Talk:Mindfulness/Archive 1

General noting of things

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

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"

• 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 68.81.110.224 (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

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)

Vipassana

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 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 December 2011‎

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

Possible side effects of mindfulness

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 76.211.116.200 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

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)

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.
Svaha
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

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?

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

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)

Mindfullness

PDF-Datei, auch hier http://www.intersein-zeitschrift.de/intersein24.pdf

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?

--88.72.25.225 (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

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. 69.225.3.53 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Body Scan

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. 69.225.3.53 (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Restore from change 30 August

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.94.197.253.80 (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. 94.196.75.13 (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!86.176.151.176 (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedia or dictionary?

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

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 86.45.191.106 (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!?

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 86.177.18.92 (talk) 07:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment on Reference to Pre-Buddhist Mindfulness Practice

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 (talk • contribs) 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

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

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. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What is this statement supposed to mean?

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

http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/13/ajh.hpt134.abstract

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.

http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/early/2013/04/22/HYP.0b013e318293645f.full.pdf

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

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. 213.182.68.42 (talk) 23:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"research for 20 or 30 years" too vague

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)

Definition(s)

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)

Definitions

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 81.106.127.14 (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)

Mindfulness in psychotherapy

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. 87.114.129.244 (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism -section: Unitarianism

Greetings! In the article it is said that:

He found that Unitarianism came closest to true Christianity, and had a strong sympathy for the Unitarians.

In another article, Transcendentalism, though it's been said that:

Transcendentalism is a religious and philosophical movement that was developed during the late 1820s and 1830s in the Eastern region of the United States as a protest against the general state of spirituality and, in particular, the state of intellectualism at Harvard University and the doctrine of the Unitarian church taught at Harvard Divinity School.

So, what is the truth? :O Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Mindfulness in San Francisco schools

A new editor added the following content to the Schools section:

The David Lynch Foundation has implemented the meditation-based Quiet Time program in several San Francisco middle schools since the 2006-2007 school year. Positive results among students and teachers include reduced teacher absences and turnover, decreases in educator depression, anxiety, anger, and fatigue, and increases in student GPA, school attendance, and positive behaviors. Former San Francisco Superintendent of Schools Carlos Garcia, along with other current key school district leaders, are hoping to expand the Quiet Time program to reach another 15 schools throughout the Bay Area.

The source doesn't mention mindfulness. Also, the source is self-published[2] and shouldn't be used to claim health benefits. It seems like this content should be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TimidGuy. I removed the unreliable sources. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! TimidGuy (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I helped the editor who made those edits. This edit removed the MindUP paragraph citing this section, but there was actually no discussion of it. None of the stated rationales apply (for the record, I should also note it's not clear whether the David Lynch Foundation was using those terms in the medical sense or the common dictionary sense). The MindUP source also explicitly uses the term "mindful". This source is self-published, but that's fine as it's "neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.", etc.

I've added this paragraph back. Superm401 - Talk 05:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree that there wasn't good reason to remove that paragraph. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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).

Reorganisation

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)

Merge to increase clarity

I think the two articles should be merged, especially considering that there is a lot of overlap. I just entered some new references to the “Mindfulness” article (under "Clinical applications"), but then wondered if the edits are more suitable in the “Mindfulness_(psychology)” article (however, the “Mindfulness_(psychology)” article does not even have a separate "Clinical applications" section!). In any case, I did not want to repeat the same edits in both articles.

This is also an important matter when taking into consideration the re-directing of article links to “Mindfulness” from other Wikipedia articles.

Nandinik (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After-merger discussion

Greetings! Now as the mindfulness-related articles have been merged, I think there is need to start changing many of the bullet points we have into coherent paragraphs and fluid text (e.g. Mindfulness#Attention and Mindfulness, sub-section Evidence for improvements in three areas of attention). Thoughts? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the article is now 127,573 bytes,[3] and WP:SIZERULE says that articles over 100,000 bytes "Almost certainly should be divided"? --Nigelj (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jayaguru-Shishya in that there are sections of this article that could benefit from being presented in a more coherent way, however the page is already intimidatingly long (as noted by Nigelj, it well exceeds the size rule). I realise that this page was the result of a recent merge to attempt to reduce the confusion that exists around this topic, but perhaps there is a way to re-divide it so that some sections can be fleshed out into more coherent paragraphs without making one even more massive article. For instance, the 'Scientific Research' section of this article appears to be longer (or of a similar length) to the Wikipedia page entitled Research on meditation. Could this section of the article be merged with this page and renamed 'Mindfulness and meditation research' thereby allowing for expansion of the bullet points in this section, whilst actually making the original article smaller (just keeping a link in the 'Mindfulness' article to this page). Or could an entirely new page be created 'Research on mindfulness'. And could this approach be applied to other sections of the article in order to reduce it to an acceptable size? I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing so I'd appreciate any comments on these ideas (and the etiquette associated with carrying them out). Thanks Autumnstorm19 (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC) 14/05/15

The research-section could indeed be moved. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, we could also be facing problems in the future as the research section is dealing with medical claims and therefore might fall under WP:MEDRS. It would effect the whole article. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is now a Psychotherapy Article :(

I am a Buddhist meditation instructor, authorized in a well-known ancient tradition.

So, I am dismayed that this so-called "Buddhism" article is now a Psychotherapy article. In other words, it is now the same as newspaper articles "Mediation is good for your blood pressure!".

That is NOT the purpose of meditation.

The Buddha did not leave his wealthy family to find a way to lower blood pressure, and to allow high-powered professionals to more effectively make lots of money.

The point of meditation is to observe the true nature of reality, not to aid you in pursuing some existing false or distorted view of reality.

Please re-write this page as a Buddhist Meditation article and put all of the psychotherapy into a separate linked article.

162.205.217.211 (talk) 16:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

See Buddhist meditation. TimidGuy (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm... as far ax I know, the aim of meditation is to calm the mind - samatha. And if someone finds meditation usefull for something else, like developing siddhi, then that's an aim of meditation too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I can appreciate your point that the ultimate purpose of Buddhist meditation is indeed to directly realize the true nature of reality and, thereby, attain enlightenment. However I don't think that this necessitates re-writing this page. The Buddhist meditation article highlighted by TimidGuy details the meditation practices of various Buddhist traditions in the context of their ultimate purpose.

The purpose of this article however is to provide an overview of Mindfulness in both Buddhist and non-Buddhist contexts. I don't think that it is a negative thing that Dharma has contributed to the foundations of some psychotherapies, and the structure of this article demonstrates the link between Buddhism and modern-day mindfulness practice for those who are perhaps unaware of this link.

Buddha's intention is to benefit each and every living being every day, and if that means that people receive benefit from mindfulness-based therapies through lowered blood pressure, decreased work-related stress and better quality of life (even in the context of a distorted reality), maybe this will create the karmic causes for their wishing to realize the true nature of reality in lives to come. Autumnstorm19 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

See also the mindfulness navigation bar, at top of the page; it includes links to several related Buddhist topics. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE in the lede

Greetings! I just noticed that after a recent edit[4] by Nandinik, we currently have five distinct sources for the sentence "Clinical studies have documented the physical and mental health benefits of mindfulness in general, and MBSR in particular." in the lede. That seems like a model example of WP:OVERCITE ("Garphism is the study of ...").

I haven't taken a closer look at the sources, but do we really need all of them? How about the ones you added, Nandinik? I think we should trim a few though... Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A clear example of the unhealthy side-effects of mindfulness ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jayaguru-Shishya. I now have just three references.

I also updated the “Scientific research” section, giving the link to “Mindfulness Research Monthly” - it lists latest scientific advances in mindfulness research. I also included some newer review studies in that section.

Nandinik (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind

I'm moving this sourced content here from the lead, since it is not currently mentioned elsewhere on the page:

The Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind has been recently proposed as a theoretical resource that could guide mindfulness interventions.This model is an ancient model of the mind that comprehensively describes moment-to-moment changes that happen in subjective conscious experience.

Imo, the content needs first to be appropriately integrated into other sections. I also think some caution is needed regarding strong claims (eg "...comprehensively describes...) made in the RS. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is important to have the 'Five-Aggregate Model of the Mind' in the article. I will try to provide more information on it (perhaps by adding a new subheading). Hopefully I will work on it within a week.

Nandinik (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad. 5.80.198.100 (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Link to Satipatthana

I've tried to add a link to Satipatthana, but I don't know how it would fit into the article.--89.12.190.214 (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I added a link to Satipatthana. I also removed the non-functional link of "Zgierska 2009." Nandinik (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Satipaṭṭhāna is already linked in the very next paragraph? :-P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. However, I was also wondering if the link should be added to the first mention of the word 'Satipaṭṭhāna' in the article. Anyway, do whatever you think is appropriate.

Nandinik (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Mindfulness, not meditation

First you merge mindfulness meditation into mindfulness. Now you start deleting things because they are only about meditation, not 'pure' mindfulness. I get that some people think they just invented mindfulness and that it has nothing to do with any ancient stuff; that now you have to pay big money to learn it and that it's now terribly complicated, scientific and medical... But really? ---Nigelj (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ehm... I merged mm into m; TimidGuy opposed it, but did not participate in the merger proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Re-wording the ‘POV-section’ that had been identified

I have re-worded the ‘POV-section’ (five-aggregate model) that had been identified as needing ‘neutrality.’ If anything is not clear, please let me know.

Nandinik (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Lineage

@ZuluPapa5: I've removed the following stuff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Lineages

Removed:

"In secular meditation modality respects, a lineage may trace back to a particular approach's founder. While Tibetan buddhism advances mindfulness meditations in lineage transmissions from student teacher ancestry back to the 8th century and the Buddha. Many lineages are transmitted orally and Tibetans have writen, mind-to-mind and terma transmissions. A lineage aids in assuring authentic and unbroken teaching fidelity in the transmission."

References

• Why the mention of lineages?
• What is "secular meditation modality respects"?
• "a lineage may trace back to a particular approach's founder" - that is, according to Shonin and Van Gordon. See John McRay and Bernard Faure, among others, on the creation of "authenticity."
• "While Tibetan Buddhism [...] tarnsmissions" - what is this sentence saying?
• "A lineage aids in assuring authentic and unbroken teaching fidelity in the transmission." - according to the authors of this article; again, see John McRay and Bernard Faure, among others.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Of course, lineage issues are always controversial. The relevant sources make the points, lineage is most significant to Tibetan mindfulness practices. Might be good to expand the content with the answers to your questions based on sources you find. There are many Buddhist lineages since 2500 years ago who have all kinds of 4 noble truth mindfulness empirical results to report. The current article really ignores the Tibetan experience, which deserves due weight, and Jigme Lingpa has at least one source on the subject. I would love to avoid the duality created by secular and religious affiliations, best I can tell it is a non-profit grant funding conventional distinction. Hearts may be indifferent about such divisions. I did my best to represent the source. Guess I'll look for others to balance. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@ZuluPapa5: I've added one sentence: "Vipassana is practiced in tandem with samatha, and also plays a central role in other Buddhist traditions such as Tibetan Buddhism." Could you please provide a source here, an dmaybe one or two links? We have only a few lines on Buddhism in Historical development#Buddhism; any extended expose would be undue here, and has to take place in the relevant articles on specific topics, for which links are provided. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jigme Lingpa

Removed:

"Nyoshul Khenpo commentary on Jigme Lingpa's 18th century "Mindfulness: The Mirror of Mind", from the Lion's Roar, introduces key stillness and movement precepts. Recognizing and sustaining gnostic awareness is in this practice. The approach unifies calm abiding shamatha and vipassana insight meditation in the great perfection view."

References

What's the relevance of this passage to this article? Are we going to sum up every Buddhist teacher from the past 2,500 years? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Janet Gyatso says something relevant about memory, thus In the Mirror of Memory. [5] Then there is Tsele Natsok Rangdrol and Erik Pema Kunsang on this [6] And so, Jigme Ligpa's work is relevant to at least 3 writers citing his mindfulness mirror work. Based on what is in Anapanasati#In_the_Indo-Tibetan_tradition, there may be few other Tibetans lineage holders with relevant mindfulness sources. Shonin might have already looked. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The section is about the history of mindfulness, that is, Jon Kabat-Zin. How much has he got to do with these teachers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You would have to ask Jon Kabat-Zin. The article is about mindfulness and frequently references buddhism, a NPOV article would balance the mindfulness sources which seem to go back to at least Nagarjuna's works. About 60 years of "new" style research among a 240 year American state religion separation experiment sounds like a new school lineage tradition to me. If this article is only about MBSR or, clinically based therapeutic $ reimbursable evidence data based approaches, then the title is misleading folks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME. No doubt JKZ has good intentions (and a good income). All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Initiation of the Movement

I have removed the sentence stating "The popular mindfulness movement was initiated by Jon Kabat-Zinn". This is a statement that is appearing in numerous popular articles derived from this page but that is contentious. Mindfulness was *popular* throughout Asia for several thousand years. The word itself was used as a translation of smṛti/sati before J. K-Z was involved.

Thich Nhat Hanh published a popular book "A Miracle of Mindfulness" before J. K-Z was on the scene. The current addition has a quote for Jon

"The first book to awaken a mainstream readership to the subject of mindfulness – a testimony to the power of Thich Nhat Hanh’s elegant and profound teaching." (Jon Kabat-Zinn, author of Full Catastrophe Living)

I think that is an acknowledgement that he (Jon) didn't initiate/awaken the mainstream!

J. K-Z definitely initiated the movement around the MBSR programmes but these are only one manifestation of mindfulness.

RogerHyam (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC) RogerHyam

"Modern mindfulness movement" refers to the western mindfulness movement, as is abundantly clear from the article. See also above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

If it is a fact it should have a reference. Who says Jon Kabat-Zinn initiated "the movement"? If no source then it is an original assertion or hearsay and shouldn't go in an encyclopaedia.

I do not advocate that any individual is attributed with initiating the movement. There are a large number of individuals involved in spreading the use of mindfulness in the second half of the 20th century throughout the world both in religious and non-religious contexts. To attribute one person is pointless. It adds nothing to the paragraph.

The sentence that stands is factually incorrect and should be removed until good documentary evidence is provided to support it. Perhaps ask Jon K-Z if he thinks he initiated the movement! I reckon he would ask for the sentence to be removed.

RogerHyam (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Technique

I'm skeptical of the inclusion of the section on the Alexander Technique. I added a "citation needed" to it, as there are none. A more experienced editor might consider deleting it as off-topic?

Stevenarntson (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Risks

This article on mindfulness does not mention serious reservations about the efficacy of the practice inasmuch as a reader might think that there were no risks involved. But the psychologist Susan Blackmore in her textbook on Consciousness, Consciousness: An Introduction, 1st ed, Hodder & Stoughton, 2003, on p. 395 says, "More worrying is that meditation can occasionally have harmful effects". She goes on to state in this paragraph that TM can overwhelm those beginning the technique and moreover can exacerbate existing psychological conditions and increase tension. It is clear that mindfulness is to be considered here, as in the index, mindfulness is referenced to these pages (385-400) dealing with meditation, and she refers directly to it on p.389.92.29.242.234 (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

These is a section entitled Risks that covers this exact subject. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Changes made

Please note the following changes I made: (i) I added/updated some references. (ii) Brought back the “five-aggregate model.” This model is very relevant for this page, since it is a useful theoretical resource that can guide mindfulness interventions. Also felt this part is better suited in the “psychology” subsection – so I moved it there. I also added a few edits to it to make it clearer. (iii) I improved the “Business” section and removed the template message (that said this section is "written like an advertisement"). I included many of the points and kept the references, and also added two new references to it.

If anything is not clear, please let me know.

Nandinik (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Balanced Mindfulness

This [7] should be NPOV reconsidered as it's intended to provide balanced mindfulness. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 07:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey ZP5, there is a separate article on Nagarjuna, and hundreds of other Buddhists. This article is on mindfullness western style. That has little to do with NPOV, and everything with limiting an article to a readable size. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, the article should be balanced, will add it back, cause mindfulness has no geographic boundaries. There's plenty of room for it, given the multiple Buddhism titles in the article. The fact remains, sources have mindfulness from eastern to western transference. Really amiss as to what kind of balance would want to push a foundation out based on there's no room for it here. Sounds territorial. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

ZP5, let it go, and try to understand what I'm saying here: you're adding your personal favorites, without considering the relevance to an encyclopedic article which is already huge. At best you can add it to Samatha, and even there it might be WP:UNDUE. Take care, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, sources say Mindfulness is a power within Samatha, and there's plenty of room for this Mindfulness article to say so. I'll leave Nagarjuna out of it, so as not to tread to far to offend modernist appropriation and innovation There's adequate sources to make this due weight here. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no room for this nonsense:

"The Vipassana movement is founded in 19th century western modern Mindfulness."

Just let it go.This article is about "mindfullness" as a modern movement; it also explains it's ancient Buddhist roots, but the main topic is mindfullness as taught by Kabat-Zin. See WP:COMMONNAME and Mindfulness (disambiguation). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no clear reason as to why this is an article about "mindfullness as taught by Kabat-Zin." If that is your intention should that not be a separate page? As it stands there is a heavy bias towards Kabat-Zin. If this is an article about mindfulness in the West there are a number of other people who popularised the practice in the West before him as well, mentioned elsewhere in this page.2601:647:4A01:6AF6:7C89:D1CF:7AFB:C363 (talk) 05:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge with "Research on meditation" paragraph on Mindfulness

The article Research on meditation was proposed to be split from its huge "Mindfulness" section, which then would be moved into this article here. Beforehand it would need to receive some improvements in terms of proper sourcing. I could do that, would anybody here mind or have any comments? Meerpirat (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mindfulness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120171057/http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21 to http://ccare.stanford.edu/node/21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Why were my edits removed?

Hello CFCF: I would like to know why my edits were removed. I learned to edit Wikipedia from an experienced user – so, I know the entries I made are correct. Please let me know why ALL the edits I did on the 24th as well as the edits I did about two weeks ago have been removed (I spent quite a lot of time on them). Thank you. Sandyshore (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Explanations of my edits

Since I have not received a reply from CFCF explaining why ALL the edits I did were deleted (message above), I have brought some of those edits back. Below, I have provided brief explanations of the edits I carried out:

- The Creswell publication is a 2017 reference, not a 2016 reference (anyone can check this out for themselves by taking a look at its publication listing directly from the journal site: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139 )

- The reference "Awakening Through Mindfulness" is merely someone’s blog – it is not an authentic, published reference. Therefore, I replaced that reference with published reference.

- The wording of some sentences were changed to better reflect the reference/s cited, to get rid of repetitions, etc. For example, I changed the wording “the internal experiences occurring in the present moment” to “experiences occurring in the present moment” – if you check the reference cited here (Baer, 1994: Mindfulness Training as a Clinical Intervention: A Conceptual and Empirical Review), you will see this wording is more appropriate. Alternatively, one can edit this sentence to say “internal and external experiences occurring in the present moment.”

- I wrote the paragraph starting with “Interest in mindfulness has grown during the past several decades…” to list various OTHER applications of mindfulness (i.e., besides direct applications in clinical psychology and psychiatry that are listed in the previous paragraph – these other applications include applications for healthy aging, in athletics, for weight management, in dermatology, for the perinatal period, for children with special needs, etc. All these articles that were added are new research studies (2016 and 2017 articles) published in academic peer-reviewed journals. In case someone thinks this paragraph is better suited in a different place of the article, it can be moved. Another alternative would be to create a separate section (subheading such as “Other applications”) to list these.

- I added Karunamuni & Weerasekera, 2017 article, which is a recent academic peer-reviewed article published in the journal ‘Current Psychology.’ I think it is important to add this information on cultivating of self-knowledge and wisdom (through mindfulness practice). I added a subsection titled ‘Cultivating self-knowledge and wisdom’ containing four sentences.

- To the section on “Meditation,” I added the reference Last et al., 2017 (title: The Effects of Meditation on Grey Matter), since this appears to be a good review published in the ‘journal of Alzheimer’s disease.’

- I left the ‘maintenance template’ as it is, so that someone could address any concerns by discussing rather than simply deleting all new edits (without providing any explanations).

If anyone has issues with any of the edits above, please let me know and I am happy to discuss or change the edits as needed. (By the way, I did not have time to redo all the edits that CFCF deleted – I might do the additional edits some other time.)

Sandyshore (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

A few more edits

As I mentioned earlier (please see my previous comment), I felt that the paragraph starting with “Interest in mindfulness has grown…” is better suited to be listed under the “Other usages” subsection. Also, the part “Recent interest has emerged for studying the effects…” is better suited to be listed under the “Other usages” section (rather than under the “Meditation” subsection). Therefore, I have moved these two paragraphs - as a result of the move, I needed to slightly edit a few sentences (considering its new location). I have also updated a reference in a couple of places. If anyone has comments/concerns regarding any of these edits, please let me know.

Sandyshore (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Due weight and related issues

Regarding any source used to provide an individual's opinion such as Joiner's [8]: To avoid WP:NOT and WP:NPOV problems, reliable and independent sources are generally required. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

APA Citations for "Mindfulness in Education"

Hello, I am planning on adding more empirical research to the education portion of this article. I've done multiple searches for published studies, and plan to include some of these citations in my contribution to the section. Please review and provide feedback. Thank you.

1) Mindful interventions: Youth, poverty, and the developing brain.

Choudhury, S., & Moses, J. M. (2016). Mindful interventions: Youth, poverty, and the developing brain. Theory & Psychology,26(5), 591-606. doi:10.1177/0959354316669025

2) A Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Children: Promoting Mindful Attention to Enhance Social-Emotional Resiliency in Children.

Semple, R. J., Lee, J., Rosa, D., & Miller, L. F. (2009). A Randomized Trial of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Children: Promoting Mindful Attention to Enhance Social-Emotional Resiliency in Children. Journal of Child and Family Studies,19(2), 218-229. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-9301-y

3) Effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness program for transdiagnostic prevention in young adolescents.

Johnson, C., Burke, C., Brinkman, S., & Wade, T. (2016). Effectiveness of a school-based mindfulness program for transdiagnostic prevention in young adolescents. Behaviour Research and Therapy,81, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.03.002

4) Mindfulness-based interventions in schools-systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2014). Mindfulness-based interventions in schools-systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology,5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00603

5) Effectiveness of the Mindfulness in Schools Programme: non-randomised controlled feasibility study.

Kuyken, W., Weare, K., Ukoumunne, O. C., Vicary, R., Motton, N., Burnett, R., . . . Huppert, F. (2013). Effectiveness of the Mindfulness in Schools Programme: non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry,203(2), 126-131. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.113.126649

6) Gauging Mindfulness In Children And Youth: School-Based Applications.

Eklund, K., Omalley, M., & Meyer, L. (2016). Gauging Mindfulness In Children And Youth: School-Based Applications. Psychology in the Schools,54(1), 101-114. doi:10.1002/pits.21983

7) Introduction To The Special Issue: Mindfulness In The Schools-Historical Roots, Current Status, And Future Directions.

Renshaw, T. L., & Cook, C. R. (2016). Introduction To The Special Issue: Mindfulness In The Schools-Historical Roots, Current Status, And Future Directions. Psychology in the Schools,54(1), 5-12. doi:10.1002/pits.21978

8) Effects of Mindful Awareness Practices on Executive Functions in Elementary School Children.

Flook, L., Smalley, S. L., Kitil, M. J., Galla, B. M., Kaiser-Greenland, S., Locke, J., . . . Kasari, C. (2010). Effects of Mindful Awareness Practices on Executive Functions in Elementary School Children. Journal of Applied School Psychology,26(1), 70-95. doi:10.1080/15377900903379125 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:9301:830:5916:AF06:6:1EF7 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Addressing POV-template issues

Hello all:

I went through the article in order to find/address issues related to the POV template [i.e., (i) undue weight (ii) neutrality (iii) reliability of listed sources], and have carried out edits to several sections of the article – please see the detailed descriptions below:

Introductory section: The article “McLaughlin KA, Nolen-Hoeksema S (Dec 2010)” that is used to support the sentence “….contribute to mental illnesses such as depression and anxiety,” is not a review article –I have replaced it with a review article (Creswell, 2017).

I removed the page number from the ‘Ruth A. Baer’ reference, because it is used in other places in the article (where this particular page number is no longer valid).

To address the POV comment ‘undue weight,’ I added the following to this section:

“The necessity for more high-quality research in this field has also been identified – such as the need for more randomized controlled studies, for providing more methodological details in reported studies and for the use of larger sample sizes."

I removed the sentence “This is applicable to society at large as well as specific settings such as workplaces and schools,” (because the references cited are web links, and schools are mentioned later on in this section as well). I also removed “It has gained worldwide popularity as a distinctive method to handle emotions.” Also, in the last paragraph of the introduction section, I briefly mentioned other applications of mindfulness (since schools, etc., are mentioned here).

I think the language used in this introductory section is neutral.

The section on “Meditation”: Some of the references cited here are websites and I found that the information provided is not very clear and complete. Therefore, I have done some edits to this section (reworded sentences to match the references cited, added new reliable references, etc.).

The sections: “Translations and Definitions” “Historical development” and “Buddhism”: In these sections, the reliability of listed sources appear to be ok, especially considering that these sources are either published peer-reviewed academic journal articles or published books that are relevant (however, I carried out a few edits to improve the references – described below). I also think the language used in these sections are neutral. (Note that the issue of “undue weight” also does not apply to these sections, due to the descriptive nature of the subject matter.)

I incorporated new references to the following sentences in order to better reflect what is stated in them (and to address the issue of “reliability of listed sources”):

“It leads to insight into the true nature of reality, namely the three marks of existence, the impermanence of and the unsatisfactoriness of every conditioned thing that exists, and non-self.”

“Vipassana is practiced in tandem with samatha, and also plays a central role in other Buddhist traditions.”

“The practice of mindfulness supports analysis resulting in the arising of wisdom (Pali: paññā, Sanskrit: prajñā).”

“Vipassanā is insight into the true nature of reality,….”

I also thought that the above sections can be summarized and edited to avoid repetition, and that some of the publications currently listed can be updated – for example, the following new article can be incorporated to these sections: Anālayo, B. (2016). Early Buddhist mindfulness and memory, the body, and pain. Mindfulness, 7(6), 1271-1280. (I will try to do these edits some other time.)

The section on “Therapy programs”: In this section too, most of the sources are either published peer-reviewed academic journal articles or published books that are relevant – i.e., the reliability of listed sources appear to be ok. Neutrality of descriptions also appears to be fine, and I do not think there are issues of “undue weight.” However, I carried out a few edits to improve this section as described below: In the “Mindfulness-based stress reduction” subsection, I corrected a typo: I changed “mindfulness-based cognitive therapy” to “mindfulness-based programs.”

I incorporated a more relevant reference to back the statement “which uses a combination of mindfulness meditation, body awareness, and yoga to help people become more mindful.”

Deleted the sentence starting with “This suggests it may have beneficial effects,….” since this sentence refers to a non-functioning link.

Also deleted the sentence “In recent years, meditation has been the subject of controlled clinical research” – since this matter is extensively described in other parts of this article.

Since the reference cited to back the statement “While MBSR has its roots in spiritual teachings, the program itself is secular” is not a review article, I added a different reference.

I added a reference to back the sentence: “Hakomi therapy, under development by Ron Kurtz and others, is a somatic psychology based upon Asian philosophical precepts of mindfulness and nonviolence.”

In the subsection “Adaptation Practice,” both references are inappropriate (one is a non-functioning weblink and the other is a media article). I have deleted these references and have marked as [citation needed].

The reference cited for “Mindfulness relaxation” is a non-functioning link. I have marked this.

The sentence starting with “The Self is curious about…” needs a reference, and it is marked as “needing a reference.”

The section on “Scientific research” This section has a lot of overlap with the subsection “Other uses” – therefore I brought some of the paragraphs from that section and merged here. In this section, almost all the references are peer-reviewed academic journal articles – so, the reliability of listed sources are ok. The section is presented using neutral language as well. However, addressed the potential ‘undue weight’ by incorporating the following sentence: Many of the above cited review studies however also indicate the necessity for more high-quality research in this field, such as conducting intervention studies using larger sample sizes, the use of more randomized controlled studies and the need for providing more methodological details in reported studies (I have provided references). There are also a few review studies that have found no differences between mindfulness interventions and control groups (provided references). These studies also list the need for more robust research investigations. Several issues pertaining to the assessment of mindfulness have also been identified including the current use of self-report questionnaires (Grossman, 2008 – use 2011 one; Creswell; Keng 2011,). I also did some minor edits to this section (e.g. replacing the first reference cited with a more reliable reference, deleting a couple of unnecessary words, etc.). Also, I think this section is better suited to be listed just before the section on ‘therapy programs.’ If there are no objections to this, I will do this edit in a few days.

Section on “Movement” I think this section can benefit from some summarizing and adding newer references - I will try to attend to this some other time. I felt that the subsection on “Schools” and “Education” could also be merged, since there appears to be an overlap. I do not think this section has any issues relating to neutrality, reliability and ‘undue weight.’ However, in the schools section, the reference ‘De Bruin, E.; Meppelink,’ is not a review article – therefore I deleted this part.

Section on “Risks” I would suggest getting rid of this section because the reference provided to state that ‘there are risks’ is a web link (i.e., it is a media article that talks about opinions/experiences of selected people, and it only uses a few selected studies – the article is an individual’s ‘point of view’). If no one has issues about removing this section I will remove it in a few days. If you do not agree about removing, please talk on this ‘talk’ page. For the time being, I did some edits to make this issue clearer (edited sentences and incorporated articles).

Section on “Related concepts” This section is written using neutral language, and also cites books and articles that appear to be relevant/reliable. However, the sentence ending in “…..and differs from both pre-existing and later-developed notions.” and the sentence ending with “……and honest self-expression (defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others)” need reference support – these are marked. The issue of ‘undue weight’ does not apply to this section.

I have now removed the POV- template. If you have questions or issues regarding any of the above edits, please let me know (please be specific).

Nandinik (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Out today

Out today, [9], [10], [11], [12] and soon to be in the article. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the source: Nicholas T. Van Dam et al. (2017), Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation, Perspectives on Pyschological Science. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

POV fork

There appears to be a POV fork of this article happening at Definitions of mindfulness. Please discuss at Talk:Definitions of mindfulness#POV fork. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mindfulness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dsal.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.3:1:2991.pali
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140322013413/http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/past-conferences/ml18/ to http://www.mindandlife.org/dialogues/past-conferences/ml18/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102200123/http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2004/summer/dharma_dictionary.htm to http://archive.thebuddhadharma.com/issues/2004/summer/dharma_dictionary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060718065653/http://www.mindfullivingprograms.com/whatMBSR.php to http://www.mindfullivingprograms.com/whatMBSR.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Questions

Hello. I'm translating the article "Mindfulness" into Japanese language version(ja:マインドフルネス). However, in the section of Mindfulness#Translations_and_definitions, I don't understand exactly the meaning of following phrases. Though I read the references of that(Robert Sharf's "MINDFULNESS AND MINDLESSNESS IN EARLY CHAN", pp.942-943), still I don't understand it. So I want someone to tell me the meaning of these phrases on this talk page.

• "attainment of insight"
  • Question1: What does it mean? Does it mean "enlightenment"? Can anyone paraphrase it as a Buddhist term or other in English?
• "the arisement of sati calls to mind the wholesome dhammas"
  • Question2: In this phrase, what does the words "calls to mind" mean? Does it mean "to remember" or "to recall" or "to remind"? If not, can anyone paraphrase the words "calls to mind" as other?
  • Question3: According to the sentence about Milindapañha in the section and its reference, "the arisement of sati" remind someone of "the wholesome dhammas". Is this understanding exact? If not, what does "the arisement of sati" do to one's mind?

I would be grateful if you answered these questions. Thank you in advance.--Leonidjp (talk) 07:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bare attention

Not willing to contradict sir Dreyfus, but is'nt awareness : "the ability to directly know and perceive, to feel, or to be cognizant of events" (sic Wikipedia), so is'nt he himself talking of the direct knowledge of bare attention, without the memory side, often presented by the mahayana scholars (indeed not in a mandatory way) ? Papalain (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Mindfulness and Education

Hi, I'm thinking of adding a paragraph to the Education subheading on the Mindfulness page. The paragraph will summarize the findings on 5 studies conducted on school-based MBI's on youths with intellectual or developmental disabilities. The citations I will be using are:

Felver, J. C., Felver, S. L., Margolis, K. L., Ravitch, N. K., Romer, N., & Horner, R. H. (2017). Effectiveness and social validity of the Soles of the Feet mindfulness-based intervention with special education students. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(4), 358-368. doi:10.1007/s40688-017-0133-2

Harper, S. K., Webb, T. L., & Rayner, K. (2013). The effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for supporting people with intellectual disabilities: A narrative review. Behavior Modification, 37(3), 431-453. Retrieved from http://libproxy.sdsu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy.sdsu.edu/docview/1509083285?accountid=13758

Kim, J., & Kwon, M. (2018). Effects of mindfulness‐based intervention to improve task performance for children with intellectual disabilities. Journal Of Applied Research In Intellectual Disabilities, 31(1), 87-97. doi:10.1111/jar.12333

Lam, K. (2016). School-based cognitive mindfulness intervention for internalizing problems: Pilot study with Hong Kong elementary students. Journal Of Child And Family Studies, 25(11), 3293-3308. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0483-9

Malboeuf-Hurtubise, C., Lacourse, E., Taylor, G., Joussemet, M., & Ben Amor, L. (2017). A mindfulness-based intervention pilot feasibility study for elementary school students with severe learning difficulties: Effects on internalized and externalized symptoms from an emotional regulation perspective. Journal Of Evidence-Based Complementary & Alternative Medicine, 22(3), 473-481. doi:10.1177/2156587216683886

I will also include limitations of these studies such as small sample sizes and lack of generalizability. Kellypodesta (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edit reads like a term paper, rather than providing a succinct encyclopedic statement. These references above are primary research, where Wikipedia needs systematic reviews by authoritative sources; see WP:MEDRS. Please don't cite pilot studies or research from alternative medicine, which is not credible. You could try a rewrite here -- about a third of the content you provided -- with reviews, if possible. --Zefr (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoning why my edit was deleted. I will take away the information on pilot studies however, as far as your other concerns I'm a little confused. I believed that I wrote in the style of the rest of the Mindfulness page and used phrases that are used throughout the other sections but I will rewrite in order to reduce some jargon. I also didn't include any research about alternative medicine even though an article was posted in a journal that discusses alternative medicine.

While there is still research to be done to support the findings of mindfulness-based interventions (MBI’s) on young students, there is even less research on the effects of MBI’s on students with special education needs. However, the studies that have been conducted indicate similar findings as those with mainstream students – that school based mindfulness interventions can be effective with special education students’ in decreasing anxiety (Crowley et al., 2018), increasing the ability to stay focused on a task (Kim & Kwon, 2018), and helping with anger management (Felver et al., 2017). In a study by Felver et al., the students with special education needs were taught to simply redirect their attention to the feeling in the soles of their feet whenever they felt an oncoming increased emotional response. This simple intervention brought a decrease in aggressive behaviors, an increase in academic engagement, and even the special educators recommended this intervention due to its ease and cost effectiveness (Felver et al., 2017). Even though the initial findings of these MBI studies on special education students are producing the desired outcomes, their effects cannot be applied to all special education students due to their small sample sizes (ranging from 3-20 students) and due to their participants’ lack of cultural or racial diversity. More research needs to be done on school-based MBI’s for special education students with larger sample sizes and follow up’s to determine the long-term effects of these interventions (Harper, Webb, & Reyner, 2013). It is important to note that these studies have adopted a Westernized approach to mindfulness by exclusively focusing on how mindfulness can benefit the individual without then extending to how mindfulness can benefit the collective group.

Here is the new citation I added:

Crowley, M. J., Nicholls, S. S., McCarthy, D., Greatorex, K., Wu, J., & Mayes, L. C. (2018). Innovations in practice: Group mindfulness for adolescent anxiety—Results of an open trial. Child And Adolescent Mental Health, 23(2).

Kellypodesta (talk) 05:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I have carried out the following edits

- In the ‘introduction,’ I added more appropriate references in some places and also updated with new references. I also fixed a couple of sentences using more appropriate wording.

- In the “scientific research” section, a great deal of information was provided for an inappropriate reference that has limitations. I have fixed this issue, and also added more information related to a more appropriate reference that is cited. Additionally, I replaced some older articles (studies over 10 years old) that are used as references to validate a point. I also removed an article that is irrelevant to this particular point discussed.

- I replaced references in a couple of other places as well. If any of these explanations are not clear, or if anyone has questions or concerns regarding any of the edits, please discuss in this talk page.

Thank you!

Sandyshore (talk) 22:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Comment on issues following first reference to Jon Kabat-Zinn

At the end of the first paragraph, it is indicated that reference 9 does not support the claim. I suggest deleting it.

Concerning a quotation to verify reference 10 pointing to "Harrington, Anne; Dunne, John D (2015). "When mindfulness is therapy: Ethical qualms, historical perspectives". American Psychologist. 70 (7): 621–31. doi:10.1037/a0039460. PMID 26436312." The article is in the October, 2015, issue of this journal, which is entirely devoted to the topic "mindfulness" as a possible psychological therapy. There are four articles, the last of which is the one cited, which is entirely devoted to the development of mindfulness as therapy, and traces the efforts of Kabat-Zinn from the creation of the first medically oriented, stress-reduction clinic until the date of the cited publication in 2015. Kabat-Zinn was a PhD in molecular biology from MIT who was himself a practictioner and teacher of Zen Buddhism. However, he tried to establish the clinical, scientific basis of "mindfulness-based stress reduction" (MBSR), and his clinical resources were devoid of reference to Buddhism, at least initially. The popularity of MBSR is attributed to the publication of his 1991 book intended for laymen, "Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain, and Illness." (More can be found in Jon_Kabat-Zinn.)

To return to the present issue, I suggest that the text and reference could be left as is. It might be preferable to replace the phrase "generally considered to have been initiated" with a more generic statement concerning his creation in 1979 of the Stress Reduction Clinic at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, soon after renamed the MBSR clinic, which developed a 7-8 week course and supporting resources, including an internet-based web site as early as 1988.

The article has many more serious issues with citations. For example, references 200 and 201 appear to be an attempt to point to another "named" reference. They should be replaced with the appropriate reference.

MidwestGeek (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

People who have contributed:

I have listed the main four individuals that appear to have significantly contributed to the the popularity of mindfulness in the modern context. More information is provided in the cited references and in the links provided. I also edited a couple of sentences.

(By the way, I saw the comment by MidwestGeek (above) only just now - hopefully I addressed that comment as well.)

Nandinik (talk) 20:23, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this; it is a great improvement. I am in no position to judge critically, but I question how much influence D. T. Suzuki may have had on mindfulness as therapy. Kabat-Zinn credits Thích Nhất Hạnh for influencing the development of his thinking on the subject. The wikipedia article about Hanh mentions his impact on western thought. He lives in France, has taught at universities in the U.S., and has published many books in English.

MidwestGeek (talk) 21:28, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi MidwestGeek, Please feel free to edit what I have entered - if others are ok with that. I suppose people like D. T. Suzuki would have had an indirect influence on the therapies used today. I simply entered information that I had collected after doing some quick searches.

Nandinik (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Guided meditation

Reading Matt Nisbet, The Mindfulness Movement, the following passage struck me:

Kabat-Zinn’s key innovation, noted Wilson (2014) was to take the traditional week-long meditation retreat, inaccessible to those with busy lives, and to offer participants classes that took place once a week for two months. Participants, who usually numbered between thirty-five and forty per course, were assigned guided meditation recordings to use at home for forty-five minutes each day for the duration of the course. They were also instructed on how to be mindful of their breath during their daily activities, expanding the “thread of meditative awareness” into every aspect of their lives (Kabat- Zinn 2013).
Just as important, the course was able to be offered across clinical and institutional settings. Instructors, many with advanced degrees in the mental health professions, were required to complete an intensive certification process and to keep their training up to date.

What was new about weekly meditation-classes in the 1980s? The guided meditations seem more key to me; and it's remarkable that this method is not mentioned in the article. The "intensive certification process" seems also relevant in this regard; meditation courses are offered by thousands of teachers nowadays, but none (or few) of them, as far as I know, use guided meditations, except those who brand their product "mindfulness." I think we have to write more about the role of guided meditations in mindfulness. Do participants also learn to be mindfull without such guided instructions? When do the guided instructions cease? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Kabat-Zinn himself: Full Catastrophe Living (Revised Edition), p.lxiv (long introduction for a short message...), advising to use CD's with guided mindfulness practices:

Almost everybody finds it easier, when embarking for the first time on a daily meditation practice, to listen to an instructor-guided audio program and let it "carry them along" in the early stages, until they get the hang of it from the inside, rather than attempting to follow instructions from a book, however clear and detailed they may be.

Compare Rupert Gethin (2004), On the practice of Buddhist meditation, p.202-203, noting that the Buddhist sutras hardly explain how to meditate, and then stating that "the effective practice of meditation requires the personal instruction of a teacher." Gethin seems to echo Vetter (1988), The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism, who notes that the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta describes the Buddha as instructing his first followers in turn: instructing two or three of them, while the others go out begging for food, signifying the need of personal instruction to learn ho to practice dhyana - or mindfulness? (only the first stage of dhyana centers on samadhi; the second stage is smadhi-ji, "born from concentration; in the third and fourth stage "eqaunimity and mindfulness" are central).

Also a nice observation from Nisbet (bold mine):

During the 2000s, with books, talks, and documentaries about mindfulness instantly available via Amazon, Netflix, and YouTube and guided meditations downloadable to smart phones, public interest in mindfulness was set to explode.

Maybe add the walkman, intriduced in 1979, the same year MBSR was introduced? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sati

User:Bangalamania did change

The term "mindfulness” is derived from the Pali term sati, "memory," "retention," "mindfulness, alertness, self-possession," which is a significant element of Buddhist traditions, while the concept is related to Zen, Vipassanā, and Tibetan meditation techniques. While "mindfulness" has been translated and interpreted as "bare cognition," in a Buddhist context it has a wider meaning and purpose, related to vipassana, namely discerning what is beneficial and what is not, and calming the mind by this discernment.

into

Mindfulness is derived from sati, a significant element of Buddhist traditions, and the concept is related to Zen, Vipassanā, and Tibetan meditation techniques.

with the edit-summary

Not particularly helpful on this page (more relevant or covered at Sati (Buddhism))

References

Mindfulness is not exactly derived from Buddhist sati; the term is derived from a specific (mis)interpretation of sati. It has a broader meaning, as explained in the body of the article, which is summarized in the lead. To understand what mindfulness really is about, this information is necessary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

At second thought: I've moved the specifics into a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually yes, a note for this seems like a better solution. Apologies if my changes were incorrect; I am not an expert in the subject area in any way. --Bangalamania (talk) 07:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality: MEDRS/POV

This article makes heavy use of non-WP:MEDRS sources for biomedical claims, leading to a POV problem. It is in need of a clear-out. Alexbrn (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Very little. Most of the non-medically-sourced claims are about Buddhism and other philosophical matters, to which MEDRS does not apply. The neutrality tag in particular seems inappropriate, as the account in the article is purely descriptive of a wide range of matters. I had no part in writing it, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I've added quotes in several citations to show they were review papers conducting meta-analyses, with note where the trials they examined were not as robust as they needed to be. The article is pretty plain that more research is needed; and the focus of the article is on the use of the technique(s), their extension across society (e.g. schools), and their origins (Buddhism etc). The article thus has MEDRS but is in large part not medical. There are many sources, some not used in the best way, but there's no feeling of bias in the article that I can see. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-compliant MEDRS sources must be removed. I've just checked on a source which is a retracted review so did remove it. There are also primary sources, per MEDRS they must be removed. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Mobile apps

This edit was reverted because the content is WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENT, and supported only by a list of primary research and one example of a small primary study. The information is not encyclopedic, and is reverted again. The IP user has reached WP:3RR, and admin will be notified if further warring occurs. --Zefr (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. The edit - a simple sentence that research into mindfulness apps is ongoing supported by a list of exemplary references - was made in the heading "Scientific Research" - I am not sure what you mean by "ONLY" supported by a list of primary research. What other information would you like to see under the heading "Scientific Research"? And you are welcome to add more or other references, just don't vandalize my Good Faith edits. The reference to https://mental.jmir.org/2019/1/e10844/ was already there added by another user before my edit. I simply added a segway sentence that research into mobile apps for mindfulness is an active area of research and provided some references - which I would think is an appropriate statement under the heading "Scientific Research". There are about 280 mindfulness apps out there . It is unclear to me why R&D in this field is dismissed as WP:FRINGE. And apps are too recent to be mentioned in Wikipedia articles? And how old does research have to be to not violate your WP:RECENT rule? I guess you'll have to delete far more references under "Scientific Research" then... --66.207.217.61 (talk) 16:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

References

It doesn't seem to me that the accusations of WP:FRINGE and WP:RECENT have been supported. Teishin (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about FRINGE, but RECENT seems obvious given the sources. I'd add WP:SOAP and WP:UNDUE as well.

To the person using the ip: Attacking other editors after spamming content will only get you blocked. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and delete all scientific references that are not older than 2 years, in this article and others, with the flag WP:RECENT. Or read the policy and try to understand what WP:RECENT actually means --108.168.44.37 (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Teishin. Mindfulness apps should have a passing mention, as long as there are reliable secondary sources for it.--Megaman en m (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

The reasons why the discussion of mobile apps was challenged are based on the quality of sources. A systematic review with positive psychological evidence of benefit would be convincing, but there do not appear to be high-quality reviews providing this evidence for mobile apps. Referring to the preliminary sources 1) as "fringe" or with "undue weight" indicates this is an immature research field and unestablished clinical practice in psychology, with no randomized controlled trials reviewed, and so at present is more of a trend in consumer behavior ("recentism") and 2) unscientific rankings about the popularity among hundreds of apps, reviewed here as too preliminary and ineffective, have potential for producing a "soapbox" effect about apps in the article. Authors of this 2018 review PMID 27760883 evaluated the effectiveness of mobile apps for changing unhealthy life practices, but were unable to prove the apps were effective. This 2018 review PMID 28885896 assessed mobile apps for stress relief, finding some evidence for benefit. The one research source removed is primary research, so is unusable for the encyclopedia. Here are the PubMed search results for reviews on mobile apps and mindfulness, not revealing anything convincing, in my opinion. --Zefr (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Gestalt therapy

In the beginning of the article, I read, "Mindfulness is very similar to what was earlier known as Gestalt therapy." Not only do I not believe this, there is no supporting reference here. In a different place in this article (under the heading Morita therapy, which may not be the right place) there is a reference, but the referenced text does not even contain the word mindfulness, nor a definition of awareness that looks like mindfulness. --Han691 (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to be original research. You're free to remove this quote in my opinion.--Megaman en m (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I removed the Gestalt stuff. Haven't yet figured out what to do with the Morita therapy claims, so I left it as-is. Han691 (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Should expand on the usage of Mediation in the major Abrahamic regions as well. For example Islam praying 5 times a day and so forth.

Should also add a section on Franz Friedrich Anton Mesmer and the importance of Hypnosis and its relation to mindfulness — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamwow786 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

retracted paper

Re "evidence supports the use of mindfulness programs to alleviate symptoms of a variety of mental and physical disorders (Gotink et al (2015), "Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. PLoS ONE 10(4): e0124344. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0124344),

Note that this paper has been retracted[13] because of methodology and COI issues. The results are not necessarily wrong, but the process didn't meet standards. The paragraph should be rewritten without this cite. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I made an edit removing the reference, and another one restoring it with the retraction mentioned. I don't know what's best. It is a heavily cited paper but the errors sound significant. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition

From the lead:

Mindfulness is the psychological process of bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment

- is it possible to bring one's attention to experiences which are not happening in the present moment? What's missing is the non-judgmental part. Baer, citing Kabat-Zinn:

Paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Not Promo

This article needs a more tempered tone about the benefits of mindfulness intervention. To include Richard Davidson in the lead and not his concerns about mindfulness intervention being oversold for something for which it was not designed is a failure of NPOV. DolyaIskrina (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Replacing paragraph

Regarding the paragraph on ‘physical illness’ (that quotes Richard J. Davidson) – it cites a low quality reference – a podcast! I listened to this podcast (audio file) and it does not mention any of what is written in this paragraph! Therefore I have replaced this paragraph with a new paragraph that incorporates academic peer reviewed research publications that relate to physical health and mindfulness. I also felt that it is more suitable to place this paragraph just before the ‘commercialization’ paragraph. If anyone has questions or concerns regarding this edit or any of my other edits, please discuss here in this talk page.

Sandyshore (talk) 16:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Edits to the page

Hello all:

I carried out the following edits. If you have questions/concerns please let me know. Below is a summary of the edits I did:

- Added and updated several references and got rid of repetition.

- Removed the Gotink, et al reference, along with its associated sentences (considering this article has been retracted).

- Listed the subsections ‘Two-component model,’ ‘The five-aggregate model’ and ‘Cultivating self-knowledge and wisdom’ as a separate section (because they do not belong under the ‘Definition’ section). This new subsection is called “Models and Frameworks for Mindfulness Practice.”

- Additional edits to increase clarity. Also removed some references published in the 1980’s (along with Transcendental Meditation references) that are irrelevant to be listed under the “Scientific Research” section.

Nandinik (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Samprajaña, apramāda and atappa

So chapter title is " Samprajaña, apramāda and atappa" ... - then the text devellops mindfulness, samprajaña, and apramāda : where is atappa ? ( ātāpī: (adj.) ardent, diligent, serious in effort, zealous. The term appears most prominently in the Satipatthāna formulas) Papalain (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Is this addition added by an anon notable enough? I'm leaning towards no, but I'd like some input.--Megaman en m (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Zen, "Vipassana", and "Tibetan" traditions?

I'm confused why Zen, "Vipassana", and "Tibetan" traditions are listed here. There are so many schools of Buddhism not listed here - and I'm nearly certain that mindfulness plays a role in every Buddhist school.

Could it say instead:

Mindfulness is derived from sati, a significant element of [all] Buddhist traditions,[6][7]  ?

[I wonder if that first sentence is referring to the growth of Mindfulness as a concept in the west. That this particular strain, coming from teachers like chogyam trungpa, thich nhat hanh, and other big names comes specifically from zen and tibetan. It's my understanding that meditation as a tool to be used by the vast masses is a relatively recent conception as Buddhism was more in the 'priestly caste' before persecution of buddhists. I can't remember my source though. So to summarize, though meditation/ sati/ dhayana is a part of all traditions but mindfulness has grown from a few key transmissions to the west. NateRen (talk) 19:16, 18 April 2021 (UTC)NateRen

I think it would be very useful to do some reseach on the schools of Buddhism and see how mindfulness had an impact on those. 01:42, 6 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre2208 (talk • contribs)

Request undo to recent removal of citation

Bennv123 removed some citations because I added them as one of the authors of the study. The study was a systematic review reviewing 60+ studies on mindfulness for athletic performance. The review concluded there were some positive effects but the quality of the studies were very poor, so strong conclusions should be avoided. Both of these claims are consistent across the wikipedia page, but without the review, the wiki article becomes more biased—relying instead on a single study that supports mindfulness. The citations to the review support the wikipedia ethos of fair, balanced, and accurate descriptions of the area. Still, instead of reversing the change myself, I have a self-cite COI, which have declared on the page, and on my profile, but hope that another contributor can reverse the edit, reinforcing the benefits of using data from the top of the Hierarchy of evidence. Noetel (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I've undone the removal per your request: it's been quite highly cited for such a recent paper. You did the right thing asking on the talk page rather than reversing Bennv123's edit. On pages that lots of people watch like this one, I personally think it's OK to insert obviously relevant, neutrally worded citations to your own work, as your is, but only if you tell others on the talk page about your CoI; other editors disagree and it is a bit safer to suggest proposed edits on talk if they have a CoI. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent change to lead sentence

User @Jtjdt: made a good-faith edit to change "judgment" to "evaluation" in the opening of the lead. I think this change should be discussed here, as I'm not sure I agree with "evaluation" as a synonym for "judgment". I propose the edit be reverted, so discussion of this can take place. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Morganbmark95. Peer reviewers: Cvonne12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Current state of the article's sources

The article seems to be suffering from citation overkill, particularly in the lede and sections like Effects and efficacy of mindfulness practice, which have three or four citations at the end of nearly every sentence. I would like to pair down the citations to no more than two per statement as that's more than enough, but would like input before I go doing that.

Further, the references section(s) at the bottom of the article are a mess. We have a notes section that is more like a quote-heavy reference section than true notes, a references section, and for some reason two additional sections, a printed sources section and a web sources section. Why not list the books and the web sources in with the references? The books are already listed in the references, but instead of just listing them directly in the references section, the reference itself is only a link to the book in another section, instead of just referencing the book directly. A reader shouldn't have to click a reference, find the highlighted reference to then click that referenced book to take them to yet another section just to find the actual reference. It's unnecessarily complicated and the delineation between online and offline sources is equally unnecessary. I would like to simplify the references themselves as well into a single unified references section for simplicity, as the current setup is doing no one any favors. I am aware of WP:CITEVAR so I would like to get a consensus for simplifying the references before taking any action. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)