This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alternative medicine This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Alternative views Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Transcendental Meditation movement Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transcendental Meditation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Transcendental Meditation movementWikipedia:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTemplate:WikiProject Transcendental Meditation movementTranscendental Meditation movement Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beliefs of levitation and flying abilities border on psychotic. They appear in other group activities such as Kundalini Yoga and QiGong. It has not occurred to anyone in mental health services that there is a connection between the different systems. They all create the "special circumstances" for Subliminal Distraction exposure.

Eyes open meditation while performing group exercises allows repeating failed attempts to trigger the vision startle reflex. That's Subliminal Distraction. The subliminal detection of threat-movement and your brain's reaction to that threat detection is a Subliminal Distraction if the startle reflex fails.

That happens when you learn to consciously ignore movement around you to stop the distracting reflexes.

Discovered to cause mental breaks for office workers the cubicle was designed to stop the problem in offices by 1968. Today almost no one remembers why the cubicle was created. In eight years searching I can not find a paper or research about the potential outcomes of the phenomenon.

Does anyone really believe that waving your arms and legs about in unison with a small group commands powerful supernatural forces? (Kundalini and QiGong) The same thing applies to meditating while cross-leg hopping in groups.

Quoting what others have said does not create an encyclopedic article. This article should use some measure of scientific investigation not rely on the writings of believers.

The first comment in the thread above about the reliability of source materials is well taken.

VisionAndPsychosis.Net is an eight year investigation of Subliminal Distraction and I am the copyright holder.

The only reference to Yogic Flying on the research site is on the "Letters" page. 24.96.50.139 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:DPR if you wish to pursue this further.(olive (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

In March, Kala Bethere added this footnote [1]. I've taken it out because it looks entirely like original research. If anyone disagrees and thinks it should be re-inserted, I'd be happy to discuss. Fladrif (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to start attributing factual statements with multiple sources, then we need to be careful when we do it.

• Williamson asserts that the chosen sutras are repeated mentally every 15 seconds, and repeated twice, and that here are 18 sidhis, each with an associated sutra, which is a word or phrase in English. The TM sidhis include friendliness (repeating the word "friendliness"); knowledge of the motions of the stars (repeating the word "polestar"); omniscience (repeating the phrase "distinction between intellect and transcendence") and levitation or flying (repeating the phrase "relationship of body and akasha (ether)-lightness of cotton fiber"). Other sidhis include superhuman strength, the ability to find lost objects and the ability to walk through walls. The flying sidhi, which was emphasized by the Maharsihi over the other sidhis for unknown reasons, is practiced after completing the other sidhis, and may be repeated for 5 to 30 minutes, followed by a rest period, and then a 10-minute reading from an English translation of the Rig Veda.^[1][2][3] According to Williamson, the version of TM-Sidhi that is taught to "Citizens" (those who are not also TM teachers) is slightly different from the version taught to "Governors" (TM teachers).

An editor has twice attributions to Williamson to this paragraph. Since there are no other attributions, that phrase implies this is all from one source. Yet there are two other sources cited. First, is there a particular need to attribute these assertions? Second, are the attributions correct and complete?   Will Beback  talk  07:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I made a mistake in the attribution of this text. I read the Williamson section where she talks about the practice and she writes about some details of the technique. So I attributed some text to her. It is necessary to attribute this text because we cannot verify the correctness of what she and others have written. The Maharishi nor the TM organization have published any material detailing the specifics of the practice of the TM-Sidhi program, to my knowledge, so it may be difficult to find primary sources for the exact details. So the text presented in the Wiki article must be attributed to Williamson. If some of the text in this paragraph comes from other authors, then we need to attribute their text in the article. --BwB (talk) 08:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "we cannot verify the correctness of what she and others have written"? What in this article can we verify, other than through sources? That seems like an odd point to make. The TM organization is just another source, and we can't necessarily verify everything (anything?) they say either. If carried to its logical extreme, every sentence in this article and throughout Wikipedia would need to be attributed. Obviously, that result would be hard for readers to get through. Until we can clear up which text in this article needs to be attributed, and why, perhaps it's unhelpful to just randomly insert attributions that we're not sure of.   Will Beback  talk  08:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, Will, you do not want any of the details of the practice of the TM-Sidhi program attributed in this paragraph? --BwB (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that if you don't know who said what in a paragraph with multiple sources then you shouldn't start adding attributions nilly-willy. Again, why do these particular statements need to be attributed, and why aren't we also attributing the assertions sourced to other writers that are in the same paragraph?   Will Beback  talk  08:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am trying to make might best be illustrated by another example. The exact formula for Coca Cola is not published by the makers of Coke. Yes, everyone who buys a bottle of Coke sees that it contains sugar, caffeine, etc., but the exact proportions are not given. If an author was to write a book or article giving the supposed details of the formula, we would want to attribute this formula to the author rather than stating that this WAS the formula for Coke. So if Williamson or someone else says that there are 18 sutras, etc. we need to attribute this statement to the author. Please help me to understand if my thinking is off here. --BwB (talk) 08:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hypothetically posit that we have a source which says Ezekial Godfroy was born in 1937. Godfroy never wrote an autobiography, so he's silent on the matter as far as the published word goes. A former associate of his, Winkelhew, is a scholar in the field. He writes a biography which asserts Godfroy's purported birth year, along with a variety of other biographical assertions. We see this data in a Wikipedia paragraph which also has footnotes to other sources, which we don't have at hand. How do we decide that the birth year in particular needs to be attributed, and how can we be sure which assertions belong to which sources?

As for your analogy of Coca-Cola, I think one difference here is that there are many people who know the "secret formula", tens of thousands. At least a few of them have written books or articles, and some have spoken to those who have. On the other hand, I've seen no denials or corrections from the organization about any of the published assertions concerning mantras. These are undisputed claims made by scholars writing in their field, or other well-reviewed authors. They aren't opinions or assessments, just simple facts. Would you have us attribute every sentence, giving multiple credits where necessary?

According to Winkelhew, Smythbottum, De Pieu, and Malarkey, 'TM-Sidhi' is also known as 'yogic flying'. De Pieu, Beteljus, and Holeburn say it was introduced in 1975. Eckelberg says it not demonstrated publicly at first. Joans says it was first shown in 1982, while Smythbottum says it happened in the early 1980s.

Nobody would read that. Attribution is important for opinions and disputed facts, but over-attribution becomes tiresome for the reader and impedes reading. This is not an academic review, it's an encyclopedia article intended to be read be a lay person. Footnotes are sufficient attribution in most cases.   Will Beback  talk  09:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am trying in good faith to improve this article. I feel it is important to let the reader know that an author claims there are 18 sutras. Are there 18 sutras? I think you completely understand the point I am trying to make. There is a huge difference to saying "Joans says it was first shown in 1982" and "Wiliamson asserts there are 18 sutras". The demonstration was public and publicised, but the contents of the TM-Sidhi course are not published. Anyway, you can continue to argue against this as you like. You seem adamant not to include attributions here, and I am not going to argue the point further for now. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, the difference is between saying, "there are 18 sutras ^(Williamson)", and, "Williamson says there are 18 sutras ^(Williamson)". In both cases the reader can easily see who makes the assertion. The question is why it needs to be detailed in the text, as opposed to just in the footnote. If there's no answer I'll remove the new attributions.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do we ever attribute anything in any article? --BwB (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Yogic Flying" section we have the text - "According to the Maharishi, Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness called Transcendental Consciousness.^[1] Maharishi states that there are three distinct stages of Yogic Flying: hopping, floating, and flying.^{[2][3][4][5][6]} " This could be written "Yogic Flying is a phenomenon created by a specific thought projected from the simplest state of human consciousness called Transcendental Consciousness.^[7] There are three distinct stages of Yogic Flying: hopping, floating, and flying.^{[2][8][9][10][11]}" Why do we not remove the Maharishi attribution in this text? --BwB (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am likewise troubled by the over-attribution of plain vanilla statements of fact, as opposed to theories and opinions, or disputed facts, for which attribution is appropriate. First, I agree with Will about the particular attributions here. We have multiple reliable sources for the basic practice of TM-Sidhi, so attributing that to Williamson is inappropriate. Second, on the 18 sidhis in the current TM-Sidhi program, and examples of the associated sutras, Williamson is the only readily available online RS, but it the information on all the sidhis and sutras is publically available. It is in the Kropinski case court records. The judge in that case denied a protective order sought by the TM defendants to prevent publication of that information, finding that it was not a trade secret. So, we can indeed verify that she is correct. Fladrif (talk) 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]