Talk:Adi Da/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Talk:Adi Da/Archive 9/GA2

More reliable third-party sources, not primary sources.

I have began to respond to JN466 request to used more reliable third-party sources,not primary sources. This required some word changes in places to do this, but I have not changed any section in a major way. In some cases I have simplified and shortened certain sections like the Adidam description of diet/sexuality disciplines. There is still more to do so...

I have used third-party sources as much as a could to to describe the practice of Adidam.

Two direct quotes of Adi Da have been added to describe key elements of his teaching. These were from sources outside of the direct Dawn Horse Press books. The only other direct quotes are in the "Unique Realization" sections which Tao put in and felt were important to balance the article.

I will continue to work more on getting other third-party sources to replace The Dawn Horse Press references and try to tighten up and simplify existing sections ... if possible.

Finally while I know there has been sometimes somewhat highly emotional and cantankerous debates with various editors this year...I do want to wish all of those who are helping to edit this article a wonderful,full,enjoyable and happy holiday season ... and a New Year filled with peace, tolerance and understanding. Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me say that the multiple citations to obscure hometown newspapers that almost no one has heard of or has access to (in order to verify the citations) are very strange and a bit troubling.

• Footnote #3: The Lake County Record Bee, December 2008
  • No article title? No author? No page number? No publisher information? What kind of citation is this? Was the entire issue of the newspaper devoted to Adi Da?
• Footnote #52: McKinleyville Press 2008, page 9
  • See above.
• Footnote #8, 61: Articles in The Mill Valley Record
  • These at least have URLs and titles, but still.

Can anyone tell me what is going on here? — goethean ॐ 16:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethean I will try to add further detail on the citation I put up soon. Relative to The Mill Valley Record I did not put that in nor the content. Since the newspaper is no longer published all we have is what is included from the news article on a site that is heavily negative on Adi Da. What is the policy on that? Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is the underlying, general reason why portions of this article are cited to tiny unknown difficult-to-verify newspapers. — goethean ॐ 17:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Will work on Lake County Record Bee citation and McKinleyville Press.Thanks for pointing it out. What do we do about Mill Valley Record which cannot be verified except a heavy bias website? Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, presumably it could be verified by getting ahold of a copy of the newspaper. It's just not likely that editors will do so. It is valuable information, so we can't remove it. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the paper is not available as it has been out of business for quite a few years and libraries now only carry back issues online. Therefore it is not verifiable. Mill Valley, from what I can tell is a small little town nestled in the Marin County of California therefore "a tiny unknown difficult-to-verify newspapers".I will drop this issue for now,but it is very suspect that the ONLY copy is on a very bias website.

I have removed the McKinleyville Press till a better source is found.

Thanks for the detail clean up work you do on the articles on wiki fixing links html's etc. I do notice these things and appreciate your work.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Great work everyone. Currently, only 18/73 sources are primary sources, the rest being third-party. This is a huge step forward, and I am glad so much energy has come forth in locating third-party sources, and conforming this article more to wikipedia standards.

I made grammatical edits, and trimmed the "Works" section, since it was longer than it needed to be. At this point, I really feel the article moving in the right direction, coming into line with wiki policy, hopefully a Good Article soon enough.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

controversies section

I just looked in to see if anything was left of the controversies section, since it seems there is an attempt to potentially get rid of sources that reported some of the info there on Adi Da. A new tactic for an old desire? While surprisingly still there, the thing skews totally positive, like this example:

"In all there were two lawsuits.The first was brought by a former member of Adidam in the midst of a difficult divorce.[69] In November 1985, a Marin County judge ruled that she had no legal basis for filing the lawsuit and the Marin County Superior Court dismissed the case.[70]

In 2005, the Washington Post reported that the other lawsuit was "settled with payments and confidentiality agreements", says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases.'[8] According to Adidam's attorney, both of the lawsuits were eventually dropped, and the accusations all stemmed from a bitter divorce between a member and former member.[71]"

WEASEL WORDS GALORE. While I generally find this effort pointless, I feel occasionally obligated to point out the most glaring grotesqueries. As for sources, the near total lack of any independent, third party coverage of the man or his "movement" tells an important story in its own right, and as I have maintained for a year, indicates that this page should be about two paragraphs. He has demonstrably had virtually no cultural impact whatsoever, as the lack of interest by independent publishers, scholars, so few followers, and lack of obituaries in any paper but the Fiji Times points out. The ongoing attempts by Daists to turn this page into an enticing intro/overview of the guys' shtick I still find bothersome. I see someone else spoke somewhat passionately to this point above. Followers continue to not be able to see a very large forest for this one peculiar tree. It did claim to be the whole forest, after all, and if you believe that, well... Tao2911 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"18/73 sources are primary sources, the rest being third-party." Really? I find this hard to believe - last I looked, there was a lot of "Jones/Da, ibid" in sources. I'll look again...but tell me, who has written a reputable, independent analysis of Da or his teachingsTao2911 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"As for sources, the near total lack of any independent, third party coverage of the man or his "movement"

Tao,if you will look at the "Notes" section you will see that in fact now a majority of the citations are now from legitimate Third Party sources... not Adi Da's publishers, not his devotees,not secondary Adi Da internet sites of supporters. etc..This is what was one of the major ( and primary) critiques addressed and asked for by a formal wikipedia editor who reviewed the article for GA status. Also in compliance with this policy was removal of certain citations such as McKinlyville Press etc. at the request of non formal wikipedia editors as well.

Also... nothing was removed from the "Controversy " section or changed in any major way.--Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I would still maintain that if you look at this article, the majority of the content relies too heavily on those Da sources (still more than 18 - I count at least 24); they may be fewer in now number, but account for a disproportionate amount of the content. Just read it: "according to Da's autobio" accounts for most of the bio section. And many you are counting as "independent" (Gabriel Cousens, Feuerstein before renouncing Da) are/were devotees and part of the Daist community at the time they wrote. So there is a decision here to simply fudge the rules - what if you were to write an article purely from INDEPENDENT 3rd party sources, as demanded by WP guidelines; what would you have? Not 20% 3rd party. Not 50%. 100% independently sourced info and analysis. I personally would like to see that page. I imagine it would suddenly come much better in line with his actual stature and standing historically and culturally.Tao2911(talk) 19:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no requirement in Wikipedia policy that all sources be independent. — goethean ॐ 19:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. Because Adi Da's books are self-published, they are not considered reliable sources. But if Feuerstein was pubilshed by someone other than Dawn Horse Press, it might be considered reliable. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, take it back alright. Maybe you just don't want to get it. The point is that the info should all be independent. If its from the primary source, it should be in quotes - not summarized or analyzed. The sources themselves then also need to be analyzed and measured. So its important if the source author is a follower, and later changed this position. Its disingenuous to use that source to lend credence to certain positions (which is happening in places) and then not reveal the nature of that source. Its simply not fair and balanced, and that is the point behind all the WP rules. So you can futz around and pretend everything simply mentioning Da is a good source, or you can analyze the source and give it context.Tao2911 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility is a Wikipedia policy. If you are incapable of abiding by it, you can leave. — goethean ॐ 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Continues to be iffy. For instance "Lake County News, California. December 16, 2008." cited as ref 42 for the number of Da books. I found and inserted that number myself (causing an absurd row here in talk) from a Da website, to replace the previous inflated number from another Da website. This LCN article cites the Adi Da spokeman for all its info, as its sole source. Including clearly for that 60 number. You can tell he just used the websites and spokesman for most info abt Da's accomplishments. Just because its a source doesn't make it a good one. I've written for newspapers - I know how this goes. The article is lazy .

There are a bunch of these instances; many places where I can plainly see that the text did not change, but the attribution did, from a Da source to a new source. With no change in the text? This is just not going to cut it. These sources then become suspect, and the article remains so. The motive is transparent - keep the article satisfying to the devotees, and try to cover tracks with two or three sources that mention Da in previous decades. It's all just terrifically subpar. And so, when people come to read the page, they hopefully will look at the sources and see this. I know I do on other pages. If the sources are iffy, I don't trust the page.Tao2911 (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The whole books section needs to be scrapped (again) - it is all non-ref'd analysis, with Da as only descriptor. The only known facts - he wrote many books, and he created a press to publish them. Period. Funny, the LCN article is used here again as the only 3rd party source. How can you stand by these edits, guys? Isn't it embarrassing in any way?Tao2911 (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This apparently bears daily re-pasting: "Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about information found in a primary source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Working throughout the article, many awkward passages, and some outright distortions. In controversies, it said "in all there were two lawsuits." the following passage itself cites at least four. I just adjusted phrase to remove contradiction. This was yet another attempt to diminish the negative, and discount the negative. Tao2911 (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I am not going to get into a general arguments with you anymore You have a strong opinions, bias etc. fine. Certain word changes and grammar made by you ... fine and useful.

1)the following passage itself cites at least four (lawsuits) What passage are you referring to Tao?

Relative to the lawsuits. From what I can tell there are only formally two of them. Not news show claims, or individual complaints not filed as formal lawsuits in the media. Formally two that occurred. Do you have a 2nd party source that says there were more than two formal lawsuits? If so no problem with your changes. Find them and we have no dispute. If don't then I will undo that change.

2)"and described having extraordinary spiritual experiences in his company. He returned to India in 1969,and on this visit Swami Muktananda formally acknowledged Adi Da's obtainment of the highest yogic state"Historical Dictionary of New Age Movements,The Rowman Litterfield Group. (2004). ISBN 0810848732

This is a legitimate second party source quote. An academic one to boot. It is properly cited and therefore it should not be removed.

"Adi Da sums up the practice of Adidam as, “Your turning to Me and My Transmission of My Own Spiritual Presence, My “Bright” Spiritual Transmission in Response to you, these two together, that is Adidam."

Again a legitimate secondary party quote and citation.Should therefore not be removed.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"In 2005, the Washington Post reported that another lawsuit was "settled with payments and confidentiality agreements", says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases." So, uh, how is that TWO cases then? Three, plus the other one, equals four, by my math. Does Da math mean that is 2? Tao2911 (talk) 04:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As for the "highest yogic state." I have seen the letter authorizing Jones to teach Siddha Yoga - it is on some website or another. It doesn't say anything of the kind, re highest yogic whatever. In fact, it was because of Da's dispute with Muk. abt their respective states that they split. Muk. said he wasn't fully enlightened, to a lot of people, often. There are sources for this - but I don't care to find them. Instead, just remove this clearly slanted passage. It's not needed. It's not just about it being sourced - you also need to consider the context. Adding this info when it wasn't present before, after lengthy debates about this point, is clearly meant to add legitimacy to Da. And it isn't accurate. Period. If the source actually says this (questionable) then I would question the source's legitimacy here. Tao2911 (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: "and described having extraordinary spiritual experiences in his company. He returned to India in 1969,and on this visit Swami Muktananda formally acknowledged Adi Da's obtainment of the highest yogic state" some of this passage existed before the latest attribution. So, show me the quote from this source. It can't be a quote here. Its a SUMMARY, and a passage that already existed in this page, before the latest attribution. Not cool. Exactly what I'm talking about.Tao2911 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, the quoted lawyer Ford Green DID NOT handle any of the lawsuits against Adidam. If you look at the source and look at his bio he does only lawsuits brought against new emerging religions. That is his thing and the quote in the paper is saying he does these KIND of lawsuits and has done other such cases ie. 3 other type of case(but not representing those suing Adidam)Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Then rewrite the passage to say that - because that is extrapolating a lot from the way it was phrased, and you'd have to be psychic to interpret it that way. Likewise, saying there were "only" two lawsuits, as the passage said before, and then undercutting those cases by saying they were simply part of "messy divorces" is the definition of weasle-y. I mean, come on, you have got to see this...Tao2911 (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow - I just reread that article re: Ford Green. The passage reads: "The lawsuits and threatened suits that dogged the group in the mid-1980s were settled with payments and confidentiality agreements, says a California lawyer, Ford Greene, who handled three such cases." This clearly states that he handled three cases relating to Adidam, and even implies there were more handled by others. It is a willful misread to think anything else. I will change the page to reflect this - you can't possibly think that the article means anything than what it says. HE HANDLED THREE SUCH CASES, INVOLVING PAYMENTS AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENTS WITH ADIDAM ON BEHALF OF CLIENTS THREATENING TO SUE ADIDAM. Plain as day.Tao2911 (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the "legal dispute" section to reflect accessible information. The article has now gone from a clear attempt to diminish Adidam's legal trouble by saying there were "only" two lawsuits, both stemming from "messy divorces" that were tossed out of court, to what the sources actually say (at least three cases that resulted in out of court settlements, and one that went to court.) I used the entire quote from the Post, to sidestep any dispute about interpretation. The quote is there, let folks read it how they may - tho its pretty darn clear.

As for the case in Marin, the interpretation that the case was 'tossed out' because it had no grounds is an interpretation of a ruling that cannot be be checked from the ref (added at some point). I DON"T TRUST THIS INTERPRETATION. Show the ruling in the ref's, or leave it alone. I would like to see that case record - I don't know who added the ref, and has first person awareness of it, because its not accessible in a google search. NO SOURCE says there were only two lawsuits. There is no way to know the exact number without "original research" which is verboten. Saying there were only two is clearly an interpretation, also not allowed. Weasel-y in the extreme.Tao2911 (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

New Changes

Please clarify "sexuality" in Adidam practice. Just saying the word doesn't mean anything. "Yoga" is similarly vague - it can mean saying a mantra or stretching your hamstring. Please be more precise, WITH A CITATION. I removed it before for this reason, asked for clarification, didn't get it, and there's not reason given in talk. Please follow through. Also, please quote the citation from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" page 100 that is being cited for this passage, and others. I don't have this text, its not available online, and its being used willy-nilly as THE new authoritative source for all things Da.Tao2911 (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC

Tao, please discuss changes before you make them to see if we can come to some sort of agreement. Some of you re-writes are good. Civility and cooperation might be useful. .

Relative to Adi Da studying yoga with Rudi... that is not accurate. He did not go there to do hatha yoga classes. He did enter into a more traditional guru devotee relationship with Rudi and Muktanada. For example he went to seminary because Rudi told him. During the time he was a acknowledge devotees of these teachers he was in a disciple/teacher relationship.This is not just going in for a 1/2 hour hatha yoga! There are citations of non-Adidam books about this.

"Yoga" is not "Hatha yoga". He studied yoga with Rudi. Rudi was a yoga teacher. Devotional indian "hinduism" is called bhakti yoga. Surely you must know this. "Siddha yoga" is used without comment in the same passage.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Clarify sexuality and yoga." I did give citations, again non-Adidam books, way back after you changed it several times.

They were not just his books. You took a legitimate citation out that was not Adi Da that discussed these disciplines.

Again, I'm feeling like I keep saying things that simply don't get addressed. Re: your citation I said this, right above: "Also, please quote the citation from "Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America" page 100 that is being cited for this passage, and others. I don't have this text, its not available online, and its being used willy-nilly as THE new authoritative source for all things Da."Tao2911 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That is why you should slow down and have a discussion. But if you want to know what kind of yoga discipline and sexuality discipline it is also in his books. Suffice to say that hatha yoga and a sexual practice are part of his recommend practice. Are you saying that he gave no such disciplines.

I'm not saying anything except don't assume any common understanding. CITE IT. it didn't say "hatha yoga" in the passage before, just "yoga" - I started to add "hatha", but I don't have the citation, and there have been arguments about likening Da too much with Indian stuff. Find the citation, and quote it. You can't be the authority, nor can I. SOURCES. Discipline of "Sexuality"? What about it? Celibacy? Tantra? Polygamy? S & M? What? I again explained my edits - you reverted without addressing my points. I'm going plenty slow, and I am explaining every edit. If you can't cite it, don't say it.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Bright" Condition of his birth;; Not such a big deal. It just helps the reader tie in the earlier statement about his realization. it reads weird, and is completely redundant.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of 7 stages graph I put it back . Let's discuss . This was ok'd by official wikipedia editor.

official editor did not say "great diagram!" He made a review of the entire piece, and clearly he overlooked plenty - plus 6000 edits have happened since. I've long questioned that diagram. Not for content, but because the text is there twice. And the image is fuzzy! Find a better version, and then remove the text from the body. But why? And I explained why I removed it in edit tag. So refute my problems if you care to.

Again, I suggest slowing down , have civil discussion and get consensus. Thanks!````

Slow what down? I made a few edits. Nothing too radical, and I think brings the article much more in line with WP guidelines in every case. Not unwilling to see further edits. Just let them make sense, and improve the article.Tao2911 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits, Tao. Your re-write of the Lead is great. I am not sure why there is controversy relative to yoga and sexuality mention in the "Adidam" section, I thought it was all from a previous citation, which was third-party. So what was wrong with it?

I have posted a new Teachings section, this one doesn't include anything from Adi Da's books. I would prefer the chart be smaller, but if it is smaller there is a slight blurriness, and an editor who reviewed this article before said it should be larger. I did not like how the text simply re-stated the chart, I think there should either be one or the other. But you'll see that I actually found it better to give a short summary of the seven stages of life. There should be some context for it, since it is mentioned later in the article.

Please review these changes, and see what you think.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you f-ing kidding me? You tell em to slow down and you go and do this? You demand courtesy, but then you do things like this, which I find incredibly aggressive. You have completely extemporized an esoteric, overly detailed, credulous overview of your own insider view of his teaching, completely without believable citations, and tossed what was a perfectly succinct version that made sense to A LAY AUDIENCE. I am reverting it to the other version, and suggesting you suggest changes here and we discuss first.Tao2911 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh - I thought it was Jason that made the edits. Sorry JR. Devanagari just can't help this kind of thing. Still, it's totally not workable dude. You have to find citations for EVERYTHING. You can't just make this stuff up and add as it suits you. You are way too close to this stuff. I wish you could just not do this. Say no to the Adi Da WP page. I may be the skeptic, but at least I am an outsider, with the eyes of the general public. Trust me - this stuff you added is way out of bounds. Tertiary source CITATIONS PLEASE, quoted here for verification. It not only didn't have sufficient citations, it was like a boa swallowing an elephant. That one section of the article suddenly dwarfed the whole. You have to consider the whole - as it reads for a lay audience. Historically, we just keep running in to this with the edits you wish to make. Tao2911 (talk) 03:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, Tao. I think it's fine the way it is then. It looks better. But the first teachings section, the 3 fundamental statements, did you feel something was wrong with that? It is straight from "Gurus In America". I thought it would be better as a third-party source, and a shorter summary statement, although a bit more philosophical.

Did it seem too esoteric for a lay audience?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The short answer: yes! Huge chunks of text, too much detail, esoteric in the extreme, and just a couple of ref's tossed in here and there. I assume that a lot that info was your synthesis. In any case, it was extraneous. While I'm not saying that the section is perfect, I'm not sure you are the candidate to adjust it - like I said, I think you are too close to it. I think the section as it is is fine.Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I find the section to be fine the way it is right now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,relative to Kubler Ross endorsement... It was given in 1983 in the first edition of"Easy Death" So it fits into that time period you put into the intro to the article. If you click the link to the book on amazon, click where you can see pages of books and go to the back cover,and enlarge it you will see her original endorsement. As I said it fits into the time period you are indicating so I am going to put it back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (surprise!) I think his early phase is really 1970-75, no later. After "garbage..." period, he started to quickly lose a lot of ground among mainstream authorities. Of course, the endorsements kept coming. But I would work K-R into the reception section. 12 years in is not "early".Tao2911 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your right and your suggestion is a good one Surprise!Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to sentence in intro, "he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community (see "reception")." The isolation & eccentric behavior" I see citations for , but not citations for "cultic community"Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below too, but if you follow up on refs in reception, and Rick Ross website link at bottom, its inarguable this accusation is prevalent. Would you argue not?

Tao,I have appreciated some of the work you have done on the article this last week.

There are a few areas that should be addressed:

I did make a few edits with the reasons for them , but some how they did not stay so I will state them below

"Gabriel Cousins a devotee" Huhhh where did that come from? I don't think this is true.UNDID

I saw a couple mentions about him being so, but now I can't find, so I'll leave it. Tho certainly his endorsement implies devotion to Da as "the Divine." Read it...he gushes, and not about Da's "intellectual contributions."

"Adi Da later asserted that he alone fully embodied a liberated state beyond this dualism, and as such was the sole source of this realization for humanity.[8]" Please find another citation as the one you used does not contain that statement.I am not saying it is not well written. It just needs a citation.

"perceived as his increased isolation and eccentric behavior.(see "reception").Sloppy, please insert appropriate citations in the right place in this section.

" criticized .... for cult like community" Sounds like your language. Please provide specific secondary citation with that language.(UNDID)

The passage says very clearly "while he continued to garner praise for his literature, he was also criticized for what some perceived as his increased isolation, eccentric behavior, and cult-like community." How is this person generally regarded in the culture as a whole? Even his followers are distressed by the prevalence of negative views about them and Adi Da - especially the "cult" label. You may not like it - but its true (the accusations). My language? Are you kidding? He's on every cult watch website on the internet - rightly or wrongly. This needs to be reflected in an objective overview of the person. I think this one line covers a lot of ground, and should be left alone. All of his critics are lumped together, and their subjectivity is defined.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the major ones is the number of books Adi Da has actually written. I went through the following book distributors today, Books a Million, Borders,Amazon and so far I have counted about 60 distinctly different books(not re-prints)online, not DH Press site. I know there are a few published in 80's and 90's not on that list as well.I think your statement of "dozens of books" is very inaccurate. Rather than get into a numbers game it is clear that he was a prolific writer. Whatever you feel or think of what he wrote is not the point. So I would like to suggest we settle this. I can send you the list via email if you want to check for accuracy or post them here, or list them in reference.60 + books is a significant body of literature. Bottom line he was prolific in his writing and it covered not just his religious philosophy from what I can tell. I am not purposing we simply re-instate the teaching section the way it was . But it needs some rounding out from it's current version. I will try to do that in the next period of time and post it here for discussionJason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Many of his books are out of print, so we don't know how many there have been. I say keep "dozens" - I think that is fine. A defined number is not only impossible to know for sure, but is subject to constant change, and further edit arguments. I am firmly against a defined number.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How Many Books???Well it is definetly more than "dozens" and all the books with these distributors has ISBN's. The operating word here is "published". The numbers are minimally 50 but probably more. I think we need to resolve this as it is your justification for suggesting his writings were minimal and therefor three lines on this is all that is necesaary. Aagain , I am not suggesting reverting the section to it's former lenght. But if the number of books is sifnificantly more than you suggest then this section should be rounded out.I am going to submit it to formal Wikipedia editors for arbitration and will abide with whatever decision they come to. It will, as you suggest" avoid further edit arguments." I will leave language as it stands until we resolve this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, if you go look at Ford Greene's page on wikipedia you will see that the "three such cases" cited in the newspaper article refer to cases against Unification Church, Anada Church and Scientology .... NOT Adidam. The newspaper was citing him as a lawyer specializing in these kind of lawsuits. His website does also not mention anything about him handling Adidam lawsuits. I point this out because ... of your statement "This clearly states that he handled three cases relating to Adidam, and even implies there were more handled by others. It is a willful misread to think anything else." No change yet on that section but brings the number of lawsuits under question.Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about any of that. So I quote the article. I don't define what the article means. It means what it means. There is no further clarification in the context of the article - you are merely assuming your version - hearsay. The passage is not willfully mis-contextualized here. You may be right. Your explanation is here. The passage should simply be left as a quote.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

"I don't define what the article means." Actually you did, and that is why I am clarifying factual information. I did not suggest the line be changed. Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we're just leaving the line - and I would still say that, just reading it, it is hard to see it in any other way than "my" interp - which could be a misleading sentence construction, or could mean he handled three confidential cases relating to Adidam and therefor doesn't advertise them on his site, etc. In any case, we're both just left to presume, and luckily, we don't have to, and can't, "research" to know definitively here. Why I just made it a quote. And it's a big improvement from the weasel-y biased version here previous. Tao2911 (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,relative to Kubler Ross endorsement... It was given in 1983 in the first edition of"Easy Death" So it fits into that time period you put into the intro to the article. If you click the link to the book on amazon, click where you can see pages of books and go to the back cover,and enlarge it you will see her original endorsement. As I said it fits into the time period you are indicating so I am going to put it back in.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree (surprise!) I think his early phase is really 1970-75, no later. After "garbage..." period, he started to quickly lose a lot of ground among mainstream authorities. Of course, the endorsements kept coming. But I would work K-R into the reception section. 12 years in is not "early".Tao2911 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your right and your suggestion is a good one Surprise! Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Adidam as Cult

This is ridiculous to even have to prove, that people call Adidam a "cult", but here is a hilarious article I just found on Vice, one of my favorite magazines (in print and online), totally respectable and legit. Even if their reporter is not exactly Woodward, or Bernstein. He was told to join three cults - he chose Adidam first, followed by the Moonies and Aleph. I'll add it as a ref.Tao2911 (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao,as you have said many times CITE it. That is all that is being asked. It is not unreasonable.You demand it of others.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said already, twice, Feurstein and Wilber themselves have said it, and they are ref'd, and I indicated going to 'reception' to see that. Again, I wish you'd respond more thoroughly my comments, questions, and responses, so I don't have to say or ask the same thing three times. Also, Rick Ross is there at the bottom - again. I should work that in more I guess - he has Adidam on "high cult watch" or something. But I already added the ref anyway.Tao2911 (talk) 02:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Tao, all I was asking for was a real citation.... what you ask all the time...not an unreasonable request... required by wiki policy, as you point out abundantly.. no reason to go ballistic....... you do need to calm down and learn to simply have a dialog....you did it... thank you ...issue closed!Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly ballistic to ask for some acknowledgment that I had already addressed your point, I felt to satisfaction - and how bout you just watch your own state, and don't presume to know mine on this end. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers to you! Good night enough wiki for today Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolving Number of Books Published

One of the major ones is the number of books Adi Da has actually written. I went through the following book distributors today, Books a Million, Borders,Amazon and so far I have counted about 60 distinctly different books(not re-prints)online, not DH Press site. I know there are a few published in 80's and 90's not on that list as well.I think your statement of "dozens of books" is very inaccurate. Rather than get into a numbers game it is clear that he was a prolific writer. Whatever you feel or think of what he wrote is not the point. So I would like to suggest we settle this. I can send you the list via email if you want to check for accuracy or post them here, or list them in reference.60 + books is a significant body of literature. Bottom line he was prolific in his writing and it covered not just his religious philosophy from what I can tell. I am not purposing we simply re-instate the teaching section the way it was . But it needs some rounding out from it's current version. I will try to do that in the next period of time and post it here for discussion Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely unnecessary. Many of his books are out of print, so we don't know how many there have been. I say keep "dozens" - I think that is fine. A defined number is not only impossible to know for sure, but is subject to constant change, and further edit arguments. I am firmly against a defined number.Tao2911 (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

How Many Books???Well it is definitely more than "dozens" and all the books with these distributors has ISBN's. The operating word here is "published". The numbers are minimally 50 but probably more. I think we need to resolve this as it is your justification for suggesting his writings were minimal and therefor three lines on this is all that is necessary. Again , I am not suggesting reverting the section to it's former length. But if the number of books is significantly more than you suggest then this section should be rounded out.I am going to submit it to formal Wikipedia editors for arbitration and will abide with whatever decision they come to. It will, as you suggest" avoid further edit arguments." I will leave language as it stands until we resolve this. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC) Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What the heck is your motivation for wanting to say more than "dozens"? Dozens means a potentially infinite number - its not "a few." You cannot define the number - dozens implies that it is, well, at least 36 right? You want a number because you think it will make him sound more impressive, clearly. Do what you feel necessary in terms of arbitration. But if we were discussing some of his critics, who are self-published so that you discount them, you wouldn't care how many books they printed - you say they are not "authoritative."

Whatever the number, it should be clear that they were self-published. The reasons for him being able to publish so many titles do not have to do with the marketplace, or being subject to peer, editor, and publisher review - which clearly if he'd had to undergo, the number would be SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER. There is no arguing this point. Saying 60 books is therefore somewhat misleading. Which, I think, is partly your intent - as you say, you find this a "significant body of literature." Hardly, by any objective standard. Which he was not subject to, again.

And again, you DON"T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER. YOU ARE GUESSING, based on available information, and YOUR OWN RESEARCH!!! You can't do that. Not to mention how many of these books are re-edits, compendiums, repackaged and re-titled, etc. Fer goodness sake, just go with dozens.Tao2911 (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

And another thing - I just looked a the quote. I already sidestepped the entire issue by saying that he wrote prolifically, and that currently, there are dozens of books "in print." I don't even know if that is true, but it seems a fair acknowledgment that his publisher at least has a warehouse full of his books available. So it matters not in this case if they were in the past, present, or future. Until there is an independent, non-Da, scholarly assessment we can use as source, leave it to what we can acknowledge as factual.Tao2911 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Trying to wrap up

I've tried today to just smooth out some of the scars from a year of edits - I feel generally this is good stripped down version that adequately covers the basics for an audience who is just looking for an overview. I feel it a balanced mix showing why he is known in the culture at large, as far as he's known. I think there's been a good attempt to strip this thing down to citable material. I have added some info that I know some will not like, but I've added it without agenda, but to reflect how the man has been seen - and for every "negative" view, I've tried to add its obverse, and improve accuracy in all cases. Importantly I think, I added a section to the bio about how he came to prominence. I'd like to add a couple more ref's there. I've smoothed some awkward grammar, and condensed short sections that were redundant, having been left from much longer sections long since gutted. I hope other editors can read the whole thing through, see it as a whole, and hopefully see the balance that I now better see, certainly from many previous versions. It's come a long way, after some versions that had many frustrated. I think it reads like an encyclopedias entry, or close.Tao2911 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

books books books

Didn't mean to negate your change to "many" just now, but I had to reinsert changes to bio and caught that too. I have no trouble with "many." You need to mention the publishing house, because it is unique to him. It is an accomplishment, and should be stated. And it quite clearly distinguishes his efforts from others, as I discuss. I am not alone in thinking this significant, and necessary of mention. I don't think it objectively diminishing; its worded completely neutrally. Your refusing to allow it clearly stems from your thinking it implies diminishing him. And, why is that a bad thing for you?Tao2911 (talk) 19:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about this paragraph:

As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow his organization to defend him. He emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to his suffering a nervous breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.

The source given for this paragraph is: "Lake County News, December 7, 2008". Is that verifiable? How can I discern that the information from this paragraph is from that source, and how much of it is your own wording? I have been guilty of doing this kind of thing in the past, and you have called me out on it. So I am just bringing it up, questioning this source.

Here is part of that article, including the passage I added (which is a virtual quote, with just a couple changes for readability): "Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in with little regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development….In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to this suffering a major breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.” —Lake County News, December 7, 2008 "Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And is this a necessary statement: "Subsequent editions of "The Knee of Listening" underwent extensive revisions, additions, and subtractions." Is that something you would find in another wiki article relative to a description of a book? I don't find it really necessary to include that it went through extensive revisions, etc.

I think it is significant, only in that later editions did not have the Watts endorsement, the subtitle changed (as evident in an amazon.com search), and its true - there are radical differences in different editions. So what he arguably became most famous for, that book, changed. I found this interesting, when I found it out. I assume others would find this useful info. I understand your questioning it, because its a questionable action, however factual. I think this entry should attempt to BRIEFLY combine as much info from disparate sources as possible. This would help explain why different editions have seemingly different authors, titles, endorsements, and content.Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes in the teaching section about "yogis, saints, and sages", because the information before was inaccurate, which I discovered later on. I did not do anything major, so I don't think you will find it objectionable.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of your changes are ok - I may tweak it a little. We have to avoid overly specialized Da-speak when not in direct quotes. I'm sensitive to it, because I speak mostly English, not Da.

I appreciate your perspectives. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the thing. I understand that Da tried to dance around the issue of him realizing enlightenment at a certain point, and then having to register this with the fact that he was naturally already the Avatar from birth etc. But this language ("Adi Da stated that he was enlightened from birth, enjoying an uninterrupted condition of "joy" and "radiance" that he called "The Bright", which is also his description of the seventh stage of life.") is just confusing. Its kind of gobbledygook, or so it reads when you're not steeped in Da, which sadly I have to report that I now somewhat am. He may soon arrive and demand I wear him as a skin (see Vice article ref to get that joke. Sigh.) Also, you don't have a ref. for this statement. The existing ref is for the quote that follows, or so I assume since it predated your new interp. If not, show quote here. I may return some of the previous language. Your argument that it is inaccurate is noted, I will keep it in mind, and see if I can find something between us. We have to work around the fact that this intrinsically doesn't make rational sense - as much as his language seemed to want to make it so at times. We have to make it comprehensible TO A NON-SPECIALIZED AUDIENCE here.Tao2911 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Tao, thanks very much for posting the news article.

I don't mind if you have to tweak the language a bit, I can't help being steeped in Da, so I don't mind the two of us working together as a balancing act. You are right, I did not put a reference, but I should have, for The Knee of Listening. I can see why you find it convoluted, I had a difficult time with the wording, but what I was basically trying to communicate is that Adi Da claims that he didn't "achieve" seventh stage realization, but was already realized at birth (since he is the Avatar), and so he said he brought seventh stage realization with him. So that should be represented accurately is all.

The inaccuracy with "yogis, saints, and sages" can get a bit esoteric, and I am trying to avoid that level of esotericism. A "yogi" according to Adi Da, is someone like Muktananda, involved in ascending yoga, whereas a "saint" isn't working to go "up", but is already established at a point above, such as the ajna or above, Nityananda is a good example of this. So it doesn't correspond with 4th stage and then 5th stage, necessarily, because both yogis and saints technically fall into the fifth stage of life, that's where it gets tricky. So my attempt is to eliminate that by saying "higher stages of life", without getting into the esoterica I just described, by giving examples of such people.

I see what you did to change some of my wording, I am going to edit it a bit further, now having made this distinction for you. See what you think. Also, I like your re-wording of the previously convoluted sentence. So that looks fine. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is too fine a distinction. What was helpful before was the correspondence to the 7 levels - without that, I see no need for any of this info at all. And for that matter, the seven levels - this helps show why it mattered, how it functioned. It has to be tied to the levels - and was, sourced. I added this info originally, took it right out off an adi da source web page. I think you are seeing some fine qualifivation that I don't see mattering with simply relating the yogi stage, etc to the 7 model.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

It does correspond to the 7 stages, it is just incorrect to say anything about 4th stage realizers being yogis. That is the inaccuracy I was fixing, by making it broader with "higher stages of life". I think it looks good now. I did not get into the esoterics of what I described to you above. That cannot go in this article.

I generally get you - I think it is ok. I would just like for it to be clear that "yogi" say is clearly 4th level or whichever each corresponds to. That seemed really clear in other things I've read - including transcriptions of talks where he gets quite picky about who gets classified where, on what level.Tao2911 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the Biography's tone is neutral and factual, bringing up positive and negative points, but just as I would expect in an ecyclopedia article. However, I do feel there is a change of tone right here:

As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow his organization to defend him. He emerged from seclusion once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, only to fall into despair and feelings of failure that contributed to his suffering a nervous breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as an incident of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.”

I know this is sourced and thus verifiable, but I am just questioning whether or not it's NPOV. It seems to carry quite a bit of interpretation in it, from the point of view of whoever wrote this article. For example, it assumes that Adi Da ran away to Fiji after the lawsuits. You could say something about how some people viewed his move to Fiji along those lines, but the way it is stated in here is a bit presumptuous.

I am not saying the content is objectionable, it is mostly the tone. It is not neutral. It is the writer's interpretation and viewpoint coming across, rather than the kind of tone I see elsewhere in the article, where various viewpoints are just presented, but rather objectively.

Can you see what I am saying? What are your thoughts?--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually totally with you on this - it had bugged me too, but I was going to leave it as mostly a quote to see how much blow back it caused first. I think I was able to bring it into line, while keeping the info integral. I think this is an important issue to bring in, because it is widely discussed in that community, and also is one of the only facts we have for his bio past '76 or so. I really wish we had a way to cover something later - how he said he'd in the early 90's or such how he'd said his whole message and entered into more seclusion, talking less or not at all for long periods. Then how and when he started to come out of that. Also, a lot of allegations from former students about significant substance abuse even into his later years, but no agreed tertiary source for that - plus, I wouldn't want it to slant too far. But I've tried to allude to both his attempts at a more respectable face later, and the fact that he never completely shed controversy or allegations.Tao2911 (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad you agree. We can discuss some of the other things you bring up here later on. First thing, I would suggest you try a re-working of that paragraph and we reach a consensus on it.

A point I want to bring up now is regarding the books. I saw you made this addition:

"Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes. Originally two-hundred seventy-one pages, the latest edition is six-hundred five pages, including new prefaces, appreciations and appendices, with descriptions of early phases in Adi Da's life and spiritual search significantly rewritten. A chapter on his time with Scientology, for instance, is no longer included."

This is a bit slanted in my opinion. There is one paragraph on his books, and it has an underlying negative slant happening with it the whole time. Your writing here just implies that he changed his message, his teaching, and wanted to cover up his time in Scientology. Whatever may be the case, it's not about arguing that he did that or didn't do that. I just don't feel it has place in this article. It isn't necessary. If you want to include something about how the later edition of The Knee of Listening is significantly expanded, that's fine. But that's all that really needs to be said. People can read the two and compare, and reach their own conclusions. We don't need to be making conclusions for people in this article, which was one of my problems with the paragraph I wrote about earlier. It draws conclusions for the reader, already.

So I think this section needs a lot of work. At least a mention of some key titles, such as The Aletheon, which he said was his ultimate work, and The Dawn Horse Testament. Can get away with just mentioning that he wrote on other topics, and that be it. But to have a Books section, and just talk about The Knee of Listening and how much it has changed, and how Scientology is no longer in it, etc., doesn't feel entirely appropriate for this article.

Your thoughts?--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you can find a source that says that stuff, I'm not opposed. But it shouldn't be original research, interp, or analysis. I had an independent source for those figures - I didn't count them. I think the info fits with the article as a whole. But I agree that if you can find a tertiary source who comments on his books, something could be added for balance.Tao2911 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to The Lake County News, Dec 2008. Do you have a copy of what you are quoting there? It seems odd that you could get that kind of information there as it was probably more of an announcement of his passing.Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The LCN article is quoted above. The source for the passage is reliable, tertiary, and not a partisan site. However, this event is widely discussed on partisan sites both pro and con. Views of both are acknowledged as written in the bio. It should be mentioned. While I understand how you partisans have issues with "nervous breakdown", I see this as a clinical condition, and a colloquial expression to describe his symptoms in a comprehensible way to a non-specialized audience. Plus, that is indeed how many described his condition, including the source. It says how Da explained it. If you read the first edition of "Knee" (available online), his breakdown in the seminary also could neatly be described as a "nervous" (relating to the nervous system) "breakdown" (extreme stress leading to loss of normal functioning etc.)Tao2911 (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I made edits to the Biography. It was a bit slanted in some parts. Instead of removing content, I simply balanced it, or changed a word to what sounded more neutral and objective. Take a look.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted these changes, as they were extensive (two dozen?) and in places clearly slanted, removing factual, cited information, and in cases insensitive to paragraph structure and readability (other places are ok, and I went back to them). I suggest that changes be made more individually so that they can be considered as such. Like this: "Others say that it is not surprising that such accusations have been leveled at Adi Da and Adidam. Adidam has remarkably never denied that sexual experimentation was used in the community and that to some it was seen as abusive, particularly during the "Garbage and the Goddess" period." "Remarkably"? "Not surprising?" Seriously? Plus, this is already covered in the lawyer quote, which is clearly a quote, and is cited.

I am pleased with the new form of the bio, as it is chronological, and takes from many tertiary sources, plenty of citations. All the dates now match, and most significant events up to 1985 are addressed. I think that is arguably how it should be, since beyond that independent sources are almost non-existent. He was in Fiji (mostly) amongst his followers, so happenings read like pure hearsay, and exist only on now discredited websites, or in Da's own books. I think what we have in the bio is verifiable and cross-referencing, and reads much like the info I would have hoped to find when I came here two years ago looking for a neutral, non-hyperbolic factual overview.

I really like the way the teaching section reads now, and the legal section is much smoother and sensible (previously it jumped back and forth like a tennis match, and contained some inaccuracies against the citations.) If the book section could have maybe ONE LINE mentioning what his other books covered (as it once did - diet, excercise, analysis of other religions) independently sourced, fine. But I emphatically do not think it should get back into the details of content in hagiographic accounts or his self-assessments - or any kind of original research, analysis, synopsis, or interpretation. I personally find the info about his first and clearly most famous work, "Knee", really interesting, and helpful. I understand the slant concern, but to me, its is so brief and such a dry fact, it does not read of bias. It seems more indispensable knowing that there are these differences in editions of his most famous work - this would be included in an entry on Joyce, or Dickens, if we are using that yardstick.

I feel that the Teachings Section, Controversies, and Lead are really good at this point. The Biography is really close, I want to look at it again before I pronounce that it is complete.

Regarding Books, I still find there is a negative slant. I would like to include some more information, but until I find a third-party source, I will be unable to do so. So it will just have to stand as is. The fact is there aren't enough third-party sources on Adidam, and the ones that are, tend to be rather negative and critical. The result of which is a wikipedia article that reads rather critically, with hardly any positive content, at least in comparison to the criticisms. Until there are such sources available for citation in this article, it will simply have to be as is, so with the current state of things, this is really the best a wikipedia article on Adi Da will be.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite my involvement here, I still maintain my outsider standing, as someone who is interested in spirituality, books about it, and art, but who has never read a whole Da book or joined an anti-cult group against him. I have been friends with students of his, both current and former, and sincerely believe that Da/Jones believed that he was who he said he was (my opinion about that claim having no bearing.) I think this version of the WP entry reads cool and bone dry, or as close as it can get with such a polarizing figure. I think any objections to it would stem largely from the self-serving explanations for everything that Da and Adidam disseminate (and they do - can't argue that, or even blame them. Thats PR, baby), but that the facts themselves here CANNOT be in dispute. Likewise for those who would like to say he was "evil" or willfully destructive. I don't know if he was. Let him be evaluated by these sourced facts - or better, let this entry merely lead to other sources that argue either way if reader curiosity demands.Tao2911 (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You can get very heated, but I appreciate you when you can maintain a balanced disposition and we can work together on this article. It is inevitably difficult given our differences in point of view, and the fact that this article has to be neutral. I appreciate your coming forth and taking an outsider stand, it is not easy to do on such a "polarizing figure", as you say, and that goes for both of us. I am glad that we are able to work together without demeaning one another. The article has definitely benefitted from it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

disputed line

I want to head off argument about this line: "In 1973, he traveled to India to meet again with Muktananda. Over a confrontation regarding the actual nature of enlightenment and how to achieve it, they would end their relationship, going on to actively disparage each others' relative level of spiritual accomplishment to their own followers." This is described in the source at length - yes, I know Jones later said that he respected Muktananda and they communicated jovially on the etheric plane or whatever - however, there are many documented cases, discussed in the source and elsewhere, where Jones said he was fully enlightened and Muktananda was not, and vice versa. And much worse, as Dev probably knows (Muk calling Da a black magician, similar aspersions cast the other way, etc.) So lets leave it at this. It also talks about it as it happened chronologically, not getting into what Da said about it later. In which case, if we got into that we know every single line could have a book length explanation for all the ways that it was a divine manifestation. No offense.Tao2911 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to settle on this one, then.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Likewise Dev added descrip of "Free John." The sources merely say "based on a nickname for "friend" combined with the meaning of "Franklin Jones"." The later Da description ("as "one through whom God is gracious"") is not only peculiar, incomplete, and out of keeping with the page's tone, it is not in the source. You don't get to add stuff just because it fits with your awareness from being a follower. The source(s!) merely say bubba=friend, free=franklin, jones=john. All the spiraling interp from there is left to those who go to Da book/web sources.Tao2911 (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is also fine, when I read it, it seemed it was going to give some translation of "Franklin Jones" but then it didn't, so I gave one. But, what you have pointed out, is correct.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the latest of the passage that is bugging some: "As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da and his organization, and against the accusing former members by the church. Adi Da did not personally respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, but withdrew into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond to the charges. He emerged from seclusion once media attention faded and the lawsuits were settled, but the controversy is reported to have contributed to his having a breakdown in 1986. This breakdown was later explained by Adi Da as a sort of death and resurrection that he called the “Divine Emergence.”[57]"

Dev's version: "As a result, various lawsuits were filed against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. Adi Da did not personally respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, allowing his organization and legal counsel to respond to the charges. Many have viewed his move to Fiji as a form of withdrawing into seclusion during a time of controversy. He left Fiji for the first time in 1986, after suffering a near-death collapse, which Adi Da described as a uniquely significant event, calling it his "Divine Re-Emergence".[58]" Again, I think slightly slanting source toward a viewpoint, and adding info clearly not in the source.Tao2911 (talk) 19:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This passage still bothers me, because it assumes too much, and is written with a negative slant. "but withdrew into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy"...what about how he was already in Fiji looking for an Island in 1983, and how he first set foot on Naitauba in 1984? Before the controversies?

It just assumes that he ran away. If you want to say something about he ran away from lawsuits, then there is a way to do it such that it isn't inherently incorporated into the sentence, such that anyone who reads it, immediately feels that he did that, as if it is a fact. It is an opinion, and there is another side to it. I am not suggesting removing the content, it is all in the way it is phrased. Just because this guy, and perhaps many others, view his move to Fiji as a withdrawing and running away from lawsuits, does not mean it is oaky to just state it as if it is a plain fact in this article. You can state in a way that is still objective, and presenting a viewpoint, without ruling out the other. It simply is not neutral language right now.

you misread. to me it clearly reads that he already was in fiji, and withdrew until the storm passed. you don't like the way it sounds - but its the cited material. So it stays.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the last sentence has a real negative slant, with words like "as a sort of", it is already demeaning and has this derogatory tone to it. I know you may not see it that way, being more on that angle of things. Just as I accept your criticisms, I would appreciate it if you could see what I am saying too. I am not even suggesting that I re-write this, I would prefer that you did, but I just want to encourage a paraphrasing of this with really neutral language, not this negative slant.

All you have to do is look at the original article to see that the author is totally negative. It needs some cleaning up to meet wiki standards.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been attempting to be very sensitive to all sides. I continue to feel that you and Dev are not going to be happy until it sounds like every quandary the guy faced was a heroic, sensible, sacred manifestation of his divinity. And knowing this, I think you are doing a great job at keeping yourselves in check, for the most part. i will look at the passage some more and see if I can do anything with it to help. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Balancing Controversial Issues around Adi Da

I just had a chance today to look at what has been going on in this article the last couple of days. Some good changes and some very bias section as well.In a few places I have added into the text that this is claimed by such and such a newspaper. I have not disputed the source of the citation. It is simply stating and clarifying for the reader that this is being reported in a newspaper and may or may not be true. In several cases one of the editors has half quoted an persons statement (this occured also last week). This is selective editing and does not complete the intention of the person making the statement.

Since sex and religion or spiritual teachers seems to be the primary salacious issue here, a more balance discussion to this issue must be included. There are citations where this matter of Adi Da's attitudes and work with sex and religion is talked about. So... it will be a few weeks before I can research this and post it. "The Garbage & The Goddess" section for example is very bias and if certain editors want to make this more of a "encyclopedia" it is going to require both sides.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. (You reveal your own bias in your concerns. I don't think sex and religion are necessarily salacious. The way Jones dealt with them at that time may have been - quite intentionally on his part. it was part of the teaching, so he said; shock and awe.) Both sides are clearly represented, explained. I found your changes to the passage clumsy, biased, and completely out of keeping with WP bio precedent, and the page as it currently reads. You can't start packing a bunch of leads and arguments for or against things - he said she said. it's covered already. The "negative" categorization from Feurstein (an authoritative source) is in quotes. The adidam lawyer is also given a one line explanation, in quotes. The nitty gritty is discussed in the other section. Boom. Moving on. Don't belabor it. Keep it short and bare citable facts.Tao2911 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yogis, Saints, and Sages

Tao, it seems you did not understand what I explained earlier. The reason I had to make edits to this section to begin with is because of an inaccuracy, which is that there is no term reserved by Adi Da for those who realize the 4th stage of life. The term "yogi" AND "saint" refer to Realizers in the context of the fifth stage of life. So it is not accurate to say that fourth stage Realizers are "yogis", and it is likewise not accurate to say that Muktananda was a fourth stage yogi. In fact, "fourth stage yogi" is a contradiction in and of itself.

There has been confusion relative to this, so I am just clarifying it. I have added an according citation, where Muktananda is described as a fifth stage yogi, and Nitayananda is described as a fifth stage saint, and what the differences between the two are, and the reason for such a distinction within a single stage of life in Adi Da's teaching. If you are curious to understand the differences, I will be happy to type it out for you. Otherwise, if we can come to an agreement, we'll leave it at that.

Of course, the other option is not to include anything on this matter at all, but I tend to find it useful.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into this some more. However, I had a source months ago that described the passage more or less as it was - with 4th, 5th 6ht stage realizers as blah blah and blah respectively.. Jason was the one who recently cited it. I don't actually think you are correct. So please quote your source here, and let's leave it until we come to agreement. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Well that source is incorrect. First I will quote from an earlier pre-publication of The Basket of Tolerance, please read carefully:

“Yogis are those who are truly practicing in the stages of Spiritual ascent in the context of the fifth stage of life, and true Saints are those who are already established in the highest (ascended) meditative realization, also in the context of the fifth stage of life, and Sages are those who have gone beyond the psycho-physical context of the first five stages of life, and who have realized the sixth stage awakening.”

So you see here, that both yogis and saints exist in the context of the fifth stage of life. Basically, fifth stage yogis are trying to get somewhere via ascending yoga, while fifth stage saints are already established in highest ascent. Adi Da has used the metaphor of the Earth, Sun, and Moon saying that yogis are on the Earth trying to get to the Moon, saints are already on the Moon, and sages are the Sun.

Here I will quote from Adi Da's "Lineage Essay", titled "I (Alone) Am The Adidam Revelation" (from the 2004 edition of The Knee of Listening) where he has extensive discussion of Swami Muktananda and Bhagavan Nityananda and their different characteristics. These are from the pages 502-504, which I had cited in my clarification of the paragraph.

"Bhagavan Nityananda was a True fifth stage Saint (Who was exclusively Occupied in concentration 'above the neck', even to the exclusion of the possibilities 'below the neck')." (pg. 503)

"In order to rightly understand their characteristics, ideas, and behaviors, fifth stage Yogis--such as Baba Muktananda--should be compared to fifth stage Saints, who are the Highest (or Most Acended) type of fifth stage Siddha, and who, having ascended to the degree of formless Realization (or conditionally Ascended Nirvikalpa Samadhi), have gone beyond all attachment to modes of form (or of mind)." (pg. 502)

Here is a lengthier discussion, contrasting yogis, saints, and sages and their corresponding stage of life:

"By comparison to Great fifth stage Yogis (Such as Baba Muktananda) and Great fifth stage Saints (Such as Bhagavan Nityananda), there are also Great sixth stage Sages--or Transcendentally Realized Entities of the Fullest sixth-stage type and degree--such as Ramana Maharshi." (pg. 509)

On the next page, comes the quote that you see in the article of "distinct from even all yogis, saints, and sages...".

I don't know how much better I can explain and prove to you that the term "yogi" and "saint" apply to realizers in the fifth stage of life, and that the characteristic of their realization is different, while still in the context of ascending yoga, hence the same stage of life. There is no such acknowledgement given to Realizers of the 4th stage of life, and hence, no term, even though it may seem that the three terms correspond to the 3 higher stages of life, they in fact do not.

I previously was not aware of this, and only recently became aware of this distinction. It is esoteric, I know, which is why we should just leave this paragraph in its simplicity. I think I've provided enough proof here that Muktananda is a fifth stage yogi, and Nityananda a fifth stage saint. Perhaps a less misleading way to phrase this line, "He acknowledged those who realized one of the higher stages of life, progressively, as either "yogis, saints, or sages" is "He acknowledged those who realized either the fifth or sixth stage of life as being yogis, saints, or sages".--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I'm loathe to allow a "pre-published" source, that is first person to boot. But fine, make that adjustment. Didn't he say the Dalai Lama is 4th stage? I just want it clear how he categorized people in accordance with his system.Tao2911 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tao. I won't be including the quote from the pre-publication, that was for educational purposes. I'll only be citing from The Knee of Listening. Also, I don't think he's ever said anything about the Dalai Lama. People in the 4th stage of life are mostly Christian, such as St. John of the Cross, St. Theresa of Avila, and St. Francis, all examples of 4th stage.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is a quote from aboutadidam.org: "Stage Four: Spiritualization: Even while still maturing in the first three stages of life, many people devote themselves to religious practices, submitting to an ordered life of discipline and devotion. This is the beginning of establishing the disposition of the fourth stage of life, but it is only the beginning. The real leap involved in transitioning to the fourth stage of life is one that very few ever make. It is the transition we associate with saints: nothing less the breakthrough to a Spiritually-illumined life of Divine contemplation and selfless service." My whole point is that you need stage illustrators. You jsut wrote above that 4th stage isn't saint or yogi. Now you say saint is 4th stage, but only lowly christians. Please, just let me know that you know you are contradicting yourself. Who is the authority? You or Adidam?Tao2911 (talk) 00:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Overall Tone

I will reiterate that right now (I made a couple more changes to remove potentially offending word choices) I think the whole page is very balanced. The "Garbage" passage is one short passage, descriptive without lengthy justification for either "side". This is really important info, but it is clearly the flashpoint for much controversy regarding Adi Da, and a pivotal moment in how he was to become regarded in the culture more widely. This period is used by Adidam to excuse behavior that later would cause much bad press, compartmentalizing it there (true or false.) It is the time that many independent analysts look to as particularly significant. Pivotal, and a must. It makes other issues clearer, in the legal disputes and in the chronology of his life. It's presented in the barest possible way, with the facts that most people would find significant.

It is given no more weight than any other significant event or period in Jones' life; if you look on balance, there are many more positive/neutral events than potentially controversial ones listed. And in all cases, editorial opinion about them is neutral.

Even the book section is balanced. It says that he wrote a popular book that was well received. It then says that this, his by far most read text, has been issued in many editions, and undergone many changes. I see no problem with this section, while I understand how to those more involved with his books and organization might be frustrated to not have his entire corpus discussed. I don't think that this is the place for that. Look at other pages on similar figures - Muktananda for instance. He has been arguably much more influential (his students are a who's who - Siddha Yoga alone has many times as many students as Adidam) and his page is a quarter the length of Da's.

The controversy section is all tertiary sourced, with both sides given almost precisely equal word count.Tao2911 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Tao. I still am not a fan of the Divine Emergence paragraph...but everything else is looking good. I added in a quotation of Cousens' endorsement, because I noticed you were including quotes from people in that section. I fixed yogis saints and sages. And I will probably add a few commas in the Biography, but that's it. Good work.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to the youtube Channel 2 citation of 1986... I suspect that this is a copyright violation of unauthorized use and may not be allowed by wikipedia. I will check into this. Nevertheless the except is a news show which presents one side and therefore justification for simply saying "According to Channel 2 News" Nothing in wikipedia policy that prohibits this. Another point is that most, if not all of the information in this citation, is already covered in other areas ...in detail (via other citations). Why do YOU feel the need to add this additional repetitive citation... Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The youtube links should be removed but the citations to the news program are still valid without a youtube link. — goethean ॐ 02:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

what section are you alluding to? As for adding "according to..." if it was in the bio, it didn't fit with the whole. You can't start sourcing every comment like that - plus, "channel two news" didn't make allegations. They reported allegations, defenses. So the precedent, in this page and in others, is to just synopsize or quote the info and SOURCE IT. Also, what info is redundant, where?Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Relative to youtube link I did get confirmation from formal wikipedia editor that the actual link to the copyright video is not allowed. "YouTube videos that infringe copyright should never be linked in refs: WP:LINKVIO, WP:ELNEVER. Generally TV programs are not preferred sources." Jayen" I think Goethean suggestion is a good compromise. So I have left the citation in and removed the link.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Added simple line on lawsuits with appropriate citations. In keeping with request from another editor kept brief.Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wood quote fine with contextualization.Tao2911 (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

POV dispute

Hi there. Sorry to spoil the fun, but I am disputing the neutrality of this article. I just removed a few of the poorly sourced contentious material. It's clearly outside of Wikipedia's aims to bring in prejudicial, self-published sources into the article. It really brings down the quality and the neutrality of the article. This is something that has been worked out before here many times. Please read the archives. There are still quite a few self published sources still being used. IMHO there are still a lot of poorly sourced, non-neutral statements being made in the article David Starr 1 (talk) 01:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Starr - a number of editors have been hard at work here, working to reach a relatively stable page. Please discuss the changes you wish to make here - many of your points are simply mistaken, as discussion here would show if they're reviewed. Please bring up your individual points here for discussion - then changes can be agreed on as a group.

For instance, Gurdjieff journal is not "self-published." And the reason for it's use as source is because it is a well-researched, balanced, teritary source for synopsis of much info from Adi Da's own autobio, as well as other independent sources. Nor was Lowe's essay self-published- it was published, as citation shows, by a university press (and not even Lowe's own). And Lowe's mentions are contextualized to show his position, not as undisputed facts. Art mention in bio was necessary I believe to show activity in bio beyond 1985, though that could be workable - move it then, don't just delete.

And there is not a dispute about neutrality among the editors here, who clearly have opposing positions in many cases. We are managing to find consensus - the reappearance of this potentially vandalous activity on your part is really unwelcome. Many editors are working to find the best tertiary sources we can, successfully in 90% of cases, only using others (both pro and con) when alternates are not available - per WP guidelines. In those cases, the tone is striving for neutrality, and mainly using quotations with potentially controversial statements. The tone of the page is cool and factual throughout, accurately reflecting the information available in the culture at large.

Your activity was, again, potentially vandalism, and disrespectful of those of us working hard on this page in past weeks. Comments like "Sorry to spoil the fun" reveal the lack of willingness to work with others that you have exhibited in the past, and I am disappointed to see you return to this kind of activity. Just work with us, and don't assume you know it all. As past comments and activity on your part have shown, you clearly have at times demonstrated bias, and were wont to use many Adidam sources. I see your actions now reflecting this same bias.Tao2911 (talk) 03:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not show good faith and respond to my request by bringing up your specific issues here in talk so that other editors who have been lately more active can respond? You are not responding to the specific points I brought up. Yes, it looks like vandalism when you swoop in and utterly dismiss the efforts of those who've spent many hours working quite diligently and in concert to craft what is hopefully an entry to suitable to all on a contentious subject. You are not being respectful to them, in word or deed. You do not get to slap dispute-labels on the article (thereby discrediting it) when you do not bring up the specific points that you wish to dispute. That is not in keeping with WP guidelines. I stand by my accusations of bias - it is not name calling. Until you demonstrate good faith by engaging in constructive dialogue here, we will have little reason to think otherwise.Tao2911 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)