Talk:Meditation

Recent edits

About Meditation is not an innocuous practice, we have good evidence for that now: it is hard to say if meditation was the cause of those psychoses or those psychoses were the cause of meditation. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Well is always difficult. But you can read Farias et al. (2020) extensive review of five decades of mediation research or some of the other articles procuring evidence about its connention to psychosis. Further Farias et al. (2020) states clearly that there is a massive underreporting of side effects from meditation and that there is an urgent need to correct it (now tha medidation has become a global trend). Didaktron (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

New heading/section for Adverse Effects

Arbitrary subheader 1

I have created a new heading/section. It is problematic that the "adverse effects" are subsumed under the heading "effects". This masks an important topic that ought to stand on its own. Like with other mental health practices (e.g., SSRI drugs, psychotherapy) information about potential adverse effects must be offered up-front in order for the public to be able to make informed choices. We now have convincing evidence from peer-revied studies that meditation is not an innocuous practice. Didaktron (talk) 20:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Your section is quite one-sided; what's missing is an explanation what causes these experiences, and how these 'adverse affects' are perceived in Buddhism and Hinduism. Facing fear and anxiety doesn't strike me as an "effect," but rather as an expectable part of the proces. Makyo is a well-known adverse 'effect', though, and maybe some mention is found of derealization, as fear for emptiness, that is, anxiety when the realization sets in that "I" does not exist. You also didn't mention who experience those 'adverse effects'; the first study referred to mentions psychiatric problems in 34% of the meditators who had negative experiences. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please discuss before you mass-revert diff. You misrepresented mindfulness as meditation in general, and ignored the references to the explanatory framework mentioned by multiple authors. Also, several of your sources are not very good; nevertheless, you reinserted them. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is about a specific technique, meditation, which though it has its roots in various religious traditions has by now become thoroughly independent in most parts of the world and is used as a stand-alone intervention both for personal development and as a part of various therapeutic interventions. The sections in this article named “Secular applications”, “Effects” and “Medical applications”, which are quite elaborate, prove my point. Thus, the risks of mediation should not be judged according to how they fit into the metaphysical frameworks of Buddhism or Hinduism. This is an encyclopedia and not a preacher’s pamphlet. And there are other articles in Wikipedia about both Buddhism and Hinduism, for the religiously inclined.

The term “Challenging” that you have chosen is patronizing and derogatory and masks potential risks with this technique. This is irresponsible. The majority of people that nowadays apply mediation use it as a secular technique (which it is) and should not be required to have the assistance of a “guru” in order not to be challenged. By talking of “makyo” and “challenging” you put the blame on the millions of people that experience adverse effects, some of them serious, while meditating at school, at the workplace or in the gym and who do not know or care about its metaphysical connotations (and should not do so). And they are not “challenged” (neither intellectually nor by meditation), it is just that meditation in itself has definite adverse effects. The science on that is conclusive and I have offered tens of references, many of them meta-analyses (the highest grade of evidence in wester science).

I am also shocked by the choice of wording when it comes to suicide and psychosis (“In few cases…”). Suicide or psychosis is always rare, all over the world, every mental health professional knows that, but this doesn’t make them any less tragic. And it is important to identify their possible causes. And the fact that meditation has a definite connection to them, memorialized even in historical sources, must be stated clearly, up-front and without patronizing and derogatory formulations; drinking water does not lead to suicide/psychosis, exercise does not lead to suicide/psychosis, but meditation can lead to suicide/psychosis (the scientific references are clear about this potential).

If you insist on treating meditation as a metaphysical technique then you should also strip the present article from all references to meditations possible mental health benefits or its scientific promise. You cannot just allow the positive and hide the negative aspects of meditation, that is called propaganda. And of course the article is already heavily tilted in that direction; the fact that it, up until now, did not even have a section on adverse effects says it all. Please look at other articles on mental techniques or therapies/treatments (e.g., psychotherapy, SSRI-drugs). They all have sections on adverse effects with no metaphysical or other qualifications. Once again, this is an encyclopedia and not a preacher’s pamphlet.

And yes, the section about the adverse effects of meditation was a bit one-sided. That’s because that is what it should be. A section about the well-known and well-documented side-effects of meditation must be clear and concise about the bad things that can happen when you meditate. It is the stated intention of the section. The rest of the article is celebratory enough as it is, and should be pleasing enough to the spiritual aficionados. There should be no metaphysical connotations (makyo, challenging) in a section about the adverse effects of a secular technique. If you want to write about “makyo” or “challenging” you can do it in the previous sections that deal with the religious aspects of meditation. I am fine with that. There are also other articles in Wikipedia about Buddhist meditation, Hinduism meditation, Daoist meditation, Christian meditation where people with vested spiritual interests can indulge their intellectual needs. Once again this is a section on Adverse Effects. As a token of respect for your sensibilities I have nevertheless made a reference and a wiki-link to makyo at the closing part of the text.

And by the way, I occasionally mediate myself, but I also want to be honest to the reading public; meditation is not for everyone. People with sensitivities, previous mental health issues, trauma and dissociative or psychotic tendencies must know about the risks inherent so that they can make informed choices as to whether they want to try out meditation or not. Didaktron (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not really that well versed in the intricacies of editing wikipedia articles. Where I am supposed to discuss? I have offered you my reasons for reverting your edit. What is your response to that? Which sources are not good enough. That is just blaming. The sourves are published in peer-revied scientific journals. Is talking about makyo or challenging backed up by any good sources, in a section talking about adverse effects? Didaktron (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also the difference between meditation and mindfulness is mostly semantic. Mindfulness is a form of meditation and it is often coupled with focused-breathing meditation in most practical settings. Trying to uphold a strict separation between the two is a form of obfuscation, especially in a section on adverse effects. Didaktron (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Didaktron. Regarding your reply:

• a specific technique, meditation, which though it has its roots in various religious traditions has by now become thoroughly independent in most parts of the world and is used as a stand-alone intervention - you're talking here about mindfulness, or more exactly, mindfulness-based therapies; that's not the topic of this article, but at best a subtopic. The subsections on “Secular applications”, “Effects” and “Medical applications” show exactly that. You can't generalize studies directed at negative effects of mindfulness to draw conclusions about meditation in general. Nor is meditation "a" specific technique; it includes a number of techniques;
• Thus, the risks of mediation should not be judged according to how they fit into the metaphysical frameworks of Buddhism or Hinduism. This is an encyclopedia and not a preacher’s pamphlet. - several of the sources you use do exactly that: argue that those frameworks offer instructions for the proper application of those techniques, and interpretative frameworks to explain those effects. "Metaphysical" is a misnomer in this regard; "preacher’s pamphlet" is misplaced rhetorics;
• “Challenging” is the term used by your first source;
• The majority of people that nowadays apply mediation use it as a secular technique - that so? Says which source?
• By talking of “makyo” and “challenging” you put the blame on the millions of people that experience adverse effects - which source speaks of "millions"?;
• who do not know or care about its metaphysical connotations (and should not do so) - obviously, they should, and that's also what a number of your sources argue for;
• meditation in itself has definite adverse effects - "adverse" is a subjective choice of words, used to refer in your studies to the experiences of people who lacked the necessary explanatory framework;
• The science on that is conclusive - those studies are about mindfulness as a secular technique; again, don't extrapolate this to meditation in general;
• “In few cases…” - those studies do mention only a gew cases, and also refer to sleep deprivation and drug-withdrawal;
• If you insist on treating meditation as a metaphysical technique - what's this choice of words based on?;
• you should also strip the present article from all references to meditations possible mental health benefits or its scientific promise - why? Other sections do seem to make a clear distinction between meditation in general and mindfulness;
• And yes, the section about the adverse effects of meditation was a bit one-sided. That’s because that is what it should be. - no, it should not. It should clearly explain that those "adverse" effects are well-known in contemplative traditions, but become disturbive when applied with the expectation that mindfulness will only result in instant happiness;
• There should be no metaphysical connotations (makyo, challenging) - pleae look up what makyo means, and accept that your own sources use the term "challenging," and refer to the need of explanatory frameworks;
• meditation is not for everyone. People with sensitivities, previous mental health issues, trauma and dissociative or psychotic tendencies must know about the risks inherent so that they can make informed choices as to whether they want to try out meditation or not - agree, so stick to the sources you found; use the term mindfulness; and explain that an explanatory framework can be quite usefull.
• The BBC is not peer-reviewed.
• the difference between meditation and mindfulness is mostly semantic. Mindfulness is a form of meditation - indeed, "a form of meditation"; the studies you referred to are about mindfulness, not about meditation in general; stick to the sources.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:07, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Joshua,

here are some replies to your comments:

I am talking mostly about meditation and many of the sources are about meditation (focused-breathing meditation).

I do not think that I have to prove everything in a conversation. Such a requirement is absurd and would make normal conversation or writing impossible. Remember I am talking to you. What are your proof for your opposite arguments? The article text I have written is full of peer-review studies. I am still waiting form some proof about the contemplative stuff you mention.

Yes, most people who use meditation lack the necessary explanatory framework. But the "method" left the Buddhist cloisters almost a century ago, it is now "out there", and people have the right to use it as they wish without high-seated spiritualists pointing fingers at them. Despite their "ignorance" they deserve to know about the risk of adverse effects.

Do you really think that people at classes, workplaces, gyms, health facilities and the like ought to know about buddhist teachings or spiritual jargon when they participate in such, nowadays almost mandatory, activities. Placing such heavy responsibility on ordinary people is unfair. Meditation and mindfulness nowadays affects millions of people (and I am not counting people from originally Buddhist or Hinduist countries). It is a big industry, like Big Pharma. I have included two books that level massive critic on this new form of capitalist spirituality and its societal effects (the one by Oxford University Press). Personally I am positively inclined to meditation. But the article needs a decent section on Adverse Effects (given that it makes so many claims about it potential benefits).

I will repeat myself, suicide and psychosis is always "a few cases". But there are some known triggers for them, like sleep deprivation, drugs AND meditation. Water in not, food is not, excersice is not, but meditation is. We have the proof now. Devaluing terms like "In a few cases" must be changed. Known triggers must be stated. Honesty, please.

Meditation, further, is not a "contemplative" tradition in the western world where many of the readers of Wikipedia reside. Meditation and mindfulness IS not a Buddhist thing. Thats what happens when foreign conccepts become popularized and commercialized beyond recognition. They start to live their own lives. Meditation is now for most people an almost exclusicvely a secular practice, it is used as a separate technique, it is a "thing". You ought to respect that and still allow for information about its negative effects to come out. Couching an article about adverse effects in spiritualist jargon is irresponsible. Isn't the rest of the article enough?

The BBC source was used to include an interview quote from the author of the peer-revied study which is included in the article text. Your comment is misplaced rhetorics.

Stil, I will try to accomodate some of your critiscisms (about the helpful effects of an explanatory framework) in a future revision. But the heading cannot start with the word "Challanging", it's a complete obfuscation and obscurantism, most readers cannot relate to it, and some are probably offended by it. A section of adverse effects must start by a cogent description of its intent and purpose, to talk about adverse effects.

Regards Didaktron Didaktron (talk) 12:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Please read your sources, and my response, carefully before you state I am talking mostly about meditation and many of the sources are about meditation (focused-breathing meditation). Most of your sources are about mindfulness; a number of them emphasize the importance of context, guidance, and an explanatory framework. Together with your comment I do not think that I have to prove everything in a conversation I get the impression that you're not interested in what those sources actually say, but chose them to press your personal point of view. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

To be honset I don't really understand what you are talkingh about. As a previous contributor said you exhibit a "deep sense of OWNERSHIP based on your own particular" viewpoint. I have revisited every relevant article (where you made your reversions) and see no real problem.

- The Schlosser et al. (2019) study is about various types of meditation.

- The Poulin et al. (2021) study, even though it talks about mindfulness in the title, states clearly under "Study 1", "Meditation manipulation" that "Participants in the mindfulness-meditation condition listened to instructions to induce mindfulness via mindful breathing". Hence, the study is about meditation, too.

- The Hafenbrack et al. (2022), which you have retained but place under the heading of "Mindfulness", states clearly already in the abstract that the state of mindfulness was "cultivated via focused-breathing meditation". Hence, the study is about meditation, too.

- The Britton et al. (2021) study, which you excluded, states under "Methods" , "Design and Training Programs" that "the treatment programs were three variants of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT): open monitoring (OM), focused attention (FA), and standard MBCT". Focused attention means focused-breathing meditation, or in the words of the authors "where participants focus attention on an anchor (like the breath) during meditation". Hence, the study is about meditation, too. Like tens of other references in the main article these, which use them interchangeably, these are hardly separable entities. This study should be reinstated as it offers important evidence of the various side-effects that can follow in the wake of meditation (e.g., hyperarousal, dissociation, emotional blunting).

Please read the texts yourself, before implying that I have not or that they are not about meditation.

I think you have overstepped your bounds. Your own claims and arguments do not hold up to closer scrutiny, and ooze of OWNERSHIP and ENTITLEMENT. You cannot deny my contribution on these grounds. All articles I have cited are about meditation through either "focused-breathing" or "mindful breathing".

I really cannot understand what the problem is. Why do you hesitate talking openly about adverse effects or try to cut down on the relevant evidence? Your actions are suspicious. Meditation has so many positive sides to it! Does a few side-effects detract from the near miraculous powers of antibiotics? Readers have the right to know about the well-documented adverse-effects of meditation without spiritual obfuscations (I refer to the "Challenging" in the heading). It is a matter of public concern. Read the meta-nalysis of Farias et al. (2020) if you have any doubts or lack knowledge about the incidence and potential seriousness of the side-effects from meditation. Didaktron (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Making personal attacks (which is forbidden by policy, by the way) is not going to help you get consensus support for your edits. MrOllie (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi MrOllie,

yes, I became a bit irritated. I will watch my language henceforth. But other users have also complained about the attitude of Joshua Jonathan.

Returning to the issue at hand, in my last post (the one you replied to) I offer evidence that all my references were relevtant and could be used in a section about the Adverse effects of meditation, as they all pertain to the subject matter. I have not yet seen a response by Joshua. Given this I do not think that his reversions are just. Also as I stated above repeatedly the article needs a decent section on adverse effects, not one that starts with the word "challenging". Such spiritualist language is not used in the other sections that showcase the purported benefits and scientific promise of meditation. That is one sided. If the benefits are bespoken in a neutral and scientific language so should the dangers and risks.

I would appreciate some feedback from you or other users.

Best regards Didaktron (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi again,

I also find the comment about the difference between meditation and mindfulness (though I can definitely understad it) a bit too harsch given that the main article has several headings/sections on the difficulties separating various forms of meditation and defining them cogently, like

- Difficulties in defining meditation

- No universally accepted definition for meditation

- Scholarly definitions

Further there is no real separation between them in the main article as several of the meditative traditions showcased (both in Budhism and Taoism) seem to rely heavily on mindfulness.

Moreover, numerous extant references in the main article, trying to prove both this and that, are about mindfulness or yoga (e.g., 6, 196, 220, 204, 221, 222, 229, 230, 231 ). According to your standards this should not be allowed since the article is about meditation, and it would thus scramble the neat definitions and separations that you claim exist. It is apparant that you are using double-standards when judging my contribution. I cannot accept that. Either revise the whole article or allow me to make my contribution, that meditation (of which mindfulness is a variant) has adverse effects. As I said I am ready to add that a properly used explanatory framework and profesional instruction can decrease the risk of side-effects.

Regards Didaktron Didaktron (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That someone has not fixed all problems everywhere does not mean that they can't revert a problem edit. MrOllie (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

In which way is the edit problematic? I believe I have adressed the main complaints of Joshua.

- I have shown above, point by point, that the peer-reviewed articles are relevant as they all are about "focused-breathing" or "mindful breathing" which IS meditation.

- Or is it problematic that I do do not want obfuscating spiritualist jargon (e.g., "challenging", makyo) to be used in a section about adverse effects (as it is not used in the celebratory sections that talk about all the practical and scientific merits of meditation).

In practice I believe our differences are not great. I will try to rewrite the text but take into account the need for an explanatory framework and try to separate meditation from mindfulness as much as possible even though the main article does not do that completely.

As I said I would appreciate some feedback from you or other users.

Best regards Didaktron (talk) 19:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

My point is that arguments about 'double standards' are off the mark. My feedback is: do not proceed with rewrites until you secure agreement from other editors on this talk page. Also, have a read of WP:MEDRS. Any claims made about health (including mental health) must have sourcing that meets that standard. The sources you were using clearly do not. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary subheader 2

Britton et al. (2021) was removed by User:JimRenge. You reverted this removal, together with a revert of my edits. Britton was removed again, when I reverted your mass-revert; I hadn't even nkticed that your mass-revert also included the revert of Jim's edits. Note your own edit-summary [1]: I have reverted the changes of another user. I explain my reason in a reply to him personally (see Talk section). Regarding your other comments:

• "focused-breathing" or "mindful breathing" which IS meditation - they are a e a form of meditation, but used in a different explanatory context; you csnnot present them as exemplary for all kinds of meditation practice or traditions;
• I do do not want obfuscating spiritualist jargon (e.g., "challenging", makyo) to be used -for the third time, your source uses the term "challenging"; it escapes my understanding what is "spiritualist" about this. Even more so for makyo, which is a common Zen-term for hallucination-like experiences.

Your sources state quite clear that "adverse" effects are well-known in Buddhism and Hinduism; it's the context-ridden application of meditation techniques, and the expectation that they offer a problem-free road to happiness, which is deemed problematic. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I am looking at including the traditional Chinese medical term for this and link, Hope that nobody objects Foristslow (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Britton

@JimRenge: Britton is cited 199 times; how's that not compatible with WP:MEDRS? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, I removed the Britton (2021) study [2] because this is a primary source of health-related information. It is not our job as editors to choose, judge or analyze primary sources of WP:Biomedical information. We rely on experts in the field who publish their analysis of primary sources in reviews in medical journals, standard textbooks and position statements from nationally or internationally expert bodies.

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) says "Biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources [!], and must accurately reflect current knowledge. This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article ..."

Creating human health related content based on primary sources may be regarded as a form of WP:OR. JimRenge (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A good section on adverse effects

I just want to say that this article now has a decent section about adverse effects. I think that is great and want to thank all who contributed. Didaktron (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope that including the traditional Chinese name and link will not be disputed Foristslow (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Chakra-meditation and metta-meditation

@Kptl0304: I've reverted your edits diff; sorry. While reasonably sourced, your info doesn't fit in with the Technique-section, which only gives a high-level overview. It also doesn't fit in with the Traditions-sectiin, since your info comes from health,related sources. And for the Secular applications-sections it's quite religious, actually. But take a look at Effects of meditation; I think that's a good place. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:54, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Hello Joshua,

I do not appreciate your reversions and would have by the very least been open to discussion and answering any questions you had about my contributions. My information is and was not wrong, and you could have moved it to a different part of the article if you wanted. Aside from this being part of my capstone in order for me to graduate university, I also have years of knowledge in relation to meditation. In addition to that, I have done extensive research to confidentally add sections to Wikipedia. You said yourself that it was reasonably sourced. Meditation has been part of my culture and ancestral line for centuries, so I will be re-adding my contributions. Anyone is welcome to add in additional sourced information as that is what Wikipedia is for, but removing something that was never in violation to the article or irrelevant to the context is ridicudlous.

Kindest regards,

Komal Patel Kptl0304 (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you don't understand, nor are willing to understand, what Wikipedia is and how it works. If this is your "capstone" to graduate from university, and expect therefor that Wiki-policies do not apply to you - well... pfffoe. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)