Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

previous discussion - archive 1 (ended 2006-06-25)

previous discussion - archive 2 (ended 2006-12-31)
previous discussion - archive 3 (ended 2007-12-15)

Contents


[edit] No Mention of the TM Movement and Maharishi University??

Typical! Lengthy trash on drug addicted Beatles but no real discussion of the guru Mahesh Yogi. More needs to be added regarding the TM movement and definitely the Maharishi Universities worldwide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the concern is since this article is about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Perhaps your concerns could be discussed more specifically.
The so-called TM movement, is generally not considered to be an official name. The name for the TM organization as a whole is now the Global Country of World Peace for which there is an article . As well, Maharishi University of Management has its own article.
The Beatles section has undergone a lot of scrutiny from multiple editors, and is considered to be somewhat balanced although, some editors, me included, feel it violates WP:Weight in its relationship to the rest of the article.
Please feel free to be more specific about concerns you have so that they can be addressed.(olive (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Died on Jan. 12th?

There are rumours that the Maharishi had died on Jan. 12th, and the movement hasn't published it yet. Comment from insiders, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpada (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The rumours are false.He spoke publicly on Jan 12th.(olive (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes. the rumors came about because he said in public, quote: “Invincibility is irreversibly established in the world. My work is done. My designated duty to Guru Dev is fulfilled.” And, quote: “It is such a joy today when I am closing my performance and closing my days of life, when I am hearing all these beautiful realities of all successes on the basis of which we have built up Invincibility to be the perpetual phase to be lived in life. I am expressing it is not `I` that has done it. If it is `I`, it is a `big` I.”
He told the world in a public statement that from now on he will spend his time for the fulfillment of a commentary of the Ved: “It will take two or three years.” --Josha52 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What Olive and Josha say is true. Maharishi also can be heard these days to speak on Channel 3 of http://maharishichannel.org in broadcast replays of the 12th of January, and before and after the 12th.
Word is he just died. Trying to verify... -- Twistedghost (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Verified.(olive (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Verified by what source? Naturezak (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


Announced on www.maharishichannel.org, channel three, by Nader Raam. I guess that Veda commentary isn't going to get done. So much for perfect health. Judyjoejoe (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For reference check and discussion re: John Lennon addition

I am moving this material for discussion and a reference check since this is a biography of a living person and guidelines are strict as per additions. For discussion, WP:Weight might be considered.(olive (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Regardless of the underlying cause, Lennon remained bitter towards the Maharishi, penning the song "Sexy Sadie" about him (with the refrain "what have you done? You made a fool of everyone").[1]

I moved the material back. The citation is trivial to check: see here. Nandesuka (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
A reference is never trivial in regards to biography of a living person, and there was no lack of faith, just a check on a highly contentious article . I feel that this addition does violate WP: Weight somewhat so that should be discussed, I think . However thanks so much for linking the reference. It saves a lot of trouble getting a looking for the book and quote. I believe the addition could be left in place for now since there is a reference.(olive (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
I wonder if we should consider chronology and sequence. Lennon passed away in 80, but it was later that in retrospect Paul and George said that Mardas had made it up. Closing the section with Lennon gives him the final word. Plus, the way it says he "remained bitter" makes it sound he wrote the song long after, but it he wrote it soon after departing Rishikesh. The sequence is Beatles leave, Lennon writes song, Mardas is fired in 69, Lennon passes away in 80, in the 1990s Paul and George realize that Mardas made it up and endeavor to set the record straight. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We could say "Lennon was clearly bitter about the split..." which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline. Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Wikipedia standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".

The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Wikipedia does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
Your edit doesn't really capture the spirit of the quoted sources, implying as it does that all discussion on this topic is based on "rumors". We don't have rumors, we have sourced discussion by some of the parties involved. I've rewritten for accuracy. It does no harm to the Maharishi to note "John Lennon didn't like him, and wrote a song about him" when John Lennon has been quoted in published sources as saying "I didn't like him, and wrote this song about him." Nandesuka (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's a question I have: Maharishi has been a public figure for 50 years. There are probably thousands of published opinions about him. Does every published opinion merit a mention in a bio? What significant does it tell us about Maharishi that John Lennon didn't like him? Does Lennon have some sort of special credibility? Of course there are many published opinions saying how wonderful Maharishi is? Would they merit inclusion? Just thinking out loud here. Eager to hear what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
If the Rolling Stones wrote a song inspired by how awesome they thought the Maharishi was, I would think that deserved mention. If an unknown band no one had ever heard of wrote the same song, I would think it probably didn't deserve mention. "Every published opinion" doesn't necessarily merit a mention in a bio, but commentary by John Lennon about a song on what is, according to some reliable sources, the 10th greatest rock album of all time [1] is not "every published opinion". Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right . The line immediately following the new addition makes reference to "another rumour" I will remove that actually since its not accurate . The Lennon material is rather, controversy. I have to disagree though on adding Sexy Sadie. This is insulting to a spiritual leader and does refer to rumours that circulated on inappropriate behaviour ... all rumours proved false multiple times including in a public performance by Donovan, also present at the Ahsram, and who explained the attempt by press and others to draw the Beatles away from Rishikesh. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I believe also including this much material violates WP:Fringe and WP:Weight Best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC))

Whether those rumors are true or false (I don't even know what they are) isn't really at issue here. There are only several hundred Beatles songs in existence, and they hold great cultural significance to the Western world. What is relevant here is the fact of the song's existence, and Lennon's attribution of it as being about the Maharishi. Wikipedia is in no way insulting the Maharishi by reporting its existence. If you would care to explain to me how a single sentence mentioning a Beatles song constitutes a violation of WP:FRINGE, which is mostly about crackpot scientific or philosophical theories, or WP:UNDUE, I'm all ears. Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's look at it this way. This is an article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and not an article about the Beatles, their cultural significance or their albums. Although, I am a fan.:0)
Rather, this is an article about a spiritual leader who during the period of his life's work, over fifty years, interacted for a very short period of time, probably no more than a few months, with these people.He has interacted with numerous famous and not so famous people during his life. Where does one draw the line. The line is drawn at the point where realization is that, this not about any of those people but about Maharishi himself. In terms of his life and this article four people no matter how famous we might think them, were four of a multitude. In that sense the entire section is likely fringe since it focuses on only four people. What about all of the others. Adding anything more to this section seems unnecessary given the weight given to this section in the article. In terms of this life, this information is fringe material and devoting too much more space to this would constitute undue weight. I however will not edit war over this or fight this too much further. I've tried to provide a compromise. If you feel this additional materiel is appropriate, then so be it, from my side, unless other editors have objections. (olive (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
I have added sources that say rumours were false concerning Mia Farrow and Maharishi upon whom the Sexie Sadie song was based. As well, I realized that all of this section is about the Mia Farrow rumour. So the section is a bit of an overkill on this subject. I removed mention of the lines from the song since the reader can link to the song in Wikipedia, and to create balance removed the affirmative statement in the last lines referencing Deepak Chopra. This seems to be better balanced and more concise section in terms of information, and of "fringe" and "weight" as I noted in my post above.(olive (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Your invoking of WP:FRINGE here makes no sense. That Lennon wrote a song about the Maharishi -- that appears in one of Rolling Stone's 10 greatest albums of all times -- isn't a crackpot theory. In other words, I don't think WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE mean what you think they mean.
I've restored the quote from the song, since it is central to the whole controversy. Nandesuka (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Fringe "An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." The focus in this article is on the life of this man and not on the ten greatest albums of all time. In the context of his life the creation of a Beatles song cannot be considered notable unless you have a reference saying he thought this was the case. I see no reason to include this material or the words to the song which are linked, unless there is some wish to discredit. This entire section is about the Mia Farrow incident adding more to that violates Undue weight. Why does this incident deserve even this much space in the context of the article and the life rather than a single line mention somewhere.(olive (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Every single reputable obituary of the Maharishi discusses the Beatles allegations. Consider this, from the New York Times:
The visibility and popularity of the organization can largely be 
attributed to the Beatles. In 1968, the band, with great publicity, 
began studying with the Maharishi at his Himalayan retreat, or ashram, 
in Rishikesh, in northern India. They went with their wives, the folk
singer Donovan, the singer Mike Love, of the Beach Boys, the actress
Mia Farrow and Ms. Farrow’s sister Prudence.

They left in the wake of rumors of sexual improprieties by the Maharishi,
an avowed celibate, though no sexual-misconduct suits were filed and some
of the participants later denied that anything untoward had occurred.
I have no wish to discredit the Maharishi. Nor do I have any wish to create a hagiography. The New York Times devoted two entire paragraphs to this topic in the Maharishi's obituary. For you to suggest that this topic is not notable, or deserves only a single sentence, is absurd. Nandesuka (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 :I believe the issue isn't the allegations but how much attention be given to a single song. By the way, the New York Times article might be a good rule of thumb for how much this should be emphasized in this article. The paragraph about the allegations is 34 words in an article of 1,109 words. TimidGuy (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No, Nandesuka its not absurd. Do you really think the press is interested in whats fair when it comes to writing about this . What makes good press?.... the Beatles, or a monk who wants world peace. But lets do this. I will do my best as I have been to make this section neutral, and you can assume that I know what fringe and undue weight are, and that I am not making absurd statements but rather that I am looking at this from within another context, and that is from the life of the person involved here, and what is notable in context of this life, and not from what the press at this time considers to be notable. If we can come to the agreement, that we are looking at this from different perspectives, not either one right or wrong but just different. then there may be better understanding. By the way I am not accusing you of wanting to discredit anyone, only that if this section becomes weighty it does discredit, and the allegations do indeed discredit. I apologize if I seemed to be referring to you.(olive (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
I combined the Mia Farrow incident with the Lennon song but in fact as the references indicate they were not connected, so I have removed reference to Farrow in the sentence. (olive (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
(While discussing "Sexy Sadie")
"When did you realize that he was making a fool of you?
I don't know, I just sort of saw.
While in India, or when you got back?
Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that."[2].
Please explain to me how "the references indicate they were not connected?" Did you check this reference and not see it, or did you see it and not understand it? Nandesuka (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Only this source says something like this. I've looked at at least 10, including Patti Boyd's bio, Cynthia Lennon's bio, quotes from John, Paul, and George in the Beatles Anthology, etc. Every other source tells a uniform story: that Mardas said that Maharishi was having sexual encounters with an American nurse and that John and George left because of it. George says in the Beatles Anthology that it wasn't Mia Farrow. George and Paul also later said they thought that Mardas made the whole thing up. And regarding the extreme statement above, you can read Mia Farrow's account of it in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) In fact, John himself tells it differently in the Beatles Anthology. I feel like the quote above says more about John than it does about Maharishi. And I say we remove it, because it so directly contradicts what Farrow says in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
It is perfectly appropriate to quote other reliable sources that say they don't believe the incident happened (and, in fact, we are already doing that). What is not appropriate is to ignore a relevant, reliable source just because we are more interested in writing a hagiography than an encyclopedia. In that quote, John is explaining that he wrote the song because he didn't trust the Maharishi, because he heard rumors about Mia Farrow. That the rumors weren't true is irrelevant. The point is that John Lennon is an authoritative source for what John Lennon thought.
I only brought up this quote because of olive's simply astonishing claim that "the references indicate that [the song Sexy Sadie and the rumors about Farrow] were not connected." The references indicate no such thing. Nandesuka (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually the first reference in the section says no such thing, and your right the second reference cited does say there was a connection. I was however referring to other literature/references available in which this connection is not made as TG mentions. I wrote the information deleted, and that you have just replaced and was in removing it attempting to be accurate , since I had said this whole section is on Mia Farrow when in fact that wasn't quite true. I really do wish you could work on this without being quite so personal: absurd, astonishing doesn't know what fringe and weight are. Lets just stick to working through this please. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] An outside view

When I look at the discussion in this section, I see one person offering multiple ways of getting attributed information in and two saying that under no circumstances should it be allowed. The reasons offered for insertion are that it is one of the most famous groups and persons in the world writing a critically important song to express his view, and the others say that's not important enough. Well, here's the acid test: How famous would the Marharishi have been without the Beatles? If his fame in the West derives somewhat from his association with the Beatles (and I would say it derives entirely; it was that connection that led to all the Dick Cavett show appearances, the Laugh-In stuff, and all the thousands of appearances he made 1970-74, and it was those that led to the success of his book, whatever its intrinsic values or whatever the zeitgeist of the West), then their opinions even without the song would be important information to the biography. So, if, as most believe, this association was the most famous episode, and if people followed the lives of the Beatles the way they would a soap opera character (and five times as closely as they now do the demise of Britney et al.), then John's disaffection was a famous episode. In fact, I remember it. I remember how the issue of the Maharishi became one of the John/Paul splits, how fans lined up between Paul & George for him or John against him. The controversy increased the stature of the figure. In fact, the Maharishi was one of the many blamed for "breaking up the Beatles."

So, should the statement be in? Yes. It's an important facet of the biography of the figure. It's not undue at all. It's also not going to poison or harm the figure in any way, were he alive, because, in fact, it actually ended up helping his profile and made him more famous. So, a neutral and factual statement of John's stated attitude is germane and hardly a sabotaging of the article. Geogre (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be mis characterizing the discussion. This discussion began while Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was living and the policy for biography of living persons is very clear.... "do no harm"..... We can cite Lennon's view on this time period, but we have no definitive source that says anything actually happened. And yes, this is negative material and does harm in some small way, a reputation. Would I have liked to see the information removed . Sure. It is sourced though and so it can probably be there .
Discussion has not been about whether there should be any information on the Beatles at all , but how much and at what point is WP: policy on Biography of living persons violated, and whether weight is violated. Maharishi has of course since passed away.
I and Nandesuka are viewing this from different vantage points, and so appropriately, there is discussion.
My argument, which I stick by is that this is an article about a spiritual leader who continued to be a spiritual leader long after the short interaction with the Beatles. Over 35 years have passed since this encounter, and Maharishi continued to be a spiritual leader. In fact this article isn't in anyway about the Beatles or how important this song is. Its about a person and his life. However, clearly I am not advocating removing the Beatle material but paring it down somewhat. For now what's in the article, although I do not necessarily agree with it, seems to be as neutral as we are going to get. And I am willing unless something changes to leave it that way.(olive (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

So far as any reference work is concerned, the person exists only as a public figure. Therefore, what is part of the shaping of the public figure is important, and what is not part of that is not. Therefore, if John's disaffection was part of increasing the figure's fame at a critical point, then it is "in." If John's disaffection led to increased discussion of the public figure's role, then it is "in." Whether John is telling the truth is not up to a secondary or tertiary source of information, and it is also not relevant to a discussion of the arc of a figure's career. It's quite easy to be neutral about the material, and Nandesuka was being fairly neutral.

A primary biography is out, but so is a hagiography. A reader is not looking, probably, for "why is this the greatest person, ever," but instead, "Why is everyone talking about him?" They can read the book TM, and it's a nice book with a large influence over popular culture and cultural history in the US, but part of what put the man in the position to be famous enough to convince masses of people to give the book a chance (and his was hardly the only meditation guide on the market at the time; I think Alan Watts's popularizing books on Zen were popular) was both the role with the Beatles and the controversy. I.e. the "he's a hypocrite/bad man/svengali" discussion was part of the fame/infamy that made everyone interested in what he had to say. We never report the truth: we report the truth as it appears through secondary sources. Geogre (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the Beatles made him famous except for a very short time, or that popular press is what makes anyone notable. Absoluteley, yes, the material in the section is sourced and is appropriately placed although as I said Nanadesuka, and I differ in our perspectives, and yes I believe he/she is being neutral . So as I said I have no problems for now with the way the section reads. Best wishes, and thanks for your outsider's comments. Its always good for an article to have multiple perspectives.(olive (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Influence of Maharishi on the Beatles

A lot of discussion here about the role of the Beatles in Maharishi's career in the west. So from the flip side, here's a fascinating article from the New York Times about the extraordinary influence Maharishi had on their creativity.[3] TimidGuy (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another source regarding Mardas

Musician, September, 1992, p. 43 (the part in brackets appears that way in the magazine)

Harrison: "Yeah, I called it 'Sexie Sadie.' The title John had was not nice at all. At least he realized that. At least he realized that. Because there was nothing that ever happened except that there was a fella who was supposedly a friend of ours who stirred up and created this big fantasy. [Note: Beatles pal Magic Alex Mardas told John and George that the Maharishi might have made sexual advances to one of the woman pilgrims. This led to a confrontation between Lennon and the Maharishi and Lennon's returning to England.] There was never anything that took place." TimidGuy (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it seems like we need to avoid conflating the Farrow thing with the Mardas story. No source that I looked at said that Mardas spread rumors regarding Farrow. They related to someone else. And all of the sources except for one attribute the departure of John and George to the latter. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The interviews with Lennon specifically mention that the rumors were about Farrow. See the citation to the interview by Jann Wenner. Nandesuka (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There apparently were rumors about Farrow, though sources say little about that. Rather, the sources focus on a story that came from Mardas about Maharishi being sexually involved with an American nurse who was on the course. This was the precipitating event that led to the departure of John and George. (Ringo and Paul had left much earlier.)

Who were the parties to what you characterize as a "bitter dispute"? TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the media are starting to pick the inaccuracies in this article.[4] Cynthia's version published today pretty closely follows what she says in her book[5].TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree both with your claim that this section of the article contains inaccuracies, and your odd belief that major media sources are going to rely on Wikipedia to do their research. There's nothing in the National Ledger article, for instance, indicating that they relied on Wikipedia. To the extent that they include the claim that John Lennon was inspired to write Sexy Sadie in response to the rumors of inappropriate advances towards Farrow, they presumably relied on the same source Wikipedia relies on -- the interviews with John Lennon. (nb: the article itself points to another newspaper, The Post-Chronicle. That doesn't indicate any reliance on Wikipedia either.)
That being said, thanks for pointing to this source. Nandesuka (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nandesuaka. I'm not talking about what inspired John to write Sexy Sadie. Rather, I'm talking about first-hand sources which describe the reason for their departure and the fact that Mardas was the source for the story that precipitated their departure -- a story unrelated to Mia Farrow. I've not seen any first-hand accounts that say that Mardas spread rumors about Mia Farrow, as this article says. Hope you don't mind discussing this. Not trying to create conflict here. TimidGuy (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but this is an awfully subtle distinction; sort of a dog that didn't bark. John Lennon says (I paraphrase) "I wrote Sexy Sadie because of these rumors of him coming on to "Mia Farrow and a few other women". We stayed up all night talking about it, and then we left the next day." Cynthia Lennon says "Magic Alex accused the Maharishi of behaving improperly with an American girl who was a fellow student", which might be Farrow, or it might not. The Spitz biography talks about a "young American nurse." How we connect this to the John Lennon quote where he explicitly ties the rumors to Farrow is hard to say. Do you have any suggestions?
How about this. Instead of "Word of the incident was given to the Beatles by...", we say "Rumors of this type of incident were passed on to the Beatles by..."? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandesuka (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nandesuka. And by the way, thanks for your earlier revert of the info about Lennon's carving of the words to the song. I agree that it was excessive detail, and I see that the same editor put it in the Sexy Sadie article, which is the place for it. In Cynthia's autobiography she also says a young American nurse. All of the accounts are quite uniform -- John, George, Cynthia, Pattii Boyd -- regarding what happened. Mardas told John and George that Maharishi was sexually involved with this woman who was on the course; they argued all night whether it could be true, with George not ready to believe it. Finally, George acquiesced. That morning they went in to confront Maharishi. John told him they were leaving. Maharishi asked why. John said something like, "You're the cosmic master who knows everything, you know why." Then they left. That's why I wondered about whether we should say "bitter dispute." Since it wasn't much of a dispute, and Maharishi had no idea why they were leaving (according to the first-hand accounts). Both Patti and Cynthia say there were surprised that John and George believed Mardas, and later Paul and George said they thought that Mardas made the whole thing up.

Anyway, not sure what I'm getting at, other than maybe we need to rewrite this a bit. : ) I'll give it some thought. TimidGuy (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like us to consider is moving the Sexy Sadie material to the following paragraph which talks about specific songs related to their experience in India. That will make it easier to address the issues we discussed in the first paragraph (that Mardas wasn't responsible for rumors regarding Farrow and that most of the first-hand accounts, including an interview with John in the Beatles Anthology, attribute their departure to the Mardas story). We can then, in the following paragraph, still attribute the inspiration for Sexy Sadie to both the Mardas story and Farrow. TimidGuy (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea. The whole section is somewhat tangled in terms of logic and progression and this might clarify the ideas and the structure. The whole section is getting to be pretty long and I did have concerns about weight. Not sure what I'm saying there, except I am watching the length to see where that goes. I'd like TG to go ahead if thats OK with Nandesuka.(olive (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Date of birth

Opening para:

  • ...born ... between 1911 and 1918 ... He was born in India, around 1917, as various years are given for his birth: most frequently 1911, 1917, and 1918

Infobox:

  • Born 12 January 1917 (without qualification).

Are we saying he was definitely born on 12 January, but the year is uncertain? Or are we saying his exact day of birth is unknown, not even whether it's 12 January or some other day of the year? This needs to be clarified. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jack. As far as I know there is nothing definitive about the day or year of birth. Maybe information will come up in the next few days, though. By the way I happened on your user page and like it a lot.(olive (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Thank you, olive. I'd better remove the date in the infobox, in that case. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem: is this a Press release?

This article seems like an advertisment rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article. I didn't see any serious critisism. Is it that there was never any major critisim or negetive aspect to the life of this person?Farmanesh (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right - nothing bad at all. Here is a message someone shared with me today, which gives some insight into Maharishi's life:

JAI KARUNAMAYI!, YESTERDAY I WAS RECORDING AMMA [Sri Karunamayi's] TALK ON SARASWATHI DEVI. ALL OF A SUDDEN AMMA [Sri Karunamayi] STOPPED HER TALK AND TOLD ME MAHARISHI ATTAINED MAHA SAMADHI. I WAS SHOCKED. AMMA CLOSED HER EYES FOR 10/12 MIN. SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH HIS SOUL.

I OFFER MY RESPECTS AND PRAYERS FOR THIS GREAT ATMAN. SWAMIJI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] German source is wrong translated

Nandesuka: Greetings from a native speaking German from Germany. The german text goes: "Er hat sich um 19 Uhr in die perfekte Yoga-Position begeben und ist friedlich eingeschlafen." In the context of dying the meaning of "ist eingeschlafen" is ALWAYS "he died", similar to "ist entschlafen". --Josha52 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadesuka: Sorry, in this regard to simplify means to hide an important information. Could we find an expression which makes it more clear that he passed consciously? Your English is better ... --Josha52 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles again

Please google "Mia Farrow Maharishi Allahabad". Mia Ferrow visited the funeral. This should be mentioned since this circumstance sheds light on those rumors of the sixties. --Josha52 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no new facts: error of mine. thought that Mia attended the funeral, but cant find source. --Josha52 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What was his net worth when he died?

Between 1988 and 1990 various magazine articles estimates his net worth at $3.5 billion. I can find no more recent guess, and apparently someone has gone through a great deal of trouble to conceal his income, and the raw extent of it. Can anyone find any sources for this data? --70.131.112.41 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe these are estimates of his net worth. Rather, I think they are estimates of the total value of the various corporate entities founded in his name. They would include, for example, Maharishi University of Management. But he didn't own the University and had no formal tie. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what exactly MMY's ties with MUM are. I wish someone would work up a some information concerning how this supposed guru without pockets managed to own quite a compound in the Netherlands, how the TMO has 225 million dollars worth of land (according to the NYTs) in the US, and the involvement of his families in India in organizations founded in his name. According to form 990s filed with the IRS, significant sums go from the US organizations to India. But maybe this is more appropriate for the TM page. Judyjoejoe (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

if you were to look into it more closely, it would be obvious that substantial donated funds go where they are meant to go, to the support of Maharishi's Vedic Pandits in India, and there are thousands of these dedicated young men across India and building projects to accomodate the growing numbers. Certain large amounts are rightfully dedicated to the support of Maharishi's projects in India, where donors wished them to be designated. Maharishi's centre in MERU, The Netherlands, is not such a large compound, and it was almost given by the original owners. If this really the way you have chosen, fine, it is your choice in your life, but do give some thought before you tear down others, whoever he or she may be. In the case of Maharishi, the Government of India accorded him a state funeral with full honours for the tremendous work he had done in life, and individuals from all across India came in long lines by car, on rail, and on foot to pay their last homage to him. You are not required to understand him or respect his achievements, but consider whether negativity is really the path you are interested in. ‘The greatest attainment of a saint is his life itself, the high edifice of realized Upanishadic living that develops from direct experience of reality. To understand that inner personality one must approach such realized souls with an open and receptive mind and try to visualize the great internal life that is the basis of their actual and real form of living.’ These words Maharishi said of his own teacher, and they may help you to understand Maharish a little better than you do now, if you wished to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secrecy regarding Maharishi's health in recent years

I would also like to see someone work up information concerning MMYs method of governance and the secrecy concerning him and his health. Before he died he did not appear in public for years. He even spoke to aids through close circuit television. According to Deepak Chopra's claimed first hand account(see the Huffington Post), MMY thought in the early 1990s he had been poisoned, he almost died, and was treated for his illnesses in England, but kept all this secret. This is important information about the man because he and the TMO promotes Vedic medicine rather than western medicine but it is clear that MMY availed himself of western medical systems quite frequently but went out of his way to keep it secret. According to Chopra he was diabetic, suffered from pancreatic inflammation, and had a heart attack at some pointJudyjoejoe (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Maharishi's method of governance was the method of governance of what he referred to as the Constitution of the Universe, the Laws of Nature, the Light of God, the Will of God, Silent Administration in harmony with nature's functioning. He made use of western medicine to the extent that it was useful. His personal health was not the focus of his life, but creating world peace was the focus of his life for his over 91 years. If you were to take the time to visit one of his Ayur-Veda clinics around the world, you would find an oasis of peace and good health radiating from each one of these clinics. To step into one of these clinics is to step into a pool of vibrant light and good health. There was no secrecy surrounding Maharishi. He told the whole world how he felt exactly when he felt it. He had no division between a private personal life and a public life. His whole life was public, in the service of humanity, from dawn to dusk. If you are interested in what Deepak Chopra has to say, his tribute to Maharishi is in The Times of India, 7 February 2008:
Maharishi ushered in spiritual renaissance'
7 Feb 2008, 0200 hrs IST, Deepak Chopra
NEW YORK: The Maharishi didn't die like mere mortals do. He just went into what we call 'maha samadhi'. On January 12 this year, his 91st birthday, he announced that his work in the world was over and he was going into silence. He didn't speak to a single soul after that day. And today, he has passed so elegantly.
Maharishi began the spiritual renaissance. He was one of the most significant figures of the century. Personally, I owe everything to him. Everything I have learnt, I have learnt from him. He has influenced some of the most important people of this century . . . . He was a great man.
I remember taking George Harrison to meet him in 1993. George had gone to apologize for the bad behaviour of the Beatles back in 1969.
It's enough to say I am who I am because of my Guru. I'm grateful that I was part of his dream. If there is such a thing as 'devaloka', they must surely be celebrating and welcoming a great sage.
(As told to Anubha Sawhney Joshi)

[edit] Cleanup

Seems like we need to do a bit of cleanup. Following Maharishi's death a lot of material got added, and possibly not all relevant in the long run. Maybe details regarding his passing, such as his posture at the time of death, should be deleted. And someone just added duplicate info about "Across the Universe. Olive, are you here? You've always done a good job cleaning things up. Can you look at this? TimidGuy (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, TG I can do it . I have been noticing also a lot of additions. If I take out something anyone is really attached to let me know. I'll do this tomorrow.(olive (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Excellent work! I tried to fix the errors in the Beatles section -- the fact that all the first-hand sources except Wenner attribute their departure to the American nurse story said to have been originated by Mardas. And made clear that Mardas wasn't related to the Farrow story. I've never seen a single source say that he spread rumors regarding Farrow. It's odd how frequently the media reported that in the obituaries. I hope they didn't get that from this article. We need to still fix the Sexy Sadie sentence, since it makes Lennon's song the main point. Rather, their departure itself should be the main point in the syntax -- because historically the fact of their departure is more significant than the song. TimidGuy (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted syntax to place emphasis on departure.OK?(olive (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] New pictures

These pictures are now available: [6], [7], [8]. --Josha52 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

Wow, Nandesuka. That was a pretty big rollback. I did question some of the material, but some of it was perfectly well sourced, such as the citation to the New York Times. I can't understand such a blanket revert, especially without discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beatles

Hi, Nandesuka. Sorry, I thought I remembered that we had consensus to change this when you noted that Spitz said "an American nurse." I've' examined many sources, and they all say the same thing and tell a very specific and detailed story -- that Mardas relayed a story about this nurse. and that this was the precipitating incident. The sources include the first-hand accounts by Cnythia Lennon and Patti Boyd who were at the meeting along with John and George in which they had intended to confront Maharishi with the story. If I remember correctly, even John himself says it differently in the Beatles anthology. I think this quote in Wenner is anomalous. Not sure what to do. The problem is that your revised version seems to make Lennon's quote the default. Seems like that shouldn't trump the other sources. In the Beatles anthology George explicitly says, "It wasn't Miai Farrow, it was someone else." Another way that Lennon's quote is anomalous is that it suggests that there were additional rumors. But in dozens of sources, or perhaps hundreds or thousands, if you count the recent space of obituaries, there is no mention of any rumors beyond the America nurse and Mia Farrow. Eager to know what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Also, in the Beatles anthology George gives a different reason for his departure: that he had always only planned to stay for the first portion of the course in Rishikesh and had planned to leave when the venue moved north. So Wenner really only explains John's departure (since Paul and Ringo had left much earlier). Anyway, I guess it needs still more tweaking. What to do? Seems endless, especially as there are so many different accounts. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


I have moved material on Beatles song "Across the Universe" back into the Beatles section. Pairing information about the Beatles song in deep space with the date of Maharishi's death, and position he died in is a synthesis of information and material and creates an implied POV. Logically as well, some of the information is about the death, some is about the Beatles.The two pieces of information should probably be kept separate.(olive (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Awards and recognitions section

Thank you for adding this detail and citing it. But I'm afraid that this large section makes the article sound too promotional. Plus, it may be a violation of undue weight to allot so much space to this. If this is to be in keeping with policy and the scope of the other sections of the article, it seems like it could be a few sentences. What do others think? TimidGuy (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with TG. In this article its critical that we maintain a neutral quality and do not move to a promotional tone . This article was heavily copy edited to remove promotional sounding material as per discussions with multiple editors. So I think a sentence or two would be fine but more than that would violate WP:Undue and would create POV overtones in the article.(olive (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

We could maybe retain some of the info within the references while greatly reducing what appears in the article itself. TimidGuy (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

If you look at some other pages of Wikipedia, you will find they are much longer than Maharishi's page. There is not reason to keep it short. It can be longer even. Visit many pages on Wikipedia and you will see this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of undue weight is that this long section skews the balance of the article. Also, all of the material, except the final citation, is sourced to self-published material. According to WP:SPS, such material can't be used if it's unduly self-serving. Also, it really shouldn't be used to make claims. In this case, the claimed recognition is something that ideally would be independently reported. In the U.S. it's very common for public relations entities to give these sorts of recognitions, and they may not always be meaningful. That's something that would be filtered by an independent source. TimidGuy (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely with TimidGuy's points. Roseapple (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Me too: I agree.--Josha52 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Since almost all of the recognitions listed are from one publication, what about adding a sentence to the third paragraph of the article, that says "During his lifetime he received awards and recognitions from governments around the world," (or something similar) and footnoting it with the MERU publication? That way it is noted, but not given undue weight. Roseapple (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Roseapple. Seems like that could work. Instead of "from governments around the world" we could consider being more specific, such as "Maharishi has been honored by the cities of x, x, x, and by the governing bodies of x,x,x." Maybe we should attribute it in context so that the reader knows it's a self-published source. "According to a book published by Maharishi European Research University, . . . " Since the final item in this section is sourced to an Indian TV station, it has more credibility. Perhaps it could be shortened and added to the section on his death. It is notable that the Shankaracharya presided over his funerary rite. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added a shorter version of "awards and citations". However, I did not add it to the lead as was discussed since when I tried it there, it seemed to weight the lead in a promotional way, and also the lead itself was becoming pretty lengthy. I will add one more citation later today.I'm not attached to the placement of this but I think wherever this goes WP:Weight has to be considered as has been discussed.(olive (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Moving problematic section here for editing per above discussion

[edit] Awards and recognitions

[edit] Addition on self-help teachers

There is no real section for this information right now and as well these additions would need sources. This article has been the scene of highly contentious discussions so all editors should discuss any such major addition, especially since it would require a new section.(olive (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Lennon quote

There are some discrepancies in the addition to the Beatles on, Lennon's admission of a mistake. For example, BBC is said to have printed the admission, and of course BBC is not a newspaper... My thought is that it would be very nice to link this to a source . This article and section are highly contentious so this kind of addition should be more clearly sourced for the reader. I do correct/copy edit the material, but still a source a reader can get to would be best.(olive (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC))