![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The highlighted text was added with the edit summary "adjusted language for NPOV". [2] The footnote includes these citations:
I don't see that assertion in either source. The Rawson article (at least the excerpted part) doesn't mention religion, and the Johnston book doesn't mention the TM movement. I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly. Will Beback talk 23:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite inappropriate to delete with no consensus while the matter is under discussion and after WBB has said "I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The name Varma has very high impact at the top of the page: it occurs twice in the first paragraph of the lead, and also at the top of the infobox, directly above the photo of MMY. It then occurs a fourth time a little further down the lead. This gives two strong impressions. The first is that it is notably important that MMY's birthname was Varma, and the second that his birthname indisputably was Varma.
In fact there is no element of notability to MMY's life before he became known to the world as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and MOS:LEAD does not justify the current prominence and reiteration of Varma.
Comparable cases in good quality, high-profile WP articles may be helpful when considering this. Indira Gandhi's birthname is given, arguably important given her father's status as prime minister and her own notable role in a political dynasty. It is mentioned once in the lead and not in the infobox.
Muhammad Ali was highly notable as Cassius Clay, and this is reflected in the lead of his article, though it has not been given a place in the infobox.
Adolf Hitler was born Adolf Schicklgruber, an interesting and reliable fact, but without notability. In the very full and detailed lead to his article it does not merit a mention. Nor is it in the infobox. This article is amongst the most scrutinized on Wikipedia.
The second issue is the doubtfulness of Varma. From the discussion lower down the article, it seems Varma may not be MMY's birthname. The phrasing is explicit: "The birth name, birth date, and caste of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are not known with certainty". The case for Varma seems to rest not with quality of source, but with quantity. Given that none of the sources for Varma offers documentation, there is a strong possibility that among these sources there are some that are merely derivative, and so without weight.
OTOH there appears to be a high-quality source for Srivastava—the university record of distinguished alumni. The possiblity of a scholarly institution so mistaking the name of one of its distinguished graduates seems small, and implausibly coincidental given that there is a background source for there being a significant chance of MMY's birthname being Srivastava, from the surname of his nephews and cousins.
Given the issues of non-notability and uncertainty, assertions of MMY's birthname belong in a later section. MOS:LEAD requires notability and careful sourcing. Spicemix ( talk) 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
We have it well sourced that MMY's monastic name prior to becoming Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Bala Brahmachari Mahesh. Brahmachari is a rank of monk: once that is established no further sourcing is required to refer to him as the Brahmachari. Because at that time MMY was still unknown to the world reliable sources will be very few, and we must go with what we have. What we cannot do is anachronistically revert Bala Brahmachari Mahesh to his pre-monastic status; this is the established policy in the article as evidenced by the use of the Maharishi, when the subject is simply at a higher monastic status. It is untenable to assert that Mahesh can mean Mahesh Varma/Srivastava in one paragraph and Bala Brahmachari Mahesh in the next.
In fact the solution is very simple. For his pre-monastic life Mahesh can be used, and for the first phase of his monastic life Bala Brahmachari Mahesh or Brahamachari Mahesh. It will not be unwieldy, as it has such a short treatment in the article.
The article should not disguise or gloss over or deny the importance of the change of status from a non-monastic to a monastic life. The source Coplin says "his title, "bala brahmachari" identified him as a fully dedicated student of spiritual knowledge and life-long celibate ascetic". It identified him: we are obliged to project that identity in the article, and this phrase in itself can be taken as sufficient sourcing to disallow a bald Mahesh.
We should be very careful in the article not to appear at best casual and at worst dismissive in relation to the legitimacy of the brahmachari status. Coplin goes on to say, "brahmachari... has signified from Vedic times one who has taken the vow of chastity".
The Chambers source is merely "handy" and should not be added. We should keep in mind WP:SOURCES which says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". A Scottish dictionary of the unexplained sounds quite inappropriate and I do object to it. It seems that, per Coplin, using Mahesh for a monk is, as WP:V puts it, "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community", and that is WP:REDFLAG, an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. Spicemix ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the quotation marks around guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and His Holiness in the lead. None of these terms should be marked as an opinion or an unusual usage. 210.251.14.161 ( talk) 00:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What kind of source is Passport magazine, and why are we citing an article by their restaurant critic? [9] Will Beback talk 21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just added a new version of the sentence WBB had removed, which he said we would reinstate with a better source. The source for the new sentence is is Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm George Chryssides is Senior Lecturer in religious studies at the University of Wolverhampton, England, an Honorary Research Fellow in Contemporary Religion at the University of Birmingham, UK., and former Senior Lecturer and head of Religious Studies at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences of the University of Wolverhampton. Therefore, he can safely be considered an expert on the subject. I hope this resolves the issue to everyone’s satisfaction.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The source is too weak to support the material, given the context. We could cite literally dozens of academic sources which characterize the TM movement as an NRM. On the other side, we have one paper delivered at a conference held by CESNUR, a group which has a mixed reputation. A better source for Chryssides' view would be Exploring New Religions [10] However even that is just one POV, so giving it that much space in the lead seems disproportionate and gets us further away from the topic of the article. Further, there may be a false equivalence by using the same "sometimes" to describe both characterizations. If a thing is called X 19 times and Y one time, then it's misleading to say it's "sometimes called X and sometimes called Y". We should mention Y but make it clear that it is not the prevailing description. Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance". Will Beback talk 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(undent) This sentence in the lead is getting way too convoluted, IMHO. Perhaps we can just simply say the Maharishi founded a "Movement" and either give more detail about it int he body of the article, or just let an interested reader follow the Transcendental Meditation movement link to get the scoop. -- BweeB ( talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that MMY is primarily notable for offering a technique which proved hugely popular. I propose that we bring a slimmed-down mention of 5m+ people to the top paragraph, which could then read: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ... developed the Transcendental Meditation technique, which has been learned by more than 5 million people[refs]. That in a nutshell is his notability. There is no need to clutter the 5m with quotes as it is reliably referenced, and "studied his methods" is an arcane phrase clearly intended to paraphrase "learned".every word should be devoted to explaining who the subject is and why he/she is notable. Weighing the lead down with pedantic terms does not help entice the reader to read on. In general, this whole long lead section is a real snore, lacking focus on the subject’s claim to fame. For ex., we only get to know that the subject introduced meditation to the world on a rather large scale at the end of five paragraphs. As I’ve said before, let’s get more reader-friendly around here!
(undent) Why, why, why? -- BweeB ( talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what's going on here. Is there a suggestion to remove content from the lead? I can't see why content on the TM movement would be removed. If there is too much detail in the lead, that may be a consideration but needs to be discussed and agreement arrived at. That has been a contentious area and it should be discussed. Am I missing something here... these threads seem to be tangled. and what is going on is unclear( olive ( talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
Think this sentence could be removed from the lead - it is not directly about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "His followers started the Natural Law Party in 1992, which ran campaigns in dozens of countries." -- BweeB ( talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any sources that say "his followers started the NLP". The language used in the sources you've cited says he was the founder and they call it "Maharishi's Natural Law Party". We should accurately reflect the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Since we were encouraged [20] to find sources for Bal Brahmachari Mahesh being a name, rather than a title, two sources have come up. One is Mason, p. 17: "In undertaking to serve as a disciple, together with the usual vows of service and celibacy he took a new name, that of Bal Brahmacharya Mahesh." The second is Rajeev Verma, Faith and philosophy of Hinduism (2009), pp 344, 978-8178357188: "In 1941 he became a secretary to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who gave him the name Bal Brahmachari Mahesh." This means we have the assertions of his principal biographer, and an Indian expert. Currently the article is using Coplin, but these new, and published, references may be seen as another case of "sources that have more weight than a doctoral dissertation by a follower" [21].
Doubts have been expressed about the variations of spelling in this case, but standard textual scholarship doesn't recognize a problem. As this summary [22] explains, minor variations of spelling are termed accidental, and the editor may choose which to go with for his version of the text. For example, six specimens of Shakespeare's signature have survived, and they are all spelled differently. The terminal silent Hindi a found here on Brahmacharya, and the missing e in the signature Bal Brahmachari Mahsh are both accidentals. I propose that in this article we go with Bal Brahmachari Mahesh.
The article will be improved if the subject is properly named, and I'll make the changes and add the new sources. Currently we have an inconsistent situation with the subject having three phases of name, but being referred to in the same way for two of them. Spicemix ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit."
This is a tendentious allegation, and poorly-sourced almost to the point of being unsourced. The author presents himself as a novice on the subject, having "read here and there", and the source is not specified. A lawsuit is a matter of public record, and none has ever been made known. Several scholars have been active in the field of the Shankaracharya succession, and the lawsuits brought by other parties are documented. Mason makes no mention of this allegation against MMY, either in the 1994 edition of his biography or in subsequent internet writings.
We should also bear in mind that while the two ellipses in the quote as presented in the article make it appear that a "British magazine" is the source, when the passage is read in full [28] this is far from clear.
As the quote is misleading and unsupported, I propose we delete it. Spicemix ( talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It will be observed that one of the preconditions of entitlement to this post is being born a Brahmin. Brahamachari Mahesh, being of the kshetriya caste, was not eligible to hold this venerated office. So, on Friday 12 June, 1953, at the wish of Swami Brahmananda, his close disciple Sri Swami Shantanand Sarawati Maharaj was installed as successor to the throne of Shankaracharya,
With his master's passing and his fellow disciple Swami Shantanand the new Shankaracharya, Brahmachari Mahesh took leave of the monastery and 'retired to the caves of the "Valley of the Saints" in Uttar Kashi, high in the Himalayas'.
Since non of the editors involved in this thread are able to locate reliable sources to support the rather inadequate source which is currently provided, I would vote for deletion. If supporting sources can be found in the future, then it can be added back into the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The reliability of the MG on a great many subjects, primarily local and regional, but to a great extent national too, will not be questioned, but its competence for checking or analyzing this particular legal issue, evidence, and argument may be estimated at close to zero. It seems to be a smallish newspaper, currently the 3rd largest regional daily in Quebec, and its target audience is 13% of the population of the province.Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
It seems that the general consensus is to remove the text in question(Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit.") on the basis of:
If reliable sources can be found in the future then information on this topic can be added to the article but at present the text is not properly supported and I propose that the text be deleted now, based on Wikipedia policy and consensus of the above discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this source [32] that Will Beback just came across-- comments from Swami Swaroopananda and his interview with David Sievking are already cited in the section Years In Vlodrop so I have added this quote from Swaroopananda "Mahesh Yogi instigated Shantanand to fight the court case" to that sentence. You can see my edit here. [33]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel some editing is needed on Deepak Chopra Huffington Post reference. Just read some of the comments in the archives regarding Chopra and Maharishi's illness in 1991. I am slightly confused with the year. In August 1990 I was in America when I was told that Maharishi was in Vlodrop and he had meetings with various people. At the beginning of December I was in 2 meetings with Maharishi in Vlodrop, with about 40 other people. In January 1991 there was a large gathering in Maastricht, Holland. In April, July, August & Nov 1991, I was again in meetings attended by Maharishi and with a number of leading musicians from India. It is a similar story in 1992. I am sure that there are many people who can also confirm regular meetings during this time - even though such "first hand" accounts may fall outside of Wiki rules for inclusion. My point, however, is that there should be more research on the actual year of Chopra's claim, since in 1991/1992 there was no period when Maharishi "disappeared" for 1 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul davis108 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So, just a little more observation on the Deepak Chopra comment in "Vlodrop Years". In the referenced Huffington Post Blog ((February 13, 2008) Deepak Chopra timelines it August 1st 1991 and states this was when his book "Perfect Health" was first published. Bantam Books, however, gives a published year of 1990. Let us accept that 1991 was a typing error and he meant 1990. Even this would not fit his story since Maharishi appeared at a large gathering in January 1991. So let us say he was confused about his book and meant to timeline the story August 1989. In the blog he states that Maharishi was out of circulation for almost a year, that they spent months at a country house in south west England and then, "After he was fully recovered we flew him via helicopter back to his chosen residence, which wasn't in either India or the U.S. but the obscure village of Vlodrop in Holland". This would fit in with the timescale of Maharishi arriving in Vlodrop in August 1990 as I mentioned in my above post. However, there remains the mystery of how Maharishi appeared in a global satellite broadcast from India on 12th January 1990, where Deepak Chopra was one of the speakers and talked about "a great alliance that Maharishi Ayur-Veda Association is going to form with the established associations, such as the American Medical Association and all the associations of medicine throughout the world". For me this makes the story at the least uncertain. Paul davis108 ( talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Will, Thanks for the response. I recently rejoined wiki after many years absence and was just returning to some old "friends" - this page being one of them. I personally feel Chopra has embellished a story that probably has some truth in it - just the dates don't add up, which is what I was questioning. I will look for some newspaper/radio/TV references when I have time and come back. Thanks for the friendly welcome. Paul davis108 ( talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox date of birth from 1914, for which I can find no support, to 1917, his biographers' preferred date as given lower in the article. Consequently his age on passing becomes 91, as in the BBC and The Times obituaries. Spicemix ( talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
So many sources: yes there are a lot, but most are very poor, and of those listed above most are tertiary, either encyclopedias or obituaries, and if I understand RS policy, we shouldn't use them to vie with two biographers. The CBY, which we are putting most faith in, is itself tertiary, and candidly doubts the quality of its information, with 1911(?) and A majority of journalists have guessed. This guesswork, in 1972, didn't have the advantage of Jefferson's and Mason's researches. I think the CBY editors themselves would be surprised to find that their speculation and acknowledged poor sources had survived being corrected by specialist researchers and found their way into an encyclopedia of 2011.
We should also guard against being fact laundering victims. In this essay we read that iteration in responsible sources can conceal an unreliable past. This seems to harden into policy at WP:USEBYOTHERS which says, If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. Spicemix ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Mason gives 1917 as the DOB, though mentions other dates. OTOH, he only gives one birth name: Mahesh Prasad Varma. Since we're going with the simplified info on DOB, I propose we also just give one birth name. We can still mention the other possible name in the body. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The statement in the lead He began to be known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi around the year 1960 I don't think will find any support, being very late, and in line with Mason I've changed it to 1955. It is from this point that Mason, in his chapter "The Maharishi emerges" begins to refer to his subject as the Maharishi, rather than Brahmachari Mahesh. But some latitude in the phrasing is still appropriate, because Mason's thought seems to be that as Beacon Light of the Himalayas, 1956, was published in the name of Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj, so the original lectures would have been delivered under this name the previous year. Spicemix ( talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering how best to deal with the Alex Mardas allegation of luxury in the ashram in Interaction with The Beatles. It currently stands unchallenged, whereas in The Beatles in India the ashram is also described as "seedy", and there is an apparently matter-of-fact description of the accommodation: "The stone bungalows were equipped with electric heaters, running water, toilets, and English-style furniture."
Ringo compared the ashram to " a kind of spiritual Butlins", a chain of holiday camps designed to appeal to working British families, with very basic accommodation.
There is a long list of denunciations of Mardas's unreliability and animus towards MMY, both from those present in Rishikesh and from those who have studied the field since. The NYT [35] calls him a charlatan, and Mason says, "Quite why his presence was tolerated is hard to imagine", and comments on "the intensity of Mardas's desire to break the Maharishi's influence on the Beatles". (pp.137-8)
If editors agree that the Mardas description is likely to be exaggerated and is inappropriate, then it can be removed and his views dealt with at his own article. If it is retained, it will have to be put in context. Spicemix ( talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
In the lead we have the text "....characterised as a new religious movement and also as non-religious." Since we have a link to the TMM, why do we need these characterizations here? They are also discussed in the body of the article. -- BwB ( talk) 19:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
An anon editor, user:212.178.127.51, presumably user: Vijayante, deleted a paragraph of sourced material with the edit summary: "made a delete of inappropriate statements that are not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards". [36] Vijayante has a history of deleting negative material under the mistaken assertion that it violates unnamed Wikipedia policies. Unless an actual policy issue can be found it should be restored. Will Beback talk 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Today, I removed the following unsourced controversial material.
If others feel it should stay in the article until a source can be found, then please discuss it here. Thanks. -- BwB ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dwarka and one of three claimants to Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math told a German filmmaker in 2010 that "Mahesh Yogi instigated [Swami] Shantanand [Saraswati] to fight the court case" and that as a member of the trader class and Saraswati's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it." [2] [3] Other sources say that Maharishi worked closely with the Shankaracharya and was considered a "great disciple" and his "right (hand) man". [4] [5] According to biographer Paul Mason, Swami Shantanand Saraswati (whom Brahmananda Saraswati had named as his successor) "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi's meditation," referring to it as a 'master key to the knowledge of Vedanta.' [6] Sociologist J.R Coplin, who conducted interviews in India as part of his research on the TM organisation, says that Swami Shantanand's successor as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Vishnudevanand, "speaks highly of Maharishi and sees his teaching as a reflection of their master's (Brahmananda Saraswati)". [7]
Woo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There are discrepancies between what the TM organization says the organization is worth and what sources say its worth. I'd like to see all of this content, because it is contentious, inline attributed per Wikipedia on contentious material. I'll be looking at the TM movement article first since it is the main article. Any thoughts on this.( olive ( talk) 22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC))
Is it necessary to have the citation needed legend in the lead of this article where it says The honorifics Maharishi and Yogi were added to his given name Mahesh?I don't think there's any doubt that that was the name he went by. Also, not sure if this is helpful, but it is also unclear from sources whether the title was conferred to him by others, or whether he herself adopted it, as shown for instance, in these sources: After the death of his mentor in 1953, the Maharishi spent more than 18 months alone in a Himalayan cave. In 1955, he travelled to the southern Indian state of Kerala, where he was asked to deliver a series of public talks on spirituality and a new form of meditation. He changed his name to Maharishi, meaning Great Seer in Sanskrit. [1], and here: Two years after the death of Guru Deva in 1955, he travelled south to Kerala, where he began to broadcast his message. On January 1 1958, at a conference in Madras, Mahesh, now Maharishi, "the great seer", announced the formation of a worldwide Spiritual Regeneration Movement [2] -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking at other Wiki articles on "gurus" who have had a large influence in the world and who have made a significant contribution to society. These articles usually contain a large section dedicated to that person's "Teachings" and "Influence". For example, the follow article,
all have sentions titled "Teachings", and/or "influence", and/or "Legacy".
So I am proposing that we expand the "Teaching" sections of the Maharishi's article to cover more of his teachings in the area of Vedic Science, his influence to philosophical thinking and his contribution in the area of knowledge. What do other editors think of this suggestion? -- BwB ( talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
J. R. Coplin is cited and quoted almost a dozen times in the article but none of the cites give the name of the book that is being referenced. And... a search of Amazon, Google Books and World Cat does not yield any books by an author with that name. Can anyone help solve this mystery? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The text below has been removed per TM ArbCom as it is uncited and has been tagged as for some months. If any one can find sources for any of the text below it can be re-added to the article.
I removed this source: Gilpin, G. 1999. The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality. J.P. Tarcher/Penguin. from the article as there were two other citations for the same text and this source in my opinion is unreliable. No page number was cited and as the title states it is a memoir of sorts; a "personal journey" and not reliable. It is self described, in its liner notes, as being a "work of creative nonfiction".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe it's a matter of fact that Maharishi used his helicopter to quickly move among his various teacher training sites being held at off-season hotels in the Swiss mountains. But we need a source that says this. The recent addition to the article, below, appears to be the personal experience of the IP who added it:
Andrew Mallon, trained as a TM teacher in 1972, clarifies this: "The helicopter was not an 'indulgence.' It was used for a few years when TM-related courses were held in Switzerland because it saved Maharishi hours of driving time around the circuitous mountain roads in that country getting to the various Swiss towns where the participants were."
I'm putting it here for now until we can find a source. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the text below and am parking it here for further consideration as it is off topic and original research. It is also not reliably sourced according to discussions at the Maharishi Group talk page and at AfD which has determined that there are no secondary sources that clearly establish the Maharishi Group's definition, identity or existence. But rather the term Maharishi group appears to be used loosely in different ways at different times to mean the business dealings of the TM movement.
The section on the Beatles, [37] which deals with a short period in which the Beatles were in Rishikesh, seems to me a bit too long. It is 705 words, and spans only a period of a few months. The section preceding it spans a period of 10 years in Maharishi's life, and is 1200 words. The section following it, uses about 1070 words to describe the next 22 year of MMY's life. In light of the above, it seems to me that in relation to the entire article, "Interaction with the Beatles" is too prominently featured, possibly creating a problem with undue weight. Also, a lot of what is said in that section is not directly related to MMY but to others, such as Alex Mardas, for instance. Finally, all of it is already reported at great length in the article The Beatles in India. I think this paragraph could be made more succinct and readers could be redirected to the full article if they want more specific details on the Beatles. How do others feel? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 06:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have created a proposed revised section in the sandbox here [38]. I have tried to limit the paragraph to what concerns Maharishi and the Beatles directly. Everything else is already depicted in The Beatles in India which the section redirects readers to. Please comment either here or at the sandbox link-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement "really took off" when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles". [3] [4] The Beatles met him for the first time in London in August 1967, and studied with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to the Maharishi's Academy of Meditation in Rishikesh, India [5] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". [6] Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days [6] [7] [8] McCartney and Jane Asher stayed for two months. [9] Both Beatles said later that they enjoyed the ashram experience and planned to continue with their meditation. [10] Lennon and Harrison departed two weeks later after hearing a rumour that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow, [11]] a rumor which was later retracted in Mia’s memoirs and by the Beatles. [9] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs. [12] [6] In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them. [13]
Human Dimension: Anand Shrivastava
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Corder
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Una Kroll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that.
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles".[1][2] The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India[3] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction".[4] Starr and his wife left after ten days, McCartney and Jane Asher after two months and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow. Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[115] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the Maharishi's influence was instrumental in weaning The Beatles from LSD and inspiring them to write many new songs[10][4] including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[11]
Thanks for these rewrites. They are both improvements. I'd agree with Kbob's version more since I tend to get a sense of the controversy surrounding the Beattles and the Maharishi with that version. I have to say I really dislike that "really took off" phrase sourced or not. Colloquialisms don't seem to be particularly encyclopedic?( olive ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC))
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles" [2] [3] The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India [4] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". [5] Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days [5] [6] [7] McCartney and Jane Asher after two months, [8] [9] and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow [10]] Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did" [11] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs, [12] [5] including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. [13] [5] [14] In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them. [15]
Corder
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Una Kroll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).American
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that.
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
MacDonald
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moved from the sandbox. Is this the version that should be included? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 11:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Done
When I originally added the consensus version reported above, I did so piecemeal. I somehow left out an the consensus version regarding Mia Farrow, and also the reference to the Song Sexy Sadie. The correct version has now been put in the article [40]. Apologies for the confusion -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph below is about the 1988 raid on MMY’s India office is only 9% of the entire section. [41] Still, the section spans a 22 year period and thisis a single event, however important. Do you feel it could be made a little more concise, would you look at the proposed version and see if it reads more easily? I started a sandbox discussion and proposed changes. Please tell me what you think: [42]
And here is the original paragraph:
In January 1988, the Maharishi's offices in India were raided by Indian police, who reportedly confiscated cash, securities and jewels. News reports varied widely as to the dollar value of the goods seized. One source said $500,000, [1] while two others put the figure at $60,000 and $30,000, respectively. [2] [3] A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service [4] reported that nothing at all of value was confiscated. [5] The raid occurred amidst a conflict with authorities over taxes and the movement was accused of lying about expenses. [6] The Maharishi moved out of India following the tax audit. [7] -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am going to set up in the sandbox the relevant quotes from the sources I could find. I also wasted to point out that there is what appears to be an orphaned source in one of the sentences; the sentence portion stating "A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service[132]" is attributed to the Houston Chronicle. There is a Houston Chronicle about TM, but it is not about the tax investigation. Since the citation is in mid sentence, this appears to be a mistake. The proper citation does appear at the end of the quote, and I plan to remove the incorrect one.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sources re: Maharishi tax raid
|
---|
BY SHAUN WATERS
BRYAN JOHNSON
MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS;
W. Speers, Inquirer Staff Writer |
One source says: "The maharishi, 77, is headquartered in Switzerland, but as an Indian citizen he is subject to the nation's strict controls on imported and exported wealth" So it doesn't appear these were the Maharishi personal offices or that he was he present during the raid . Another source says "and accused him of lying about his expenses" while another source says: "accused his organization of falsifying expenses". Another sources says the raid was conducted by "Indian police" another source say it was "federal tax authorities" (one says federal the other two just say "tax authorities"). One sources says "offices" were raided another sources says "Maharishinagar, his huge complex outside New Delhi" was raided while the other two sources don't specify the location of the raid. So there are a number of discrepancies here. If we could find sources that gave more detail on the background of this incident, rather than these passing mentions in articles about other things, we might find that the Maharishi was not personally involved. However, we have to go with what we have so far and these sources have personalized the event and made it about the Maharishi. So based on these sources I think it could be viewed as an appropriate topic for this article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I like the post, but I am wondering why the quotation mark around raided? I think it might look better without unless you have a strong reason for leaving it--
Luke Warmwater101 (
talk)
13:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were “raided” by Indian tax authorities who reportedly confiscated amounts varying from nothing at all to $500,000 worth of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels [8] [9] [10] [11] and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of “falsifying expenses”. [12]The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud [13])
Good points, what about this version, then? It does better incorporate the above comments, I think.
In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. [14]Reports on the amount of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source [15] [16] [17] [18] The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud" [19]) -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk 06:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've upgraded the photo in the infobox. If anyone disagrees they may revert and we can discuss here. The photo was discussed previously here with some editors saying that the photo was too cropped (top of head cut off and three odd fingers in the lower corner etc.) However, some editors objected to a change because the only other photos available were from the Maharishi's later life. I have solved this problem by finding a photo that was taken in 1978 vs. 1973. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not see that the below paragraph belongs in MMY's death section as it ha nothing to do with his death. I also wonder whether it is again in proportion ot he rest of the article. Worth mentioning somewhere, but how significant a controversy was it? All we have are this one person's account.
In the 2010 documentary David Wants to Fly, Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dvaraka Pitha and one of three claimants to title of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, accused the Maharishi of instigating the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, to dispute of the court case which had challenged Shantanand's inheritance of the Shankaracharya title. According to Swarupananda, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, as a member of the trader class and Brahmananda Saraswati's bookkeeper, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[32][183] According to religious scholar Cynthia Humes, enlightened individuals of any caste may "teach brahmavidya" and she cites Sri Aurobindo and Paramahansa Yogananda as examples.[184] Author Patricia Drake writes: "when Guru Dev was about to die he charged Maharishi with teaching\ laymen, including the Western World, a simple means to meditate".[185]
I would like to know if anyone can think of a more appropriate place or any thoughts on whether we should shorten it a little.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of errors in the current text such as the mis-spelling of Swaroopananda's name and a misapplication of sources etc. So I've rewritten and summarized the section and am proposing it here for placement in the Characterizations section:
The article says he stayed for two months, but most of the sources, including McCartney himself in the Beatles Anthology, say one month. Should we maybe change this and cite the Beatles Anthology? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Being fairly practical, I had a set period for staying in Rishikesh. To start with I thought, 'Whoa, this could be it, man. I could never come back if this works.' Then I thought, 'Wait a minute, I'll go for a month. Even if it's incredible, I'll still come back after a month.' If it had turned out to be something we really had to go back for, I would have gone back. But at the end of my month I was quite happy to leave. Nobody got any blinding enlightenment. I thought: 'This will do me. If I want to get into it heavily, I can do it anywhere.' That's one of the nice things about meditation — you don't have to go to church to do it.
By saying I was only going to be there a month, I had to risk that the others would say that I wasn't into it. And George did; he was quite strict. I remember talking about the next album and he would say: 'We're not here to talk music — we're here to meditate/' Oh yeah, all right Georgie Boy. Calm down, man. Sense of humour needed here, you know. In fact, I loved it there."
The article says that Lennon and Harrison left India amidst allegations that Maharishi had made sexual advances toward a participant. But Harrison himself says very clearly in The Beatles Anthology that he had always only planned to stay for the first part of the course in Rishikesh and that he had never had any intention to travel with the course to Kashmir for the second part. He says hIs reason for leaving was to travel to the south of India was that he had planned to do some filming with Ravi Shankar. Harrison also says that he thinks Lennon left so that he could get back to Yoko Ono, that the allegations were a pretext. It seems that there was a proximate cause (the allegations) and ultimate causes (Harrison's intention and Lennon's desire for Yoko). Is there any way we can modify the article so that it reflects this? Would it be going to far to say that they left for various reasons? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It concerns me that there are allegations of tax fraud in the article, but no sources have ever said Maharishi or his organization was found guilty of tax fraud. This could well be an instance in which the press reports sensational allegations but then neglects to report that no tax fraud was found. Otherwise why wouldn't that have reported that he was found guilty? Further, in two places in the article it says that he moved his headquarters from India after being investigated for tax fraud. In once instance it says he moved his headquarters in in the 1970s and in the other that he moved in 1988. Here's what the article says:
"In 1970 after having "a little trouble with Indian tax authorities" he moved his headquarters to Italy and then to Austria and later on Holland.[114]"
"In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. [135]Reports on the value of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source[136] [137][138] [139] The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud". [140])"
Yet many other sources contradict the assertions that he moved his headquarters in the 1970s or in 1988 in response to allegations of tax fraud. Below is a timeline based on these sources. They show that he lived and was headquartered in India and also Switzerland throughout the 1980s -- and that he was headquartered in India AFTER the allegations of tax fraud.
1983--Miami Herald, The (FL) - August 21, 1983---BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED
1987--THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - August 14, 1987---Unhappy Doug Henning Plans Disappearing Act
1988--The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), July 19, 1988
1990--Austin American-Statesman - October 12, 1990--TM leader seeks mass meditation Maharishi proposes peace train of thought
1990--THE SEATTLE TIMES - October 23, 1990--SEEN, HEARD, SAID PEOPLE
1990--Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - October 24, 1990--OLD MYSTICS NEVER DIE, THEY TAKE ON DISNEY
1991--Rocky Mountain News (CO) - March 17, 1991--MAHARISHI OFFERS TO MAKE PEACE BY LAUNCHING HOPPING VEDIC FLIERS
1993--MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS;The Ottawa Citizen October 12, 1993, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION Pg. A1
2008--The Telegraph—Feb 7, 2008 –Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Britannica Encyclopedia-- (born 1917?, Jabalpur, India died Feb. 5, 2008, Vlodrop, Neth.) Indian religious leader, founder of Transcendental Meditation (TM). He took a degree in physics before going to the Himalayas to study the Advaita school of Vedanta religious thought with the yogi Guru Dev for 13 years. He arrived in the U.S. in 1959, preaching the virtues of TM; in the 1960s the Beatles were perhaps his most celebrated followers. The Maharishi (the title means Great Sage) returned to India in the late 1970s and moved to the Netherlands in 1990. His organization, which includes real estate holdings, schools, and clinics, was worth more than $3 billion in the late 1990s.
The sources indicate that he was headquartered in India throughout the 1980s, including AFTER the tax allegations in January of 1988, and that he moved to Holland in 1990. Further, Deepak Chopra, who was close to Maharishi at the time, wrote that Maharishi moved to Holland in 1990 for health reasons. I believe the source that says Maharishi moved his headquarters from India after tax allegations in the 1970s is incorrect. It seems like we should simply say something like this: "Maharishi had headquarters in various locations, including India, in the 1970s and 1980s, and moved to Holland in 1990. He or his organization was investigated for tax fraud in India in 1988." TimidGuy ( talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
These additional sources seem to indicate that the Maharishi went to Italy to teach TM but then was back in India by 1977 and other sources say he spent the 1980's in India in seclusion.
Not sure how to handle this, any comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore I think these sentences could be placed in their proper chronological sections. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The subsection Bhagavad-Gita: A New Translation and Commentary [45] subsection of the "Philosophy and teaching" section is in my opinion too long and cites far too much from the book itself, creating a problem with [WP:UNDUE]. I think the first paragraph, which details Maharishi's vision of the book's meaning, is appropriate, and I added a second one which illustrates another important concept in the book. The rest, in my opinion could go. I would propose that the text below, be removed from the article, unless you feel that more than two paragraphs are needed.
In 1964, the Maharishi attended the All-India Yogic Conference held in Calcutta, India, where he said that the teachings contained in the Bhagavad Gita were misunderstood in the current age, and "the practice of yoga was misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied", resulting in "weakness in the fields of thought and action".[231] The Maharishi said that the source of his commentary was his master: "We are just an innocent means for the spontaneous flow of that knowledge—that's all."[232] A list of the masters of the "Holy Tradition" is printed in the appendix of the Maharishi's translation and commentary of the Bhagavad-Gita.[233] The Appendix of the Maharishi's Gita also contains a detailed discussion of the "Six Systems of Indian Philosophy", namely, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimansa, and Vedanta.[228] The Maharishi teaches that any knowledge is "true" only when it is acceptable in the light of all these six systems, and that the truth of the Bhagavad-Gita can be proven this way. He then illustrates this principal by showing how Chapter 1, Verse 2 gives "expression to each of the six systems in detail." [228] In the "Introduction", the Maharishi states that his commentary is "supplementary to the unique vision and profound wisdom of the great Shankara, as set forth in his Gita-Bhashya." He invites every man to use the "practical wisdom" in Chapter 2, Verse 45 to "gain eternal freedom in divine consciousness;"[234] which reads: The vedas' concern is with the three gunas. Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna, free from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self.[228] The Maharishi comments that in this verse Lord Krishna gives Arjuna the technique for "instant realization" - be without activity, be your Self. Also in his commentary on this verse, the Maharishi adds that the Self is within and that Krishna has revealed the "secret of arriving at the state of pure consciousness."[235] A footnote directs the reader to see the section in the Appendix on Transcendental Meditation.
Opinions?-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 06:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the text we are discussing from the article, and placed it in my sandbox [46]. I think it will be easier to decide, looking at it this way, which of these sentences, if any, belongs in the Maharishi article. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are some secondary sources that could be used in the section"
Another source:
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
The highlighted text was added with the edit summary "adjusted language for NPOV". [2] The footnote includes these citations:
I don't see that assertion in either source. The Rawson article (at least the excerpted part) doesn't mention religion, and the Johnston book doesn't mention the TM movement. I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly. Will Beback talk 23:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite inappropriate to delete with no consensus while the matter is under discussion and after WBB has said "I'm sure we can find better sources which make this assertion directly."-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
The name Varma has very high impact at the top of the page: it occurs twice in the first paragraph of the lead, and also at the top of the infobox, directly above the photo of MMY. It then occurs a fourth time a little further down the lead. This gives two strong impressions. The first is that it is notably important that MMY's birthname was Varma, and the second that his birthname indisputably was Varma.
In fact there is no element of notability to MMY's life before he became known to the world as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and MOS:LEAD does not justify the current prominence and reiteration of Varma.
Comparable cases in good quality, high-profile WP articles may be helpful when considering this. Indira Gandhi's birthname is given, arguably important given her father's status as prime minister and her own notable role in a political dynasty. It is mentioned once in the lead and not in the infobox.
Muhammad Ali was highly notable as Cassius Clay, and this is reflected in the lead of his article, though it has not been given a place in the infobox.
Adolf Hitler was born Adolf Schicklgruber, an interesting and reliable fact, but without notability. In the very full and detailed lead to his article it does not merit a mention. Nor is it in the infobox. This article is amongst the most scrutinized on Wikipedia.
The second issue is the doubtfulness of Varma. From the discussion lower down the article, it seems Varma may not be MMY's birthname. The phrasing is explicit: "The birth name, birth date, and caste of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi are not known with certainty". The case for Varma seems to rest not with quality of source, but with quantity. Given that none of the sources for Varma offers documentation, there is a strong possibility that among these sources there are some that are merely derivative, and so without weight.
OTOH there appears to be a high-quality source for Srivastava—the university record of distinguished alumni. The possiblity of a scholarly institution so mistaking the name of one of its distinguished graduates seems small, and implausibly coincidental given that there is a background source for there being a significant chance of MMY's birthname being Srivastava, from the surname of his nephews and cousins.
Given the issues of non-notability and uncertainty, assertions of MMY's birthname belong in a later section. MOS:LEAD requires notability and careful sourcing. Spicemix ( talk) 04:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
We have it well sourced that MMY's monastic name prior to becoming Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Bala Brahmachari Mahesh. Brahmachari is a rank of monk: once that is established no further sourcing is required to refer to him as the Brahmachari. Because at that time MMY was still unknown to the world reliable sources will be very few, and we must go with what we have. What we cannot do is anachronistically revert Bala Brahmachari Mahesh to his pre-monastic status; this is the established policy in the article as evidenced by the use of the Maharishi, when the subject is simply at a higher monastic status. It is untenable to assert that Mahesh can mean Mahesh Varma/Srivastava in one paragraph and Bala Brahmachari Mahesh in the next.
In fact the solution is very simple. For his pre-monastic life Mahesh can be used, and for the first phase of his monastic life Bala Brahmachari Mahesh or Brahamachari Mahesh. It will not be unwieldy, as it has such a short treatment in the article.
The article should not disguise or gloss over or deny the importance of the change of status from a non-monastic to a monastic life. The source Coplin says "his title, "bala brahmachari" identified him as a fully dedicated student of spiritual knowledge and life-long celibate ascetic". It identified him: we are obliged to project that identity in the article, and this phrase in itself can be taken as sufficient sourcing to disallow a bald Mahesh.
We should be very careful in the article not to appear at best casual and at worst dismissive in relation to the legitimacy of the brahmachari status. Coplin goes on to say, "brahmachari... has signified from Vedic times one who has taken the vow of chastity".
The Chambers source is merely "handy" and should not be added. We should keep in mind WP:SOURCES which says "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context". A Scottish dictionary of the unexplained sounds quite inappropriate and I do object to it. It seems that, per Coplin, using Mahesh for a monk is, as WP:V puts it, "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community", and that is WP:REDFLAG, an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sources. Spicemix ( talk) 16:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the quotation marks around guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and His Holiness in the lead. None of these terms should be marked as an opinion or an unusual usage. 210.251.14.161 ( talk) 00:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
What kind of source is Passport magazine, and why are we citing an article by their restaurant critic? [9] Will Beback talk 21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just added a new version of the sentence WBB had removed, which he said we would reinstate with a better source. The source for the new sentence is is Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm George Chryssides is Senior Lecturer in religious studies at the University of Wolverhampton, England, an Honorary Research Fellow in Contemporary Religion at the University of Birmingham, UK., and former Senior Lecturer and head of Religious Studies at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences of the University of Wolverhampton. Therefore, he can safely be considered an expert on the subject. I hope this resolves the issue to everyone’s satisfaction.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The source is too weak to support the material, given the context. We could cite literally dozens of academic sources which characterize the TM movement as an NRM. On the other side, we have one paper delivered at a conference held by CESNUR, a group which has a mixed reputation. A better source for Chryssides' view would be Exploring New Religions [10] However even that is just one POV, so giving it that much space in the lead seems disproportionate and gets us further away from the topic of the article. Further, there may be a false equivalence by using the same "sometimes" to describe both characterizations. If a thing is called X 19 times and Y one time, then it's misleading to say it's "sometimes called X and sometimes called Y". We should mention Y but make it clear that it is not the prevailing description. Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance". Will Beback talk 03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
(undent) This sentence in the lead is getting way too convoluted, IMHO. Perhaps we can just simply say the Maharishi founded a "Movement" and either give more detail about it int he body of the article, or just let an interested reader follow the Transcendental Meditation movement link to get the scoop. -- BweeB ( talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that MMY is primarily notable for offering a technique which proved hugely popular. I propose that we bring a slimmed-down mention of 5m+ people to the top paragraph, which could then read: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ... developed the Transcendental Meditation technique, which has been learned by more than 5 million people[refs]. That in a nutshell is his notability. There is no need to clutter the 5m with quotes as it is reliably referenced, and "studied his methods" is an arcane phrase clearly intended to paraphrase "learned".every word should be devoted to explaining who the subject is and why he/she is notable. Weighing the lead down with pedantic terms does not help entice the reader to read on. In general, this whole long lead section is a real snore, lacking focus on the subject’s claim to fame. For ex., we only get to know that the subject introduced meditation to the world on a rather large scale at the end of five paragraphs. As I’ve said before, let’s get more reader-friendly around here!
(undent) Why, why, why? -- BweeB ( talk) 07:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand what's going on here. Is there a suggestion to remove content from the lead? I can't see why content on the TM movement would be removed. If there is too much detail in the lead, that may be a consideration but needs to be discussed and agreement arrived at. That has been a contentious area and it should be discussed. Am I missing something here... these threads seem to be tangled. and what is going on is unclear( olive ( talk) 19:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC))
Think this sentence could be removed from the lead - it is not directly about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "His followers started the Natural Law Party in 1992, which ran campaigns in dozens of countries." -- BweeB ( talk) 17:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any sources that say "his followers started the NLP". The language used in the sources you've cited says he was the founder and they call it "Maharishi's Natural Law Party". We should accurately reflect the sources.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Since we were encouraged [20] to find sources for Bal Brahmachari Mahesh being a name, rather than a title, two sources have come up. One is Mason, p. 17: "In undertaking to serve as a disciple, together with the usual vows of service and celibacy he took a new name, that of Bal Brahmacharya Mahesh." The second is Rajeev Verma, Faith and philosophy of Hinduism (2009), pp 344, 978-8178357188: "In 1941 he became a secretary to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who gave him the name Bal Brahmachari Mahesh." This means we have the assertions of his principal biographer, and an Indian expert. Currently the article is using Coplin, but these new, and published, references may be seen as another case of "sources that have more weight than a doctoral dissertation by a follower" [21].
Doubts have been expressed about the variations of spelling in this case, but standard textual scholarship doesn't recognize a problem. As this summary [22] explains, minor variations of spelling are termed accidental, and the editor may choose which to go with for his version of the text. For example, six specimens of Shakespeare's signature have survived, and they are all spelled differently. The terminal silent Hindi a found here on Brahmacharya, and the missing e in the signature Bal Brahmachari Mahsh are both accidentals. I propose that in this article we go with Bal Brahmachari Mahesh.
The article will be improved if the subject is properly named, and I'll make the changes and add the new sources. Currently we have an inconsistent situation with the subject having three phases of name, but being referred to in the same way for two of them. Spicemix ( talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit."
This is a tendentious allegation, and poorly-sourced almost to the point of being unsourced. The author presents himself as a novice on the subject, having "read here and there", and the source is not specified. A lawsuit is a matter of public record, and none has ever been made known. Several scholars have been active in the field of the Shankaracharya succession, and the lawsuits brought by other parties are documented. Mason makes no mention of this allegation against MMY, either in the 1994 edition of his biography or in subsequent internet writings.
We should also bear in mind that while the two ellipses in the quote as presented in the article make it appear that a "British magazine" is the source, when the passage is read in full [28] this is far from clear.
As the quote is misleading and unsupported, I propose we delete it. Spicemix ( talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
It will be observed that one of the preconditions of entitlement to this post is being born a Brahmin. Brahamachari Mahesh, being of the kshetriya caste, was not eligible to hold this venerated office. So, on Friday 12 June, 1953, at the wish of Swami Brahmananda, his close disciple Sri Swami Shantanand Sarawati Maharaj was installed as successor to the throne of Shankaracharya,
With his master's passing and his fellow disciple Swami Shantanand the new Shankaracharya, Brahmachari Mahesh took leave of the monastery and 'retired to the caves of the "Valley of the Saints" in Uttar Kashi, high in the Himalayas'.
Since non of the editors involved in this thread are able to locate reliable sources to support the rather inadequate source which is currently provided, I would vote for deletion. If supporting sources can be found in the future, then it can be added back into the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The reliability of the MG on a great many subjects, primarily local and regional, but to a great extent national too, will not be questioned, but its competence for checking or analyzing this particular legal issue, evidence, and argument may be estimated at close to zero. It seems to be a smallish newspaper, currently the 3rd largest regional daily in Quebec, and its target audience is 13% of the population of the province.Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.
It seems that the general consensus is to remove the text in question(Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit.") on the basis of:
If reliable sources can be found in the future then information on this topic can be added to the article but at present the text is not properly supported and I propose that the text be deleted now, based on Wikipedia policy and consensus of the above discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
-- — Keithbob • Talk • 11:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this source [32] that Will Beback just came across-- comments from Swami Swaroopananda and his interview with David Sievking are already cited in the section Years In Vlodrop so I have added this quote from Swaroopananda "Mahesh Yogi instigated Shantanand to fight the court case" to that sentence. You can see my edit here. [33]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel some editing is needed on Deepak Chopra Huffington Post reference. Just read some of the comments in the archives regarding Chopra and Maharishi's illness in 1991. I am slightly confused with the year. In August 1990 I was in America when I was told that Maharishi was in Vlodrop and he had meetings with various people. At the beginning of December I was in 2 meetings with Maharishi in Vlodrop, with about 40 other people. In January 1991 there was a large gathering in Maastricht, Holland. In April, July, August & Nov 1991, I was again in meetings attended by Maharishi and with a number of leading musicians from India. It is a similar story in 1992. I am sure that there are many people who can also confirm regular meetings during this time - even though such "first hand" accounts may fall outside of Wiki rules for inclusion. My point, however, is that there should be more research on the actual year of Chopra's claim, since in 1991/1992 there was no period when Maharishi "disappeared" for 1 year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul davis108 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
So, just a little more observation on the Deepak Chopra comment in "Vlodrop Years". In the referenced Huffington Post Blog ((February 13, 2008) Deepak Chopra timelines it August 1st 1991 and states this was when his book "Perfect Health" was first published. Bantam Books, however, gives a published year of 1990. Let us accept that 1991 was a typing error and he meant 1990. Even this would not fit his story since Maharishi appeared at a large gathering in January 1991. So let us say he was confused about his book and meant to timeline the story August 1989. In the blog he states that Maharishi was out of circulation for almost a year, that they spent months at a country house in south west England and then, "After he was fully recovered we flew him via helicopter back to his chosen residence, which wasn't in either India or the U.S. but the obscure village of Vlodrop in Holland". This would fit in with the timescale of Maharishi arriving in Vlodrop in August 1990 as I mentioned in my above post. However, there remains the mystery of how Maharishi appeared in a global satellite broadcast from India on 12th January 1990, where Deepak Chopra was one of the speakers and talked about "a great alliance that Maharishi Ayur-Veda Association is going to form with the established associations, such as the American Medical Association and all the associations of medicine throughout the world". For me this makes the story at the least uncertain. Paul davis108 ( talk) 18:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi Will, Thanks for the response. I recently rejoined wiki after many years absence and was just returning to some old "friends" - this page being one of them. I personally feel Chopra has embellished a story that probably has some truth in it - just the dates don't add up, which is what I was questioning. I will look for some newspaper/radio/TV references when I have time and come back. Thanks for the friendly welcome. Paul davis108 ( talk) 22:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I've changed the infobox date of birth from 1914, for which I can find no support, to 1917, his biographers' preferred date as given lower in the article. Consequently his age on passing becomes 91, as in the BBC and The Times obituaries. Spicemix ( talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
So many sources: yes there are a lot, but most are very poor, and of those listed above most are tertiary, either encyclopedias or obituaries, and if I understand RS policy, we shouldn't use them to vie with two biographers. The CBY, which we are putting most faith in, is itself tertiary, and candidly doubts the quality of its information, with 1911(?) and A majority of journalists have guessed. This guesswork, in 1972, didn't have the advantage of Jefferson's and Mason's researches. I think the CBY editors themselves would be surprised to find that their speculation and acknowledged poor sources had survived being corrected by specialist researchers and found their way into an encyclopedia of 2011.
We should also guard against being fact laundering victims. In this essay we read that iteration in responsible sources can conceal an unreliable past. This seems to harden into policy at WP:USEBYOTHERS which says, If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. Spicemix ( talk) 14:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Mason gives 1917 as the DOB, though mentions other dates. OTOH, he only gives one birth name: Mahesh Prasad Varma. Since we're going with the simplified info on DOB, I propose we also just give one birth name. We can still mention the other possible name in the body. Thoughts? Will Beback talk 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
The statement in the lead He began to be known as Maharishi Mahesh Yogi around the year 1960 I don't think will find any support, being very late, and in line with Mason I've changed it to 1955. It is from this point that Mason, in his chapter "The Maharishi emerges" begins to refer to his subject as the Maharishi, rather than Brahmachari Mahesh. But some latitude in the phrasing is still appropriate, because Mason's thought seems to be that as Beacon Light of the Himalayas, 1956, was published in the name of Maharishi Bala Brahmachari Mahesh Yogi Maharaj, so the original lectures would have been delivered under this name the previous year. Spicemix ( talk) 14:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering how best to deal with the Alex Mardas allegation of luxury in the ashram in Interaction with The Beatles. It currently stands unchallenged, whereas in The Beatles in India the ashram is also described as "seedy", and there is an apparently matter-of-fact description of the accommodation: "The stone bungalows were equipped with electric heaters, running water, toilets, and English-style furniture."
Ringo compared the ashram to " a kind of spiritual Butlins", a chain of holiday camps designed to appeal to working British families, with very basic accommodation.
There is a long list of denunciations of Mardas's unreliability and animus towards MMY, both from those present in Rishikesh and from those who have studied the field since. The NYT [35] calls him a charlatan, and Mason says, "Quite why his presence was tolerated is hard to imagine", and comments on "the intensity of Mardas's desire to break the Maharishi's influence on the Beatles". (pp.137-8)
If editors agree that the Mardas description is likely to be exaggerated and is inappropriate, then it can be removed and his views dealt with at his own article. If it is retained, it will have to be put in context. Spicemix ( talk) 15:33, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
In the lead we have the text "....characterised as a new religious movement and also as non-religious." Since we have a link to the TMM, why do we need these characterizations here? They are also discussed in the body of the article. -- BwB ( talk) 19:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
An anon editor, user:212.178.127.51, presumably user: Vijayante, deleted a paragraph of sourced material with the edit summary: "made a delete of inappropriate statements that are not in keeping with Wikipedia's standards". [36] Vijayante has a history of deleting negative material under the mistaken assertion that it violates unnamed Wikipedia policies. Unless an actual policy issue can be found it should be restored. Will Beback talk 22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Today, I removed the following unsourced controversial material.
If others feel it should stay in the article until a source can be found, then please discuss it here. Thanks. -- BwB ( talk) 16:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dwarka and one of three claimants to Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math told a German filmmaker in 2010 that "Mahesh Yogi instigated [Swami] Shantanand [Saraswati] to fight the court case" and that as a member of the trader class and Saraswati's bookkeeper, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it." [2] [3] Other sources say that Maharishi worked closely with the Shankaracharya and was considered a "great disciple" and his "right (hand) man". [4] [5] According to biographer Paul Mason, Swami Shantanand Saraswati (whom Brahmananda Saraswati had named as his successor) "publicly commended the practice of the Maharishi's meditation," referring to it as a 'master key to the knowledge of Vedanta.' [6] Sociologist J.R Coplin, who conducted interviews in India as part of his research on the TM organisation, says that Swami Shantanand's successor as Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Vishnudevanand, "speaks highly of Maharishi and sees his teaching as a reflection of their master's (Brahmananda Saraswati)". [7]
Woo
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).There are discrepancies between what the TM organization says the organization is worth and what sources say its worth. I'd like to see all of this content, because it is contentious, inline attributed per Wikipedia on contentious material. I'll be looking at the TM movement article first since it is the main article. Any thoughts on this.( olive ( talk) 22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC))
Is it necessary to have the citation needed legend in the lead of this article where it says The honorifics Maharishi and Yogi were added to his given name Mahesh?I don't think there's any doubt that that was the name he went by. Also, not sure if this is helpful, but it is also unclear from sources whether the title was conferred to him by others, or whether he herself adopted it, as shown for instance, in these sources: After the death of his mentor in 1953, the Maharishi spent more than 18 months alone in a Himalayan cave. In 1955, he travelled to the southern Indian state of Kerala, where he was asked to deliver a series of public talks on spirituality and a new form of meditation. He changed his name to Maharishi, meaning Great Seer in Sanskrit. [1], and here: Two years after the death of Guru Deva in 1955, he travelled south to Kerala, where he began to broadcast his message. On January 1 1958, at a conference in Madras, Mahesh, now Maharishi, "the great seer", announced the formation of a worldwide Spiritual Regeneration Movement [2] -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 19:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have been looking at other Wiki articles on "gurus" who have had a large influence in the world and who have made a significant contribution to society. These articles usually contain a large section dedicated to that person's "Teachings" and "Influence". For example, the follow article,
all have sentions titled "Teachings", and/or "influence", and/or "Legacy".
So I am proposing that we expand the "Teaching" sections of the Maharishi's article to cover more of his teachings in the area of Vedic Science, his influence to philosophical thinking and his contribution in the area of knowledge. What do other editors think of this suggestion? -- BwB ( talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
J. R. Coplin is cited and quoted almost a dozen times in the article but none of the cites give the name of the book that is being referenced. And... a search of Amazon, Google Books and World Cat does not yield any books by an author with that name. Can anyone help solve this mystery? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The text below has been removed per TM ArbCom as it is uncited and has been tagged as for some months. If any one can find sources for any of the text below it can be re-added to the article.
I removed this source: Gilpin, G. 1999. The Maharishi Effect: A Personal Journey Through the Movement That Transformed American Spirituality. J.P. Tarcher/Penguin. from the article as there were two other citations for the same text and this source in my opinion is unreliable. No page number was cited and as the title states it is a memoir of sorts; a "personal journey" and not reliable. It is self described, in its liner notes, as being a "work of creative nonfiction".-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe it's a matter of fact that Maharishi used his helicopter to quickly move among his various teacher training sites being held at off-season hotels in the Swiss mountains. But we need a source that says this. The recent addition to the article, below, appears to be the personal experience of the IP who added it:
Andrew Mallon, trained as a TM teacher in 1972, clarifies this: "The helicopter was not an 'indulgence.' It was used for a few years when TM-related courses were held in Switzerland because it saved Maharishi hours of driving time around the circuitous mountain roads in that country getting to the various Swiss towns where the participants were."
I'm putting it here for now until we can find a source. TimidGuy ( talk) 15:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I have removed the text below and am parking it here for further consideration as it is off topic and original research. It is also not reliably sourced according to discussions at the Maharishi Group talk page and at AfD which has determined that there are no secondary sources that clearly establish the Maharishi Group's definition, identity or existence. But rather the term Maharishi group appears to be used loosely in different ways at different times to mean the business dealings of the TM movement.
The section on the Beatles, [37] which deals with a short period in which the Beatles were in Rishikesh, seems to me a bit too long. It is 705 words, and spans only a period of a few months. The section preceding it spans a period of 10 years in Maharishi's life, and is 1200 words. The section following it, uses about 1070 words to describe the next 22 year of MMY's life. In light of the above, it seems to me that in relation to the entire article, "Interaction with the Beatles" is too prominently featured, possibly creating a problem with undue weight. Also, a lot of what is said in that section is not directly related to MMY but to others, such as Alex Mardas, for instance. Finally, all of it is already reported at great length in the article The Beatles in India. I think this paragraph could be made more succinct and readers could be redirected to the full article if they want more specific details on the Beatles. How do others feel? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 20:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 06:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I have created a proposed revised section in the sandbox here [38]. I have tried to limit the paragraph to what concerns Maharishi and the Beatles directly. Everything else is already depicted in The Beatles in India which the section redirects readers to. Please comment either here or at the sandbox link-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement "really took off" when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles". [3] [4] The Beatles met him for the first time in London in August 1967, and studied with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to the Maharishi's Academy of Meditation in Rishikesh, India [5] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". [6] Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days [6] [7] [8] McCartney and Jane Asher stayed for two months. [9] Both Beatles said later that they enjoyed the ashram experience and planned to continue with their meditation. [10] Lennon and Harrison departed two weeks later after hearing a rumour that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow, [11]] a rumor which was later retracted in Mia’s memoirs and by the Beatles. [9] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs. [12] [6] In a press conference on April 3, 2009, prior to his performance at the David Lynch Foundation benefit concert "Change Begins Within", Paul McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them. [13]
Human Dimension: Anand Shrivastava
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Corder
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Una Kroll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that.
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles".[1][2] The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India[3] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction".[4] Starr and his wife left after ten days, McCartney and Jane Asher after two months and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow. Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did".[115] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the Maharishi's influence was instrumental in weaning The Beatles from LSD and inspiring them to write many new songs[10][4] including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them.[11]
Thanks for these rewrites. They are both improvements. I'd agree with Kbob's version more since I tend to get a sense of the controversy surrounding the Beattles and the Maharishi with that version. I have to say I really dislike that "really took off" phrase sourced or not. Colloquialisms don't seem to be particularly encyclopedic?( olive ( talk) 21:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC))
In 1967, the Maharishi's fame increased and his movement gained greater notoriety when he became the "spiritual advisor to The Beatles" [2] [3] The Maharishi met The Beatles in London in August 1967, and they went to study with him in Bangor, Wales, before travelling to Rishikesh, India [4] in February 1968 to "devote themselves fully to his instruction". [5] Starr and his wife Maureen left after ten days [5] [6] [7] McCartney and Jane Asher after two months, [8] [9] and Lennon and Harrison departed later due to their belief that the Maharishi had made sexual advances towards Mia Farrow [10]] Harrison commented years later, "Now, historically, there's the story that something went on that shouldn't have done — but nothing did" [11] The New York Times and The Independent reported that the influence of the Maharishi, and the journey to Rishikesh to meditate, weaned The Beatles from LSD and inspired them to write many new songs, [12] [5] including Lennon's condemnation of the Maharishi in a song called Sexy Sadie. [13] [5] [14] In 2009, McCartney commented that Transcendental Meditation was a gift The Beatles had received from the Maharishi at a time when they were looking for something to stabilise them. [15]
Corder
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Una Kroll
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).American
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that.
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)
MacDonald
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Moved from the sandbox. Is this the version that should be included? -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 11:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Done
When I originally added the consensus version reported above, I did so piecemeal. I somehow left out an the consensus version regarding Mia Farrow, and also the reference to the Song Sexy Sadie. The correct version has now been put in the article [40]. Apologies for the confusion -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
The paragraph below is about the 1988 raid on MMY’s India office is only 9% of the entire section. [41] Still, the section spans a 22 year period and thisis a single event, however important. Do you feel it could be made a little more concise, would you look at the proposed version and see if it reads more easily? I started a sandbox discussion and proposed changes. Please tell me what you think: [42]
And here is the original paragraph:
In January 1988, the Maharishi's offices in India were raided by Indian police, who reportedly confiscated cash, securities and jewels. News reports varied widely as to the dollar value of the goods seized. One source said $500,000, [1] while two others put the figure at $60,000 and $30,000, respectively. [2] [3] A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service [4] reported that nothing at all of value was confiscated. [5] The raid occurred amidst a conflict with authorities over taxes and the movement was accused of lying about expenses. [6] The Maharishi moved out of India following the tax audit. [7] -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I am going to set up in the sandbox the relevant quotes from the sources I could find. I also wasted to point out that there is what appears to be an orphaned source in one of the sentences; the sentence portion stating "A fourth newspaper article, quoting Maharishi's Age of Enlightenment News Service[132]" is attributed to the Houston Chronicle. There is a Houston Chronicle about TM, but it is not about the tax investigation. Since the citation is in mid sentence, this appears to be a mistake. The proper citation does appear at the end of the quote, and I plan to remove the incorrect one.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Sources re: Maharishi tax raid
|
---|
BY SHAUN WATERS
BRYAN JOHNSON
MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS;
W. Speers, Inquirer Staff Writer |
One source says: "The maharishi, 77, is headquartered in Switzerland, but as an Indian citizen he is subject to the nation's strict controls on imported and exported wealth" So it doesn't appear these were the Maharishi personal offices or that he was he present during the raid . Another source says "and accused him of lying about his expenses" while another source says: "accused his organization of falsifying expenses". Another sources says the raid was conducted by "Indian police" another source say it was "federal tax authorities" (one says federal the other two just say "tax authorities"). One sources says "offices" were raided another sources says "Maharishinagar, his huge complex outside New Delhi" was raided while the other two sources don't specify the location of the raid. So there are a number of discrepancies here. If we could find sources that gave more detail on the background of this incident, rather than these passing mentions in articles about other things, we might find that the Maharishi was not personally involved. However, we have to go with what we have so far and these sources have personalized the event and made it about the Maharishi. So based on these sources I think it could be viewed as an appropriate topic for this article. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I like the post, but I am wondering why the quotation mark around raided? I think it might look better without unless you have a strong reason for leaving it--
Luke Warmwater101 (
talk)
13:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were “raided” by Indian tax authorities who reportedly confiscated amounts varying from nothing at all to $500,000 worth of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels [8] [9] [10] [11] and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of “falsifying expenses”. [12]The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud [13])
Good points, what about this version, then? It does better incorporate the above comments, I think.
In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. [14]Reports on the amount of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source [15] [16] [17] [18] The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud" [19]) -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk 06:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I've upgraded the photo in the infobox. If anyone disagrees they may revert and we can discuss here. The photo was discussed previously here with some editors saying that the photo was too cropped (top of head cut off and three odd fingers in the lower corner etc.) However, some editors objected to a change because the only other photos available were from the Maharishi's later life. I have solved this problem by finding a photo that was taken in 1978 vs. 1973. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I do not see that the below paragraph belongs in MMY's death section as it ha nothing to do with his death. I also wonder whether it is again in proportion ot he rest of the article. Worth mentioning somewhere, but how significant a controversy was it? All we have are this one person's account.
In the 2010 documentary David Wants to Fly, Swami Swaroopananda Saraswati, Shankaracharya of Dvaraka Pitha and one of three claimants to title of the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, accused the Maharishi of instigating the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, Swami Shantanand Saraswati, to dispute of the court case which had challenged Shantanand's inheritance of the Shankaracharya title. According to Swarupananda, the Maharishi had no right to teach meditation or to give mantras, as a member of the trader class and Brahmananda Saraswati's bookkeeper, and that "Gurus don't sell their knowledge, they share it."[32][183] According to religious scholar Cynthia Humes, enlightened individuals of any caste may "teach brahmavidya" and she cites Sri Aurobindo and Paramahansa Yogananda as examples.[184] Author Patricia Drake writes: "when Guru Dev was about to die he charged Maharishi with teaching\ laymen, including the Western World, a simple means to meditate".[185]
I would like to know if anyone can think of a more appropriate place or any thoughts on whether we should shorten it a little.-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 17:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of errors in the current text such as the mis-spelling of Swaroopananda's name and a misapplication of sources etc. So I've rewritten and summarized the section and am proposing it here for placement in the Characterizations section:
The article says he stayed for two months, but most of the sources, including McCartney himself in the Beatles Anthology, say one month. Should we maybe change this and cite the Beatles Anthology? TimidGuy ( talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Being fairly practical, I had a set period for staying in Rishikesh. To start with I thought, 'Whoa, this could be it, man. I could never come back if this works.' Then I thought, 'Wait a minute, I'll go for a month. Even if it's incredible, I'll still come back after a month.' If it had turned out to be something we really had to go back for, I would have gone back. But at the end of my month I was quite happy to leave. Nobody got any blinding enlightenment. I thought: 'This will do me. If I want to get into it heavily, I can do it anywhere.' That's one of the nice things about meditation — you don't have to go to church to do it.
By saying I was only going to be there a month, I had to risk that the others would say that I wasn't into it. And George did; he was quite strict. I remember talking about the next album and he would say: 'We're not here to talk music — we're here to meditate/' Oh yeah, all right Georgie Boy. Calm down, man. Sense of humour needed here, you know. In fact, I loved it there."
The article says that Lennon and Harrison left India amidst allegations that Maharishi had made sexual advances toward a participant. But Harrison himself says very clearly in The Beatles Anthology that he had always only planned to stay for the first part of the course in Rishikesh and that he had never had any intention to travel with the course to Kashmir for the second part. He says hIs reason for leaving was to travel to the south of India was that he had planned to do some filming with Ravi Shankar. Harrison also says that he thinks Lennon left so that he could get back to Yoko Ono, that the allegations were a pretext. It seems that there was a proximate cause (the allegations) and ultimate causes (Harrison's intention and Lennon's desire for Yoko). Is there any way we can modify the article so that it reflects this? Would it be going to far to say that they left for various reasons? TimidGuy ( talk) 11:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
It concerns me that there are allegations of tax fraud in the article, but no sources have ever said Maharishi or his organization was found guilty of tax fraud. This could well be an instance in which the press reports sensational allegations but then neglects to report that no tax fraud was found. Otherwise why wouldn't that have reported that he was found guilty? Further, in two places in the article it says that he moved his headquarters from India after being investigated for tax fraud. In once instance it says he moved his headquarters in in the 1970s and in the other that he moved in 1988. Here's what the article says:
"In 1970 after having "a little trouble with Indian tax authorities" he moved his headquarters to Italy and then to Austria and later on Holland.[114]"
"In January 1988, offices at the Maharishinagar complex in New Delhi were raided by Indian tax authorities and the Maharishi and his organization were accused of falsifying expenses”. [135]Reports on the value of stocks, fixed-deposit notes, cash and jewels confiscated, varies from source to source[136] [137][138] [139] The Maharishi, who was” headquartered in Switzerland” at the time, reportedly moved to the Netherlands “after the Indian government accused him of tax fraud". [140])"
Yet many other sources contradict the assertions that he moved his headquarters in the 1970s or in 1988 in response to allegations of tax fraud. Below is a timeline based on these sources. They show that he lived and was headquartered in India and also Switzerland throughout the 1980s -- and that he was headquartered in India AFTER the allegations of tax fraud.
1983--Miami Herald, The (FL) - August 21, 1983---BATTERIES NOT INCLUDED
1987--THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE - August 14, 1987---Unhappy Doug Henning Plans Disappearing Act
1988--The Boston Globe (Boston, MA), July 19, 1988
1990--Austin American-Statesman - October 12, 1990--TM leader seeks mass meditation Maharishi proposes peace train of thought
1990--THE SEATTLE TIMES - October 23, 1990--SEEN, HEARD, SAID PEOPLE
1990--Akron Beacon Journal (OH) - October 24, 1990--OLD MYSTICS NEVER DIE, THEY TAKE ON DISNEY
1991--Rocky Mountain News (CO) - March 17, 1991--MAHARISHI OFFERS TO MAKE PEACE BY LAUNCHING HOPPING VEDIC FLIERS
1993--MARK RICHARDSON; CITIZEN SECTION: NEWS;The Ottawa Citizen October 12, 1993, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION Pg. A1
2008--The Telegraph—Feb 7, 2008 –Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Britannica Encyclopedia-- (born 1917?, Jabalpur, India died Feb. 5, 2008, Vlodrop, Neth.) Indian religious leader, founder of Transcendental Meditation (TM). He took a degree in physics before going to the Himalayas to study the Advaita school of Vedanta religious thought with the yogi Guru Dev for 13 years. He arrived in the U.S. in 1959, preaching the virtues of TM; in the 1960s the Beatles were perhaps his most celebrated followers. The Maharishi (the title means Great Sage) returned to India in the late 1970s and moved to the Netherlands in 1990. His organization, which includes real estate holdings, schools, and clinics, was worth more than $3 billion in the late 1990s.
The sources indicate that he was headquartered in India throughout the 1980s, including AFTER the tax allegations in January of 1988, and that he moved to Holland in 1990. Further, Deepak Chopra, who was close to Maharishi at the time, wrote that Maharishi moved to Holland in 1990 for health reasons. I believe the source that says Maharishi moved his headquarters from India after tax allegations in the 1970s is incorrect. It seems like we should simply say something like this: "Maharishi had headquarters in various locations, including India, in the 1970s and 1980s, and moved to Holland in 1990. He or his organization was investigated for tax fraud in India in 1988." TimidGuy ( talk) 12:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
These additional sources seem to indicate that the Maharishi went to Italy to teach TM but then was back in India by 1977 and other sources say he spent the 1980's in India in seclusion.
Not sure how to handle this, any comments from others? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore I think these sentences could be placed in their proper chronological sections. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The subsection Bhagavad-Gita: A New Translation and Commentary [45] subsection of the "Philosophy and teaching" section is in my opinion too long and cites far too much from the book itself, creating a problem with [WP:UNDUE]. I think the first paragraph, which details Maharishi's vision of the book's meaning, is appropriate, and I added a second one which illustrates another important concept in the book. The rest, in my opinion could go. I would propose that the text below, be removed from the article, unless you feel that more than two paragraphs are needed.
In 1964, the Maharishi attended the All-India Yogic Conference held in Calcutta, India, where he said that the teachings contained in the Bhagavad Gita were misunderstood in the current age, and "the practice of yoga was misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied", resulting in "weakness in the fields of thought and action".[231] The Maharishi said that the source of his commentary was his master: "We are just an innocent means for the spontaneous flow of that knowledge—that's all."[232] A list of the masters of the "Holy Tradition" is printed in the appendix of the Maharishi's translation and commentary of the Bhagavad-Gita.[233] The Appendix of the Maharishi's Gita also contains a detailed discussion of the "Six Systems of Indian Philosophy", namely, Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Karma Mimansa, and Vedanta.[228] The Maharishi teaches that any knowledge is "true" only when it is acceptable in the light of all these six systems, and that the truth of the Bhagavad-Gita can be proven this way. He then illustrates this principal by showing how Chapter 1, Verse 2 gives "expression to each of the six systems in detail." [228] In the "Introduction", the Maharishi states that his commentary is "supplementary to the unique vision and profound wisdom of the great Shankara, as set forth in his Gita-Bhashya." He invites every man to use the "practical wisdom" in Chapter 2, Verse 45 to "gain eternal freedom in divine consciousness;"[234] which reads: The vedas' concern is with the three gunas. Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna, free from duality, ever firm in purity, independent of possessions, possessed of the Self.[228] The Maharishi comments that in this verse Lord Krishna gives Arjuna the technique for "instant realization" - be without activity, be your Self. Also in his commentary on this verse, the Maharishi adds that the Self is within and that Krishna has revealed the "secret of arriving at the state of pure consciousness."[235] A footnote directs the reader to see the section in the Appendix on Transcendental Meditation.
Opinions?-- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 06:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the text we are discussing from the article, and placed it in my sandbox [46]. I think it will be easier to decide, looking at it this way, which of these sentences, if any, belongs in the Maharishi article. -- Luke Warmwater101 ( talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Here are some secondary sources that could be used in the section"
Another source:
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. "$60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated.
Sub-head: We'll Transcend Our Mistake. Section: Back in December, we repeated a wire service's assertion that offices in India of the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been raided and that $60,000 in undeclared cash and jewelry were confiscated. Recently, we heard from the Age of Enlightenment News Service in Livingston Manor, which asserted that, according to "official documents from the Indian government," nothing of value was confiscated in the raids.