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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi ive been reading through the wikipage on transcendental meditation and would like to help improve it.
I have a few questions.
I have heard from a retired Colonel in the US army that veterans that are prescribed by a Doctor to learn tm for any medical reason, have all the expenses of learning covered by the US Gov. I think this would be useful info to have on this page if true.
What happened to all the links at the bottom of the page...there seems to be a number of pages that used to be there? One was I think askthedoctors.com . I was recommending my friends who were interested in learning TM to come here and find out more about it. Now i find at the bottom there are virtually only sites linked that have bad things to say about TM?
What is the relevancy of the two paragraphs in the Lawsuit section to people interested in learning more about TM when they come to Wikipedia? Is it useful information? The first claim dealign with Robert Kropinski Lawsuit against the World Plan Executive Council was a null outcome. I'm not sure why it would be included since it doesn't really say anything other than a guy tried to take the TM organisation to court but lost...it doesn't seem to me to be very relavant.
The 2nd case dealing with the murder of the student at Maharishi university of Managament seems to have more to do with that University than the technique...I'm not sure why it would be on the page dealing with TM...wouldn't it make more sense to be on the university page? Also what is even the signifigance of this anyway in regards to either the University or TM?
I don't know what the protocol of adding links to the bottom of the page is but I belong to the SIMS Club at Auckland University in New Zealand and would I be able to put a link to our webpage at the bottom of this article?
Some things I would like to see added to the TM Page would be TM in Governments. I know in New Zealand that at one time 10% our governing MP's practiced TM along with the speaker of the house and the deputy Prime minister.
It just seems to me that in NZ where you have 45,000 people who have learnt the TM technique...with many of the most wealthy learning, many many doctors and at sometime so many members of Parliment practicing how in the interest of balance so much "controversial" material is present on the wiki TM page? I'm not disputing its reality...I'm just disputing what its real signifigance is...what it really contributes towards giving people an understanding of what TM is...
Sorry if i seem to be jumping all over the place. -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay.
Let’s start with this one. Kropinski v. WPEC. As far as I can see this paragraph basically says a man had a disagreement with the WPEC and it was settled out of court. If I’m over simplifying the implication of it let me know...but if I’m not is this information very relevant to people who want to know more about TM. I can't see that it is...and from what I have read from going through the archives space seems to be a concern and perhaps we could add a bit more info as to what tm is as opposed to essentially meaningless info.-- Uncreated ( talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been bedridden with the flu for the last few days.
I've had a look at the WP:CRITICISM and undue weight links you gave me. Perhaps we could remove the Controversies section and replace it with a Reception section as suggested in the Criticism essay? I think this would provided a way to included both Postive and negative criticisms of the TM Technique. Perhaps in this proposed section mention of the fact that there are websites and groups that have a disfavourable opinion of the TM Technique and continually site facts that are wrong or misleading and give an example of the Kropinski suit?
In the proposed reception section maybe we could have different subheadings and look at how different aspects of society have recieved the TM technique...maybe Government, Education, Science, Religion, Medicine, Physcology, Military, etc -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Also are the links provided at the bottom of the page expected to meet the same standards set out in the reliable sources wiki policy? I suspect if they are then a few of the links violate that policy and should be removed. -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
TG I understand about the no original research and yes you are right. In regards to third party sources talking about TM and its reception could we not use the many different articles that have appeared in the US news media about TM in Education, Business and the medical industry? I believe all the information is out there it’s just a matter of getting our hands on it...for example in Cambodia there is a university that practices Consciousness based education jointly run by the TM organisation and the Cambodian government...now I'm sure there are a number of official documents talking about its "reception" but they would all mostly be in Khmer...likewise the peace project that was conducted in Mozambique in the 90's I'm sure had alot of coverage in the media in Mozambique about it but I’m not sure how accessible it would be to us.
Perhaps we could continue to have a Controversies section but also have a reception section? In the reception section you could have how TM has been received by Religion, Education, Business, Medicine, and the Military. Also the cult issues could also be included in this section but instead under the umbrella of how TM has been received in the field of psychology? Under the controversies we could have the lawsuits and any other information that was controversial.
In regards to the price that section could be moved to nearer the top of the page where it discusses the teaching procedure? -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys...I'm quite a bit better now...I don't remember the last time I was so violently ill though. Thats good olive...the article does seem to have a distinct lack of info on how it works. TG that sounds like a good plan. Do we have to wait for more editors to put in their 2 cents before we could change Controversies to Reception? -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiple external links were removed without discussion. As noted by User:Uncreated this left the section heavy with negative material . Although some of these links could possibly be deleted, discussion should be carried out first to make sure there is agreement on their removal.( olive ( talk) 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
I read through the the wiki guideline regarding links TG provided. I read through two of the links "behind the TM facade" and "falling down the rabbit hole" and in my mind both seem inappropraite in light of the wiki guideline of links normally to be avoided point 2:
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
I would argue at best alot of the information in these sites are unverifiable and therefore misleading. They also appear to be self published sites. -- Uncreated ( talk) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of other links could also in my be removed I think like the "Hararit" Village in Israel founded by TM meditator and "Maharishi Vedic City" City in Iowa, USA founded by TM meditators. -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that information verifiable that he is a TM teacher? If it is i believe i read on one of the wiki guidline pages that fringe or minority views should not be given much if any weight. I have read in TM literature that there is something like 30,000 - 40,000 TM teachers in the world...I would argue that if he was verified by a 3rd party source as being a teacher, then his "expert" opinion and views as a TM teacher would be in the most extreme minority. -- Uncreated ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the current list without the links for reference: -- Ronz ( talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur with TG assement.-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could we add this link http://www.doctorsontm.com I think it has useful information about TM that people would be interested in. Where are we up to in regards to making the changes to the links? are we getting close to making the changes? Its been 3 or 4 days since we started discussing...is that enough time for other editors to come forward and offer or not offer concensus if they so desire?-- Uncreated ( talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. I still think we could trim more off of it though.
Official site.
American Association of Professionals Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program. (Should be removed)
Meditation Information Network - Web site supporting critical examination of Transcendental Meditation and associated programs. Includes archived newsletters of TM-EX, the Transcendental Meditation Ex-Members Support Group (1990 - 1994). (Should be removed) (it simply takes you to a page with more links...if there is useful information there we should link directly to it).
Transcendental Meditation -- Links to Steven Hassan's "Freedom of Mind Center". (Should be removed) (This site is promoting a business)
Research on the Transcendental Meditation Technique. (Should be removed)
Truth About TM - A leading researcher on Transcendental Meditation responds to issues.
http://skepdic.com/tm.html (add) ( To give balance)
http://www.doctorsontm.com (add) ( I think this is a very good site, this is who they are http://www.doctorsontm.com/about)
-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay...It seems to me that the information meditation newtwork simply takes you to a site that has alot of links taking you to other sites...if there is a site thereor some information there that is useful to educating people about TM why not link directly. Otherwise i don't see the use for this link.
Steven Hassan's website is promoting his business and as I understand not acceptable under Wiki policy. If we are looking for expert medical/psychological opinion (since as far as i can see Cult expert is another name for a psychologist with an expertise in human conditioning) on TM lets use www.doctorsontm.com this website is the website for the The American Association of Physicians Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program.
I thought your reasoning to use www.skepdic.com was sound and we should have that in the links.
The research on TM page in my mind is alright and serves as a function to give people more Scientific info on TM but maybe something better could be found.
-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have gathered up the comments here so we can easily see where agreements have been reached. Comments can be added under the link section. In my attempts to summarize the discussion so far, if I have mischaracterized anyone's comments, I apologize in advance and please remove or add you name. Updated.( olive ( talk) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
Agreement to delete from Uncreated, TG, Ronze, Olive that these are non-compliant either as promotional, or are not pertinent to this article
Agreement to delete from Ronz, Olive,TG Promotional
Agreement to delete as non compliant: self published, non reliable, verifiable claims per comments by Uncreated, TG, Olive, Ronz
Agreement to delete, Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
Agreement to delete from Ronz,TG, Uncreated, Olive
Linked in article :agreement to delete from Olive, TG, Uncreated, and Ronz(?)
Isn't steve hassan's site promotional in nature? Just looking at his wikipage it says: "In 1999, Hassan founded the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. It is registered as a domestic profit corporation in the state of Massachusetts. He is president and treasurer." Isn't there some wiki policey for not promoting business's?-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Place first. Agreement Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
Keep... agreement: TG, Olive, Uncreated
Add... agreement Ronz, TG, Uncreated
do not agree to add-Olive... Not a good source in my estimation. Too much opinion, and is not mean to be a reliable verifiable, source necessarily according to the author/editor.( olive ( talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
What we have left to deal with and further comments:( olive ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
I concur Olive Wikipedia is fairly clear on the no use of Hassan's Website and the Aggregate website. Replacing the Professional link with the doctor link is good. I agree with the undue weight towards links that are "negative" towards TM. But at this time I think we should still add the Skepdics link even though the skepdic article reads like a sensationalist peice from a womans magazine(not that i would know what one of those would read like :-)) Perhaps in the future something more appropriate will be found to replace the skepdics link that is more authoritative.-- Uncreated ( talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll go along with that.-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be concensus on this...perhaps the changes could be made. I'll just do it myself and if my assesment is wrong we can easily enough revert.-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Olive, how is the draft you are working on coming that you mentioned? As dicussed I would like to create a Reception section and move some of the material from the Controversies section to the reception section.-- Uncreated ( talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to move the Relationship to religion and spirituality and the Cult issues section to a Reception section. Perhaps to bring balance to the cult issues...I have heard in her book Shirley Harrison "Cults " the Battle for God" gives a contrary perspective to Steve Hassan and Michael A. Persingers. IE among religous and Spiritual leaders TM has been recieved differently and also among "cult experts" TM has been recieved differently.
Also I have come across this link...would it come under the catagory of a reliable source?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/11/16706.html?c=on -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the link it seems its a reproduction of an article that was printed in the Bermuda Sun...however the link at the bottom of the page does not seem to work.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Exellent. Maybe I'll wait to make any changes until we have something quotable from Shirley Harrison's book TG if its coming soon and if thats alright with you? Will you get access to it very soon? I have been looking for information on the internent from a reliable source in regards to British Home Office policy of TM not being a religion or Cult...but at this time I have not been able to find anything...
Olive, will your new description make redundent the "issue of cost" section?-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay will make the change. I agree the cult issue is a bit of a non issue I think...but what is there I think is unbalanced. Perhaps instead of extending the section we simply rewrite it to include some other perspectives? Either way lets wait until you have the book...I hope you didn't buy it but could simply get it through a library? -- Uncreated ( talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable site to use? http://newer.globalgoodnews.info/world-peace-a.html?art=120085090111968907
If it isn't at what point does a self published site become a newpaper?-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess though if thats the case then under the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section we could say something like "Thousands of Buddist monks around the world have learnt the technique and the TM organisation claims they enjoy it" and site this article? I'm not really the person to be writing since I am not the best writer but I think it would be good if something like that could be added. I also have a friend who has instructed a few thousand people (most of them Muslim) in the TM Technique in Iran over the last 10 years but I'm not sure how we could site something like that since it has not appeared in any newspapers or verifable sources to my knowledge. Its relevent though because my understanding is that in Iran it is illegal to convert someone to another faith if they are muslim or interfere with their Muslim faith in anyway. The implication being the Iranian government which has its basis in Islam Law does not percieve TM to be Religious in anyway.-- Uncreated ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Uncreated (
talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)== Research Study Conducted in Iran ==
This was a study looking at Mental Health in Iran...perhaps it could be used somehow in the article?
http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/pdf/1745-0179-4-25.pdf -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the Iran Study my understanding is that it is the TM program taught by Maharishi. I think probably the authors of the study did not fully understand the technique and hence probably described it wrongly.
Why not use the the iran study until something better is found or published? It can't be any worse than using the otis survey which to me looks very weak. Is the strength of the Otis survey strong enough to allow for its inclusion in the article on TM anyway?
Upon further thinking it seems to me that there is a dearth of decent and appropriate research conducted on TM in regards to mental health and maybe we should have no inclusion until something is published that would warrent inclusion.
If we are not to use the iran study due to its weakness we shouldn't be using the otis study either for the same reason.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Exellent response TG...I have some familiarity with two of those studies which would be exellent additions to the article on TM in my opinion.
In the second Study the Japanese Ministry of Labour was a collaberator and the Meta Analysis conducted at Stanford is of high quality with about 150 studies compiled if my memory serves. They are comparativley quite recent being published in 1990 and 1989 respectivly. I will use these two to improve the article.
I am not familiar with the other studies listed...but if they are all of high quality at what point does Otis's surevey become irrelevent? I noticed in the past that there were studies in the medical section published in the 70's that suggested TM had no effect on high blood pressure and they have been removed now since i assume the weight of research on TM lowering blood pressure existed?
Either way I will try and get something up about the two studies to balance otis's survey.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have typed up a rough draft of something that we might be able to use. TG and Olive could you please look over to make sure it is appropriate in content, tone and length.
A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[38]
A 1977 Study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology looked at the effect of Transcendental Meditation on Anxiety levels. Transcendental Meditation was shown to significantly reduce Anxiety in the practitioners as compared to controls who relaxed passively.
A 1989 Meta Analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a significantly larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.
A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others looked at Transcendental meditation and its effect on mental health and industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learnt the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period, the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the mediators as compared to the controls. The mediators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, and tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia and smoking.
A study in the American Journal of Managed Care indicates that there are no known side effects associated with the Transcendental Meditation technique.[39]
-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks TG for the copyediting.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Natural Stress Relief is not Transcendental Meditation, for example it uses a single mantra, so there is no reason to link it from this article. If we were to start including forms of meditation that are not TM for whatever reason,this article could include multiple forms of meditation, and would be pages long( olive ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC))
I was just looking at this section and I noticed that Cult Awarness Network is misquoted. At the moment what it is:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying that the Transcendental Meditation technique “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.
However when you actually read the article that the washington times published that this quote is sourced from it says:
The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.
I think this is an important distinction...that it is not the TM technique that “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” but the TM Movement. I think the cult issues section needs to be changed to reflect this but before I do so I would like to hear what the other editors think.-- Uncreated ( talk) 07:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
TG I understand what you are saying...to me the whole paragraph seems problematic. It seems to me to be a commentary on the TM organisation as opposed to the TM technique. The second sentence in the first paragraph regarding cult issues reads:
Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.
Now in the washington Post article as far as I can see that line was taken from the 2nd paragraph:
The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.
"They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions," said Steven Hassan, a former follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who has studied cults for a decade. "They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person."
I think in the 2nd Paragraph Steve Hassan is continuing to coment on the TM organisation. "They" can only mean the TM organisation.
Now up until this point in the wiki article of TM it has all been about the TM Technique and nothing about the organisation.
I think if we were to have something in the cult issue section we would actually have to find a Cult expert who had critisicms of the technique and not the organisation.
Later in the WP article this appears:
Hassan said at the press conference -- held at the Shoreham yesterday at the same time that the Maharishi Continental Assembly, a conference for followers of the maharishi, was getting underway in another part of the hotel -- that TM adherents suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
He handed out a pamphlet saying that "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
Perhaps something from these two sentences could be used?
Also I think that if we were to continue as it is now it would be good to add a sentence quoting congressmen Leachs response to critisicms that MIU (who presumably organised the event):
Leach'sspokesman said the congressman, after being told of yesterday's criticisms of the TM movement, responded that MIU is "accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and also recognized by the Federal Interagency Commission on Education."
Either way the whole section needs to be looked at I think.
Thoughts TG, Olive anyone else out there?
-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Leach comment would be a needed addition. Can we think about it. Rushing right now . Will come back to this.( olive ( talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
Yeah this will probably require a little bit of thought. Obviously there are people out there who think TM is a Cult and to maintain NPOV for the article there thoughts and feelings should probably be there somewhere in the article.
However reading through the WP article that covered the CAN conference the issues raised by Steve Hassan seems to be refuted by much of the research conducted on TM i.e. "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
I know WP is absolutley a reliable source but all the research conducted on TM seems to refute his essentially unsupported claims. I don't know what to do about it...but what we have now does not seem to be accurate.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC))
I agree with Olive...I'm not sure we should include claims against the organisation. As far as I know 99% of the people who learn the technique simply learn and after being instructed in the technique never have anything to do with the TM organisation again. Also as far as I know to practice the technique after learning no further contact with the organisation needs to take place...to suggest otherwise in the tm wiki article would be misleading.
Perhaps we could open with something like this:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
However I'm not sure how to juxtapose the research on TM with the cult claims with out bringing in OR from myside. Or would it be alright to say something about at this time the research conducted on TM suggests this not to be true and site appropriate research.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually we could just site OJ in much the same we did before but instead use this page as a source.
http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have put alot of thought into and I think that it makes the article weaker in appearence by not having a cult issue section. I think the simplest thing to would be is to have:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
Remove everything else including ojs comments...and wait for some better information to come to light. thoughts? -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Or we could just remove the section entirely because in my opinion he's just some crazed nutter who's got up on his soap box and sprouted his opinions without any supporting evidence or reason as to why. -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly and so all we are left with are his opinions on the technique which are contrary to what the research suggests to date. If a Psychologist was qouted in a paper as saying he thinks "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time" would we use it?
Perhaps we should just consider removing the section...since it does not really apply? Or we could have this by itelf:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/transcendental_meditation
Interesting...this page for the last 6 months averages about 16000 hits a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
As per suggestions and requests I'd like to suggest this version of "Mechanics of the TM technique". I am using Shear as a source and attempting to stay away from TM organization sources to hopefully have something that is as a neutral POV as possible. Comments are welcome, of course.( olive ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
Exellent Olive, that will be a very good addition to the article...this is what has been missing. I have not read the book but from my understanding of the technique his description of how tm works sounds accurate. -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Olive how is the new section coming along? If you are feeling it isn't quite right yet why not just put what you have up and change it when the time comes?-- Uncreated ( talk) 06:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just my idea: It may be easier to take literal quotes from Shear, and maybe some from official TM sources as well. Then it’s not your creation, but clearly linked to a reference. Geke ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on "Origin", it reads "which he called Transcendental Meditation." Shouldn’t that read something like this: "which he called "deep meditation". Later this became "transcendental meditation", and upon its registration as a trademark in about 1965, it became "Transcendental Meditation"." I am guessing the year, and anyway I have trouble finding references for this, but that's how I remember it. In the "Beacon Light" I only find the name "spiritual sadhana". Geke ( talk) 14:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edited) OK, here are my findings, in "short": A Almost from the beginning, Maharishi’s technique was called "deep meditation", but that was more a description than a proper name.(1) Somewhere between 1960 and 1963 it became "transcendental meditation".(2) Only in 1978 it became a registered trademark (although maybe with backward validity from 1965) and could then officially be called "Transcendental Meditation".(3)
1. The "Torch Divine, Organ of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in January 1959 writes: "a very simple and easy process of deep meditation" and: "easy system of deep meditation". Source: scans of printed pages, on Paul Mason’s site: http://paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
2. The "Science of Being and Art of Living – Transcendental Meditation" was first published in 1963.
3. In the TESS trademark registry, there is an entry on Transcendental Meditation reading "FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19660000". Other fields read: "Filing Date: August 12, 1976" and "Registration Date: January 17, 1978" Source: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=r9hqjq.2.2 To me, this looks like the TM organization has supplied the info on "first use" and "first commercial use".
B Throughout, Maharishi used the name in two ways: sometimes it meant exactly the technique as it was taught by his teachers, with Puja and all, and sometimes it indicated any technique involving 1. a mantra and 2. a certain way of using that mantra during the meditation. For example, in the Science of Being, he says: "This belongs to the spirit of every religion; it has existed in the early stages of every faith, it is something which has been lost." ... "Let the intelligent minds of all religions and the custodians of the various faiths delve into the deeper essence of their scriptures, find Transcendental Meditation in the textbooks of their own faiths, learn the practice, and adopt it in the light of the teachings of their religions."
I’m not sure if and how that can be incorporated in the article, though. Geke ( talk) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Do you have more like that? I was looking for someone who has witnessed the decision-making at that point, because I was curious how and why it was called TM. What you write sounds like coming straight from that kitchen! I guess the complete story is then: first, the name was generic, like "a system of deep meditation"; then the idea came up to give it a real name, something with "transcendental"; and then, as your quote suggests, it was decided to drop the "deep". Geke ( talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
A nice solution! Any other thing would become too much of a story, I agree. Geke ( talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't remove this section at this point, but becasue this is a highly contentious article, material especially a new section should be discussed...so opening up this for discussion.( olive ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC))
While I’m at it: In Britain, the course fee for TM is £ 640. How to integrate that into the article? Geke ( talk) 20:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; see if you like my changes. I'm not sure where else to put in prices; they're not really important in encyclopedias! I left it in the Controversies, because it sure is (or was) a major controversy within TM circles: some teachers started a split-off organization, which they wouldn't do easily. Geke ( talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The question is if you add in the price for these countries you have to add in the price for all countries presumably? In some countries TM is taught for as little as 1$US...
Also it seems that some of the information in this section come from unverifiable sources:
In response to what they feel is a high course fee to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique, some former teachers offer TM instruction independently.[66] while other former teachers have published what they claim to be the mantras used in the practice and how these mantras are assigned.
These two sentences come from either a commercial site which cannot be used and a site that is self published which also cannot be used. They should be removed unless someone comes up with a logical reason in accord with wiki policy as to why they should be kept.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Geke TG is right in regards to wikipedia policy. TG that sounds good. I concur we should move the issue of cost section out of the controversey section and also remove sentences which do not meet wiki policy. Where do you suggest it should be moved to? -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the section should be removed altogether? We could leave the last sentence(below) and put it in the section "Teaching procedure".
"According to the official web sites, the Transcendental Meditation technique can only be learned from an authorized teacher; the fee provides for the introductory course of seven lessons, and lifetime checking of the technique for correct practice." -- Uncreated ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Olive...though maybe something should be added to the section explaining that the three first steps in the TM course are free (introduction, Prep and personal interview) but that the additional 4 steps require a onetime fee which includes follow up and a lifetime checking of the technique for corret practice?-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in The Science of Being and Art of Living postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be experienced as a thought.
Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.
Maharishi notes creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels, for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has grosser and subtle levels, and that if thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.
The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level, through the layers of subconscious thought, eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says the practice of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels to within the realm of awareness of the conscious mind.
“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity embracing within its fold”, Maharishi says, subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought or source of creative intelligence, increasing the mind’s power and abilities.
In The Science of Being and Art of Living Maharishi Mahesh Yogi postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence, exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be clearly experienced.
Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.
Maharishi says creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels; for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has gross and subtle levels, that thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.
The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a specific thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level through the layers of subconscious thought eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says this practice, of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels within the realm of the awareness of the conscious mind.
“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity”, Maharishi says, "embracing within its fold subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought—or: 'source of creative intelligence'— thereby increasing the mind’s power and abilities."
Great my preference would be to go with the 2nd one Olive...I think both are fine but maybe better to get it from the horses mouth per se. I would urge you to put in and if people don't like then it can be discussed on the talk page. -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Exellent.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I made an adjustment based on discussion just to see what it looks like and how it reads. We've been humming and hawing around this material for a long time and it seemed time to at least see what it might be like if it was Wikipedia complaint. Don't panic! :o) I'm happy to revert it if need be.
There are real problems with what I removed, and maybe we just have to be compliant. TM independent is a spam link. It points to one incident of some teachers going out on their own, and links to their commercial site. That's not really notable and violates undue weight as well as adds advertising to the article.
If we say prices vary from country to country we have to have a reference that actually says that . We can't say prices vary from country to country and then add the prices from some countries. That would actually be synthesis, and violates WP:Synthesis. Again not compliant. So take a look at the changes and see what you all think.( olive ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
Thats awesome Olive. Though I believe there is still the issue of the cult section to be resolved as well.-- Uncreated ( talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, however it has not been properly referenced...as per our discussion above.-- Uncreated ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new simplified version of the mechanics section probably easier to understand than my version. If there are objections let me know. I still have the other version at hand.( olive ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
It looks good to me! I just added a link to "mantra" to have contributed at least something...! Would it be a good idea to include a link to "samadhi" as well, I mean on "transcendental Being"? Geke ( talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but maybe the friendly atmosphere in here is distracting a bit? ;-) I mean, there should certainly be some mention of "mantra" in the article, even if I don’t especially like the mantra article either. Maybe we could link to "japa" instead? (Something else completely: when I type "TM" in the search field, I get to a disambiguation page, where I can click on the link to the "Transcendental Meditation" article in two sections: "Pop Culture" and "Science". I think that’s pretty hilarious!) Geke ( talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
... and the friendly atmosphere is supposed to be what its like on Wikipedia so its nice here right now, but not necessarily the usual on the TM article.( olive ( talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
I think to have the word mantra in the sentence is fine i just think it shouldn't be linked. Maharishi's definition of what a Mantra is, is different from what is defined in the link given...I think the link should be removed unless the page linked to the word mantra reflects Maharishi's defintion of what a mantra is.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with linking mantra...just we shouldn't link until the source linked is accurate.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
article on that topic . Because we use the word in the article and can reference it if need be its fine to link it. I hope that makes sense. I was going to leave in the link you added until you responded, but probably since its clearly OR , it should be removed immediately. I guess the problem is solved though, since the original issue was with the Mantra article and its inaccuracy.( olive ( talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
Whats the story with the Neutrality Tag? -- Uncreated ( talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has come a long way since the tag was first placed on it, and it seems time to remove it. I note Duedilly's comment [3] that the science sections are not weighted as correctly as they could be. His comment is on record and correcting the balance could and should be a job for the future.( olive ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
The article is far from neutral. Bias of researchers is never discussed. Studies are cherry picked. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to create a new section in the Reception section to do with TM and its reception in the Business world. A possible source for this could be this article printed in the "Candian Banker" a canadian Magazine.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9244531_ITM
I think it would be good to bring this to light in the article as way to show how widspread the Practice of TM is in the world especialy in the business world. Over 100 Corportations in Japan have implemented the technique in their existing training programmes. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guys, thanks for your thoughts and I agree largely with what has been said. But on something’s I disagree...I will probably have to give more thought to how I want to articulate my thoughts though. But one thing I do feel is that I think the article is in a good state...but that balance has not quite yet been met. I absolutely do not want to turn this into a promotional article about TM but I think there is room for a sentence here or a sentence here to express how TM is received in the world.--Uncreated (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geke Olive is right everything needs to be referenced and to write the sentence your are suggesting would require an article printed in a Newspaper or something maikng that point. If we were to add something small to the reception section about TM in the world as far as i can see it would have to be point by point with a source for each point. I will see if i can write something up and present it with all of the appropriate references to see how people feel about it.-- Uncreated ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be better to have some more information in the history section. Something about how TM is now taught across the world in Academic institutions, Corporations and different Militaries around the world.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The weight of the article has been pretty carefully considered by all editors involved in the more recent discussions, and if anything the article is somewhat skewed towards the negative since it does not indicate the range of peer-reviewed research now over the 350 mark showing positive effects. I am removing the tag pending discussion here.( olive ( talk) 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
Note the comment by Duedilly above [4].
Rracecarr a number of editors working on the article felt that it had reached a neutral state...if you think it is not neutral why don't you point out why you think it is?-- Uncreated ( talk) 11:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Rracecarr Mate, thats cool...I get it that you don't mean to be disruptive. As TG pointed out Markovsky is critical of the Maharishi effect not Transcendental Meditation so it couldn't be used, also like TG said because OJ is an authority in his field and can be sited per wiki policy...are you disputing that he is an expert in his field? Also what information linked from skepdic.com would you like to see in the Article on TM?
In regards to the editing in the Research section, what is the use of having this sentence? "(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.)" I don't think adding this gives a neutral tone to the article and I think it should be removed. -- Uncreated ( talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi 7thdr, thanks for the response...though i don't really no where to begin. First of all where do you get this idea that TM is a Religion? For one thing TM is a technique that is practiced and it is not a set of beliefs, if you have a source for this assertion please post...Can you please direct me via links to show where you came by your understanding that most of the research on TM is conducted and funded by "the organisations own university". Once again can you please post a source for you assertion that researchers go on to get lucrative/prestigious positions with MUM...I think you will find in the Robert Wallace case that he didn;t so much as go on to work for MIU because of his research he went onto become the founding President of MIU because of his passion for the research he conducted.
You assert that TM is a Religion but i can't see how it can be myself since it is a technique, not a set of beliefs...you should learn Transcendental Meditation and then you would see that it is not a religion, simply a technique that is practiced by people of all cultures, creeds and religions alike. I can't help but think that a number of editors on the TM article seem to have a lot of misinformation about what TM is and the organisation that promotes it. I look forward to your response. -- Uncreated ( talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Whew, 7th you make multiple blanket statements..
Here's a neutral viewpoint. I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in editing the article. But, if you wanted the perspective of an entirely neutral observer on whether or not to leave the "neutrality disputed" tag in, here's my 2 cents: This is not a neutral article, and the tag should stay in. Fladrif ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats fine with me that the tag stays...as Olive said previously the "tag simply can be seen as making reference to the concerns on neutrality from different sides of the coin." However we should be working to make the article Neutral so any suggestions as to how to do this would be welcome. Like I said previously I don't think this sentence is neutral and should be removed.
(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) If we want put this information in we should try and find away that does not require it to be in brackets. -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, thats much better. Maybe though it would be more accurate to say something like this in the footnotes: Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently went on to become the founding president of MIU in 1973.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way TG, it was not Ronz I accused of whitewashing, it was Uncreated, who removed the information using the bogus argument that it was in parentheses. Rracecarr ( talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Racecarr mate...you realise that MIU did not even exist when the original research was conducted? From what you said in the above sentence :"It is blatantly obvious that if a bunch of research by someone affiliated with a TM university is being prominently cited, their conflict of interest needs to be made clear." There is no conflict of interest because when he did the research the "TM University" did not exist. I think if we could find a source that said because of the research he conducted he went to become the founding President of MIU in 1973 that would be good to be mentioned in the footnotes.-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The links section as it appears now in the article is the product of discussion and agreement by several editors.Discussions here. [7] [8] Re adding links to that section or adding new links should be discussed here first and agreement reached in line with what's already been done on this section. Thanks.( olive ( talk))
For the record: I do not think the article is neutral. Actually, the article is in a bad state since a couple of years. I also followed the German version of the TM article for a long time and the situation started to improve significantly when the article was protected. Perhaps this is something one should also consider for the English version, too. -- mkrohn ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pasting here a recently added paragraph so we can discuss:
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the NIH, commissioned a meta-analysis of the state of meditation research from the University of Alberta. The university reviewed 813 studies, a number of which were Transcendental Meditation studies. The conclusions of the analysis was: "Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf
I don't know that we want to give their broad generalization, since their findings varied from technique to technique. I've skimmed the section on the TM studies on hypertension, and from what I could tell, the researchers generally found that TM reduces hypertension. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, this study wasn't published in a journal, and is only now being published in segments in academic journals. The peer review process for this government report didn't follow the usual procedures, and I think it would be better to cite the published versions when they come out. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fladrif ( talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important to include this analysis. It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research. This is especially true given that the University of Kentucky meta-analysis was included with no disclosure as to the fact that the funding was in part from a large contributor to the TMO.
Judyjoejoe (
talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Multiple edit conflicts
(arbitrary unindent) I think it the study should be mentioned, and rather prominently per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MED/RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.
Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it "significantly reduced blood pressure."
Timid Guy, I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I also object to including Orme-Johnson's criticism of the study. He disputes absolutely everything that is critical of TM research and is a strong promoter of TM on his so called truthabouttm website. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish... I edited and then went to talk to comment and hit four edit conflicts before I could comment. I reverted a non consensus change to the stable version of the article. Changes had been made that were relatively large without any kind of agreement. Check WP:BOLD( olive ( talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
TimidGuy and Olive - I realize that one is required by Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of editors, and that it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But, the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.
Go ahead and tattle to Dreadstar or whatever other admistrator you prefer if you want. Fladrif ( talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The authors themselves actually make a point similar to the point I added from David Orme-Johnson: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." p. 1210 in the published version of Ospina/Bond. It's another example of how they tempered their approach in the published version. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
that a meta study is appropriate in an article as specific as this one. Lets take a serious look point by point at the concerns with the study in terms of whether it is appropriate in this article as opposed to a more generalized topic/article.( olive ( talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
Pasting deleted text here:
The authors of the study acknowledged that the evaluation scale that they used may not have been appropriate for studies on meditation, which would have affected the rating of quality: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." [1]
Rracecarr, I object to your deletion of the statement by Ospina/Bond in their published review. A major point of the report was that the research was weak as determined by the scores on the Jadad scale. If the researchers themselves say that the Jadad scale isn't the best measure for research quality of meditation studies, shouldn't that be mentioned? It's not some minor caveat -- it goes to the heart of the study. I can put Orme-Johnson back in if you prefer, but it would be much better to cite the researchers themselves. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Racecarrr I am noting your explanation on blood pressure and saying not that it is but if it is. Read what I wrote if you want to comment accurately. High blood pressure - maybe try TM :O).( olive ( talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
Here's what the appellate court decision says regarding the puja:
To acquire his mantra, a meditator must attend a ceremony called a "puja." Every student who participated in the SCI/TM course was required to attend a puja as part of the course. A puja was performed by the teacher for each student individually; it was conducted off school premises on a Sunday; and the student was required to bring some fruit, flowers and a white handkerchief. During the puja the student stood or sat in front of a table while the teacher sang a chant and made offerings to a deified "Guru Dev." Each puja lasted between one and two hours.2
The teacher sings the puja, not the student. By the way, the court entered into the record a correction from Steven Druker regarding the puja. I guess we'll need to get that document. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The student brings the fruit and flowers, the teacher makes the offerings. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Someplace on my computer I have a court document that lists the undisputed facts in the case. I sure don't remember the students making ceremonial offerings as being one of them. Where was that from? I deleted it for now. The Adams footnote is ambiguous. I agree that it may not have been accurately presented in the article. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you use the phrase "uncontested fact"? That makes it sound like an undisputed fact in the case. It wasn't. It's from a footnote and is not listed among the undisputed facts in the case. Interesting that the document contradicts itself. The fact is, and we can probably locate this fact in the secondary literature, that it's the teacher who makes the offering. The student just observes. The main text of the opinion has it correct. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that fact about offerings should be characterized as uncontested, because the appellate court themselves said something different in their opinion. By the way, it's not inappropriate to delete the attribution to Markovsky. Please restore that. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, and recalling Justice Frankfurter's admonition that an individual expression of opinion is useful when the way a result is reached may be important to results hereafter to be reached,1 I am impelled to state my views separately.14
Sheesh .... that last edit summary got away on me before I could correct it .... should read "add format"....( olive ( talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Fladrif. Your statement above is a complete miscahracterizations of what I've attempted to discuss here, and of what I've said which I don't really appreciate. I am making suggestions and rather than attack me, perhaps you could address the points I'm making. I'm quite familiar with the policies, and because I am dealing here with a contentious article I prefer to use them stringently rather than adapt them in some way. I am correctly noting possible concerns with WP:Weight. Why for example are you insistent on having three references to the puja in a subsection on a topic that is a very small part of the TM organization. The information is also redundant. I am asking for a choice ... choose one. I also correctly note Wikipedia frowns on excessive quoting... if we don't need the quote why is it there. I have never asked for more quotes to be added. If you want the information in the quote why not add it to a "see also" or rephrase it.
"The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".
This statement is cobbled together from two different sections of the document. The quoted part comes from a reply to the appellates argument. The rest from other parts of the document. This statement above isn't what Adams said, although we know what he meant. If this was research paper of some kind we could make this staement . Its not and in this environment the statement is unencycopedic because it is OR.
To be encyclopedic the statement would have to read something like,"appellants note that even if the puja is religious its effect is insignificant whereas Judge Adams notes that this reasoning does not require reversal because of differences between a benediction at a commencement exercise "and the teaching of...." ( olive ( talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Yes, you have indeed mischaracterized me, and what I am doing, and I would request you stop attacking me and try to hear what I am saying. Until recently although I had copy edited the Malnak section I had very little knoweledge of this court case. About a month ago I started to research it, and found that there is a lot of imformation and contradiction as the secondary sources indicate. Your addition of the puja material slants towards informtion that is one side of the debate and according to TM people I have spoken too the puja as it is used in modern times is used in a seqular fashion. I felt you had an agenda in putting in what is in my understanding of weight three pieces of information on puja where one would do. I note the policies correctly whether you agree or not, but I do adhere strictly. I note also that I removed information from my user page for reasons pertaining to off wiki harassment.
If you were to look carefully at both my edits over time and TG's you would see that what we are above all neutral editors.We have removed countless edits from pro TM people, and have left in negative-to-TM additions even when the source is poor in order to create balance. This article is the result of many hours of work from editors holding both pro and negative TM stanses.To think it comes from two editors is a huge misunderstanding of how such an article is created.
I have secondary sources and am putting together material that says what is being said in the article right now but from the more compliant secondary sources along with the other mandatory, neutral-creating information. I am attempting to create something that will satisfy both you and the Wikipedia policies, and is as truthful as can be given the inaccuracies in the sources. It will take me a little time to do. Once we look at the subsection I suspect it will be too long as pertains to WP:Weight so at that point, someone may want to pare it down.( olive ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
I am adding attribution of the quote "stealth religion" to Barry Markovsky as is appropriate. The statement was not a general comment but specific to one person.( olive ( talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to suggest that rather than continuing to edit war which is only creating a strangely,jumbled connection of phrases, that the Malnak v Yogi be completely rewritten. The court document itself contains contradictions some of which whether they are in the actual court document or not can be shown with a little research to be inaccurate. This means they shouldn't be included necessarily but probably violate WP:Verifiability. If there is such contradictory information included here than perhaps to be accurate both sides of the contradiction need to be shown. As well, if we are discussing the case and there are obvious contradictions then those contradictions themselves are noteworthy aspects of the case. As well we have journals which are secondary sources that need to be included and are more compliant than the primary source which is the court document. I would suggest two versions. I could write one and Fladrif could write the other . We could post them here and discuss and edit them here, then when all are satisfied put it back into the article. Just a thought.( olive ( talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Since this issue has been discussed in recent days I did a little investigating. The Ospina/Bond report found that 22 of the 400 clinical studies in their review were of Good quality or better on the Jadad scale. Of those, three are on Transcendental Meditation (reference numbers 220, 221, and 282). In addition, the study by Paul-Labrador published in 2006, after the 2005 cutoff date of Ospina/Bond, was rated high quality on the Jadad scale by the University of Kentucky meta-analysis published in 2008. Further, that meta-analysis identified three additional TM studies that were rated of acceptable quality on the Jadad scale. Also, the revised version of Ospina/Bond published last December in JACM said that there were 40, not 22, studies that rated Good or better on Jadad. There's no way of knowing whether those 18 studies that had their scores adjusted upward included TM studies, but that may very well be the case. So there are at least 7 studies on TM that range from acceptable to high quality on the Jadad scale.
The Ospina/Bond report only included randomized controlled trials, because this is thought to be one of the more rigorous research methodologies. Please understand that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, the majority of clinical studies in general aren't randomized controlled trials, because such studies are very difficult and expensive. A typical randomized controlled trial on TM with 100 subjects costs $2 million and takes four years to from inception to publication. In addition, probably only a small percentage of randomized controlled trials that aren't pharmaceutical rate high on Jadad. The Ospina/Bond report gives the impression that the Jadad scale is the norm for clinical research. It's not, except in the pharmaceutical industry, which can easily afford to drop $50 million on a trial involving over 1,000 subjects.
This information is offered in support of my suggestion in a thread above that the Ospina/Bond paragraph could be revised. I would write it something like this:
In 2007 the National Institutes of Health released a report that assessed research on meditation using the high standard of the pharmaceutical industry, that is, the Jadad scale. The report found that 40 of the 400 clinical studies assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale and that there was a statistically significant increase in the quality of research over time. The report found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale. The report stated that it found a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure associated with practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would guess the issue is that although I haven't seen what TG is taking about, if the source says there are three studies than that is what we have to put in ....Original research would be the instance if the source says there are three studies and then we do the math and come up with the number of not so good studies...I'll try and check that. Note that TG is making suggestions its not in the article, and can be edited easily here. ( olive ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
"would like to take this opportunity to speak to all of the Sidhas in America and throughout the world about the extraordinary gift that Maharishi has given us in the form of the Invincible Assemblies.
"Maharishi has given us the opportunity to create an invincible world-a world without enemies-a world of peace, prosperity, joy, happiness, and profound bliss.
"The formula to achieve this incredible goal for mankind is so very simple, and it is completely within our grasp. Maharishi has given us the technology to achieve the impossible through a procedure so easy and blissful that it defies imagination-and yet it is true, and it has been tested and proven.
"The technology, of course, is an Invincible Assembly in every nation-a Super Radiance group of Yogic Flyers in every country.: The7thdr ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is 7th. I guess you're saying that Howard Settle supports Maharish Mahesh Yogi's peace initiatives.
First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers .... not sure what you're talking about but I'm not up on that ... and second if the work was peer reviewed in a respected journal, the study is Wikipedia compliant. Of course private institutions, funded by one or more individuals carry on research all of the time. You'll remember as well that all universities rely on endowments to carry on the business of the university that often includes researcher and those endowments come very much from individuals. Honesty doesn't enter into it that I can see, and actually please deal with the edits and not the editors (
olive (
talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
DBP, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients..." Perhaps it would be wise to edit the article accordingly? At least than it would reflect the truth? I am assuming that multiple users at MUM use the LO/TG Wiki accounts. looking through the history of this article the most recent incarnation of TG is slightly more zealous than previous incarnations.It might be worth noting this :) The7thdr ( talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
( olive ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
I am including one version of a rewrite. Much of the first part is what is in place now. I attempted to compact the puja material and added what seemed to be the clearest and most consistent summary of the case from one of the secondary sources. I am in no way endorsing this version at this point, but thought we could take a look at it and see what everyone thought. Of course anyone else who wants to add a version should.
Since the puja from what I understand is used in a secular manner, and since the student doesn't understand it, its merely for the teacher, including a translatio0n of part of it here seems misleading... so I 'm not excited about using any translation. However, the court document does say this so if everyone agrees, we could include it.( olive ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
In 1979, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States Court for the District of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation (SCI/TM), was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court ruled that although SCI/TM cannot be defined as a Theistic religion, it does deal with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions, a broadened view of religion as defined by the court. From careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the "puja", (a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and "made offerings to a deified Guru Dev" Malnak 4), as well as application of the Nyquist or Lemon test, the religious nature of TM/SCI was decided. The Nuquist or Lemon test helps determine if government involvement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the district court left several questions unresolved that included: a judgment that dealt with TM/SCI together as one unit, and left unanswered whether TM taught without the puja and SCI would constitute an establishment of religion, and that the use of a textual analysis of the chant was ambiguous in that such a analysis could also be used to invalidate for example America the Beautiful or the Pledge of Allegiance. (Marjorie Gilman Baker, Seton Hall Law Review,1979, p.614-629)
The case turned on two general areas. One that the text, puja, and testimony seemed according to the court definition to be of a religious nature, and second the so called "Lemon" test or Nyquist test which was used to determine government involvement.
"To pass muster, the action in question must: (1) reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion...and that the government aid given to teach the course and the use of public school facilities constituted excessive governmental entanglement with religion. (Malnak 10).
I should probably clarify that.( olive ( talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
This information is historical in nature so I've moved it into the history/origin section. Its reference to religion is oblique but not specific to the organization as it defines itself today.
I would request that additions be added with discussion here and agreement as has been the tradition in the past here because this is a contentious article.( olive ( talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
The information on the Spiritual Regeneration Movement may be on several levels somewhat misleading and misplaced. The comment and quote is about the corporation not the technique. We've tried to keep the article clearly about the technique in the interests of clarity and brevity. This decision was made by multiple editors.
The source I have, "The Minnesota Law Review", describes SRM as a spiritual movement, the corporation as a religious one but whose purpose is to teach the technique to those who want a spiritual life. So there is considerable ambiguity there in terms of the organization itself.Is it spiritual or is it religious.
The technique though is never described as religious.
Spirituality and religion are clearly delineated in some of the literature cited in the TM article. It is the court case under the First Amendment, Establishment and Free Exercises clauses that define the technique with SCI as religious in nature, and we know that definition was expanded and not based on a Theistic definition. Defining the TM techniques as religious in any other context I would think is misleading. I think this requires some discussion as to how to place this information if at all. I won't remove it pending discussion, but on closer examination of the source I'm not sure it should stay in this article.( olive ( talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Note:
Fladrif. You have taken up the COI issue on the COI Notice board and I suggest you and we leave it there. This page is for discussion of the article. I'll attempt to address the other issues you raise here later.( olive ( talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Throughout this and all of the other TM-related articles, MMY is referred to as "Maharishi" as if it were his name. "Maharishi" is an honorific, not a name or a title of office. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles, I propose that he be identified as "Yogi" in these articles for short, not Maharishi, just as Gandhi is not identified as "Mahatma", and popes and the Dalai Lama are not identified as "His Holiness" in the articles about them. I'm sure there are many other examples. Fladrif ( talk) 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yogi was used by the courts as his last name...why would we not use it? Do we have a source as to what his legal name is? Could it be actually that his legal name is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found the incorporation document so have been able to get rid of the more general "others' and replace it with a more specific reference. I have also included the "Primary" spiritual purpose as a more complete understanding of the document. I'm not attached to any of it so can be removed if any one objects. I tend to think its all too much information here and would be better placed in an article on a history of the TM organization or in the MMY article but that's another discussion and not attached either way.( olive ( talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
-- JD {æ} 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the MUM lawsuit is here on the TM page and not on the MUM page. Has there been discussion on this point already? If so, would someone mind giving me a breif overview? Thanks in advance. -- Kbob ( talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I will remove religious from the section on procedure. In this section and in this context using the adjective religious is POV.
In the interest of balance i am looking for academics who do not consider TM or the Puja to be religious. Certainly in the court notes it mentions there were two academics who did not think the Puja was Religious.
"Defendants also rely on affidavits of two professors of religion. The affidavits are virtually identical and will be treated together. Neither professor practices Transcendental Meditation and presumably has never witnessed a puja; both professors state that they have read the English translation of the puja chant which appears above. Each professor concludes that in his opinion the Puja is not a religious ceremony."
Also to contrast the findings of the court I understand that Laurence Tribe [16] as a constitutional lawyer does not believe TM to be religious...I have found a pdf of a book "Law and Religion in the United States" which maybe will provide source to contrast with...however i have to read through it so it might take me some time.-- Uncreated ( talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wallace v Jaffree
Actually for all practical purposes the Wallace v Jaffree case does render the Malnak case moot. In practice there are schools receiving gov't assistance who have implemented TM into their quiet time programs. Carter Phillips say this ... and I'll link to the letter. (I have a copy of the original identical to this one except for letterhead) [17] (Although I do agree with Fladrif on one point and that is that there is a lot of praying going before exams.)
Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious practice, its use in the context
of a "Quiet Time" program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled that a school policy, which provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem fit, is unlawful or
April 9, 2007
Page 4
unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could engage in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally implemented period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree, confirmed the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation.
( olive ( talk) 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
I did move this because the thread was becoming very long and there was a specific reference to the Wallace case which I thought we could split off. I thought this might be easier ....If not it can be added to the last thread on "Religious"... no worries.( olive ( talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
Hi Fladrif. We may seem to differ because of semantics. MUM like any university in the US has internal legal council. Carter Phillips is paid period, for what he does. I doubt he made up a position on TM but rather probably scrutinized the court cases and gave a professional opinion. He was paid for the scrutiny as he is paid for anything, but probably not to skew an opinion. I thought you suggested that he would have skewed his opinion because he was paid which seesm highly unlikely given his and his firm's profile.
That the article is a wreck is an opinion. Surely you realize that many editors have been here who are neutral and have made comments, helped correct things and thought the article was ok. I can't imagine that a good researcher which you obviously are has not gone into the archives and seen that this article was hammered out by numerous skeptics along with TG and I, and a few others, and that the article is not the result of two editors' work but many. You assume my agenda but believe me you don't know what my agenda is partly because on Wikipedia I have one agenda and that is to be neutral. Should I also not assume you have an agenda when the entries you make are attempts to show that TM is religious . This is what I know about TM . Some people think it has religious aspects, some don't and there are sources for both . We have to show that and we have to do it in a way that reflects the overall sense of the mainstream sources. That's it. Its that simple . Perhaps we can put our perceived agendas behind us and continue on.( olive ( talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Okay so maybe I will refert to Fladrif's edit then.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Um...cool 7thdr, I miss understood your previous entry...however I am unsure why we have added that sentence in since I seemed to understand that Fladfrif, Myself both thought the addition of that material in the procedure section was not necessary. Perhaps we could come to some consensus about its inclusion? As I understand it at this point Fladrif, Myself and olive think it should come in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section and 7thdr thinks it should be mentioned in the procedure section. Does anyone else have thoughts?--
Uncreated (
talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point 4 editors (Myself, Fladrif, Olive and Kbob) do not think the "Teaching Procedure" section is the place to talk about the Puja/TM being religious. The thought is that it should be raised in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section. 7thdr will you go along with this?-- Uncreated ( talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friends, I would like to make a suggestion that we all slow down a bit here. It is great that everyone is so passionate about making this article the best it can be. But different editors have different perspectives. An elephant is an elephant but it looks different depending on whether you are standing in the front or the back. The issue of TM and religion is a large issue that has been discussed at length in the past. It deserves the same careful consideration again now. There are also several editors involved and some of us have to work for a living. :-) So if we could take our time and move slowly and deliberatly I think we will have less conflict, make more progress and enjoy ourselves more too! I suggest that if there was any question regarding the conclusion of the COI discussion on the noticeboard re: Olive and Timid that that be handled in a seperate section. We might also consider breaking the topic up into smaller peices for clarity. I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlwomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think? Peace! -- Kbob ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi ive been reading through the wikipage on transcendental meditation and would like to help improve it.
I have a few questions.
I have heard from a retired Colonel in the US army that veterans that are prescribed by a Doctor to learn tm for any medical reason, have all the expenses of learning covered by the US Gov. I think this would be useful info to have on this page if true.
What happened to all the links at the bottom of the page...there seems to be a number of pages that used to be there? One was I think askthedoctors.com . I was recommending my friends who were interested in learning TM to come here and find out more about it. Now i find at the bottom there are virtually only sites linked that have bad things to say about TM?
What is the relevancy of the two paragraphs in the Lawsuit section to people interested in learning more about TM when they come to Wikipedia? Is it useful information? The first claim dealign with Robert Kropinski Lawsuit against the World Plan Executive Council was a null outcome. I'm not sure why it would be included since it doesn't really say anything other than a guy tried to take the TM organisation to court but lost...it doesn't seem to me to be very relavant.
The 2nd case dealing with the murder of the student at Maharishi university of Managament seems to have more to do with that University than the technique...I'm not sure why it would be on the page dealing with TM...wouldn't it make more sense to be on the university page? Also what is even the signifigance of this anyway in regards to either the University or TM?
I don't know what the protocol of adding links to the bottom of the page is but I belong to the SIMS Club at Auckland University in New Zealand and would I be able to put a link to our webpage at the bottom of this article?
Some things I would like to see added to the TM Page would be TM in Governments. I know in New Zealand that at one time 10% our governing MP's practiced TM along with the speaker of the house and the deputy Prime minister.
It just seems to me that in NZ where you have 45,000 people who have learnt the TM technique...with many of the most wealthy learning, many many doctors and at sometime so many members of Parliment practicing how in the interest of balance so much "controversial" material is present on the wiki TM page? I'm not disputing its reality...I'm just disputing what its real signifigance is...what it really contributes towards giving people an understanding of what TM is...
Sorry if i seem to be jumping all over the place. -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay.
Let’s start with this one. Kropinski v. WPEC. As far as I can see this paragraph basically says a man had a disagreement with the WPEC and it was settled out of court. If I’m over simplifying the implication of it let me know...but if I’m not is this information very relevant to people who want to know more about TM. I can't see that it is...and from what I have read from going through the archives space seems to be a concern and perhaps we could add a bit more info as to what tm is as opposed to essentially meaningless info.-- Uncreated ( talk) 09:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been bedridden with the flu for the last few days.
I've had a look at the WP:CRITICISM and undue weight links you gave me. Perhaps we could remove the Controversies section and replace it with a Reception section as suggested in the Criticism essay? I think this would provided a way to included both Postive and negative criticisms of the TM Technique. Perhaps in this proposed section mention of the fact that there are websites and groups that have a disfavourable opinion of the TM Technique and continually site facts that are wrong or misleading and give an example of the Kropinski suit?
In the proposed reception section maybe we could have different subheadings and look at how different aspects of society have recieved the TM technique...maybe Government, Education, Science, Religion, Medicine, Physcology, Military, etc -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Also are the links provided at the bottom of the page expected to meet the same standards set out in the reliable sources wiki policy? I suspect if they are then a few of the links violate that policy and should be removed. -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
TG I understand about the no original research and yes you are right. In regards to third party sources talking about TM and its reception could we not use the many different articles that have appeared in the US news media about TM in Education, Business and the medical industry? I believe all the information is out there it’s just a matter of getting our hands on it...for example in Cambodia there is a university that practices Consciousness based education jointly run by the TM organisation and the Cambodian government...now I'm sure there are a number of official documents talking about its "reception" but they would all mostly be in Khmer...likewise the peace project that was conducted in Mozambique in the 90's I'm sure had alot of coverage in the media in Mozambique about it but I’m not sure how accessible it would be to us.
Perhaps we could continue to have a Controversies section but also have a reception section? In the reception section you could have how TM has been received by Religion, Education, Business, Medicine, and the Military. Also the cult issues could also be included in this section but instead under the umbrella of how TM has been received in the field of psychology? Under the controversies we could have the lawsuits and any other information that was controversial.
In regards to the price that section could be moved to nearer the top of the page where it discusses the teaching procedure? -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks guys...I'm quite a bit better now...I don't remember the last time I was so violently ill though. Thats good olive...the article does seem to have a distinct lack of info on how it works. TG that sounds like a good plan. Do we have to wait for more editors to put in their 2 cents before we could change Controversies to Reception? -- Uncreated ( talk) 20:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Multiple external links were removed without discussion. As noted by User:Uncreated this left the section heavy with negative material . Although some of these links could possibly be deleted, discussion should be carried out first to make sure there is agreement on their removal.( olive ( talk) 21:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC))
I read through the the wiki guideline regarding links TG provided. I read through two of the links "behind the TM facade" and "falling down the rabbit hole" and in my mind both seem inappropraite in light of the wiki guideline of links normally to be avoided point 2:
Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
I would argue at best alot of the information in these sites are unverifiable and therefore misleading. They also appear to be self published sites. -- Uncreated ( talk) 02:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
A number of other links could also in my be removed I think like the "Hararit" Village in Israel founded by TM meditator and "Maharishi Vedic City" City in Iowa, USA founded by TM meditators. -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Is that information verifiable that he is a TM teacher? If it is i believe i read on one of the wiki guidline pages that fringe or minority views should not be given much if any weight. I have read in TM literature that there is something like 30,000 - 40,000 TM teachers in the world...I would argue that if he was verified by a 3rd party source as being a teacher, then his "expert" opinion and views as a TM teacher would be in the most extreme minority. -- Uncreated ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Here's the current list without the links for reference: -- Ronz ( talk) 16:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur with TG assement.-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Could we add this link http://www.doctorsontm.com I think it has useful information about TM that people would be interested in. Where are we up to in regards to making the changes to the links? are we getting close to making the changes? Its been 3 or 4 days since we started discussing...is that enough time for other editors to come forward and offer or not offer concensus if they so desire?-- Uncreated ( talk) 23:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Ronz. I still think we could trim more off of it though.
Official site.
American Association of Professionals Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program. (Should be removed)
Meditation Information Network - Web site supporting critical examination of Transcendental Meditation and associated programs. Includes archived newsletters of TM-EX, the Transcendental Meditation Ex-Members Support Group (1990 - 1994). (Should be removed) (it simply takes you to a page with more links...if there is useful information there we should link directly to it).
Transcendental Meditation -- Links to Steven Hassan's "Freedom of Mind Center". (Should be removed) (This site is promoting a business)
Research on the Transcendental Meditation Technique. (Should be removed)
Truth About TM - A leading researcher on Transcendental Meditation responds to issues.
http://skepdic.com/tm.html (add) ( To give balance)
http://www.doctorsontm.com (add) ( I think this is a very good site, this is who they are http://www.doctorsontm.com/about)
-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay...It seems to me that the information meditation newtwork simply takes you to a site that has alot of links taking you to other sites...if there is a site thereor some information there that is useful to educating people about TM why not link directly. Otherwise i don't see the use for this link.
Steven Hassan's website is promoting his business and as I understand not acceptable under Wiki policy. If we are looking for expert medical/psychological opinion (since as far as i can see Cult expert is another name for a psychologist with an expertise in human conditioning) on TM lets use www.doctorsontm.com this website is the website for the The American Association of Physicians Practicing the Transcendental Meditation Program.
I thought your reasoning to use www.skepdic.com was sound and we should have that in the links.
The research on TM page in my mind is alright and serves as a function to give people more Scientific info on TM but maybe something better could be found.
-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I have gathered up the comments here so we can easily see where agreements have been reached. Comments can be added under the link section. In my attempts to summarize the discussion so far, if I have mischaracterized anyone's comments, I apologize in advance and please remove or add you name. Updated.( olive ( talk) 21:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
Agreement to delete from Uncreated, TG, Ronze, Olive that these are non-compliant either as promotional, or are not pertinent to this article
Agreement to delete from Ronz, Olive,TG Promotional
Agreement to delete as non compliant: self published, non reliable, verifiable claims per comments by Uncreated, TG, Olive, Ronz
Agreement to delete, Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
Agreement to delete from Ronz,TG, Uncreated, Olive
Linked in article :agreement to delete from Olive, TG, Uncreated, and Ronz(?)
Isn't steve hassan's site promotional in nature? Just looking at his wikipage it says: "In 1999, Hassan founded the Freedom of Mind Resource Center. It is registered as a domestic profit corporation in the state of Massachusetts. He is president and treasurer." Isn't there some wiki policey for not promoting business's?-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Place first. Agreement Ronz, Uncreated, TG, Olive
Keep... agreement: TG, Olive, Uncreated
Add... agreement Ronz, TG, Uncreated
do not agree to add-Olive... Not a good source in my estimation. Too much opinion, and is not mean to be a reliable verifiable, source necessarily according to the author/editor.( olive ( talk) 21:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
What we have left to deal with and further comments:( olive ( talk) 19:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
I concur Olive Wikipedia is fairly clear on the no use of Hassan's Website and the Aggregate website. Replacing the Professional link with the doctor link is good. I agree with the undue weight towards links that are "negative" towards TM. But at this time I think we should still add the Skepdics link even though the skepdic article reads like a sensationalist peice from a womans magazine(not that i would know what one of those would read like :-)) Perhaps in the future something more appropriate will be found to replace the skepdics link that is more authoritative.-- Uncreated ( talk) 02:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll go along with that.-- Uncreated ( talk) 20:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be concensus on this...perhaps the changes could be made. I'll just do it myself and if my assesment is wrong we can easily enough revert.-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Olive, how is the draft you are working on coming that you mentioned? As dicussed I would like to create a Reception section and move some of the material from the Controversies section to the reception section.-- Uncreated ( talk) 21:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to move the Relationship to religion and spirituality and the Cult issues section to a Reception section. Perhaps to bring balance to the cult issues...I have heard in her book Shirley Harrison "Cults " the Battle for God" gives a contrary perspective to Steve Hassan and Michael A. Persingers. IE among religous and Spiritual leaders TM has been recieved differently and also among "cult experts" TM has been recieved differently.
Also I have come across this link...would it come under the catagory of a reliable source?
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/11/16706.html?c=on -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Looking more closely at the link it seems its a reproduction of an article that was printed in the Bermuda Sun...however the link at the bottom of the page does not seem to work.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Exellent. Maybe I'll wait to make any changes until we have something quotable from Shirley Harrison's book TG if its coming soon and if thats alright with you? Will you get access to it very soon? I have been looking for information on the internent from a reliable source in regards to British Home Office policy of TM not being a religion or Cult...but at this time I have not been able to find anything...
Olive, will your new description make redundent the "issue of cost" section?-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay will make the change. I agree the cult issue is a bit of a non issue I think...but what is there I think is unbalanced. Perhaps instead of extending the section we simply rewrite it to include some other perspectives? Either way lets wait until you have the book...I hope you didn't buy it but could simply get it through a library? -- Uncreated ( talk) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this an acceptable site to use? http://newer.globalgoodnews.info/world-peace-a.html?art=120085090111968907
If it isn't at what point does a self published site become a newpaper?-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess though if thats the case then under the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section we could say something like "Thousands of Buddist monks around the world have learnt the technique and the TM organisation claims they enjoy it" and site this article? I'm not really the person to be writing since I am not the best writer but I think it would be good if something like that could be added. I also have a friend who has instructed a few thousand people (most of them Muslim) in the TM Technique in Iran over the last 10 years but I'm not sure how we could site something like that since it has not appeared in any newspapers or verifable sources to my knowledge. Its relevent though because my understanding is that in Iran it is illegal to convert someone to another faith if they are muslim or interfere with their Muslim faith in anyway. The implication being the Iranian government which has its basis in Islam Law does not percieve TM to be Religious in anyway.-- Uncreated ( talk) 04:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
--
Uncreated (
talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)== Research Study Conducted in Iran ==
This was a study looking at Mental Health in Iran...perhaps it could be used somehow in the article?
http://www.cpementalhealth.com/content/pdf/1745-0179-4-25.pdf -- Uncreated ( talk) 21:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
In regards to the Iran Study my understanding is that it is the TM program taught by Maharishi. I think probably the authors of the study did not fully understand the technique and hence probably described it wrongly.
Why not use the the iran study until something better is found or published? It can't be any worse than using the otis survey which to me looks very weak. Is the strength of the Otis survey strong enough to allow for its inclusion in the article on TM anyway?
Upon further thinking it seems to me that there is a dearth of decent and appropriate research conducted on TM in regards to mental health and maybe we should have no inclusion until something is published that would warrent inclusion.
If we are not to use the iran study due to its weakness we shouldn't be using the otis study either for the same reason.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Exellent response TG...I have some familiarity with two of those studies which would be exellent additions to the article on TM in my opinion.
In the second Study the Japanese Ministry of Labour was a collaberator and the Meta Analysis conducted at Stanford is of high quality with about 150 studies compiled if my memory serves. They are comparativley quite recent being published in 1990 and 1989 respectivly. I will use these two to improve the article.
I am not familiar with the other studies listed...but if they are all of high quality at what point does Otis's surevey become irrelevent? I noticed in the past that there were studies in the medical section published in the 70's that suggested TM had no effect on high blood pressure and they have been removed now since i assume the weight of research on TM lowering blood pressure existed?
Either way I will try and get something up about the two studies to balance otis's survey.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I have typed up a rough draft of something that we might be able to use. TG and Olive could you please look over to make sure it is appropriate in content, tone and length.
A 1971 survey by Leon Otis found that a significant percentage of those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique also report feeling anxiety, confusion, and depression.[38]
A 1977 Study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology looked at the effect of Transcendental Meditation on Anxiety levels. Transcendental Meditation was shown to significantly reduce Anxiety in the practitioners as compared to controls who relaxed passively.
A 1989 Meta Analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Psychology compared 146 independent studies on the effect of different meditation and relaxation techniques in reducing trait anxiety. Transcendental Meditation was found to produce a significantly larger effect than other forms of meditation and relaxation in the reduction of trait anxiety. Additionally it was concluded that the difference between Transcendental Meditation and the other meditation and relaxation techniques appeared too large to be accounted for by the expectation effect.
A 1990 study published in the Japanese Journal of Industrial Health, conducted at Sumitomo Heavy Industries by the Japanese Ministry of Labour and others looked at Transcendental meditation and its effect on mental health and industrial workers. In the study 447 employees learnt the Transcendental Meditation technique and 321 employees served as controls. After a 5-month period, the researchers found significant decreases in major physical complaints, impulsiveness, emotional instability, and anxiety amongst the mediators as compared to the controls. The mediators also showed significant decreases in digestive problems, depression, and tendency toward psychosomatic disease, insomnia and smoking.
A study in the American Journal of Managed Care indicates that there are no known side effects associated with the Transcendental Meditation technique.[39]
-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks TG for the copyediting.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Natural Stress Relief is not Transcendental Meditation, for example it uses a single mantra, so there is no reason to link it from this article. If we were to start including forms of meditation that are not TM for whatever reason,this article could include multiple forms of meditation, and would be pages long( olive ( talk) 18:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC))
I was just looking at this section and I noticed that Cult Awarness Network is misquoted. At the moment what it is:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying that the Transcendental Meditation technique “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.
However when you actually read the article that the washington times published that this quote is sourced from it says:
The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.
I think this is an important distinction...that it is not the TM technique that “seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.” but the TM Movement. I think the cult issues section needs to be changed to reflect this but before I do so I would like to hear what the other editors think.-- Uncreated ( talk) 07:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
TG I understand what you are saying...to me the whole paragraph seems problematic. It seems to me to be a commentary on the TM organisation as opposed to the TM technique. The second sentence in the first paragraph regarding cult issues reads:
Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique display cult-like behaviors.
Now in the washington Post article as far as I can see that line was taken from the 2nd paragraph:
The group charged in a press conference yesterday that the maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) movement, of which yogic flying is an advanced stage, is not simply a method of relaxation through meditation, but a cult that ultimately seeks to strip individuals of their ability to think and choose freely.
"They want you to dress and think and speak in a certain way and not to ask questions," said Steven Hassan, a former follower of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon who has studied cults for a decade. "They go into hypnotic trances and shut off who they are as a person."
I think in the 2nd Paragraph Steve Hassan is continuing to coment on the TM organisation. "They" can only mean the TM organisation.
Now up until this point in the wiki article of TM it has all been about the TM Technique and nothing about the organisation.
I think if we were to have something in the cult issue section we would actually have to find a Cult expert who had critisicms of the technique and not the organisation.
Later in the WP article this appears:
Hassan said at the press conference -- held at the Shoreham yesterday at the same time that the Maharishi Continental Assembly, a conference for followers of the maharishi, was getting underway in another part of the hotel -- that TM adherents suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
He handed out a pamphlet saying that "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
Perhaps something from these two sentences could be used?
Also I think that if we were to continue as it is now it would be good to add a sentence quoting congressmen Leachs response to critisicms that MIU (who presumably organised the event):
Leach'sspokesman said the congressman, after being told of yesterday's criticisms of the TM movement, responded that MIU is "accredited by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools and also recognized by the Federal Interagency Commission on Education."
Either way the whole section needs to be looked at I think.
Thoughts TG, Olive anyone else out there?
-- Uncreated ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the Leach comment would be a needed addition. Can we think about it. Rushing right now . Will come back to this.( olive ( talk) 19:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC))
Yeah this will probably require a little bit of thought. Obviously there are people out there who think TM is a Cult and to maintain NPOV for the article there thoughts and feelings should probably be there somewhere in the article.
However reading through the WP article that covered the CAN conference the issues raised by Steve Hassan seems to be refuted by much of the research conducted on TM i.e. "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
I know WP is absolutley a reliable source but all the research conducted on TM seems to refute his essentially unsupported claims. I don't know what to do about it...but what we have now does not seem to be accurate.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
2008 (UTC))
I agree with Olive...I'm not sure we should include claims against the organisation. As far as I know 99% of the people who learn the technique simply learn and after being instructed in the technique never have anything to do with the TM organisation again. Also as far as I know to practice the technique after learning no further contact with the organisation needs to take place...to suggest otherwise in the tm wiki article would be misleading.
Perhaps we could open with something like this:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time."
However I'm not sure how to juxtapose the research on TM with the cult claims with out bringing in OR from myside. Or would it be alright to say something about at this time the research conducted on TM suggests this not to be true and site appropriate research.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually we could just site OJ in much the same we did before but instead use this page as a source.
http://www.truthabouttm.org/truth/IndividualEffects/DoesTMDoAnyHarm/index.cfm -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have put alot of thought into and I think that it makes the article weaker in appearence by not having a cult issue section. I think the simplest thing to would be is to have:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
Remove everything else including ojs comments...and wait for some better information to come to light. thoughts? -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Or we could just remove the section entirely because in my opinion he's just some crazed nutter who's got up on his soap box and sprouted his opinions without any supporting evidence or reason as to why. -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly and so all we are left with are his opinions on the technique which are contrary to what the research suggests to date. If a Psychologist was qouted in a paper as saying he thinks "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time" would we use it?
Perhaps we should just consider removing the section...since it does not really apply? Or we could have this by itelf:
In 1987, the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) held a press conference and demonstration in Washington, D.C., saying "physical and psychological harm" may result by using TM techniques "even if only for a short time. Psychologist Steve Hassan, author of several books on cults, and at one time a CAN deprogrammer, said in the same press conference that those who practice the Transcendental Meditation technique suffer a "destruction of personality. It's an addiction, akin to alcohol and drugs."
-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
http://stats.grok.se/en/200811/transcendental_meditation
Interesting...this page for the last 6 months averages about 16000 hits a month. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
As per suggestions and requests I'd like to suggest this version of "Mechanics of the TM technique". I am using Shear as a source and attempting to stay away from TM organization sources to hopefully have something that is as a neutral POV as possible. Comments are welcome, of course.( olive ( talk) 20:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC))
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
Exellent Olive, that will be a very good addition to the article...this is what has been missing. I have not read the book but from my understanding of the technique his description of how tm works sounds accurate. -- Uncreated ( talk) 03:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Olive how is the new section coming along? If you are feeling it isn't quite right yet why not just put what you have up and change it when the time comes?-- Uncreated ( talk) 06:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Just my idea: It may be easier to take literal quotes from Shear, and maybe some from official TM sources as well. Then it’s not your creation, but clearly linked to a reference. Geke ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In the section on "Origin", it reads "which he called Transcendental Meditation." Shouldn’t that read something like this: "which he called "deep meditation". Later this became "transcendental meditation", and upon its registration as a trademark in about 1965, it became "Transcendental Meditation"." I am guessing the year, and anyway I have trouble finding references for this, but that's how I remember it. In the "Beacon Light" I only find the name "spiritual sadhana". Geke ( talk) 14:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
(Edited) OK, here are my findings, in "short": A Almost from the beginning, Maharishi’s technique was called "deep meditation", but that was more a description than a proper name.(1) Somewhere between 1960 and 1963 it became "transcendental meditation".(2) Only in 1978 it became a registered trademark (although maybe with backward validity from 1965) and could then officially be called "Transcendental Meditation".(3)
1. The "Torch Divine, Organ of the Spiritual Regeneration Movement" in January 1959 writes: "a very simple and easy process of deep meditation" and: "easy system of deep meditation". Source: scans of printed pages, on Paul Mason’s site: http://paulmason.info/gurudev/gurudev.htm
2. The "Science of Being and Art of Living – Transcendental Meditation" was first published in 1963.
3. In the TESS trademark registry, there is an entry on Transcendental Meditation reading "FIRST USE: 19650000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19660000". Other fields read: "Filing Date: August 12, 1976" and "Registration Date: January 17, 1978" Source: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=r9hqjq.2.2 To me, this looks like the TM organization has supplied the info on "first use" and "first commercial use".
B Throughout, Maharishi used the name in two ways: sometimes it meant exactly the technique as it was taught by his teachers, with Puja and all, and sometimes it indicated any technique involving 1. a mantra and 2. a certain way of using that mantra during the meditation. For example, in the Science of Being, he says: "This belongs to the spirit of every religion; it has existed in the early stages of every faith, it is something which has been lost." ... "Let the intelligent minds of all religions and the custodians of the various faiths delve into the deeper essence of their scriptures, find Transcendental Meditation in the textbooks of their own faiths, learn the practice, and adopt it in the light of the teachings of their religions."
I’m not sure if and how that can be incorporated in the article, though. Geke ( talk) 20:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Aha! Do you have more like that? I was looking for someone who has witnessed the decision-making at that point, because I was curious how and why it was called TM. What you write sounds like coming straight from that kitchen! I guess the complete story is then: first, the name was generic, like "a system of deep meditation"; then the idea came up to give it a real name, something with "transcendental"; and then, as your quote suggests, it was decided to drop the "deep". Geke ( talk) 20:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
A nice solution! Any other thing would become too much of a story, I agree. Geke ( talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I won't remove this section at this point, but becasue this is a highly contentious article, material especially a new section should be discussed...so opening up this for discussion.( olive ( talk) 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC))
While I’m at it: In Britain, the course fee for TM is £ 640. How to integrate that into the article? Geke ( talk) 20:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments; see if you like my changes. I'm not sure where else to put in prices; they're not really important in encyclopedias! I left it in the Controversies, because it sure is (or was) a major controversy within TM circles: some teachers started a split-off organization, which they wouldn't do easily. Geke ( talk) 14:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The question is if you add in the price for these countries you have to add in the price for all countries presumably? In some countries TM is taught for as little as 1$US...
Also it seems that some of the information in this section come from unverifiable sources:
In response to what they feel is a high course fee to learn the Transcendental Meditation technique, some former teachers offer TM instruction independently.[66] while other former teachers have published what they claim to be the mantras used in the practice and how these mantras are assigned.
These two sentences come from either a commercial site which cannot be used and a site that is self published which also cannot be used. They should be removed unless someone comes up with a logical reason in accord with wiki policy as to why they should be kept.-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Geke TG is right in regards to wikipedia policy. TG that sounds good. I concur we should move the issue of cost section out of the controversey section and also remove sentences which do not meet wiki policy. Where do you suggest it should be moved to? -- Uncreated ( talk) 19:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the section should be removed altogether? We could leave the last sentence(below) and put it in the section "Teaching procedure".
"According to the official web sites, the Transcendental Meditation technique can only be learned from an authorized teacher; the fee provides for the introductory course of seven lessons, and lifetime checking of the technique for correct practice." -- Uncreated ( talk) 23:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Olive...though maybe something should be added to the section explaining that the three first steps in the TM course are free (introduction, Prep and personal interview) but that the additional 4 steps require a onetime fee which includes follow up and a lifetime checking of the technique for corret practice?-- Uncreated ( talk) 03:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
According to Jonathan Shear in, The Experience of Meditation: Experts Introduce the Major Traditions, the Transcendental Meditation Technique is a mental procedure based on the premises; that the mind has an innate tendency to move towards happiness and satisfaction, and that although the objective source of thought in the mind is an electrochemical process, the subjective experience is that thought arises from somewhere inside the individual not locatable through normal everyday experience, and is characterized as a simple, silent state of awareness beyond thought. This experience, a fourth state of awareness is unlike the everyday experiences of the three states of awareness of waking, dreaming and sleeping.
In order to reach a silent state beyond thought, the path must be effortless and natural, and the thought vehicle (mantra) used to reach this state must have no meaning attributed to it. If the mantra has a meaning attributed to it than the mind will become attentive to the meaning of the mantra, and will become active rather than more silent. For this reason practitioners of the TM technique are given a mantra that is utilized for its sound aspect only. The mantra facilitates the transition of the mind from the active level to the silent state beyond thought.
This transition occurs through the reversal of the natural thinking process. Thought begins at deep levels of the mind and is more abstract, less clearly defined here, but with the mind’s attention becomes more clearly defined and concrete. The TM technique is structured to reverse and so utilize this natural process. Through the use of the mantra, the mind in a natural way moves from the perceivable, concrete levels of thought to abstract levels of thought until the thought itself is transcended or disappears, and the practitioner can experience the silent state beyond thought. The experience of this silent state creates rest in the mind, and by reason of the mind’s connection to the body, also the body.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in The Science of Being and Art of Living postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be experienced as a thought.
Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.
Maharishi notes creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels, for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has grosser and subtle levels, and that if thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.
The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level, through the layers of subconscious thought, eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says the practice of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels to within the realm of awareness of the conscious mind.
“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity embracing within its fold”, Maharishi says, subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought or source of creative intelligence, increasing the mind’s power and abilities.
In The Science of Being and Art of Living Maharishi Mahesh Yogi postulates that the source of thought, or source of the human being’s creative intelligence, exists at the deepest level of the subconscious mind, beyond what the senses can experience, and beyond thought itself. He calls this field transcendental Being. He suggests that thought rises from this deep level through the multiple levels of the subconscious mind becoming less and less subtle until the conscious level of the mind is reached and the thought can actually be clearly experienced.
Maharishi describes the subtlety of thought below the level of conscious mind as generally not consciously appreciated by the mind. He uses the analogy of the bubble that in deep levels of water cannot be seen as a bubble. Only as the bubble reaches the surface of the water is the bubble known to be a bubble.
Maharishi says creation ranges from gross to more subtle levels. Human beings through their senses are capable of experiencing the gross levels of creation but generally not the more subtle levels; for example, the human ear cannot hear radio waves. He suggests that thought too has gross and subtle levels, that thought can be experienced in its more infant and more subtle states as well as its grosser states, and that if the very subtlest form of thought can be transcended, then transcendental Being can be experienced.
The Transcendental Meditation technique is a technique that with the use of a specific thought, in this case a sound (mantra) to which no meaning is assigned, allows the mind to travel in a systematic, natural way from the grosser levels of thought at the conscious level through the layers of subconscious thought eventually transcending the thought itself to transcendental Being. Maharishi says this practice, of allowing the mind to move through subtle levels of thought, over time brings those subtle levels within the realm of the awareness of the conscious mind.
“This is how the conscious mind is enlarged to its maximum capacity”, Maharishi says, "embracing within its fold subtle levels of thought and even the source of thought—or: 'source of creative intelligence'— thereby increasing the mind’s power and abilities."
Great my preference would be to go with the 2nd one Olive...I think both are fine but maybe better to get it from the horses mouth per se. I would urge you to put in and if people don't like then it can be discussed on the talk page. -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Exellent.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I made an adjustment based on discussion just to see what it looks like and how it reads. We've been humming and hawing around this material for a long time and it seemed time to at least see what it might be like if it was Wikipedia complaint. Don't panic! :o) I'm happy to revert it if need be.
There are real problems with what I removed, and maybe we just have to be compliant. TM independent is a spam link. It points to one incident of some teachers going out on their own, and links to their commercial site. That's not really notable and violates undue weight as well as adds advertising to the article.
If we say prices vary from country to country we have to have a reference that actually says that . We can't say prices vary from country to country and then add the prices from some countries. That would actually be synthesis, and violates WP:Synthesis. Again not compliant. So take a look at the changes and see what you all think.( olive ( talk) 03:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
Thats awesome Olive. Though I believe there is still the issue of the cult section to be resolved as well.-- Uncreated ( talk) 05:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, however it has not been properly referenced...as per our discussion above.-- Uncreated ( talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added a new simplified version of the mechanics section probably easier to understand than my version. If there are objections let me know. I still have the other version at hand.( olive ( talk) 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
It looks good to me! I just added a link to "mantra" to have contributed at least something...! Would it be a good idea to include a link to "samadhi" as well, I mean on "transcendental Being"? Geke ( talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words, but maybe the friendly atmosphere in here is distracting a bit? ;-) I mean, there should certainly be some mention of "mantra" in the article, even if I don’t especially like the mantra article either. Maybe we could link to "japa" instead? (Something else completely: when I type "TM" in the search field, I get to a disambiguation page, where I can click on the link to the "Transcendental Meditation" article in two sections: "Pop Culture" and "Science". I think that’s pretty hilarious!) Geke ( talk) 13:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
... and the friendly atmosphere is supposed to be what its like on Wikipedia so its nice here right now, but not necessarily the usual on the TM article.( olive ( talk) 14:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC))
I think to have the word mantra in the sentence is fine i just think it shouldn't be linked. Maharishi's definition of what a Mantra is, is different from what is defined in the link given...I think the link should be removed unless the page linked to the word mantra reflects Maharishi's defintion of what a mantra is.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem with linking mantra...just we shouldn't link until the source linked is accurate.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
article on that topic . Because we use the word in the article and can reference it if need be its fine to link it. I hope that makes sense. I was going to leave in the link you added until you responded, but probably since its clearly OR , it should be removed immediately. I guess the problem is solved though, since the original issue was with the Mantra article and its inaccuracy.( olive ( talk) 15:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC))
Whats the story with the Neutrality Tag? -- Uncreated ( talk) 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
The article has come a long way since the tag was first placed on it, and it seems time to remove it. I note Duedilly's comment [3] that the science sections are not weighted as correctly as they could be. His comment is on record and correcting the balance could and should be a job for the future.( olive ( talk) 19:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
The article is far from neutral. Bias of researchers is never discussed. Studies are cherry picked. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 15:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to create a new section in the Reception section to do with TM and its reception in the Business world. A possible source for this could be this article printed in the "Candian Banker" a canadian Magazine.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-9244531_ITM
I think it would be good to bring this to light in the article as way to show how widspread the Practice of TM is in the world especialy in the business world. Over 100 Corportations in Japan have implemented the technique in their existing training programmes. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncreated ( talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Guys, thanks for your thoughts and I agree largely with what has been said. But on something’s I disagree...I will probably have to give more thought to how I want to articulate my thoughts though. But one thing I do feel is that I think the article is in a good state...but that balance has not quite yet been met. I absolutely do not want to turn this into a promotional article about TM but I think there is room for a sentence here or a sentence here to express how TM is received in the world.--Uncreated (talk) 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Geke Olive is right everything needs to be referenced and to write the sentence your are suggesting would require an article printed in a Newspaper or something maikng that point. If we were to add something small to the reception section about TM in the world as far as i can see it would have to be point by point with a source for each point. I will see if i can write something up and present it with all of the appropriate references to see how people feel about it.-- Uncreated ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be better to have some more information in the history section. Something about how TM is now taught across the world in Academic institutions, Corporations and different Militaries around the world.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The weight of the article has been pretty carefully considered by all editors involved in the more recent discussions, and if anything the article is somewhat skewed towards the negative since it does not indicate the range of peer-reviewed research now over the 350 mark showing positive effects. I am removing the tag pending discussion here.( olive ( talk) 02:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
Note the comment by Duedilly above [4].
Rracecarr a number of editors working on the article felt that it had reached a neutral state...if you think it is not neutral why don't you point out why you think it is?-- Uncreated ( talk) 11:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Rracecarr Mate, thats cool...I get it that you don't mean to be disruptive. As TG pointed out Markovsky is critical of the Maharishi effect not Transcendental Meditation so it couldn't be used, also like TG said because OJ is an authority in his field and can be sited per wiki policy...are you disputing that he is an expert in his field? Also what information linked from skepdic.com would you like to see in the Article on TM?
In regards to the editing in the Research section, what is the use of having this sentence? "(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.)" I don't think adding this gives a neutral tone to the article and I think it should be removed. -- Uncreated ( talk) 04:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi 7thdr, thanks for the response...though i don't really no where to begin. First of all where do you get this idea that TM is a Religion? For one thing TM is a technique that is practiced and it is not a set of beliefs, if you have a source for this assertion please post...Can you please direct me via links to show where you came by your understanding that most of the research on TM is conducted and funded by "the organisations own university". Once again can you please post a source for you assertion that researchers go on to get lucrative/prestigious positions with MUM...I think you will find in the Robert Wallace case that he didn;t so much as go on to work for MIU because of his research he went onto become the founding President of MIU because of his passion for the research he conducted.
You assert that TM is a Religion but i can't see how it can be myself since it is a technique, not a set of beliefs...you should learn Transcendental Meditation and then you would see that it is not a religion, simply a technique that is practiced by people of all cultures, creeds and religions alike. I can't help but think that a number of editors on the TM article seem to have a lot of misinformation about what TM is and the organisation that promotes it. I look forward to your response. -- Uncreated ( talk) 01:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Whew, 7th you make multiple blanket statements..
Here's a neutral viewpoint. I have no dog in this fight. I have no interest in editing the article. But, if you wanted the perspective of an entirely neutral observer on whether or not to leave the "neutrality disputed" tag in, here's my 2 cents: This is not a neutral article, and the tag should stay in. Fladrif ( talk) 19:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thats fine with me that the tag stays...as Olive said previously the "tag simply can be seen as making reference to the concerns on neutrality from different sides of the coin." However we should be working to make the article Neutral so any suggestions as to how to do this would be welcome. Like I said previously I don't think this sentence is neutral and should be removed.
(Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently became a faculty member at the Maharishi International University, which was founded by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.) If we want put this information in we should try and find away that does not require it to be in brackets. -- Uncreated ( talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ronz, thats much better. Maybe though it would be more accurate to say something like this in the footnotes: Robert Wallace, the lead author of these publications, subsequently went on to become the founding president of MIU in 1973.-- Uncreated ( talk) 00:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way TG, it was not Ronz I accused of whitewashing, it was Uncreated, who removed the information using the bogus argument that it was in parentheses. Rracecarr ( talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Racecarr mate...you realise that MIU did not even exist when the original research was conducted? From what you said in the above sentence :"It is blatantly obvious that if a bunch of research by someone affiliated with a TM university is being prominently cited, their conflict of interest needs to be made clear." There is no conflict of interest because when he did the research the "TM University" did not exist. I think if we could find a source that said because of the research he conducted he went to become the founding President of MIU in 1973 that would be good to be mentioned in the footnotes.-- Uncreated ( talk) 17:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The links section as it appears now in the article is the product of discussion and agreement by several editors.Discussions here. [7] [8] Re adding links to that section or adding new links should be discussed here first and agreement reached in line with what's already been done on this section. Thanks.( olive ( talk))
For the record: I do not think the article is neutral. Actually, the article is in a bad state since a couple of years. I also followed the German version of the TM article for a long time and the situation started to improve significantly when the article was protected. Perhaps this is something one should also consider for the English version, too. -- mkrohn ( talk) 00:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm pasting here a recently added paragraph so we can discuss:
The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the NIH, commissioned a meta-analysis of the state of meditation research from the University of Alberta. The university reviewed 813 studies, a number of which were Transcendental Meditation studies. The conclusions of the analysis was: "Many uncertainties surround the practice of meditation. Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies and in the analysis and reporting of results." http://www.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/meditation/medit.pdf
I don't know that we want to give their broad generalization, since their findings varied from technique to technique. I've skimmed the section on the TM studies on hypertension, and from what I could tell, the researchers generally found that TM reduces hypertension. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, this study wasn't published in a journal, and is only now being published in segments in academic journals. The peer review process for this government report didn't follow the usual procedures, and I think it would be better to cite the published versions when they come out. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Fladrif ( talk) 17:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important to include this analysis. It is from a reputable university, commissioned by NCCAM, distributed by NCCAM and is important information in evaluating the TM research. This is especially true given that the University of Kentucky meta-analysis was included with no disclosure as to the fact that the funding was in part from a large contributor to the TMO.
Judyjoejoe (
talk) 19:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Multiple edit conflicts
(arbitrary unindent) I think it the study should be mentioned, and rather prominently per WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:MED/RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure.
Regarding the Transcendental Meditation technique, the report concluded that it "significantly reduced blood pressure."
Timid Guy, I don't see the researchers concluding that TM did significantly reduce BP. They couldn't do that because of the poor quality of the studies. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 22:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC) I also object to including Orme-Johnson's criticism of the study. He disputes absolutely everything that is critical of TM research and is a strong promoter of TM on his so called truthabouttm website. Judyjoejoe ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Rubbish... I edited and then went to talk to comment and hit four edit conflicts before I could comment. I reverted a non consensus change to the stable version of the article. Changes had been made that were relatively large without any kind of agreement. Check WP:BOLD( olive ( talk) 00:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC))
TimidGuy and Olive - I realize that one is required by Wikipedia to assume good faith on the part of editors, and that it is considered bad form to accuse other editors of bad faith. But, the intellectual dishonesty being displayed here by the two of you is just staggering.
Go ahead and tattle to Dreadstar or whatever other admistrator you prefer if you want. Fladrif ( talk) 19:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The authors themselves actually make a point similar to the point I added from David Orme-Johnson: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." p. 1210 in the published version of Ospina/Bond. It's another example of how they tempered their approach in the published version. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
that a meta study is appropriate in an article as specific as this one. Lets take a serious look point by point at the concerns with the study in terms of whether it is appropriate in this article as opposed to a more generalized topic/article.( olive ( talk) 05:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
Pasting deleted text here:
The authors of the study acknowledged that the evaluation scale that they used may not have been appropriate for studies on meditation, which would have affected the rating of quality: "The scale, however, may be criticized as being unsuited for the evaluation of nonpharmacological interventions such as meditation, where blinding of the subjects to the identity of the treatment they are receiving is likely to interfere with treatment effectiveness. Likewise, the Jadad scale does not evaluate the effectiveness of treatment implementation." [1]
Rracecarr, I object to your deletion of the statement by Ospina/Bond in their published review. A major point of the report was that the research was weak as determined by the scores on the Jadad scale. If the researchers themselves say that the Jadad scale isn't the best measure for research quality of meditation studies, shouldn't that be mentioned? It's not some minor caveat -- it goes to the heart of the study. I can put Orme-Johnson back in if you prefer, but it would be much better to cite the researchers themselves. TimidGuy ( talk) 16:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Racecarrr I am noting your explanation on blood pressure and saying not that it is but if it is. Read what I wrote if you want to comment accurately. High blood pressure - maybe try TM :O).( olive ( talk) 19:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC))
Here's what the appellate court decision says regarding the puja:
To acquire his mantra, a meditator must attend a ceremony called a "puja." Every student who participated in the SCI/TM course was required to attend a puja as part of the course. A puja was performed by the teacher for each student individually; it was conducted off school premises on a Sunday; and the student was required to bring some fruit, flowers and a white handkerchief. During the puja the student stood or sat in front of a table while the teacher sang a chant and made offerings to a deified "Guru Dev." Each puja lasted between one and two hours.2
The teacher sings the puja, not the student. By the way, the court entered into the record a correction from Steven Druker regarding the puja. I guess we'll need to get that document. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The student brings the fruit and flowers, the teacher makes the offerings. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Someplace on my computer I have a court document that lists the undisputed facts in the case. I sure don't remember the students making ceremonial offerings as being one of them. Where was that from? I deleted it for now. The Adams footnote is ambiguous. I agree that it may not have been accurately presented in the article. TimidGuy ( talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Why do you use the phrase "uncontested fact"? That makes it sound like an undisputed fact in the case. It wasn't. It's from a footnote and is not listed among the undisputed facts in the case. Interesting that the document contradicts itself. The fact is, and we can probably locate this fact in the secondary literature, that it's the teacher who makes the offering. The student just observes. The main text of the opinion has it correct. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that fact about offerings should be characterized as uncontested, because the appellate court themselves said something different in their opinion. By the way, it's not inappropriate to delete the attribution to Markovsky. Please restore that. TimidGuy ( talk) 21:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Under these circumstances, and recalling Justice Frankfurter's admonition that an individual expression of opinion is useful when the way a result is reached may be important to results hereafter to be reached,1 I am impelled to state my views separately.14
Sheesh .... that last edit summary got away on me before I could correct it .... should read "add format"....( olive ( talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
Fladrif. Your statement above is a complete miscahracterizations of what I've attempted to discuss here, and of what I've said which I don't really appreciate. I am making suggestions and rather than attack me, perhaps you could address the points I'm making. I'm quite familiar with the policies, and because I am dealing here with a contentious article I prefer to use them stringently rather than adapt them in some way. I am correctly noting possible concerns with WP:Weight. Why for example are you insistent on having three references to the puja in a subsection on a topic that is a very small part of the TM organization. The information is also redundant. I am asking for a choice ... choose one. I also correctly note Wikipedia frowns on excessive quoting... if we don't need the quote why is it there. I have never asked for more quotes to be added. If you want the information in the quote why not add it to a "see also" or rephrase it.
"The court also found state action violative of the Establishment Clause because the puja involved "offerings to deities as part of a regularly scheduled course in the schools' educational programs".
This statement is cobbled together from two different sections of the document. The quoted part comes from a reply to the appellates argument. The rest from other parts of the document. This statement above isn't what Adams said, although we know what he meant. If this was research paper of some kind we could make this staement . Its not and in this environment the statement is unencycopedic because it is OR.
To be encyclopedic the statement would have to read something like,"appellants note that even if the puja is religious its effect is insignificant whereas Judge Adams notes that this reasoning does not require reversal because of differences between a benediction at a commencement exercise "and the teaching of...." ( olive ( talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Yes, you have indeed mischaracterized me, and what I am doing, and I would request you stop attacking me and try to hear what I am saying. Until recently although I had copy edited the Malnak section I had very little knoweledge of this court case. About a month ago I started to research it, and found that there is a lot of imformation and contradiction as the secondary sources indicate. Your addition of the puja material slants towards informtion that is one side of the debate and according to TM people I have spoken too the puja as it is used in modern times is used in a seqular fashion. I felt you had an agenda in putting in what is in my understanding of weight three pieces of information on puja where one would do. I note the policies correctly whether you agree or not, but I do adhere strictly. I note also that I removed information from my user page for reasons pertaining to off wiki harassment.
If you were to look carefully at both my edits over time and TG's you would see that what we are above all neutral editors.We have removed countless edits from pro TM people, and have left in negative-to-TM additions even when the source is poor in order to create balance. This article is the result of many hours of work from editors holding both pro and negative TM stanses.To think it comes from two editors is a huge misunderstanding of how such an article is created.
I have secondary sources and am putting together material that says what is being said in the article right now but from the more compliant secondary sources along with the other mandatory, neutral-creating information. I am attempting to create something that will satisfy both you and the Wikipedia policies, and is as truthful as can be given the inaccuracies in the sources. It will take me a little time to do. Once we look at the subsection I suspect it will be too long as pertains to WP:Weight so at that point, someone may want to pare it down.( olive ( talk) 17:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
I am adding attribution of the quote "stealth religion" to Barry Markovsky as is appropriate. The statement was not a general comment but specific to one person.( olive ( talk) 22:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC))
I'd like to suggest that rather than continuing to edit war which is only creating a strangely,jumbled connection of phrases, that the Malnak v Yogi be completely rewritten. The court document itself contains contradictions some of which whether they are in the actual court document or not can be shown with a little research to be inaccurate. This means they shouldn't be included necessarily but probably violate WP:Verifiability. If there is such contradictory information included here than perhaps to be accurate both sides of the contradiction need to be shown. As well, if we are discussing the case and there are obvious contradictions then those contradictions themselves are noteworthy aspects of the case. As well we have journals which are secondary sources that need to be included and are more compliant than the primary source which is the court document. I would suggest two versions. I could write one and Fladrif could write the other . We could post them here and discuss and edit them here, then when all are satisfied put it back into the article. Just a thought.( olive ( talk) 04:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
Since this issue has been discussed in recent days I did a little investigating. The Ospina/Bond report found that 22 of the 400 clinical studies in their review were of Good quality or better on the Jadad scale. Of those, three are on Transcendental Meditation (reference numbers 220, 221, and 282). In addition, the study by Paul-Labrador published in 2006, after the 2005 cutoff date of Ospina/Bond, was rated high quality on the Jadad scale by the University of Kentucky meta-analysis published in 2008. Further, that meta-analysis identified three additional TM studies that were rated of acceptable quality on the Jadad scale. Also, the revised version of Ospina/Bond published last December in JACM said that there were 40, not 22, studies that rated Good or better on Jadad. There's no way of knowing whether those 18 studies that had their scores adjusted upward included TM studies, but that may very well be the case. So there are at least 7 studies on TM that range from acceptable to high quality on the Jadad scale.
The Ospina/Bond report only included randomized controlled trials, because this is thought to be one of the more rigorous research methodologies. Please understand that, with the exception of the pharmaceutical industry, the majority of clinical studies in general aren't randomized controlled trials, because such studies are very difficult and expensive. A typical randomized controlled trial on TM with 100 subjects costs $2 million and takes four years to from inception to publication. In addition, probably only a small percentage of randomized controlled trials that aren't pharmaceutical rate high on Jadad. The Ospina/Bond report gives the impression that the Jadad scale is the norm for clinical research. It's not, except in the pharmaceutical industry, which can easily afford to drop $50 million on a trial involving over 1,000 subjects.
This information is offered in support of my suggestion in a thread above that the Ospina/Bond paragraph could be revised. I would write it something like this:
In 2007 the National Institutes of Health released a report that assessed research on meditation using the high standard of the pharmaceutical industry, that is, the Jadad scale. The report found that 40 of the 400 clinical studies assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale and that there was a statistically significant increase in the quality of research over time. The report found that at least three studies on the Transcendental Meditation technique out of the dozens that were assessed rated good quality or better on the Jadad scale. The report stated that it found a statistically significant reduction in blood pressure associated with practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy ( talk) 11:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I would guess the issue is that although I haven't seen what TG is taking about, if the source says there are three studies than that is what we have to put in ....Original research would be the instance if the source says there are three studies and then we do the math and come up with the number of not so good studies...I'll try and check that. Note that TG is making suggestions its not in the article, and can be edited easily here. ( olive ( talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
"would like to take this opportunity to speak to all of the Sidhas in America and throughout the world about the extraordinary gift that Maharishi has given us in the form of the Invincible Assemblies.
"Maharishi has given us the opportunity to create an invincible world-a world without enemies-a world of peace, prosperity, joy, happiness, and profound bliss.
"The formula to achieve this incredible goal for mankind is so very simple, and it is completely within our grasp. Maharishi has given us the technology to achieve the impossible through a procedure so easy and blissful that it defies imagination-and yet it is true, and it has been tested and proven.
"The technology, of course, is an Invincible Assembly in every nation-a Super Radiance group of Yogic Flyers in every country.: The7thdr ( talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is 7th. I guess you're saying that Howard Settle supports Maharish Mahesh Yogi's peace initiatives.
First what proof do you have that he paid the salary of one of the researchers .... not sure what you're talking about but I'm not up on that ... and second if the work was peer reviewed in a respected journal, the study is Wikipedia compliant. Of course private institutions, funded by one or more individuals carry on research all of the time. You'll remember as well that all universities rely on endowments to carry on the business of the university that often includes researcher and those endowments come very much from individuals. Honesty doesn't enter into it that I can see, and actually please deal with the edits and not the editors (
olive (
talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
DBP, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, and level of physical activity in hypertensive patients..." Perhaps it would be wise to edit the article accordingly? At least than it would reflect the truth? I am assuming that multiple users at MUM use the LO/TG Wiki accounts. looking through the history of this article the most recent incarnation of TG is slightly more zealous than previous incarnations.It might be worth noting this :) The7thdr ( talk) 23:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
( olive ( talk) 23:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC))
I am including one version of a rewrite. Much of the first part is what is in place now. I attempted to compact the puja material and added what seemed to be the clearest and most consistent summary of the case from one of the secondary sources. I am in no way endorsing this version at this point, but thought we could take a look at it and see what everyone thought. Of course anyone else who wants to add a version should.
Since the puja from what I understand is used in a secular manner, and since the student doesn't understand it, its merely for the teacher, including a translatio0n of part of it here seems misleading... so I 'm not excited about using any translation. However, the court document does say this so if everyone agrees, we could include it.( olive ( talk) 23:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC))
In 1979, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States Court for the District of New Jersey that a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence/Transcendental Meditation (SCI/TM), was religious activity within the meaning of the Establishment Clause, and that the teaching of SCI/TM in the New Jersey public high schools was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court ruled that although SCI/TM cannot be defined as a Theistic religion, it does deal with issues of ultimate concern, truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions, a broadened view of religion as defined by the court. From careful examination of the textbook, the expert testimony elicited, and the uncontested facts concerning the "puja", (a ceremony performed for each student individually, in which the teacher sang a Sanskrit chant and "made offerings to a deified Guru Dev" Malnak 4), as well as application of the Nyquist or Lemon test, the religious nature of TM/SCI was decided. The Nuquist or Lemon test helps determine if government involvement is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in affirming the ruling of the district court left several questions unresolved that included: a judgment that dealt with TM/SCI together as one unit, and left unanswered whether TM taught without the puja and SCI would constitute an establishment of religion, and that the use of a textual analysis of the chant was ambiguous in that such a analysis could also be used to invalidate for example America the Beautiful or the Pledge of Allegiance. (Marjorie Gilman Baker, Seton Hall Law Review,1979, p.614-629)
The case turned on two general areas. One that the text, puja, and testimony seemed according to the court definition to be of a religious nature, and second the so called "Lemon" test or Nyquist test which was used to determine government involvement.
"To pass muster, the action in question must: (1) reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose; (2) have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion...and that the government aid given to teach the course and the use of public school facilities constituted excessive governmental entanglement with religion. (Malnak 10).
I should probably clarify that.( olive ( talk) 04:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
This information is historical in nature so I've moved it into the history/origin section. Its reference to religion is oblique but not specific to the organization as it defines itself today.
I would request that additions be added with discussion here and agreement as has been the tradition in the past here because this is a contentious article.( olive ( talk) 23:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
The information on the Spiritual Regeneration Movement may be on several levels somewhat misleading and misplaced. The comment and quote is about the corporation not the technique. We've tried to keep the article clearly about the technique in the interests of clarity and brevity. This decision was made by multiple editors.
The source I have, "The Minnesota Law Review", describes SRM as a spiritual movement, the corporation as a religious one but whose purpose is to teach the technique to those who want a spiritual life. So there is considerable ambiguity there in terms of the organization itself.Is it spiritual or is it religious.
The technique though is never described as religious.
Spirituality and religion are clearly delineated in some of the literature cited in the TM article. It is the court case under the First Amendment, Establishment and Free Exercises clauses that define the technique with SCI as religious in nature, and we know that definition was expanded and not based on a Theistic definition. Defining the TM techniques as religious in any other context I would think is misleading. I think this requires some discussion as to how to place this information if at all. I won't remove it pending discussion, but on closer examination of the source I'm not sure it should stay in this article.( olive ( talk) 04:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Note:
Fladrif. You have taken up the COI issue on the COI Notice board and I suggest you and we leave it there. This page is for discussion of the article. I'll attempt to address the other issues you raise here later.( olive ( talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC))
Throughout this and all of the other TM-related articles, MMY is referred to as "Maharishi" as if it were his name. "Maharishi" is an honorific, not a name or a title of office. Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_titles, I propose that he be identified as "Yogi" in these articles for short, not Maharishi, just as Gandhi is not identified as "Mahatma", and popes and the Dalai Lama are not identified as "His Holiness" in the articles about them. I'm sure there are many other examples. Fladrif ( talk) 15:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yogi was used by the courts as his last name...why would we not use it? Do we have a source as to what his legal name is? Could it be actually that his legal name is Maharishi Mahesh Yogi?-- Uncreated ( talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I've found the incorporation document so have been able to get rid of the more general "others' and replace it with a more specific reference. I have also included the "Primary" spiritual purpose as a more complete understanding of the document. I'm not attached to any of it so can be removed if any one objects. I tend to think its all too much information here and would be better placed in an article on a history of the TM organization or in the MMY article but that's another discussion and not attached either way.( olive ( talk) 21:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC))
-- JD {æ} 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the MUM lawsuit is here on the TM page and not on the MUM page. Has there been discussion on this point already? If so, would someone mind giving me a breif overview? Thanks in advance. -- Kbob ( talk) 10:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I will remove religious from the section on procedure. In this section and in this context using the adjective religious is POV.
In the interest of balance i am looking for academics who do not consider TM or the Puja to be religious. Certainly in the court notes it mentions there were two academics who did not think the Puja was Religious.
"Defendants also rely on affidavits of two professors of religion. The affidavits are virtually identical and will be treated together. Neither professor practices Transcendental Meditation and presumably has never witnessed a puja; both professors state that they have read the English translation of the puja chant which appears above. Each professor concludes that in his opinion the Puja is not a religious ceremony."
Also to contrast the findings of the court I understand that Laurence Tribe [16] as a constitutional lawyer does not believe TM to be religious...I have found a pdf of a book "Law and Religion in the United States" which maybe will provide source to contrast with...however i have to read through it so it might take me some time.-- Uncreated ( talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Wallace v Jaffree
Actually for all practical purposes the Wallace v Jaffree case does render the Malnak case moot. In practice there are schools receiving gov't assistance who have implemented TM into their quiet time programs. Carter Phillips say this ... and I'll link to the letter. (I have a copy of the original identical to this one except for letterhead) [17] (Although I do agree with Fladrif on one point and that is that there is a lot of praying going before exams.)
Even if it were to be assumed that the TM program is a religious practice, its use in the context
of a "Quiet Time" program is constitutional. No Court has ever ruled that a school policy, which provides for a period of quiet for its students to do what they deem fit, is unlawful or
April 9, 2007
Page 4
unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite clear that students could engage in religious or non-religious activities during a neutrally implemented period of voluntary quiet, without raising an issue under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court's decision in Wallace v. Jaffree, confirmed the constitutional right to a voluntary period of meditation in the classroom with a clearly secular purpose in the pre-existing State legislation when it struck down the proposed new legislation, which impermissibly sought to promote religious prayer: "The legislative intent to return prayer to the public schools is, of course, quite different from merely protecting every student's right to engage in voluntary prayer during an appropriate moment of silence during the school day. The [pre-existing] statute already protected that right, containing nothing that prevented any student from engaging in voluntary prayer during a silent minute of meditation.
( olive ( talk) 20:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
I did move this because the thread was becoming very long and there was a specific reference to the Wallace case which I thought we could split off. I thought this might be easier ....If not it can be added to the last thread on "Religious"... no worries.( olive ( talk) 21:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC))
Hi Fladrif. We may seem to differ because of semantics. MUM like any university in the US has internal legal council. Carter Phillips is paid period, for what he does. I doubt he made up a position on TM but rather probably scrutinized the court cases and gave a professional opinion. He was paid for the scrutiny as he is paid for anything, but probably not to skew an opinion. I thought you suggested that he would have skewed his opinion because he was paid which seesm highly unlikely given his and his firm's profile.
That the article is a wreck is an opinion. Surely you realize that many editors have been here who are neutral and have made comments, helped correct things and thought the article was ok. I can't imagine that a good researcher which you obviously are has not gone into the archives and seen that this article was hammered out by numerous skeptics along with TG and I, and a few others, and that the article is not the result of two editors' work but many. You assume my agenda but believe me you don't know what my agenda is partly because on Wikipedia I have one agenda and that is to be neutral. Should I also not assume you have an agenda when the entries you make are attempts to show that TM is religious . This is what I know about TM . Some people think it has religious aspects, some don't and there are sources for both . We have to show that and we have to do it in a way that reflects the overall sense of the mainstream sources. That's it. Its that simple . Perhaps we can put our perceived agendas behind us and continue on.( olive ( talk) 18:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC))
Okay so maybe I will refert to Fladrif's edit then.-- Uncreated ( talk) 22:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Um...cool 7thdr, I miss understood your previous entry...however I am unsure why we have added that sentence in since I seemed to understand that Fladfrif, Myself both thought the addition of that material in the procedure section was not necessary. Perhaps we could come to some consensus about its inclusion? As I understand it at this point Fladrif, Myself and olive think it should come in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section and 7thdr thinks it should be mentioned in the procedure section. Does anyone else have thoughts?--
Uncreated (
talk) 02:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
At this point 4 editors (Myself, Fladrif, Olive and Kbob) do not think the "Teaching Procedure" section is the place to talk about the Puja/TM being religious. The thought is that it should be raised in the "Relationship to religion and spirituality" section. 7thdr will you go along with this?-- Uncreated ( talk) 06:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Dear Friends, I would like to make a suggestion that we all slow down a bit here. It is great that everyone is so passionate about making this article the best it can be. But different editors have different perspectives. An elephant is an elephant but it looks different depending on whether you are standing in the front or the back. The issue of TM and religion is a large issue that has been discussed at length in the past. It deserves the same careful consideration again now. There are also several editors involved and some of us have to work for a living. :-) So if we could take our time and move slowly and deliberatly I think we will have less conflict, make more progress and enjoy ourselves more too! I suggest that if there was any question regarding the conclusion of the COI discussion on the noticeboard re: Olive and Timid that that be handled in a seperate section. We might also consider breaking the topic up into smaller peices for clarity. I would also like to suggest that we have a gentlemen's and gentlwomen's agreement that for the time being, we discuss and then post new copy suggestions here on the discussion page first and get consensus on the wording and placement before putting them in the article. This will help to avoid any editing wars as no one feels good when their edits are reverted. What do you think? Peace! -- Kbob ( talk) 22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)