Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Archive 4

No Mention of the TM Movement and Maharishi University??
Typical! Lengthy trash on drug addicted Beatles but no real discussion of the guru Mahesh Yogi. More needs to be added regarding the TM movement and definitely the Maharishi Universities worldwide! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the concern is since this article is about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. Perhaps your concerns could be discussed more specifically.


 * The so-called TM movement, is generally not considered to be an official name. The name for the TM organization as a whole is now the Global Country of World Peace for which there is an article . As well, Maharishi University of Management has its own article.


 * The Beatles section has undergone a lot of scrutiny from multiple editors, and is considered to be somewhat balanced although, some editors, me included, feel it violates WP:Weight in its relationship to the rest of the article.


 * Please feel free to be more specific about concerns you have so that they can be addressed.(olive (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC))

Died on Jan. 12th?
There are rumours that the Maharishi had died on Jan. 12th, and the movement hasn't published it yet. Comment from insiders, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpada (talk • contribs) 10:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The rumours are false.He spoke publicly on Jan 12th.(olive (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes. the rumors came about because he said in public, quote: “Invincibility is irreversibly established in the world. My work is done. My designated duty to Guru Dev is fulfilled.” And, quote: “It is such a joy today when I am closing my performance and closing my days of life, when I am hearing all these beautiful realities of all successes on the basis of which we have built up Invincibility to be the perpetual phase to be lived in life. I am expressing it is not `I` that has done it. If it is `I`,  it is a `big`  I.”
 * He told the world in a public statement that from now on he will spend his time for the fulfillment of a commentary of the Ved: “It will take two or three years.” --Josha52 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What Olive and Josha say is true. Maharishi also can be heard these days to speak on Channel 3 of http://maharishichannel.org in broadcast replays of the 12th of January, and before and after the 12th.


 * Word is he just died. Trying to verify... -- Twistedghost (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Verified.(olive (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Verified by what source? Naturezak (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Announced on www.maharishichannel.org, channel three, by Nader Raam. I guess that Veda commentary isn't going to get done. So much for perfect health. Judyjoejoe (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference check and discussion re: John Lennon addition
I am moving this material for discussion and a reference check since this is a biography of a living person and guidelines are strict as per additions. For discussion, WP:Weight might be considered.(olive (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Regardless of the underlying cause, Lennon remained bitter towards the Maharishi, penning the song "Sexy Sadie" about him (with the refrain "what have you done? You made a fool of everyone").


 * I moved the material back. The citation is trivial to check:  see here. Nandesuka (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A reference is never trivial in regards to biography of a living person, and there was no lack of faith, just a check on a highly contentious article . I feel that this addition does violate WP: Weight somewhat so that should be discussed, I think . However thanks so much for linking the reference. It saves a lot of trouble getting a looking for the book and quote. I believe the addition could be left in place for now since there is a reference.(olive (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I wonder if we should consider chronology and sequence. Lennon passed away in 80, but it was later that in retrospect Paul and George said that Mardas had made it up. Closing the section with Lennon gives him the final word. Plus, the way it says he "remained bitter" makes it sound he wrote the song long after, but it he wrote it soon after departing Rishikesh. The sequence is Beatles leave, Lennon writes song, Mardas is fired in 69, Lennon passes away in 80, in the 1990s Paul and George realize that Mardas made it up and endeavor to set the record straight. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We could say "Lennon was clearly bitter about the split..." which is supported by the interview (Lennon himself comments on it), without implying anything about timeline.  Nandesuka (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Nandesuka and TG. In reviewing the policy on biography of living persons I realized that material already in this section does not comply by Wikipedia standards. Since I recently did a pretty extensive rewrite of the section I felt this was in part my fault. The policy states:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm".
 * The information, in what was in the article until today, on John Lennon, seems to have no reference, and is in addition, given the later explanations of what happened at that time, to be merely sensationalist and not appropriate for any biography . Thanks to Nandesuak we now have a sourced comment that explains how Lennon felt. I quote directly, although Wikipedia does not encourage quotes I felt that we could be most accurate in this kind of article with a quote. I also left out reference to Sexy Sadie because I think the words imply wrongdoing and again we must do no harm. I think this provides a appropriate compromise to the dilemma of what to do with the new source Nandesuka provided, and the appropriateness of considering a time line in terms accuracy of the claims and material presented.(olive (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Your edit doesn't really capture the spirit of the quoted sources, implying as it does that all discussion on this topic is based on "rumors". We don't have rumors, we have sourced discussion by some of the parties involved.  I've rewritten for accuracy.  It does no harm to the Maharishi to note "John Lennon didn't like him, and wrote a song about him" when John Lennon has been quoted in published sources as saying "I didn't like him, and wrote this song about him."  Nandesuka (talk) 21:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a question I have: Maharishi has been a public figure for 50 years. There are probably thousands of published opinions about him. Does every published opinion merit a mention in a bio? What significant does it tell us about Maharishi that John Lennon didn't like him? Does Lennon have some sort of special credibility? Of course there are many published opinions saying how wonderful Maharishi is? Would they merit inclusion? Just thinking out loud here. Eager to hear what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the Rolling Stones wrote a song inspired by how awesome they thought the Maharishi was, I would think that deserved mention. If an unknown band no one had ever heard of wrote the same song, I would think it probably didn't deserve mention.  "Every published opinion" doesn't necessarily merit a mention in a bio, but commentary by John Lennon about a song on what is, according to some reliable sources, the 10th greatest rock album of all time  is not "every published opinion".  Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The line immediately following the new addition makes reference to "another rumour" I will remove that actually since its not accurate. The Lennon material is rather, controversy. I have to disagree though on adding Sexy Sadie. This is insulting to a spiritual leader and does refer to rumours that circulated on inappropriate behaviour ... all rumours proved false multiple times including in a public performance by Donovan, also present at the Ahsram, and who explained the attempt by press and others to draw the Beatles away from Rishikesh. I'm not sure how to deal with this. I believe also including this much material violates WP:Fringe and WP:Weight Best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Whether those rumors are true or false (I don't even know what they are) isn't really at issue here. There are only several hundred Beatles songs in existence, and they hold great cultural significance to the Western world.  What is relevant here is the fact of the song's existence, and Lennon's attribution of it as being about the Maharishi.  Wikipedia is in no way insulting the Maharishi by reporting its existence.  If you would care to explain to me how a single sentence mentioning a Beatles song constitutes a violation of WP:FRINGE, which is mostly about crackpot scientific or philosophical theories, or WP:UNDUE,  I'm all ears. Nandesuka (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's look at it this way. This is an article about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and not an article about the Beatles, their cultural significance or their albums. Although, I am a fan.:0)
 * Rather, this is an article about a spiritual leader who during the period of his life's work, over fifty years, interacted for a very short period of time, probably no more than a few months, with these people.He has interacted with numerous famous and not so famous people during his life. Where does one draw the line. The line is drawn at the point where realization is that, this not about any of those people but about Maharishi himself. In terms of his life and this article four people no matter how famous we might think them, were four of a multitude. In that sense the entire section is likely fringe since it focuses on only four people. What about all of the others. Adding anything more to this section seems unnecessary given the weight given to this section in the article. In terms of this life, this information is fringe material and devoting too much more space to this would constitute undue weight. I however will not edit war over this or fight this too much further. I've tried to provide a compromise. If you feel this additional materiel is appropriate, then so be it, from my side, unless other editors have objections. (olive (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I have added sources that say rumours were false concerning Mia Farrow and Maharishi upon whom the Sexie Sadie song was based. As well, I realized that all of this section is about the Mia Farrow rumour. So the section is a bit of an overkill on this subject. I removed mention of the lines from the song since the reader can link to the song in Wikipedia, and to create balance removed the affirmative statement in the last lines referencing Deepak Chopra. This seems to be better balanced and more concise section in terms of information, and of "fringe" and "weight" as I noted in my post above.(olive (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Your invoking of WP:FRINGE here makes no sense. That Lennon wrote a song about the Maharishi -- that appears in one of Rolling Stone's 10 greatest albums of all times --  isn't a crackpot theory.  In other words, I don't think WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE mean what you think they mean.
 * I've restored the quote from the song, since it is central to the whole controversy. Nandesuka (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * From Fringe "An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is." The focus in this article is on the life of this man and not on the ten greatest albums of all time. In the context of his life the creation of a Beatles song cannot be considered notable unless you have a reference saying he thought this was the case. I see no reason to include this material or the words to the song which are linked, unless there is some wish to discredit. This entire section is about the Mia Farrow incident adding more to that violates Undue weight. Why does this incident deserve even this much space in the context of the article and the life rather than a single line mention somewhere.(olive (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Every single reputable obituary of the Maharishi discusses the Beatles allegations. Consider this, from the New York Times:

The visibility and popularity of the organization can largely be attributed to the Beatles. In 1968, the band, with great publicity, began studying with the Maharishi at his Himalayan retreat, or ashram, in Rishikesh, in northern India. They went with their wives, the folk singer Donovan, the singer Mike Love, of the Beach Boys, the actress Mia Farrow and Ms. Farrow’s sister Prudence. They left in the wake of rumors of sexual improprieties by the Maharishi, an avowed celibate, though no sexual-misconduct suits were filed and some of the participants later denied that anything untoward had occurred.
 * I have no wish to discredit the Maharishi. Nor do I have any wish to create a hagiography.  The New York Times devoted two entire paragraphs to this topic in the Maharishi's obituary.  For you to suggest that this topic is not notable, or deserves only a single sentence, is absurd.  Nandesuka (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * :I believe the issue isn't the allegations but how much attention be given to a single song. By the way, the New York Times article might be a good rule of thumb for how much this should be emphasized in this article. The paragraph about the allegations is 34 words in an article of 1,109 words. TimidGuy (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Nandesuka its not absurd. Do you really think the press is interested in whats fair when it comes to writing about this . What makes good press?.... the Beatles, or a monk who wants world peace. But lets do this. I will do my best as I have been to make this section neutral, and you can assume that I know what fringe and undue weight are, and that I am not making absurd statements but rather that I am looking at this from within another context, and that is from the life of the person involved here, and what is notable in context of this life, and not from what the press at this time considers to be notable. If we can come to the agreement, that we are looking at this from different perspectives, not either one right or wrong but just different. then there may be better understanding. By the way I am not accusing you of wanting to discredit anyone, only that if this section becomes weighty it does discredit, and the allegations do indeed discredit. I apologize if I seemed to be referring to you.(olive (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I combined the Mia Farrow incident with the Lennon song but in fact as the references indicate they were not connected, so I have removed reference to Farrow in the sentence. (olive (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * (While discussing "Sexy Sadie")
 * "When did you realize that he was making a fool of you?
 * I don't know, I just sort of saw.
 * While in India, or when you got back?
 * Yeah, there was a big hullabaloo about him trying to rape Mia Farrow or trying to get off with Mia Farrow and a few other women, things like that.".
 * Please explain to me how "the references indicate they were not connected?" Did you check this reference and not see it, or did you see it and not understand it? Nandesuka (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only this source says something like this. I've looked at at least 10, including Patti Boyd's bio, Cynthia Lennon's bio, quotes from John, Paul, and George in the Beatles Anthology, etc. Every other source tells a uniform story: that Mardas said that Maharishi was having sexual encounters with an American nurse and that John and George left because of it. George says in the Beatles Anthology that it wasn't Mia Farrow. George and Paul also later said they thought that Mardas made the whole thing up. And regarding the extreme statement above, you can read Mia Farrow's account of it in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC) In fact, John himself tells it differently in the Beatles Anthology. I feel like the quote above says more about John than it does about Maharishi. And I say we remove it, because it so directly contradicts what Farrow says in her autobiography. TimidGuy (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly appropriate to quote other reliable sources that say they don't believe the incident happened (and, in fact, we are already doing that).  What is not appropriate is to ignore a relevant, reliable source just because we are more interested in writing a hagiography than an encyclopedia.  In that quote, John is explaining that he wrote the song because he didn't trust the Maharishi, because he heard rumors about Mia Farrow.  That the rumors weren't true is irrelevant.  The point is that John Lennon is an authoritative source for what John Lennon thought.
 * I only brought up this quote because of olive's simply astonishing claim that "the references indicate that [the song Sexy Sadie and the rumors about Farrow] were not connected." The references indicate no such thing.  Nandesuka (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually the first reference in the section says no such thing, and your right the second reference cited does say there was a connection. I was however referring to other literature/references available in which this connection is not made as TG mentions. I wrote the information deleted, and that you have just replaced and was in removing it attempting to be accurate, since I had said this whole section is on Mia Farrow when in fact that wasn't quite true. I really do wish you could work on this without being quite so personal: absurd, astonishing doesn't know what fringe and weight are. Lets just stick to working through this please. Thanks.(olive (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

An outside view
When I look at the discussion in this section, I see one person offering multiple ways of getting attributed information in and two saying that under no circumstances should it be allowed. The reasons offered for insertion are that it is one of the most famous groups and persons in the world writing a critically important song to express his view, and the others say that's not important enough. Well, here's the acid test: How famous would the Marharishi have been without the Beatles? If his fame in the West derives somewhat from his association with the Beatles (and I would say it derives entirely; it was that connection that led to all the Dick Cavett show appearances, the Laugh-In stuff, and all the thousands of appearances he made 1970-74, and it was those that led to the success of his book, whatever its intrinsic values or whatever the zeitgeist of the West), then their opinions even without the song would be important information to the biography. So, if, as most believe, this association was the most famous episode, and if people followed the lives of the Beatles the way they would a soap opera character (and five times as closely as they now do the demise of Britney et al.), then John's disaffection was a famous episode. In fact, I remember it. I remember how the issue of the Maharishi became one of the John/Paul splits, how fans lined up between Paul & George for him or John against him. The controversy increased the stature of the figure. In fact, the Maharishi was one of the many blamed for "breaking up the Beatles."

So, should the statement be in? Yes. It's an important facet of the biography of the figure. It's not undue at all. It's also not going to poison or harm the figure in any way, were he alive, because, in fact, it actually ended up helping his profile and made him more famous. So, a neutral and factual statement of John's stated attitude is germane and hardly a sabotaging of the article. Geogre (talk) 11:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you may be mis characterizing the discussion. This discussion began while Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was living and the policy for biography of living persons is very clear.... "do no harm"..... We can cite Lennon's view on this time period, but we have no definitive source that says anything actually happened. And yes, this is negative material and does harm in some small way, a reputation. Would I have liked to see the information removed . Sure. It is sourced though and so it can probably be there.
 * Discussion has not been about whether there should be any information on the Beatles at all, but how much and at what point is WP: policy on Biography of living persons violated, and whether weight is violated. Maharishi has of course since passed away.
 * I and Nandesuka are viewing this from different vantage points, and so appropriately, there is discussion.
 * My argument, which I stick by is that this is an article about a spiritual leader who continued to be a spiritual leader long after the short interaction with the Beatles. Over 35 years have passed since this encounter, and Maharishi continued to be a spiritual leader. In fact this article isn't in anyway about the Beatles or how important this song is. Its about a person and his life. However, clearly I am not advocating removing the Beatle material but paring it down somewhat. For now what's in the article, although I do not necessarily agree with it, seems to be as neutral as we are going to get. And I am willing unless something changes to leave it that way.(olive (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

So far as any reference work is concerned, the person exists only as a public figure. Therefore, what is part of the shaping of the public figure is important, and what is not part of that is not. Therefore, if John's disaffection was part of increasing the figure's fame at a critical point, then it is "in." If John's disaffection led to increased discussion of the public figure's role, then it is "in." Whether John is telling the truth is not up to a secondary or tertiary source of information, and it is also not relevant to a discussion of the arc of a figure's career. It's quite easy to be neutral about the material, and Nandesuka was being fairly neutral.

A primary biography is out, but so is a hagiography. A reader is not looking, probably, for "why is this the greatest person, ever," but instead, "Why is everyone talking about him?" They can read the book TM, and it's a nice book with a large influence over popular culture and cultural history in the US, but part of what put the man in the position to be famous enough to convince masses of people to give the book a chance (and his was hardly the only meditation guide on the market at the time; I think Alan Watts's popularizing books on Zen were popular) was both the role with the Beatles and the controversy. I.e. the "he's a hypocrite/bad man/svengali" discussion was part of the fame/infamy that made everyone interested in what he had to say. We never report the truth: we report the truth as it appears through secondary sources. Geogre (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the Beatles made him famous except for a very short time, or that popular press is what makes anyone notable. Absoluteley, yes, the material in the section is sourced and is appropriately placed although as I said Nanadesuka, and I differ in our perspectives, and yes I believe he/she is being neutral . So as I said I have no problems for now with the way the section reads. Best wishes, and thanks for your outsider's comments. Its always good for an article to have multiple perspectives.(olive (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Influence of Maharishi on the Beatles
A lot of discussion here about the role of the Beatles in Maharishi's career in the west. So from the flip side, here's a fascinating article from the New York Times about the extraordinary influence Maharishi had on their creativity. TimidGuy (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another source regarding Mardas
Musician, September, 1992, p. 43 (the part in brackets appears that way in the magazine)

Harrison: "Yeah, I called it 'Sexie Sadie.' The title John had was not nice at all. At least he realized that. At least he realized that. Because there was nothing that ever happened except that there was a fella who was supposedly a friend of ours who stirred up and created this big fantasy. [Note: Beatles pal Magic Alex Mardas told John and George that the Maharishi might have made sexual advances to one of the woman pilgrims. This led to a confrontation between Lennon and the Maharishi and Lennon's returning to England.] There was never anything that took place." TimidGuy (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, it seems like we need to avoid conflating the Farrow thing with the Mardas story. No source that I looked at said that Mardas spread rumors regarding Farrow. They related to someone else. And all of the sources except for one attribute the departure of John and George to the latter. TimidGuy (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The interviews with Lennon specifically mention that the rumors were about Farrow.  See the citation to the interview by Jann Wenner. Nandesuka (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

There apparently were rumors about Farrow, though sources say little about that. Rather, the sources focus on a story that came from Mardas about Maharishi being sexually involved with an American nurse who was on the course. This was the precipitating event that led to the departure of John and George. (Ringo and Paul had left much earlier.)

Who were the parties to what you characterize as a "bitter dispute"? TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see the media are starting to pick the inaccuracies in this article. Cynthia's version published today pretty closely follows what she says in her book.TimidGuy (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree both with your claim that this section of the article contains inaccuracies, and your odd belief that major media sources are going to rely on Wikipedia to do their research. There's nothing in the National Ledger article, for instance, indicating that they relied on Wikipedia.  To the extent that they include the claim that John Lennon was inspired to write Sexy Sadie in response to the rumors of inappropriate advances towards Farrow, they presumably relied on the same source Wikipedia relies on -- the interviews with John Lennon.  (nb: the article itself points to another newspaper, The Post-Chronicle.  That doesn't indicate any reliance on Wikipedia either.)
 * That being said, thanks for pointing to this source. Nandesuka (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nandesuaka. I'm not talking about what inspired John to write Sexy Sadie. Rather, I'm talking about first-hand sources which describe the reason for their departure and the fact that Mardas was the source for the story that precipitated their departure -- a story unrelated to Mia Farrow. I've not seen any first-hand accounts that say that Mardas spread rumors about Mia Farrow, as this article says. Hope you don't mind discussing this. Not trying to create conflict here. TimidGuy (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying, but this is an awfully subtle distinction; sort of a dog that didn't bark. John Lennon says (I paraphrase) "I wrote Sexy Sadie because of these rumors of him coming on to "Mia Farrow and a few other women".  We stayed up all night talking about it, and then we left the next day."  Cynthia Lennon says "Magic Alex accused the Maharishi of behaving improperly with an American girl who was a fellow student", which might be Farrow, or it might not.  The Spitz biography talks about a "young American nurse."  How we connect this to the John Lennon quote where he explicitly ties the rumors to Farrow is hard to say.  Do you have any suggestions?
 * How about this. Instead of "Word of the incident was given to the Beatles by...", we say "Rumors of this type of incident were passed on to the Beatles by..."?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandesuka (talk • contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Nandesuka. And by the way, thanks for your earlier revert of the info about Lennon's carving of the words to the song. I agree that it was excessive detail, and I see that the same editor put it in the Sexy Sadie article, which is the place for it. In Cynthia's autobiography she also says a young American nurse. All of the accounts are quite uniform -- John, George, Cynthia, Pattii Boyd -- regarding what happened. Mardas told John and George that Maharishi was sexually involved with this woman who was on the course; they argued all night whether it could be true, with George not ready to believe it. Finally, George acquiesced. That morning they went in to confront Maharishi. John told him they were leaving. Maharishi asked why. John said something like, "You're the cosmic master who knows everything, you know why." Then they left. That's why I wondered about whether we should say "bitter dispute." Since it wasn't much of a dispute, and Maharishi had no idea why they were leaving (according to the first-hand accounts). Both Patti and Cynthia say there were surprised that John and George believed Mardas, and later Paul and George said they thought that Mardas made the whole thing up.

Anyway, not sure what I'm getting at, other than maybe we need to rewrite this a bit. : ) I'll give it some thought. TimidGuy (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What I'd like us to consider is moving the Sexy Sadie material to the following paragraph which talks about specific songs related to their experience in India. That will make it easier to address the issues we discussed in the first paragraph (that Mardas wasn't responsible for rumors regarding Farrow and that most of the first-hand accounts, including an interview with John in the Beatles Anthology, attribute their departure to the Mardas story). We can then, in the following paragraph, still attribute the inspiration for Sexy Sadie to both the Mardas story and Farrow. TimidGuy (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is a good idea. The whole section is somewhat tangled in terms of logic and progression and this might clarify the ideas and the structure. The whole section is getting to be pretty long and I did have concerns about weight. Not sure what I'm saying there, except I am watching the length to see where that goes. I'd like TG to go ahead if thats OK with Nandesuka.(olive (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Date of birth
Opening para:
 * ...born ... between 1911 and 1918 ... He was born in India, around 1917, as various years are given for his birth: most frequently 1911, 1917, and 1918

Infobox:
 * Born 12 January 1917 (without qualification).

Are we saying he was definitely born on 12 January, but the year is uncertain? Or are we saying his exact day of birth is unknown, not even whether it's 12 January or some other day of the year? This needs to be clarified. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Jack. As far as I know there is nothing definitive about the day or year of birth. Maybe information will come up in the next few days, though. By the way I happened on your user page and like it a lot.(olive (talk) 01:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you, olive. I'd better remove the date in the infobox, in that case.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Born 12 January 1918 ist correkt - look at the foto of his passport:
 * :::|Fotographie des Ausweises :::von MMY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamblichus (talk • contribs) 20:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

POV problem: is this a Press release?
This article seems like an advertisment rather than a NPOV encyclopedia article. I didn't see any serious critisism. Is it that there was never any major critisim or negetive aspect to the life of this person?Farmanesh (talk) 14:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's right - nothing bad at all. Here is a message someone shared with me today, which gives some insight into Maharishi's life:

JAI KARUNAMAYI!, YESTERDAY I WAS RECORDING AMMA [Sri Karunamayi's] TALK ON SARASWATHI DEVI. ALL OF A SUDDEN AMMA [Sri Karunamayi] STOPPED HER TALK AND TOLD ME MAHARISHI ATTAINED MAHA SAMADHI. I WAS SHOCKED. AMMA CLOSED HER EYES FOR 10/12 MIN. SHE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH HIS SOUL.

I OFFER MY RESPECTS AND PRAYERS FOR THIS GREAT ATMAN. SWAMIJI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Although those who admired him probably think of him with devotion or fondness (I respect the man) it is impossible to have a balanced view unless the full spectrum of his life is shared. There has been criticism of the wealth of the movement, their sometimes extravagant and contradictory plans, there is that stone to death issue with the Beatles...I am sure mention of the criticism on his approach and life can be included with elegance and respect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabulos (talk • contribs) 19:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

German source is wrong translated
Nandesuka: Greetings from a native speaking German from Germany. The german text goes: "Er hat sich um 19 Uhr in die perfekte Yoga-Position begeben und ist friedlich eingeschlafen." In the context of dying the meaning of "ist eingeschlafen" is ALWAYS "he died", similar to "ist entschlafen". --Josha52 (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Nadesuka: Sorry, in this regard to simplify means to hide an important information. Could we find an expression which makes it more clear that he passed consciously? Your English is better ... --Josha52 (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Beatles again
Please google "Mia Farrow Maharishi Allahabad". Mia Ferrow visited the funeral. This should be mentioned since this circumstance sheds light on those rumors of the sixties. --Josha52 (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no new facts: error of mine. thought that Mia attended the funeral, but cant find source. --Josha52 (talk) 19:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

What was his net worth when he died?
Between 1988 and 1990 various magazine articles estimates his net worth at $3.5 billion. I can find no more recent guess, and apparently someone has gone through a great deal of trouble to conceal his income, and the raw extent of it. Can anyone find any sources for this data? --70.131.112.41 (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe these are estimates of his net worth. Rather, I think they are estimates of the total value of the various corporate entities founded in his name. They would include, for example, Maharishi University of Management. But he didn't own the University and had no formal tie. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not know what exactly MMY's ties with MUM are. I wish someone would work up a some information concerning how this supposed guru without pockets managed to own quite a compound in the Netherlands, how the TMO has 225 million dollars worth of land (according to the NYTs) in the US, and the involvement of his families in India in organizations founded in his name. According to form 990s filed with the IRS, significant sums go from the US organizations to India. But maybe this is more appropriate for the TM page. Judyjoejoe (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * if you were to look into it more closely, it would be obvious that substantial donated funds go where they are meant to go, to the support of Maharishi's Vedic Pandits in India, and there are thousands of these dedicated young men across India and building projects to accomodate the growing numbers. Certain large amounts are rightfully dedicated to the support of Maharishi's projects in India, where donors wished them to be designated. Maharishi's centre in MERU, The Netherlands, is not such a large compound, and it was almost given by the original owners. If this really the way you have chosen, fine, it is your choice in your life, but do give some thought before you tear down others, whoever he or she may be. In the case of Maharishi, the Government of India accorded him a state funeral with full honours for the tremendous work he had done in life, and individuals from all across India came in long lines by car, on rail, and on foot to pay their last homage to him. You are not required to understand him or respect his achievements, but consider whether negativity is really the path you are interested in. ‘The greatest attainment of a saint is his life itself, the high edifice of  realized Upanishadic living that develops from direct experience of reality. To understand that inner personality one must approach such realized souls with an open and receptive mind and try to visualize the great internal life that is the basis of their actual and real form of living.’ These words Maharishi said of his own teacher, and they may help you to understand Maharish a little better than you do now, if you wished to do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 10:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Secrecy regarding Maharishi's health in recent years
I would also like to see someone work up information concerning MMYs method of governance and the secrecy concerning him and his health. Before he died he did not appear in public for years. He even spoke to aids through close circuit television. According to Deepak Chopra's claimed first hand account(see the Huffington Post), MMY thought in the early 1990s he had been poisoned, he almost died, and was treated for his illnesses in England, but kept all this secret. This is important information about the man because he and the TMO promotes Vedic medicine rather than western medicine but it is clear that MMY availed himself of western medical systems quite frequently but went out of his way to keep it secret. According to Chopra he was diabetic, suffered from pancreatic inflammation, and had a heart attack at some pointJudyjoejoe (talk) 02:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Maharishi's method of governance was the method of governance of what he referred to as the Constitution of the Universe, the Laws of Nature, the Light of God, the Will of God, Silent Administration in harmony with nature's functioning. He made use of western medicine to the extent that it was useful. His personal health was not the focus of his life, but creating world peace was the focus of his life for his over 91 years. If you were to take the time to visit one of his Ayur-Veda clinics around the world, you would find an oasis of peace and good health radiating from each one of these clinics. To step into one of these clinics is to step into a pool of vibrant light and good health. There was no secrecy surrounding Maharishi. He told the whole world how he felt exactly when he felt it. He had no division between a private personal life and a public life. His whole life was public, in the service of humanity, from dawn to dusk. If you are interested in what Deepak Chopra has to say, his tribute to Maharishi is in The Times of India, 7 February 2008:


 * Maharishi ushered in spiritual renaissance'
 * 7 Feb 2008, 0200 hrs IST, Deepak Chopra


 * NEW YORK: The Maharishi didn't die like mere mortals do. He just went into what we call 'maha samadhi'. On January 12 this year, his 91st birthday, he announced that his work in the world was over and he was going into silence. He didn't speak to a single soul after that day. And today, he has passed so elegantly.


 * Maharishi began the spiritual renaissance. He was one of the most significant figures of the century. Personally, I owe everything to him. Everything I have learnt, I have learnt from him. He has influenced some of the most important people of this century . . . . He was a great man.


 * I remember taking George Harrison to meet him in 1993. George had gone to apologize for the bad behaviour of the Beatles back in 1969.


 * It's enough to say I am who I am because of my Guru. I'm grateful that I was part of his dream. If there is such a thing as 'devaloka', they must surely be celebrating and welcoming a great sage.


 * (As told to Anubha Sawhney Joshi)

Cleanup
Seems like we need to do a bit of cleanup. Following Maharishi's death a lot of material got added, and possibly not all relevant in the long run. Maybe details regarding his passing, such as his posture at the time of death, should be deleted. And someone just added duplicate info about "Across the Universe. Olive, are you here? You've always done a good job cleaning things up. Can you look at this? TimidGuy (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, TG I can do it . I have been noticing also a lot of additions. If I take out something anyone is really attached to let me know. I'll do this tomorrow.(olive (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC))

Excellent work! I tried to fix the errors in the Beatles section -- the fact that all the first-hand sources except Wenner attribute their departure to the American nurse story said to have been originated by Mardas. And made clear that Mardas wasn't related to the Farrow story. I've never seen a single source say that he spread rumors regarding Farrow. It's odd how frequently the media reported that in the obituaries. I hope they didn't get that from this article. We need to still fix the Sexy Sadie sentence, since it makes Lennon's song the main point. Rather, their departure itself should be the main point in the syntax -- because historically the fact of their departure is more significant than the song. TimidGuy (talk) 16:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Adjusted syntax to place emphasis on departure.OK?(olive (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

New pictures
These pictures are now available: ,,  . --Josha52 (talk) 10:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Wow, Nandesuka. That was a pretty big rollback. I did question some of the material, but some of it was perfectly well sourced, such as the citation to the New York Times. I can't understand such a blanket revert, especially without discussion. TimidGuy (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Beatles
Hi, Nandesuka. Sorry, I thought I remembered that we had consensus to change this when you noted that Spitz said "an American nurse." I've' examined many sources, and they all say the same thing and tell a very specific and detailed story -- that Mardas relayed a story about this nurse. and that this was the precipitating incident. The sources include the first-hand accounts by Cnythia Lennon and Patti Boyd who were at the meeting along with John and George in which they had intended to confront Maharishi with the story. If I remember correctly, even John himself says it differently in the Beatles anthology. I think this quote in Wenner is anomalous. Not sure what to do. The problem is that your revised version seems to make Lennon's quote the default. Seems like that shouldn't trump the other sources. In the Beatles anthology George explicitly says, "It wasn't Miai Farrow, it was someone else." Another way that Lennon's quote is anomalous is that it suggests that there were additional rumors. But in dozens of sources, or perhaps hundreds or thousands, if you count the recent space of obituaries, there is no mention of any rumors beyond the America nurse and Mia Farrow. Eager to know what you think. TimidGuy (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Also, in the Beatles anthology George gives a different reason for his departure: that he had always only planned to stay for the first portion of the course in Rishikesh and had planned to leave when the venue moved north. So Wenner really only explains John's departure (since Paul and Ringo had left much earlier). Anyway, I guess it needs still more tweaking. What to do? Seems endless, especially as there are so many different accounts. TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved material on Beatles song "Across the Universe" back into the Beatles section. Pairing information about the Beatles song in deep space with the date of Maharishi's death, and position he died in is a synthesis of information and material and creates an implied POV. Logically as well, some of the information is about the death, some is about the Beatles.The two pieces of information should probably be kept separate.(olive (talk) 18:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC))

Awards and recognitions section
Thank you for adding this detail and citing it. But I'm afraid that this large section makes the article sound too promotional. Plus, it may be a violation of undue weight to allot so much space to this. If this is to be in keeping with policy and the scope of the other sections of the article, it seems like it could be a few sentences. What do others think? TimidGuy (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with TG. In this article its critical that we maintain a neutral quality and do not move to a promotional tone . This article was heavily copy edited to remove promotional sounding material as per discussions with multiple editors. So I think a sentence or two would be fine but more than that would violate WP:Undue and would create POV overtones in the article.(olive (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

We could maybe retain some of the info within the references while greatly reducing what appears in the article itself. TimidGuy (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at some other pages of Wikipedia, you will find they are much longer than Maharishi's page. There is not reason to keep it short. It can be longer even. Visit many pages on Wikipedia and you will see this is the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.50 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue of undue weight is that this long section skews the balance of the article. Also, all of the material, except the final citation, is sourced to self-published material. According to WP:SPS, such material can't be used if it's unduly self-serving. Also, it really shouldn't be used to make claims. In this case, the claimed recognition is something that ideally would be independently reported. In the U.S. it's very common for public relations entities to give these sorts of recognitions, and they may not always be meaningful. That's something that would be filtered by an independent source. TimidGuy (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with TimidGuy's points. Roseapple (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Me too: I agree.--Josha52 (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since almost all of the recognitions listed are from one publication, what about adding a sentence to the third paragraph of the article, that says "During his lifetime he received awards and recognitions from governments around the world," (or something similar) and footnoting it with the MERU publication? That way it is noted, but not given undue weight. Roseapple (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roseapple. Seems like that could work. Instead of "from governments around the world" we could consider being more specific, such as "Maharishi has been honored by the cities of x, x, x, and by the governing bodies of x,x,x." Maybe we should attribute it in context so that the reader knows it's a self-published source. "According to a book published by Maharishi European Research University, . . . " Since the final item in this section is sourced to an Indian TV station, it has more credibility. Perhaps it could be shortened and added to the section on his death. It is notable that the Shankaracharya presided over his funerary rite. TimidGuy (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added a shorter version of "awards and citations". However, I did not add it to the lead as was discussed since when I tried it there, it seemed to weight the lead in a  promotional way, and also the lead itself was becoming pretty lengthy. I will add one more citation later today.I'm not attached to the placement of this but I think wherever this goes WP:Weight has to be considered as has been discussed.(olive (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Awards and recognitions

 * Welcome from Swami Shantanand Saraswati Maharaj, Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math, to Maharishi, in Jyotir Math, India, 1975: "From the tradition of Shri Shankaracharya, he is the disciple just like the Master. Destroyer of tamas of the inner Self, King of Rishis. And from the darkness of the people He is the bestower of light.... He is indeed the reason for the welfare of the tradition."
 * Man of Hope award, 1970, by the City of Hope, California, USA. Engraved on award: "Given to him who seeks to uplift the human spirit and combat despair in this troubled world."
 * Golden Medal of the City of Delphi, Greece, July 5, 1973, by the Municipal Council of Delphi
 * Proclamation by Members of the Parliament of India, March 11, 1975, New Delhi, in support of Maharishi's World Plan: "Whereas it is noted that since the year 1957 His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi embarked upon a grand design to enlighten the world through the teaching of Transcendental `Meditation... and whereas all the achievement of this illustrious son of India sings the glory of the ancient tradition of Masters, the Sages and Seers, the glory of Realisation, the glory of all our vedic lore - indeed, the imperishable glory of Bharat Mata...therefore, be it proclaimed, that we, Members of Parliament, representing the following States of India, urge all individuals, Institutions of Learning, Central and State Government Ministers and Members of Parliament, Corporations and Leaders of Trade, Industry, and Labour, Students and Teachers, authors of public opinion, men of religious and secular organs in India to join with us in commending the seven goals of the World Plan to the World .... signed by Dr GS Melkote of Andhra Pradesh, Shri Venketasubbiah of Andhra Pradesh, Shri N. Ranjan Laskar of Assam, Pandit DN Tiwary of Bihar, Dr Jivraj Mehta of Gujarat, Shri GL Nanda of Haryana, Shri T Sohan Lal of Delhi, Shri ST Pandit of Maharashtra, Shri N Tombi Singh of Manipur, Shri VC Shukla of Madhya Pradesh, Shri BP Nagarajamurthy of Karnataka, Shri Devendra Satpathy of Orissa, Shri Prabodh Chandra of Punjab, Shrimati Gayatri Devi of Jaipur, Rajasthan, Shri Raja Ram Shastri of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Subodh Hansda of West Bengal.
 * House Resolution No. 677, adopted May 24, 1972, Seventy-seventh General Assembly, House of Representatives, State of Illinois, in support of the study of Maharishi's Science of Creative Intelligence on campuses of the state, and encouragement of its use in combating drug-abuse.
 * Congratulations from His Majesty King Hussein Ibn Talal, Amman, Jordan, January 12, 1974, letter Ref: 7/1/173 written by the Director General of the Royal Scientific Society of Amman, Jordan: "His Majesty the King congratulates you for your sincere endeavors to inspire for knowledge and action so many governments and institutions throughout the world. Particularly, His Majesty is convinced that the Jordanian people will benefit indeed from your dedication to such a noble cause."
 * Statement issued by the Imperial Ethiopian Government, Addis Ababa, by Paulos Asserate, Vice-Minister of Education and Fine Arts, October 13, 1972, granting permission for Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's Science of Creative Intelligence to be taught in schools and colleges of Ethiopia, "as a knowledge that is both useful and necessary to the progress of the individual... At present, courses in the Science of Creative Intelligence are already being given in at Haile Selassie I University....We would like to inform you that all the necessary help will be given to introduce and conduct the Science of Creative Intelligence."
 * State of Texas Senate Resolution No. 329, adopted March 24, 1975, "Resolved that the Senate of the State of Texas welcome Maharishi Mahesh Yogi back to the United States, extend best wishes for his attempts to bring about an age characterized by progress along with the preservation of the cultural integrity of every nation."
 * Key to the City of Houston, Texas, USA, given by Mayor Louie Welch
 * Key to the City of Los Angeles, California, USA, given by Mayor Tom Bradley
 * Award with coat of arms presented by the Mayor of the City of Fiuggi, Italy, spring 1972
 * Award presented by the Mayor of the City of Knokke, Belgium, winter 1975
 * Honorary Citizenship, "with all the rights and privileges appertaining thereto as recognition of the high esteem in which he is held", presented to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi by the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, Canada, Mayor Stephen Juba, March 21, 1975
 * Proclamation issued by Governor Dan Walker, State of Illinois, November 7, 1973: "Man has always sought to know the unknown. His pursuit of knowledge and know-how has molded civilizations throughout the ages. He has also sought rest and religious experiences and happiness. Among the means proposed to these goals, which differ for individuals and peoples, is Transcendental Meditation, introduced to Americans over a decade ago by a practitioner from India. This Guru, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi from a monastery in the Himalayas, has inaugurated a world plan to promote the Science of Creative Intelligence and Transcendental Meditation. Objectives of the plan include development of the individual's full potential, improvement of governmental achievements, realization of the highest educational ideal, solution of behavioral and criminal problems, maximizing intelligent use of the environment, fulfillment of the economic aspirations of individuals and society, and achievement of the spiritual goals of mankind in this generation. Although recognizing that all these commendable goals may not be attained in my lifetime, I, Dan Walker, Governor of the State of Illinois, proclaim November 11 to 18, 1973, World Plan Week in Illinois."
 * The Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh, India,under the leadership of the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, the Honourable D. Singh, joined together in a unanimous decision of all members of all parties, on 3 October 1995, to establish the university, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Vedic Vishwavidyalaya in Bhopal.
 * Ambassador from Cambodia to the United Nations in Geneva, His Excellency Chheang Vun, on October 13, 2007 said he has visited Maharishi Vedic University of Cambodia and: "Cambodia really needs your help."
 * Shankaracharya Vasudevananda Saraswati Maharaj of Jyotir Math on 9 February 2008: "Maharishi Mahesh Yogiji wanted to spread the message of his Master throughout the world. He has successfully propagated these teachings across the globe."

Addition on self-help teachers
There is no real section for this information right now and as well these additions would need sources. This article has been the scene of highly contentious discussions so all editors should discuss any such major addition, especially since it would require a new section.(olive (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC))

Lennon quote
There are some discrepancies in the addition to the Beatles on, Lennon's admission of a mistake. For example, BBC is said to have printed the admission, and of course BBC is not a newspaper... My thought is that it would be very nice to link this to a source. This article and section are highly contentious so this kind of addition should be more clearly sourced for the reader. I do correct/copy edit the material, but still a source a reader can get to would be best.(olive (talk) 03:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

Recent addition on themes
Posting here material that was recently added and removed from the article so that the person who contributed it can present a rationale for including this or something similar:

Knowledge is structured in consciousness.

‘Fruit of all knowledge’ is the ability to live mistake-free life in higher states of consciousness, daily life in full accordance with all the Laws of Nature, with the spontaneous ability to do everything right and achieve anything.

In its “self-referral” state, or transcendental state, consciousness knows itself alone…[it] is the unified state of knower, knowing and known.

The whole population of the world is violating Natural Law, and consequently…human life everywhere is shrouded with problems…The only way out…is that…one should…develop higher states of consciousness and thereby live enlightenment and fulfilment in daily life – Heaven on Earth.

Those who practice Transcendental Meditation have the experience that Transcendental Consciousness is unbounded awareness – it is pure wakefulness; it it fully awake within itself; it knows only itself and nothing else.

The seven states of consciousness are Waking, Dreaming, Sleeping, Transcendental Consciousness, Cosmic Consciousness, God Consciousness and Unity Consciousness.

Now millions of Vedic Scientists practising…Transcendental Meditation…are busy creating purity in world consciousness, the fertile ground for Heaven on Earth.

…in the language of religion, act in accordance with the ‘Will of God’; or, in the language of science, live life according to Natural Law…

…research in consciousness is the journey of the attention through sequentially finer levels of the thought process, until the awareness fathoms the source of thought…

Enlightened people of every religion rightfully see the light of their own Lord everywhere, and on that level the Light of God prevails; appreciation and glorification of the reality of their own religion prevails…the Light of God is the goal of every religion.

This experience of self-referral unbounded awareness enlivens the holistic level of functioning of the whole brain physiology…

…this one simple technology is able to produce such an extraordinary range of benefits because it enlivens the most basic level of existence…

The Maharishi Effect…global research demonstrated…[that] the square root of one per cent of a population practising the…TM-Sidhi Programme…together in one place is sufficient to neutralize negative tendencies and promote positive trends throughout the whole population…

On a user Talk page this was the state rationale for inclusion: "One of the things that makes Maharishi interesting is his contribution to the discussion of consciousness. The extracts I added are headlines for topics he dealt with in hundreds of hours of lectures and a number of books. There is a large community (and not just Maharishi's mob) that is expert in such matters, and I feel the article is unbalanced if it doesn't give a brief pointer to his thinking." TimidGuy (talk) 11:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be a valid point that the article could contain, for example, something about his particular approach to the Vedic literature. This point could be independently sourced, such as Frawley. I'm not sure it would ever be appropriate encyclopedia style to present a list of statements without any kind of explanatory context. TimidGuy (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict


 * The concern I would have is not with the information or its importance in terms of MMY's teaching. This is considered a contentious article ....in the past highly contentious, so additions of material especially of this length should probably have been discussed before adding it . As well in context of this article and its length, I would feel that the info added violated weight, because there is so much of it in terms of the overall length of the article and in terms of the other information in the article.
 * I think it might be fine to add a sentence or two summarizing areas Maharishi discussed in his teachings, and using language that is understandable to the lay person - more neutral language. Also, some of this information is already embedded within the article, and in reader friendly language so it is more understandable in part because it has been given context that references the ideas directly. Hope that makes sense. If not, I'm happy to keep discussing this.
 * If you're going to continue editing on Wikipedia you might find it useful to establish a User name. Its very easy to do.:0) (olive (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks TimidGuy for smoothing my way here: I take on board your comment that the list style is inappropriate. Thanks also Olive: I take your point that the section shouldn't have undue weight on the page.  But Maharishi had something unusual to say about consciousness.  What about a paragraph on the main page with a link to a sub-page called (something like) MMY's Teaching on Consciousness?  On the sub-page I would write some nice connected prose :) But it's good to present the ideas of deep thinkers in their own words, don't you think? Ber (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ber. I think this is something that needs to be thoroughly discussed.
 * In context of an encyclopedia:


 * Information on Maharishi's thinking would need to be in context of another source that is WP:Reliable, WP:Verifiable, and neutral. Adding a page on his thinking would likely violate WP:Original Research. Possibly an article could be started on something he has written, Science of Being, for example, which points out what he discusses and his thoughts because they are part of the context of the book. To just add a page that talks about his ideas would not be appropriate as I understand an encyclopedic entry must be. Possibly the first task would be to add something to this article, very short, but to remember that one probably cannot add Maharishi's ideas here unless we are citing the ideas as coming from a source. This is a tricky area. To just add the material would violate  WP:Original Research as I understand it.I hope this makes sense. Lets keep discussing, though. (olive (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Hi Olive. What you suggest is exactly what I had in mind.  Maharishi has authored a few books that set out his ideas, and I'd have in mind discussing some selected passages. Now I'm tuned in to the collaborative approach going on around this page, I'll run my ideas past you & TG before editing the main page. Ber (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG & Olive. Have been looking harder at the material, and I think I see a framework for the presentation. I hope this link Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Consciousness will create a subpage where we can work on drafts (guidelines seem to indicate this is the right thing to do), and I've written there about the framework. Ber (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Eager to see what you come up with. TimidGuy (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am agreeing with Ber that it is good to show in Maharishi's own words some of his thinking on different subjects. If you can manage to do this it would be more revealing than a lot of the other statements on this page, many of which are totally innacurate, beginning with Maharishi's name. When I come to Wikipedia I like to know something about what the person said in his lifetime, not in someone else's words but in their own words, published by a reliable source, and if it is a book he authored, so much the better, then at least we know we are not seeing it through someone elses lenses and prejudices but exactly what Maharishi said and published. A biography should give some more real content about a person than we are seeing on this page. Good luck. Somanatha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somanatha (talk • contribs) 23:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG, Olive & Somanatha,

I've put a draft on the Maharishi Consciousness Talk page, for your comment. Best wishes Ber (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ber. Regarding the proposed addition to this article, I think you've done a good job of focusing on specific and fundamental points of his teaching, and of creating a logical sequence. I think the the next step will be to paraphrase and rewrite, keeping the same general shape, since Wikipedia doesn't usually give long quotations. Rather, an article would typically briefly explain or present Maharishi's thinking. You could still give the direct quote in the ref. (By the way, seems like I've heard there is some question whether these books were written by Maharishi or on his behalf by someone else. I believe that at Maharishi University of Management, these books are considered to represent his teaching but not necessarily his words.) TimidGuy (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi TG. Perhaps I can see how to approach a rewrite of the type you suggest - I'll think about it. About whether the words are Maharishi's: I think it's clear that some sections in MVUI have been written by others, but I tried to select excerpts that had the flavor of his language. There is a problem with discussing or paraphrasing, in that I couldn't guarantee that I had full understanding of the teaching. I find this exercise has sharpened my appreciation of it, as if my camera had been a bit out of focus. But that's a long way from being an authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ber.maguire (talk • contribs) 07:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Ber. I think you've done a good and important job in isolating words that indicate Maharishi's positions/philosophies, and I think you're right in that an article on Maharishi should have some mention of this Philosophy. In thinking about how to accomplish this, and as a suggestion, and I think TG is right on the mark with this, might be to add a section to the MMY article as it is now entitled something like: Fundamentals of Teachings, then as you have done isolate the most  fundamental aspects of his teaching into sub sections and paraphrase as best you can material on that subsection. Post the paraphrase here or on the sub page you worked on and leave it open for editing and comment. Then when all editors involved feel it is as right as we can get it, add it to the section on Teachings . Only after we/you have completed the entire section should we place it in the article. A thought. Waiting to hear what both you and TG think of this plan of action.(olive (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks, Olive. Sounds good. Looking forward to seeing it. TimidGuy (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Olive & TG. I've posted a paraphrase version on the subpage - it's in two parts, the first intended as a section of the main page, and the second as a subpage of the main page.  For convenience, here is the proposed section  for the main page:

Teaching on consciousness

 * Main Article: Maharishi’s teaching on consciousness

Maharishi’s teaching on consciousness can be seen in his 1994 book Maharishi Vedic University – Introduction to unfold at three levels: individual, collective and fundamental:

With reference to waking, dreaming and sleeping, he defines a fourth state: “Those who practise Transcendental Meditation have the experience that Transcendental Consciousness is unbounded awareness – it is pure wakefulness; it is fully awake within itself; it knows only itself and nothing else. This experience of self-referral unbounded awareness enlivens the holistic level of functioning of the whole brain physiology.

There are important practical implications: the whole population of the world is violating Natural Law, and consequently human life everywhere is shrouded with problems. The only way out is that one should develop higher states of consciousness and thereby live enlightenment and fulfilment in daily life – Heaven on Earth. Maharishi says: “'Fruit of all knowledge' [means] the ability to live mistake-free life in higher states of consciousness, daily life in full accordance with all the Laws of Nature, with the spontaneous ability to do everything right and achieve anything.”

Moreover, the practice of a few individuals can have a direct effect on the environment: “Coherence in collective consciousness and positivity and harmony in national consciousness is produced by the group practice of Maharishi’s Transcendental Meditation.”

And, at the fundamental level: “The infinite diversity and dynamism of the creation is just the expression of the eternally silent, self-referral, self-sufficient, unbounded field of consciousness. All life emerges from and is sustained in consciousness. The whole universe is the expression of consciousness; the reality of the universe is one unbounded ocean of consciousness in motion.”

On the basis of this unfolding of the concept of consciousness, Maharishi declares: “The truth is that the Light of God is eternally the same, and it is available to the enlightened in his own self-referral consciousness, which is transcendental reality and is actually never influenced by the language in which it is expressed. In the language of religion, act in accordance with the Will of God; or, in the language of science, live life according to Natural Law.” Therefore the Light of God is the goal of every religion.


 * As the new boy here, I'm fine with waiting til you folks feel it's right before adding it to the article.Ber (talk) 05:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Addition on teaching
Hi Ber. In no way does discussing this material have to do with whatever experience you may have. This has been a highly contentious article with lots of fierce arguments and discussions. The Wikipedia way of dealing with much of this kind of disagreement is to have a consensus or agreement between editors. Adding any material to this article will probably be most easily done if editors before it is added to the article agree on the material. This helps to ensure that we all scrutinize the material for Wikipedia policy/guideline infractions, so that other editors coming in are dealing with something that is at the least compliant. This is just a standard way of proceeding. As well since we are dealing with teaching /philosophies that can be open to interpretation, we, should agree on what that interpretation is to prevent later problems. Thanks very much for you work, and lets keep discussing...:0)(olive (talk) 14:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Ber and Olive, I went ahead and followed Ber's lead -- focusing on consciousness as being central to Maharishi's teaching. I took what Ber came up with and paraphrased it further, and reordered it. Please just look at it as an idea or brainstorming. I'm not attached to it in any way. It's just how I might approach it if I were trying to write a section for this article encapsulating a central component of Maharishi's teaching that would be in encyclopedia style. It may not be completely understandable to a general reader, but that may be unavoidable. I put my draft on Ber's subpage. TimidGuy (talk) 16:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, it would be sourced to the passages in Maharishi's book that Ber identified. I was simply trying to paraphrase the concepts in those passages. TimidGuy (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * I thought it might be helpful to begin to make a list of the most fundamental teachings to make sure we are including whatever is most important.Maybe we could all add points here and then select the ones that encompass the most general categories. Ber has put together a section for the article that includes some of these points.
 * My thought is to leave out the word consciousness in a final draft, wherever possible, since it has multiple meanings for many different people,and as well is a trigger point for some editors and may illicit a knee-jerk reaction.(olive (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

List of fundamental teachings: Add comment, if needed, underneath each point

Comments: Comments:
 * Knowledge is structured in consciousness
 * Seven states of consciousness


 * Dear Folks, I see it's going to take quite a bit of work to get an agreed text here.  Sorry, I don't have the time - I have to return to my commitments tomorrow, and there's no telling when there'll be another opportunity.  I'm glad we're agreed there's a place for teachings on the Maharishi page, and I hope you have time to get it together.  I'll drop by when I have time to see how it went.  Many thanks for your help in understanding the edit process. Best wishes Ber (talk) 02:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Ber: Its been very good that you brought this idea up, and I would like to pursue it. Maybe if TG is willing we can continue writing this ... and hope you can come in every now and then as your time permits, and make comments. Thank you for your time, efforts, and ideas.(olive (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC))

Maharishi is a Title - Like Mister, Doctor, or Professor?
I am not an editor of this article, but while reading here, I was dismayed to see that the article reads Maharishi as if Maharishi was part of his name. I have always understood that the term "Maharishi" is an honorific title similar to "father," "reverend" or "rabbi." There are many maharishis, just like there are many priests. In light of this, some parts of this article are grammatically misleading, drawing readers to conclude that "Maharishi" is a name. I suggest revising the appropriate parts of the article with "the Maharishi," in the same way as one might refer to a professor (PhD.) as "the professor," or "professor."

So, for example: "Professor went to the university" isn't correct. "The professor went to the university," or "Professor Doe went to the university" are correct. Professor isn't the man's name. Maharishi wasn't Mahesh's name. And Yogi wasn't his name either, that's another identifying term?

If I'm wrong please ignore this. If I'm right, and you are one of the regular editors here, please try to fix it. I'd do it myself, but I personally feel that it would be bad Wikipedia etiquette to swoop in and edit an article that I'm not tuned into. Thanks. VictorC (talk) 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We really do need to address this. It's come up before. Part of the problem is that all of the self-published material from the various organizations associated with him follow the usage seen in this article. And academics associated with these organizations followed this usage in their scholarly publications. Even though I've read hundreds of reports in mainstream media, I can't generalize about their usage. I think it tends to be some of both. But to a general reader, like yourself, this usage sounds odd. It almost seems like we should change it if for no other reason than to make the article sound more objective and less using "insider" language. TimidGuy (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad to see your quick response! I just logged into CNN.COM's transcript of one of his last interviews with Larry King which coincidentally addressed it in his first question: LARRY KING: Is Maharishi a title or a name?
 * MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI: Title, I think. People begin to call significant of the characteristic of the word "Maharishi." "Maha" means great and "Rishi" is a seer. The seer of reality. The seer, that's what people called, and it became a sort of name.


 * This might be a good citation for the article. VictorC (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I see it as a title that evolved into a sort-of nickname, the way a well-known doctor in a community might come to be called "Doc." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good point. That seems apparent. But only meaningful to those with familiarity such as TM disciples or the Maharishi's aficionados. Outsiders (like me) will be led to a slight amount of confusion, and thanks for clarifying things. VictorC (talk) 21:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a huge fan of The Beatles and have read multiple biographies of the band and its members, so seeing him called "Maharishi" is familiar to me. ;-) But yes, for a general audience I agree that "the Maharishi" would be best. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not attached one way or the other. Does it seem that a Wikipedia article should reflect usage of the name as it appears in most literature, and what is that usage. For instance in the books you have read, Boris, how does the name usually appear. Is there any kind of consistency in usage,(olive (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC))


 * It appears from reading a Talk page entry in another article by TimidGuy that the convention being used in some of these articles ("Maharisih" rather than "the Maharishi") was taken from the MUM Manual of Style. NYTimes Manual of Style would indicate "the Maharishi", as does the BBC Styleguide Those would be considered pretty authoritative. As I read WP:MOS, it looks like "the Maharishi" is the preferred form in Wikipedia articles. Fladrif (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a change across multiple articles so I would not want to make this change without discussion and clear agreement from the other editors. At one point I said I wasn't attached one way or the other, but on more thought I think that how MMY is named in the majority of literature and Media is an important consideration. I don't see that the WP:MOS really deals with this situation. Any way,let's keep talking.(olive (talk) 16:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Seems like there was agreement to change this in the last discussion... why don't we say we will change it across all articles unless there is objection... give it a couple of days and then probably change...That would seem to be a more legitimate way of dealing with it since there was already a lot of agreement for the change.(olive (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Maharishi was Dutch of Indian Descent (or not?)
According to this citation the Maharishi lived in the Netherlands since 1990. That seems enough to show that he was Dutch of Indian descent, being that his residential status was Dutch for more than fifteen years. Clearly he had adopted the Netherlands as his home. Why was the category removed? Werdnawerdna removed it with the notation: "I've never seen any evidence that he was, in any sense, Dutch." Obviously - I've never seen a lot of things, that doesn't make them false. I've never seen any snow in Antarctica, but it doesn't have any bearing on whether or not there is or isn't any snow there. All that it means is that I have yet to travel to Antarctica. Is this possibly an instance of Werdnawerdna simply not having looked for the reason the category had been entered here? If so, Werdnawerdna, will you please revert? VictorC (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * sorry, not Dutch. Dutch do not consider a foreigner Dutch only because he lived in the Netherlands. Andries (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict...add to comment of Andries above:


 * Maharishi is Indian and of Indian descent. Whether he later became a citizen of the Netherlands would have to be checked and referenced. This still would not make him of Dutch descent, but it is possible he could be called "Dutch" if the the word applies to language,and people (even new citizens) of the Netherlands. The question that arises is does including him as "Dutch" mislead the reader. A thought.(olive (talk) 21:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC))


 * He was an Indian leader of an internationally oriented religious community that happened to have its headquarters in the Netherlands. There is no evidence that he seriously tried to integrate into Dutch society or seriously tried to speak Dutch, so he was not dutch. Andries (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, perhaps a spiritual community... The question is whether officially he became a citizen of the Netherlands. This would be a technicality in terms of definition. As you say I believe he shouldn't be considered "dutch" in the common, less formal usage of the word since there was no intent to integrate into the society,  or use the language that anyone knows of. I suspect use of the word even if he was officially a citizen of the Netherlands would mislead the reader, and shouldn't be included in the article. (olive (talk) 21:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC))


 * If he had dutch nationality then this can be written in the article but this is not enough to make him Dutch. I am aware that people from other countries tend to have different attitude to this, but for Dutch this is insufficient, you should seriously try to speak the language and seriously try to integrate in Dutch society. Maharishi did, as far as I know, neither, so I strongly oppose the category Dutch. Andries (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not absolutely certain I understand your point. Before he came to the Netherlands, I believe he was a US resident. At that time "American of Indian Descent" would have been appropriate. Why would it be any different since he's moved to Holland? What makes Holland so special? Excuse me but Ayaan Hirsi Ali as Dutch as the Maharishi was. She was from Somalia and only moved to the Netherlands in '92. So are you asserting the Maharishi is any less special than she? Please clarify your position. VictorC (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess the Dutch are not special, just different than the US in that repect. Ayaan Hirsi Ali speaks Dutch and tried to integrate into Dutch society. Maharishi did neither, so he is not Dutch. Andries (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that Maharishi spent his latter years in The Netherlands. However, mere residence in a country, regardless of the duration, does not give said person the national identity of the country of residence. He made The Netherlands his country of residence, but he was a foreigner in every sense of the word. He was not Dutch by descent, birth, upbringing, culture or nationality. That is what I meant in my edit summary; all the evidence proves that he was Indian; he did not have any other national identity. He is correctly regarded as Indian; all the evidence shows that. This article and talk page are the only places I have ever seen to claim he was Dutch. If someone is claiming he was Dutch (or anything other than Indian for that matter), then they need to provide evidence to back up that strange claim. The burden of proof rests with them, not the rest of the world, who rightly regard him as Indian. I, along with millions of other people, have seen a great deal of snow in Antarctica, be it on documentaries rather than in person. Thousands of people have actually been to Antarctica, and have seen the huge amounts of snow there for themselves. It is fact that there is always tons of snow in the world's coldest continent; it is proven, undisputed fact. I do not know why the Dutch category was applied to this article, but I know it was incorrectly added, which is why I removed it. Ayaan Hirsi Ali qualifies as Dutch in so much as she is a Dutch citizen; she has ceased to be a Muslim and lives a Western lifestyle; she has become 'less foreign' (that said, she is still an immigrant and is still of foreign origin). Maharishi never Westernised (nor did he try to or want to). Therefore he remained Indian; he did not, at any point, become Dutch. Werdnawerdna (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. It would inaccurate to include the terms Dutch, although if he had citizenship, and I've never seen evidence that he had than another discussion comes into play... He was never a resident of the US.(olive (talk) 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

Deva - Dev
A discussion of the pronunciation on this would probably center on Sanskrit pronunciations, of which I am not an expert. However linguistically speaking, the "v" on the end of Dev has a slightly "open" sound rather than a completely "stopped" stopped sound as a "d" would have, for example, giving a short "a" sound to the word. The word Dev can also spelled Deva in English. As well, inclusion of why Lennon preferred one pronunciation over another, or one spelling over another should probably be sourced. At best the comment is trivia, and personally I would not include it.(olive (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

Merge discussion
Since there was talk on Talk:Maharishi Vedic Science about merging that article here, I went ahead and added mergeto and mergefrom tags, which point to this page for discussion. Please comment if you care one way or the other. Dicklyon (talk) 04:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we should do it. The other one is really advertisementish, not to mention confusing and vague, plus it's not hugely notable in and of itself (13,000 ghits between the exact phrase search "Maharishi Vedic Science" and "Maharisi's Vedic Science" combined, compared to 284,000 for "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi", also an exact phrase search. I think it would benefit greatly from the condensation for here, and we can always unmerge it later if the section here improves enough.
 * Yes, let's merge. In fact, the MVS material is pretty much already in the MMY article, in the section on other initiatives. As far as I'm concerned, we could simply add a phrase or sentence noting that these other initiatives are sometimes collectively referred to as Maharishi Vedic Science. I think that would suffice. TimidGuy (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with a merge as well.(olive (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC))


 * Created material for merge from MVS article, and introduced it. Not attached of course.(olive (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC))

Pdquesnell (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC) I think it would be best to NOT merge this (hopefully) biographical article with the any article about the teachings and writings of Maharishi. I would like to remove the "mergeto" tags.


 * The merge took place some time ago and the information is under the section "Ideas". It might be possible to have an entire article on the "ideas/ philosophies" of Mahsrishi Mahesh Yogi in the future, but at the time of the merge there was agreement among the editors working that there wasn't enough sourced information on Vedic Science for it to have its own article.(olive (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC))


 * Thanks for the update. Seeing how the merge has been completed, I'm going to remove the "mergto" tags. Pdquesnell (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

the correct dates of his birth

 * |Foto of his paasportn MMY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamblichus (talk • contribs) 20:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent additions re Beatles
The recent additions from two anonymous accounts in the Beatles section of the article don't seem particularly encyclopedic, particularly the last addition. (which also needs a cite) It is only tangentially related to the article - it actually seems to have more to do with David Lynch Foundation than with this article. Wikipedia isn't a newspaper, and extensive quotes from books and articles are largely to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. I'm not going to delete this stuff - though I'd be tempted to in a less contentious article. I'll leave that to the other editors to act on - but I think it should either be deleted or extensively rewritten. Fladrif (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree for the most part, but rather than delete I did rewrite it and added the ref. I think the addition was made, at least as I see it, as further information on the Beatles and their connection to Maharihsi Mahesh Yogi and the TM technique. From that view I think this shorter version is fine, but comments welcome.(olive (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
 * The paragraph seems to concern TM, the practice, rather than the Maharishi, the person. This article concerns the latter. Maybe it'd be better moved to the TM article?   Will Beback    talk    21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That may be my fault since in rewriting I left out references McCartney made about Maharishi. Its possible it could go in either place ... I'm not attached. Maybe it belongs in a section on schools and the technique in the TM article.(olive (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC))


 * Can see why your rewrote, but it belongs in this section as you are correct, the quotes mentioned Maharishi's name directly in the press conference. So will put back in to make this clearer. The best thing is to take out the whole Beatles section and move it to Beatles, but since there is a strong desire among some to keep it, then we may as well keep what Ringo and Paul said about Maharishi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.51 (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This addition is moving in the wrong direction; the quote should be removed. Also, the reference for the McCartney press release in 2008 and the quote from Donovan need to be sourced. The link provided for McCartney is dead; there is no verifyiable reference for the Donovan interview.  Is there a published transcript? If so, it needs to be cited; if not, the paragraph needs to be removed. Also, as noted above, these lengthy quotes are not encyclopedic; they should be accurately summarized, not just cut and pasted into the article. Fladrif (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The link is online at this address http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5gRZCe-4LSHJgdhhiNS3N5ltwglNA but I need to figure out how to put in as though the article shows up when searched for on google, I seem not to have the code right to make it work in Wikipedia, though is a valid link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.51 (talk) 00:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  The Donovan interview was a radio interview. It was not transcribed in full. But the radio show would have it in their archives and could give to you upon request.


 * I don't doubt that you accurately quoted from the Donovan interview, but if there is no published transcript (or even on-line audio file), it can't be used here because it can't be verified per WP:V. I'm taking it out for now.  If you can find a published source, then it can go back in, with proper citation - though the better form would be to summarize it rather than just cut and paste a quote. Fladrif (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

References/External links
The "References" section should only contain sources that are used in this article, and the "External links" section should contain only items about or by the subject. Several items in these sections appear to be more related to TM in general, or are simply "Further reading" and should be moved into a different section.  Will Beback   talk    21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the references are all listed under "Notes" and the Ref section is more suggested reading. Does this need to be rectified? --Kbob (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be.   Will Beback    talk    01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As discussed above the section titled Misc External Links is in general extraneous and in violation of Wiki policy.

I have today removed the following links: I have also removed these links:
 * Early photos of Maharishi--Personal Web page by Paul Mason
 * MySpace tribute page--No My Space, see WP:EL
 * Early publication of Maharishi entitled 'Beacon Light of the Himalayas--Personal web site and adv for Paul Mason's book
 * Introduction to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi & his master, Guru Dev--Personal web site by author Paul Mason
 * 'The Maharishi: The Biography of the Man who gave Transcendental Meditation to the World'--Book adevertisement for Paul Mason --Kbob (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2009
 * 'Swami Lakshmanju, Tat Wala Baba, Devraha Baba and others speak on Maharishi Mahesh Yogi'--Personal web site
 * Allen Ginsberg interviews the Maharishi--Again author Paul Mason's personal site
 * The guru of Vlodrop by Perro de Jong 7 Feb. 2007 on the website of the Radio Netherlands--Duplicate of the Obituary topic already covered in the CNN.com link still in the article's EL section.
 * Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: A Beacon of Light from the East to the West--Misleading title that links to an editorial style article that is not unique or significant. --Kbob (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If any editors disagree with these removals, we can discuss and add back into the article if there is a valid reason to include them. Generally the guidelines for Wiki WP:EL are that external links should be: minimal, meritable, relevant, unique and should contain info that cannot be integrated into the article. The following types of links are forbidden: MySpace, Facebook, Tweeter, promo web sites, personal blogs, personal web sites, biased web sites and a long lists of links in general are forbidden.--Kbob (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I checked the rules at the WP:EL page and I agree with you--Luke Warmater101 (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have also removed the two links below from the References section:


 * http://www.srigurudev.net/srigurudev/gurudev/biography.htmlMiscellaneous external links--Dead link
 * Mason, Paul (1994, revised 2005), The Maharishi -- The Biography of the Man Who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World--Link to an Advertiesment for Paul Mason's book. --Kbob (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there were two sections named "References" I have changed the second section to the name: Suggested Reading.

The following links (below) I have left in the Suggested Reading section, for now, but I question their validity, since they do not report directly on aspects of Maharishi's life but instead talk about places or institutions with his name. What do others think?

References http://www.tm.org/learn/where/index.html --This seems like an invite to me, we already have an official link to the TM/Maharshi page, I suggest we remove this link.

Deans, Ashley, PhD (2005) A Record of Excellence: The Remarkable Success of Maharishi School of the Age of Enlightenment--To the best of my knowledge this book does not discuss the life of Maharishi, I suggest we remove it. "THE TM CRAZE: 40 Minutes to Bliss". Time (magazine). October 13, 1975. -- http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,947229,00.html. Retrieved on 2004-04-25. --One of hundreds of articles on TM does it have special relevance? Lee, Gary (November 12, 2006). "Om on the Grange". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/10/AR2006111000463.html?nav=emailpage. Retrieved on 2004-04-25.--Article on MUM Lydersen, Kari (August 9, 2004). "Iowa Town Booms On Eastern Ways". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50643-2004Aug8?language=printer. Retrieved on 2004-04-25.---Article on Vedic City


 * Please let me know your thoughts about the above links. --Kbob (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think they should all be removed, and perhaps re-posted on a different site, for instance one on Transcendental Meditation, since they seem to be mostly about that. You might consider leaving the "Om on the grange" article, but even that is pretty marginal to this topic.--Luke Warmater101 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since no one objected I removed all of the links in the Suggested Reading section and left behind only books. --Kbob (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

the correct name for Maharishi
In the article it says that "Allahabad University list of distinguished alumni calls him "M.C. Shrivastava" but that "Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was born Mahesh Prasad Varma". Why would he be called "M.C. Shrivastava" by Allahabad University?  Is there any connection between the 2 versions of the name?  Bigweeboy 20:17, April 25, 2009

Documentary Film
Another editor has added a section called documentary film. It contained several promotional sentences and links which I have removed. I have left behind a few sentences. What do other editors think? is it notable? Do we have sources for this? Or should we delete it? --Kbob (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry Kbob. I didn't see this post before removing the section. I don't think it should be included as I said below.(olive (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

''In 1968, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi commissioned Alan Waite to create a documentary about Transcendental Meditation. It is entitled “Sage For A New Generation.” It won 'Best Documentary' in the 1969 Hollywood Film Festival, being noted for its 'patchwork quilt' style.''

This addition is not so much about Maharishi but about the film and Alan Waite, and as such in my mind should probably not be mentioned in this article. Maharishi created numerous videos and there are numerous films about him. This one seems no more notable than any of those.

As well I am somewhat concerned about the neutrality of the user who originally added the material (User name:Alan Waite). Further there is now no reference althothe original reference was an advertising site for the video. (olive (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC))


 * That's fine. If another editor can make a case for notability then we can reconsider. For now I'm OK with deletion. The intitial entry was clearly for promotion of a private enterprise.--Kbob (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been an OTRS request at 2009042610020334 concerning the reversion of this edit. I have asked the user to contribute here. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, hopefully the editor will contribute here so the addition he wants to add can be discussed. Right now it looks as if its non-notable, inappropriate to this article, and spam, but there mat be a way of adding it dependent on what other editors think. Thanks(olive (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

Removed Links
I removed this which is an excuse to provide us with yet another link to Paul Mason and his books for sale. Links to Paul Mason's books have been posted on several articles in Wiki which have recently been uncovered by me and removed. * Allen Ginsberg interviews the Maharishi --Kbob (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * While it is true that Paul Mason's main book on Maharishi is neither comprehensive nor authoritative, it does provide a good overall insight and material available nowhere else. If we remove every reference to documents or books sold for money, Wikipedia would have much fewer useful references; for example, we would have to remove links to most scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed journals, since such links go to pages where the article is not visible until one pays a significant fee to see it. David spector (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is not with the book, or at least that is a separate issue. The concern is with spam links, that is, links that link to commercial sites - sites that are selling the book, or anything else. These links are non compliant as per Spam. If we open the door anywhere on Wikipedia for commercial sites, we open a Pandora's box of trouble in terms of advertising and promoting of books and products.(olive (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
 * I'm not familiar with this issue, but in general with books we list the ISBN number. That creates a link to a page in hich readers can find links to numerous libraries and online sellers, and so is neutral from a commercial point of view. So if there's no problem with the book we should list it as a source or as "further reading".   Will Beback    talk    18:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The book is already listed under "Further reading".(olive (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks Olive and Will. I removed a spam link and have no opinion on the content of the book thats why its listed in the suggested reading section without a link. What Wiki objects to is people using Wiki as a format for selling stuff and thats what the link I removed was doing. As you know Wiki has very specific guidelines for External Links WP:EL and in general they should be minimal. --Kbob (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the ISBN link and formatted the entries.   Will Beback    talk    21:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finishing that for me, Will. Well done. --Kbob (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that we change the "book section" from "Suggested readings" to "Further Readings", since we are not expressing any opinion about the listed texts, the term "further" strikes me as more appropriate than "suggested". How does everyone feel about that? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.(olive (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Done, thanks Olive --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Maharishi Vedic Science to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
I merged Maharishi Vedic Science into Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Ideas some time ago based on consensus. Today, I deleted the original page Maharishi Vedic Science and added a redirect to this page so that merge should now be complete.(olive (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC))
 * Olive, I hope you don't mind a question from a not very experienced editor. I noticed that the "redirect" page had its own url. If we make a change on the original article page, will the redirect page reflect the changes as well? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm notan expert in this area, but as far as I know, the original page should not be edited in any way and if it was the edit wouldn't show up anywhere else on Wikipedia. The original article should only have the code for the redirect on its page. The edit history will be intact.(olive (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Nice job Olive. Bigweeboy (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that human beings can levitate off the ground
I saw several ads for the TM movement clearly implying that you could learn to levitate off the ground after you paid for their "special classes". They called it yogic flying. Later they seemed to back away from these claims, saying it is possible but that they just currently attempt doing it as another meditation technique (essentially jumping around like frogs).Ykral (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See TM-Sidhi. Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article too, if only briefly.   Will Beback    talk    07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Will, TM-Sidhi is already mentioned in the section Advanced Programs--Kbob (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Right. I meant the Yogic Flying should also be mentioned. Here's the existing text:
 * In the late 1970s, the Maharishi designed the TM-Sidhi program as an additional option for those who had been practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique for longer periods of time. According to Coplin, this new aspect of knowledge emphasized not only the individual, but also the collective benefits created by group practice of this advanced program.[46]
 * We can add something like, TM-Sidhi offers benefits including Yogic Flying and the Maharishi Effect. BTW, I see that we refer again and again to "Coplin", without indicating why he's an authority. We should introduce him with is relevant credentials and any connection to the Maharishi's movement. We know give the first reference to him simply as:
 * According to Jay Randolph Coplin, ...
 * It'd be better to say something like, According to Jay Randolph Coplin, a professor of communications at University of Iowa and a student of the Maharishi... or whatever. That wold put his views into better context.   Will Beback    talk    22:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look more closely, I see that the Coplin source is a doctoral dissertation. I'm not sure were Wikipedia is on using those as sources. But we should certainly identify it as a dissertation in the footnote and perhaps even in the text. Maybe it'd be better to write, According to a doctoral dissertation by Maharishi student Jay Randolph Coplin... Is the dissertation cited in any other scholarly sources?  Will Beback   talk    23:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)]


 * We could change the sentence to read like this: In the late 1970s, the Maharishi designed the TM-Sidhi program, [including Yogic Flying,] as an additional option for those who had been practicing the Transcendental Meditation technique for longer periods of time. [This new program then gave rise to a new principle called the Maharishi Effect.]--Kbob (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. I'll make that change.   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to identify a first party source but don't feel we need to call Coplin a 'student of the Maharishi'. Also,if Coplin is a weak source then I'm sure we can find others. Give me a day or two to see what I can find. Thanks,--Kbob (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coplin isn't necessarily a weak source. I checked on the WP:RSN and saw that doctoral dissertations are generally acceptable. Anyone who is connected with either pro- or anti- organizations should be identified so that readers can take their biases into account. I don't know that Coplin is a student of Maharishi - I was just suggestig that whatever conneciton he has be disclosed. It appears that he took undergraduate classes at MUM, so perhaps that's a good way of identifying him.   Will Beback    talk    00:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Will good point about disclosing bias whether positive or negative and in the case of Coplin something like 'graduate of MUM' is fine. I just object to the 'student of Maharishi' phrase because it is nebulous and undefined. But all in all it sounds like we are in agreement.--Kbob (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ..and as I said on TM Sidhi each source should be evaluated individually.(olive (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No one is disputing that.   Will Beback    talk    04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Puzzled
Since you pointed out yourself that the information in the book Beacon Light was published by the organizer of the conference I am puzzled as to why you are adding information you know to be inaccurate, that is, that Maharishi published the book... even if the incorrect information is sourced, and during a somewhat heated discussion on that same source after an RS/N... Further I note that while the content is under discussion in one article and you are engaged in an edit war there you add text from that same source to another article. while adding inaccurate content here. Concerned and puzzled.(olive (talk) 17:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, I was about to mention that also. Would it not be better to wait until the debate on the RSN about Beacon Light is completed before using the reference here?  --BwB (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Olsen Family
These were the people who let Maharishi stay in their home when he first came to America. A book called "Hermit in the House" was written by Mrs Olsen about the time Maharishi lived with them. --BwB (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That is out of print. I think the updated version version is called Sage for a New Mellenium, something like that.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 21:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OH. I didn't know that.  --BwB (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Beacon LIght
I am adding information directly from the source, Beacon Light to clarify as per WP:NOR. the fact that TM is not mentioned in the book is noteworthy given the contention surrounding the material and discussion. I'm not positive it doesn't border on OR, however.(olive (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

Beatles section too long
Having just read thru the article again today, I feel that the Beatles Section is too long relative to the size of the article. Yes, the Beatles had a large impact because of the the amount of press it generated, but relative to a 50 year career, and the larger influence MMY had on the world, the Beatles phase was small. We could either try to reduce and summarize the Beatles section, or we can expand the other sections, or add new material. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Since I have had no comments on this, I will start to edit the section to make it shorter. --BwB (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the section is abit long. It might be OK to condense, keeping in mind that the media, for better or for worse, always associates The Beatles with Maharishi.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reworked this section
I have reworked this section. You can find the proposed version in a sand-box here. I feel it could even be shorted and would appreciate other editors feedback before making the changes to the mail article. Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created a shorter version of this section in the sandbox. Would appreciate some feedback from other editors.  --BwB (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the version I created in my sandbox on 28 Oct to the main page. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't see this thread until today or I would have participated earlier. I went through the new version in the article and checked the sources. Because The Beatles in India thing is so controversial I went through and made sure the language was very close to the sources.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work on the Beatles section, Kbobb. I appreciate your efforts. I just reworded a couple of the sentences that seemed a little awkward. --BwB (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw your edits, thanks for cleaning up.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Brahmananda Saraswati Trust
The sources in the section are a little weak. If anyone can find stronger sources that would be a good thing.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 22:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with today's edits re parodies of MMY...
... but, the reasons cited in your edit summaries are the funniest things I've read in a week. Thanks for the amusement, but let's get serious (notwithstanding that we're dealing with the subject matter of humorous parodies of someone universally called "The Giggling Guru") If you serious think that you're correcting a "POV" issue or addressing OR, I suggest that you reread those sections of Wikipedia, because you're not. When you cite four examples of something (and I could cite plenty more...including Maharishi Yogurt, Harvey Kurtzman's having him break his vows of celibacy for Little Annie Fanny, or the Maharishi and the Beatles joining in lofting Alfred E. Neuman on their shoulders and showering him with rose petals it's not an expression of POV nor original research to say that he's been repeatedly parodied in popular culture. Thus endeth the lesson. Fladrif (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback Fladrif, glad you are enjoying the ride. Happy Thanksgiving to you and your family.-- — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Designed or Designated?
The article quotes Maharishi as saying he had completed his "designed" duty to Guru Dev. I wondered if that was the right word or if it was supposed to be "designated." On this discussion page (for Jan 12, 2008) the same quote uses the word "designated" instead of "designed." I'm wondering which word is correct. It is only one word, but that may have been his last public statement. Besides, he was always so articulate, I think we should quote him correctly. --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you can find a transcript on wwww.globalgoodnews.com --Kbob (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The exact quote is actually: "‘It has been my pleasure at the feet of Guru Dev, to take the light of Guru Dev and pass on in my environment. Now today, I am closing my designed duty to Guru Dev. And I can only say, “Live long the world in peace, happiness, prosperity, and freedom from suffering.” http://www.globalgoodnews.com/scintillating-intelligence-archive/26.html --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, is true, the word was "designed" rather than designated. I heard Maharishi speak these words the day he said them, 11 January 2008, the day before the 12th celebration, and later also heard a recording of these words on different occasions, and listened very closely on earphones and without a doubt the word was definitely "designed". He also said an interesting thing several decades ago, to explain why he felt to declare the dawn of the age of enlightenment, and he said that as a builder with a building project puts up a big billboard to show what the finished project will look like, even though the foundation is still being prepared and a building is not yet seen, but that billboard marks the building site, and always the site is said to be the site of the project. To him, the whole world was one big reconstruction project in progress. [who wrote this unsigned entry? David spector (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)]

Leon McClaren
This sentence has recently been inserted into the article.
 * The Maharishi's European tours included a visit to London, where he met Leon MacLaren, who then introduced meditation and Advaita Vedanta to the School of Economic Science (SES).

Did Leon McClaren have some notable affiliation with the Maharishi's life? During the Maharishi's several world tours he met many successful people and government leaders including The Beatles, Deepak Chopra, Donovan, Merv Griffin, Doug Henning, Clint Eastwood, Mary Tyler Moore, Burt Reynolds to just name a few off the top of my head. Should we have a sentence for each of these telling where they met the Maharishi and what they went on to do? If not, then I suggest consider removing the sentence on Leon McClaren.The Maharishi's European tours included a visit to London, where he met Leon MacLaren, who then introduced meditation and Advaita Vedanta to the School of Economic Science (SES).--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As you say, many people had met with MMY. This article cannot mention them all, so perhaps we should remove this sentence?  Was this your comment Olive?  No signature on this.  --BwB (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * nope not olive.(olive (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC))


 * If we want to have a sentence naming some of the notable people who the Maharishi met during his world tours then maybe Leon McClaren could be there. But to my knowledge, he had no significant association with the Maharishi and does not deserve any special mention in the article. Do others agree?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree. I know MMY met with government leaders, US Senators, religious leaders, etc. during his career.  Perhaps we could add a sentence or two about that? --BwB (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Maharishi went around the world several times. I'm sure we could expand that section to include many notable events. Then maybe Leon won't stick out so much. Let's see what we can find on the details of the World Tours.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 02:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * good idea KB. Are you on it?  --BwB (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I haven't edited the article, see my comments on this page about the significance of Maclaren. His schools had a big impact on England, South Africa, and elsewhere, and a lot of that can be traced to MMY's influence. Some research outside of WP may be useful. David spector (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Page referenced is not available
In checking the ref for this, "and began publicly teaching what he states is a traditional meditation technique that he learned from his master, which he called Transcendental Deep Meditation and later renamed Transcendental Meditation", the page referenced, Pg. 25, is not available for viewing. Does someone have this source so we can check this for accuracy.

Russell, Peter, The T.M. Technique: An Introduction to Transcendental Meditation and the Teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Routledge (1977)ISBN 0710085397, 9780710085399 p. 25


 * Go to the web address and scroll to page 25.  --BwB (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks BWB . That was my point, actually. That page -pg25- is not part of the preview for the book.(olive (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC))


 * I also, now, have a version of this book and the History chapter doesn't contain the information used here. Unless there is another source this content should probably be removed.(olive (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Why are you claiming you can't see p 25 in the preview? It's right here. ?P25Fladrif (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've checked multiple times over the last few days and page 25 is not available for preview. I can check again since pages unavailable may rotate. The book I have in hand doesn't  have this information in it, either There may be newer version of the book. I'm waiting on that. (olive (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Click on the link - it's right to page 25. PAGE 25 IS RIGHT HEREFladrif (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is not available for preview either by clicking on your link or in any other approach to the book.(olive (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Weird. Works perfectly for me. No, I'm not pulling your leg. Fladrif (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I take it from BWB's note above that he is able to get to page 25 with no problem. Fladrif (talk) 15:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are lots of other sources that say that "Transcendental Meditation" used to be called "Transcendental Deep Meditation". "The Science of Being and Art of Living" called it "transcendental deep meditation" in the body of the text in 1963 as did the 1959 incorporation documents for SRMF. This sourcesays that the name change from "transcendental deep meditation" to "transcendental meditation" happened in 1964, and that MMY called it simply "deep meditation" prior to use of the term "transcendental deep meditation".


 * Yes I can see it. I am using Firefox browser.  Maybe that makes a difference.  --BwB (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm using IE7Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks everybody. I wouldn't think the browser would make a difference but I did recently switch to Safari from Firefox. I've been able to locate the text in a version of  the book. Whew!... Very strange.(olive (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes, the link to page 25 also works for me on Firefox. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Might have been a 'tempest in a teapot'. I don't think WP has any requirement that a citation be accessible from the Web. The only question is whether a citation actually exists, whether in print or on the Web. Inconvenient, but important to support good content in a good encyclopedia, since the Web does not contain the content of all books. David spector (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed content
This content was removed and replaced with verifiable text from the LA Times:
 * born in the Panduka area of Raipur, India, --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 17:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

David Lynch section
We suddenly have a David Lynch section in this article. Here's some of the material in it:
 * Since then Lynch has been called “the most ardent practitioner of TM in the global film community” and has said that he considers the Maharishi to be “his guru”. [117]
 * In 2005, Lynch began the The David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace, described in a Washington Post article as a “charity that aims to teach children TM”. [119]
 * In 2009, Lynch organized a charity concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City to benefit his foundation. The concert featured Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr and Sheryl Crow. [123]

That material does not seem to concern Maharishi Mahesh Yogi directly. It would be better in David Lynch or David Lynch Foundation.  Will Beback   talk    05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree, Lynch has brought much public and media attention to the Maharishi in the last 10 years or so, just as the Beatles did in the late 1960s. His relationship with MMY is noteworthy. --BwB (talk) 09:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course content can always be improved but we should keep in mind that a) Lynch knows MMY b)Lynch considers MMY to be his guru c)Lynch’s dedication to MMY's meditation has spanned decades d)Lynch is currently making a film of MMY life e)Lynch has traveled the world to support his foundation for TM  d)Lynch's activities on behalf of MMY and TM have been documented in scores (I would even say hundreds) of articles in newspapers from around the world. e) Lynch has also participated in other activities to benefit Maharishi and his programs such as Peace Palace fund raising and events for MUM (the David Lynch weekends--which we might also mention briefly in the article).  Also, there are, I think,  more sources that will further verify Lynch’s significant relationship with Maharishi, so let's give this new section a little time to develop and we can massage it together as we go along.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 12:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maharishi met thousands of people in his life, and has perhaps as many as millions of people who follow his teachings. Neither of those is a reason to devote hundreds of words to each of those people. Should we have sections devoted to Donovan, the Beach Boys, Mia Farrow, Levi Butler, and everyone else with some point of contact to the Maharishi? Activities on behalf of TM belong in the TM article. The text I copied above doesn't concern activities on behalf of the Maharishi. Again, what does that specific text have to do with the topic of this article?    Will Beback    talk    19:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed Unsourced Text
I have removed the above sentence as I can find no citation for it and it has been tagged for some time. If someone else can find a source we can add it back into the article.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Later, Lennon classified the incident as "an error in judgment".

Lynch in India
Yes Will, my crystal ball is working well thank you! :-) We could also add these to the article. --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 00:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a reference to Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Those three sources aren't sufficient to establish the notability of the project, but since that is already established they are OK for updating its progress. How much weight should this project receive? I know there's been at least one other documentary on the subject, possibly more. Perhaps the right way to deal with them would be a paragraph listing them together.   Will Beback    talk    02:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a partial listing of appearances on film or video on IMDB. It also has links to news about the Lynch film.   Will Beback    talk    04:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's no direct connection to Maharishi I'll delete or move the text to the Lynch or Lynch Foundation articles.   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Content Deleted from Lead
An editor has appropriately removed the above quote from the lead per WP:LEAD. I am just parking it here in case it is thought to be useful in some other location in the article.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 16:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * He declared: "It has been my pleasure at the feet of Guru Dev, to take the light of Guru Dev and pass it on in my environment. Now today, I am closing my designed duty to Guru Dev. And I can only say, 'Live long the world in peace, happiness, prosperity, and freedom from suffering.'”

See Maharishi_Mahesh_Yogi, where the quote is still featured in full. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks dab. I replaced it in an earlier version under the title "Death", but the text has been reorganized again. --BwB (talk) 14:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Alert? Perfect Yoga Posture?
Every mainstream news source in English which addresses the question says that MMY died in his sleep, usually attributing the information to his spokesman, Bob Roth.
 * Bloomberg
 * BBC
 * ANI (Asian News International)
 * PTI (Press Trust of India)
 * I could go on, but won't.

I haven't found a single mainstream news source in English reporting that he died while alert and in "perfect yoga posture". Why is this article relying upon an article in German, the translation of which is apparently in dispute (see discussions above) in preference to these English sources? See also WP:NONENG. If this extraordinary claim is to be used here, shouldn't it it should identify the person making it: Felix Kägi, a/k/a "His Highness Raja Felix of Switzerland"? Just asking. Fladrif (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go with what the majority of the press says. I see some "natural causes" as well. Your choice.(olive (talk) 16:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I'll leave it to others to actually edit the article. Just asking the question.Fladrif (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the above mentioned report that Maharishi died while asleep with Bob Roth whom you quoted, and he said that this was a missunderstanding by the press. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.51 (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, Unsigned, we cannot use you as a reference, as this is just one person's private.--Kbob (talk) 20:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.178.127.51 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I have looked through mainstream media sources and I have to agree that they say that Maharishi died in his sleep. However, several less mainstream sources do say Maharishi was alert and in yoga posture when he passed, see for instance http://www.4to40.com/legends/index.asp?id=1371 "On February 5th, the Maharishi passed away, alert, in yoga posture." I am not sure this would be enough, though. Just wondering. --Luke Warmater101 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that is not mutually exclusive since in Yoga there are many "postures", including one for sleeping...62.226.24.197 (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no citations to offer, but in case anyone cares, posture has nothing to do with spiritual awareness, progress, or mahasamadhi. I personally believe that MMY prepared for and entered mahasamadhi, which is a conscious act, regardless of his posture at the time his body died. To argue whether he dropped the body from waking or sleeping makes little sense, since for him sleeping would have been identical to transcendental consciousness (TC). Control over whether the senses are active or not (awake vs. TC) doesn't require all that much development of consciousness. David spector (talk) 16:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In real, actual yogis that's true David spector. But the Maharishi actually could no longer sit up, according to people who were involved with him during his last years. He actually had a special camera set up, so that when he was lying down in bed (which was refashioned to give the appearance of being upright), it gave the illusion of him sitting up. Incidentally, there's no evidence that the Maharishi (a self-assumed name) was ever trained as a yogi. In fact, one of his fellow students with Swami Brahmananda Saraswati who became his successor (Shankaracharya), states that Mahesh (the Maharishi) was never trained as a yogi. Indeed the Maharishi's simple yoga-asana course was actually designed by a college gym teacher.--Kala Bethere (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

A traditional meditation technique?
Pardon my ignorance - I probably know less about this topic than anyone editing here. Was TM created/discovered/developed by MMY, or was it a traditional meditation technique that he learned from Swami Brahmananda Saraswati and gave a new name? The word "western" was just added and then stricken from the intro, so I'm not sure whether this form of meditation ever existed in India prior to 1955.  Will Beback   talk    22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (January 12, 1918 – February 5, 2008) introduced the Transcendental Meditation technique (also known as TM) and related programs and initiatives to the western world. 
 * In 1955,  the Maharishi left Uttarkashi and began publicly teaching what he stated was a traditional meditation technique that he learned from his master, which he called Transcendental Deep Meditation and later renamed Transcendental Meditation. 


 * As I understand, the technique itself was based on a traditional technique but the application of that technique was adjusted to make the technique easier for those in the more modern parts of the world to practice. For example, the technique was made of a length to accommodate the western work schedule. In Beacon Light of the Himalayas for example a technique is used but its time length could not be the TM technique used in the west today. The technique though was not just introduced to the West but to the world in general, and is used all over the world, so saying the technique was introduced to the west does not really describe the full extent of the introduction. Does that make sense? (olive (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Thanks, that helps.   Will Beback    talk    06:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, TM definitely introduced to world by MMY as he traveled all over the world teaching it himself. --BwB (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * FWIW, both meditation and transcending (not necessarily the same thing) have been known for thousands of years. However, it was Guru Dev whose clear explanations made it possible for MMY to create the streamlined technique that is TM. So, the answer is that the unique reemergence of effortless transcending is due both to HH Brahmananda Saraswati and to MMY. Without both participants, this Vedic-inspired knowledge would never have become so effective, popular, and supported by such a variety of research results. David spector (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * David the technique of easy mantra meditation is common across India. It's nothing new, reemerged or rediscovered. The only thing new in TM is that rather than basing it on the student, you get your mantra from a memorized chart and rather than personalized instruction, you get a canned "checking procedure".--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sexy Sadie
Why was all references to the song "Sexy Sadie" removed from the article? I happened as part of a major rewrite of that section, which was posted with this edit summary: But I don't see any discussion in 2009. The 2008 discussion brought in outside editors who said it's important. I searched around and found the text had been drafted in User:Bigweeboy/Sandbox by only one editor, and no other pages link there so it seems like no one else could have known about it. It appears that a significant amount of relevant, sourced material was deleted in the process. Can anyone explain what the process was for this rewrite?  Will Beback   talk    09:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * changed section per discussion and posting in sandbox several weeks ago 19:44, November 4, 2009


 * Sorry you missed this Will. Please see the following comments here on the talk page from late Oct and early Nov 2009.  I di give editors a chance to comment, but nobody did.  See "Beatle Section too long" above.
 * Reworked this section


 * I have reworked this section. You can find the proposed version in a sand-box here [18]. I feel it could even be shorted and would appreciate other editors feedback before making the changes to the mail article. Many thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have created a shorter version of this section in the sandbox. Would appreciate some feedback from other editors. --BwB (talk) 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have moved the version I created in my sandbox on 28 Oct to the main page. --BwB (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So there was an opportunity for others to participate. --BwB (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not much of a discussion, and the draft appears to ignore the extensive discussion that did occur on this page previously. So let me ask the question again: Why was all references to the song "Sexy Sadie" removed from the article?    Will Beback    talk    12:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What I tried to do was to shorten the section on the Beatles which seemed to take up a disproportionate amount of text. I tried to present what happened with the MMY/Beatles relationship in a balanced and more condensed way.  I announced on the talk page that I was working on a revised and condensed version.  Later, I posted a version in a sandbox and invited editors to review the draft.  Nobody commented.  Some days later I posted a new version in the sandbox.  Still no comments.  About 4 days later I moved the text from the sandbox into the live article and noted this on the talk page.  Only Kbobb commented and made some edits.  From early Nov to today there have been no comments on the Talk page, or changes to the text of the Beatles section.  There was no specific reason for removing the Sexy Sadie reference other than a general attempt to condense the section on the Beatles. --BwB (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hadn't you read the discussion about the material, which is on this page above? Were you unaware that two otherwise uninvolved editors both strongly expressed the view that the song is relevant to this article?   Will Beback    talk    19:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the editor asked for input and over a  period of time and clearly followed a collaborative based procedure, but  there were no comments, then no one should be wondering why that editor went ahead with the changes . If the changes are not acceptable reopen the discussion but blaming is hardly constructive.(olive (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't see anyone here defending the actual edits. I think that it'd be best to restore the sourced, thoroughly discussed material that was there before. Otherwise this has the appearance of being another case of ignoring outside input.   Will Beback    talk    20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Do what you will, but this editor followed correct procedures in rewriting and readding the rewritten content. I doubt most other editors know about it. You might give others a chance to respond if that is truly a concern. I don't see a concern with BWB's rewrite. Consensus is changeable of course, but I won't discuss this change further unless there is considerable concern from a majority of editors.(olive (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
 * "Correct procedures" for editing articles include retaining important, well-sourced, thoroughly discussed material unless there's a very good reason for deletion. Bwb never said it was his intention to delete the "Sexy Sadie" material, and he never explained his reasoning for doing so. You and TG participated in a long discussion with otherwise uninvolved editors and you both agreed to retain the material, despite your misgivings. Now that those uninvolved editors have moved on the material is deleted without comment, and you seem to be objecting to its restoration. Is that a correct summary?   Will Beback    talk    00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what you're talking about. An editor rewrites a section and asks for comments/criticisms. That rewrite was in sandbox where anyone could see it, and the editor posted asking for comments on it. You, and no one else said anything. The onus was on the rest of us to comment. No one did. The editor moves the content into the article. Still no one seems to care. He rightly took the silence after that amount of time as agreement. Months later  you are complaining about the editor and what he did. Why? If now you don't like the section ask for discussion and change it. That's legitimate. Your continuing attacks of the editor make no sense. He's not a mind reader. He asked for comments.  No one said anything. Was he supposed to guess you didn't like the change? I don't get it. Objecting to its restoration?  I like the rewrite, but I'm happy though to go with a consensus on it. Will, I'd suggest you stop mischaracterizing this as something it isn't and we move ahead with a discussion on the content. This is not good, not good at all. I'm not very comfortable with what's going on here.(olive (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I'm complaining about the deletion of key information without any apparent cause or explanation. There's still no explanation for the deletion of all references to "Sexy Sadie" from this article. The fact that some editors have agreed to the deletion is not a good reflection on them. Unless Bwb or another editor can offer good explanations for the necessity of removing relevant, sourced, discussed information then it should be restored, regardless of what was or wasn't said in October.   Will Beback    talk    01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Who agreed, and to what, and when?(olive (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Lighten up Will. I tried my best to rewrite the section to condense the material while maintaining the overall thrust of the content.  I let people know I was doing the rewrite and asked people to comment.  Then made the changes after some time when there seemed to be no comments. If you want to edit the current version, please go ahead, but no need to make all this fuss.  Thanks. --BwB (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still interested in your reasoning. Did you think that the song was an unnecessary detail in the biography? Were you unaware of the previous discussions?   Will Beback    talk    13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have given my rational for the edits and the process I followed. Others had ample time to participate at the time. I am done with discussing this further and am happy to move forward in a collaborative manner on this section. --BwB (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be be contrary, but you have not provided your rationale for removing "Sexy Sadie" from the article. I assume there is none.   Will Beback    talk    20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Comparison
Other deleted material:
 * According to the Canadian sociologist Stephen A. Kent, John Lennon and George Harrison became disillusioned with him after "they discovered that their spiritual (and supposedly vegetarian) guide was serving chicken to select women and often making sexual advances toward them." 


 * Lennon, Cynthia (1978) A Twist of Lennon, W. H. Allen, ISBN 0-352-30196-1
 * Mason, Paul (1994, revised 2005), The Maharishi -- The Biography of the Man Who Gave Transcendental Meditation to the World
 * Farrow, Mia (1997) What Falls Away
 * Wynn, Ned (1993), We Will Always Live in Beverly Hills; Random House Value Publishing, ISBN 0-517-10885-2

Beatles section rewrite discussion
The "Sexie Sadie" content was removed in a rewrite of the Beatles section several months ago. One editor objects to this content not being included in the section. Are there other comments on the inclusion or exclusion of this material? Context of the discussion so far, above  (olive (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * It is mind-boggling that anyone would think that deletion of this material was appropriate. The arguments advanced for the deletion in the Talk archive are utterly lacking in merit. It should never have been deleted.Fladrif (talk) 03:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I understand, we are not talking about a deletion, we are talking about a rewrite BWB did, posted in a sandbox, asked for comments, no one commented, said he would add the rewrite, still no comments, added the rewrite thinking no one cared, no one said anything, and now months later someone sees the rewrite, and cares.... so for heaven's sake... If someone wants content added .... could they suggest what they want, we can look at it, we can as well wait for other comments... I just don't understand the tone of this discussion at all... good grief! (olive (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I still haven't seen any explanation from Bwb for his deletions.   Will Beback    talk    04:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well gee, maybe BWB is asleep. or at work, or driving a dog team in the Arctic, or singing at the Apollo or ....Give the editor a chance ... Sheesh .... Weren't you the one who said there was no rush.?(olive (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I never said there was a rush. But I'm dismayed by the comment above. Are you saying that we need to have a consensus to restore relevant, well-sourced, previously discussed material that was deleted without discussion?   Will Beback    talk    05:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Flad writes, "It is mind-boggling that anyone would think that deletion of this material was appropriate." As I have stated above, I posted on the talk page that I was working on the rewrite of this section.  I created a sandbox and linked to it from the talk page.  The version sat for quite a while without comment or edits from other editors.  Even after I put it in the live version, there have been no comments or edits for many weeks.  You and Will had ample opportunity to comment and edit.  Neither of you did.  It seems unreasonable to be lambasting me so strongly months later for this rewrite, when you both could have participated in the process at the time.  I was not aware I needed to explain my edits to anyone.  I simply followed what I thought was the good Wiki practice of drafting a new version and asking people to comment. --BwB (talk) 12:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Procedure has nothing to do with it, though I would suggest that putting proposals in a sandbox is more likely to result in other editors not noticing what is proposed than putting proposals on the talk page. My point, if I may use an analogy, is simply this: To discuss the Beatles' visit to India and falling out with the Maharishi without mentioning the song Sexy Sadie would be like rewriting the Fort McHenry article to say that Francis Scott Key witnessed the bombardment, but deleting that he wrote the Star Spangled Banner. It is beyond my imagination that anyone could think that either omission is reasonable in an encyclopedia. Fladrif (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit to not paying any attention to the matter at the time, so it's partly my fault. I'm still getting up to speed on this topic and I don't catch all the nuances. Anyway, here we are now. Is the current version a complete and balanced summary of the key events in the Maharishi's life as it overlapped with The Beatles? Obviously the song needs to go back in. Anyone who wonders why should read the previous discussions towards the top of this page. We don't need to rehash all of those points. Is there anything else that can be improved?  Will Beback   talk    12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to put the Sex Saide reference then perhaps we will want to add material about all the songs the Beetles wrote in India inspired by Maharishi and their experiences there? It seems like it was a very creative time for them and most of the White Album was written at that time. --BwB (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need to name them all, but I agree that it'd be appropriate to say that X number of songs from the White Album were written at the ashram or that it was a particularly productive period for the songwriters. However this article isn't about The Beatles so only the songs about Maharishi are relevant.   Will Beback    talk    13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about the Maharishi, and since the Beatle section has been given a fair amount of content space by editors here at least, the Beatles have been important aspects of bis life. I disagree with that per other sources, but the press does not. Therefore the impact of the Maharishi on the Beatles and their work should as the mainstream sources indicate, be well noted.


 * I agree with BWB. I fail to see what the fuss is about and actually think the implied accusations here are, and were unfair. The section is quite liberally filled with allegations against the Maharishi which the Beatles still living have countered and discounted on their own, yet one sentence about one song has created this big hubbub. Are we trying to make a point in the article, and is such a huge effort a POV and so a violation.


 * Editors know that consensus, agreements, and discussion are not binding in terms of editing. What is good one day in a discussion may  not be good the next (excluding disruptive discussion). So pointing to past discussions as if somehow an editor has violated some unwritten form of etiquette is not what Wikipedia is about. If that were the case there would be multiple discussion we would not be having now because past discussions brought resolution at that time. BWB acted in good faith and properly.


 * I have serious issues and misgivings with this discussion and how it was carried out, with the mischaracterization of what happened, and of how BWB was said to have proceeded.  That said, I will agree to having BWB add back in a short sentence on "Sexie Sadie" if there is agreement among editors. I do think the addition is superfluous.(olive (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I would also echo the comment that BWB made his rewrite in a proper way and gave ample time for others to contribute. If you go back to the archives you will see that I also participated in the discussion and made edits to his rewrite. So there is no ground for any complaints. Now in the present does someone have some text they'd like to suggest for the article?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, despite the input from otherwise uninvolved editors as to the importance of the song and the large number of sources that discuss this, Olive thinks it's superfluous. BWB apparently thinks so too, since he deleted it though he hasn't said why. Yet we've retained Maharishi's meeting with Robert Maynard Hutchins, even though it's only mentioned in his autobiography. It makes me wonder about how balanced this article is.
 * We're really dealing with two separate matters here, which can be split into four elements. There is the contact between Maharishi and The Beatles prior to their departure from Rishkesh. There is the incident between Maharishi and Farrow, and rumors of other inappropriate behavior. There are the two songs Lennon wrote about the incident. And finally there is the relationship of Maharishi with former members of The Beatles after Rishkesh. I think we've muddled those issues and the article would be improved by separating them.   Will Beback    talk    20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please do not mischaracterize me Will. This is a talk page. I have an opinion. That opinion is this. The Beatles section is quite long. Specific content on any of the song written by the Beatles referring to Mahahrishi Mahash Yogi seem more than this section can handle unless we want the section in my mind begin to violate weight. Sexie Sadie and any of the other songs seem too much detail. I do not however advocate moving against a consensus on either adding or subtracting any of the information on any of the songs I'm fine with either, and I don't think this should be a big deal. I suggested BWB write and add something. Is that a concern?(olive (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I have no problem with proceeding this way as long as the section doesn't become overly long.(olive (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC))


 * You said that mentioning the song is superfluous. I quoted you. How was that a mis-characterization? You seem to have made the same point again, saying "Sexie Sadie and any of the other songs seem too much detail." Where's the mis-characterization? We've already had outside opinions that it is a key event related to the subject of the bio. So this is another example of ignoring outside input. That importance of the song is clearly established by the number of sources which mention them together. In another article TG had proposed using a Google test to see how much weight to devote to various subtopics. I think we can all guess how that would turn out in this case. Since no one has given any explanation for why the material was deleted, I'm going to restore the "Sexy Sadie" text. Then we can start on a complete review of the section and the article to make sure that there aren't similar omissions.   Will Beback    talk    04:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for interrupting your comment above with my post. For some reason I saw your posts as two separate posts.

You are attempting to make it look as if I am acting against a consensus. That isn't true. I am expressing an opinion on a talk page. Having an opinion is not ignoring outside input. Having an opinion is having an opinion. Further, you are saying this is another instance of ignoring outside input. I have never edited into an article against any Notice Board input or outside input. I do have opinions and as a Wikipedia editor my opinions as expressed on any talk page are as legitimate as any any other editor's opinion. You are indeed mischaracterizing not only my comments but me. You did the same to BWB. If you continue to create misinformation about editors here I will take this wherever it needs to go next, including arbitration. Don't try to make it look as if I was against adding the Sexie Sadie material. As a copy editor, I didn't think it was necessary, nor is the content on other songs referencing Maharishi in a positive light unless the section is allowed to become longer which I believe is a mistake. Those are my opinions, but I am not editing those changes into the article. If you re add the content I have no concerns with it if other editors agree, as I have said several times above. Finally, your comment about TG is a clear case of not AGF, and is snide. Not good. (olive (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I have no objection to adding the Sexy Sadie text if there is consensus to do so. In my rewrite in question, I tried to present the Rishkesh events in a balanced way - that there were accusations made against MMY, as a result members of the Beatles left, later there was a reconciliation and members of the Beatles continue to be somewhat involved with MMY and TMM.  This is the basic summary of the Beatles relationship with MMY.  If people feel that JL writing a song about the Rishikesh events should be included, fine.  But other songs were written there and then about their experience and these could easily be referenced.  (For example - Across the Universe using the phrase "Jai Guru Dev".) Indeed, pages could be written on the Beatles and MMY. However, in the context of MMY's activities in the world for 50+ years, to me the previous text on the Beatles seemed excessive, and so I tried to summarize and shorten the text. It can be expanded again if editors want to do so and I am happy to be part of that effort. --BwB (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As we all know, Wiki text is in constant change. Everything is up for re-evaluation at any time. We are doing that right now. All editors have explained their past actions and how they were in full accord with policy and how all editors had opportunity to participate in changes. That said, they also agree that text is always up for revision but some have expressed caution about undue weight. It would be more productive if we ceased the finger pointing and unwarranted accusations of past wrong doing with statements such as "So this is another example of ignoring outside input" and " then we can start on a complete review of the section and the article to make sure that there aren't similar omissions" and talk about text and not editor behavior. If anyone has issues with a particular editor please begin a thread on that User's talk page. Thanks to all.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 12:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've never felt that this song had much relevance to MMY. I've never had any confidence in rumors of MMY's departures from his vows of celibacy, and I've never had any confidence in the accuracy of the Beatles' views (or those of other celebrity supporters from the 1960s) on anything having to do with MMY. My views have found some confirmation in the recent reversals of their former accusations by the surviving Beatles (not that the press has noticed). David spector (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Sexy Sadie" is on what has been called one the ten most important albums ever recorded. John Lennon is major figure in 20th century culture. The relationship of the Maharishi to The Beatles was highly significant to his prominence in the west. Outside editors have discussed this extensively above. If editors think that the song, and the incident which inspired it, are not important to the article then I'd question whether we're using a comparable standard for other information. In the history of the subject's life, is receiving the key to the city of Winnipeg, or meeting with Robert Maynard Hutchins, any where near as important as this matter? We don't need to write a dissertation on it, but deleting it entirely just seems bizarre.   Will Beback    talk    23:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article is about Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and nowhere in his writings that I've seen do we find mention of the importance of the Beatles . This is because he was a monk and spiritual teacher, and the Beatles were most importantly just people. Whether John Lennon is an iconic figure and the album sold well, really is a standard that doesn't apply to or concern the life of this man. So lets not confuse verifiable sources on this one area with what defines  the life of a spiritual teacher . If we were to add up all of the sources that discuss the various aspects of  the Maharishi's work and compare that to the sources on Sexie Sadie, I think we might get an idea of where his vision was placed.  There is no argument here against adding the song, that I can see, and the sources in the popular press, and in references to the Beatles lives are undeniable. Lets not conflate that with the life of this man and what the sources say he spent his life working for. I would suggest that we add the song and let this thread go. It has been rehashed to death.(olive (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC))
 * We don't base articles primarily on what the subjects have written about themselves. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable, secondary sources using the neutral point of view. We've now added a two sentence paragraph about a film which hasn't been completed. Does anyone here think that the as-yet-unnamed project is more important than "Sexy Sadie" to an article about Maharishi? Of the three brief sources for that material, one mentions "Sexy Sadie" and the other mentions Mia Farrow, which is yet more evidence of their importance in coverage of the subject.   Will Beback    talk    02:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before I add it back I just want to make sure that no one engaged in this discussion still has any objections that haven't been addressed. I wouldn't want to come back to this article in 2011 and find that it's been removed again without explanation. Anyone who thinks it's an unimportant detail should be ready to defend seemingly less important details now in the article.   Will Beback    talk    02:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So I take it there are no objections to restoring "Sexy Sadie".   Will Beback    talk    21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Now the same editor who deleted "Sexy Sadie" has added:
 * While the Beatles were in India they recorded a version of a song called “Spiritual Regeneration,” reported to be a "theme song" for the Maharishi’s program. 
 * "Spiritual Regeneration" was never released, and is very obscure. I can't even find the lyrics online. Are we saying that that song is more significant than "Sexy Sadie"?   Will Beback    talk    19:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, if you're still working on this section, you may want to also include mention of Lennon's "The Maharishi Song" which blasts the Maharishi as a "not holy" (...) "sex maniac". Years later one of the victims of the Maharishi's lechery went public to a South African newspaper. Close assistants indicate that this is likely the 'tip of the iceberg' for this "life-long celibate", as a common file on his activities (called the Sexie Sadie file) demonstrates in a number of interviews with his former victims.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for "The Maharishi Song": The Everett book is probably self-published and so unacceptable. But the other two give plenty of detail. It's undoubtedly about the subject, and is no more obscure than “Spiritual Regeneration”, which was added recently.  Will Beback   talk    17:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Will to flesh out the Sexie Sadie reference it might be helpful to include some quotes from one of the Maharishi's former personal secretary, Conny Larsson, who in his book Behind the Mask of a Clown wrote "Maharishi’s sex life, for example, was extensive, to say the least. That a man in his position had a sex life I regarded as quite incongruous.  As I had been very close to him I was often in charge of the key to his room, which he asked me on various occasions to hand over to one of the young ladies."--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. However that book seems quite obscure - I can't find a copy of it in English anywhere. However another source which has been deleted repeatedly, despite being an excellent source, is Stephen A. Kent. He's a scholar and his book, From Slogans to Mantras, was published by a university press. Does anyone here have an objection to restoring material from Kent?    Will Beback    talk    21:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually it's Swedish I believe. The author's website is here with links to his books. He just released another one on the Maharishi and the Beatles. The author translated the Swedish book into English and gave a group of us copies, since so many wanted to hear what he had to say. The new book is supposed  to be a "tell all", but no English translation so far. Here's the book launch . His new book on the Beatles and the Maharishi  is published by Sweden’s oldest publishing house, founded in 1823.--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a lecture at the FECRIS Conference where he describes leaving the TM movement when he heard the Maharishi jealously describe Mother Theresa as "the worst kind of human being on earth ".--Kala Bethere (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The new book may be a suitable source, though if there isn't anyone here fluent in Swedish there would be a translation problem. The FECRIS speech may be suitable, but I'd have to think about it some more.   Will Beback    talk    23:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Rather than adding a section on "Sexie Sadie", wouldn't it make more sense to add a section called "Controversies" (or some similar title) and that could then include neutral discussion of the Beatles Rishikesh experience, the differing stories and other relevant POV's?


 * That would also give space for brief mention of other Maharishi controversies.--Kala Bethere (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't considered adding a section on the song, just restoring the deleted sentences, which I've now done. If there are other significant events in the subject's life, controversies or otherwise, I think it'd be best to include in them in chronological order rather than segregating them in a section of their own.
 * The year or so that the Beatles spent as disciples of MMY is a complicated period involving famous people, some well-reported events, and many conflicting accounts. To give the period full treatment in the biographies of any one of the participants would probably cause WP:WEIGHT problems. The answer may be a standalone article, something like "The Beatles and the Maharishi".   Will Beback    talk    20:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)