Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Moved School Programs Section

I have moved the School Programs section out of the Reception section. I have left the lawsuit in the Reception section but his could be moved up also, depending on what other editors think.-- — Kbob • Talk • 20:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why we'd have the teaching in the schools, and the lawsuit concerning that teaching, split across the article. The two things are directly related.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have also removed the section title "Reception" and made "Relationship to Religion and Spirituality" its own section. I don't see any sense in having a section with only one sub heading. If more topics related to Reception are added later we can re-create the Reception heading as needed.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Medical Acceptance

Is this a possible secondary source that could be used to show acceptance by the medical community of Transcendental Meditation? http://www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com/alerts/hypertension_stroke/JohnsHopkinsHealthAlertsHypertensionStroke_3159-1.html#read --Uncreated (talk) 09:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, and thanks for the suggestion. It almost doesn't seem like we need to add something like this. The research speaks for itself, especially the publications by the AMA and the American Heart Association. Plus, one doesn't know whether that web page represents the views of Johns Hopkins. And we need to avoid starting to sound promotional: As endorsed by Johns Hopkins University. : ) TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

History section - technique vs. movement

In the expectation of a long discussion I'm starting a fresh thread to discuss the split between the history of the technique and the history of the movement. I've copied the existing text from this article to /History draft, and then I've bolded those parts which appear to me to concern the technique more than the organizations. So the unbolded material would be cut from this article, and the bolded material deleted from the TMM article. That's just a rough cut and the final versions in each article would need to be adapted further. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, you did a good job in your History Draft. I added bold to two more sentences. I don't think this will require all that much discussion, but I may be wrong.-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with either Will's or Kbob's version.... I think the two sentences Kbob bolded are borderline in the sense they could be about the movement or about the technique so either version would be accurate in my mind.(olive (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

It may be necessary to include some information in both articles, but we should try to minimize the duplication.   Will Beback  talk  04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.   Will Beback  talk  23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

TM in schools

The Newsweek article about TM in schools is quite balanced. However, in taking info from the article we only represent one view. Seems like we could add sentence or two representing the other view. Also, seems like we could add a sentence on the research on that Detroit school. Also, this section on schools doesn't give the reasons why educators are introducing TM in the schools. We could add a sentence referencing this New York Times article. [3] This may help the balance in this section. As it is now, it just notes the use of TM in schools and then gives criticism of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I see that this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008." has made its way back into the article. Wonder why it is here since it is clearly abut the TMM. Should it not be removed and placed in the TMM page? --BwB (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed this sentence "Lynn says that the Americans United for Separation of Church is keeping a close legal eye on the TM movement and that there are no imminent cases as of May 2008." --BwB (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While he does use the phrase "TM movement", the comment is clearly about the teaching of the TM technique in schools.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I removed this at one time. It doesn't really say anything in terms of the technique or the article for that manner except by some far reaching implication. Seems like just filler, and I would remove it again for that reason.(olive (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

That sentence doesn't really add anything. I agree wtih TG that the Newsweek article has other assertions that might be added.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Added a couple points. Should we consider moving the whole section to TM movement article? TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We discussed which article this material was best suited for in #Moving forward, above. My last thought on th matter was that it doesn't seem to concern any particular organizations, except perhaps the Lynch Foundation, so it was better suited for this article.   Will Beback  talk  16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Since TM Movement article also includes the educational aspects of the org. I would think that article should content on the schools should be included there as well as here. In some case there will have to be overlapping of content, I would think. (olive (talk) 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

There's no point in duplicating the same text in both articles. If we add a section on the Lynch Foundation to the TMM article then that would logically include a mention of their funding for TM training in schools.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we have to use the same content. There 's a lot of information on the technique in the schools. I am concerned that we are introducing artificial delineations by attempting to decide if content goes in one place or the other when the information is really about both. Is the DLF a TM Movement org? ... I think its independent of the TM org although it does promote teaching of the technique. Maybe someone with more info could comment on that.(olive (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

The DLF is using MVED trademarks with permission, or as a sub-licensee.[4] Important figures in the movement, especially Hagelin, are on the board. The DLF's sole activity is the promotion of TM. I don't see how it could be viewed as outside of the TMM. The DLF is included in the template. If it isn't part of the movement then it should be removed.   Will Beback  talk  19:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes , but, Hagelin could be on the board of the Methodist Church and maybe he is too, but that doesn't make the Church TMM. I'm fine with its inclusion, but attempting top clarify a point.(olive (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

• If a further 1% can be persuaded to take up yogic flying in groups, world peace would follow, according to the Transcendental Meditation Movement, of which Lynch is the public face. [5]

If everyone on the board of a Methodist Church was a TM practitioner or official, and if that Methodist Church's official purpose was to promote TM, then it'd be reasonable to consider it a part of the TMM.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added a short section to the TMM article about the DLF.   Will Beback  talk  20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this reasoning, actually. Some newspaper may say Lynch is the face of TM... but Lynch is a whole lot more than that... What we are coming up against is who defines what TM Movement means. I am defining it as one of the official programs or organizations which DLF is not. I don 't see it here [6]. You are categorizing and defining what TM Movement means. However. i'm quibbling so i'll back off. Lets see what others have to say. Thanks Will.(olive (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

Is this page the definition of the TMM? http://www.mum.edu/disclosures/copyright.html I don't see the Maharishi Foundation, Ltd., on that page either, but it's undoubtedly a part of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No Maharishi Foundation is not there since it is the entity which sub licenses to MVEDC rather than itself being a licensed program or organization.(olive (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC))

I have a question about that on the TMM talk page. Another entity not on the MUM list is Global Country of World Peace. Overall, I don't think that list is really useful for anything beyond its stated purpose - a list of trademarks licensed to the MVEDC.   Will Beback  talk  22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Conference presentation

Someone added the conference presentation yesterday by Robert Schneider at the annual meeting of the American Heart Association. This is now being widely reported in the media. But is a conference presentation considered a reliable source? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This essay seems suggests that the abstracts of conferences are not reliable sources. [7]

I'm not familiar with the vetting procedure for conference presentations. Perhaps that would be the telling point. If presentations are juried before acceptance then there would be little or no difference than a publication... and the AHA is a reputable association.(olive (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Although news sources are not the best sources for medical studies and or reports, if this content is retained it should probably be worded to say that, the BBC has reported on a study presented at the 2009 AHA conference.(olive (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

With this additional article in Science NOW. [8] I would think this AHA presentation could be included, again, within context of the publication.(olive (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

In answer to the question of olive above, yes, most reputable scientific and medical conferences require peer review of their submitted abstracts. The approved ones are generally of high quality. This is far more scrutiny than most articles in the mainstream media receive. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

TM and MVAH

I see that TM has been connected to MVAH in the lede. However, we do not much about MVAH in the article. Is the lede not supposed to summarize the main points of the article, not just be a random collections of facts? --BwB (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'll add more about the place of TM in the MVAH to the text of the article.   Will Beback  talk  21:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I created a short section to put the MVAH into context vis a vis TM.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. --BwB (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Remove Tags

I have removed the tags which were at the top of the article for many months. When I asked on this talk page a few weeks ago, "what needs to be done to correct the article and remove the tags?" The only request was for a section on the course fee for TM. We can continue that discussion but in the mean time I don't see why the tags have to remain as all editors said they were open to the idea of including something on the TM fees as long as there were reliable sources and it doesn't give a commercial feel to the article. If we continue that discussion, here is one more ref that we can add to the list we were accumulating. -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. --BwB (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Kbob, clicking on this last reference (2) gives me a newspaper page, but I couldn't find anything relevant to TM. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooops, it seems that the link has been updated to a different article. I'll see if I can find it. thanks.-- — Kbob • Talk • 19:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

"NPOV" tags are perhaps among the most useless bits of text on Wikipedia. I'm less and less inclined to defend their use. That said, this article does not yet include all significant points of view on all issues, and so is technically out of compliance with WP:NPOV. Let's make sure that such tags are unnecessary.   Will Beback  talk  09:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The rub is in this word "significant." What is significant to one editor is not necessarily so to another. So the discussion goes on. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For example, how is it that every mention of literature on adverse effects of the practice of TM has been excised from the article? The paragraph that used to be here is still in Research_studies_on_the_applications_of_Transcendental_Meditation#Studies_on_adverse_effects_of_Meditation but not one word here. Not even a cross-reference. Interesting. Also, all mention of the German study is gone. Even the TM Movement acknowledges that some people suffer adverse effects from TM and TM-Sidhi, and has a name for it "unstressing".Fladrif (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Unstressing" is not considered an "adverse effect" of TM, but a natural part of the practice. This is what TM does - it removes stress from the mind and body. This is how health, etc. improves. --BwB (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The TM Movement says that there are no adverse effects from TM, but that if someone experiences adverse effects, it's "unstressing", and a natural part of the process. Claiming that an adverse effect is really a positive effect is an interesting bit of self-deception, but you can call a pork chop a lamb chop all day, but it's still a pork chop. Also, am I not correct in understanding that the cause of "unstressing" is the release of bad karma from past lives?[9][10][11][12][13] [14][15]Fladrif (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Flad, we know what you think of TM. One can either dig up the most negative material possible on TM while someone else digs up the most positive. Neither is a definitive look at the technique.

I'm fine with the tags being there. NPOV is an overall description on non neutrality, and is not just in reference to either negative or positive weight for or against the technique, If the article is biased against the technique the tags should be there as well as if it is biased for the technique.(olive (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

You have no idea whatsoever what I think about TM, and if you think you do you are sadly and grossly mistaken. Now, rather than engage in further personal attacks, are you interested in actually responding to the substance of my comments?Fladrif (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No personal attack intended. That someone would not support TM is not in my book a negative, just a matter of choice which I have no interest in judging. You give a pretty good imitation of some one whose view on TM is less than positive since almost all posts include a jab at some aspect of TM, but you're right no one knows really what someone else thinks. I apologize.

As I understand. the words un stressing or normalizing are, in context of the TM organization, a description of a natural process in which the body and nervous system experience "rest". Described as deeper than sleep, but not a replacement for sleep, the kinds of normalizing processes we know go on with any kind of rest can be experienced. However, because the rest is deep, deep kinds of normalizing may occur. When the technique is practiced properly it is simple, natural to the way the mind works, and is a pleasant experience. Once someone learns the technique in the US they may at any time (for life) ask for their meditation to be checked (free of charge ) which helps make sure the effortless, easiness, natural aspect of the technique is continued. Normalizing is not a negative side effect but a natural effect of rest. When we sleep, one kind of rest, the body attempts to normalize itself, to throw off fatigue, to return to its pre fatigue state... and the result of a more rested physiology is generally pleasant no matter the kind of depth of rest we get.

I am not a TM teacher but this is how I understand the technique to work.... and this is the meaning of the word "unstressing" within the TM organization.(olive (talk) 19:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

A fairly good explanation, Olive. One point I would add is that it is due to rest that the body releases stress. As you say, when someone does TM, research shows that the body gets deep rest. When this rest occurs the body naturally starts to release stress. It is a more stress-free body that allows one to enjoy life more and to have better health. So releasing stress is a normal things that happens during TM. So releasing stress is a good thing for health. It is common knowledge in the medical profession that stress can cause ill-health. --BwB (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, is there material that's missing that should be included? If sources discuss "unstressing" then let's mention it.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which was my original point. There are reliable sources and studies that some people have adverse effects from meditation, including in particular from TM. All that stuff was removed from the article. After I pointed out that it was removed here but was in the TM Research article and at least should be cross-referenced, TG deleted it from the Research article. The TM Movement says, no, there are no adverse effects, if someone claims to have experienced are adverse effects, it's just "unstressing", a normal part of the process and not adverse at all.Shouldn't this material be part of this article?Fladrif (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If reliable sources cite studies that show adverse effects of the TM technique specifically they should be included. I assume you didn't mean adverse effects of meditation which isn't the business of this article. I'd prefer to have TG comment on the removal of any studies. Since he is as careful an editor as anyone else here, I think he probably has a reason for whatever he did or didn't do. (olive (talk) 21:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

As well, obviously we will need to consider the ratio of the adverse studies affects to the positive effects studies as one way to determine "weight".(olive (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

That's problematic in this context because of the sheer numbers of studies authored by MUM researchers. If one person writes ten books on one side of an issue, and three people write three books on another side, then the one person doesn't necessarily deserve three times as much weight. The more neutral way of assigning weight would be according to reviews of the studies and citations by non-MUM scholars.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the disregard for peer review and reputable publication. I do understand your concern, but this is becoming problematic for me as an editor. If it were a few studies we could possibly question the peer review process per Wikipedia, but its hundreds. And research has been carried on by many other institutions. This comes up time and time again.... so my thought is to see what's out there in terms of adverse effect studies and possibly also ask for input from outside. I understand what you're saying but it just doesn't hold water for me in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is mean to reflect the sources such as they are, not to reflect our opinion on the sources. Per WP:Fringe adverse effects from the technique would seem to be a very minority view. Anyway lets look at the sources.(olive (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

NPOV calls on us to report all significant points of view with weight relative to their prominence. Just because the MUM conducts 100 studies that doesn't necessarily mean their view is substantially more prominent than one study published by uninvolved researchers. For starters, I think we should avoid giving much space to studies that haven't been reviewed, reported on, or directly replicated. As we often hear, the TM movement has conducted over 600 studies. Those studies, and even abstracts of them, are available elsewhere. We don't need to devote a paragraph to each one here. If there have been 12 studies showing that the ME lowers crime, but those studies haven't gotten any attention or review, then all we need to say is that there have been 12 studies on that topic, their general results. We shouldn't give details of how the studies were conducted, etc.   Will Beback  talk  00:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets establish a base line of understanding that we all can agree on. There are about 350 peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals and more coming in all the time. There are about 800 studies total. We are concerned with the 350 peer reviewed studies. 350 peer reviewed studies indicates a strong acceptance by the scientific community . There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it. That's the job of the peer review panel. As well, many of these studies were co-authored. There are no "involved" editors except as personal opinion here. If there are 100 studies, not carried on by MUM, but buy legitimate researchers, and if they are peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, they are appropriate for inclusion here, and no, one study by a so- called someone else does not create an NPOV to balance these 100 studies. The one or two studies are most likely a fringe view, and either deserves a brief inclusion or no inclusion at all ... Per Wikipedia. (olive (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Without looking at the studies individually, I'm not sure how we can say that "There is no reason to doubt the integrity of the research, and who does the research does not enter into it".   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A baseline of understanding would be nice, but as we've gone over this same material again and again, I doubt we will ever get there. Publication of 350 peer review studies does not say anything about whether the rearch is accepted. The vast majority of the published studies - well over 90% - have been found (not by me, by the Ospina Bond and the UKentucky metaanalyses) to have not been conducted or documented properly and scientifically, and that no conclusions whatsoever can be legimately derived from the remaining body of research. Per WP:MEDRS metaanalyses like these are the most reliable source of all to use in articles about medical research. Frankly, this article should be boiled down to just about that: MUM has pumped out nearly 1000 studies, 90% of which are inadequately conducted or documented, and the rest is insufficient to draw any legimate conclusions. That would be accurate, unbiased, and reliably sourced, and would not put undue weight on the individual studies, the basis for whose inclusion in these articles has never once been explained or rationalized, other than they've been cribbed from various MUM and TM Org websites. Fladrif (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Fladrif, but I am in general agreement with the above post. I would phrase it differently; there would be no need to say "MUM has pumped out nearly 1000 studies;" that's not encyclopedic. But I do agree that the neutral and encyclopedic way to cover research on the medical and physiological effects of TM would be to cite the best meta-analysis, which was an excellent and thorough and very recent analysis, and be done with it. And no, Orme-Johnson's ludicrous "critique" of this study should not be given equal weight with the study itself, nor used as excuse not to include what constitutes the definitive research on the topic. Woonpton (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I accept Woonpton's friendly amendment to my suggestion. Something more like,

The TM Movement states that approximately 800 studies on medical effects of Transcendental Mediation have been conducted, of which approximately 350 have been published in peer-reviewed publications, showing a wide range of health benefits and theraputic applications.^FN A meta-analyses published in 2007 and supplemented in 2008 of all of the published research on medical effects of meditation, including 230 studies of Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi, concluded that well over 90% of such research was not reliably conducted or documented, and that the remaining low-quality studies using small patient samples provided inadequate bases to draw any firm conclusions as to the theraputic effects of meditation practices, and that the choice of one meditation practice over another is a matter of individual experience and personal preference. ^FN

And, then delete the balance of the research material. Fladrif (talk)

The issue in this discussion comes down, again and again to questioning the studies because the researchers may be TM meditators or because there may a connection to MUM on some level. I've repeated the same points multiple times so I have to assume; I'm not clear, you don't understand; or we disagree. If I'm not clear let me know ... if we still disagree after all of this time , we need outside eyes on this.(olive (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

I'm not sure what your question is. But when it comes to sources, we should evaluate them individually as they're proposed. It's not really productive to have extensive discussion on hypothetical issues.   Will Beback  talk  05:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a question, and there is no "question" that studies must be evaluated individually....However, weight must be determined, as must NPOV, and fringe. The discussion began with "studies on adverse effects". Lets see where that goes.(olive (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, it's not correct to say that a study that's not a randomized controlled trial is inadequately conducted. If we only included randomized controlled trials, then we'd automatically exclude the studies that you inserted. In fact, Persinger didn't make the cut. Ospina Bond excluded it from their review because that study didn't have a control group. Otis didn't have a control group. Woonpton, who's to say which is the best metaanalysis? There are a number of them. Also, Ospina bond revised the scores of the studies and in their 2008 publication of their review acknowledged that it may not be possible to double blind meditation studies. TimidGuy (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing that a NIH-funded, independently conducted, peer-reviewed meta-analysis, which is the highest authority of questions of medical research per WP:MEDRS is wrong about what is and what is not a properly conducted study. The possiblity that meditation studies cannot be double-binnded does not mean that unblinded meditation studies are good studies; rather, it suggests that it may be impossible to do good studies of meditation.Fladrif (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is, Ospina Bond used the Jadad Scale to evaluate the studies. Double blinding is the basis of the Jadad Scale. Note that Ospina Bond did a review that included a number of meta-analyses. One was on TM and hypertension. They concluded that TM has a significant effect on hypertension. Two of the 12 studies in the meta-analysis scored good or better on the Jadad Scale -- meeting their criterion for high quality. They subsequently raised all the scores of the studies, nearly doubling the total number that scored good or better on the Jadad Scale. In their JACM article, they say that readers can request the list. But they won't give it out. I've requested it several times. We have no way of knowing how many of the TM studies were among those that scored good or better on the basis of the revised scores. My guess would be that at least several more met the standard. Plus, a randomized controlled trial that came out in 2006, after their cutoff, received a good evaluation on Jadad in the Kentucky meta-analysis. That means that perhaps half the hypertension studies shave scored good or better on Jadad. TimidGuy (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You don't know... but you guess...perhaps half? What fuels this groundless speculation in diametrical opposition to the black letters on the white page in plain English? The UKentucky study said that only 3 of 9 TN studies were "high quality" IIRC. O-B revisited only got to 10% acceptable overall. How that gets you to "perhaps half" is beyond my wildest imagination, but apparently not beyond yours. The point is...Ospina Bond concluded that even the "good" studies were insufficient to draw any valid conclusion about the medical effects of meditation, and there was no basis in any of these studies to prefer TM over any other medititation technique, or visa-versa. The addendum changed none of those conclusions. Fladrif (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's right. I don't know. They won't release the scores. I got the figure of half by looking at the subset of 12 in their meta-analysis. Two of the 12 did well on Jadad. And likely several more would with single blinding being the criterion. And the Paul-Labrador study likely would. So that would be 6 out of 13. I'm confident I'll be able to eventually get the list. My mistake regarding Kentucky. It looks like they created their own scale adapted from Jadad. TimidGuy (talk) 12:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies on adverse effects

If I understand correctly, Fladrif is saying that sourced material has been removed from this article, the same material that was recently deleted and restored to the research article.[16] Where was the deletion of this material discussed?   Will Beback  talk  06:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That was good timing, since I've just emerged from searching that very question in the archives (my interest wasn't connection to the deletion in question but I was refreshing my memory about what turns out to have been one of these discussions). It looks like the most recent discussion about this material was here, but it's a short discussion over several months and doesn't appear to have produced a mandate for deletion.

There is extensive discussion in Archive 22 about Otis specifically, which went to the RS noticeboard. The issue was whether Otis should be removed because it was not peer-reviewed, but that position was not suppported by uninvolved commentors on the noticeboard, including JN466 who came from the noticeboard to the talk page to participate in the discussion. I recommend reviewing that entire set of threads. Woonpton (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All of this was discussed. The most recent removal was Persinger and Otis, probably in August or September. I believe it was Duedilly who proposed removing those, and I think at least one other editor agreed. In that thread I pointed out a problem with Persinger (I questioned why he didn't know exactly how many of his subjects practiced TM). After some time passed and no one had disagreed, those two studies were removed and no one objected. Woonpton, I recall that you posted a comment in a different thread (in February?) saying that you thought that the Otis study was weak. I'm curious why. I removed the Glueck paragraph because it completely misrepresents the study, which found that TM was effective in treating psychiatric patients, and because the paragraph contained the falsehood that the study said that two subjects attempted suicide. I posted on the Talk page why I removed it (I was editing as an IP at the time). That would have been in August, I believe. The Lazarus paper is two pages in which he gives some impressions and is similar to a case study, except that it doesn't use the sort of in-depth analysis that a case study does. It doesn't meet the standard of WP:MEDRS, which says that case studies fall below the threshold for includes. This was discussed and the only one who disagreed was Fladrif. The study was removed. The paragraph on the Carrington and Ephron paper in the TM research article so completely misrepresents the study that it's a falsehood. Carrington and Ephron used TM as an effective adjunct to their psychotherapeutic and psychoanalytic patients. As part of their discussion they said that they found that TM facilitates bringing repressed material to conscious awareness and permits more rapid recovery in the patients. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This gets down to what originally piqued my interest in these articles. TimidGuy completely misrepresentation the findings of these studies. It is a repeated pattern that I first noticed with the Ospina Bond metaanalysis, and that gets repeated again and again. If something unfavorable or unflattering to the TM movement manages to find its way into these articles, and he is unsuccessful in getting it deleted entirely, he reinterprets the results, cherry picking a sentence or phrase here and there if he can, so that black becomes white, up becomes down, and a criticism becomes a compliment. It is not an isolated incident here and there; it is a consistent and disruptive pattern of behavior. I'll not go to what I think is motivating this blatant twisting of the source material. But, no rational, reasonable, impartial person reasonably conversant with the English language could in good faith and with a straght face claim that these studies say what TG claims they say.Fladrif (talk) 15:24, 9

December 2009 (UTC)

As I have asked before Flad, the "message" not the "messenger". Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets not get sidetracked. Best to stick to the matter at hand, and deal with the studies, not the editor. If there is a serious interest in putting these studies back into the article . Lets take one at a a time and discuss. (olive (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC))

• My comment on Otis is in one of the threads on Archive 22 which I recommended people should review. I did think Otis was weak, but I don't remember why. I suspect it may have been in the statistics, but I'd have to go back and review the study again to be sure, since my comment didn't go into detail about why I found it weak. I do know that my objections were not consonant with others' objections, such as the fact that it wasn't peer-reviewed (in the areas of the hard sciences and rigorous social sciences, peer review means something; in other areas it's not my impression or experience that peer review means anything useful in terms of the quality of the research, either way) or with Orme-Johnson's objections, which were trivial, uninformed, and off the point. I said that if I were writing this article, Otis would not be included because to my mind it doesn't merit encyclopedic inclusion, but one should be careful not to make too much of that statement, because there are a great many pro-TM studies I wouldn't include for the same reason, were I writing this article. I have no opinion, by the way, on studies in the adverse reaction listing other than Otis, having not looked at any of the rest of them. Woonpton (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pretty bizarre. Fladrif, I have accurately characterized the findings of Glueck and Carrington, and have accurately characterized the Lazarus paper, which isn't a scientific study (no study design, not methodology, no data, etc.). If you stand by everything that you inserted, please tell me on what page Glueck mentions suicide. To my mind, it's a very serious matter to put falsehoods in Wikipedia. TimidGuy (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If our text misrepresents significant sources then we should fix the text rather than deleting it outright.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, are we argeed that the Otis study is weak and should NOT be included in the article? Can we please deal with this study only for the moment, finish discussion on it alone, and then move on to other issues? My small brain finds it simpler that way. --BwB (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. Carrington is already in this article. I'll correct Glueck. Lazarus doesn't meet MEDRS and should be deleted. TimidGuy (talk) 21:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Was there a consensus on Lazarus? I see a discussion of it here[17], but not a consensus on it. Perhaps we need to re-open that discussion.   Will Beback  talk  22:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has yet explained why they think Lazarus meets MEDRS. So that would be a good place to begin. TimidGuy (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Here we are jumping around again. Is there consensus that Otis should go? --BwB (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A) What's the basis for saying that "Otis is weak"? B) Have we agreed that WP:MEDRS is the correct standard for the studies on TM?   Will Beback  talk  20:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Otis is weak as a source because it wasn't published in a refereed academic journal. It's weak as a study because there was no control group, nor was there pre- and post-testing. The questionnaire was untested, ad hoc, and poorly designed, using biased language. Subjects were asked to compare their current state with how they remembered their state being months and years earlier. The study compared non-equivalent group. TimidGuy (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No. If you have forgotten, or weren't present for, the discussion this summer where the argument about Otis and peer review went to RS/N, please re-read that discussion in Archive 22, as I recommended in this very thread, above. Also in archive 22, you'll find my comments on the rest of Orme-Johnson's list. I've been trying to find Otis online to refresh my memory on what my objections were to it; I know I read it online before, but now I can't seem to locate it. Does anyone have that link?Woonpton (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To make it easier for you, here's that section in the archives. Reading it over, I see that we were all there; all the editors taking part in this thread commented in that thread. I can see how when new editors come to an article, it may be necessary to have a fresh discussion of the same issues (or preferably, point back to previous discussions), but it should not be necessary for the same editors to have the same discussion again that they have all participated in a short time ago. What I find curious is that when TimidGuy deleted this material from the article, his edit summary pointed to the archives for a rationale for the deletion, but the archived discussion does not show a consensus to remove this study. Here I'll reproduce one comment from an uninvolved editor, but it's much better to read the discussion in its entirety and I urge you all, again, to read the whole thing, please:

As for peer-reviewed or not peer-reviewed, just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; and if a study appears in a book, rather than a peer-reviewed journal, it does not automatically mean that it is no good. The book in question had editors, who would have looked at the material they were going to include; that is not unlike peer review. We regularly quote chapters in academic books. The publisher is reputable, the author was at the Stanford Research Institute, the book is well cited, and so is the chapter concerned. Editors may want to look at what those who cited the chapter said about it: [4] A summary of Otis' study can be found on page 132 of this book: [5] I think this gives a good idea of how this study (and other, related studies) might be summarised. It is not hostile to TM, does not try to score a point against it or advertise it, just gives an overview of research, balanced by caveats. Please have a look at it. JN466 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And here's my comment from that archive about some of Orme-Johnson's criticisms. Again, it's much beter to read the entire discussion with the comments in context:

After watching this ongoing discussion for quite a while, I finally got curious and read the Otis paper. I find olive's objections to it unpersuasive and mostly irrelevant. The peer-review argument has been well discussed and disposed of by others, and I hope we'll hear no more of that. Some of the other objections: yes, the participants are self-selected in the sense that only the people who returned surveys are included, but that is true of *all* survey research, not just this one, so it's not particularly useful as a criticism of this particular study. The idea that the research is flawed because only negative characteristics are listed is a very odd objection and may be a result of an incomplete understanding of the rules of survey design. It's true that in survey design you want to vary the way the questions are asked, some from a positive direction and some from a negative direction, but this wasn't the usual kind of survey that asks questions or makes statements that respondents agree or disagree with; the rule about negative phrasing doesn't apply here, and to invoke it suggests a sort of grasping at straws rather than an honest critique of the research. That the characteristics rated in the checklist are all negative is neither here nor there. The checklist is in the tradition of diagnostic checklists of all kinds; were we to question all checklists containing only negative characteristics, we'd have to throw out the entire DSM. Which actually might not be a bad idea, but that's never going to happen. Woonpton (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Woonpton's point is correct: "...just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; ..." The point needs to be made here that studies that involve some kind of statistics can be either hypothesis testing or hypothesis generating. The criteria with which a hypothesis testing study is judged are far more strict than for a hypothesis generating study. For all the reasons mentioned by various participants in this discussion, including the reasons stated in the August discussion alluded to above, the Otis article falls far short of qualifying as a hypothesis testing study. It is wholly inadequate to use it as a test of the hypothesis that the TM technique is (or, for the null hypothesis, is not) a source of adverse effects. On the other hand, although weak, it's results might be cited as indicating that this hypothesis is worthy of investigation. To arrive at a fair and scientific point of view, then, any mention of the article in the context of the TM technique would best present the article in this light. The only published (in this case self-published, but possibly acceptable as per WP guidelines) critique that has been mentioned is the Orme-Johnson one. So if the Otis article is mentioned, then it would be important to have a critique that helps to put it in proper perspective. This would be the Orme-Johnson one unless someone has a better source. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is where it was discussed most recently.[18] No one objected, and it may have been Duedilly who deleted it from this article. I wasn't part of the earlier discussion that Woonpton has quoted. One thing that really confuses me about this study[19] is that if I understand it correctly, in every case it's reporting something that was a pre-existing condition. I don't understand why, if it was pre-existing, Otis seems to be saying that TM caused it, calling it an "adverse effect." He seems to use the term "adverse changes" and "adverse effects" interchangeably. I also don't understand how many items were on the survey. It seems to indicated that there were 30 but he reports only 10. Is that correct? Also, not being a scientist, I don't understand statistics, so it would be helpful if someone could explain the following: the survey doesn't ask if the adverse change is caused by TM. It just asks whether or not there was an adverse change. If there is a correlation between length of time practicing TM and an adverse change, does that mean that TM caused the change, even though the study didn't ask if TM caused the change? Also, if 5% of the subjects who had been practicing TM for 18 months showed an adverse change, and 95% show a positive change, for example, does statistical analysis allow one to conclude that TM causes adverse change in that 5%? Or is it possible that something else in that person's life caused him or her to become more antisocial? Hope someone has some insights. I really don't understand this study. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points of clarification: (1) The link TimidGuy provides here is the first link I gave at the top of this thread. I didn't pay much attention to that short discussion, which only mentioned Otis briefly once, as I thought the question about Otis had been decided (against deletion) in the more thorough earlier discussion, and I wasn't familiar with the other studies. (2) TimidGuy is correct that he wasn't part of that earlier discussion; I thought everyone had participated in that, but I was wrong, and I apologize. But it still seems reasonable, when someone has been pointed to the earlier discussion, that they would read it and be aware of the consensus that developed there. (3) I wouldn't, for the purpose of this article, use the distinction ChemProf is making; it would just confuse readers when the distinction in real life isn't so clear and wouldn't necessarily distinguish between this study and many of the pro-TM studies. (4) It was JN466, an uninvolved editor who participated in the discussion of Otis at RS/N, who wrote "...just because a study is peer-reviewed does not mean it is widely regarded as a definitive study; ..." not I, although I do agree with the point and with the rest of JN466's comments in that thread.

re: TimidGuy's questions about Otis. (1) if I understand it correctly, in every case it's reporting something that was a pre-existing condition. This is not a correct understanding. For each symptom (this is a symptom checklist, not a survey in the usual sense, BTW) the respondent was asked to indicate whether the particular symptom was a problem for them before TM as well as indicating any direction and degree of change in any symptom after starting TM. So there is a clear distinction between pre-existing conditions and conditions that began after the advent of TM; those existing before TM would be indicated by a check in the "existed before TM" box; those that began after beginning TM would not. But the important point of the research is the percentage of practitioners who reported symptoms changing for the worse; whether the condition existed before TM matters less than the fact that the longer people had practiced TM, the more inclined they were to report worsening symptoms. (Table 3 is especially telling). I don't know what it means, but it's interesting data that should be at least briefly mentioned. I don't see anywhere that Otis is claiming that TM "caused" symptoms, pre-existing or not, he's simply presenting data showing that some people report worsening symptoms while practicing TM.

(2) it seems clear from the paper that there were 30 items in the symptom checklist, but that only the ones on which at least 5% of any group had reported worsening effects were included in the report. This is perfectly reasonable. (3) it would not be standard practice to ask respondents if TM caused their symptoms. Their answers to that question would not be relevant; how would they know? It would be like asking a smoker to decide whether smoking caused their emphysema, or asking a day trader whether the color of the tie they wear determines whether the stock goes up or down. They might have opinions about it, but their opinions wouldn't be useful in determining the cause of the phenomenon. And anyway, as noted before, Otis isn't arguing that TM caused the symptoms, only noting that a substantial portion of people responding reported that some symptoms worsened during the practice of TM. The assignment of cause requires much more sophisticated design and analysis than is provided here (or is provided in much of the research in this field) and I don't believe the purpose of this research is to assign cause (though Otis might have been more careful in his use of language in that regard) simply to report some data, which are worth noting.

(4) The question of whether the same respondents would report positive effects from TM is outside the scope of this study, whose purpose was to determine whether the anecdotal reports the author had been getting about adverse effects would be evident in a larger, more systematic sample. He used pre-existing data, a survey that had been sent out randomly to TM practitioners some time earlier, and analyzed those data in terms of adverse effects. It might have been nice to give a table showing the total responses, both positive and negative, to put these data in some perspective; I would have liked that as a bonus, but the omission of the positive data doesn't affect the study, since the study isn't about effects of TM in general, only about reported negative effects.

The other day I mentioned that I couldn't remember what my objections to the study were when I characterized it several months ago as "weak," except I did remember that they weren't the same objections that have been argued here repeatedly. I've now reviewed the study, and my perception has changed since the last reading. At that time I hadn't looked at any of the TM-meditation studies and was looking at this study in the context of research in the outside world, in which context this study seemed fairly weak to me. But now that I've read more of the TM studies, and looking at this study within the context of TM studies in general, this one doesn't seem particularly weak in comparison. I have a couple of small specific criticisms, such as a possible conflation of the validation of the checklists with the subsequent finding that the dropouts differed significantly from people who stayed in the program, and that Otis used language that seemed to overinterpret the data in drawing conclusions, but neither of those are serious or important enough to question including the study; the data are there to be seen, the data aren't in question, and it's the data that are worth noting.

What concerns me more is the intensity and duration of scrutiny and the immense firepower expended on this one poor little study, while pro-TM studies have not been examined so thoroughly by editors here. This seems way unbalanced to me. Either no studies should be examined to this extent, or they should all be subjected to the same minute scrutiny.Woonpton (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is peer review and publication in a "reputable" publication. Because Otis does not meet that particular threshold for inclusion, discussion had to ensue as to why this study should be included. The other studies in this article are peer reviewed and publication would seem to be "reputable" (to quote Wikipedia), so in general less reason to discuss. As well there are hundreds, (350), of studies on the benefits of TM that meet threshold for inclusion and another 450 or so that are not peer reviewed and may be at the same standard as the Otis study. Relative to those numbers of TM studies are a very very few studies on adverse effects . These few adverse effect studies then become per Wikipedia minority viewpoints, and such viewpoints often require more extensive discussion as to reasons to include if they should be included at all.(olive (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

That is absolutely false. Peer reviewed papers independently published are reliable sources. But, being peer reviewed is absolutely NOT a prerequisite to being a reliable source for Wikipedia. We have gone through this again and again. Why do you continue to make up policies out of thin air that have no basis whatsoever in Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Otis was published by an independent, reputable publisher in a book with an independent editor. There is no policy basis to exclude his study whatsoever.Fladrif (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

And why don't you read my post. I am telling Woonpton why possibly there has been so much discussion on this since he stated some concern. I did not state a position one way or the other. If some editors need to discuss, there needs to be discussions, so get over it. That's Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The Otis piece was published by Aldine Transaction, a reputable publisher. The book also has a second piece on TM.[20]   Will Beback  talk  20:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The book has at least 14 studies on TM. Thanks, Woonpton. That's very helpful. I understand it better now and really appreciate your taking the time to explain. Please tell me if I understand correctly that the respondent only filled in those lines where they checked the box that it was a problem. Otis says, "The subject was asked to indicate in Column 1 whether the category was a problem before he or she started TM and to check Columns 2, 3, 4, or 5 to indicate the extent and kind of change (positive or negative) noted since starting TM." Also, thanks for clarifying that Otis is not positing that TM caused the symptoms. One of the difficulties with using a study that hasn't been published in a refereed journal is that in a sense it somewhat stands outside the dialog of science. If a study is published in a journal, those within the field have the opportunity to respond. That's part of the process.TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you're still misunderstanding this; as I've already explained, your belief that only pre-existing conditions were considered is not a correct understanding. If your understanding were correct, column 1 would serve no purpose and would be eliminated; only the other colums, now numbered 1-4, would be there and the instructions would say "Please consider only conditions that existed before you started TM." Which frankly would make no sense. I think the problem may be in a misreading of a word in Otis's summary of the instructions (unfortunately we can't see the actual instructions, so the summary will have to suffice.) The respondent isn't being asked to confirm *that* the symptom existed before TM; the respondent is only being asked to indicate *whether* the symptom existed before TM. A symptom that for a particular respondent existed before TM would have a check in column 1 as well as a check in one of columns 2-5. A symptom which for a particular respondent didn't exist before TM but appeared after TM would not have a check in column 1 but would have a check in one of columns 2-5. I'm not sure why this is so hard, and the suggestion that Otis is claiming that conditions that existed before TM were "caused" by TM, is fallacious; that's not anything he said or implied.

As for the peer-review business, this was all discussed and resolved at RS/N last summer, and it's tiresome to have to keep referring back to that discussion again and again. Why do we even take things to noticeboards if we're going to ignore the advice we get there and go on making the same arguments as if they hadn't already been rejected by uninvolved editors? As an uninvolved editor at that noticeboard wrote, (quoted in blockquote above) the book was published by a reputable publisher, the author of the study was at Stanford Research Institute, and the book was edited by more than one author; the process of choosing articles for an edited book is very similar to the process of peer review. Please, let's drop the arguments against this article on the basis of it being not peer-reviewed. Besides, the fact that statements in this article are cited to the "peer-reviewed" Journal of Scientific Exploration rather shows the bankruptcy of the whole peer-review idea for this topic area. As I said earlier in this thread, in the hard sciences and in the more scientific areas of social sciences, peer review does mean something in terms of weeding out bad research or improving research before it is published; in some other areas, it seems to mean nothing at all and shouldn't be invoked as a necessary or even sufficient requirement for inclusion. Woonpton (talk) 16:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Woonpton. I was simply trying to understand what the instructions were and how the symptom checklist was filled out. I think your reading of the summary may be correct. Does the indication of whether it was a pre-existing problem figure into the research in any way? Regarding causality, I really appreciate your clear statement in this regard. In citing this would we use the phrase "adverse effects," which I think for a general reader would imply causality? TimidGuy (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TimidGuy that if the Otis paper does not show causality (and I agree with Woonpton that it does not), then the title for the section should not contain the words "adverse effects" which suggests causality. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AHA presentation -- MEDRS disallows conference presentations

I opened a thread on this earlier, but we didn't have much discussion. I didn't think it was compliant. And now I see that MEDRS has just recently added a couple sentences saying that conference abstracts don't suffice. And MEDRS clearly disallows popular media. So even though this got worldwide coverage, we probably shouldn't put it in.

In 2009, at a conference of the American Heart Association, researchers at the Medical College in Wisconsin with the Maharishi University in Iowa, found that heart disease patients who practice Transcendental Meditation have nearly 50% lower rates of heart attack, stroke, and death. Researchers randomly assigned 201 African Americans to meditate or to make lifestyle changes. After nine years, the meditation group had a 47% reduction in deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The African American men and women were 59 years old, on average, and had narrowing of the arteries in their hearts. The meditation group practiced for 20 minutes twice a day. The other group, the lifestyle change group, received education classes in traditional risk factors, including dietary modification and exercise. In the meditating group, in addition to the reductions in death, heart attacks and strokes, there was a clinically significant drop (5mm Hg) in blood pressure as well as a significant reduction in psychological stress in some participants. Researchers likened the effect of Transcendental Meditation to finding a new drug for preventing heart disease. The study was funded by a £2.3m grant from the National Institutes of Health and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

It's too bad, because it was put in by a brand new editor who tried really hard to do things the right way. I'll leave a note on his page. TimidGuy (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems odd to omit a widely reported matter. While the findings may not be rigorous, they are obviously notable. I think we should report it in some manner. Perhaps something like, "Robert Schneider, of the MUM, presented to a 2009 AHA conference findings supporting the benefits of TM." We don't need to omit all mention of it.   Will Beback  talk  12:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In would tend to agree with TG . If this doesn't meet a threshold for significance per sources then we should not include it . Perhaps, what we could/should discuss is, whether it does, on some level, meet requirements for inclusion. I really do not want to start adding anything to the articles unless we are strictly adhering to, and noting that adherence, for the record, in discussion. Not doing so begins the creation of a very slippery slope. My next question would be, why is this significant enough for inclusion per Wikipedia policy/guidelines?(olive (talk) 16:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

The finding was reported in dozens of newspapers and other media.[21] If not included in the research section, we could put it elsewhere, like the history section.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be fine in another section and given the results of the study I would think it might be eventually be published in which case it could be moved into the study section.(olive (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

I put a condensed version back into the article. It "reads" a little odd in the history section. Anyway revert or move as needed.(olive (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks. I re-wrote it a bit. You're right that when the study is published we can move it to the research section.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but it just seems a little odd, since this is just one of many many instances in which a TM study has received worldwide media coverage. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Every issue that's received wide-spread attention should be highlighted in the article. Issues that haven't should receive less weight.   Will Beback  talk  04:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Roger LeBlanc

I've removed this content:[22]

• Author Roger LeBlanc writes: "It’s not a religion- The Transcendental Meditation technique is a simple, natural technique practiced by millions of people of all religions, including clergy. Practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique does not require or involve faith or any particular set of beliefs."
  • My Dogma ran over your Karma by Roger LeBlanc p. 131 [23]

He is a "devout Christian" who is quoting TM organization claims and then adding his own negative comments.[24] There's no good reason to put the TM text in his mouth, and I don't think his own comments are worth adding either, so I just deleted it outright.   Will Beback  talk  00:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good catch.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Jon Wilks

Wilks, Jon. "Transcendental meditation: Dismissed by cynics, applauded by medics, transcendental meditation is nothing if not controversial". Time Out Abu Dhabi. Retrieved 2009-11-15.

Source text

A misconception commonly held is that TM has religious connotations – possibly cultish in nature. Again, this was an unfortunate by-product of the Maharishi’s association with The Beatles: George Harrison, in particular, was an enthusiastic advocate of Indian religions, and many observers jumped to conclusions.

Version 1

An article in Body and Mind describes the common misconception that TM has religious connotations – possibly cultish in nature, resulting from the Maharishi’s association with George Harrison, who was an enthusiastic advocate of Indian religions.

Version 2

An article in Time Out Abu Dhabi says that it is incorrect to view TM as having a religious or cultish nature.

This is not among the best sources we can find, nor is this a notable writer. Wilks primarily writes restaurant reviews.[25][26] Time Out Abu Dhabi calls itself a source for "Abu Dhabi's best restaurants, nightlife, films, things to do and places to see".[27] We have plenty of scholars commenting on the issue of tM and religion, so I think we should leave this out.   Will Beback  talk  01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

1960s and 1970s

In this section we now have the text "According to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's memoirs, twenty one members of the Indian Parliament issued a public statement endorsing the Transcendental Meditation technique in 1963. He writes that news articles on the technique appeared in Canadian newspapers such as the Daily Colonist, Calgary Herald and The Albertan." However, this book is not MMY's memoirs, so I have reverted to previous version. --BwB (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thirty Years Around the World

Will characterized this as MMY's memoirs. BWB reverted, saying that's not what it is. I'm inclined to think that Will is correct, and BWB is incorrect, based on these sources: MMY is listed as the author here. [[28]] (Refer to: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Thirty Years Around the World—Dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, Volume One, 1957-1964, Maharishi Vedic University Press, 1986 [to be reprinted], a historical account, in Maharishi’s own words, of the natural and spontaneous establishment of his worldwide movement to improve the quality of life of everyone everywhere and create Heaven on Earth.)[29] On the other hand, some other TM-Movement sites call it a "biography". [30] Rather than revert BWB's reversion, I'll ask the question, who has it right?Fladrif (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Flad. I took the latter view, Will took the former. Perhaps others may be able to shed more light on the two options. If Will feels to put back his original edit until this point has reached consensus, then that is OK with me. --BwB (talk) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"Memoirs" implies personal memories about events in a person's life. The cited book appears (I haven't read it) to be a history of MMY's Movement rather than his life. However, MMY represented himself not as an individual, but as an instantiation of the Absolute level of life. For example, he never would say whether he was living in one of the particular levels of consciousness that he described, nor would he state his age or discuss his likes or dislikes. For these reasons, the word "memoirs" is ambiguous when applied to MMY. On the one hand, they are memoirs of the Movement, and therefore MMY might have considered them his memoirs. On the other, they are not personal memoirs as normally understood. David spector (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Could we attribute the book to MMY without saying that it is his memoirs? I would be happy with that. How about "In MMY book on the history of the TM Movement...."?--BwB (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That'd be fine with me. It might be sufficient to say something like, "According to a history written by MMY, ..."   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! --BwB (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the help.   Will Beback  talk  23:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

TM versus other kinds of relaxation therapies

• The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety, and Kundalini Yoga did not show significant effectiveness in treating obsessive-compulsive disorders compared with Relaxation/Meditation. Drop out rates appear to be high, and adverse effects of meditation have not been reported. More trials are needed.
  • "Meditation therapy for anxiety disorders (Review) " Krisanaprakornkit T, Krisanaprakornkit W, Piyavhatkul N, Laopaiboon M

I'm just parking this here for future inclusion in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The study Will Beback has parked here reviewed only randomized, controlled trials. That is why the number of studies is so small. Randomized trials are only one of many acceptable scientific methodologies for investigating a treatment or intervention. Another meta-analysis of the effects of the TM technique on anxiety included dozens of studies with other study designs. That study also controlled for a wide variety of biases, including investigator biases. It reached conclusions far different from this one. Why would we insert this one instead of the other? Perhaps the more notable of the two is the one reviewing the most studies and for which the most variables are controlled. ChemistryProf (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason that both studies can't be mentioned. What's the title of the study you're thinking of?   Will Beback  talk  07:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The reference is "Differential Effects of Relaxation Techniques on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis," Eppley, Abrams, & Shear, Journal of Clinical Psychology 45(6):957-974, 1989. I have a pdf copy, but I don't know if it is possible and legal to deposit it in the discussion. ChemistryProf (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A 1989 review might be considered a bit old compared to one published in 2006. But if it's a significant paper then I wouldn't object to including it also, at least briefly.   Will Beback  talk  19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It's significant for several reasons. Even though it is older, it is more comprehensive, covering a large number of studies, in fact all the studies that could be found at the time. There has been little research on effectiveness of these techniques for reducing anxiety since 1989. It also adjusts for strength of study design as well as for other key variables. Taking these reasons into consideration, it may be more important than a new study on a couple of randomized, controlled trials. It deserves an equal billing and probably should be the first meta-analysis on anxiety to be discussed, followed by a brief mention of the new analysis on the randomized trials. ChemistryProf (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with including both. I don't see why they'd receive different weight.   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

If we want to consider relative weights, this would require further discussion and scientific analysis. If we are trying to avoid such discussion, how do we decide fairly which one goes first? The sequence of presentation in this case is likely to have an impact on interpretation of results. If the meta-analysis with the strongly positive results is presented first, this may imply to the reader that the strong results are more likely correct. The opposite conclusion may be drawn if the order is reversed. So is there a way to be fair to the relative weights of the studies without engaging in some further in depth discussion to evaluate the relative weights? ChemistryProf (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order is usually good unless there's a reason to do it differently. I don't see any reason to give comparable studies different weight.   Will Beback  talk  03:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that chronological order is an easy alternative to evaluating the relative weights of the two articles. Since I have the earlier article handy, I can insert a blurb on it. I don't have time at the moment, but will do so in the next day or two. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Another alternative is to handle them together. Individual studies seem to get excessive weight in this topic. So it could be something like "A 1989 metastudy found xyz, while a more narrow 2006 study found abc." Although, I'd say reviews are actually more important than individual studies, so maybe it's those that we should be trimming instead.   Will Beback  talk  20:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We'd probably want to note that the Cochrane review looked at a single study on Transcendental Meditation. We could also include the randomized controlled trial on anxiety published this month in the American Journal of Hypertension that was done at American University and that got wide media attention.[31] It had 209 subjects and is the strongest study on anxiety to date. TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

We have two (or more) ways of organizing this material. One is to handle reviews and meta-studies separately from individual studies. The other is to separate them by condition addressed. It appears that we now mostly do the latter.   Will Beback  talk  12:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. There are many possible ways to organize the research, and I would like to play a role in the evolution of that section. Right now, though, since this topic of anxiety is pretty hot at the moment, I will focus on a paragraph combining the three studies mentioned in this discussion. Should have it completed shortly. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the study that TG mentions?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

See the abstract here.[32] TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's just another study by MUM staff. What is the Cochrane review that you mentioned? Reviews are much more important than individual studies.   Will Beback  talk  17:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

If ChemistryProf was proposing covering a 1989 review, a 2006 review, and a 2009 study in the same paragraph I'd argue agasint that. They are unequal sources. The 1989 review may be too old to bother with, unless it's particularly notable, and the study should go with the other studies, perhaps replacing an older study.   Will Beback  talk  03:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, TM is not a relaxation therapy. It doesn't always produce relaxation (when it facilitates stress release), and it isn't a therapy (it is a technique for self-improvement). David spector (talk) 03:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Like many topics, there are various views of TM. It isn't our job to determine which is correct. We should just include all significant points of view with due weight for each. In this case, the movement promotes TM as a relaxation technique and a form of therapy. If there are sources for other views then we should probably include those too.   Will Beback  talk  08:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has veered a bit off track. First, in response to Will Beback's remark about the authorship of the newest article, I can sympathize with his suspicion. I experience the same tendency to disbelief when I read an article purporting to investigate the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical treatment and then discover that the researchers were either working for or funded by the pharmaceutical company that sells the drug. This situation arises frequently in drug research. When it comes to an article in WP, however, such opinions have no place. They represent Original Research. The research article constitutes a reliable source. I know of at least one study that seems to justify the suspicions concerning research funded by the drug makers. So if I were writing a WP article about some drug research that fit the characteristics just described, I could also insert the results of a study that appears to show the probable bias in such studies. This is relevant to the current article. A valuable component of the 1989 meta-analysis on the TM program and trait anxiety is that the degree of affiliation with the TM program or TM organizations was a variable entered into the analysis. Such affiliations were found to have no significant effect on the outcome. As for including the 2009 trial in the discussion of effects on anxiety, this can be justified on several grounds. First, it is a brand new trial that reports some new findings not included in the Cochrane analysis. Second, since the Cochrane analysis contained only one randomized trial on the TM program, this new study in essence doubles the number of trials available for study. I should find time to give it a shot later today. ChemistryProf (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Studies and reviews are different things and we should avoid lumping them together, as had been proposed earlier. Also, it's questionable to treat old and new reviews with same weight. See WP:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence, which suggests that reviews published within the past five years are best. A 20-year old review is practically ancient. The new study by MUM researchers should be included beside other research from that ilk.   Will Beback  talk  09:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

For those reading along at home, I was confused by references to the "Cochrane review". I now see that those are references to the paper written by Krisanaprakornkit, et al., that is quoted and linked to at the top of the thread. Apparently, those reviews are held in high esteem. Cochrane Library.   Will Beback  talk  09:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The Cochrane review looked at a single study from 1980. How is that more up to date? Basically that review is saying that as of 2005 they could only find one randomized controlled trial on TM and anxiety. There is now a second randomized controlled trial, one that's much stronger than the one that Cochrane looked at. Cochrane only considers randomized controlled trials. That's not Wikipedia's standard, which allows other sorts of designs as evidence. Note that the up-to-date guideline is explicitly for an area that's being actively researched. That only makes sense. You don't cite older studies if new studies have superseded it. But that's not the case here, since TM and anxiety hasn't been actively researched since the 1980s. (Though we might find it as a secondary outcome in some of the NIH RCTs. We should probably check on that.) TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This long discussion began with the "parking" of a quote of an article from the Cochrane Library. I jumped into the fray because I happened to know something about the research on TM and anxiety and knew that this quote was based on very little information--one study. I was not sure then (or now) where Will had in mind to put this quote. Now that I have recently reread the Transcendental Meditation article, I see that the earlier and much more comprehensive meta-analysis I mentioned is already in the article under psychological effects. Considerable space is devoted to it, and one other article on anxiety is mentioned just prior to it. I do not dispute the fact that Cochrane reviews are generally highly regarded, but in a case such as this one in which only one TM randomized trial is included in the review, it cannot claim to be a definitive study. The recently published randomized trial obtained the opposite results using a larger number of subjects. I think the decision here is whether to mention the Cochrane review at all. If we do decide to mention it, then we certainly must mention the new trial as well. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No one has responded on this train for a few days, but we really need to improve and update the paragraph on anxiety. I spent some time in rewriting it and will go ahead and insert the new version. It has some of what was there before but has added the studies mentioned by Will Beback and TimidGuy and has tried to accurately reflect what these articles reported. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your treatment of the old versus new reviews, and of reviews versus studies, but I won't edit the material at this time. I continue to believe that this material receives too much space and should be moved to the research article with a detailed summary left in this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any area of disagreement needs to be hashed out before anything is moved to the research article. Otherwise, we would have trouble with any attempt to summarize the material. As for the amount of space accorded the research in the TM article, I see research as central to the article, especially any research attempting to establish its benefits and effectiveness for clinical or preclinical conditions, compared to eyes-closed rest and to other techniques and approaches to stress reduction. It would be possible to move some of the material, perhaps, but in the end, I'm not sure we would save much space because an adequate summary could well end up being almost as long as the present treatment. On the other hand, if the general consensus is that some of the material must be moved, then I will work with other editors to help insure both treatments are balanced. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

A friend of mine recently attended the Mind and Life conference at Harvard with the leading meditation researchers in the world. A TM researcher, Herbert Benson, spoke there and he has identified TM as a classic "relaxation response" style of meditation. Neuro-electrically TM clearly follows the well-observed and common relaxation effect. There is a consensus among non-TM movement researchers and evidence to back this up. I'd be glad to provide evidence and re-write this section. It would seem important to be leery of TM-sponsored or performed meditation research. I'd like to see an emphasis on independent research, as this is a hallmark of good science.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not quite sure what your point is here, Kala? --BwB (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

BigWeeBoy: the point is that 1) TM is not physiologically different from other relaxation response meditation types and 2) TM is NOT unique. The existing independent literature not only establishes this, but those that were done using appropriate controls have never been falsified. It appears there are many strongly "pro-TM" research mistakes in this entry, so many that it seems like an advertisement. It will probably take some time to correct these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala Bethere (talk • contribs) 18:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bob Oates

Citations to a book by Bob Oates have been added to the article.[33] Who is Bob Oates? I see that a Robert Oates is a "senior policy fellow with Maharishi University of Management's Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (Fairfield, Iowa, USA)" and "Author of a dozen books".[34] There is also a Bob Oates who has written a number of books on football, and is described as a sports writer. At least one of his books on football was published in Fairfield. However he seems to be a different person.[35] What is Oates' background?   Will Beback  talk  21:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems Bob Oates (the one that died I think) had a son Bob Oates Jr. who seems to be a writer and has some affiliation with TM. [36] If its the same Bob Oates that wrote this TM book, than he's not using the Jr. in his name. See here[37] It's a mystery to me.-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I found this description in a 1991 article: "Robert M. Oates Jr., director of public affairs at Maharishi University." I also saw elsewhere that Oates, Jr. is a former football player.   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, good, he uses the Jr. I also remember reading something like that, about him being a former football player.-- — Kbob • Talk • 01:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bigweeboy is adding the cites, so I presume he has the 1976 book. Could he say how Oates is described in his book? Does anyone know his academic credentials?   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The book cover (1976) reads "Bob Oates, Jr. graduated summa cum laude from the University of Southern California and holds a MA in American History form UCLA. Thirty-three years of age, he has been the editor and/or author of five previous books. For the last three years he has worked full-time as a teacher of the TM technique." --BwB (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He has also written books on football with Joe Namath: "Joe Namath and Bob Oates, Jr. Joe Namath a Matter of Style

Little Brown And Company 1973 0345444906 / 9780345444905 First Edition; First Printing Hardcover Near Fine in Very Good dust jacket; Pages clean tight and unmarked - boards have very slight edgewear - DJ has chipping small tears and edgewear and bumped corners. A breakthrough book in football technique and strategy with a detailed text written and illustrated so clearly that any player can learn from it and every fan can enjoy it. Photos every page. ; 11" - 81/2"; 196 pages" --BwB (talk) 13:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! So it sounds like it would be fair to describe him, in regard to that book, as a historian, and in later years as a public relations officer.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not refer to him as an author? He wrote a sports book with Nameth. --BwB (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If his main qualification for discussing TM is having written a book with Namath, then we can say that instead. "Author" alone is pretty meaningless, since even a first-time writers is an author. Since we quote him repeatedly here and elsewhere his qualifications should be mentioned.   Will Beback  talk  21:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes good to mention his quals, but he is also an author, so this should be mentioned too. --BwB (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So we're using a book a guy whose main qualification is co-writing a book with Joe Namath as a key source for this article? I realize it's published by a mainstream company, Putnam, but I'm just surprised that this is the best available source.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, a further point worth mentioning is that of bias. I would hope that cites would be from people with less hint of bias and certainly a TM teacher, with published books praising TM and a member of the Maharishi University would indicate strong bias--esp. if he is involved in PR for the TM University! --Kala Bethere (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Did You Know on Butler stabbing

Editors may wish to comment here [38] on a proposed DYK on the MUM stabbing.(olive (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC))

I object to putting the Butler stabbing on the WP home page. It is not notable (many unstable people stab each other randomly all the time) and has nothing to do with TM. Furthermore, the stabbing happened years ago. Or am I missing something, Olive? David spector (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I dislike the DYK on this topic since it seem sensationalist and tabloid- like. However, other editors think its fine, and have attempted to adjust the wording so that the "hook" is more accurate. This is a collaborative project and my opinion is only one of many. Not much else I can do.(olive (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I have no experience with DYK in WP, but having read the hook and the discussion on the DYK page, I must agree with Olive. It sounds like the action of someone who dislikes the University or the Transcendental Meditation technique trying to bring attention to the possible discrepancy. As far as it being newsworthy, it hardly compares with the recent presentation of the Nobel Peace Prize to Barak Obama a day or two after he announces a 35,000-troop surge in the US war of aggression against Afghanistan. If irony can be said to be newsworthy, then that would be more appropriate than questioning the correctness of the University's claim about the peace promoting effects of the TM program based on this one event. Most campuses have a homicide every year or two, usually suicide, but they manage to keep it out of the news media, so most people never hear about them. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculating on the motives of other editors is not a helpful direction to take.   Will Beback  talk  21:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since TM is known to have numerous side effects and some times these side effects are dangerous, it would probably be wise to include the Butler stabbing in a separate section on known TM side effects discussed in scientific literature. And of course there are many others who've committed suicide and other feats in association with TM. It may be appropriate to mention the most popular examples.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kala, If the research is published in peer-reviewed journals, and if you have refs for the negative effect of TM on individuals, then you are very welcome to include them. However, since this article has been classed as contentious, it would be better to present them on the Talk page BEFORE posting to the article. --BwB (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not a research item, peer review and publication would not be criteria for inclusion IMO. Having said that I'm sure there are some papers we could dig up which touch on the negative side effects many (most?) have expereinced from TM and the TM-Sidhi program. I do not feel mere publication or the peer-review process somehow magically endows an item with worth. Many pieces of junk-science get by peer review and publication. Many, like recent TM publications, are published in "junk journals" devoted to paranormal research, UFO's, etc. Please keep in mind the the TM Org is an org deeply engrossed in maintaining a scientific veneer at all costs, so you have people who spend their lives literally pushing articles to journals, newspapers, various media outlets and the web. This skews the appearance of TM and the Org in the media, and thus biases and shapes the publics perception in a false and deceitful manner. I think it would be best to not only bring back the Pseudoscience section (as this is such an important part of the TM and TM-Sidhi experience) but also a section devoted to the negative side effects of TM. That way we wouldn't need to place such sole emphasis on the Butler murder. Please keep in mind, TM teachers and others are deliberately conditioned to parse negative side effects as positive "unstressing". It's institutionalization allows such problems as the numerous suicides and mental health institution admissions to continue. Clearly, if we have the public's best interests at heart, such items need to included in a responsible and helpful manner, at least as a matter of informed consent.

BTW, Happy New Year to all.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Naming in lede:The whole nine yards

The most accurate and full name for the technique is Transcendental Meditation technique or TM technique so the first line of the lede should spell that out... no pun intended... Possibly later in the article once the reader has this bit of information. the shorter versions could be used.(olive (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Source?   Will Beback  talk  22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense...:o)... and for starters, Peter Russell,The TM Technique, and opening sentence of Shear's chapter in , The Experience of Meditation, "The Transcendental Mediation Technique (TM) techique is an effortless mental technique...",pg23, Gerace's book, The TM Book opening lines. "The Transcendental Meditation (or TM) technique....pg11.

Rather than consider this the full name of the technique , what we have the opportunity for in these first words is a complete description of what we are dealing with and that is, a technique. (olive (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Are any forms of meditation not techniques? It seems implicit. If we simply want to indicate it's a technique we can say "Transcendental Meditation is a mantra meditation technique introduced in India in 1955..."

While two books may use the longer form, a crude survey shows that it is not the most popular variation. Google books shows that the long form is found in about 535 books while the short form appears in over 2000. The Proquest news archive shows 78 instances of the long form (many are press releases) versus over 7000 for the short form.   Will Beback  talk  23:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Olive on this. We need to start with TM technique and can shorten later in article. --BwB (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need to do that? It's just extra words that don't add any meaning.   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback is correct. The Sanskrit for the English phrase "Transcendental meditation" is bhavatita-dhyana. "Bhavatita" means "beyond being" or "beyond moods" and "dhyana" simply means "meditation". A two-word English translation therefore accurately reflects the Sanskrit original.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit has noting to do with the name of this meditation technique, but thanks for the information Kala. --BwB (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, "the Transcendental Meditation technique" is used because "Transcendental Meditation" is a trademark. When I originally changed many of the instances of "Transcendental Meditation" to "the Transcendental Meditation technique" it was based on the recommendation in wp:trademark, which at the time said that a trademarked term is properly used as an adjective with a trailer noun. This is done so that the holder can retain the trademark. Otherwise, it may become a generic noun, and then the trademark is lost. This recommendation has since disappeared from the guideline. You will notice that all official publications related to Transcendental Meditation always use a trailer noun. TimidGuy (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sanskrit is the actual language the method is named in it's native India. Therefore "transcendental meditation" is an appropriate translation of the original, while "the transcendental meditation technique is NOT. Furthermore, you don't see other meditation methods adding "technique" to the end of their name. Also there are former teachers who teach "Transcendental Meditation" generically and outside of the TM Movement. On basis of appropriate translation from the original language (Sanskrit) in India (the origin of TM) and it's current usage in the world, now, it should be titled simply "Transcendental Meditation". Adding technique to the name is to claim brand name exclusivity where no such exclusivity exists in practice. Also the trademark on TM was lost in a landmark case in Europe.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

To TG- readers interested in in the official point of view can go to an official website. This version is supposed to follow the neutral point of view. The official spelling of the magazine is TIME, but on Wikipedia we spell it Time. As we do in that case, we might mention in the intro that "the Transcendental Meditation technique" is the official version. I'm mostly concerned about its use throughout the articles, which just creates extra verbiage.

To KB- that's an interesting point. As an outsider, the movement seems to have an ambivalent attitude towards its Indian roots. While advanced techniques involve the study of Sanskrit (which is taught in Maharishi schools and universities) my impression is that the connection of Sanskrit and other Indian concepts to TM is downplayed.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Will. Yes the TM Org has always downplayed the Sanskrit origins of many TM keywords. The reason is simple: then people can look concepts up directly and find out the actual pure opinions on TM Org claims, many which unfortunately don't fair well against closer scrutiny. In some cases MMY provided a clear example, but only on skeleton or sketchy form. Most TM teachers when confronted with such facts will often instinctively attempt to counter that with an "MMY revived the tradition anew" argument, which it turns out (on inspection) is also untrue (he was a Vedic purist and obsessed with detail). TM-style meditation is ubiquitous and quite common. It turns out, the only thing new is the prices being charged. If one want to learn the more Sanskrit TMO keywords, typically one has to take an advanced degree at a Maharishi University.

Also note that study of Sanskrit is not considered an "advanced technique", the so-called "advanced techniques" of TM are additions to the basic TM mantra that most meditation techniques would never consider advanced. Again (sadly) the only thing "advanced" is the prices charged. If one paid for TM and all the advanced techniques of TM, one would spend around Twenty Thousand Us Dollars. All one would get is a slightly longer mantra and some basic meditation instruction.

Sanskrit instruction is a separate, college level course designed by Thomas Egenes (which can be purchased in book form). I have an old copy of the course. It's actually a decent intro which the author clearly put some TLC into.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Famous people who have done TM

Al Jardine, Andy Kaufman, Angelo Badalamenti, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, Bill Hicks, Burt Reynolds, Candice Bergen, Clint Eastwood, David Lynch, Deepak Chopra, Donovan, Doug Henning, Dr. John Hagelin, Eddie Vedder, George Harrison, Heather Graham, Howard Stern, Hugh Jackman, Jeff Bridges, Jerry Seinfeld, Jim James, Joe Namath, John Densmore, Kurt Vonnegut, Laura Dern, Merv Griffin, Mia Farrow, Mike Love, Moby, Paul Horn, Paul McCartney, Ray Manzarek, Richard Branson, Ringo Starr, Russell Simmons, Sheryl Crow, Stephen Collins, Stevie Wonder.Snapdog10009 (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, but we need to have sources to support this. --BwB (talk) 17:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BwB, how about these sources. I think most of the names are covered.

Celebrities push for Transcendental Meditation center in L.A. http://www.rickross.com/reference/tm/tm59.html

Howard Stern and Transcendental Meditation http://awearnessblog.com/2009/03/howard-stern-transcendental-meditation.php

Change begins within concert at Radio City for the David Lynch foundation on 4/4/09 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z63ApfnHUxQ

Under Pressure - Eddie Vedder and Ben Harper - David Lynch Conce clert http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyhkl6R924Y

“Change Begins Within” National News Conference http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/videos.html#

The Beach Boys in their first ever concert in Fairfield, Iowa http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/newsletter/2009_summer.html

Practitioners of TM http://www.nndb.com/group/854/000126476/

Maharishi on the Merv Griffin Show http://goldendome.org/MervGriffin/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.105 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

NNDB is not a reliable source. Blogs are not generally reliable, except for comments about the bloggers. The "Celebrities push for Transcendental Meditation center" article doesn't say that the celebrities actually practice TM. But so long as there are reliable sources for people practicing TM then there's nothing wrong with such a list of notable practitioners.   Will Beback  talk  04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. There are newspaper sources for most of these. Would it go in this article or in Transcendental Meditation Movement? We had such a list in the past in this article but had consensus to remove it because an editor said it sounded promotional. TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that it is promotional, but what is the point? At one point we had a litany of "pro" and "con" quotes from various celebrities who had positive or negative opinions on TM. I think that 7th was the editor who started adding that material; then we got an escalation of more and more quotes on either "side". My suggestion that such material be dropped from the article was based on questioning whether it added anything encyclopedic to the article to have what amounts to a list of celebrities. And, if we start adding a list of celebrities who practice TM, are we going to add a list of celebrities who don't? Or who used to and quit? I think it is quite enough that in several of the articles here where an individual was very closely indentified with TM (the Beatles, Donovan, Doug Henning, Merv Griffin, Andy Kaufmann etc) it is appropriately discussed in context; but adding a list of celebs pro, con or indifferent to one or more of these TM Movement articles doesn't advance the ball.Fladrif (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it might sound promotional or it could be seen as just informational. I have done TM on and off for about 35 years and what struck me when I was compiling the list was just how large an impact it has had. I was genuinely amazed to discover that Clint Eastwood and Howard Stern are huge fans of TM. To me this was news that I thought was worth sharing, that's all. I also kept the paragraph title neutral--people who have done TM--not people who are for or against it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snapdog10009 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Many celebrities are Catholics, yet few say that their Catholic faith helped their careers, and no one would say that their participation significantly promoted Catholicism. It's quite different with TM. Several successful entertainers and businessmen credit TM with at least some of their success, and their involvement has given positive attention to TM. So long as the list is well-cited and neutral I think it is a benefit. In the Transcendental Meditation movement article we can give a more detailed discussion of those who are most closely associated with the movement, like Lynch and Henning.   Will Beback  talk  20:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate Fladrifs concerns that we don't go overboard with this. It should not be given undue weight, but if the person's involvement with TM is notable and well sourced I think its OK to mention it in an appropriate way in the article. That said, it may happen from time to time that we need to discuss what is appropriate and what is not.-- — Kbob • Talk • 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

" . . . if the person's involvement with TM is notable and well sourced I think its OK to mention it in an appropriate way in the article." Excellent! Please feel free to check out the links/sources I've included above. To me, who does TM and who supports it is news, i.e. important information. Snapdog10009 (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can find reliable sources for most of these, but the sources you've listed are mostly not sufficient. I haven't looked that the videos, but performing at a benefit concert is probably not enough, unless they say on the video they practice TM. See WP:V and WP:RS for more info.   Will Beback  talk  03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what we had before.

The official TM website indicates that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration, including celebrities such as comedian Jerry Seinfeld,[39] Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, Beach Boys' Mike Love, Stevie Wonder, and Al Jardine, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham [40]. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine. Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano [41][42], former president of Mozambique.

Some are sourced. In other cases, the Wikipedia article mentions their TM. And in some cases we'll need to find sources. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"I haven't looked that the videos, but performing at a benefit concert is probably not enough, unless they say on the video they practice TM." You have to look at the videos, particularly the “Change Begins Within” National News Conference where Betty LaVette, David Lynch, Donovan, Dr. John Hagelin, Mike Love, Moby, Paul Horn, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, and Russell Simmons, all say they practice TM and recommend it to others. Videos, news conferences and articles associated with “Change Begins Within” also have Howard Stern, Jerry Seinfeld, Eddie Vedder and Ben Harper showing their support for the practice of TM. The videos are key. Snapdog10009 (talk) 13:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Transcendental Meditation practitioners has 32 entries, and that isn't even including all of the NLP candidates with articles. I don't think we want to automatically include 50 names. If possible, we should avoid too much duplication with lists in other articles. We have a similar list in Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Reception. Maybe this should be the list of all TM practitioners for whom we can find a reliable source. We might want to use a term like "people trained in TM", rather than "people who practice TM", since in many cases we have no way of knowing if they are still active.

If we have a reasonably complete list here then the list in the bio article should be limited to those who are known to have had a personal relationship with the Maharishi or other significant connection beyond the average practitioner.   Will Beback  talk  09:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I like this suggestion. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could have something on those who have trained in TM and then something more on those celebs who have been more involved with the TMM like Lynch, etc. --BwB (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Snapdog, what videos are you referring to? Where are they located?-- — Kbob • Talk • 22:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

See the links at the top of the thread. Some are on Youtube and two are on private sites.   Will Beback  talk  22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah check the links at the top of the thread, particularly the “Change Begins Within” National News Conference video at http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/videos.html#. The concert took place on 4 April 2009 at Radio City Music Hall to further the foundation’s goal to teach 1 million children in troubled schools the techniques of Transcendental Meditation. Here you will find out about the new wave of TM advocates like Jerry Seinfeld, Moby, Russell Simmons, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, and Eddie Vedder. IMO this concert (and the people who practice the technique) is newsworthy. Here is a review of the concert: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-amaya/change-begins-within-my-i_b_182116.html Snapdog10009 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to not create a section on celebrities who practice the technique but to approach this through adding into the article notable events and sources which pertain to t the technique like for example the Change Begins Within concert or the articles on the actor Ben Foster when he talk about acting and TM. I'm not sure yet how to title this, or exactly the approach just a preliminary thought.(olive (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC))

It'd be much cleaner and simpler to just have a list. It needn't be limited to celebrities, but could include all notable individuals.   Will Beback  talk  17:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree! All the people I listed above are advocates of TM. If you don't believe me check out the links and watch the linked videos. I've done my part and I now leave it up to you Wikipedia editors to decide. Cheers. Snapdog10009 (talk) 00:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I believe you. Lists tend to have little meaning, and the kind of list we are talking about here could be very long. The problem with such a long list is, who wants to wade through it to read it. If there's agreement for such a list, fine. (olive (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

Lists like that are found throughout Wikipedia. This isn't the best place to give the individual stories of miscellaneous TM practitioners - those are better in their biographies. If the people were important to the history of TM, like the Beatles or Lynch, then they might be included in the history as well, but most of these names don't appear to have been more than mere practitioners. Alternatively, it could be a standalone list.   Will Beback  talk  01:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Lists used anywhere can be tedious to read. I would suggest that if there's agreement then create the list. Its not a big issue.(olive (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC))

If it turns out that there is a consensus that adding a list of enthusiastic celebrities who practice TM, such a list can be created in one place (perhaps in WikiMedia) and transcluded in each relevant article (TM, MMY, Movement). That way, synchronization of content is automatic. David spector (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Doing something like that is technically possible, but undesirable. It's better for different articles to have different content. The list of TM practitioners isn't the same as the list of people who hold positions in the movement, for example.   Will Beback  talk  08:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my position stated above that I just don't think that a list adds anything to an article like this. WP:NOTDIR would seem to be instructive. It is one thing to say, in context in an article that Merv Griffin and the Beatles being enthusiastic TM proponents had a lot to do with popularizing TM in its heyday, or John Hagelin ran for president 3 times, or that David Lynch is busy raising money to teach TM to schoolkids, etc...but what does a list of famous TM practitioners add to an article like this? I know that articles on colleges and universities list notable alumni, and cities list notable residents, but even those strike me as iffy propositions. Wikipedia articles don't appear from my highly unscientific survey to contain the kind of list that is being considered here. The articles on Mormonism don't include a list of famous Mormons, etc. There is precedent for DS's suggestion: eg, articles on Boy Scouts don't contain lists of famous scouts, but there is a separate article List of Scouts. If somebody really thinks it's important to have a list like that, a separate article might be the better solution Fladrif (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif. (OK, I think this is a Kodak moment. Please someone, quick, take a picture of me and Fladrif shaking hands and smiling in agreement!) Seriously, we already mention several well known TM'ers in the article. Such a list would not add anything substantive to the article in my opinion. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk • 03:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

[43] Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding standalone lists, here are some of those already on Wikipedia:

• List of Christian Scientists
• List of Pagans
• List of druids and neo-druids
• List of Scientologists
• List of Jesuits
• List of alchemists
• List of physicists

And so on. It's a typical thing. Yes-it's boring. Encyclopedic information often is boring, depending on what you're interested in.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Still no consensus? Sheesh! IMO lists are interesting—the Wikipedia lists shown below certainly are as I refer to them all the time, particularly for films and music. I have used the "AFI's 100 years" list to buy quite a few DVDs. Without this list I would have probably never seen "Citizen Kane." Did you know that AC/DC's "Back in Black" is the second best selling album of all time? These lists are useful and interesting. And Fladrif, to me an article on Mormonism would be enhanced by a list of famous Mormons—the list would put a human face on the religion. The list I propose would only take up 6 lines and would put a human face on TM. Why the hesitation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_films

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Films_considered_the_greatest_ever

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFI's_100_Years%E2%80%A6100_Movies_(10th_Anniversary_Edition)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

Snapdog10009 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries .. its just an opinion and not a big deal ... Go for it. (olive (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Snapdog, you don't need our permission to create an article. Just click this link and start: List of Transcendental Meditation practitioners. However before you do that I advise you to carefully read two core policies: WP:V and WP:BLP. Remember that the sources need to be of sufficient quality and they need to directly describe the individuals as practitioners, or something close to that.   Will Beback  talk  20:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Will, you love others to do the grunt work! I agree with Flad and Kbobb that a list in this article does not add any value. Have fun with your new article, Snap. --BwB (talk) 21:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, if Snapdog wants the list he can do the work.   Will Beback  talk  21:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Will has done a ton of work on these articles, so......(olive (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, credit where credit is due. No one does more of the grunt work than Will, especially all the tedious work on the refs. Thanks, Will. It's appreciated TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of you both to say so. The articles are coming along nicely. There's still much work to be done on fixing up those refs though. I like to think of this project as being a bit like a big sand castle, to which anyone strolling along the beach can stop and add their contributions. We all benefit from seeing a bigger and better "castle"/encyclopedia, and our work builds on each other's efforts. If Snapdog wants to write a list, that can be his one of his contributions.   Will Beback  talk  11:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks all. I'll get to the list right after Christmas as things are a bit hectic now. Happy Holidays to everyone. Snapdog10009 (talk) 19:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Since other meditation methods do NOT list users AND that (mass listing) is part of the commercial, marketing aspect of TM as a commercial meditation technique, such lists (often with many people who possibly no longer meditate) should be removed. Also keep in mind, this wiki entry is also larger than it is supposed to be. Superfluous marketing info should all be removed, this is just one example.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Kala's claim is incorrect. A Google search for "our meditation is practiced by celebrities such as" yields, after the WP article, an article on 10 famous Buddhist meditators. By the way, welcome to our contentious page, Kala, and happy new year! David spector (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

People supporting Transcendental Meditation

The official TM website states that more than 6 million people worldwide have learned the Transcendental Meditation technique since its inauguration,[44] [45] including celebrities such as comedian Jerry Seinfeld, Dolly Parton, Andy Kaufman, The Beatles, The Beach Boys' Mike Love and Al Jardine, Stevie Wonder, jazz musicians Eric Kloss and Charles Lloyd, actor Stephen Collins, radio personality Howard Stern, actor Clint Eastwood, film director David Lynch, actor Hugh Jackman, inventor and author Itzhak Bentov, Scottish musician Donovan, actresses Mia Farrow and Heather Graham [46]. For nearly eight years, Deepak Chopra was one of Maharishi's most prominent spokespersons and promoters of Maharishi Ayurveda or alternative medicine.[47] Political leaders who practice TM include Joaquim Chissano [48][49], former president of Mozambique.

On 4 April 2009, at Radio City Music Hall in New York City, The David Lynch Foundation put on benefit concert called Change Begins Within to raise money to teach Transcendental Meditation to 1 million at-risk youth. [50] Many celebrities and performers joined Sir Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr in their support of this benefit including: Laura Dern, Angelo Badalamenti, Ben Harper, Betty LaVette, Eddie Vedder, Jim James, Moby, Paul Horn, Russell Simmons, and Sheryl Crow. [51]

Further discussion

Snapdog10009, I'm disappointed that you seem to have ignored everything that the editors here have said. First, there is general agreement to not include this in the article. Start a separate article if you wish. Second, "People supporting Transcendental Meditation" is not a good scope for a list like this. While we can pretty well determine who has been trained in or practices TM, supporting it is a different matter. Third, this list is still not adequately sourced. Before adding material like this to the encyclopedia you should carefully read WP:V and WP:BLP.   Will Beback  talk  23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Then you win! (First, there is general agreement to not include this in the article.) Include what in the article? The well written first paragraph written earlier? (Second, "People supporting Transcendental Meditation" is not a good scope for a list like this.) Then change the heading to something like "people associated with TM." It's okay to edit. (Third, this list is still not adequately sourced.) As I said earlier you have to watch the videos. I guess I just don't have the patience for this. I'll just put the list here if that's okay with you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transcendental_Meditation_practitioners Cheers, Snapdog10009 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a competition and isn't about winning or losing. It's about following the project's policies and best practices.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What about this deletion?

• Though religious in origin, going back for several thousand years, Transcendental Meditation as introduced to the West is not attached to religion. Rather, it is a means for developing human potential. -- — Kbob • Talk • 01:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This was deleted? Yes, I would wonder why. Unless there's a very good reason per Wikipedia, it should be returned.(olive (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Compare it to the source text and you'll see why I deleted it. Plagiarism is not allowed.   Will Beback  talk  01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Good. I'll reword and re add.(olive (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

I remove this material from Spilka for the same reason.[52] Come on folks - we should be writing material at the same or higher level as college research papers. Plagiarizing material is cause for a failing grade even in elementary school.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Will. I do not plagiarize material.(olive (talk) 02:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC))

Unfortunately, not everyone shares your ethics.   Will Beback  talk  02:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed other text that was copied verbatim from sources.[53] Most of these were added by a single editor in mid-August. I'd asked him to check his work and fix them himself, but nothing was done. Some of these were low-quality sources. Time magazine, in particular, is a good source for events, but a 35-year old article in a gernal interest magazine is not a good source for TM itself, especially when we have much better and more recent scholarly sources.   Will Beback  talk  21:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Will. Just spotted the changes and happy to see you comment here. --BwB (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Selection

There appears to be a number of gross errors in the "selection" section which are in need of rectification.

The first sentence is incorrect. "According to Russell, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Vedic tradition." While it is not uncommon to hear it alleged and often repeated by TM meditators and even TM teachers that the TM mantras or "sounds" are "taken from the ancient Vedic tradition", none of the TM mantras occur in the Rig Veda! They are all purely from tantric sources, as several monosyllabic, seed-mantra dictionaries attest. The purpose of an encyclopedia article should not be to further false information, just because it has been repeated many times before. I propose I thorough edit of this section (and really all the mantra references) based purely on the root texts of mantra science (Skt. Mantra-vidya).--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence "According to Russell..." is sourced and therefore ligitimate for Wiki. Also, there is more to Vedic tradition than Rig Veda. --BwB (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi BigWeeBoy. Unfortunately the "source" contains false information. It's a "bad" source. I will gladly source an original Sanskrit source, that reveals the information in this section to be false. I can even post all the TM mantras, as needed. If you can find a Vedic source, I'd encourage you to post it! Otherwise, such fallacious claims should not be on the entry. Best of luck.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The second paragraph also contain information which is unsupported myth:

"William Jefferson in The Story of the Maharishi, explains the importance of the "euphonics" of mantras. Jefferson says that the secrets of the mantras and their subsequent standardization for today's teachers of the technique were unraveled by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi after his years of study with his own teacher, Guru Dev (Brahmananda Saraswati) so that selection is foolproof, and that the number of mantras from the Vedic tradition, which could number in the hundreds, have been brought by the Maharishi to a minimum number."

This should be removed as there is no evidence that the Maharishi learned mantra-shastra, the scriptures behind mantra use (quite the opposite) and there is no evidence he learned these from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. In fact Swami Brahmananda Saraswati was very caste conscious and it is therefore highly unlikely he would have instructed a low caste scribe and secretary in this wisdom. The fact that he claims the TM mantra are from the Vedas (!) should disqualify his statements as false and misleading. Such claims are part of TM mythology and story-making, and are not within the realm of factual and scholarly research.

Recent evidence from transcribed teachings also shows that the way Swami Brahmananda Saraswati gave out mantras is at variance with TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not report the "Truth". Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. So if we have one source that says the sky is blue and another that says it's grey, we don't look outside our windows and decide which is correct. Instead, we report both views with appropriate weight according to their prominence.

So in this case, we probably wouldn't remove the Jefferson "myth", but if there are other views of the matter then we should include those as well, and if they are more prominent then we should devote more space to them. OTOH, if we investigate a source and find that it does not meet Wikipedia's standards then we may remove it entirely. The usual reasons sources do not qualify is that they are not independent or subject to editorial oversight, such as self-published sources. Since Jefferson was published by a major publisher, that's unlikely to apply. Are the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati transcripts published? Are there other views of the mantras that we're omitting?   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I fear using this Jefferson quote is merely reporting the type of hearsay and stories that have come to surround the Maharishi. There is no evidence to support this story, in fact it flies in the face of what most TM teachers are aware of. The mantras are selected based on age. It is not unusual for uncareful authors, like Jefferson (who I had never heard of), to take TM Org mythology and simply repeat it, as if it was fact, without any verfiable story behind it. The utter absence of mantra wisdom (Skt. mantra-vidya) in the TM Teacher Training Course is the most obvious of example of why stories such as these are just that, fanciful stories.

Yes, many of the Swami Brahmananda Saraswati talks have been transcribed and now published. And we know from these that Sw. B. S. did not give mantras based on age. We also have quotations directly from the Maharishi where he states that he did not know the process Sw. B.S. used to give out mantras, as Sw. B.S. always did them privately, where he could not directly witness the initiations.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have the titles for the publications that include the transcripts?   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The transcript in this instance are from the Sw. BS's successor, Shankaracharya Swarupananda Saraswati in Vrindaban, India, 1985. He states:

"Without having an ishtadevata (a personal form of God), no one could have a mantra from him [Swami Brahmananda Saraswati]. The very meaning of mantra is ishtadevata. Therefore, along with every mantra, thinking or reflecting over the form of the ishtadevata is essential. Therefore, in all the modes of worship, one reflects over one's ishtadevata before chanting or meditating with one's mantra."

So clearly there is a discrepancy between how Maharishi's teachers dole out mantras and the actual guru (Sw. BS). The actual ishtadevata is concealed from TM students, they are told that they are just "meaningless sounds".

Some quotes by the Maharishi on this matter are as follows:

He was asked in an official lecture in 1959 how he chose the mantras for westerners and if it was the same as his Guru, who gave by the ishta-devata or their Personal God (Shiva, Lakshmi, etc.), he said:

Questioner - Maharishi, how may a person find, you know, which of the, of the, the five materials [elements?] are predominant in them?

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - They, they have their method of, uh, oh, from the tendencies they know, from the, from the cut of the face they know. From the tendency. From the tendency.

Q - Do you take that into consideration when you give the person a mantra?

M M Y - I don't go into all these vibrations, botherations. I ask him "Which god you like?" He says "Shiva" - Okay, Shiva! [Maharishi laughs, very loudly] Where is the time to go into complications and all that? Ask him "What he like?" and that is it. [more laughter, the laughter now sounding strained] And somebody comes, "Oh my, I don't have any liking for anybody", then I trace behind, And then, "When you were young?" and "Which temple you were going more?"

Q - How would you apply this to the westerners?

M M Y - Oh here we don't go into these minute details. [more strained laughter] We get the mantra direct and that does all good for him. [yet more laughter] In to.. not into so much details. Source: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/mp3s/Maharishi1959USA.mp3

The Maharishi has further admitted re: how his own Guru gave mantra-diksha:

Questioner - 'Was he still using the long mantras and all of that?'

M M Y - 'It's very difficult for me to find out what he was using, because initiation is all in private.....

And I was never interested who was given what mantra; I was interested in myself.....

Quote from recording made in Rishikesh, India, c.March 1969. Source: http://www.paulmason.info/gurudev/sources/mp3s/MMYonGDexcerpt.mp3

I recommend listening to this as it's clear the Maharishi is very nervous about this, a lot of nervous laughter. He does not come across as knowledgeable on mantra at all.

The actual texts, biographies, etc. have been painstakingly been restored by the Maharishi's former primary biographer, Paul Mason, a superb scholar. They are:

LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953);

108 DISCOURSES OF GURU DEV LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953) Vol. I;

GURU DEV AS PRESENTED BY MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI LIFE & TEACHINGS OF SWAMI BRAHMANANDA SARASWATI SHANKARACHARYA OF JYOTIRMATH (1941-1953) Vol. III

(all by Paul Mason)--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. The use of the name of a favorite god as a mantra appears to contradict the view that the mantra is meaningless sound. Perhaps that changed sometime after 1959. On another page I asked about the role of maharishi in creating TM and the answer there was that he made it easier for non-Indians to practice. Perhaps the process of streamlining involved reducing the choice of mantras to a simple formula.   Will Beback  talk  23:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the actual form of TM, mental easy mantra repetition (Skt.: manasika-japa) is common and ubiquitous across India, it is actually quite similar to versions Indians would practice, but Indians typically get the full mantra chain of the devata at once. For example a Lakshmi devotee might get "Aum Shring Lakshmiyai Namaha" and a TMers would just get "Shring"--and only get the other pieces after expensive (supposedly) "advanced" techniques that cost many thousands of dollars and more time devoted to the group. The chart or correspondence format it is probably based on the ashramas, the stages humans naturally go through as they age, which makes sense since Sw. BS was a hardline follower of Shastric injunctions, and so could be "Mahesh" (as Sw. BS called his young assistant) when it suited him.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the above evidence, which counters the false information of selection, the entry needs to be edited.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Author George Chryssides says that, according to the Maharishi, the mantras for "householders" and for recluses differ." Clearly is in error in regards to TM. Many "recluses" use the same tantric mantras that TM meditators do! In fact the recluse/monk segments of the TM Org, Mother Divine and Purusha, both use TM "householder" mantras! I could list some other sources to show that this assertion is factually incorrect. Anyone else want to chime in?--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It's verifiable that Chryssides has written this. If we have other sources that show the same mantras are given to householders and to recluses then we can add that too. However we don't deleted sourced material just because they make statements which conflict with our personal knowledge. There are other reasons to delete sources, such as being self-published, poor quality, or consistently erroneous. However none of those would apply to Chryssides. We can, and do, make clear that he is simply repeating what Maharishi has stated rather than giving his own opinion. Does that make sense?   Will Beback  talk  21:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And Will's points here also apply to Russell and others who are already used as sources in the existing text. --BwB (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback wrote " We can, and do, make clear that he is simply repeating what Maharishi has stated rather than giving his own opinion. Does that make sense?" The problem I have with that is that for one, the Maharishi gave the same mantras to regular TMers and renunciate members of his org. If they "differ" why the discrepancy? Most mantras I've read could be used by either householders or renunciates. I guess I'm puzzled why someone wants to make this distinction, when it's clearly violated by the Maharishi and TM teachers.

In ref. to BWB's opinion, please keep in mind Russell's book is promotional literature used with the sale and promotion of TM. Such promotional literature (esp. when used to sell TM, the entry in question!) clearly is considered "questionable". Also, please remember that exceptional claims, like the claim that mantras are magically different for those sexually active and those not sexually active, these cites require exceptional evidence, not questionable evidence. The author being a TM Org sponsored and trained teacher of TM, selling a book on TM, means the book citation is biased and therefore does not express a Neutral POV. I believe this lack of NPOV is undeniable in TM teacher tracts, like Russell's. Please check out WP:NPOV with special reference to "bias". --Kala Bethere (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed the following text because it is unsourced and violated WP:NPOV.

"Based on this broad discrepancy in the way the Maharishi gave mantra diksha and his teacher, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, it is clear the Maharishi is not using the tradition of his guru, but he either devised or acquired the "mantra and age method" elsewhere." --BwB (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored text deleted by Kala. It is not correct to removed sourced material from this article without discussion and consensus. --BwB (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also removed text that contains POV or weasley wording. We also need citations for some of the text recently submitted in this section. Further, it would be good to have the name of the publishing company, and the page numbers for references 28-30. --BwB (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

BigWeeBoy, please check the discussion page for sources, etc. Sources can be added, as needed. Unless you can give a good reason for the claims you deleted on the discussion page, I will have no choice but to revert/undo. Editors can not be responsible for you not checking the discussion page, nor can we force to respond there. The deleted quote above was deleted on the basis of direct quotes from the Maharishi on the discussion pages. If you have primary sources which counters the Maharishi's direct comments, then we should post them. Until then then, I'm afraid based on the direct quotes, it would need to be reinstated. Please discuss any direct quotes you might have in the relevant discussion section.

The quote by Jefferson, apparently from an outdated biographical work, is directly countered by statements from the Maharishi and a direct student of Swami BS on the discussion page, again, please answer there if you actually have a primary source quote which may be helpful. Thanks!--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources must be placed in the article and must directly reference the topic of the article. The onus is on the editor who adds content to make sure the content is sourced. Primary sources are in general not considered Wikipedia compliant sources. (olive (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

It looks like all of this is self-published and therefore not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Audiotapes online aren't acceptable sources either. As far as I can tell, only Mason's 1994 biography was published by a publisher. I checked the name of the publishing company of the 2005 edition and found that there was no such company registered in the UK, nor any such trade name registered. TimidGuy (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Audio and video are acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, if we have a video of MMY speaking then that would be a reliable primary source for his views.   Will Beback  talk  20:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The audio in this case, is from an official lecture of MMY. They have been transcribed and they are on the web and have been published in book format. The transcribed talks of Sw. BS are English translations of his Hindi talks, now in the public domain. Paul Mason's biography of MMY is not self-published, per the author.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala. Do not remove Russel which is sourced, and only add text that is reliable and verifiable. I have no problem with you adding content that is sourced properly. If the content you wish to add is contentious you can expect to need agreement from editors to add it, though.(olive (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Olive and BigWBoy, unfortunately it was pointed out several days ago, that the TM mantras were not from the Vedic tradition. I provided a verifiable secondary source demonstrating this and requested that anyone who had evidence of the TM mantras in the Vedas to please provide them. In absence of any other sources since my request, it's clear the old quote by "Russel" is in error, outdated or both. It is therefore an unreliable source. If you cannot quote a source in the Vedas, then I'm afraid this is not only an unreliable source it is an unverifiable as well. Please keep in mind that many of these old TM books and biographies are of very low quality and often advertisements not containing reliable facts and therefore do not meet Wilipedia standards for inclusion. This is especially the case with Russell being a TM teacher as he does not express a neutral POV. Therefore, you need to back this quote up, as the source is clearly in error. Of course I will anxiously await your source from the Vedas and do thank you in advance. Russell unfortunately is not a reliable source, as his statements contradict the textual reality of the Sanskrit source literature. Thanks in advance.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala your understanding of Wiki policy of reliable and verifiable is incorrect. --BwB (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala. Your continued efforts to remove sourced content is based on an incorrect reading of the policy and guideline as BWB points out above. We are citing content based on Wikipedia compliant a source and to create neutrality we can add other reliable, verifiable sourced content, but removing content based on your opinion and on your own research then coming to conclusions based on that research creates WP:OR, and is disruptive to the editing process (olive (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

BWB wrote "Kala your understanding of Wiki policy of reliable and verifiable is incorrect." Please review WP:V BWB and Olive. It clearly states that Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts. Russell, stating something historically incorrect, would fall under this warning. Just because a guru claims something is true, does not make it true. This is further highlighted by the fact that Russell's book is promotional literature used with the sale and promotion of TM. Such promotional literature (esp. when used in conjunction sale of the entry in question!) clearly is considered "questionable". In fact when I learned TM, his book was sold at our TM center as part of their promotional literature. Dime novel "biographies" by TM teachers or TM Org employees would fall under this same warning.

Also, please remember that exceptional claims, like the claim that Vedic religion somehow had identical mantras to tantric ones but for which no one can share a source for, these cites require exceptional evidence, not questionable evidence from TM promotional literature. I hope this clarifies the dilemma the entry presents.

A further concern would be that this represents "Original Research" and that the author, being a TM Org sponsored and trained teacher of TM, selling a book on TM, means the book citation is biased and therefore does not express a Neutral POV. I believe this lack of NPOV is undeniable in TM teacher tracts, like Russell's. Sadly I believe there are numerous such instances in the TM and it's kindred entries, like the Oates quotes. Please check out WP:NPOV with special reference to "bias". Hopefully together we can work to remove these sources of bias, questionable and fringe claims like Russell and Oates (and others).--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Text parking spot

According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition. Early lectures of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi show that he departed significantly in the mantra selection procedure used by his teacher, Swami Brahmananda Saraswati. Instead of selecting the devata of an individual, the Maharishi developed a system based on age.

I don't see references to the mantras in TM in the source While The Gods Play..., and can't access the other two sources. Perhaps Kala could give us some page numbers or add the quotes here which contain the information . We could then re add this sentence. Since none of the rest is sourced at all , I suggest we leave it here until we can source it all. This is a fair amount of content to leave in place without sourcing. We can replace it in the article once its sourced if there is editor agreement on it. (olive (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

Thanks Olive. I felt to leave it in the article so Kala had some time to find sources or learn more about the Wiki policies, but glad you have taken it out for now. As you say, it can be moved back to the article if and when references are provided. --BwB (talk) 10:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually what was most recently removed was the first sentence, which was the last thing I restored. This is appropriately sourced to a pundit of the Shankaracharya and Rig Veda tradition who says there are different kinds of mantra and Vedic and Tantric are different types. Vedic mantras are chants from the Rig or Sama Veda. Danielou clearly states very little is left of the Vedic religion, really just some sacrificial chants to the Vedic Gods, most of Hinduism is derived from the tantras (Danielou's guru trained under Swami Brahmananda Saraswati) and the other source is the mantra-koshas themselves detailing the dynamics and sequential meaning of all the TM mantras, directly as they were perceived by the tantras and the tantric rishis. With these three verifiable sources, I replaced the Unreliable, Biased Source (from biased TM advocate "Russell") containing Unverifiable Information, potential Hoax Creating, replaced with good quote and source. No one has yet present a Vedic source of the TM mantras.

I'll address the other quotes and the correction of the rest of the paragraph, as time allows. Right now I'm concerned with the first sentence, that mislerads Wiki readers.

It's time to put away this Vedic hoax. If you have a credible source, please share it. Otherwise Russell, an unreliable source by Wikipedia standards, needs to be expunged. Please realize the single sentence which was removed repeatedly could be seen as edit warring, esp. since you keep replacing it with the same inauthentic source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your references for this sentence do not meet Wiki policy of [WP:RELIABLE| reliable]] and verifiable. --BwB (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The source lists the TM mantras as listed in the tantras and their actual meanings. It sounds like you are misreading something. Since you do not quote what specifically you are referring to, it's hard to know what you actually mean BWB. OTOH, the case for removal of the Russell quote is clear: it's a promotional book by a former salesman of TM, he does not therefore present a NPOV. It does not appear the book is footnoted and there is no verifiable source for the alleged claim. Please be aware that Wikipedia considers works which are promotional in nature, such as Russell, to be questionable sources. Since you cannot back up your claim with any other source, it needs to be removed or changed. As Wikipedia tells us: "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"According to pundits of the mantra tradition and Rig Veda tradition, the sounds used in the Transcendental Meditation technique are taken from the ancient Tantric tradition"

• The first and second sources aren't accessible so that we can check them. Could you et us know how to access them or quote the passages that refer to TM and mantra
• The third source does not seem to have any content about TM and mantras

Unless these sources specifically make a direct reference to TM and mantras, rather than to provide information on mantras they can't be used, and would violate WP:NOR if they were. Per WP:NOR sources must directly reference the subject topic of the article, in this case the TM technique.

The Russel book is published by Routledge and would be considered a reliable, verifiable source per Wikipedia. As an aside the subtitle is A Skeptic's Guide To The TM Program.

Encyclopedia as source?

In the School section we have the sentence "In 2006, the Terra Linda High School in San Rafael, California canceled plans for Transcendental Meditation classes due to concerns of parents that it would be promoting religion." What do others editors think of using another encyclopedia as a source? Is this ok with Wiki rules? --BwB (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks BWB. I've added a more compliant ref.(olive (talk) 14:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

Park and consistency

The contextual information on Park seems consistent with other contextual information added, on researchers, for example. Park is a proud and outspoken skeptic so I can't see that the information is biased or POV. Other contextual information is not sourced either, but is extrapolation. We should be consistent.(olive (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

I can't find any mention of Park in this article at all, either now or in the last few days, so what contextual information are you talking about? Am I missing something? Woonpton (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was flipping back and forth between articles... This post should be on the Hagelin talk page. Sheesh. Apologies.(olive (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

Should this section be deleted now? David spector (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No need.(olive (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC))

No need to delete the section, but at the same time, the usual practice is not to remove posts after they have been responded to. I have restored it. Woonpton (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Characterizations

I notice in a couple of sections there is an attempt to characterize TM as "effortless". This is untrue and the article should be edited to reflect this. It is incorrect on several grounds. Those grounds are: The Maharishi, at the Estes Park Teacher Training Course (TTC) specifically addressed this misconception and has stated that TM does require a small amount of effort. This is an important distinction to make since Advaita Vedanta meditators will be able to explain that only nondual meditation can actually be considered "effortless" as it has no "object" (of meditation per se). Any meditation technique that uses "support" (Skt. alambana) cannot, ipso facto, be considered effortless, because it requires working in some way, with a separate object (in this case a mental mantra). Therefore the article should be examined closely for such flase statements since they go not only against the natural rationale of meditation practice, but they also go against the direct explanation of the founder of the TM brand, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be sure familiarize yourself with WP:V and WP:NOR. Please note that in particular that the standard is verifiability, not truth. TimidGuy (talk) 17:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TimidGuy, I was already aware, but please keep in mind these need to be reliable sources. When you see someone claiming a dualistic form of meditation is effortless, a person knowledgeable of meditation practices would recognize such persons as unreliable, based on their ignorance of the subject at hand (meditation). Unfortunately TM teachers are not instructed very well in meditation theory and practice.

So therefore in this context, we could say "people claiming effortlessness" in the context of TM could be looked at as unreliable sources. Since we know the Maharishi also expressed the view that TM is not effortless, those claiming "effortlessness" could be seen as expressing a view unrepresentative of TM as taught by MMY, and therefore unreliable in the context of TM. Such claims could also be seen to represent opinion or possibly original research/thought.

I would recommend replacing the misleading "effortless" with "easy", a term well used by the Maharishi in referring to TM.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Kala is incorrect in her claim that TM cannot be called "effortless". Here are some responses to her specific points:

• Maharishi has stated that TM requires some effort: he has explained at many times and in many places that TM involves what he called "effortless effort". The context is always a detailed explanation of transcending. While a such a detailed explanation would require an unreasonable amount of space here, a simplified explanation is that the mind "favors" the mantra whenever the process of stress release allows this to be done effortlessly. Maharishi always made it clear to TM teachers in training as well as to the general public that both the inward and outward strokes of meditation should be completely effortless. Many practitioners introduce effort on their own, which causes some reduction in the effectiveness of their practice; Maharishi always recommended meditation checking with a teacher to eliminate such effort.

• Advaita Meditation is effortless because nondual meditation has no object of meditation: unlike TM, the term "advaita meditation" does not refer to a well-defined or standardized mental technique. Further, the term "nondual meditation" is not only rare, but probably makes no sense to many Advaita proponents, who claim that no practice (not even meditation) is needed to realize the truth that we are already living. While it is certainly true that the words advaita and vedanta refer to the unity of the pure consciousness within us and the same pure consciousness that permeates the entire universe (what Maharishi called the Unity and Brahman states of consciousness), there is no actual or theoretical conflict with the use of an object in meditation, as long as the mind transcends the experience of that object in order to arrive at a state of inner alert silence, free of thinking, filled with bliss (samadhi). I attend an advaita meditation center; the practice they teach is in fact a mantra-based meditation that originated with Maharishi and his teacher (Guru Dev), and subsequent leaders of the Shankaracharya tradition in India.

• No mantra meditation technique can be considered effortless, because it requires working with a mental object: Many traditions of meditation in India (besides MMY's) agree that there are many ways to meditate (an ancient analysis lists 112 methods); they agree that meditation with an inner object of perception is acceptable. This is based on ancient scripture that advises using such an object as a "vehicle" rather than as a point of fixed focus. Maharishi has explained that the mantra is used effortlessly, only to show us the direction toward the source of thought, not as a focus for mental repetition and concentration. He always said that the process of transcending is automatic once we take "the right direction", powered by the enjoyment and inner energy provided by more abstract and quieter levels of mental activity. Concentration on any mental object causes effort because it opposes this natural movement of the mind; even in introductory lectures TM teachers state that TM is neither concentration (focus and effort), nor is it contemplation (thinking about spiritual topics, or daydreaming).

The word "effortless" is more accurate than "easy", because it includes the complete effortlessness of living in accord with all the laws of nature, free of stress, and with full access to mind and body for effective and skillful action in enlightenment.

On a personal note, I have practiced TM for 40 years and can testify to having had many moments during practice in which, impatient for results, I used the mantra incorrectly, which produced effort and discomfort, as well as many moments best characterized as completely effortless, whether the mantra was present in my awareness or at those times or not. I believe, based on my experiences working with many meditation clients, that only a completely effortless meditation practice can produce the sense of freedom and fulfilment that are characteristic of life in enlightenment. David spector (talk) 20:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion or knowledge of whether this practice is or is not effortless. However as a general rule we should avoid making the determination that it is effortless and should instead stick to saying that it has been called or described as effortless, when practiced properly, or whatever the sources say. If there are other views those should be included too.   Will Beback  talk  21:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Other views" must be specifically on TM, not some other type of meditation. These views of TM must be supported by refs that meet Wiki policies. I am not sure why we cannot say, for example, that the practice is effortless. --BwB (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point BwB on the need that it be specific to TM and be properly sourced. I would think it would be okay to say "described as effortless." TimidGuy (talk) 10:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It might seem OK to parse it as "described as effortless" but since alambana (Skt) or "meditation with props" (mantra in this case) all require subtle meditative effort, indeed the Sanskrit term for technique means "with effort" (Skt. prayatna) we're going against the ipso facto realities of styles of meditation. I would feel odd placing a known false statement in an article simply because TMers are accustomed to hearing it. David Spector's suggestion that TM was like one of the meditations in the tantric vijnana-bhairava is interesting, but he should understand the threefold division of the Trika scriptures and then he would understand that TM falls in the "effortful" category. In other words a little homework is a lot better than lengthy opinions. I'd be glad to explain the threefold structure of the vijnana-bhairava if it would help your understanding David. It's important to understand and comprehend that even though MMY spoke of Vedanta and other systems, the system of TM comes from a mantra tradition and the yoga tradition, not the vedantic tradition, This is a common error in uncritically thought out TM writings.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have reliable sources to support you arguments. --BwB (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's stick with MMY's quote then. I have a source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To a large degree, this discussion of the use of the word "effortless" is one of semantics. I can vouch for the observations of David spector above. Maharishi used the word effortless repeatedly to describe the TM technique. On one or two occasions that I witnessed, when pressed by a questioner, he admitted that some faintest attention is employed, but continued to insist that no effort is involved. In the West, effort means "trying." It is not a faint thing such as Maharishi was describing as faintest attention or "effortless effort." So he used the word repeatedly to signify that no trying to do anything is involved in TM. It is a simple, easy thing that requires only faint attention, no effort. This is not a question of academic definitions. It is a practical question of how to practice the technique. If Kala Bethere has some reference about the TM technique specifically, then we can examine that in the context of this section and determine if the information is appropriate to add to the article. Otherwise, this discussion is diverging from what seems to be the main intent of the article--to convey information about the TM technique as seen by it's originator and as instructed to and practiced by those who do the technique. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The intent of the article is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. The views of the originator and practitioners are certainly significant, but they aren't the only ones we need to include.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, significant POV about Transcendental Meditation, meeting the Wiki standards of WP:V and WP:NOR. --BwB (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Will Beback wrote: "The intent of the article is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. The views of the originator and practitioners are certainly significant, but they aren't the only ones we need to include. "

What if the point of view is tainted by bias or written by someone who was trained to have a special or unique POV? For example would it be NPOV for a entry on Cigarette Safety for a Cigarette Corporation CEO to write about the safety of smoking and/or the dangers of smoking if he argued against what mainstream science was saying, but insisted that their POV should prevail? What if he got Professor of Cigarette U. to come and help out with that same POV? Is that kind of thing OK for editors?

I'm afraid we're forced, in lieu of NPOV, to weigh or somehow access the Neutrality of all published authors used, esp. in a setting where belief and adherence to a specific philosophy are key themes. For example if people were trained to think a certain thing, and that thing only was the correct way, the "purity" of the teaching that could be expressed, and such puritans were writing a source publication, wouldn't it be important, for assessing NPOV, to understand that such potential biases were being used in it's writing? If these same people have some potential Promotional Benefit, i.e. an item, technique or philosophy which is sold, even if contained in book format; these sound like Questionable Source(s) and so therefore isn't this also is a criteria for Non-Reliability?

These issues have to raised. We are forced, in terms of Reliability and Neutrality to address the implications of a TM Org―and it's instructed adherents under these same terms, in terms of published sources, no?--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If we had a source that impeaches another source in relation to this topic, then that may be worth including. So, to use your analogy, if one of the sources is written by an employee of the tobacco company, then that's relevant. Saying that he is an adulterer would not be relevant.

We must include all significant points of view, but only in proportion to their prominence. If the tobacco company's scientists had performed 90 studies to show the safety of their cigarettes, that's still just one point of view, and it doesn't necessarily deserve 90 times as much space as a single, well-publicized study that shows the opposite.

According to WP:FRINGE, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. An assertion that meditation lowers stress is not exceptional. An assertion that meditation affects the weather probably is exception. It's hard to say if the method of selecting a mantra could be considered exceptional. That'd probably depend on the extent of the gap between the assertion and conventional wisdom. If there's no ordinary view then there's no extraordinary view.   Will Beback  talk  09:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If I were coming to the TM article as a total neophyte, I would like to know first of all how the developer of the technique and its practitioners view it. Second, I would like to know about the scientific research examining its effects. Third, I would be mildly curious about "outside" views, but would take them "with a grain of salt." Every author and every editor has a point of view no matter how much he or she tries to be neutral. These views are based first and foremost on the person's own experiences. There is no way to avoid the influence of point of view on the article, because this pov helps to determine the statements and sources the editors select for the article. The idea of WP is that many editors participating cooperatively and politely in an article's creation will eventually even out the points of view represented, resulting in an article that is relatively accurate and useful. The best articles use sources that are transparent with regard to their pov. We may expect an author or editor who admits to a lifetime of practice of the technique to hold a positive pov regarding the technique. We also may expect an author or editor who has never practiced the technique or one who has tried it and has formed negative opinions regarding it to find sources to uphold views based on their experiences. Nevertheless, if we stick closely with the WP guidelines, the theory is that the article will come more and more accurately to reflect a balanced spectrum of views. The key is for editors to follow the guidelines and to not be too attached to our own pov no matter how "right" we think we are. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you were such a person, and you found out that people were financially benefitting from their editing of an entry, to make it look better than it is, you'd also want to do something. So therefore although mantras purchased via such a person, which should be simply doled out via age, are made to appear as if they are: based on the individual nervous system, based on whether one is a householder or renunciate, based on the "euphonics" of mantras, the secrets of which were standardized for today's teachers of the technique by the Maharishi after his years of study with his own teacher, Guru Dev. The only thing is, most of this is incorrect! But since we have sources, written by TM mantra salespersons, in promotional literature, we can use these Questionable Sources to pad the article?

I'm not buying it.--Kala Bethere (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Bill Beback wrote: "::::::If we had a source that impeaches another source in relation to this topic (snip)..." You failed to respond to the key questions:

Doesn't a quote which is not Reliable and is not Neutral demand removal or an edit? And don't responses from old (or new) promotional literature constitute "Questionable Sources" and therefore are to be considered "Unreliable"? Wouldn't being a salesman of said product (in this case salesperson of TM) constitute a bias and therefore render the writer/editor Not Neutral, at least potentially? (WP:NPOV)

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. (WP:VERIFY WP:SOURCES)

Such [Unreliable] sources include (...) publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature. (WP:VERIFY, WP:SOURCES)

--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are discussing the Russel book, it is not promotional in nature, it is in fact a skeptic's view.

NPOV does not refer to the source it refers to the article, and neutrality is achieved in an article by using sources that represent significant viewpoints. The source in this case is published by a reputable publisher, and so makes the source's content Per Wikipedia useable , reliable and verifiable.(olive (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

Hi Olive, unfortunately there's a reason this book has been reviewed (amazon.com) as "Nothing more than an advertisement for $2,000+ Meditation Class." It's because it's trying to talk you into spending a lot of money to get a simple mantra meditation. The fact that it is often used in conjunction with TM teaching and proselytizing (and thus the sales of TM) would indicate that it is, in fact, promotional in nature. Perhaps a dictionary definition would be of help for you: Promotional: of or relating to the publicizing of a product, organization, or venture so as to increase sales or public awareness. I think it's undeniable that this book is promoting TM and that it has been used that way for some time. Also, of course, Russell is trained as a TM mantra salesman (bias, non neutral POV).

Please keep in mind, Russell is not the only source in the TM (and TM-related Wikipedia entries) that suffer from this failing. As time goes on, we'll have the opportunity to look at other sources similarly, and thereby improve the quality of these entries.--Kala Bethere (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite the title, there is nothing skeptical about the book. Maybe the title should be read to mean that it is a guide to convince skeptics. To KB, Amazon reviews aren't reliable sources. The book was published by a mainstream publisher, so it's at very least a reliable source for the author's views. If there was evidence that the book was paid for by the movement then that would help show that it was intended for promotional purposes.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Skeptical or not skeptical, the Russel book meets WP guidelines for reliable source. If anyone has an equally reliable source that shows Russel was paid by any TM organization to write this book, then by all means put that into the article. Personally, I doubt that claim. I know many TM practitioners that have written about either the TM technique or its effects, and I know of no one who was paid by any organization to do it. Generally, they do what they do out of their conviction that their efforts will be of use to someone whose life may be bettered by having the information they write. Following up on my comment from yesterday, I am pleased that the point of view of Kala Bethere is so transparent. That makes for ease of communication. I am sure that once the peculiar WP style of operation is clear, we will have some informative additions to this article. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Amazon quote is just an example and to show that people are reacting similarly to my claim.

So you're saying the source has to be financially tied to the organization in order to be promotional? Is there a reference in the Wikipedia help pages that this is stated? It's certainly used to promote TM on web entries, just a do a simple Google search: very widespread promotional use.--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this particularly odd rationalization from the nice folks in beautiful downtown Fairfield has anything to do with how little MUM pays its faculty. Just a theory, but a darned good one. Fladrif (talk) 22:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

ChemistryProf please try to keep an open mind and realize that the fact that Russell was (or perhaps still is) a TM teacher who would have benefitted financially from the sales of TM mantras in selling the instruction of TM to neophytes. Thus a book touting a product he sells isn't generally looked upon being non self-promotional and unbiased! If it is by the Wikipedia, I guess we just hold different ethical standards then.

Also, just because the topic of TM is near and dear to you doesn't mean that because a TM book or a website claims to be skeptical, that it actually is what it claims.--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I know a number of chemists and physicists who have written authoritative books in their fields. Some of these have been printed and sold by the tens of thousands. The authors have enjoyed considerable royalties from these sales. Do you mean to say we must exclude these books from consideration when writing for WP about topics covered in the books? I don't believe such an exclusion would be academically acceptable. I'm sure it is not acceptable according to the WP guidelines. If it were, we would have to radically change thousands of WP articles, not to mention the accepted practice in academia of citing authoritative references by people within their areas of specialization. ChemistryProf (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point Prof. Journalist want to sell papers, researchers want to be published, authors want to sell books - everyone is motivated to write about their chosen subject based on their desires. Therefore all writing by nature is subjective and POV. And as Prof says, we could pick every single person used as a source in Wiki and pick through their motivatins to see why they wrote what they did - was it objective, where they paid for their efforts, etc. etc. This would be a very tedious undertaking. This is why Wiki has a few rules on sources and we as editors do our best to abide by them. While Kala may have personal view on Russell, etc., as far as Wiki is concerned they are valid refs. --BwB (talk) 08:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Different situation. In their case the books were mostly likely not promoting the sale of the item they were selling, which was the book's primary theme (buy my product). For example we might have a quote in a Scientology book that states Scientology is from the Xenu tradtition. But the book is not only an not an authoritative work on the traditions of Xenu, it's just reporting what L. Ron said in a lecture, with no back checking. The author is a Scientology true believer who wrote the book to help sell more "clearings", and he truly believes the Xenu quote is real (without any, zero, corroborating evidence) and that this statement represents the purity of the Scientology teaching. We might include the "Scientology comes form the traditions of Xenu" quote, but also other views about how objective observers have other actual printed, textual sources as to where they actually came from. Both views could be included, but what would happen would be the Xenu quote ends up looking rather silly in light of actual textual evidence to the contrary. Once we add the actual translations of the TM mantras from their sources, it would similarly make the "we're Vedic 'coz we were told it was" statement appear odd and like an unresearched idea, from a questionable source.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure from this discussion if we have any more information about Russell or the book then we did when we started. By his own admission, he was apparently trained as a TM instructor. That takes him out of the rank-and-file practitioners and into the first level of the management of the movement. As of 1976, the year he wrote it, 8,000 TM instructors had been trained in the U.S. and half of those were still active. (One million people had been trained in the technique). So he was a part of the relatively small corps of instructors, and presumably paid if he was actively giving instruction. However I'd assume that the pay was not significant at that time. We have no information about other payments he may have received, or other positions he may have held. So far I don't see anything that'd be sufficient to discount him as a source, but perhaps we should clarify his relationship to the movement so that readers can better judge his POV. So far as Wikipedia terminology goes, he is not an independent 3rd-party when writing about TM.   Will Beback  talk  19:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If Russel states in the book that he was trained as an instructor of the TM technique, then it would be good to include that information in the article. As I pointed out earlier in this discussion, every researcher, author, and editor has a point of view, even though they may try to be neutral in their writings. As long as the reader has enough information to ascertain their point of view, that is what matters. That is what I meant by transparency. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Will I think we now have established and documented that Russell's book sold a commercial product (TM) and that as a teacher, he benefitted from the sale of both the book and sale of TM mantra instruction. This is significant IMO. I will have all the laboriously gathered references for another, documented and historically reliable claim on the origin of the TM mantras in the tantras, with direct quotes from the tantric mantra dictionaries, hopefully by the end of the weekend. I was able to find one of my old, rare translations of these beautiful and remarkable works on the TM mantras. So it would be great to include whatever material you are recommending. How would these make it appear in the entry? I think it would be nice to show the financial and movement connections. I will work on the tantric origin, with footnotes, and try to make it work harmoniously with Russell's quotes on the Vedic origin.--Kala Bethere (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another significant detail from Russel's biography is that he studied with Maharishi himself. So we might introduce with something along these lines: "Russel, a certified TM instructor who had studied with Maharishi, wrote that..."   Will Beback  talk  05:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Kala Bethere, I do not agree with you that "...we now have established and documented that Russell's book sold a commercial product (TM) and that as a teacher, he benefitted from the sale of both the book and sale of TM mantra instruction." None of these claims has been "established." If he says in his book that he was trained as a TM instructor, then that is important to know. It means that readers might want to take that statement into account in forming opinions about the content of the book. It means Russel has been exposed to many more details of the instruction than the average practitioner or than any non-practitioner. It also says there is a possibility of a conflict of interest. It does not disqualify the book as a reliable source in the WP definition. On the other hand, if you have another source that says "the TM mantras have a different origin than attributed to them by Russel," then it could be appropriate to include a quote or paraphrase of that statement and a reference to the source in the context of the statement attributed to Russel. But unless your source refers specifically to the "Transcendental Meditation technique" or "Transcendental Meditation," then it is not an acceptable source by WP definition. Do you understand that quirk in the WP way of doing things? We editors are not able to select any source that may appear to uphold our particular point of view unless that source specifically states that point of view in reference to the specific topic of the article, in this case Transcendental Meditation. Many new editors find this difficult to understand because it is so different from the manner of discourse they may be accustomed to in academia. But this is the WP way, and it is possibly the only way to create a useful encyclopedia that is "written" (that is, edited) by people who are not experts on the topic about which they write. ChemistryProf (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

ChemistryProf, If you have a source which is in the Vedas, please share it! However most people who are familiar with Sanskrit and tantric writings will be able to tell you, the TM mantras occur regularly in this literature, they're quite common and widespread. Fortunately the same mantras as in TM have been collated in Sanskrit texts and have been translated, so this is excellent for sourcing.

Will that suggestion sounds good. I do wonder since the article does not mention that TM is a commercial meditation technique if the addition of the word "commercial" (or some similar adjective) should be used in the first paragraph of the entry? Ex.: The Transcendental Meditation technique, or TM technique, is a commercial form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917-2008). One of the interesting things is, it appears from comments people purchase Russell's book thinking it will instruct them in the technique, only to find that it was to get them to try to buy their product (TM).

There also have been some price changes, perhaps it would be helpful to also include the current American price for TM?--Kala Bethere (talk) 00:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding fees and commercialism, I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic. In my experience, it's helpful to have a separate page for pasting short excerpts from reference materials as a preparation for drafting new material. In this case, we might use Talk:Transcendental Meditation/fees. Let's add what we find there, and once enough research has been compiled to give a reasonably full picture we can summarize it.   Will Beback  talk  08:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply: Unless you have a source for this information that says explicitly, the TM mantras come from the tantric literature you cannot make this kind of claim in an encyclopedic article. Unless you have a source that specifically says TM is a commercial form of mantra mediation you cannot use this information in a Wikipedia (encyclopedia) article. To include either with out sources that explicitly make these connections is WP:OR, and such additions would have to be removed. Russell is considered, as all editors have stated above, a reliable and therefore compliant source.

The issue of price had been discussed in the past and I believe content on price was removed because it had a commercial, advertising- like tone.(olive (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

Will Beback wrote "I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic."

What a wonderful idea. I do believe that TM prices have come down from the 2500 dollar, US price, but could one of the TM practitioners here verify that? How much are the so-called advanced technique/mantra add-ons? And of course the TM-Sidhi program price. Perhaps we could even include the mantra lists, which have appeared in a number of good sources.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was consensus to remove content that referred to price of learning the technique. I remember an attack of sorts because the content was there, and the so called TM editors were "obviously" advertising. I assume then, there was a more recent discussion. The number of times editors have been asked to remove content then some one else comes along and demands the content be added are ... numerous. Mantra information is included in the article and information on prices world wide would have to be referenced. (olive (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

As we've discussed several times before, the fees are a subject of controversy and that controversy needs to be included in the article for it to achieve NPOV. There are plenty of secondary sources that discuss this matter. Until we compile them and work from references we're just arguing amongst ourselves.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguing. I'm saying add the content if there are refs. I've been in the situation where agreement was to delete such information, and now someone wants to add it. Fine. Arguing . Nope.(olive (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

I think we all agree then.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're all agreeing, but would someone please clarify in unambiguous terms what we are agreeing? ChemistryProf (talk) 05:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

"I'll repeat my suggestion that we should start addressing it by compiling reliable sources on the topic." It doesn't even matter what the topic is - this is always a good strategy.   Will Beback  talk  07:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is fine with me, just so long as we are all on the same page with what constitutes a reliable source under WP guidelines. From his/her comments, Kala Bethere seems not to be familiar with the tight restrictions we are under. If the source does not mention the topic of the article (Transcendental Meditation) in reference to the point being made, then it cannot be a reliable source. Beyond that, there seem to be ongoing arguments about what is reliable, but this is the minimum requirement, and it is often not easy to meet. May I request that whatever sources are posted, please make the relevant section of the reference available to other editors who may not have access to it? ChemistryProf (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's compile the sources. Then we can decide which ones are the best and which aren't acceptable. I agree that it's a help when extended source material are made available for other editors. Sometimes it's easier to email than to transcribe.   Will Beback  talk  18:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add, that I don't think the cost of starting TM is particularly controversial or noteworthy any more than one quibbles about a car's price, but the sources may give some insights on the matter, and I'll go with othe-editor agreement on this(olive (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

I agree with olive that the cost of TM instruction is not out of line with most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars and other such things that involve a similar amount of time and instructor attention. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the list of sources that were compiled a few months ago?-- — Kbob • Talk • 21:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Sources. We can use that instead of the /fees page I proposed above.   Will Beback  talk  21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

ChemistryProf wrote: "I agree with olive that the cost of TM instruction is not out of line with most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars"

I don't think you are correct on this ChemProf. The Shambhala course is around a hundred dollars for a 20 hour course, meals and detailed personal instruction included. They also teach meditation for free at their centers. I believe Amma's technique is free/donation. The 10-day Vipassana course is free/donation and that includes food and lodging. Sri Sri Ravi Shankara teaches TM, complete with the same religious ceremony used in TM for around 300 US dollars. Chopra teaches a TM-style technique, also in the 300-500 dollar range. MBSR is around $250 for an 8 week course. Could you give some examples of others that charge such high prices? These all seem low comparatively.

TM, if 1500 US dollars is the current price (it could still be 2500, not sure), would much more expensive than these popular meditation formats.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are correct, Kala Bethere, about the prices of other meditation techniques. If you will notice, I said in comparison to "most other techniques of self development used in weekend seminars." I was thinking about the courses given to executives and the like in these weekend situations. Of course there are less expensive courses given in a variety of settings, but the point I was making is that the TM program expense is not "out of this world." ChemistryProf (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well ChemProf, let's compare it then to the Insight Meditation Societies "scientists course" which has trained leading scientists in a specialized week long meditation retreat, teaching more than one technique (2 techniques instead of 1). What we would have to compare is a "Residence Course" a week long, with the price of TM. If 2500 US is correct, plus 500 for food and lodging, that would be 3000 US compared to 375 US for the scientists course. Really to be fair, since this course is teaching 2 techniques, you'd probably want to compare TM plus the first "advanced" technique or approx. 6000 US. Either way the difference is an 800-1600% higher price for TM mantra instruction and the religious ceremony (not including fruit, fresh-cut flowers and a fresh clean hanky).

I guess it would depend how you defined "out of this world".--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Our own opinions about the cost and value of MVED-sponsored training are beside the point. The only views that matter are those expressed in reliable sources. I suggest we put this discussion on hold until we've collected a reasonably complete collection of sources on the topic, and then draft a section summarizing the significant views we've found.   Will Beback  talk  19:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See my talk page for a preliminary chart of different meditation and their prices, from their individual websites. [54] --Kala Bethere (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that that is the most productive way to deal with the fee issue. But whatever you make sure there are clear sources for it.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just a convenient way to list the comparisons and not intended for inclusion as is. All the prices come from the meditation techniques web pages, today. The interesting thing is both Chopra and Sri Sri Ravi Shankar were previously associated with the Maharishi and thus teach the same technique, only much cheaper. There are groups of independent TM teachers now, who've largely risen up as a response to the prices being too high, who teach TM at inexpensive rates. There was a talk the Maharishi gave a few years back where he basically stated 'as long as they teach it right' it was OK for people to teach independently (or at least that's how some independent TM teachers took it). Some thought he meant his former disciple Sri Sri Ravi Shankara, others took it as a nod to the independent TM teachers.

Not too long ago, TM was 2500 USD, it's already dropped significantly to 1500 USD.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll add this to the /Sources page, but this is an example of the coverage on fees:

• Beloved of hippie celebrities everywhere since the 1960s, TM's expensive teaching courses risked it being priced into oblivion until Lynch was credited with persuading Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - to whom he became close in 2003 after paying $1m to participate in the guru's four-week "Millionaire's Enlightenment Course" - to radically reduce the TM learning fee so that more younger people could learn the practice.
  • Front: And now children, it's time for your yogic flying lesson. Jacqueline Stevens, Patrick Barkham. The Guardian. London (UK): Jan 27, 2009. pg. 1

With more sources like this I think we can develop a well-sourced and neutral discussion of the topic.   Will Beback  talk  17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)