Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 2

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers a discussion on disclosing mantra approximately nov 28-30 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Transcendental_meditation/Archive02. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Lumiere 00:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Disclosed mantra
The most significant problem with illicitly disclosed formula (for mantra or whatsoever), beside the fact it is illegal, is that the disclosed info has very little scientific value. There is no way to be sure that the information is valid because, whether or not the information is correct, the official organization will not comment on it. Moreover, in view of the nature of the source that illicitly disclose these formula, they are likely to be incorrect. In particular, it is not reliable to discuss the meaning of the mantra, which are not officially disclosed, because there is no way to provide reliable references. Much of the debate in the section on controversies turn around the fact that the mantra are not disclosed. There could be a debate about whether or not the TM organization should disclose the mantra, the formula, etc., but not in this article. It is like debating whether or not Microsoft should move to open source. This article is not the place for this kind of debate.

Amrit 20:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Amrit- "The most significant problem with illicitly disclosed formula (for mantra or whatsoever), beside the fact it is illegal,"

The mantras that TM uses are a part of Hinduism. You can find them all over the internet. http://www.rudraksha-ratna.com/bija_mantra.php http://www.livelongto100years.com/mantras.html http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/tantra/mantra.htm

>There is no way to be sure that the information is valid because, whether or not the information is correct, the official organization will not comment on it.

It is true that the organization PROBABLY won't comment on it.

What we can know for sure is that an organization of ex-TM'ers and ex-TM teachers SAYS _____

> Moreover, in view of the nature of the source that illicitly disclose these formula, they are likely to be incorrect.

Well, I found my mantra on their charts! :)

>In particular, it is not reliable to discuss the meaning of the mantra, which are not officially disclosed, because there is no way to provide reliable references.

Actually Hinduism is ripe with literature that describe the meaning of the TM mantras.

>Much of the debate in the section on controversies turn around the fact that the mantra are not disclosed. There could be a debate about whether or not the TM organization should disclose the mantra, the formula, etc., but not in this article.

Thank you for your intepretation of that section.

My interpretation of the section was, before someone took it out was: TM says that mantras have no meaning, and they do. TM says the mantras are specifically chosen for each person, and this organization says they are not.

peace, Seth

Seth, Thanks for your reply. I understand what you say. You were told that the mantra is a meaningless sound and then found out later that it has a meaning in some language. If it happens that your mantra had a meaning in any language, it is a blessing that you did not know that meaning because it may just interfer with the practice. If your mantra has a meaning in any language, don't mind it. You'll never need that meaning in relation with TM. It is misleading information and even damaging to suggest that an eventual meaning of the mantra in some language is important in TM. With regard to the choice of the mantra, of course, there must be a finite number of possible mantras, not one new mantra for each new person. So a formula is needed. An ex-TM'er might critic what he claims is the formula, which maybe the correct or the incorrect formula. He might say it is too simple or something else. Someone might be puzzle by these inquiries or critics. Another might be confused because the formula does not match his own mantra (it is my case -- and I regret to even have looked at it). My point is that this kind of inquiries could have been valid, if the information that is disclosed was not best kept private. It just cannot be a subject of discussion in any article in Wikipedia or any other respectable public media.

Amrit 04:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey Amrit-

Thanks, I concur that knowing the meaning of the mantra is pointless to the TM technique.

>With regard to the choice of the mantra, of course, there must be a finite number of possible mantras, not one new mantra for each new person.

Of course

> So a formula is needed. An ex-TM'er might critic what he claims is the formula, which maybe the correct or the incorrect formula.

Good point, all we can know for certain is what ex-TM teachers have SAID the formula was. They claim it is based on ONE thing: the age of the person recieving the mantra... and that depending on which year the teacher was taught, they were given the different mantras for different ages.

>He might say it is too simple or something else. Someone might be puzzle by these inquiries or critics. Another might be confused because the formula does not match his own mantra (it is my case -- and I regret to even have looked at it).

To check your formula, you need three pieces of information: 1) How old you were when you took the initiation 2) What year your TM teacher recieved their training 3) The appropriate chart for that year.

>My point is that this kind of inquiries could have been valid, if the information that is disclosed was not best kept private.

I don't understand what you mean by "best kept private," please elaborate.

>It just cannot be a subject of discussion in any article in Wikipedia or any other respectable public media. Yes, thank you, Wiki is not a research place.

However, to leave out the CLAIMS of the critics doesn't feel good to me either.

peace, Sethie 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sethi,

> Thanks, I concur that knowing the meaning of the mantra is pointless to the TM technique.

This is the main point. If the practitionner is never invited to know the meaning, in what way that meaning, whatever it is, makes it a religious practice?

> To check your formula, you need three pieces of information:

I did check carefully. I am telling you that it doesn't match. I just think it is confusing.

> I don't understand what you mean by "best kept private," please elaborate.

I must be kept private by the ex-TM'ers because it rises issues that cannot be fully answered without the participation of the TM organization. The TM organization will not participate and disclose the formula because they want to make sure that people learn TM with a TM teacher, which I think is the best.

> Yes, thank you, Wiki is not a research place.

Not for original research. However, of course, it is perfectly adequate to use published studies in an article. It is encouraged in Wikipedia:Cite_sources.

> However, to leave out the CLAIMS of the critics doesn't feel good to me either.

As long as they can support these claims with reliable sources. Otherwise, we will never progress.

Amrit 08:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey there-

>This is the main point. If the practitionner is never invited to know the meaning, in what way that meaning, whatever it is, makes it a religious practice?

Well, let's say I charge you money to teach you a "special" sound with similiar claims to TM, and tell you it is not religious, has no meaning.

The sound is yes-shew-ah.

Later you find out it is the Aramaic name for Jesus (Yeshua).

HELLO!

>I did check carefully. I am telling you that it doesn't match. I just think it is confusing.

The key word is "I." You find it confusing, I read the chart just fine.

BTW what year did your teacher learn to teach TM?

>It must be kept private by the ex-TM'ers because

Incorrect. Nothing MUST be anything.

>it rises issues that cannot be fully answered without the participation of the TM organization.

Incorrect.

Because something cannot be FULLY answered does not mean it must be kept private. In fact, putting it out there in public view is a way to begin the process of getting confirmation.

Also, if 100, 1,000, or 10,000 TM or EX-TM teachers get together they could prsent a pretty convincing arguement! Also, with the info provided by TM-EX and others (www.trancenet.org- which sadly is gone) you and I could interview 1,000 ex TM practitioners and doing our own "checking" :)

>The TM organization will not participate and disclose the formula because

Maybe. Predicting the future is tricky! :)

My prediction is that at some point a lawsuit or investigation will bring the truth to light.

>they want to make sure that people learn TM with a TM teacher, which I think is the best.

In Hinduism, there are two opinions on mantras: 1) they have effect in and of themselves 2) without the blessing of a guru, they are powerless

If #2 is correct, TM that has any effect CAN'T be learned without a TM instructor. If #1 is correct, it may or may not be better to learn through a teacher.

SAT! Sethie 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sat,

With regard to #1 and #2 in your last point, you should consider the intermediate situation:

3) they [the mantras or sounds] have good effects when they are used correctly. You need a trained teacher to learn the method of using the mantra properly. There is no need for the blessing of anyone. If you have the correct technique and the correct mantra, it works by itself because it is the nature of the mind. Disclosing the formula would not work because you need a trained teacher to learn the method. Moreover, people will start to confuse this self-learned TM, which actually would not be TM because it would be self-learned in book, and the TM that is learned with a qualified teacher.  It would confuse people about the value of TM. So, it does make sense that the TM organization does not want to disclose the formula.

The situation is actually very clear: the TM organization does not disclose the formula because it will not be good. There is nothing deeper than that to find out about this issue. There is certainly no matter for a law suit -- it is all perfectly legal and even good. When ex-TM'ers disclose what they say is the formula they do not help in discovering any big truth. They only create confusion.

With regard to your mantra having a meaning in the Hindouism religion, note that the mantra exist independently of this religion and of any other religion. If it turns out that a mantra has a meaning in some language, but this meaning has nothing to do with the technique and might in fact interfer with it, I think it is better that we ignore this meaning when the mantra is given. In science, it is fair not to cite a paper that seems related to your paper, if your paper is actually independent and the other paper does not help it at all. It is a similar kind of thing. I don't see why you make a big HELLO out of this.

I want to continue this conversation. However, perhaps we should continue it elsewhere. Anything to suggest? Here, we should address more directly the content of the article. Did you check if the reference I gave for the study that was apparently disproved by Randi is correct? Do you know the reference?

Amrit

Hey Amrit- let's continue on the Sethie page.

SAT! Seth Sethie 18:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)