Misplaced Pages

Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) at 03:57, 18 April 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive 3.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:57, 18 April 2013 by MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 90d) to Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique/Archive 3.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation technique article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

Error: The code letter tm for the topic area in this contentious topics talk notice is not recognised or declared. Please check the documentation.

WikiProject iconTranscendental Meditation movement B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation 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.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movementWikiProject icon
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Transcendental Meditation technique article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
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.

Parking sourced content for discussion

This stuff was in the SCI/Characterizations section and, correct me if I'm wrong, but the are not specifically about SCI. Can we use these someplace else?

  • A 2009 research review in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry says that "despite the criticisms (that) its organizational structure and religious viewpoints have aroused, TM’s medical claims have been taken seriously."ref>Dakwar, Elias and Levin, Francis R. (2009) The Emerging Role of Meditation in Addressing Psychiatric Illness, with a Focus on Substance Use Disorders, Harvard Review</ref
  • In a 1980 book, Neurophysiologist Michael Persinger wrote that "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" .ref name="Harvey1993" . ref name=Persinger>Persinger, Michael A.; Carrey, Normand J.; Suess, Lynn A. (1980). TM and cult mania. North Quincy, Mass.: Christopher Pub. House. ISBN 0-8158-0392-3. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The main purpose of the first one (2009 review) seemed to be to balance a statement by James Randi, which denied any scientific basis for claims of benefit for TM. But since that statement is now gone (because it both had nothing to do with SCI, and was considered non-compliant with MEDRS), there would no longer seem to be any purpose for this statement about TM's medical claims being taken seriously. Also, as you say, the statement has no bearing on SCI. I can't think of another place this statement would go, with advantage to that article. The same point has been brought out in different ways in the other articles, I believe.
  • Re: Persinger, I agree--the statement does not apply to this section on SCI, but rather to discussion of TM and TM marketing. As to where else it could go--same reaction as to above text. There's already lots on the TM orgns use of science in bringing TM to the public. Also, the quotation seems weak. The phrase, "Science has been used as a sham for propaganda" is unskillful prose. I think he means that the TM orgn has made a sham of science in its marketing. Even if grammatically correct (which is doubtful) the phrase is unfamiliar and a head-scratcher. Not up to standard, IMHO. EMP (talk 18:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The quote from Cult Mania could possibly go in the Marketing section but I'd like to see the context of the quote first. I think I can get the book at my library. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The quote is actually from an article in the Ottawa Citizen. The article is ostensibly quoting the book, but given the problematic syntax, it would be a good idea to locate the quote in the book to see if it's accurate. Apart from this, I question Persinger's 1980 book from a Christian publisher as a source. It goes into detail criticizing the research, faulting every area. But that was 33 years ago. In the intervening years, the research has been published in top medical journals, has been funded by NIH, and has been recognized as playing a role in developing the new field of mind/body medicine. TM is included in standard medical textbooks. I would think that a statement by Dakwar in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry would have more weight that an outdated book from a Christian publisher that claims the research is a sham. TimidGuy (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I finally got a hold of the book and here is the quote from page 35:

  • The Maharishi insists that his meditational states can be verified by science (rationalism) but at the same time he emphasizes the importance of inner experience, which cannot be verified easily. Within the format of this peculiar postulation, TM scientists have engaged in sham research. The have intended to "scientifically prove" the nebulous and indefinite statements of the Maharishi by spanning vast conceptual distances between concise data and the diffuse wonder of words of mystical philosophy.

Therefore the current text: "science has been used as a sham for propaganda by the TM movement" seems grossly overstated and inaccurate. Also, the topic of SCI is not mentioned until page 92 and receives only a minor mention. I recommend that the following text be placed in the Marketing section:

  • According to the 1980 book, TM and Cult Mania, scientists associated with TM have attempted to prove the Maharishi's concepts by uniting scientific data and mystical philosophy.

Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My feeling is that this source has been superseded by the many research reviews that include research on TM and report that TM does indeed result in a wakeful hypo metabolic state, does indeed find EEG signatures that are unique, does indeed affect body chemistry in specific ways. The National Institutes of Health wouldn't provide $25 million in funding over a period of 20 years for "sham research." The early studies, according to a research review published by the New York Academy of Sciences, are now considered classic. The study by Wallace in Science published in 1970 has been cited over 900 times. This research has a solid footing in the scientific literature, and we shouldn't give any weight, in my opinion, to a 1980 book published by a small Christian press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concerns ie that it is not a reliable for discounting the large body of research on TM because its was published in 1980 and because the source makes a sweeping statement and provides no details about what it is referring to ie. SCI, health studies, unified field claims etc. At the same time I think it has validity as a third party opinion about the way some scientists associated with TM have spoken about TM using examples from science to justify metaphysical theory. So my suggestion is to place the text I've recommended above, in the TM movement article under the section "Characterizations of marketing" since the Marketing section has already been moved from this article to the TM movement article. Would that be an acceptable compromise? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Since there is no response for four days I have add the text as I suggested above in the TMM Reception to Marketing section if there is still disagreement, then TG you can revert and we can continue discussion. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to amend lead

  • Currently in the lead: It is reported to be one of the most widely practiced, and among the most widely researched, meditation techniques, with over 340 peer-reviewed studies published. Research reviews of the effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique have yielded results ranging from inconclusive to clinically significant.
  • I think undue weight is being given to a very small section of the article and I recommend removing the second sentence. Comments? -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. First, content on the research was so extensive that it was originally split off from the main TM article of the time. The research section in this article now links to an entire article's worth of content. Second, the second sentence is merely the briefest of summaries of the entire range of the research which gives the reader simple, but critical information on the research findings. I suggest strongly that the sentence in the lead stay in the article.(olive (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC))
What I would suggest given that the sentence appears twice in the article is to expand it slightly for the research section, then leaving the summary now in the lead, in place. The same content appears three times in the TM article and that's another issue. I 'd add that this content replaces inaccurate content that was repeated over many articles. The sentence under discussion simply replaced each repetition of that inaccurate sentence. It is time to trim that kind of repetitive content in my opinion as I had suggested in the past (olive (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))
Since we have a TM research article, I am not sure that expanding the research section here is warranted. If we left it as is, the research section is quite small and it does not, in my opinion, warrant a sentence on research in the lead. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a sentence at the most. In my mind the section is long and the content so extensive it had to be split off. This indicates content that is highly significant. A slightly longer explanation would be warranted. (olive (talk) 17:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC))
The current summary is quite good. I'd hate to start going into more detail in this article, because there are so many facets of the research to deal with and so many different findings. If you have a specific idea of what should be added, perhaps draft some text. TimidGuy (talk) 11:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I haven't explained very well. I am suggesting a very slight extension of the sentence that has been repeated, or possibly saying the same thing in slightly different words with a bit of extension. I think that sentence belongs in the lead, but it shouldn't be repeated (or should it ), especially that it appears 7 times in the TM articles. We can either remove it or explain it a little more. I can't see this as changing the section very much or extending it.(olive (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

        • I have moved this discussion to TM which is the mother article, to centralize the discussion This is a larger issue than this content appearing in one article. Once we have looked at the overall picture then we could come back and solve this problem. Otherwise this has become very confusing.(olive (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC))

Parking text that needs verification

  • and in one of his books, the Maharishi refers to TM as "a path to God". --Meditations of Maharishi. p. 59

This text has a an incomplete citation and there had been no response to request for quote made 7 months ago. If a source can be found it can be added back to the Characterizations section -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

  • I've added the reference for the book which I found on Amazon. The quote probably deserves some contextual material. I'll let Kbob put this back in since he parked it.(olive (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC))
  1. ^ Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi (1973). Meditations of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Bantam. p. 59.
The book does say, "Transcendental Meditation is a path to God." But it would be better if we included some of the context. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree and Olive mentioned this also. However I don't have access to the source.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Why do we have this at the beginning of the article?

This statement appears at the top of the article:

This article is about the technique. For the organization, see Transcendental Meditation movement.

Isn't it self-evident that this article is about the technique? That is, after all, the title of the article. It's unlikely that someone would arrive at this article expecting to read about the TM movement. The most likely landing point for a reader would be the main TM article, and that very clearly directs readers to the TM technique and TM movement articles. Seems like this statement isn't needed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a similar statement referring back to this article on the TM movement article. We should either remove both or keep both. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Any objection to my deleting both? TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Addition of Omni content:Mantras

There was agreement to not include the mantras published in Omni . Given that agreement I'd like to move the content here for further discussion. If there is good reason to put the content back in it could be considered here now.(olive (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC))


In 1984, these 16 mantras were published in Omni magazine based on information from "disaffected TM teachers":

Ages 0 - 11 12 - 13 14 - 15 16 - 17 18 - 19 20 - 21 22 - 23 24 - 25 26 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - up
Mantra eng em enga ema aeng aem aenga aema shirin shirim hiring hirim kiring kirim sham shama
  1. Cite error: The named reference Bainbridge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Bainbridge, William Sims (2007). Across the secular abyss: from faith to wisdom. Lexington Books. p. 136. ISBN 978-0-7391-1678-4.
  3. Barrett, David V. (2001-06-30). The New Believers. Cassell. ISBN 978-0-304-35592-1.
  4. "Transcendental Truth". Omni. January 1984. p. 129.
  5. Scott, R.D. (1978). Transcendental Misconceptions. San Diego: Beta Books. ISBN 0-89293-031-4.

Una Kroll

I'm reading through Una Kroll's book, The Healing Power of Transcendental Meditation, and am impressed with her language and explanations which are very approachable. I'll add content to the articles from her book because I can see her view as easy to follow and understand. She is both a medical doctor and proclaimed Christian and so seems to be in a very good position to give a somehwat neutral, although personal, of course, view of the technique.(olive (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC))

I skimmed that book a couple months ago and felt that it was a good source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to article

An editor added the following text to the TM article. I removed it, because it seemed more appropriate to this article.

The following quotation sums up the fundamental principles of Transcendental Meditation: "The fundamental premise of the psychology of fulfillment is that within every person exists a seemingly inexhaustible center of energy, intelligence, and satisfaction... To the extent that our behavior depends on the degree of energy and intelligence available to us, this center of pure creative intelligence may be described as that resource which gives direction to all that we experience, think and do."

Should this text be added to the article? TimidGuy (talk) 10:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added the text to the article. Is the placement of the text ok? It seems to fit in with the general flow of the article.Matipop (talk) 00:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matipop and welcome to the TM topic area. I see that you are a new editor and you may not be aware that the opening paragraphs of an article (called the lead or lede) are supposed to be a summary of the main points from the entire article per WP:LEAD. So I've moved it to the Theoretical Concepts section and gave it an inline attribution. Meanwhile, welcome to the article and topic area and please feel free to edit the article and/or bring your thoughts, suggestions or questions here to the talk page for discussion. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Keithbob. Thank you for the tip. Still learning the ropes and its been a pretty interesting time so far. Learning something new everyday. :) Matipop (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  1. Phelan, Michael. "Transcendental Meditation. A Revitalization of the American Civil Religion". Archives de sciences sociales des religions. 1 (48). {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
Categories:
Talk:Transcendental Meditation technique Add topic