Talk:Transcendental meditation/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] V for Vandalism

Qui accuse s'excuse - Food for thought to all those who love to throw the V-word at others..

[edit] looking for facts

Someone have repeatedly removed citations given for facutal statements in i.a. the article's first para. These are now re-introduced with the thope that the vandal in question instead of removing citations, and requests for such, instead find a source to support whatever pov they indulge in today.


I have already explained to you why I am doing this, I do not feel the need to repeat myself. Please sign your comments, and put new comments at the bottom of the talk page. Sethie 14:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Tidied up some of Sfeces erronous and redundant fact citations.

[edit] RfC

Quote the RfC:

The issue is how to apply the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy in the case of pro or non-pro scientific studies or scientific affirmations about the transcendental meditation technique, including assertions on the scientific methods used. See also Rfc in Religion and philosophy 19:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Please place comments below. - JustinWick 23:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV This article seems unduly negative. 90% of the article is criticism and controversy. Although all of the content within that section seems to be good stuff, is there anything that can be added to the sections above? Seems to be a lot of bickering about including or not including criticisms, but can people contribute content to the main article? (sorry, criticism is all I could provide, but it seems there are some adherents here, eh?) Obhaso 01:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I COMPLETLEY agree. I would love to see more content about TM included in the article. As a critic of TM I am more familiar with the criticisms, however, would love to see WELL-WRITTEN sourced info about the technique. Sethie 03:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. In accordance with Wikipedia approved detailed-subject forking clause the TM article per se has been stripped to deal with the TM technique per se, whilst critic of TM now enjoys a new playground where it can be honed. User:Peterklutz

[edit] Merger of Spiritual Gen Movement

I say we delete it, it is currently a one line stub, and all the info in it is contained in the TM article Maybe in the future someone who will have more info about it will arrive.

Sethie 13:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revamp

This article does not discuss TM in any objective manner. It is a bulletin board for TM critics. The way forward, it would seem, is the strip down the article to explaining TM per se and create a new article perhaps called "General Critique of TM and its Founder" to host that, perhaps with link from an undisputed article about TM user:PeterKlutz


Before you go and re-write an entire article, please study and learn about: ~ HOW TO SIGN YOUR POSTS! ~ Wikipedia etiquite for restructuring a talk page (I will undo the damage you did) ~ What a "POV Fork" is- because that is what you are suggesting.

There is a much simpler solution- include information about TM in the article so it is more balanced!

Sethie 13:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not balanced, it is drowning from ballast :-)

What ought to be discuseed in the article is Transcendental Meditation, not the TM Movement - nor its Founder. These two subjects are out of scope.

User:PeterKlutz


Seethie, why don't you compile a TM criticial article only?

I suspect consilidating this evidently powerful thread will prove both enlightening to readers as well as helpful to wikipedia. User:Peterklutz

I'm not sure a criticisms page is the way to go. I think this page needs some cleaning up in the criticisms, ie removing some of the duplications and then just get more useful information on TM. Obhaso 22:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Sethi, given the that TM is trademarked with intial uppercase letters, Transcendental Meditation is the more appropriate venue for a TM article than Transcendental meditation. Please refrain from further vandalism and let this version stand.

Rosoft, I don't know who you are, but if you're not part of the fundamentalist christians and Sai Baba fans that are trying to stop this very simple thing from being realized (a short to the point article about TM), perhaps you'll be so kind as to support common sense here. user:Peterklutz

For the record, a new article for TM critique already exists [here] user:Peterklutz


Well, you still have not learned how to do a signature, but at least you are signing with the same account you are postting with.

I agree with you, capital case TM is how it should be listed. However, the way you are going about it is incorrect. We'll need an admin to do it, I'll get one.

Are you willing or able to share why you won't use the regular signature method? Sethie 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Just make sure it's the already existing old version at TM and not an import of the totally corrupted shite at Tm. Critique already has it's own site now - use that. Peterklutz 21:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This wikipedia. I do not have the final say. Even if I have the admin import my "totally corrupted shite," you can turn around and switch it to your Blissfully-Enlightened-Perfect version.

We have made progress, we have both agreed to Transcendental Meditation, which I see as a step forward, a small step forward, in quality. I am also enjoying how the Maharishi article is looking. Who knows, maybe between the two of us, we will put out some good stuff?

Congratulations on creating the critique page. However, I have not agreed to use it.

Once again, I would like to thank you for marking your comments with the same name you are posting under. Sethie 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sethie, I don't know who you are and what you represent. My views happen to largely coincide with Bob Brigante's stuff at MUMBull (which I included a ref to in the critics section at MMY). Instead of importing the shite from Tm, which no one appears happy with (and thru that open up for an edit-war) - why don't you continue with what you started with at the MMY article? (Condense the critique in some sort of one liner/bullet point format, insert that in a critique section on the article written by myself at TM (currently overriden by the REDIRECT to Tm), and give a link to somewhere else for more detailed version).

Less is More

Peterklutz

[edit] Mantras POV

The sentence However, ex-TM teachers have asserted that the mantras used in TM are based on the age and gender of the initiate, and are forms of the names of certain Vedic-Hindu deities [11] [12], such as Saraswati, making their repetition in meditation a form of invocation. is POV, because such a thing is not taught to or by TM Teachers. Some may believe so, due to some general Knowledge of Hinduism. Any sentence in the direction: These are the real meanings of the mantras is POV as according to linguistics, meanings of words are not apriori, and any such belief is certainly not scientific.(According to Wittgenstein Meaning is use) As long as such meanings are not taught or used by TM practitioners or even teachers, which is clearly and undoubtely not the case, such a sentence has only meaning from a specific Hindu POV. The strange thing is, that by such an allegation a Hindu Beliefsystem is being attributed to TMers, while at the same time it presupposes a Hindu POV. There couldn't be anything more POV than this. Therefore, any formulation should make clear, that these meanings are only used in Hinduism, not in TM. It should be further made clear, that sound as such has no meaning, which is a crucial concept in TM, and is also confirmed by linguistics. -- User:Hanumandas 09:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your change, the phrase you took out "making them a form of invocation" is an interpretation.

However you added an interpretation as well:According to language philosopher Wittgenstein, meaning is use, that is the meaning of words varies according to their use, and there are no apriori meanings. That the mantras have no meaning is an essential TM concept, as according to TM, the meaning of sounds keeps the mind on a horizontal thinking level.

You basically have gone from describing the TM belief to trying to back it up, to say it it true. It is the exact opposite of the position expressed: since they have history, they have meaning. You are argueing that: since that history is ignored, they don't have meaning.

Both our opinions and have no place in an encyclopedia article.Sethie 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To be clear- I am grateful for you finding a some non-factual ideas in the article, however I don't wish to ADD any new ones either! Please, edit with Wittgenstein in mind, not to back up any POV- pro TM or con TM. Thanks. Sethie 13:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The point here is: why is the Hindu meaning of mantras relevant, as they are not taught, and as TM claims to not be Hinduism? If you leave off the comment of Wittgenstein, but leave in the Hindu interpretation of the mantras you suggest that this is applicable, but this is POV as well. So, who decides that we have to give the Hindu interpration, as every group has a right to have an emic view on things, you don't have to give the Hindu interpretation. As the context, that words per se have no meaning, may not be clear, the relevant background has to be substituted. As it is now, through the context and the placing of the words, there is a strong suggestion, that words have meanings per se, and a Hindu meaning would be applicable. Thats wrong. -- User:Hanumandas 14:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The solution is simple. Keep in the Hindu connection, and add in whatever the TM organization has to say about it. Those are facts! Everything else is spin.Sethie 15:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The solution is simple. Sethie, you may like to have it simple, but sometimes things are just a bit more complex. To appeal to simplistic notions is without merit. With the Manson quote from the beacon light, its not even clear if it was addressing TM at all, as TM as such didn't yet exist, and whatever pre-existent Indian version there was, was always different. My suggestion is, that it should be pointed out that the Hindu connection has a historic significance, but no obvious relevance for the TM practitioner today. Any suggestion, that there is a real meaning, that is hidden is POV IMO. -- User:Hanumandas
Just keep to the facts. The Maharishi quote. The biography. The statements of ex-TM TEACHERS. The TM organization reply/stance/teaching on the issue. These are facts. It is up to the reader to make meanings out of these facts. For example here is one meaning one reader made: "No obvious relevance for the TM practitiioner today." These are you thoughts about the facts, conslusions about the facts, interpretations about the fact and is OR, and are totally fine, just not as part of an article.
I am grateful that you point out that the Gods statement was made at an early stage of the movement. That is a fact! Thank you. To say, "Oh, they have left that behind" etc., is an unsourced interpretation of facts and has no place in a Wiki article. Thank you, I believe our dialogues can only improve the article.Sethie 15:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course, but you should also acknowledge that POV can be transmitted in subtle ways, through the way 'facts' are presented, that is sequence and context. There is for example no doubt, that the webpages cited give a clear suggestion, that the mantras are Hindu and make TM a Hindu practise. Thats a very undifferentiated way of looking at it. The article, as it was before my edits, gave this same impression very clearly. WP:NPOV states:Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. Given the fact, that the Mantra is one of the most essential parts of TM, much more essential than, lets say the policy of the movement with regard to women, the part about the Mantras, and the concept about meaning vs meaningless can go into greater detail, espec. if there is a danger of common perjudice, or even an apeal to it, like it definitely is in the sources given; like: Mantras have a meaning in Hinduism, or even worse, as from the article yesterday: Mantras are names of Hindu Gods, (therefore the implication is that TM is a conceiled form of Hinduism). The correct way to point this out is, that for (religious minded) people who assume an intrinsic relation between word and meaning beyound a given social context (the group of TMers), TM mantras are related to Hindu Gods, whereas to TMers, and anyone, who does not assume an apriory connection between word and meaning, like most social scientists would agree, it is just a meaningless sound. There is also quite a bit one can add from a purely TM perspective, as I originally formulated, that the meaning of the sound would keep the mind on the horizontal thinking level.(which btw. is TM theory and was clearly signified as such, therefore I wonder what the reason for the deletion of this phrase was.) -- User:Hanumandas
I do not wish the article to say that TM is a Hindu practice, that is a conclusion about the facts! I am happy to work with you to eradicate that from the article. I cannot control what a source says however! I never caught that phrase before in NPOV, so I confess it is a WIKI learning for me. I fear though that an evaluation of the two sides is going to lean SOOOOO heavily towards the critical of TM! The Wittengstain analysis will mean nothing compared to the critical-TM analysis: Although the TM movement denies that the mantras have any meaning within the TM teaching, they have thousands of years of meaning in Hinduism in which they are invocations to Gods and Goddesses. Whether or not Maharishi saying that they are no longer have any meaning is analogous to a group going to a country which is unfamilair with Christianity, and teaching people a form of meditation, saying it is non-religious, and teaching them to repeat the following "meaningless" words: Jesus, Holy Spirit, God the Father, over and over. It is true that for those who have learned this technique, in the practice of it, the words will have no meaning, however, within the context of history, culture and religion, they obviously have a deep and highly focused meaning. !!!!! I did not realize that the horizontal thing was a TM idea, I will put it back. Sethie 14:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
..they have thousands of years of meaning in Hinduism in which they are invocations to Gods and Goddesses. Actually its not quite like this. Bija mantras, as the name Bija says its seeds, that is seeds of actual words, that is in Sanskrit these syllables are just letters. You probably over-estimate Hinduism to think they are thousand and thousand of years old. Om in fact is a Bija, and it does not have any meaning. In the Tantras, every letter is attributed to a god or Goddess and therefore all the letters are called the 52 matrikas. HRIM is said to be the tantrik equivilent to OM. So, these words which have always been used for meditation, are somewhat different from calling names like Jesus etc. Furthermore, you may believe whatever, but in this you imply an apriory sound-meaning connection which is denied by most linguists, not withstanding how many Hindus use such meanings. A historic connection doesn't change this, and a historic connection is not denied by anybody. No need really to threaten that the outcome would be unfavourable toward TM. I thought you were at least trying to be neutral! I know, that one can always try to shift the balance between different views to either side, and if I look at the article now, there is clearly the majority of text under 'Critics'. In what you said above, its really POV and opinion (history, culture, religion - 3x the same -- deep, highly focused - emotional expression) -- User:Hanumandas 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
But for the moment, if you can't obviously agree to something along the lines I suggested, I'll leave it at that. Its already much better than before.-- hanuman 14:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to give up the discussion if you want to. I however believe we and the article is progressing. It is true I am not a Hindu scholar, I don't know how old the bijas are. I am willing to take out of the article the idea that the bijas MEAN Saraswati, because in mantra theory, it goes beyond meaning, the vibration of the mantra is equivolent to the thing it points it, i.e. a Saraswati mantra is not her name, IT IS HER.
It is true that my christianity analogy is not 100% accurate given the meaning aspect. Christianity does not have mantras, yet we could substitute words like: Amen, Abba [the aramaic name Jesus used for God the Father] etc., and I believe we would have a much similar case. I am not threatneing, I am stating a fact! If we get into evaluations of the facts, it's gonna look worse for TM! As I have said on this talk page, NUMEROUS times, I do not like the ration of criticism to non critical content either. You're a TM'er expand the theory, the history, etc.! Anyway it will be expanded in the next couple of days.
Okay, but as it is, I am no more TMer, so my willingness to involve myself is somewhat restricted :-) And, okay, if you want to take the Saraswati thing out. You are right about the tantric theory, but its of course the meaning of the Tantric theory. Yes, Amen is a much better analogy. I personally think that such a discussion in the article, viewed from both sides, in a neutral voice will deepen the subject, and if it will inspire somebody to use Amen or Abba as mantras, I am all for it! Potentially, two fields overlap here: one is tantric theory, which can of course be only hinted at here, the other is language theory. I wonder if there is a Wiki entry for meaning, yes there is. -- hanuman 17:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I would love to here the TM pov on the mantras... but I don't think they have one other then the following mantra: They're MEANINGLESS! Sethie 20:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kneeling

About kneeling during Puja: What kind of source am I supposed to provide? I am an ex-TM Teacher , made Teacher in 1977 along with 200 others. I can also make a web-page like the other ex's and say its a source. Every source is also just a testimony of ex-teachers just like mine -- User:Hanumandas

That is a great question and goes to the root of wikipedia. See wp:v. We have tried to use sources other then EX TM teachers as much as possible, because they are not very credible! :) Most of the sources are not, we only used them as a last resort.

If you make a REALLY nice page that looks REALLY proffesional, maybe myself and other editors will feel comfortable using it. Please notice for the kneeling source, it is a published article! Sethie 13:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to go through such trouble, even though I am quite capable to do nice Webpages; as I said, I am only an ex-TMer and am not trying to sell anything here. But if you really take unreliable sources, like the Ex-TM webpages, and it is pointed out that some information, as said from an unreliable source, is inaccurate, it would only be justified to leave it off. That this is not valit anymore since 30 years was in fact an edit-comment, and I was not editing something in, but was editing an unreliable source out. So there is no absolute need for a source, as I am not making a new statement. -- mizar 14:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I have a sourced claim. You don't, you don't count as a source. I don't count as a source. I was initiated into TM, and spent time at MIU, but you don't see any of my comments in there, or me making edits based on what I saw. Wiki doesn't work that way. Sethie 20:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 71.246

I really like most of your edits, however in each batch, about a third of them where just blatant POV removals, of well sourced facts. I was willing to go through and re-enter the POV removals once... but not twice.

Part of it is that despite the request on the talk page, you are making no comments about your edits. If you continue along those lines, your edits will just be reverted, the good along with the ugly. Sethie 15:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Maharishi University of Management was formerly named Maharishi International University, which is relevant because many TM practitioners still often refer the university as MIU.Kebekia 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"Theoritical" is a misspelling. I trust no one will object if I correct it.Kebekia 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There ought to be some explanation of why the TM organization feels it needs to charge a fee for instruction.Kebekia 15:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I like your last three edits! Please, if you would, sign your comments by typing four tildes "~" Sethie 15:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I moved part of the entry questioning the validity of TM research to "Possible Adverse Effects" because the content seemed to have more to do with the outcome of research than the validity of the research itself.Kebekia 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Saying women "are not barred" from becoming teachers obscured whether or not they actually do become teachers.Kebekia 16:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I hadn't noticed that Sethie 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Saying structures "must" face east is misleading--north is okay too, and even if your house faces south, it's not the end of the world. It's just that facing the direction of the rising sun is most desirable.Kebekia 16:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


There ought to be included a definition of the "Maharishi Effect."Kebekia 16:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see one too. Sethie 16:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the MUM definition of the Maharishi effect as well as the results of another study to try to make this page a little more balanced.Kebekia 16:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't know about at "the highest and most visible level of the organization," but it's simply not true that women don't have leadership positions within the organization itself.Kebekia 17:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Don Krieger is the one who calls the TM movement a cult in this article, not John Kellet (although he might think it too): [1] and Curtis Mailloux [2]Kebekia 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Overall I am enjoying your edits. Would you be willing to SLOW down? You have made over 90 edits in the last five hours. The reason I ask is so that other editors have a chance to review and look over what has been done and is being done. Let me know if you are willing or not willing to do this. Thanks, Sethie 20:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, I'll give editing a rest for now.71.246.245.111 20:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

) No problem, I have been on fire many times myself! Sethie 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


As for explaining some of my edits, I moved some of the entries under "Criticisms and Controversies" to "Other components of TM" because the topics weren't all terribly controversial in and of themselves i.e. demolishing chapels is controversial but the whole topic of Sthapatya Veda fits better under "Other components of TM." I added TM-related research because one's criticism is only as strong as the thing being criticized, and so it doesn't make much sense to have a section questioning the validity of TM research if there is no real section on TM research to begin with.Kebekia 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel any need for an explanation for any of the edits done in the last couple of hours. Sethie 21:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual Regeneration Movement

I read the TM book (is there only one TM book?) like 10 years back when I was interested in normal meditation, and I seem to recall that the point of having "teaching centers" was mainly because they wanted the center to exude waves of peace and happiness that would make the population calmer and happier. The "calculation" was that due to the radius or some such, it would require one person per million in the population, located in the right spot. When I saw the Natural Law Party emerge a while back, this made me think they were one and the same or at least related. Seems like interesting and pertinent info for the article. I don't have time to source it right now, but perhaps someone else also knows about this. Jkeiser 16:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] First paragraph

As I have shared numerous times, the purpose of the first paragraph is to introduce the article. There is no need to cite a refference- the rest of the article does that, unless you are POV pushing.

Your repeated replacements of it ARE VANDALISM, since you are not willing to discuss this on the talk page. Please, let's dialogue about it here.

Please, respond to why I believe it does not belong there. Sethie 05:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

(1) Where is it writ in stone that a wikipedia article must not quote a source in the first para? I find the proposal ridiculous: people visit wikiopedia for info - why bury the hard facts and details in a body most people won't even bother to read?

(2) Your theory about POV pushing is asinine: if you bother to check the history you'll find that I on numerous occassions have challenged you (and who else) to put it there.

Do yourself and everyone else a favor and let this now stand _ and do feel free locate that source supporting the critique claim in the first para.

Jai Guru Dev


I don't know who you are... you have never challenged me or anyone else to do anything, you are just an anon set of numbers that has never posted before.

Regardless, whoever you are, thank you for your willingness to discuss this issue!

Nowhere do I claim that citations CAN'T be put in the first paragraph. My intention was to keep it as neutral as possible. If you think that it NEEDS to be there, I am willing to work with that.... however, to keep it neutral we must include a link to some of the "negative" stuff. Are you comfortable with that? My prefference was to keep ALL citations out of the intro, however, the main issue was that there was a user making changes who was unwilling to discuss them. Sethie 15:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] problem with critical sources

This is what a whois search yields for the site behind-the-tm-facade.org, given as source by Seth:

Domain ID D105540833-LROR
Domain Name BEHIND-THE-TM-FACADE.ORG
Created On 08-Jan-2005 18:21:49 UTC
Last Updated On 10-Mar-2005 03:51:16 UTC
Expiration Date 08-Jan-2010 18:21:49 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar Network Solutions LLC (R63-LROR)
Status CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Registrant ID 38923095-NSI
Registrant Name Unstress4less c/o
Registrant Organization Unstress4less c/o
Registrant Street1 9116 EG
Registrant City EG
Registrant State/Province CA
Registrant Postal Code 95624
Registrant Country US
Registrant Phone +1.916
Registrant Email no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Admin ID 38923095-NSI
Admin Name Unstress4less c/o
Admin Organization Unstress4less c/o
Admin Street1 9116 EG
Admin City EG
Admin State/Province CA
Admin Postal Code 95624
Admin Country US
Admin Phone +1.916
Admin Email no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Tech ID 38923095-NSI
Tech Name Unstress4less c/o
Tech Organization Unstress4less c/o
Tech Street1 9116 EG
Tech City EG
Tech State/Province CA
Tech Postal Code 95624
Tech Country US
Tech Phone +1.916
Tech Email no.valid.email@worldnic.com
Name Server NS2.ELKGROVE.NET
NS3.ELKGROVE.NET

When googling Unstress4less you find:

  http://www.unstress4less.org/

... a site which i.a. offers penis enlargement.

If Seth is serious about improving this article - find a better source or drop the allegation.


if you want me to take you seriously, I suggest you learn how to sign your name... and if you are in fact PeterKlutz, etc., I suggest you choose ONE account and stick with it.

I am not deeply well-versed in Web registration etiquette/procedure/etc. please state your complaint in common sense easy-to-understand English. Sethie 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do etiquette - the source is just bullshit, so low on the scale of credibility it is possible to sink.

When you're at it - check the other so-called critical sources too, just dropped one which said the opposite of what was claimed in the text.


Sethie. I've looked over the sources given in the anti-TM site behind-the-tm-facade.org someone has set up and pays fof anonymously. There are discrepancies between what the alleged sources on this site really claim and the context of how this is presented on the behind-the-tm-facade.org - and ultimately in the wikipedia article.

An example: one source reporting on "Serum hormonal concentrations following transcendental meditation--potential role of gamma aminobutyric acid" is really only quoted as stating that TM-practice is "nalogous to the effects of endorphins in runners who reportedly experience a 'runner's high'"

What is this? Is it now dangerous to work out..?

Two other sources dealing with Relaxation-induced anxiety is actually reported as stating "54 percent of anxiety-prone subjects tested experienced increased anxiety during TM-like mantra meditation"

I.e. these sources are not critizing TM.

Wikipedia does not condone critical articles, it supports a neutral pov.

This sentence needs to be dropped.


[edit] One issue

You have made numerous claims and numerous allegations about the way the article was. If you are interested in dialogueing and finding solutions that work for the both of us, please make no more changes, and pick ONE sentence, ONE issue for us to begin dialogueing on. If this strategy does not work for you, please make a reccomendation for how we can proceedSethie 01:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed you have removed over half the article without concensus or discussion. That kind of behavior will get you banned. Please revert your edits. Sethie 01:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that the debunked dedicated let's-hate-TM site was the basis of the ciriticism section, it was removed. This was explained before any changes were made - in case you didn't read before starting to threaten to cut out the tongues on people whose quest fo facts you don't agree with. (This was posted unsigned by 213.112.235.71)

213.112.235.71, the Wiki community does not tolerate vandals. Continued vandalism like this WILL get you banned. And please sign your edits and comments. Askolnick 13:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see above for explanation for recent changes. Also, instead of throwing the V word at people, do you own analysis of the debunked critique (if that is your issue)


Anyone who is willing to actually look at the criticisms section would discover there are MANY sources in there, most of which are NOT from the behind the TM-Facade page.

If you continue editing in this manner, you will be blocked and possibly banned. Sethie 19:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This vandal, 213.112.235.xx, continues to refuse to sign his statements and editing changes. He clearly has no respect for the Wikipedia community. If he keeps this misconduct up, he will be permanently banned.
What's more, his claims are utterly without merit. For example, some of the information he censored from the TM article concerns my investigative report published in the Oct. 2, 1991 issue of the renowned Journal of the American Medical Association. [3] Since its publication, the TM cult has tried to suppress it -- as this vandal is doing here. The JAMA article clearly documented the pervasiveness of the TM cult's pseudoscience programs and deceptive practices. Contrary to the claims of this nameless vandal, the article was never "debunked." The article and I have been attacked. I have been vilified. I have been sued (unsucessfully). But my article has never been "debunked." Askolnick 14:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maharishi page

thinks to everyone who is participated in helping to slow down the vandalism of this page. The Maharishi Mahesh Yogi page is also being messed around with by an anonymous user who swaps IPS as well.

I appreciate anyone and everyone's help in dealing with the situation,I have carpal tunnel syndrome, so every keystroke really messes with my arms and wrists. I am using voice recognition software, but a lot of typing is still required. thanks again Sethie 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotection

I have replied to the post on WP:ANI and semiprotected the article. Let me know if it becomes necessary on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as well — currently it doesn't look it. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC).

Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thanks to Macrokrohn for putting the notice there! Sethie 05:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
You're all such a bunch of sychophants. If anyone bothered to read the discussion, it's evident that the removed stuff where (1) investigated; (2) found erronous; (3) findigns which where shared with other editors - which did hteir best to ignore calls for either cleanup or dropping the allegations. When nothing happened (4) the sections were removed - prompting not disucssion in the issue, but calls for osctracicing other editors.
Which is why Sethioe now falls down on his knees crying out: "Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thanks to Macrokrohn.."
In case any normal admin would care to get involved in such a snake pit as the TM article reads this: make your own judgement - don't take at swallow sink bait and hook what closet religious radicals/fundamentalists alleges.
Of course, this means you first have to get your thumbs out of your assess and actually DO something.
213.112.235.XX, if you care about being taken seriously as a bona fide contributor, you need to sign posts on talkpages by typing four tildes, ~~~~; stop hopping from IP to IP; register an account; stop blanking content against consensus; stop violating the 3RR; and ... let me see... ah, yes, stop making personal attacks. That's for a start. Right now you're violating every policy in the book, making it obvious that you are on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of pushing your POV, and polluting this talkpage with insults and bad language. There is no reason for Wikipedia admins to tolerate any of that, let alone all of it. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC).

If you're interested in being tkaen seriously, Bishonen, stop using the straw man technique when motivating your actions (the description above doesn't fit). The reason for all is that a bunch of fundamental Christians have duped you (or you're one of) because they can't handle the truth.

Maybe that's the problem with projects like wikipedia - it's always going to be the lowest common denominator fighting in the dirtiest way that sets the bar?

Nice try.

Whether or not there is a Christian conspiracy at work, whether or not Bishonen is using "strawman techniques", whether or not, as Jack Nicholson said, "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!", whether or not "dirty fighting" is taking place, whether or not I, Sfacets, Macrokron, Bishonen, Ascholnick (sorry for any misspelled names) are the "lowest common denominator" some of your behavior, as clearly spelled out Bishonen just doesn't fly here. Any admin or any experienced wiki-editor will say the same thing: stop IP/username hopping, sign your comments, don't make major changes without consensus (especially on a controversial page), don't engage in personal attacks and maintain civility. From day one I have asked you to do most of these things, I set up, on your talk page [4] individual sections for some of these topics, and asked to talk about them numerous times, and so far you have not responded once to any of them!
Whether or not Wikkipedia is the most messed up, unfair, suppressive place in the universe, we have guidelines by which we operate, and you're not following really any of them. Sethie 14:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Jezus, what are you guys on? "Wikkipedia ... the most messed up, unfair, suppressive place in the universe" ??? Get a life.. :-)

[edit] tags

I say we remove the cleanup tag from the TM article page... 3 tags feels a bit silly to me, and it doesn't strike me as a messy article, just incomplete, and given the TM theory/history to controversy ratio not quite neutral yetSethie 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Sfacets 16:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article and WIkipedia rules

This has already been explained (and duly ignored) but the article as it is currently written suffers from two serious errors that fly in the face of wikipedia policy. The first is the fact that wikipedia policy does not approve anti-articles, i.e. articles dedicated to criticizing something. The second is the lack of sources to substantiate this criticism.

As the article now stands two thirds of the text is dedicated to whining about TM - in short, it is not about the subject of TM, but has become a bullting board for whiners.

The sources used when backing up this criticism boil down accordingly: (1) three religiously driven sites (two Christian and one Jewish) (2) three self-promoting indivudals, two of which call themselves authors (3) a former-Moon Cult member who these days are attacking anything smelling of cult (4) a single medical journalist which for some reason has it in for TM (5) part of this list is the so-called behind-the-TM-facade.org site, which is registered anonymously and which also appers to run a number sex-sites.

As far as the sources used by these few sites, one of the apparenly stronger ones is the

behind-the-TM-facade.org's: Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000,

Vol. 5 Issue 1, p49, 10p.

Here's an abstract for the piece of "science" quoted in behind-the-TM-facade.org (Perez-De-Abeniz, Alberto and Holmes, Jeremy. Meditation: Concepts, Effects and Uses in Therapy. International Journal of Psychotherapy, March 2000):

"This article reviews 75 scientific selected articles in the field of meditation, based on a Medline and Psychlit search from 1989 until June 1999 and earlier relevant papers. It summarises definitions of meditation, psychological and physiological changes, and side-effects encountered in the meditator. The review focuses on the comparison between meditation and psychotherapy at a practical and theoretical level. Finally, it reviews the scientific evidence for specific applications of meditation in clinical practice."

I.e. it's a an anecdotal review totally biased in its selection of material and which also includes other types of meditation.

A breadown of the sources found:

Source Quoted Source description
Andrew SKolnick 6 times medical journalist
www.rickross.com 5 times Defender of Judaism
behind-the-tm-facade.org 4 times anonymous site i.a. also appears to offer penis enlargement services
www.paulmason.info 2 times self-promoting writer
skepdic.com 1 time self-promoting writer
minet.org 1 time owned by a guy reportedly called Michael Doughney and which runs a number of sites devoted to attacking others. When registereing peta.org and then using it for "People Eating Tasty Animals", he was successfully sued by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and later convicted in a federal court
www.csj.org 1 time registered by American Family Foundation - a Christian fundamentalist that also sells material critical of Dan Brown's the Da Vinci Code
www.freedomofmind.com 1 time Steven Alan Hassan says he is a former member of the Moon cult
www.greatcom.com 1 time Christian hard-core

I hope this will inspire contributors to rethink the article's current form - followed by acting on this. Peterklutz

Pick one source, one issue and we can focus on that, one thing at a time. Sethie 00:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Since this whole section is crap and flies in the face of wikipedia policy on criticism I recommend loosing all of the critical section, followed by reinserting crititicsm that holds up to wikipedia scrutiny in terms of factuality, on an item-on-item basis.

I think with needs to be avoided is the article remaining hostage to sex peddlers, self-promoters or Christian and Jewish fundamentlists. Peterklutz

Peter, Please don't remove large sections of the article, such edits are considered vandalism.

It could be included in the article information on the nature of the sources and links, maybe a section on why the aforementionned groups have issues with TM... Sfacets 08:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good idea - in fact, a while ago I proposed creating a separate article of this interesting subject. However, reading the guidelines wikipedia does not appear to condone articles focused on critizing things. Since this is what the TM article is doing at this time, something needs to happen. Here are two alternatives:

(1) Wikipeda changes it's rules and articles focuzed on criticism are allowed. In this case, the most appropriate would be to create a separate article (perhaps called critique of TM?).

(2) The critical section is dropped and criticism are reinserted on an item-on-item basis with a far more rigorous fact check thatn is the case at present.

Until a decision has been made I'll continue to do the wikipedian thing and drop the wailing wall section.

Peterklutz

[edit] Crossposting from User talk:Peterklutz

Peterklutz, thank you for signing your posts, it helps. Please don't even think of creating a Wikipedia:POV fork such as Critique of TM. For the rest, I'm not here to throw myself into the fray of discussing content and sources, you know. I'm here as an intervening admin, to ensure people work collaboratively and play nice. So far, everybody else seems to be bending over backwards to give you the benefit of the doubt, and taking a lot of their no doubt limited wikitime to reason with you--with, I may say, precious little reciprocation from you. I see you above referring to other editors collectively as "sex peddlers, self-promoters or Christian and Jewish fundamentlists", me as a not "normal" admin, etc, etc. Breathtaking.
I'm cross-posting our recent exchange on your usertalk page here, as it's all about your input on Transcendental Meditation and this talkpage, and may thus be of interest to other editors. It follows below. Bishonen | talk 11:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC).
I evidently am not - what I am pointing out is the fact that the sources/sites used in the criticism article are that. My explaning this to other editors is based on the assumption that they do not know this about the sources - and how could they? Sethie, to name one, has openly confessed his ignorance about this.
I am sorry if the stink of this annoys people - but this is the nature of once and for all cleaning a blocked sewage.
Peter Klutz

Please make that the last time you post in the middle of somebody else's post, as it makes talkpages extremely difficult to read and understand. (Notably when you don't even indent your lines to be in any way different from mine--I've now done that for you. Please take a look at edit mode to see how.) Hell, I don't even understand your post now--you "are not" what? Collaborating and playing nice? Referring to other editors as sex peddlers, self-promoters or Christian and Jewish fundamentalists? I don't see anything above your mysterious post that you're likely to be referring to, so why make a mess of the layout for nothing? Are you trying to say that the remark "Cut the crap Bishonen", in response to my directing you to our No Personal Attacks policy, is supposed to evidently mean that the sources of the article are crap...? Sir, you're an enigma wrapped in a riddle, you speak gobbledegook. If you have started to regret your many personal attacks and expressions of contempt for the policies and culture of this site, I'd advise you to apologize already. Don't make yourself look like a troll by claiming that "I was evidently not saying what you can read on the page." That's where the stink comes from. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I love you to, "Pretty Girl" :-) Peter Klutz


[edit] Your edits to Talk:Transcendental Meditation and User talk:Bishonen

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 09:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Cut the crap Bishonen. This is not about personal attacks - this about checking sources. Are you completey blind to what's going on? Peterklutz

[edit] Block warning: you are disrupting the site

You consider the policies crap? I thought you might, from the way you act. If you're going to consistently flout them, as you have been doing so far, you're in danger of an indefinite block. People who make no positive contributions to the encyclopedia eventually do get dis-invited from editing it.
A couple of more short-term matters: stop insulting people now or you'll get blocked. Also stop reverting the article. You are already edit warring, which is a blocking matter in itself, and if you revert one more time, you'll be in violation of the WP:3RR. Bishonen | talk 11:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

Crossposting ends here.
Thank you for showing how that straw man techinque works. When you're mad as hell but don't really have anything on someone you don't like, what to do? Create a charicature, a straw man of this person and attack that.
Here's how it can work:
Peter Klutz: Cut the crap Bishonen
Bishonen: You consider the policies crap?
Needless to say Peter Klutz don't, which should be evident to anyone who bothered to read the discussions.
As far of the cardinal sin of so-called IP-hoppping concern, here's a really simple real life answer: there's the work place, there's where I live; there's the girl friend, and what else. If this is considered a crime in the Wikipedia book, maybe it's the book that needs to be rewritten - or perhaps you envisage a future where everyone will have a unique IP-number tatooted in their skin at birth and be identified with for the rest of their life?
I don't think nothing I do or won't do will have any effect on what you will do or not do. You have your agenda, I have mine - unfortunately yours apparently does not include improvement of wikipedia articles.
Peter Klutz

And it's impossible for you to log into your account from your girlfriend's place and so on? And there are no tildes on your keyboard? I understand. Of course the misspelled "link" you've signed with leads nowhere, and nobody can tell when you posted. But you have ignored so many requests for the most minimal talkpage consideration for other editors (there's a brand new one on your usertalk page, I see), that I realize you utterly don't care. That stinks too. Bishonen | talk 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC).

I think utterly it's just irrelevant. You evidently have no problem identifying myself as contributor or stopping contributions - what annoys you must be something else. What is it? Peter Klutz

[edit] Relocation of leading link

I've relocated the "Behind the Facade" link to the "References" section because I don't think a Wiki introduction should be using a link from (quote) "unknown critics" in an intro. I have also removed the ref. to "unknown critics" because it looks really gauche, especially for an intro. Instead, I've altered the text a little to refer to the other criticisms from apparently more valid sources which are encountered further into the article.

Edit: I decided to move the second link in the intro to the References section too, because, as a link to an unofficial TM site, its high profile in the article smacks of promotion. Also I thought it was only fair to move this pro-TM link as I had already moved the anti-TM one. Gatoclass 03:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also made a few little changes here and there which I hope will increase readability. Gatoclass 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for adding to research reference and/or TM & Jama reference

I'm posting here because I'm too newbie to add to the actual page, BTW

Suggested text along the lines of: An important new published study on TM's potential effect on cardiac patients, even for people already using medication, is found in the Archives of Internal Medicine, a sister publication of JAMA. Most of the researchers involved are NOT involved with the TM university OR Transcendental Meditation and the non-TMing researchers have defended their credibility from critics. Sparaig 00:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. Most of the authors are TMers. Indeed, three of them work at their guru's university. This is only the latest of a long list of "studies" that TM researchers have gotten by editors, who've become too eager to publish woo-woo science at the expense of their credibility. Shame on the Archives of Internal Medicine's editors for ignoring the TM movement's long history of conducting bogus science and bamboozling editors. It shouldn't take a genius to see that this study compared crab apples with oranges. The study compared teaching a relaxation technique with teaching behavior modification -- an intervention strategy that has long been known to have limited benefits -- especially over the short term, as was measured in this study. Relaxation techniques have long been shown to be effective in reducing some of the health effects of stress. And as most experts who have examined the issue found, TM is no better than other relaxation techniques. It's just a hell of a lot more expensive -- and an effective recruiting method for the TM cult. Askolnick 02:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the study is there - whether or not you like it. Peterklutz

Perhaps you're correct, Andrew, but if you check the Pubmed entry and click on the names of each author, you'll find that most have never published a study on TM before and that most are not affiliated with the TM university. Do you have a way of recognizing who is or isn't a TMing researcher by glancing at their name, perhaps? This is Lawson English, BTW. How have you been? Sparaig 00:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, just to be anal, I double checked the Pubmed entry. There are 8 authors listed:
Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, Velasquez I, Nidich S, Rainforth M, Schneider R, Merz CN
Of these, Nidich, Rainforth, and Schneider work for the TM University. I checked the others against the MUM phone list in case there was someone with dual affiliation and I found no matches. The remaining researchers (5 out of 8) do not work for the TM university according to the phone list and have never published an article on TM before that I could find by checking the Pubmed entry. That's 62.5% non-TM-affiliated, vs 37.5% who ARE affiliated. You're right, my "most" was misleading since obviously more-than-one-half isn't "most." [for those who haven't guessed yet, Andrew and I go WAAAAY back]. Sparaig 00:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] continued threats of being blocked for vandalsim by Sfacets

I am at loss here, (1) on the discussion page I see a new source reg TM-related research - I check the article, finds it not there, I check the source - it's geuine. I put it into the article. (2) I clarify and expand the section on TM mantras, which, truth be told, the previous author(s), does not seem to have a too deep understanding of.

The result?

I receive a "final warning" from Sfacets that my enxt attempt to improve the article will result in myself in being banned from editing wikipedia articles for ever.

Who is this guy? God? An admin? How should his threat be understood - is it a proper response? A sinister attempt to scare other editors away from wikipedia? Is Sfacets the same person as Paul Mason - the author that uses the TM article to promote his own book?

If a real admin happens to read this, feel free to comment (or do something about this Sfacets constant threats).

Thank you,

Peterklutz

Found the response below on [SFacets talk page...]

Peterklutz

Peter, I think one thing that bothers people is that you continue to use a non-standard way of signing your work. This is what people who are attempting to disrupt the internet process do (AKA "trolling" when its done in a Usenet newsgroup). In order to be seen as "one of the guys," it would be far better to use Wikipedia's "four tilde" method of signing your contribution. That is, type "~" 4 times in a row without spaces at the end of your contribution. That will automatically sign your paragraph with your name, user-page link, and time of your edit and make people less likely to think you're trying something fishy. Sparaig 04:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong place to report Peterklutz

His edits appear to be a content dispute, and may involve personal attacks or 3RR violations; but they don't meet the project-wide definition of vandalism. (Vandalism includes things like blanking pages or writing "poop" in the middle of an article). You might try reporting him on WP:AN3 or WP:PAIN instead of WP:ANI. --EngineerScotty 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about terminology

I notice that in the stub-pages under "Theory of Consciousness," the term "Transcendental state of consciousness" is used. I couldn't find a wikipedia entry for the official TM term, "Transcendental Consciousness," so I was wondering why the non-standard term was used instead of the official TM-theory term. I'd be willing to contribute a bit for the TC, GC, UC entries. BTW, Brahman Consciousness isn't an 8th state of consciousness in TM-theory, last I heard, but rather ongoing growth in Unity Consciousness. It's not a discrete stage as the other states might be described, but continuing maturation of the final stage. Sparaig 03:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, go ahead. It is quite apparent that much of what is currently found in TM related articles (the critical POV aside) lack a grounded understanding of the subject - a bit like a talented high-school students trying to explain Steven Hawkings.. :-)

I actually wrote stubs for all these a few weeks ago, but they were removed. I was especially happy with the stuff on Transcendental Consciousness - which is sort of a basis every reader need to stand a chance to even intellectually grasp what TM is about (let alone not having clear personal experiences of TC/Samadhi).

Peterklutz 09:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been making notes for tidying up a few inaccuracies in the main article, from the official TM POV. For instance, there's no "goal" in TM practice--the "purpose" of TM isn't to experience pure conscousness. The predicted outcome of long-term TM practice is Cosmic Consciousness, but CC can be attained, according to theory, without even once having had a clear episode of pure consciousness during TM practice. In the stubs you wrote, I saw a few things that weren't quite in-line with TM theory OR the current research. For instance, equating CC with jivanmukti is usually inaccurate because one can be having extended episodes of CC for months or even years, and STILL not be having clear episodes of pure consciousness during TM. The various terms used to describe someone who is fully enlightened, such as jivanmukti, usually include a description of meditation where one enters pure consciousness and never leaves. There are predicted physiological correlates of someone in such a state and those have never been observed in TMers at least, even in the people who report years-long 24/7 witnessing. Etc. Sparaig 16:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not interested in getting into a long discussion here, but could you produce references for your statements about (1) Jivan Mukti != CC, and (2) having CC without clear episodes (experiences?) of Pure Consciousness during TM?

Peterklutz 07:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of multiple-use of the same terms. It's more clear in the original Sanskrit, I believe. CC, as defined by MMY, is a state of consciousness where the nervous system is stable enough to maintain pure awareness along-side other states of consciousness. However, just because one has 24/7 witnessing, that doesn't mean that one doesn't still have major stresses in the nervous system. They just aren't sufficient to overshadow the experience of pure conscioiusness, aka "Self." Also, just because one has had a clear episode of witnessing for the past 3 years doesn't mean that the situation will continue. There's no way to tell.
Also, not everyone believes in reincarnation. Calling the ultimate state of CC a state where reincarnation isn't required may not make sense to many/most people. OTOH, there are definite physiological correlates of pure consciousness during TM, such as breath suspension. If someone were to enter a state of breath suspension whenever they started meditating, reported pure consciousness, as well as showed the EEG and so on correlates, for the entire period of TM, every time they practiced, you might make a case they were in jivanmukti, without needing to claim unverifiable things about their non-pending reincarnation status, the total stressfreeness of their nervous system, etc.
Since none of the research subjects claiming months or years of non-stop witnessing 24/7 show this non-stop pure consciousness state during TM practice, it seems likely they aren't "fully enlightened" ala jivanmukti even if their Cosmic Consciousness is "mature" as MMY likes to say. Sparaig 04:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

A closer look the "Criticisms and controversies" section makes it evident that it is best described as a wailing wall.

(1) statements made in the TM and religion subsection are incorrect and at best confirm a distorted second-hand understanding.

(2) the Sexism and the TM organization - simply ridiculous in content and tone.

(3) Fees and finances 1st sentence 2nd para: evidently just some whiners highly personal pov

(4) Why the persistent use of citation marks around certain terms, like "sidhas?" What's wrong with TM-Sidhi practitioners? What is the impression author's using citation marks wishes to create with readers?

(5) These requests are sometimes made during rounding courses, when critics claim the course participant may be particularly susceptible to suggestion What is this but pure and simple speculation. When is a good time the approach people for fundraising: when they're all gathered at the same location or dispersed all over a country?

This is a no-brainer and certainly nothing exclusive to TM.

(6) ..finances of the TM organization have been kept secret What's the deal here? Is keeping financial records to one self not a standard procedure? Is there a crime involved? Then say so. As this now stands it just sounds like some editor's personal unhappiness with ignorance of affairs they don't have any legal right to know in the first place.

(7) A potentially interesting bit of gossip as the murder subsection might be for some, how informative is it learn what a journalist at the British left-wing tabloid feels about this? Really?

Adolescent whining does not become truer just because it is attributed to some journalist who just might have had another angle (I've read the Guardian article and find the description of it in the TM article quite off the mark).

Here's a suggestion for how to finally get the TM article into such a shape that it is not viewed as a failure for wikipedia: Create a new article about the TM Movement and move bulk of the criticism section there - the bulk of the complaints has to do with the movement.

Peterklutz 11:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Would everyone be satisfied if the Transcendental Meditation article were replaced by a disambiguation stub pointing to more specific articles? Such articles might have names like TM - History, TM - Description, TM - Criticism, etc. (Also, in my opinion the article as it stands isn't bad at all, considering that the reality is that TM does involve controversy.) David 12:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peterklutz, please put your material in NPOV form

Peter, the complaint against your edit isn't that it's wrong about TM teachings (although where health benefits are concerned, there are such complaints), at least not IMO, or over-detailed. You give valuable and interesting information. The problem is that you don't give it in a neutral or encyclopedic way. You write what TM teaches; we're supposed to write about what TM teaches. I think you have simply gotten off on the wrong foot with this article, raising resentment and suspicion by editing from a variety of IPs and usernames, for instance, and I presume you in turn feel beleaguered because you're outnumbered. But if you try to rewrite your material in an NPOV way, I think (hope) that it would be discussed and perhaps modified, but not deleted out of hand by other editors.

Example: to say that "a TM-mantra is a carefully choosen vehicle that effortlessly takes the mind and being of a TM-practitioner into resonance with key Laws of Nature guiding the Universe - ultimately taking him or her to the source of all the laws of nature - Pure Being or Transcendental Consciousness" is to claim that this is how it is, these are facts. Honestly, can you imagine your sentence in the Encyclopedia Britannica? Wikipedia is not the place for such claims. Something like this might work: "TM teaches that a mantra is a carefully choosen vehicle that takes the mind and being of a practitioner into resonance with key laws of nature guiding the universe, and that it will ultimately take him or her to a state seen as the source of all the laws of nature—Pure Being or Transcendental Consciousness." Please take a shot at rewriting your material in similar neutral form before reinsertiing it. Be sure to indicate in the edit summary that you're offering a compromise version, because I'm afraid some editors may have gotten into the habit of automatically reverting you (a very bad thing, but somewhat understandable considering that it does tend to always be the same edit). Incidentally please be careful with the capitals, they can add a whole layer of POV— for instance when using a capitalised He to refer to Maharishi. That's not appropriate here; it's a wiki article, not a TM website. Please take a look at the article God; God is plain "he" there, because that article isn't a Christian/Muslim/etc website, either. Good luck, I hope work on this article can become collegial in a way that includes everybody. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC).
P. S. I'm against creating any POV forks, as proposed above. Having specific articles on the history of the movement, criticism of the movement, etc. is only appropriate if there is a central article (which ought indeed to be named Transcendental Meditation) that summarizes them all. And the only good reason for creating such "main articles" is if the central one is getting too long. That the subject is controversial is a bad reason for balkanizing it. I agree with David that the article ought to reflect the fact that the subject is controversial. Bishonen | talk 16:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC).

Using a capitalized "He" to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi isn't standard within the TM organization. In fact, using a capitalized "He" to refer to MMY's teacher, almost universally recognized as a Hindu "saint" in India, isn't standard within the TMO either. Sparaig 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Misleading Statement About Malnak v Yogi

I removed a deceptive statement about the court ruling in Malnak v Yogi because it as both badly misleading and unattributed to any source. Indeed, it is contradicted by the only reference cited -- a reputable university law school web page that says the court had ruled the teaching of TM in public school is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Askolnick 17:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the original ruling in NJ only ruled on "TM-SCI," and not TM alone, as this article in a fundamentalist website makes clear [[5]]:
"The Supreme Court opinion states clearly:
"Although Transcendental Meditation by itself might be defended - as appellants sought to do in this appeal - as primarily a relaxation or concentration technique with no ultimate significance, the New Jersey course at issue here was not a course in TM alone, but a course in Science of Creative Intelligence," (592 F. 2nd, 1979, p. 213)."
More to the point, TM has been taught in federal and state prisons with private funding, as well as in several charter schools around the country (again with private funding) and there has been no successfu legal challenge that I am aware of. In fact, David Lynch has set up a foundation to fund the teaching of TM to any student in the USA.
Ironically, it is arguable that TM by itself does not meet the "Malnak Test" formulated by Malnak v. Yogi. Sparaig 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Sigh! It's clear that old Lawson the Dormouse has not quit his deceptive ways. Of course it is arguable that TM by itself does not meet the Malnak Test. That's because TMers will argue anything no matter how blatantly absurd and dishonest it is to promote their guru's interests. They even argue that they can fly and chase hurricanes away by getting together to hop on their asses in a group.

One of the Court's rulings permanently enjoined public schools:

"(3) From the practice of Transcendental Meditation or of the puja ceremony as heretofore practiced or performed (or the substantial equivalent of either), in any public school in the State of New Jersey;"

The court ruled that the puja ceremony -- which all students wishing to learn TM must go through -- is a thinly disguised religious Hindu ceremony, and therefore could no longer be practiced in public schools. What Lawson English (Sparaig) stated above is a blatant falsehood and he knows it. Askolnick 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that you didn't read the citation I gave. What follows is the relevant section... If the fundamentalists aren't sure about the potential status, and if TM IS being taught using private funding in various public schools with no successful challenges [thus far], then obviously the ruling was rather narrow (in fact, technically it is only binding in NJ). Given that the puja is only performed once, and that the practice is voluntary, and that the instruction that uses the puja can be taught away from the public school system using private money, it seems plausible that the conditions are different enough than those found in Malnak v Yogi that the ruling doesn't apply. Certainly, although the "Malnak Test" is referred to in many subsequent "Church vs State" court rulings, the fact that TM *is* being practiced in public [charter] schools, as well as publicly run prisons, suggests that the original plaintiffs don't believe they have as strong a case in the current situation. Americans United for Seperation of Church and State was one of the original plaintiffs. You can ask them their opinion. I suspect they aren't happy with the situation, but haven't found a legal way to challenge it, at least as yet.
[[6]]
Who Took the "T" Out Of "TM"?
Tom Forehand
[...] For example: Is Transcendental Meditation (the practice of meditative chanting) necessarily "religious" according to the lower court decision which first banned SCI from the public classroom?
The original court decision to ban SCI from the New Jersey public schools (see "Malnak v. Yogi, 1977, 440 Federal Supplement, p. 1284) seems to advance the possibility that there can be a distinction between SCI and TM (the former would claim to bring, "the mediator into direct contact with a... pure creative intelligence...," while the latter would claim to simply "bring about certain physiological and psychological changes in the mediator," (footnote 26, p. 1324).
A 1979 Seton Hall Law Review article mentions this "distinction": "Thus, the question whether TM, taught without SCI or the puja [ceremony], would constitute an establishment of religion if taught in a public school, remains unanswered." A footnote in this same article also claimed: "The court appeared to note that TM may be taught separately. See 440 F. Supp. at 1324, n. 26" (Seton Hall Law Review, 1979, p. 628).
An article in the 1979-80 Duquesne Law Review (Vol. 18) states: "The implications of the very narrow ruling in Malnak are therefore limited to other instances of teaching SCI/TM in public schools, and will be of little assistance in establishment clause situations involving an allegedly religious activity other than SCI/TM," (p. 337).
An article in the Minnesota Law Review stated: "For a program teaching TM alone [only the practice of chanting, with no overt connection to SCI], the constitutional outcome is not so clear," (June 1978, Vol. 62, p. 947).
The Supreme Court opinion states clearly:
"Although Transcendental Meditation by itself might be defended - as appellants sought to do in this appeal - as primarily a relaxation or concentration technique with no ultimate significance, the New Jersey course at issue here was not a course in TM alone, but a course in Science of Creative Intelligence," (592 F. 2nd, 1979, p. 213).
So, it is probably incorrect for us to state categorically that, "the practice of TM has been barred from the public classroom for religious reasons."
Sparaig 03:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor changes

Forgot to add them here as I went, sorry.

Firstly, I changed the States of Consciousness section to refer to the links to Charles "Skip" Alexander's essay about them. While somewhat out-of-date from a purely research perspective, they're still accurate in the purely theoretical POV as originally presented by MMY. I'll try to add something to a standalone page later.

Secondly, I changed the wording of a few things to more accurately reflect the theoretical presentation of the TMO. E.G., there's no "goal" during TM practice since that introduces effort and control, and changed the wording from [roughly] "the TM program offers something," to "the organization that teaches TM offers something," since TM is a stand-alone technique and can't "offer" something. Just being nitpicky.Sparaig 04:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added response from David Orme-Johnson, TM researcher

I added:

David Orme-Johnson, asserts:

"In a footnote, [the critique] says that the authors of the Israel study would not send them the original data, when in fact they were sent all the data in graphic form, which was also published as an appendix when the original paper was reprinted in a research anthology in 1990. Moreover, the EHT authors were told that they would also be sent the data in spreadsheet form as soon as they publicly retracted false statements that they had made about the research in television interviews and in the popular press."

[edit] new encyclopedic version of the Critiscism & Controversies section

Again I've looked into the sources used by some editors and have no choice but to request a source for the 2003 Middle European Study.

I've searched Springer Verlag's site and - yes - they do have articles about TM (over twenty) but they are all from different years and can only be considered supportive of TM. If the "2003" source is not presented within a reasonable time-frame, the wikipedian thing is to drop the allegation in toto.

If any Christian or Jewish Fundamentalist - or disgrunted ex-TM-teacher - can't seem to find their favorite anti-TM site, feel free to list them in the external links section.

Peterklutz 15:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theory of Consciousness

Looks like the editor of the last changes might want to think about making the chars used human readable. Hopes this is of any help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTML_decimal_character_references

Peterklutz 15:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] excessive contributions...

Perhaps there is a new flu going around that causes diarrhea of the keyboard?

I was worrying that my contributions were a tad too numerous, and then along came Peter and Andrew. Suddenly, I feel, well, normal.