Falling Down the TM Rabbit Hole, How TM Really Works, a Critical Opinion

Common objections, and frequently asked questions (FAQ)

"I (or my friend or my relative) never had anything but good experiences from TM."

I discuss elsewhere that some people do in fact have only good results from TM. The Dodo holds forth

"If some people do have good results from TM, why are you so completely negative about TM?"

Consider a hypothetical new drug therapy. The pharmaceutical company did not reveal negative clinical trial results that showed an unacceptably high incidence of serious liver complications. The positive results of the therapy are, however, indeed positive when they occur.

Based on the partial data available, the drug becomes officially certified as an acceptable therapy and it becomes fairly widely prescribed and used. After introduction to the public, however, the drug therapy does in fact continue to have an unacceptably high rate of dangerous liver complication. The pharmaceutical company publicly dismisses reports of such complications, denying that they are a result of the drug therapy, pointing as proof to their excellent clinical trial results. They claim that those having negative results must have had some sort of undiagnosed pre-existing condition.

The tragic thing is that there were already other drug therapies on the market that already provided acceptable "positive" benefits, and which did not have the same risk of dangerous complication. Some patients and some physicians begin to engage in "consumer warning" campaigns. They recommend to the public, and to the medical profession, that they use the other safer therapies instead.

Are they being "too negative"?

Mahesh won't tell you about the people who experience a negative impact from TM. He won't tell you that TM's "benefits", when they occur, can also be obtained by other methods.

The "benefits" are just not worth the risk of exposing yourself to the TM recruiting mechanism.

"I am a TM teacher (or a satisfied TM practitioner) and this whole web site is a personal attack on my integrity."

See "I intend no criticism of any individuals other than Maharishi Mahesh Yogi!".

My own integrity was perfectly intact when I was a TM practitioner, and also when I was a TM teacher. At most, I now wish that I had told everyone everything up front, rather than protecting them from things they "weren't ready for". So I assume that your personal integrity is intact too.

"Is TM a religion?"

First, it depends on what you mean by "TM". There are at least two common uses of the term:

"TM the relaxation technique"
"TM the dogmatic doctrinal system"

I personally think that "TM the dogmatic doctrinal system" is a religion, but you'll have to decide for yourself.

For example, how many "non-religions" have a "Holy Tradition"? Be sure to read the part near the bottom under the heading "THE HOLY TRADITION". Note especially: " Ego, mind, heart, senses, body and atmosphere having thus become permeated with the essence of divine wisdom, the teacher begins to teach."

You may find the article "Yes, We Are No Religion!" interesting.

You may wish to read about the lawsuit "Malnak v. Yogi", in which the court found that "Although defendants have submitted well over 1500 pages of briefs, affidavits, and deposition testimony in opposing plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, defendants have failed to raise the slightest doubt as to the facts or as to the religious nature of the teachings of the Science of Creative Intelligence and the puja. The teaching of the SCI/TM course in New Jersey public high schools violates the establishment clause of the first amendment, and its teaching must be enjoined." (Emphasis mine.)

I personally think that "TM the doctrinal system" is an esoteric, dogmatic religious sect, controlled absolutely by its living prophet who proclaims doctrine with ex-cathedra infallibility.

I call it "esoteric" because TM has different sets of teachings depending on what level of "initiation" a person is at. You learned a little bit of actual TM doctrine (masked by some mental reservation) at the introductory lectures. You learned a little bit more at the "Three Days of Checking Following Initiation". You learned a little bit more at residence courses, and possibly at meetings that you attended at the TM center. You learned even more if you become a TM teacher.

Why do I emphasize the "esoteric" nature of TM? Because it means that you did not fully understand what you were volunteering for when you started the basic TM course. You are not provided the opportunity to learn what TM really teaches before learning TM.

I call TM "dogmatic" because Mahesh allows zero alterations to the doctrines he proclaims.

I call TM "religious" because it is "the set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader."

I call Mahesh a "prophet" because he is the only authority for his doctrine, which did not exist before Mahesh thought it up (it is only loosely based on traditional Hinduism).

I say that Mahesh "proclaims doctrine with ex-cathedra infallibility" to reemphasize the dogmatic nature of Mahesh's teachings and to emphasize Mahesh's absolute control over TM doctrinal content. A core TM belief (perhaps the core TM belief) is that Mahesh teaches the highest spiritual truth that has ever been taught on this planet, and that this "truth" is whatever he says it is.

I wish to emphasize this "highest truth" aspect. On my TM Teacher Training Course, I heard an audiotape of a lecture given by Mahesh. Mahesh explained that TM was the highest spiritual teaching. He said that all other spiritual teachings and religions were lesser teachings, and that they were analogous to mere branches of spirituality growing from the main trunk of spirituality, which was the newly revived yet timeless knowledge of TM.

"But 'religions' demand "faith", and TM has never demanded faith from me."

"TM the doctrinal system" is based completely on faith that Mahesh is a teacher of spiritual truth. However, many TM practitioners do in fact report that their acceptance of TM is not based on faith. That was my experience also. In retrospect, I certainly exhibited faith but I didn't think that I had faith.

I believe that this is because, in the case of TM, "faith" is usually acquired via suggestibility.

Advanced TM practitioners certainly display high levels of faith, as when they believe that hopping about on foam mattresses constitutes "the first stages of levitation". And as when they travel to far off countries to practice "yogic flying" in a group in an attempt to bring peace to a war-torn region. And as when they move themselves and their families to "sidha communities". And as when they become celibate TM monks and nuns.

"But 'religions' tell you what the "truth" is, however TM is based on innocent personal experience."

You were told that you experience was innocent, but there was absolutely nothing innocent about your personal experience with TM.

You were told before learning what your experience would be! Then, in the three group meetings, all experiences that conformed to that expectation were reinforced, while all other experiences that did not conform to expectation were responded to with reindoctrination ("checking").

In addition, at the three group meetings you were told exactly how to interpret your experiences intellectually. No innocence was ever allowed.

"Are you attacking TM because you have some sort of agenda against Eastern religion?"

No, I do not object to the fact that TM has a religious agenda, nor do I object to TM being very loosely derived from Hinduism.

I do, however, object to the fact that TM waits to unveil its religious agenda until the audience is in a post trance, and possibly highly suggestible, state. Even then, only part of the TM spiritual agenda is unveiled. The unveiling of the rest will wait until you are in an even more suggestible state from more meditation and/or "rounding".

"You claim not to have an agenda against Eastern religion, yet you use the term 'dissociation' -- this is a term used by Western psychology to provide a secular explanation for what are really 'higher states of consciousness'."

I am agnostic, now, about whether "higher states of consciousness" exist. However, I personally doubt that "dissociation", which can be produced by everything from TV-watching to day-dreaming, is the goal of Eastern spirituality. Dissociation is very easily produced, as Mahesh has demonstrated.

"Are you attacking TM because you have some sort of secular or 'skeptical' agenda against spirituality in general?"

No.

"What is your agenda then?"

My agenda is pretty simple. I want to warn people of the following:

Mahesh is a best a fraud. At worst, he is a conscienceless predator who is driven to gain and exercise control over others.
Engaging in TM practice carries an unacceptably high risk of psychological and financial damage (the fall down the TM rabbit hole isn't cheap).
Taking this risk is also unnecessary because TM (once you dispel the marketing hype) offers nothing beneficial that cannot be attained by other and safer means.

I recommend seeking out those "other and safer means", whether they be secular or spiritual means, instead of beginning or continuing the practice of TM.

"What is wrong with you? Why drives you to do such a horrible thing as to betray your oath as a TM teacher, to betray the Holy Tradition, and to attack TM?"

Yes, I did sign an oath as a TM teacher that included statements along these lines:

It is my fortune, Guru Dev [Mahesh's deceased master], that I have been accepted to serve the Holy Tradition and spread the Light of God to all those who need it. It is my joy to undertake the responsibility of representing the Holy Tradition in all its purity as it has been given to me by Maharishi and I promise on your altar, Guru Dev, that with all my heart and mind I will always work within the framework of the Organisations founded by Maharishi. And to you, Maharishi, I promise that as a Meditation Guide I will be faithful in all ways to the trust that you have placed in me.

Pretty heavy, yes?

You may find an answer that is acceptable to you in Part III of my story.

But the real reason is that I found out what TM really is. Any promises that I had given had to be weighed against what I felt was a conflicting responsibility to inform others of the facts of TM.

"Is TM a 'cult'?"

An excellent question, but a quick answer on this does no one any good. For one thing, we have to agree on a definition of the word "cult". I suggest you educate yourself on the issues surrounding "destructive cults" (for which term I have a particular meaning in mind), and then decide for yourself.

A good web site with which to start educating yourself is "Cults 101", published by the "American Family Foundation" (AFF). (Note: the AFF does not have a religious agenda, it is made up of people with disparate religious and secular outlooks.)

The best single book to start with is Combatting Cult Mind Control by Steven Hassan. This book is an excellent popular introduction to the psychological techniques used by "destructive cults" to surreptitiously alter the worldviews of their recruits.

Another excellent book is Cults in Our Midst by Margaret Thaler Singer Janja Lalich, and Robert Jay Lifton. Dr. Singer is emeritus Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, and is one of the foremost contributors to the understanding of the psychological influence techniques used by "destructive cults" in order to recruit and retain members.

I also suggest reading TM and Cult Mania by Michael A. Persinger et al. Dr. Persinger is Coordinator of the Behavioural Neuroscience Program at Laurentian University.

"How did you think all of this up?"

I didn't think it up, various other people did. I've given you references to most of the people who introduced these ideas to me. My personal thanks to Dr. Singer, and to Patrick Ryan (who was also founder of TM-EX).

However, I did think about it a great deal over a period of years. I find that the ideas that I present on this site are the best explanation for what I have experienced, learned, and heard from others about Mahesh and TM.

"Isn't all of this 'trance induction and suggestion' stuff pretty fanciful?"

You may not agree with how the concepts have been applied it to TM, but "trance induction and suggestion" is respectable stuff in psychology circles. Here are some links you may find interesting:

Chapter 3 from Trance and Treatment, Clinical Uses of Hypnosis (note the reference to "Transcendental Meditation" and the "relaxation response" which is a sort of "secularized TM").
About.com article on hypnosis
Psych Web FAQ on hypnosis.

It is important to remember what we're comparing the concepts of "trance", "trance induction" and trance-induced suggestibility" to . Mahesh's theories demand quite a huge leap of faith by comparison.

"But hasn't TM been 'scientifically validated'?"

Don't be fooled. Research on TM has been, at best, controversial.

Check out Behind the TM Facade, a web site that specializes in debunking TM's claims to "scientific validation".

Also, check out the TranceNet: Independent TM Research Archive. The whole page is interesting, but I want to point out the following section in the article Problems with TM Research, by Professor Barry Markovsky, of the Dept. of Sociology, University of Iowa:

"The thing is, much of the TM research is very non-controversial, and the much smaller volume of potentially controversial stuff that has been published is tucked away in 3rd-rate journals (or worse). So the TM organization can point to the publications and say "Look, we're published in prestigious, main-stream scientific journals!" Most scientists are not interested in trying to counter such hype in the court of public opinion, and most are not interested in following up the breathless claims of TM research because--quite contrary to the way the TM propaganda machine portrays things-- the more controversial TM research is widely ignored (even among consciousness researchers who you would expect to be very sympathetic), and the bulk of the rest is pretty mundane from the perspective of journal readers."

I'd also like to point out this letter the former Chairman of the MIU (MUM) Physics Department, Dennis E. Roark, Ph.D. , in which he says:

"It is my certain belief that the many scientific claims both to actual evidences of unique, beneficial effects of T.M. and physics are not only without any reasonable basis, but are in fact in many ways fraudulent. I will briefly try to detail a few of these errors and false claims in this letter." (Emphasis mine.)

Can you suggest other questions for the FAQ?

If so, please contact me and suggest them. I don't care if it's a "personally confronting" question as long as it's intellectually interesting. Simply berating me for "betraying the Holy Tradition", simple application of "The TM Doctrine of Spiritual Darwinism", and simple flaming, will be ignored, however.

[Contact me/Privacy policy]

[Search this site]
[Monitor changes to this site]