Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 23 September 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Alternative medicine Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Religion: New religious movements Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as High-importance).

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43Auto-archiving period: 14 days

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Mozambique

Perhaps something could be added to the article about the practice of TM in Mozambique? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/jamesastill --Uncreated (talk) 09:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a good idea. And this article provides some good data and quotes. --BwB (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mantra to reception section

Will originally suggested that the mantra used in the TM technique was a controversial issue, so I've moved the material to the reception section where it more obviously belongs. (olive (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Aren't mantras pretty much central to this technique? It'd be better to have the section on mantras cover al aspects, not just the criticism. Isn't there any non-critical material related to the topic?   Will Beback  talk  03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Transcendental Meditation is based on a natural tendency of the mind to go inward. In a sense, this is what's central. The mantra is used to initiate this inward direction, but the mantra isn't a focus. It's not unusual that during much of the practice, the person isn't aware of the mantra. The mantra is simply a meaningless sound used as a vehicle to prompt the inward direction of the mind. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but mantras aren't reception. They are, as TG says, the vehicle for TM. I'm going to move the material back.   Will Beback  talk  16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinion needed

Leave Mantra in the Principles section or

Move Mantra to the reception section

Please read the discussion on this topic before you leave an opinion. Thanks

Reception refers to controversy, and you yourself wanted mantras in the article because their use was controversial. The controversial aspects of the mantra use have nothing to do with the use of the mantra in the actual process. How the mantra is selected and what the mantra's sound is or refers to, is the controversy. I'd like to ask for input and consensus on this from other editors. I don't think this is a critical edit in that anything is being added or removed so I think its fair leave it to an agreement from the editors here on how to deal with this.(olive (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

The scientific studies have also caused controversy. There are controversial aspects about every part of TM.   Will Beback  talk  18:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• Will is right. Taking olive's and timidguy's position to their logical conclusion, everything about TM belongs in "Reception", which is Misplaced Pages's code word for "Controversy" because everything about TM is controversial. But, that is an absurd basis on which to organize an article. Information on the mantras belongs in Principles, right up near the beginning where it was.Fladrif (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• In fact despite Fladrif's stated position on TM, aspects of the article that just lay out information are not controversial. Can we extrapolate controversy from that information, sure. That a mantra is used in the technique and the technique is taught a certain way is not controversial . Extrapolations on that process and use of part of the technique have raised controversy. I am supporting moving controversy into one section of the article and leaving the base line non controversial information on how the technique is taught separate from that. The article is already set up to separate out controversy. I've added a bullet to Flad's post to make sure its clear that it states his position. Hope that's OK. (olive (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes. The bullet point is fine. But, given that several editors asserted that something as simple as whether MMY started teaching TM in 1955 or 1957 was controversial, I'm not sure what information in the article isn't controversial at least to somebody. Fladrif (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For once, I'm in at least half agreement with Fladrif. The basic principle of how the mantras are used should remain under Principles, but the controversial aspects belong under Reception. It does seem that someone (and often it is just that, one or two people) has stirred up controversy over practically every aspect of the Transcendental Meditation program. That controversy should be mentioned in the article, even if it is not a widely held opinion. However, it should be made as clear as possible just how limited or widespread the controversy is. If there are no direct sources with which to make that comparison, then the only way to make it clear is to include more from the large number of sources who mention no controversy. In that regard, the article at present is highly imbalanced toward controversy. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Chem, Could you specifically state where you see that division occurring in the present text?(olive (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I am OK to leave the Mantra stuff where it is in the Principal section. However, I am not at all convinced that the information is presented in the best way. The points jump around and one is not sure what is being said or what the principals of the technique are. So I want to see the text cleaned up and organized better. And, yes, there are controversial elements in the text that also need to be addressed. But OK to have text in Principal section about the mantra that is appropriate there. --BwB (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to olive's question, I had not read that section for a while. It has changed substantially, and I agree with BwB that it is now highly disjointed. It's a mish-mash of ideas and is not currently presented as a controversy in the sense we are used to seeing, nor is it presented as a description of principles. I am particularly puzzled at some editors's choice to list what are purported by a disaffected teacher to be the mantras used in the TM technique. What is the point of that? If this source is correct, what is the value of seeing these enumerated? If the source is wrong, then why spread this disinformation? Could it be that the editor who placed this material there sought to sew confusion and doubt in the minds of those who practice the technique? That's what it seems like to me.

The whole section needs considerable work just to see what is principle and what is controversy. What I favor, for all WP articles except in the rarest of circumstances, is separation of the controversial issues and discussions from the non-controversial ones. There are many reasons for doing that, but this is not the time or place to enumerate them. The first step, based on the current material, is to sort it out into what is controversial and what is not. That needs to be done regardless of where the controversial material is presented. Once that has been done, then my preference is to keep the accepted principles where they are and to move the discussion of controversies to a separate section. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is a fine spot to say why you think that all articles on Misplaced Pages should separate the controversies from the rest of the material since that is what you want to do here. There's also a movement to integrate critical materila into articles rather than segregating it, so there are views on both sides.   Will Beback  talk  04:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think ChemistryProf makes an important point: regardless of where the material goes, we have to make clear that the deity thing is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. The principle of the technique is that the mantras are meaningless sounds. As Shear explains in his book, the technique wouldn't work if the mantra had meaning, since then the mind would remain on the level of the intellect rather than transcend to a deeper level. That's the principle. (By the way, I just noticed that passage from Beacon doesn't say that the mantras are the names of deities. It uses "of," suggesting that these sounds are used by deities. Also, do we know whether this is a translation from Hindi?) TimidGuy (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem. That doesn't appear to be the principle of the technique at all. The "official line" is not, if you read carefully, that the sounds are meaningless. The "official line" is that the sounds are specifically selected for their effect, and that, in instructing new TM students, no meaning is assigned to the sounds. Not telling a student the meaning of a mantra is a very different thing from saying the mantra is meaningless. And, it is clear from the sources that both the teachers of the technique, as well as students of advanced techniques, are well aware of the meaning of the mantras.Fladrif (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue at hand. Let's rework the current text in the Principal section. We can leave what is agreed as appropriate in this section, and then move any controversy to the Reception part (or both in the one section as Will suggests). Perhaps this will get a little "messy", so lets set up a sandbox for the new Principles section, and allow editors to work on it there. Let's try to be patient as we go along. We can take our time to try and get it right together. --BwB (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The issues are based on understanding of what delineates the principles from the more controversial aspects. Unless we have a base line of common understanding chances of agreement are less.. Agreement seems to be to leave mantra content in place but with some editors suggesting we move what might be controversial. Is that correct, and is there agreement on that? (olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Oh and not meaning to cutoff BWB... just finishing what I started.(olive (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Yes, I think Fladrif's reading is correct from the sources that I've seen -no meaning is attached to the sounds. My understanding is that whatever the sounds were originally connected to their usefulness was in their sound value alone, so the technique can be taught by using these sounds irrespective of whether meaning is attached to the sound or not. In fact attaching meaning to the sound is counter productive to the technique.

As an aside:

To put a western spin on this, the technique is based on the natural ability the brain has of shifting functioning modes. Artist/ actor/ dance teachers know that the so called logical thinking brain must give way to a more holistic brain to optimize work in these art forms. Logical thought, (and naming something falls into this category), gives way to other kinds of thought until another kind of brain functioning takes over. A well know acting exercise consists of walking around a room looking at objects and throwing out any word that comes to mind rather than naming the object. I teach both the visual and performing arts and there are multiple exercises used in these fields to move to a non logical thinking but more holistic style functioning. As I understand it the TM technique is based on, and the results parallel this natural ability or tendency the brain has to move beyond logical thinking to the more holistic awareness/ thinking mode. Of course the TM technique also takes the mind beyond all thinking altogether to the source of thought. I understand that the choice of sounds for certain kinds of people in TM facilitates the process, but knowing the logical meaning of the sound would be counterproductive to the process since it would cause logical thinking to occur just when we are trying to "transcend " that kind of thinking. As well, logical thinking is still possible, and artists actors and dancers are extraordinarily alert and aware, its just they they aren't relying on logic but on a more intuitive form of functioning. Logic is there, but it can take a back seat to the more holistic. I'm not a TM teacher but I've never seen literature that indicates anyone is ever told what the mantras mean ... and in fact I remember Markovsky saying in a document that may no longer be online because I can't find it, that the words could mean anything including wagon wheel, if I remember his example. Of course the advanced program, the TM Sidhi Program as we know from our own article uses sutras or threads so no gods there. .(olive (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

Fladrif, I'm not sure where you're getting your "official line." In fact, TM teachers aren't taught that the sounds have meaning. Also, at no time is someone who learns TM or receives an advanced TM technique told that the sound has meaning. If by "advanced techniques" you mean the TM-Sidhii program, please realize that that technique is fundamentally different from TM in terms of procedure. In Malnak the plaintiffs alleged that the mantras were the names of deities, but affidavits submitted by the defense clearly refuted that allegation, forcing the plaintiffs to drop it. In any case, the principle of the technique is that TM takes advantage of the natural tendency of the mind to go inward. And the mantra, which is, in Maharishi's words, a "word devoid of meaning," facilitates that process. We need to make clear what the principles are and elaborate on them, and make clear that the claim that the mantras are names of deities is not a principle of the technique but a matter of controversy. TimidGuy (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My point , that the mantras are used independent of whatever meaning they might have comes from Shear (The Experience of Meditation) and as TG said is part of the debate about mantras. The official line has to be the Maharishis's quote and that should go into the actual "Principles of the technique" section. Shear also never says the mantras are the names of anything so that's a critical point in the debate on mantra.(olive (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

Good start on reworking the Mantra section, Olive. I will give it some thought and attention in the coming few days. --BwB (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Have we agreed that the first goal is to separate the official principles from the controversy? It seems as if some editors never want to agree on anything. This makes progress difficult. If we can at least agree on that one, then both the discussion and the improvement of the article can move forward. As for the reasons for separating controversy into its own section, those require an introduction just to be clear. That is why I suggested this might not be the place for it. But if anyone wants to have my take on it, I’m happy to give that, and I’ll keep it as short as possible without losing the meaning altogether.

WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, is it not? What do people use encyclopedias for anyway? Don’t they want the information to be reliable? And in any area that is technical or requires special training, don’t they want the best knowledge of those who have the most experience and training in the field? This is certainly what I want when I use an encyclopedia. In my first use of Misplaced Pages, and anytime I use it at all, it is for looking up the meaning of some method or technique, or occasionally to learn about a person or some concept I don’t know. The Southern Blot technique comes to mind. This example is from some years ago. My biochemistry training dates back to an early time, when this term was not in use. To find out what it refers to, I put the term into my search engine, and the WP entry was one of the prominent ones to pop up. Now if I thought the definition I was reading had been written by people who had mostly only heard of the technique second or third hand, without having had personal experience with it, I would be skeptical of whatever they wrote. I would not know whether to take it seriously. Same goes for biographies. If I thought the material was mainly representing the views of some critics or others who might harbor a dislike for the person, then I would immediately leave that site for something more authentic. Having now participated in editing a number of articles, I have become highly skeptical of WP. I use it as little as possible, and always try to back up what I read here with some independent source. If this encyclopedia is going to last, and to be worthwhile, the rules may have to change.

Going back to the question at hand, to get any use from a WP article, the reader needs to know that some aspects are clear and non-controversial, and he or she needs to know which aspects are generally accepted by the practitioners or experts in the field and which are considered to be controversial. He or she needs to be able to read the accepted principles in the field and then any controversy. That way, they can begin to decide if the controversy is something relevant to their needs. Since editors do not usually announce their areas of specialization, and since the casual reader would not know which editor is responsible for which portion, segregating off accepted principles from controversy is a way to get across some basic information first, then, if relevant, to communicate some of the controversy. Placing the controversy under one section title, perhaps named “controversy,” to be clearest, would increase the usefulness and reliability of WP articles. The reader can then decide how much attention to pay to controversy. In this way, controversy will be useful to some, but not to others, and each person will not have trouble seeing what the controversy is about and to see its sources. This will allow for easy use of the encyclopedia. If controversial understandings are peppered throughout an article, especially without being labeled as such, the article becomes useless. So the reasons for a separation into separate sections can be listed as: increased clarity; increased usefulness to the reader; increased reliability; increased ability of the reader to judge content; greater ease of editing; increased value for the lifetime of WP (which will eventually cease to exist if such policies are not followed). Can we agree on these basic ideas and sort out the text accordingly? ChemistryProf (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How about another option? I read that these were supposed to be the TM mantras, but it is not accurate for mine. I know that the article is simply referencing a magaizine which claimed these were the mantras, but what proof do they offer or do we have? We can't just add in every single thing that any magazine says about every single subject on wikipedai, especially when they don't offer any proof about what they claim. I think another option should be to either find a more reliable source like something official from the TM organization or at least a source that is accurate. And until we find something like that, I think we should remove this section altogether. Some incorrect specultion on what the mantras are from a 30 year old issue of a defunct science fiction magazine does not justify including this in an encyclopedic entre (even if it is just[REDACTED] that no one is supposed to relie on anyway). We should still strive to be encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.123.242 (talk) 03:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts on my suggestion to remove this section on mantras until a better source can be found? Here is what[REDACTED] says on reliable sources "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." Were the facts of the mantra list checked and confirmed by multiple people(or even by one other person)? The article doesn't claim that and the fact is that the list is inaccurate, so it certainly seems to me that the inclusion of this lits does not meet the criteria for reliability that an encyclopdeia should have. Does anyone else see my point and agree? I propose we look for some official TM document that has the list of mantras that we can then link to. Certainly there must be something findable on the internet? But until then, I think we should remove this section for lack of reliability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.128.123.242 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The mantras in TM come from an oral tradition and so the TM organization would not act against that tradition and either publish or verbally discuss the mantras. We can safely assume that all TM teachers who take this tradition seriously and with respect would be unlikely to discuss the mantras . As the article indicates there is varying information on what the mantras are and none of them will or can be or has been verified in any official way as far as I know by the TM organization. Your point about scrutiny is well taken but I think the policy refers to the publishing house and the scrutiny publishers give to a book /journal . Yes the research is questionable but its very hard for Misplaced Pages to question that ....verifiability is an issue though . Still, there is no way I know of to contest the various bits of information on what the mantras actually are. My preference would also to be to leave the mantras out since there is not truly official verifiable information on what they are from the organization, and I suspect we have incorrect information in the article . That's a guess . I'm not a TM teacher, and no TM teacher with respect for the tradition would reveal the information, so we have a "Catch -22" .(olive (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC))

In response to Unsigned, your logic is sound from my point of view, and I agree that it would be best to remove the list of purported mantras. In addition, as I said above, whoever inserted this list was most likely seeking to confuse the situation, since the effect of seeing the mantras, even if this list could be verified, is to cause confusion in the minds of anyone who may have gone through the instruction. It is specifically claimed in the instruction that the mantras are to be kept private. Violation of this instruction, especially something that cannot be verified to be true, could only cause a bad feeling or state of confusion in the mind of the person who has been instructed. This, however, is a point of lesser importance compared with the amount of confusion caused by not carefully listing the accepted principles and separating out the controversy. I'm glad someone is attempting to deal with that. ChemistryProf (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Principles of the Technique section

I've worked on this section to try and create a logical sequence of information, improving flow, hopefully. I've also added some comments from significant sources.(olive (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

I didn't see ChemProf's comment above before starting on the Procedure section. (olive (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC))

I like the way you have augmented, summarized and organized the section. I have done some clean up and a little further rearranging to improve the flow. What do others think?-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is improving and is starting to give a much better idea of the principles of the technique -- which the sources seem to summarize as 1) utilizing the natural tendency of the mind, 2) not involving effort, 3) using a meaningless sound, and 4) taking it as it comes. I added a couple headings for these principles and a few sentences of sourced material. We should maybe add a heading for that last point -- that one takes a passive attitude. Russell has a good discussion of this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the first parts of the Principles section are becoming clearer and perhaps closer to what might be recognized as the official point of view. However, there is still not a clear demarcation between the official view from the teaching organizations and the opposing views of disaffected teachers. Nothing indicates the distinction between controversy and principles. If we do not put the controversial material under a separate section heading, we at least need to introduce it with a phrase or sentence and do not merely alternate between the "official" views and the "dissenting" views. This part is still confusing. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Understand your concern Chem, but we need to be careful not to turn this section into "brochure-ware". --BwB (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be my understanding of the situation: I don't think we can go into the article and create anything that says this is an official position unless we have a source from the organization that says this is an official position. We can source information on the topic of the article to the organization as we've done, and to Maharishi himself and the reader can take that as an official position if they want. For us to take material and select it as official would be a form of OR I would think . Controversy requires more than one view so I think what's happened in the article is that several sides of issues have been shown. Its possible to isolate controversial issues but I think there was a general agreement not do that with the mantra section. BWB is right I think . If we attempt in any way to create an official position we risk making the article sound like an advert. Your point Chem is well taken though in that there may be no clear distinction right now between principles and controversy. We do probably need to deal with that.(olive (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC))

Don't misunderstand me. I didn't mean editors were to decide what is official, but that if we could find descriptions from official publications or web sites of the organizations teaching the technique and present that first as the purported official position and then follow it up with the variety of other takes on the matter, always mentioning the source and its relationship, if possible, that would clarify the whole thing quite a bit. It may not be possible to find all the material we want from official sources, but if we could, that would then allow us to contrast the various other positions with that one, and readers could make up their own minds about which points of view to accept. If we just put in a mish-mash of ideas without properly giving the context, then how will anyone decide what it all means? ChemistryProf (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I've started to organize the material in that manner, somewhat, while trying to make sure its neutral. See What you think. (olive (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Both of you bring up good points. -- — Kbob • Talk • 19:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

We may end up with several levels, starting with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's own books, what can be found in other official statements, official web sites etc. Then from various others whose connection is clarified as much as possible. If the sources are not arranged in some fashion similar to this, the result will not be clear. Olive, I'll look at your work later today--no time now. ChemistryProf (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The section is reading better. It is more orderly and gives the first word about principles to the person (Maharishi) who introduced the technique. I agree that should come first. The next points are attributed to either many authors or some specific other authors (e.g. Russel, Teasdale). I would feel better if we said something about who each of these authors is. Who is Russel (just use a phrase from his bio perhaps)? And I have been wondering why we often seem to use the expression "The Maharishi" to refer to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. "Maharishi" is part of his name, just as "Albert" is part of Einstein's. The word maharishi literally means "great seer" or "great teacher", but to use the word in its impersonal meaning as a designation of the person seems inappropriate. When we refer many times to Albert Einstein, it is common to use only his last name. On the other hand, the millions of people who have learned Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation technique refer to him by his first name, Maharishi. This is unusual for others, perhaps, but it is the common usage in this case. To be correct, we ought to use either Maharishi or Yogi (less common, in this case), but not "The Maharishi." The latter usage is simply wrong. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The use of "the" Maharishi was a consensus-based decision and was applied across all TM -related articles. Sources use both Maharishi and the Maharishi. Although consensus is not a binding situation, I personally am reluctant to make a change on this unless we have consensus with all editors who work consistently on these articles. In the past positions were pretty clear on the matter.

Adding something about the authors maybe a subtle form of OR. It has been done in some places but I don't support it in an encyclopedia environment since the addition of this kind of information can be unending. Who decides where to draw the line. And it also and has opened the door for POV editing. My opinions of course. (olive (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

I just want to say I am very pleased with the new orderly feeling Olive has given to this section. It is actually starting to make sense and there is becoming much easier to read. As for "the Maharishi": if referring to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi in this way this was determined by consensus I think it should be kept as is. It may be a bit unorthodox to some, but it's clear enough whom it's referred to and is not offensive to anyone. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that olive is a big help in making this a more respectable and balanced article, and her work is greatly appreciated. However, I would like some clarification of her comments above. It may have been an earlier consensus that it was ok to use "the Maharishi" as an alternate designation for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, but it still seems like a mistake. If Maharishi is his name, how can this expression be justified? Would we call Einstein "the Albert?" I don't think so. I missed the discussion of that issue and would like help in finding it. If the consensus was that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was a "great seer" as I understand the name Maharishi to literally mean in Sanskrit, and it was agreed that editors should sometimes use that designation when referring to him, out of respect or for whatever reason, then wouldn't the proper use be "the maharishi?" As another alternative, if some editors feel it is wrong to refer to him by his first name, then why don't we use the last name, as in Einstein? I can see, however, that Yogi, his last name, also has a well known meaning and its use could in some cases lead to confusion. So maybe using the last two names, "Mahesh Yogi," would be preferable. I guess I'm just a stickler for having the details correct.

As for the other discussion, whether or not to add a few words to characterize the authors of quoted or paraphrased statements, it seems to me that its always a good practice to do this as part of building the context of whatever the author has said. WP guidelines encourage building context for each point, not just listing a series of statements from different sources. Something that gives insight into the specific credentials, history, or point of view of each author would be a good way to help build context. Just the opposite of what Olive said above, building context in this way prevents the statement of the source from being used in a manner that represents an editor's attempt to insert his/her biased point of view. Most users of encyclopedias don't have time or don't want to take time to dig out information on each source just to find out what the source's particular angle is based on. If we do not tell them, how will they know how to fit the pieces of the puzzle together? The reason I am belaboring this point at this time is that in reading the section under discussion, it is hard to determine where the "official" representatives of the principles leave off and the critics of the principles begin. We were trying to separate out purported official representatives of the principles, such as Mahesh Yogi himself and the accepted spokespersons for the organizations he founded, from the critics who have taken issue with these principles. Wasn't that what we were trying to do? ChemistryProf (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding information about the authors can be and often is a form of POV. If this were a research paper this would be a different story . IF we move to a situation where we add info about authors we could also end up adding info about every author in every article/ book/ study .... how tedious for the reader. If we aren't consistent then POV can show up. As far as I've seen this is not an encyclopedic convention used in very many places except where a POV is attempted. So I'm not in favour of using it here in any way. (olive (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

I think you make some good points Chem about the use of Maharishi vs The Maharishi, but as I said what we have in place was the result of long discussion and consensus. There is no right or wrong on this, in my mind. The decision was based in part on the sources. Many sources use "the Maharishi", and use this as a title rather than a name. Maharishi is used as a name by those in the TM organization but not necessarily by others. The Maharishi is a more formal term. As well the Maharishi gives the article a less advert like quality, is less personal sounding, so is more neutral sounding . With Einstein if his name had been, great teacher Albert Einstein, than the way I'd see it, the examples would be parallel. At any rate a change would need agreement, and then the change would have to be instituted across all articles. If you think you'd like to reopen the discussion for agreement we can, as far as I'm concerned(olive (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC))

While I too see Chem's points, I feel Olive is right, and changing the terminology now, potentially affecting other names and authors in this article, is not worthwhile. I would not pursue this, but if others feel differently, we can obtain a new consensus on this topic.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Chem, I understand your point, and it has been brought up before. However, Maharishi is not a name, it it's a title like professor or president. So we say the Professor, the President, the Maharishi, in that way. Also the media refers to him as 'the Maharishi' and the article appropriately reflects that. Besides, 'the Maharishi' is the way my mother says it and according to the Beatles: "your mother should know". :-) -- — Kbob • Talk • 04:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

-- — Kbob, I will move on from this issue later today. We have spent too much time on it already. But I disagree about it not being a name. In this case it was most definitely used as a name. We might say "prince" is not a name, but some do use it as a name. In the same way, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used "Maharishi" as a name. That does not mean it cannot be used in other ways, but in his case, the story I have heard is it was the name given to him by his teacher, "Guru Dev," and he used it that way for the rest of his life. Please correct me if you have different information. ChemistryProf (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: There are two issues; one is whether the usage we have agreed on in the past is an accurate way to name Maharishi (content editing concern) The other is that the change made to "the Maharishi" was consensus based.(collaborative process concern) We should have another consensus to change the name.(olive (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

Not sure what is correct from Wiki perspective, but personally I dislike "The Maharishi" very much. Would much prefer to use "Maharishi" or "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi". --BwB (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As promised, I have let go of this issue. If it has been discussed at length earlier and the conclusion was that "The Maharishi" is acceptable, I will not waste our time with more arguments. Our attention can be better spent on other, more problematic parts of the article. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

New Article: Maharishi Vedic Education Development Corporation

I have just created an article on this topic. Feel free to edit and contribute as you wish.-- — Kbob • Talk • 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sentence out of place in History Section

The sentence "The records of the "Spirtual Development Conference" held in Cochin in October 1955 were published as "Beacon Light of the Himalayas". seems out of place in the history section. It appears without context. It shoud either be removed, or give some context. Now sure what the context is myself. --BwB (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I have amended the sentence. See what you think.-- — Kbob • Talk • 02:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Purportedly"

• In the 1995 expanded addition of Conway and Siegelman's Snapping Point, Robertson, purportedly a teacher of Transcendental Meditation,...

The word "purportedly" was just added. Why? Is there anything in this article that isn't purported?   Will Beback  talk  18:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand your concern Chem but "purportedly" creates a POV in reference to the source since it in effect questions the source. All we can do is cite the source once we've decided its verifiable. I've reworded slightly and removed Robertson, a detail that seems awkward. I hope that solves the problem, Will.(olive (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, that addresses my concern.   Will Beback  talk  20:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not discussing this beforehand, and for letting my habitual scientific style of writing interfere with the encyclopedic style. In scientific writing, it is usual to state the evidence for claims, and terms like "self-identified" or "purported" are often applied in such situations in the absence of a more objective type of evidence. ChemistryProf (talk) 02:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize or to discuss every word change . Nice thing about collaboration is that many editors are watching and working to catch what someone else overlooks.(olive (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Lectures in English?

Just for the sake of curiosity, I wonder how we know the lectures Maharishi gave and which were then transcribed were in English. Paul Mason says in describing the lecture," For this audience of exclusively Indian composition..." I am surprised that he would address this kind of audience in English rather than a language native to them.(olive (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

I can't put my finger on the source, but I did read that these lectures are not translated, they were given in English. When I recall it and find it, I'll supply a reference. But, what I find remarkable, and disturbing, is that KBob would simply add to the article that the lectures were given in Hindi, and translated to English, without any source whatsoever. It appears that he simply made it up. Why?

It should not be suprising that the speeches by MMY and many others recorded in Beacon Light were in English. It should not be suprising, when you think about it. Less than half the population of India speaks Hindi. The official and predomnant language of Kerala is Malayalam, a Tamil language. Had MMY given his speeches in Hindi, it is less likely that he would have been understood by his audience than he would have been by delivering the speeches in English.Fladrif (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This may have been the source I was thinking of Transcription and translation are two different things. To say that this is a transcription of a speech in English means that the speech was in English, not that it was translated into English from something else. I recall at least one other source that says that these speeches were in English. It will come to me eventually.Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's enough for me to see anyway. I guess a source never hurts. I am surprised since at that time India had just, as Mason says, come out from under the yoke of English rule , and Maharishi felt strongly about countries maintaining their own national integrity. Interesting and thanks again for dealing with my question. (olive (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to remove the list of mantras

The mantras of TM are considered by the TM organization (MVED) to be private, confidential and proprietary and are given out one at a time when an individual pays the TM course fee or completely when a person enrolls in a TM teacher training course. Omni Magazine acknowledges this in their article. Therefore the mantras represented by Omni Magazine as the complete list of TM mantras, are non-free and proprietary content and are restricted by Misplaced Pages:NFC, which states that non-free or copyrighted content are generally not to be used on Wiki.

Misplaced Pages clarlyy states that it frowns upon posting non-free content and states that it will go beyond the rules of copyright and fair use laws to avoid a violation (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Fair_use). Misplaced Pages does allow exceptions, but only in very specific instances and in as few cases as possible. Only when a number of specific criteria are met, may such an exception be made. The list of mantras given in Omni Magazine does not meet the Wiki criteria for an exception.

What Omni and Bainbridge did disseminated confidential and proprietary material considered by WP:NFC to be non-free content.

Misplaced Pages states that non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license may be used on the English Misplaced Pages only where 10 specific criteria are fully met. See for instance http://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:Licensing_policy

A few of these criteria are met, but two of them are not:

1. Minimal usage. "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". The listing of the Omni mantras in the article along with criteria for their selection and usage go well beyond minimal usage as described by Wiki.

2. Significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". A list of mantras does not in any way deepen the understanding of the reader a TM in a way that could not be achieved by a summary sentence or two describing the mantras and how they are selected according to various sources such as Omni, Bainbridge etc.

For the above reasons, I feel that the mantras should be removed, and replaced with an appropriate summary and description.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems like an excellent rationale that should resolve this controversy nicely. David spector (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've written before, I don't think the mantras themselves need to be in the article. What appears important are the reports that there is a list and that they are assigned according to age.   Will Beback  talk  01:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Luke makes some good points. There doesn't seem to be any definitive information on how the mantras are chosen/given so we can cite the different reliable sources on that point, as we are doing.(olive (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

The argument that the TM Mantras are proprietary or trade secrets is utter nonsense. They are not copyrighted. They are not patented (indeed, the cannot be patented). One cannot simultaneously claim that MMY passed on a thousand-year-old-plus tradition of Vedic knowledge, and claim with a straight fact that it is a trade secret. The assertions are utterly inconsistent with one-another, with logic and rational thought, and with the fundamental principles as well as the letter of law of intellectual property around the world. This utterly baseless assesrtion has been repeated again and again in these talk pages. It's tiring to have to reread again and again the repetition of these nonsensical talking points. If, like TimidGuy, you're getting this stuff by running it past MUM's legal counsel, I feel sorry for the quality of legal representation that MUM must be getting. Fladrif (talk) 13:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the others that the mantras themselves don't need to be in the article. Proprietary doesn't necessarily mean copyrighted or patented. It's a more general term. Yes, this knowledge has been around for thousands of years. But Maharishi's specific teaching is proprietary and confidential for specific reasons. Everyone who is trained as a teacher agrees to keep the information confidential. By definition, this is non-free content. TimidGuy (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No, by definition, because it is not copyrighted, it is free content "free content defined as content that does not bear copyright restrictions on the right to redistribute, study, modify and improve, and otherwise use the works for any purpose in any medium, even commercially". I'm sick and tired of this persistent bad Wikilawyering where editors just invent rules out of thin air to advance their own agendas and POV rather than actually reading and understanding the process here. And while we're at it, what "specific reasons" are behind making this "proprietery and confidental"? And, while TM teachers may sign contracts promising not to reveal information about their training, there is no binding prohibition whatsoever against students revealing what they were taught, including their mantras, so it is nonsensical to claim that this is proprietary and confidential when it isn't confidential at all. Fladrif (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References

1. Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh, Beacon Light of the Himalyas 1955, p. 65.

• Start-Class Alternative medicine articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Mid-importance Religion articles
• Start-Class New religious movements articles
• High-importance New religious movements articles
• New religious movements articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics