User talk:Hoverfish/Archive 1

Discourses

 * I like what you have done to the article so far. Excellent writing. Very clear. Chris 13:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

And I thank you for the corrections and assistance. Glad you like it. Hoverfish 13:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hoverfish, I'm really glad we began the Discourses article. Note that no one has interfered in the least. I think this site can (for the time being) be a repository of just about anything we want to say about Baba's cosmology and use of terms. Given that English is not your first language, you have done a superb job -- surprisingly clear and illuminating. Hope you will add something about meditation, as that is a big point of interest for many. Chris 15:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, English is no problem at all with me. I started learning it very systematically from my mother, who is quite an effective teacher of it, even before kindergarten. Also all films play in the original language with subtitles in Greece (but unfortunately not in the German talking lands). Then, in my teens I got into UN environment for a while, where English was the common language with other kids and I also went to summer school in England a few times. 19 years old I was in KC, Mo, initially as a student of psychology, then married (and quite outside greek circles), then spent some time in the remains of communes in N.Mexico, then moved to Seattle, while my wife made an old schoolbus into her home up in Marblemount, Wa. I also tried to live up there, but got dissapointed with myself. I guess my ideal of alternative life survival will have to wait at least for another lifetime. Well, long things short, 3 years in the USA. As for my times of mystical quests, it had started before that, but most of my discussions on such topics with others and my eventual Baba friendships, happened in the States. I find it, by the way, excruciatingly hard to translate any part of the Discourses in Greek. Most key terms, translated literary, fall into a void when it comes to how these terms are used there. Try telling someone &quot;spiritual&quot; and what he understands is &quot;intelectual&quot;. Try to translate &quot;Soul&quot; and you end up with &quot;Psyche&quot;, with colorfull mythological, poetic, psychological, occult implications, but nothing close to the intended concept. With &quot;mind&quot;, &quot;mental&quot; you get somewhere (whereas with Germans almost nowhere or back to &quot;Spirit&quot; - Gheist). The less we talk about &quot;Subtle&quot; the better. Mention Ego and you get into heated Freudian rows. At least during my times of discussions with Greeks, mention anything spiritual and you fell under 'religious nut' and completely disqualified from any left, center-left political opinion. Today with the "New Age" winds blowing, I wouldn't dare to imagine where I would end up. Possibly lots of young happy faces thinking I'm some part of all the New-Age-Disneyland thing. Yet, don't get me wrong: I have met pretty cool New Age people and have absolutely nothing critical on them, don't think they are victims of any dark conspiracy, respect them fully, but I hope you know what I mean. Oh, about meditiation, apart from what you find writen in my user page, my experience or practice of it is almost unexistent. It could be that it actually isn't (like an ex-hippie Kundalini Yogi in KC told me once that I must have done a lot of Yoga, told him I had done none, but he insisted it must have been in another lifetime, to which I can say nothing, since I could have done just about anything in other lifetimes, as far as I can tell -how relieving the thought that it was actually a One-and-Only doing them). But I may get to the issue of meditation after a few other topics I have in mind, as well as an email I want to put together for you (as if all this was not enough). Hoverfish 17:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you have explained something to me I could never understand -- and that is why Baba decided to publish all his philosophical writing in English of all languages. I think it is a very difficult language, with too many words and ridiculous spelling. But now I see what you mean. Also I identify totally with what you are talking about about the New Age. I can't put my finger on it. I also agree they are well-meaning, nice people. But they seem to equate spirituality with good or positive feelings, soothing sensations, psychic phenomenon, et. == none of which is spirituality if you read the Discourses or anything by Baba. In fact the path turns out to be rather painful and mostly mundane. Intellectually they also seem overly influenced by 19th century theosophy and 19th century spiritualism, Atlantis and Edgar Cayce. How this all became part of so-called spirituality is a book in itself and nearly high comedy. So in short they don't know what we're talking about. Chris 17:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Also I don't meditate either and never was interested in Baba's discourses on meditation. Luckily a friend pointed out to me not long ago that Baba actually said not to meditate unless you want to, and told Don Stevens (editor of God Speaks) that these discourses are for future generations when they will be necessary. Baba even said that meditation was bad for you if you don't like it. And when he prescribed it for people he often set limiits like 5 minutes at a certain time like midnight (different for different folks) and on a certain theme, on very few occassions giving an actual mantra such as on one occasion to a westerner "I am part of the infinite. The infinite God is in me." etc. Baba's own father once said that the best prayer is to never speak ill of another, and he got liberated according to Baba. Cool!

I do however see one important thing in meditation. Thinking, philosophising, reading and writing about all this is, for me at least, very refreshing, inspiring, enlightening, etc. But the heart plays a very secondary role (like a background feeling). In meditation, however, the heart is on top, especially in personal forms. It is not as if I miss heartiness in my life, but in meditation the presence of the heart is more aware. I know people identify heart with feelings more, but it goes way beyond them, as I understand. At best it brings us in some contact with sixth plane experience, whereas reasoning, again at best, with fifth plane experience. Ok, this is POV, but this is the discussion page, so what the heck... As for the English language, I think you are not being objective. Maybe you are biased because it's your native one. But in reality it is possibly the easiest one on the planet, probably competing with French a bit. Maybe for the French it's very hard to get to pronounce it right, but grammatically, linguistically... I think of it as God-sent, to liberate humanity from lingual complications. I have heard arguments actually that it is so simple that it cannot express a lot of cultural depth, but I find it flexible enough to do just about anything. Hoverfish 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly am no expert on the language thing as I only speak English. And I certainly am no expert on meditation and am unqualified to write on it. I am just happy to have read someplace that Baba said it is okay not to do so if you don't enjoy it. I am happy to learn that English is relatively not so hard. I always felt bad that people often found it necessary to learn it, not knowing till now that it was less hard than many others. My father (who spoke some Spanish but that's about it) always use to think that Baba chose English for some reason -- he thought maybe because it is a good intellectual language. Of course German is considered the "language of philosophy" in the west. But as I said, I really don't know. But thanks for your insites. Chris 20:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, you have an important point about the English language, which also makes me have many thoughts. Having to learn a language one doesn't feel inclined to learn must be quite a drag. Also native pride is an important issue when we talk about "easy". It may be linguistically easy but culturally very repulsive to some. Also, like you, I am a believer of spontaneity. I also find this to be the cornerstone of Baba's message. Hoverfish 09:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, I think Baba was sort of unique in that sense. So many quotes by him speak to being yourself, following your own inner guide, being spontaneous. One of my best friends likes to quote him "Give up all forms of parrotry." That is such a cool thing to say. And that there are as many paths as there are souls, and that each individual must negotiate their own path... all good quotes to live by. Baba even thought highly of Nietzsche, calling him a genius and a prophet of his time. Baba seemed to dispise all that is stale and unfelt and unauthentic or at least he was unimpressed by it. I feel lucky to have him as a master because he gives me a lot of room to be creative. I have written some Wiki articles on some of his artistic followers and I was amazed how flambuoyant and eccentric they really were. Here are some of the ones I made (mostly to do with film of course since that is my second speciality): Gabriel Pascal Norina Matchabelli  Garrett Fort. Chris 11:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I also have my Manifesto on my Dutch Wiki Userpage, translated by a good friend, a professor in Indonesia. Chris 18:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowing English and some German but no Dutch, it's very funny to try to read Dutch. Its a sweet mixture between the two. Very interesting the three above entries. Surprised at Garrett Fort. Have you by any chance read Wilchelm Reich (student of Freud)? I ask because the last picture in your manifesto contains the main symbol he uses for his Orgon-energy concept. It is through influence from his work that makes me think psychological mechanisms are very involved in subtle sphere events. Hoverfish 21:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think you state it right. It's something like the mental governs (or produces or gives rise to) the subtle and the subtle produces the gross. That goes pretty well with quantum mechanics too. I would love to know about that Organ-energy concept. Can you give me a link so I can see a diagram or something like that? Chris 21:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is surely the hierarchy of the process. But somehow I find the term "psyche" connected with the subtle sphere rather. I could be wrong but I find lots of indications pointing this way. You can ask for Wilhelm Reich in the Wikipedia for info. It is bound to have controvercies, since Reich was full of them. Yet his intuition brought him close to some very true things. It was when he was attempting to prove them scientifically that he had problems (see conversation with Einstein). I didn't check the Wiki entry very much because it's getting late here. About the symbol, but without explanations, you can look at the logo here: www.kentroraix.gr/indexen.html. One of his books goes in great length about it. I will look tomorrow if I can find more about it. Hoverfish 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And one more hint here for now: http://www.asaseraizes.pt/form_vegeto.htm --It's actually at the bottom of your images, what I mean. Hoverfish 22:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discourses
Dear Hoverfish, Glad to see you appreciated my corrections - don't worry about spelling problems, after all this wasn't Melville's strongest suit and he wrote Moby Dick! I think it was G.B. Shaw who proposed drastic spelling reforms because of the mind-blowing fact that your name might as well be spelled HOVERGHOTI. F=tough I=women SH=national. Credit where credit is due, you've written a most illuminating article about Baba's discourses, I mistook it for one of Cott12's myriad of gems. Could you please add some comment on the different planes? Cheers for now & keep up the good work, Frank Landsman 07:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Worry!
Dear Hoverfish, Thanks a lot for your two messages on my talk page. My apologies for this tardy reply, it's just that I needed to iron out a few problems with the Andy Pratt/Avenging Annie entry, it's a bit of a Wiki-saga I won't bore you with. I'd love to correspond a little as we seem to have quite a lot in common, though I've only studied classical Greek and twice spent a Langlauf holiday in Austria, getting fat on Kaiserschmarren... Meher Baba, rock music and the Python team are more my cup of tea! I'll get in touch with you as soon as I've finished my Dutch translation of the Meher Baba page - so far, there's been zilch about our Avatar on the windmill site. My contributions before the Andy Pratt article are nothing to write home about, though I enjoyed contributing to MB, Rudy Vallee (the first crooner), Gene Pitney, Nathanael West & S.J. Perelman, among others. Cott12 is the most wonderful Wiki-editor/writer, pen pal and amigo one could ever hope to meet through Wikipedia. Be happy! Cheers 4 now, Frank Landsman 10:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC) (say no moah!)

fish
I like the fish! Chris 22:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC) Thank you! It's stuffed with soul, you know. Hoverfish 20:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!
Dear Hoverfish, Thank you so much for your advice on how to format one's user page, it looks more presentable this way. If you get the cowbell joke, then you know more about comedy than the average Greek, I suppose. I expect to finish the Dutch Baba entry this week, and will try to add a little on the 7 planes of consciousness in your entry on God Speaks/The Discourses. Unfortunately, Cott12's illuminating essay on his user page was barred by the Dutch editors, it may not even appear in the sandbox! Keep up the good work, and remember that the Pythons would have been a pretty lame act if it hadn't been for Peter Cook's influence. Cheers for now, Frank Landsman 07:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC) (Frankly speaking)

Chart
Yes, I see the GS chart works now. It was part of that temporary server problem. Chris 13:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference Problem
Where is the reference problem? I don't see it. Chris 15:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see... on nondualism. He just changed the order according to dates. I think it's good. They're all still there. Chris 15:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nemo's answer re:: Meher Baba
Hi and thanks for the message. I am myself a BL (Baba Lover), and had a hand in expanding the Meher Baba article. So my neutrality and objectivity is very doubtful. That said, I do think that there is to reason delete the whole Influence on Pete Townsend section. I would not have done so. I think a sentence is plenty; however the Pete Townsend groupies like a bigger section. Liam's other changes are, to my mind, in bounds. I don't agree with all of them, but I don't think that they are vandalism. Cott12 tends to think he owns the MB article, and is likely to reject any changes until they are explained to his satisfaction. I don't think this is article has reached edit war or revert war status. I think the test2a on Liam's page might be overkill.

Thanks for asking. --Nemonoman 04:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More re:Townshend
If it were up to me, I would mention Tommy as a cultural phenom related to Baba, passing reference to PT as composer. Baba's effect on Townshend belongs on the Townshend page, not the MB page, IMO.

What I have found is that in Wiki-world, some sections just HAVE to be there. Example is in Taj Mahal, which is mostly my article. There is a nutcase that claims the TM is ancient Hindu Temple. This wingnut is so far from the mainstream that there is no reason on earth to include any mention of it, except that the minute the section is (rightly) removed, some NEW wingnut emerges from the wiki-sphere and deletes the whole article in favor of the Hindu_temple Origin theory. Reverting to intelligence results in an edit war. The compromise is to include the useless theory as a full section.

Townshend in MB has for me the same nature. There are and have been several cultural icons with connections to Baba. Townshend is one with current popularity. In 50 years, will that section be relevant? As compared to the relevance of the rest of the MB article?

--Nemonoman 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm interested in keeping the MB edits civil, but like I say, I'm pulling back from active editing. For the article that pulled my plug see Aurangzeb. I'll keep checking in on your progress. Jai Baba.--Nemonoman 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Note on Sai Baba saying "Parvardigar" upon seeing a very young Meher Baba for the first time: Lord Meher, p. 81 "...it took place on a dusty dirt road in a poor, remote village of Maharashtra, India, in December 1915. Full account of events:  . On the term itself: Lord Meher Page 81 - Footnote 1 "Parvardigar is the Islamic term for the Protector or Preserver of creation. It is the same One who is known as Vishnu in the mysticism of Vedanta. He who pervades is the Almighty Preserver."  My own note: The Kalki Avatar or White Horse Avatar is considered by Hindus to be the awaited coming of Vishnu (the preserver aspect of God that takes form as Avatar). Shirdi Sai Baba was Mulsim and this term, according to Meher Baba's syncretism, is the equivolent Sufi term for the same concept of God the Preserver, thus Vishnu. It is hard to verify this independent of Meher Baba's lexicon on the web because Baba's use of the word in his prayer and Townhend's song based on the prayer have so overwhelmed the internet. But generally speaking, Baba's syncretism can be verified with enough effort, though his spelling is often unusual. The witness to this event was Khodadad Rustom Irani, (first nicknamed "Khodu," then "Sailor"). Chris 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Master / Meher Baba
One of the things I see a lot of while stub sorting is stubs of topics already covered in stub-level detail in their "parent" article. I take a BRD approach to these stubs; frequently, the best thing to do with them is to redirect them home. I'm open to the idea that that may not be the best course of action here, especially if it was recomended by mediation peer review. With that said, is there material (and, importantly, references) dealing with the topic at hand sufficient to stand on their own? The main Meher Baba article appears to discuss who he considered to possess the title, and the satguru article (which, in retrospect, would probably be a better redirection target) seems to discuss most of the concept (at least in general terms). Is there verifiable content that I have overlooked? Serpent&#39;s Choice 07:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Carry on, then! Your discussion certainly makes it appear that there is more to be said there than could be easily inlined into the already-long main article, what with a discussion of further categories, contrasts with Sufism, and possible discussion of development from Western philosophical thought.  I've got absolutely no idea what references there would be to address this directly, but with how much I'm sure has been written about him, I've got no doubts that it is doable.  You might also want to tag it  or  from the start; I know I'm not the only boldly zealous stub sorter.  And drop me a line once the article's built ... sounds like it will be an interesting read.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 08:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like you've got a start going there, at least. The best next step, in my opinion, would be to look for secondary sources.  I know there have been volumes and volumes written about Meher Baba.  I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to find such a source that discusses his use of these terms (or at least uses them itself).  Articles that reference a variety of secondary sources are the strongest, and add the most to the encyclopedia.  I'll be happy to help if I get some time, although I try to do article improvement a couple titles at a time, and I've got something of a backlist.  Still ... knowledge isn't going anwhere.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 14:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Moved from sandbox talk:

BTW, when I add "citation needed" it doesn't mean I'm questioning these facts. It's meant as a suggested "to do" list. Chris 14:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the "Evolution and Involution" sub-section entirely, and move the sub-section "Saskaras" to the Discourses article and simply paste it there as a subsection of that article. If I don't hear from you I might even go ahead and try this and you can change it back if you don't agree. Chris 14:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Meher Baba intro
If you're the author, you done good, son!--Nemonoman 07:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution and Involution
(copy from Notebook talk)

Comments: Changed 'Cosmology' to 'God Speaks' like you said. Should Evolution and Involution and Sanskaras be headings on their own or subheadings of God Speaks as they are now? Chris 22:17, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Meher Baba upholds the concept of divine unity, the view that diverse creation, or duality, is an illusion and that the goal of life is conscious realization of the absolute Oneness of God inherent in all animate and inanimate beings and things.

Meher Baba compares God's original state to an infinite, shoreless ocean which has only unconscious divinity — unaware of itself even though there is nothing but itself. From this state, God had the "whim" to know Himself and asked "Who am I?". In response to this question, creation came into existence. What was previously a still, shoreless Ocean stirred, forming innumerable "drops" of itself, termed “drop souls.”

Each soul, being formed by God's whim to know Himself, contains within itself the same desire for self-knowledge. In pursuit of the answer to that question (to gain conscious divinity) each soul evolves consciousness through experience of each form in seven kingdoms of evolution, i.e. stone, vegetable, worm, fish, bird, animal, and human. The impressions (or sanskaras) gathered through experience of these forms in turn seek expression through the drop soul. This need for expression of accumulated impressions eventually cannot be accommodated by the form the drop soul identifies with, necessitating that the soul abandon that form and associate with the next most complex form through which the impressions can be expressed.

In this way, the drop soul experiences (by associating with) and discards (by dissociating from) forms in all the evolutionary kingdoms. According to Meher Baba the final form of the soul's evolution of consciousness is the human form, through which medium full consciousness is attained. Only human consciousness, which is full consciousness, is capable of achieving awareness of its own divinity.

However, although consciousness is full upon the attainment of the first human form, the soul's ages long accumulation of impressions gathered through evolution prevent it from identifying itself as God, its true being. Instead, human consciousness is preoccupied with expressing its impressions by seeking sensual experiences. Ultimately, however, through the soul's travail through numerous human incarnations encompassing the whole range of human experience (e.g. man/woman, rich/poor, powerful/weak, etc.), the impressions accumulated through its evolution, as well as those gathered in its human lives, begin to thin and the soul's awareness of a reality beyond its own immediate desires is stirred. This is the beginning of the end of the soul's separate existence. The soul then begins to traverse an inner spiritual path, or involution, through which it gradually eliminates all impressions which cause the appearance of separateness from God.

Once the sanskaras are gone, the goal of knowing itself as conscious divinity is attained. The drop soul once again becomes merged in the Ocean, that is, it realizes its true Divine indivisible and eternal nature. It has now answered the question of “Who am I?” with “I am God.” (Chris 1 Jan 2007)

Over-soul
Hoverfish, Oversoul was not in my watch list anymore, and I only now noticed your very old comments on the discussion page there. Talk:Over-soul I hope you'll make whatever improvements you can think of. It was meant as a stub. The only book by Jung I ever read was Memories, Dreams, and Reflections and am by no means an expert. Please improve if you can. It seems a valuable word as it is linked to from many sites. Cott12 Talk 02:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)