Request for comment on German gov. meditation study
Lawson English
no-one bothered to respond...
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
: If this is a repeat message, I am truely sorry. My server seems to be
: very unreliable.
: Someone very kindly put the entire text of a German
: Government-sponsored study concerning the dangers of Transcendental
: Meditation on a web page. I've included below what I believe are the
: most important parts of the methodology section.
: I would appreciate any comments/criticism/etc. to the methodolgy
: used and how this might effect the conclusions of the study.
: The complete study is available at
: Thanks in advance.
: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
:
: 2. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND THE EXECUTION OF THE INVESTIGATION
: 2.1. STARTING POINT
: Even at the beginning of the investigation there existed many
: contacts with people who had come to us on account of the T.M.
: organization. In many cases people asked directly for help because
: difficulties of various kinds had arisen as a result of their links
: with T.M. This was apart from any information they intended to give
: us on the subject. This network was the starting point for our
: investigation.
: [...]
: For the reasons named we proceeded methodologically according to the
: "Snowball Method", where certain people involved in our investigation
: in turn named others and so on etc.
: 2.2. ATTRIBUTES OF THE GROUPS QUESTIONED
: Altogether 67 people were questioned. All those questioned had a
: direct or indirect relationship with the T.M. movement. It was
: necessary from the beginning to divide or classify them into three
: groups:
: - The Parents: The 30 parents questioned were indirectly affected
: people, for whom transcendental meditation became a problem when one
: or more of their children exhibited strong social and/or mental
: transformations. Therefore in the profile-chart filled in by the
: parents we envisioned two different aspects to their view of the
: subject. They would reflect as involved observers, their impressions
: - of their children as well as their own personal attitudes towards
: those incidents.
: -Married Partners: These were the group, where one of the partners
: was a practitioner of T.M. during the time of the investigation. 1O
: married people were questioned. The statements made by those can be
: seen in the same light as those of the Parent group: we received
: information from the non-meditating partner about the meditating
: partner. The high degree of dismay shown by the non-meditating
: partner was clearly evident during the proceedings.
: -Ex-meditators:The 27 ex-meditators questioned had practiced the T.M.
: meditation over a large period of time. This group of ex-meditators
: constituted a most important addition. Among the entire 67 questioned,
: they were those directly affected. From them we obtained information
: normally restricted in the T.M. movement under the imposed obligation
: of secrecy, information to which those not directly involved in the T.M.
: movement rarely had access. At the same time they afforded the
: opportunity to establish a tangible relationship between the theory
: and their own experiences.
: The general impression we had of all at the beginning of the
: investigation was a negative experience with the practice of
: meditation or its consequences, and a wishing to avoid the T.M.
: organization and its representatives.
: 2.3 THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE
: [...]
: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Complete text available at http://www.trancenet.org
: --
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
: eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
: / / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Knapp
found it laughable on its face, and that all your scientific friends
"snickered" at it?
J
In article <4btf24$l...@nntp3.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
---
*What's _your_ mantra?* http://www.trancenet.org
Join our free email list by messaging 'majo...@sadie.digex.net' with the following one-line command in the BODY: subscribe trance-l
"I said whatever problems I might or might not have, TM is not making them better, it is making them worse and I decided to leave.... I felt like I was crossing from slavery into freedom." Mitch Kapor, Founder Lotus, Inc., EFF -- http://www.trancenet.org/personal
Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
Lawson English
: My it appears this study has really gotten under your skin. I thought you
: found it laughable on its face, and that all your scientific friends
: "snickered" at it?
In fact, they did. However, rather than assume that I or my friends are
unbiased on the matter, I went ahead and posted it to newsgroups where
folks with far better scientific background than I could critique it in a
public forum.
You see, I posted very nearly the complete methodology
section, thereby allowing folks to make a more complete assessment of the
study's possible validity.
I also very carefully avoided making value judgements when I posted, nor
did I say anything bad or judgemental about the person (yourself) who
made the text available on his web page.
In fact, I went out of my way to attempt to be neutral on the subject and
let the content speak for itself.
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
> : My it appears this study has really gotten under your skin. I thought you
> : found it laughable on its face, and that all your scientific friends
> : "snickered" at it?
>
> In fact, they did. However, rather than assume that I or my friends are
> unbiased on the matter, I went ahead and posted it to newsgroups where
> folks with far better scientific background than I could critique it in a
> public forum.
Just so I don't continue to get complaints about your spamming being
attributed to me or TranceNet.
The folks on the hard science groups aren't likely to have much to say
about a social science report, tho.
>
>
> You see, I posted very nearly the complete methodology
> section, thereby allowing folks to make a more complete assessment of the
> study's possible validity.
That's why it's there, Lawson. Feel free to quote other material from
TranceNet, http://www.trancenet.org -- with proper attribution. The
primary source material, such as the German study, is presented there
largely without comment so that people can make up their minds for
themselves.
>
> I also very carefully avoided making value judgements when I posted, nor
> did I say anything bad or judgemental about the person (yourself) who
> made the text available on his web page.
Admirable restraint.
>
> In fact, I went out of my way to attempt to be neutral on the subject and
> let the content speak for itself.
Again, admirable restraint. I hope to see more of it from you in future.
J
Lawson English
: Just so I don't continue to get complaints about your spamming being
: attributed to me or TranceNet.
: The folks on the hard science groups aren't likely to have much to say
: about a social science report, tho.
None of the newsgroups that I posted to were "hard science," so I don't
see how this applies.
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
> [snipt]
> : Just so I don't continue to get complaints about your spamming being
> : attributed to me or TranceNet.
>
> : The folks on the hard science groups aren't likely to have much to say
> : about a social science report, tho.
>
>
> None of the newsgroups that I posted to were "hard science," so I don't
> see how this applies.
I was thinking of sci.med and sci.skeptic, both of which are essentially
hard science oriented.
Must we disagree on every little detail, Lawson? I thought you had a job now.
J
Judy Stein
> Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
> In article <4c43md$r...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
> > [snipt]
> > : Just so I don't continue to get complaints about your spamming being
> > : attributed to me or TranceNet.
> >
> > : The folks on the hard science groups aren't likely to have much to say
> > : about a social science report, tho.
> >
> > None of the newsgroups that I posted to were "hard science," so I don't
> > see how this applies.
>
> I was thinking of sci.med and sci.skeptic, both of which are essentially
> hard science oriented.
Au contraire, sci.skeptic very frequently deals with "soft"
science of all kinds. Witness the long-running debates
concerning "repressed memory," UFOs, the militias' involvement in
Oklahoma City, astrology, religious beliefs of all kinds,
philosophy, metaphysics, etc., etc., etc. I would estimate, in
fact, that less than half of the sci.skeptic traffic deals with
"hard" science issues even on a *good* week.
With the possible exception of sci.med, *every* newsgroup on the
list is concerned with VERY "soft" science: sci.psychology.misc,
sci.philosophy.tech, sci.philosophy.meta, sci.skeptic.
> Must we disagree on every little detail, Lawson? I thought you
> had a job now.
There was no "disagreement" involved here. You made a
disingenuous comment involving a deliberate factual error in
context, which Lawson pointed out. And it was the only comment
of any substance you were able to make in response to his post.
Let's just have another look at the remark of "Honest" John at
the beginning of this exchange:
> My it appears this study has really gotten under your skin. I
> thought you found it laughable on its face, and that all your
> scientific friends "snickered" at it?
Given Lawson's response, it appears the relevant reply from
"Honest" John would have been an apology for his unwarranted
cheap shot. Rather than proffer such, he chose to attempt to
obscure the issue with the red herring about "hard" science
newsgroups.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@cnct.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Naugler
> : I would appreciate any comments/criticism/etc. to the methodolgy
> : used and how this might effect the conclusions of the study.
>
> : The complete study is available at
>
> : <http://www.trancenet.org>
On the basis of anectodotal evidence from 67 people the German
government has declared something so inoccuous as transencendental
meditation to be a destructive cult. WAKE UP PEOPLE! To ask for comments
and criticisms of the methodology used, is to invite people to fall into
the pit occupied by the authors. Remember, it the same German government
which declared Judeism to be be a destructive cult. It is in fact the
German government which is a destructive cult. Fascism is inherent in
the German style of government. Reunification of Germany was a mistake.
If history repeats itself, you will see more and more of this sort of
social problem solving by the German government. Remember the final
solution? Don't fall for it. Denounce it now!
Lawson English
anecdotal, but use the fact that it was by the German government as an
excuse to recall the actions of the Nazis. I'll admit that I've done the
same, by inuendo, but the study should stand or fall on its own merits,
not due to some coinicidental resemblance to thankfully ancient history.
David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
:
: > : I would appreciate any comments/criticism/etc. to the methodolgy
: > : used and how this might effect the conclusions of the study.
: >
: > : The complete study is available at
: >
: > : <http://www.trancenet.org>
: On the basis of anectodotal evidence from 67 people the German
: government has declared something so inoccuous as transencendental
: meditation to be a destructive cult. WAKE UP PEOPLE! To ask for comments
: and criticisms of the methodology used, is to invite people to fall into
: the pit occupied by the authors. Remember, it the same German government
: which declared Judeism to be be a destructive cult. It is in fact the
: German government which is a destructive cult. Fascism is inherent in
: the German style of government. Reunification of Germany was a mistake.
: If history repeats itself, you will see more and more of this sort of
: social problem solving by the German government. Remember the final
: solution? Don't fall for it. Denounce it now!
--
Lawson English
It seems to me that it is more for the purpose of compliling negative
studies, anecdotes, etc., about TM, and claiming that it "presents the
'other side'" than it is for actually providing a genuine service.
Y'see, whenever John posts anything about the German study, he either
posts pages of negative comments from folks, are posts carefully snipt
quotes that make the study sound better than it really is.
Ditto with all the other studies that he cites.
I'll not deny that some folks might suffer ill effects due to TM, but the
only such study that I am aware of is from the Hartford Institute of
LIving, where it was foudn that a small percentage of the patients
couldn't handle TM without careful supervision.
And these were residents of a mental hospital!
The only other negative effects that *I* am aware of can easily be
handled by the standard suggestions given to folks with minor problems
due to TM:
increase sleep at night.
increase resting before/after meditation.
increase exercise before/after meditation.
decrease time spent meditating.
In the case of the subjects interviewed by the German "study," at least one
"victim" was reported to meditate as much as 8 *HOURS* per day.
Apparently this study did not include references to TM-SIdhis practitioners,
who might do a program 2x daily that would include 1/2 hour of stretching
and breathing exercises twice daily (the webmaster for Trancenet has
insisted that yogic stretching and breathing exercises are
trance-inducing), but only 8 hours of TM, which is 12x as much as the
suggested *maximum* time for anyone to practice TM at home atside a
supervised retreat (normally even these retreats only have folks doing 4x
20 minutes per day, not 24x20 minutes!).
The anology here is to compile complaints about ill effects due to taking
100 tablets of Tylanol per day, claiming that the makers never warned
anyone that these effects would occur when the box clearly states that no-one
should take more than 8 tablets in a single day (something conveniently
ignored by the compiler of complaints about Tylanol).
When such blatant (and concealed) bias exists, how can anyone hope to get
a clear picture of the "down-side" of TM?
As well, when layman without any background in science or statistics try
to understand what a study implies, they can often get the wrong idea
when non-peer-reviewed research is lumped in with peer-reviewed research.
This is also what is done by the TM organization, but the studies that
ARE peer-reviewed and large enough to take seriously all counter the
small, poorly designed studies listed on Trancenet.
Both the TM organization and Trancenet give one-sided accounts. However,
the majority of research and anecdotes available suggest that the TM
organization has more evidence to back up its TM-is-good-for-you claims
than Trancenet has evidence to claim otherwise.
In fact, none of the studies listed by trancenet are of sufficient
statistical power to mean *anything* save that statistical power issues
are still ignored in many peer reviewed journals.
David K. Lyndes <dly...@houston.berger.com> wrote:
: David Naugler wrote:
: > On the basis of anectodotal evidence from 67 people the German
: > government has declared something so inoccuous as transencendental
: > meditation to be a destructive cult. WAKE UP PEOPLE! To ask for
: > comments and criticisms of the methodology used, is to invite
: > people to fall into the pit occupied by the authors.
: Since when is critical debate an invitation to error? Do
: you think of ideas as diseases one might catch if one
: gets too close? Or are you inviting us to merely accept
: your word that TM is innocuous?
: The whole point of the web page is to give anyone who
: care access to the data, methodology and arguments used
: to support the claims against TM. Look for yourself
: and see if the data supports the conclusion; but don't
: try to tell me I have to accept your word without evidence!
: +--------------------+------------------------------+
: | David Lyndes | The opinions expressed are |
: | dly...@berger.com | not those of Berger & Co., |
: | Berger & Co. | nor (probably) are they mine |
: +--------------------+------------------------------+
David Naugler
>
> This wasn't really what I was looking for. You DO note that it is
> anecdotal, but use the fact that it was by the German government as an
> excuse to recall the actions of the Nazis. I'll admit that I've done the
> same, by inuendo, but the study should stand or fall on its own merits,
> not due to some coinicidental resemblance to thankfully ancient history.
Is this really ancient history? That is really subjective and depends on how
old you perceive yourself to be. There is a theory of history which states
that history tends to repeat itself with a time period about the length of
collective memory. The major historical highlite of the twentieth century
was the fight against Fascism. I'm sure you have forgotten. But if you start
to do a little research on the subject you find the tendency towards Fascism
latent in most nations including your own. If you think this is something
which is ancient you are wrong. Do a little net search and you'll discover
many web sites promoting Nazism, Aryan superiority etc. I don't know where
you stand politically, but many social tendencies are now so right wing as
to be labled correctly as fascist. If you believe that certain innately
condemnable actions can be justified by sociological research done with the
proper methodology, then you too can be labeled fascist. I think it is clear
that what is required is not better methodology in sociological research,
but better historical research and perspective. Else not only may history
become repetitive but the history of research can become repetitive.
Lawson English
You have a point, but in this case (at least), the methodology, and the
interpretation of the results of hte study that the researchers give it,
should stand or fall on their own merits.
In this case, the question(s) is (are):
Is the methodology sound?
WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
WOuld the conclusions of the study contained in the editorial comments
spewed (couldn't think of a nicer term, sorry) throughout the study be
allowed if it DID pass peer review?
My own opinion is that such questions, if answered the way that *I* think
that objective scientists would answer them, would deny this study any
place in any peer-reviewed journal -at least without a *major* rewrite.
The questions that you raise (I think) about ethics, the history the Nazi
government in using pseudo-science to justify treatment of Jews, Gypsies,
etc., don't need to be addressed here since if the purely technical
questions were answered the way I think that they would be, the
comparison of this study to studies published justifying the treatment of
Jews would never arise (since the study couldn't be published -at least,
as is).
In fact, I think that were the standards of science applied to the Nazi
studies that they couldn't have been used to justify anything back then,
either.
The question "WHY such a bad study on TM is being used to set German
government policy?" is interesting in and of itself, but my purpose is to
verify, using input from folks who are NOT true believers (such as myself)
or former true believers (such as the publisher of the Trancenet
web-page), that the study really is as bad as I think that it is.
The "Why" question is quite important from a social, political and
historical point of view, but that is (or at least CAN be) a seperate
issue from the question "IS the study as bad as I think it is?"
In this case, in my opinion, the only ethics that the researchers would be
required to have is that they apply normal standards of science to
their research design. ONce that is done, the question of how the study
could be used by unethical, cruel, immoral or evil politicians would never
need to be addressed, since the study would never have been published -at
least not in this form.
David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
: >
: > This wasn't really what I was looking for. You DO note that it is
: > anecdotal, but use the fact that it was by the German government as an
: > excuse to recall the actions of the Nazis. I'll admit that I've done the
: > same, by inuendo, but the study should stand or fall on its own merits,
: > not due to some coinicidental resemblance to thankfully ancient history.
: Is this really ancient history? That is really subjective and depends on how
: old you perceive yourself to be. There is a theory of history which states
: that history tends to repeat itself with a time period about the length of
: collective memory. The major historical highlite of the twentieth century
: was the fight against Fascism. I'm sure you have forgotten. But if you start
: to do a little research on the subject you find the tendency towards Fascism
: latent in most nations including your own. If you think this is something
: which is ancient you are wrong. Do a little net search and you'll discover
: many web sites promoting Nazism, Aryan superiority etc. I don't know where
: you stand politically, but many social tendencies are now so right wing as
: to be labled correctly as fascist. If you believe that certain innately
: condemnable actions can be justified by sociological research done with the
: proper methodology, then you too can be labeled fascist. I think it is clear
: that what is required is not better methodology in sociological research,
: but better historical research and perspective. Else not only may history
: become repetitive but the history of research can become repetitive.
--
Roger D. Nelson
About the German "study" apparently being used as a source of policy
making information by some part of the German govt. I have not read the
original material; only the synopsized version provided by English.
I have done a large scale review of meditation, including specific
examination of many of the TM sponsored studies. Those studies have
increased in quality and rigor of design over the years, and while doing
so have generally shown essentially the same results, which, furthermore
are consonant with results in other, non-TM studies. The main findings
are that meditation is modestly beneficial in promoting and maintaining
physical and mental health. There is less material available on the
question whether TM (or meditation in general) might have harmful side
effects, but in this area the most prominent findings were that extreme
and lengthy meditation practice may cause disorientation in some people,
and that mental health patients, especially psychotics, might become
more, rather than less troubled. In my opinion, both these negative
indications are predictable, and neither has anything to say about
meditation, per se, including TM, but rather are indications that
unstable people may do unreasonable and potentially harmful things.
Rendering my opinion on what I know of the German "study":
>In this case, the question(s) is (are):
>
>Is the methodology sound?
No.
>WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
Not in any journal with an objective or non-partisan editorial staff.
>WOuld the conclusions of the study contained in the editorial comments
>spewed (couldn't think of a nicer term, sorry) throughout the study be
>allowed if it DID pass peer review?
Same answer as above.
>The question "WHY such a bad study on TM is being used to set German
>government policy?" is interesting in and of itself, but my purpose is to
>verify, using input from folks who are NOT true believers (such as myself)
>or former true believers (such as the publisher of the Trancenet
>web-page), that the study really is as bad as I think that it is.
"Why" questions are usually very interesting and most difficult.
Purely to speculate, I would look for a single individual within or
closely connected to the relevant bureaucracy who has strong feelings
about the matter, for whatever reason. He or she cares, and most of the
responsible people don't, leaving the field open for leadership by the
individual with conviction. He or she could then influence the design
of the study and the selection of material, etc.
Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
where the money flows."
--
Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993
email: rdne...@princeton.edu
Lawson English
: About the German "study" apparently being used as a source of policy
: making information by some part of the German govt. I have not read the
: original material; only the synopsized version provided by English.
Aside from the "[...]" that IS the methodology section as supplied on the
Trancenet Web-page. The only thing that was left out (the [...]) was the
editorializing about how so many people were afraid of TM organization
reprisal that they only got a few folks to respond. It was about a (longish)
paragraph or two long.
The Trancenet webmaster (journalist according to him) portrays the entire
presentation as given on http://www.trancenet.org as the full text and
graphics of the study, so unless I missed something, what I gave is all
that is provided concerning the methodology of subject-selection.
: I have done a large scale review of meditation, including specific
: examination of many of the TM sponsored studies. Those studies have
: increased in quality and rigor of design over the years, and while doing
: so have generally shown essentially the same results, which, furthermore
: are consonant with results in other, non-TM studies. The main findings
: are that meditation is modestly beneficial in promoting and maintaining
: physical and mental health. There is less material available on the
: question whether TM (or meditation in general) might have harmful side
: effects, but in this area the most prominent findings were that extreme
: and lengthy meditation practice may cause disorientation in some people,
: and that mental health patients, especially psychotics, might become
: more, rather than less troubled. In my opinion, both these negative
: indications are predictable, and neither has anything to say about
: meditation, per se, including TM, but rather are indications that
: unstable people may do unreasonable and potentially harmful things.
That has been my opinion for several years as well:
most folks benefit to some extent, but perhaps not enough to justify to
themselves setting aside 20 minutes twice daily (most people don't jog
either, even if the doctor tells them to exercise more, so this doesn't
really mean too much, benefits-wise).
Some folks get more ou;t of it than others, and some may find it less
than healthy to do save in carefully supervised settings which no longer
exist for many mentally ill persons.
: Rendering my opinion on what I know of the German "study":
[basic agreement with my impressions, snipt]
: "Why" questions are usually very interesting and most difficult.
: Purely to speculate, I would look for a single individual within or
: closely connected to the relevant bureaucracy who has strong feelings
: about the matter, for whatever reason. He or she cares, and most of the
: responsible people don't, leaving the field open for leadership by the
: individual with conviction. He or she could then influence the design
: of the study and the selection of material, etc.
: Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
: where the money flows."
Hmmm...
How strong is the German equivalent of the AMA?
[paranoia creeping in again, I suspect...]
David K. Lyndes
Lawson English
the German study, is it any wonder that Believers would take offense?
I don't like bringing this facism aspect up, and such things have (and
will) occur in my own country, but the TM study endorsed by the German
government DOES appear to give carte blanche to the German government to
do just about anything they want to TMers, TM teachers, etc.
From a scientific point of view, it is worthless (IMHO). It is really
frightening that the German Supreme Court upheld the government's right
to do anything with the study.
WHat is even more frightening is the fact that US newspapers are taking
the fact that the German government has endorsed this study as meaning
that the study is worthwhile.
I'm real tempted to forward this thread to the reporter that mentioned
the study in the SF Chronicle as though it were reputable.
David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> wrote:
: Lawson English wrote:
: >
: > You have a point, but in this case (at least), the methodology, and the
: > interpretation of the results of hte study that the researchers give it,
: > should stand or fall on their own merits.
: >
: > In this case, the question(s) is (are):
: >
: > Is the methodology sound?
: >
: > WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
: No reputable university would allow the proposal of such a study past the
: ethics committee, so the study would never be done in such a university. It
: is trivial to go out and find 100 citizens to denounce something or other. It
: is taken for granted that hatred is commonplace. So such a study panders to
: hate. It is by nature offensive, so it is no surprise that offense is taken.
: The question of peer review is not really appropriate. There are
: organizations that will fund research whose objective is to prove some theory
: of racial superiority, for example. With proper selection of one peers one
: can publish such work. It is the greater community which takes offence.
: For the record I have no opinion on TM, but I cannot abide latent fascism
: disguised as legimate research and presented in forum that I read.
David Naugler
>
> Since when is critical debate an invitation to error? Do
> you think of ideas as diseases one might catch if one
> gets too close? Or are you inviting us to merely accept
> your word that TM is innocuous?
>
> The whole point of the web page is to give anyone who
> care access to the data, methodology and arguments used
> to support the claims against TM. Look for yourself
> and see if the data supports the conclusion; but don't
> try to tell me I have to accept your word without evidence!
This IS critical debate. Your's is merely a debating tactic, a trick
really, to focus attention away from the important issue towards the
unimportant details of one study. If you think that words of that nature
qualify you as a towering academic, think again!
David Naugler
>
> You have a point, but in this case (at least), the methodology, and the
> interpretation of the results of hte study that the researchers give it,
> should stand or fall on their own merits.
>
> In this case, the question(s) is (are):
>
> Is the methodology sound?
>
> WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
No reputable university would allow the proposal of such a study past the
John M. Knapp
(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
> In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
<eng...@primenet.com> writes:
>
> About the German "study" apparently being used as a source of policy
> making information by some part of the German govt. I have not read the
> original material; only the synopsized version provided by English.
> I have done a large scale review of meditation, including specific
> examination of many of the TM sponsored studies. Those studies have
> increased in quality and rigor of design over the years, and while doing
> so have generally shown essentially the same results, which, furthermore
> are consonant with results in other, non-TM studies. The main findings
> are that meditation is modestly beneficial in promoting and maintaining
> physical and mental health. There is less material available on the
> question whether TM (or meditation in general) might have harmful side
> effects, but in this area the most prominent findings were that extreme
> and lengthy meditation practice may cause disorientation in some people,
> and that mental health patients, especially psychotics, might become
> more, rather than less troubled. In my opinion, both these negative
> indications are predictable, and neither has anything to say about
> meditation, per se, including TM, but rather are indications that
> unstable people may do unreasonable and potentially harmful things.
Unfortunately, the point is that the TM movement itself instructs
long-term meditators ("sidhas") to meditate for 3 to 8 hours a day. I
agree that most studies find pretty much any form of meditation beneficial
to a finite degree. As practiced by the TM Movement, however, there
certainly is a body of evidence to raise the question about harmful side
effects for a significant minority.
J
---
*What's _your_ mantra?* http://www.trancenet.org
Join our free email list by messaging 'majo...@sadie.digex.net' with the following one-line command in the BODY: subscribe trance-l
"I said whatever problems I might or might not have, TM is not making them better, it is making them worse and I decided to leave.... I felt like I was crossing from slavery into freedom." Mitch Kapor, Founder Lotus, Inc., EFF -- http://www.trancenet.org/personal
Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
> : In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
<eng...@primenet.com> writes:
>
<snip>
> : Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
> : where the money flows."
>
>
> Hmmm...
>
> How strong is the German equivalent of the AMA?
>
> [paranoia creeping in again, I suspect...]
>
Hmmm, for those puzzled by this outburst, you should know that the
Maharishi and many of his followers believe that both the CIA and AMA have
vendettas against the TM movement. The CIA is said to be both frightened
of the growing power of the TM movement (to laugh) and envious of their
mental techniques (the sidhis). The AMA is said to fear the rising power
of alternative medicine, especially TM meditation and Maharishi Ayur Veda
-- hard to believe given the nearly zero growth rate of both.
With regard to the money flow: TM reportedly has gathered a fortune of
$3.5 billion in somewhat less than 40 years (actually in less than 25
years, for the most part). What money could the German government be
garnering for warning its citizens about TM?
Of all the meditation techniques taught in Germany, why would they single
out TM for a warning? How would this benefit them?
Remembering the constant association with the authors of the German study
and Nazis: The Nazis singled out the rather large and visible population
of Jews as a convenient scapegoat for the crippled economy and political
power that Germany was experiencing before World War II. Why would they
single a tiny, insiginificant group of Germans for such treatment simply
for practising a meditation technique?
It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
organizations.
Lawson English
: <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
: > Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
: > : In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
: <eng...@primenet.com> writes:
: >
: <snip>
: > : Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
: > : where the money flows."
: >
: >
: > Hmmm...
: >
: > How strong is the German equivalent of the AMA?
: >
: > [paranoia creeping in again, I suspect...]
: >
: Hmmm, for those puzzled by this outburst, you should know that the
: Maharishi and many of his followers believe that both the CIA and AMA have
: vendettas against the TM movement. The CIA is said to be both frightened
: of the growing power of the TM movement (to laugh) and envious of their
: mental techniques (the sidhis). The AMA is said to fear the rising power
: of alternative medicine, especially TM meditation and Maharishi Ayur Veda
: -- hard to believe given the nearly zero growth rate of both.
Er, who has said that the CIA is frightened of the "growing power of the
TM movement?" It has been speculated on a.m.t. that if Maharishi Mahesh
Yogi really was/is worried about the CIA, it might be because the CIA
investigates *every* fringe group.
It has also been pointed out that the CIA apparently has *used* people
with purported "psychic abilities," and that this might have been a
rationale for worrying that the CIA was interested in the TM-SIdhis
program specifically.
Finally, I reported the rumor that *I* heard many years ago that
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had been approached by certain high-ranking members of
the TM
organization who privately "confessed" to him that they were members of the
CIA assigned to investigate him and since they were now convinced that he
was the "real thing," they were feeling guilty about investigating him
and could he ever forgive them, blah, blah, blah...? MMY's response is
said to have been that he had nothing to hide and that they were welcome
to continue reporting his actions and words to their superiors without
any fear that he would comdemn their actions.
I have no idea as to whether any of the rumors, speculations, etc are
true, but at least the rumor that *I* reported is in keeping with the
public and private words and actions that I've heard about MMY over the
past 20 years. Your claims about MMY and company worrying about the CIA
worrying about the "power" of the TM organization are rather 'odd' in that
context and I don't remember anyone (even yourself) speculating about
this before on the a.m.t. newsgroup.
As far as the AMA goes, I think anyone who actually examines how the AMA
has dealt with TM, Maharishi Ayurveda, and vitamins and exercise, for
that matter, will realize that the AMA is *always* worried about possible
revenue loss for its members. And the claim that Maharishi Ayurveda has a
near-zero growth-rate seems odd, given that Deepak CHopra, whose Quantum
Healing stuff is based almost exclusively on Maharishi Ayurveda (he used
to be the world-wide *head* of Maharishi Ayurveda) has published two NYT
best-selling books based on MA, and makes regular appearances on the
talk-show circuit (including a special 1 hour interview with Oprah), and
makes regular appearances on PBS.
Further, while not all (or even most) Maharishi Ayurveda universities are
doing well, the fact is that about 20 large facilities -the one in
Phoenix, AZ has 200+ rooms and some are (as many as 600 rooms) larger-
are at least partly dedicated to MA therapies, training, etc.
Lurkers should note that John is well aware of these facts since he has
used them to support his contentions about how evil TM et al are.
: With regard to the money flow: TM reportedly has gathered a fortune of
: $3.5 billion in somewhat less than 40 years (actually in less than 25
: years, for the most part). What money could the German government be
: garnering for warning its citizens about TM?
I wonder at this figure of $3.5 billion, but regardless: MMY directed the
TM organization to make many,
MANY purchases of land and buildings over the years and most of the money
in the TM organization is probably locked away in such purchases. For
instance, the TM university in Iowa was bought for about 3-5 million
dollars, and is now worth many times that much due to rennovation and
inhancement of the property (it was a wreck, by all accounts, and now
serves as the most important center for TM activity in the Western
Hemisphere). Given the rise in value for a property that goes from from
being a total WRECK to being a viable university, the boost in TM
holdings from MIU alone would be a 10-20x return on the investment.
Nothing sinister about such growth in investment holdings: the land and
buildings went from no-use to full-use.
: Of all the meditation techniques taught in Germany, why would they single
: out TM for a warning? How would this benefit them?
TM is almost certainly the largest meditation organization in the Western
World. if anyone had an agenda against all meditation techniques, the
easiest way to fulfill that agenda would be to attack the most prominent
and allow guilt by association to condemn the rest.
WHY anyone has such an agenda, I have no idea. But the fact that this
study saw the light of day certainly supports my assumption -IMHO.
: Remembering the constant association with the authors of the German study
: and Nazis: The Nazis singled out the rather large and visible population
: of Jews as a convenient scapegoat for the crippled economy and political
: power that Germany was experiencing before World War II. Why would they
: single a tiny, insiginificant group of Germans for such treatment simply
: for practising a meditation technique?
Why would the German government use such a blatantly BAD study to set
policy for any purpose whatsoever?
: It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
: that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
: effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
: thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
: organizations.
The study is obviously (to virtually everone on the 'Net save yourself
and a few sympathizers) bogus. To try to portray anyone that objects to
the study and the uses that is being put to (I've heard that German high
schoolers are required to watch a "Reefer Madness" -like video about the
dangers of TM) as exhibiting "grandiose paranoia" is, well, grandiose
paranoia.
And BTW, in my not so humble opinion, to suggest that the Branch
Davidians were a "mature cultic organization," is to *really* stretch the
term "mature" and reveals your obsessive need to find some way of
condemning TM using every possible technique, including guilt by
association with a bunch of pathetic people living on a farm in Texas.
What next? Are you going to suggest that Mike Love of the Beach Boys (a
TMer of some note), Clint Eastwood (another TMer of some note), and the
surviving Beatles (all of whom are still rumored to practice TM, although
probably not regularly) will now barracade themselves inside the "Golden
Domes" of MIU and have a fire fight with the local sherrif?
"Grandiose paranoia" indeed.
<snort>
The frightening thing is that you've managed to convince at least the San
Francisco Chronicle that this German study has merit, and you've suggested
that other newspapers around the world are following in their footsteps,
presumably due to your actions in promoting the study.
Lawson English
: In article <4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
: <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
[snipt]
: >
: > Aside from the "[...]" that IS the methodology section as supplied on the
: > Trancenet Web-page. The only thing that was left out (the [...]) was the
: > editorializing about how so many people were afraid of TM organization
: > reprisal that they only got a few folks to respond. It was about a (longish)
: > paragraph or two long.
: An important datum to snip, Lawson.
: <snip>
Rather than descend into attempts to argue the point, here is the section
with "controversial" section restored. I left it out the first time
because I didn't think that it contributed anything to the question of
methodology, but since you suggest that it does, here is the entire
section.
Now folks can decide for themselves if what I omitted anything of
importance. The question of what kind of "reprisals" could be brought
against folks by the TM organization is left for discussion, as are the
scientific definitions of "many people" and similar phrases found in the
omitted section:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEMS AND THE EXECUTION OF THE INVESTIGATION
2.1. STARTING POINT
Even at the beginning of the investigation there existed many
contacts with people who had come to us on account of the T.M.
organization. In many cases people asked directly for help because
difficulties of various kinds had arisen as a result of their links
with T.M. This was apart from any information they intended to give
us on the subject. This network was the starting point for our
investigation.
[omitted section starts here]
Our aim was to systematically establish the entire spectrum of
reasons and causes for voluntary and involuntary departure from the
T.M. organization, as well as problems which arose in the course
thereof. In doing this, we were confronted with the following
difficulty, that from the many contacts we had with ex-meditators or
their relatives, only a few were prepared to give unconditional
information on their experiences before a third party. Many said
repeatedly that they wanted to forget those experiences (of T.M.),
were taking their children into account, or were afraid of reprisals
or retaliation on the part of the T.M. movement. Therefore we had to
give a guarantee of anonymity to those involved in the
questionnaires.
[omitted section ends here]
[...]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
--
John M. Knapp
> Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
> : In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
<eng...@primenet.com> writes:
><snip>
>
> Aside from the "[...]" that IS the methodology section as supplied on the
> Trancenet Web-page. The only thing that was left out (the [...]) was the
> editorializing about how so many people were afraid of TM organization
> reprisal that they only got a few folks to respond. It was about a (longish)
> paragraph or two long.
An important datum to snip, Lawson.
<snip>
> That has been my opinion for several years as well:
>
> most folks benefit to some extent, but perhaps not enough to justify to
> themselves setting aside 20 minutes twice daily (most people don't jog
> either, even if the doctor tells them to exercise more, so this doesn't
> really mean too much, benefits-wise).
>
> Some folks get more ou;t of it than others, and some may find it less
> than healthy to do save in carefully supervised settings which no longer
> exist for many mentally ill persons.
We agree on this much, Lawson. In fact, I even seem to remember hearing
you agree that TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a minority of
practitioners. Where do we disagree?
John M. Knapp
> In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
<eng...@primenet.com> writes:
<snip>
You really ought to read the study before passing judgement. It's at
http://www.trancenet.org/research. If necessary I could email you the
entire 150 pages.
> >In this case, the question(s) is (are):
> >
> >Is the methodology sound?
>
> No.
Why and how not? Also, could you share your credentials to add weight to
your opinion?
>
> >WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
>
> Not in any journal with an objective or non-partisan editorial staff.
>
> >WOuld the conclusions of the study contained in the editorial comments
> >spewed (couldn't think of a nicer term, sorry) throughout the study be
> >allowed if it DID pass peer review?
>
> Same answer as above.
Strange answer, since you admit you didn't read it.
>
> >The question "WHY such a bad study on TM is being used to set German
> >government policy?" is interesting in and of itself, but my purpose is to
> >verify, using input from folks who are NOT true believers (such as myself)
> >or former true believers (such as the publisher of the Trancenet
> >web-page), that the study really is as bad as I think that it is.
>
> "Why" questions are usually very interesting and most difficult.
> Purely to speculate, I would look for a single individual within or
> closely connected to the relevant bureaucracy who has strong feelings
> about the matter, for whatever reason. He or she cares, and most of the
> responsible people don't, leaving the field open for leadership by the
> individual with conviction. He or she could then influence the design
> of the study and the selection of material, etc.
>
> Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
> where the money flows."
I can accept this. With $3.5 billion in TM coffers isn't it rather obvious
why the TM organization was so desperate to hush up the German study in
the German courts -- and perhaps why it's being targeted for such biased
attack on this newsgroup?
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>
> In the case of the subjects interviewed by the German "study," at least one
> "victim" was reported to meditate as much as 8 *HOURS* per day.
> Apparently this study did not include references to TM-SIdhis practitioners,
> who might do a program 2x daily that would include 1/2 hour of stretching
> and breathing exercises twice daily (the webmaster for Trancenet has
> insisted that yogic stretching and breathing exercises are
> trance-inducing), but only 8 hours of TM, which is 12x as much as the
> suggested *maximum* time for anyone to practice TM at home atside a
> supervised retreat (normally even these retreats only have folks doing 4x
> 20 minutes per day, not 24x20 minutes!).
Please cite the passage. The German study definitely included sidhas.
Also, many TMers have instructions for much more than 2 x 20. Although
most have been given instructions for only 20 minutes of TM at a time,
many including myself have been instructed to meditate many times during
the day. As I've discussed before, although not frequent, there are many
TMers who spend as much as 8 hours a day in "program."
>
> The anology here is to compile complaints about ill effects due to taking
> 100 tablets of Tylanol per day, claiming that the makers never warned
> anyone that these effects would occur when the box clearly states that no-one
> should take more than 8 tablets in a single day (something conveniently
> ignored by the compiler of complaints about Tylanol).
Not true. Many TMers have been assigned programs from 3 to 8 hours a day,
Lawson. The analogy to Tylenol is not apropos.
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comment. When NON-TMers take such offense at the design of
> the German study, is it any wonder that Believers would take offense?
>
> I don't like bringing this facism aspect up, and such things have (and
> will) occur in my own country, but the TM study endorsed by the German
> government DOES appear to give carte blanche to the German government to
> do just about anything they want to TMers, TM teachers, etc.
>
Then why do you do it so frequently? Are you in fact saying that anything
reported by the German government is tainted by facism? C'mon Tilmann are
you going to sit back and take this?
> From a scientific point of view, it is worthless (IMHO). It is really
> frightening that the German Supreme Court upheld the government's right
> to do anything with the study.
>
> WHat is even more frightening is the fact that US newspapers are taking
> the fact that the German government has endorsed this study as meaning
> that the study is worthwhile.
Naturally I can see why you would be threatened when the major belief
system in your life is under attack.
I have trouble believing that most nonbiased readers wouldn't take the
German federal courts ruling and the German government's subsequent action
to warn its citizens against TM _very_ seriously.
>
> I'm real tempted to forward this thread to the reporter that mentioned
> the study in the SF Chronicle as though it were reputable.
You really ought to. I think Ed Epstein will see this thread for just what
it is. His address is eps...@sfgate.com, in case you've misplaced it.
Roger D. Nelson
>In article <4cn29u$m...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
>
>> In article <4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> Lawson English
><eng...@primenet.com> writes:
><snip>
>
>
>You really ought to read the study before passing judgement. It's at
>http://www.trancenet.org/research. If necessary I could email you the
>entire 150 pages.
Since we are deeply buried in snow, I did go to the study, and read a
great deal of it. I don't feel much differently as a result, with regard
to the quality of the study, but I now know the context well enough to
understand better the original purposes. This appears to be an effort
to provide counselors of troubled youth some information on a particular
source of trouble, namely TM. The majority of interviewees are either
parents (n=30) or spouses (10) and the rest (n=27) are ex-meditators,
who are further broken down for certain purposes into ordinary, siddha,
TM teacher, checker, or governor subclasses. None of these numbers are
very large, and although there is an apology for the sampling method
(snowball, where an interviewee indroduces someone else who may be willing)
(note: at first I thought it was mere self-selection, but no, it's worse.)
claiming a "representative cross-section", it is abundantly clear that
the sample is representative only of people who were motivated to quit TM,
or were unhappy that their child or spouse was participating in TM.
There's nothing wrong with that as long as it is acknowledged and there
is no attempt to generalize the findings, nor to claim they are
"scientific". Unfortunately, the impression is strong that precisely
such generalization is occuring. As for the "scientific" aspects, there
is so much to criticize about the design of the questionaire and the
personality profile techniques that I won't even begin. English and
others have already pointed out some of the more egregious faults.
How should I interpret the vegetarianism issue -- presented as if
vegetarian tendencies are a problem, with a transparent apology "now
don't get us wrong, we don't think vegetarianism is bad"? And how
should I interpret the question "was the exercise of free will
influenced?" -- there isn't even a direction indicated; an answer can be
to either of two diametrically opposed implicit questions.
>
>> >In this case, the question(s) is (are):
>> >
>> >Is the methodology sound?
Probably not even for the primary research question:
The investigation has as its aim to systematically establish
the motives of an individual for beginning T.M., the
implications of the practice for this individual and his social
circle, as well as to pinpoint the reasons for a voluntary or
involuntary ceasing of the practice of T.M. meditation, or, in some
cases, individuals distancing themselves from the movement
Nearly all I read in the study was concerned with problems -- the latter
part of the question. And given the inadequacy of the sampling
procedure, even these results must be regarded as quite limited in scope.
>
>Why and how not? Also, could you share your credentials to add weight to
>your opinion?
Not quite sure what you want to know about my credentials, but it may be
relevant that I specialize in experimental design and analytical
strategies for "difficult" topics. You may be interested in my relation
to TM; there is none. I've never taken their basic course, though I
have studied many forms of meditation including TM. I even practice
meditation, though in a comparatively mild and quite personal fashion.
>
>>
>> >WOuld such a study have passed peer review as written?
>>
>> Not in any journal with an objective or non-partisan editorial staff.
>>
>> >WOuld the conclusions of the study contained in the editorial comments
>> >spewed (couldn't think of a nicer term, sorry) throughout the study be
>> >allowed if it DID pass peer review?
>>
>> Same answer as above.
>
>Strange answer, since you admit you didn't read it.
This can be no more than an opinion -- at least I'm not going to spend
any time further justifying it -- but for what it's worth, I think the
report is pretty biased. Possibly so because that is merely what was
intended: they wanted to know things that would help counselors deal
with people who had problems related to TM. I couldn't help noticing,
however, the ironic nature of the critique made by the authors of the
report of the Kriffki study. It said positive things about TM, and they
said just the sort of negative things about Kriffki's study that are
here being said about the Bensheim study.
By the way, the translation of Deutchemark to Dollars is pretty screwy,
based on a ratio of $1.31 per DM. The actual rate now is about 1.4 DM
per Dollar (Gott sei dank!), and in 1980 it was probably more than 2 DM
per Dollar. In a weak moment I would wonder about the rest of the
translation.
Best wishes,
David K. Lyndes
> On the basis of anectodotal evidence from 67 people the German
> government has declared something so inoccuous as transencendental
> meditation to be a destructive cult. WAKE UP PEOPLE! To ask for
> comments and criticisms of the methodology used, is to invite
> people to fall into the pit occupied by the authors.
David K. Lyndes <dly...@houston.berger.com> wrote:
> Since when is critical debate an invitation to error? Do
> you think of ideas as diseases one might catch if one
> gets too close? Or are you inviting us to merely accept
> your word that TM is innocuous?
>
> The whole point of the web page is to give anyone who
> care access to the data, methodology and arguments used
> to support the claims against TM. Look for yourself
> and see if the data supports the conclusion; but don't
> try to tell me I have to accept your word without evidence!
Lawson English wrote:
> Actually, I'm not at all convinced that that is what the
> web-page is for. It seems to me that it is more for the
> purpose of compliling negative studies, anecdotes, etc.,
> about TM, and claiming that it "presents the 'other side'"
> than it is for actually providing a genuine service.
That IS a genuine service.
> Y'see, whenever John posts anything about the German
> study, he either posts pages of negative comments
> from folks, are posts carefully snipt quotes that
> make the study sound better than it really is.
>
> Ditto with all the other studies that he cites.
This much we can see for ourselves. What I objected to
in Naugler's posting was his claim that belief that
access to the source material, debate and comment should
be stiffled.
> [... stuff about the whether TM is good or bad]
I frankly do not care a fig about whether TM is
or is not dangerous or healthy. The point is
that your comments about the value of TM are
part of open debate; the net is a mode by which
misinformation can be *corrected* as well as spread.
But Mr. Naugler is so skeptical of rational debate
that he thinks "To ask for comments and criticisms
of the methodology used, is to invite people to fall
into the pit occupied by the authors." That is an
attitude which I find totalitarian and repugnant.
Lawson English
: These situations include:
: *ALWAYS* only if you are currently comfortable with your practice at the
: current length.
I should note that the word "comfort" refers not only to being
comfortable DURING TM et al. practice, but ALSO to being comfortable and
happy and fulfilled in your life *outside* of TM et al. practice.
Because of this "comfort" clause, it should be impossible (literally) for
someone to start having the kind of experiences that are cited in the
German study and if they DO manage to have them, they should know enough
to drop back to a previous level of participation in the program where
they didn't have them.
If all else failed, they could consult with their local TM center. That
is the most important reason why it is there.
In fact, some "victims" of the "TM cult" WERE in constant contact with the
local TM center, according to the German "study," presumably because these
"victims" had decided to go against the explicit instructions and had gotten
into trouble by meditating 8 hours per day, or somesuch, even though they
no longer could function while doing so.
And TM-only meditators are instructed NEVER meditate more than 20 minutes
twice daily outside of controlled residence courses
unless they are sick, or have received special instructions to the
contrary (e.g. are retired or learned TM back in the 60's) which appears NOT
to be the case in the German "study."
Lawson English
: evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
: allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
: by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
In the case of John's claims about TMers being told to meditate/practice
'program' for 3-8 hours/day, he is being quite deceptive, IMHO.
Ever since Maharishi Mahesh Yogi noted that Westerners were having
problems with long periods of meditation, with or without periods of
yogic exercise between them (yoga exercise + yoga breathing + meditation
= 1 'round' in TM parlance), he directed the TM organization to cut back
on the time of meditation and the maximum # of rounds. This was in the
late 1960's.
John Knapp uses a particular definition of "trance" to insist that my
full and complete (which I seldom do) TM-Sidhis program constitutes many
hours of "trance-inducing" techniques/day. Towit, he says that ALL of the
following is trance-inducing:
10 minutes of "sun salute" exercise (similar to what many runners do
before a run to warm up, but done slowly and with care taken not to
stretch to far or fast, thereby causing pain and/or injury)
10 minutes of " yoga asanas" (standard yoga stretches done as above to
avoid pain/injury)
10-20 seconds "fast pranayama" (extremely rapid and fast panting through
the nose while closing one nostril then the other -John also
characterizes this as "hyperventilation")
10 minutes of "slow pranayama" (normal breathing while closing one
nostril, then the other -John also characterizes this as "hyperventilation")
10 minutes resting normally ("Trance-inducing" according to John)
20 minutes of TM ("Trance-inducing" according to John)
10 minutes of TM-Sidhi sutra practice (simple mental techniques related
to Yogic FLying, but with [claimed] different effects -"Trance-inducing"
according to John)
5 minutes of Yogic FLying ("Trance-inducing" according to John)
10 minutes of lying on my back, doing nothing save resting normally
("Trance-inducing" according to John)
5 minutes listening to a tape of a portion of the Sama Veda chanted in
Sanskrit without attempting to analyze it intellectually
("Trance-inducing" according to John)
5 minutes of either reading the 9th Mandala [chapter] of the RIg Veda or
listening to it chanted in Sanskrit ("Trance-inducing" according to John)
5 minutes of reading or listening to the 10th Mandala ("Trance-inducing"
according to John)
The above is done twice-daily. I generally cut out the listening, usually
the breathing and often the exercise portions, leaving only the 45
minutes of meditation + sutras + Yogic FLying + rest.
John would characterize the entire twice-daily practice above as "over
three hours of trance-inducing techniques."
In some situations, one can extend Yogic Flying time, and/or Sutra time.
These situations include:
*ALWAYS* only if you are currently comfortable with your practice at the
current length.
*ALWAYS* only if you have the time to do the complete program (including
resting, exercise, breathing, etc) PLUS the new time added, including a
longer resting period at the end.
If you are on a "residence course" where you have no extra
responsibilities save getting up and eating, you may practice the TM +
sutras + yogic flying longer, but sleeping longer is equally worthwhile
if that is what you feel like doing.
Similarly, you may put in an extra meditation+sutra+Yogic Flying period
(or more on special courses where extra supervision is available) if it
is comfortable.
At NO TIME should you add to your period of meditation + sutras + Yogic
Flying at home unless the conditions of comfort and time available to do
the complete program are met.
AT ANY TIME< if you start to feel uncomfortable with your TM et al
practice, you should contact the local TM center and have your meditation
checked.
You may find that the TM teacher makes recommendations like the
following, in order to alleviate the meditation-induced (or if he has a
suspicion that meditation is the cause of the) problems:
increase rest before/after meditation (especially after and at night)
increase activity before/after meditation (yogic stretching and walking)
decrease meditation time
if the TM teacher suspects a medical or psychiatric problem or even is
merely unsure as to the cause, he will refer you to the appropriate
medical/mental professional as well.
John Knapp, being a trained TM teacher, is well aware of these
instructions. However, he likes to ignore their existence when touting
things like the German study, and its signficance.
In other threads, John has insisted over and over that yogic stretches
are indeed "trance-inducing" and that the fast/slow pranayama that I've
described above is a form of "hyperventilation."
I'm never certain how much of John's rhetoric is deliberate obfuscation
and how much is merely confusion (brought on by years of trance-inducing
yogic stretches, no doubt) in his own mind about what the words that he
uses actually mean.
Roger D. Nelson
><eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Some folks get more ou;t of it than others, and some may find it less
>> than healthy to do save in carefully supervised settings which no longer
>> exist for many mentally ill persons.
>
>We agree on this much, Lawson. In fact, I even seem to remember hearing
>you agree that TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a minority of
>practitioners. Where do we disagree?
I passed on the option to respond to Knapp's previous note in which he
agreed with my review-based assessment of meditation in general,
including TM, as modestly beneficial. He then went on to observe that
there is lots of evidence that TM is deleterious to some "significant
minority" of individuals when practiced for several hours each day.
Here he also says that "TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a
minority of practitioners."
This may look like half-full vs half-empty to some, but I think we
should note that there is nothing particular about TM that is
"detrimental" in such cases. Instead, the problem is an extreme
application, and this is a problem for endless numbers of activities
that are otherwise harmless. I think it is important to be clear about
this: meditation, including TM, is not harmful, and there is no
evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
dedication and energetic pursuit of the critical target are equally
applicable to critical perspectives on dozens of widely respected, and
hence ignored, institutions in our society (most any corporation,
political group, professional society, etc.).
Whatever the reason, the passion leads to some curious declarations and
allegiances; this German study and its promotion seem to be a good example.
John M. Knapp
(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
> In article <jmknapp-0701...@192.0.2.1> jmk...@crl.com (John M.
Knapp) writes:
> >In article <4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> ><eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >We agree on this much, Lawson. In fact, I even seem to remember hearing
> >you agree that TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a minority of
> >practitioners. Where do we disagree?
>
> I passed on the option to respond to Knapp's previous note in which he
> agreed with my review-based assessment of meditation in general,
> including TM, as modestly beneficial. He then went on to observe that
> there is lots of evidence that TM is deleterious to some "significant
> minority" of individuals when practiced for several hours each day.
> Here he also says that "TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a
> minority of practitioners."
>
> This may look like half-full vs half-empty to some, but I think we
> should note that there is nothing particular about TM that is
> "detrimental" in such cases. Instead, the problem is an extreme
> application, and this is a problem for endless numbers of activities
> that are otherwise harmless. I think it is important to be clear about
> this: meditation, including TM, is not harmful, and there is no
> evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
> allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
> by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
Roger, I note that you haven't responded to my questions about your
critique of the German study or your credentials.
That being said, I agree with what you say above. Meditation has obviously
been good for many people over the years. And I see little difference
between TM as taught by the Maharishi and other basic forms of meditation.
My criticisms or questions fall in three large groups: 1) False claims
made by the Maharishi, his organization, and his followers; 2) A lack of
informed consent within the TM organization -- that is no warning of the
possible side effects of meditation, as is common with other teachers and
groups; 3) the severe psychological and physical damage that seems to
occur in a significant minority of people practicing TM, both those
practicing the Maharishi's instructions precisely and those who don't.
>
> I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
> by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
> dedication and energetic pursuit of the critical target are equally
> applicable to critical perspectives on dozens of widely respected, and
> hence ignored, institutions in our society (most any corporation,
> political group, professional society, etc.).
Here we disagree strongly. Any corporation with a flagrant history of
fraudulent claims would be in serious trouble with the law and consumer
groups. Any political group with a hidden religious agenda would be in for
investigation for applying for Federal matching funds. Very few
professional societies will expect to take in $100,000 or more from its
committed members -- many, if not most, of whom will go in debt to banks,
family, friends, and strangers to finance their "dues."
And very few groups of any kind will engender the strong criticism that TM
has enjoyed for more than 20 years by the press, the scientific community,
former and current members and their families, therapists, counsellors for
no reason whatsoever.
Whether you believe the criticism to be unwarrantedly extreme or not,
where there's this much smoke and "passion," there's almost certainly a
fire of some size.
Why dismiss it out of hand?
>
> Whatever the reason, the passion leads to some curious declarations and
> allegiances; this German study and its promotion seem to be a good example.
Hereare a couple of new questions for you: Have you been initiated into
TM? If so, could you describe your current and past involvement?
Lawson English
: characterizes this as "hyperventilation")
That should have been "extremely rapid and light panting..." not
"...rapid and fast..." ^^^^^
^^^^
for 10-20 seconds...
David Naugler
[CLIP]
>
> I frankly do not care a fig about whether TM is
> or is not dangerous or healthy.
[CLIP]
> But Mr. Naugler is so skeptical of rational debate
> that he thinks "To ask for comments and criticisms
> of the methodology used, is to invite people to fall
> into the pit occupied by the authors." That is an
> attitude which I find totalitarian and repugnant.
Somehow, to be called a totalitarian by you, does not hurt
whatsoever. However, to be declared a Totalitarian by the
German government, now that would really hurt.
Roger D. Nelson
>In article <4cq0ke$2...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
>
>Roger, I note that you haven't responded to my questions about your
>critique of the German study or your credentials.
You note incorrectly. Or perhaps you got too engaged in the early part
of my post and forgot to read the rest.
>That being said, I agree with what you say above. Meditation has obviously
>been good for many people over the years. And I see little difference
>between TM as taught by the Maharishi and other basic forms of meditation.
snip
>
>Hereare a couple of new questions for you: Have you been initiated into
>TM? If so, could you describe your current and past involvement?
No. Read my earlier posts if you really are interested.
Judy Stein
> Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
<snip>
> Unfortunately, the point is that the TM movement itself instructs
> long-term meditators ("sidhas") to meditate for 3 to 8 hours a day.
Not true, as "Honest" John Knapp well knows. Except in very
special, supervised situations like WPA courses, teacher
training, the Creating Coherence program some Sidhas do at TM
facilities if their schedule permits, and the Purusha/Mother
Divine programs, Sidhas meditate for 40 minutes a day (20x20).
Even under the special circumstances I listed, meditation is
generally no more than a maximum of 80 minutes a day (given four
rounds a day; most WPAs and the CCP program involve only three
rounds a day).
I
> agree that most studies find pretty much any form of meditation beneficial
> to a finite degree. As practiced by the TM Movement, however, there
> certainly is a body of evidence to raise the question about harmful side
> effects for a significant minority.
Like the 27 former meditators (not all of them sidhas)
interviewed for the German study, you mean? Given several
million regular TMers worldwide, that certainly is a
"significant' minority, isn't it?
And even that is absent any conclusive evidence the problems
these meditators experienced were *caused* by TM.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@cnct.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
> Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
> In article <4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > How strong is the German equivalent of the AMA?
> >
> > [paranoia creeping in again, I suspect...]
>
> Hmmm, for those puzzled by this outburst,
"Outburst"??
Is there *any* comment by a TMer "Honest" John Knapp is unwilling
to distort?
> you should know that the Maharishi and many of his followers
> believe that both the CIA and AMA have vendettas against the TM
> movement.
In 20 years of association with TMers, I've never heard the
belief advanced that the CIA has a "vendetta" against the TM
movement--save from the anti-TMers on this newsgroup who
attribute it to TMers.
On the other hand, Andrew Skolnick's wildly biased "expose" of
the TM movement in the Journal of the American Medical
Association (the AMA), and its promotion by JAMA's editors, is
pretty good evidence for a vendetta on the part of the AMA.
> The CIA is said to be both frightened of the growing power of the
> TM movement (to laugh) and envious of their mental techniques
> (the sidhis).
Again, I have never heard this belief advanced by any TMer.
The AMA is said to fear the rising power
> of alternative medicine, especially TM meditation and Maharishi Ayur Veda
> -- hard to believe given the nearly zero growth rate of both.
Documentation, please, for "the nearly zero growth rate" of TM
and MA-V?
The notion that the AMA fears the rising power of alternative
medicine, of course, is hardly a viewpoint unique to TM. At this
point, it's practically mainstream.
> With regard to the money flow: TM reportedly has gathered a fortune of
> $3.5 billion in somewhat less than 40 years (actually in less than 25
> years, for the most part). What money could the German government be
> garnering for warning its citizens about TM?
Roger (as "Honest" John knows) was most likely referring to the
money granted by the German government to conduct the TM study,
not to any money the German government was after.
> Of all the meditation techniques taught in Germany, why would they single
> out TM for a warning? How would this benefit them?
Overlooking the repetition of the non sequitur noted above:
One of several "TM casualties" whose story is contained in the
German Report. "Anonymous TM Victim #3" was at the time of the
interview still unable to work and is under therapeutic care.
According to the authors of this study, his is the general case
among mantra meditators....
Words written by "Honest" John Knapp. According to "Honest" John
himself, all mantra-based meditation techniques were found by the
German study to be dangerous. Which makes his question above a
bit disingenuous--although it's carefully phrased; TM was the
only group that was specifically warned against by the
government.
Hmm, one might speculate that TM was chosen for the study
specifically because of its purported "secrecy." That way the
researchers had a built-in excuse for using a nonrandom rather
than a representative sample, attracting only subjects who had
beefs against TM, and then generalizing their findings to all
mantra meditators. They could also use the "secrecy"
thought-stopper to make TM sound more sinister.
> Remembering the constant association with the authors of the German study
> and Nazis: The Nazis singled out the rather large and visible population
> of Jews as a convenient scapegoat for the crippled economy and political
> power that Germany was experiencing before World War II. Why would they
> single a tiny, insiginificant group of Germans for such treatment simply
> for practising a meditation technique?
As all who made this tentative connection noted, if there is such
an association (although "Honest" John's version quoted above is
typically distorted in a number of respects--we did not associate
the *authors* of the study with Nazis, for instance), it has to
do with the same willingness to unquestioningly "follow orders"
and submit to indoctrination that was responsible for the ability
of the Nazis to create the Holocaust, and a certain traditional
German xenophobia, or fear of anything that isn't mainstream and
familiar and "like us."
The size of the group doesn't matter; the Nazis started small too
in picking groups to persecute, beginning with those who were
perceived to be "defective" in some way--"unfit for work, unable
to shape [their lives] in a responsible manner and unable to be
socially active."
Those last words are taken from the German study on TMers, but
they are uncomfortably resonant with the terms the Nazis used to
describe those "defectives" who were to be "euthanized" for the
good of the state.
Once the Nazis had obtained compliance with their "euthanasia"
directive, it was only then they felt confident enough to move on
to the Jews and other, more visible groups, whom they also
proceeded to characterize as "defective" in one way or another.
The Nazis were able to obtain the willing services of medical and
scientific professionals in producing bogus "research"
documenting the inferiority of those the Reich wanted to
eliminate. These professionals were not necessarily Nazis
themselves; they simply felt it was easier to go along. They
also feared, quite legitimately, for their careers if they did not.
The ironic aspect to all this is that the German government's
apparent paranoia about TM is most likely due to *fear* of
repeating the Holocaust, not a desire to create another one. The
highly successful Nazi youth movement in Germany was a central
part of the Third Reich's indoctrination campaign. The repeated
emphasis in the German study on the dangers of TM *to youth*, and
TM's characterization as a "youth group," is significant in this
regard. It seems likely the German government wishes to have the
tools to nip youth movements in the bud.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the court decision on the TM study
used as precedent by the German government to warn against
neo-Nazi youth groups.
(If "Honest" John Knapp ever refers to what I wrote above, he
will omit any mention of the last two paragraphs and instead will
claim I warned that the German government was out to euthanize
TMers.)
> It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
> that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
> effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge --
I've never seen this paranoia exhibited by any TMer. Perhaps
"Honest" John would care to document it?
> is dangerously similar to the thinking in $cientology, the Branch
> Davidians, and other mature cultic organizations.
Only if it actually *exists*. Let's see some proof that it does.
Judy Stein
jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
> Except where noted, (C)1995 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
> In article <4cn29u$m...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
> (Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
<snip>
[Lawson wrote:]
> > >The question "WHY such a bad study on TM is being used to set German
> > >government policy?" is interesting in and of itself, but my purpose is to
> > >verify, using input from folks who are NOT true believers (such as myself)
> > >or former true believers (such as the publisher of the Trancenet
> > >web-page), that the study really is as bad as I think that it is.
> >
> > "Why" questions are usually very interesting and most difficult.
> > Purely to speculate, I would look for a single individual within or
> > closely connected to the relevant bureaucracy who has strong feelings
> > about the matter, for whatever reason. He or she cares, and most of the
> > responsible people don't, leaving the field open for leadership by the
> > individual with conviction. He or she could then influence the design
> > of the study and the selection of material, etc.
> >
> > Of course there is also the old maxim, "To explain a complex event, ask
> > where the money flows."
>
> I can accept this. With $3.5 billion in TM coffers isn't it rather obvious
> why the TM organization was so desperate to hush up the German study in
> the German courts
Er, "Honest" John, you forgot your specs again. The question to
which Roger was responding was, "WHY such a bad study on TM is
being used to set German government policy?"
In any case, as we receive more and more confirmation that the
study was indeed badly conducted and seriously biased in its
conclusions, we don't need to look at TM's "coffers" (weasel
word) to explain why the TM organization took legal action to
prevent it from becoming public policy in Germany.
The real question is why anyone of any integrity would promote
the study at all.
> -- and perhaps why it's being targeted for such biased attack
> on this newsgroup?
Let's see what Barry Markovsky has to say before we conclude the
attacks on this newsgroup are indeed biased.
Perhaps he will refrain from commenting, which in itself should
tell us something important, not only about the study but about
Barry's pose of objectivity where TM is concerned.
Bernd Kassler
(jmk...@crl.com) ## 07 Jan 96 ##
>It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
>that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
>effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
>thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
>organizations.
>
Du sagst es , Bruder !
(You name it ! :-) )
Of course TM (unlike the Mafia and Co$) is still regarded in Germany as a
more or less harmless group of *fools*. We had this hopping-party (Pervert
Lawn Party?) during our last federal election too. I forgot how many(?)
votes they got - if any.
But some parents (or/and family members) of TMers do *not* regard TM as
harmless, because they know of the cult's brainwash techniques. And thats
why our government feels increasing pressure from the public to *observe*
these groups. (Perhaps you have heared from a similar group of fools who
killed first their children and then themselves in Switzerland a few weeks
ago)
But as you know: Observation and the light of the public is the last thing
that these groups want. And so they use the infamity to call us (the
democratic citizens of the FRG) as "Nazis" ...
But if you compare the techniques of suppression and the in-group
relations of the TMers and other cults with the Nazi cult you know who the
real Nazis are!
min...@toppoint.de..............................(Bernd P.F. Kassler)
- erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement -
"Ja, was ich hier geschrieben habe, macht im Einzelnen ueberhaupt nicht
den Anspruch auf Neuheit; und darum gebe ich auch keine Quellen an (...)"
Bill Scorzelli
>
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > How strong is the German equivalent of the AMA?
> >
> > [paranoia creeping in again, I suspect...]
> Hmmm, for those puzzled by this outburst, you should know that the
> Maharishi and many of his followers believe that both the CIA and AMA have
> vendettas against the TM movement. The CIA is said to be both frightened
> of the growing power of the TM movement (to laugh) and envious of their
> mental techniques (the sidhis). The AMA is said to fear the rising power
> of alternative medicine, especially TM meditation and Maharishi Ayur Veda
> -- hard to believe given the nearly zero growth rate of both.
Exactly, one wonders why you spend so much of your time "killing a dead dog".
Paranoid maybe?
> Remembering the constant association with the authors of the German study
> and Nazis: The Nazis singled out the rather large and visible population
> of Jews as a convenient scapegoat for the crippled economy and political
> power that Germany was experiencing before World War II. Why would they
> single a tiny, insiginificant group of Germans for such treatment simply
> for practising a meditation technique?
A bogus study for a small insignificant group would be in order.
A peer-reviewed scientific study for a significant group would be more in order.
> It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
> that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
> effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
> thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
> organizations.
A strong association for TM with these groups from a person who states that
TM may be harmful for only a significantly small percentage of people. If the
majority of TMers have good results why would you associate them with these
groups?
-Bill
Judy Stein
> Also, many TMers have instructions for much more than 2 x 20.
How many, and how much more? Documentation, please.
Although
> most have been given instructions for only 20 minutes of TM at a time,
> many including myself have been instructed to meditate many times during
> the day.
How many times a day? And were you "instructed" to do this, or
told that you could if you wanted to?
As I've discussed before, although not frequent, there are many
> TMers who spend as much as 8 hours a day in "program."
If there are *any* TMers who spend eight hours a day in program,
it's only in a controlled environment and under special
circumstances, and even then only a *very* few, if, in fact, any.
And most of that program involves practices other than
meditation, practices designed to balance the deep rest of
meditation with various forms of activity.
> > The anology here is to compile complaints about ill effects due to taking
> > 100 tablets of Tylanol per day, claiming that the makers never warned
> > anyone that these effects would occur when the box clearly states that no-one
> > should take more than 8 tablets in a single day (something conveniently
> > ignored by the compiler of complaints about Tylanol).
>
> Not true. Many TMers have been assigned programs from 3 to 8 hours a day,
> Lawson. The analogy to Tylenol is not apropos.
Lawson was explicitly speaking of *meditating* eight hours a day,
not doing eight hours of program a day. You keep trying to
conflate the two for the benefit of lurkers who don't know the
difference.
Many TM-Sidhas have programs of 3 hours a day (very few have
more, and I seriously doubt *any* have regular programs of 8
hours a day; "Honest" John Knapp has so far not been able to
document a single case).
Furthermore, "assigned" is a deliberately misleading
term--"allowed" is more like it. TM-Sidhas decide for themselves
how much time they want to spend in program, within the
permissible limits for their particular situations (with the
possible exception of Purusha and Mother Divine, who practice in
a highly controlled and supervised environment).
So all this is merely blowing smoke on "Honest" John's part.
Lawson's point stands: anyone who *meditates* eight hours a day
is acting contrary to instructions and is asking for trouble.
Judy Stein
> In article <4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > Aside from the "[...]" that IS the methodology section as
> > supplied on the Trancenet Web-page. The only thing that was left
> > out (the [...]) was the editorializing about how so many people
> > were afraid of TM organization reprisal that they only got a few
> > folks to respond. It was about a (longish) paragraph or two long.
>
> An important datum to snip, Lawson.
Not in terms of whether the methodology was valid. The important
thing is not what they would have *liked* to be able to do, but
whether what they *did* do was, in fact, valid.
Unless, of course, "Honest" John is now acknowledging the
importance of the fact Lawson and I have been pointing out, that
they did not do anything remotely resembling a quantitative
statistical representation and yet still claimed their sample
could be applied to the group as a whole.
If so, that would be a welcome sign of straightforwardness from
"Honest" John, who just a few days ago denied any memory of the
study's authors having made any such claim (only three weeks
after having himself posted another section from the study making
this very claim in response to the same objection Lawson and I
have been making, which objection "Honest" John has said he does
not understand).
<snip>
> > Some folks get more ou;t of it than others, and some may find it less
> > than healthy to do save in carefully supervised settings which no longer
> > exist for many mentally ill persons.
>
> We agree on this much, Lawson. In fact, I even seem to remember hearing
> you agree that TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a minority of
> practitioners. Where do we disagree?
"Honest" John is here claiming to agree with Lawson's contention
quoted above that the minority of practitioners who would find TM
"less than healthy" are those mentally ill folks who should be
practicing only in the carefully supervised settings of mental
health treatment facilities.
Let's just file that away for future reference.
But we should also note that the people Lawson is referring to
would not be engaging in practice "at length."
The point: "Honest" John is, as usual, deliberately distorting
what Lawson wrote to try to make it appear to casual readers that
Lawson agrees with "Honest" John about TM's potentially harmful
effects.
Judy Stein
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
<snip>
> John Knapp uses a particular definition of "trance" to insist that my
> full and complete (which I seldom do) TM-Sidhis program constitutes many
> hours of "trance-inducing" techniques/day. Towit, he says that ALL of the
> following is trance-inducing:
And "Honest" John's support for this contention is that in the
book "Trance and Treatment," the authors characterize yoga as a
"ceremony" and then say ceremonies can induce trance.
"Honest" John has also stated in a recent post that trance is a
normal human experience for something like 85% of the population,
and he points out that the authors of "Trance and Treatment" not
only don't claim trance is pathological and requires treatment,
but that they recommend *using* trance for treating psychological
disorders.
So there's no need any longer for us to object to the
characterization by "Honest" John of TM and TM-related activities
as "trance inducing," now that he has asserted that he considers
trance to be not only normal but even therapeutic.
We need only point out that this is what he has said the next
time he claims TM is "trance-inducing" in a context that would
indicate trance is something sinister, abnormal, and dangerous.
<snip>
> I'm never certain how much of John's rhetoric is deliberate obfuscation
> and how much is merely confusion (brought on by years of trance-inducing
> yogic stretches, no doubt) in his own mind about what the words that he
> uses actually mean.
Having documented innumerable instances of self-contradiction and
blatant misrepresentation on "Honest" John's part, I'm quite sure
virtually all of it is deliberate obfuscation.
Roger D. Nelson
>In article <4cq0ke$2...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
>Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>This may look like half-full vs half-empty to some, but I think we
>>should note that there is nothing particular about TM that is
>>"detrimental" in such cases. Instead, the problem is an extreme
>>application, and this is a problem for endless numbers of activities
>>that are otherwise harmless. I think it is important to be clear about
>>this: meditation, including TM, is not harmful, and there is no
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
>dangerous. Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna have written about the
>meditation effects that contradicts your statement above. Go check out
>their books in the book store.
I have been reading such books for about 35 years, off and on, as source
material for courses in "alternative psychologies" and research on
consciousness. They are, generally, efforts to introduce two very
different cultures to each other, and their success is limited by the
ability of the reader to see from any but hir local perspective. That
means that most western readers look through western eyes and
predjudices (not to say that you have any particular problem). More to
the point, what Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna are trying to tell us
is not "scientific" and has little to do with "harm" in the sense we
westerners think of it, and practically nothing to do with the German
"study" that is the topic of this thread. Instead, they wish us to
learn from meditation in a context that is appropriate, and with the
help of someone with experience. They are wise about the western
psyche, and they know that most of us are beset with unfortunate habits
of belief, such as that bigger is better, and if some is good then more
will be better, and that he who has the most when he dies wins.
Therfore they recommend a teacher, a guru, to let us know that we should
arouse the mind without letting it rest on anything.
>
>>evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
>>allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
>>by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
>>
>>I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
>>by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
>
>While you're at the book store. Try picking up any book on cults
>and look under the index for TM. There's more extreme passion that
>you are not aware of yet. Actually, check out all books on cults and
>see if all the authors agree with each other on whether TM is a cult.
You would apparently be surprised about what I'm aware of. If any
literature is further from scientific than that which presumes to advise
us about cults, I would be surprised. Of course I am waxing a little
hyperbolic here, but surely you would not try to persuade me that there
is anywhere near as much light as heat in "all books on cults".
If I may, I would like to make a recommendation for you, in return for
the several you have suggested for me: think library, think journal,
think professional, think research. Bookstores have a purpose, but it
is not to purvey the ultimate in solid, reliable, scientific information.
Finally, I would like to know what you have in mind when you say the
following:
>In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
>dangerous.
Korrinn Fu
>>In article <4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
>><eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>> Some folks get more ou;t of it than others, and some may find it less
>>> than healthy to do save in carefully supervised settings which no longer
>>> exist for many mentally ill persons.
>
>>We agree on this much, Lawson. In fact, I even seem to remember hearing
>>you agree that TM practiced at length may be detrimental to a minority of
>>practitioners. Where do we disagree?
>
>This may look like half-full vs half-empty to some, but I think we
>should note that there is nothing particular about TM that is
>"detrimental" in such cases. Instead, the problem is an extreme
>application, and this is a problem for endless numbers of activities
>that are otherwise harmless. I think it is important to be clear about
>this: meditation, including TM, is not harmful, and there is no
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
dangerous. Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna have written about the
meditation effects that contradicts your statement above. Go check out
their books in the book store.
>evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
>allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
>by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
>
>I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
>by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
While you're at the book store. Try picking up any book on cults
and look under the index for TM. There's more extreme passion that
you are not aware of yet. Actually, check out all books on cults and
see if all the authors agree with each other on whether TM is a cult.
Korrinn
Kurt Luoto
: Lawson's point stands: anyone who *meditates* eight hours a day
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: + Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@cnct.com +
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not being familiar with TM, I'm curious to know
what sort of trouble you are referring to.
What are the possible ill effects of too much (TM-style) meditation,
or the dangers of unsupervised meditation?
--------------------------------------------------
-- Kurt Luoto, klu...@divi.com
Lawson English
[snipt]
: But some parents (or/and family members) of TMers do *not* regard TM as
: why our government feels increasing pressure from the public to *observe*
: killed first their children and then themselves in Switzerland a few weeks
: ago)
Care to document, or even list, the TM "cult's brainwahs techniques?
: But as you know: Observation and the light of the public is the last thing
: that these groups want. And so they use the infamity to call us (the
: democratic citizens of the FRG) as "Nazis" ...
And perhaps you'll explain how an organization that holds yearly press
conferences to demonstrate the hopping stage of Yogic Flying, whose
leaders are taking leaves of absence from the organization and seeking
public office while running on a platform that promotes their beliefs in
many countries around the world, and whose PR dept. essentially created the
public persona of Deepak Chopra so that he could go on TV shows (e.g. Oprah,
Donahue, REgis and Kathy Lee, etc, etc) and write best-selling books to
tout the organization's belief systems, is somehow shunning "observation
and the light of the public?"
At one point, literally dozens, if not hundreds, of TM Purusha were
dedicated to publicising Chopra and his books and talk show appearances
where he discussed and described the TM organization's beliefs and
practices in great detail. He even moderated a Yogic FLying demo on Donahue.
SOunds like publicity was the last thing that the TM cult wanted alright.
: But if you compare the techniques of suppression and the in-group
: relations of the TMers and other cults with the Nazi cult you know who the
: real Nazis are!
Yes, I'm sure that you can list many, MANY techniques of suppression used
by the TM organization and can describe just what "in-group relations of the
TMers" the TMers are similar to what the Nazi cult did.
Yep, your profound and incontrovertably valid observations about the TM
organization and its activities and inclinations really are valueable
contributions to this thread about whether or not the German government's
study on TM has any validity.
[For the sarcasm-impaired, consider a "Not!" to have been inserted
immediately above]
Judy Stein
> In article <4cnl7t$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the comment. When NON-TMers take such offense at the design of
> > the German study, is it any wonder that Believers would take offense?
> >
> > I don't like bringing this facism aspect up, and such things have (and
> > will) occur in my own country, but the TM study endorsed by the German
> > government DOES appear to give carte blanche to the German government to
> > do just about anything they want to TMers, TM teachers, etc.
>
> Then why do you do it so frequently?
Lawson was responding to someone who had brought it up on his
own, as you know (and conveniently snipped). Lawson had first
attempted to get him back on track and dealing with the
*scientific* merit of the study, but the person persisted.
Are you in fact saying that anything
> reported by the German government is tainted by facism?
Where in what Lawson writes does it even *begin* to suggest this
is what he's saying?
Is there no statement by a TMer that you're unwilling to distort?
<snip>
> > From a scientific point of view, it is worthless (IMHO). It is really
> > frightening that the German Supreme Court upheld the government's right
> > to do anything with the study.
> >
> > WHat is even more frightening is the fact that US newspapers are taking
> > the fact that the German government has endorsed this study as meaning
> > that the study is worthwhile.
>
> Naturally I can see why you would be threatened when the major belief
> system in your life is under attack.
Especially when it's attacked in an incompetent, biased study
whose conclusions are then unscrupulously promoted to the
newspapers by those bent on taking revenge on TM by fair means or
foul.
> I have trouble believing that most nonbiased readers wouldn't take the
> German federal courts ruling and the German government's subsequent action
> to warn its citizens against TM _very_ seriously.
Unfortunately, you're almost certainly right. Most readers don't
have the expertise necessary to evaluate the German study,
especially when they're presented only with the conclusions; most
don't realize a government's imprimateur must also be evaluated
in terms of possible bias and/or self-interest.
The real question, of course, is whether, given the extraordinary
deficiencies and bias evident in the study, they *should* take it
seriously.
Still haven't seen anything from Barry Markovsky. I left a
request for comment specifically directed to him, which was
cross-posted to sci.skeptic.
Lawson English
: such practices were counter-productive for the vast majority of
: active-lifestyle Westerners, and had cut meditation periods to a maximum
: of 20 minutes, twice daily, with up to 6 meditations per day in retreat
: settings where the instruction was to alternate yoga stretching with
: meditation in order to provide some kind of balance.
Oops, this happened in the early 1970's, since the policy was in effect
when I learned TM in 1973.
Korrinn Fu
"meditation is not harmful."
In article <4cvd9p$g...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <DKxvnD....@inmet.camb.inmet.com> f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) writes:
>>In article <4cq0ke$2...@cnn.princeton.edu>,
>>Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>>This may look like half-full vs half-empty to some, but I think we
>>>should note that there is nothing particular about TM that is
>>>"detrimental" in such cases. Instead, the problem is an extreme
>>>application, and this is a problem for endless numbers of activities
>>>that are otherwise harmless. I think it is important to be clear about
>>>this: meditation, including TM, is not harmful, and there is no
>> ^^^^^^^
>>In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
>>dangerous. Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna have written about the
---------
Note: my word is 'dangerous,' your word, and in your presentation below,
'harmful.' The meaning I conveyed differs from that which you interpreted.
>I have been reading such books for about 35 years, off and on, as source
>material for courses in "alternative psychologies" and research on
>consciousness. They are, generally, efforts to introduce two very
>different cultures to each other, and their success is limited by the
>ability of the reader to see from any but hir local perspective. That
35 years of reading books on meditation, like Mutk's and Gopi's, made one
think that these books are about culture -- I disagree with you on the use
of the word culture here -- to me, meditation is only a part of the Indian
culture -- so is music, literature, food, economy, the customs (of
different groups in different state), other religion, education, dialect,
language...
The 2 books I cited are about meditation, not about culture. Looking
at it from the culture perspective is your choice.
>means that most western readers look through western eyes and
>predjudices (not to say that you have any particular problem). More to
>the point, what Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna are trying to tell us
>is not "scientific" and has little to do with "harm" in the sense we
^^^^^^^^^^
No, I don't consider yoga (or kabala, i.e., magic) a Western science.
>westerners think of it, and practically nothing to do with the German
>"study" that is the topic of this thread. Instead, they wish us to
Not quite, you're saying it's not harmful, I'm saying it's dangerous. Am
addressing a point you made -- "TM is not harmful." I consider meditation
a dangerous activity. You stated previously that you haven't taken TM, am
I correct? Well, then your participation on a discussion of "TM -- the
German Study" is probably as relevant as my point that meditation is
dangerous in a thread that discusses the German Study.
>learn from meditation in a context that is appropriate, and with the
>help of someone with experience. They are wise about the western
>psyche, and they know that most of us are beset with unfortunate habits
>of belief, such as that bigger is better, and if some is good then more
>will be better, and that he who has the most when he dies wins.
>Therfore they recommend a teacher, a guru, to let us know that we should
>arouse the mind without letting it rest on anything.
>>
>>>evidence from any credible scientific study that it is. We should not
>>>allow confusion of harmful excess, whether "freely chosen" or recommended
>>>by an organization, with the practice of meditation.
>>>
>>>I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
>>>by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
>>
>>While you're at the book store. Try picking up any book on cults
>>and look under the index for TM. There's more extreme passion that
>>you are not aware of yet. Actually, check out all books on cults and
>>see if all the authors agree with each other on whether TM is a cult.
>
>You would apparently be surprised about what I'm aware of. If any
>literature is further from scientific than that which presumes to advise
>us about cults, I would be surprised. Of course I am waxing a little
>hyperbolic here, but surely you would not try to persuade me that there
>is anywhere near as much light as heat in "all books on cults".
Let's see, psychology as taught in school is a science, whether soft or
hard science is up for debate (am not interested). My point is,
meditation is considered dangerous.
>If I may, I would like to make a recommendation for you, in return for
>the several you have suggested for me: think library, think journal,
>think professional, think research. Bookstores have a purpose, but it
>is not to purvey the ultimate in solid, reliable, scientific information.
I agree. You missed my point -- I addressed "meditation is not harmful."
>Finally, I would like to know what you have in mind when you say the
>following:
>
>>In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
>>dangerous.
An example -- there is a person named Tim Antonsen right on this board
that reported the development of a neck tic from his practice of
TM-Sidhis. I consider that dangerous.
Korrinn
Kurt Arbuckle
: Judy Stein (jst...@cnct.com) wrote:
: : Lawson's point stands: anyone who *meditates* eight hours a day
: : is acting contrary to instructions and is asking for trouble.
: Not being familiar with TM, I'm curious to know
: what sort of trouble you are referring to.
: What are the possible ill effects of too much (TM-style) meditation,
: or the dangers of unsupervised meditation?
It causes you to do things like cut pictures of bananas and strawberries
out of a magazine and put them in a blender with pictures of ice to make
a smoothy. Of course, all you really get when you do that is a picture
of a smoothy. :-)
Serious answer: Anything from just being real spaced out to
non-functional. It is temporary. It is sorta' like over exercise,
which can result in anything from soreness to injury.
Judy Stein
min...@alnilam.toppoint.de (Bernd Kassler) wrote:
<snip>
> But some parents (or/and family members) of TMers do *not* regard TM as
> harmless, because they know of the cult's brainwash techniques.
Well, no, they don't know of any such thing, because TM doesn't
use brainwashing techniques.
<snip>
> But as you know: Observation and the light of the public is the last thing
> that these groups want. And so they use the infamity to call us (the
> democratic citizens of the FRG) as "Nazis" ...
Well, no, we haven't done that either.
> But if you compare the techniques of suppression and the in-group
> relations of the TMers and other cults with the Nazi cult you know who the
> real Nazis are!
Please cite some of these "techniques of suppression." Since you
style yourself a skeptic, I'm sure you must have some hard
evidence for your claims.
Bill Scorzelli
>
> >Korrinn Fu writes:
> >
> >While you're at the book store. Try picking up any book on cults
> >and look under the index for TM. There's more extreme passion that
> >you are not aware of yet. Actually, check out all books on cults and
> >see if all the authors agree with each other on whether TM is a cult.
>
> You would apparently be surprised about what I'm aware of. If any
> literature is further from scientific than that which presumes to advise
> us about cults, I would be surprised. Of course I am waxing a little
> hyperbolic here, but surely you would not try to persuade me that there
> is anywhere near as much light as heat in "all books on cults".
Well said. Cult books are basically warning people against dangerous
groups(guns, sacrifices etc.) though many get carried away with themselves
and include harmless groups as well. Another side is that a western based
culture would tend to look at the definition of cult differently than
an eastern based culture.
People who feel as though they were damaged from a particular group need
to go through a healing process. This process may include denouncing
everything and anything a group stands for whether or not it is true.
Some people need to convince others how bad something is or they feel
they won't be healed themselves. The outcome of this is that they end up
insulting peoples intelligence as you can see here on AMT.
As a non-TMex and non-TMer your presence here is appreciated.
Regards,
-Bill
From a different perspective one could make anything look bad.
Most people know this, a significant minority do not.
Kurt Arbuckle
:
: There is a good deal of scientific literature on cults, such as Robert Jay
: Lifton, [...]
I am sure someone will have no problem telling me if I am wrong, but I
believe Lifton's work was on wartime or political brainwashing. He may
have endorsed its application to cults, I don't know.
Anyway, the only book I have ever seen on "cults" by someone who was
an academic -- as opposed to someone who made their living off anti-
cult "counselling"-- is by Mark Galanter. His book includes AAA as
an example of a "cult" with good results.
My reading of his book was oriented toward his comments on Transcendental
Meditation (as I am a long time TMer).
He developed a criteria for what is a cult that is somewhat similar to
others one reads in the books by "exit couselors." What was interesting
to me was the fact that it criticizing the TM movement, he completely
abandoned his own criteria and condemned it, because of its beliefs.
He actually was compimentary of TM before the movement introduced the
Siddhis. He, naturally, focussed on the flying technique.
Incidently, those of you from newsgroups othe than alt.m.t. who may have
been treated in the past to cross-postings about whether the flying claims
are intended to mislead the public, may be dying to hear that a major antiTMer
has put in his web cite an interview with Maharishi Mahesh Yogi from 1985 in
which he refers to the flying as jumping around as far as seeing it is
concerned. That pretty much lays that to rest.
e2233
>More to the point, what Swami Muktananda and Gopi Krishna are >trying to
tell us is not "scientific" and has little to do with "harm" >in the sense
"study" that is the topic of this thread. >Instead, they wish us to learn
from meditation in a context that is >appropriate, and with the help of
someone with experience.
scientific. My personal experience of him was that he was obssessed with
seducing and molesting young western women, which he did extensively; and
he resorted to criminal threats of violence to those who attempted to
expose his abusive and violating sexual activities. He also controlled and
manipulated his close disciples in the sadistic, cruel ways of a batterer;
and he involved them on his behalf in smuggling, money laundering, and
procuring young women for him.
Like others who have severe character disorders, like former Judge Sol
Wachtler, for example, Muktananda skillfully projected his pious side and
used his considerable skills and talents to gain a reputation as "the
guru's guru," -- just as Wachtler was the "judge's judge." Unfortunately,
he used this reputation as a screen for his psychopathic need to control
and exploit others.
There is a good deal of scientific literature on cults, such as Robert Jay
I understand, too, that Professor Richard Mann at Ann Arbor is currently
teaching an interesting course on cults.
By the way, information about past and present corruption and abuse in SYDA
Yoga, Swami Muktananda's organization, is available at the following web
site:
http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/SYDA-Yoga/
e2233
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi
Roger D. Nelson
>>
>Note: my word is 'dangerous,' your word, and in your presentation below,
>'harmful.' The meaning I conveyed differs from that which you interpreted.
I notice several places where that happens; it is especially noteworthy
in your comments about "culture", where you speak at length about usages
of that work that are not relevant here, and which were not my usage.
By the way, I appreciate the polite tone of your discussion.
>
>>I have been reading such books for about 35 years, off and on, as source
>>material for courses in "alternative psychologies" and research on
>>consciousness. They are, generally, efforts to introduce two very
>>different cultures to each other, and their success is limited by the
>>ability of the reader to see from any but hir local perspective. That
>
>35 years of reading books on meditation, like Mutk's and Gopi's, made one
>think that these books are about culture -- I disagree with you on the use
>of the word culture here -- to me, meditation is only a part of the Indian
>culture -- so is music, literature, food, economy, the customs (of
>different groups in different state), other religion, education, dialect,
>language...
and so on.
>>us about cults, I would be surprised. Of course I am waxing a little
>>hyperbolic here, but surely you would not try to persuade me that there
>>is anywhere near as much light as heat in "all books on cults".
>
>Let's see, psychology as taught in school is a science, whether soft or
>hard science is up for debate (am not interested). My point is,
>meditation is considered dangerous.
By a small number of people. By far the weight of scientific research
and the weight of experience in many cultures (there's that word again)
indicates that meditation is not dangerous. What is dangerous is
excess, or misapplication. Eating is not dangerous, but eating to
excess can indeed cause problems. I believe the problem that feeds this
discussion is a confusion of correlation and causation, or more
precisely, a confusion of some predisposition to a problem with the
activity (meditation in this case, eating in a parallel example) that
innocently serves to manifest it. A good example is provided in the
study Lawson recently described, where patients in a mental ward, that
is, people with a predisposition to problems relating to their world,
had negative outcomes with meditation.
>>Finally, I would like to know what you have in mind when you say the
>>following:
>>
>>>In my opinion and experience (and many others) meditation can be quite
>>>dangerous.
>
>An example -- there is a person named Tim Antonsen right on this board
>that reported the development of a neck tic from his practice of
>TM-Sidhis. I consider that dangerous.
It is apparently Tim Antonsen's conviction that this is the case, and
for all I know it is (though it would be wise to ask what unique factors,
including predisposition, accompanied his practice. It is, in any case,
completely inappropriate to generalize this, especially in the face of
a truly huge amount of contradictory testimony and scientific evidence.
--
Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993
rdne...@princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/index.html
Lawson English
[snipt]
: That being said, I agree with what you say above. Meditation has obviously
: been good for many people over the years. And I see little difference
: between TM as taught by the Maharishi and other basic forms of meditation.
Since this is a discussion about scientific research, perhaps you would
document why you believe this?
Please give references, including the number of subjects studied in the
research that you cite.
: My criticisms or questions fall in three large groups: 1) False claims
: made by the Maharishi, his organization, and his followers;
That is an amazingly vague complaint. Please specify.
2) A lack of
: informed consent within the TM organization -- that is no warning of the
: possible side effects of meditation, as is common with other teachers and
: groups;
Since TM is so simple, and since the vast majority of folks are
instructed to never meditate more than 20 minutes twice daily, and
receive more directed instructions concering possible side-effects if
they opt to go for more advanced techniques, and are *always* invited
back to the local center if they feel that they are having problems, this
seems an interesting point to raise. The vast majority of problems cited
in the German study, and cited by your web-page, concern folks who are
doing TM far more than 20 minutes twice-daily. Some of these problems
appear to date back to a period (25-30 years ago) when the organization
was far more lax in screening folks for advanced techniques and wasn't
making as big a deal about how long one should meditate for.
What kind of statistics can you provide concerining folks that have problems
due to 20 minutes twice-daily TM practice?
Keeping in mind that nearly 4 million persons have learned TM in the last
35 years, what percentage of those 4 million have had problems that you
are aware of? Keeping in mind that you have actively *solicited* folks to
e-mail you stories about their problems that they attribute to TM, and that
many folks learned TM during the early 70's as a form of stress management,
what percentage of those folks obviously have TM-induced/enhanced problems,
and what percentage merely have problems that TM did not address?
3) the severe psychological and physical damage that seems to
: occur in a significant minority of people practicing TM, both those
: practicing the Maharishi's instructions precisely and those who don't.
Given the above, please give any kind of estimate of what consitutes a
"significant minority of people practicing TM," and explain how you
arrived at the figure.
: >
: > I have been bemused for some years by the extreme passion exhibited
: > by many critics of TM. Most of the reasons they proffer for their
: > dedication and energetic pursuit of the critical target are equally
: > applicable to critical perspectives on dozens of widely respected, and
: > hence ignored, institutions in our society (most any corporation,
: > political group, professional society, etc.).
: Here we disagree strongly. Any corporation with a flagrant history of
: fraudulent claims would be in serious trouble with the law and consumer
: groups. Any political group with a hidden religious agenda would be in for
: investigation for applying for Federal matching funds. Very few
: professional societies will expect to take in $100,000 or more from its
: committed members -- many, if not most, of whom will go in debt to banks,
: family, friends, and strangers to finance their "dues."
Please expand on this "flagrant history."
Please expand on this "hidden religious agenda."
Please identify the religious group that has asked for federal matching
funds.
Please explain the "$100,000" figure and how it applies here. Provide
sources for your "many if not most" claim, and explain how the claim was
arrived at.
Thanks.
: And very few groups of any kind will engender the strong criticism that TM
: has enjoyed for more than 20 years by the press, the scientific community,
: former and current members and their families, therapists, counsellors for
: no reason whatsoever.
Please identify the strong ciriticsm that TM has enjoyed for more than 20
years. Please provide citations that weren't triggered by someone seeking
out the press and providing them with 10 years of carefully hoarded press
clippings or the moral equivalent.
: Whether you believe the criticism to be unwarrantedly extreme or not,
: where there's this much smoke and "passion," there's almost certainly a
: fire of some size.
When one of the primary sources of the 'smoke and "passion"' has
explicitly acknowledged that he will engage in "fancy word play" to make
his points, how is one to determine the existence and/or size of the fire?
: Why dismiss it out of hand?
Where did Roger ever say that he had?
: >
: > Whatever the reason, the passion leads to some curious declarations and
: > allegiances; this German study and its promotion seem to be a good example.
: Hereare a couple of new questions for you: Have you been initiated into
: TM? If so, could you describe your current and past involvement?
Even if Roger HAD been initiated into TM, this does not automatically
make him unable to make value-judgements based on scientific criteria.
Here are a couple of "new" questions for you: Have you been initiated
into TM? If so, could you describe your current and past involvement?
Have you been trained as a TM teacher? If so, do you characterize
yourself as a current or past TM teacher?
[note to lurkers: John learned TM quite some time ago and took monk's
vows of lifetime celibacy, something that *I* was not even aware was done
for non-Hindus. In addition, he was a TM teacher for many years and still
describes himself as one, even though his web-page explicitly goes
against the promises that he made never to make certain
TM-teaching-related info available in public. Finally, he has said, or at
least hinted, that he continues to meditate using TM and would like
someone to convince him that TM teaching is a good thing, rather than
something that he did that may have injured many people]
Korrinn Fu
>>Roger D. Nelson wrote:
>>
>> >Korrinn Fu writes:
>> >
>> >While you're at the book store. Try picking up any book on cults
>> >and look under the index for TM. There's more extreme passion that
>> >you are not aware of yet. Actually, check out all books on cults and
>> >see if all the authors agree with each other on whether TM is a cult.
>>
>> You would apparently be surprised about what I'm aware of. If any
>> literature is further from scientific than that which presumes to advise
>> hyperbolic here, but surely you would not try to persuade me that there
>> is anywhere near as much light as heat in "all books on cults".
>
>groups(guns, sacrifices etc.) though many get carried away with themselves
>and include harmless groups as well. Another side is that a western based
Certainly, some Eastern meditation groups can be legitimate ones, while
others, cults.
>culture would tend to look at the definition of cult differently than
>an eastern based culture.
>People who feel as though they were damaged from a particular group need
>to go through a healing process. This process may include denouncing
>everything and anything a group stands for whether or not it is true.
People practicing a dogma/belief certainly need to go through an addition
process, which includes denoucing all opinions contrary to their own.
>Some people need to convince others how bad something is or they feel
>they won't be healed themselves. The outcome of this is that they end up
>insulting peoples intelligence as you can see here on AMT.
Now, what is it you're trying to convince others?
>As a non-TMex and non-TMer your presence here is appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>
>-Bill
>
>
>From a different perspective one could make anything look bad.
>Most people know this, a significant minority do not.
Sometimes, it is a significant majority not knowing this, and may never
know this. :)
Korrinn
Kurt Arbuckle
: In article <4d5qqa$n...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
: >Kurt Luoto (klu...@gatekeeper.divi.com.) wrote:
: >: Not being familiar with TM, I'm curious to know
: >: what sort of trouble you are referring to.
: >: What are the possible ill effects of too much (TM-style) meditation,
: >: or the dangers of unsupervised meditation?
: >Serious answer: Anything from just being real spaced out to
: >non-functional. It is temporary. It is sorta' like over exercise,
: >which can result in anything from soreness to injury.
: Kurt, how do you know it's temporary?
That's my opinion. I hold it based on what I have seen, heard,
and judged. I hold it with a degree of certainty somewhere between
my opinion that the sun will come up tomarrow and my opinion that
my wife will win the lottery. It's closer to the former than the
latter.
: I've never seen any post of
: your direct negative experience.
I've never had one from TM. alt.m.t. could be called an indirect
negative experience, caused by TM in the same way that my broken
hand was caused by my birth.
: What do you consider to be temporary?
: A decade or two?
One would hope that the person would have cut back by then.
: Over-exercise, is it now? Sometimes, when an
: exercise technique is improperly designed, it can induce big-time
: injuries even for regular practitioners.
I said "sorta' like."
: Tim Antonsen (a.m.t) claims to have resulted in a neck tic from the
: practice of TM-Sidhis' flying sutra that has lasted him for more
: than a decade (?). There are many more personal convictions stated
: in Trancenet (http://www.trancenet.org/personal/index.html).
There are 17 stories, some of which are listed as coming attractions.
Not all of them have to do with "bad effects of TM."
See the end of your list for my full response.
: My ex-roommate, a 20+ yr TM-Sidha, is considered by a professional
: counselor with whom I consulted with as mentally unstable and
: irrational. She practices the technique every day at the TM center,
: never missing a day.
You have brought this up before. It was obviously a bad experience
you had with your roommate. Of course, we haven't heard her side
of the story.
See the end of your list for my full response.
: It seems not uncommon for TM-sidha to report involuntary dissociation
: (I heard from TMers I know personally, and also on a.m.t).
Not "dissociation." This experience is specifically excluded in DSM IV
from the experience of dissociation.
And not involuntary, but rather the predicted result.
A feature, not a bug.
Also not technically TM, but I'll let that one go.
See the end of your list for my full response.
: The basic meditation is 20min twice a day. It claims to be safe for
: all. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this is
: true. I have met a person who started TM at the same time I started
: who cried (I saw her red wet eyes) from this simple 20X2 regimen --
: some true-TM-believers may insult this person as "predisposed with
: mental illness" -- I don't think so. It is quite curious to me that TM-
: true-believers blame all problems on the people (be it karma,
: predisposition of mental illness, such nonsense) and are unwilling to
: examine the possibility that it may not be as "ultimate" as they have
: been told to believe.
: Some think it's the person's fault. That's fine. I happen to think
: it's very possible that something may be seriously wrong with the
: interaction of the TM technique(s) with some people.
Your "blame the victim" spin is designed to prepare the reader to be
put off by what I am about to say, but the fact is that the National
Institute of Mental Health estimates that 10% of the US population
has a diagnosible mental condition annually. No one claims that
anywhere close to 10% of people who do TM have mental problems. On
that basis the hypothesis that TM causes mental problems must be
rejected. Given the reasonable assumption that many people who seek
out TM may be looking for relief from some mental condition, the
reality is actually quite encouraging.
Depending on your point of view, there may be things to criticize about
the TM organization. Giving bad advice to people with mental conditions
or failing to recognize such problems may be among those things. But
that does not imply that the technique itself is unsafe. Also families,
and even physicians are sometimes guilty of this.
Korrinn Fu
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>e2233 (an30...@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
>:
>: There is a good deal of scientific literature on cults, such as Robert Jay
>: Lifton, [...]
>
>I am sure someone will have no problem telling me if I am wrong, but I
>believe Lifton's work was on wartime or political brainwashing. He may
>have endorsed its application to cults, I don't know.
In 1961, Robert Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of
Totalism, a study on mind control techniques used by the communists in China.
His published material filled a few screens at the local public library --
quite accomplished in his work on mind control, and seems highly respected in
his field. Dr. Margaret Singer with Janja Lalich published Cults in Our
Midst (1995). Singer is a well respected psychiartrist, emeritus UC
Berkeley. Dr. Lifton himself wrote the foreword for "Cults in Our Midst,"
apparently endorsing Singer and Lalich's work. Here's an exerpt from this
foreword by Robert Lifton (in Cults in Our Midst):
The protean self, in contrast to the fundamentalist or cult self,
is open and many-sided; rather than narrowly prescribed, it calls
forth odd combinations, and includes important elements of humor and
mockery. The protean self is not without its difficulties in its
constant quest for an ethical core. But it has the virtue of _avoiding_
_absolutes_ and dead ends and holding out an ever-present possibility
of transformation and change.
Steve Hassan wrote Combatting Cult Mind Control and created exit counseling
as an intervention alternative to cultnapping (off the top of my head, may
be wrong). He stated in his book that Dr. Robert Lifton offered to work
with Hassan himself on the Moonies's mind control tactics. Any more
question about Lifton, an expert on mind control tactics, endorsing the work
on cults by Dr. Singer, Janja Lalich, Steve Hassan, et al? (I remember Cory
the scientologiest (a.r.s.) strongly disagreed with the work of all of the
above.)
>Anyway, the only book I have ever seen on "cults" by someone who was
>an academic -- as opposed to someone who made their living off anti-
>cult "counselling"-- is by Mark Galanter. His book includes AAA as
>an example of a "cult" with good results.
(rest deleted)
I have not seen Mark Galanter's book.
In Michael Langone's Recovery from Cults--Help for Victims of psychological
and spiriual abuses, Pat Ryan (exTMer) stated part of the curriculum at
the Maharishi's International University (now MUM):
Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) is the first course everyone must take
math & SCI (Math interpreted in the light of SCI, I think)
music & SCI
accounting & SCI
psychology & SCI
maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of government
maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of defense
maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of agriculturE
Pat Ryan stated that MIU has dress codes, special diet, curfews and the use
of buddies (!). That loyalty to movement was questioned weekly in private
interview! And entering the DOME (for mass meditation) when the maharishi
was there required checking of the badge 8 times!
Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
(claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
Korrinn
Korrinn Fu
>: Not being familiar with TM, I'm curious to know
>: what sort of trouble you are referring to.
>: What are the possible ill effects of too much (TM-style) meditation,
>: or the dangers of unsupervised meditation?
>Serious answer: Anything from just being real spaced out to
>non-functional. It is temporary. It is sorta' like over exercise,
>which can result in anything from soreness to injury.
Kurt, how do you know it's temporary? I've never seen any post of
your direct negative experience. What do you consider to be temporary?
A decade or two? Over-exercise, is it now? Sometimes, when an
exercise technique is improperly designed, it can induce big-time
injuries even for regular practitioners.
Tim Antonsen (a.m.t) claims to have resulted in a neck tic from the
practice of TM-Sidhis' flying sutra that has lasted him for more
than a decade (?). There are many more personal convictions stated
in Trancenet (http://www.trancenet.org/personal/index.html).
My ex-roommate, a 20+ yr TM-Sidha, is considered by a professional
counselor with whom I consulted with as mentally unstable and
irrational. She practices the technique every day at the TM center,
never missing a day.
It seems not uncommon for TM-sidha to report involuntary dissociation
(I heard from TMers I know personally, and also on a.m.t).
The basic meditation is 20min twice a day. It claims to be safe for
all. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this is
true. I have met a person who started TM at the same time I started
who cried (I saw her red wet eyes) from this simple 20X2 regimen --
some true-TM-believers may insult this person as "predisposed with
mental illness" -- I don't think so. It is quite curious to me that TM-
true-believers blame all problems on the people (be it karma,
predisposition of mental illness, such nonsense) and are unwilling to
examine the possibility that it may not be as "ultimate" as they have
been told to believe.
Some think it's the person's fault. That's fine. I happen to think
it's very possible that something may be seriously wrong with the
interaction of the TM technique(s) with some people.
Korrinn
Judy Stein
f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) wrote:
[addressing Roger D. Nelson, who said meditation was not harmful:]
> Note: my word is 'dangerous,' your word, and in your presentation below,
> 'harmful.' The meaning I conveyed differs from that which you interpreted.
"dangerous: able or likely to inflict injury or harm"
^^^^
"danger: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss"
^^^^
(From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition)
To say something is "dangerous" means it exposes one to possible
harm. Your words therefore conveyed exactly the meaning Roger
interpreted, and addressed.
Korrinn Fu
Korrinn Fu <f...@harp.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>In article <4d8gn4$c...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
Janja Lalich, co-author of Captive Hearts, Captive
Minds (1994), Associate Editor of Cultic Studies
Journal, is also an Advisor for TranceNet (http://www.
trancenet.org), where John Knapp is the editor.
Kurt Arbuckle
I have seen this quoted. It seems to me to be one heck of a value
judgement on what is "virtue" and what is not. I wonder if he thinks
there really is something called the protean self or for that matter the
cult self. If such selves do exist, then can the protean self be "mind
controlled" or just the cult self? If just the cult self, does that explain
why people who are "exited" from "cults" become so cultish in their
opposition? And of course there is the ever popular question of
what a "cult" is. The variants of the definition used by exit
couselors are so broad as to apply to anything they want to apply
them to. IMO, the criteria for what is a cult put forth in the
books by these people are unscientific rationalizations that
hide an agenda of opposing anything with far out ideas. They get
away with this, because most poeple don't agree with those beliefs
either.
The problem is of course that there are dangerous and harmful groups,
but the exit counselors seem to have no effect on them. All this
exit counseling didn't stop the Dividians, etc. They don't seem to
be able to really identify the dangerous stuff ahead of time.
As far as organizations that just rip people off, there are non-exit
counselling remedies for them. Debate should be on the real issues.
The real issue with something like Scientology is not whether it is
a cult, but whether it is worth a shit. I don't know anything about
Scientology, but all this stuff about the right to publish their
supposed secrets -- that's all the rage on the net these days -- is
just bs. Post about whether their e-meter or whatever they call
it works and quit worrying about the memos they send back and forth
to themselves.
I do know something about TM. There is considerable evidence, IMO,
that is does work. Recent NIH funded studies, for example, indicate
it is good for hypertension -- as good as the best medication. The
exit couselors never put that in their books, because that wouldn't
be good for their business.
: ...the work
: on cults by Dr. Singer, Janja Lalich, Steve Hassan, et al?
: >Anyway, the only book I have ever seen on "cults" by someone who was
: >an academic -- as opposed to someone who made their living off anti-
: >cult "counselling"-- is by Mark Galanter. His book includes AAA as
: >an example of a "cult" with good results.
: (rest deleted)
[the part deleted was about how he abandoned his own definition to
criticize TM, because he couldn't swallow their far out beliefs.]
: I have not seen Mark Galanter's book.
: In Michael Langone's Recovery from Cults--Help for Victims of psychological
: and spiriual abuses, Pat Ryan (exTMer) stated part of the curriculum at
: the Maharishi's International University (now MUM):
[...]
From what I can see, Singe, Lalich, Hassan, Langone, and others
(what happened to Tobias) rely on fellow exit counselors for
hire, Ryan and Kelly in their books. I can't stop these two people
and their faithful from saying what they say, but I think the
people who rely on them would be utterly embarrassed if they were to
take an independent unbiased look for themselves. This won't happen,
because it is not in those people's economic best interests, alas.
I have often wondered what would happen if someone like Dr. Singer
decided to sit down and really listen objectively to someone like
me talk about TM and the organizations that promote it. I think that
her past experiences have all been oriented toward earning her
expert witness fees, not hearing the truth. Maybe she needs
to get in touch with her protean self.
Judy Stein
f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) wrote:
<snip>
> Dr. Lifton himself wrote the foreword for "Cults in Our Midst,"
> apparently endorsing Singer and Lalich's work. Here's an exerpt from this
> foreword by Robert Lifton (in Cults in Our Midst):
>
> The protean self, in contrast to the fundamentalist or cult self,
> is open and many-sided; rather than narrowly prescribed, it calls
> forth odd combinations, and includes important elements of humor and
> mockery. The protean self is not without its difficulties in its
> constant quest for an ethical core. But it has the virtue of _avoiding_
> _absolutes_ and dead ends and holding out an ever-present possibility
> of transformation and change.
As I noted before when Korrinn posted this quote, Lifton's
description of the "protean self" describes what is nurtured and
actualized by TM. It's almost as if he had studied TMers in
order to write it.
<snip>
> In Michael Langone's Recovery from Cults--Help for Victims of psychological
> and spiriual abuses, Pat Ryan (exTMer) stated part of the curriculum at
> the Maharishi's International University (now MUM):
(Note that it's a carefully selected *part* of the curriculum.)
>
> Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) is the first course everyone must take
> math & SCI (Math interpreted in the light of SCI, I think)
> music & SCI
> accounting & SCI
> psychology & SCI
> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of government
> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of defense
> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of agriculturE
<ROAR> Korrinn apparently thinks Lifton's notion of "avoiding
absolutes" is in conflict with the course titles above. Korrinn
is a little confused about the use of the term "absolute" in the
TM context.
> Pat Ryan stated that MIU has dress codes, special diet, curfews and
> the use of buddies (!).
More confusion. Male students at MIU are required to wear shirts
and ties (not Hindu monks' clothes, Korrinn), and women are
required to wear skirts (not saris) (although I believe pants
suits are now permitted--I could be wrong). Curfews and such a
dress code may seem a bit old-fashioned these days, but they're
hardly proof of cultishness.
By "special diet," Ryan is apparently referring to vegetarian
cuisine (a vegetarian diet has recently been endorsed as healthy
by the federal government).
As to the use of buddies, I suspect a little investigation would
reveal that buddies are a feature of TM meditation (Sidhis flying
block/residence/WPA/TTC) courses, not an everyday feature of the
MIU academic curriculum.
The "buddy" concept in cults assigns an older, more experienced
member to supervise a newer member, in an attempt to make sure
the newer member is kept in line doctrinally and behaviorally.
The TM buddy system doesn't do this; course participants pair off
however they choose (except that women are supposed to pair with
women and men with men).
The only purpose of TM's buddy system is to make sure *somebody*
knows where every participant is during the various parts of the
course schedule. If somebody has decided to take a nap in their
room rather than attend a meeting, for instance, he/she will tell
their buddy, who will let the course leader know, so the course
leader doesn't worry about whether the person has gotten sick or
lost or left the course without letting the leader know.
> That loyalty to movement was questioned weekly in private interview!
I rather doubt this.
And entering the DOME (for mass meditation) when the maharishi
> was there required checking of the badge 8 times!
Not surprising, since wackos who have decided MMY is the devil
incarnate do turn up occasionally (I seem to recall "Honest" John
Knapp referring to MMY as a "monster"--wonder if he still has
his field badge?).
> Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
Why shouldn't they? The college is fully accredited.
> Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
> seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
> (claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
> office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
Well, we'd want to hear *exactly* what was said in this case to
know whether or not it is being exaggerated.
One possible version: "It's very important for all sidhas to
attend program and create coherence during this critical period.
If we'd had better attendance over the past few days, the hostage
crisis might have been avoided. So please try harder to attend
regularly."
Bill Scorzelli
> And entering the DOME (for mass meditation) when the maharishi
> was there required checking of the badge 8 times!
Because of radical extremists that exist in this world is why badges need to
be checked along with the use of metal detectors. I hear MMY is protected
by armed guards at his compound also. You don't need to look much further
than amt to prove these people exist.
> Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
> Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
> seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
> (claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
> office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
Korrinn, you selectively believe what you want to.....your choice.
Here is a quote from your pal Steve Hassen:
-----
I suppose that I should feel good that destructive cults attack
me so blatantly as proof that I am being effective. On another extreme, I am
put down by some people who dislike the fact that I believe in and publicly
defend spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation. Some people angrily
tell me that all religion is bad and all religious leaders are dishonest. Those
people, it seems, have had some really bad experiences and, in my opinion, have
"thrown the baby out with the bath water."It is lamentable that so many people
have had such bad experiences. It appears that they are afraid to trust
anything that can't be analyzed and proven "scientifically. "Their capacity to
fully develop, take risks, and grow are seriously diminished. I feel sorry for
people who have adopted a rigid posture toward life which will only validate
an analytic, linear model for understanding.
Without imagination, wonder, and trust in non-analytic, intuitive ways of
knowing, people can become cynical, defensive and even paranoid.
-----
The "silent majority" who have lowered their blood pressure practicing TM
along with countless other benefits will be heard in the end.
What, me paranoid?
-Bill
Korrinn Fu
Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
>Korrinn Fu (f...@harp.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
>
>: My ex-roommate, a 20+ yr TM-Sidha, is considered by a professional
>: counselor with whom I consulted with as mentally unstable and
>: irrational. She practices the technique every day at the TM center,
>: never missing a day.
>
>You have brought this up before. It was obviously a bad experience
>you had with your roommate. Of course, we haven't heard her side
>of the story.
Yes, and get the landlord on-line as well.
Also, would really like to hear from your wife on a.m.t. what she
thinks of your belief that she will win the lottery. (See below for
more detailed reply.)
>: It seems not uncommon for TM-sidha to report involuntary dissociation
>: (I heard from TMers I know personally, and also on a.m.t).
>
>Not "dissociation." This experience is specifically excluded in DSM IV
>from the experience of dissociation.
Yes, dissociation, the experience of floating above oneself, witnessing
oneself has been reported by many people, and is not excluded in DSM IV
from the experience of dissociation, as is spewed above. (See below for
more detailed reply.)
>And not involuntary, but rather the predicted result.
Yes involuntary, not controlled by the person: it happens when it
happens, without warning. It stops when it stops. Involuntary.
What is your prediction of your wife winning the lottery?
>A feature, not a bug.
Feature to some, bug to others.
>Also not technically TM, but I'll let that one go.
I'll let it go -- won't bother to ask you to define "technically TM."
>: The basic meditation is 20min twice a day. It claims to be safe for
>: all. However, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that this is
>: true. I have met a person who started TM at the same time I started
>: who cried (I saw her red wet eyes) from this simple 20X2 regimen --
>: some true-TM-believers may insult this person as "predisposed with
>: mental illness" -- I don't think so. It is quite curious to me that TM-
>: true-believers blame all problems on the people (be it karma,
>: predisposition of mental illness, such nonsense) and are unwilling to
>: examine the possibility that it may not be as "ultimate" as they have
>: been told to believe.
>
>: Some think it's the person's fault. That's fine. I happen to think
>: it's very possible that something may be seriously wrong with the
>: interaction of the TM technique(s) with some people.
>
>Your "blame the victim" spin is designed to prepare the reader to be
"Blame the victim spin" is your words as used here. You are mistaken
that I used it.
>put off by what I am about to say, but the fact is that the National
>Institute of Mental Health estimates that 10% of the US population
>has a diagnosible mental condition annually. No one claims that
>anywhere close to 10% of people who do TM have mental problems. On
>that basis the hypothesis that TM causes mental problems must be
>rejected.
More detailed reply: your argument is too weak to have meaning, imo.
You stated the 10% estimate anually reported by NIMH, then you went
on to state that there is no claim of 10% TMers with mental problem.
From that you rejected the hypothesis that TM causes mental problems.
Not so soon, implicit in your argument is the assumption that
"diagnosible mental conditions detected annually by 10% of the
population" is the definitive criteria for an agent to cause mental
problems. Without comment directly to this assumption, for one is not
needed, you have provided no evidence of the veracity of this
assumption, therefore your argument is baseless; it fell apart on its own.
>Given the reasonable assumption that many people who seek
>out TM may be looking for relief from some mental condition, the
Unsubstantiated assumption -- your belief.
>reality is actually quite encouraging.
The reality of your belief can certainly be encouraging to you.
>Depending on your point of view, there may be things to criticize about
>the TM organization. Giving bad advice to people with mental conditions
>or failing to recognize such problems may be among those things. But
>that does not imply that the technique itself is unsafe. Also families,
>and even physicians are sometimes guilty of this.
For some , TM may be a safe-for-all, cure-all technique. But this
does not (and cannot) imply that the technique itself is safe-for-all,
cure-all. Considering the existence of the numerous personal accounts,
and the German Report (http://www.trancenet.org). I consider it very
possible that TM can be quite dangerous to many people. It is essential
for everyone to become as informed about the possible outcome/side
effects of the technique(s), and become informed of the nature of the
organization.
Korrinn
Korrinn Fu
>In article <DL1Mpq....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
>
>[addressing Roger D. Nelson, who said meditation was not harmful:]
>
>> 'harmful.' The meaning I conveyed differs from that which you interpreted.
>
> ^^^^
>"danger: exposure or liability to injury, pain, harm, or loss"
> ^^^^
>(From Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition)
>
>To say something is "dangerous" means it exposes one to possible
>harm. Your words therefore conveyed exactly the meaning Roger
>interpreted, and addressed.
Not true. I can say "playing with knives is dangerous." But until I
get injured, the statement, "playing with knives is harmful," is not
true. There is a difference, though too subtle for some, even for an
author's friend, I'm afraid.
Korrinn Fu
Kurt wrote:
(Korrinn Fu (f...@harp.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
(: In article <4d8gn4$c...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
(: Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
(: >e2233 (an30...@anon.penet.fi) wrote:
(: >:
(: >: There is a good deal of scientific literature on cults, such as Robert Jay
(: >: Lifton, [...]
(: >
(: >I am sure someone will have no problem telling me if I am wrong, but I
(: >believe Lifton's work was on wartime or political brainwashing. He may
(: >have endorsed its application to cults, I don't know.
(: In 1961, Robert Lifton published Thought Reform and the Psychology of
(: Totalism, a study on mind control techniques used by the communists in China.
(: His published material filled a few screens at the local public library --
(: quite accomplished in his work on mind control, and seems highly respected in
(: his field. Dr. Margaret Singer with Janja Lalich published Cults in Our
(: Midst (1995). Singer is a well respected psychiartrist, emeritus UC
(: Berkeley. Dr. Lifton himself wrote the foreword for "Cults in Our Midst,"
(: apparently endorsing Singer and Lalich's work. Here's an exerpt from this
(: foreword by Robert Lifton (in Cults in Our Midst):
(: The protean self, in contrast to the fundamentalist or cult self,
(: is open and many-sided; rather than narrowly prescribed, it calls
(: forth odd combinations, and includes important elements of humor and
(: mockery. The protean self is not without its difficulties in its
(: constant quest for an ethical core. But it has the virtue of _avoiding_
(: _absolutes_ and dead ends and holding out an ever-present possibility
(: of transformation and change.
(I have seen this quoted. It seems to me to be one heck of a value
(judgement on what is "virtue" and what is not.
Value judgement? Can you define what you refer to as value judgement?
I don't find anything above referring to "value," but "characteristeric"
of a person. There isn't anything related to virtue in the above.
(I wonder if he thinks there really is something called the protean
(self or for that matter the cult self.
What do you mean? Do you think he communicates like someone say about
the Maharishi? That sometimes it is what he meant while other times,
it's something else altogether? I understand your uncertainty, coming
from a perspective accustomed to the guessing game.
(If such selves do exist, then can the protean self be "mind
(controlled" or just the cult self? If just the cult self, does that explain
(why people who are "exited" from "cults" become so cultish in their
(opposition? And of course there is the ever popular question of
(what a "cult" is.
These are all legitimate questions. For someone as curious as you seem,
I'm surprised you have taken any actions to resolve these questions
in your mind. I have cited 4 books, they're really interesting: go
read up on them if you're really as curious as you sound.
(The variants of the definition used by exit
(couselors are so broad as to apply to anything they want to apply
(them to.
You mentioned you read only Galanter's work. Then where does the
confusion come from? You have but one definition so far, no?
If the defn really is as broad as you state, I suggest you reread
the defn, for it is very possible that it's your misunderstanding.
(IMO, the criteria for what is a cult put forth in the
(books by these people are unscientific rationalizations that
(hide an agenda of opposing anything with far out ideas. They get
(away with this, because most poeple don't agree with those beliefs
(either.
How do you know? You said you read only Galanter's work.
Sounds to me like you're ready to dismiss the material without
knowing what you're about to dismiss. Your comment have no basis.
(The problem is of course that there are dangerous and harmful groups,
(but the exit counselors seem to have no effect on them. All this
(exit counseling didn't stop the Dividians, etc.
You seem to think the purpose of exit counselors are to affect
dangerous and harmful groups. Whatever gave you that idea?
(They don't seem to
(be able to really identify the dangerous stuff ahead of time.
Of course, they don't do jyotish nor yagyas. Very possible they
don't do TM.
(As far as organizations that just rip people off, there are non-exit
(counselling remedies for them. Debate should be on the real issues.
Not so soon. We haven't dismissed the mind-control tactics,
or the nature of exit-counselors, or the defn of protean/cult self
yet -- we need to agree on the defn of these items, and debate on their
nature and function before we can proceed to discuss orgs that rip
people off.
(The real issue with something like Scientology is not whether it is
(a cult, but whether it is worth a shit. I don't know anything about
(Scientology, but all this stuff about the right to publish their
(supposed secrets -- that's all the rage on the net these days -- is
(just bs. Post about whether their e-meter or whatever they call
(it works and quit worrying about the memos they send back and forth
(to themselves.
Nature has given me very nice support, shall we say. The day I
finished my last of 4 books I listed on cults, I found 2 free tickets
for self assessment on my windshield, inviting me to participate,
free, with a partner, in a personality assessment survey in Back Bay,
Boston with Ron Hubbard's material. I don't care much for scienos
and would love to send you those tickets so you can have a chance to
find out if indeed they want only your money, or if they actually
practice any mind-control techniques -- this one's free. Would be
a nice little adventure. You can bring your wife with you.
(I do know something about TM. There is considerable evidence, IMO,
(that is does work. Recent NIH funded studies, for example, indicate
(it is good for hypertension -- as good as the best medication. The
(exit couselors never put that in their books, because that wouldn't
(be good for their business.
Yes, it works for some, and disastrous for others. There's no definitive
work that covers both aspect as to who, how, when and what the results
are. Certainly, there are indications that there are benefits AND
harmful side-effects as well. Many people speak for it, and many speak
against it. TMers think it's the ultimate answer, while TM critics
think it's a destructive cult! Quite a diverse set of disparate
opinions, I may add. A highly controversial group, a fact TM-true-
believers alone cannot dismiss, I'm afraid.
(: ...the work on cults by Dr. Singer, Janja Lalich, Steve Hassan, et al?
(: >Anyway, the only book I have ever seen on "cults" by someone who was
(: >an academic -- as opposed to someone who made their living off anti-
(: >cult "counselling"-- is by Mark Galanter. His book includes AAA as
(: >an example of a "cult" with good results.
(: (rest deleted)
([the part deleted was about how he abandoned his own definition to
(criticize TM, because he couldn't swallow their far out beliefs.]
(: I have not seen Mark Galanter's book.
(: In Michael Langone's Recovery from Cults--Help for Victims of psychological
(: and spiriual abuses, Pat Ryan (exTMer) stated part of the curriculum at
(: the Maharishi's International University (now MUM):
([...]
(From what I can see, Singe, Lalich, Hassan, Langone, and others
((what happened to Tobias) rely on fellow exit counselors for
(hire, Ryan and Kelly in their books. I can't stop these two people
I don't think so. These professional psychiatrists, psychologists
may know something more about cults than you give them credit for.
You're certainly entitled to an opinion.
(and their faithful from saying what they say, but I think the
(people who rely on them would be utterly embarrassed if they were to
(take an independent unbiased look for themselves. This won't happen,
Some people are alot more indepedent, intelligent and competent in
their thoughts than you seem to give them credit for. That's your
opinion.
(because it is not in those people's economic best interests, alas.
(I have often wondered what would happen if someone like Dr. Singer
(decided to sit down and really listen objectively to someone like
(me talk about TM and the organizations that promote it. I think that
(her past experiences have all been oriented toward earning her
(expert witness fees, not hearing the truth. Maybe she needs
(to get in touch with her protean self.
I think Dr. Singer spoke to Joe Kellet first when he was still in TM.
U may want to read (http://www.trancenet.org/personal/kellet.html).
I thought it was quite interesting. You really have some good ideas --
to talk to Dr. Singer in person. My impression is that you can more
than afford to make a trip to visit her to discuss with her your
ideas above. That would make a very interesting experience and I'm
sure everyone would love to hear about it on a.m.t.
Tim Antonsen
: Because of radical extremists that exist in this world is why badges need to
: be checked along with the use of metal detectors. I hear MMY is protected
: by armed guards at his compound also. You don't need to look much further
: than amt to prove these people exist.
You can't be serious.
-- Tim
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
"At night, I leave a plate of cookies and a glass of milk on the back step.
In the morning, the food is gone, and I find a folder of facts there instead.
And THAT's where I get my facts, Mr. Smartypants!"
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Solely the views of Tim Antonsen. t_ant...@nsmdserv.cnd.hp.com
Lawson English
: away.
Sorry about your grandfather.
And now we return to our "debate"...
: To sum up TranceNet's position:
To attempt to salvage your rather muddy reputation...
: * We never intended to indicate that the German study at
: http://www.trancenet.org could be scaled up to include the entire TM
: meditating population -- or even all long-term practitioners of the
: various TM techniques.
Of course not. That is why you said this on page 3 of your web page:
"Dying for Enlightenment, Part 4"
One of several "TM casualties" whose story is contained in the
German Report. "Anonymous TM Victim #3" was at the time of the
interview still unable to work and is under therapeutic care.
According to the authors of this study, his is the general case
among mantra meditators:
: To be specific, we do _not_ believe that 79% of all
: long-term TMers experience serious psychological disturbances. We also
: don't read this study's authors as saying anything remotely like this.
Of course not. That is why you say this in the abstract of the study on
page 2 of your web page:
"German Government Declares TM a Destructive Cult"
The 150+ page report by Germany's "Institute for Youth and
Society" remains the most thorough and prestigious study and
critique of TM to date -- labeling it a "youth group" and
"psychogroup" (cult).
+ 76% of long-term meditators experience psychological
I looked *real* hard at the above line and the lines following:
+ 63% experience serious physical complaints
+ 70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate
+ Researchers found a startling drop in honesty among long-term
meditators
+ Plus a detailed examination of the history, culture, and
secret teachings of the TM movement.
Nowhere did I see a disclaimer that the study wasn't meant to be scaled
up. In fact, your wording doesn't just "imply" otherwise, it explicitly
states otherwise:
' "Anonymous TM Victim #3" was at the time of the
interview still unable to work and is under therapeutic care.
According to the authors of this study, his is the general case
among mantra meditators: '
: Their only finding in their summation was given that 79% of the TMers
: _they studied_ experienced such problems there was a need for more study
: and that the problems associated with TM appear to be much worse than
: suspected.
NOT what you said in the abstract on your web page, and NOT what was
reported by the SF Chronicle based what the reporter read on your web page.
In fact, *I* would have expected 100% of TMers that they studied to have
experienced such problems since it was a group of folks complaining about
such problems (and their friends) that was interviewed about TM and its
problems (and how to "get away" from the TM cult, apparently -small
wonder no pro-TM people were willing to talk to them: anyone who
didn't think that TM was a cult would have been insulted by the purpose
of the questionaire in the first place).
And, as one respondent pointed out, no ethics committee at any reputable
university or reseach institute would ever agree to allow such a study in
the first place since one can always find a group of folks who dislike
something and get referrals to others of like mind and hence "find"
results that agree with whatever agenda one has. This is exactly what was
done in this case: a bunch of folks had complaints and the researchers
did a single interview of *parents* and concluded that the cause of the
*childrens*' problems must have been TM.
This "study" is sorta like getting TM testimonials from all our friends and
claiming that since all the folks that *WE* know like TM, TM must be wonderful.
It works in advertising, but not in Science.
If *I* trotted out statistics like this study's that were positive about TM
and claimed that theyshowed any validity about TM, you would rip it to shreds.
In fact, my "statistics" would have more validity that yours since at least
I would be showing that not everyone who practiced TM was having severe
problems due to it and hence would cast into doubt *your* study's
conclusions.
: We do believe that this study's findings have alarming implications for TM
: and other mantra-based meditators -- and we understand the study's authors
: to express this belief as well.
This study can't conclude anything about anything since the methodology
used to select the subjects was completely worthless. Since
subject-selection is the foundation upon which studies of this kind are based,
any attempt to draw conclusions based on the study, REGARDLESS OF HOW
ELEGANTLY DESIGNED THE REST OF THE STUDY, is ludicrous.
In fact, the rest of the study is just about as poorly designed as the
subject-selection, but we don't even need to discuss it since the
anologous case would be a castle built in a swamp: you can use the finest
materials, but if the foundation is set in quicksand, the castle is going
to be of no use...
: We have seen statements by the study's critics that misread or
: misinterpret partial quotes from the study to this effect, but having
: spent some time with the entire study, we are still not persuaded by these
: critics arguments. We suggest that anybody interested take the time read
: http://www.trancenet.org/reasearch/chap7.html for the study's conclusions.
According to Roger, he DID read a good portion of the study. So have I.
Towit, I have read the *entire* section on subject-selection, and that is
all that one needs to read to know that the castle's foundations are
built on top of a pool of quicksand 500 meters deep.
I've read other sections as well and found them equally bizarre. E.G.,
what does it mean to assign a before-TM/after-TM number to a person's
honesty, based on comments by *parents* gleaned from a single interview?
How can you develop a personality profile for the "average meditator"
based on interviews with folks other than the meditator?
And a single interview, at that?
I looked, but didn't see a citation list anywhere in the "study." Was
there such a list? Did the authors present an easy-to-find list of
journal articles, text books, etc, that readers could refer to and find
out more about the methodology used, the conclusions drawn, the
statistical inferences made, etc?
What are the author's credentials? What other works have they published
and where? What academic or scholarly background do they have?
WHY was this study used by the German government?
How could it have been?
: * As to the study's validity: The authors themselves raise concerns about
: the study's statistical significance, explain the strengths and weaknesses
: of their methodology, and make various statements about the validity of
: the "snowball method" -- a method frequently used in
: sociological/anthropological studies. The authors call for more study
: based on the problems that they found.
They *mention* the snowball method as though it had any validity. In
fact, the whole idea of using the snowball method as the
basis of a scientific study sounds screwy in the first place. Anyone ever
heard of this method being used in *science* as opposed to opinion polls?
[note to lurkers: anyone familiar with the "snowball method?" Any
comments on its validity?]
: We at TranceNet believe that the study has a _measure_ scientific
: validity. It is a good first step but that specific percentages and so
: forth have no meaning except when applied to the specific population
: studied.
What is a "'_measure_' of scientific validity?"
I've never heard that term before. Maybe you can define what a "measure"
of scientific validity is?
Do you mean "statistical power?" Couldn't apply, as far as I can tell. Do
you mean "confidance level?" I didn't see any attempt to apply ANY
statistical measure of confidance or power or any other standard
scientic term of "measure" to the study.
Please quote me a section where the so-called researchers attempt to
assign a "measure" to the validity of this so-called "study."
: * The authors of the study made no calls for action: They did not call for
: a government warning about TM, they did not denounce TM, they simply
: reported what they found. To our understanding, the German government was
: so alarmed by these initial findings -- and the subsequent court battles
: by TM in German courts -- that they chose to warn the German people about
: the cultlike nature of TM.
According to one German national that has posted in a related thread on
a.m.t and sci.skeptic, the German government considers the TM
organization to be as dangerous as the Mafia and the Church of
Scientology and that "everybody knows" what kind of practices that the TM
organization engages in.
And I thought that you were convinced that TM is indeed a cult, not that
it has a "cult-like nature," which I can certainly agree with.
LOTS of things have a "cultlike nature."
The TM organization, based as it is on a controversial interpretation of
the Vedic tradition of India, founded by a devout Hindu monk, etc,
certainly has elements that are of a "cultlike nature."
That don't mean that it is a cult, dangerous or otherwise.
: * The authors of this study are highly respected scholars/scientists in
: Germany --
Citations in peer-reviewed journals please?
: as are those who advised them on the construction of the questionnaire.
WHO are these advisors and where/what have they published?
: We are not aware of any professional, credentialed
: criticism of the methodology or findings. If any is ever brought to our
: attention, we will include it at the TranceNet website.
Guess what?
Since the so-called study was never subject to peer-review, and never put
in a forum where such "professional, credentialed criticism" could take
place, it isn't surprising that it hasn't been brought to your attention
since no scientific "professional, credentialed criticism of the
methodology or findings" COULD have been brought outside the venue of
such a forum.
You might want to check with non-cult-oriented resarchers and
scientists in THIS country as to what they think that the "measure of
scientific validity" of this study is.
You might also post what criticisms were brought by the TM organization
in their court battle against it. What expert testimony THEY furnished.
What expert testimony that the German government furnished, etc.
Surely, if the court case lasted so long, both sides brought out pet
experts to testify.
It might be interesting to have the testimony critiqued in public outside
the rather peculiar constraints of a court battle (witness the OJ Simpson
case).
Lawson English
: * The authors of the study made no calls for action: They did not call for
: a government warning about TM, they did not denounce TM, they simply
Of *course* they didn't denounce TM. According to you, on your web page
at http://www.trancenet.org, all that they said was:
The 150+ page report by Germany's "Institute for Youth and
Society" remains the most thorough and prestigious study and
critique of TM to date -- labeling it a "youth group" and
"psychogroup" (cult).
Youse a piece of work, John.
Small wonder that Andrew Skolnick considers you one of his most honest
and trustworthy friends...
[note to lurkers: this is indeed what Andrew Skolnick has said about John
in an article that he posted recently on a.m.t. -kinda makes you wonder
about Andrew, don't it?]
John M. Knapp
<eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
<snip>
> According to one German national that has posted in a related thread on
> a.m.t and sci.skeptic, the German government considers the TM
> organization to be as dangerous as the Mafia and the Church of
> Scientology and that "everybody knows" what kind of practices that the TM
> organization engages in.
Hmm, I haven't seen this thread on either a.m.t. or on sci.skeptic.
Perhaps I missed it. Could you repost?
<snip>
> Guess what?
>
> Since the so-called study was never subject to peer-review, and never put
> in a forum where such "professional, credentialed criticism" could take
> place, it isn't surprising that it hasn't been brought to your attention
> since no scientific "professional, credentialed criticism of the
> methodology or findings" COULD have been brought outside the venue of
> such a forum.
What's your stand on the various Surgeon General's reports on smoking?
J
---
*What's _your_ mantra?* http://www.trancenet.org. To join our free list, email 'majo...@sadie.digex.net' with this command in the BODY: subscribe trance-l
"I said whatever problems I might or might not have, TM is not making them better, it is making them worse and I decided to leave.... I felt like I was crossing from slavery into freedom." Mitch Kapor, Founder Lotus, Inc., EFF -- http://www.trancenet.org/personal
Except where noted, (C)1996 John M. Knapp. Permission automatically granted to repost or copy for any noncommercial purpose with this copyright notice. All other rights reserved.
Judy Stein
anto...@cnd.hp.com (Tim Antonsen) wrote:
> Bill Scorzelli (Bill Scorzelli (bi...@hi.com)) wrote:
> : Because of radical extremists that exist in this world is why badges need to
> : be checked along with the use of metal detectors. I hear MMY is protected
> : by armed guards at his compound also. You don't need to look much further
> : than amt to prove these people exist.
>
> You can't be serious.
"Honest" John Knapp has characterized Maharishi as a "monster."
If that isn't an extreme position, I don't know what is.
John M. Knapp
To sum up TranceNet's position:
* We never intended to indicate that the German study at
http://www.trancenet.org could be scaled up to include the entire TM
meditating population -- or even all long-term practitioners of the
various TM techniques. To be specific, we do _not_ believe that 79% of all
long-term TMers experience serious psychological disturbances. We also
don't read this study's authors as saying anything remotely like this.
Their only finding in their summation was given that 79% of the TMers
_they studied_ experienced such problems there was a need for more study
and that the problems associated with TM appear to be much worse than
suspected.
We do believe that this study's findings have alarming implications for TM
and other mantra-based meditators -- and we understand the study's authors
to express this belief as well.
We have seen statements by the study's critics that misread or
misinterpret partial quotes from the study to this effect, but having
spent some time with the entire study, we are still not persuaded by these
critics arguments. We suggest that anybody interested take the time read
http://www.trancenet.org/reasearch/chap7.html for the study's conclusions.
* As to the study's validity: The authors themselves raise concerns about
the study's statistical significance, explain the strengths and weaknesses
of their methodology, and make various statements about the validity of
the "snowball method" -- a method frequently used in
sociological/anthropological studies. The authors call for more study
based on the problems that they found.
We at TranceNet believe that the study has a _measure_ scientific
validity. It is a good first step but that specific percentages and so
forth have no meaning except when applied to the specific population
studied.
* The authors of the study made no calls for action: They did not call for
a government warning about TM, they did not denounce TM, they simply
reported what they found. To our understanding, the German government was
so alarmed by these initial findings -- and the subsequent court battles
by TM in German courts -- that they chose to warn the German people about
the cultlike nature of TM.
* The authors of this study are highly respected scholars/scientists in
Germany -- as are those who advised them on the construction of the
questionnaire. We are not aware of any professional, credentialed
criticism of the methodology or findings. If any is ever brought to our
attention, we will include it at the TranceNet website.
J
Korrinn Fu
>Korrinn Fu wrote:
>
>> And entering the DOME (for mass meditation) when the maharishi
>> was there required checking of the badge 8 times!
>
>be checked along with the use of metal detectors. I hear MMY is protected
>by armed guards at his compound also. You don't need to look much further
>than amt to prove these people exist.
No, in the presense of the enlightened... John Knapp recently posted
abt the "governors of the age of enlightnments," the mahairshi speaks,
that all would be well in the vicinity of TM-sidhis students, or some
such... then the existence of radical extremists would show plainly
and square-in-the-facely that the meditation doesn't work as the
mahairshi said it would.
In a separate post, I said that a.m.t. is a living refutation to the
mahairshi effect (that ultimate action which brings peace)...
>> Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
>> Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
>> seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
>> (claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
>> office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
>
>Korrinn, you selectively believe what you want to.....your choice.
Thanks, but you're mistaken. These are not my words, it is a quote. For
readers to examine, question... not to be inserted into the mind as belief.
Whatever gave you that idea?
>Here is a quote from your pal Steve Hassen:
^^^^^^^^
Note, when you use words like the above, one can easily dismiss what you
write as irrational and sacastic -- naturally, your choice.
>-----
> I suppose that I should feel good that destructive cults attack
>me so blatantly as proof that I am being effective. On another extreme, I am
>put down by some people who dislike the fact that I believe in and publicly
>defend spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation. Some people angrily
>tell me that all religion is bad and all religious leaders are dishonest. Those
>people, it seems, have had some really bad experiences and, in my opinion, have
>"thrown the baby out with the bath water."It is lamentable that so many people
>have had such bad experiences. It appears that they are afraid to trust
>anything that can't be analyzed and proven "scientifically. "Their capacity to
>fully develop, take risks, and grow are seriously diminished. I feel sorry for
>people who have adopted a rigid posture toward life which will only validate
>an analytic, linear model for understanding.
> Without imagination, wonder, and trust in non-analytic, intuitive ways of
>knowing, people can become cynical, defensive and even paranoid.
>-----
Interesting. I believe Steve Hassan is on-line. Think we can ask him to
comment on the applicability of the above graf to TM? That'd be interesting,
wouldn't it?
>The "silent majority" who have lowered their blood pressure practicing TM
>along with countless other benefits will be heard in the end.
Don't forget, there are many people critical of TM who don't need to
meditate because they're naturally low in blood pressure and healthy
happy and successful in all other ways. And in the end, everyone will
speak out, syncopated, cocophonously. It'd raise all the blood pressures
beyond anything existing medical tools can measure, and that'll be alright.
No need to be paranoid -- things are the way they are. Accept it, and all
else.
>What, me paranoid?
>
>-Bill
Korrinn Fu
>In article <DL8LCr....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
>f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> Dr. Lifton himself wrote the foreword for "Cults in Our Midst,"
>> apparently endorsing Singer and Lalich's work. Here's an exerpt from this
>> foreword by Robert Lifton (in Cults in Our Midst):
>>
>> The protean self, in contrast to the fundamentalist or cult self,
>> is open and many-sided; rather than narrowly prescribed, it calls
>> forth odd combinations, and includes important elements of humor and
>> mockery. The protean self is not without its difficulties in its
>> constant quest for an ethical core. But it has the virtue of _avoiding_
>> _absolutes_ and dead ends and holding out an ever-present possibility
>> of transformation and change.
>
>As I noted before when Korrinn posted this quote, Lifton's
>description of the "protean self" describes what is nurtured and
>actualized by TM. It's almost as if he had studied TMers in
>order to write it.
Well, Lifton's endorses Dr. Singer's work, and Singer's endorses
Lalich's work, and Lalich is advisor of John Knapp's TranceNet. According
to the above, one would think John Knapp would consider TM creates
"proteans"? Belief what you like. I don't think so.
><snip>
>> In Michael Langone's Recovery from Cults--Help for Victims of psychological
>> and spiriual abuses, Pat Ryan (exTMer) stated part of the curriculum at
>> the Maharishi's International University (now MUM):
>
>(Note that it's a carefully selected *part* of the curriculum.)
>>
>> Science of Creative Intelligence (SCI) is the first course everyone must take
>> math & SCI (Math interpreted in the light of SCI, I think)
>> music & SCI
>> accounting & SCI
>> psychology & SCI
>> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of government
>> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of defense
>> maharishi's ABSOLUTE theory of agriculturE
>
><ROAR> Korrinn apparently thinks Lifton's notion of "avoiding
>absolutes" is in conflict with the course titles above. Korrinn
>is a little confused about the use of the term "absolute" in the
>TM context.
It is absolutely true that TM seems highly likely to hold a totalistic view.
>> Pat Ryan stated that MIU has dress codes, special diet, curfews and
>> the use of buddies (!).
>
>More confusion. Male students at MIU are required to wear shirts
>and ties (not Hindu monks' clothes, Korrinn), and women are
>required to wear skirts (not saris) (although I believe pants
>suits are now permitted--I could be wrong). Curfews and such a
>dress code may seem a bit old-fashioned these days, but they're
>hardly proof of cultishness.
And the psycho comes out, with her hatchet and her illusory enemies
in Hindu monks' clothes and saris and chops everyone in sight.
Run for yer lives! (Rumbling sound of everyone running away from the
PCs in the opposite direction, lightning speed.)
>By "special diet," Ryan is apparently referring to vegetarian
>cuisine (a vegetarian diet has recently been endorsed as healthy
>by the federal government).
>
>As to the use of buddies, I suspect a little investigation would
>reveal that buddies are a feature of TM meditation (Sidhis flying
>block/residence/WPA/TTC) courses, not an everyday feature of the
>MIU academic curriculum.
>
>The "buddy" concept in cults assigns an older, more experienced
>member to supervise a newer member, in an attempt to make sure
>the newer member is kept in line doctrinally and behaviorally.
>The TM buddy system doesn't do this; course participants pair off
>however they choose (except that women are supposed to pair with
>women and men with men).
>
>The only purpose of TM's buddy system is to make sure *somebody*
>knows where every participant is during the various parts of the
>course schedule. If somebody has decided to take a nap in their
>room rather than attend a meeting, for instance, he/she will tell
>their buddy, who will let the course leader know, so the course
>leader doesn't worry about whether the person has gotten sick or
>lost or left the course without letting the leader know.
Summary: in the above, you described MIU's dress codes, special diet,
curfews and the use of buddies. Kaput.
>> That loyalty to movement was questioned weekly in private interview!
>
>I rather doubt this.
>
> And entering the DOME (for mass meditation) when the maharishi
>> was there required checking of the badge 8 times!
>
>Not surprising, since wackos who have decided MMY is the devil
>incarnate do turn up occasionally (I seem to recall "Honest" John
>Knapp referring to MMY as a "monster"--wonder if he still has
>his field badge?).
But this can't happen in the presence of such concentrated high
consciousness, can it? cultie little.
>> Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
>
>Why shouldn't they? The college is fully accredited.
Yes, for an education in absolute Carma.
>> Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
>> seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
>> (claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
>> office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
>
>Well, we'd want to hear *exactly* what was said in this case to
>know whether or not it is being exaggerated.
>
>One possible version: "It's very important for all sidhas to
>attend program and create coherence during this critical period.
>If we'd had better attendance over the past few days, the hostage
>crisis might have been avoided. So please try harder to attend
>regularly."
Ha ha ha ha... this is madness. You actually think TM-sidhas are
personally responsible for world peace! This is lunatic!
Korrinn
Lawson English
[[snipt]
: There is confusion over the term 'peer-review'. Scientific journals are known as
: 'refereed journals'. All the rest are peer-reviewed. Any publication with an
: editorial board would be peer-reviewed. That would include most newspapers, many
: newsletter, The National Enquirer, etc.
: This thread has been responsible for the perpetration of many untruths, one of
: which is the notion that peer-review can lead to some sort of truth.
My mistake. However, whether one says "peer review" or "refereed," I've
yet to see any proof that anyone who wasn't already a believer in the
cult-status of TM had any input into the German gov's policy-setting study.
And the author of the article that I referred to earlier proudly says
that the TM organization is denied acess to public events (e.g. local
fairs) to spread their "propoganda" (one assumes he meant "lies") due to
the German government's stance on TM, which is based on the study that
we've been discussing.
What next? Will TMers be dragged out of their homes and subjected to
electro-shock therapy in order to make them "productive citizens?"
Korrinn Fu
>In article <DLC7Jt....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
>
>> Yes, dissociation, the experience of floating above oneself, witnessing
>> oneself has been reported by many people, and is not excluded in DSM IV
>> from the experience of dissociation, as is spewed above.
>
>I've explained at some length the radical distinction between
>"dissociation" and "witnessing."
What I described above is dissociation, which is what I heard some
TMers reported.
>You characterized *TM's* response as "blame the victim" ("Some
>think it's the person's fault"). You are putting a "blame the
>victim" spin on TM's response, in other words.
Nice convolution -- doesn't work that way.
>No, actually you misunderstood what Kurt wrote. The implication
>you cite is not derivable from Kurt's statement.
This implication suits only you -- doesn't work that way.
>In fact, if there were evidence that 10% of TMers had diagnosable
>mental conditions, this would be the definitive criterion
>indicating that TM doesn't cause mental problems, because the
>percentage of TMers with such problems would be the same as that
>in the general population. This is a statement of *logic*.
if... would be... doesn't work that way, this logic is warped.
>If there is *no* evidence that 10% of TMers have diagnosable
>mental conditions, this would provide even stronger support for
>the contention that TM does not cause mental problems; it would
>tend to provide support, in fact, for the contention that TM
>*cures* mental problems.
The speculation is not concrete nor valid.
>> >Given the reasonable assumption that many people who seek
>> >out TM may be looking for relief from some mental condition, the
>>
>> Unsubstantiated assumption -- your belief.
>
>It is a *reasonable* assumption, given that many mental
>conditions are considered to be stress-related, and that TM is
>promoted as a technique for alleviating stress.
Unsubstantiated reasonable assumption -- your reasonable belief.
>> For some , TM may be a safe-for-all, cure-all technique. But this
>> does not (and cannot) imply that the technique itself is safe-for-all,
>> cure-all. Considering the existence of the numerous personal accounts,
>> and the German Report (http://www.trancenet.org). I consider it very
>> possible that TM can be quite dangerous to many people.
>
>It is *possible*, but it cannot be accorded any validity without
>ruling out other equally possible reasons for the problems
>reported in the anecdotal accounts, and in the German study
>(which is also entirely anecdotal, not statistical, in nature).
Yes, it is possible, very possible.
As for the German report, why don't you devote some energy to retrace
the 10 looooooong years of court-work by TMers (to invalidate the report),
submit another appeal to the German courts and try again to invalidate
it. If you do something productive like that, TM may actually hire
you for a paid position.
> It is essential
>> for everyone to become as informed about the possible outcome/side
>> effects of the technique(s), and become informed of the nature of the
>> organization.
>
>One crucial aspect of this is to examine whether the purported
>reports of problems can legitimately be explained as stemming
>from circumstances other than the practice of TM.
Again, why not retrace the 10 looooooong years of TM court-work? The
TMers probably tried much harder than your keystrokes here, and failed.
>In other words, informing oneself about the anecdotal reports
>does not amount to becoming informed about possible outcomes/side
>effects of the technique *unless* other causes can be ruled out.
>
>Unfortunately, exploring the question of other possible causes to
>see whether they can be ruled out is summarily rejected by the
>anti-TM faction as "blaming the victim."
Nice distortion -- twisting only your own world, I'm afraid.
Lawson English
(one presumes) that apparently no-one listens to because of the bias of
the reviewers, the editors and the publishers, is the "Cultic-Studies
Journal," often cited on a.m.t.
Another would be MIU's "Modern Science and Vedic Science," for the same
reason: everyone involved in reviewing the articles shares the same
agenda/bias.
Roger D. Nelson <rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu> wrote:
: In article <310080...@sfu.ca> David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> writes:
: >
: >There is confusion over the term 'peer-review'. Scientific journals are known as
: >'refereed journals'. All the rest are peer-reviewed. Any publication with an
: >editorial board would be peer-reviewed. That would include most newspapers, many
: >newsletter, The National Enquirer, etc.
: >
: >This thread has been responsible for the perpetration of many untruths, one of
: >which is the notion that peer-review can lead to some sort of truth.
: Peer review has a real meaning: Peers, that is, professionals with
: relevant expertise, read and comment on the material that is being
: considered for publication by scientific journals representing academic
: professional societies, and other professional scientific journals such as
: Science and Nature. Peer review _is_ the refereeing process that forms
: the basis of credibility and reliability accorded to such scientific
: journals. Properly implemented, peer review leads to reliable
: information, and it reduces the effects of bias and predjudgement to
: which editors and publishers might otherwise be subject.
: --
: Roger D. Nelson, Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR)
: C-131 E-Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
: voice: 609 258-5370 fax: 609 258-1993
: rdne...@princeton.edu http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/index.html
--
Korrinn Fu
>f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) wrote:
>
>> Not true. I can say "playing with knives is dangerous." But until I
>> get injured, the statement, "playing with knives is harmful," is not
>> true. There is a difference, though too subtle for some, even for an
>> author's friend, I'm afraid.
>
>distinction we were discussing. The phrase of Roger's you were
>saying was not equivalent to what you wrote was "meditation CAN
>BE harmful."
Gibberish. It was precisely the distinction under discussion. I pointed
out 'dangerous' differs from 'harmful.' You tried to say 'dangerous' is
exactly the meaning Roger Nelson interpreted as 'harmful.' Nice try.
The world according to you -- doesn't work that way.
>If you say "Playing with knives is dangerous," that is synonymous
>with the statement "Playing with knives CAN BE harmful."
Which is synonymous to "Judy is confused and lacks reading comprehension."
Kurt Arbuckle
: In article <4ddr3l$a...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
: Also, would really like to hear from your wife on a.m.t. what she
: thinks of your belief that she will win the lottery. (See below for
: more detailed reply.)
That does it. Mike is out and Fu is in 1st for most humor
impaired. In record time.
: >: It seems not uncommon for TM-sidha to report involuntary dissociation
: >: (I heard from TMers I know personally, and also on a.m.t).
: >
: >Not "dissociation." This experience is specifically excluded in DSM IV
: >from the experience of dissociation.
: Yes, dissociation, the experience of floating above oneself, witnessing
: oneself has been reported by many people, and is not excluded in DSM IV
: from the experience of dissociation, as is spewed above. (See below for
: more detailed reply.)
You haven't read DSM IV, I take it. Do you just believe
everything John says, without checking. This has been discussed
to death on a.m.t. Perhaps it was before you came around.
: >And not involuntary, but rather the predicted result.
: Yes involuntary, not controlled by the person: it happens when it
: happens, without warning. It stops when it stops. Involuntary.
: What is your prediction of your wife winning the lottery?
My prediction is that she won't.
If I want a glass of water, my hand moves out from my body toward
the glass. That's not involuntary. If I practice a riff on my
quitar, it comes when it comes. Sometimes faster than others.
But that doesn't make it involuntary.
: >A feature, not a bug.
: Feature to some, bug to others.
If you think it is a bug, then don't cause it.
: >: Some think it's the person's fault. That's fine. I happen to think
: >: it's very possible that something may be seriously wrong with the
: >: interaction of the TM technique(s) with some people.
: >
: >Your "blame the victim" spin is designed to prepare the reader to be
: >put off by what I am about to say, but the fact is that the National
: >Institute of Mental Health estimates that 10% of the US population
: >has a diagnosible mental condition annually. No one claims that
: >anywhere close to 10% of people who do TM have mental problems. On
: >that basis the hypothesis that TM causes mental problems must be
: >rejected.
: More detailed reply: your argument is too weak to have meaning, imo.
: You stated the 10% estimate anually reported by NIMH, then you went
: on to state that there is no claim of 10% TMers with mental problem.
: From that you rejected the hypothesis that TM causes mental problems.
: Not so soon, implicit in your argument is the assumption that
: "diagnosible mental conditions detected annually by 10% of the
: population" is the definitive criteria for an agent to cause mental
: problems. Without comment directly to this assumption, for one is not
: needed,
You don't have a comment, because you know I am correct. Everyone
knows that you would never pass up a chance to comment.
: you have provided no evidence of the veracity of this
: assumption, therefore your argument is baseless; it fell apart on its own.
Well it didn't come from the German government, if that's what you mean.
But I have never heard of anyone questioning the methods of the NIMH.
Do you think it is a cult?
: >Given the reasonable assumption that many people who seek
: >out TM may be looking for relief from some mental condition, the
: Unsubstantiated assumption -- your belief.
True, but a reasonable belief.
: >reality is actually quite encouraging.
: The reality of your belief can certainly be encouraging to you.
Indeed!!!
Well Korrinn, it's been really unreal. Thanks for the fun.
Whatdoyasay we give these other groups a break.
Fallowups to a.m.t. only.
Judy Stein
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
> [snipt]
> : * The authors of the study made no calls for action: They did not call for
> : a government warning about TM, they did not denounce TM, they simply
> : reported what they found. [...]
>
> Of *course* they didn't denounce TM. According to you, on your web page
> at http://www.trancenet.org, all that they said was:
>
> The 150+ page report by Germany's "Institute for Youth and
> Society" remains the most thorough and prestigious study and
> critique of TM to date -- labeling it a "youth group" and
> "psychogroup" (cult).
And they also said (quoting from the study itself):
"The young person involved with T.M. is effectively hindered from
becoming a responsible independent adult, he regresses to an
infantile and narcissistic stage, expressed through appropriate
behavior on his part. The almost complete loss of a sense of
reality is caused, in our considered opinion, by the practice of
meditation, the teaching and T.M. movement in the context of it
being so organized in the particular way it is. This loss of a
sense of reality makes a person unfit for work, unable to shape
his life in a responsible manner and unable to be socially
active."
The above is what "Honest" John said the study's authors
concluded was "the general case among mantra meditators."
Indeed, the wording of the quote itself confirms this. The
authors do not say, "The young people we studed who were involved
with TM..." they say "The young person involved with TM...",
which is a statement of general applicability.
If the authors claim TM produces a "loss of a sense of reality"
which "makes a person unfit for work, unable to shape his life in
a responsible manneer and unable to be socially active," I submit
it's the purest sophistry to maintain they have not thereby
"denounced" TM.
Oh, yes, and bearing in mind "Honest" John's repeated assertions
recently that the study's authors do not extrapolate from their
findings to all TMers, have another look at this previous
exchange between "Honest" John and another participant (a
non-TMer):
> I have a very hard time believing the numbers above, and your statement
> trying to extrapolate to all practictioners of mantra-based
> meditation seems really far-fetched if we assume the above
> statistics are true. [...]
You're confusing messanger and message, Vivek. The conclusion
about mantra-based meditations is found in the German
Government's study -- it is not my conclusion.
So there we have it, "Honest" John asserting the study's authors
*do* extrapolate from their findings to all TMers (and all mantra
meditators, for that matter)--entirely contrary to his current
statements.
John M. Knapp
> In article <DLC7Jt....@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
> f...@harp.camb.inmet.com (Korrinn Fu) wrote:
>
> > In article <4ddr3l$a...@uuneo.neosoft.com>,
> > Kurt Arbuckle <k...@starbase.neosoft.com> wrote:
> > >Korrinn Fu (f...@harp.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
> <snip>
> > >: It seems not uncommon for TM-sidha to report involuntary dissociation
> > >: (I heard from TMers I know personally, and also on a.m.t).
> > >
> > >Not "dissociation." This experience is specifically excluded in DSM IV
> > >from the experience of dissociation.
> >
> > Yes, dissociation, the experience of floating above oneself, witnessing
> > oneself has been reported by many people, and is not excluded in DSM IV
> > from the experience of dissociation, as is spewed above.
>
> However, the experience you describe is NOT what TMers report.
> I've explained at some length the radical distinction between
> "dissociation" and "witnessing."
I don't recall seeing this discussion, Judy. I do remember your repeated
assertions that TM does not cause dissociation -- contradicting a variety
of experts in the field. COuld you please repost your arguements.
John M. Knapp
> In article <jmknapp-1801...@192.0.2.1>,
> jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
> <snip>
<snip>
> It seems rather obvious that the previous tone and content of
> Trancenet's noisy hype of the German study has changed rather
> dramatically, from unqualified support to delicate wariness, on
> the basis of the objections to it raised on the newsgroup (or
> perhaps on the basis of independent criticism involving the same
> objections made to Trancenet's operators privately).
>
> This change represents some progress in the direction of
> integrity. It would represent even more progress if the
> Trancenet folks would be straightforward enough to admit their
> initial position was untenable, and to stop implying the TMers
> were making objections only because they were unhappy about the
> study's findings, rather than because those objections were
> legitimate in and of themselves.
>
To restate, yet again:
TranceNet's position on the German study has not changed one whit. We
believe it is the largest and most prestigious critical study to TM to
date. We do _not_ and never have believed it is _the_ definitive study on
the subject -- and have never defended it as such. And, yet again, we wish
to state that we believe the findings are valid only for the subjects
studied, not all TMers, 79% of all TMers, or any other specific number --
as we have stated innumerable times, and as Ms. Stein has objected to as
deceptive numerous times.
We do believe the findings of the study, its 10-year defense in German
courts, and the actions of the German government to warn its citizens
against the TM organization as a "psychogroup" (cult), speak for
themselves.
We have answered countless times Ms. Stein's objections. She,
unfortunately, does not feel that they have been answered to her
satisfaction. To engage in endless repartee with Ms. Stein seems to be a
hopeless task that diverts us from our true undertaking -- to make more of
such material available to the public for them to make up their own minds.
We feel that Ms. Stein and others have made their positions quite clear.
We hope that our positions are quite clear. We recommend that anyone
having legitimate concerns or questions contact the various parties by
email.
Further postings on this subject from Ms. Stein and others will most
likely be answered by this or a similar posting.
Judy Stein
Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> John M. Knapp <jmk...@crl.com> wrote:
<snip>
> : * We never intended to indicate that the German study at
> : http://www.trancenet.org could be scaled up to include the entire TM
> : meditating population -- or even all long-term practitioners of the
> : various TM techniques.
<snip>
> : To be specific, we do _not_ believe that 79% of all
> : long-term TMers experience serious psychological disturbances. We also
> : don't read this study's authors as saying anything remotely like this.
>
> Of course not. That is why you say this in the abstract of the study on
> page 2 of your web page:
>
> "German Government Declares TM a Destructive Cult"
<snip>
> + 76% of long-term meditators experience psychological
disorders -- including 26% nervous breakdowns
<snip>
> + 63% experience serious physical complaints
> + 70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate
> + Researchers found a startling drop in honesty among long-term
> meditators
> + Plus a detailed examination of the history, culture, and
> secret teachings of the TM movement.
>
> Nowhere did I see a disclaimer that the study wasn't meant to be scaled
> up. In fact, your wording doesn't just "imply" otherwise, it explicitly
> states otherwise:
>
> ' "Anonymous TM Victim #3" was at the time of the
> interview still unable to work and is under therapeutic care.
>
> According to the authors of this study, his is the general case
> among mantra meditators: '
Anybody have any further questions about the level of "Honest"
John's integrity? Tim Antonsen?
Well, if so, read on:
> : We do believe that this study's findings have alarming
> : implications for TM and other mantra-based meditators -- and we
> : understand the study's authors to express this belief as well.
>
> This study can't conclude anything about anything since the methodology
> used to select the subjects was completely worthless.
In fact, Lawson, the study can draw some conclusions about that
small subgroup of TMers who report problems they associate with
TM practice; the "snowball method" is a reasonable means of
selection in that case.
However, the language of the study's conclusions, and of
Trancenet's promotion of the study, very strongly imply the
conclusions (in terms of percentages) apply to all TMers, or all
mantra meditators, or all long-term TMers, depending on what
specifically you read.
And here are some of the statements made by "Honest" John Knapp
in posts to this newsgroup that also claim the study's findings
apply to TMers (or long-term TMers) in general:
----
Check out the German report that finds that over 70% of the
long-term TM meditators experienced severe psychological
problems.
----
Check out the German report that correlated long-term TM
meditation with decreasing honesty and reality testing.
----
The study done by the German Government found that 1) TM is very
much religious, and 2) long-term TMers overwhelmngly adopt an
essentially Hindu worldview.
----
Check out the German report [...], where you will find that a
significant number of long-term meditators cannot function
without long night time and daytime sleep.
----
But I repeat, a small but significant percentage of long-term TM
meditators and sidhas experience devastating psychological and
physiological damage from their practice. Check out the German
study [...]
----
These statements by "Honest" John include no qualifications
whatsoever--he applies the study's conclusions to TMers as a
whole.
Compare the above quotes with his statement of Trancenet's
position:
> : To be specific, we do _not_ believe that 79% of all
> : long-term TMers experience serious psychological disturbances. We also
> : don't read this study's authors as saying anything remotely like this.
Note that the "small but significant percentage" he refers to in
the last quote above actually amounts to the 27 former TMers
studied, out of however many long-term TMers there are--many
hundreds of thousands at the very least. Even if you assume
there are only 100,000 long-term TMers, the "small but
significant" percentage would be 0.0027 percent.
He has also made numerous statements in which he's a little more
careful to make the qualification, but he does so in a context
that indicates he's still applying the study's conclusions to
TMers as a whole. For example:
-----
Check out the German Government study [...] where you will find
the population of TMers they studied experienced 70+%
psychological disorders, including 20+% nervous breakdowns. These
are several multiples higher than the experience of the public at
large.
-----
Check out the German study [...]. It appears that TM makes things
worse in over 70% of the long-term meditators studied there:
nervous breakdowns, psychotic breaks, health problems, and so
forth.
-----
On the whole though, the German Government found the practice of
TM to be destructive to the majority of long-term meditators they
studied. This doesn't mean that they hate TM or are biased
against it. Imagine a pro-arsenic group -- the taking of small
doses of which can have benefits for a short time -- claiming
that a government study found it dangerous because of an ethnic
or racial bias.
-----
I'm not aware of any researcher who doubts that TM can reduce
blood pressure at least as well as other meditation and
relaxation techniques. That has nothing to do with the kind of
psycho-social side effects that the German government found --
for instance over 70% of long-term TMers studied had serious
psychological disturbances.
-----
Lawson English
: In article <4dr1gp$f...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
: (Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
[snipt]
: >
: And yet, given the opportunity to read and review the study, you refuse to
: do so. Instead, you put your energy into stating that you don't believe
: it, and won't believe it, and certainly will not be confused by getting
: any facts about it. Good thing there are no effects of bias and prejudice
: in your thinking. If you are an expert competent to read and comment on
: the material, then it is your responsibility to do so. If you are not,
: then quit presenting yourself as if you were. Shit or get off the pot, Mr.
: Nelson.
And yet Roger has stated (as have I) that he HAS read significant
portions of the article.
I only browsed through the findings section, which I consider irrelevant as
long as the methodology is screwy. And in fact, I carefully read the
portion of the methodology section devoted to subject-selection, since
this is the most important (absolutely essential, actually) part, and
scanned the rest of the methodology section several times.
I even posted the *entire* (even with my original omission re-inserted)
portion of the methodology section relevant to subject-selection on the
internet.
Thus far, no credentialed defenders of this posted section have appeared.
Despite my claiming over and over again on alt.meditation.transcendental,
sci.skeptic, sci.psychology.misc, sci.philosophy.meta,
sci.philosophy.tech and sci.med that this section (subject-selection) was
the only thing that one needed to look at to *completely* refute all
findings in the study, or rather, cast into serious doubt all findings,
no-one with any credentials has seen fit to challenge my rather
absolutist claim:
based merely on the subject-selection methodology section, it is obvious
that NO VALID CONCLUSIONS CAN POSSIBLY BE DRAWN.
The fact that both Roger and I have read significant portions of the
study is irrelevant to this: if the foundations of teh castle are built
in quicksand, it doesn't matter how carefully constructed the castle is,
nor does it matter how fine a quality the building materials are.
Not if the question of interest is how useful the castle is as a fortress.
In fact, THIS castle (the German study) is not only built on 500 feet of
quicksand, but only has 2 foot high walls, constructed of rotting lumber
and crumbling sandstone (the rest of the methodology described).
Such a castle is useless as a castle, and is only suitable for enticing
the unwary to buy swampland in Florida. Just as the unsuspecting buyer
would NEVER conceive of a "fine castle" being built in a swamp, no naive
layman would ever conceive that the German government (or any other
government) would base policy on such swamp-gas rhetoric as is found in
the German government's TM "study."
(Of course, as we all know, the US Supreme Court once ruled that a tomato
was a vegetable, but that is obviously an isolated incident and can no
way be understood as an example of how a government's supreme court might
bow to current political pressures...;-))
Mark Nobles
> In article <310080...@sfu.ca> David Naugler <dnau...@sfu.ca> writes:
> >
> >There is confusion over the term 'peer-review'. Scientific journals are
known as
> >'refereed journals'. All the rest are peer-reviewed. Any publication with an
> >editorial board would be peer-reviewed. That would include most
newspapers, many
> >newsletter, The National Enquirer, etc.
> >
> >This thread has been responsible for the perpetration of many untruths,
one of
> >which is the notion that peer-review can lead to some sort of truth.
>
> Peer review has a real meaning: Peers, that is, professionals with
> relevant expertise, read and comment on the material that is being
> considered for publication by scientific journals representing academic
> professional societies, and other professional scientific journals such as
> Science and Nature. Peer review _is_ the refereeing process that forms
> the basis of credibility and reliability accorded to such scientific
> journals. Properly implemented, peer review leads to reliable
> information, and it reduces the effects of bias and predjudgement to
> which editors and publishers might otherwise be subject.
>
John M. Knapp
(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
> In article <cmarkn-2101...@dial37.phoenix.net>
cma...@phoenix.net (Mark Nobles) writes:
> >In article <4dr1gp$f...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
> >(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
<snip>
> I not only have read the study, and commented on it subsequently in
> posts that you apparently have not taken the opportunity to read, I am
> competent to do so, both by professional training and by experience.
> The latter includes having reviewed, comprehensively, the scientific
> literature on meditation, including Trancendental Meditation, for the
> Office of Alternative Medicine, NIH.
In what capacity did you review for NIH? As a grad student assistant? As
the department head? What are your research credentials? Your
publications?
Roger neglects to mention that one of his primary researh interest appears
to be psi and parapsychological research. Those interested may want to
review his web page: http://www.princeton.edu/~rdnelson/index.html --
where he lists links to roughly a half dozen pro-psi research
organizations, and not one critical site.
For those interested in experimental study structure, I note that Roger
includes links to an online study into parapsychology "in which you can
participate."
If anybody is interested, please email me for the 900# for the Psychic
Friends Network.
>
> The German "study" is not scientific by any reasonable standard,
> particularly including that of peer review. Had it been available at
> the time of my review, I would have listed it as a report of negative
> results. While the study would have merited little attention, I
> probably would have noted that its sampling procedures and analytic
> approaches permit no generalization, and I would have indicated that
> selective reporting occurs, apparently for the specific purpose of
> providing descriptive anecdotes to therapists. The general conclusions
> drawn by the study authors are not supportable.
You'll note once again, that the study itself does not attempt to permit
"generalization." Also, what statistics are given are clearly noted as
being only on the subjects studied. Finally, the general conclusions are
essentially to simply call for more research. How that can be
unsupportable escapes me.
I suspect that it is the unpleasant conclusions that readers may draw from
the anecdotes that have various meditation apologists upset.
Those interested may find the material at http://www.trancenet.org/research
John M. Knapp
> In article <4dlp3t$g...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>,
> anto...@cnd.hp.com (Tim Antonsen) wrote:
>
> > Bill Scorzelli (Bill Scorzelli (bi...@hi.com)) wrote:
> > : Because of radical extremists that exist in this world is why badges
need to
> > : be checked along with the use of metal detectors. I hear MMY is protected
> > : by armed guards at his compound also. You don't need to look much further
> > : than amt to prove these people exist.
> >
> > You can't be serious.
>
> "Honest" John Knapp has characterized Maharishi as a "monster."
>
> If that isn't an extreme position, I don't know what is.
Could you please supply this reference, Judy? I don't remember having
characterized the Maharishi in these words, but by all means refresh my
memory.
Judy Stein
> In article <4do5ct$c...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>, Lawson English
> <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
> > According to one German national that has posted in a related thread on
> > a.m.t and sci.skeptic, the German government considers the TM
> > organization to be as dangerous as the Mafia and the Church of
> > Scientology and that "everybody knows" what kind of practices that the TM
> > organization engages in.
>
> Hmm, I haven't seen this thread on either a.m.t. or on sci.skeptic.
> Perhaps I missed it. Could you repost?
The thread "Honest" John claims never to have seen was an
exchange between himself and Bernd Kessler. In the post Lawson
refers to, Bernd claimed TM was a Nazi cult (while denying the
Germans generally consider TM as dangerous as CoS or the Mafia).
Bernd also said TM was similar to the Swiss group that was in the
news recently because of killings within the group.
Bernd's remarks were in response to "Honest" John's *own*
suggestion that TM was as dangerous as CoS or the Branch
Davidians.
Here's the complete post, in the exchange between "Honest" John
and Bernd that "Honest" John claims never to have seen:
==========================================================================
Date: 09 Jan 1996 23:09:00 +0100
From: min...@alnilam.toppoint.de (Bernd Kassler)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.meditation.transcendental,sci.med,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.psychology.misc
Message-ID: <60YBD...@alnilam.toppoint.de>
References: <4cl7ur$a...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
<4cmt59$o...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <4cn29u$m...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>
<4cnkjc$h...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com> <jmknapp-0701...@192.0.2.1>
Subject: Re: Request for comment on German gov. meditation study
Lines: 36
Hello John
(jmk...@crl.com) ## 07 Jan 96 ##
>It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
>that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
>effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
>thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
>organizations.
Du sagst es , Bruder !
(You name it ! :-) )
Of course TM (unlike the Mafia and Co$) is still regarded in Germany as a
more or less harmless group of *fools*. We had this hopping-party
(Pervert Lawn Party?) during our last federal election too. I
forgot how many(?) votes they got - if any.
But some parents (or/and family members) of TMers do *not* regard TM as
harmless, because they know of the cult's brainwash techniques. And thats
why our government feels increasing pressure from the public to *observe*
these groups. (Perhaps you have heared from a similar group of fools who
killed first their children and then themselves in Switzerland a few weeks
ago)
But as you know: Observation and the light of the public is the last thing
that these groups want. And so they use the infamity to call us (the
democratic citizens of the FRG) as "Nazis" ...
But if you compare the techniques of suppression and the in-group
relations of the TMers and other cults with the Nazi cult you know who the
real Nazis are!
min...@toppoint.de..............................(Bernd P.F. Kassler)
- erratic othography is intended to contribute to common amusement -
"Ja, was ich hier geschrieben habe, macht im Einzelnen ueberhaupt nicht
den Anspruch auf Neuheit; und darum gebe ich auch keine Quellen an (...)"
=========================================================================
> > Since the so-called study was never subject to peer-review, and never put
> > in a forum where such "professional, credentialed criticism" could take
> > place, it isn't surprising that it hasn't been brought to your attention
> > since no scientific "professional, credentialed criticism of the
> > methodology or findings" COULD have been brought outside the venue of
> > such a forum.
>
> What's your stand on the various Surgeon General's reports on smoking?
Does "Honest" John mean the reports based on scads and scads of
published, peer-reviewed research concluding that smoking causes
lung cancer, heart disease, etc.?
What published, peer-reviewed research concluding TM was harmful
was the German study reporting on?
I should also remind readers that "Honest" John himself has
asserted that research which has not been peer-reviewed should
not be considered proof of anything:
it's fairly pointless to point to a non-peer-reviewed article or
study as proof of anything either.
(Of course, "Honest" John made this remark in connection with a
discussion of the TM D.C. study, not the German study.)
However, "Honest" John has *also* claimed that a study has to be
replicated, with differing results, before its findings can be
discounted:
It would seem that someone would need to replicate the study and
find differing results to discount it.
(Of course, here "Honest" John *was* referring to the German
study.)
According to "Honest" John:
o Non-peer-reviewed research on TM whose findings are positive
can be discounted.
o Non-peer-reviewed research on TM whose findings are negative
cannot be discounted until there has been a failed replication
attempt.
Lawson English
[citations snipt]
: Hello John
: (jmk...@crl.com) ## 07 Jan 96 ##
: >It occurs to me that this kind of grandiose paranoia exhibited by TMers --
: >that they are a special group singled out for punishment because of the
: >effectiveness of their "secret" knowledge -- is dangerously similar to the
: >thinking in $cientology, the Branch Davidians, and other mature cultic
: >organizations.
: Du sagst es , Bruder !
: (You name it ! :-) )
: Of course TM (unlike the Mafia and Co$) is still regarded in Germany as a
: more or less harmless group of *fools*. We had this hopping-party
: (Pervert Lawn Party?) during our last federal election too. I
: forgot how many(?) votes they got - if any.
OOPS.
Obviously, I got confused about who said what to whom and how bad the
situation has become.
The government of Germany apparently does NOT consider TM to be as bad as
the Mafia and the Church of Scientology.
Mea Culpa.
Maxima mea culpa.
Sorry to all for decreasing the signal-to-noise level substantially.
Roger D. Nelson
>In article <4dr1gp$f...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
[deleted inaccurate definitions of peer review, by Naugler]
>>
>> Peer review has a real meaning: Peers, that is, professionals with
>> relevant expertise, read and comment on the material that is being
>> considered for publication by scientific journals representing academic
>> professional societies, and other professional scientific journals such as
>> Science and Nature. Peer review _is_ the refereeing process that forms
>> the basis of credibility and reliability accorded to such scientific
>> journals. Properly implemented, peer review leads to reliable
>> information, and it reduces the effects of bias and predjudgement to
>> which editors and publishers might otherwise be subject.
>>
>And yet, given the opportunity to read and review the study, you refuse to
>do so. Instead, you put your energy into stating that you don't believe
>it, and won't believe it, and certainly will not be confused by getting
>any facts about it. Good thing there are no effects of bias and prejudice
>in your thinking. If you are an expert competent to read and comment on
>the material, then it is your responsibility to do so. If you are not,
>then quit presenting yourself as if you were. Shit or get off the pot, Mr.
>Nelson.
I not only have read the study, and commented on it subsequently in
posts that you apparently have not taken the opportunity to read, I am
competent to do so, both by professional training and by experience.
The latter includes having reviewed, comprehensively, the scientific
literature on meditation, including Trancendental Meditation, for the
Office of Alternative Medicine, NIH.
The German "study" is not scientific by any reasonable standard,
particularly including that of peer review. Had it been available at
the time of my review, I would have listed it as a report of negative
results. While the study would have merited little attention, I
probably would have noted that its sampling procedures and analytic
approaches permit no generalization, and I would have indicated that
selective reporting occurs, apparently for the specific purpose of
providing descriptive anecdotes to therapists. The general conclusions
drawn by the study authors are not supportable.
John M. Knapp
(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
> In article <cmarkn-2101...@dial37.phoenix.net>
cma...@phoenix.net (Mark Nobles) writes:
> >In article <4dr1gp$f...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
> >(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
>
<snip>
Some of the research at the PEAR laboratory on which Roger appears to have
worked:
1. * Consciousness and Anomalous Physical Phenomena. PEAR Technical Note
95004, May 1995 (32 pages).
2. * "Out of this Aboriginal Sensible Muchness...": Consciousness,
Information, and Human Health. Tech.
Report 94005, June 1994 (19 pages). (Transcript of Gardner Murphy
Memorial Lecture, New York, April 19,
1994; to be published in J. American Society for Psychical
Research, September 1995).
3. * "The Spiritual Substance of Science". In W. Harman, ed., New
Metaphysical Foundations of Modern
Science, Inst. of Noetic Sciences, 1994 (pp.157-178).
4. Consciousness, Randomness, and Information. Tech. Report 93001,
February 1993 (37 pages). [Originally
published in modified form in The Interrelationship Between Mind
and Matter, B. Rubik, ed., (Philadelphia,
PA: Temple University, 1992)].
5. The Complementarity of Consciousness. Tech. Report 91006, December
1991 (13 pages.) [Published in
modified form in Cultivating Consciousness for Enhancing Human
Potential, Wellness, and Healing, K.R.
Rao, ed., (Westport, CT and London: Praeger, 1993) pp. 111-121.]
6. Anomalies: Analysis and Aesthetics. J. Scientific Exploration, 3,
No.1, pp.15-26, 1989.
7. Engineering Anomalies Research. J. Scientific Exploration, 1, No.1,
pp.21- 50, 1987.
8. The Persistent Paradox of Psychic Phenomena: An Engineering
Perspective. Proceedings IEEE, 70, No.2,
pp.136-170, 1982.
Bernd Kassler
(jmk...@crl.com) ## 22 Jan 96 ##
>> The thread "Honest" John claims never to have seen was an
>> exchange between himself and Bernd Kessler. In the post Lawson
>> refers to, Bernd claimed TM was a Nazi cult (while denying the
>> Germans generally consider TM as dangerous as CoS or the Mafia).
>
>I honestly don't remember seeing this thread on amt or sci.skeptic. Thanks
>for reposting it for me.
>
And I hope you can see the fine art of hypocritical citation :-)
I did not "claim" that TM was a Nazi cult. What I really was pointing out
was the *analogy* between certain aspects of cults and the Nazis. I did
this in *reply* to many posters who indeed claim our Government to be
naazi-like because our Adminidtration re-acts against cult's attacks
against our society.
Our society (like e.g. the British, French or US) is built upon the
priciple of "RES PUBLICA"; which means transparency of all actions. (No
need to say that we have to struggle for it each day - again and again).
The cults are based upon esotheric and cryptic principles: on secrecy.
Both principles do not fit together in a republic democracy.
Ecrasez L'Infame !
Roger D. Nelson
>In article <4du27d$p...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
>(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
>
>> In article <cmarkn-2101...@dial37.phoenix.net>
>cma...@phoenix.net (Mark Nobles) writes:
>> >In article <4dr1gp$f...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, rdne...@tucson.princeton.edu
>> >(Roger D. Nelson) wrote:
><snip>
>
>the department head? What are your research credentials? Your
>publications?
No, John, I am a greybeard, with a 1972 doctorate in in experimental
psychology concentrating on perception, neurophysiology, and cognitive
capacities. Of course that includes an excellent classical education in
experimental design and statistics. It was, however, my 15 years of
experience at Princeton, developing sound research and analytical
strategies for the study of anomalies linking consciousness and physical
systems that prompted an invitation to participate in the OAM effort to
determine what research had been done in its purview, and to attempt a first
resolution of the implications thereof, in order to design a useful
program of prospective research in alternative medicine.
I have already posted the relevant information from the resulting
review of meditation that bears on an assessment of the merits of the
German study. That study is not what you claim and imply it to be, namely
a reliable ("prestigious" is a term you have used) source for the
generalizations that you specifically make to the effect that
trancendental meditation is harmful. At best it is what it was designed
to be, namely a recounting of problems suffered by parents, spouses, and
a small number -- 27 as I recall -- of meditators. I have no investment
in TM, but I do have a strong interest in proper reporting and wise use
of science and its authority. To attempt to generalize from a study
conducted as this one was, by asking each troubled person to please put
us in touch with other similarly troubled people, with implications that
meditation, or even TM , is dangerous or harmful, is ludicrous on the
face of it. But a short experience with the discussion in this
thread is ample demonstration that some people want to believe this, and
do, despite obvious flaws in the work. And you, John, who are obviously
intelligent, are persuaded that this study is excellent evidence to
support your personal crusade.
Frankly, I do have to agree with Barnum, even about my own perception of
the world: I see what I am trained to see, just as you do. It is
barely possible that since I don't care one way or the other about TM,
that my opinions are more objective than yours. At least it seems to me
that my motivation for posting to this thread was not to defend TM, or
even meditation, but rather to make a point about the egregiously
un-scientific extrapolations you and various others had made from the
German study. Secondarily, though I haven't made a point of this
heretofore, I am appalled at what may be a serious miscarriage of
justice and is certainly a travesty of miseducation to the extent your
report of the treatment of this German study in Germany is reliable.
By the way, John, what is your source of erudition and relevant capacity
for technical judgment on matters such as the German study?
[deletions]
>> The German "study" is not scientific by any reasonable standard,
>> particularly including that of peer review. Had it been available at
>> the time of my review, I would have listed it as a report of negative
>> results. While the study would have merited little attention, I
>> approaches permit no generalization, and I would have indicated that
>> selective reporting occurs, apparently for the specific purpose of
>> providing descriptive anecdotes to therapists. The general conclusions
>> drawn by the study authors are not supportable.
>
>You'll note once again, that the study itself does not attempt to permit
>"generalization." Also, what statistics are given are clearly noted as
>being only on the subjects studied. Finally, the general conclusions are
>essentially to simply call for more research. How that can be
>unsupportable escapes me.
>
Now, though I apologize to the keepers of bandwidth karma, it seems
appropriate to quote a selection of parts from the report and from John
M. Knapp's website.
Here is the TITLE and subtitle of the report (of course it has been
translated from the German, and the tone of generality may have been
inserted by the translator):
THE VARIOUS IMPLICATIONS
ARISING FROM THE PRACTICE OF TRANSCENDENTAL
MEDITATION
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
OF PATHOGENIC STRUCTURES
AS AN AID IN COUNSELING
And the following is a direct quote from the study's section 4.6.6 Summary:
--T.M. can cause mental illness or at the very least prepare the
way for the onset of mental illness. A lack of opportunity for the
treatment of meditation experiences and or altered perception of reality
create (sic) suitable conditions for a pathogenic appearance. Added to
this is the heightened delicacy and increasing helplessness in the
personality of the meditator, which can develop into a complete
depersonalization.
And the whole of section 7 is specifically directed to generalizations
about TM, and not to the study of the interviewees. In particular the
resume, which I quote following, is generalization, and announces itself
to be that in the first point:
7.8 RESUME
It is not the task of this chapter to refer once again to the individual
results tabulated in previous chapters. The summaries at the end of
those chapters suffice in this regard. We rather wish to identify and
interpret some basic structures of T.M.
The initiation into the practice of T.M. is geared towards increasing
the emotional openness of the meditator. On the basis of this increased
opening up, an unreserved acceptance of the teachings as spread by
Maharishi follows.
The acceptance of these teachings causes a loss in the sense of reality,
altered social attitudes, which themselves lead to a breaking off of or
reduction in contacts to the world of non-meditators.
The 'one-to-one' type of relationship is replaced by a narcissistic
ego-centric "me" type of relationship.
Negative experiences with the meditation are seen as "unstressing" and
are blamed on earlier development (pre- T.M.) or on the negative karma
of the meditator's surroundings.
The overcoming of these 'knots of stress" leads to more intensive
meditation and increased isolation.
Increased isolation is equivalent to promotion within the T.M.
organization.
The public-oriented claims of the T.M. movement do not correspond with
their aims: The T.M. movement claims that T.M. is only a relaxation
technique. it is in fact a religious method and world-view.
Social, mental, and physical disturbances are the result of increased
delicacy and helplessness, which are caused by the meditation. The
secondary effects which result, described as "release of stress", can
lead to severe mental illness/damage. The recommendation given by the T.M.
organization in such instances, i.e. to increase the mediation to longer
periods; is dangerous.
There is no satisfactory follow-up procedure of care for meditators.
Experiences had of meditation are dealt with by the so called "checking'
procedure, which is completely inadequate: This means
that the meditator is afforded a guidance which is irresponsible.
The isolation spoken of corresponds with the formation of Sidha-lands,
where only meditators can live and work.
The proclaimed responsibility for the world does not correspond with a
withdrawal from it.
The result of this development is that very many meditators are led into
the illusion of a better world, at the cost of real everyday life, and
past real people. "Enlightened consciousness" does not bear well
'ordinary' contact with non-meditators, who therefore are experienced as
being a hinderance[sic].
Every individual needs the people of his environment as a "corrective",
since "our neighbor" does not really stand in our way, rather, he is
the guardian angel who stands at the brink of the abyss, and saves us
from gliding off into the realm of illusion.
And finally, here is the introduction on John M. Knapp's Trancenet site:
Trancenet: Independent TM Research Archive
"The Report of Germany's Institute for Youth and Society on TM"
For the first time on the Web, TranceNet presents the entire text of
this seminal report in English translation -- with charts. The TM
movement attempted to suppress this report in German courts,
but its findings were upheld by the German Supreme Court:
76% of long-term meditators experience psychological disorders --
including 26% nervous breakdowns
63% experience serious physical complaints
70% recorded a worsening ability to concentrate
Researchers found a startling drop in honesty among long-term
meditators
Plus a detailed examination of the history, culture, and secret
teachings of the TM movement.
Thus, even if the study authors do not overgeneralize (and if one reads
the report it is difficult to escape this conclusion) John M. Knapp
certainly does, in the most direct and prominent way available to him on
the web in the his Trancenet site.
John M. Knapp
> In article <jmknapp-1901...@192.0.2.1>,
> jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
<snip>
> I should also remind readers that "Honest" John himself has
> asserted that research which has not been peer-reviewed should
> not be considered proof of anything:
>
> it's fairly pointless to point to a non-peer-reviewed article or
> study as proof of anything either.
Any chance you could read this _not_ as a contradiction, Judy, but rather
as an honest statement of what I believe?
I DO NOT POINT TO THE GERMAN STUDY AS A _PROOF_ OF ANYTHING.
I'm personally just as queasy about non-replicated, non-reviewed studies
that are anti-TM as those that are pro. (I would argue, however, that the
court process in Germany does constitute a kind of review.)
We republished it at TranceNet because it raises important questions and
implications for all mantra-based meditators. Questions that need further
research.
Here's the question that seems to be begged by the TM apologists: If the
German study is so laughable, so easy to dismiss, why did the TM movement
spend 10 years and untold heaps of money to have it suppressed? Why don't
the TM apologists simply make their arguments here and let the issue go?
Or perhaps set up their own web page with their refutations?
Certainly in the interest in open debate, I would be happy to provide a
link to such a web site.
BTW, TranceNet will be adding links to MIU/MUM, NLP, the TM Cafe, and
other pro-TM sites shortly.
We honestly believe that people should thoroughly research all sides of
this important question and draw their own conclusions.
Information is freedom.
>
> (Of course, "Honest" John made this remark in connection with a
> discussion of the TM D.C. study, not the German study.)
TranceNet does not publish the German study as "proof" of anything. This
is a meaningless concept in a research context. We post it for discussion
-- which it surely seems to have engendered.
BTW, the visits to TranceNet continue to grow even though we have not
posted any new material since late November. It would seem many, many
people are pointing their browsers to http://www.trancenet.org/research to
draw their own conclusions.
J
<snip>
> According to "Honest" John:
>
> o Non-peer-reviewed research on TM whose findings are positive
> can be discounted.
Never said this.
IMHO, non-peer-reviewed research on TM whether positive or negative calls
for replication. Personally, I would be very cautious before acting on any
single-study, non-peer-reviewed research -- whether positive or negative
about any subject. That's why I don't take massive quantities of
beta-carotene, for instance.
Explicitly, I personally would not act _solely_ on the basis of what I've
read in the German study. But it certainly raises an eyebrow.
I would love to see a larger, more tightly controlled study undertaken.
>
> o Non-peer-reviewed research on TM whose findings are negative
> cannot be discounted until there has been a failed replication
> attempt.
Never said this.
As I understand the scientific method, replication is a key component no
matter what the results are. This is as true of the German study as of any
other.
Only those who insist in black/white thinking see a contradiction here, IMHO.
Bill Scorzelli
> In article <30FD28...@hi.com>, Bill Scorzelli <bi...@hi.com> wrote:
> >Korrinn Fu wrote:
> >
> No, in the presense of the enlightened... John Knapp recently posted
> abt the "governors of the age of enlightnments," the mahairshi speaks,
> that all would be well in the vicinity of TM-sidhis students, or some
> such... then the existence of radical extremists would show plainly
> and square-in-the-facely that the meditation doesn't work as the
> mahairshi said it would.
> In a separate post, I said that a.m.t. is a living refutation to the
> mahairshi effect (that ultimate action which brings peace)...
Why did you and others like you start TM then? Do you blindly believe what other
people say? I know, you did before but *now* you don't.
MMY is very optimistic as most people know. Take what he says in perspective of
your own experience and what you know. For instance, when he made this statement
I and many other people were well aware that - Krishna supported an army. People
like you who blindly believe what people say are the ones who think they need to
warn others. The question is: what are you warning them against? Hearsay or facts
like the German study.....or your gullibility? Bingo!
> >> Note that students use federally insured student loans to pay for this.
> >> Lastly, an interesting story of guilt -- p.133 of book, "when the Iranians
> >> seized the American Embassy, a MIU student who had missed a flying session
> >> (claimed to be the jet to enlightenment by TM) was called into the Dean's
> >> office and blamed for the hostage taken in Iran."
> >Korrinn, you selectively believe what you want to.....your choice.
> Thanks, but you're mistaken. These are not my words, it is a quote. For
> readers to examine, question... not to be inserted into the mind as belief.
> Whatever gave you that idea?
It was a quote by someone who thinks like you. That's what gave me the idea.
People can say all sorts of things.
> >Here is a quote from your pal Steve Hassen:
> ^^^^^^^^
> Note, when you use words like the above, one can easily dismiss what you
> write as irrational and sacastic -- naturally, your choice.
Sacastic maybe, but not irrational.
> >-----
> > I suppose that I should feel good that destructive cults attack
> >me so blatantly as proof that I am being effective. On another extreme, I am
> >put down by some people who dislike the fact that I believe in and publicly
> >defend spiritual practices such as prayer and meditation. Some people angrily
> >tell me that all religion is bad and all religious leaders are dishonest. Those
> >people, it seems, have had some really bad experiences and, in my opinion, have
> >"thrown the baby out with the bath water."It is lamentable that so many people
> >have had such bad experiences. It appears that they are afraid to trust
> >anything that can't be analyzed and proven "scientifically. "Their capacity to
> >fully develop, take risks, and grow are seriously diminished. I feel sorry for
> >people who have adopted a rigid posture toward life which will only validate
> >an analytic, linear model for understanding.
> > Without imagination, wonder, and trust in non-analytic, intuitive ways of
> >knowing, people can become cynical, defensive and even paranoid.
> >-----
> Interesting. I believe Steve Hassan is on-line. Think we can ask him to
> comment on the applicability of the above graf to TM? That'd be interesting,
> wouldn't it?
Yes, I think it would, since this is a direct quote.
> >The "silent majority" who have lowered their blood pressure practicing TM
> >along with countless other benefits will be heard in the end.
> Don't forget, there are many people critical of TM who don't need to
> meditate because they're naturally low in blood pressure and healthy
> happy and successful in all other ways.
Good for them. Not everyone is that lucky.
> No need to be paranoid -- things are the way they are. Accept it, and all
> else.
I agree. Why influence people who may benefit from TM if only a small minority
*may*(needs to be proven) be adversely affected?
Makes you wonder....
-Bill
The sky is falling...the sky is falling..........run for cover. -German study
Bill Scorzelli
> >One possible version: "It's very important for all sidhas to
> >attend program and create coherence during this critical period.
> >If we'd had better attendance over the past few days, the hostage
> >crisis might have been avoided. So please try harder to attend
> >regularly."
> Ha ha ha ha... this is madness. You actually think TM-sidhas are
> personally responsible for world peace! This is lunatic!
> Korrinn
This is one time I will agree with Korrinn, she seems to know
exactly how a lunatic thinks.
Sorry, I had to....the devil made me say it, :^)
-Bill
John M. Knapp
<bdze...@students.wisc.edu> wrote:
> jmk...@crl.com (John M. Knapp) wrote:
>
> >If anybody is interested, please email me for the 900# for the Psychic
> >Friends Network.
>
> Debunkery Tactic Exhibited: #64, Ridicule.
>
> Originally established by Phil Klass of CSICOP, this tactic is a favorite
> to mask the appearance to onlookers that the employer of said tactic is
> actually running out of arguments.
>
> Also see #127, Ad Hominem (e.g. "You're making money off this, you
> know"), and #33, Straw Man (e.g. "We have no evidence of Atlantis, but
> some people still believe it, right? What's so different about UFOs
> and remote viewing?").
>
> The more creative debunkers like Phil Klass have pioneered new and
> innovative methods to implement all three of the above in one sentence.
>
> --
> Brian Zeiler
Quite cute. But regular readers of this thread will have little doubt who
uses ridicule and who does not.
J
---
http://www.trancenet.org. INFORMATION IS FREEDOM.
Join our free list, email 'majo...@sadie.digex.net' with this command in the BODY: subscribe trance-l