Talk:TM-Sidhi program/Archive 10

Maharishi's view on Yogic Flying
"We teach our students that by concentration through meditation they can create an impenetrable field of energy between the ground and their bodies.The greater the field of energy, the higher the meditating man can rise. It is simple QED."

This sentence was recently added to the article. Surely if we are interested in giving the Maharishi's thoughts on Yogic Flying we could find more reliable sources for describing them than a book that is interested in debunking his techniques...I think if we are interested in giving the Maharish's views a source like "the complete book of Yogic Flying" written by the president of Maharishi University of Management would be a better source to site which extensively describes the maharishi's thoughts on Yogic Flying.--Uncreated (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's best, when picking quotations, to use those that have been selected by independent secondary sources. If the Complete Book offers a different, or better, explanation then we can add that too. Unfortunately, it's an expensive resource and only held by three or four libraries in the world. That doesn't mean it can't be used, but since it's functionally a self-published source we need to use it with care.   Will Beback    talk    22:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We should cite Mason directly -- if we cite him. She didn't even get his name right. TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a typical editing mistake. Next time I go to the library I'll look up Mason and confirm the quote. Or maybe someone here already has a copy.   Will Beback    talk    10:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it's typical of the skeptic books to make errors. And I agree with User:Uncreated that Pearson's book would be a good source. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheap shot. All publications can have editing mistakes. As for the material itself, is there any problem with it intrinsically? I mean does it contradict other explanations?   Will Beback    talk    11:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess we won't know until we verify that it's accurate. I don't have the book at hand at the moment. Maybe someone does. What struck me as odd was his use of the word concentration, and also the Latin QED. But I just realized that he's likely referring to quantum electrodynamics. If so, then it's oddly out of context, and would need contextualization. TimidGuy (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The quote is correct. However, the quote was to scientists and most likely is saying that concentration in the field of meditation rather than in science is the field where, right now in these times, one will understand levitation. The contextual quote reads:


 * The source for Mason's quote: Mehta, Gita. Karma Cola, Cape, 1980. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs)


 * I've now changed the material to cite the Mehta book, leaving the other citation as evidence of its notability.   Will Beback    talk    22:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Subject of Article
The subject of this article is the TM-Sidhi program. Therefore, I have removed extensive material from the lead which is specifically about TM, not the TM-Sidhi program. --BweeB (talk) 11:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And in this context, I feel the sentence "Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience"." needs modification to comply with the article subject matter. Perhaps "Skeptics have called TM-Sidhi theory and technology a pseudoscience." --BweeB (talk) 11:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that sentence is OK since TM-Sidhi is on e of the assorted theories and technologies. I was wondering about the other content added since it references research on the TM technique...a very different body of research than the ME research, so its in the wrong article.(olive (talk) 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC))
 * That's why I took it out. Am not attached to the current sentence, just though it could be improved. --BweeB (talk) 17:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

TM research

 * ''A longitudinal study of practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs found changes in hormones associated with stress. Also, studies have found the practice may be associated with increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability.

I checked one of the listed sources, Sibinga & Kemper, and found that it does not mention TM-Sidhi. The quote from the Horan article doesn't mention TM-Sidhi. What does Seeman et al., say about TM-Sidhi? More basically, why do we have a two-sentence section on TM research in an article on TM-Sdihi?  Will Beback   talk    21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If material in the article is not about TM-Sidhi program, then it should be removed, IMHO. --BweeB (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sibinga's review includes a study by Jedrczak on the TM-Sidhi program. Horan talks about the TM-Sidhi program quite a lot. I'll add more info on sanyama to the article so that the relationship is clear, using Horan as a source. Seeman's review includes a longitudinal study by Werner on subjects who practiced the TM and TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In short, Horan uses "sanyama" to refer to the practice of the TM-Sidhi program. For example, in this sentence: "At this time, sanyama training (TM- Sidhi program) was unavailable." TimidGuy (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sibinga also cites Cranson's longitudinal study, which is on practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Better quote from Horan: "Meditation training increases auditory sensitivity. Very unusual auditory brain stem responses (less than 10ms from stimulus) were evoked via binaural 5–70 dB stimuli by TM-Sidhi program sanyama practitioners using special mantras to sensitize the auditory system toward internal sounds (McEvoy, Frumkin, & Harkins, 1980)." TimidGuy (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What does Sibinga say about TM-Sidhi? Just because he cites a study on TM-Sidhi doesn't mean he's writing about it. Many academic papers include tangential or background information, which could be what Sibinga was citing. Please make sure that we're only summarizing the parts of the papers which are referring to TM-Sidhi specifically.    Will Beback    talk    21:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Horan is apparently Roy Horan, former martial arts actor and now assistant professor of the Multimedia Innovation Centre, School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic. (He's not listed on the MIC faculty page currently, but he does have a page on on the University's main site.) He is described as a "long-term practitioner and teacher of meditation". I can't find any information on his academic credentials or on any other papers he's published.    Will Beback    talk    23:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar reports that the Horan paper has only been cited once, and that was in a non-academic magazine. In the paper, Horan says that he "has practiced sanyama for over 37 years". If we're saying that TM-Sidhi = Sanyama then we might need to edit more than just this section to reflect that view.   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Now these citations have been added:
 * What do Epel, et al, and Loizzo say about TM-Sidhi, specifically?   Will Beback    talk    12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do Epel, et al, and Loizzo say about TM-Sidhi, specifically?   Will Beback    talk    12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do Epel, et al, and Loizzo say about TM-Sidhi, specifically?   Will Beback    talk    12:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope that no more research material is added until we resolve the issues with these recent additions.   Will Beback    talk    06:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * One can always hope! --BweeB (talk) 11:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep. However if TG doens't reply soon I'll start removing the citations he added which don't explicitly refer to TM-Sidhi.   Will Beback    talk    20:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, the next appropriate move would be to leave TG a message on his talk page rather than unilaterally delete RS content. (olive (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Reliable sources that don't mention the topic are not reliable sources for this topic. Bigweeboy has endorsed the removal of such materials, so it wouldn't be unilateral. TimidGuy has edited here since some of the previous requests have been posted. But sure, I'll post a request to his talk page too, in case he hasn't been checking this page.   Will Beback    talk    21:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The same holds true for all articles. As more expert than most on this topic, TG deserves  a chance to explain his edits. If he has made a mistake I'm sure he'll endorse the removal of the content. I'll be happy to leave TG a note to save you the trouble. And you're right I see BWB did endorse removing content that does  not refer explicitly to the topic of the article(olive (talk) 21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC))
 * What's the basis for saying that TG is expert on this topic?   Will Beback    talk    22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You've said explicitly you weren't an expert in science/reserach. While I can read papers if I have to and have worked in a biology lab, I don't consider myself an expert, and don't want to be, and no one else seems to have the consistent over all knowledge of this area TG has, but that's just a personal reading of what I see, on a talk page nothing more. If you want to be the expert be my guest. I'll stick to paintings.(olive (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Having survived the Essjay scandal, I think it's best that editors not proclaim themselves, or others, experts on a topic unless there are credentials that can be verified. But anyone is free to say that they're a fan of a topic.    Will Beback    talk    00:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The wording did not say TG was an expert. Expert was used as an adjective to describe a relationship to others. He may well be an expert but that's not what I was saying.(olive (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC))
 * OK, since we're still on the expertise issue, so what makes TG more of an expert on this topic than most?   Will Beback    talk    02:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sibinga talks extensively about TM research and its various effects, and ays this: "Some studies also suggest increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability. (30)(31)(32)(33)". The first two citations are to studies conducted on practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs:

30. Cranson RW, Orme-Johnson DW, GackenbachJ, Dillbeck MC. Transcendental meditation and improved performance on intelligence-related measures: a longitudinal study. Personal Indiv Diff. 1991;12:1105 This two-year longitudinal study investigated the effect of participation in a special university curriculum, whose principal innovative feature is twice-daily practice of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi program, on performance on Cattell's Culture Fair Intelligence Test (CFIT) and Hick's reaction time. These measures are known to be correlated with general intelligence. One hundred college men and women were the subjects—45 from Maharishi International University (MIU) and 55 from the University of Northern Iowa (UNI). The experimental group (MIU) improved significantly on the CFIT (t=2.79, P<0.005); choice reaction time (t=9.10, P<0.0001); SD of choice reaction time (t=11.39, P<0.0001), and simple reaction time (t=2.11, P<0.025) over two years compared to the control group, which showed no improvement. Possible confounds of subject's age, education level, level of interest in meditation, father's education level, and father's annual income were controlled for using analysis of covariance and stepwise regression. The results replicate the findings of previous longitudinal studies on intelligence test scores at MIU, and indicate that participation in the MIU curriculum results in improvements in measures related to general intelligence.

31. Jedrczak A, Beresford M, Clements G. The TM-Sidhi program, pure consciousness, creativity and intelligence. J Creat Behav. 1985;19:270

Loizzo says this:

Consistent with current health psychology and behavioral neuroscience,4,33 natural contemplative practices aim at overriding the fight-flight response style that characterizes behavioral stress-reactivity, and at cultivating a disarming, love-growth response style that supports nurturance and creativity.40,49 Examples are practices such as optimal in- tegral process (Skt. anuttarayogatantra), kindling(Skt.candal ̄iTib.gtum-mo),TMSiddhi (stage 4–5), Ananda Marga, Sahaja yoga, Kun- dalini yoga (Patan ̃jali stages 7–8) and Qi-gong.... Research findings include fast beta or gamma frequencies in the EEG,21,76,97 increases in endorphins,98 dopamine,79 arginine vasopressin,99 melatonin,81 and DHEA,100 decreased cytokines,101 a paradoxical pattern of high CNS arousal and deep muscular relax- ation similar to REM sleep and sexual response,26,70,102,103 a “heart-brain prep” pattern of centrally shunted blood flow and slowed metabolism72,104–107 resembling that of hiber- nating, estivating, and diving mammals.108–111

He cites Glaser's study on DHEA:

100. Glaser, J.L. et al. 1992. Elevated serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels in practitioners of the transcendental-meditation-(TM)-and-TM- Sidhi programs. J. Behav. Med. 15: 327–341.

Serum dehydroepiandosterone sulfate (DHEA-S) levels were measured in 270 men and 153 women who were experienced practitioners of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi programs, mental techniques practiced twice daily, sitting quietly with the eyes closed. These were compared according to sex and 5-year age grouping to 799 male and 453 female nonmeditators. The mean DHEA-S levels in the TM group were higher in all 11 of the age groups measured in women and in 6 of 7 5-year age groups over 40 in men. There were no systematic differences in younger men. Simple regression using TM-group data revealed that this effect was independent of diet, body mass index, and exercise. The mean TM-group levels measured in all women and in the older men were generally comparable to those of nonmeditator groups 5 to 10 years younger. These findings suggest that some characteristics of TM practitioners are modifying the age-related deterioration in DHEA-S secretion by the adrenal cortex.

Seeman cites Werner: "The final longitudinal study, by Werner et al. (1986), reported three-year longitudinal data for 11 male practitioners of TM showing reductions in plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), growth hor- mone (GH), and prolactin but no change in cortisol, T4, or T3 levels."

Werner, O. R., Wallace, R. K., Charles, B., Janssen, G., Stryker, T., & Chalmers, R. A. (1986). Long-term endocrinologic changes in subjects practicing the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program. Psy- chosomatic Medicine, 48, 59–66.

The Transcendental Meditation (TM) and a more advanced program, the TM-Sidhi program, have been reported to produce a number of acute and long-term metabolic and electrophysiologic changes. To investigate the possibility that the practice of these techniques may be associated with long-term endocrinologic changes, we prospectively evaluated 11 male subjects before and over a 3-year period after starting the TM-Sidhi program. A progressive decrease in serum TSH, growth hormone, and prolactin levels occurred over the 3 years while no consistent change in cortisol, T4, or T3 levels was observed. These results suggest that the long-term practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi program may have effects on neuroendocrine function. Further studies using 24-hr monitoring with frequent blood sampling will, however, be needed to fully assess the significance of the simultaneous decline of the anterior pituitary hormones with maintenance of levels of hormones from peripheral endocrine glands.

Epel also references Glaser: "Several meditation studies have measured markers of positive health, such as anabolic hormones, and these may have relevance for cellular aging. As discussed above and reviewed elsewhere, several stress-reduction interventions have induced increased heart rate variability and increased anabolic hormones such as DHEA.136 Several uncontrolled studies of TM show healthier profiles of arousal, including greater levels of DHEA-S.120,137"

137. Glaser, J.L., J. Brind, J.H. Vogelman, et al. 1992. Elevated serum dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate lev- els in practitioners of the transcendental meditation (TM) and TM-Sidhi programs. J. Behav. Med. 15: 327–341.

Hope that helps. There are additional research reviews that include these studies. TimidGuy (talk) 10:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. However I'm having trouble figuring out what's what - I'll copy it over and format it to help my comprehension.   Will Beback    talk    19:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

TM Sidhi research
This is a restatement of TimidGuy's posting above, with just the text from the sources. I don't see any mention of TM-Sidhi in Sibinga, Seeman, or Epel. Loizza seems to be saying that something called "TM Siddhi (stage 4–5)" has been studied in regard to replacing the "fight-flight response" with "love-growth response", though it's just one of several "natural contemplative practices" studies on the same topic. Is that a correct summary? If so I propose removing the other three citations which don't mention TM-Sidhi and replacing them with a summary of Loizza's comments on TM-Sidhi (stage 4-5).  Will Beback   talk    01:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sibinga: "Some studies also suggest increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability."
 * Loizzo: "Consistent with current health psychology and behavioral neuroscience,4,33 natural contemplative practices aim at overriding the fight-flight response style that characterizes behavioral stress-reactivity, and at cultivating a disarming, love-growth response style that supports nurturance and creativity.40,49 Examples are practices such as optimal in- tegral process (Skt. anuttarayogatantra), kindling(Skt.candal ̄iTib.gtum-mo),TMSiddhi (stage 4–5), Ananda Marga, Sahaja yoga, Kun- dalini yoga (Patan ̃jali stages 7–8) and Qi-gong.... Research findings include fast beta or gamma frequencies in the EEG,21,76,97 increases in endorphins,98 dopamine,79 arginine vasopressin,99 melatonin,81 and DHEA,100 decreased cytokines,101 a paradoxical pattern of high CNS arousal and deep muscular relax- ation similar to REM sleep and sexual response,26,70,102,103 a “heart-brain prep” pattern of centrally shunted blood flow and slowed metabolism72,104–107 resembling that of hiber- nating, estivating, and diving mammals.108–111
 * Seeman: "The final longitudinal study, by Werner et al. (1986), reported three-year longitudinal data for 11 male practitioners of TM showing reductions in plasma thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH), growth hor- mone (GH), and prolactin but no change in cortisol, T4, or T3 levels."
 * Epel: "Several meditation studies have measured markers of positive health, such as anabolic hormones, and these may have relevance for cellular aging. As discussed above and reviewed elsewhere, several stress-reduction interventions have induced increased heart rate variability and increased anabolic hormones such as DHEA.136 Several uncontrolled studies of TM show healthier profiles of arousal, including greater levels of DHEA-S.120,137"
 * I don't think you need me to explain the convention of footnotes. In every case, these passages are citing studies on the TM-Sidhi program. That fact is clear either by looking at the title of the study in the citation, or by looking at the abstract of the study. If you like, I can add the titles of the studies to the WP refs. That would help make it clear. And in the instance of Cranson, where "TM-Sidhi" doesn't appear in the title, I could also quote the abstract in the ref. Seems like it would be a good idea to do this. TimidGuy (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, Timid. --BweeB (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's start with Sibinga ([32]). He cites two studies that involve TM-Sidhi performed by TM movement researchers. Also, we're quoting him so we should use quotation marks. This line would be better written as something like "A review by Sibinga and Kemper in Pediatrics in Review notes two studies by TM movement scholars, saying they "suggest increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability" might be associated with the practice.   Will Beback    talk    08:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ''Studies of practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs have found positive changes in hormones associated with stress.[29][30][31] Also, studies have found the practice may be associated with increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability.[32][33]
 * Could you make the text sound any more vague, Will? --BweeB (talk) 08:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to make it a little more precise. Why would we want it to be more vague?   Will Beback    talk    08:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand Bigweeboy's comment. If there's nothing else I'll make that edit.   Will Beback    talk    08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit is generally fine, but somewhat misleading. The way it's written makes it sound as if Sibinga is the one who noted that connection: "A review by Sibinga and Kemper in Pediatrics in Review notes two studies by TM movement scholars...." Also, "TM movement scholars" is original research. I think you need to identify their affiliation. It could be done in two sentences: "Studies by researchers at Maharishi International University (or whatever) suggest cognitive improvement, according to research reviews. Sibinga .... " TimidGuy (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Jayne Gackenbach isn't a "TM movement scholar." She has collaborated with TM researchers, but doesn't do TM and isn't in any sense part of the TM movement. TimidGuy (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is in reference to "Cranson RW, Cranson RW, Orme-Johnson DW, Gackenbach J, Dillbeck MC. Transcendental meditation and improved performance on intelligence-related measures: a longitudinal study. Personal Indiv Diff. 1991;12:1105"
 * What does the paper say about the meditation habits of Gackenbach?
 * I don't know if the paper was altered later but the online version, whose abstract is freely available, lists the authors as "Robert W. Cranson1,, David W. Orme-Johnson1, Jayne Gackenbach2, Michael C. Dillbeck1, Christopher H. Jones2 and Charles N. Alexander1". Jones being a colleague of Gackenbach.   Will Beback    talk    20:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, this paper was based on an MUM dissertation, and Gackenbach was an outside reviewer.
 * "It was hypothesized that introduction of the Transcendental Meditation (TM) and TM- Sidhi program in a university education would result in improvements in ten measures representing abilities expressed at different levels of the mind... [..] A 2-year longitudinal study with control group tested the hypothesis. Experimental group subjects were 25 male and 22 female first year students from Maharishi International University; mean age 25.2 years. Control group subjects were 22 male and 33 female first year students from the University of Northern Iowa, mean age 19 years. [..] Results of principal components analysis, MANCOVA, and individual ANCOVA'S supported the hypothesis that practice of the TM and TM-Sidhi program in a university setting results in increased intelligence,... [..] The conclusion of this dissertation is that Maharishi's Vedic theory of intelligence is the most viable theory so far to explain the diverse findings regarding the structure and development of intelligence; ..."
 * So it was a study conducted at MUM, with a control group at UNI.   Will Beback    talk    20:58, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what your point could possibly be. You realize that where a study is done is not significant? The meditation habits of Gackenbach? That's a red herring. What are you implying? We don't investigate the personal habits of researchers.(olive (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * TG asserts above that Gackenbach "doesn't do TM and isn't in any sense part of the TM movement". I can't imagine how he would know this information, unless he's personally acquainted with Gackenbach.   Will Beback    talk    22:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh. Her bio is online.. I don't see anything about TM? Is this a COI accusation?(olive (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm simply responding to TG's unsourced assertion that Gackenbach does not practice TM and is not part of the TM movement. I don't see anything in her CV about that, one way or another. I doubt most TM practitioners mention their practice in their CV. If anyone here is personally acquainted with the authors of this study then it'd be appropriate to say so.    Will Beback    talk    23:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't source edit summaries and we don't have to source what something or someone isn't. If you want to specifically cite the researcher's institution, please do so. As in the past if you have concerns about COI please take it to a NB. This page isn't the place.(olive (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
 * When making claims about living people, it's a good idea to have some verifiability. Looking further into the matter I see that Jayne Gackenbach writes extensively about meditation, including TM. That makes TG's flat assertion that she does not practice TM more relevant. I'd like TG to explain why he made that claim.   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Will that sounds silly. An edit summary is a claim that needs to be verified? No, there is no such policy/guideline so that sounds made up. You sound like you'e running some kind of interrogation here. Will. That's not your prerogative, not what Wikipedia is meant for, and no one is required to submit to that kind of tactic from another editor. Whatever TG decides to do is fine with me. The discussion is about a source not anything else.(olive (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Will, you characterized her as a TM movement researcher. Do you have a source? Also, do you have a source that says that Horan the assistant professor is the same person as Horan the former Hollywood actor, or was that an inference?  TimidGuy (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything about her as an individual. I simply lumped her together with the MUM researchers, who account for the large majority of the authors of the two studies. And you, what's your reason for saying that she is not a TM initiate or a member of the TM movement?
 * Horan isn't a former Hollywood actor. He's a former Hong Kong actor. Look up his bio. While you're at it, see if you can find what his degree is in and where he received it.   Will Beback    talk    07:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Horan
If this is about TM practitioners then it's in the wrong article. If it's about Samyama training then it's also in the wrong article.  Will Beback   talk    20:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Sanyama training, through neuropsychological transcendence and integration, appears to enhance the creative capacity of TM practitioners." p. 216
 * I'm going to put it back. He is clearly referring to the TM-Sidhi program as sanyama training. For example:


 * "Orme-Johnson and Granieri (1977) found support for a creativity–meditation connection in a study of 60 subjects undergoing advanced training in the TM-Sidhi program (launched in 1976). The criterion for course entry was previous experience of transcendental aware- ness, a state wherein the mind remains fully alert while content is unbounded, empty, and silent (Arenander, 2000). The course teaches samyama to elicit psychophy- siological integration through SP. Using the TTCT in pretest and posttest conditions, the researchers discovered significant increases in originality and fluency in visuo-spatial creativity. The average length of medita- tion practice was about 5.6 years. This study did not involve a control group. Instead, it filtered for familiarity with the tests and concluded that increases in creativity were not due to familiarity. Orme-Johnson, Clements, Haynes, and Badaoui (1977) further tested 22 TM meditators with sanyama training using the TTCT- Verbal Form A. Twelve subjects were classified as having some SP experience. All the creativity subscales (fluency, originality, flexibility, and novel uses) were sig- nificantly correlated with the number of SP experiences. Ball (1980) studied the effects of TM and TM Sidhis (SP) at Maharishi International University on verbal and figural creativity (TTCT) and auditory creativity (Sounds and Images). Although the tests performances were relatively stable, TM subjects showed greater ori- ginality in verbal scores and on the Sounds and Images test than control subjects in a developmental psychology class. At the time of this study, some TM subjects had perhaps practiced sanyama for 4 years. The significance of sanyama will be addressed later."
 * What he's saying in the quote you deleted is that practice of the TM-Sidhi program, which he says is a form of sanyama training, enhances the creativity in those who practice TM. Please don't delete this source again. TimidGuy (talk) 09:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't object to using Horan as a source, but we need to be careful when we summarize him and explain that he's talking about TM-Sidhi as a form of Sanyama, etc.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What are "Maharishi researchers"? --BweeB (talk) 10:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that should be "Maharishi University researchers"    Will Beback    talk    10:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

TM technique content to wrong article
Is there a reason why James insists on adding TM technique content to the wrong article? If not,  I'll remove the content. (olive (talk) 23:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC))
 * This was balance to the content added by TimidGuy. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:52, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Timid Guy added content about research which includes the TM Sidhi research. You are citing specifically the TM technique research. Why are you deliberately adding wrong content to this article? (olive (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC))

?What TimidGuy added. Definitely not the opinion of mainstream science. I have returned mainstream sciences opinion to the page. "Studies of practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs have found positive changes in hormones associated with stress. Also, studies have found the practice may be associated with increased creativity, intelligence, and learning ability." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * "Studies of practitioners of the TM and TM-Sidhi programs ..." That certainly seems to include studies on TM practitioners.   Will Beback    talk    02:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the lead of the TM Sidhi article, and citing the number of studies for the TM technique misguides the reader, but if that's what you both want, no worries, for now.(olive (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
 * I added it to balance the edit by TimidGuy here . If there is to be discussion of the conclusions or numbers of studies we need to have the conclusions accepted by the scientific community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I just realized you removed text on research studies as well as reverted content in the lead. I retract my comments above. You don't have reason to remove reliably sourced content. (olive (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
 * My concern, being discussed in the thread above, is that we're not properly summarizing sources.   Will Beback    talk    05:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Doc James does not speak for mainstream science whatever that may mean. Per Wikipedia, peer review and reviewed articles do. Further a concern which you addressed above is not reason to remove an entire section or for that matter anything. This is a serious TM arbitration violation.(olive (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC))
 * This article is about TM-Sidhi. It is not the place for research on TM, and certainly not in the lead. --BweeB (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Will has repeatedly emphasized that the sources should explicitly be about the TM-Sidhi program. Ospina does assess quality of TM-Sidhi research, though it would be up to whoever adds Ospina to insure that the TM-Sidhi studies were assessed as low quality, since some TM studies were rated highly. The Cochrane reviews don't have anything to do with TM-Sidhi research. I don't think that any of the pseudoscience sources mention TM-Sidhi. TimidGuy (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't we all agree that "the sources should explicitly be about the TM-Sidhi program" (or its effects, Yogic Flying and Maharishi Effect)?   Will Beback    talk    10:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If we do agree, then should we allow the content added by Doc to the lead to remain? --BweeB (talk) 10:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Content about TM-Sidhi and its effects should remain. Why don't we merge this into the research section and work on it together?   Will Beback    talk    11:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And the lead now needs to be amended, right? --BweeB (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources not relevant to the article
The consensus above is that sources in this article should be explicitly about the TM-Sidhi program, the Maharishi Effect, or Yogic Flying. There are many sources that don't meet this criterion. That includes many of the pseudoscience sources, the Cochrane reviews, and the Ospina meta-analyses. (However, Ospina's quality assessment does explicitly include TM-Sidhi.) These sources should therefore be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 10:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. And text not about TM-Sidhi should also be removed. --BweeB (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Seems we expanded the number of articles to simplify each article, to clearly delineate content, so yes lets keep this article focused on the topic/subject area.(olive (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC))
 * Should we remove the text from the lead that is clearly about TM and not TM-Sidhi? --BweeB (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There are a number of issues here. The TM technique and the TM-Sidhi program are inextricably connected. One can't do the latter without first doing the former, if I understand correctly. Like swimming and scuba diving. We can try to separate the topics, but there is inevitable overlap.
 * My guess is that Jmh649 was concerned about this article carrying claims of physical, medical benefits from TM-Sidi that were based on TM research, and that the negative results were not being included per NPOV. It looks like the studies of the TM-Sidhi program and Maharishi Effect have all been conducted by Maharishi-related researchers. However, I don't think that most of them are medical claims, with the exception of the newly added "Research on physiological and cognitive effects" section. That new material seems to be the source of this issue. Would this material be more appropriate as a subsection of the TM research article?   Will Beback    talk    10:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment. The article doesn't make claims of benefits based on TM research. Why are the two Cochrane reviews and the Ospina health education meta-analysis being used as sources in this article? They don't say anything about the TM-Sidhi program, the Maharishi Effect, or Yogic Flying. TimidGuy (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Regal

 * These assertions are generally considered unproven by the scientific and skeptic community, although empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals.

There's a question about this material. Does anyone have access to the source to provide a quotation?  Will Beback   talk    11:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking into the history of this sentence, I see it was added by user:Freelion on 2011-02-16 as a summary of the material in the "Critiques and responses" section. I made an immediate edit to it, as did user:TimidGuy. A specific citation was added by user:Jmh649 on 2011-06-29. The text has been stable since February, and I don't see any discussion or complaints on the talk page about it. Is this really controversial?   Will Beback    talk    09:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know what it says. I want to know if this is an editor's interpretation or if it explicitly says this. TimidGuy (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure that'd be nice to know. But the material was there for four months before the citation was added, with no complaints from anyone. You even wrote part of it yourself. The fundamental question, aside from the citation, is whether it summarizes the already sourced material in the text of the article (the purpose of the intro). Do see any problem there?   Will Beback    talk    11:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. we shouldn't say what the scientific community thinks. Has anyone surveyed the scientific community? Are we allowed to generalize from a small number of individuals to thousands of individuals worldwide? We shouldn't assert something about what the scientific community thinks. It's called original research. Unless a source specifically says that. Again, I request a quote, or a change in the wording. It should be obvious, given that there are a number of peer-reviewed studies, that some members of the scientific community accept this. TimidGuy (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a more accurate summary would be something like, "...considered unproven by most of those in the scientific and skeptic community who have written about them,..." That is easily seen by reviewing the citations. Or how would you best summarize that section?   Will Beback    talk    09:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing in science is considered proven. "Proof" is a facet of deductive logic. Science is inductive. The methodology of the research is generally considered scientific. The theoretical explanation of the mechanism has been repeatedly questioned. TimidGuy (talk) 09:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting but barely relevant. Two questions: do you accept the proposed alteration, and if not then what is your suggested replacement?   Will Beback    talk    10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my suggestion: "While the theoretical explanation of the Maharishi Effect has been questioned, the methodology of the research is generally considered scientific, with a dozen studies having been published in peer-reviewed journals." TimidGuy (talk) 10:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, let's work on that. The first issue is: Questioned by whom? Could you suggest a way of describing the people who have questioned the validity of TM-Sidhi, Yogic Flying, or ME? The second issue is about the verb "questioned". Is that really the right word? The third issue is weight. The first clause has 10 words devoted to the skeptical view, while the rest of the sentence, which is confirmatory, is about 18 words long. However the prominence in reliable secondary would seem to indicate that those ratios should at least be reversed. I suggest we keep the original final clause, which you wrote in February: "...although empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals." That's 11 words, which reduces the weight problem.    Will Beback    talk    10:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * While "questioned" seems too weak, perhaps "called into question" is a little stronger and sufficient. We could simply say, "While empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, these assertions have been called into question by most of those in the scientific and skeptic community who have written about them." Good enough?   Will Beback    talk    10:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Another word we could use is "disputed".   Will Beback    talk    11:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish between theory and methodology. These are scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed journals. The methodology is accepted as scientific. The journals that published these studies and the peer reviewers that examined them agreed that the data supposed the hypothesis. The main criticism of this research has been the theory that explains the findings. Again, Journal of Conflict Resolution is a top journal. There was a special editorial on this study, as well as an editorial by one of the peer reviewers. They made exactly this point: that the methodology was solid, the data appeared to support the hypothesis, but the theory was difficult to accept. The critique by Fales and Markovsky is largely Bayesian, which is a method for deciding a priori whether a scientific result is likely. Bayesian analysis is used sometimes, but among philosophers of science it doesn't have much respect. In part that's because it's basically setting aside the scientific method and saying, "We can use reason to decide whether a phenomenon is likely, apart from any experimentation." Regarding how to characterize those making objections, we should only be using published peer-reviewed critiques, not an editorial in the Dallas Observer or stuff in popular media by skeptics. By the way, the debate among scientists regarding the theory, and to a much lesser extent whether the data support the hypothesis, is typical. Many many studies undergo this back-and-forth. It's not exceptional. Consider, for example, the controversy surrounding the research on statins, or antidepressants. This is part of the scientific process. It's a dialog. "Called into question" may be misleading for that reason. A reader who doesn't understand this process will think that this situation is somehow exceptional. "Questioned" is appropriate. TimidGuy (talk) 09:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Questioned" is too mild.
 * Mordecai Kaffman characterized the methods of the project as unscientific, the claims of positive results unconvincing, anecdotal, and based on a conceptual error, and concluded that the theory of a unified field of consciousness was no more credible than was Blondot's theory that metals gave off N-rays.
 * Philip Schrodt ... contested that the study’s measurement of the critical independent variable did not correspond to the most obvious interpretation of the theory, since it was obtained using political boundaries rather than geographical radius.
 * Physicist and skeptic Robert L. Park called the study a "clinic in data distortion".
 * According to the San Francisco Chronicle, "those outside the movement" did not see the cause and effect that the study asserted.
 * The Maharishi called the study, which cost $6 million, a "waste of time" and said that scientific research is a fraud.
 * Physicist Peter Woit characterized the theory that there is a unified field of consciousness as wishful thinking that is viewed by most physicists as nonsense.
 * Christopher Anderson wrote ... how the extension of grand unified theories of physics to human consciousness could explain how Transcendental Meditation influences world events "disturbs many researchers" and "infuriates his former collaborators". 
 * According to Abelson, who looked at the 1983 Middle East study, the prior probability, in Bayesian statistics, of there being a Maharishi Effect, is practically zero. 
 * Philip Schrodt wrote that validation of the Maharishi Effect theory would contradict virtually the whole of contemporary understanding of causality in social behavior
 * I'll change it to "disputed" as a compromise.    Will Beback    talk    10:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * That gives us:
 * While empirical studies have been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, these assertions have been disputed by most of those in the scientific and skeptic community who have written about them.
 * Is that agreeable?   Will Beback    talk    10:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In further response to TG's posting, we're not talking about methodologies. We're talking about assertions and conclusions. None of these studies are true experiments with controlled variables. They are merely looking at correlations and surmising that the only possible explanation is that YF leads to lowered tensions at great distances. One can agree with the methodology and still reject the conclusion. But we're not here to argue over the studies, just over how to summarize the independent views of ME, as expressed in the article.   Will Beback    talk    10:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)


 * BTW, I just came across this material, which summarize the issue broadly:
 * Studies concluding that meditation can reduce stress and anxiety, promote healing, and enhance creativity are similarly flawed. Many of these reports have come from practitioners of Transcendental Meditation. Given the far-fetched claims TMers have made over the years--that they can levitate, reduce crime rates, and alter weather pattern with their focused thoughts--their scientific credibility is particularly shaky. 
 * That's a relatively recent source talking about the overall reputation of research conducted by TM practitioners.   Will Beback    talk    11:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So much of what you cite above shouldn't be used as sources. When talking about science -- and this is peer-reviewed science -- we should be using peer-reviewed or scholarly sources. Let me give you an example. Horgan is recycling the shibboleths that new religious movement writers and skeptics continuously recycle. One of their favorite studies, which Bainbridge cites and which Horgan also references, is the 1977 study by Pagano on five practitioners of TM that found that they spent a good bit of the time sleeping. The problem is that this study was an anomaly. Pagano himself said this in a subsequent literature review he wrote in 1983: "Based on these results, the rather high incidence of Stage 3 and 4 activity reported in our initial study seems atypical." It turns out that Pagano used collodian to apply sensors. Collodian is ether dissolved in acetone -- and ether, as you know, is an anesthetic. He unwittingly anesthetized his subjects. Almost every NRM and skeptic book cites this study. Instead, Wikipedia should be citing this 2006 comprehensive review that says that meditation has been shown to be different from sleep. I feel like we should use Pagano as a test: if a source cites it, that source shouldn't be used, because it's carelessly recycling problematic evidence. Also, regarding your suggested wording, we should observe WP:RS: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." That same guideline says we shouldn't be using newspapers: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports." This article has so many problems -- sources that don't meet the guidelines, sources that say nothing about TM-Sidhi or Maharishi Effect or Yogic Flying, serious POV issues in the lead -- the wording of this sentence probably is the least of our concerns. TimidGuy (talk) 10:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Methodological errors occur. Good scientists recognize that. But we're not writing about TM in this sentence. We're merely trying to summarize outside views on the ME. Seeing no response to the draft itself, and the comment that matter is this is the least issue of concern, I'll post it here and in the other article. If you think there is a "biggest" issue perhaps we should address it rather than fighting further over this unimportant piece of text.   Will Beback    talk    11:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Lowe (2011) says that the "methodology underlying studies demonstrating the so-called “Maharishi Effect,”...was attacked as invalid." "Disputed" is mild by comparison to "attacked".   Will Beback    talk    11:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, Lowe (2011) says that the "methodology underlying studies demonstrating the so-called “Maharishi Effect,”...was attacked as invalid." "Disputed" is mild by comparison to "attacked".   Will Beback    talk    11:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Crime Vacine
Is this book published by a reliable publisher? The Crime Vaccine. --Uncreated (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the use to which it would put. The author is a lawyer, and apparently part of the TM movement. I don't know if he has any other credentials. The publisher isn't an academic press, but it's not a vanity press either, so far as I can tell. What are you thinking of using it for?    Will Beback    talk    22:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From memory he quotes different professors, politicians, not associated with the movement(though I'm not sure what makes someone apart of the TM movement ie if they practice TM does that make them apart of the movement?) concerning the Maharishi effect in his book and I thought if it was a reputable publisher then we could site those individuals. --Uncreated (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That'd probably be OK, within moderation.   Will Beback    talk    22:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Transcendental Consciousness, the source of thought
This is a pretty significant claim. Can't we find a better source than an anonymous website? The source of thought is an issue debated by philosophers and scientists for hundreds of years, so to simply state outright that the source is "Transcendental Consciousness" (TC) is a big leap. Perhaps we should attribute it.  Will Beback   talk    02:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ''The purpose of the TM-Sidhi program is to accelerate the benefits gained from the TM technique by training the mind to think from the level of what is called Transcendental Consciousness, the source of thought.
 * http://www.tm.org/meditation-techniques The Technique TM.org
 * If "Transcendental Consciousness" is the same thing as savikalpa samadhi then we could simplify things by linking to that article.   Will Beback    talk    08:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see Christopher Isherwood wrote:
 * Samadhi is said to be a fourth kind of consciousness: it is beyond the states of waking, dreaming and dreamless sleep. Those who have witnessed it as an external phenomenon report that the experiencee appeared to have fallen into a kind of trance. The hair on the head and body stood erect. The half-closed eyes became fixed. But these are mere symptoms, and tell us nothing. There is only one way to find out what samadhi is like: you must have it yourself.
 * That sounds similar, as TC is likewise described as a fourth state of consciousness. I won't transcribe them, but Google shows a couple of books that equate TC to savikalpa samadhi.     Will Beback    talk    09:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Or, is it more like Turiya? I see TC is translated as Tur¥ya Chetanå in some references.   Will Beback    talk    09:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Anonymous website is a strange description for the official TM website, one of the definitive sources for the use of Transcendental Consciousness in context of a TM article. If its necessary to further attribute, that is if the obvious context of the article itself isn't enough, then sure I'm sure we can find many sources that explicitly connect TM to Transcendental Consciousness. I'll add one.(olive (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC))
 * If it's not anonymous then who wrote it?
 * My main concern is with the description of TC as "the source of thought". I don't see that elsewhere in the literature. What does Peter Russell say about it?
 * Also, the sentence does not seem to summarize what we say in the text about the purpose of the TM-Sidhi program. The closest we comes is this sentence, the lead of the "Yogic Flying" section:
 * According to the Maharishi, Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness called Transcendental Consciousness.
 * Mahesh Yogi, Maharishi (2001). Ideal India: the lighthouse of peace on earth. Maharishi University of Management Press. p. 308. ISBN 978-9080600515. "Yogic Flying is a phenomena created by a specific thought projected from Transcendental Consciousness, the Unified Field of Natural Law, the field of all possibilities. This is the simplest state of human consciousness, self-referall consciousness, which is easily accessible to anyone through Transcendental Meditation, and is enlivened through the TM Sidhi Programme, which leads to Yogic Flying."
 * He doesn't seem to be saying that TC is the "source of thought".
 * Another question I have is that if TC is the source of thought, how are people who have not achieved TC able to think? Overall, this clause seems like an unusual assertion, even within the movement, posted to an unsigned webpage. Isn't there a better way of describing TC?   Will Beback    talk    02:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The website is full of pictures of people with their eyes closed too but neither that description nor 'anonymous' defines the website. The web site is self-defined as the official site of the TM organization and therefore definitive on TM theory... and clearly says TC is the source of thought, as do other sources. This is standard TM theory, per the fourth state of consciousness. Further, I've added another source and in line attributed so I'm not sure what the problem is. If you feel the ideas is to difficult for readers to grasp please feel free to remove it.

From Russel, Chapter 8, "The Fourth State of Consciousness" opening paragraph:

Transcendental Consciousness is beyond thought, but is also the source of all possibility and therefore of all thought. TC is described as the source of thought, the field of all possibilities, and parallels in physics and maybe is the same as The Unified Field or the vacuum state- a field that seems to be empty but also gives rise to all of our created universe. The state is pure potentiality. So thought in TM Sidhi is purportedly projected from this source of thought, or TC. (olive (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Thanks for finding that quote. TC is "beyond thought" but also the "source of all...thought". Yes, I think this concept may be too difficult for readers to get in the second sentence of the article, especially since it's not explained in the body of the article in those terms. Further, this article is about the TM-Sidhi program, so an aside about the goals of the TM technique using sources that don't mention the TM-Sidhi program is probably less than optimal. Why don't we step back a minute and start at the beginning of the sentence: The purpose of the TM-Sidhi program is... Do we have a source which says what the purpose of it is (rather the purpose of TM)?   Will Beback    talk    21:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: Maybe the Russell material should be added to the TM technique article, which currently doesn't mention TC by name.   Will Beback    talk    21:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TC is the fourth state of consciousness. If added it should be added in context of the other states. There was material on the 7 states in the TM article but it was removed.(olive (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))
 * I;m sure w can find content on the TM Sidhis. I'll look tomorrow.(olive (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC))


 * I changed the mysterious and confusing "source of thought" to the slightly more straightforward "fourth state of consciousness". However we should be working on the text of the article, and then making sure the intro summarizes it. Meanwhile, I'll start a thread at the technique article talk page about how to discuss TC in that article.   Will Beback    talk    07:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We're working out the definition of TC on the other page. Meanwhile I've tagged the sentence in this article because it has two citations but neither mention TM-Sidhi or how it relates to TC.   Will Beback    talk    09:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Verification tags

 * You'll remember that the discussion we had in reference to those sources was to ref "source of thought" which you then changed to fourth sate of consciousness. So sources never were to ref TC and TM Sidhi. This is and was a concern. For now I've restructured the syntax so its clear what is being referenced but I also have no problem removing that sentence-"TC is the fourth state of consciousness." completely. (olive (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC))


 * Since we have other content in that lead which does not refer to TM Sidhi, I've followed your example and tagged it. And I am rechecking to make sure there isn't some obscure ref to TM Sidhi I've missed.(olive (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC))
 * The tag I added, and have now re-added, concerns this sentence:
 * The purpose of the TM-Sidhi program is to accelerate the benefits gained from the TM technique by training the mind to think from the level of what is called within the TM organization as Transcendental Consciousness.
 * Ideally, the intro should simply summarize the text of the article in which cases citations aren't necessary.   Will Beback    talk    20:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. I didn't understand that from your edit summary. (olive (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
 * Maybe we should remove both sentences.   Will Beback    talk    00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I prefer short and accurate and to the point than a lot of questionable content.(olive (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC))


 * ''Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.

Are the assertions in the sentence not supported by the sources?  Will Beback   talk    00:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The first question to ask is, is the content in the right article. None of this makes reference to TM Sidhi the subject of this article. Is that correct.?(olive (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC))
 * The tag is "failed verification". If that's not the issue then let's remove the tag.   Will Beback    talk    02:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE and NPOVN
The developing consensus of uninvolved editors at WP:NPOVN seems to be that TM-Sidhi is a fringe topic, per WP:FRINGE. If anyone has a view on this matter they should comment there.  Will Beback   talk    04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Archiving
I manually archived this talk page, then rolled it back to let the bot handle it. Please feel free to redo or undo as needed... Dreadstar ☥   08:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Pasting unsourced commentary here removed from article
An IP has put this in the article several times:

"In 2002, The Maharishi University of Management (M.U.M.) Press published The Complete Book of Yogic Flying by Craig Pearson. The 600-page book is profusely illustrated with full-color photographs of yogic flyers. However, the choice of title is unfortunate because the book contains pictures only of men practicing the flying sutra. There are no photographs of female flyers, even though women were the first to be successful in yogic flying, when the flying sutra was initially given out by Maharishi. According to Craig Pearson, there are no photos of female flyers in the book because Maharishi gave specific instructions that photographs were not to be taken of women practicing the flying sutra, only of men. This paragraph (written by a woman) has been deleted twice, probably by a male TM censor"

I left a note on her talk page explaining why it violates Wikipedia's policy of no original research. TimidGuy (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
An editor claiming to be Huw Dixon removed this:

"Huw Dixon, Professor of Economics at York University, says: 'I have been following research on the Maharishi Effect over the past 20 years. Its conclusions are so strong that it demands action from those responsible for government policy.'"

The information is well sourced. I'd say leave it out for now, if that's his wish. I'm not sure what policy would bear on this. TimidGuy (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems strange that an "anon" editor, who has only made 3 edits on Wiki, can claim to be someone and just remove material. I am not too fussed if the material stays or goes, but what is the Wiki policies that apply here? --BwB (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead text
The lead refers extensively to research on the TM technique. Since this article is not about TM, and the research is not on the TM-Sidhi program, I feel it could be removed from the lead. In addition, all these points appear in several articles on TM and TM reesearch, with almost exactly the same text, so perhaps is redundant here. I welcome other editors' feedback before making any changes to the text.

Here is the text I am referring to:
 * "Skeptics have called TM or its associated theories and technologies a "pseudoscience".[4][5][6] Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education.[7][8][9] It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor.[7][10][11] Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM.[12][13][not in citation given]" --BwB (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI - a similar discussion is happening at the TM research article talk page --BwB (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Lead on McDuff!--BwB (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I'd suggest a sentence by sentence analysis. I agree this entire paragraph is inaccurate and needs to be fixed.(olive (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I think the very first sentence, which uses the terms "TM or its associated theories and technologies" could be part of an article about the TM-Sidhi program, as long as the sources support it. But the remainder of that section is about TM and nothing else. As such it does not belong in the TM-Sidhi article at all, in my opinion, and would be more appropriately placed in an article on TM. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with you in that the first sentence is probably OK, although I think it lacks information with substance. The Maharishi Effect and its research is controversial as the article indicates, and we'd do better to summarize that controversy in the lead. So yes, I'd move the content that refers to the TM technique to that article unless better material on the same information is already in the TM tech article. I am concerned that content was added to create a slant which is doubly peculiar given that the ME is controversial and a summary of the controversy could and should be added to the article(olive (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC))


 * I'd still like to look at each sentence and its sources if that seems OK to others.(olive (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC))

I wouldn't move it until we have determined that it does or doesn't belong in the article. We have a copy here to refer to.(olive (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC))


 * By the way, it would seem that the paragraph in question is already in the TM tech article I think it is entirely superfluous here, but let me know what you think--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that any assertions about research in the article should relate to research specifically on the TM-Sidhi program. The two cited reviews by Canter and Ernst do not examine any studies that include practice of the TM-Sidhi program. The two Cochrane reviews by Krisanaprakornkit do not examine any studies in which subjects practice the TM-Sidhi program. Ospina's quality assessment does include a handful of studies on the TM-Sidhi program (fewer than 10 out of the 230 TM/TM-Sidhi studies examined), but the meta-analyses do not include subjects practicing the TM-Sidhi program. TimidGuy (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Timid's analysis seems accurate. It seems like Ospina could be used if it specifically cites research on the TM-Sidhi program. If it is somehow "blended" with TM research, then I feel it would be hard to draw conclusions that could be used in the TM-Sidhi article. --BwB (talk) 00:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Should we move the content to the talk page while it s being examined or would you rather leave it for the moment?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry that was a mistake, did not mean to post, Olive has already responded. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence should be deleted because none of the sources examines studies on subjects practicing the TM-Sidhi program: "Independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM beyond relaxation or health education." Neither of the Cochrane reviews by Krisanaprakornkit includes studies on the TM-Sidhi program. And none of the meta-analyses by Ospina includes studies in which the subjects practiced the TM-Sidhi program.

The following sentence gives three citations, but two of the three are unrelated to the TM-Sidhi program: "It is difficult to determine definitive effects of meditation practices in healthcare as the quality of research has design limitations and a lack of methodological rigor." Neither the 2003 nor 2004 review by Canter and Ernst look at any studies that included subjects on the TM-Sidhi program. The examination of the quality of 230 studies on TM and the TM-Sidhii program by Ospina does include a handful (fewer than 10) of studies in which the subjects were practicing the TM-Sidhi program. However, the text of the article doesn't mention the results of the quality assessment of these studies on the TM-Sidhi program. One would need to look at the relevant appendix to see how these particular studies rated.

The following sentence should be deleted because, as noted above, the reviews by Canter and Ernst do not include studies in which the subjects were practicing the TM-Sidhi program: "Part of this difficulty is because studies have the potential for bias due to the connection of researchers to the TM organization, and enrollment of subjects with a favorable opinion of TM."

Regarding the quality of the research on the physiological effects of the TM-Sidhi program, I think that it's likely we'll find that Ospina's general conclusion applies: "Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." Both the lead and the body of the article should have some statement to this effect. TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your thorough analysis. Based on what you are presenting, it seems clear the sentences you analyzed do not belong in this text. Furthermore, they already exist in the TMT article. Therefore I think it is appropriate to remove them. I do have a question: I am not opposed to using the conclusion from Ospina you quoted, but won't that risk being misleading as well? It does say meditation practices, but does not specifically mention TM-Sidhi, do you think it might be confusing? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just looking at the appendices, and they don't report quality assessment scores for studies that aren't randomized controlled trials in the same manner as they do for the RCTs. So there's no place in the review where it specifically comments on the studies that had subjects who practiced the TM-Sidhi program. Further, the TM-Sidhi studies tend to be on physiological effects and aren't clinical studies. From what I can tell, their conclusion is specifically related to their assessment of the clinical research. I'm not sure what to do. But the studies themselves, and the research reviews cited, typically say something similar to what Ospina says: the results are suggestive but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached. Or something like that. Science is often very tentative about its conclusions, so we should be, too. It's only when one has a number of rigorous randomized studies that scientists feel comfortable in drawing conclusions. TimidGuy (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's take these sentences out then. --BwB (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Removing sentence. --BwB (talk) 20:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed article Split for Maharishi Effect
I propose that the Maharishi Effect section be moved into its own article (leaving behind a summary) because: 1) At present the Maharishi Effect section dominates this article and creates undue weight/POV. 2) WP:SummaryStyle says: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own. The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it." 3) The Maharishi Effect is often defined as the claimed effect created by the practice of Transcendental Mediation, not the TM-Sidhi program as shown below: Comments? Suggestions? Discussion?-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 13:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology: Volume 4 - Page 1796, Irving B. Weiner, W. Edward Craighead - 2010 "Walton, Cavanaugh, and Pugh (2005) went on to note that when people meditate, it appears to have a positive effect on social stress—a phenomenon that has been referred to as the Maharishi Effect.''
 * The Intention Experiment: Using Your Thoughts to Change Your Life ... - Page 262, McTaggart - 2008 "the macroeconomic effects of the collective practice of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi program"
 * The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena - Page 174, Radin - 2009 "Transcendental meditation researchers have reported that the so-called Maharishi effect has been replicated in forty-two studies, some published in mainstream sociology journals."
 * The Field Updated Ed: The Quest for the Secret Force of the Universe - Page 211, McTaggart - 2008 “The idea of the 'Maharishi' effect was that regularly practicing TM enables you to get in touch with a fundamental field that connects all things"
 * Totality Beliefs and the Religious Imagination - Page 62, Anthony Campbell - 2008 – "MMY described this as a beneficial effect of TM on the ”atmosphere”. I was not, even at the time, fully convinced of the reality of this alleged effect (which meditators christened the Maharishi Effect)"
 * I suggest we look at the sources in detail, if they are primarily concerning TM, and not the TM-Sidhis, then they do not even the in this article. I can definitely see that many of them are about TM only.  But we should retain what is clearly about the TM Sidhis. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ME per the sources can reference either the TM technique and the TM Sidhis, so yes I'd agree a clear delineation  and a check of the sources should be made. Should another TM related article be created? There are  so many  now, I hate to see more. Perhaps what we need to do is remove some of the articles, if there is an intention to create another one. There has been criticism in the past of the number of TM articles there are. Is this topic  notable  enough for its own article? Maybe a  request for  deletion for some of the less notable articles would be a good idea in which case this article would not seem to me to be part of an overkill on TM articles.(olive (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC))
 * Good point to check the sources. Luke, will you do that and report back what you find? Regarding too many articles. I think that has to be considered on a article by article basis. If there is a specific article that you feel is not notable, by all means begin the AfD process.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 20:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Will be happy to. Will report shortly--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is my initial research, I checked every source except for the scientific studies which I did not locate in such a short time. but, even with an incomplete list, a lot of these sources are about the Sidhis, not just TM.

Here they are ''Their mission started 13 years ago at the Maharishi International University (MIU) in Fairfield, Iowa, when MIU researchers observed a sharp drop in crime, accidents and sickness in four nearby cities. They concluded that the drop was caused by a sort of sympathetic vibration emitted from the maharishi's disciples at MIU meditating together.'' ''Maharishi introduced the TM-Sidhi program, including Yogic Flying, in 1976. Group practice of this program was observed to be particularly beneficial. On the basis of analogies to physical systems, scientists estimated that the coherence generated by group practice of the TM-Sidhi program should be proportional to the square of the number of participants. Taking into account the “1%” finding, it was predicted that a group with size equal to the square root of 1% of a population would have a measurable influence on the quality of life of that population. For example, a group of 200 practicing the TM-Sidhi program together in a city of four million (100x200x200) would be sufficient to produce a measurable influence on the whole city; a group of 1600 in the U.S. would influence 256 million (100x1600x1600) people, the whole population of the U.S.; and a group of 7000 would influence 4.9 billion (100x7000x7000) people, the population of the world at that time''. P 29 Likewise, when only the square root of one percent f the population practice Transcendental Meditation, the TM-Sidhi Programme and Yogic Flying together, the Extended Maharishi Effect is observed (This was not about ME but the sentence is correctly quoted and can be considered ME by inference). On 9 January 2008, having heard from twenty-seven Rajas that many times the required number of Yogic Flyers have been trained to create perpetual Invincibility for the whole world; and having also heard the news as documented in the world press about the irrevocable transformation in world consciousness—greater harmony, positivity, and progress in all areas of life—His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi expressed the following wish: Not specifically about TM or TM Sidhi: Question: Coherence and Invincibility Dr Hagelin: ‘A question has come in on the subject of defence that says: How will knowledge of the Constitution of the Universe in the life of the people make the knowledge of defence complete and make the nation invincible?’ Maharishi: ‘You have that example of the Meissner Effect: if the coherence is strong inside, then negative things do not enter into it. It is a proven reality. If the light is there, darkness has no way to enter the area. If the coherence is there, if the positivity is there, then negativity cannot enter it. It is the Meissner Effect. ‘That is why we want to have a very strong, coherent invincibility feature in our international world. Then negative things will not germinate from within the world and will not come from outside the world. Otherwise, inner poison sprouts and from outside all kinds of poison come in. The whole thing is very obvious.’ ''Dr Hagelin explained that the number of Yogic Flyers required to produce this coherent effect for the United States is 1730. However, he said, the initial group of 1200 experts is more than enough to create a calming, stabilising effect in national consciousness''. ''The square root of 1% effect is said to be produced through “group dynamics of consciousness.” It is proposed that a minimum “critical mass” of coherently interacting people is required before this amplification effect can be reliably observed. In a community of 100, both 1% and the square root of 1% would equal one person. Clearly, this would not even constitute a group! None of the over twenty square root of 1% studies accepted for publication inScientific Research on the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program, vol. 4, was on a population smaller than a million because it was decided that small groups of less than approximately 100 may not reliably produce such amplification effects.''
 * 71^ a b Wager, Gregg (December 11, 1987). "Musicians Spread the Maharishi's Message of Peace". Los Angeles Times: p. 12.
 * 73^ "Maharishi Effect Research on the Maharishi Effect" Maharishi University of Management. Retrieved December 29, 2009.
 * 20 Bonshek, Anna Corrina; Fergusson, Lee (2007). The Big Fish: Consciousness as Structure, Body and Space . Rodopi. pp. 143–146.ISBN 90-420-2172-1, 9789042021723.
 * 74 ^ "Maharishi inspires the creation of perpetual memorials of invincibility" (Press release). Global Good News Service, Global Country of World Peace. January 9, 2008.
 * 75^ "19 January 2005 Press Conference Highlights". Global Good News. January 19, 2005. Retrieved January 6, 2010.
 * 77^ "More good news from first week of Invincible America Course" (Press release). Global Country of World Peace. 2 August 2006.http://www.globalgoodnews.com/world-peace-a.html?art=115451638235819
 * 78^ a b Alexander, Charles; Orme-Johnson, David (1986). "Reducing Conflict and Enhancing the Quality of Life in Israel Using the Transcendental Meditation and TM-Sidhi Program: Explanation of a Social Research Project" Cultic Studies Journal 3 (1): 142–146.

Based on the above I feel that there is enough sidhi-related content to keep the section here, unless others feel differently. Opinions?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There may be another way to look at this and perhaps that's what Kbob has in mind. ME effect is the topic and subtopics/sections of that are TM Sidhi Maharishi Effect (ME) and TM Maharishi Effect (ME), rather than the other way around, that is, topics  and articles are TM  and TM Sidhis and  subtopics in both articles are  ME. As far as I can tell the ME topic is notable enough per the sources for its own article. As I said my concern was about a general criticism leveled against the TM articles, that there are too many, and too many cases in which content was forked or split off. I think this is a legitimate criticism and want to make sure that if we do make this split it is necessary rather than possible. (olive (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2012 (UTC))


 * I understand your points and your concerns. I guess that looking at it form that point a view, a split is definitely possible, but not really necessary, since there is also enough connection with the main articles to leave the sections where they are, in the TM and TM sidhi articles, though it is funny to have two sections about the same topic in two separate articles. But your concern is a valid one: there are an awful lot of TM-related articles and probably one more would not help things at all.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 16:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a fair amount of content in this article on the ME which might point to a necessary split off of that content. I'm not adverse to the split, I just want to make sure its done for the right reasons given past criticism.(olive (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC))
 * Not sure I understand. Can you explain more in detail which content are you referring to that points (or might point) to a necessary split? Or do you mean the whole thing?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of content on the ME in this article enough that is might be reasonable to split it off into its own article while leaving a summary here.(olive (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Hi Luke, and thanks for the research and your report on the sources. It seems that your research supports my original assertion that the Maharishi Effect is not exclusive to the TM-Sidhi program and that the choice to host that topic here as an expanded sub-topic is arbitrary and creates undue weight and POV. It also goes against the guideline in WP:SummaryStyle which says: "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." While I share Olive's concern that there are too many TM articles, some articles have large amounts of duplicate information 9particularly the TM movement, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and History of TM trilogy of articles. If we don't make this topic a stand alone topic will just end up with large amounts of dupliate info in boththe TMT and TM-sidhi article. So in this instance I think a separate article may be in order. PS:"The Maharishi Effect refers to the social consequences of the practice of TM by a significant proportion of the population" Cults and New Religious Movements, Lorne Dawson page 47-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:01, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can see it both ways, really. My only concern is this: Are we sure Wikipedia needs yet another TM related article?--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's a different question and this page is probably not the venue for that (larger) discussion. What we have before us is a situation where, IMO, the article is not compliant with WP guidelines: WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.  This situation would be eliminated by splitting the section into its own article. We are not creating more content, just organizing in a more WP compliant manner. That's how I see it.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The number of TM articles is a related question to the proposed split and I think it bears thinking about. It is probably legitimate to split off content here but I'd like to follow that action up with a close look at other articles to see if we can delete some, or combine them into other articles.(olive (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC))
 * I think this is a good suggestion and a good compromise. Let's do both of these things.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

If we keep ME in this article, I think it should be greatly reduced. Some of the material is poorly sourced, including claims from self-published sources (press releases) that violate WP:RS. I guess my preference would be to greatly condense the ME material and keep it here, but wouldn't object if it were split. TimidGuy (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * OK then, since it appears that there are no objections, I am going to proceed with the split and leave behind a summary. Once that is done, those that are interested can follow through on the suggestions to review the new ME article for compliance with WP:RS and take "a close look at other articles to see if we can delete some, or combine them into other articles".-- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 15:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It turns out there was already a page called Maharishi Effect which was being redirected here. So it was easy to move the content. I have created a brief summary of ME and placed it in the Research section of this article. Please feel free to amend it as needed.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating order out of all this, it's good to have the informationset up in a coherent way. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits and reversal in History section
I noticed one of my recent edits in the History section was reversed. What I intended to do was to summarize, and did not delete nor intend to delete. As it stands, this one case takes up 25% of the entire section, dominating it. It also includes a drawn out quote from a case, which I believe is disallowed as per WP:BLPPRIMARY (Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person). The report as written in my opinion violates WP: WEIGHT. I am trying to add more historical facts to the history section, but I think the case could be summarized and still be fairly represented. Any input on this issue? --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It does seem there is some undue emphasis there, some summarizing would probably be a good thing.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of related discussion at TM project page
I have started a thread at the TM project page as from time to time some editors have expressed concerns about the size of the topic area. If this concerns you, please join this discussion. Thanks.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 23:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in TM-Sidhi program
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of TM-Sidhi program's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dawson":<ul> <li>From Transcendental Meditation movement: Dawson, Lorne L. (2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, Chapter 3: Three Types of New Religious Movement by Roy Wallis (1984), page 44-48</li> <li>From Maharishi Effect: Dawson, Lorne L. ((2003) Blackwell Publishing, Cults and New Religious Movements, page 47</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced entry in the "Practice"section
The practice section has a reference sentence that refers to a book by Lola Williamson. The sentence says that practitioners read for 10 minute an English translation of the Rig Veda. The section then quotes from Williamson's book further. But after that, there is an unreferenced sentence stating Since that time, practitioners of the TM-Sidhi Program have been instructed to listen to portions of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of the Rig Veda recited by Vedic pandits in Sanskrit on audiotape at the end of each program (twice a day). This is not confirmed by Williamson. I have not found any other source that discusses audiotapes. A citation needed tag was added in May. Can anyone try and find a reference for it? If no one can, I suggest that this be removed, especially since Williamson already described readings in her book. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that that was a driveby edit by an inexperienced editor. TimidGuy (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It un-srouced and somewhat duplicate info already contained in the prior sentences as you have mentioned. Per TM arbcom unsourced content can be removed if a cite tag has been there for a reasonable amount of time. You can post the text here if you like and then it can be re-inserted later if someone finds a source.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — <b style= "color:#090;">Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 16:26, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay let's do that. I am posting it here and when a source is found it can be reinserted--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Since that time, practitioners of the TM-Sidhi Program have been instructed to listen to portions of the Ninth and Tenth Mandalas of the Rig Veda recited by Vedic pandits in Sanskrit on audiotape at the end of each program (twice a day).

I am posting a link to this discussion by the edit.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2012 (UTC)