Skip to content or view screen version

A proven way to create world peace

Bermuda Sun | 21.11.2001 16:34


"Unfortunately, people -even otherwise sensible and pragmatic leaders - cling to problems (and failed practices) that are familiar, and almost fear solutions that are not. That to me is the most bizarre of all".

Enclosed is an interesting article which outlines a proven and tested way to create world peace via the TM-Sidhi programme. There have been a number of similar articles in the press on this topic over the past few months as people search for effective non-violent ways to eliminate terrorism and war. This one is one of the best I reckon because it challenges our current mindset in our search for effective solutions.

TM: Cure or cult?

Further to Daniel Brett's accusation on this website last week that TM is a cult, and that there is ample evidence to support this claim - I include the following points. These can be verified by the Home Office sponsored organisation, INFORM, which has independent information on TM:
[INFORM, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: 0207 955 7654]

TM - fact and fiction

1. Accusation: "Research has shown TM to be harmful"

Fact: TM is a simple, natural technique which reduces stress in the individual and in society. Its effectiveness in promoting improved health in society has been verified in numerous scientific journals over the past thirty years or so (see enclosed references).

No scientific papers have ever been published in refereed (peer-reviewed) scientific journals showing adverse effects of Transcendental Meditation. A systematic search of scientific research databases will confirm this fact. A paper by Otis, that is sometimes referred to by critics, is not actually scientific in its structure, and has never been accepted for publication in a scientific journal. Furthermore, Otis is only raising questions and not presenting any established facts. He does not draw on any other studies that show adverse effects of TM.

Largely in response to the questions raised by Otis, the Swedish government conducted a very extensive study of all admissions to the hospitals in Sweden over a substantial period. They not only concluded that TM was not a risk factor for any illness, but also indicated that TM practitioners were 150-200 times less likely to need admission for hospital care than the rest of the population ( See Collected Papers on TM~ Vol 1).

2. Accusation: "The TM organisation was forced by a United States court decision to pay $138,,000 to a former TM practitioner."

Fact: Despite the litigious nature of life in the USA, and the fact that over one million people have learned TM there over the last 40 years, there has only ever been one set of cases brought against TM. These have all ultimately been dismissed by the courts, either directly, or through court ordered settlement conferences (involving insurance companies). Nothing was ever paid to anyone by the TM organisation to settle cases. On fact, the final court ruling in these cases made it illegal in the USA for those who brought the cases to try to do so again, or to claim in public that they had won a case against the TM organisation).

Worldwide, no court of law in any country has ever found damages resulting from Transcendental Meditation, the TM-Sidhi programme, Maharishi Ayur - Veda .

3. Accusation: TM is a "Cult" and involves "thought reform ".

Fact: Leading experts, including officials at the British Home Office, have concluded that TM is neither a religion nor a cult. The US courts have dismissed evidence of "thought reform" (the official definition of a cult) in the case of the TM organisation. Dozens of studies on the psychological effects of TM show that its influence in developing independence of thought are directly opposite to the effects that a cult is said to have on the individual.

A December 1991 British Home Office memorandum to all prison Governors and Area Managers lifted the ban on teaching Transcendental Meditation in prisons in Britain, and stated that: "Transcendental Meditation is not to be regarded as a religion."

The following excerpt is from a public statement by cult expert Shirley Harrison of "The Word Team", dated Jan 1990:

"As you know, I was commissioned by the publishers Christopher Helm to write a book which appeared last year, "Cults - the Battle for God". This was the first non- academic agnostic appraisal of some of the fringe spiritual movements - setting them in a historical perspective.

"In the course of our research, my colleague Sally Evemy and I visited a great variety of the groups which have come to be called "Cults" and talked with dozens of people, at all levels of involvement. who have found comfort from them, as well as their critics in the anti-cult movement.

" From our experience we found no evidence of harm resulting from the practice of TM or Ayurveda in Britain. On the contrary, almost all those we talked to were pleased and continuing to practise what they had learned. It was the only one of our chosen subjects in which we had great difficulty finding case histories to reflect the "flip side II of the story. In fact. of all the new movements TM at its simplest level was possibly the only system that held any personal interest for us.

" It is not a religion - except in the sense that it tries to offer a lifestyle and spiritual dimension to people of all faiths."


If people want to have an independent view of TM, you may wish to refer them to the Home Office sponsored organisation, INFORM, which has independent information on TM:
INFORM, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE Tel: 0207 955 7654

(The head of the organisation is an academic, Dr Eileen Barker, Professor of Sociology, London School of Economics and Politic


Bermuda Sun
Oct, 2001



"Unfortunately, people -even otherwise sensible and pragmatic leaders - cling to problems (and failed practices) that are familiar, and almost fear solutions that are not. That to me is the most bizarre of all".


Let's give 'peace force' a chance

By Stuart Hayward

THESE ARE bizarre times. Recently, U.S. President
Bush began a campaign to convince people it was safe to travel in airplanes again. On the same day we heard that many airports are no safer now than they were before the September 11 attacks - that since the attacks, 'sky-cops' testing security measures had been able to smuggle knives onto a plane. On the same newscast and immediately following the report about the President's new
message that it was safe to fly, there was a news report that the military now had clearance, albeit with a few caveats, to shoot down planes commandeered by hijackers.

It's "safe" to fly, but the weapons the hijackers used can still be smuggled aboard. And if hijackers do take over an airplane, the U.S. military can blow it out of the sky. Destruction of innocent airline passengers in the name of protection. Do you call that safe? I don't. I call that bizarre.

Also, the President has warned Americans that they will have to expect permanent war, in secret with heavy press restrictions, against a shadowy enemy that lurks in more than 60 countries - including the U.S. To conduct the war, the US government proposes to tap the phones, read the E-mail, seize credit card records of its own citizens without court order. It seeks to detain and deport immigrants without cause or trial. It proposes
to use foreign agents to spy on Americans. In order to protect freedom, Americans will have their cherished freedoms destroyed.

Destruction in the name of protection is also the philosophy of the military response to the attack. President Bush threatens to destroy the terrorists, any country that harbours them, and any country that doesn't join the U.S. in the destruction effort.
But killing people doesn't destroy the enemy, it only fertilizes enmity.

In the same way that destroying a hijacked plane doesn't
eliminate future hijacking; neither will destroying the current crop of terrorists (if such was possible) eliminate future terrorists. We know this because we've been using these methods for centuries. Three times in the past century alone, powerful countries unleashed their military might on smaller countries - France and the U.S. against Vietnam, Russia against Afghanistan, and India against Sri Lanka. Three times the military behemoths had to withdraw, bloodied, bowed and beaten. Isn't there a
lesson here?

Currently there is a tremendous hype in the U.S. media about
America's new war. The issue is being portrayed as though
there's only two possible stances: going to war or supporting terrorism.

Last Saturday, 10,000 to 20,000 people participated in a peace march in Washington DC. I didn't see this third possibility reported in the mainstream media, except for the Washington Post which branded the marchers as "un-American" (I thought peaceful protest of policy was eminently American).

A fourth possibility is one proposed last week by Maharishi
Mahesh Yogi in full-page ads in many newspapers (including the Bermuda Sun). He has offered to set up a peace force which he claims will reduce stress and tensions around the globe and have the real and lasting effect of dampening terrorist tendencies. I confess a bias here. More than 25 years ago, I trained as an instructor of Maharishi's Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique. I've met Maharishi several times, and never before or
since have I encountered someone so sincerely and actively
dedicated to world peace.

The intriguing aspect of Maharishi's proposal is that it
requires no searching for or engagement with an enemy - real or imagined. It doesn't preclude rounding up the perpetrators and meting out justice - something everyone supports, including Maharishi. It does, however, eliminate the risks of harming innocent people and escalating combat. It is relatively inexpensive - the U.S. defense budget is over $300 billion per year; Maharishi's scheme is budgeted at $1 billion, forever. And it does have scientific verification that it works.

The method uses the phenomenon that a group of people practising together Maharishi's advanced meditation techniques exert a positive and calming influence in the community. The size of the group is determined by the population of the community.

From the successful experience of over 50 research studies, some of them published in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals, Maharishi proposes to assemble a group of 40,000 to generate this positive influence for the entire six billion people on the planet.

Given that the only other proposals on the table for dealing
with the September 11 attacks, and terrorism in general, are the ones that have failed miserably and repeatedly, Maharishi's proposal has great merit. As there is nothing to lose, it certainly seems worth a try.

Unfortunately, people -even otherwise sensible and pragmatic
leaders - cling to problems (and failed practices) that are
familiar and almost fear solutions that are not. That to me is the most bizarre of all.


Copyright © 2001 Bermuda Sun


A proven method to eliminate terrorism and war:

This method isn't open to debate - it has been verified in numerous independent scientific studies over the past 30 years and can be implemented straight away if the necessary desire is there.


“I think the claim can be plausibly made that the potential impact of this research exceeds that of any other ongoing social or psychological research program. It has survived a broader array of statistical tests than most research in the field of conflict resolution. This work and the theory that informs it deserve the most serious consideration by academics and policy makers alike.”
David Edwards Ph.D., Professor of Government, University of Texas at Austin.


"Every truth passes through three stages before it is recognised.
First it is ridiculed.
Then it is opposed.
Then it is regarded as self-evident".

-Arthur Schopehnauer


Bermuda Sun


Display the following 8 comments

  1. Maharishi is a super-rich fascist — Daniel Brett
  2. Welcome to Maharishi Country! — Daniel Brett
  3. stretching,yer own space,stop hoppin — angry
  4. Why? — Andy O'C
  5. A new paradigm — Ron
  6. Why won't he answer? — Daniel Brett
  7. Why won't he answer? — Daniel Brett
  8. isn't it obvious? — a nonny mouse