Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:36, 14 August 2007

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.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archives

Index 01 (Pre - Feb 2005): 02 (Nov 28 2005 - Nov 30 2005) 03 (Nov 30 2005 - Feb 10 2006) 04 (Feb 10 2006 - May 28 2006) 05 (May 28 2006 - Jun 25 2006) 06 (Jun 25 2006 - Jul 19 2006) 07 (Jul 19 2006 - Oct 31 2006) 08 (Nov 01 2006 - Nov 25 2006) 09 (Nov 25 2006 - Dec 21 2006) 10 (Dec 21 2006 - Jan 11 2007) 11 (Jan 11 2007 - Feb 28 2007) 12 (Feb 28 2007 - Apr 16 2007) 13 (Apr 16 2007 - Oct 01 2007) 14 (Oct 01 2007 - Dec 31 2007) 15 (Dec 31 2007 - Feb 9 2008) 16 (Feb 9 2008 - June 14 2008) 17 (June 14 2008 - Oct 2 2008)

religion section

The religion rewrite has been sitting here on talk pages for quite awhile,without changes, so I guess the time has come to move it. I will add the first setion of the rewrite to the old section in a few days.Any changes can be made now before the move or after in the article.(olive 16:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC))

Let the record show you consistently failed to really address the points I repeatedly made and are an editor with COI suppressing information. By all means, put it there and ignore what I said, more grist for the inevitable mill. Take all the rope you want. --Dseer 07:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did address your concerns, ad nauseam, but I don't agree with them necessarily and as I said if you don't like it change it in the accepted Misplaced Pages manner, and with discussion. You consistently attack with the same comments, COI, but you fail to add or change anything. This material has been sitting here for a very long time and still you do nothing but threaten. This is a collaborative effort. Talk is cheap. I don't see any effort on your part to work collaboratively, which make me suspect your motives. As I said this material can be changed now or later after it is added to the article. I will be working on it in a few days,and will add a better reference for the Cardinal Sin material as suggested by EdJohnson to prepare the move from "talk" to the main article.(olive 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Ps when I say work collaboratively I respect the fact that you comment but I refer to the fact that you never change or add anything.(olive 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC))

Roseapple. I noticed the change you made in removing "so-called" from the religion section. I am ok with this but initially I used that wording with the sense that although TM people might understand and accept the language here others might not. I don't mind if everyone thinks its ok.(olive 03:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Cult section

I have deleted for now the following lines from the Cult section.

A fourth, by Kevin Garvey, a member of the American Family Foundation, makes accusations of spousal and child abuse, but doesn't present evidence.

• The reference is unclear as is the verifiability of the material cited.

a.The writer of the article cited does not present evidence. b.When I went to look for the material it is unclear as to which of the journal issues contains this particular reference. c.Added to this there is no evidence anywhere else that this is a true statement. There is no way at this point to verify this statement, and there is difficulty in verifying the source.Although one could argue that the source is the concern not the statement, I would like to suggest there is a point where some verifiable truth should be considered.(olive 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

I noticed that the translation of the title of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France is a loose, not quite accurate translation. It more accurately should read on sects in France. Secte translates as sect, and the French have a word for cult which is culte . I noted this on the "parent page" as well. Since the parent page is part of a French project we should probably be accurate in translation and that impacts our translation here. Some thought on this.

PS TimidGuy .... yes thank you. Shorter title much better I think.(olive 18:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC))

Cult Issue

After attempting in a couple of different places to find a spot for the Kellett reference in this section, I realized the real problem was that this is not published - as far as I can see -and although Kellett was a TM teacher he is not an expert on the areas he is talking about such as religion and cult to name a couple. This is a personal experience and no matter how legitimate the author might feel this is, this still is as far as I can tell not strong enough as a reference as an encyclopedic entry (olive 02:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

His web site is prominent in the External Links section, so his point of view is still represented. And that may be a more appropriate place for his web site, since, as you say, it doesn't meet the guidelines. TimidGuy 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good deletion, Sethie. I had noticed this as I went through reorganizing this material but went back and forth in my own mind about whether to leave this part in place - whether it was just me seeing this viewpoint. I think you're right this could be seen as a discredit to Scientology just because of how it is worded. Thanks.(olive 19:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

removing tags

Can we remove the tags on this article(neutrality and factual accuracy tags) ..... It seems to be in pretty good shape. (olive 17:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Is there anybody out there who remembers in which section of the discussion the reasons of this tag were pointed out and were discussed? I am starting to rewrite the displorable german version of the article and would like to see the en:-version as a "route where to go". But they tell me "there is a tag". Sure, there is. But why? And also (thanks, olive) - why still? Or: Which changes should be done so that the tag can be removed? -- Josha52 06:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The tag was added well before I began editing the article last September. It's remained a long time because the article was such a battleground for a long time -- a couple years. Right now the article is about the most balanced it's ever been. I've been reluctant to remove the tag, fearing that it will stir incite those who oppose Transcendental Meditation and who feel that it's all a scam. And some who practice TM may feel that the sections on Cult and Religion can't possibly be factually accurate and would rather have the tag.

I think this would be a good model for the German article. If you want, you can go ahead and remove the tag and see what happens. TimidGuy 11:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"And some who practice TM may feel that the sections on Cult and Religion can't possibly be factually accurate and would rather have the tag." think that this is a good point. The tag does not necessarily mean that the article is misleaded in one of the possible directions: It could be just the other way round.

But those who practice TM should not be concerned. The more scientific evidence of positive effects is well documented (Peer review), the more the character of critical arguments will be obvious.

And last: If humans research in a relative field they will always find some different things. To err is human - but proportion is relevant! Those who err are blamed automatically, if the evidences of criticised facts are obvious. Therefore: Still more peer-reviewed evidence! -- Josha52 19:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. For the case of re-insertion: Please give actual reasons, so that the article can be further optimized. Josha52 04:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Last time the tag was inserted was January 11, 2006 by DepartedUser. He ceased to edit with this account. See this version of article . Reasons where given and . Josha52 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

TM alternatives section

I deleted the information recently added about other forms of meditation, since this article is about Transcendental Meditation. The purpose of this section has been not to describe other alternative forms of meditation, of which there are many, but to mention teachers of Transcendental Meditation who are unhappy with charging $2,500 for people to learn and who have now begun offering their own form of meditation. It's this that makes it relevant to the article. TimidGuy 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Research

Putting here a section that I deleted so it can be discussed.

Doubts about quality of research from Randi In his book Flim-Flam!, James Randi expressed his doubts about the pro-TM research in existence at the time, saying that "a small, pleasant, bearded man from India... has turned unproven... notions... into a pseudoscientific mess". He thought it highly unlikely that there was anything radically unusual about the effects of TM. He quoted Dr Peter Fenwick who said "Both the changes in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide output... can all be explained by accepted physiological explanations". Randi suggested that some researchers had seen positive results because of their enthusiasm for the technique. Commenting on the need for objectivity in science, he said "You don't put the accused person's family on the jury". He also reported some cases where attempted replication of pro-TM results had failed. An investigation by Royal College of Surgeons experimenters was unable to confirm a drop of 16 percent in oxygen consumption during meditation. They found only 7 percent, making meditation comparable with sleep in this regard. Scientists at Cardiff University in Wales performed tests on meditators and found no indication that meditation boosted short-term memory although there had been a claim to the contrary.

These early criticisms of very early research have been superseded by later research, including many randomized controlled trials. Please read the guideline regarding this point. There have been decades of research since then, including many studies supported by $24 million in grants from that National Institutes of Health. In fact, please read the research section in the TM article. If you find studies that are unable to replicate these later studies, or studies that show results that are at odds with the results reported here, please include that within the research section. TimidGuy 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have already read the research section of the article and found it to be insufficient. This is why I added a new section which you removed. Are you saying that there is a guideline relating to superseded criticisms? If so, can you tell me where it is so I can see if my changes are ruled out? As to the many studies funded by NIH, we should not assume that such studies invalidate anything. Misplaced Pages takes a neutral point of view.Eiler7 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what the guideline on Reliable Sources said for a long time: "Where a subject has evolved or changed over time a long standing source may not be accurate with respect to the current situation. To interpret utility one must appreciate how the subject has changed and has that change impacted on any of the salient points of the the source information. Historical or out of date sources may be used to demonstrate evolution of the subject but should be treated with caution where used to illustrate the subject." But in the current iteration, it doesn't. When I asked why, one of those who edits the gudelines suggested I put it back in.

But it's just common sense. For example, the suggeston by Randi that researchers see positive results because of the subjects' enthusiasm for the technique. As you probably know, randomized controlled trials are able to control for this sort of thing. It's one of the most rigorous research designs. And there have been many such randomized controlled trials since Randi wrote his criticism.

It would be better not to cite Randi but rather to find the original studies he's referencing. Then we can compare those results with more recent results. If it seems like it's a significant finding, then we can add it to the research section. Note, for example, that the research section currently includes both positive and negative results. That's the nature of the scientific process.

We may have an issue of undue weight if we were to add the sort of prominent section you proposed. There have been hundreds studies, done at over 200 different universities and research institutions, with many being published in top peer-reviewed medical journals. It may be be misleading to highlight a few studies from the 1970s without considering the proper context of the larger body of research. TimidGuy 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the guideline you quoted. Unfortunately, the guideline does not justify the removal of the section as it only gives the general principle. You say "it may be misleading to highlight a few studies from the 1970s". Well, the possibility that a[REDACTED] article is misleading will always exist. What you need to do is establish that in this specific case, it definitely is misleading. Otherwise the section that you removed will need to go back.

Citing Randi, as a leading critic, seems an entirely valid thing to do. Indeed, as[REDACTED] is supposed to mirror the world in its treatment of subjects and the general skepticism about miraculous benefits of meditation, we may well have to give greater prominence to critics than supporters. There is a significant difference between the publication of a result and the result being generally accepted by the scientific world.

Just because there are a lot of studies, it does not follow that the results have been replicated. Replication is an important part of the scientific process. There was a big flap about cold fusion but somehow the anomalies could never be reproduced in a different lab. Are there any significant claims as to the efficacy of TM that have been replicated by credible non-believers? If so, then you might be able to claim that the Randi criticisms have been rendered irrelevant. If not, the criticisms are notable. Eiler7 17:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been many replications. A number of the-NIH funded studies were led by principal investigators who don't practice Transcendental Meditation. Significant research on the neurological effects was done by Archie Wilson of UC Irvine, who doesn't practice Transcendental Meditation. Etc. Etc. The research has been conducted at over 200 universities and research institutions. It is broadly based.

The research is widely accepted in the scientific community. It's not possible to get grants from the National Institutes of Health unless the research is of the highest quality and rigor. You must know that these grants are highly competitive and exceedingly difficult to get. Just the fact that the research program has been funded by NIH over a 20-year period is remarkable. The research has been published in top medical journals, including those put out by the American Medical Association and the American Heart Association.

The researchers are highly respected. Note for example, that Robert Schneider, M.D., one of the leading researchers, was invited to Capitol Hill to address the White House Commission on Complementary and Alternative Medicine. He and other Transcendental Meditation researchers have given presentations at meetings of the Centers for Disease Control. He was honored by being elected a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology. He and other researchers on Transcendental Meditation have been invited by the National institutes of Health to review grant applications. Researchers on Transcendental Meditation serve as peer reviewers for major academic journals because of their track record of publication in major journals.

It's hard to know what more could be done to establish the scientific basis and the credibility of the research on Transcendental Meditation.

And frankly, I have a problem with Randi, who is basically a magician with a high school education whose knowledge of science is limited. (I can give a compelling example of that.) He tends to use straw-man arguments.

Note too that science has its own epistemology. Research is a dialog. Researchers spend years to establish cause and effect. Valid criticism should be on that level of peer-review, not some popular book or magazine or web site. The Misplaced Pages guideline for Reliable Sources suggests as much: Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/examples#In_science.2C_avoid_citing_the_popular_press.

Gotta run to lunch. I hope this helps to answer your concerns about the credibility of the research. TimidGuy 17:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Randi is not basically a magician. He is an expert who was called in by an editor of Nature, the foremost science journal in the world, to help examine a controversial homeopathy result. The reliable sources refers to the "popular press", a reference to tabloids I assume which can indeed be unreliable. Randi's book is not a tabloid. Randi is a serious science writer whose work was praised by Carl Sagan.

There has been NIH funding for Therapeutic Touch research. Science is not determined as valid by the amount of government funding. Governments can be bad at science. The White House was doubtful about global warming. NASA funded Targ's ESP experiments which failed to give positive results. What is your source for the claim that you cannot get grants from NIH unless the research is very good?

I did a google search on "Archie Wilson" but found nothing to indicate that he is a brilliant researcher, just pro-TM sites and other sites. What is your source for the idea that he is credible? Has he published in Nature?

The American College of Cardiology appears to be a medical association. The[REDACTED] page on it has nothing to suggest that being a fellow of it is a mark of extreme scientific credibility.

I think there are things that could be done to demonstrate the credibility of TM research. Can you cite an edition of Nature with a study that showed that TM is different from rest or sleep? Nature, whilst not infallible, does try to insist on high standards as far as I am aware. Eiler7 22:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a overview over comparison work. Unfortunately (not yet) NATURE-published stuff. Josha52 13:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. Eiler, in the guideline I cited, "popular press" means any publication that's not a scientific journal. It is generally known that NIH grants are competitive, and any scientist would respect the fact that this research has received $25 million in funding over a 20-year period, resulting in publication in major medical journals. NIH is the major funding body for medical research in universities in the U.S. I mentioned Archie Wilson as one example of researchers on Transcendental Meditation who don't practice the technique. Another who comes to mind is Brian Olshansky, who did a replication of the hypertension research. These are just a couple that immediately come to mind. (A search on AF Wilson in a medical index shows 214 publications.) Regarding the honor of F.A.C.C., see this page. Hope that helps. TimidGuy 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

History more to the end?

Comparing TM-articles with articles on other let’s say health practices we can see: "History" is almost always put to the end of an article (before controversies). I think this is a good idea. When I ask a encyclopedia soemthing about Reflexology I would like to read first what it is, second which theory stands behind it, third what research has found out. In a later turn I may be interested in history and controversy. I suggested also to change the german article in this way. -- Josha52 19:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Seems fine to me. Maybe wait and see what Olive thinks. She's been doing a lot of work on the article and may have an opinion. TimidGuy 20:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this makes sense to me. In a sense what is first in the article should perhaps be what is current. History, and Controversies contain some dated material and may only be of interest in a historical sense. I am unfortunately only onîne for short periods so might have trouble making this change .... so my vote is to go ahead and make the change whoever is available.(olive 21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Done. Josha52 03:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures needed

I am looking for copyright free pictures to be used in Misplaced Pages: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (what about the picture on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi? It could not be found in WikiCommon!) and one of Keith Wallace (I have asked him already). Any idea? Josha52 15:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha. Will give it some thought. Am working on getting some photos of Maharishi. Maybe also a photo of someone meditating! TimidGuy 10:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Got the permission to use picture from here, but: think this would not be a good idea anymore. Because: Uploading to Misplaced Pages means, that the picture becomes public domain (as far as I Commons understand). Everybody is able then to use those pictures as he likes. Or am I wrong? --Josha52 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that is correct. TimidGuy 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the only way would be: getting an international permission from the owner. I’ll try. May be you’ll try too. One point of view: Better a picture then none. The other: better no picture then any problems in future. Solution in between: a private picture. Since MMY is a person of public interest there would be no need to ask him. Otherwise it would be an act of courtesy to do so. In Germany a picture which became public domain definitely never could be taken out again from public domain. -- Josha52 19:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

Seems not to be sufficient. Reader may ask why it is expansive in comparison to other techniques. Proposal (please correct bad english):

Now:
"... at the time of instruction, a process which requires a fee after introductory presentations ($2,500 as of 2006), and generally takes five to seven days."

More precise:
"... at the time of instruction. The Transcendental Meditation technique is taught in a worldwide standardisized 7-step-procedure. It includes two introductory lectures and a personal interview (free) and four consecutive 2-hour-instructions followed by an follow-up ten days after. Every course graduate is eligible for lifetime follow-up at any Transcendental Meditation center for checkings of correctedness of meditation practice. Course fee inclusive follow up requires $2,500 as of 2006."

Reasoning:

1. Standardized procedure is specifc to T.M.
2. Price can only be understood in regard to service.
3. Instruction is not only instruction into T.M. (learning the technique), but verifying the correctness of the practice, learning the mechanics of the Transcendental Meditation technique and learning the mechanics of the development of higher states of consciousness. --Josha52 08:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Josha, for the suggestion. We'd need a reference for that information. And we'd need to be cautious about getting too detailed, because that may make it sound too promotional. I think the part about standardized procedure is good. It's mainly the amount of detail about followup. I especially like specifying four consecutive 2-hour instructions. Otherwise it sounds like the person is learning full time for five to seven days. I may go ahead and make that change. TimidGuy 15:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Structure

First section seems to go too much in detail already. As far as I understand the procedure how an article should get structured this section should be a short description of the Lemma.

Therefore parts of this section could go into the section "Procedures and theory".

The section "Procedures and theory" again could be splitted into "Procedure" and "Theory".

"Theory of consciousness" as a part of its own does not seem to be necessary.

Structure would look like this:

(Introduction)

1. Procedure
2. Theory
   1. Maharishi's theory of enlightenment
   2. Research on "higher states of consciousness"
3. Research on the Transcendental Meditation technique
   1. .
   2. .
   3. .

Reasoning: Reader would find more easily those sections of special interest for him. --Josha52 08:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This is good. I agree with your proposal regarding the new organization for procedures and theory. Regarding the first paragraph -- let's see if Roseapple has an opinion. She recently moved some material into that paragraph that had been in Procedures and Theory. TimidGuy 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Clarity and brevity are always worthy goals! What about the following, with the proper citations:

"Transcendental Meditation, or TM, is a trademarked meditation technique introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. The Transcendental Meditation technique is practiced for twenty minutes twice a day while sitting with the eyes closed, enabling the mind to "transcend" to a state of "restful alertness." A distinguishing feature of this meditation is its lack of effort as contrasted with techniques involving contemplation or concentration. The practice is said to have been taught to over 6 million people worldwide. Research has been done on the effects of this meditation technique on mind and body, ranging from investigating its effects on cardiovascular disease to studying the physiological and psychological correlates of so-called "higher states of consciousness" purported to result from its practice."

Roseapple 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Roseapple. I think it reads well. We could put the Maharishi Vedic Science point later in the article. And it does seem like the mantra material should go in the Procedures section. We definitely want to delete the info that is repeated later about being taught two hours a day over a 7-day period. Good job. TimidGuy 15:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I made the proposed change; there may be a better place for the sentence about Maharishi Vedic Science. Roseapple 02:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the structure of the article, to me it would make more sense to read about the research on TM before reading about research on higher states of consciousness. What if the article were organized:

1. Intro
2. Procedure
3. Research on TM
4. Theory of consciousness/enlightenment
5. Research on higher states

Roseapple 02:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Roseapple, for improving it. I agree with your proposed structure. I've long had the same idea. TimidGuy 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Cult Section

Again in the interest of clarity and brevity, I propose condensing the second paragraph in the "cult" section putting it at the end of what is now the third paragraph in that section.

The condensation would read:

Transcendental Meditation, along with other groups such as Baptists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists and the Church of Scientology were named as cult/sects in France in 1995, in The Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France generated by the National Assembly of France. (with link to document)Roseapple 02:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Admin Jossi added much of that qualifying material, seeking to show the weakness of the claim and how the government itself no longer credits it. A good way to handle it would be to condense it as you've done and put the deleted material in the footnote. I know how to do that. TimidGuy 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to condense the last paragraph in the cult section. If the article is going to say Orme Johnson refers to "dissertations done at York University and Harvard" then a reference for those dissertations should be included in the article. I think the paragraph can read simply:

Researcher David Orme-Johnson, who has authored over 100 studies related to the Transcendental Meditation technique (most of them peer-reviewed), argues that the Transcendental Meditation organization is not a cult. He notes that research shows that the Transcendental Meditation technique produces effects in practitioners that are the opposite to those found in people who allegedly become involved in cults. He observes that cults are generally characterized as closed systems, directly opposite to the Transcendental Meditation organization, which submits to the rigors of scientific testing, continues to encourage research by independent universities and research organizations, publishes consistently in peer-reviewed journals, and participates actively in scientific conferences worldwide. Roseapple 14:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks much for rewriting this, Roseapple. Seems like we need to include some facet of his main point that the research using measures such as "field independence" show greater autonomy and independence of thought among those who practice TM rather than fostering cult-like behavior. That may be the more important point than submitting to the rigors of scientific testing. (Though that's an important point, too.) I agree that it would be good to condense this paragraph. TimidGuy 19:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I completely understood your suggestion. When you say that a reference to those studies should be included in the article, do you mean adding that to the research section? TimidGuy 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the article refers to "dissertations done at Harvard and York University" those studies should be referenced specifically, in the article itself, or in a footnote. Wouldn't that be encyclopedia calibre writing? Roseapple 00:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Will work on it. TimidGuy 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I rather prefer the specific references to Harvard and York Universities. Although we could specifically reference these studies in the main body of this section, my understanding is that we are "reporting" on Orme- Johnson in an encyclopedic fashion, rather than writing the research paper ourselves. Orme Johnson has been established as a reliable source so we can refer to his comments on this topic noting that he references these universities. The reader can then refer to Orme Johnson should he want to find out more.We could, then, if needed add the studies to"further reading". Referring to universities in general would present exactly the same problem were it necessary to reference what universities we are talking about and what studies. Referring to these schools specifically has impact and as well is more specific. This was my understanding anyway of how this works.(olive 00:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Can anyone tell me what the first paragraph in this section means? Rumiton 12:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the first sentence in the cult section of the article, it's a summary of the rest of the section. Not sure if that's what you were referring to. Roseapple 14:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I meant this: Critics suggest that the TM technique and related programs display cult–like tendencies, while research studies on the technique suggest human development in practitioners of the technique to be directly opposed to cult-like behaviours and tendencies. Try as I might, I can extract no meaning from it. Rumiton 16:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Now that you mention it, the syntax of the second clause is indeed challenging. Will try to fix. TimidGuy 16:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Organizational point

Originally the statement, "The Transcendental Meditation technique is one aspect of "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness, which are the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science." was used in the opening paragraph of this article to indicate an organizational point, that is, that TM was one arm of a two armed approach to the development of consciousness as outlined by Maharishi.One arm the technique itself was experiential, the other arm referred to the practical aspects of the Vedic Science such as education, archcitecture and so forth. For me this fits more appropriately in the first paragraph were the reader immediately becomes aware of the overall organizational form of Vedic Science That said if anyone feels strongly about this well, it could be reverted.(olive 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC))

concerning Dyhana

I wonder if this topic placed where it is now is misplaced. Procedure seems to deal with the actual steps of teaching whereas dhyana is more about theory Would it be better placed under Theory of Consciousness? If no one minds I'd like to try it there.(olive 16:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

1. Transcendental Meditation

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics