|Watch: A scientific introduction|
to the TM technique
Even the "mob-ruled"* Wikipedia, supposed by many to be neutral and reliable, is an amalgam of shifting content, based not on accuracy but on statements and opinions from almost any published source — regardless of how inaccurate that source may be — and assembled by rotating volunteers or (hopefully) well-meaning Internet crusaders who are not required to be experts.
A few folks on the Internet have attempted to deconstruct the TM technique, presenting what they claim are its basic components. Any certified teacher of the TM technique can vouch that none of these websites present such details in any reliable form. And, as every meditator knows, the technique is far more than the sum of its parts.
Our "MYTHS" page aims to clarify some of these misunderstandings.
The New Yorker magazine dubbed our Internet era "The Age of Misinformation." But fortunately it's easy to also find reliable online resources. The TM program's educational websites are about as simple and straightforward as TM practice itself.
The TM technique is taught by certified teachers who uphold the purity and effectiveness of the original practice introduced by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, and these teachers are always happy to answer your questions. You can find a certified TM teacher nearest you at TM.org.
Sorting truth from gossip
TM practice is personal. Transcending can be truly appreciated only through direct experience. The TM technique is simple and enjoyable, but the experience is subtle — what could be more subtle than transcending thought and experiencing the state of pure consciousness, the essential nature of your own mind? TM practice can be easily misconstrued by someone who hasn't had the experience or doesn't comprehend the process.
Luckily, for anyone who hasn't directly experienced the benefits of the TM technique, there's the body of scientific research. The peer-reviewed studies, hundreds of them published in leading medical and scientific journals, demonstrate real-world benefits and the uniqueness of the practice — taking something otherwise private and personal and rendering it concrete and objectively verifiable.
The views of doctors, scientists and medical school professors can be found at www.DoctorsOnTM.org. If you are scientifically inclined, we suggest you search "Transcendental Meditation" on Google Scholar, or the NIH resource PubMed, where you can find independent scientific research studies on the TM technique and also other forms of meditation.
For reviews, critical examination of the TM program and responses to criticism, you might check out Skeptics on TM.
At The Truth About TM, renowned meditation researcher Dr. David Orme-Johnson addresses issues related to scientific research and other areas.
I highly recommend the recent New York Times bestseller "Transcendence", by former senior NIH researcher Norman Rosenthal, MD.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact us or attend a free introductory lecture. Every question has a simple, clear and honest answer.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Addresses Skepticism:
*The New Yorker on Wikipedia: "In a practical, immediate way, one sees the limits of the so-called “extended mind” clearly in the mob-made Wikipedia, the perfect product of that new vast, supersized cognition [the Internet]: when there’s easy agreement, it’s fine, and when there’s widespread disagreement on values or facts, as with, say, the origins of capitalism, it’s fine, too; you get both sides. The trouble comes when one side is right and the other side is wrong and doesn’t know it. The Shakespeare authorship page and the Shroud of Turin page are scenes of constant conflict and are packed with unreliable information. Creationists crowd cyberspace every bit as effectively as evolutionists, and extend their minds just as fully. Our trouble is not the over-all absence of smartness but the intractable power of pure stupidity, and no machine, or mind, seems extended enough to cure that."
The New York Post on Wikipedia: "It’s no secret Wikipedia’s often bonkers. Teachers warn students, and editors warn reporters. Even so, the myth endures that it’s a viable research tool that “usually” gets it right, even if a touch of skepticism occasionally comes in handy...What a travesty for journalism, for education and for what we once called “knowledge.”
“The Decline of Wikipedia,” by Tom Simonite, MIT Technology Review
"The Wikipedia Ouroboros," By David Auerbach, SLATE