Talk:Transcendental Meditation

Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience

Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience".

I am not sure this warrants being in the lead. We don't mention skeptics or pseudoscience anywhere else on the page...On the TM technique, Movement, research and history pages...it is barely discussed at all. In light of this we should delete it from the lead due to its lack of presence in the article and subordinate articles.--Uncreated (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

A) We've discussed this extensively in the past.[1] Is there anything new to say?

B) Given the number and quality of sources, if we don't mention it in the text then we should.   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

LOL okay I can see there has been quite some discussion about this. What ever my 2 cents are worth at this point...it seems funny that a reader might come by the article and see the sentence in the lead...but then after 20 minutes of reading etc only then come to a sentence or two in the subordinate articles where skeptics describe the Science of Creative Intelligence and Vedic Science as Pseudoscience. It doesnt seem right to me at least that the spectrum of "TM" is painted with the brush of this one sentence in the lead...when in reality as far as I can see sceptics are labeling SCI and VS as a Pseudoscience not the entire field of "TM". In the lead of the TM technique article it says, "Skeptics question whether SCI is actually scientific." Maybe we should be using a similar softer sentence in the lead.--Uncreated (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

SCI and VS are the underpinnings of TM. If I understand correctly, it's impossible to be initiated into TM nowadays without some training in SCI and VS. TM-Sidhi is a very important extension of TM. And so on. I really don't want to rehash the last two dozen threads on this. Everywhere I look there are TM-oriented editors proposing deleting unflattering material from the TM articles,[2] or insisting on using poorly sourced defenses of the movement.   Will Beback  talk  18:30, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been nearly 40 years since I learned TM, but when I was taught, the level of SCI theory given could be summed up as: there is an infinite reservoir of creativity and intelligence at the basis of thought, TM allows one to gain rest and thereby reach that level, because the deepest level of rest IS that level, and that repeated practice of TM, alternated with daily activity will eventually create a situation where that reservoir is always available throughout daily activity because that level of rest has undone the stresses that prevent you from normally operating at that level in the first place. Sparaig2 (talk) 00:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Brahmananda Saraswati (Guru Dev) has not taught Maharishi

According to the German documentary "David wants to fly" (videoportal.sf.tv), the sentence "is a version of a technique passed down from the Maharishi's teacher, Brahmananda Saraswati" is wrong. The narrator (David) travels to the monastery where Brahmananda Saraswati taught and met his successor(1h24min in the video), who said this:

"Maharishi served Guru Dev as accountant (or clerk?)." [Maharishi diente Guru Dev als Buchhalter.] ... "Guru Dev has not trained him as a Yogi or spiritual teacher." [Guru Dev hat ihn nicht als Yogi oder spirituellen Lehrer ausgebildet.] ... "Maharishi belonged to the clerk caste. He had no right to give mantras or teach meditation." [Maharishi kam aus der Schreiberkaste. Er hatte kein Recht, Mantren zu vergeben oder Meditation zu lehren.]

Should I include it in the article? I don't have an English source though. But I thought it's relevant.

Kind regards, Marc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilchimy (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, there were at least 2 claimants to the Jyotirmath seat at the time the film was made. The controversy about who should or should not have been made Shankaracharya as Swami Brahmananda Saraswati's (SBS) successor has been going on ever since SBS died nearly 60 years ago. Interestingly enough, even before Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (MMY) became famous, there were two basic camps: the person supported by the committee of scholars and priests who originally chose SBS in the first place, and the person supported by MMY, who produced the will designating who would be the next Shankaracharya. Regardless of any "official" title that MMY had in the monastery, it is obvious that he was very influential in that branch of the tradition because MMY's camp prevailed in court for many decades and it wasn't until a 2nd generation successor was appointed (one not named in the will and who had never studied directly with SBS) that the courts ruled in favor of the other claimant.Sparaig2 (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

This is possibly the most complete discussion of the Shankaracharya succession controversySparaig2 (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS and literature reviews

Re: previous section: Although the Paradies review does not explicitly ID itself as a syst review, it has the main characteristic features of one. However, even if one doubts that it is systematic , it is certainly a high-quality general or literature review ( also referred to as a narrative review).

MEDRS does not relegate literature reviews to the status of “lesser quality evidence.” In fact, the opening statement in WP:MEDRS (the “This page in a nutshell” summary) states: “Ideal sources for biomedical material include general (literature) or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks . . . ”

Later, under “Assessing Evidence Quality,” here [3] MEDRS adds: “The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs; other controlled studies . . .”

Again, the literature or narrative review is ranked at the highest level, and is considered helpful in establishing evidence quality. Early morning person (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The material in this article is just a summary of what is in the TM research article. The talk page of that article is where you should discuss it.   Will Beback  talk  19:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me useful to discuss it here too. It’s not as if I have dropped this from the blue. There has been substantial discussion of this issue on this talk page, and I am responding to specific points that have been made by Doc James here. So why not discuss it here? 99.240.168.179 (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we should not edit the material here first. It is and should remain a summary of the much more detailed material at the sub-article. I suggest just copying this and the thread above to that page.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Summarising Ospina and Krisanaprakornkit

[4] This reflects the salient points from Ospina's structured abstract on page v: [5]. The abstract mentions TM exactly once, saying "Meta-analyses based on low-quality studies and small numbers of hypertensive participants showed that TM®, Qi Gong and Zen Buddhist meditation significantly reduced blood pressure." The abstract also presents, as its overall conclusion, that no firm conclusions can be drawn due to the studies' poor methodological quality. The summary of the anxiety review [6] follows much the same line: "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders. Transcendental meditation is comparable with other kinds of relaxation therapies in reducing anxiety" (for further detail see the "Main results" and "Conclusions" in the structured abstract). --JN466 11:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As the current wording was decided by a RfC I would prefer to start another one to get consensus before changing from the current version. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

When was the RfC please, and would you have a link? --JN466 19:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[7]. Never closed, no consensus.

Followed closely by this AE [8]. Sanctions: Future Perfect seconded by Cirt.(olive (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC))

• Jmh649, could you confirm if this is the RfC you were referring to? --JN466 00:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since James has not responded here, perhaps a message on his user page would help.(olive (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC))

TM is considered by many people to be a cult

and yet this is not discussed in more than a passing somewhat cynical remark. Many people who jave left TM describe in detail the ways in which the TM organization takes over the lives and assets of its members. My whole family is trapped in this thing and have spent large amounts of money on all their services and products, despite being quite poor. They would for instance prefer to pay for a yogic flying course than pay for a college education, or even help out with rent. I think this issue, which is very widespread and is in fact the basis of the TM movement, should be discussed more in depth in the article. 132.66.235.247 (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

This article serves as an umbrella or overview covering several sub-articles. One of those is Transcendental Meditation movement, which has a more extensive discussion of that issue.   Will Beback  talk  01:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course the material would need to be supported by reliable sources. --BwB (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for refactoring for readability

This article (and indeed most of its associated family of articles) is written in a way that emphasizes controversy in such an extreme way that it is difficult to discover the facts behind TM (such as: what is it, what does it do, are there any bad effects?, etc.) without becoming, against one's will, embroiled in every single polarizing issue that has ever been published.

I'm not saying that only one POV should be represented. I'm saying that, since controversy has been over-represented, the article needs to be refactored into completely separate pro- and anti- sections or articles. I am aware that WP encourages mixing issues together in a single narrative. But this idea has not been achieved here in a neutral way, and, given the history of editing here, this is not likely to be achieved.

Rather than holding on to this unreadable structure, I propose that we embark on a major project to rewrite one or all of these articles to eliminate the constant jerking from pro- to anti- points of view. Let's structure this so it's readable first in a pro- position, then in an anti- position. We could even conclude with a Controversy section that allows in-depth discussion of the issues that are of particular interest in terms of controversy.

WP policies do not rule out the creation of readable articles on controversial subjects. There is even one policy that encourages the disregard of policies if it results in a better article.

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree, and let me know your thoughts on this idea. David Spector (user/talk) 22:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Waiting for responses. Something like this seems to have been done at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome. David Spector (user/talk) 14:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi David, As you know this is the "lead" article for an entire topic area that consists of dozens of articles (43 in the TM template and 80+ in the TM category). It serves as a kind of portal to the topic area and as a result of what I believe to be prior consensus [9] it consists of the lead paragraphs from the "main" articles in the topic. So if the content of this article seems problematic in some way the first step would be to verify that it contains the most up to date versions of the lead paragraphs for the articles it highlights. Then if a particular section still seems inept then we would need to go to that individual article and check and see if the lead paragraph is a good summary of what the body of the article says per WP:LEAD. If the lead is an accurate summary, and it is still not satisfactory then we would need to look to the body of that article to see what needs to be tuned up there. Then the lead of that article could be amended to accurately reflect the body of that individual article and then in turn that new version of the lead for that article could be copied to the appropriate section here in the main TM article. I hope this makes sense. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)