Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 12

message: I've removed the paragraph based on Max Planck's speculation as his writings in a non-scientific source from the 1930s aren't at all indicative of the opinions of modern physicists on modern topics. In addition, from the perspective of a high energy theorist, parts of the section currently read like patent nonsense, but I'm not certain as to how to remedy the situation. --Philosophus T 13:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm removing the quote from Pagels since it is redundant; what he said was summarized in the preceding sentence. Roseapple 03:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Planck as source, QFT section in general 

message: I've added the Wikipedia tag regarding excessive quotations at the top of the criticism section. As I understand it, proper Wikipedia style generally entails finding a qualified secondary source, adding a summary of that information to the Wikipedia article, and citing the original source. Especially in the religion section, which tends to string together random quotes rather than summarizing a source in encyclopedia style. I hope that we can gradually address this. TimidGuy 16:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia style and excessive quotations 

message: Thanks, everyone, for your discussion of pseudoscience. It's been fascinating. It seems like we have consensus that the TM research is science and not pseudoscience. This is a big step. There are two issues that remain: 1) the philosophical conjecture regarding the unified field, and 2) the research on the TM-Sidhi program/Maharishi Effect. Right now it seems like the main concern of Michaelbusch and Philosophus is the former. Also, since the latter is the province of the Wikipedia article on the TM-Sidhi program, then I suggest that if that's an issue, we take it up there.
So regarding the unified field, I'm not quite sure what the concern is. Philosophus suggested that while the empirical research is sound, it's the accompanying theory that's pseuodoscientific. But the unified field isn't referenced in the research publications. The theory that explains the results is nicely summarized in an article that I was just looking at in the Journal of Offender Rehabilitation: "“We hypothesized that practice of the TM technique would promote self-development in prison inmates through a dual process of transcending and the release of deep rooted stresses. Transcending allows the activity of the mind to settle from its usual incessant activity into the silent level of transcendental consciousness, the Self.” And “The profound physiological rest gained through transcending sets the initial conditions for the body’s self-repair mechanisms to normalize long-lasting effects of stress. A wide range of evidence indicates the TM program normalizes effects of stress.”
It's true that we sometimes use interchangably transcendental consciousness, pure intelligence, the absolute, pure being, pure consciousness, and unified field when discussing the Vedic understanding of existence. But it's just one term among many that we use. As far as I know, we don't use it in marketing, we don't say it proves anything, we don't ever say that the unified field has been proven to be the same as pure consciousness, we don't use it in our empirical studies. And the usage comes from John Hagelin, who wrote a seminal paper in the mid-80s titled "Is Consciousness the Unified Field?" He's no slouch. He has his PhD from Harvard and has been a researcher at two of the top particle accelerators in the world: CERN and SLAC. He's thought deeply about this.
It's a philosophical conjecture. And it's unrelated to our research and the theory that undergirds the research. And it's just a small point in a large body of philsophical understanding. So it confuses us when you seemingly demand that TM be categorized as pseudoscience because of this minor philosophical conjecture. That said, it's not really a big issue. We hadn't even noticed that categorization until recently when an editor came through and added a UFO category, which I also deleted. TimidGuy 20:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The TM organization has put out big newspaper adds that expound on the theory in the context of the Maharishi Effect, and during the time when they were afraid that the "Transcendental Meditation" trademark was about to expire (thanks Mickey!), they started using the term "Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field" as an unwieldy replacement for TM and related techniques. The theory conflating consciousness and the unified field pervades MMY's theories of conscioiusness, life, the universe, and the number 42, but that is inevitable, given that he is Hindu, and any universal "thing" with enough similarities to consciousness MUST be consciousness, by his way of thinking. Hagelin established a great number of similarities in the essay that you mention and in fact, his professional reputation is founded on his using them as a guide to tweak Flipped SU(5). It's certainly important for discussion of how Yogic Flying might be possible, and is at the heart of MMY's assumptions (personal perceptions?) about the identify of consciousness and reality, so I guess its impossible to eliminate from the discussion completely. Should the main TM article be categorized as pseudoscience, or only the auxiliary articles where the nature of the beast REQUIRES such a theory to explain the phenomena? -Sparaig 23:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by the trademark expiring. Trademarks never expire, though patents and copyrights do.--Philosophus T 06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct on the trademark issue. I have no idea why they stopped worrying about using the "Maharishi Technologies of the Unified Field" label, save perhaps that its too long to use effectively in the first place. -Sparaig 07:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Please note that I never stated that I believed the empirical evidence to be sound. I believe that certain (non-"Maharishi Effect") papers on medical effects to individuals who are themselves practicing the technique could be sound, but that the physics and action-at-a-distance are pseudoscientific and due to their nature can be presumed to be so, as there are many scientific rejections of the general ideas. Using Hagelin as an authority on high energy theory really isn't appropriate. --Philosophus T 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that there's no scientific explanation for why something works doesn't mean it doesn't. it is up to scientists to figure that out, assuming the evidence mounts to the point where they are persuaded to bother. However, you show that you're aware that action-at-a-distance issues are central to the Maharishi Effect, and that is separate from the main article on TM, so why do you want to use the label on the main article? -Sparaig 07:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response below. --Philosophus T 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The problem here is that controversy is being moved to little articles on specific subtopics which has the effect of hiding it, and is quite similar to making a POV fork. TM-Sidhi is still part of TM, just like everything else, and the controversy still needs to be mentioned here. --Philosophus T 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be aware that Stevertigo, in mediation, pushed heavily for a split that we declined to proceed with. Moving material has unloaded material of off the main site. The site was as many editors noted becoming unmanageable because of its size, and was only getting larger. I really request that  you not undo weeks and months of discussion that brought us to a consensus on making some of these moves. As well,saying that the TM Sidhi program is part of TM is not quite accurate. MVS however, contains within it the TM technique on the experiential side, and the TM Sidhi program, as an advanced program on this same experiential side of MVS. The Vedic Literature,a knowledge component rather than an experiential component stands on the other side of MVS. The TM Sidhi program is not part of TM technique, but is rather a separate program that has its own body of information.I believe we have all worked hard in the last months to clarify the way in which this material exists, coexists, influences, is influenced, remains separate, and so on. In the end we have to go to the experts in this area to understand this material. We found, and I think this refers to all editors, that there were many times that with checking the TM web-sites, and with extensive discussion could we begin to understand the complexities of this material.We can refer back to those discussions, and hopefully don't need to start this process all over again.(olive 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The length of the article is mainly due to the convoluted and repetitive writing style. Once this is fixed, the article will become more manageable. In addition, just because the bulk of a topic is discussed in one article doesn't mean that it should be excluded from the main article, as is happening here. I am planning on writing a proper article on Malnak vs. Yogi, but that doesn't mean that it would be acceptable to remove mention of the case in this article, just as having a TM-Sidhi article doesn't make it acceptable to remove all mention of that criticism. This article is on the TM movement as a whole, and trying to remove criticism of parts of that movement by relegating it to other names is not appropriate. --Philosophus T 08:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Note, past due: there is not consensus that TM is not pseudoscience.  In the scientific community, there is consesus that it is. Michaelbusch 07:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, you must distinguish the effects of TM (which are apparently legitimate) from the metaphysics that it proglomates.  That is the pseudoscience, and I know no-one who would be considered a reliable source on physics by the scientific community who would not deem it such.  Such statements have been common in TM (assessed by claims made by Maharishi and others regarding it) since almost its beginning (ex: I cited Carl Sagan's essay in the Demon-Haunted World.  That is drawn from an earlier assessment, dating from the mid-1970s, a few years after Maharishi started advertising heavily in the US).  Re. subdividing, as Philosophus noted, this can have the effect of artifically minimizing the controversy surrounding TM, and is therefore deceptive unless it is done properly. Michaelbusch 18:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is the point: TM can do all the philosophizing and metaphysics it wants, but when it starts trying to connect that to things like unified field theory, then the metaphysics becomes pseudoscience and it must be recognized as such.  I suspect that Philosophus will agree with me on this.  I see no logical circles in my statements. Michaelbusch 05:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies. I didn't mean to imply logical circles in your statements. I was referring to the fact that I repeated myself in almost identical fashion in response to a statement that was nearly identical to an earlier one. By the way, I'm realizing that part of the problem is that you use "Transcendental Meditation" in a very different sense than I do. TimidGuy 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unified field 

message: Transcendental Meditation or TM is a trademarked form of meditation introduced in 1958 by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi that involves the repetition of specific sounds, called mantras.Shear, Jonathan (2006). The Experience of Meditation, 27-28 According to Maharishi, the technique enables the practitioner's mind to "transcend" to a state of "restful alertness," without the concentration or active thinking of other techniques.Transcendental Consciousness The practice is said to have been taught to over 6 million people in a paid course involving about two hours a day over a seven-day period. Extensive research has been done on the effects of this meditation technique on mind and body, ranging from its effects on cardiovascular disease to the experience of higher states of consciousness. The Transcendental Meditation technique is one aspect of "Maharishi's Technologies of Consciousness," which are the experiential side of Maharishi Vedic Science. 
Just offering a new working version of the lead that incorporates revisions by Philosophus and includes the sentence that Olive thinks is important. Plus attempts to characterize the research. TimidGuy 21:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems fine to me unless editors want to go to something more extensive in describing more of what is in the article itself.
A note:There was a discussion earlier debating whether to leave the link and few lines on MVS here in the body of the intro. or to add a short paragraph on the main page and then a link to the MVS, as is generally done in Wikipedia.In the interest of keeping the article shorter and because TM is actually a subset in some ways of the more inclusive MVS, I did leave the link and statement in the body of the intro.I believe Philosophus made a comment on this earlier.Either option is a possibility in my mind(olive 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about this version of the lead? 

message: Philosophus and TimidGuy both suggested that the lawsuits be summarized and put into their own section.  Below is a draft of a new section on the lawsuits. Each case would include the proper citations, of course.  Comments? Roseapple 01:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do note that Malnak v. Yogi covered SCI and TM. --Philosophus T 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording below - is it accurate now? Roseapple 02:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe so. Most of the documents refer to SCI/TM, so saying TM and SCI is probably the best way of representing that. --Philosophus T 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry Roseapple I missed this question earlier, Yes I am slugging away on this section and am working towards combining religion/cult material  Now that the mediation seems to be over I am back working on this material again.(olive 18:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that Malnak v. Yogi be put in a Religion+Cult section, since it really is of a different nature than the other lawsuits. --Philosophus T 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: i May have missed this point , but why is there going to be a separate article on Malnak vs Yogi?  Not sure why this warrants a longer article rather than a summary. Was this agreed upon by editors? Sorry if this was already dealt with.(olive 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another editor suggested that I do so, since it is a notable case with implications that are significant enough to warrant description in sources having nothing to do with TM. It is quite possible that there are readers who don't care about TM at all, but care about the implications of the case. I may or may not make the article, but I am gathering sources to do so. As a bonus, it would mean that we wouldn't need to have the lengthy discussion here of the minutiae involved, such as the ultimately immaterial puja disagreement. --Philosophus T 04:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks(olive 14:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, Roseapple. I'd say go ahead. Maybe, per Philosophus, just combine the two cases for now. TimidGuy 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed lawsuits section 

message: Why did someone put the "verification needed" tag next to Graham's name when she was listed as a TM meditator?
She appeared on the Time Magazine cover as a meditator and it was identified in the article as TM, for heaven's sake. Her bio says she meditates TMly. The wiki article on Heather Graham says she does TM. -Sparaig 19:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That someone was an editor with the username Slash. And the rationale in his/her Edit summary was "weeee!". I guess that explains it. : ) I've added a link to the Time magazine cover photo of her. The caption says she's practicing Transcendental Meditation. TimidGuy 20:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heather Graham 

message: In the Otis section I added a reference to an article in the New York Times. But truthfully, in my reading of the policies and guidelines, and the discussion of them, the NYT article isn't a qualified secondary source. That's because although it quotes a TM researcher (who doesn't herself practice TM) saying that there are no side effects, it doesn't offer any other information about it. The article is simply reporting a study that was published in a journal of the American Medical Association, and the quote is made in passing. To my mind, a proper secondary source goes more deeply into a topic. If the whole article were about side effects and quoted various researchers, etc., then I'd say yes. But a quote in passing, without any additional evidence offered, to me seems like it doesn't qualify.
Which is why I think the Markovsky quote from a Dallas weekly tabloid isn't a secondary source. The idea isn't developed or supported. He just makes a statement in an article about John Hagelin running for president that implies that all of the research is weak. He doesn't say how he knows this. Indeed, he couldn't possibly know whether researchers are constantly barraging journals with articles unless he were to have surveyed the hundreds of journals that the studies have appeared in. (Plus, the article has the weird typo in which the word ""journalists" is used instead of "journals.") And it's odd that he claims that it's almost never the case that the research is published in prestigious journals. That statement is contradicted by the facts. TimidGuy 12:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's pretty much a given that researchers barrage journals with article submissions. Barry Markovsky has a certain bias of his own concerning TM research and TM researchers. I personally like Barry, having corresponded with him over the internet for several years, and having eaten lunch with him when he was in Tucson for a Tucson Consciousness symposium about 15 years ago (?). That doesn't mean he isn't biased though. EVERYONE is biased. -Sparaig 08:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the problems with this quote, and given my points regarding whether this and the NY Times are acceptable sources in these instances, I propose to delete the Markovsky quote and the NY Times citation. The Markovsky quote can't be paraphrased because it's not possible, given the typographical error, to know exactly what he meant. And he only implies that the research is weak, he doesn't say it. And there's no other context on which to base a paraphase or make his point. If someone can find a notable researcher who clearly makes a case that TM research is controversial or lacks validity, then it would be fair to include that, if it is given appropriate weight.TimidGuy 11:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newspapers as secondary sources 

message: Added reference to Chissano as prominent TMer. -Sparaig 16:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   Joaquim Alberto Chissano 

message: Effects on the physiology
Research has suggested that practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique has specific effects on the physiology. During meditation, these changes include decreased respiration rates, blood lactate, and basal skin conductance levelsDillbeck, M.C., and D.W. Orme-Johnson: 1987, "Physiological differences between Transcendental Meditation and rest," American Psychologist 42, pp. 879-881, as well as increased coherence and integration of brain functioning.Dillbeck, M.C. and E.C. Bronson: 1981, "Short-term longitudinal effects of the Transcendental Meditation technique on EEG power and coherence," International Journal of Neuroscience 14, pp. 147-151 These changes suggest a restful yet alert state. Studies suggest that this state of physiology promotes regulation of cortisol and other hormones associated with chronic stress, showing reduced baseline cortisol (a hormone associated with stress) and a healthier regulation of serotonin (a neurotransmitter associated with mood).MacLean, C.R.K., et al: 1996, "Effects of the Transcendental Meditation program on adaptive mechanisms: Changes in hormone levels and responses to stress after four months of practice," Psychoendrocrinology 22, pp. 277-295 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TimidGuy (talk • contribs) 15:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read material suggesting that TM induces a trance state. I would think that EEG showing increased integration and brain functioning would indicate that a trance state has not been achieved, but a restful yet alert state has. I wondered if this point has a place in this section. Just a thought.(olive 20:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: nope,not appropriate in this section, please ignore statement(olive 02:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would support a paragraph on th physiological effects. Seems to me this is for many people the most important aspect and the only aspect of the TM technique they are interested in; the possibility that deep rest can be achieved and stress relieved as this research indicates. I realized this is an important aspect we don't do much with.(olive 15:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to add paragraph on physiological effects 

message: In Heinz Pagels' letter he says his comments "may not be used or published for any other purpose [than the court case] without my written permission."  To me this means they shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article.  Roseapple 00:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I see. I just checked this ....I would think we are obliged to remove this unless some permission was given we are not aware of.(olive 02:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair Use doctrine applies. Also, once he makes statements menat to be used in court, they become public domain, as far as I know. -Sparaig 05:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consciousness and the Unified field 

message: Thanks to both TimidGuy and Michaelbusch, but your observations are not grounds for deletion. they are grounds for discussion, not deletion. If everybody went around deleting things they didn't like, there wouldn't be much left. Are either of you the person who was responsible for the deletion?
Neilrobertpaton 08:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: HI, Neil. I was the one who deleted it. Note that if you click on the History tab, you can see who has done what to an article. There were a number of problems with the material you added. A main problem was the unsourced false claim that your insertion was based on. From WP:ATT: "Any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." I also felt that the inserted material had a problem regarding undue weight. See that section of WP:NPOV. TimidGuy 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mantras again

message: Thanks for nothing, TimidGuy. You had no right to delete my contribution when all you had to do was discuss it first, and any potential problems could have been sorted out. On Attribution (and I quote): "...in practice, not all material is attributed... However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found."
I can see why the TM article has a big notice at the top saying "The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article have been disputed." Gee, I wonder why. Can't understand it.
Neilrobertpaton 09:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: so... why do you want to put mantras in anyway? -Sparaig 14:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mantras again

message: I have replaced this question-form title with "Cult allegations"  so that it has less of a FAQ feel to it. Sfacets 02:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is TM a Cult?

message: Relationship of Transcendental Meditation to Religion and Spirituality
Although controversy exists as to whether the Transcendental Meditation technique is a religion, official Transcendental Meditation websites state that the TM technique is a mental technique that does not require faith, belief, or a change in lifestyle to be effective. 
Some clergy find the TM technique and the philosophy underlying it, that of a technique for gaining deep rest and potentially contacting a field of unlimited potential, to be compatible with their religious teaching and beliefs. Rabbi Allan Green finds the Transcendental Meditation technique to be calming, and the philosophy to provide insight into his work as a rabbi. (The Winnipeg Free Press, March 21,2006), while Rabbi Raphael Levine discovered that TM theory contains many of the same insights found in the teachings of Hebrew Prophets. 
Father Adrian Smith, has written one book on this subject called, A Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: A Christian Understanding of Transcendental Meditation, and edited another, TM an Aid to Christian growth.
 
Cardinal Sin, Archbishop of Manila, believes as he outlines in his 1984 pastoral statement, that the TM perspective conflicts with Christianity.  For example, unlike the Christian idea of God - a personal god caring for every individual – Cardinal Sin, understands that the inner reality one reaches through the TM technique to be impersonal. Man as described by TM philosophy is capable of increasing levels of perfection, but not born in original sin, a foundation of Christian doctrine. Pain and suffering as redemptive, another foundation of much Christian thought, are lacking in TM theory. Cardinal Sin also noted the use of mantras that he describes as apparent invocations to deities. 
In contrast, Father Basil Pennington, a Trapist monk believes that the deepest self described by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the Absolute is known to any Christian as” our God of love, Father, son, and Holy Spirit” (Pennington 1977:73) Father Pennington describes peace and joy, as explained by TM to be the human being’s truest self, and the TM technique one possible source for reaching and experiencing this true self. (Pennington 1977).
No comments or information on the TM mantras as described by Cardinal Sin exists in any of the literature and websites connected officially to the TM technique.
 
In 1979, the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Malnak v. Yogi (592 F.2d 197) that the Transcendental Meditation technique together with a curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) could not be taught in public schools because it violated the Establishment Clausehttp://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/estabinto.htm of the First Amendment, which creates a wall of separation between church and state. His decision was based on a set of criteria involving whether the practice dealt with issues of ultimate concern, Truth, and other ideas analogous to those in well-recognized religions. After applying these criteria, he concurred with the lower court's decision that it violated the Establishment Clause.Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d 197, 203 (3rd Cir., 1979) Because the ruling focused on the curriculum in the Science of Creative Intelligence, and because the Wallace_v._Jaffree decision in 1986 allows for quiet time/meditation with a secular purpose, instruction in the Transcendental Meditation technique has continued in public charter schools, despite comments like those of sociologist Barry Markovsky, who felt that in teaching TM in the schools, there might be an undercurrent of religion. He labeled this as “stealth religion”. 
The Fletcher –Johnson school, a public charter school over run with violence, and located in Washington DC, implemented the TM technique into the school program. George Rutherford, principal of the school and a Baptist, described TM as not religious, and as instrumental in creating a safe haven in a neighborhood once riddled with drug use and homicides. In Detroit, the Nataki Talibah Schoolhouse, has implemented an optional Transcendental Meditation program. To concerns some parents had about whether TM technique was in any way connected to religion, Ms. N’amdi, principal of the school, explained the TM technique, is not religious, helps the children release the build up of stress in their lives, and hopefully makes the school day more successful. 
Although, Maharishi calls Transcendental Meditation,  "a path to God"Meditations of Maharishi. p. 59, and in his teaching often makes references to "God" or a creator, Transcendental Meditation Programs websites make no reference to Maharishi’s religious affiliations. Science of Being and Art of Living, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Rev. Ed. 1967, p. 271
Kelly Zellers and Pamela Perrewe clearly delineate the difference between religion and spirituality, and describe spirituality as broader than religion, a search for higher power, the sacred, defined for some as God. They  describe meditation, yoga, and the TM technique as one form of meditation, as spiritual, but not as religious,and are coping strategies people may employ in business and in life in general. (Perrewe and Zellers 2002).
References
*Condon, Patrick ”Meditation enters schools” Desert News (Salt lake City), October30, 2004. Accessed March 18, 2007.
*Levine, Raphael. “A Skeptics Encounter with TM”. Accessed March18, 2007.
*MIcucci,Dana. ”International Education: Meditation helps students”. International Herald Tribune, February 15, 2005. Accessed March 18, 2007
*Owens, Nancy, K. “Man Fails to Fly Sues Camelot Owner”. International Herald Tribune, February 15, 2005. Accessed March 18, 2007. 
*Pennington, Basil. “TM and Christian Prayer”, Daily We Touch Him: Practical Religious Experiences. Doubleday, 1977.
*Vesely,Carolin, “Its All in Your Mind” Winnipeg Free Press, March 21, 2006.
*Zellers, Kelly L., Perrewe, Pamela. “The Role of Spirituality in Occupational Stress and Well-Being”, Handbook of Workplace Spirituality and Organizational Performance, M.E. Sharp, December 2002. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 20:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite religion section 

message: Several months ago I entered the discussion on the Transcendental Meditation article because I felt the article was in serious need of improvement. I suggested the topic was no more controversial than other topics where a wide range of opinions exist, and that it should be possible to create a balanced article that would merit the Wikipedia “Featured Article” designation. A series of discussions ensued, and when I was called away on family matters, the article had not moved far in that direction. Now, coming back after a two-month absence, I am struck by substantial improvements in balance, organization, flow, and connections. I commend the editors on their work. Please keep it up. I will join in where and when it is possible.
Reading the recent discussions, the frequent mention of COI strikes me as a little odd. The reason is that as a scientist, I am accustomed to learning about topics in a particular area of science by reading what the experts in that area have to say about it. Anything I read by someone outside the area is automatically taken “with a grain of salt.” That is not to say the work and opinions of researchers outside an area are never valuable. Sometimes a scientist from another field can see something important that those within the field have missed, perhaps due to their closeness to the subject. But all in all, a scientist cannot afford to exalt the findings or opinions of those outside a specialized area while paying little attention to those within the area. Likewise, when reading about the nature and inner workings of the Transcendental Meditation technique, I want to hear most of all from those who have experienced it, who teach it, or who have taken the time to study it scientifically. Any other point of view is “suspect.” Anyone who has not immersed him/herself in it experientially and in terms of its philosophical or intellectual underpinnings, cannot really speak as an expert. Again, outside opinions can sometimes be useful, particularly in seeing how the technique may be viewed by those in society who do not practice it, but they rarely give a true insight into the substance or value of the technique. I would be highly skeptical of an article written only by critics, or by the small percentage of people who may have practiced the technique for a time then rejected it. ChemistryProf 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are fallacies in your argument. Apply your own advice, read what the Wikepedia experts say about COI. It's fairly clear, and it doesn't say the article should be written only by critics. Research hasn't shown that those who've had a significant level of experience with a practce in an organization are less reliable, for the simple reason that over a large number of similar organizations, both sides are equally likely to be biased. Just because TM is trademarked by an organization doesn't mean the technique isn't well understood by those who study such things. The essence of your argument is that those who claim a brand name product is superior to all other forms of meditation are experts outside of the narrow area of being meditators convinced that is so. There isn't enough scientific evidence to support the claims for superiority of TM over other forms of meditation for all the reasons people take up meditation. To prove that, you'd have to find equally qualified groups to employ many different techniques with equally qualified instructors, and you'd have to show that the resulting effects were superior in all ways regarding the differing reasons people take up meditation. That simply hasn't been done yet. And being a Chemistry Prof hardly makes you an expert in the spiritual roots from which the technique was derived.--Dseer 06:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see where ChemProf was making a claim that TM is superior. Nor do I see where the article says that. Let's be careful not to get off track. The purpose of the Talk page is to discuss changes to the article. TimidGuy 11:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article Revisited 

message: * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229,00.html Oh my god! I found this Time magazine article on TM and maharishi! if anyone wants to use this article to help add more information to this article please do so! (:O)  Its from Oct. 13, 1975, its a classic! -Nima Baghaei talk · cont 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good reference, and outlines many of the key issues which still exist today. --Dseer 23:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's balanced. The big difference between then and now is that there's now so much more research -- hundreds of studies published, including many peer-reviewed studies in top journals. And quite a number of randomized, controlled trials. The technique is thoroughly understood in regard to its effects on neurophysiology and physiology in a way that wasn't even imaginable back then. TimidGuy 11:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  new Time magazine reference