Talk:God Speaks

New section suggestion:
Based on the discussion now archived, I'm going to add a new section called "Editions." I encourage anyone to jump in and help. If the writing is bumpy at first please forgive and change or discuss. Pipaaz (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

BeyondBeyond: When you wrote (in archived discussion) "...edition subsumes too much in its definition," etc. (viewing 1997 volume as just a new "printing"), well, that's fine, although that view is not using the standard definitions of "printing" and "edition." Of course, it's not a question of blame or judgment on Sufism Reoriented or Sheriar, but just one of fact. Again, I won't bother to change the wiki article over this, but the 1997 version of _God Speaks_, technically speaking, is a new edition of the book (since it was completely re-typeset and repaginated -- not simply an additional printing of the 2nd ed. from 1973), regardless of how it's listed in the book itself. The fact that this apparently occurred because of losing access to the plates for the 2nd ed., rather than as a result of a more conscious or willful editorial decision, doesn't make the 1997 version less of a new edition of the book for all that, at least according to the definition of "edition" used in the book world. If conforming to standard usage of terms on wikipedia is worthwhile, and if "3rd edition" sounds inappropriate or makes the Baba-world wary, one should at least call it a "new edition" of the 2nd edition text, rather than just a "third printing" of the 2nd edition... Hdtnkrwll (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to respond to the latest replies to my (archived) musing on the meaning of edition and its definition, that I considered too broad. If you read me carefully, you'll notice I'm musing on the dilemma of a reader considering their options in obtaining various editions of a book by considering editions with textual content changes versus stylized changes of the print.  There's no blame to speak of, except possibly the "book world" choosing to continue using such a broad definition of edition to include two very distinct features.  I was not blaming Sufism for anything, rather, it could be considered praise for their (inadvertent?) distinction of edition versus printing.  BeyondBeyond (talk) 07:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm not sure why everything was archived, but I was responding to Aliphanta's and Pipaaz's posts as well, re: that something can be a "new edition" regardless of the intentions of the publishers. Just a couple quick points (beating a dead horse here at this point, I know): To many people, typeface changes *are* "content" changes, in relation to the book as a whole. (Just think of all the different editions of William Blake's books, for example, even if the wording itself doesn't change.) Apparently there *are* a few wording changes here & there between the 1973 2nd edition and the 1997 edition. Yet the 1997 re-typesetting and new pagination is what makes it, effectively, a new edition anyway. Also, some of the charts were reformatted for the 1997 edition. There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that the technical definition of "edition" is broad & covers two features, but traditionally it's actually defined by a *single* criteria: the plates used (and thus the typesetting). It just so happens that substantial editorial changes, whether to wording or presentation, also inevitably affect the plates. "Printing," technically, is just referring to the print-run from a particular set of plates. The 1997 edition was not printed from the 1973 plates, which is why it's not a "third printing." I'm not going to change the entry at this point, but the current table listing -- "third printing 1997 (retypeset)" -- is technically speaking a contradiction in terms. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring one of Hoverfish's evolution paragraphs
Not sure why the ¶ (written by Hoverfish?) was deleted by Pipaaz, so I reinstated it. It's an accurate statement (as far as it goes), and also important given all the hoopla these days over the "evolution vs. design" (non)controversy -- Meher Baba's explanation of the evolution of consciousness is obviously not reductionist or materialist, like all-too-many takes on neo-Darwinism are, yet it's also in no way compatible with the "design" ideas, since for M. B. it's still the *process* that's important, real, necessary for consciousness to develop/evolve. (Baba even uses the phrase "survival of the fittest" in the text ['97 ed., p. 32], and even outright describes the sequential generation of biological forms as evolving "inadvertently" [p. '97 ed., p. 17] -- also, his very definition of the Whim as origin of Creation precludes "design" in the standard sense of the term, from the very beginning.) If anything, Baba's explanations are closer to Henri Bergson (re: "creative evolution") or Simon Conway Morris (re: "convergence," or teleology with flexibility in the details) -- neither of whom reject Darwin as valid as far as he goes -- so there's no shame in mentioning Darwin. M. B. wasn't anti-science, just insisted that science is only partial and can't take the place of metaphysics... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdtnkrwll (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

About page counts of editions
The page counts of the editions is a little confusing and requires some explanation. It is important for researchers to know all this if they are to cite pages with edition number for others to check their sources.

The first edition 1955 (with its four printings) was 255 pages as stated in this article and resellers list it as 255 pages. The original 1973 second edition (with its two printings) was 334 pages. Again, used book sellers list it properly as 334 pages. The confusion arises with the 1997 printing of the second edition. It is 313 pages.

But there are several reasons why this can confuse someone. On Barnes and Noble it lists the page count correctly as 313 and the publication date right as 1997. Sheriar Books lists the page count correctly, as 313 pages, but lists the date wrong as 1973. On Amazon it lists the page count wrong, as 348 pages, but gets the date right as 1997. Now there is an explanation why Amazon lists the pages as 348. Someone combined the roman numerals of the introductions with the arabic numerals in the main text. Thus xxxv pages plus 313, thus 348 pages. But this is not the conventional way that books are checked by resellers for page count, and this has caused a little confusion.

One nice thing is that the 313 page, 1997 edition, conforms exactly (in fact is identical in every way) with the PDF version in two parts, available for download and study at the Meher Baba Online Trust Library.

So there are only three page counts in all. 1955, 1973, and 1997. The important thing to keep in mind when citing the book as a reference is to be sure to list not just the edition number in the case of the second edition, but also the printing number or printing year (3rd printing or 1997 printing). For it changes at 1997, though only in page count. It is thus actually shorter and more condensed than the first. It has no textual revisions from the original 1973 printing, only page layout.

This reflowing of the text in 1997 by the copyright holder and publisher Sufism Reoriented was unavoidable. Dodd, Mead, which originally printed the book for Sufism Reoriented between 1955 and 1975, went out of business in 1990. So when the 1975 printing ran out in 1997, Sufism Reoriented had to reformat it for a new printing, as presumably the original 1973 plates were lost along with Dodd, Mead the New York based company. Plus printing methods had advanced and it was a chance for the work to be updated to more modern fonts and higher standards of printing, and to get it retyped and flowed in a digital format. This is also what made it possible to put it in its exact format on the Trust Online Library without having to scan the paper edition and lose quality. It is a perfect representation of the printed book. The addition of the parallel PDF document on the Trust Library, that conforms with the 1997 print edition, is also a boon for scholars wishing to cite the print edition yet also have the power of searchability that comes with the PDF file format. This allows very quick referencing and finding occurrences of words and phrases. Putting a word in search in the PDF in Adobe Reader or Mac Preview essentially produces an instant concordance of any word or phrase as it appears within the entire book. So together the PDF and book make a stronger tool than the original 1973 Dodd, Mead version of that same edition. And it never need be reflowed again as the PDF can't be lost like the plates and is in the possession of Sufism Reoriented with no intermediary. I know this information doesn't belong in the article itself, but thought the page count issue might have confused someone other than me so I put it here. I also wanted to explain carefully why I changed the page count of the 1997 edition from 348 to 313 as it is usually listed and is the conventional way of listing a book's page count. If you flip to the back of any 1997 edition you will see it reads p. 313. And that is the last page of the index. Darwin394 (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Darwin394 -- Thanks for fixing the page count for the '97 edition. The confusion isn't from the varying page counts, though, it's from the fact that the 1997 edition was labeled "second edition, revised and enlarged," rather than a third edition (what it actually is--look up the definition of a book edition if you're questioning this; the 1997 book wasn't printed from the 2nd ed. typeset; whether from digital or photostat type is beside the point, when it comes to the "edition" of printed books). The PDF is the same page count as the 1997 edition because it was generated from the layout files that made the 1997 edition. The page count was listed incorrectly earlier, but there are still three main editions (1950s, 1970s, 1990s). Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * p.s. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edition_(book)#Bibliographical_definition and the earlier, archived discussion. Even though the 1997 edition is not labeled a "third edition," by definition it is a third edition of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdtnkrwll (talk • contribs) 23:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've relabeled the table header [to "Second Edition, Revised and Enlarged" (Technically a Third Edition)"], to make this clearer. Just to summarize: there was no 1997 printing of the second edition (even though the 1997 ed. mistakenly lists itself as a "third printing"); the 1997 version of the book was effectively a new edition of the book, since it wasn't printed from the plates used for the 2nd edition from 1973. The content of the specific words within the book is irrelevant to "edition"; the definition is based on the typeset and printing, whether digital or by other means. Hdtnkrwll (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Evolution link
The link to evolution was changed to point to higher evolution. I see the concern and tend to agree, although I see a need for the article of "higher evolution" to be ammended to include Meher Baba's use of the word. In his use, evolution does indeed mean evolution of form, though in a subtle way. Hoverfish Talk 11:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that "high" and "low" evolution don't really apply to Meher Baba's teaching, which has instead an involution, which is a kind of unevolving while keeping the consciousness and Bliss gained. I added a "See Also" line going to Baba's involution page there instead, which I think will cover it for those who want to look into it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think that the "higher evolution" topic rather describes what Baba terms "involution", so I think the best here is to put back the "evolution" to the biological aspect, or else we confuse the reader as to which of the two we are refering to. Hoverfish Talk 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear energy
In God Speaks, Meher Baba's use of the word "nuclear energy" doesn't refer to the energy required to split or break apart an atom, as the term binding energy implies.


 * A general and simple description of nuclear binding energy is the energy required to break apart, split, or break down, the nucleus of the atom into its component parts (nucleons), i.e. neutrons and protons.

Rather Baba refers to the energy that is released when an atom is split. This is still called nuclear energy, as mentioned in the article on nuclear binding energy:


 * If the binding energy for the products is higher when light nuclei fuse, or when heavy nuclei split, either of these processes will result in a release of the "extra" binding energy, and this energy is referred to as nuclear energy. It is also loosely called nuclear power.

The word "nuclear energy" used to have an article, but now leads to a disambiguation page, which does not currently have an article specifically on the energy that is released when an atom splits apart, which Baba equates with subtle energy. Therefore, I went ahead and delinked the word, as there is currently no appropriate place to link it. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I am neutral to linking or not. I understand "nuclear energy" as one of the shadows of the original unified energy that Baba called "Taj". The exact scientific definition does not change much in this respect. Nuclear energy is the binding energy that gets broken in an explosion, and what is released is also called nuclear energy as a whole, but actually during the explosion it is converted in many other forms of energy, including thermal and other radiations. Or so I understnd. Hoverfish Talk 01:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Now I see what happened. Someone moved the link to "nuclear binding energy", which is scientifically correct and fits the context very well, except that it is more appropriate here to link to nuclear power, because this is the way Meher Baba has referred to it in this book and therefore follows the source more precisely. "In physics, power is the rate at which work is performed or energy is converted." So I keep the text as "energy" to fit the context more precisely, but link to nuclear power to remain closer to the original use in the source. Hoverfish Talk 13:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Having never read this book, I'll take your word for it that the nuclear power article is a better fit for the context/meaning of the book. However, I have looked at that article, and it appears to have close to nothing to do with the context of the way this article currently uses the term "nuclear engery".  If the meaning in the source material makes "nuclear power" the best link, then this article section should be re-written to convey the same context. LarryJeff (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you LarryJeff, I agree that the link you gave fits the context of the article correctly, and indeed what you suggest as an alternative did cross my mind. I will look carefully in the source text as soon as I can and either link back to the nuclear binding energy or modify the text or even take out the clause mentioning nuclear energy. Hoverfish Talk 15:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I found eight instances of "nuclear energy" in God Speaks (2nd edition). The one in the chapter Reincarnation p.36 does not refer in particular to the energy that is released when an atom is split, it states that a gross-conscious human soul, althouht unconscious of its subtle and mental bodies and their respective worlds can still "use energy through various gross aspects of energy such as nuclear energy." In p.53 of chapter The Planes similarly states that a mental-conscious human soul "can unconsciously utilize the subtle (world) in the form of nuclear energy". Then in chapter States of Divine Consciousness, p.62 there are two instances stating all that even when one soul does not realize Energy and Mind, it can still use Energy "through various aspects of energy such as nuclear", then p.62-63 states that the gross-conscious human soul on earth "unconsciously imbibes from the sun's rays the Energy of the subtle, by making in the gross world the fullest use of the aspects of this Energy in the form of nuclear energy", and the in p.66 "when the gross-conscious scientist in the gross world on earth is conscious of the highest possible aspects of nuclear energy, he is actually fully conscious of only one of the highest gross aspects of energy of the domain of the subtle world." Then in chapter Evolution of Consciousness, p.90-91 we read (my bold): "How (1) the mind, (2) the energy and (3) the body, as the triple nature of man, demonstrate their capabilities ad infinitum in Illusion is clearly experienced through (1) the inventive mind of a scientist, who finds no end to discoveries and inventions; (2) through the release of nuclear energy in Illusion, which has reached a stage where it threatens with its own force of illusion to destroy the very Nothingness out of which it emerged and evolved into such a terrific force; (3) through the body (typifying happiness) which, now keeping pace with the advanced progress of the evolution of the Nothing, is infinitely urged to seek greater and greater happiness to such an extent that happiness actually becomes the very basis of the life of illusion." Finally in p.127 of the same chapter, talking about the power of the fourth plane (my bold) "However, an idea could be gathered of that result from the fantastic experiences of the liberation of nuclear energy, which is merely one of the gross aspects of the infinite energy of the subtle world." From all these I see that nuclear energy can be safely linked to its scientific definition without contradicting its usage in the source texts. Hoverfish Talk 16:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the change to Nuclear Power if that is the consensus. It seems more appropriate than combining energy because Baba is speaking of the "use" of such energy in God Speaks, which sounds like he is referring to Nuclear Power, which existed at the time of publication in 1955. The first nuclear power plant came on line in the USSR in June 1954. Dazedbythebell (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then I will see how the text can be modified to describe the source better without giving a more scientific implication to what we are stating. Hoverfish Talk 00:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I changed the text to follow the original wording and link to the dab page, so that readers can chose whatever they wish to connect "nuclear energy" with. I am for the scientific sense, but I don't want to impose it against the empirical sense. The dab page links to both pages and if a more specific should be writen it will be linked to from there. From what the text states, I also think "Nuclear power plant", "Nuclear reactor technology", and in particular Nuclear engineering, are all usefull examples of the intended meaning. Hoverfish Talk 00:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The text of the article should not link to a disambiguation page (WP:INTDABLINK). It needs to be linked directly to an article, or not at all.  From the context of the article, plus what you've quoted here from the book, it seems to me nuclear binding energy is the best choice.  If the other related articles are also relevant to the concepts discussed in the book, then the article can be updated to include that information as well (with links to those articles if desired), but as it stands now, it needs to link to just one article, or none. LarryJeff (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for this, I didn't know that links to disambiguation pages were not permitted, so thank you for pointing it out. I also didn't see this discussion as a consensus issue, but since Dazedbythebell mentioned it, it is two for the scientific definition to one for the empirical use (which is wrong in physics in that energy and power are two different things). Hoverfish Talk 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the choice you made to link to the specific section of the article was a good one.LarryJeff (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)