Talk:Meditation

Template:Histrefverif

There we go again: east and west

I called a BRD on east/west separation, so let us repeat our semi-annual discussion on that. I used to want the separation, but I was convinced otherwise before. So, gentlemen, get your keyboards ready. History2007 (talk) 08:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The current definition "trains his or her mind or self-induces a mode of consciousness in order to realize some benefit" is very sloppy and colloquial. Isn't there a more sophisticated definition? Shouldn't it refer in some way to meditation being, in essence, the exercise in trying to consciously control bodily functions which are normally subconscious? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You may be right that it is overly colloquial. But whatever is suggested as an alternative should be informed by the definitions from the highly-cited publications -- definitions that are quoted in the table in the Definitions section. I don't think "bodily functions" would be an appropriate phrase -- only one of those definitions mentions the "body" and to me that usage seems slightly strange. Meditation typically primarily references what one does with one's mind. Personally I would agree with your implication that meditation can result in bringing into consciousness of things that have previously been unconscious. But that doesn't seem to be how meditation is usually defined, at least not in those definitions in highly-cited publications. They mention attention, but not the unconscious. -- Health Researcher (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should put a comment in the text somewhere (perhaps as a note below) that we have danced this dance before, discussed the WP:RS issues at length, etc. Otherwise the response above needs to be provided every few months. Given that you crafted the current definition, and know more about the topic anyway, would you like to put together a few sentences as a "note" that would go at the end to answer a similar question that will be asked in 6 months? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 02:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

History2007, thanks for inserting that note, that looks good. -- Health Researcher (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was a comment inside the page that I added, I was hoping to also have a visible footnote saying: "definition of meditation is hard... etc." but was not sure how to say that with a suitable reference. History2007 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Meditation isn't always about controlling bodily functions. Bodily functions are affected by meditation but sometimes as a spontaneous by product of practice and not by deliberate manipulation. This is the problem of trying to define a word that is used in so many different ways by different traditions.Oxford73 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Stress

By chance I came across a book on stress published by the British Medical Association. It gives a good recommendation to meditation and its a very good source. It is written by Professor G Wilkinson at Liverpool University.Oxford73 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it is this. There are a few more as well. History2007 (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The stress issue reminded me of an old joke/truism: "the only people who can borrow money with ease are those who do not need it." Similarly, it seems like the case that those who can be helped by meditation are those "ready to meditate" and that a very nervous and stressed person can hardly begin. Is there any referenced basis for that?

Traditionally monks were kept separate so they would not be subject to the "corrupting" stress of others, and the Rule of Benedict did not even allow them to eat with seculars unless they were too far away from the monastery.

So is there a basis to the statement that benefiting from meditation may need a "conducive state" beforehand? Ideas? History2007 (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

There may be empirical documentation for some of those ideas that you mention, though off the top of my head I can't think of any. In the jargon of health/social science research, you are suggesting that various conditions such as pre-existing stress might be a "moderator" (aka "effect modifier") of benefits from meditation. Some "moderators", such as level of preexisting spirituality/religiousness, have been seen in some populations with some methods. Offhand, I don't recall such documentation for stress level as a moderator; and in terms of the most stressed people, often they are the ones most motivated to enroll in something they think they might help them, so I suspect there's ample documentation that highly stressed people can benefit from meditation. Remember also that quite a number of meditation studies are randomized, which means that there are clearly benefits; the question is how widely they generalize to other people. Because meditation studies (like other studies of human subjects) rely on voluntary enrollment, one may, within reason, validly question whether such benefits would generalize to people who would never consider enrolling in such a study (but the same is true for other human subjects studies). Of course, to the extent that meditation is an activity where "you get out what you put in" - like so many human activities - then one important moderator may be one's readiness to seriously put in effort and follow instructions. -- Presearch (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But in passing I should remark that "one's readiness to seriously put in effort" is itself often affected by the initial payback encountered. Given an initial effort L, some people get back X while others get back (X + delta), and the second group is more likely to spend more effort to continue, if delta pushes them over some threshold. As for randomization, one can not randomize based on variables one does not know about, e.g. if First name is a modifier (who said it is not) then they had probably not randomized based on that. But I will not start on that topic... it could take a year pf discussion. And given that there are no major studies, based on your experience, we should pass on this, but I would conjecture that in time it will emerge that different people also have different levels of ability to "experience meditation". As GBS said: "men are wise not in relation to their experience, but in relation to their ability for experience". History2007 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It's true that "one can not randomize based on variables one does not know about", but one doesn't need to randomize on them. In fact, simple randomization does not involve dealing with subject variables at all. On average, randomization equalizes between groups both measured and unmeasured variables of all kinds. That's part of why it's regarded as a gold standard for causal inference. --Presearch (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I wish I had not commented on that. I really wish. So I will stop after this. But I used to be in the business of utilizing the general errors made by the statistical community at large - and I consider that an error by the community at large, i.e. 90% of statistical users believe in it. So I will leave it there. the heart of that also goes to the heart of bell curves, and these fellows had an interesting take on bell curves. But it is really beside the point on this page. So I will just stop on that topic given that it is unrelated to meditation. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this talk page isn't a proper location (we could adjourn to your or my talk page if we want to continue). But I'd agree that RCTs are not the only important story in town for inferring causality (even within science, see Bradford-Hill criteria, and Levin, 1996). -- Presearch (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant to say the Wilkinson source is in effect a tertiary source.Oxford73 (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

My comment was not about Wilkinson in itself, but wanted to see if anyone had studied the "inherent ability" and "current positioning" of a person with respect to meditation. Some people will make better musicians than other, regardless of training. I wondered if some people make better meditators than others - regardless of training. History2007 (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Recently posted the following: In his book Understanding Stress, Professor G, Wilkinson of Liverpool University,notes that meditation in general is good for coping with migraine and high blood pressue and that Transcendental Meditation reduces tension, lowers anxiety and increases work performance and satisfaction. Presesearch decided to delete it. Don't mind posts being reverted but would appreciate an explanation. Without any explanation then I will repost it.Oxford73 (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, Ox wants to know why he was reverted, and here's what happened. Ox posted HERE on the talk page saying that "by chance" he'd "come across" a book by such-and-such a professor that "gives a good recommendation to meditation" etc. History2007 responded in an understated way HERE, linking to the book, and saying "there are a few more as well", and linking to a Google Scholar record that brings up over 160,000 hits. To me, History's understated response posed the obvious question: Why does Ox make mention of this particular book? What's this leading up to? Since I'd seen Ox wanting to push TM research before, I suspected that maybe the book was somehow useful for that agenda. And I suspected that Ox might say a bit more on the talk page.

Instead, Ox went right in and posted the book as a new reference HERE. Not unexpectedly, the post was clearly promotional of TM, mentioning the Transcendental Meditation method by name, and listing several purported benefits. This pushing of one specific program was contrary to previously established consensus on this page, such as reflected in the comment HERE by User:Gatoclass, part of a larger discussion here. Since Ox's change had no specific justification (why this book out of >160,000? Is it the best for the purpose? What was the purpse?), and was clearly promotional, I reverted it with a changed-log statement "revert promotional material". This reason was clarified to Ox earlier, but he has asked for a more detailed explanation here, which I am now supplying.

I would add that users of this page should be aware that Ox takes a great interest in editing pages related to the TM movement (see his contributions). To me, his behavior to date on this page, including "by chance" discovering literature that highlights TM, dovetails almost perfectly with the mode of operation long used by those seek to promote TM. I am grateful to TM for all the research it has done; but I see no need, or merit, in special mention on this page, particularly in view of the observation by Gatoclass (HERE) among others that "If you mention one [meditation group], sooner or later they will all be trying to gain a foothold". I think the sooner Ox understands this, and desists from promotional efforts, the better for him, and the less trouble for everyone on the page. Meanwhile, I would encourage those who care about balance on this page to carefully vet Ox's posts (as well as all other posts) to ensure they are non-promotional. -- Presearch (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually what Oxford has done on other pages can not officially label him as a salesman for TM, and the edits on this page should stand on their own. I do not see him as a salesman, but someone whose edits show a lot of interest in TM. Then there is the fellow who added a large quote about Meher Baba with no encyclopedic content, and there is a huge quote about Jiddu Krishnamurti also just a preaching statement. So if anything is to be fast-axed it is those huge quotes. That said, TM is not the only game in town, and by WP:DUE should not dominate. But it is well known that the TM crowd are pretty aggressive at using studies which are just borderline science, so those need to be managed. I think Gatoclass already expressed that concern, that if one opens the door, any of the groups may not hesitate to claim 90% of the attention. It is not just TM, but if the door is opened Meher Baba quotes may take over 90% of the page anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I agree with everything you say, although individually I lack the time to follow up on all those valid points. The one possible point of difference is that on this particular page I tend to think that a minimalist position (as enunciated by Gatoclass) is probably best, so that "managing" may need to be close to "excluding"... because otherwise it's impossible to be equal. -- Presearch (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

PS I would add that my above-mentioned lack of surprise at Ox's including explicit mention of TM in his edit is not unique to that sequence of edits. Other times I have also felt a sense of knowing where he was going. Yes this might reflect merely an "interest" in TM. Clarification may come with the passage of time; and WP:AGF does not require blindness to long-term patterns. -- Presearch (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look on the bright side, you might be psychic... kidding. History2007 (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I note Presearch's point and concerns. I would say I was summarising. Here is what the book says and then you can judge for yourselves. I think this is a good source but very happy for someone else to use it and make a post." Meditation This consists of a number of techniques of concentration and contemplation, which can be effective in controlling pulse and respiratory rates, and in the control of migraine and high blood pressure. Transcendental Meditation has been reported to help through reduction of tension, lowering anxiety and increasing job satisfaction and work performance. Meditators spend two daily 20-minute sessions in a quiet comfortable place, silently repeating their mantra." I thought I gave a fair and accurate summary of this without giving undue weight to TM as the author has two of 3 sentences about it and I think I had one on each but happy for other eds to amend. The key point is that a book published with the BMA, which is immensely prestigious in the UK, is confirming the value of meditation in dealing with stress and by a well qualified author at a good university. Reading talk pages on TM there sometimes seems to be a tendency to go to extremes and this comment by Wilkinson seems quite balanced. Re the "by chance" if you must know I was taking my mum out shopping who was looking in the health and beauty section of a supermarket we do not ususally go to as she had been give a voucher and saw this whole range of family doctor books in the pharmacy section and started thumbing through and decided to buy a copy of the Understanding Stress book. Is it really neccessary to go into such details?Oxford73 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion; Put my post back up but delete the reference to Transcendental Meditation and just leave it about meditation in general as this is the meditation in general page. Any objections to that? Oxford73 (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

In the 2nd para of the intro there is note asking for more clarification on the sentence that the same word meditation can be used for both the path and the goal. I assume that the person who wrote the sentence was meaning that the word meditation can be used to signify both the process of the mind becoming less excited and the state of the mind when it reaches the point of least excitation. Any suggestions.Oxford73 (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If no comments then will post something along the lines above.Oxford73 (talk) 09:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

To me the 2nd para is fairly clear as it stands and needs no further clarification. To me, the "clarification needed" tag could be removed. More language, unless quite carefully chosen, can make things worse. How do others feel? -- Presearch (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it seems fairly clear to me, but then again I'm familiar with the subject. I asked a third-party (that knows nothing, if anything, about the subject) and she said it seemed clear as well. - SudoGhost™ 05:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is good that we are getting some new opinions. Could we talk you into hanging around and commenting more often? History2007 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case shall we remove the note about clarification?Oxford73 (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a heated agreement to remove it. History2007 (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I heatedly agree. --Presearch (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)