way as I know that someone will soon revert and a long and heated discussion will then ensue. On the other hand being such a neglected little wiki entry I might well get away with it. Mattjs 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry it's taken awhile to get back, I've been busy on many fronts. Anyway, I hear you on your points about Western psychology and mindfulness. On one hand, we could say that Western psychology has co-opted the term and the idea, yet your point is well taken that the roots of modern psychology could also be traced back to the BuddhaDharma. One of the problems I have, though, with trying to integrate the secular with the religious (for lack of better terms) is that I think we might be able to argue that the mindfulness practices used by Western psychology have a different goal in mind. While the fruit of Buddhist practice certainly is being more at peace, compassionate, and better "adjusted" those really aren't the goals. Yet, with modern psychology, one will see studies done to show that meditation, for instance, is theraputic with the goal of the relaxation response, ameliorating unwanted symptoms like pain, anxiety, even psoriasis. While the two are similar, they aren't quite the same.
  • I'm still putting my thoughts together on this, but I'm thinking that this article might be better as a kind of disambiguation page as an article about the different concepts of mindfulness showing how they are similar and different, with see also's branching off for folks wanting to explore the Buddhist interpretations and the secular/psychology applications.
  • Let me know what you think - this would be a good collaborative effort! Thanks, Cheryl Nightngle 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm Karley. I've been working a lot on the MBCT page and would like to contribut some ideas. I definitely think that mindfulness practice in the Buddhist meaning should be separate from the Mindfulness therapies. Mindfulness and psychoanalysis do not go together. Perhaps there could be a link on the Cognitive therapy page to mindfulness therapies strategies. I think to add those therapy methods to the already extensive mindfulness is page would make it too long. And, besides Buddhist Psychotherapy, most therapists do not bring mindfulness practice in the Buddhist sense into session. Take a look at the MBCT page and tell me what you think.

Hi, Karley - thanks for your comments. I'm glad to hear you're working on the Mindfulness therapies, there is a lot of really good stuff out there. I'm going to work on the Buddhist Mindfulness practices, and I think this page will be a good jumping off point to help people figure out which direction they would like to read about.Nightngle 15:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, what happened to the original that was here two weeks ago. The Buddha wikiproject has complete overhauled the article and made it much less useful. In fact, it is not as well written. The secular version needs to be recreated and the Buddha wikiproject made as another article. It should have a short article and the See Full Article on Buddhism Mindfulness. Please recover the original document, I require it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The only meaning of mindfulness that really counts is what an ordinary WP expects to see. If there are multiple possibilities, then the users see a disambiguation page. If one meaning is strongly dominant, then they get the dominant page with a top-of-the-page link to the less dominant meanings (if there aren't too many) or to a disambiguation page (if there are many). This is Wikipedia practice. WP:DAB Because psychology doesn't seem to want the term, you might well be able to effectively claim that the main entry is yours and effectively change the meaning of the word in Wikipedia, a good prosyletizing strategy. DCDuring 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would favour the mindfulness article to concentrate primarily on the Buddhist origin of the term (including mindfulness practice) and for there to be a separate article on mindfulness-based therapies that covers how Buddhist philosophy has been applied by psychotherapies, such as Dialectical Behavioral Therapy and Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy. Any comments welcome here, or on my discussion page. --Vince 09:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
The issue is entirely what a general reader would expect to find. The Buddhist use of the term is, of course, relatively new. Of course, the psychotherapy use is newer yet. And the psychotherapy uses are certainly SOMEWHAT derivative. I suppose that the psychotherapies that are interested in more generic meditation techniques could always refer to meditation if they think mindfulness is too Buddhist for them. So I guess I've convinced myself that the way it is now with the disambiguation line at the top and the Wiktionary box should handle the general reader fairly well. There might be a question as to how high on the page the Buddhism portalbox graphic should appear. How do other religions handle the inclusion of religious symbols in their portalboxes. DCDuring 23:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel like I've been very delinquent with this article - I had planned on making some structural changes, but haven't found the time to get to it. I agree with the idea that the word "mindfulness" is a generic term that has become loaded with religious and now psychological meaning. The psychology folks, seems to me, to want to quickly acknowledge that the term stems from Buddhism, but then imply that they've invented it. In Buddhism, using the term mindfulness has been popularized, but I don't think that means Buddhists own the definition, since in casual conversation, one might say "be mindful of the traffic" and the person does not mean that in a philosophical or religious sense - just a "be careful" meaning. I agree with DCDuring in that I don't think it's appropriate for either the psychologists or Buddhists to claim and redefine this word. Far better would be to concentrate on the term Sati for Buddhists, since this is the proper term. Unfortunately, it looks like this page needs work and a clarification as well. (For full disclosure, I am a practicing Buddhist myself and practice in the tradition of Thich Nhat Hanh the person who popularized this term as Buddhist.) Nightngle 15:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
There are questions, in principle empirical, as to what a user would (and will) expect to see when:
  • clicking on a link from
    • a Buddhist page
    • a psychotherapy page
    • a psychology page
    • other pages
    • Wiktionary
  • searching for the terms mindful or mindfulness
  • coming to the page from a category
It is fairly simple to make sure that the links from specific pages in Buddhism, psychotherapy, and psychology link to appropriate pages or sections of pages. I think it could work with categories and Wiktionary as well.
Whether subsequent editors would agree is harder to tell. Then the only other unknown is what are the expectations of a user doing a term search. There may be reason for extra caution because something seen as a religious appropriation of an ordinary term can become controversial. If this is the case, then the initial page should be a disambiguation page. Behind that page can be various pages for different classes of usage of the word. WP seems to prefer that sectarian terms and definitions for the same word and even concept be put into the same article. I stubled across Eucharist in which parallel sections discuss the terms and concepts of various Christian sects use for the concept. The differences have been at the root of oppression, martyrdom, and wars in the real world. I am not sure that psychologists (as opposed to psychotherapists) have done much with the concept of mindfulness apart from Ellen Langer, an educational psychologist. I am also unsure whether psychotherapists' apparently instrumental attitude toward mindfulness and meditation is congenial to a more religious presentation of the concept. DCDuring 16:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that the most recent addition of mindfulness under the "Alternative Medicine" project really underscores the need to address this issue. With the term being part of the Buddhist project, used extensively in psychology (Jon Kabat Zin, etc), and now alternative medicine, a word which simply means to be aware/careful/cautious now seems to be loaded with connotations. Nightngle 13:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Surely the term mindfulness refers to a particular technique or practice both in its Buddhist and therapy forms. To say that it means solely to be aware would be ignoring the fact that this term means something quite specific when applied in this was. It is true that some people in psychology seem to be unaware of the Buddhist origin of the practice. All the more reason to have the article on mindfulness. --Vince 20:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think that you'd have to be in the counseling field or interested in modern Buddhism to know that mindfulness is used in these specialized ways. If you did a survey of people on the street, I doubt very much that they'd have any idea of these definitions. Additionally, in Buddhism and in psychology, the term isn't really used in isolation. It's used as a phrase "right mindfulness" or "mindfulness practices", or as in "mindfulness-based stress reduction". Nightngle 17:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Is that not the idea of an encyclopaedia: to inform people of things that they don't already know? --Vince 15:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The first function of an encyclopedia is to inform people of what they want to know, to answer their questions. The questions they ask may change as a result of what they find. In WP if they wish to go deeper, there are in-line links; if they wish to go a little farther afield there are "see also" links. WP is not about taking people's interests and trying to lead them where you believe they should go, nor is it about serving only the needs of a small group of specialists, even editors. DCDuring 16:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
DCDuring, I think you've stated the distinction between encyclopedic and original writings very well there, and I agree. It's tough to wrap our heads around sometimes (kind of like the distinction between free speech and a groups rules about what is or isn't appropriate when in the group), but I do agree that the distinction exists and should apply to this word as well. I'm incredibly busy at work right now, but I'm very willing to work on this, it just may be a couple of weeks before I can start. With the distinction in place, both Buddhists ("Mindfulness practices") and psychologists ("Mindfulness based stress reduction") can flesh our their terms more fully without trying to redefine this word. Nightngle 13:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I am broadly in agreement with both of you. It is important not to bias the information contained here based on our own specialist interests. However, I would still contest that sometimes people may well want to know things that they previously did not think they wanted to know (if that makes any sense). I don't see that as original writing, if it uses previously referenced work. Best of luck with editing the page. I will contribute where I can but please feel free to pull me up if you have any concerns. --Vince 16:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It isn't perfect the way it is, but it's not too bad either. There is a risk that the page-editing somehow goes off the rails if we don't get it a little less rough-looking. I'm not close enough to the subject matter to take the lead. I'm interested in the process of satisfying diverse user groups in WP, especially making sure that the more casual users, by definition not well represented among editors. Unless somebody else volunteers, I guess I'll be waiting for Nightngle. DCDuring 17:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Mindfulness in the West and Christianity[edit]

I'm in total agreement with No Architect on this, except that I find it offensive rather than just 'odd', and have therefore moved the section to the end of the article, where I have incorporated it under a new heading Mindfulness in the West. I have also attempted to bring together the various strands on western medical and psychiatric uses of mindfulness. Bearing in mind the definition of paralogous given on Wikipedia, I have also lightly edited the parts of the text using that and related words. BlueThird (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mindfulness entry seems oddly biased towards Christianity. Mindfulness in Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, is an interesting side note, but since the origins of the practice are Buddhist, one would expect Christianity to appear late in the article, rather than dominating the first paragraph, which should be devoted to basic definition, origin, and history. No Architect 22:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


From what I know of mindfulness it is also known as Vipassana. Shouldn't we merge the two articles into a more complete one?

Vipassana meditation is not the same thing as mindfulness practice. For one thing, there is no "mindfulness meditation" per se, but rather a number of "mindfulness practices". Vipassana meditation is a structured form of meditation that has been taught directly from the Buddha. "Mindfulness meditation" has become something of a catch-all for quieting the mind, which is more like Samatha meditation, or the "goal based" approach of the psychologists who want to alleviate symptoms (meditation that has a goal would not be a Buddhist form of meditation). Nightngle 13:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Within early Buddhist contemplative culture, sati has a specific context with reference to Ānāpānasati/Satipaṭṭhāna work. Vipassanā, as a specific contemplative praxis was a later invention in Burma, and not represented in the teachings of the Buddha, except in tandem with samatha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phrafarang (talkcontribs) 22:07, 20 December 2011‎

Source? --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible side effects of mindfulness[edit]

I added the following paragraph:

The attempt to be continuously mindful can easily lead to the entrance into the dark night, a singular state of consciousness in which the individual experiences a sudden and deep suffering[1] . While this is a normal stage of the process of learning to be mindful, sometimes it might be difficult to realize that this state is caused by mindfulness itself. This realization, together with a lot of acceptance and a renewed attempt to be mindful will lead to the exit of the dark night and to the entrance into the equanimity states. The dark night is a very delicate moment in which the guidance of a qualified master is specially useful. Stopping meditation at this point can lead the meditator to be stuck in the dark night for a quite long period.

The cited reference was Perez-De-Albeniz, A., Holmes, J., Meditation: concepts, effects and uses in therapy, International Journal of Psychotherapy, Mar. 2000, Vol. 5 Issue 1, 49-58

This paragraph has been deleted by because: 1) content is poorly written, 2) content isn't substantiated or explained, and is wacky on the face of it.

Since I think the content of the paragraph is true and important to know for possible meditators, I would like to ask for help to improve its redaction and to consider to be included again in the main article. --Juliusllb 00:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also read about this state of 'fear, misery and disgust' in the following work (on-line) - "A Modern Treatise on Buddhist Satipatthana Meditation" by The Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw - so I would agree about its re-instatement in the article. 39tiro (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncompleted split / Perhaps the split shouldn't be made because this entry is part of the alternative medicine project[edit]

Following the above discussion about splitting Mindfulness into Buddhist and therapeutic articles, Mindfulness (psychology) was created. Shouldn't the current section 2 "Mindfulness in the West" and its references be moved there? Keahapana (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Great feedback. However, since this entry is part of the Wikipedia alternative medicine project, doesn't it seem as though the psychological concept of using mindfulness to treat depression and anxiety should probably remain here?

No problem, I moved it to Talk:Mindfulness (psychology). Keahapana (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bejewelled Ankusha of Ivory (Wikibook)[edit]

This article is to be an important chapter of the abovementioned Wikibook. This article is currently very loose and uncited. This is a polite call to action to cite information included otherwise it will be deleted within 108 days as conjecture and hearsay.
B9 hummingbird hovering (talkcontribs) 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I'm not sure I understand to whom the call of action is addressed. If you don't like the article you're welcome to edit it. This is, after all, Wikipedia. Have a great day!Jlchan29 (talk) 20:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving and renaming?[edit]

How should we proceed with moving the psychological material from Mindfulness to Mindfulness (psychology)? In cleaning up Mindfulness (disambiguation), I noticed that both Mindfulness (Buddhism) and Mindfulness meditation redirect to Mindfulness. Could we somehow make the current Mindfulness the disambiguation page, and split the current contents between Mindfulness (Buddhism) and Mindfulness (psychology)? Keahapana (talk) 00:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaing up the entry so much!

This is a great question. I took out the Mindfulness in the West section and put the information in that section in the therapeutic section below it to tighten up the entry. Because mindfulness is used so much in popular culture and modern psychology, keeping a reference to the general non religous use of mindfulness in the main category while putting the Buddhist aspect of mindfulness elsewhere makes sense. However, the concept of mindfulness is originally derived from Buddhism so it seems strange to leave the Buddhist aspect out all together.

I amended the history of Buddhism and mindfulness in passing to de-emphasize Buddhism and mindfulness in this entry. Let's keeping looking at it.

Thanks again for cleaning up the entry. Jlchan29 (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nian, sthāpana; gnas pa[edit]

I'd like a little more info about the source for this purported variant of nian:

  • Settled recollection; (Skt. sthāpana; Tib. gnas pa). To ascertain one's thoughts.

I suspect that it is wrong. Every other source I've seen for sthāpana translates it as "demonstration," as it is used in the context of Indian logic, and the Tibetan gnas pa seems to mean "abiding" and translates the Sanskrit avasthita. Maybe nian is actually equivalent to these two terms, but in the context of this article it just seems to be confusing. Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've found a source for sthāpana in this context. According to Meditative States in Tibetan Buddhism By Lati Rinpoche, Denma Locho Rinpoche, Leah Zahler, and Jeffrey Hopkins, citta-sthāpana occurs in the context of the nine mental abidings (navākārā cittasthiti, sems gnas dgu), but the Tibetan equivalent given is (sems) ’jog pa. Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


PDF-Datei, auch hier

Die dritte Übung der Achtsamkeit "Verantwortlicher Umgang mit Sexualität-Fragen und Antworten" Intersein Nr. 24/Mai 2004

Is there some english text about mindfullness and sexuality?

-- (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not certain myself, but if you could find one that'd be a great help to the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zen Criticism[edit]

I don't object to Zen Criticism of the mindfulness movement in this article. Unfortunately, the two comments now quoted under the heading of "Zen Criticism" are impossible to understand. I'm familiar with mindfulness and Zen, and I can't really figure out what these two guys are talking about. Maybe the comments were shortened too much, or maybe someone else said it better. (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Body Scan[edit]

This article should contain a short section about the "body scan" technique. It's often taught by mindfulness instructors in MBSR, Vipassana and other traditions. (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore from change 30 August[edit]

Hi, I felt it necessary to undo the last change. The previous text gave a much clearer idea of what mindfulness is - certainly in Therevadan terms. I could not understand what the list of ten mindfulnesses add in terms of reader's understanding. Hope this is OK. (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you can find references for all of it, that's fine. If it is just illustrative original research based on a modern interpretation, then that isn't really appropriate for Wikipedia. What the Ten Forms of Mindfulness adds is an entire outline for the different forms of mindfulness practices leading to Nirvana. The reason for having them here is that they are an important subject in early Buddhism and the subject of mindfulness. In contrast, the material I removed was dubious information that is not encyclopedic in presentation or content. WP generally relies on sourced information, fact-checking, and so on. When it gets away from this, the quality goes down because there are many POV interpretations such as those that were on this page giving illustrations of mindfulness. This sort of material is better suited for a small inspirational book, not an encyclopedia. Tengu800 (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Tengu, Agreed about the presentation of the previous content, but the quality was in the content. Of course, Buddhism suffers from being studied and flourishes from being practised. I will keep my eyes open for a suitable description in modern language, and will add rather than replace, even though I think the list is an over-complication. PS Mindfulness of breath will get you to nirvana with no further complications. (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
At some point, Buddhists must have disagreed with you, since there are ten forms. Just this matter alone is important for the article, because it teaches the views of the earliest sources. To say that this is "too complicated" is rejecting these basic doctrines. If only mindfulness of breathing were necessary, then there would be no purpose for the rest of the Buddhist teachings, because Buddhism would not be substantially different from pranayama. Tengu800 (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Small correction, as only mindfulness of breathing is necessary then there is no NEED for the rest of the Buddhist teachings. Also, please don't confuse breath control with breath watching. Better still please try it! (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or dictionary?[edit]

Why is so much room given to the etymology of various translations of smrti? This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. An encyclopedia should give an overview of a subject. Dumping all the definitions of a Sanskrit term from Monier-Williams is not at all relevant or helpful for people who are wondering what mindfulness is. Tengu800 (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Alarmed at definition of Mindfulness[edit]

I am very surprised at some terms used in the first two paragraphs of this article. Specifically use of word "hatred" and "enraged" 1. – "Mindfulness is a spiritual faculty (indriya) that is considered to be of great importance in the path to hatred according to the teaching of the Buddha. 2. – Enlightenment (bodhi) is a state of being enraged in which has been overcome, abandoned and is absent from the mind. From my reading of The Dhammapada, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying and Jon Kabat-Zinn's course on mindfulness, these seem bizarre and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Rectified. Not sure how those terms appeared in the first place, as they were corrected almost straight away but other user. May have been a glitch. Orlaghob (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

what is mindfulness!?[edit]

Hi, Can someone please put a description of what mindfulness is. This page used to say quite clearly what it is, but now it only talks about how mindfulness is used. Without such a description, this page does not deserve to be B rated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Reference to Pre-Buddhist Mindfulness Practice[edit]

Hi. I am new to commenting/editing, so please forgive me if I don't know the edicate. In the first paragraph there is a statement: "Mindfulness meditation can also be traced back to the earlier Upanishads, part of Hindu scripture." The footnote is not to a primary reference, i.e. the Upanishads itself. The reference is to a journal article that makes the statement "However, the roots of mindfulness practice can be found in Yogic practices in the Upanishads dating back thousands of years before the advent of Buddhism." The journal article does not substantiate this claim and I don't know of any that exist. I invite discussion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aflum (talkcontribs) 08:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Nivarana Sutta of the Pali Canon identifies five hindrances to be overcome to be ready to achieve mindfulness[edit]

The five hindrances identified by the Nivarana Sutta of the Pali Canon which must be overcome in order to awaken are:

Sensual desire (kamacchanda)

Ill will (vyapada)

Sloth, torpor, or drowsiness (thina-middha)

Restlessness and worry (uddhacca-kukkucca)

Uncertainty or skepticism (vicikiccha)

There appears to be an overlap with other traditions, for instances, the Seven Deadly Sins in Christianity.

Merger with Satipatthana[edit]

In keeping with merger guidelines on Wikipedia, I propose that Mindfulness be merged into Satipatthana, because although it is a great article with non-redundant information, the concept of mindfulness and Satipatthana are considered in Bhuddism to be essentially the same. Please feel free to post here or on my talk page if any feedback. Parsh (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What you say is not quite correct. Satipatthana refers to the methods and means taught by the Buddha as to how mindfulness (sati) may be established. It describes a suite of yogic practises. The concept of mindfulness needs its own page as it is itself a subtle and complex topic. There would be too much information for one page. At least that's my opinion! Regards. (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What is this statement supposed to mean?[edit]

There is a line in this article which says The English term mindfulness, in use for centuries, long predates its use in the Buddhist contex. What is this supposed to mean? Pali and Budhism easily predate english by centuries. I am under the impression that Latin might have been the language of the European world during rise of Budhism. So what is correct? -Wikishagnik (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the sentence, but it looks like WP:OR to me. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
It might refer to historical usage in English. The OED gives 1530 for the first recorded usage of mindfulness. When were the first usages translating sati? If it would help the article, I can add this dictionary information. Keahapana (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I just removed the OED-definition. But the mentioning of the year would be helpfull - though it still looks like OR to me. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:23, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Mindfulness Meditation and reducing blood pressure[edit]

I think this research study should be mentioned in the article. At the moment it mentions under the research section that Mindfulness lowers blood pressure. That might be true according to some sources but this research suggests it does not. In the interest of maintain NPO this information should be added to the article.

--Uncreated (talk) 09:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's primary research. Our biomedical content needs to conform to WP:MEDRS (this doesn't). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. The AHA reviewed research on mindfulness and found that it did not lower high blood pressure.
Does this conform to MEDRS? --Uncreated (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Should I just go ahead and add a sentence summarizing the findings of the AHA in their statement? --Uncreated (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Give it a shot, remember WP:BEBOLD ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticism and other perspectives from scholars[edit]

I added a section referring to two papers by two contemporary scholars who do not agree in all ways with modern interpretations of mindfulness. Please feel free to improve this section. I just wanted to make a start. (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"research for 20 or 30 years" too vague[edit]

In the section on "Scientific Research, it is stated: "Research has been ongoing over the last twenty or thirty years.." Is it 20 or 30 years? Which is it? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:104:E001:9010:A1A0:6D31:1799:95D7 (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


At this point, I think it's moot (debatable) whether we have one or a singular definition of 'mindfulness' or several (plural) definitions of mindfulness, memory and retention, or focus (moving forward, focus, etc.), full mind encompassing the more mature development of the older-view/overview, etc. MaynardClark (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably a lot; more than a million hits on Google. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


I've removed 81~14'additions a secons time. The quote he added is about "satipaṭṭhāna", and does not support the previous two sentences. WP:OR, as so often with this editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And a third time... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, since you don't understand what WP:OR means, here's the explanation:

  • "Mindfulness is the state of being mindful." - unsourced;
  • "The English word mindful implies something slightly more than 'mere' or 'bare' awareness (ie. consciousness)."
    • "ref: "... I should add that Ven. Nyanaponika himself did not regard “bare attention” as capturing the complete significance of satipaṭṭhāna, but as representing only one phase, the initial phase, in the meditative development of right mindfulness." Letter from Bhikkhu Bodhi to B. Allen Wallace [1]" - from the English word "mindfull" to the Buddhist term "satipaṭṭhāna"; incrompehensible, WP:OR;
    • "ref: In Buddhism 'mere' or 'bare' awareness is indicated by the word citta" - unsourced; what's the relation; WP:OR;
  • "To be mindful implies the state of 'taking care',
    • "ref: "taking thought or care, heedful; being conscious or aware", OED entry for Mindful." - there are about a million sources on mindfulness; take a better one than your usual dictionaries;
  • '" of being aware of the context in which present moment activity is taking place." - unsourced
  • "In Buddhism the word sati (Pali; Sanskrit smṛti) connotes the act of recollection or remembering (the original etymological meaning of the word)."- unsourced;
  • "However, this recollection or remembering is not of some memory or piece of information but rather a 'coming to' of the mind's attention from a state of wandering or daydreaming back to present moment reality." - unsourced; personal interpretation, therefor WP:OR

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted the IP - we don't use pdf copies of correspondence as sources, the OED is not discussing the Buddhist concept, the rest is unsourced OR. Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have no time to respond, but the IP wrote on my talk page "Thanks for your remarks. The point of the opening statement distinguishing between bare awareness and mindfulness is due to the fact that sati is often translated by the followers of the Vipassana movement as 'bare awareness'. However, Professor B. Alan Wallace, a leading academic in the field of Tibetan Buddhism in his letter to Bhikkhu Bodhi, former President of the Buddhist Publication Society, Sri Lanka, and the world's leading English language translator of Pali texts, points out that in the canonical literature sati means something other than mere consciousness (awareness). Indeed it was for this reason the early translators of the Pali Canon such as T.W. Rhys Davids used the English word mindfulness as opposed to awareness. The word awareness, however, does convey an important dimension to the meaning of sati such that it is, for example, the preferred term used by the Vipassana Research Institute. Rupert Gethin at the 2009 Mind and Life Conference at Dharamsala (where Professor Wallace acted as translator and clarifier for the Dalai Lama and his personal interpreter Thubten Jinpa) explains that simple awareness or consciousness in Theravada is signified by the Pali word citta corresponding to the Sanskrit word Cit. Since secular mindfulness therapies are largely based on the Buddhist concept sati and because there are prevailing misconceptions about what sati actually is it seems to be a necessary task to explain why English translators use the word mindfulness to translate the Pali word sati. And because the OED is the most authoritative dictionary of the English language it would appear to be a natural place to derive the standard definition. None of this, to my mind, is original research. It is only clarifying what is already known and understood by leading scholars. regards (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC)" Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
So, 81~14 is afraid that the Theravada-translation of "sati" as "bare awareness" might be misunderstood as meaning "consciousness an sich". I think that such a concern should be voiced at the terminology-section, properly introduced, and reflect a WP:RS, not a personal reflection. I also doubt it that there is any reader who might possibly make this mistake. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

Propose to merge both Mindfulness (psychology) and Mindfulness meditation into Mindfulness:

  • "Mindfulness", "Mindfulness (psychology)" and "Mindfulness meditation" have the same topic, namely mindfulness as a secular practice to raise non-judgemental self-awareness; there's no need to have three articles on the same topic;
  • "Mindfulness meditation" may refer to both "mindfulness" as mentioned above; and "insight meditation", which is already covered by Vipassana, Satipatthana and Anapanasati;
  • "Mindfulness" as a "state" is already covered by "Mindfulness", Wakefulness and Sati (Buddhism). Mindfulness as a state is a misnoumer; it refers to the growing popularity of mindfulness, and the application of it in daily life; see Talk:Mindfulness (psychology)#Mindfulness as a state. This growing popularity may be described in a separate section in the "Mindfulness"-article.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge - No need for three articles on the same issue. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge - Redundant topics.VictoriaGrayson (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Merge - I've seen plenty of confusion with respect to these. I think merging the three articles helps to fix the problem.

Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge - They are all talking about the same thing and it's nice for people to have everything in one place and get a broader perspective on its origins (when looking for the psychology part).


I've reorganised Mindfulness and Mindfulness (psychology). "Mindfulness" gives an overview of Buddhist mindfulness, psychological/clinical/theraputic mindfulness, and popular/lifestyle mindfulness; in "Mindfulness (psychology)" the emphasis is on therapeutic mindfulness. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness in psychotherapy[edit]

Several meanings are given to the word mindfulness in psychotherapy. One not so far mentioned in this article is the Gestalt Therapy interpretation. This was inspired by Buddhist writing. It is in some ways simpler than some of the other descriptions given. It consists of focussed awareness on all the phenomena of consciousness, sensation, thoughts fantasies, memories, feelings. The assumption is that the whole person is in a constant process of bringing to the fore whatever is at that moment of significance. From attention to this changing spontaneous flow, appropriate action will follow. Perhaps this trusting attitude is truly Buddhist. The practice is not connected to meditation, but encouraged as a way of living and connecting to the world and others. (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)