Talk:Discourses (Meher Baba)

untitled
I have here is a one volume edition "second editon" of 1975. The full title is "God to Man and Man to God, The Discources of Meher Baba". The chapter arrangement is considerably different from the three volume one I find online. I do not know which arrangement appears in the 1995 edition. I must reconsider my recent editing not to get into confusion with other editions. Hoverfish 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish,
 * I wouldn't worry about it for now if I were you. Go ahead and write. It can be straightened out later. It doesn't have to cover every chapter in exact order. The content is what matters. If you want to check against the current version, the one on the page (at the bottom that says online 1967 version) is virtually exactly identical as far as chapters as the 1995 edition. I would go ahead and write from "God to Man and Man to God" if that's what you have. It's all the same. Chris 01:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think you made a good start. Chris 01:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that in Baba's context Maya is synonymous with Illusion? In the relevant chapter, towards the end, it is described as "the principal of ignorance", "Maya is not illusion; it is the creator of illusion.". I wouldn't even mention this however, was is not an important issue in your manifesto. Hoverfish 14:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. Baba did say exactly that in no uncertain terms. But it might confuse the reader unnecessarily. Maya, as you point out, is the principle or set of governing principles (the mechanics of evolving consciousness) that produce the effect of plural experience. But I think such considerations are way over most people's heads. That's just my experience from trying to talk to people. You might want to make a note of it if you feel it would help. Personally I would keep it simple for now. Maybe after we get this page fleshed out we could have a section on some common misconceptions near the bottom. Chris 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact there are numerous similarly worrisome misconceptions about Baba's words. So that might be a very interesting and helpful section if we add it down the line. Another one that has always troubled me is that many people think that sanskaras are "things." It's hard to understand that they are a psychological mechanism, not a metaphysical entity. So I'm all for some clarification at some point. Chris 15:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand (sorry to be waffling in my thinking) maybe we should have a section explaining the principle of maya. After all I just checked and Maya is actually a chapter in The Discourses.


 * "Maya is not illusion; it is the creator of illusion. Maya is not false; it is that which gives false impressions. Maya is not unreal; it is that which makes the real appear unreal and the unreal appear real. Maya is not duality; it is that which causes duality." — Meher Baba

As you see I've swallowed the bait and started on Meditation. Now it has to go the whole way through. Hoverfish 19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely Maya is a chapter here. Actually I had in mind to work on it before Meditation, but the wind turned. Hoverfish 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I would advice utmost caution if you intend to refer to "psychological mechanism". I am of the POV that psychological mechanisms are not just mental processes, but involve the subtle sphere a lot. Discuss on it, please, first if you have a different POV. Hoverfish 19:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just a matter of poor semantics on my part. I think you are right. I really like what you wrote on meditation. You have a very concise clear style of writinge. I'm sure if there is disagreement we can find a way to come to a concensus or cover both views in an impartial way. Chris 21:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The way it looks, I also think we are not going to be dealing with any quarrel issues here. Also feel free to revert any minor phrasing corrections I made on your writing, if you think I missed your point. Apart from this I have a question. Although no part of Baba's syncretizing, do you know of any mystical trend of Judaism that refers to similar topics? Hoverfish 09:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm Jewish so I should know. Unfortunately, like most American Jews, my grandparents were only "cultural Jews." My understanding is that Kabbalah is the esoteric form of Judaism, and there are Kabalistic mystics both living and deceased. But I do not know much about it. When Baba uses the word "mystic" he is being very diffuse. Some have replaced this word with "Christian" which is a big mistake in my view. "Mystic," as the word is used by Baba, seems to be a large grouping of western Judeo-Christian spiritual and philosophical thinkers, including (in my opinion) Kant, Hegel, the numerous Romantic poets like Shelley and the American Transcendentalists, certain Kabalist writers, definitely the Gnostics prior to the 5th century, some theosophists, and some secular mystics like J.R.R. Tolkien that Baba liked very much. I wrote a long piece on comparing Lord of the Rings (which Baba had read to him 3 times) to God Speaks, if you'd like to hear it. It was fascinating to think about and write. Definitely he did not just mean "Christian mystic" which is virtually a misnomer. Chris 15:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one change you made I would like to change back. I love everything else. In God Speaks (and I don't think in Discourses) Baba makes it perfectly clear that in human form (from the very first human incarnation) a person has "full consciousness." In philosophical terms that means that he is aware of his existence (self-awareness, and awareness of his awareness), but this full consciousness is misplaced. Though he knows he exists (is fully conscious in that sense) he mistakes what he is. First he takes himself to be his physical body, then subtle body, then mental body, and finally God. Consciousness doesn't increase after the first human form. Rather, in God Speaks, Baba says that it "matures." So I want to remove that one word "potential" from that section if it won't hurt your feelings. I think this is a great article by the way. Chris 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Not al all. You are right about it. I just read what was there before I started correcting tenses and felt as though it could appear as a logical contradiction in the flow of this long sentence. But now that I read it corrected, it all flows fine. Yes, I am glad by the way it is turning out and hope we contribute to the rest of the Baba entries, rathen than repeat same issues twice. I mean anyone caring to come to this entry is bound to have also read the main Baba one, as well as the God Speaks one, so he doesn't need to find things repeated here and there. By the way, I have been revisiting classifications and types of meditation and think if I start going in it, the chapter will get disproprtionately long. I am trying to put it in a nutshell, but it's slippery. Hoverfish 17:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry abou the length of the meditation section being long. That seems appropriate. I read recently where Don Stevens (apprently one of the editors) asked Baba why there was so much on meditation. It is, after all, a disproportionately long section of the book compared to many other topics. And also of much interest to non-Baba-followers and followers alike. So I'd say go for it. It can more easily be shorted than lengthened in the future. Check out for instance the disproporionate amount of space dedicated to 'space and time' in Critique of Pure Reason. Chris 17:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Baba use the term Mystic for Sufi poets, or did I pick this idea directly from Sufi literature? Hoverfish 18:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, because in God Speaks he has a terminology insert that has three distinct lexicons: Sufi, Vedantic, and Mystic. I have really given this a lot of thought, and this is still a subject open to some interpretation. My own search for the sources of some of Baba's "mystic" terms (such as God-intoxicated, God-realization, Oversoul, and God-man) I was able to find references to in western Christian, Romantic, and Transcendentalist texts. For instance Origen (early 2nd Century Christian church father) definitely used the term "God-man" and "Oversoul" seems almost certainly to begin with Emerson in the mid 19th century. "God-intoxicated" can be found in French Romantic works by Novalis. So, for instance I would say that the term "perfect master" is mystic, "satguru" is Vedantic, and "Qutub" is Sufi for the same basic concept. By the way, I started on Maya section but am not too happy with it. Too short and obtuse. Hope you will help with that when you get a chance. Chris 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Also, the word "Perfect master" seems to be a Masonic term, bastardized in modern Masonry to mean a particular high rank. My guess is that its original use retained its original mystic meaning.

I'll pick up on Maya right after Meditation. Apart from efforts on Sanskaras and Good and Evil, I have done a complete (unpublished) translation of Maya into Greek, which somehow turned out less problematic than the others. So I think I've got enough grasp of it to be able to contribute here. - I have followed your related discussions on Emerson. Apart from Purdom's edition of the Discourses I don't have copies of the other books of Baba, except from the Everything and the Nothing in German (quite a hard cookie for me). I have also read the God Speaks long time ago. So thanks for clarifying the use of Mystic here. About the Masonic use, I think we are in safe distance from it. Hoverfish 19:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can be rightfully accused of parrotry here, but I hope not of copyright violation. If anyone wants to elaborate more on the classification of Meditation, he is free to do so. I will stop here. Hoverfish 21:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it, some thing can either be unique or non-unique. Can there actually be anything "somewhat unique"? I'm just somewhat expert in dishwashing only, but I was wondering. Sorry, just bugging you :) Hoverfish 21:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Reads very well to me, short and sweet, clear but complete recapitulation. I'd leave it as is. Chris 00:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Both links to the Discourses lead to the same place. Any reason for the second link? Hoverfish 21:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that. I removed the second link. Thanks. Chris 21:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Third party sources, V and NPOV

 * Per WP:NPOV: the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source


 * Per Notability (books): The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. 


 * Per WP:PSTS: Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources

Taking these into consideration, this article as it stands does not meet established criteria: without multiple third party sources (for example a review of the book) the article cannot achieve NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

reason for removing "misleading"
Whereas I think that enough has been said and done about the alleged breaking of Meher Baba's silence, it is one thing to claim "mistakenly asserts" since this can refer to some contrary fact, and another to claim that it is "misleading" since this implies intention. Also I am not sure who said that "It is a serious blunder" and "This misrepresentation is an incomprehensibly serious mistake.". Are these someone's quotes or the editor's opinion? Hoverfish Talk 13:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok one thing was taken out before I even added the above comment, but the following is not something we can write in an article as it is an Original Research statement of the editor: "Imagine if a Bible college teacher attached his history of the Bible to a major printing of that book, giving the impression that his history was an integral part of the Bible itself? Or if an Islamic scholar did the same to a major printing of the Koran? Unthinkable." Hoverfish Talk 13:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The above are very valid arguments, but they belong to the discussion page, not in the main article space. Hoverfish Talk 13:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used to promote your debate
User Rolandtoy: the name Rolandtoy appears as a member of the http://beachwalla.net. The debate you try to insert in the article originates from the members of this group. I do not question the intentions of this group, but stating that "the treatment of Meher Baba's published words has been the subject of debate for several years", and citing the very group that raises this debate is not permited in Wikipedia. The existence of the debate has to be mentioned in a reliable source and then this reliable source can be cited. If the existence of "a debate" comes from the ones who are creating it, advancing thus their position, then Wikipedia is used as a means of promotion of this "debate", which is not permitted by policy. Hoverfish Talk 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally: I removed "The ... edition, ..., suffers from editorial depredations." That an edition suffers from editorial depredations is an opinion, not a fact. The question is: who says it suffers from depredations? IF the beachwalla website itself was a reliable source for Wikipedia it would be acceptable to state something like: "members of this group claim that there have been editorial depredations in the 7th edition of ...", but even so, "suffering from editorial depredations" could not be stated as a fact. Hoverfish Talk 17:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * May I suggest the possibility of eliminating the section "History of the Discourses" entirely? Dazedbythebell (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I think "history of" adds to the article. From what I see, it was your addition and I think it makes the article more encyclopedic. Articles on literature are not only to describe the content. Hoverfish Talk 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. It just seems it has been a lightning rod for people seeking a venue to express their opinions about the quality of editions. But I agree the history is encyclopedic. Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

So now we have the "Tyler family" as an encyclopedic notable entity. Hoverfish Talk 15:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that Wikipedia cannot be used to promote personal debates, or for self-promotion. As said above, the problem with a history section is it can be a lightning rod for people seeking venues to express their preferences among editions. This is why the current history is taken entirely from the published version of the history in the Revised Sixth edition, published specifically to address these concerns in a calm, scholarly, and neutral way. Let's try to keep it this way, or the article will digress into edit conflicts that serve no encyclopedic purposes. Such personal opinions are best expressed in forums such as personal websites and blogs. This is not the right venue for it. Also, the original 6th edition is linked to in the External links. What more could a person want who enjoys that version best? Dazedbythebell (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Good and Evil
Thank you Dazedbythebell, this section was actually taken from Beams of the Spiritual Panorama. Discourses has this chapter but with a different content. Hoverfish Talk 16:06, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 13:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)