Talk:Adi Da/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Books

I find the Books section still reads with bias, as if to create suspicion on the part of the reader as to the legitimacy of The Knee of Listening. It says to me, "The original one is good, but watch out for the later edition, it gets a bit funky, its about 5 times the length, has all kinds of added stuff, and basically his whole bio is re-written, plus it has this ridiculous section on his "pre-birth" whatever that means!"

that's your subjective take. I don't read it that way at all. The facts there are all cited from sources. Its not editor analysis.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no mention of The Dawn Horse Testament or The Aletheon, which are his two biggest and he said most significant texts. How can you have a Books section just discussing The Knee of Listening, how much it has changed, how scientology isn't in there anymore, how much it has been re-written and revised, and not mention anything else of the other 60 + books, not even two of the major texts?

Because Knee is the book that has tertiary source analysis, not Adi Da self-estimation. its his first and by far best known book, and the book that made him famous and paved the way for his becoming a guru. its the book they most promote to the public. its the book used as source in this profile. There is Knee, and then there is all the rest. Find brief tertiary analysis or synopsis of other books and it could be considered.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This section needs some work, I simply will not accept it as it is. I will be searching for sources and making proposals.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bon chance.Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Art

I also do not understand why "Venice Biennale" is something that isn't allowed to be mentioned. This sounds like bias on the part of the editor, and in general, there has been a kind of attempt to "downplay" everything about Adi Da in this article. I'm not for exaggerating, but things should simply be stated.

The way I would state the art section is this: "n the last decade of his life, Adi Da produced visual art which he called "Transcendental Realism." These works were primarily photographic and digitally produced. In 2007, Adi Da opened at the Venice Biennale, chosen as a solo collateral exhibition, curated by Italian art historian Achille Bonito Oliva[94]; the exhibit then moved to Florence. He also was represented by a commercial gallery in Culver City, California.[95]

That wording is straight from a magazine titled "The Enlightened World".

Google search pulls up absolutely nothing by this title. Not striking me as real authoritative, this. Oh, and btw, that wording was the wording on this site, from a version that I wrote, until I changed it 2 days ago. That version you quote back to me btw also reflects some other recent changes, making it no more than a few days old. Dev, come on.Tao2911 (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the line about the Biennale is what I am quoting to you directly from the magazine: "Adi Da opened at the Venice Biennale, chosen as a solo collateral exhibition..." That line. The rest is, yes, yours. What do you have to lose by mentioning this? Are you afraid it might make Adi Da look like a good artist or something? It's just a factual mention.

It's mentioned here, this guy goes to the Biennale and talks about seeing Adi Da's art: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/venice-biennale-bidding-farewell/. If it's not true, then how come everywhere you look, it is mentioned as being part of the Venice Biennale? Is it not clear in this passage that it is a "solo collateral exhibition"? Isn't that the point you are making? Either way, I am not convinced by your interpretation and argument, when sources say otherwise. I will look at more sources and articles.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

show happened same time as Biennale. but but he wasn't in THE biennale - it was "collateral" to it. Confusing right? You are proving my point. I am saying that even mentioning it is misleading. The distinction of his involvement is too convoluted to clarify in entry passage. Also, I just completely shot your source out of the water. it is no way authoritative, in any way shape or form.Tao2911 21:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would like to propose the inclusion of this line from this same magazine article, for the Biography: "Adi Da Samraj describes his early years as being focused in two fundamental activities: investigating how to realize truth, and developing the ability to communicate that truth through artistic means, both visual and literary." I think this could work instead of the "Bright since birth" line.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

First, your second point: I don't know this source, but that line sounds overly credulous (after quickly checking for source, as I say above, to even bring it up is beyond ridiculous.) It's not factual. Its yet more Da self-analysis, and we have plenty of that. No way. Plus, adding a quote that long in the midst of the bio makes no sense. I'm not sure you have an ability to read a passage and recognize what fits in terms of readability - you always just want the heroic characterization. One, the bio reads now chronologically with name changes as they occur, and minimal subjective interp, except as it pertains to those events as they happen (ie he quit drugs because he found them problematic. Devotees experimented because they said it was to grow spiritually, etc.)

Second, I have explained this Venice biennale thing numbers of times, at length. Da wasn't in the Biennale, or 'open at it' (whatever that is supposed to mean). He was featured in a "collateral exhibition." The explanation this demands takes up too much room in the profile. "Collateral exhibitions" are completely independently run and funded - the quality of these shows are wildly uneven, and they have no official sanction or oversight or "quality control" by the Biennale curator or organizers, which was what was implied before by wrongly including the Biennale catalog in references. I've been - I know. Adidam wants people to think he was in the Biennale because of its prestige and legitimacy. He wasn't. The Biennale consists of two parts - the pavilions, in which dozens of nations select 1-2 artists to represent their country (these are always mid to late career artists of great significance, not dabblers having a first show like Da). Or, there is a large group show curated on a theme by the Biennale director for that year. Da wasn't in that either.

This is all esoterica to the uninitiated, and continued to make the section tortured, trying to allude to these facts. Most people don't know anything about the biennale anyway. if they want more info about his shows, they can pursue references. i will continue to protest this point, and the inclusion of Biennale mention in this section.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dev here. Adi Da was at the Bienalle, the collateral events were considered part of the main show. And Adi Da was published by Welcome Books, and has critical acclaim from some of the top art critics in the art world. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"was considered part of the main show" No dude, it wasn't. That's what I'm explaining to you. If you don't believe me, do the research. Don't confuse the issues - the "critical acclaim" such as it is, is mentioned (kuspit, oliva). The Welcome book is mentioned. Why are you bringing those up? Making a case for...?

I am saying no to the Biennale mention - there is no significant loss of info. Just confusion.Tao2911 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying yes. I mean why not? It's valid information, not made up. It happened. It was an important event in the life of the subject. You can see here that the collateral events are part of the Bienalle, [1] Here are some examples of other artists who list their participation in collateral exhibits of the Bienalle, Atta Kim, Jeffrey Isaac, and Caterina Davinio.

The distinction is still valid. He wasn't in THE biennale. Who is going to understand what a "collateral exhibition" is? No one. You don't. Look at this list you link to - there are dozens of completely unaffiliated events, with no Biennial oversight/relationship. It's a list of shows - every art event in Venice that happens at the same time as the Biennale. Not in the Biennale. The Biennale is a very specific thing, with two parts as I said. He's not in it. So no Biennale mention.Tao2911 (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If the collateral events aren't a part of the Biennale, then why are they part of the official Biennale website? [2] The artists above all list their Biennale collateral event showings as just that. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that it is excessive confusing detail that is misleading and only emphasized due to biased POV.Tao2911 (talk) 03:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Agreement, Partisanship

Starr and JR, I see you seem to have responded to mediation request, but you still have to agree lower down on the page in some way. Dev already has.

I will participate in mediation as long as we have the agreement that there will be no more changes to the article without consensus, and we all stick by that agreement David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

the only changed I've made are to sections that I have largely written, in nearly every case recently to simply try to move the article toward devotee concerns.Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, I have a legitimate concern that having created a concise statement of my concerns, that you not then make changes, which would change everything about the structure of those concerns regarding the content of this article. None of us own the edits that we make and none of us own this article. So are you able to stop editing non-consensually for whatever period of time that it takes for the mediation process to occur? David Starr 1 (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also - I want to say for the record that of four people involved in this mediation, three of them are admitted followers, committed believer/devotees, or admirers of the controversial religious guru this entry profiles. Your investment in the topic naturally stems from this. As you have all made clear in word and deed, you want him to look good, admirable, even "holy."

What is your point? You are just as biased, but in the opposite direction. You feel negatively about Adi Da, and have made nasty comments about him (which I can find and quote back to you) numerous times in the history of this Discussion page. What's the difference between being an admirer and being a hater? Equal bias both ways. Point is, it doesn't matter, so you can forget this "you want him to look good, admirable, even holy" kind of bullshit. You arguably want him to look bad, and as controversial, and suspicious as possible. Either way, we both have to discard those points of view and work toward a neutral article, regardless of what you want and I want. So your bringing this up is truly irrelevant. Maybe if we were all devotees or something, it could be an issue of bias, but the fact that you aren't is enough to demonstrate that there is more than one point of view happening here, which can serve the article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. My statement regarding this is at my user page: [[3]] Please stop misrepresenting me on this talk page. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

being a "fan" as you state is being an "admirer". Ok? You wear your bias on your sleeve. Its clear enough. with Da, you are on the bus, or off the bus. He didn't leave much room for ambivalence, did he?Tao2911 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not a follower or a devotee (surprise.) I certainly find some of his accomplishments admirable. However, discounting everything ever published by Dawn Horse Press (adidam's mouthpiece), virtually all analysis and press in some way addresses his controversial reputation and/or the reasons for it (a glance at citations proves this.) Devotee editors have consistently tried to remove these mentions or minimize them in every conceivable way. I have been fighting to have the entry reflect the relative weight of available info on Adi Da, in a neutral non-partisan way. Working with devotees, remaining tenacious in the face of the onslaught of hagiographers, has been at time fruitful, often difficult, and I (and others) have walked away in the past seeing it as impossible. But I am refusing to allow the partisans to win this round.

With all due respect, perhaps you should review WP:Assume good faith. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for your good faith list of specific problem passages. Gee, another link to a guideline - for me? Aw shucks. ; )Tao2911 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I anticipate this being relatively contentious, but then, anytime this gets to mediation, it must be. I will continue to make a case for a tightly worded, neutral, factual overview, that reflects the current available tertiary sources.Tao2911 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

David Starr and Tao asked me to comment on the editing issues here. So here are a few thoughts. There have been similar issues on the sustainability page. They took an approach that might help. The editors there are trying to bring the article to FA status. So they set up their own FA Project, with a "sign on team" of editors. Some editors use different colours when commenting, which makes it easy to follow their threads. They also agreed on their own groundrules. The other thing they did was to set up subpages for the talk page, where specific issues could be properly set out and ticked off point by point, rather than being fragmented and gradually disappearing up the talk page and then off into archives. For example, a page could be created specifically for the issues that David Starr considers are POV issues. These can then have stable discussion threads under each point, and be individually ticked off when they are resolved. It also helps to regularly archive the talk page, at 320 KB it is currently far too long. Clean off issues as soon as they are stale, and regroup every now and then when discussion loses focus. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some other thoughts

I find it helps to remind myself from time to time what our common ground is. We are here to play a game, the Wikipedia encyclopaedia game. Whatever particular personal hats we wear regarding Adi Da, once we start engaging here, we must take that hat off, and replace it with the hat of a Wikipedia editor. If we don't do that, then we are playing the wrong game, and we shouldn't be here. To play the Wikipedia encyclopaedia game, you have to follow the rules. The most basic rule is that Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiability. And the way things are verified is by citing reliable sources. The information that can be verified should be put together from a neutral point of view without the use of peacock or deprecation. Suppose we had two versions of the Adi Da article, one written by an Adi Da devotee and other written by an Adi Da critic. If both editors had their Wikipedia editor hats firmly in place when they wrote the articles, it should be impossible to tell which editors wrote which. The strength of a properly written Wikipedia article is that it is reliably sourced. The weakness is that truth can slip through the cracks. But truth slips through the cracks anyway. As events recede into history, the only reliable sources that are left are... the reliable sources that are left. That's just how it is. It's fine to have personal agendas about Adi Da. But an editor who doesn't step aside from that and don their Wikipedia hat is wasting other editors' time. How much time has been thrown away here by playing all kinds of games other than the proper one. There's only one king here, and that is reliable sources. Sniffing out relevant reliable source, on and off the web, is the most important thing to be done. If we want a something added, which we know is true, but we can't find reliable sources, then tough, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Conversely, if there is non-trivial stuff we don't want added, but there are are a number of reliable sources, then tough, it belongs in Wikipedia. Courtesy is the other key part, essential oil for the wheels of the game. It's fine to have strong views and get aroused when they are challenged, it's just that our aggression shouldn't rule when we wear our Wikipedia hat. It helps to watch that aggression. Instead of clicking "Save page" after typing that really clever put down, remind ourselves that our Wikipedia hat is slipping and try doing something else for a while. Personal attacks never work... never. You get your short term adrenaline hit, but you have just inflamed your fellow editor and encouraged payback. This stuff goes nowhere. The same applies to wikilawyering. It is aggressive to repeatedly tell another experienced editor that they should AGF and not make personal attacks; that in itself is a personal attack and does not AGF. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for voice of sanity, E. I have been guilty of being testy at times - its been frustrating here of late. However, I appreciate you reiterating, as well informed of WP guidelines as you are (better than anyone else here), that its not about "winning a case" or swaying POV to suit position. Its about accurately reflecting sources, and their relative proportion, with NPOV editorial voice. I keep saying this over and over - I have striven to write from both sides (working successfully with editors from all positions,) and to get this page to reflect to available info in said proportion, which I don't feel this page ever really has up to now. We have gone from way off the WP guideline map a year ago (and more recently when partisans retook the page), to at least on it. I personally think we are fairly close to the goal. I think this has some partisans upset. But I continue to research sources and add them as found. If anything, proportionate to coverage, I think Adi Da is getting off with a fairly light touch. But I greatly anticipate getting to Starr's points, so we can move past the bickering and get to just wrapping up points; and failing that, to making clear what is insoluble.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Feuerstein's 'Holy Madness' first edition

I got my hands on a copy of Georg Feuerstein's authoritative first edition of "Holy Madness: the shock tactics and radical teachings of crazy-wise adepts, holy fools, and rascal gurus." As you may be aware, at the time he wrote this he was still a firm admirer (still devotee?) of Adi Da, and the long-ish chapter (longer and more clearly positive than others) is a gold mine of supportive info for the bio section. I added a number of citations, fixed a couple passages in line with source. He details all the G/G period shenanigans, sex, film, drugs, booze, and no one in Adidam denies any of it, with Da's explanations for such behavior quoted, and stating plainly that such "tantric" events happened until at least 1986. His bio echos the one here in WP almost exactly, and I added it as citation in a number of places.

Also, I added a brief mention of Divine Emergence. I'm happy to read it, because it not only provides an authoritative mention of an important event post-legal period, but it describes and quotes Da talking at length about the "D.E." It finally explains the lengthy videos of Da just sitting there on youtube - his body is now a "perfect vehicle" for his message. This is incredibly helpful. I knew this event was crucial, but didn't have a good source for it. Before I get flack for the partying mention here is the quote: "3. Crazy Wise Chaos and the Community of Devotees: Burned out by months of partying...Da Love-Ananda suffered a sudden collapse at the beginning of 1986. On January 11 he suffered what he described as a {near-death} experience. This was one of many... since his days in college... it has special significance and continue to shape his relationship to his devotees into the present.

...it is now referred to in the official literature...as his "Divine Emergence." In a talk at the end of February 1986, he explained that on that eventful morning in January he had spoken of his grief, sorrow, and frustration at the seeming futility of his teaching work. he told them he could no longer endure their rejection and abuse and he wished to die." Then he said he did. Etc.

There is a lot more. lest his position be questined, he ends the chapter thus: "Da Love-Ananda [name revealing date of edition, 1991] is an enigma, a paradox, for which there may be no solution other than the nonsolution of enlightenment itself." This is NOT his position 5 years later, when he becomes vocally critical.

Ok. Let me have it. Or surprise me, and thank me for my excellent research and diligence. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, clearly at odds with his critical position, GF nonetheless quotes our friend David Lane at length in his chapter on Da, hopefully helping to put to bed the persistent impetus to totally discredit the guy and his book with Scott Lowe. I say this despite the fact that Lane isn't quoted anywhere in the entry.Tao2911 (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Masking Controversial Behavior Against Da's wishes, from 'Holy Madness'

"For years, community representatives did their best to clean up Da Love-Ananda's talks before printing them, and in general they tried to tone down the crazy aspect of his behavior and teaching. Da Love-Ananda, on the other hand, constantly criticized them for presenting a distorted public image of him; he wnated to be portrayed as the wild man he is, despite possible dangers resulting from such a public image. He wanted to be free to teach in crazy-wise fashion and he felt that people approaching his community were entitled to know that he was no mild-mannered teacher but, as he once put it, a "conflagration" in which [the devotee] gets scorched and consumed.

"It is difficult and superfluous to determine what might have happened if his followers had chosen to represent him more faithfully over the years. It certainly would have been fairer at least give newcomers more of a sense of the crazy-wise ways of their guru. Instead, there were and are many marginal friends of the community and even formal disciples who have no concrete idea of his past crazy-wisdom exploits. Many students really do not want to think about them, preferring to remain ignorant of the details lest they should prove too upsetting." Georg Feuerstein, 1991Tao2911 (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao2911's continued edits without consensus

Judging from the edit history here at Adi Da, Tao2911 has pretty much taken over the editing of this article. I have been abiding by an agreement that I made, and that I thought we all had made, to not edit the article without consensus. So I am asking how other editors feel about consensus, and how they feel about Tao2911 being the only one who feels like he doesn't need consensus to edit. Also please note whether or not you think that Tao2911 is injecting bias with his edits. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Because Starr is completely refusing bring up any specifics and seems to be holding the page hostage, assuming from past experience that no matter how well cited material is that he finds distasteful in some way he will refuse to recognize, I have quite simply been citing the hell out of everything to prove irrefutably every single line in this entry - I also continue to make small word edits for accuracy to sources and considering Starr himself (if for no other reason than to give him no possible way to complain.) I added the 'Divine Emergence' passage because its a nearly verbatim quote from the most authoritative neutral bio ever written on Adi Da. Refute it. Question the source. Go ahead. Please. Question the validity of the event that characterized the last 20 years of his teaching, and why it shouldn't be there. Let's get down to it.

Wait for Starr to sign off on that inclusion? We all know that wasn't going to happen. I'm going carefully forward, listening to other editors (JR made a nice edit tonight - cheers) in order to make this an ever better entry, reflecting every WP standard and guideline. Just as we have for months without Starr. Successfully. I should have four different editions of 'Knee' in my hands within the week (including one published by 'Ashram' 1972), as well as 'Garbage' ('74) jsut to make sure that we can be sure of current citations, and maybe add more. I will continue to cite things.

I have no desire nor is there any need now to significantly change the text of this article - which I actually haven't done since Starr reappeared, except to consider his (and others') positions. In some cases changes were made to placate him (which hasn't in a single case worked) and in other cases to make it impossible for him to refute present material. Either way, the page wins. One of these days, Starr'll maybe get around to making a list of complaints and I can carefully point him to all the citations for the passages that offend him, and their relative weight in the coverage - and if Starr can provide alternate or additional sources and material, I will like nothing more than for us all to consider and include them. This has yet to happen, even once. So, for now, until that happens, I'm just going citation crazy.

If Starr refuses to begin to put forward specific points of contention that will allow for mediation within the next week, mediation will be aborted, good faith having failed to have been shown. At that time more productive editors will have to consider getting rid of the POV label.Tao2911 (talk) 05:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

New subpage

I have started a new subpage called /David Starr – Specific issues with Adi Da. It is listed at the top of this page where it is easy to find. Would you please list, point by point, all the specific issues you have with the article, David. This will provide a stable place where your concerns can be properly heard and addressed. Others editors can open a discussion under each issue. When an issue has been resolved, it can be ticked off by entering {{tick}} (Y) --Epipelagic (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

bless you, Epipelagic.Tao2911 (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you! David Starr 1 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America", sources

Well, I finally looked this source up - I think Dev or JR has added it as source at some point but I noticed that there were no specific page numbers. Google books provides numbers of pages from it, but not all. It is incredibly well-sourced and researched, and is a wealth of supportive bio info. It supports everything in the bio up to now, as well as more recent significant events. I have ordered a copy of the volume in question from another library, and hope to have it next week.

I must express some frustration that apparently Dev or JR was aware of the information in this source since it was being cited throughout the page, and yet I was being fought about including info in the bio that is not only supported by this source, but expanded and made even more explicit in many cases (primarily using various editions of Knee as source, as well as news reports, and many other sources cited in a choice bibliography.) Divine Emergence, lawsuits, drug use, series of documented psychological breakdowns, etc (like, JR, the fact that Jones had a vision of an oriental import shop in CA, convincing him that Rudi was his man when they met.) Not helpful.

Also, the same could be said re: Holy Madness 2006, which JR seems to have, since he cited it last night. This makes it even more confusing for why I am being fought about including a totally neutral time-line about events covered there too in great detail, supporting everything I have been having to fight for including, ; it yet again reveals a seeming intent to create a "selective" portrait in line with some ideal, that is not in keeping with a proportionate review of available info. This is not writing for the other person's position.Tao2911 (talk) 23:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Relative to page numbers on the "New & Alternative Religions" source they are all there. I merley quoted the pages that information on Adi Da is available.Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

With a page this contentious that is not suitable. It needs specifics. So I'm working on it. And knowing that you had read this and cited it, and that you've fought me (with Starr, and not) on information that I only had less definitive sources for is... disappointing.Tao2911 (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal not a RS according to the RS noticeboard

See the link here: [[4]] I have to say that I agree with this assessment. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow - you agree with your own opinion on the RS board? That is shocking. Somehow, I remain unconvinced, even when you say it in two places, and pretend to be two people. In any case, simply because you are contesting it, I'm finding all the same info in other sources and removing that citation or simply backing it up with second, third, fourth, fifth citations. But you keep working on this.Tao2911 (talk) 01:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"Self-published, fringe source. There are enough scholarly and media sources about Adi Da. --JN466 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)" I believe this is a formal wiki editor... yes.... no??? Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Same editor that did the GA review. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Tao, You do realize that the source has to specifically support the statement? That means that just because a source uses the word cult with the word Adidam, such as saying the Adidam cult, doesn't mean that they are criticizing him for his cult-like community as you have stated. That's original research and/or synthesis. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

are you saying that he was not criticized for having cult-like community? This is a good litmus test, of any sort of reasoning ability or ability for NPOV. And editors are expected to summarize information reasonably from sources - not everything has to be a quote. You just can't make wild interp. I qualified the HECK out that sentence, and it is a reasonable synopsis of those bunch of sources, and the general trenchant criticisms. You're good at finding guidelines. That is one.Tao2911 (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Free wheeling editing without discussion nor consensus from Tao 2991

Tao, the paragraph Fredrick Lenz is simply free wheeling editing. I don't feel that it is relevant in this section. So what if some folks in the Adidam communnity were in conflict with Lenz devotees.From what I hear it happened this way and then no biggie. It simply is not relevant to the article. You have been asked by a number of editors to put inclusion up for discussion. Were does it stop or end if you do not work with others. This has been addressed by a number of editors which you continue to ignore. You are taking liberties in what once was attempt to be a balanced article and simply free wheeling it.Having fun no doubt but moving the article to bias and lack of nuetrality.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Its relevant, because its one of two tertiary sourced event we have from 1986 to 2000. Its from a valid source. If the bio is to be complete, you need events in his final years. I think its very interesting info. I think many others would also. It shows activity. A bio with a 20 year gap is absurd. Mainly continuing with sourcing info.Tao2911 (talk) 01:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What does "show activity mean"? Are you going to try to include all kinds of irrelevant information just to fill in a 20 year gap out of your good intentions and honest journalism? What is "absurd" with the gap? There are plenty of bios in and on wikipedia that are quite brief. Maybe since there was no major conterversy reported in the media in any significant way during the 2000 - 2008 you want to create it? I strongly disagree on these tactics. Your argument for it is very weak and not relevant as some other points you have brought up. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It is significant because it involves another guru. It also allows mention that he thought he was Vivekananda, which is bloody significant. You over and over prove that you don't want a thorough bio. You want a selective hagiography - I get it. That was Da's thing. Lenz has a questionable rep, so you don't want the association with your dude. This is like not mentioning that Eric Clapton married George Harrison's wife in a bio of either. They are both huge celebrity gurus, as far as that sort of fame goes. Are you kidding me? The active merging of two religious traditions? Irrelevant? sigh...

" Merging of two traditions" ... exaggeration. I know Georg F says that they were welcomed however I don't think but a small handful of his devotees are in Adidam as I understand. Hardly a "merging of two religions." This is your subjective opinion and weak argument for it's inclusion. By the way I have no problem with Lenz. I only read a part of one of his books and found it humorous and interesting. By the way wiki does allow for some paraphrasing from sourced citations but I think the word George F used was "welcomed" so I find you choice of language "recruited" odd.

Finally to quote Tao "and as I have maintained for a year, indicates that this page should be about two paragraphs." Revealing your own bias. Sigh back to ya ... Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adi Da came to me in a vision and he told me that I must come to this page and "constantly criticize those false friends and cultic devotees for presenting a distorted public image of me; I want to be portrayed as the wild man I am, despite possible dangers resulting from such a public image. I want to be free to teach in crazy-wise fashion and I feel that people approaching my community are entitled to know that I was no mild-mannered teacher but, as I once put it, a "conflagration" in which the devotee gets scorched and consumed." (that's the quote from Feuerstein by the way...)Tao2911 (talk) 17:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, Tao. The Divine Emergence paragraph is anything but neutral at this point.

You have not posted anything here to see if other editors agree, and have gone on and on simply editing this article, and then making mentions of it after it is done here in Discussion. I am getting tired of asking for consensus before edits are made in the article. David Starr has made this point numerous times. You are not addressing this point. It is possible for you to work with other editors here by posting proposed edits before you put them into the article? Is that too much to ask on a topic this controversial? We have a good body of editors here, all willing to work together, except you continually violate that by making edits in the article, and giving some reply about "tertiary" this and that. There has been NO consensus on anything you have posted recently, and you just keep going. Something will have to change.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Divine Emergence...The source: "3. Crazy Wise Chaos and the Community of Devotees: Burned out by months of partying, Da Love-Ananda suffered a sudden collapse at the beginning of 1986. On January 11 he suffered what he described as a {near-death} experience. This was one of many since his days in college...it has special significance and continue to shape his relationship to his devotees into the present...it is now referred to in the official literature as his "Divine Emergence. In a talk at the end of February 1986, he explained that on that eventful morning in January he had spoken of his grief, sorrow, and frustration at the seeming futility of his teaching work. he told them he could no longer endure their rejection and abuse and he wished to die." I will back this up with New Religions when I can get access to those pages (not online, book on the way) So, are you questioning source?Tao2911 (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please address why you are making edits without consensus, without posting proposals for everyone to look at. I don't care how "tertiary" or legit it is, I am not arguing content with you right now, my point is why are you continuing to edit this article instead of working with fellow editors. You have significantly re-worked the Adidam section, on your own. You have not posted or said anything about it here beforehand. This simply will not work. You do not own this article. We are all here to work together on it, and you are just taking charge, and feel that you have free roam as long as everything is "tertiary".--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at this language in the 2006 edition so I am not making this up. Do you have a big objection to a one word language change? Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

re: the Lenz passage. "welcomed his community"? Biased edit, then trying to say this is from the source? Its not there, you're making things up again. The passage is a straight quote from New Religions. I made a footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have the Google book page open in front of me. It doesn't say what you say it does. I quoted it. I am not allowing for any argument on anything. So I am citing like crazy, and being true to sources. And I even took out some of the skeptical position that bleeds through in places in 'new religions' (including the Lenz passage, which borders on humorous), and even in that early Feuerstein - these editors acknowledge that Da is kooky, even by the standards of his peculiar niche in the culture. Which is why it remains a mystery what you and Starr want to see on this page. I just keep adding the notable sourced facts, and not even playing up the controversial bits as much as ANY of the accepted sources.Tao2911 (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the last entry above relative to Dev or my comments? The Feurstein quote I am refering to is on page 176 of the 2006 edition . It reads " Also in the year 200, Adi Da welcomed into his church ..." etc etc. All I am saying is the term "welcomed" is more neutral. I still feel that as stated above this is not a significant event in the bio as well. Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

well there you go - the passage is from New Religions (as I said), and that is what is cited. I don't have that edition of GF. NR is I think a preferable source - its an encyclopedia to start with. That is the source, so we should stick to it. "welcomed" is not neutral. Big difference from "actively sought." They didn't come to him. He went to them. Not a big deal, but a much different orientation. What is expanded on in NR is that he sought them in part because they were known to be wealthy. I did NOT include that - it wasn't necessary and would inflame partisans here.Tao2911 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam Section

Removed the murti-Guru section. This was true at an earlier point in Adi Da's teaching, but later on he said there would be no successor, not even advanced practitioners that would serve as "murti-gurus", speaking more about how he would continue to work in an eternal manner. The rest of this section looks fine to me, some good edits here. Still would have preferred going the route of consensus, Tao.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev, you can't do this. It's cited by an accepted tertiary source - find another source to counteract this. It is from 2006. That is pretty late. So find another source, or leave it alone for now. I'm not attached to the info, but it's got a source, and I read in some other story about how a couple of his close female devotees were expected to do this. Believe me, I'd love to have that made explicit, that it didn't happen. Just want sources.

If I try to get consensus for even just quoting accepted sources, as is apparent, nothing would get done on this page. So, I am quoting sources, and citing up the wazoo. Let the critics argue with quotes from the sources. That will be a short argument. One would think. But weirdly, not so much in practice...Tao2911 (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Tao it seems like you are engaging in original research with all of this sourcing that you are doing. The source has to specifically support the statement that you are making. You are adding sources for things that couldn't possibly support the statement that is being made. The source can't simply infer the the same thing as the statement. The source actually has to say the same exact thing as the statement that you are adding the citation next to. The whole books section is looking like original research to me. And your using the North Coast Journal and Lane as a cite for the pre-birth section of the "Knee of Listening"? What gives? David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

tell me a specific passage and I'll give you the source. Oh wait - there are citations! See all those? Now with shiny new footnotes in many cases. Check em out.Tao2911 (talk) 03:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"pre-birth" is from Knee publicity page - there's a link. Page count, text, Scientology from Lowe. Mention of changes, scientology, radical edits New Religions, Feuerstein. "Most famous book" - all sources, including GF, New Religions. "North Coast" - what the prob, where? Please, read it first...also footnote.Tao2911 (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's take books line by line:

Adi Da wrote prolifically about his spiritual philosophy, creating the Dawn Horse Press in 1973 to publish his books. It continues to print many Adi Da-authored titles.[5]

no problem with that - I hope and pray. Or there is no hope.

Best known among these is his autobiography,[109][110] "The Knee of Listening" (1972),

you aren't questioning this are you? Again, this is a given.

the 1973 edition of which contained a foreword by well-known author Alan Watts. Subsequent editions have undergone extensive changes.[111]

Watts, we're good right? And the editions have seen changes, yes? Citations talk at length about them, hence...

"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.[112]" Lowe did the counting, and this is a quote from him, this whole line. New Religions also mentions page count, and goes on at length about changes. I made a footnote.

For instance, a chapter on his time with Scientology is no longer included,[113][114]

we don't dispute this right? Tell me you aren't? But it doesn't matter - New Religions mentions it.

and there is an added chapter on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939)."[22][115][116][117]

Kneeoflistening.com quote. Its not only cited, but it fits in with other facts throughout entry, to make a sensible orderly page. We could however scrap this, and go with New Religions passage about Da's extreme wont to rewrite.Tao2911 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Gallagher, Eugene, Ashcraft, Michael. (2006). Introduction to New and Alternative Religions in America, Volume V, p.88-89 "...in later editions, Jones' childhood is presented as utterly exceptional...It is clear that Jones’ autobiography might best be understood as a kind of auto-hagiography, since its purpose is to preserve for posterity a sanitized, mythologized, and highly selective account of Jones’ life and spiritual adventures."

and there is an added chapter on "the secrets of Adi Da's "pre-history"(before his birth in 1939), Then, for citation you've got the North Coast Journal? I think that you are getting a little sloppy with all of this citing that you are doing. It's becoming almost impossible to verify the text because a lot of the sources are saying some part of the statement, but not the statement entirely. You cant use several sources to then combine into a statement of your own. That's synthesis and it's original research. The source has to support the statement, exactly. Just because a webpage says cultic studies and links to Adi Da does not support the statement some criticized him for cult-like community, just as an example. We are on the same team here. You want your edits to stand the test of time don't you? David Starr 1 (talk) 04:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

you do love to make up rules. I don't know what the North Coast passage is refering to specifically, I have to review. No, not every line needs to be a "quote", dude. You CAN summarize a number of sources in a single statement if that statement is reasonable and supported by sources.

WP guidlines: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intent of the source, such as using material out of context."

Also: "Carefully summarizing or rephrasing a source without changing its meaning or implication does not violate this policy: this is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by researching the most reliable sources on the topic and summarizing what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes this statement explicitly."

I'm not going beyond 'source intent' anywhere. The 'books' passage is completely neutral in tone. Your complaint is that it implies something problematic, in that you think it is 'bad' for him to look like he edited his books. Source analysis says he did this, and not necessarily negative. Feuerstein talks about it being crazy wisdom activity in Holy Madness '91. Lowe characterized it more negatively (but I don't cite this, only page count etc). New Religions says it more frankly, without view, but as something to consider (see footnote, pasted above). This passage doesn't lean any way, and uses three sources with slightly different POV.Tao2911 (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, Starr, I want to ask that you make specific accusations re: POV issues. Yes, there is some citation clean up needed in a few places - precisely what I have been working on. Most of that had less to do with me; a lot of these sources are left over or sloppy seconds from others (as I have been discovering and pointing out.) I got rid of the source you wanted gone, because it turns out I could get my hands on all the sources he was using or that made it redundant from other sources. But what is the problem in the text? You have gone from making some pretty wild assertions to now just picking on a couple citations. Come on. Where's the beef?Tao2911 (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Adidam Section: No Murti-Guru

Sometime in the mid to late 90's, Adi Da removed all mention of Murti-Gurus from his teaching and literature. The idea was that there would be advanced practitioners, who had realized his seventh stage state, and would thus be able to function as a transparent "agent" of his. Later on, Adi Da re-defined the term "agent" and said there would no longer be any human agent, and he subsequently created the term "instrumentality", distinguishing it from "agency".

Here are the definitions of those two terms as they appear in the Glossary of The Aletheon:

Agents/Agency--The Means that serve as complete Vehicles of Avatar Adi Da's Divine Grace and Awakening-Power. The Means of Agency that were fully Established by Avatar Adi Da during His physical human Lifetime are His Teaching-Word, His Image-Art, the Hermitages and Sanctuaries that He Directly Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered, and the many Objects and Articles that He Directly Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered for the sake of His devotees' Remembrance of Him and reception of His Divine Avataric Blessing-Transmission."

Instruments/Instrumentality--The collective (and egoless) human means for magnifying Avatar Adi Da's Transcendental Spiritual blessing in the world, even forever after His physical human Lifetime. In the technical sense, Instrumentality is the collective function of full members of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam Ruchiradam *who are, necessarily, formally acknowledged practitioner of the "Perfect Practice"). In the more general sense, all those who truly devotionally recognize Avatar Adi Da serve as "instruments" of His Blessing-Regard in the world."

With these definitions in mind, I quote from a 2007 publication, titled "The Orders of My True and Free Renunciate Devotees", pg.110:

"I am to Remain (forever) Most Perfectly Effective (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form). And (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form) I will Remain Effective by Means of the continuous Work (or always Me-serving Instrumentality) of My True (and formally acknowledged) Instruments, which Instruments (or unique Instrumental Means) consist of all My (at every then present-time) formally acknowledged "Perfect Practice" devotees who are full formal members of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam ( who are formally acknowledged to be practicing the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam in the "Perfect Practice" context of the only-by-Me Revealed and Given seventh stage of life)."

Okay, so here he is saying that his sannyasin devotees, who are practicing in the context of the seventh stage of life, would function as collective "instrumentality". That means they have realized the seventh stage of life, and also that they would not function independently as a "Murti-Guru" would, but rather the collective body of such sannyasins, who are in the seventh stage of life, would be "instruments".

He goes on to talk about the forms of Agency:

"Likewise (even after, and forever after, the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily human Divine Form), I will Remain Effective by Means of the continuous Work (or always Me-Extending Agency) of My true (and formally acknowledged) Agents, which Agents consist of My Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Word, My Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Image-Art, and the Formally by-Me Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered Sapta Na Sannyasin Hermitages and the Formally by-Me Transcendentally Spiritually Empowered Ruchira Sannyasin Sanctuaries.

So here he is defining what his Agents are, and no human is listed. In the past he spoke of there being human agents, which were the Murti-Gurus, but as you see, this does not exist in the literature anymore. He goes onto describe how the collective body of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order (in the seventh stage of life) functions as "Instrumentality", defining it so that it would not be confused with the function of a "Murti-Guru", or with any kind of "Agency" function, even subordinating them to Agency:

"In principle (and in the real event), after (and forever after) the Avataric physical Lifetime of My bodily (human) Divine Form, My fully Initiated and fully established seventh stage Ruchira Sannyasin devotees, can and must (because of their unique, and intensive, and truly and profoundly renunciate devotional and Transcendental Spiritual recognition-response to Me, and their unique, and intensive, and truly and profoundly renunciate formal accountability) function collectively (but not individually)--and, necessarily, always by virtue of their ego-surrendering, ego-forgetting, ego-transcending, and really Transcendental Spiritual Invocation of Me, and always by virtue of their real, and truly devotional, participation in My Divine Transcendental Spiritual Gift--as secondary and supportive (but True, and Transparent, rather than ego-bound and "self"-appointed, or independent) Instruments for assisting (or effectively conducting) the always and forever only-by-Me-Given Transmission of My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Transcendental Spiritual (and Always Blessing) Divine Presence, to My devotees in the same stage of practice-demonstration as theirs, and to My appropriately prepared devotees (in the First Congregation of Adidam) in earlier (or different) stages of practice-demonstration than theirs."

And further elaboration on how a collective instrumentality functions as opposed to a Murti-Guru:

"However, such Instrumental devotees do not (and should not) function thus by (merely personally, or individually, or even collectively) presuming to make intentional Spirit-Initiatory efforts toward any other individually (or even toward one another individually). Rather, all My devotees (including all My Ruchira Sannyasin devotees) should (always and forever) simply resort to Me, according to My Instructions (as Given in the by-Me-Finally-Approved, and Ruchira-Sannyasin-Order-Authorized, Renderings of The Aletheon and The Dawn Horse Testament--and, additionally, as Given by Me, during My Divine Avataric physical human Lifetime, to the Ruchira Sannyasin Order of Adidam, for appropriate instructional dissemination, according to My thus Given Instructions, to My formally acknowledged and, as required, appropriately, rightly, and truly prepared devotees, during, and after, and forever after My Divine Avataric physical human Lifetime), and each and all will (on that basis, and in due course) be (even via all the kinds of formally by-Me-Given Means) Transcendentally Spiritually (and altogether) Blessed by Me."

This is not easy to understand, and is rather complex. There is a difference between Instrumentality and Agency in Adi Da's language and literature, even though on the surface they may seem synonymous. And the function of Instrumentality is still not equivalent to or the same as what used to be described by him as "human agency" or "Murti-Guru". On this basis, I am proposing to change the paragraph in the Adidam section. I am not sure if it is fruitful to get into a discussion about Instrumentality and Agency, in its place, and it may be better to not try to explain it. There could be mention of how there would be no successor. I am not sure if we want to make something out of this, or not, but either way, it should accurately reflect what is the case, and I understand your source said this, so I am providing you with sources that are more recent that say it is not so anymore. In this case, it is acceptable to use these books from the Dawn Horse Press, since no tertiary sources exist that discuss this matter.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we can actually work this in though, now that I wade in. It's not that complicated, really. cheers. Let me work on this. You sign off on it. Ok?Tao2911 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Tao2911 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Good edits on the murti-guru part. I removed the sentence you put in about sahaj samadhi being in yogic literature. This is not a completely true statement, even though you have a nice tertiary source. It is the opinion of the author, his own interpretation. Adi Da's literature no longer (and has not for a long time) had mention of "Sahaj Samadhi", rather it has changed and become more detailed, and he has written extensive material on how what he is talking about is not the equivalent of any other samadhi, including Ramana Maharshi's use of the "sahaj samadhi". I could sit here and quote extensively to you about it, but I don't want to put you through that.

Everything you put in doesn't have to be critical, or balanced with criticism. Sometimes it is enough just to state things.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think everything needs an "opposing position" at all. That is simply how the passage in the source read. I understand your point, had a similar question, and thus don't want to fight for that inclusion... I'll put it in a footnote as quote.Tao2911 (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

footnotes

I am starting to use footnotes with citations extensively, so that we can head off some disputes. If we know what the source says at ready reach, it makes it easier to evaluate how it is being presented in entry. As I've said, I have some more sources on the way, which should help clean up some things.

I implore Starr to carefully read these footnotes and note all sources before he brings criticisms. He posted an old series of issues on the new sub-page without reviewing the page; most have already been addressed.Tao2911 (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Knee of Listening

I have now the 'Ashram' edition of Knee of Listening, 1972. It is indeed different from the Beezone version in many respects, and you see already how he began to edit experiences in order shape a persona. It is also different from the 1973 version. So 71, 72, and 73 (and 79, and 83, and 89, etc) editions all show significant edits. this has a bearing on how we use these sources in regards the author, and subject of profile. Tertiary source analysis acknowledges and speaks to this point in numbers of cases, so we should as well.

The book is listed at beezone as "The Knee of Listening: The Life and Understanding of Franklin Jones, Copyright 1971 By Franklin Jones - All rights reserved" Every book is copyrighted - all rights are always reserved. We are not republishing it. We are using it as source, and citing to accurately reflect this. it is only really used for more detail on his early years - much of this detail was removed in the '72 version.

Other sources (including newspapers and New Religions) have used it as source, proven in that info found in these tertiary sources is found only in this 1971 version - and New Religions cites beezone. We don't know in what other way it may have been published in the past. In any case, it is copyrighted to Jones, it clearly reads as his writing, it shares many passages and similarities with later editions, so as far as we know he wrote it. It's a useful source, in addition to others - particularly on his early life (up to Muktananda discipleship). I will adjust cit's/footnotes accordingly.Tao2911 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the edition held by any library? — goethean ॐ 22:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You may be referring to this edition, ISBN 0877070938. It is held by 34 libraries. This edition, which appears identical except for the lack of an ISBN, is held by zero libraries. If your book has the isbn listed above, it is permissible. If it does not have an isbn, I'm not sure how anyone is going to verify your usage of it. — goethean ॐ 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If a website is reproducing the book, then they are indeed violating copyright laws and we cannot use such violations to verify information for Wikipedia. — goethean ॐ 22:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

please read carefully - I made this explicit. The beezone version has no known print edition. I have 72 Ashram, and 73 first Dawn horse - all similar , but different. Beezone version is used as source by New Religions in America, vol V, Lowe, news articles, and Feuerstein, making it a necessary addition here. It can be verified much more easily than the print version - by simply visiting the webpage, and linked. I made quoted footnotes for most usages of it in entry.Tao2911 (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It can be verified much more easily than the print version - by simply visiting the webpage, and linked.

You need to ask yourself a question. If one of these devotees came up with an unpublished manuscript which you had no access to except through scanned pages posted to a devotee website, and they planned to source sections of the article to it, do you think that you would be okay with that? — goethean ॐ 14:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I would if it was used as source by a 5 editor reviewed encyclopedia entry, at least 3 news stories, and first hand witness/former student yoga scholar Feuerstein, all of which are used as sources for entry - all use it as source, in bibliographies. We could not use it, and just go with their interp of said source. Or go to source as well. No guideline is writ in stone - all have allowances and interp. It is always use best/necessary source, with sensitive use. Just like we use some quotes from Da in this story that are from Da websites, because no better tertiary, or even secondary, source. No where is this source used here that is not backed up by tertiary source.Tao2911 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing link

goethean tried to remove Rick Ross link, but someone replaced it. Site is there for balance with Adidam sites. All those sites are "biased." They have remained stable for months, indicating acceptance that having those opposing views off-setting each other is fine - I think it is only reasonable to have links to significant sites for controversial figure like this.

If there is dispute about this, let's see it here in talk.Tao2911 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who undid my removal had a different rationale than yours. His rationale (site is relevant, and author is respectable and notable) is valid. Your theory above that links relating to the subject of the article need to be balanced is not really true. This is an article on Adi Da. One would expect it to link to Adi Da's website. Nothing about that requires "balancing" through the addition of critical sites. I accept User:Hqb's rationale, but not yours. — goethean ॐ 22:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever allows you to leave it alone, dude.Tao2911 (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

:No. The issue is verifiability. Wikipedia policy. Look into it. Does your book have an isbn, or not? — goethean ॐ 13:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess period

Hi. This inclusion needs a lot of work for neutrality. There is a very good description of what this period was about from a spiritual point of view in Georg F.'s book. So I have started to work on that a bit. (I would try and get consensus first, but it really doesn't work to only demand consensus from 3 editors while the 4th one edits away.) :-) Basically Feuerstein explains that Adi Da offered experiences high and low (including mystical experiences) teaching that all experience was to be transcended, that it was all garbage and should be thrown away. So I feel this POV should be included also instead of trying to make it into just being about sexual exploitation. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I had been reading George F 2006 edition and had started to see that in describing this period he actually had fuller essential description of what occured. So I agree with Starr inclusion here for the sake of balance and neutrality. One can be selective in what one chooses to include from even a 3rd party cited sourse to create bias and I feel that is what has been done prior to this latest fuller description.Jason Riverdale (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks JR, glad that you agree. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

the bio section does not get into details of teaching, anywhere. its a timeline of facts. put it in crazy wisdom in teaching section if you need to. Do NOT pad the bio with justifications of explanations - that is not how the rest of it reads. keep it to single line descriptions, per sources, or I will move it. keep it readable and quick.Tao2911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you did this. i will be moving this if you don't. We have gotten into this before. Those issues seem biased to you. But they are just sourced events/facts. Every single line in bio could have explanations and justifications. Just put it in teaching section. This reads as totally biased insertions in otherwise factual timeline. its almost too long as it was - this is just stylistically not working at all. Clunky and amateurish sounding - like a biased editor trying to shift the tone.Tao2911 (talk) 03:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't undo this Tao. We are trying to reach consensus on this article. You can't remove the actions from the teaching if the very source that it's coming form is talking about it in those terms. To do so would be to divorce the text from the sources intent. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao, your stylistic prefrances are totally irrelavant. You choose to talk about Garbage & The Godess period and selectively used just a section to support you bias. Having contexct for this period in Adi Da's Work is relevant and necessary. It is also a legitamet citation form Georf F book. So " clunky" well again this is not your personal english essay. Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"He divorced Nina, but she remained in his life for another decade as a disciple." Nina is still a devotee to this day, but it seems that this sentence is implying that she left after a decade, which is not true. Not sure if any third party sources prove this. We'll see.--Devanagari108 (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Source (Feuerstein) talks about her (and 5 other wives, leavin four) being permanently booted of the island in the 1980s (breaking up of 'mandala' 1986-ish). That's what source says - it does not say she is still devotee (which she may still be - I don;'t dispute this.) Find source, and then cite. If not, leave it.

this is neutral factual language? "During this time he used his spiritual abilities such that hundreds of his students experienced "visions, spontaneous body movements known as kriyas, bliss states, heart openings, kundalini arousals, and sahaja-samadhi" This presupposes Jones HAD spiritual abilities. No, SOME students (Lowe was there, and said he saw nothing, and that it seemed like group psychosis - he spoke with many who did NOT experince anything either, reports this. SOURCE.) reported having had such experiences. Detailing what these are using this kind of specific Da description is extremely weasel-y. Also, this mention predates the garbage period - it fits in previous paragraph. I don't mind the mention, like it actually, but I neutralized it and moved it. The passage says that the reason of crazy wisdom was to grow spiritually and release attachments, summarizing PER SOURCES. The Jones theology can be added in a footnote. I suggest that as a way to include that information, which I think is indeed helpful if people want to understand this better. Or, you can add something to Crazy Wisdom in teaching - however, the language needs to be factual, and yes, has to suit the editorial voice of the page as it exists - which is neutral.

That lead line that Starr has so many problems with seems to really be twisting his bonnet - that line is an attempt to give a general overview of his estimation among the known visible sources. Not our friends, not the voices in our head. Sources. The majority (SOME) of those notable sources seem to praise him for his ideas, while also criticizing him "for what they perceive as" (not all, SOME, not objective fact, but subjective PERCEPTION) - the three lump criticisms are then listed, with a citation example for each (I don't believe I am having to explain this for the 30th time...) This is a fair summation of Lane, Lowe, Feuerstein, Wilber, and others. Lane's essay, for instance, is cited (not the one in his book) and called "Separting the message from the man." Wilber says same thing; so does Lowe, GF. I am not just making this up. This is not "original research." This is a COMMON analysis, THE common analysis, and a neutral presentation of that fact. Some like the books, while saying da's behavior/community/isolation are "problematic" (a word Wilber uses and discusses) and then these are now cited for each. Its is qualified - it is not fact. it is a fair summary of the critical overview for lead. this is according to guidelines. Please, let's move on.Tao2911 (talk) 10:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and before Starr gets upset about replacing "Jones" with "Free John" as somehow diminishing when name changes in bio, Feuerstein in 1992 lists him in his bibliography as "Free John, Da(Bubba)"

The material is exactly what the source said. Read the footnote. This is an attempt to bring neutrality to a very biased section. Tao, I think that you have been doing a good job with many parts of this article, bringing in high quality sources, footnotes, bringing in more neutrality in some places. But seriously, no one owns these articles and no one should try and keep others from editing here. This is a collaborative process. The only way all viewpoints will be represented is if we all contribute. Thats just the way that it is. David Starr 1 (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

oh I fully understand what you are doing. I therefor made adjustments and suggestions to you about what I find problematic. I made suggestions to you about how to address my problems - which you have yet to ever do, btw...Tao2911 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lead, "some" is a weasel word. Please read WP:weasel. It's impossible to balance and it's why the "who?" inline template exists, so that editors can bring it to attention that it doesn't belong. It is recommended that such statements be directly attributed to their source so that the reader can analize for them selves the veracity of the statement. David Starr 1 (talk) 18:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not saying you can't edit. I told you which of your edits I approved of. Please address my points. "some" is not by nature a weasel word. I fully understand how in some cases it can be, but it simply isn't in this case. Do you not understand my points above? You seem unwilling or able to address them. I have brought them up 52 times now. I guess i will simply rewrite it to sidestep the massive cognitive/perceptual dissonance you seem to be experiencing.Tao2911 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I question Starr's quote, now in footnote, at citation '70' for kriya events. Supposedly from Feuerstein 2006, p. 155 - this language is more effusive and positive than even the 92 mentions, in an edition that in the intro he says he made changes to express and admittedly negative evaluation of Da. I would like another editor (presumably JR, since he says he has text) to check this.

I do not question that some people said these things happened. Happy to have that in bio. In time-line, this is described by GF as happening after the move to Persimmon, BEFORE G&G. So I placed it accordingly. For relative weight in TERTIARY coverage (not desired weight), it is a one line mention here. That some, not all, experienced "visions and spiritual experiences." This is lay language, for a general audience. Footnote includes passage from GF, per other incidents to clarify/expand, without ruining readability. The way this was phrased by Starr was biased, implying these were objective facts. They were not. They were subjective experiences, with dissenting voices. The sex allegations that Starr wishes to "balance" with this info get a lot more description, and are objective facts. They happened. Not conjecture. There is a difference. This is all according to sources, not my opinion. And not Starr's, other editors.

Please check quote if someone besides Starr has 2006. Meanwhile, I will check 92 version. I am acknowledgin a useful inclusion of info - I am disallowing biased, undue weight, excessive detail.Tao2911 (talk) 22:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Point by point; This is untrue RE: it happening before Garbage and the Goddess. Feuerstein is talking specifically about these things happening during that time. I will add to the footnote his next sentence which says this. I placed in the article that Feuerstein is saying this so it is attributed to the source, I disagree with your characterization that I am adding bias, I am trying to balance bias. I don't appreciate your implying that I am fabricating the footnote without any evidence that i have ever done such a thing. You are again engaging in personal attacks and not assuming good faith. By reverting my edits you are again attempting to prevent me from making good-faith contributions here. I have reverted you a second time. Please do not edit war. David Starr 1 (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

here is the actual quote:"From my many conversations with longtime devotees, it appears that for several months [Adi Da]..." and so on. You left off the "it appears." I grant that GF says that it was during G/G - New Religions posits that such things occur before, and lead up to, more 'controversial' events. So I will move the mention - but I will not allow you to add full quote. it's in the footnote, just like everything else. These 'events' are subjective and had by some. All the specialized language is credulous and overly detailed. Since it seems necessary to add, I will find Lowe quote to say that others did NOT experience such things, found them questionable, and add this, also as FOOTNOTE. We have one source for subjective 'visions.' We have ten plus sources, including Adidam admissions, for objective sex and drugs. Proportional to sources, it demands the coverage it receives.

"Visions" are not facts. "Claims to have visions" are facts. Having sex is a fact. "Envisioning sex" and "having visions during sex" are subjective. get it?

I disagree. If he says they appeared to have happened then it's the same as saying that they happened. It's well-sourced, it's explicitly represented in the text, and it's balancing what would otherwise be a very one-sided explanation. Let the reader decide! This is the only edit I have attempted since you last reverted me a week ago. And you have done over 130, without consensus. With all due respect, this seems to me to be more about you trying to own this article. I have reverted a 3rd time. Please do not edit war!!!David Starr 1 (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I added line, summarizing in editorial voice, per editing guidelines ('use your own language to summarize source. don't over-quote.") For general audience. Material is in footnote, I am not removing. Just as I have placed detailed info that might inflame YOU in footnotes. This is not edit warring. its editing.Tao2911 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, great. And since you have diminished the line about spiritual experiences, I have gone ahead and diminished the line about sexual experimentation. If you want neutrality then they both have to be weighted the same, since what we are talking about was about both, according to Feuerstein. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Relative weight, Starr. you don't get it. Count the citations. its not about 'balance'. Not a cort case. About relative weight of coverage sources. I will replace previous version. Do Not remove cited material.Tao2911 (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"other" removed, summary of trenchant criticisms

Look Starr- I am working with you. Quit reverting my edits. I took out other. I have summary of criticisms that should be in lead, with 8 citations. I will add footnotes to clarify for you. Stop reverting to the contested version you already asked me to CHANGE. I will alert admin to vandalism if this continues.Tao2911 (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. So if you won't allow me to edit, and just revert what I do then how do you suggest this article proceed. With you continuing to be primarily the only editor, and anyone else will have to spend an entire day fighting with you simply to get in a single edit? Also you seem to have managed to repost the article within itself such that there are two of everything. It would be good if you could fix this.David Starr 1 (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Just because you removed "some" it doesn't change anything. You can't just say someone was criticized, you have to say who is criticizing them. If you can't say who, then it shouldn't be included. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, what the heck? Each criticism is cited. Can you not see those numbers, by each criticism, and at end of sentence? What is the problem here? I don't get it? There are like 8 citations there listing critical essays. As I said before - I will pull quotes for footnotes when I get the chance, but this is a reasonable summary of the common criticisms. Are you just going to pretend those citations don't exist? They are there. I summarizing in spirit of sources. You need to knock this off and be reasonable, man. you are being completely absurd. Spend your time finding some sources for the "praise", that has NONE.Tao2911 (talk) 00:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok - once again, for the record, because I don't think Starr can actually read without Da goggles - I crafted a line that I still think is a reasonable summary of at least 6 different cited sources, that said that while some folks still liked his ideas, they think he went off the rails later. A fair summation of Wilber, Lane (who is the most vocal critic, and yet loves his early books. His essay is called "separating the message from the man" for god's sake - CITED in line) Feuerstein, who says the same thing. Lowe, again. And others. I cited all of these. Starr can't read citations I guess - can't bring himself to click that little blue number. Might be bad news I guess. So head in the sand, he keeps slapping POV labels on the line. Stop the madness, Starr. You're losing it.Tao2911 (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki policy on this is clear, you should make attributions in the article (not in the citations only), so that the reader can decide for themselves where this info is coming from. I am not out of line by asking for attributions. It's wiki policy. It's also not out of line to add a little POV disputed line when it has been discussed over and over with no resolution. I'm having to fight you for even the smallest of edits. This is really getting old. Can't we work together and try and find consensus? David Starr 1 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

for once, just address my points. its attributed - LOOK AT THE CITATIONS. I will add footnotes soon - but you don't need a footnote to know what Wilber said. Or Lane. Or Lowe. Or what the title "The Paradox of Franklin Jones: separating the message from the man" means. Why are you fighting against this standard cited FACT, that Da had critics, numbers of them.

when I have tried to put critical info in the article, you fight that too. There are brief neutral mentions of these critics in reception - you know, Wilber, Lowe, Feuerstein, etc? All of those? Remember those? So the lead covers those - right? As the page has for months? Round and round we go, where it stops only Starr knows...Tao2911 (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Starr Edit Warring/Wiki Lawyering

Starr, stop accusing me of edit warring. i am making edits WITH you. I am responding and explaining, not reverting. Every version is an edit, not a revert. This is not an edit war - you reverting my changes to passages and not addressing my concersn here IS. Also, Epilagic already cautioned you about "wikilawyering. It is aggressive to repeatedly tell another experienced editor that they should AGF and not make personal attacks; that in itself is a personal attack and does not AGF." This applies to this blanket claim of edit warring. That is not what is happening. Knock it off, or I will report you to admin. The record here shows my good faith.Tao2911 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think if it is being suggested that other editors check material that I have added suggesting that I may have fabricated a footnote, then it's fair game to remind you to assume good faith. I think that you need to be a little more flexible Tao. And Epilagic was warning all of us, not just me. I think it's pitiful that anyone has to go through all of this over one a few additions to a single paragraph. I am hoping that others might jump in here. David Starr 1 (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you fabricated - I indicated you may have "selectively quoted" - which you did. "it appears" does NOT mean "yeah, its totally factual. Wow!" Leaving that off and inserting whole glowing quote as fact re: 'hundreds swooning in ecstasy due to Da's magic powers' is beyond ridiculous (and you wonder why there is a problem?) Just own your bias, and move on. It is pitiful - I took your useful addition, made it neutral, completed your selective footnote, and there we go. Done. Move on.Tao2911 (talk) 00:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into this bickering. You are totally misrepresenting me above. I just want to make this article better. Please let me edit. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it is more useful, David, to post things in the Subpage, instead of bickering here. As you can see, things are getting heated, and good faith is being thrown out the window. I'm not pointing any fingers, but let's take Epi's comments into account, and make use of this subpage for conversations like these. I understand your frustrations, and I would like to recommend that Tao calm down, and work with editors here, instead of getting self-righteous and angry. Maybe Arbitration/Meditation/Third Opinion, whatever, something is in order to restore order to this article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dev, I tried this for the past week. Not editing the article, spending many many hours posting here in discussion my concerns, but to no avail. Meanwhile Tao does another 130 edits to the article that are based expressly on his POV. So I felt after a week of no editing and watching Tao edit away, that I might try and edit 1 paragraph. And after an entire day, Tao only fights me such that at the end of the day, none of my edits stand. So if I spend another week voicing my concerns here, then Tao will just continue to do anther 130 edits or so. I am not here to sit on the talk page. And I am not reverting Tao every time he tries to make an edit. Take a look at the history. [[5]] He edits at will.

I agree to your point regarding arbitration. I don't really have any other option if I am to actually contribute to this article. David Starr 1 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and have noticed this pattern as well. That is why I am suggesting we move forward in a more administrative fashion, rather than amongst ourselves, which has gotten us nowhere.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Dev, you and I have worked very constructively together many times, even as of yesterday. Starr, a number of your edits today still exist in some form, even whole lines and numbers of footnotes, and again, I have addressed everything you have ever brought up. Removed sources, changed passages, found better sources, added footnotes, softened passages - and tonight, I allowed a number of your changes, added footnotes, and changed lead sentence to address you concerns. You reverted my adjustments over and over and over, not discussing in talk and not working with my points. You can't simply make edits and expect they get to stay if they don't work, read in context, are redundant, are biased, or break with WP guidelines. Make good edits and they will stand. Make biased, bad ones and they will be adjusted to reach consensus. I am a voice here, so I am part of consensus. I can, do, and am working with you.Tao2911 (talk) 03:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

So it seems to me that there is a lack of communication between Tao and Starr, amidst all the editing. Maybe there is some way to slow it down, and communicate more?--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how there could be a lack of communication. I mean take a look at this talk page. Tao seems to think that the process is I voice my concerns on the talk page and he then makes the edits the way he sees fit. And then if I don't like it, I have to bring it up on the talk page. I have praised Tao several times today for his edits, even pleaded for consensus. But I do feel that he is exercising pretty much complete control over what goes into the article and edits without consensus. You and JR discussed this at length here [[6]] David Starr 1 (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all I can say is that you are right. I leave this in the hands of Admins now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, the lack of communication is that over and over, I make lengthy lists of pleas for you to respond to, and it is as if you are responding, not to what I write, but to some imagined tape loop in your head. See my comments above - again, I addressed many of your concerns today. I have incorporated many of your ideas over the last weeks, complied with your requests. You do not address mine. You do not listen or propose middle ground. You slap POV labels (your recent entre' here) and hit the undo button. I have bent far toward you - you have done little of the reverse.

And btw, these 130 edits you keep accusing - very disingenuous. Most of those changes are tiny corrections and citations and changes to address your concerns (removed sources, passages, etc), and the rest are additions from the new sources your presence demanded.

Look at this page - it has seen a radical improvement recently. And it will continue to improve - I have new sources, and should have hard copy of New Religions within the week, to access pages not available online. others are on the way, like Gurus in America etc. I am committed to see this page be the best sourced balanced page it can be, while remaining succinct and pithy. Hence, when lines are added that don't fit current version, I will ask for adjustments - as I have. And when these aren't addressed (as Starr seems unwilling to do), I will make those changes myself, with all consideration given to all sides. A neutral reviewer will see the balance and source legitimacy/respect of this page. Everything is sourced, neutral, contextualized.Tao2911 (talk) 04:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao I respect your position, but so far you have ignored all other editors requests, requests that have been made over and over again, to not edit here without consensus. Consensus means that you aren't the sole decider of what edits get made and how. I don't see a radical improvement at all because this page is leaving out other POV's on key issues. It would be much better if you would allow other people to make contributions.

I have responded to you over and over again, but you continue to say that I don't. The main thing for me is why do I have to plead to you to allow me to edit? There's something wrong with that picture.

You can't be the only one allowed to edit without consensus. This page is not neutral, that's why there is a NPOV template at the top of the page. There are relevant, well-sourced aspects of this article that you aren't allowing. This prevents the reader from being truly informed. In my humble opinion, you are involved in ownership of articles and you are censoring other verifiable POV's. David Starr 1 (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a POV flag because you put it there. I maintain that the page is balanced. We could find a lot more middle ground if you would start acknowledging how many changes I have made on your behalf, how many issues I have addressed for all of the "pro-da" editors. that wold be a place to start. You made some edits - you did not seek consensus either - some were workable, some were not. This is how its going to go. You can't just keep hitting undo, and getting hysterical. You make a change, I make suggestions to your change. If you ignore those, then i will act on them respecting your POV. that is what happened tonight. You did not make an attempt to understand or act on my suggestions. So I acted - those demonstrably biased edits could not stand. However, with some adjustment, some things worked, and new footnotes were added to include extra details you wanted. There are two line overviews describing already the same things you wanted overly detailed. This is how it can go - if you learn to listen, and act with not just against.Tao2911 (talk) 04:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Middle ground would be good. It is possible to work together, as Tao and I have been doing in the past. Right now there seems to be a bit of a mayhem, and we've lost the smoother trail we were on. Not sure what to do, except that perhaps an Admin interference will set things more on track.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

How can you have middle ground when everything you did today is removed, and your called hysterical simply for trying to edit a single paragraph and adding a few inline warnings. I can't say its been fun, basically a wasted day of absorbing abuse. David Starr 1 (talk) 06:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

the self-pity is unbecoming, and unwarranted. There is a line about 'visions and experiences' that is due to your additions (tho not in the form you added it, the bias of which was simply not acceptable.) A good addition. There are new footnotes and citations. And I took out the word 'other' that you were having fits about for two weeks (tho I think demonstrably for no other reason than you don't want any mention of Da having critics - your refusal to acknowledge its removal demonstrates this). You keep getting what you want (removed sources, removed passages, changed words, etc etc etc) and you never so much as say 'thanks' or even grant that we're all working with you.Tao2911 (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos

I changed the photo of Adi Da sitting with Muktananda, simply because it was too small, and I recall reviewers for GA Status asking for larger and clear pictures. So the photo I put it in its place is from the same time period, and is clearer, and larger. I added a photo of him from 1973, which I felt covered the span of his Vedanta Temple awakening, and opening of the Ashram bookstore. That photo, I believe, is taken behind the Ashram bookstore. I also added photos for 1986 and 2000, since these were such a "dramatic" period of change in Adi Da's life and even physical appearance, it felt useful to include photographs alongside this section. I have also added a photo of the sanctuary in Fiji, since that is mentioned in this article in two places, seems important to have a picture of Fiji.

Also, I am working on obtaining a photo of Adi Da in Fiji, and also am considering obtaining permissions for photos from the Garbage and the Goddess period, if others feel that might be useful.--Devanagari108 (talk) 07:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Photos are fine now, no mas! Pic with Muk is really bad tho - blurry, compressed.Tao2911 (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the color photo that you replaced with sepia one. please replace it. The full color was better for page. Sepia implies manipulating picture for ideal.Tao2911 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage & The Goddess

I want to consider broadening this section a bit. It is a significant part of Adi Da's teaching and life, and a source of the majority of controversy surrounding Adidam. Jeffrey Kripal has written an essay in "Gurus In America", titled "Riding The Dawn Horse: Adi Da and the Eros of Non-Duality". It particularly discusses sexuality in Adidam, as a part of Adi Da's teaching, focusing in on the Garbage and the Goddess period. I will post excerpts here that I find could be used for more material in this article. I am not proposing including all of this text, but something from what I post should be considered for possible inclusion. If we are going to mention it, then let's get into it:

"Indeed, one of the more interesting aspects of Adi Da and his tradition is the quite public fashion in which they have handled the question of sexuality and its central role in the spiritual life of the community. It is difficult, for example, to imagine a celibate guru when his daughters and his two partners are not only present but ritually privileged during the ritual of darshan. Certainly the goal of celibacy is offered as an accomplishment of serious spiritual practice, but never is this celibate goal allowed to smother or deny the centrality of the emotional-sexual nature of human behavior, including and especially religious behavior. Nor has Adi Da avoided the topic of sexuality in his books or conversation. Quite the contrary, he has spoken and written about it at considerable length since he first began teaching and publishing in the early 70’s, often in a bawdy, delightfully humorous, even “obscene” way (obscenity, of course, always being a matter of personal taste or preference). Indeed, the first two lines of his very first book, an autobiography entitled The Knee of Listening, read thus: “On November 3, 1939, at 11:21 a.m., in Jamaica, New York, I was born Franklin Albert Jones. The sign of my birth is Scorpio, marked by the images of Spirit and of Sex, the eagle and the crab.” The astrological stage was thus set, this one, it seems, for an inevitable drama of extremes (KL, 9, n)...And then, of course, there are the devotees themselves, many of whom are quite willing to talk about this aspect of their guru and their own devotional lives. Where exactly to begin? And, more importantly, where to end?"

"Garbage and the Goddess was published in 1974 as the third book to appear from the community. Only the guru’s early autobiography, The Knee of Listening (1972), and a companion volume of some of his early talks, The Method of the Siddhas (1973), appeared earlier. Already in this third volume, however, the guru had made his first name-change, from Franklin Jones to Bubba Free John. “Bubba,” we are told, means “brother” and signals a kind of closeness or intimacy (GG, v). It also happened to be his childhood nickname (LTF, xiii). “Free John” was a new rendering of Franklin Jones. The free-wheeling style of Bubba’s talks and the openness of the community in this third volume certainly bear this out. Garbage and the Goddess was the first book to be published with a color cover, perhaps a sign of the community’s developing resources. Both the colors and cover design are distinctly 1970’s: mauve, yellow, and purple dominate the display."

"In terms of actual content, the volume’s combination of philosophical sophistication, elaborate and delightfully honest descriptions of the devotees’ ecstatic and visionary states (in one scene, for example, a female devotee recounts her dilemma of having to urinate in the midst of an ecstatic state [GG, 76-77]), simple but effective line drawings, delightful photographs (refreshingly in sync with the running narrative of the text), and often humorous expressions of Bubba make it, in my opinion, one of the most important, interesting, and certainly one of the most entertaining things to come out of the American guru culture. Here is a text in which one can laugh out loud. Indeed, laughter is theologized, for “humor is the bodily confession of God” (GG, xv). But humor here is not only a theological principle. It is a funny turn of phase, a photo full of smiles and laughing human beings, even an occasional “offensive” expression."

"The book also has a fascinating history. Other than The Knee of Listening, the guru’s autobiography, no book published by the community has sold as well and as fast as Garbage and the Goddess. Unlike their previous print runs of 5,000, the press published 20,000 copies. They sold exceptionally well. Better, it seems, than the book was read. Despite the text’s rather obvious messages that the “miracles” of Bubba were over, and that the spiritual life has nothing to do with extraordinary experiences (hence “the garbage” of the title), people began showing up at the ashram, looking for both these same extraordinary experiences and the parties portrayed in the book with such color and warmth. This was not the message the guru or the community wanted to send, and yet clearly on some level that was precisely the message the book was sending. Ultimately, then, despite the book’s commercial success, the community chose to withdraw the book from the market. Hence they gathered as many as they could from the bookstores and burned them. This poignant, deeply ambivalent event captures well the difficulty, perhaps the impossibility, of portraying the religious nature of what were essentially Tantric experiments of transgression and sexual experimentation to a public audience. What began as a remarkably honest attempt to document a particularly creative period of the tradition ended, quite literally, in flames. Still, not every copy was lost, and the book stands to this day as an important record of these early defining months. It can still be found in the personal libraries of the devotees, even if it remains a rare find in the used book-store circuit."

"The text itself recounts a four to five month period in the life of the community from March of 1974 until around July 7 (the talks actually extend into August), at which point the “last miracles” of the guru were said to be complete and no longer necessary to the teaching, and the Community was now to take over the task of communicating the guru’s message to the world: July 7, 1974, then, effectively became the birthday of the Dawn Horse Communion (GG viii), the origin date of the tradition. And indeed, this is the movement and the message of the book: that, as of now, the extraordinary events of the early community, so lovingly recounted in the book, are no longer necessary to the practice (GG, 19, 296-297, 330, 339, 345, 353). As manifestations of the goddess and her phenomenal world, such dramatic experiences (kundalini phenomena, synchronous experiences, numinous dreams, possession states, involuntary bodily movements, shouting, a miraculous storm, etc. ) may or may not continue to arise; regardless, they are non-essential to the realization of Consciousness itself. Baldly put, they are “garbage” to throw away for the grace of that which is always already the case, Consciousness itself."

"The image of garbage comes from the life of Bubba and his first guru, Rudi (Swami Rudrananda, born Albert Rudolph, 1928-1973), who used to hand Bubba (as Franklin) a greasy bag of garbage whenever he visited (GG, 102-103). Through Rudi’s teaching, throwing away the garbage became a simple ritual with a message, namely, that one must ignore the unusual states of mind and body that inevitably accompany spiritual practice. Throw them away, with the greasy garbage, and move on. From now on, Bubba’s “Force,” manifested through the devotees in the period of miracles, will be replaced by a kind of pure “Presence” (GG, 338, 349). The responsibility for attracting and working with new devotees now lies with the textual deposit and the “great Community of unreasonably happy men” (GG, xiii), both seen as extensions or embodiments of the guru himself (GG, 30, 330, 366). Indeed, in one passage, the community is seen as the Devi, the goddess-consort of Consciousness, or again as an “Avatar,” a literal embodiment of the divine on earth (GG, 335)."

"Some of these implications are drawn out in the first chapter of Garbage and the Goddess, which recounts the events of Saturday evening, March 23rd at the ashram, a night that became playfully but seriously known as “The Saturday Night Massacre.” We will soon see why.

During this night and in subsequent ones (recorded in later chapters of the book), Bubba set out his understanding of sexuality. “Sexuality is a phenomenon of nature,” we are told. “It exists universally and has no individual form. It is a process prior to personality” (GG, 8). As a modification of Consciousness, it should not be equated with something like Freud’s id (Bubba never mentions the latter category, but it seems to be in his mind), that is, as “some sort of insane animalistic presence in which nothing but mass murder and destruction are hidden.” Granted, “the true spiritual process is very wild in many ways, because it is alive. But it is not out of control. It is an absolutely conscious affair . . . .” (GG, 89) The reason people fear such a force is because they have conventionally obstructed these energies to such an extent that they are no longer in touch with them (GG, 89) and their own intimate connection to the Light that shines infinitely above the head. They assume that they are “the 20 watts” of their little self concepts, of their little psychophysiological egos, and that even these few measly watts will gradually decline until they blip off, like the little light bulb in the refrigerator, at the closing of death. But this is all wrong: “It is not smacked into your body when you are born, frozen there while you live, and then run out when you die. It is a present, ongoing creation” (GG, 99). In actual fact, “there is one Reality, without differentiation. It is full, it is only blissful, there is no danger, and there is no curse” (GG, 90). Sounding rather like Freud in Civilization and Its Discontents, Bubba goes on to claim that the “cult of this world” is “all about the suppression of ecstasy,” and that it is sexuality where human beings most commonly and most profoundly reconnect with the ecstatic experience that we all seek."

"The social custom of marriage is an obstacle to the spiritual life because it blocks the flow of this life-energy from circulating among other human beings. “Perhaps the most tight-knit cult is the cult of couples, because in the midst of such pairs, heterosexual or homosexual, the ecstasy of the communicated life-force is ritualized and made exclusive.” And for real spiritual practice to begin, the sexual powers must be released from the tyranny of social convention and systematic suppression: “If the function of sexuality is obstructed, as it always is in the cultic personality, nothing like the internal and radical spiritual process can take place. The center and process of sexuality must be absolutely free, and this is possible only when the individual understands and realizes his entire complex condition in the always already prior Condition that is Reality, Truth, Self, and God” (GG, 31). Sexual freedom, in other words, is ultimately based, not on a kind of libertinism (although there are occasionally elements of this as well), but on a proper ontological understanding of sexuality as something natural, conscious, blissful, and secondary to the prior condition of Consciousness itself, of which these energies, again, are a modification."

"When Bubba actually speaks about marriage during the Saturday Night Massacre, he sounds remarkably like John Humphrey Noyes, the charismatic founder of the Oneida Perfectionists, and perhaps there is a certain unknown “American historical echo” here. Granted, the theological frames are quite different (Noyes’s utopian Christianity vs. Bubba’s American Tantra), but the basic working principles are quite similar. The “cult of couples” is a negative thing because it prevents the life-force or “love” from being distributed throughout the sacred community (GG, 28). Marriage reinforces the cultic view of the ego, namely, that it exists and that it is somehow important (GG, 7). It is thus the responsibility of the community to undermine marriages and all exclusive relationships (GG, 7-8). All the usual social distinctions are obsolete now; they may function automatically, “but they are not true” (GG, 10). Thus the community should feel free to create entirely new forms of social practice, of family, and of generating children (GG, 17). In order to perform such a radical teaching, Bubba, like Noyes before him, intentionally breaks marriages up and sleeps with the wives of his male disciples (GG, 36, 38, 43). Indeed, at one point, when Bubba returns to his house with a few male disciples and a number of wives (but none of their husbands) and without his four usual female attendants, the editors comment: “By this time it was obvious to everyone that Bubba wasn’t just criticizing the forms of our social lives but was also destroying them” (GG, 40)."

And this part of his essay is titled "Crazy Wisdom":

"Historically speaking, most modern gurus who have employed Tantric practices and ideas in the West have become the object of serious and convincing ethical critique, almost always involving their secret sexualities and false fronts of celibacy. These patterns, moreover, can hardly be explained away as postcolonial distortions or, much worse, as scholarly fictions or ill-intentioned Western projections (the traditional claims of those who prefer polemical scape-goating and identity politics over historical accuracy); quite the contrary, they show every sign of being traditional and well-grounded in the indigenous and ancient literatures. As Bernard Faure has so powerfully demonstrated, for example, there is a distinctly “red thread” in the Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions that follows a logic of transgression and turns to erotic experience as an inducer of transmoral mystical states, and this no doubt has a great deal to teach us about the sexual scandals that plagued American Buddhist communities in the 1970’s and 80’s. The exact same thing, of course, could be said about any number of Hindu gurus who have become well known in the West, from Krishnamurti and Swami Muktananda to Bhagwan Rajneesh and Sai Baba. Indeed, in 1985, Jack Cornfield studied fifty-four Buddhist, Hindu, and Jain teachers operating in North America and found that thirty-four of them had had sexual relationships with their disciples."

"In this historical American-Asian context, it is hardly surprising that serious ethical charges involving sexual abuse and authoritarian manipulation have been leveled at Adi Da and his community for very similar, if far more open and acknowledged, antinomian practices and ideas. Bay area journalistic reports from a single month in 1985 are especially salacious and deeply troubling, and any full treatment of the erotic within Adidam would need to spend dozens of careful pages analyzing both the accuracy of the reports and the community’s interpretation and understanding of the same events, the latter framed largely in the logic of “crazy wisdom,” that is, the notion that the enlightened master can employ antinomian shock tactics that appear to be immoral or abusive in order to push his disciples into new forms of awareness and freedom. Perhaps what is most remarkable about the case of Adidam is the simple fact that the community has never denied the most basic substance of the charges, that is, that sexual experimentation was indeed used in the ashrams and that some people experienced these as abusive, particularly in the Garbage and the Goddess Period, even if it has also differed consistently and strongly on their proper interpretation and meaning."

"How are we to make at least some sense of such consistent patterns, both in the individual case of Adidam and in the larger mahaguru scene? My own sense is that we need to develop a new paradoxical hermeneutic of the mahaguru (or mystic) that does not commit the fallacy of conflating the mystical with the ethical but is, at the same time, willing and able to advance honest and public ethical criticism based on clear, if always culturally relative, moral principles (like the integrity and freedom of the individual human being), the latter which may or may not find a place in the tradition being studied. In other words, we need to develop models that can embrace the positively ecstatic experiences of the text or believer, the deep and real hurt of the disaffected, and the full historical record of the scholar."

"Along these same lines, I would also point out that the “crazy wisdom” rhetoric displays in a religious form what I have long argued in more rational, ethical, and historical terms, namely, that there is no necessary relationship between the mystical and the ethical (that is, there is nothing contradictory about individuals having profound religious experiences with “immoral gurus”), and that, more radically still, altered or dissociative states of consciousness experienced as spiritual realities are often catalyzed by (which is not at all to say reducible to) explicitly traumatic contexts or acts. If an individual can have a life-altering out-of-body experience in a car wreck (clearly an example of serious physical trauma), why cannot he or she experience the same at the hands or feet of an amoral or transmoral mystic?"

"Indeed, I would go so far as to say that no fallacy has done more damage to the critical study and public understanding of mahagurus (or mysticism in general) than the historically and psychologically groundless notion that profound and positive mystical states imply or require some sort of moral perfection or social rectitude on the part of the teacher or text inducing them. As Rudolf Otto taught us long ago, the sacred is not the good or the moral; it is rather a mysterium tremendum et fascinans, a mystical secret at once terrifying and gorgeous, at once traumatic and terrific. For all its obvious dangers and liabilities, the crazy wisdom tradition at least openly and honestly recognizes this basic metaphysical paradox and struggles with it in a relatively open way. So too should we."''

There is a lot more, and a lot in Kripal's Notes that could also be used in this article. I have a copy of this essay saved as a Word document, if any editors here would like a copy, I can email it to them, just ask.--Devanagari108 (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even bothering to wade into this right now. We all know that Da had many reasons, good or bad, for doing everything he did. There are 50-80??? books right? There is a 'crazy wisdom' section in teaching. If anything of detail concerning this is going to be added, it is going to have to be there. This entry however is NOT the place to get detailed explanations of Adi Da theology. it isn't. Your impulse, and others, is to try to get as much of this in there as you can. My impulse then is to try to reduce what you've said to a line or two of comprehensible info for a "general audience."

The timeline bio can't support any of this info. The garbage paragraph as it stands is succinct and covers all sides. Starr's "visions" are there, sex practices (which needs that brief list from GF that Starr keeps removing) are there, drugs/alcohol are there, reasons for such practices are there - to 'shock' and free from attachments/patterns, members quoted as not just sex, list of experiments all 'for spiritual purposes' . This is a reasonable summary from tertiary sources. As is the 'crazy wisdom' description in teaching. Both excellent brief WP-worthy sections, sourced up the wazoo.

For years, Pro-Da editors have persistently tried to keep mention of G/G practices out of this entry. Having one short paragraph that covers the whole thing in a balanced fashion is crucial. It is not slanted in any way - Starr has consistently tried to remove any mention at all, and now he and Dev are trying to pad it with extensive Da theology, removing specifics from sources of practices, so that it once again becomes vague how it was he became controversial (first line in lead) and what led to lawsuits. Garbage period helps explain this, mentioning start of crazy wisdom teachings. It is not given any more weight than any other event in this rapid pithy bio.

if pro-Da editors start insisting on adding more theology/apology for why Da made pornos and had orgies (Feurstein word choice), then i will insist that we use Feurstein 92 and New Religions to detail more of said practices, and that is not where I want this to go. it will not be good for the page, but relative weight of source material must be maintained. Right now, everything is in proportion, everything gets a line. There are footnotes with more detail. Also, Garbage book is mentioned, and footnotes/citations are extensive. Those interested in more detail can find it without issue.

Dev, I appreciate you working on photos, and keeping your head in the game.Tao2911 (talk) 15:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good Dev. Thanks for posting this here. I agree as far as broadening the description of this time using Kripal's work which is published by the State University of New York Press. I look forward to adding this information into the article. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

address my points, or expect your edits to be contested. Do not add any of this to bio. Bring your suggestions to talk.Tao2911 (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little here that isn't already covered in entry. The bio is a terse factual time line, in no need of embellishment - as I've said before, every line could have reams of explanation, pro and con. It's an encyclopedic entry, not an adidam pamphlet. Also, this is not the place to ahve a broad discussion of any of these topics, not in talk and not in entry. All discussion about sex and gurus is not applicable here. Page tells THIS story, reports Adi D facts - not discussion of whole topic. Even bringing this up here is a violation of WP guidelines. Pasting all of this info here is not cool, and against WP etiquette.

As for 'crazy wisdom' this one line already in entry and sourced, covers it fine: "Much of the controversy regarding Adi Da related to the years in which he said to have employed "crazy wisdom", a teaching method in which a yogic adept employs seemingly un-spiritual methods to awaken an observer's consciousness." There it is. Relative weight to his other teachings, this is fine. Don't start padding it.Tao2911 (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Entry as of 2/13 - looking good

With Dev's new photo additions, this is entry is looking nearly perfect. It is well organized, non-repetitive, thorough without excess detail, sourced well, and written with a consistent neutral voice. I don't think many more changes are necessary. I will just say that I am awaiting New Religions in America, sections of which I know cover 'Divine Emergence' in more detail, so we might be able to explicate that section slightly more. And I mean slightly. I think that would help balance the end of bio, which feels a bit pat.

Starr has continued to contest a single line summary of Da's many visible later critics in lead - reflecting the detailed explication of these criticisms in reception, per WP guidelines. I had tried to summarize these critics as in most cases admiring Da's ideas, but questioning his activities/behaviors, but Starr refused to allow the mention of this. I was forced to simply say he has numbers of critics, which is a fact, as 8 sources demonstrate. Footnotes are forthcoming. If anyone would like me to work the admiration back in alongside the criticism, feeling this a fair summary of the cited sources, let me know.

I don't feel Starr is likely to accept any mention of 'controversial' activities in Garbage passage, no matter how balanced, unless he can insert some lengthy apologetic quotes. This is completely out of keeping with rest of bio entry, and shouldn't happen.

I would like to let this thing lie for a few days until I get the New Religions text. I would like to work on refining citations and adding some footnotes. Other than that, I would hope we can leave the body more or less alone.Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Tao if you made this edit While neither Adi Da nor Adidam denied his practice of polygamy,[107] a spokesman stated that he spent later years living a life of solitude and contemplation.[17]

it is a good one and give more neutrality to it. Thank you. Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

this passage would normally say "he was married to Joanne Smith for 40 years. They had two children." That is not the case with Da. How is this biased? It is a fact, neutrally presented. These things you keep saying are biased are just facts. In a mention about children, you mention spouses. Biased would be to say that there are rumors that he continued to sleep with numbers of students up to his death. Which is true - there are rumors. But since they are just that, we don't mention that. We have sources saying what the passage says. It answers the question from bio "what about all his wives?" There is the answer. It is NOT biased. You can't just say bias. You must point to what is biased. Since there isn't anything, I can see why you aren't. You don't like word 'polygamy.' It has negative associations for some. Not for Da, who according to GF was quite frank about his practice, occasionally (not often) recommending it to others.Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I do contest various portions of the article and will continue to do so until consensus is reached. Admins say that I am right about the line in the lead, so inline warnings will stay until the critics are cited. David Starr 1 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

where do they say this?Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"ere subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news and talk shows over several weeks" ,,, this should be summarized in a more simple way. It is not neutral mentioning all the newspapers etc. Just state that that the was extensive media coverage. Period. More neutrality needed here Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't like the vagueness of this passage in past. Plus, you are just trying to have it say what the lead says. The body should expand on the lead intro to topic. Those three papers listed are the major papers who did in depth stories - they deserve mention in the way Today show does. It is not biased. it's totally factual. Diminishing them, as before, by saying "a few local newspapers" and "a couple of stories" simply wasn't accurate. Saying three out of eight possible such mentions is not bias. Source itself for passage says that "there was almost daily coverage of allegations for weeks."

When I researched this and found out how extensive this coverage was, I was shocked. Previous version here gave NO indication the extent of this coverage. It is worth making clear. This is how the vast majority of people know him, if they do. Think - New Religions says perhaps 40,000 copies of Knee have been sold. Tens of millions of people saw or read these stories. Deal with proportionate coverage. This is not a court case, a trial, a presentation of facts for people to make up their minds as Starr keeps saying; the point is not for balancing viewpoints. Count the sources. its about reflecting those.Tao2911 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Article still biased.

There are still many instances of bias in the article. So I am hoping we can reach consensus about how to handle them. What won't work for me is for me to spend hours on the talk page while Tao edits away. So how are we going to work this out? I guess an RFC/U may be the only way unless Tao is willing to actually abide by an agreement to only edit consensually. David Starr 1 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I have already said, that I would like the page to remain stable, and perhaps get a review by neutral party. Btw, you added POV tag without discussion. Yet again (what is this, ten times now?) How is mentioning that he had critics and listing them biased? That sort of mention has been in lead for many months. I made the change you requested. You didn't say remove line - you said you couldn't wrap your ahead around how 'some' means not all - 'some' people, listed and cited, are now in lead. Bias bias bias, you little pro-Da activist, you. I have clarified sources greatly. This neutral mention is proportionate to source coverage, a great deal of which is critical, and sources support. Find biased passages and bring them here. If we don't reach consensus, then you don't change it. I am not touching it, except to add some footnotes as promised, for certain citations. Tao2911 (talk) 20:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr, you removed the entire legal allegations paragraph from lead that have been there as long as I've been aware of this page, which is two years, without any notice or discussion - you hid it. This is vandalism. You keep making edits you don't explain or announce in history labels. You know these edits are going to be contested. Do it again, and I report you for vandalism.Tao2911 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead Sentence under dispute

I want to say that I am quite upset that Starr has forced this sentence into the form it has now had to take. The point of the line was to summarize the common criticisms (cited) from a number of sources, reasonably and in the spirit of those sources per WP NPOV, that are then discussed more specifically in 'reception'. Because Starr has demanded a list of specific names, the sentence now reads as unwieldy - probably his intent, so that he can try to (secretly?) remove it. I would like some support from another editor - I know that the other active editors are all pro-Da, but why not practice your neutrality and good faith muscles and help the page out here. But if it has to stay like this, I will fight for the inclusion. It is how the proportionate source material on Adi Da needs to be summarized for general audience in article lead.Tao2911 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I only just realized that Starr had removed numbers of sourced and cited, neutral lines from lead - in replacing them, I reworked praise/criticism for POV and readability. I removed the timeline split - early praise, alte criticism - simply saying he was praised by some (cited) crit'd by others (" ").Tao2911 (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly untrue. You need to stop these false accusations here on this talk page. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Starr Vandalism

Starr in the last 24 hours has simply hit 'undo' to many of my edits (many of which were simply reworking his material to reach consensus), removed contested cited material, and removed an entire paragraph of cited material from lead that has been unchanged for two years all without any notification or labeling for the History record. In some cases, he has even labeled his changes with minor edits failing to mention major ones, masking them(today.) This clearly constitutes vandalism.Tao2911 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found yet more vandalism - more significant lines missing (about shift in teaching) from lead and elsewhere without clear record. I'm reporting to admin.Tao2911 (talk) 23:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.Tao2911 (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable behavior Tao. You need to stop accusing me of vandalism. These accusations are totally false and unacceptable. Again, please stop. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Divine Emergence

Vandalism aside, I made some edits to the article. I find that the new "Divine Emergence" paragraph has some issues, which I wanted to work with you on, Tao. I added one line about the '86 event, and another one to the 2000 event, also a line likening them to each other, which I think is useful. These events are difficult to discuss, from Adi Da's side of it, there is a lot of esoterica involved, with his descriptions of "full descent" and "full ascent". I'm not sure this is the place for that. But there is a way to describe that is useful and gives some contextualization (which I find is lacking currently). So here is what we do know:

1.) These events were death-like events which Adi Da said signified a spiritual transformation in his body

2.) Consequentially, he said that these events signified changes in his teaching and work with devotees

So, for example, with the 1986 event, the big change that can be pointed to is how he began to require a more formal approach to him, ceasing to work in the manner of "Bubba", as a friend of his devotees. He also took on a new name to signify this, "Heart-Master Da Love-Ananda". He also began to call his devotees to renunciate and celibate practice.

In 2000, the same thing happened, but with different consequences. His revelation became more "pure", according to him, and his body became a perfect "murti" or icon, for the realization of his devotees. After 2000, his writing changed as well, and his teaching came to a final summary, which is how it has remained since. So in that sense, 2000 was the "final transformation", according to Adi Da.

this is mentioned in teaching. I absolutely agree we need to get a clear brief mention of this into bio, as with DE - it is clear in ref's, even to a degree in bio now, that 'these changes signify new revelations', focus, etc. But the line you added ["From this period on, Adi Da's realization of himself as an avatar of the divine, gave his teaching a focus that it has since retained"] is not NPOV. It is saying that his teaching objectively 'gained focus." We don't know this. Someone may have said/thought so - certainly Da could have. But this is interp, an opinion, and should be phrased as such if added (as in "bob said it gained focus.") But we need an objective, thorough, sensible, and brief way to address this. Also, the tense is present (your source from when he's still alive I think) so that also would be a problem - even indicating he is immortal or something! Not NPOV, right? Avatar mention has to be introduced, tied into other passages that already cover this, etc. I have to sleep, but I think we can figure this out. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are some points to think about. I am not really suggesting adding content, I think the best thing is to keep it brief, to the point, and to avoid delving into complexity. Also, there is some content here I find questionable, which I would like to discuss with you more:

"Said to be beset by “dark forces”, there were reports from his community that doctors had prescribed tranquilizers for what they diagnosed as anxiety attacks."

I am not sure what this really has to do with it? Is it a necessary inclusion in this article? Does it serve a purpose, other than to discredit, cast doubt, or otherwise include a critical statement? I think the section would be fine without those sentences, they don't seem to be serving much, and I find them to be biased. The source of them, this "Introduction to new religious movements" book, I was reading through the article, and it is heavily biased against Adi Da and Adidam. You can use it as a source, but you will have to neutralize the language, which is undoubtedly negative in their write-up.

Then there is this:

"Some of these followers did join Adidam, creating some measure of conflict among long-time disciples within the community who felt the new members were overly privileged."

Is there a point in mentioning it? I am not super-offended by it or anything, nor do I find it to be a repulsive statement or anything like that. But what is its purpose? These two sentences I am bringing up, they read like clever side-comments, or side-notes, that don't really have to do with the section, but are just thrown in there for "critical balance" or something. I think they should be re-considered, and a structure, or context for this section needs to be more in place, so that it reads smoother, clearer, making factual points, and nothing more than what is necessary to understand it. Rather than just trying to include information that relates to the event, as an off-shoot for piling in more critical info. I am not pulling in info to off-shoot from things so I can include positive info. I have hardly made any edits to this article in a while, so my stance should be clear. We work together pretty well, so that's why I'm re-entering the editing aspect of this article, maybe it will be more successful that way. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

Also, the jump into wrapping up the Bio after the "Divine Emergence" section doesn't seem to work. Seems like there should be more discussion of the final years of his life, don't you think? Maybe one more section after Divine Emergence that gets into this? I mean, there is discussion of '86 and then 2000, but that's hardly a discussion of his later years.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dev- I appreciate your approach. I'm not going deep into this now, but I have said I think that last section needs work, but as citations show, those three events are really the only things in New Religions available online, and those passages are almost verbatim (with actually some material removed that might lean it all too negative.) 'Divine Emergence' period has some more pages in hard copy, and when I get those this week, we can work together to fill it out. It seems to be the only tertiary source that covers things post '86. Unless GF 2006 does, but I don't have that source. My only concern about change now is that we need the sources first. I know you have experience/inside knowledge, but we need sources. I'll check back with you on this - let me know if you find good tertiary sources.

Give me your appraisal of changes to lead.

And what happened to that great photo with the flames? I liked that one - it really zipped up the page. It was better than the one there now - as I say above, the sepia is not my fave.Tao2911 (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, changing photo back. Thanks for your thoughts. Yes, I was sharing my own knowledge, the issue will be finding sources that somehow correspond to it. Let's check back in on this section once you have those things you are talking about in hand. In the meantime, I will search for tertiary sources that address this subject in any way. Will post thoughts on lead soon.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead

The lead looks fine, for the most part. I know the part that David Starr found objectionable was, "Others were more critical, including Georg Feuerstein,[12] Scott Lowe,[13] and Ken Wilber[14] who while sometimes still praising his ideas, came to question what they perceived as Adi Da's isolation, controversial behavior, and cult-like community." This is obviously, well-cited, and mentioned later in the article. But it may not be entirely necessary in the lead. The lead, according to wiki policy, should give a good overview of the article, while also mentioning any controversies, which we see in the last paragraph of the lead. So I don't know, I think the lead would benefit from not having that information about "cult-like community", but if we are going to get into a serious argument about it, then I'm not really bothered. That's my view on it.

Regarding "cult-like community" and other cult suspicions, I found this in "The New Religious Movements Experience in America" (http://books.google.com/books?id=uXoUYS4H1GsC&pg=PA118&dq=Adi+Da+New+Religions+in+America&cd=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false):

"Demonstrating an awareness of how gurus and their new religions are suspect to widespread suspicion and a recognition of how the intensity of the guru-disciple relationship in Adidam could be open to such quesitoning, Adi Da has also declared that, "I am not here to be the center of a cult."

This seems like a necessary inclusion in this article. Most of the controversies carry exactly these kinds of suspicions, or at least point to them. However, what is not represented in this article is how much Adi Da has criticized the cultic approach, and how much he has said about not being the "man in the middle", or in the center of a cult, etc. Rather than get into too much detail and say more than is necessary, maybe a short paraphrase of the above quotation could go into the Adidam section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that your re-work with tertiary source sources is a good one Devanagari.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The line was an ok rework - I see where you were going. But it had a bit too much 'Da-flavor', smacking of Da-speak - a tendency I respect that you've owned, Dev. I just reworked the wording to make it sound more colloquial, and a little less lofty/devotional.Tao2911 (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good edit.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The cult thing: the line says some have had questions about the 'cult-like community.' Carefully NOT saying cult. WP page not saying it was a cult - though any number of news articles made no such distinction, right? I emphatically do NOT want to get into Da's whole "I hate cults" rants - I know his position, and i also know that he was regularly dismayed at the cultishness surrounding him. Sources report this, and they (New Religions, GF 1992) say that this is a bit of a blind spot, in that while he decried this at times, he did much to maintain that status quo and create that environment. He was criticized for this - hence the lead line. Not as a 'fact' - the reporting of a 'common criticism'. This is what Starr couldn't get - he, one, didn't like the word cult within 500 miles of the page, and two, didn't want any mention whatsoever of Da having prominent, persistent critics. If it was just one or two, we wouldn't be mentioning them in lead. I think in balance, among mainstream accepted scholars (Kripal excepted of course), Da has fared in balance not so good (just counting them), especially after an auspicious, lauded start. This is what this line was alluding to originally - I didn't want to get into list of names - which is why I said "others" and made 8 citations to cite them - the details happen in reception. But Starr demanded names, and now I think it doesn't read as well (too long), but oh well. Let me know if you think we can reduce that back, reword.

I don't think it's necessary to have names at all, since that comes later in reception. So I am for removing names in the lead.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

so finally on the cult thing, I don't want to get too much into that, not the details of accusations, or the theoretical rebuttals. Tao2911 (talk) 19:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I also do not want to get into this, but I am for including one simple summary line in the Adidam section, based on what I posted above. It is worthy of a mention, with all of the media "cult" hysteria surrounding Adi Da and Adidam. But it does not need to be an elaborate discussion of this and that, or how he said this but then maintained it around him, etc. Just a simple line, I'm going to try and make this edit, see what it looks like, and how it reads. Then maybe you can give some feedback?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your above comments Tao. I think a simple mention in the intro about "cult like activity" is appropriate as this is cited and part of the controversy. Appreciate a number of edits done the last couple of days. I think it adds some balance.Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. This is why I want to work with you guys - I don't pretend to 'own' this page, but we've put a lot of work in, and there were some attempts here recently to just get rid of a lot of that work, scuttle it. So as we've all said, let's work on refining it, and let's get that stupid POV tag off.Tao2911 (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate whoever removed those names from lead. Are we agreed that its ok now?Tao2911 (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Muktananda line in Bio

I don't want to open a can of worms about this, but I am not feeling totally resolved about the inclusion of this line:

"Over a confrontation regarding the actual nature of enlightenment and how to achieve it, they would end their relationship, later disparaging each others' relative level of spiritual accomplishment."

The first part is totally fine, but the "disparaging each others'..." part is what I am finding questionable. I see you have sourced it, and saw your footnote. I remember reading about this before, where someone was describing how Adi Da would talk bad about Muktananda, but all he could give for evidence was that he remembered it from talks. His citation for the statement was itself not supportive of anything other than his own memory.

So I'm wondering if you could post the info from the source, and if we could find out how trustable this claim this really is? Is it anything more than a claim? Is there any source that states this that is actually verifiable, meaning it doesn't just mention that it is so, but gives further citation? If that isn't the case, then I am suggesting not including the line, since there wouldn't seem to be apt justification (from lack of real verifiability) to include it, and the para would benefit from simply not having it, in that case, since it's nature would be questionable. I would like to stick to really verifiable content here, even if its critical, that's okay as long as it is presented with NPOV and is balanced, but also real.

Just some guy writing about Adi Da and throwing in lines like that, somehow getting published in a tertiary source, does not necessarily qualify for inclusion in the article. Do you know what I mean?

Again, I am not wanting to open a can of worms about this, I am not angry about this line or anything. Just wanting to research further, and hoping you can help shed some light, Tao.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

That line, that you quote above from entry, is a summation from a number of sources - and a neutral phrasing. i don't remember him saying he just remembered it from talks. Lowe speaks about it, first hand from hearing such things; I think a member is quoted as hearing and reading these things in transcripts in New Religions; and GF mentions it as well in the '92 book. These are really common accounts. Are you questioning them? Again, everyone seems to mention this in overviews. I added the line that Da maintained his respect etc. I think GF quotes in a footnote for that passage how Da persistently called Muk a black magician (I thought it was the other way around until reading more accounts, but they both said things about the other.) I think the mention should stay - it's in too many sources. I will add another citation. Tao2911 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are footnotes that have the passages from two sources.Tao2911 (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Two different tertiary sources with slightly different implications

I wanted to bring up again two lines in the article that I still feel bear some real discussion.

Later that year, Adi Da actively recruited the following of “Frederick Lenz, or "Zen Master Rama"

I know we discussed this a bit Tao before and I tend to bring up things like this again after some discussion. It still does not sit right with me. There are two tertiary sources ( maybe where this section is taken from. In one source the word "recruit" (Gallagher)is used and in the other the word "welcomed" is used (George F). They have different meanings. Recruited implies a more aggressive action in relationship to Zen Master Rama's students. From what I heard Adi Da encouraged those people to consider becoming his students. Maybe Dev can be more exact about this. I also heard that there are not huge numbers of Len'z students that are now with Adidam. Also since the word "welcomed" is used from 2006 edition of George F book(and he is NOT a fan of Adi Da) I think it more accurately portrays the sense of what actually occurred here. I can scan the page this is on or even write the copy in the discussion section.

I know JR has brought this up before, I haven't been too active about the Lenz thing yet. But this is a valid point. To speak as an "insider", it was in 2000 that Adidam began to see a flux of Rama students, and it coincided with the event at Lopez Island. It was there that most Rama students first saw Adi Da, and shortly afterwards they became devotees. There were a few who came around in between '98 and '00, but not many at all, and they were the few that steadily tipped off other students to come check out Adi Da; 2000 Lopez Island being their main opportunity.

So it is not actually true that Adi Da "recruited" them. They made their own approach, and Adi Da did welcome them. He did make a positive gesture toward them. But "recruit" is really false. Since there is a tertiary source that says "welcome", Feurstein himself wrote that at a time when he was negative, then I suggest we use that term instead.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The source says 'recruited'. So until we have another tertiary account, that is all we have to go on. Dev, just because you were around means all of nothing here, no disrespect. I mean, even granting you were, you have no idea potentially what was happening behind closed doors - all accounts say there was a great deal of compartmentalization in the organization. So - I would like to read the entire account from GF - the word 'welcomed' keeps getting mentioned here, but I haven't seen the whole passage. JR maybe you can transcribe in a new section here. Make sure to make it verbatim. I think there can be a way to find some middle ground. NR says quite clearly that he recruited them because money is perpetually a huge issue from Adidam with their overhead, and Lenz's students were known to generally be successful in business (I didn't add all of this, but could have). This has the ring of truth, backed up by accounts on Lenz. Whether or not they stayed is not an issue - NR also says that turnover in adidam is enormous and rapid, with only a few stalwarts holding to the center. Apparently, Dev is one. I used to live monastically - I know this to generally be the truth of things.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, JR is saying that the Feurstein source he has, from 2006 (written while Georg was negative) says "welcomed". I was not trying to say that my own account was justification, I was just offering it in support of what Georg wrote, when he said "welcomed". So I don't know if you missed that...but JR's whole point is that the word "welcomed" appears in a tertiary source.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

were subjects of almost daily coverage in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, Mill Valley Record, other newspapers and regional television news and talk shows over several weeks.[23][90] The story gained greater attention with a two-part expose on The Today Show.[91']"

To me this is a bit overdone relative to having to mention every paper etc that this was reported in. Certainly this story was widely covered for a short time. That is not in question. But already in the introduction it is already stated In the mid 1980s, allegations by former devotees of financial, sexual and emotional abuses within Adidam were reported in a number of regional newspapers, television news reports, and talk shows,[19][20] culminating in national coverage in a two-part expose on NBC's The Today Show. There is also plenty of references,with detailed headlines and links to ALL the papers, Today Show transcripts etc etc. Done and stated. It seems to me that it does not have to be repeated in such detail There are sources that make the statement that it was simply widely covered in the media. Having NBC Today Show repeated... fine that is a well-know show on TV but the rest seems over done, repetitive and not balanced.Jason Riverdale (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JR here. It is a bit excessive, and should be reduced to summary.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The only reason I am encouraging this mention is that when I began to research this period, the WP entry gave me no indication how widespread this coverage was. The page implied there were some Marin and Lake county local newspapers who wrote a couple stories. And I found out it was much more intense and widespread and in depth than that. I found talk show interviews on youtube, and watched the today show two day report, and read like 20 separate news stories. I don't think this is overplayed at all. There were numbers of stories in the Chronicle, at the time one of the largest papers in the country. The biggest in Northern Cal. But it was Mill Valley that really spear-headed the coverage, and so they should be mentioned too. I think the mention has to stay. It's just one line, and its the truth. Proportional coverage, folks. There is much more info on this that anything else - its not about a 'balanced' portrait. Its about reflecting the available info in the proportion of that info available. You can't argue this point - multiple stories each in multiple newspapers and TV shows, vs everything else.

Another reason to keep (brief) newspaper list info: it expands on, rather than simply repeat, intro line from lead.Tao2911 (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So a couple of point...I disagree about all the mentions of every newspaper in the above section article.It should be simply a summary sentence. I had agreed since the Today show is a national show it can be repeated. But the newspaper thing is EXCESSIVE and unnecessary. You have plenty of headlines, direct links to Today Show, a whole site(Ross) in the article, which accesses ALL of the newspaper articles directly and tons of references with specific headlines etc. The Mill Valley is a small town paper nestled in the hills of Marin County (paper longer existing) and I believe that one of the ex members who brought the lawsuits lived there (Dev?).So "proptional" coverage indeed! I have not objected to inclusion of all the sexual theater, drug experimentation ect. I am not trying to "white wash " in this edit. Merely address bias use of information excess. Guess this will be part of the arbitration.

Relative to the change of "welcome" Rama devotees. I am going to change that to this direct quote form Georg F 2006 edition. He said it, he is a strong critic of Adi Da and this is a appropriate language to directly quote him on this matter.I will cite book, page and direct quoteJason Riverdale (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't obscure the facts to suit POV

I am all about find the most neutral way to convey information from sources. I've been working diligently to do so, and have appreciated feedback from others on this account. But I also witness a persistent impulse to try to undercut necessary factual detail because that detail is found 'unsavory' by people with certain POV.

I have simply added a number of SINGLE LINE expositions to clarify info that I kept reading allusions to in the WP entry, but that were clearly being dodged by POV edits. Like, what was 'sexual experimentation'? Oh, it was group sex, sexual theater, making films, swapping partners, having sex with the guru, all directed by Da. Ok. Clear. Question answered. Don't dodge the sourced facts, don't go make the reader dig elsewhere. Moving on.

A few news stories about allegations of abuse and controversial behavior for a religious leader (not long after Jonestown - with SF being the home of that other Jones)? Well, actually, turns out it was dozens of reports in the biggest newspapers in northern California plus TV shows (never mentioned in WP before). This was NOT clear before.

My sole purpose getting involved in this page has been to make the page I wanted to see when I came here looking for info, and it wasn't here. I didn't want a bunch of Adidam propaganda. I didn't want a bunch of lurid 2nd hand reports from 'haters.' I wanted a good overview of how this guy came to prominence, and some light shone in some of the shady corners that all POV parties (both ways) wanted to downplay - accomplishments AND scandals. Our job as editors is tell the story as the sources tell it.Tao2911 (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

My sole purpose getting involved in this page has been to make the page I wanted to see when I came here looking for info, and it wasn't here. I didn't want a bunch of Adidam propaganda. I didn't want a bunch of lurid 2nd hand reports from 'haters.' I wanted a good overview of how this guy came to prominence, and some light shone in some of the shady corners that all POV parties (both ways) wanted to downplay - accomplishments AND scandals. Our job as editors is tell the story as the sources tell it.:-) :-)This is pretty silly statement and odd for jutification for not allowing ANY editing of what you have placed in the article. Look Tao I have been cooperative, civil, listen to all your reasons but NO WAY are you here for altruistic reasons or wanting accurate information.You , Dev, Starr and me are here with bias reasons. NOBODY spends that much time on an article unless something is driving it. You are NOT nuetral and I got to call you on it dude!It's too way silly and being from NY I got to say something . Cheers!Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

whatever gets you through the night, dude.

And for what it's worth, I have 'allowed' tons of edits, and made many to accommodate you, and everyone else. I can't help it if I'm the only one here able to craft a readable summary sentence from sources.Tao2911 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess again

We have from two different scholars (Kripal and Feurstein) very good descriptions of what this period was about. I think it would be good if we had a fuller description of what they actually said. Feuerstein did make it very clear about experiences high and low, both mystical and sexual, being the teachable moment of that time. I think it needs to be included. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there is only mention of the controversial behavior, not the "teaching" behind it, which is that all experiences, high or low, do not result in happiness/realization.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys just keep conveniently ignoring the two lines that follow the single sex line mention. "These techniques were said to be used in order to help "shock" students into insights regarding neurotic patterns and attachments. Members said that experiments in everything from food to work, worship, exercise, money and sexuality were all in attempts to grow spiritually." That is it. Nothing more needs to be said. All the pages of Da and GF together saying nothing in essence more than this. Nor does any other part of bio give more than single line mentions to anything. I refuse to allow you to pad this paragraph with more teaching info/Da apologetics. "Crazy Wisdom" section in teaching likewise covers it just fine. Unorthodox techniques to create shifts in awareness. Period. It is perfectly clear now to a general audience. No detailed theology necessary. It would start to sound like adidam.org again - that is if they weren't so determined to avoid mention of any of this.

there remain a number of footnotes about this, explaining some of your Da justifications.Tao2911 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Reception section

The reception section seems to be mostly critical. I believe that there could be an improvement here. Perhaps we could bring in something from Kripal here, and there are some positive things that are said in Feuerstein, and also positive things on the art as well. David Starr 1 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I have felt this way in the past, I agree this is a good idea. Why don't you make some edits and then everyone can discuss them here? Btw, I don't understand your tagging of "who" in the lead. Isn't it clear that Wilber felt that way warning people about "step into his community at your own risk", and hasn't Feurstein made similar criticisms? I'm just curious why you want names in there, the reason I am not arguing with Tao on it is because it seems like the people he lists do have those criticisms. Can you help me understand your POV on this?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is really clear and admins backed me up on this at the incidents page. You are supposed to say in the text who is saying it. Not in the footnotes. This is in general but particularly when using the word cult. See WP:WEASEL for the general case and WP:AVOID for cult in particular. David Starr 1 (talk) 01:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please Starr. I've been asking that question over and over. And how unfortunate to see you back. I do wish you'd go away and let the rest of us keep working this out. You demonstrably have no interest in being productive here.

I've removed your "who" tag, since you failed to explain it in talk, or address that three other editors with differing POV had agreed on that solution.

Wilber's postive/negative estimations cancel each other out - "still greatest realizer - step in at own risk". There are three positive mentions - three negative (GF formerly positive turned negative, so balanced really). There's already something from Kripal. Two neutral (USC guy, expressing no opinion but making neutral analysis of reports that are inarguable, and Wilber.) This is not slanted - can you not count?

Oh wait, then there is the line listing all of those book endorsements, that I added weeks ago. Come on. Unbalanced? Starr, clearly biased, keeps coming and stirring this crap and the devotees fall right back into it, unable to recognize that Starr has no willingness to engage here constructively. He has fought over and over to remove all mention of anything that doesn't fit in his picture of what he wants people to know about Adi Da, despite any source or common sense explanation. Respectfully, please keep some wits about you, folks. I know you want Da to look spectacular, but this isn't about that here.Tao2911 (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of counter-productive, useless conversation I am talking about. Starr makes some point, Tao gives an angry reply. End of conversation. Please reach resolution, I will not be tolerating this kind of back and forth this time around. It goes nowhere, and it doesn't matter what side I take, it just fuels more back and forth. Come to a clear understanding based on wiki policy. Or get a third opinion.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

we HAVE a third opinion. Yours. And a fourth. JR's. Did you forget that YOU rewrote the lead, in a triumph of indepedent reasoning? I wish you wouldn't give Starr this kind of weight - you see where it leads. You give him ammunition and he goes nuts on the page, scuttling our ability to make progress together. He isn't to be reasoned with, and I don't feel that way about either you or JR. You have your pro-bias, but even you can admit the fact that Da at the very least HAD critics, and the sources say it. Starr can't even admit that.Tao2911 (talk) 02:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My reply above was written for both you and Starr. I do agree with Starr on certain points, and I just want to encourage him to begin suggesting edits, instead of fighting with you. You two clearly don't get along! In the meantime, we can keep working Tao, and I want Starr to be a part of this article, so hopefully you can find some middle ground between the two of you.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually Kripal was in lead, not in reception except as book endorser. If we can find a non-Dawn Horse endorsement, I'm ok with that added. keep it relative to other mentions - ie one line or so.Tao2911 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar, punctutation

Hi Dev - I appreciate your wish to refine the text, but just want to caution you with use of commas, conjunctions, dashes, etc. I know Da liked some tortured sentence structure and you are steeped in that stuff, but keep an eye out for your tendency to bring that here. I'm just going through a streamlining some of your edits. A double dash, btw, is not an accepted text edit.Tao2911 (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to fix your grammar in some places. I'll be more careful with commas and dashes. It would be good if you could avoid making statements like this, "I know Da liked some tortured sentence structure, just shows your bias, not a necessary comment. Let's be civil.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That's Feuerstein talking, before he was even a critic. Everyone knows the guy tried to reinvent the language, for good or ill. My grammar didn't so much need fixing, but you made some ok changes. Some were not so good. Keep moving forward.Tao2911 (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)