Comments on: Maharishi Mathematics

By: tom golstch

tom golstch — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:51:11 +0000

These folks prove once again that since they feel obligated to reference all this yogic gibberish to western science, as do fundamentalist Christians seeking to have western medicine verify ‘miracles’, what the accepted structure of reality actually is.

By: Why Can’t We Visualize More Than Three Dimensions? | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:29:39 +0000

[...] this could be a new tantric discipline: visualization in higher dimensions. Or maybe the Maharishi already offers a [...]

By: Ellipsis

Ellipsis — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:50:37 +0000

On the other side of the coin, Hagelin’s a smart guy, who did a lot of quite decent physics in his day and (not that this would be any sort of justification, but..) probably makes more money than any of the people writing/reading here now. MUM is obviously completely nutty, but if you don’t take it too seriously and just relax about it (isn’t that what the point of it is, how to relax?), I think it’s certainly harmless. Science certainly has not answered the question of how do we get people to relax and enjoy life … so if you take that as a goal, then I wouldn’t say MUM is the worst thing in the world.

By: John M. Knapp, LMSW

John M. Knapp, LMSW — Sun, 25 Mar 2007 16:20:30 +0000

For a critical look at the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation Movement, you might like to visit TM-Free Blog. J.

By: Cash

Cash — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 23:39:44 +0000

I’m continually surprised that science has become the new standard for validation. There’s a reason faith, science and spirituality co-existed ( with bits of fighting here and there ) together for so long. One or the other might get the other hand for a time but the other ones always bounced back.

Defining themselves in the context of the others doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense. Spirituality won’t survive a scientific litmus test and science can’t explain the meaning of life. Criticizing either of those by the others is like criticizing a steak for not being an apple.

By: Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Maharishi Mathematics

Ars Mathematica » Blog Archive » Maharishi Mathematics — Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:24:38 +0000

[...] Via Cosmic Variance. [...]

By: Peter Woit

Peter Woit — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 08:04:21 +0000

Several years ago I took a look at the MUM course materials in physics and “Vedic Science”. They seemed to be spending quite a lot of time teaching students about string field theory and how it integrated well with the rest of the Maharishi’s teachings. Looks now like they have given up on string theory and moved on…

By: Arun

Arun — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:15:36 +0000

Bah, it is the American Beatles/hippie generation that went and imported Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Bhagawan Rajneesh and that sort. If some people are so dumb as to be willing to give these folks lots of money, then it is highly likely (so says evolution) that others will arise that will exploit this niche. This does not reflect on Indian mathematics, any more than creationism and intelligent design reflects on American biology.

Furthermore, Americans give money to the foreign missionary sort who are a lot more destructive than the Maharishi. At least the Maharishi doesn’t go about telling illiterate people that if they don’t believe in his God they will burn in hell or giving them antibiotics and claiming that their prayers to Jesus cured them (and not the antibiotics). At least the conman and the conned are on a level playing field here.

By: Plato

Plato — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:10:37 +0000

I wonder if we can be "just as guilty" of perpetuating those things that one could despise? It's a penguin?

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 18:32:13 +0000

Nevertheless, they are completely ridiculous.

By: Tony Smith

Tony Smith — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:48:45 +0000

Sean said to Bee: “… It’s our job to make it as clear as possible what the dividing line is between sense and nonsense …”.

Bee quoted the MUM dissertation of Stephen Kelley in part:
“…. We analyze the low-energy effective theory obtained using the renormalization group equations, …”,
but
Bee’s quote did not include the entire sentence, which was
“… We analyze the low-energy effective theory obtained using the renormalization group equations, demonstrating that electroweak symmetry breaking is obtained if m sub{t} ~60 to 90 GeV. …”.

Assuming that m sub{t} is the Tquark mass,
it seems to me that Kelley is saying that, for the electroweak symmetry breaking that we see in experiments,
the Maharishi Physics Model puts the Tquark mass between 60 and 90 GeV,
which is in conflict with experimental results at Fermilab.

If you really want to “make it as clear as possible what the dividing line is between sense and nonsense”,
why don’t you just compare the Maharishi Physics Model (as stated in Kelley’s dissertation abstract) with Fermilab’s experimental results ?

It seems to me that showing a clear conflict with experimental results would be far more devastating than ridiculing Vedic Views.

Tony Smith

By: Count Iblis

Count Iblis — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 17:32:45 +0000

Why don’t they just smoke some marijuana? That seems a much easier way to “transcend” to me!

By: cynic

cynic — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:56:18 +0000

Oh dear: part of me wonders why you bother lambasting this stuff, then the rest of me thinks for a moment and just wants to give up.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:24:54 +0000

Bee, I can think that it’s both scary and funny at the same time. Funny what they believe, scary that they believe it. It’s our job to make it as clear as possible what the dividing line is between sense and nonsense, so that non-experts can tell the difference.

Robin, I wouldn’t characterize this as “Hindu/Indian mathematics,” any more than I would characterize Intelligent Design as “American science.” Every culture has crackpots.

By: Kristjan Kannike

Kristjan Kannike — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:05:26 +0000

… evidenced from Amazon.com.

By: Kristjan Kannike

Kristjan Kannike — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 16:04:30 +0000

Robin Ticciati’s QFT text is outstanding. But its author went on to write vedic books on food with his wife, as evidenced from. At least he gave a contribution to physics education in the form of a good textbook, before receding from science.

By: Robin Varghese

Robin Varghese — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:46:50 +0000

…its *traditions* descend into this.

By: Robin Varghese

Robin Varghese — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 14:45:58 +0000

Given what Hindu/Indian mathematics used to be (producing a calculus textbook before Newton and Leibniz), it’s sad to see it descend into this.

By: kapakapa

kapakapa — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:23:49 +0000

Yogic Flying brings me a nightmarish flashback of the pseudo-scientific religious group Aum in Japan. Yep, that notorious one with several PhDs, doctors and a lawyer, making tons of money through their computer shops and kidnappings of wealthy gullible folks. Constrictive head gears that supposedly produced alpha waves and subliminal messages broadcast over all commercial TV stations when they appeared… and on and on, until the salin incident in Tokyo metro more or less wiped them out.

It was the Yogic Flying (hovering) that legitimatised Asahara’s charisma, and he was a master of chicanery. Many bright or serious but mixed up youngsters fell for this born trickster.

MUM sounds another caveat emptor case. Nonetheless ‘Calculus 4: Locating Silence within Dynamism’ sounds awfully catchy. The class could be offered as ‘Zen Koan âˆž’. Ooops, I guess zen is one of their competitors.

By: michael pierce

michael pierce — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 05:34:40 +0000

***
I’d imagine that in some cases, these articles had good science to which the authors had to add some pro-forma Maoism to get them into print. Some of the Vedic Science stuff may be of the same sort…
***

I doubt many people are forced to attend MUM. And, it seems to me, there are plenty of journals to publish in that wouldn’t umm….need a ‘nod to the Maharishi in the article as a prerequisite for publication. Though maybe we’ve just been lucky?

sigh… They’ve got several physics courses listed which are not quite as “entertaining” as the mathematics or the dissertation abstracts. There are a few small gems such as

“The Evolution of Physics: From Einstein to Maharishi”

and

“Foundations of Physics and Cosmology: Discovery of the Unified Field and Its Practical Applications for Perfection in Life ”

but it looks like many of the descriptions were largely written during one of Hagelin’s lucid moments.