Talk:Adi Da/Archive 8

removed writing section
"His work of writing came to culmination in the creation of a series of five books during the years 2005-2008:" the entire section was predicated on this single un-sourced remark, and goes on to describe them in detail. Who said this? This is pure conjecture on the part of the editor, or perhaps from Adidam literature. Do they claim this? Did he? Then SAY so, source it, and proceed. I don't necessarily disagree that there could be a book section. Or how about a line in the teaching section, saying he wrote 75 books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The nature of new biased edits
Here is how the intro section was recently edited by Devangari108. I'll go through it line by line:

"Adi Da Samraj Franklin Albert Jones in Jamaica, Queens, New York City, was a contemporary and often controversial guru, spiritual writer, and artist. During the years of his work from 1972 to 2000, Adi Da created a new way of life"

how can this in any way be considered neutral. This is not colloquial, common speech - it implies CLEAR BIAS.

"which he fully named "The Reality-Way Of Adidam.""

"fully named"? That makes no sense - unless you are arguing against some previous version or idea. It's simply Adidam in general parlance. To add "reality way" is not helpful - except to lend bias, credibility, and propagandistic specificity.

"In 1964, he began a period of intensive practice under a succession of spiritual masters in New York City and India. Then in 1972, Adi Da formally began to teach in living dialogue with those who approached him."

Think of the ten thousand ways you describe these two things. These are some of the least neutral possibilities.

"To date, his literary, philosophical, and practical writings consist of over seventy-five books." he wrote 75 books. Don't dress it up!!!

"Adi Da is seen by his devotees to be an Avatar, or incarnation of God in human form. Therefore, The Reality-Way Of Adidam is, simply put, the devotional and spiritual relationship to Adi Da as Divine Avatar."

dressing it up again...

"In the mid 1980s, allegations by disaffected former devotees of financial, sexual and emotional abuses within Adidam were widely reported in a number of newspapers and on local television news, [5][6], culminating in national coverage on NBC's The Today Show." this editor added the word disaffected to an otherwise untouched sentence - does this not spell it out clearly enough? I maintain that most of this editors edits are similarly implicated and biased. Tao2911 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In just the first paragraph of the new Biography section, "adi da said" (or like) is repeated three times - this continues throughout. The entire fact-based previous entry has been scrapped in favor of this an adoring respectful portrait culled from the edited version of Adi Da's own autobiography (including the removal of cited mention of his year working for Scientology). Tao2911 (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Response
To address your points:

Writing that Adi Da wrote over 75 books is accurate, as 75 is only an estimation and the total number is over 75. Otherwise, I would have simply left it with 75.

To say that Adi Da "created a new way of life" is not showing bias. It is a neutral statement. I am not sure how to neutralize it further.

The full name of Adi Da's movement is "The 'Radical' Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam". Adi Da has long more elaborate names and also shortened names. I wrote fully named, because I did not feel it would hurt, and I did it for the sake of completeness. If you felt that it was not neutral, then why didn't you raise this point before? I would have been happy to address it and simply keep it at Adidam.

I am not the editor that added the term "disaffected" into the lead paragraph. I noticed it as well, and it seems to have been done by a random IP.

Your opinion that the 2004 edition of The Knee Of Listening is "edited" does not make it an illegitimate source for the Biography section on this page.

In conclusion, I created a new Writings section, which I then posted about here in Discussion explaining why I did it, and that if there was any disagreement relative to NPOV, to please bring it up here and not to make any edits until all editors had reached a consensus. If you felt that I should have added "According to Adidam" before that first sentence, then I would have been more than happy to do so. Instead, you removed the entire section, and are only making your points after reverting most of the article.

I have always made a post in discussion for every major edit I have made on this page, and I have always politely asked that if there was any disagreement relative to the neutrality of my edits, to please bring it up before editing, make the point, allow a consensus to be reached, and proceed from there. It could have been a very easy polite conversation.

In your previous post here, you mentioned a specific line that you found biased. I completely agreed and then removed this line from the article immediately after reading your post. I do not understand why things cannot proceed on this basis. In that same post, you also found it necessary to make clearly negative statements such as this: "I have a life, that doesn't involve worshiping Adi Da or muddling through his tedious texts to find all the ways he reverses himself in his books over 40 years."

I am only interested in keeping this article neutral. It is hard to remain perfectly neutral as every one has leanings one way or another, and that is why I have kept discussion open and requested editors to speak up, so that we could all work together and fix the biases and make this article neutral once and for all. I am not interesting in engaging in impolite discussion or argument, and I feel I have been nothing but polite so far.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I made many edits, any of which are arguable perhaps. But you can't simply revert it to your preferred version without discussing those many specific points. As for Adi Da having created a "new way of life", I simply don't agree that he did. Any more than any one does, reducing the statement to nonsense. It implies clear bias - to say that he invented a new way of life is simply not a neutral statement. The fact that you think it is reveals clear bias. Please admit you have one, and then begin to edit from that perspective. I am leaving much of your information in place, as much of it is the kind of thing I have hoped would be added. But the way you couch it is often clearly biased and credulous. Period. PLease consider each line and section anew. You do not have the final word here. As for "The 'Radical' Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam", the esoterica could be endless. I believe it hurts, in that the page once again starts to sound like and Adidam pamphlet (as it has before); periodically his followers come here and try to do this to this page. I can only assume you possibly are one. Just ease up on the throttle. Tao2911 (talk) 02:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

please address my specific issues with the writing section before replacing it. see above.Tao2911 (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Section by Section
I see your point regarding "new way of life" and agree. Thanks for going into more detail. Here is an address of the changes you made, I hope we can discuss it and reach a consensus and make edits accordingly.

I will take this section by section.

Relative To Lead

"Adi Da asserted that he had realized a higher state of consciousness or being, and that his followers could find similar realization through his guidance. He called his movement Adidam. [4] Similar to South Asian religions, his movement emphasized a devotional, guru/disciple relationship.[5] Adi Da said and is seen by his devotees to be the most spiritually realized being ever to incarnate in human form. [6]"

The reason I disagree with this change is because Adi Da did not assert that he realized a higher state of consciousness, he (more accurately) asserted that he was an Avatar, the human manifestation of the highest consciousness. Previous paragraph was more accurate and to the point about Adi Da’s claims about himself as Avatar. Not sure why this was reverted. It also summarizes his claims to divinity in a very straightforward way.

Biography

"Later, there was controversy when Muktananda claimed never to have fully acknowledged Jones "enlightenment" or authority to teach. They remained estranged for the rest of Muktanada's life."

Relative to your comments about Adi Da’s relationship to Swami Muktanada. Adi Da was acknowledged as a yogic realizer in the Siddha Yoga linage by Swami Muktanada and gave him his Blessing to Teach in this manner. Swami Muktanada never retracted this. Adi Da decided simply not to teach within the Siddha Yoga tradition. Obviously there was disappointment by Swami Muktananda about this. There were a lot of ashram politics on all this in on both sides. However Adi Da was very critical of devotees misunderstanding of what occurred and that his respect and love and gratitude of Muktanada never ceased. He openly confessed his love of Swami Muktanada many times. Even in his public books “Therefore, I have always Continued to Honor and to Praise all My present-Lifetime Lineage-Gurus—including Rudi!, and Baba Muktananda!, and Rang Avadhoot!, and Bhagavan Nityananda! And I have always Continued (and even now Continue, and will never cease to Continue) to Yield My present-Lifetime Body-Mind to Receive the Always Ready and Most Lovingly To-Me-Given and Supremely Blissful Blessings of My present-Lifetime Lineage-Gurus and the Great Lineage of all Who have (in any and every time and place) Blessed the Incarnation-Vehicle and Invoked the All-Completing “late-time” Incarnation of My (now, and forever hereafter) Divine Avataric Appearance here (and every “where” in the cosmic domain). And I Do This (and I will always Continue to Do This) because the Immense Spiritual “Bond” of Siddha-Guru-Love cannot be destroyed—and It must never be forgotten or denied!Pgs. 157-158, Eleutherios, I (Alone) Am The Adidam Revelation

In 1976 when Swami Muktanada was in Oakland, Ca when he suffered a heart attack, Adi Da sent some of his closest devotees with gifts and flowers expressing his love and well wishes to Swami Muktanada. Swami Muktanada received this happily and in turn expressed his love for Adi Da. I don’t think this suggests some huge negative controversy. Yes a disagreement. But the love between these two teachers was always there. Obviously, some of what I have written above is not citable, and so I didn't write it in the article. Similar to what you have written, it is not able to be evidenced. I think we should agree to not mention it at all, or represent it properly.

"While still called Franklin Jones, he began to gather with students in April 1972, teaching in a bookstore in Los Angeles, California, known as the "Melrose Avenue Ashram". Later known as the Dawn Horse Communion, the movement has been through several name changes: previous names have included The Free Primitive Church of Divine Communion, The Johannine Daist Communion, and Free Daism. It is now known as Adidam.[21] In 1973, Jones himself initiated the first in a series of personal name changes, which he asserted reflected changes in his teaching."

This paragraph seems to go through an unnecessary list of name changes. Perhaps it can be summarized as "The organization went through various name changes throughout the years, finally settling on Adidam".

"As a student of Swami Muktananda, he was given the name Dhyanananda. Shortly after declaring himself fully enlightened, he adopted the name Bubba Free John. In 1979, he changed this to Da Free John. Subsequent names included Da Love-Ananda, Da Kalki, Da Avabhasa, and finally Adi Da Samraj.[22]"

Again, I feel this can be summarized better.

"Adi Da died of a heart attack on November 27, 2008 at his home on Naitauba Island, Fiji.[25]

The source provided does not state that Adi Da died of a heart attack, nor does it specify any cause of death at all. Therefore I am suggesting the original statement is more accurate here.
 * his own devotees announced that he "suffered a massive heart attack" in an announcement online that same day. I will find the source and cite it.

Teachings

"Messianic Declaration"

The term “Messianic” is mere opinion that reflects strong bias. A neutral way of naming this section is “Adi Da’s Claims About Himself" or "Adi Da's Claims To Divinity". The reason you provided for renaming of “Messianic Declaration” was that it was an alternative to previous “Adidam term”. No word in this new category is an Adidam term and is simply neutral accurate summary. I believe the two names I suggest for this section are as neutral as it can get, unless you have other suggestions.
 * look up messianic; its a statement of fact. Look at his claims. They are quite simply the definition of messianic. Come on! You even point out that is what distinguishes his claims vs other gurus.

Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Adi Da's declared method of spiritual realization is based on his teaching that the guru or "spiritual master" is able to directly empower and accelerate the spiritual development of the follower over time through the force of their spiritual radiance. He taught that for this process to be effective, the student must be powerfully attuned and attentive to the guru, which he taught most naturally arises through a "devotional" response on the part of the self-declared "devotee." [34] The organization and its methods are collectively called Adidam."

Your removal of the term "loving" and other words demonstrate clear bias to portray this negatively, rather than matter-of-factly. “Self-declared” devotee is an unnecessary phrase that serves no merit positive or negative. This section is as straightforward as can be, cited from Adi Da’s own word on what he says the Guru-devotee relationship is. It is presented as his own teaching on the Guru-devotee relationship also. This is not arguable. I am suggesting we leave this section as is, make sure it communicates that it is Adi Da's teaching on the guru-devotee relationship and not the traditional teaching on it.


 * your inclusion of "loving" is clearly biased. Why use it? Its weird, and awkward in this context. It sounds like propaganda, once again.Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"While similar to other guru yoga traditions in this sense"

Adidam is not similar to guru yoga, this is interpretation on the part of the editor. Adi Da never described his method of Guru-devotee practice in terms of Vajrayana Guru Yoga. If anything it can be likened to the Guru-devotee tradition found in Hinduism and in Buddhism also, but not "Guru Yoga". I feel comparisons like this are unnecessary. Maybe we can just keep it out of the article.

You have got to be kidding me! not similar to guru yoga? You may think he discovered a "new way of life" etc but his entire model is clearly based on Hindu guru yoga tradtions. You take the mans claims for truth - he is NOT the only source or opinion on his own religious tradtion. if it looks like guru yoga, talks liuke guru yoga, smells like guru yoga, we can say it is similar to guru yoga. The distinction is still there!!!Tao2911 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Art

Adi Da has had legitimate professional exhibitions of his art and critical acclaim of his work, as an artist independent of his role as a spiritual figure, all of which have citations. You chose to edit out names of specific show like Venice Biennale (a significant international show) and other professional exhibitions. These are well cited exhibitions and your taking out the names of these exhibitions constitutes real bias and editing on that bias. The Venice Biennale for example required submission of art and a full review by totally independent non-Adidam review art board. The invitation to Adi Da to a collateral exhibition shows there was significant in recognition of his work worthy of an international exhibition… nothing to do with him as a spiritual figure.

Relative to Wikipedia not allowing artist comments about their own work, that is simply not true. You will find plenty of examples of both artist commenting on their art and professional critics commenting as well in Wikipedia pages. So based on that wiki policy I am suggesting a shortened edit of Adi Da’s statement, to keep it simpler as you suggest. Wiki policy also allows SHORT critiques with citations.

Here are a few artist articles that contain their own statements about their art: Picasso (short statement on his art), Kandinsky (comments by others on his art), Rauschenberg (quotes from him on his art), Jackson Pollack (plenty of the artist describing how and why he worked), Edward Weston (plenty of comments about his art).


 * I'll just start here, since I am an art book editor (among other things): the artists you list are giants, wonderful counterpoint to Adi Da. Da was no where near, and never will be be, counted among their ranks. period. If you think he will, you clearly have lost all sense of perspective (a point I maintain is amply demonstrated in your position regards this entry and person.) He had three shows at the end of his life, of negligible import (one only an art fair; not usually included in major artists' curriculum vitae) - his appearance in Venice was not officially in the Biennale - It was a privately funded ancillary exhibition. The way you couch these exhibitions is completely unprofessional by standards in the art world, which is the model for CONTEMPORARY artists on WP (not Modern art legends.) You cite one single commercial gallery show, at a small new space in LA - this does not much of an art career make. I continue to have many issues with your inclusions, and maintain that you seem to remain blind to your own lack of NPOV.

Tao2911 (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Writings

You removed this section and I understand your concern. It is, however, well-sourced and if you feel the first line is biased then maybe if I write, "According to Adidam, Adi Da wrote..." But the fact of these "five principal books" is not arguable as Adi Da clearly designates them in an essay, which I have sourced. If you have further concerns about this section, then bring them up, and we can discuss them here before editing.

Other than that, I agree with you on including Scientology in the Biography. I also agree with keeping the statements about Buddha, Jesus, and Ramana Maharshi, although I feel it should be worded better so as to flow with the other paragraphs. And I agree with your removal of the David Lane quotation that lead into the Teachings section. I did not add this in there, but it is definitely biased and unnecessary.

I hope that we can be polite with each other and work together to make this article neutral. I notice that there have been Adi Da devotees in the past who have tried to make this article look good, and I also see non-supporters trying to make it look bad. Neither one is what I'm interested in. I think we should point out each other's bias, come up with a neutral alternative, and go from there. Let's try to reach a consensus with each other before making edits, and I think we can make this work. I am going to go ahead and revert this article to where it stood before you started editing. From there, I will add suggestions of yours, and I would like for you to bring your points forth here for discussion so we can reach a consensus and making according changes. I would like to work on the article from where it currently stands, so make some suggestions here on what you see, and let's edit from there. I just felt this is a good place to start before getting lost in each of our edits.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Devangari: I understand your wish to improve the article. However, 95% of the material you cite is directly from Adi Da himself. Most of the rest is from Adi Da supporters site Beezone. The writing section is a clear case in point: why even have all that information if it happens to just be what Adi Da claimed about his own writings? Find some independent analysis. It sounds biased. It reads like propaganda, from the Adidam website itself. Come on.

Also, I made many of stylistic edits and shifts to neutral, colloquial english. You keep reverting to Adi Da speak. Its awkward, it doesn't sound neutral, and it is not in keeping with other entries. As for headings in Bio - why? The individual entries are too short to warrant them, and it seems to follow the Adi Da line of seeing his life in these discrete sections, as he defined them. Again, credulous, and smacks of bias. Lose the headers! Leave it as I edited it. these were your additions to a section that didn't warrant them. Stop it. And stop reverting all of my changes, and cherry picking the few you find acceptable. Work with them more carefully in talk. Levae the version, and go back with individual edits. Don't simply scrap all my edits. I appreciate you could see the merit in three or four of my two dozen edits. But I didn't feel on balance you were very fair, all things considered, and how much I left of your material untouched. Tao2911 (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao: Are you not bias in you choice of language? What is wrong with having Adi Da's "Proclamation of Divinity" vs your bias statement "Messianic Proclamation" That is a highly subjective and bias choice of language. Clearly you intend it to be inflammatory and express your own negative feelings. That is very strong language Tao. I don't think that Devangari is saying that the statement of Adi Da saying he is a a unique enlightened being is being requested to be taken out of the article. But, putting a heading like you are insisting is bias. So I weigh in on reverting back to the heading Devangari has. It does not take away from your intention and logic of putting that section in the article. It does however leave it to the reader to decide without your bias "hitting them over the head." Will you agree to this minor word change for the sake of neutrality?Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I readded the fact that he died of a heart attack, with a citation - a link to the email sent from Adidam on the day it happened, widely available online (I believe they say "massive heart attack" though I'm not sure). Why anyone would want to hold that fact back, in a purportedly thorough biography, is deeply questionable. Anything indicating any human fallibility of this person is being quickly deleted, until a fight occurs for re-inclusion.

As for his "divinity claims": the entire line was much longer, and was credulous. He didn't claim simply to be "divine" - he claimed to be the universal Avatar. Avatar, however, is not a word in common english parlance, not in this context anyway. Messiah/ie Messianic is. I don't know why you want to parse the facts. I think his claims are clearly messianic, in the truest sense of that term. he is the very definition of that person - as believed by his followers, and stated such in any number of places. As he himself declared he should be viewed. So I think the word should stand. He is quoted in this very entry as stating that he is the culmination of all cosmic development. period. In the previous version of this entry, there were further quotes, some now deleted, where he says that it is SOLELY THROUGH HIM that human beings have the potential to realize what he realized. Call it what it is, folks. It's messianic. Your value judgments are not inherently implied in the use of the word - not if he was what he says he was. could he have been wrong? Oh wait, I'm sure I'm just not rasping the "paradoxes" and "subtleties"... Tao2911 (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao is there a citations where Adi Da has been specifically called "Messianic" ... other than your opinion? Also could you find appropriate citations for your comments about Adi Da's "controversial" relationship to Swami Muktanada and his "controversial" relationship to Scientology?Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I already had removed "controversial" because it seemed unsubstantiated in context, and gratuitous. As for Messianic, please read the section. As above, please explain how Da's position ISN'T Messianic. What would messianism be, if not what Adi Da and the Adidam quotes describe? Give me an alternative.Tao2911 (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the line: '''Adi Da further claimed that in his essential form, he was not an "incarnated human" having "achieved" a realized state, but rather that the force and presence of the Divine Itself had moved, for the first time in history, into a human incarnation—or what is traditionally referred to as the birth of an Avatar. Then, as what appeared as an outwardly human being, Adi Da claimed to have intentionally "forgotten" his prior divine nature at the age of two, in order to trace a path of "human realization" that would serve as a would-be trail for others to follow.'''

I don't find that the source material cited clearly supports these interpretations, which I further find muddled. It is NOT a direct quote of the source. Find lines and quote them to support this interpretation - instead, the interpretation is not quoted, but shares the peculiar capitalizations that are distinctively Adi Da, but not distinguished here as such. Also redundant, as the two year thing is mentioned in bio. Tao2911 (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I notice that this cites 22 pages of material as source. See below comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed Original Research
The more I am looking into these new sections the more concerned I am about the supposed citations and footnotes. In the "Adidam section for instance the three footnotes for these lines cite 70 + pages of material - summarized here?

'''Adi Da's declared method of spiritual realization is based on his teaching that the guru or "spiritual master" is able to directly empower and accelerate the spiritual development of the follower over time through the force of their spiritual radiance. He taught that for this process to be effective, the student must be powerfully attuned and attentive to the guru, which he taught most naturally arises through a "devotional" response on the part of the self-declared "devotee." [35]

'''Thus, practitioners of Adidam consider themselves devotees of Adi Da as the "Divine Guru".[36] While similar to other guru yoga traditions in this sense, Adidam is distinguished from these traditions insofar as Adi Da claimed to be the only human to have manifested complete realization and to have incarnated as already realized or "Divine". In this sense, Adi Da claimed to be both the method of realization—as a "guru"--and the end-point or realization itself—as the Divine Itself.[37] '''

This is way too sloppy. Find direct quotes. Don't boil down 70 pages for us and hope we trust you. I don't. This is completely out of bounds. Didn't you ever write a paper, at least where anyone checked your footnotes? Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's be civil to each other. There is not a problem with summarising cited text, and the text should be paraphrased; not quoted unless there are compelling reasons. That is not original research. The text you have removed has problems if it misrepresents what was in the source. But you cannot justify deleting it just on the grounds that there is a lot of text to look through. However, it would reasonable to request that the relevant page numbers in the source are supplied. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Verifiabilty, self-pub, and accessibility
Hi Everyone. Pics look great and I appreciate everyones efforts in trying to improve the article. It's great to see some new blood here. A few things I thought I should mention. WP is about being an encyclopedia and for an editor to edit here, allegiance to WP has to be put before any other allegiance, especially if you are editing for your own organization. See WP:COI for more info. WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR are the 3 core content policies. It's important to know these very well. Currently this article is outside of WP:V in several ways and I think that it would improve the article if these were fixed. 1. There are currently 11 references to non-Adidam self published sites. So a reliable source should be found for this material or it should be removed. See WP:RS for this policy. (Dabase, Beezone, Lightgate, Gurdieff-Legacy, Adidam.TV, Adidawilber, are all not allowed as reliable sources under WP:RS.)

2. WP:V says that self published material may be used about the subject of the article as long as the article is not based primarily on such sources. So currently I count only 18 out of 57 references that are independently published reliably sourced references. So I would say that we are at the limit on adding any more self-pub materials. I am only aware of 2 books that are not self published that are written by Adi Da, the first would be the original Knee of Listening, published by CSA Press, and the second would be Spectra Suites, published by Welcome Books. So these could be quoted without this limitation. See WP:SELFPUB

3. WP:MTAA says that material should be as accessible to the reader as possible. So things like "shaktipat awakened in him esoteric spiritual processes associated with the Kundalini Shakti", or "once the “root-activity” of “self-‘contraction’” is transcended, then one is spontaneously established in the Divine Condition involvement in ascending subtle phenomena", or "exclusive stand as "Consciousness Itself" or, "Divine Self-Realization of the inherent "non-difference" of Consciousness & Spirit", or,  "Divine Self-Realization of “Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Consciousness”, prior to all gross, subtle, and causal domains, in which what Adi Da considers the inherent unity of Consciousness (or Existence) and Spirit (or Radiance), is Realized", etc. etc. are all probably way out of the average person's ability to comprehend and this kind of language is typically for those familiar with Adi Da's work. Use of this kind of language makes the article difficult to read and un-accessible to the average reader. So I suggest that this needs to be changed. Also WP specifically asks that we not use capitalization in this way. Otherwise I think the article is looking great. :-) David Starr 1 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * In light of these comments and mine above, I assert that the "teachings" section needs another radical overhaul. Once again, a few lines cite hundreds of pages of source material, totally unspecific, and as I have maintained since this recent onslaught of material began, it it way too esoteric and inaccessible. I looked today at the "answers.com" entry, and it is much pithier, and appropriate. And maybe two short paragraphs long. Not that WP can't handle more info than that, but this page is off track. As DStarr points out - though some of the sites he lists have direct book quotes and such and I think are fair game. Tao2911 (talk)23:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tao since you cannot provide citations nor verification where Adi Da is specifically called "Messianic" then it is only your choice of bias and opinion. Therefore I am removing this and replacing it with a more neutral word Jason Riverdale (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments David Starr. I have condensed the teachings section and made it more accessible, along with other sections on the page according to what you pointed out. I am now going to scan the Biography for what you have pointed out and remove citations to the outside sites you list. Tao, I removed the sentence about Adi Da calling Muktananda a black magician, I checked the source for it which is an article written by Scott Lowe in which he describes that Adi Da said that in "evening talks" and provides a citation for pages in the 1972 edition in The Knee Of Listening. I looked at these pages and could not find any reference to Muktananda as a black magician, so I removed this content since it was not verifiable. You are welcome to put it back up if you can find a verifiable source. I also restored the sections on Adi Da's claims about himself and Adidam. I took out a lot of the quotations you added, as I thought they all said the same thing. Instead I added a summary line that states that Adi Da says he's the only one and others can only realize 7th stage through him. Under Adidam, I restored the previous section and added direct page numbers. I had put direct quotations, but upon reading Geronimo's post above, I saw that since it was okay to summarize cited text, that it would be easier to read that way. I trimmed down the language everywhere as much as possible. I also cited whatever I could in the Biography from the 1972 edition of The Knee Of Listening, since a majority of this material appears in this edition also. I left later edition citations where necessary. I did this in light of DStarr's clarification regarding the Wiki's Self-Pub policy, and thought we may as well trim down what we could. The last thing I did was remove words such as "claim" after seeing DStarr's edit of that nature, and after reading WP:AVOID. I had no idea. Thanks for all the clarifications DStarr--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Relative to the line that Adi Da's time in Scientology was "expunged" from the the later edition of the Knee of Listening, that's again very bias,strongly suggestive, non-neutral and personal opinionated language. The definition of that word is "1.to strike or blot out; erase; obliterate. to efface; wipe out or destroy." Therefore I have made a simple edit with a real citation as to the reason for it simply not being included in the later edition of The Knee of Listening. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a change in section title to "Adi Da's Declaration of Unique Realization" This makes it more in line with the language used in this section and in other parts of the article where Adi Da does states that his uniqueness is in his "realization" Jason Riverdale (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Teaching section
I believe I greatly increased the readability of the teaching section, and drained if of superflous and propagandistic seeming language without any loss of meaning. I simply removed the redundant explanation of the list that is self explanantory. Devangari - Please discuss concerns here in talk.Tao2911 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I had posted this above. I'll post here instead now. You changed the teachings section to read: "Adi Da wrote that because human beings suffer from the presumption of a separate self caused by the ego, they are not aware of a truer, divine reality. He described the ego's limiting activity as "the self-contraction”. He wrote that spiritual life is the process of becoming sensitive to this process, the goal being to transcend it. Adi Da stated that once “self-contraction” ends, one becomes established in "reality itself", a state free from the sufferings of the ego." My issue is that Adi Da did not say that they were thus aware of a "truer" divine reality. He said that the egoic condition is not a true condition at all, so this is not accurate language. It is too interpretive, if you would look at what I sourced for this section, you will see that it is a mere summary. I can add quotations if you want. You also removed Adi Da's metaphor of self-contraction as someone pinching themselves for no reason. If we are trying to make this article accessible, then I feel that is a good statement to keep in. It does not make the section harder to read at all. Adi Da also did not state the transcendence of the self-contraction was a "goal", and made efforts to describe that he did not teach a "goal-based" way. Self-contraction also does not "end", because it is an "activity" it must be described as such, and the language you are using here of it "ending" makes it sound like an automaticity that just stops. Also "reality itself" as a "state free from the sufferings of ego" seems like watering it down, I don't see what was wrong with the original statement. It was perfectly understandable to the average joe and more accurately representative of the teaching. This entire section is cited in the talk "Understanding", pinching metaphor and all, and as it currently stands is verifiable and accessible. I just feel the Teachings section at least needs to be accurate to what Adi Da's teaching is, as I cited it in his first talk "Understanding".

Also, the seven stage model being a model of "consciousness" is not true, and that is interpretation on the part of the editor, and not verifiable. It is simply a model, and it could be described as a model of many things, but those would all be interpretations. Let's leave it at just a "model" for the sake of neutrality. I can deal with the removal of the explanation. Your writing that the fifth stage is engaging in disciplines such as yoga is not accurate. Adi Da described the fifth stage of life as being ascent via the spinal line, as in the Muktananda's tradition and other kundalini yoga. He specifically said that the fifth stage was about yogic ascent. There is a way to write this in an accessible manner, which is why I linked kundalini. Maybe something like "engaging in ascending yoga". Again, I cited this in the essay "The Seven Possible Stages Of Life", it is verifiable. Let's at least make this accurate. I hope we can reach a consensus on this. I have no problem with any of your other edits and feel they were good in creating a more accessible article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao thanks for your edits ... they did help make the article more readable. On a completely non-wiki subject... what kind of art books do you edit? I have a background myself in art.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It has to be a model of something. It clearly is - I tried to find a phrase that encompasses it. I think it does. The pinching business is just weird, and doesn't make sense without greater context (which there isn't room for here - again, it could be endless, as it seemed a few edits back). I maintain that to the reader just trying to get the kernel of what he was about, the section as it sits works (I say this as someone who came upon this page last year and didn't find that, and began the long slow process of getting what I wanted to know elsewhere. And toward that end I think you have made some sound improvements on this entry.)

Thanks. I think what you have written is fine, describing it as a model of "spiritual development", but I still would probably take out the word "consciousness" since Adi Da uses that word to refer to something specific, and because it appears in the sixth stage also, could get confusing.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

We've gotten close to the essence (its really not as complicated as some want to maintain)- I actually wonder why even the 7 stages is really necessary here. It's not novel (there are a dozen similar models that predate his, and many since that are more comprehensive), and seems unnecessary with his later pronouncements making such a model extraneous (all you have to do is love Da.) Shouldn't it's import be prefaced or couched as an early development, transcended by later ones in Adidam? Just given some kind of context? His teaching "strategy" clearly shifted. Was the model 1973? If so, say so. Then when did he become the frustrated Avatar?

We are getting close to a really fine article here. The reason the seven stages are necessary is because it is a key part of Adi Da's teaching, otherwise it wouldn't have any point being included. It also provides a lead in, as you say, to the declarations. Adi Da continued to use the seven stage even in his final writings, and it seemed only to become more important as a part of his teaching as time progressed. So I think it should stay on that basis. I hope that clarifies it for you. Model was not 1973, I am not sure when exactly it was created, but it came to fruition in the last decade or so of his teaching. So I think it's fine as is.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I do like as a lead in to his 7th stage declarations...

As for art, I am deep in the bloody trenches. Finding Kuspit had written about/for him led me on this fool's errand.Tao2911 (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do want to bring up the point again that the first paragraph of the Teachings section is still not accurate. I think, Tao, that you are not extremely well-read in the Teaching, but that there are editors here who are, so maybe just let them handle this section, and you can check it out for NPOV. I will make some edits, but keep it just as short as it is now. As for pinching oneself, it really is a metaphor that demonstrates the teaching and on that Adi Da used a lot. Self-contraction is the activity that causes suffering, but it is one's own activity gone unnoticed. Just like if you are pinching yourself without noticing it. Once you notice it and realize it was the cause of your pain, you stop. That's what he is saying. I just don't feel that your opinion of it being weird is enough to pull it out, it is a good metaphor that is verifiable and accessible, so I think it should stay. That really summarizes my views on the section. After that, I think the Biography and Teachings section are as good as can be.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a few changes to the teachings section to make it accurate. I also changed the language under "Declarations" to read "one and onyl Avatar of all time", for some reason I thought this was more clear. Also, under "Adidam" I changed the phrase "didam is distinguished by Adi Da's claim to be the only being ever to have attained complete realization, and that it is solely through devotion to him that full realization by others can be achieved." because it appears right above it in "Declarations" as "Adi Da further declared that the seventh stage of life can only be realized through devotion to him as a uniquely historic divine Avatar." So I thought it was a bit redundant, and changed it to: "While similar to more traditional forms of guru yoga, Adidam is distinguished by Adi Da's declaration of Avatarhood, making himself the means and end-point of realization itself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanagari108 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a disconnect of some kind here - I understand the teaching fine. What I am trying to do is find "normal" language to translate what he says into common, accessible speech. I find your changes overly specific to Adi Da's intentionally peculiar language. The pinching thing is not helpful - I find it more obscure than anything else. And I trust my ability to grasp that. I fully understand what he is getting at. And continue to maintain that you make it more complicated by your insistence on this Adi Da-speak. like "activity as the source of all dilemma" - make it more simple, more direct. you keep resorting to this almost Victorian speech, which is directly attributable to Adi Da, I grant. But it is not quoted, so it seems out of keeping with the rest of the entry as we are starting to reach consensus upon. "he said always already accomplishes what the ego is seeking to achieve" - just leave it at transcends the ego. I get what you mean, what he means, but it verges again on the esoteric. Break it down. My version did not mangle any of these meanings. You are too caught up in what you are seeing as nuance or flavor. Your "flavor" is too strongly Daist, and doesn't fit in the rest of soup. How's that for a stupid metaphor?Tao2911 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you are saying. It helps when you point out specifics like that. I have added a few lines in the Teachings section because as it stood there was not sufficient explanation or clarity. Also wrote a short introduction to the seven stages list, because it is not self-explanatory, and a short intro like the one I have provided will help readers.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead
After reviewing wikipedia's policy on Lead paragraphs, I feel that the one for this article needs some changing. See WP:LEAD. It says that the Lead should provide a summary of the article including any notable controversies. Right now, there is no mention of the teaching, and only a partial summary.

Also the statement that Adi Da asserted he realized a higher state of consciousness is not accurate, because he claimed to be manifestation of the Divine in human form, rather than a realizer of some higher state. Here is what I am proposing, please review, make suggestions, when a consensus is reached it'll be posted:

"Born Franklin Albert Jones in Jamaica, Queens, New York City, was a contemporary and often controversial guru, spiritual writer, and artist. He was the founder of a new religious movement currently known as Adidam.

Adi Da taught that human beings suffer from the activity of “separate self” which he called the “self-contraction”. He taught that there was no technique that could effectively result in realization and thus emphasized devotion to the guru as the only means for enlightenment. Adi Da openly declared that he was the one and only Avatar for all time, and that only devotion to him could result in ultimate realization. Adidam is the practice of devotion to Adi Da as the "Divine Avatar".

In the mid 1980s, allegations by former devotees of financial, sexual and emotional abuses within Adidam were widely reported in a number of newspapers and on local television news, [7][8], culminating in national coverage on NBC's The Today Show. These allegations resulted in a number of lawsuits on both sides. Adidam said that these allegations were part of a conspiracy to extort large sums of money from the movement."

I think that summarizes his claims to Avatarhood, being the only means for realization, and his teaching in just a few lines.--Devanagari108 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GA status?
Well done! You guys have pulled together really well. Do you want to now work on getting the article ready so it can be nominated for GA status. If there's agreement, you can count me in too. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely, that sounds great!--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't put an article through GA before, so this would be an overdue learning process for me as well. Here are the criteria and the review process. It needs to be got up to standard before nomination. Note that continued edit warring would get the article disqualified. --Geronimo20 (talk) 06:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I think we've worked toward a satisfactory result. Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am in! Geronimo if you could be patient with questions I may have. I don't have a legalistic brain and wiki can be kind of legal in it's description. I may have some questions. Thanks :-) Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good guys. I just started reviewing Geronimo's links and I think the article fits most of that right now. The only big thing I am proposing is a change in the Lead, which can be seen above. I think the few lines I want to change provide a better summary. Other than that, I think this article is fitting criteria. It looks edit warring is a big thing for this not getting passed. We should slow down the edits big time and just make propositions here. I don't think we are too far away at all! I'm going to go ahead and post the new lead, see what everyone thinks. Geronimo, your input is going to help a lot, let's all look at review process and see what can be done.--Devanagari108 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added the GA check list below where we can comment under specific points and tick them off when we think they are okay. There are a lot of style issues to check under point 1, as you will discover when you read the guidelines. For example, the images should not sandwich text. I'll make a start by tidying up the way the references are cited. It would be good if someone can check the copyright status of the images. There need be no hurry, with plenty of time to decide on other additions, such as the writings section below.--Geronimo20 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I uploaded most of the pictures and the licensing was very confusing. I uploaded most of them as my own work, but the picture of Adi Da as an infant still seems to have some problem, along with the one of him teaching in the teachings section. I sent an email saying that I gave permission to use these, but am not sure if that's enough, or what I should've said! Maybe you can help on this too, Geronimo.


 * Regarding "Embedded List", would you say that the list of the Seven Stages is inappropriate and should become prose? I really thought it was easier to read this way. Not sure which way to go. Same for the list in the potential writings section?--Devanagari108 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'm pretty sure I've seen this, this and this elsewhere in early Adi Da books. When you say an image is your "own work", do you mean that you took the photograph, or that you own the copyright and you can prove it. If it doesn't have one of those meanings, then you would need to get permission from the publisher, or whoever the copyright holder is.


 * The list of Seven Stages seems okay to me. A long list of writings would not be appropriate {there should be a web reference that can be given for that). However, I think a short section where you put his main works in some perspective, as you did below, would be okay (these judgements are somewhat subjective, and the GA reviewer may have a different take). You would need to source it properly. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Geranamo. Going slow and all of us dialoging seems refreshing!!!I will look at the links on wikipedia policy you posted as well and then look at the article over the weekend her. The I can comment on what I feel would fit into some sort of modification for wiki and we can discuss all of our suggestions.Jason Riverdale (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will get permission from the publisher then. Thanks Geronimo. I would only include the list of 5 books below and not more than that, with an appropriate citation. So far, I edited the article to make the writing more prose-like, eliminating as many single sentences as possible. In the Biography, I removed the parantheticals of "primarily self-published" next to "Adi Da wrote over 75 books..." because while true, it seemed unnecessary and to read negatively. I also rephrased some parts of "Declaration of Unique Realization", eliminating Ramana Maharshi's name but keeping Buddha and Jesus, as I thought if Ramana was to be included than many other realizers would also need to be included in order for that not to seem random, as Adi Da commented on many more than just him. I thought leaving Buddha and Jesus made it seem more appropriate, as both are traditional religious figures. I also added the line of Adi Da referring to saints, yogis, and sages as I thought it balanced the section more, which read with a negative slant. Currently, the article appears very much neutral. I also formatted some pictures so that it wasn't sandwiching text and read the policy on how they should typically be to the right, but left two or so to the left because it simply looked much better.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Writings
I do want to consider putting a Writings section back in here. As I recall, Tao, you did not have a problem with the section itself, but with the content or the way it was said. I'm going to post here what I am proposing go in this section for content, so you can make suggestions accordingly.

Adi Da wrote over 75 books on spiritual, philosophical, and practical matters. From this, he designated "five principal books" that he said constituted his "comprehensive address" to humankind:


 * The Aletheon (or "The Truth Book")
 * The Gnosticon (or "The Knowledge Book")
 * The Pneumaton (or “The Spirit-Breath Book")
 * Not-Two Is Peace (his essays on how to truly establish world peace)
 * Transcendental Realism (his collected essays on art)

Of these five principal books, Adi Da wrote that The Aletheon was his “first and foremost” book, and thus the most significant work of his lifetime. He said that The Gnosticon was his text summarizing sixth stage wisdom and The Pneumaton summarizing fourth-to-fifth stage wisdom.

Adi Da’s other key text is The Dawn Horse Testament, which summarizes the Way of Adidam for practitioners. Grouped around The Dawn Horse Testament are a series of five more books known as “The Five Books Of The Heart of The Adidam Revelation” which detail the foundation elements in the Way of Adidam. Adi Da also wrote a larger series of books known as “The Companions of The True Dawn Horse” which serve to expound upon major themes of The Dawn Horse Testament in greater detail.

Adi Da also created a body of practical literature on the subject of what he called “right life” containing his “right-life instruction” on topics such as world peace, death and dying, diet, exercise, sexuality, healing, cooperative living, and childrearing.

In addition to his books of spiritual, philosophical, and practical teachings, Adi Da also wrote an "experimental" literary trilogy entitled The Orpheum—comprising The Mummery Book, The Scapegoat Book, and The Happenine Book. The Orpheum is also presented in the form of theatre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devanagari108 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think until you can come up with a truly independent source for analysis of his oeuvre, I don't see the need for this addition. The fact that he wrote 75 books is there, with a link to his publishing arm. I think perhaps his later teachings negate or undermine earlier ones - they trump the rest, as the entry makes clear (avatar etc). I think ideally there might be some analysis of how his teaching changed - but that would have to be independently sourced and created, not independent, ie by you, or me, or other editors. I don't think we need any more "Da on Da" in this entry AT ALL. I am incredibly reticent to see this entry get any longer whatsoever. I think it is almost spot on, all things considered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is not really "Da on Da", it is more of something any third-party could write about the literature of Adidam. I'm just stating the main book series and what they are. I can source other people writing about Adi Da's books also. I think there should be something here, and see what you are saying. I will have to consider it's content and sources further.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GA check list
1. Well-written
 * the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct
 * it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation

2. Factually accurate and verifiable
 * it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout
 * it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
 * it contains no original research

3. Broad in its coverage:
 * it addresses the main aspects of the topic
 * it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style))

4. Neutral
 * it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias

5. Stable
 * it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
 * images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content
 * images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions --Geronimo20 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

intro
The intro once again suffered from a tendency toward overly specific Adi Da-speak. I think we have to keep thinking "how would a, uh, normal human being say this? what would be most comprehensible?" Yes, you may lose some Da-flavor (yum) but you gain a consistency and greater authority/credulity as an encyclopedic entry. I redirect to the teaching section, in keeping with precedent.

I condensed and simplified. I think its a real improvement.

But I can't get "ego" to redirect to the right one - it goes to Freud, but there is a perfect entry in "spirituality". Help? Tao2911 (talk) 22:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've run into the same problem with "ego", and concluded it was better just not to link it. Also, you lost some accuracy in the Lead in saying that "Adi Da taught that unhappiness is caused by illusory limitations of the human ego, calling this condition “the self-contraction." It implies that there is some state of ego that is not limited and okay, whereas Adi Da taught that the ego altogether was an illusion. Further, he did not refer to the self-contraction as a condition, but as an activity. The reason I keep emphasizing this is because it's the main crux of his teaching in many ways.

Also, if you read WP:LEAD, it says, "While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." Therefore, I think that a sufficient overview should be given. I'm going to make a few slight changes, I think there are still too many one-liners in this lead to pass for GA, but take a look after my edit. I think we are getting really close. Rest of the article looks great.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I get that, re ego being illusory. I think I was trying to say that, but failed. Again tho, I really don't find any of his teaching novel enough to warrant using language that is so strange or difficult. I think I'm at least pointing toward a tone or way to get to where we want to go, even if we need to tweak it. As an "insider" you are having a little tendency to lose the forest for the trees on just a couple of these word choices. But I think we can find the right ones.

Sure, I think I fixed that and it looks pretty good. I may have that tendency, and I appreciate your correcting it, and hope you don't mind when I correct you for accuracy--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

And in the teaching section, when you use the da-specific language in this short context, it just does not flow; it reads awkwardly, and often seems strange or strained. Like an insider trying to not sound like one. So I keep trying to say the same thing you are saying, but with a "journalistic" language, perhaps? The metaphors are perpetually problematic. they just don't help. Also, you keep adding that "spontaneously" achieving a state after lots of hard work. Spirituality is indeed paradoxical; but your statement doesn't read as self aware of that. that is not the sentiment of what your saying.Tao2911 (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I understand. I think that sometimes when you do this we lose accuracy and flow, but we can reach a simple medium for sure. Let me try to edit yours a little bit, and see if you think it looks better. I still disagree on the metaphor on the basis that others may find it illustrative even if you don't, and should be included.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it reads really quite well at this point, after our respective edits!

Oh this metaphor problem - you think it will help people get what? I think this may be the issue. This is not a place to have people "get" adi da's teaching. This is a place to have a concise, dry, cool, journalistic overview. Unpoetic, and unadorned. I feel really clear about this - the metaphor immediately takes this entry in the wrong direction, and quite simply sounds odd, each and every one you've added. And I love metaphors! Tao2911 (talk) 23:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough! I think the Lead and Teachings look great! Well done, Tao.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I returned my edits to teaching section, with some of your ideas, like the added line about the inherent nature of the bliss state predating "self-contraction." A good point. I also replaced "psychological" for "thoughts and feelings" since that is what the word encompasses. I just keep changing some phrases I find somewhat awkward and not contemporary-seeming.Tao2911 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I read through them. The Lead looks good, I think the Teachings paragraph still needs some work, but I'm going to leave it for now. Only thing I would change is the word "errant", I don't think it is really the right word. Otherwise, article looks good my friend. It's come a long way.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, I would like to bring up the remaining comment about Adi Da's time in Scientology taken out of the later edition of the Knee of Listening. I know we had a bit of a heated debate on it. But, leaving that line in suggests something "bad happened with Scientology" and that is why it was left out of The Knee of Listening. From what I can gather and I contacted a devotee about a quote on this, he left it out because what Scientology offered had already been understood by him and he wanted to have the autobiography reflect all of the various paths and approaches that did add to his understanding and what he said he ultimately realized. Therefore I feel that line should be removed. If you feel strongly about it then at least we should put a citation and comment in about what Adi Da specifically said about that. That would balance that sentence out. It just is an odd line sitting there with no explanation and "Huhhh??" What do you feel about this Tao? Jason Riverdale (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is important to mention that he was heavily involved in COS, for more than a year. I think his explanations for why he removed mention of it is neither here nor there. I frankly find them totally self-serving, manipulative, and patently absurd, but in either case, that detail is too fine. Much similar info was removed about his time with Rudi, Muk., stuff about Nityananda's tomb, etc etc etc. And again, his explanations for why he did this or that are invariably not an independent analysis. As has happened to this page, every single line could have amendments, turn-arounds, and bent clarifications, especially if Adi Da were to be the source. It needs to be really bare bones. If people have questions - and every line in this page could conceivably raise many - then people can read more elsewhere. I mean, I find it odd the only place you get caught is at this one point. There are much more eye raising elements throughout - but the points are made, the issues are raised. Its all really clear I think. Importantly, it reads like one voice, more or less. Tao2911 (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok Tao/... I will let it go you have a point. ThanksJason Riverdale (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I reread that section, and the "left out" bit jumped out at me too - so I removed it, leaving the mention of COS involvement alone. We know that he did that - no need to mention that he wanted us to forget it later. It DID sound biased.Tao2911 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Progress
Well this is loping along beautifully! It was a pleasure watching the synergy in the section above, thank you guys. I agree with you, Tao, that it was important to remove from the main text any hint of Adi Da's way of expressing himself. Otherwise it would have wp:jargon issues. And it was great, Devanagari, the way you insisted on not compromising precision. I think the article is a model of clarity. I've checked and reformatted the references, found missing links and replaced dead ones. The main issue now seems to be the copyright status of the photos. Also, Devanagari, do you think you can get higher resolution versions? If there are problems, we might be able to get photos from the web. For example, Flickr has 13,600 entries under "Adi Da", some of which are of the man himself. And, if you approach people the right way, it is amazing how many are willing to relinquish copyright to get on Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:16, 5 September 2009


 * Geronimo, I have emailed the Dawn Horse Press to obtain copyright permission for the photographs missing them. I am awaiting reply. As for higher resolution, the main user picture is rather high resolution but wikipedia still formatted it a bit small, not sure if there was any way to make it larger. Some of the other photos may be higher to find high resolution of, except perhaps the Vedanta Temple. I will try my best to find some more higher resolution, and look on Flikr.--Devanagari108 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really like how that "stage" bit reads, with additional examples illustrating levels. Very clear. I agree that despite some early wrestling, we've arrived at a sound result.Tao2911 (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, definitely! Things are looking great. I think the Teachings paragraph needs some slight editing, and I will propose a change, there is some accuracy issue and this has been a hard section to write. The main issue being that Adi Da says self-contraction is the activity of ego, and that activity is itself suffering and the source of all seeking, so it cannot even be sought to be relinquished, it simply has to be understood as the very motivation of all seeking, which can only happen through devotion to him. So he says that spiritual life is the process of devotion to him, wherein the self-contraction is made visible and unnecessary. It is difficult to express in the right language. I will work on it.


 * Also, I still feel that a Writings section should be included. I think there is a significant amount of Adidam Literature that should be described. I think a simple plain description of main books cannot hurt, and really seems pretty matter-of-fact and objective. There have been plenty of people who have said things about his writings, but if I posted that in the section, it would look way too pro. Let me draft up another one and see what you guys think.--Devanagari108 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think this point is perfectly clear. It is CLEAR that self contraction is the name that he used for the "activity" of the ego illusion. You keep trying to shift it to sound like Adi Da speak, I think. The sentiment is clear - it sounds like a well-informed layman translating his views to a neutral audience. I find your shifts are persistently introducing this Da tone that is problematic, esp. when the meaning is perfectly clear. It is clear that "s-c" cannot be "fixed" except through devotion to him. Done. There it is. What in heaven's name is not clear? I just don't find this very complicated. I've appreciated you introducing his terms, and some nuances. But I think we've got it.
 * As for writing, give it a shot, I guess. Just avoid terms like "thusly and therefore", twisted sentence structure, and credulous interpretation. I still think that since his message ended up being "worship me; nothing else works" what is the point? By his own analysis, the rest is just whistling past the graveyard - except in that he wanted to be seen as the most brilliant religious thinker/analyst of all time, as well as artist, lover, and 'realizer' to boot. Tao2911 (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and I tried to write this in a way that avoided problematic Adidam language and tone. I avoided "thus" and "therefore", and don't think I have any twisted sentence structure in here! Yes, his message is ultimately what you say, and I have included that in here also, borrowing the line you wrote in the lead, which I found was a great phrasing for it. Hope you don't mind. I'm going to post this, take a look and see what you think. I think it's pretty straightforward, free from jargon, and emphasizes how he said that only devotion to him is the way of realization, which I also felt was a nice lead-in to the sections that appear below it. Thanks for your efforts, Tao, and for working with me on this. I know I am being a bit difficult, but I think this is it, and the article will be good.--Devanagari108 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tao ... thanks fro the change... appreciate your effort to be neutral and fair. It's hard on both sides of the fence to do this.Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Earlier there was an issue about wikilinking "ego" in the lead. There is ego (spirituality). If you like, you could add a paragraph to this article (meaning ego (spirituality)) to more accurately reflect the way Adi Da uses the term. --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, relative to this, I am very much satisfied with the way this article reads, in all of it's sections, including Teachings. However, if you feel it is useful to write a short paragraph elaborating on "ego" and Adi Da's use of this "traditional" term, then I have drafted a few lines here that could be useful. My only concern is avoiding redundancy with what is already stated in Teachings, perhaps this is more suited for Lead. I am not entirely sure. As for linking ego (spirituality), my only concern would be that it would look strange since one would have to read "spirituality" alongside it, but it could also prove very useful, and I think it's worth trying to link it. Here is my draft: "Similar to other eastern religious and spiritual traditions, Adi Da uses the term ego to refer to the sense of “I” separate and distinct from everything else. His use of the term ego is different in that he describes it as a self-created activity or “contraction” of the entire body and mind."--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize for being so unclear, Devanagari. I didn't mean add a paragraph to Adi Da on Da's use of the term ego, I meant add it to the article on Ego (spirituality), so linking to that article then becomes a sensible thing to do. The link to "ego" can be done using a "piped" link, so it doesn't look strange. Anyway, I've added the link in the lead, and you can look at the source text to see how it is done. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, I kept trying to decode what you had said, I was a bit confused! Thanks for explaining. That's a great idea, and I will go ahead and do that.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have edited the article in a couple places to clarify these are assertions made by Da. Because the way Da used more traditional terms such as ego directly relates to his unique, Avataric claim, it is generally necessary to clarify what Da meant. --Dseer (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Good edits Dseer. Is there anyone else who feels that the exhibitions Adi Da's art was included in should be mentioned? Right now there is just a list of cities and I am unclear as to what would be wrong in mentioning the exhibitions?--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Relative to mentioned of actual art shows that Adi Da was shown.... given the cooperation from Tao on other points I would say that it is not necessary to make this an issue.Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Proposition
We've made significant progress, cheers to all the editors here. Everyone has pulled together in a final effort and made this article look better than it ever has. It is my intention to wrap up the written aspect of this article now, with just this final proposition.

I have been fairly insistent about a "Writings" section, simply because I feel it needs to represented, just as his spiritual teaching and art are represented. In my opinion, this section needs to be short, to the point, and just descriptive. I have drafted it and want everyone to take a look and make suggestions if any need to be made. I think what I've written here is rather summary and to the point, avoiding jargon, accessible language, and just general overview of his written work.

Adi Da wrote over 75 books on spiritual, philosophical, and practical subjects. From this, he designated "five principal books" that he said constituted his “seventh stage address”: The Aletheon (or "The Truth Book"), The Gnosticon (or "The Knowledge Book"), The Pneumaton (or “The Spirit-Breath Book"), Not-Two Is Peace (his essays on how to establish world peace), and Transcendental Realism (his collected essays on art). Of these five principal books, Adi Da stated that The Aletheon was his primary text.

Adi Da wrote a larger series of books for practitioners of Adidam, his key text being The Dawn Horse Testament. Grouped around The Dawn Horse Testament are a series of twenty-two books, which detail the foundation elements in the practice of Adidam, and expound upon major themes of The Dawn Horse Testament.

To accompany these, Adi Da also created a body of practical literature on the subject of what he called “right life” containing his teachings on topics such as world peace, death and dying, diet, exercise, sexuality, healing, cooperative living, and childrearing.

Adi Da also wrote a literary trilogy entitled The Orpheum—comprising The Mummery Book, The Scapegoat Book, and The Happenine Book. The Orpheum is also presented in the form of theatre.

After this, like I said, I feel ready to wrap up the writing portion of this article, altogether. The pictures need some permissions information, which I am currently working on obtaining, but it should not be too long from now.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: all that may be true. but it is all from ADI DA"S PERSPECTIVE AND VIEW. There is no independent analysis of this. So if you add all this, it has to say "Adi Da said all of these books should be viewed this way." Which is a huge problem. The art section, case in point, just says that he made some, he had a modest exhibition record in these places. period. the tone of the page, like a well crafted ship, will be thrown off balance if you add all this info. It will sound pamphletering, propagandistic, as has often been the case, and been the thing I am most sensitive to, and that I respectfully suggest you are most blind to. I would say you could mention that he wrote books. I think you would also have to mention that he created a publisher to publish all those books, with perhaps only two NOT published by this house. If people want to know more, they find those sources that provide all the info you wish to impart. but not with direct links, of course. The links to Adidam are there. Let people find it if they want it. THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO PROVIDE IT on a silver platter.Tao2911 (talk) 05:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, I completely agree and understand. I think the problems you speak mostly lay in the first paragraph. I can make it even more plain. Really the only place that involves his view is the "five principal books" and The Aletheon being "primary". I was using links to cite the information, but if you feel it's better to keep it general, I won't use specific links. I will post another version taking into account your clarification here. I really do appreciate your feedback, it helps me to notice things I don't see when I'm writing it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Adi Da wrote over 75 books on spiritual, philosophical, and practical subjects, in the process creating his own publishing press to publish them all. He wrote five books summarizing his spiritual teaching: The Aletheon (or "The Truth Book"), The Gnosticon (or "The Knowledge Book"), The Pneumaton (or “The Spirit-Breath Book"), Not-Two Is Peace (his essays on how to establish world peace), and Transcendental Realism (his collected essays on art).

The rest of Adi Da’s spiritual teaching is detailed in The Dawn Horse Testament, his book summarizing the practice of Adidam, along with a series of twenty-books which expound upon the foundation elements in the practice of Adidam and other themes in The Dawn Horse Testament. To accompany these, Adi Da created practical literature on subjects such as world peace, death and dying, diet, exercise, sexuality, healing, cooperative living, and childrearing. Adi Da also wrote a literary trilogy entitled The Orpheum, which is presented in the form of theatre as well.

I think that Tao has a point to make this section very streamlined. I would edit down further to: Adi Da wrote over 75 books on spiritual, philosophical, and practical subjects, in the process creating his own publishing press to publish them all. Five books summarizing his spiritual teaching: The Aletheon (or "The Truth Book"), The Gnosticon (or "The Knowledge Book"), The Pneumaton (or “The Spirit-Breath Book"), Not-Two Is Peace (his essays on how to establish world peace), and Transcendental Realism (his collected essays on art).

The Dawn Horse Testament, summarizing the practice of Adidam. To accompany these, Adi Da created practical literature on subjects such as world peace, death and dying, diet, exercise, sexuality, healing, cooperative living, and childrearing. Adi Da also wrote a literary trilogy entitled The Orpheum, which is presented in the form of theatre as well. Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Jason, but would just word it with better flow. Such as this:

Adi Da wrote over 75 books on spiritual, philosophical, and practical subjects, in the process creating his own publishing press to publish them all. His wrote five books summarizing his spiritual teaching: The Aletheon (or "The Truth Book"), The Gnosticon (or "The Knowledge Book"), The Pneumaton (or “The Spirit-Breath Book"), Not-Two Is Peace (his essays on how to establish world peace), and Transcendental Realism (his collected essays on art). Adi Da's spiritual teaching is detailed for practitioners in his book, The Dawn Horse Testament, along with a series of twenty-two books that expound on it's major themes.

To accompany these, Adi Da created practical literature on subjects such as world peace, death and dying, diet, exercise, sexuality, healing, cooperative living, and childrearing. Adi Da also wrote a literary trilogy entitled The Orpheum, which is presented in the form of theatre as well. --Devanagari108 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I made a slight change to the Teachings paragraph, wording it in a way that I thought was easier to read. I did not define "ego", however, because it kept making the sentence too long, and the way it read before was also a bit too wordy. I feel that simply providing a link to ego (spirituality) is good enough for someone who does not know what it means, rather than spelling it out too much and making this paragraph difficult to read. It is also defined a sentence later as "separate self", and also defined nicely in the lead, so I don't think it's really a big deal.

I have gone ahead and posted the Writings section. I feel that the article looks perfect as it is now, and am ready to call an end to editing/writing of content now. Great work everyone.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Books
The section as written by Devanagari had some real problems. I tried to salvage. The bit about the Orpheum trilogy was too strange: "a literary trilogy sometimes presented theatrically" or something like this... First, I can find no mention of it being in print. I don't know what a "literary trilogy" means (fiction; prose; poetry; drama; theater) [I know I know, he was just so far out there and genius-y it went beyond all our current classifications.] If it has never been reviewed or analyzed independently, I see absolutely no need for a separate mention here. Also, the first passage was redundant and nonsensical, with a description of 5 books "summarizing his spiritual teaching" and then another bit about the DHT also "summarizing his spiritual teaching." I went to the source (Adidam - sigh) - it is very clear that the DHT is the pivot, 22 books are the spokes, and the five books listed are 5 of those that he (I guess) singled out. Source that Devangari, or I will remove as uncited, original research.

Section was a real mess, not meeting the standards of WP or the page as it stands right now.Tao2911 (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tao,

Good edits. The only reason the first five were singled out is because those are the five he said summarized his spiritual teaching. The DHT and the 22 books accompanying it, are separate from those five, and are written about the practice, as opposed to a summary of teaching. So those five books are not included in the DHT and it's 22. That's why I had to separate it as such. As for The Orpheum, I am okay with not mentioning it, but The Mummery Book was actually published, and has been performed in form of theatre. So I think that could be mentioned. Otherwise, looks good. Thanks.--Devanagari108 (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

find an independent source, and I'm all for it. I don't see that anywhere re his books. What we have here is someone who self-published 75 books (at some point - they aren't all in print now). You can mix and match them any way you want to, or he could, but what are their real merits in an encyclopedic entry? If you just add "the party line", well, there's so much of that already, and its endless. I swear that I just read on the Adidam website that those 5 were part of the "23 source texts" or whatever - so double check it. The guy obviously had an editing problem - well, no editor at all I guess. But if Adidam says that one book sums it up, then say that, and say that 22 other books expand on it (we know that even from previous versions, it cycles out the the tens of thousands of baskets of tolerance - gads). You can't then say that another five summarize his teaching TOO. That's when we start to jump the WP shark. Also, avoid classifying words like "literary" and "practical" because they imply intrinsic value or worth. And are debatable.Tao2911 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there is still merit in that it's an article about him and he wrote 75 books. I think that's worth a mention. The section isn't very long. Also, I'm definitely sure the 5 are separate from the 23 source-texts, and I added that in there, so it reads fine. The thing is that the Dawn Horse Testament sums it up in terms of the practice of Adidam in "technical" terms, while the other five books you could say are more "philosophical". Do you see what I'm saying? We don't have to get into all those categorizations, just make them distinct as I've done, and no big deal. And I agree about redundancy.

And good point about "literary" and "practical", I did not catch that. They do imply intrinsic worth. We should not mention that. I added in a line about The Mummery Book, because it is published, and has been performed as theatre. I am still confused about what you mean regarding third party sources. There are people such as Jeffrey Kripal who have analyzed Adi Da's 23 source texts, etc., but if I start to include things like this in the section, it becomes problematic from bias. I think it's okay with your edits, and we should just leave it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, I disagree with your removal of the tuning fork metaphor. I know you don't like any of Adi Da's metaphors or find them illustrative, and that's fine, but it's not basis to remove them from the article. The tuning fork metaphor illustrates the first line of that paragraph, and I feel it's useful to keep in there. As for it being "credulous", the definition of which is "gullible" or "naive", that is a biased term, and the metaphor of a tuning fork can't be seen in those terms. It's a direct quote from Adi Da about the guru-devotee relationship, directly sourced, and put in quotations. Perhaps it could be phrased in an easier to read way, or it just a short direct quote would be better. But I think it's worth keeping in that section, or at least worth considering further.--Devanagari108 (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

About the metap[hor: its just plain not necessary. It doesn't add anything - and it reads really strangely in context. It sounds like something from one of his talks or books. But the passage is so short it adds a quality of credulity. Trust me! Its the same issue as the other metaphors, all of which I have consistently removed for the same reasons. I understand why you add them - you like them, you like his teaching, it helps you "get it" and you find it helpful. I understand. but its doens't help anything here, and in fact hurts. It throws the tone off. it doesn't fit with what should be a neutral non-voice of the entry.

As for the mummery book - I went to the linked website. Total adi da propaganda. Note the following description regarding its author: ''In The Orpheum trilogy - comprising The Mummery Book, The Scapegoat Book, and The Happenine Book - Adi Da has created a body of literature that is vast in its depth and profundity, humor and tragedy.

''Ultimately, all thirty-six hours of this trilogy will be theatrically enacted. The Mummery Book, at 8 hours in length, is the first of these books, and is already being acclaimed by literary and theatrical professionals to be a completely remarkable and unique theatre experience, incorporating not only Adi Da's exquisite writing but also over 700 images of his acclaimed artwork (currently on exhibit as part of the 2007 Venice Biennale).

Its not only dated (saying he is alive in one part) but it is nonsensical. Show me a place where it was performed and independently reviewed (not a press release), and use what THAT person says about it. This is not a valid source per WP guidelines. He wrote 60 books: the entry covers it. If you can find some way to add a description for this that is in some way in keeping with the entry, then do so. But the addition made no sense at all to me. Which I understand, because even their own website is confusing and inflated. It does not warrant a description as long as all the rest combined. Tao2911 (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the official book blurb on Amazon says "It is a novel in the mode of a vast parable." It has been performed as a play. I will insert that.Tao2911 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to the source of the info about the lengthiest part of the books entry, the "final five" or whatever. Here is what the source, the Adidam website (again) has to say: "His Divine Presence did a tremendous amount of Writing in the years 2005-2008. Just two weeks before His Passing, He designated the five books that He Wrote during that three-year period as "the Five Principal Books of My Forever Comprehensive Seventh-Stage Address to all-and-All"..." It then lists them. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN ALL YET BEEN PRINTED. This is nonsense. There is no other source to verify this information. And the mummery site says he's only printed 60 books. Again, he wrote a lot of books. Only two are confirmed as independently published. The number in print is unknown. And there is no independent analysis or cataloging of his works, leaving his literary legacy modest at best, and still in question. The entry should reflect this ACTUAL stature, not his own or his followers. Tao2911 (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, all have not been printed, we should not include books that have not been printed. However, the most up-to-date source is adidam.org, and it states, "Avatar Adi Da's literary, philosophical, and practical writings consist of over seveny five published books..." So there are in fact, 75 books that are published and available. Beyond that, I agree should not be included. So I will make this edit.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

They may be counting unpublished books. the Mummery site is official too and it says 60 (as of 2008.) So we should go with the lower number and say "more than." Then there is no question. Adidam website is clearly not the total authority, despite it being cited (by necessity) entirely too many times.Tao2911 (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

"Avatar Adi Da's literary, philosophical, and practical writings consist of over seventy five published books..." As you can see, the mummery book website is out of date, still referring to him when he was alive. Let's just go with the right number here...it's not that big of a deal.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

metaphor
"Adi Da described this process with the metaphor of the sympathetic vibration of one tuning fork in response to another. ."

Anyone else like to weigh in and say what you think about this line? I maintain it is totally extraneous, and awkward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How about, "Adi Da describes this process as one which a declared devotee of his, by mediating on him, can duplicate his realization."--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

better. Can you cite a passage where he says this? I think this point is already clear in any case - the same thing is already said in five other places in very similar ways. its the proverbial dead horse. See, metaphor...good here. bad there.Tao2911 (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

but how can a devotee duplicate his realization if he is the only 7th stage realizer? Riddle me that.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He is the first, last, and only seventh-stage ADEPT. Seventh stage realization did not exist until his birth, so he is the realizer, revelation, and revealer of that. But those who are his devotees can realize the seventh stage of life through him. He is not saying that no one can realize the seventh stage of life, he is saying it can only be realized through devotion to him as the one and only seventh stage revealer.

"There is one Great Law: You become what you meditate on. This Law summarizes the Process whereby I can Be your Unique Advantage."--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, relative to tuning fork ...yes it is awkward I think Devanagari re-write is simple and descriptive. Relative to 60 books published. I think that is a real number. Books published are books published. They are printed, assigned an ISBN and sold in bookstores, national chains, etc. Also online like amazon etc. I have bought a number of his books in all of these places. If you feel that this number is not accurate we can call The Dawn Horse Press and have them send you copies of them .... just kidding Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

lol. as for the number, you've just reiterated my point. see above in 'books'. I would actually like a real count of what is really in print - Amazon says the Mummery book is $86 new. I'm guessing that indicates out of print...Tao2911 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The number is actually 75, this was recently updated on adidam.org as being the correct number. Other sites are out of date. But we can use 60 until they catch up, if you want. As for seeing what's in print, etc., let's not get tedious here. While there may be many sources on the web, Adidam.org is the only officially recognized website by Adidam, so that should be our measure.

Tao, you deleted some pictures, I agree with some of those deletions, but not all. Permissions were just sent it today from the Dawn Horse Press to keep them up, if you could leave them up until those permissions are received, then we can discuss what shouldn't be on there, such as "Vedanta Temple".

P.S. Tao, at some point we both need to stop making edits, so we can put this article forth for nomination. I am willing to pause on the writing, get the pictures straightened out, let this go through the nomination process, etc., and we can always make little changes after that. The changes we've been making are really small, aside from the books section. Do you agree?--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, part of my running through it one last time was to make the some final changes to things that read strangely, or were otherwise problematic. Believe me, I greatly hope we can all move on.

As for the pics, get permission on those couple. I see no sense in a picture of Fiji - it looked great, but showed not a single sign of, well, anything but palm trees, and added to a sense of a travel brochure. Vedanta temple? Why? maybe a sacred site for devotees or something, but not of significance to warrant being one of a few pictures. Did he teach there? Is he honored there? He had a nice day there. Ok. Why not add pictures of Columbia, Stanford, and Siddha Yoga ashrams?

I also question the pic of him as a child, because it is used on every single piece of Adi Da propaganda, as if to say "look how enlightened he was at 2, in the same pose and expression as at 60." I mean, that intent is transparent. Always the same picture? So including it here seems questionable to me. Why is it necessary? I don't trust Adidam website's count. It needs to be double checked. I don't know how the Mummery site, which seems up to date as of at least 2007, can be 15 books off. Adidam clearly has a tendency toward hyperbole and endless superlatives - I don't doubt that they would find some way to add a dozen extra books (editions, books not yet published, etc.) So count em up, D. Do the math. And how many really are in print? Tao2911 (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alright my friend. Will count up and see what I can come up with here in terms of accuracy. As for Fiji, I agree. Too general, etc. I do think it's okay to include the picture of him as a child, I see what you're saying, but I think it's a Biography and should be used, but could be balanced with other photos too, so it doesn't seem that way. I'm not sure what else I may want to add, except the one of him teaching in 1972, I think it's okay in the teachings section once permissions are granted. Other than that, such as Vedanta Temple, no need for really, way too general, etc., and we need to be mindful of putting too many photos on here. I think just those two, maybe another one of him a little older in the Biography, and that's that. Let me work on this.--Devanagari108 (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture can stay. Tao's unintentionally interesting speculations about the motivation behind the picture do not constitute grounds for removal. As to why it's necessary, its inclusion improves rather than impoverishes the article, and that (other than any copyright issues) is the sole legitimate criteria. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao I have added in a simple statement Devanagari had suggested. Your objection to "the tuning fork" metaphor was the main objection. His sentence clarifies that and addresses your objection. Your sarcastic remark about "but how can a devotee duplicate his realization if he is the only 7th stage realizer? Riddle me that." has no bearing on not adding this simple sentence.The issue you brought up has been addressed and should be included. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It was only partly sarcastic. I may just have to go back and find the quote that used to be here about "I am the first last only 7th stage realizer (etc) there is no need or possibility for there to be another" I'll get back with you. Tao2911 (talk) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding, Tao. When Adi Da uses the term "Realizer" he is referring to it in the same way he refers to 4th stage realizers, and 5th stage realizers, etc. He is saying that he is the first last and only seventh stage realizer, meaning "means of realization". He is the one who revealed the seventh stage revelation and now anyone could realize it, but not through devotion to a sixth stage realizer...etc. Only through him as a result. It's a bit confusing. But he's not saying no one else could realize the seventh stage, just that no one else could do it outside of the relationship to him as seventh stage realizer/revealer. Anyways, this is kind of an irrelevant discussion! Adi Da still says, regardless of whether or not it appears to be logical or with discrepancy, that others could realize the seventh stage of life by practicing devotion to him. So that may sound inconsistent, illogical, or however it may seem, but it is verifiable that he says and teaches this, so it's legitimate to state such on wikipedia.--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

We aren't in argument it appears - but simply reaffirming what the page says ad nauseum. As long as we're clear - you either believe it, or you don't. I'm glad we've made the razor's edge is so very clear. I pray I'm in a negative stage, 7 even - I hereby invent one, and put myself in it. Tao2911 (talk) 02:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, yes precisely.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao "focusing" is not an accurate technical term here. Eastern religious traditions, of which you say Adi Da is copying, use the term "mediation"in relationship to the "the guru". I am including two non-Adidam citations of this ( to address your concerns ). I also removed the word "completely" because it is redundant. Below this sentence you already put in the statement about Adi Da "sole universal means of realization" Point made! PS can I have time off manana to celebrate my wife's 60th birthday pleasssssssse ... you can take the day off if you want too. Do I need to take my computer to diner?Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

finished for now?
I declare myself satisfied with this current form. Good work all. Any final thoughts? Tao2911 (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we are all done! I am going to go out a celebrate my wife's birthday!Jason Riverdale (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Tao and Jason! No final thoughts, I think we should go through the GA process now. Enjoy celebrating your wife's birthday, Jason. Tao, I made some changes in Biography, just editing grammar, and the chronology of when him and Muktananda differed over enlightenment. That actually occurred after 1970, so I fixed that, and made it so it lead into the next paragraph nicely. I formatted the citations that appeared mid-sentence in "Adidam" to appear at the end of the sentence also.

One last thing I want to bring up. I don't mean to be nit-picky, but I just went here: http://www.mummerybook.org/adida.html, to see what Tao was saying, and I'm reading that it says there 75 published books too...it's not a big deal but I think if two sources say that then we should report it properly. That's all. Thanks guys.--Devanagari108 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This absolutley stinks - that page said 60 yesterday as of about 10 at night, and you know it (as you said yesterday here, unless you've edited your comments). Then Devanagari, who keeps saying the Adidam website is more up to date and official (how does he know?), says he's in contact with Adidam for photo permissions, and the page changes over night. Dev. then adds it to every other book ref on the page (three places?) as further backing for the claim of 75, as if somehow that is an independent source. It is clearly not. THEY ARE ALL ADIDAM MOUTHPIECES AND PROPAGANDA, which you have just proven. They are NOT two independent sources, of the kind I have requested repeatedly. I just wish you could be transparent in your motives, Dev. I thought we'd agreed to stop. you keep tweaking it to make him sound more subtly fab. Stop now please. I counted the books myself and amended the entry to reflect objective info. Tao2911 (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Then Devanagari...says he's in contact with Adidam for photo permissions....
 * If there's no permission for the photos, the photos should be removed immediately. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

the chronology in the bio reads better - but now it seems truncated. what happened after 1973? There should be something in there about the move to Fiji. His marriages, kids (dates). Widely acknowledged polygmamy, if independently ref'd (shouldn't be hard). Someone else can do. But I will of course come in and drain the joyous adoring glow.Tao2911 (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tao, definitely have no idea what happened with that. I did not have anything to do with it! We can change it back if you want, I was just checking the page wondering why it still said 60, and it was updated. It seems really fishy to me too though. I don't know. Maybe Adidam is working on their web pages more, since the current adidam.org website also appears to be new. As for permissions for wikipedia, I just called the dawn horse press phone number on the website! I changed it back to 60, since this is obviously debatable, and perhaps not 100% verifiable via wikipedia standards. It is odd that themummerybook site changed, but there's no telling who is watching this article and reading Discussion here either, Tao.

I'm not sure the Bio seems that truncated, it's just as it was before. All I did was change the chronology of Muktananda disagreement. Anyways, we could go into more detail after '73 but at the same time, it seems okay where it left off. I really think we should stop the edits, to be honest, at least until we can get to GA Status, because this could go on. If we both agree that the article looks fine, then let's just go ahead with this nomination process, and we can make more edits after that. I agree to stop now, deal with subtle points later.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not MORE truncated due to any edits; it just became more evident what was missing once the chronology got so clear. And Dev, I appreciate your compromising on the book number - tho now 60 seems weird without a citation. But better to few than too many. Sorry to imply foul play on your part if there wasn't any. As you seemed to get tho, it was all so very convenient, timing wise. But onward and upward! Cheers.Tao2911 (talk) 04:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wilber
We need to say where the 1995 Wilber review/endorsement letter was published, if it has been published. adidawilber.com does not qualify as a reliable source. I don't doubt that Wilber wrote the letter, since presumably he would have objected strenuously to its publication had he not written it, but presumption is not a basis on which Wikipedia can or should source critical documents like this. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

how does that not count as a reliable source? Granted it is an adidam mouthpiece, but the info is not being used subjectively, to support any position. The existence of that letter is supported in the other refs, and quoted there, just not in entirety. I agree another source might be better, but I'm not offended by it. The sources for 90% of the material on this entry are Adidam websites...If we get rid of them all, we'll have a much shorter entry. I made that argument already, but lost to the devotees and have fought to just qualify everything appropriately.Tao2911 (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * how does that not count as a reliable source?
 * Please see WP:RS. Third party sources are always preferred. However, in the absense of such, sourcing text which describes Adi Da's teachings to an Adi Da website seems reasonable to me. Sourcing text which describes what Ken Wilber believes to an Adi Da website seems less reasonable.
 * The existence of that letter is supported in the other refs, and quoted there, just not in entirety.
 * Then cite those sources in the article, although I doubt that they will be considered reliable under WP:RS. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting. The letter supposedly "leaked", but I'm not aware where the "reliable source" would be, at least on the internet. It appears in many places, but I don't know the "source" of it. This will require more research. I don't think it's been "published". I really don't know.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Found it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well that solves that.--Devanagari108 (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * here's a better link. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't get a full preview, but it's obviously published in there. Good find.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wilber quote still needs to be attributed. The article should say: "According to x, y, and z, Wilber has written the following about Adi Da:...". x = David Lane. y, I guess, is adidawilber.com. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Although Lane presumably got the quote from adidawilber.com. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well who knows where Lane got the quote from, we'd have to compare when this book was published, etc. But there's no telling. Either way, do we need 3 sources, or is "x" and "y" enough?--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that we needed three sources. The article needs to say that the fact that Wilber said such-and-such is 'according to' someone, whether that is according to one book, a book and a website, whatever. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Automated review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program.


 * Consider adding more links to the article; per Manual of Style (links) and Build the web, create links to relevant articles.[?]


 * This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Image use policy and fit under one of the Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]


 * If this article is about a person, please add  along with the required parameters to the article - see Persondata for more information.[?]


 * Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), when doing conversions, please use standard abbreviations: for example, miles -> mi, kilometers squared -> km2, and pounds -> lb.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.
 * Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

I have cleaned the article up to the point where it produces the above automated review. The automated review is aimed at featured article status, which is a higher standard than GA. It gives a pretty clean bill of health. I think we can ignore the comments about the number of references and images; they seem adequate to me for a GA. Someone might like to add the persondata tag to the bottom of the article. This is not a requirement for GA. I'm not sure why the review asks for unit conversions; I didn't notice any units in the article. I also ran plagiarism software (Copyscape) over the article, and it is looking good. I suggest we have a final 24 hours for final review and copyediting as suggested above, and then we can nominate it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The copyright of some images is still not clear! --Geronimo20 (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Geronimo, it looks like just 1 image (Love-Ananda Mahal on the island of Kauai, Hawaii) is still missing full permission right? Devanagari108 could you check on this?Jason Riverdale (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"Reception"
Somebody mangled the heck out of that section, and I don't want to clean it up. That whole first quote was from the intro to the Dawn Horse Testament Wilber wrote, as the passage had said. It is all over the place online, and I'm pretty sure was sourced independently. If not, won't be hard to do. David Lane had nothing to do with. It read perfectly. Gads, what a mess. The only problem may have been some citations. But the chronology and order was right.

Wilber wrote the intro to DHT. A decade later he started qualifying. Then he wrote the note to Adidam pledging undying love to the Satguru. Then he wrote another thing on Shambhala qualifying again. AS IT SAID. Please, fix it. So I don't have to. So tired of Adi Da, so very tired...Tao2911 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Get over yourself. Learn to work with others. Be civil. We are just as tired of your histrionics as you are of Adi Da. If it's so easy to source, then cite the source. Unsourced content should have never been put into the article in the first place. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 16:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Goethean, please use moderate language, address the issue, and don't attack the man. Tao has worked very well with others on this article. And please don't use the royal "we" when you are referring to yourself. And referring to both of you: let's not sabotage all this work at the 11th hour. I'm not sure what your issue is Tao, but because this text has, for years, been widely quoted on the web, and because Wilber has never contested the statement, it seems to me that the source is fine. We could leave the GA reviewer to decide (there will still be room for modifications during the review process). --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC) --Geronimo20 (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I don't take orders from single purpose accounts. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. The only issue is my addition of KW asking them to remove his endorsement on future editions, and websites etc - I know he said it, I think in one of those letters, but I have to find the citation. So please leave a day or two until I can find it. The endorsement was published in all early versions of that book. They complied with his request to stop using him on websites etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not regret those endorsements, nor do I retract them. But blanket, public statements of endorsement are simply no longer a diplomatic, intelligent, skillful way to steer people to Da. And therefore I have requested that the Community be selective and thoughtful in how they use my endorsements.

http://www.adidawilber.com/letter_to_adidam_community/index.html &mdash; goethean &#2384; 03:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, while I understand you intend to find a verifiable citation for Wilbur officially asking for his endorsement being removed from DHT... until you do, the statement you put in the article is without citation of Wilbur's statement of such. So for now it does not belong there. If you want to include what Goethean indicated then we can put that in as it is verifiable now. It would of course have to be the whole statement, not selectivity, to accurately report his reasons for it and not be bias. I think we all agree that Wilbur's endorsement of Adi Da is not a simple black & white case. It has many gray areas and as such must be communicated as such. Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No biggie. Its not necessary. Goethean found a quote about it, but its not necessary. I'm just happy to have the section back in shape; I think it can rest. It was that very gray territory that had me add this info in the first place. I think it reads like a neutral version of events. Maybe further edits can now be discussed here first and get some feedback before there made. It seems like a few editors are in touch, and can give opinions.Tao2911 (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for GA
The article has now been nominated for GA. Unfortunately, there is a large backlog, and we may have to wait for a reviewer. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The wrong Swami Rudrananda is hyperlinked, it should be the (Rudi) Swami Rudrananda, Albert Rudolph, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudi_(Swami_Rudrananda). Additionally, as correctly stated in the Wikipedia article on Rudi, Rudi was a disciple of Bhagawan Nityananda and not really of Muktananda as this article currently states. As the Rudi article correctly states: "In 1962, Rudi became affiliated with Muktananda, a fellow disciple of Bhagawan Nityananda, who had assumed control of the ashram at Ganeshpuri. Rudi described this relationship as “a struggle between two spiritual heavyweights.” Continuing a relationship with Muktananda was necessary, however, so that Rudi could continue to gain access to Bhagawan Nityananda's shrine." His relationship with Muktananda, always problematic, was not that of a guru and disciple, and as the Rudi article correctly states, was severed in 1971 and acknowledged in later Rudi talks. Da's biography acknowledges the tension between the two of them, Rudi and Muktananda, as well as a letter circa January 1970 from Muktananda to Da critical of reports of Da's decision to teach one of Muktananda's followers which implies concern that Da also was going his own way. Therefore, Da's characterization of Muktananda as Rudi's guru in the referenced source was at best his own interpretation but not Rudi's, and does not belong stated as fact in this article. A far better picture of Rudi is gained from long time Rudi disciple John Mann's book. This illustrates one of the problems you get when an article relies heavily on sources associated with the subject of an article in relation to claims made about himself and others. Please correct this section to avoid conflict between the more accurate Rudi article and the Da article.--Dseer (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Dseer, I agree the wiki hyperlink to Rudi's page is inaccurate. Relative to the discussion about whether Rudi was or was not a student of Swami Muktananda it is somewhat confusing. I have read at least two versions of The Knee of Listening by Da and he does indicate that it was Rudi who suggested he go see Muktananda. "How about if we say Adi Da described engaging in rigorous practice under Rudi's guidance, eventually traveling to India at Rudi's suggestions to see, Swami Muktananda.[11]173.16.189.83 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)Jason Riverdale (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What Da said in KOL was in essence that after Rudi did not have a positive interpretation of the "death experience", Da began to feel like it was time go to Muktananda being drawn by his photo Rudi had, and Rudi reluctantly gave him the contact information since he saw Da was determined to go. This is consistent with Rudi's later statements which can be found on his disciple maintained website that essentially he did not ever fully trust Muktananda and thus did not encourage his students to see him. Keep in mind that both Rudi and Muktananda expected Da to follow their respective practices when he returned from the first Muktananda visit in April 68 but that Da felt neither practice fit his needs and he and Nina spent a year in Scientology instead. Even when Rudi brought Muktananda to the US for the first time in the fall of 1970, Rudi did not consider Muktananda his guru, and they soon fell out for good. That is why Da says later that he, Rudi and Muktananda criticized each other. Since we have two sources, Da and Rudi, we must consider both, and what seems best and most accurate is something like: "Adi Da described engaging in rigorous practice under Rudi's guidance, eventually traveling to India to see Swami Muktananda, who like Rudi, was a disciple of Bhagawan Nityananda." That makes the relationship clearer in that they both were Nityananda devotees without implying a guru disciple relationship between Rudi and Muktananda that did not exist and would create unnecessary conflict between two wikipedia articles.--Dseer (talk) 06:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Influence section breaks from NPOV?
Hi everyone. I'm very impressed at how the article has been progressing and also the civility and consensus building that has been going on. You too Tao, very impressive. In reading the article the only thing that is sticking out to me is the Influence section which I think violates NPOV by seeming to imply that anyone who is notable who has ever endorsed Adi Da has then retracted their endorsement, or that there is only a critical veiw of Adi da among notable persons. IMHO this does not allow the POV of notable persons who have endorsed Adi Da without retraction. Those people include Jeffery Kripal, Daniel Hamburg, Alex Grey, Irina Tweedie, Israel Regardie, Richard Grossinger, Ray Lynch, Alan Watts, and Elisabeth Targ. I know Tao that you just had to fix that section a bunch so I'm not trying to mess you up, but I do feel like it currently does not represent the POV of these notable individuals. Any thoughts? Any ideas on how to include all POV's on this issue? David Starr 1 (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

David Starr, I was thinking about that a few days ago. I hope now that we have come to a place where all parties can discuss things without yelling at each other, maybe we can discuss endorsements that have not been retracted. Tao, what do you think? I would put Jeffrey Kripal back up there. I can select another and post in discussion. Jason Riverdale (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Tao2911 has been repeatedly warned that removing well-sourced text is a violation of policy. He should be blocked from editing the article for his repeated vandalistic removal of the Kripal material. Kripal is a contempotrary scholar of religion, and the removal of his comments are untenable. I will replace the Kripal material immediately. Tao2911: please stop vandalizing the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * To David Starr's list, I can add Ed Kowalczyk, David Deida, Daniel Hamburg, Raymond Burr, Whitney Kaine. David C. Lane is a notable critic of Da who can be mentioned. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that's lowered the tone. Utterly unnecessary, unhelpful, uncivil and disruptive, Goethean. Thoroughly disappointing. Find some manners. --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be limits to soothing talk and petting when dealing with undisguised vandalism. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with listing some of those highly notable who have not retracted their endorsements, to be fair, provided there is representative balance with those who have. Care and context is needed. Raymond Burr sold Da his Island but where is the evidence he endorsed Da?--Dseer (talk) 07:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

External Website Links
I notice that Rick Ross website has been included in the "Criticism" block of external sites. I understand that there needs to be both Advocacy & Criticism sites here. But,Rick Ross's site is primarily quotes from newspapers during the 1986 lawsuits,something that occurred some 23 years ago, most of which are already have been amply quoted and used in this article. It seems like a lot of redundant and overkill here. It is an extreme bias as well and NONE of it has been proven.

I brought up a while back that while newspapers can be used a citation do not necessarily represent accurate nor factually balanced true information. They sell papers by creating controversy. For example one of the newspapers aside from (the sensationalism of the lawsuit)reported that one the lawyer who handled the lawsuit for the ex members was under investigation for fraud and other possible illegal activities. At the time of his death he was possibly going to be disbarred.There are real citations to back this up for example. The main person filing the lawsuit, a women married to a student of Adidam,had the case dismissed by the Marin County Superior Court because there was no grounds for it.She later made statements of apology and discussed that the lawyer handling the case bullied her into doing it. None of this was reported in the 1986 newspapers because it did not add to the "media circus" and sell more papers.Balance is not the aim of media (TV or print).

So... I would say that some other "Criticism" website link,more in the vain of the Wilbur site should be included. Sites which are critical of Adi Da but not ONLY relying on newspaper and TV which are know commonly to be circuses of slanted and bias information. Wikipedia needs to be sensitive to this kind of bias, half truths and being mouth pieces for all this. Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:RS. Newspaper articles are an important source of information for Wikipedia. Academic articles or books might be considered more reliable in some areas however, a fact which should address your concern about alleged systemic bias in the press. Just as Tao2911 and other Da critics should not remove well-sourced positive information from the article, admirers of Da should not seek to remove well-sourced points of cricicism. Thank you for bringing the point up on the talk page before changing the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So.... if the lawyer handling the lawsuit for ex members was under investigation for criminal activity and this is documented in a newspaper than that does give information that is important on the entire lawsuit issue. I would say that that information should perhaps be used within the Controversy section. Someone who is driving a lawsuit and has a history of potential criminal activity IS relevant. The fact that the lawsuit filed originally by the women was thrown out by a judge for lack of merit and she apologized and explained her reason for bringing the suit... that should also be allowed in this article. It's a two way street here. There are circumstances surrounding this lawsuit that are not simply newspaper sensational headlines. None of that is included in this article. It should be. I am calling for balance here on this lawsuit subject. What is put in print if not balanced by other possible conflicting information is important and if not included creates a very bias and one sided communication to the reader. Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Has anyone argued that these details should not be in the article, or removed them from the article? (I havent kept up with all of the details of the discussion here.) &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, a few points here.

1. I disagree with the inclusion on the Lead of all of Adi Da's different names. Not that there is anything wrong with listing it, but it is listed in the Biography, and I feel it is a minor point that doesn't belong in a lead, that purpose of which is to provide summary of the article. Make sense?

2. The photos that still appear as "my own work" are not my own work, but the Dawn Horse Press has sent it in permission for all these photos, and I have a copy of that email too. Perhaps I will re-upload those photos with the correct license and see if that helps.--Devanagari108 (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

IF ... we are going to include yet another link ....to more of the same newspaper articles .... liberally quoted and cited .. over, and over, and over again... then I suggest we have to create a balance by adding adidaupclose site again. This is as they say in NY " yo how many times you got to tell me this man, I got it I got it !"

Also I think we need a simple line in the "Controversy" section that states that since the 1985 lawsuit there have been no other lawsuits filed nor brought against Adidam. I know that is obvious but having so much repetitive quoting of sensationalistic newspapers so many times a simple line like this is warranted.I will work on it and submitted to discussion Balance gents!Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Da's names should definitely be listed in the intro, at least the ones that he published books under. If someone is reading a book, and they type the author's name into Wikipedia, and the Adi Da article comes up, it should be immediately clear to the reader why Adi Da is coming up rather than the name that he typed in. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining NPOV and GA Candidate Status
It is important not to skew this article to an advocacy POV based on editor's personal beliefs about what is true and how reliable the mainstream media is, particularly if you are looking for GA. I think some advocate editor tried to put this information in before about the lawyer and his legal problems attempting to minimize the significance of these cases, but it really doesn't belong. Even if you could show that these were not allegations but that a lawyer actually engaged in misconduct in some other cases handled nearly 20 years after the fact, it would be inappropriate speculation to assume this was the case with the one B. M. lawsuit referred to, nor is the version reported as fact undisputed. Mainstream media is considered a reliable source. Advocacy material is far less so. Advocacy editors here historically have made claims about the media based on what is taught in Adidam, but this represents an opinion. Because one editor personally believes Adidam and internal anecdotal advocacy material regarding this case, and thinks the media was sensationalist and got it all wrong, he apparently presumes that media bias was behind the publicity, but in fact much of the gist of the controversial behavior reported in the articles and not known by much of the membership until then was acknowledged by the group at that time, and attributed to religious freedom for more "mature" members. The claim of media sensationalism is simply that, a claim by Adidam, after the fact. It is acknowledged even by dissidents the B. M. claim did contain exaggerated charges, which is a classic legal tactic that was used on both sides, the same could be said for the charges of criminal extortion by Adidam, but the matter was eventually settled out of court for a sum of money from Adidam, and there was not a total retraction of all charges in that case which did issues around the divorce. There was another lawsuit by M. M., totally separate from and not involved with the other case which did become tangled in a divorce, that was settled out of court for a sum of money from Adidam, and M. M. has never retracted any of his charges and can verify that, a case which is not mentioned in detail in the Adidam advocacy materials. There is no basis for Wikipedia to adopt a position that the Adidam version being presented is accurate and that media articles at the time were seriously biased. The article should not dwell on anything regarding the dissident charges covered in the media other than what is significant and verifiably sourced, in essence that charges were made, cases were settled, and that Adidam disputed the more serious charges. An interesting historical sidelight in regard to these claims of tabloid journalism being made by advocate Editors is that in 1981 the National Enquirer featured Da in a highly critical article with allegations that seemed sensational nonsense to members and supporters at the time, which were not widely reported in mainstream media. But many of the same allegations resurfaced later in mainstream media with attribution and with more credibility based on the charges of the dissidents, supporting documentation, and subsequent admissions of the group at the time. To attempt to equate the mainstream media with a tabloid, sensationalist mentality as something we "know" is not a view we should take and such speculation ignores the real difference in the way the National Enquirer and mainstream media such as the SF Chronicle treated similar allegations in reality, including attempts to get both sides of the story, as can be seen by review of the actual material. I hope this specific illustration will make the point clearer. I think the article is currently well balanced and critical links should stay. Adding "adidaupclose" which contains one sided, unverified and disputed advocacy information by devotees would skew NPOV and require adding the similar but critical "daarchives" site established by critics as well for balance. There is the potential now that BLP is not an issue to include other references that offer both praise and criticism which were deleted previously when BLP applied. And I oppose eliminating the different names from the lead, because in this case the different names Da assumed is not only very noteworthy because it is unusual and represented changes in his approach, but relevant to the lead because many people know him only by one of his earlier names and these earlier names are what is found in older references, not his latest one, so it is important from the start to establish that these names represent the same person. In fact, searches for those different names should lead to this article. Readers should not have to go deep into the article to find this out. I see no need for extensive modification of the article as submitted for GA, at this time.--Dseer (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Dseer. Yes, in looking at the lead again, I retract my statement that the names be removed, and your elaboration also makes a good point. So that's perfectly fine. I'm going to re-upload some pictures with the proper license that the Dawn Horse Press gave permissions for, and that's all.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Devangaril108 for your kind comments. Da's appearance changed signficantly over the period of his career. While the pictures selected may be used in advertising and as empowered murtis, a few pictures representing his life already widely used in his books seems reasonable with permission so it is clear who we are describing. --Dseer (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Dseer, I'm a bit unclear. I did not add any photographs, just added permissions for existing ones and uploaded them with the proper license. Are you suggesting that maybe we should add more photographs of him?--Devanagari108 (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw some dialogue concern about the pictures that were existing. As long as they do not overburden the article and there are no legal problems, I think some well selected pictures we can agree on reflecting his life add value. --Dseer (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok well I think the discussion here on this is done. I felt it was important that some of these issues are brought up so I did. I agree that GA Status is the goal so let's see what comes up for that review.Jason Riverdale (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It was useful. I do understand your position re media publicity as it could appear that way to current advocates given the lapse of time, and hope that you now understand there are other views and a history to this issue other than one presented by those from that time who still remain followers, which should not be dismissed out of hand as media frenzy. Thank you for surfacing this issue for the sake of clarity. Suffice it to say that when news reports of that period state that many members and supporters in the public were kept unaware for many years of shall we say the less ascetic practices surrounding Da prior to the dissident charges and subsequent admissions and disclosures, which is the crux of the media reports, that is accurate. Keep in mind that Adidam members as well as dissidents have acknowledged here and other places that at least 90% of the total population of one time formal members are no longer members for a wide variety of reasons, so the perspective of the remaining percentage who remained regarding that period is not a general consensus, but only one POV, and is not sufficient to verify the gross media bias you have suggested. --Dseer (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao the changes you made I feel are not necessary ones. There is nothing wrong with describing Da's "exploring" Western philosophy vs your "studying", There is also nothing wrong with "exploring eastern esoteric traditions" vs "Indian yoga". The change in the section to Kripal's quote seems fine. I am going to undo the changes you made that I feel should have more discussion before your changes are potentially put in place. Jason Riverdale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC).


 * I disagree. I think that you should not revert Tao's edits which are minor and mostly positive. The one I don't understand is the removal of a sentence here. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the change made(was that you Goethean),"Adi Da explored a series of spiritual traditions" is much better and ties things together well. I am ok with that. Yes, I probably should have simply just stated my points in the Discussion section and not reverted Tao's changes. Thanks for the reminder Goethean!Jason Riverdale (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

That was my change. Didn't mean to cause any prob's with changes. Didn't have time to describe here till just now. I removed that line "Adi Da described engaging in rigorous practice under Rudi's guidance, eventually traveling to India to meet Rudi's guru, Swami Muktananda. In 1968, Adi Da went to see Swami Muktananda in Ganeshpuri, India for the first time..." because its clearly redundant on the one hand, and generally extraneous. Why say he said he considered his practice rigorous? He studied with him. Enough. And I find it interesting and noteworthy he studied at the seminary, a fact that had been lost from earlier versions of the bio (I think because it too was de-emphasized by Adi Da later? Speculation.) It fits in his list of spiritual questing. So I re-added that.

I also added a paragraph that I found that clearly and succinctly delineates how his teaching changed from Bubba to Adi Da, a really important element that has resisted description here. I think that one line does a lot toward that end. And I think the succinct quote from him describing how realization only comes through him is clearer than just saying that is what he said, without adding much bulk (it had been in earlier versions without a clear citation - I found the page and book.) A couple other changes just for added neutrality and grounded "fact-ness". There are still just a couple of these Adidamisms hanging around from earlier, less neutral edits.Tao2911 (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and he didn't practice a wide range of "eastern esoteric practices." He studied, and was authorized to teach, yoga. Period. End of story. He may have read some books. But he didn't go to China, Korea, Thailand, or Japan. he went to India and only india, as far as its described.

I'm not crazy about having all those names added to the lead, esp in bold type. I don't think anyone only knows him by any other name than possibly bubba free john. And I think that name leads to this entry. I think it begins to make the lead sound padded with info that is more properly described in the bio.

I understand and agree with dseer about the controversies section. I think it really wasn't that "balanced." Numbers of allegations were made, his rebuttal strikes me as mostly legally strategic. But as he says, I don't think that its possible to get into it much more now until there are more media reports to verifiably add.Tao2911 (talk) 21:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, I disagree with the quotations you added under "Adidam". I don't think this is really the place to state how his teaching evolved over the years, as that could become very lengthy, but since the focus is on Adi Da, we should just keep to what he taught, wrote, said, etc., during the final years of his life. Further, I think your insertion of the quote about the world is the avatar followed by his statement of being the avatar has a clear biased intention, the intention being to show an apparent contradiction in teaching. I don't believe this is very much necessary, people can research Adi Da elsewhere and find such quotes and learn about what Bubba taught, etc. Also, the quote you added to the end seems very much redundant, as it is stated throughout the article (literally top to bottom) that Adi Da taught it was only through devotion to him as avatar that one could realize God. Inserting this statement at the end is just overkill in my opinion!--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect you to like them Dev. He changed his message. Period. Why should it seem like he didn't. At one point he said that all were the Avatar. That was THE appeal of his teaching for many people. Then he said HE was the avatar. It is contradictory. I don't analyze it. It's just presented. I know it bugs you. but that's your thing. Adidam doesn't like it either. You can't refute the quotes. They show how his teaching changed. It did. And the quote uses his words about people not being saved without him. why do you keep removing it? It was there long before you showed up. I want it in, as helpful and clear. I agree it gets redundant. All the more reason to say how he used to say something else.Tao2911 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, it really has nothing to do with making him seem good or bad, I really do not care. But there is a clear intention on your part to demonstrate a contradiction in teaching, especially in the way these statements are placed back to back, that simply does not represent NPOV. There may be a better to discuss the chronology of Adi Da's teaching and how it changed over the years, but your belief that his teaching is contradictory is not basis to illustrate such in the article. We can simply provide verifiable information and allow readers of this article to draw conclusions. The problem is you are drawing conclusions for them. A neutral article simply states things plainly and leaves it at that. We are not here to put our opinions into the article and state them as fact. I haven't removed anything, I'm addressing it in here before I do anything. But your last quote is just not justifiable. Again, I have been incredibly upfront about how Adi Da says he is the Divine Avatar and how all should worship him, and how that is the only way to liberation. I have even put this in the lead paragraph unabashedly, so don't think I am trying to shy away from this, or feel it is taboo, or don' want to people to read it. Nothing of the sort. That is the teaching. But I don't think every last line of every paragraph in this article needs to keep saying it. For example, here are all the places it is already stated:

Lead: "he said that true happiness and fulfillment could be recovered, but emphasized that no technique or self-effort would prove truly successful. Owing to his proclaimed unique spiritual attainment and status as an avatar,[4] he said only complete devotion to him as guru would stop the activity of "self-contraction" and result in ultimate realization."

Teachings: "He called this activity "self-contraction" and said that all efforts to unite with the divine from the point of view of a separate self were futile, and only devotion to him as a uniquely spiritually accomplished being was able to make the activity of self-contraction fully transparent and unnecessary"

Declaration of Unique Realization: This entire section.

Adidam: "Adidam is distinguished by Adi Da's declaration of "avatarhood," by which Adi Da defined himself as the sole means of realization."

I know you are really into this claim about avatarhood, first last only seventh stage realizer, only means for salvation, etc., and I've noticed that you continue to insert these things over and over again into the article, as if you know no other content. But the fact is, there is PLENTY of content stating this exact declaration made by Adi Da that he is God and the only way to salvation is through him, this is absolutely clear in the article, top to bottom, and even stands out as the main crux of this article. So I don't understand why you feel it's necessary to continue to insert it. It's not the statement itself that is the problem, I have inserted statements and quotations like this myself because that is the main teaching, but you are truly overdoing it now Tao. Let's take it easy, and not go nuts on this article. Keep it balanced and NPOV. It was looking just fine, and has already been nominated for GA Status.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Good changes Tao! .... and the change "Adi Da explored a series of spiritual traditions" really addressed and made simple some of my concerns. Thanks for that too. The name change line also works really well. Regarding Da's time at seminary ... I think it was Rudi who suggested he go there. He did this because Rudi was his teacher and had asked him to do this. Sorry about the revert. Will just post in discussion next time.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't really think it matters if Allah told him to go to the Seminary. He went, and was an enrolled student (he also apparently had one of his big "satoris" there, so the story goes.) So its enough to say he went. Leave out the extras, which can be endless. Facts facts facts.Tao2911 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah Tao... I was not accusing you of anything... just responding to your question and not even suggesting that anything else be added... calm down..don't be so reactive... no call for it here I was not attacking so you can lower your cynical tone my friend. It was unnecessary here Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What you call a fact and what you call an 'extra' is an interpretation. Please try to keep that in mind. Since you are not relying on any secondary source to determine what is and what is not relevant, I suggest that you be less dismissive of others' interpreations. Not facts facts facts, but compromise, reasoning, debate. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a fact that Rudi told him to go to Seminary. There is nothing wrong with stating this, it provides nice flow from studying with Rudi to going to Seminary. There is nothing negative/positive about him going to seminary. But it should be stated chronologically, rather than the random abrupt insertions that ruin the flow of the Biography. And the parts about Seminary were included in every version of The Knee of Listening.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put in a very simple few words that state that he went to seminary at Rudi's request. I do think it gives that aspect of the biography a better flow and sense for why that fact he went to seminary is used thereJason Riverdale (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Rudi told him to go to the Seminary, after the Fire Island Incident. Let's all keep the chronology accurate. Tao, I still think the different names are significant. It depends on when you heard of Da. Dating myself, I first knew of him as Franklin Jones. Others recall him as Bubba Free John, many as Da Free John depending on when they heard of him. His most famous name was probably Da Free John when he was big in the media. Only those who keep up with such things would recognize the name Adi Da, not the general public, as being the same figure. It helps the casual reader link all these names to one person. And, it is very usual for a spiritual figure to adopt that many names, making it noteworthy. Whether we accept Da's explanation for it, there were significant changes that went with the name changes and Da himself considered the name changes highly significant. Since this is an article about Da and this is noteworthy, I think the names should be listed in the lead. Please consider the reader who is not so familiar with this subject and all these names. --Dseer (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A general comment--proving Da contradicted himself verifies what he himself said from the earliest book, that he would contradict himself, such as when Da did say in 1971 he was not an Avatar, and yet by 1993 he said he was THE Avatar (these exact quotes used to be in this article). I think recent advocate editors have been fair enough in being upfront about the Adidam teaching being that Da is THE Avatar and the ONLY way to liberation and full realization is through devotion to Da. I for one appreciate that we can all agree on that. --Dseer (talk) 01:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

So... I think we should consider taking out " While apparently similar to other forms of guru yoga, Adidam is distinguished by Adi Da's declaration of "avatarhood," by which Adi Da defined himself as the sole means of realization.[29]" in the Adidam section. This is not to "cover up this fact " but literally the same fact is stated in full 5 lines above. What is the purpose of repeating it twice in such a small space? Seems odd.Jason Riverdale (talk) 02:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the entire paragraph: "Adidam is based on the belief that guru is able to accelerate the spiritual development of the follower through their own spiritual power, by letting go of the ego in the practice of devotion to Adi Da as satguru. He said that by meditating on him, a follower can duplicate his realization.[26][27][28] While apparently similar to other forms of guru yoga, Adidam is distinguished by Adi Da's declaration of "avatarhood," by which Adi Da defined himself as the sole means of realization.[29]", I think the point is what makes Adidam unique from the traditional understanding of guru yoga. Guru yoga is based on the law of resonance which is what the language is trying to describe but I think is confusing. How about something more simple and direct like this as a start: "Adidam refers to both the organization of Adi Da's devotees and the practice he gave them. Adidam teaches that through the practice of devotion to Adi Da as satguru and by devotional meditation on him as the sole means of realizaton, a follower can accelerate their spiritual development and eventually duplicate his realization. --Dseer (talk) 06:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that looks good, Dseer.--Devanagari108 (talk) 06:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree... it is succinct.Simply explains what Adidam is,which from what I have read is the way of life and Adi Da's suggested practices,like the type of meditations etc. Jason Riverdale (talk) 12:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I find the second sentence of the second paragraph of the Lead to be a bit awkward and have written up a proposition for how it could read better. Take a look:

"Similar to many Asian philosophical and religious traditions, Adi Da taught that unhappiness is caused by the illusion of ego, or separate self, which he described as an activity called the “self-contraction." He said that all efforts or techniques to become happy from this already assumed separation were futile, and that only devotional meditation on him as avatar and satguru could truly liberate one from this activity of unhappiness."--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements + citations
I noticed that some others were added to the Influence category, and I think if we are going to go in this direction than some other notable people should be mentioned. So far I've only added Gabriel Cousens, as someone who has written an endorsement for The Promised God-Man Is Here, and mentions Adi Da in two of his books. I also removed the "blockquote" around Kripal's quotation as it seemed odd to set it apart like that and contrasted with all the other quotations in this section.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you can keep adding more positive reports from Adi Da book endorsements, but I imagine you are starting to run out of "notable" ones. I think the passage now slants overly positive; I guess I'll hunt up some more notable critics and add those? Also, the Adidam section maybe needed some smoothing out, but gutting it and adding two citations (Tibetan and Siddha Yoga) to explain Adidam that have nothing to do with ADidam? Crazy making. I get what you mean - Adidam is guru yoga (a point once argued vociferously by Dev, others - that it wasn't.) But as the previous version made clear, it may look like guru yoga, but Adidam doesn't say that. And no guru yoga except adidam says that there is only one guru in the universe. Find Adidam source. I do wish the devotees here would just give it a rest soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tao2911 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The citations removed by Tao2911 had no page numbers in them. Citations without a page number are not vey useful. Removing citations, however, is also not helpful. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, Devanagari1, how about we removed the Live musicians quote to balance it and then just leave that section so we don't get into an "endorsement war" :)I think we should try to come to a conclusion here myself. We all need to get on here. Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The citations didn't cite the claim. period. The ine is "adidam says this" and it quoted Tibetan and Siddha books, that don't mention adi da. Again, the intent was clear (guru yoga.) The citation was not. But whatever. Its all yours. Tao2911 (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Failure of page to address actual impact, stature
I maintain that the entry fails to reflect the actual stature of Adi Da as would befit a true encyclopedic entry. I'm referring to Adi Da's general stature and reputation in the culture at large, and as he is regarded generally by most religious figures, scholars, psychologists, art and literature experts etc - which is to say, not-much to hostile. With every exception to this general estimation quoted in Wikipedia (force-added ad nauseum by Adi Da supporters) all true perspective is completely lost. He is so little regarded, there is little of what could be considered independent research available, and so nearly everything quoted is Adidam propaganda. As I've felt from the beginning, it lends the entire fiasco of Franklin Jones an air of credibility and reasonableness that simply isn't there, prima facie. The true impact of series of momentous scandals on his movement and his own psyche are rendered seemingly negligible - which is simply not the real case, from any of the hundreds of accounts (both pro and con) online that have been deemed uncitable due to certain interp's of WP guidleines (that are arguable, and not so neat as some would make them.) These interps have tended to be put forward and used by Adi Da followers to support their inclusions, which invariably endeavor to make him appear better - more reasonable, sound, etc. I continue to come up against the futility of working on this (when even facts like his having children are expunged secretly, amidst thousands of other edits). So let these discussion pages stand as record to the curious of how this is one of the most absurd pages in all of WP. I would still read it and think him crazy, but would wonder why the entry reads like a sales pitch/travel brochure. I too got caught up in the attempt at consensus, but I think its basically futile. This is the kind of thing where WP fails, devoid of some kind of independent editorial stance. The forest has truly been lost for the trees. So I will do my damndest to just stay away, and let you guys have at it. I really can't believe how much time I've lost to this thing! Hilarious! What a fool am I. ;) Ciao.

A succinct, reasonable version just for contrast, from Indopedia (good despite any single year or event off by a digit):

Adi Da

ज्ञानकोश: - The Indological Knowledgebase

Adi Da (born Franklin Jones, 1939) is a modern religious guru and the founder of a new religious movement. Jones was raised in Brooklyn, New York and attended Columbia University, where he received a degree in philosophy. In the 1968, Jones became a disciple of Swami Muktananda, a controversial Indian guru. Jones broke with Muktananda after a meeting in 1973[1] (http://lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/appendix2.html) and founded his own group at approximately the same time. Some of Adi Da's teachings are novel, while others are derived from Hinduism, Buddhism, and arguably from Scientology. His claims about himself are dramatic, even by the standards of independent gurus. For instance, Adi Da asserts that he is the unique incarnation of God. He further argues that there are seven levels of enlightened consciousness, but that he is the only being in the universe, past, present, or future, who reaches the seventh level. Adi Da's authorized biography is entitled The Promised God-Man is Here (2003).

The movement Adi Da founded is now known as Adidam or less formally as Daism; it was previously called the Dawn Horse Communion and the Johannine Daist Communion. It has been the target of allegations by journalists and anti-cult activists, who charge that the organization engages in typical cult-like behavior. Specific allegations have included milieu control, severe emotional manipulation, financial exploitation, casual violence, and sexual abuse of members. Since 1986, partly in response to these scandals, Adi Da has lived in near seclusion on a private island near Fiji, for the most part dealing only with his nine wives and a small group of close disciples.

Adi Da is noted for his frequent name changes in the past. As a student of Muktananda, he was given the name Dhyananda. Upon becoming an independent teacher, Jones dubbed himself Bubba Free John, "bubba" being a colloquialism for "brother" and "Free John" a loose translation of "Franklin Jones". In 1979, he began calling himself Da Free John, "Da" meaning approximately "giver". From 1986 to 1990, he was known primarily as Da Love-Ananda, "Ananda" meaning "bliss". From 1990 to 1991, he was known as Da Kalki, in reference to the Hindu avatar kalki, and from 1991 to 1994 as Da Avabhasa, "Avabhasa" meaning "brightness". The title his followers currently use for him is the Ruchira Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, literally "the radiant avatar, primordial giver, universal ruler". [edit] Selected writings

* The Knee of Listening (1972) * Garbage and the Goddess (1974) * The Paradox of Instruction (1977) * Enlightenment of the Whole Body (1979) * The Dawn Horse Testament of Heart-Master Da Free John (1985) * The Method of the Siddhas: Talks on the Spiritual Technique of the Saviors of Mankind (1995) * Beyond the Cultic Tendency in Religion and Spirituality and in Secular Society (2001) * The Way of Adidam (2003)

[edit] External links

* Adidam official website (http://www.adidam.org) * Profile of Adidam (http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/adidam.html) from the Religious Movements Homepage Project * Beezone (http://www.beezone.org), an outreach site for Adidam followers * A critical appraisal of Adi Da's philosophy (http://207.44.196.94/~wilber/smith12.html), by Andrew P. Smith * Collection of critical links (http://www.rickross.com/groups/adida.html) about Adidam, from Rick Ross * The Strange Case of Franklin Jones (http://www.american-buddha.com/franklin.jones.htm), by Scott Lowe * Frank (http://www.lightmind.com/blogs/adiblog.html), a critical website by a former Adidam member

Tao2911 (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Tao, I too am dissatisfied with some of the wiki policies sometimes. I had a whole dialog with Dseer about media etc. I to felt strongly about the point I was making. What I have come to understand however is that wiki is not about necessary about complete fairness. It is about presenting both sides, with citations. Certainly there is a lot of very critical citations to balance other things on this article about Adi Da. It's hard to accept some things I disagree with but the wiki guidelines are wiki guidelines. 16:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason Riverdale (talk • contribs)

Editors is it ok via wiki policy to put live links to external sites in the discussion section? Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, as long as it pertains to the discussion and is not spam. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I am re-phrasing this line, "He had four children: three biological daughters with three different women, and one adopted daughter" because the way it is currently phrased has clear bias, trying to make the point that he had sex with three different women. Wikipedia, and any other encyclopedia for that matter, is not the place for this.

Secondly, I am removing this line, "In 1983, he claimed to have psychically saved the world from an impending apocalyptic war." I'm not sure I really need to go into detail on why this should be removed. It's a no-brainer biased line, and if you read the Biography, this line really has no context within it, and is just another attempt to insert negative information into this article.--Devanagari108 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, and any other encyclopedia for that matter, is not the place for this.
 * Wrong. Wikipedia is not censored for delicacy. Please put it back in.
 * I'm not sure I really need to go into detail on why this should be removed. It's a no-brainer biased line
 * Is it true or false? If it is true, it is notable, because it is so eccentric.


 * And why did you remove the Raymond Burr line, with the accompanying citation. Please do not remove citations from the article. If you think that something shows bias, make the case on the talk page. Simply saying so does not convince anyone. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It was not removed for the sake of delicacy. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are not the place to demonstrate biases of any kind, and to draw conclusions for readers so that they are participating in a bias just by reading the article. The way that line was phrased "with three different women" is a bit ridiculous, and too stand out for what should be NPOV. There is a neutral way to phrase that without intentionally implying negative things as a result one's own bias. As you see, I simply edited it so that it remains neutral, and my edit does not read positive or anything. It is very plain.

It is not a factual statement. It is heavy misinterpretation and has no place in the Biography really. It just stands out for no reason. Read the Biography, and when you read that line it just has no context. I could go in and add a date such as "In 1995, Adi Da said" and it could be something completely positive. Say an editor such as Tao then removed it saying it is biased and for the same reasons I just removed his. Would you then reply in the same way saying it should be included because it is notable and eccentric? I could post many things that are notable and eccentric but have a clear positive slant, just as others can post many notable and eccentric things that have a clear negative slant. My point is, I never posted things like that because the article is about NPOV. If we get into things like this, it becomes difficult to maintain a neutral article, and what you'll have is many positive statements that are notable and eccentric, back to back with many negative statements that are notable and eccentric. This article needs to be plain. It's not the place for extensive critical content or extensive positive content, both of which can easily overtake the article, and could go on forever. It just needs to be plain. Who was Adi Da, what was his life story, what did he teach, what was the general response to him, critical and influential, and that's that. And that's what this article currently states rather succinctly without the addition of little comments like this.

Nothing wrong with Raymond Burr, I just couldn't find a way to word it properly. I'll try again if you really think it should be in here.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The way that line was phrased "with three different women" is a bit ridiculous, and too stand out for what should be NPOV. 
 * It seems like a plain way of putting it to me. Improve the wording without removing content. Maybe you should peruse articles of prolific figures, and see how those articles describe the situation.


 * Would you then reply in the same way saying it should be included because it is notable and eccentric?
 * Yeah. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 02:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute
Just checked in, and was unsurprised to find that Devanagari is taking full advantage of my edit exhaustion to run rampant with pro-Da edits. Added flag to article. I cannot and will not keep going toe to toe with Dev. re. every single edit he makes, which remain transparently strongly biased, but I encourage others to do something to counteract this (though most recent editors seem to lean more or less pro-Da themselves). Dev, you've done a nice job scuttling potential GA status. good work!Tao2911 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We should be able to address these concerns with collaborative efforts that avoid editorial interpretations of sources and sources that are not reliable. In reviewing the article changes, I see areas where recent changes need serious editing. A prime example is the controversy section and incorporations of unreliable statements from adidaupclose, a quasi-official promotional site run by Adidam devotees, in an attempt to provide more detail. I have explained the problems with adidaupclose and related sites in detail on this talk page and various editor's talk pages before. The essential, key chronology on the lawsuits that is cited from reliable sources, is that much of the membership was not told about many of the controversial issues existing for years, until after lawsuits were filed citing various charges with resulting publicity, that Adidam countersued for extortion, and that the end result was out of court settlements including payments to those who sued and confidentiality agreements. Plain and simple, and that is how the general consensus, NPOV version we were working with developed prior to recent changes. Interpretations do not help the article. Suffice it to say that the version of events provided by Adidam devotees, including a devotee lawyer and webmaster, on adidaupclose well after the fact is only one, and a disputed side, of events involving those covered under confidentiality agreements; the site only addresses one lawsuit; and it fails to address that it is the end result that is relevant in legal matters, i.e., the settlements with confidentiality agreements and payments, and not legal maneuvering for position prior to that; and it makes unverified, one sided claims about living ex-members and their credibility, a no-no in Wikipedia. Again, adidaupclose should be used neither as an external link or a source for statements or interpretations in the article, particularly when reliable sources are available.--Dseer (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Dseer, I agree that adidaupclose is not a citation that can be used here. I have removed that sentence. I will see if I can find other sources. Goethean also brought this up so....On the other hand looking at Rick Ross who seems like he has dedicated his life to "anti-cult" or what he considers "anti cult" is quite bias would you not agree? It is the extreme on the opposite sideJason Riverdale (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The McKinleyville Press
The article's latest favorite source, The McKinleyville Press, is, according to its website [http://www.mckinleyvillepress.com/ written by local residents for local residents and strives to be fair and balanced. The Press also provides a forum on its opinion pages for residents to debate the issues of the day.] It doesn't sound like it has the most aggressive editorial stance in the world. In fact, it sounds like it is closer to a weblog than to a traditional, edited newspaper. And of course verifying any references to this paper will be very difficult for anyone outside of the McKinleyville area. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Goethean, The Mill Valley Record which is used quite a bit in the Controversy Section" is no longer available online. The only copy of the story in on a very bias and anti-Adidam website. That's it.  Newspapers as you have said are legitimate sources of information. The McKinleyville Press is a public newspaper not connected to Adidam or any other similar organization.. So... I disagree. Allowing both sides of the story are what newspapers are "suppose" to do. If there is another side on this story in that paper than ok. We are all just suppose to be having legitimate citation, not judging "or having aggressive editorial stances ".For example the SF Chronicle choose NOT to publish any information about one of the lawsuits to be dismissed. Is that fair and non-bias reporting. ? Why did they not do it? Newspapers I think we all can agree are not 100% accurate nor factual. But... that is not the issue for using them as citations. We can cut thin hairs here.I have submitted to ending discussion on media frenzy, taking down the adidaupclose site as a resource. But... newspapers are totally legitimate.Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The normal definition of a newspaper is a periodical which exercises editorial control over its content. From the website of the McKinleyville Press, that appears not to be the case with it. For that reason, and because it is almost completely impossible to verify any references to such an obscure newsletter, it doesn't seem like a good source to use for this article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie so we have a dead link for the SF Chronicle at the beginning of the article... we also have several reference citations to a paper that is no longer online and being published in the "Conterversy". On some of those citations the only source is a anti-adidam site( self-declared). Who knows how we verify what they have on their site. How should we do that Goethean? Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point. Anyone can go to their local public library and check out the archives for the San Francisco Chronicle. All you need is the date and page number of the article. The McBoondock Press, not so much. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah ..... none of the other papers have page numbers. Hmmmmmmmm. SF Chronicle article which is a dead link is also not available at library on computer. The other paper is no longer around. "it is almost completely impossible to verify". Should we pick up the phone and discuss this:-)It might be easier. Maybe we go have a cup of tea or coffee and discuss. Jason Riverdale (talk) 21:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dseer, agreed that adidaupclose should not be used. I believe Jason added that in, looks like he agrees too. As for the McKinleyville Press, I'm not terribly familiar with it, but noticed it as a third party source that contains information that could be verified with other sources, but I started using it since it is third party, and I saw plenty of other newspapers/journals on here. So I suppose we should reach a consensus on this paper. It seems okay to me, given the other newspaper sources. As for control over editorial content...it seems to me that all newspapers are biased in one form of another and always express the bias of whoever wrote the article. So I don't know. It's not too big of a deal, all this information can be verified in other means, but I was trying to maximize third-party. That's all! I'll wait to see what the consensus on this specific source is before doing anything though.--Devanagari108 (talk) 23:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Balance
Hi everyone. This article has gone through more edits than expected since the GA proposition, and many of them were instigated by me. I apologize for this, it was unexpected, but I felt the article was truly incomplete in some areas, and it will take some time for GA review to take place anyways. At this point, I feel the article has reached a point of fullness. It seems there are still some loose threads concerning sources, and perhaps the citations need to be formatted once more. I've tried to format mine to the best of my ability, but this is really Geronimo's expertise!

So we should tie up those loose threads. And also consider the overall balance of the article. I would like to invite other editors here to take a look at the article and see if there is anything they would like to comment on or consider further so that it can maintain NPOV. Again, the policy here should be to raise points in Discussion before making edits. It is much easier that way!--Devanagari108 (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you think you are a balance and reasonable person, Dev. But you made these same statements weeks ago, and proceeded to go nuts with dozens more edits, all of them clearly pro-biased. You're a devotee - you think he's god. You think others should agree. A truer moral compass would have you staying away from this page. You re-added book information that consensus had ruled out (including not yet pubished material. Totally absurd.) You removed mention of his kids, arguing that the FACT of them having different mothers was biased (which is a really weird projection), and you've tweaked and added to nearly every section to make Da look better - a line here, a line there, section by section (plus you're a bad writer, so your sentences are invariably awkward and strange - which I understand from steeping yourself in Adi Da lit. His own writing keeps me unable to read more than a paragraph without my gag reflex precluding further progress). Over, and over, and over. And now you come here AGAIN to proclaim how pleased you are with it, now that you've shaped the article in your own image? You've got to be kidding me...the overall balance of the article? there isn't any. I MAINTAIN THIS ARTICLE SHOULD BE THREE PARAGRAPHS LONG, WITH A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF HIS LIFE, TEACHING, IMPACT, AND GENERAL STATURE. The current form of this article is a joke. And call me a curmudgeon and say that I should be more nice, but I use WP a lot, and this page is laughable by almost any measure. LAUGHABLE. Tao2911 (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I see you are not interested in being civil, and so I'm really not going to pursue a further conversation with you. I did not change anything regarding the three mothers line. It appears as is right now, I made an argument for it previously, but realized it's inherent bias. Statements like this make it impossible to work with you and only demonstrate your immaturity and strongly negative bias toward this article. I may have a pro-bias but I have made sincere efforts to accept criticism for that and have made significant changes to balance that. I have also made honest effort to make this article neutral and balanced, and have asked for others input, and have worked successfully with every editor except for you.

"plus you're a bad writer, so your sentences are invariably awkward and strange - which I understand from steeping yourself in Adi Da lit."

"His own writing keeps me unable to read more than a paragraph without my gag reflex precluding further progress."

From statements like that, it doesn't sound like you would help in creating a balanced and neutral article here. I have appreciated your efforts in the past and found them useful, and am open to specific places where this article may demonstrate positive bias, but you only seem interested in expressing your own frustration and negative feelings for Adi Da instead of making any kind of constructive input.--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Its true, I know, I'm so immature. If I were only more mature and reasonable, I could accept a fat bald narcissistic sociopath and drug addict as my sole path to happiness. I'm a scoundrel. But none of this has anything to do with the fact that this entry is ridiculous. Yes, I clearly think Franklin Jones was a giant boob, and a sad sad case. I think most of the inhabitants of earth would agree, if many of them even knew who he was - save his less than 2000 possible groupies. Hence - 6 billion "slugs" (by Da's estimation), vs a few hundred followers (that he had even more contempt for). I'm with the slugs, I speak for their perspective, which should count for something. However distasteful to you. I know I know, I'm out of bounds, don't bother with the messages telling me how I'll be blocked etc. I'm done editing here. I know when to bow out - Dev, care to join me? No no, I know you're all just for unbiased information re the promised god man. He proposed a potentially large bibliography! Whoo hoo!

Tao2911 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that uncivil talk page comments can be removed by any editor. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I speak of course of gems like this: "Over a period of many decades, Adi Da undertook a massive examination of the world's religious traditions, culminating in an annotated bibliography of approximately 10,000 books, audios and videos.[45] His purpose in this undertaking was for creating a study and respect for all the world's great religious traditions. A brief "epitome" version of this bibliography, entitled "The Basket of Tolerance" is scheduled for publication in late 2009.[45]" Yeah, we sure needed to know that. So neutral, so factual. So well said. Massively, even. Tao2911 (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the addition of this paragraph into the section. But I appreciate your raising of this point. It is significant enough to mention the fact that Adi Da did create a large bibliography which was published in 1991, for the sake of understanding the seven stages of life in the context of religious traditions. It also seems to be supported by a third-party source, but I invite you to point out specifics of the lack of NPOV in this section, and we should go from there. Again, you are expressing that there is lack of NPOV in the article, but simply ranting about it is not helping! Please point out more specifics that can be addressed here in Discussion and reached a consensus on, and thus improved. I removed words such as "massively" and other adjectives that were clearly biased, so you are right in pointing this section out. I would encourage you to point out more along these lines, as that is what can be useful!--Devanagari108 (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It also seems to be supported by a third-party source, so this should stay in the article, although the language can be trimmed.
 * That third party source being the enigmatic and suspect McKinleyville Press. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. We need to reach a verdict on this source. I did not find this source, so I am not completely informed. However, I feel it is legitimate, I don't see what makes it any less legitimate than some of the other newspaper sources here. What are your thoughts?

I have added a different third-party source to support this content: http://books.google.com/books?id=ClaySHbUEogC&pg=RA3-PA108&dq=%22basket+of+tolerance%22#v=onepage&q=%22basket%20of%20tolerance%22&f=false, since McKinleyville Press has not reached consensus here. But I am leaving it in until we figure out what to do with it.--Devanagari108 (talk) 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine. I would request that your text stays within the parameters of the linked passge. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes have been planning to do that. Will get to it later today.--Devanagari108 (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ed Kolwalczyk's confessions of faith
Currently (September 256, 2009) the article says:

Ed Kowalczyk, lead singer of the band Live, revealed in press materials for a 1997 album that he was a devotee of Adi Da. He was ridiculed in the press.

That statement is not blatantly untrue: but Kowalczyk has done much more than "reveal in press materials." He has mentioned Adi Da during interviews; cited Him on his CD packages; named an album "Secret Samadhi" (which is a reference to Adi Da's work); contributed blurbs to Adi Da's books; and Kowalczyk even traveled to Fiji on one or more occasions to sing for the Adi Da during darshan. He has been quite an active deveotee. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, the only issue is to find reliable sourcing for these facts. Then it can be added to the article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

hello re: adi da article
As a long-time student of his wisdom teaching I feel compelled to offer my point of view. I feel that the first 3 paragraphs o the article are basic and to the point but they are derogatory. One thing that strikes me is the use of the movement to describe the Reality- Way Adi Da has outlined and offered to students and devotees of his Way of the Heart. I think I have seen a similar estimation of modern spiritual communities which suggests supiciousness due to the fact of their being new in their appearance. Also notable news commentaries around the community of Addidam should not I feel be considered definitive or fair and balanced. The word "movement" is usually a political term and "radical" might also be understood in this manner, while the community of devotees of Adi Da or students of his wisdom teaching are not primarily or even necessarily at all political creatures. Adidam as I understand it is God-Oriented and is a community in God. Perhaps the Shakers are a helpful example of comparison. Although the community has an open-ended intention to share The Way of the Heart, it is simply devoted to God in the form of the Ruchira Buddha Avatar Adi Da Samraj.

''Thank you for sharing your point of view here. In an encyclopedic (and other formal) contexts, Adidam is effectively a "new religious movement". To a reader of Adi Da's literature, this would seem inaccurate, as he does not describe Adidam to be a religion, but for all intents and purposes, in this encyclopedia entry it should remain as classified for the sake of neutrality and wikipedia classification''.--Devanagari108 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Adi Da did not die of a heart attack. I have spoken to members of the formal congregation of Adidam and learned that his heart had simply stopped. It is understood I beleive that he relinquished his body willingly as many adepts have traditionally done.

''The line stating that Adi Da died of a heart attack is not accurate. There are places online where supposedly formal Adidam communications state that Adi Da died of a heart attack, while the actual source (Fiji Times) supporting the line on this page does not state any cause of death. The websites that have posted the supposedly formal Adidam communication (which is not verifiable as being such) are less reliable sources than a newspaper article appearing in Fiji Times. You raise a good point, and my own conclusion relative to this is that the content should match the source, and the source should be a reliable and easily verified third-party.''

''However, any mention of Adi Da intentionally relinquishing the body in the traditional manner would be inappropriate in this article. Not only is it not verifiable, but it is far too esoteric and biased to state such. It is not the kind of statement that would be appropriate in this context. It is also mere belief on the part of Adidam, so again there are too many reasons why a statement such as that could not be put in this article. I appreciate your raising of the point though. It is true that from the point of view of Adidam, Adi Da's death is his mahasamadhi, understood as the uniquely yogic death of a Realizer that usually corresponds to the intentional relinquishment of physical existence. But we can't get into that here for many reasons!''--Devanagari108 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Though I have been an informal student for some time my understanding is only my own and any serious article should be based on information from formal congregation members authorized to represent Adidam.

''Yes, thank you for sharing your comments and input. However, it would not be appropriate for the content of this article to come only from formal members of Adidam. In that case, the article would be heavily biased and not meet wikipedia or any other encyclopedia's standards. One of the key policies of wikipedia is WP:NPOV, meaning this article cannot be written by Adidam in favor of Adi Da, nor can it be written from the opposite point of view. There has to be balance that ultimately results in factual and verifiable information. Your input is welcome if you feel that there are aspects of this article that are not neutral, in which case you should point out specifics and make a suggestion here in Discussion of what you think should be there instead. Editors here will then review it, offer their opinion, and a consensus will ultimately be reached regarding the need for change or for no change at all. That is how the process works. I hope my comments have served to clarify some of your concerns.''--Devanagari108 (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Review
Well, leaving the "in dispute" templates in place was an unfortunate oversight. I have removed them, since the article has been stable for some time now. Still, the good news is that the article is close to achieving GA status. If the points mentioned above are addressed, we can resubmit it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that informative review. Very helpful. I have fixed many of the issues addressed. I added a caption for The Aletheon photo and got the right permissions for it, and I removed the picture of The Dawn Horse Testament altogether. The seven stages chart is a difficult one, I am not sure it is possible to make it larger, but feel it adds to the understanding of the text if someone is to click on it to obtain a larger view, so my view is it should be kept. I removed the polarity of the sub-categories "Criticisms" and "Advocacy" just leaving the External Links without any titles at all. I added a short description of each of the books at the reviewer's request.

Those seem to be most of the points raised here. Geronimo, if you feel that sufficiently covers it, then I think the article could go ahead and be re-submitted.

P.S. Thanks for resizing the chart, Geronimo. I went and uploaded a larger resolution of it after you, so that it doesn't appear fuzzy anywhere. It does look clearer, see if you think it's not too big.--Devanagari108 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous, bowdlerized, rubbish
The adi da service bots have hijacked this page. There is plenty of material, including material directly quotable from the lawsuits that is extremely critical of Franklin.

Sorry, folks, but where is the quote from Muktananda saying, "Franklin Jones is a dark yogi who will lead many people into darkness."?

Where is the quote from the Knee of Listening (the one not expurgated by Nina) that claims that there are creatures living on the moon that cultivate humans to eat their souls?

Where is the reference to "Stripping the Gurus"?

For all of you Adidam service robots, get a clue. I know you, and many of you know full well you are mythologizing a man who didn't have a sober or non-drugged day of his life for decades. Most of you know quite well that is the least of it.

Those few who look at this discussion, who are not adiddam service robots should understand that most of us who left because we found out the real story are busy and don't have time to constantly work on this. Those people should understand that this radically tilts in favor of the dedicated service robots of adidam who do this out of fanaticism. 69.227.208.201 (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Jambo Dryduck's bane
 * Please see Wikipedia's reliable source policy. thx. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)