Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Other Sub Pages:

• Talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi/Sources

Passport magazine

What kind of source is Passport magazine, and why are we citing an article by their restaurant critic? [1]   Will Beback  talk  21:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Why not a restaurant critic? Are his views and opinions not valid? Are all the journalists that have written about the Maharishi over the last 50 years experts on the topic? And I believe Passport magazine is a print journal? What do you think is unsuitable about it? --BweeB (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't use every source. For example, student newspapers are considered questionable by some. So again, what kind of source is this? Does it have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? Is this the standard Keithbob and Bigweeboy are suggesting for the article?   Will Beback  talk  04:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, it appears that Passport is a free "lifestyle" weekly published and distributed in Moscow for English-speaking travelers and residents. As such, it probably rates somewhere below the better free alternative newspapers seen in large U.S. cities, like the Phoenix New Times. It's important to remember that this is making an assertion about the personal actions of MMY, and it's not clear how the writer would have that information if it didn't involve the Moscow restaurant scene.

I've corrected the material which mis-summarized the source, such as it is.   Will Beback  talk  07:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-religious

I have just added a new version of the sentence WBB had removed, which he said we would reinstate with a better source. The source for the new sentence is is Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm George Chryssides is Senior Lecturer in religious studies at the University of Wolverhampton, England, an Honorary Research Fellow in Contemporary Religion at the University of Birmingham, UK., and former Senior Lecturer and head of Religious Studies at the School of Humanities, Languages and Social Sciences of the University of Wolverhampton. Therefore, he can safely be considered an expert on the subject. I hope this resolves the issue to everyone’s satisfaction.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 03:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• ...and sometimes, as non religious, being devoid of features typically associated with religions.
  • Chryssides George D. Defining the New Spirituality http://www.cesnur.org/conferences/riga2000/chryssides.htm One possible suggestion is that religion demands exclusive allegiance: this would ipso facto exclude Scientology, TM and the Soka Gakkai simply on the grounds that they claim compatibility with whatever other religion the practitioner has been following. For example, TM is simply – as they state – a technique. Although it enables one to cope with life, it offers no goal beyond human existence (such as moksha), nor does it offer rites or passage or an ethic. Unlike certain other Hindu-derived movements, TM does not prescribe a dharma to its followers – that is to say a set of spiritual obligations deriving from one’s essential nature.

The source is too weak to support the material, given the context. We could cite literally dozens of academic sources which characterize the TM movement as an NRM. On the other side, we have one paper delivered at a conference held by CESNUR, a group which has a mixed reputation. A better source for Chryssides' view would be Exploring New Religions [2] However even that is just one POV, so giving it that much space in the lead seems disproportionate and gets us further away from the topic of the article. Further, there may be a false equivalence by using the same "sometimes" to describe both characterizations. If a thing is called X 19 times and Y one time, then it's misleading to say it's "sometimes called X and sometimes called Y". We should mention Y but make it clear that it is not the prevailing description. Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance".   Will Beback  talk  03:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we move the whole discussion of the movement's nature to the next paragraph. Something more like

• ... was the leader and guru of the TM movement. (Lead)
• Beginning in 1955, the Maharishi began to introduce the Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique and other related programmes and initiatives to the world. He also created the Spiritual Regeneration Movement, later renamed the Transcendental Meditation movement, which it is usually characterised as a new religious movement though denies being a one. (Middle of the second paragraph)

How about that?   Will Beback  talk  03:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed move: I am not against it, but I am not sure that moving this to the paragraph below would make much of a difference, at least not in terms of what sources or language should be used. Regarding Chryssides: As his extensive resume and numerous scholarly publications demonstrate, he is a renowned expert on religions. The opinion from an expert in the field carries a great deal of authority and is considered reliable. Similarly, as the source is from an established expert widely published by respected third party publications, it is also reliable. As for Chryssides being misinformed, it is speculation. The reliability of an author is based on qualifications, which in the present case are excellent, not on second guessing research methodology. It would be hard to find someone more qualified to determine what is and isn't a religion than George Chryssides, who has successfully made this his life’s work. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Chryssides has great credentials, but so do many of the scholars who plainly call TM an NRM. Second, he doesn't come out and say, in the text you cite, that TM isn't an NRM. He says that it's possible to define religions as requiring allegiance and if so, then TM would not qualify because it "claims" to not require it. He further attributes the idea that TM is just a technique to the movement. In addition to overlooking the fact that TM does require exclusive allegiance, he also seems unaware that the TM movement has an ethic, the 18-point SCI. Since those are two elements of his proposed definition of religion, it's a very murky assertion. It'd be much more straightforward and relevant to say that the movement or MMY himself denied that TM is a religion.   Will Beback  talk  04:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is that the TM movement cannot be defined definitively using any one term; Luke seems to be attempting to deal with that concern. Chryssides for example, also uses the term "human potential movement " when discussing it. Further, the issue is much larger than squeezing the academic discussions of NRMs, TM and religion into one academically coined word or phrase, for the lead of this article. Rather than select one phrase to define an entire area of academic discussion (NRMS), we should be summarizing the discussions and views that are laid out in these discussions, as well as the views and discussions offered by other reliable sources. Chryssides was aware of SCI which he mentions and briefly discusses. SCI is strictly speaking not an ethic which is generally meant to mean a required behaviour, but is a theoretical underpinning for a technique.(olive (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Another problem with Chryssides is that he seems to have been poorly informed about the movement's beliefs and practices. For example, it is now fairly well-known that the movement does insist on "exclusive allegiance". No doubt a lot of testimonials from religious figures can be found to show that TM requires no religious allegiance. In anticipation of a claim that the TM movement is somehow different and does require exclusive allegiance, here is a piece about religious Jewish faculty at Maharishi University of Management. If MUM faculty may be considered movement, then this makes clear that founding faculty were also the foundation of the local Jewish religious congregation, and that this religious group organized on the MIU/MUM campus: "Parsons College had now become Maharishi International University (MIU) where a group of Jewish meditating faculty and students became the foundation for the Fairfield Jewish congregation — Congregation Beth Shalom ... during the 1970’s the Fairfield congregation was a nomadic group on the MIU campus". Here is a webpage quoting a concessionary price for MUM faculty and staff to attend 2011 Passover at the Beth Shalom Synagogue.

There is also evidence to show that Father Gabriel Mejia is both a Catholic priest [3] and a high-profile TM teacher [4], who recently was the main speaker and hosted a conference at a prominent MUM event. [5]

At issue is the difference between a documented reality and the opinions of a grouping of academics. Given the contrast between the real-world reports and this point of view, we should classify the latter as WP:FRINGE, and as such it may not merit mention in the article; in any event it should not be given undue weight, [6] per WP:WEIGHT. The reader who follows the new religious movement link will find TM in an alphabetical list with, for example, The Family, Charles Manson and Aum Shinrikyo. Such associations are highly distorting and controversial and merit a WP:FRINGE classification. The last article begins 'Aum Shinrikyo is a Japanese "new religious movement"'—a not dissimilar opening to this article's. Spicemix (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

To echo some of what Spicemix has expressed, in addition to the many religious personalities who are also TM teachers and practitioners , there are others in the academic world that have expressed concepts similar to Chryssides ‘. Douglas Cowan writes in Cults and New Religions that TM lacked many if the features of a religion, having no designated scripture, no set of doctrinal requirements no ongoing worship activity, no discernable community of believers, and that Maharishi didn't claim any special divine revelation or supernatural personal qualities. In The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in America, Stefanie Syman laments that modern yoga, among which she includes TM, has been “yanked…from the bosom of religion and its inexplicable mysteries and delivered…to science”. About TM itself she says: “There was no color, no filigree, no story, no symbol, nor much ritual of any sort”.

There is a further consideration, I am not sure the topic merits being in the lead at all. This article is about MMY, not the TM Movement, yet the lead discusses the TMM. To quote from WP:MOSBEGIN " The first paragraph should define the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being overly specific”. I think this is exactly the case of a lead sentence being overly specific, indeed it is not even about the article’s topic. Additionally, (and this addresses both the issue of neutrality and weight), it makes little sense that so much emphasis is given to the view of a few academics about the purported religious aspect of the TMM, while absolutely no mention is made of its therapeutic elements, which is how TM, and the TM movement are more universally known. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(undent) This sentence in the lead is getting way too convoluted, IMHO. Perhaps we can just simply say the Maharishi founded a "Movement" and either give more detail about it int he body of the article, or just let an interested reader follow the Transcendental Meditation movement link to get the scoop. --BweeB (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LWw and BweeB, and draw attention to a comment[7] about this lead made a while ago by Earlymorningperson:

every word should be devoted to explaining who the subject is and why he/she is notable. Weighing the lead down with pedantic terms does not help entice the reader to read on. In general, this whole long lead section is a real snore, lacking focus on the subject’s claim to fame. For ex., we only get to know that the subject introduced meditation to the world on a rather large scale at the end of five paragraphs. As I’ve said before, let’s get more reader-friendly around here!

There seems to be consensus that MMY is primarily notable for offering a technique which proved hugely popular. I propose that we bring a slimmed-down mention of 5m+ people to the top paragraph, which could then read: Maharishi Mahesh Yogi ... developed the Transcendental Meditation technique, which has been learned by more than 5 million people[refs]. That in a nutshell is his notability. There is no need to clutter the 5m with quotes as it is reliably referenced, and "studied his methods" is an arcane phrase clearly intended to paraphrase "learned".

The founding of a movement is a distant second for notability, and the lead is not a forum for a discussion of little-known terms of reference. The lead should summarize, and as has already been noted[8] nrm is a specific. LWw is correct to point out that this is a biographical article, and its lead should not contain non-notable and doubtful specifics about a secondary topic. Given what has been said on this thread and other recent and related threads I judge that we now have a full consensus to move the treatment of nrm out of the lead.

When this subject is covered in the body of the article and elsewhere, the treatment should reflect the primary evidence that the TMM does not fulfill necessary criteria for nrm status: the current phrasing implies that nrm status is a starting-point or prevailing point of view. Spicemix (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you're saying Spicemix but do disagree with, "the treatment should reflect the primary evidence that the TMM does not fulfill necessary criteria for NRM status: " TM has been cited in sources as an NRM. I don't see that we can debate that point because it is sourced. What has been discussed in sources seems to be whether TM is actually religious or a religion and whether it should be considered an NRM. So an inclusionist view in this article should include content on NRM per its weight, as well the other arguments/opinions on the TM as religion views. An 'inclusionist' way of dealing with these multiple views while considering weight will give a sense of the totality of information in this area. An 'exclusionist' view and content that includes any one side would be non neutral, in my opinion. (olive (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

On rereading your comment we may be saying the same thing. I would however see this information as layered: TM movement has been considered an NRM and then branching off of that, that TM movement as a religious org has been debated. Further, I agree that NRM is not necessarily the primary view but is a 'category' coined by academics to favour academic discussion, and is only one of many views.(olive (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

• I look forward to seeing how editors will resolve this. I'll leave it to you all to sort out, and take a look again when you've done your best work.   Will Beback  talk  01:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Are editors still working on this or have they given up?   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd thought that Luke Warmwater might want to take it on as he started the thread, but I'll have a go myself. Spicemix (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Varma (cont.)

Since we were encouraged [9] to find sources for Bal Brahmachari Mahesh being a name, rather than a title, two sources have come up. One is Mason, p. 17: "In undertaking to serve as a disciple, together with the usual vows of service and celibacy he took a new name, that of Bal Brahmacharya Mahesh." The second is Rajeev Verma, Faith and philosophy of Hinduism (2009), pp 344, 978-8178357188: "In 1941 he became a secretary to Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, who gave him the name Bal Brahmachari Mahesh." This means we have the assertions of his principal biographer, and an Indian expert. Currently the article is using Coplin, but these new, and published, references may be seen as another case of "sources that have more weight than a doctoral dissertation by a follower" [10].

Doubts have been expressed about the variations of spelling in this case, but standard textual scholarship doesn't recognize a problem. As this summary [11] explains, minor variations of spelling are termed accidental, and the editor may choose which to go with for his version of the text. For example, six specimens of Shakespeare's signature have survived, and they are all spelled differently. The terminal silent Hindi a found here on Brahmacharya, and the missing e in the signature Bal Brahmachari Mahsh are both accidentals. I propose that in this article we go with Bal Brahmachari Mahesh.

The article will be improved if the subject is properly named, and I'll make the changes and add the new sources. Currently we have an inconsistent situation with the subject having three phases of name, but being referred to in the same way for two of them. Spicemix (talk) 02:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still a title, not a name. We don't call people by their titles, with very few exceptions. Even after he was bestowed the title, he was still Mahesh.

The Verma book clearly depends of Coplin for the material, so it's not a strong second source.

Are we regarding Mason as a fully reliable source?

We already mention the title "Bala Brahmachari Mahesh". If Spicemix wants to change that to "Bal Brahmachari Mahesh" that's fine with me, but I don't see where other changes are necessary.   Will Beback  talk  03:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Verma book is out as a source. It's just copied from this article. [12][13]   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Mason, as the subject's leading biographical scholar, is a very serious source, and in this case is the strongest we have. We should remember that we have recently given Mason's view precedence even over the records of the subject's university when deciding how to present the controversy over his birthname. Coplin by contrast is an unpublished doctoral thesis, and we have one editor who doubts his neutrality. Spicemix (talk) 23:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the 1994 first edition is regarded as usable, but the later editions were self-published and can't be used (unless we consider Mason to be an expert on MMY). I'd like the to see the article based more on Mason and less on MMY's own memoirs. Doctoral dissertations are published, in a manner of speaking, and have been usually deemed reliable (though master's theses have not).   Will Beback  talk  23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The source in this case is the 1994 edition and is the strongest we have. As the relative strength of Mason is not denied here, I shall incorporate his definition in the article. Mason repeatedly (pp. 17-28) refers to MMY in this phase of his life as Brahmachari Mahesh, and we can safely follow his usage.

It will be remembered that Coplin's scholarship on the subject of Indian names has recently been called into question [14] as "flimsy logic", "unhelpful speculation" and "nonsense", and his opinion deleted [15] from the article. However, as he refers [16] to bala brahmachari as both a title and a name, he may be considered inconclusive here. Spicemix (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Grescoe quote

Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that "A British magazine said his teacher was Jagad Guru Shankaracharya Swami Brahmananda Saraswati, ... or Guru Dev for short. The Maharishi ... was his pupil for 13 years. When the Guru Dev died, the Maharishi was so disappointed at not being named successor, that he launched an unsuccessful lawsuit."

This is a tendentious allegation, and poorly-sourced almost to the point of being unsourced. The author presents himself as a novice on the subject, having "read here and there", and the source is not specified. A lawsuit is a matter of public record, and none has ever been made known. Several scholars have been active in the field of the Shankaracharya succession, and the lawsuits brought by other parties are documented. Mason makes no mention of this allegation against MMY, either in the 1994 edition of his biography or in subsequent internet writings.

We should also bear in mind that while the two ellipses in the quote as presented in the article make it appear that a "British magazine" is the source, when the passage is read in full [17] this is far from clear.

As the quote is misleading and unsupported, I propose we delete it. Spicemix (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• This source and related text was placed in the article in 2010 as "Canadian author and journalist Paul Grescoe reported in 1968 that Mahesh was "so disappointed at not being named [Saraswati's] successor" that he filed a lawsuit, which was unsuccessful." However, I felt that if the text was going to be in the article that the reader should see the entire quote and judge for themselves what the author was trying to say and should know that the information was third hand. [18] Later, another editor (I believe it was WBB, but I may be mistaken) pared the full quote down to its current form. However Spicemix has now brought out some additional points that are worthy of consideration. Do we have any additional sources for this claim about a lawsuit?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's incorrect that the assertion is "unsupported". It has a clear citation to a source generally considered reliable. The view is attributed to the reporter, so readers won't mistakenly get the impression that it's a widely held view. We include many assertions from single sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

We are moving towards consensus, and I think it's inevitable in this case. "The view is attributed to the reporter" is a new slant though, and given that we are dealing with the reporting of a matter of fact, it further reduces the reliability of the fact. However the reporting is already so unreliable from being referred to some unspecified reading "here and there", that it can hardly be diminished further. Are we are really to rely on the view of the journalist for such a far-reaching and isolated assertion?

We should note that the claim is for an unsuccessful lawsuit. That means the suit was given due process of law and was finally rejected. To suggest that this event—Secretary in court to dispute will of spiritual advisor to first president of India—left a documentary footprint so faint that no scholar or investigative journalist in almost 60 years has been able to trace it is beyond credibility. I fully concur with the recent statement, "Things exist whether or not they are covered on Wikipedia." [19] This evidently did not exist, and the quotation should be removed from the article. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources: WP:REDFLAG. Spicemix (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Grescoe himself admits that the facts he is reporting are heresay and have not been verified. He states that his sources are-- reading he has done "here and there" and "a British magazine". He conveys that the sources of his information are vague and/or anonymous. For this reason the citation would appear to be insufficient for an allegation that clearly slanders the article subject. It could be a true fact but without solid sources its presence in the article is jeopardized, I think. I have looked for a corroborating source in Google Books and Google News Archive, but came up empty handed. It's been 40+ years since the cited sourced was published, if the lawsuit really happened there must be documentation. Can anyone else find something to support the lawsuit text?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can find the local courthouse, determine that they have records dating back that far, figuring out which names the lawsuits would have been filed under, and then searching through the relevant period to see if the lawsuit can be found, then we can't say that it didn't happen. Mason, while he may be a good researcher, is not generally categorized as a "scholar". I'm not aware of any scholar besides Coplin, a member of the movement, who has researched the subject's life.

Spicemix suggests that the issue of succession touches on exceptional claims. The question of whether the subject sought to succeed his teacher has been mentioned in other sources, hasn't it? What does Mason say on the topic? Coplin doesn't mention anything about the period between Saraswati's death and the onset of the subject's ministry.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Unless we can find the local courthouse, determine that they have records dating back that far, figuring out which names the lawsuits would have been filed under, and then searching through the relevant period to see if the lawsuit can be found, then we can't say that it didn't happen. Which WP policy does this exemplify? It is the direct opposite of WP:BURDEN.

So far in this thread Will Beback has asserted that the unsubstantiated "view" of a journalist can be considered admissible as a fact, that this new fact should stand because "we can't say it didn't happen". Does he still stand by these assertions?

In a nutshell the article currently contains an unverified and remarkable claim by a journalist who has explained he is a novice on the subject. No corroboration of this claim can be found in any reliable source, or for that matter so far in any source at all. The subject's biographer and obituarists attach so little credibility to the claim that they do not mention it. Were the claim to be true, it is so sensational as to have generated the interest of news media, both at the time and thereafter, and the attention of academic researchers, yet there is complete silence. Further, the claim entirely relates to a public issue and to official records, no trace of which has been exposed. It is a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources and is contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community. These are WP:REDFLAG definitions. WP:REDFLAG states that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. In this case we have no sources whatsoever.

What does Mason say on the topic? His account in full, pp.23-24:

It will be observed that one of the preconditions of entitlement to this post is being born a Brahmin. Brahamachari Mahesh, being of the kshetriya caste, was not eligible to hold this venerated office. So, on Friday 12 June, 1953, at the wish of Swami Brahmananda, his close disciple Sri Swami Shantanand Sarawati Maharaj was installed as successor to the throne of Shankaracharya,

With his master's passing and his fellow disciple Swami Shantanand the new Shankaracharya, Brahmachari Mahesh took leave of the monastery and 'retired to the caves of the "Valley of the Saints" in Uttar Kashi, high in the Himalayas'.

Shall we now delete the quotation? Spicemix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for finding and transcribing that. It's certainly good enough to support the addition of text that Mason doesn't mention the purported lawsuit.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Since non of the editors involved in this thread are able to locate reliable sources to support the rather inadequate source which is currently provided, I would vote for deletion. If supporting sources can be found in the future, then it can be added back into the article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 23:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did we decide that the Montreal Gazette is an unreliable source? Have we decided that multiple sources are required for each assertion?   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to delete an ostensibly reliable secondary source at the same time as we're arguing over the inclusion of an even less reliable self-published source at the TMM talk page. If folks want to use only the best sources then I'd expect that practice to be followed consistently, not just when convenient.   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Did we decide that the Montreal Gazette is an unreliable source? In fact the only discussion of the MG has been Will Beback's argument that "The view is attributed to the reporter", and not to any editorial position of the paper. He also says the MG is "a source generally considered reliable", a statement that accords with WP policy that reliability is not an absolute. If we go to WP:SOURCES we find

Sources should directly support the material presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.

The reliability of the MG on a great many subjects, primarily local and regional, but to a great extent national too, will not be questioned, but its competence for checking or analyzing this particular legal issue, evidence, and argument may be estimated at close to zero. It seems to be a smallish newspaper, currently the 3rd largest regional daily in Quebec, and its target audience is 13% of the population of the province.

This would not much matter if the journalist were reporting something commonplace or trivial—he makes many acceptable claims in the piece—but this claim is extraordinary and defamatory, and has no support whatever in reliable sources elsewhere. As such, Wikipedia policy requires substantiation elsewhere as it is is a surprising or apparently important claim not covered by mainstream sources.

To retain the quote as suggested above but in a new context that would need to make clear its tendentiousness and poor status per verifiability, I think is not a practical option. Do we have consensus for its deletion until good mainstream sources can be found? Spicemix (talk) 12:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)