Misplaced Pages

Talk:Adi Da: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:28, 3 October 2007 editQuatloo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,650 edits Request for comment: Too much reliance on self-published refs?← Previous edit Revision as of 03:31, 3 October 2007 edit undo202.63.42.221 (talk) Request for comment: Too much reliance on self-published refs?Next edit →
Line 180: Line 180:


::This explanation, including clarification from Adidam itself as to why they wanted the book out, to associate Adi Da's behavior with controversial and unvalidated claims about Jesus, makes clear to an objective editor the relation between Dawn Horse Press, and Adi Da, and that Dawn Horse Press, so named because Adidam itself associates the term with their group, is a self-publishing arm that provides no independent, critical oversight over Adidam publications or publishes anything other than materials designed to associate favorably with Adi Da. Aparently you have no better sources and so feel the need to deny what is apparent regarding Dawn Horse Press, but that does not alter the fact that Adi Da's works are, in Misplaced Pages terms, self published and subsidized by Adidam itself, and lack meaningful, independent and critical fact checking.--] 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC) ::This explanation, including clarification from Adidam itself as to why they wanted the book out, to associate Adi Da's behavior with controversial and unvalidated claims about Jesus, makes clear to an objective editor the relation between Dawn Horse Press, and Adi Da, and that Dawn Horse Press, so named because Adidam itself associates the term with their group, is a self-publishing arm that provides no independent, critical oversight over Adidam publications or publishes anything other than materials designed to associate favorably with Adi Da. Aparently you have no better sources and so feel the need to deny what is apparent regarding Dawn Horse Press, but that does not alter the fact that Adi Da's works are, in Misplaced Pages terms, self published and subsidized by Adidam itself, and lack meaningful, independent and critical fact checking.--] 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


*User ] made the following copmment (above)''If there are insufficient third-party sources available, the size of this article must be reduced drastically. Lack of such sources is no excuse for reliance on self-published sources to this degree. Which in this case is appalling'' This seems to sum up the view of editors , so on this basis will remove the 3 sections I inserted some time ago , there is no need to keep this request for comment open, further , --] 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:31, 3 October 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adi Da article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Note icon
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Welcome to the Adi Da Samraj Talk page.

Please read Misplaced Pages's Talk Page Guidelines if you haven't already, and add new content at the bottom of this page.

Fresh start

Advice to myself, Dseer and Scribe5 alike: let's try to abide by WP:TALK and all the stuff it says at the top of the page, and keep comments civil and focused on the article rather than the article's general subject. The preceding discussion (see Talk:Adi_Da/Archive4) was becoming almost unreadable to editors new to the page, and if the page needs anything, it's more good editors. Let's make it a welcoming and readable environment for them! Suggest moving long discussions about philosophies of editing, Adi Da himself, etc., to user talk pages. best regards, Jim Butler 01:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Future Collateral Art Exhibit

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball: Misplaced Pages is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis. Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g. movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising.

I am for liberality, but the proposed weight given to sections involving Adi Da's notability as an artist and opinions about his art, and the notability of the future collateral exhibit in Vienna being mentioned in the text as opposed to the mention in the existing cites on Adi Da's art, are subject to discussion. The mere fact that a proposed exhibition has now been scheduled is not sufficient to justify mention of it in the text. Based on what Misplaced Pages states: Would Adi Da merit a lengthy article based on his art alone? Is the Adi Da art exhibit noteworthy enough to merit an article if it occurs? I think not. The mention of the planned exhibit and the curator in the text seem to appear to be more like advertising than notable. Mention of the future exhibit and curator in citations and ELs should be sufficient at least until the exhibition is over and results can be assessed. --Dseer 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 edits and editor 202.63.42.221

Hello and thank you for your work on expanding the article. Some of your additions may be questionable, but like Dseer I agree that it is generally alright to be liberal about this, as long as we are equally liberal about allowing all well-sourced views, which is the essence of NPOV.

There is a concept in Misplaced Pages called "undue weight" that applies here. How notable is Adi Da as an artist outside of Adidam?

I don't think Kripal really belongs in the lead because he isn't as notable as Wilber and your source isn't a secondary one. However if you insist in including quotes besides Wilber, I'd like to include Lane. Or maybe it would be better to remove it all, or just leave Wilber.

The criticisms deserve their own paragraph in the lead with adequate detail. The material is better-sourced than viritually all of the other biographical material in the article, because it actually has secondary sourcing. Please see Misplaced Pages's policy on sources.

There is no reason to delete Adi Da's statements about his avataric function. Noting some of the development of his teachings is entirely appropriate here.

Finally, saying that one of the people who sued has since recanted requires an unbiased verifiable source. If you can't find one, it should go.

thanks. Comesincolors 18:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Comesincolors I have not got a lot of time to discuss the article ,would rather spend my time adding good content, so where possible keep it brief and use the edit bar for notes ( if possible) the discussion page has lead to numerous disputes and ends up just retarding the article, where editors were not really interested in adding useful content but rather engaging in dialogue to keep a POV entrenched , not many editors are interested in the is article and in the past very little outside opinion or help has been offered ( with disputes and so on )-looking at the archives Just to address your points ( once if possible )
  • There is a concept in Misplaced Pages called "undue weight" that applies here. How notable is Adi Da as an artist outside of Adidam?
  • You seem to be just repeating what Dseer said , do your own research perhaps ( is the Venice Biennale outside of Adidam ? - 3 notable curators reviews on the website in links)) It is expected of editors to know their subject

  • I don't think Kripal really belongs in the lead because he isn't as notable as Wilber and your source isn't a secondary one. However if you insist in including quotes besides Wilber, I'd like to include Lane. Or maybe it would be better to remove it all, or just leave Wilber.

  • the lane quote is like saying the subject is an intelligent "nigger" but a "nigger" none the less, a joke really to try and include it , if you think thats valid .... why not use this lane quote instead "There are very few spiritual teachers in the 20th century who could be termed religious geniuses. Da Free John is one of them."
  • The Kripal quote gives balance to the lead and represents a contemporary scholars view, and should be included, the article is about the subject ( Adi Da ) not his critics or their viewpoints ( which are included in the article ) nor is it about the today show or newspaper reports or former students views of Adi Da , no matter where they are sourced
  • There is no reason to delete Adi Da's statements about his avataric function. Noting some of the development of his teachings is entirely appropriate here.
  • why include it ? , you could include any text from countless books , it is not cohesive or instructive and is original research , it does not really represent the teaching of Adi Da or clarify anything ( the teaching section needs to be re written )
Comments: There were multiple, independent lawsuits, settled out of court, and outside of Adidam advocacy sources, even in reference to the one lawsuit involving the divorcing parties, where is the evidence for a "public" apology in public sources? If it is not immediately and satisfactorily sourced, it is libelous, and the claim will be removed. The art exhibit clearly does not meet Misplaced Pages criteria for inclusion of a future event, but most editors can see that so I am merely pointing that out and would prefer other editors remove it. Otherwise, while most of the added material is "according to Adidam" and a discerning reader will see that, I have never had basic objections to concept or the recent expansion of the biography to include more details, because it is consistent with what I said a long time ago, that advocates are primarily responsible for adding more favorable material that meets wikipedia guidelines, and conversely should avoid information suppression on neutral and critical material. Let's be clear, the disputes have revolved around the latter, not the former. --Dseer 02:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lead section and controversies

Editor 202.63.42.221: Please stop removing the criticisms section from the lead. I've explained above why it should stay, and you don't have consensus to remove it. Dseer has already stated his opinion that it should stay, and I agree. Start an RfC if you disagree.

Regarding the Adidam response, Bonder is OK (self-published by Adidam), but O'Mahony is not (self-published by individuals not officially representing Adidam). Also, the responses shouldn't be longer than the criticisms themselves.

You need to use specific arguments, not vague notions like "retarding" the article or the "spirit" of WP. thank you - Comesincolors 20:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi Comesincolors is this your argument for the critical material in the lead ?

The criticisms deserve their own paragraph in the lead with adequate detail. The material is better-sourced than viritually all of the other biographical material in the article, because it actually has secondary sourcing. Please see Misplaced Pages's policy on sources.

What difference does it make how well sourced the material is , if it has an over-weighted negative impact on the whole article? And in truth the refs are good by WP standards but the articles themselves are appalling , nothing more than sensation seeking scandal mongering ( and at the time riding on 1980's anti guru and new religion hysteria ) , the today show report is a terrible example of biased reporting , absurdly so Why would anyone want to promote this tabloid style reports as fact? Why would they not see them for what they obviously are in 2007- an embarrassment to ethical journalistic standards.

Now of course you can argue that by WP guidelines , this does not matter one jot , let the readers decide , the lead guidelines ( and guidelines alone they are - many good bios do not use this style guide at all) say that the lead may have mention of these critical reports , the problem is by deliberately and purposely putting this text in the lead it prejudices the whole article which is just fine for those with this agenda in mind ( which is and was ) clearly the case for those who support this lead and contrived this lead in the first place Again it could be argued that the fairness or unfairness of this does not matter either , WP is not a place to decide such matters , it does not matter that cynical editors conspire to weight an article like a dishonest shopkeeper with his hidden hand on the scales . It does however require people to be quiet about such things therefore I will be bold and call for this

Lead style

This page is considered a style guideline on Misplaced Pages. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

So I say in this case make the exception , the article is all the better for it , it can move out of the 1985 hiatus into a more current and topical article , this again will not suit editors will another agenda but who cares really , get on board with useful material or edit another article and stop retarding this one to 1980's thinking , thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 23:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC) --202.63.42.221 00:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree that any such exception is warranted here, and your arguments aren't supported by WP policy. You might as well argue that including impeachment in the article on Bill Clinton is "retarding" it to 1992 1998 (how time flies) and giving an "over-weighted negative impact". Just because something happened years ago doesn't make it irrelevant, even if you disagree with whatever transpired and how the media covered it. It remains part of the historical record, and WP is not selective in that regard. Anyway, I notice that your last few edits are now leaving the material in the lead section intact, so thanks and I hope you continue to do so. Comesincolors 19:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
yes your argument about Bill Clinton would be laudable if the lead was unfairly weighted in this same way but take a look it is not. Neutral language is very important. Anyway have suggested a neutral compromise which I am not happy with particularly , but will settle for reasonable rather than perfect, and expect the same from yourself.
--202.63.42.221 20:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply to editor 202.63.42.221; re below RfC

Sorry, I still don't agree. I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article (i.e., the stable one with the separate paragraph in the lead on the controversies) and a totally unacceptable one. I will not go along with your efforts to strip out the few secondary sources that article has left (whether in the lead or the article body). Therefore, reverted. No personal offense meant, but I think the article is in much worse shape since you've been editing it: First, you've bloated it with material that relies far to heavily on Adidam-self-published material. See WP:SELFPUB, which says: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: .... the article is not based primarily on such sources." The present version of the article has 78 footnotes, approximately 75% of which are self-published by Adidam (or are convenience links to same). Second, you're now trying to minimize or delete material that is critical of Adidam (e.g., the lead section, and your edits to the controversies/criticisms, which give too much weight to Adidam's responses and thus violate NPOV's fairness of tone. And finally, you desperately need a copy editor to correct the numerous typographical and grammatical errors in your writing. As a result, the article is basically a mess, and needs input from more editors. I'm filing an article RfC. If other editors agree with my assessment, please act accordingly. thanks. Comesincolors 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I still don't agree. I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article (i.e., the stable one with the separate paragraph in the lead on the controversies) and a totally unacceptable one.
ok sorry to hear that , since you will not compromise ,and that was an attempt at compromise ,in that you would perhaps come back with a fairer version (from your view ) and we could argue it out down to the line , one we may agree to disagree on ( here giving you an in good faith option ) you could have at least made a move to meet me in the middle which is what WP is supposed to be about, while you clearly have not attempted to do. Also what you said above is pretty much how I feel about your version of the lead. "I feel you are asking me to compromise between a barely acceptable version of the article ..and a totally unacceptable one"
I am happy to argue further about the lead, before moving on to other parts of the the article, for the time being will revert it back to a more neutral position ,and if you wish we can argue it line by line —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talkcontribs) 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be more inclined to compromise if you provided arguments based in WP policy rather than just asserting that "more neutral" means something midway between our positions. I'm arguing that NPOV and VER support the inclusion of the wording and sources in the lead. You're ignoring those points. Compromise is supposed to be based on policy, not personal preference. Comesincolors 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to read this because this is exactly what is going on here , from your team , in my opinion , and will continue to point this out at every opportunity
Quote It may all be true and it may all be sourced, but if a biography of a living person is a negatively-balanced coatrack, this is unacceptable.
You can endlessly try and argue WP to your own biased advantage , lots of people do it, and you generally get a poor article from doing this, I would prefer to have an honest approach based on a compromise representing conflicting points of view in a reasonable manner, no one is going to be completely happy about this , but it could be worked out with a degree of fairness. --202.63.42.221 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Thanks for the link to WP:COATRACK. (And I don't have a "team", but thanks for the link, it's an interesting essay.) I think that the article should be able to cover the controversial material adequately without becoming a "negative coatrack".

Adi Da is controversial because of the 1985-era media coverage, like it or not, and that deserves its own detailed section. (See Larry Craig and O.J. Simpson, who have done tons of other notable stuff but still get plenty of coverage alloted to the controversial material.) Likewise, some material based mostly on self-published sources, like the "artist" section which isn't relevant to Adi Da's notability, probably should be pruned.

Compromise must be based on reasonable interpretations of WP policy (as vetted by the WP community), not just on individual preference. It is not reasonable to say that the Dawn Horse Press and Adidam.org are exceptions to WP:SELFPUB for religious reasons, or whatever. If your arguments lack support in WP policy compared to other editors', then you may well end up being less satisfied, and that's just life. You can always create a different site to suit your preferences, or just direct people to Adidam.org for "APOV" (Avataric POV). Comesincolors 02:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment: Too much reliance on self-published refs?

Template:RFCreli

Does this article need a rewrite, trimming some of the self-published material and giving greater weight to better-sourced material (per WP:SELFPUB)? The article's subject, Adi Da, is relatively obscure, so it's inevitable that some self-published material will be used. However, one editor (User:202.63.42.221) has been heavily weighting the article toward self-published material (which is hagiographic, not at all neutral) and attempting to prune secondary-sourced material that happens to cover controversies and criticism. Only two or three editors watch this page, so input is needed. thanks! Comesincolors 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The so called self published material are well researched hard copy ( books) available in libraries, they include official biographies There are no hard copy books (specifically) on Adi Da other than these , other spiritual teachers such as Sri Ramakrishna and Meher Baba articles ( both religious figures ) rely on so called self published hard copy material. --202.63.42.221 06:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact you you can't (or won't) acknowledge that publications by Adidam.org, the Dawn Horse Press, etc., are obviously "self-published" by WP standards is exactly why we've needed an RfC. If we can't agree on the basics of WP policy, we're obviously not going to get anywhere. -Comesincolors 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah you missed my point perhaps , most religious figures and organizations stemming from them, use in-house publishing for many reasons , which is where the material of their biographies comes from , some examples are Meher Baba - Sheriarbooks.org , Yogananda - Self Realization Fellowship, Ramakrishna/ Vivekananda- Vedanta Press , so Dawn Horse Press is not unique in this regard . These are official biographies and autobiographies and to different degrees hagiographies - since to different degrees God or the Divine is claimed to be realized by these people. You may as well argue that the material in the case of all these religious figures is not reliable for this reason.
--202.63.42.221 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Those are OK as sources to some degree, but WP:SELFPUB is very clear that they are OK only as long as "the article is not based primarily on such sources". Whether such bios are "official" or not makes no difference; they are self-published and therefore treated as such under WP policy. There is no WP exception for religious figures. In all cases, secondary sources are better, and should be the main thing the article is based on. Comesincolors 20:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be suggesting the primary text and refs should be from Newspaper reports, Court docs and the Today show is this correct ? Perhaps with a little bit of fill from self published sources ,a mention here and there about a book or two , just to even it out a bit, or am I missing something  ?--202.63.42.221 21:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying the article should mainly be about the controversies and criticisms. There are secondary sources (e.g. Feuerstein) covering other matters, and those can be used too. But WP:SOURCES is clear enough, isn't it? Use secondary over primary (self-pub) sources wherever possible, and don't base the article mainly on the latter. Comesincolors 23:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If there are insufficient third-party sources available, the size of this article must be reduced drastically. Lack of such sources is no excuse for reliance on self-published sources to this degree. Which in this case is appalling. Quatloo 01:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

There should definitely be a balance between 'internal' self-published sources and external sources - I note that a large majority of the sources are from Carolyn Lee, The Promised God-Man is Here - which appears to be a self-published work. (Dawn Horse Press is owned by the organization. The second most prevalent, "The Divine Emergence of the World Teacher" by S. Bonder is also published by the publishing house. The rest of the sources appear to be organizational websites, such as adidam.org. So it is evident that there is a huge disparity between the abundant self-published references and the nearly absent externally-published sources. Sfacets 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Current article is (obviously) primarily based on self-published sources, coming from an obscure and isolated leader and his group, that are self serving and lack independent fact checking. Secondary sources (where they exist) must not be diluted by excessive reliance instead on self-published material which is self serving.--Dseer 04:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
coming from an obscure and isolated leader and his group This comment seems very strongly negative POV to me , not neutral at all, it has a clear bias in it , a certain overly dismissive disdain, one would hope the editor does not edit from this position. I think the person who wrote it should remove or reword this comment (viz no personal attacks) since we are all keeping the the letter of the WP law lets get it right! thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to get it right, editor 202.63.42.221, learn the difference between WP talk pages and article pages. As for WP:NPA, that means "comment on content, not the contributor", which is exactly what Dseer was doing. Comesincolors 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Simply reading the secondary source and reference article which meets journalistic standards and is not self-published and self serving, , shows that "an obscure and isolated leader and his group" is a sourced, reasonable and balanced potrayal. The article itself says, for example: "Prior to September, few area residents had heard of the religion known as Adidam or its leader, Adi Da...Claiming some 1,800 members worldwide today, the devotees and students (as they prefer to be called) of Adi Da...Today, followers of Adi Da are extremely protective of their "teacher," as they refer to him, refusing a reporter's request to interview or meet the man. And devotee Calladine went further, asking that a reporter not even drive by the Stagecoach Road house. Followers are also restricted access to the religious leader, and are required to be a part of the group for a period of weeks before meeting Adi Da." And there are other sources from outside the group presenting a similar picture. Excessive reliance on self-published and self-serving sources where it is established that independent fact checking is precluded as a matter of group policy is exactly why Misplaced Pages should not base the article primarily on these suspect sources. Adherents to the group who wish to edit this article should recognize their responsibilities to properly weigh other than just self-published sources, and are expected to put Misplaced Pages standards first. --Dseer 23:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree, and as you pointed out earlier on this talk page, even the North Coast Journal has limited fact-checking ability compared to something like the San Francisco Chronicle. Comesincolors 18:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
That indeed is the crux of the issue, that information provided by Adidam and Adidam influenced sources is self-serving and is not subject to, and in fact is precluded from, reasonable fact checking, directly as a result of the documented policies and practices of Adidam itself, policies and practices independent reports show as intensifying from the earliest period of the group in 1972. The logic implying that the nature and reliablity of self-published Adidam sources is comparable to that of more recognized and (for their time) publically accessible spiritual figures is based on a falacious assumption that the situations are comparable, when there are many unique factors regarding the policies and practices of Adidam and its isolated leader that make the accuracy unusually suspect. Therefore, there is even more reason the article should not give undue weight to such sources over more independent sources, and most of the current article should be caveated as "according to Adidam".
There are scholarly accounts by participants from the periods of 1972 (Trunk) and 1974 (Lowe) showing how the group leader isolated himself from neutral observation and how unquestioning acceptance of changing dogmas and increasingly exceptional claims about the leader was made a requirement and used to weed out membership and reduce the outflow of less favorable information. In Lowe's case, for example, failure of a number of less important members actually working outside to accept that a fairly normal "halo" seen around the sun associated with a summer storm during a period of indulgences by more important members was a spectacular "miracle" resulted in their being excluded from the group. And, despite public claims that the inner circle sexual experimentations (such as the one later described in a published book by Georg Fuerstein on his disillusionment with Adi Da, where a devotee's wife was intoxicated and pressured into less than pleasant sex with the guru in the 1980s) ceased in 1976 after a period of extended partying and indulgences and the expulsion of long time senior member Salvatore Lucania on charges he said later in an interview were fabricated, Adidam later publically admitted in 1985 that such sexual experimentation had continued until "recently", (that is around the same time a number disillusioned members with knowledge of the events began to make waves), and that this was hidden from much of the membership because they were not quote, "advanced enough spiritually", unquote. And, various Adidam devotees have admitted that over 90% of those with some formal involvement at one time or another are no longer formally involved, that a number of members left as a result of the disclosures, and that most of the current formal membership (much of the growth being outside of the US) was not present during the critical periods in question and has no independent knowledge of both sides of the controversy. Not to mention that a comparison of the earliest materials from the group in the early 1970s with the latest materials, where the leader now claims an exclusive spiritual status unprecedented in cosmic history, shows significant patterns of contradiction and revisionism. In summary the Adidam sources and material are suspect, because of a combination of the extreme, unprecendented cosmic status claims of the leader and his group; the necessity to accept uncritically examined dogma, contradictions and revisionism on faith for even limited access to the leader, precluding independent fact checking; the promulgation, acceptance and demonstrated application of the idea that critical and significant information can be hidden from all those not "advanced enough spiritually" (including independent sources), which also precludes assumptions of relative reliability and independent fact checking; and the obvious inferrence that the very high membership attrition and dissilusionment rate shows that the self-published Adidam material and assertions of adherents actually represents only a small minority of opinion (which others now believe as fact) among those who have been involved over time, and is not even that of a majority view of even the participants. This is why there is absolutely no justification for the claims that Adidam material should be given the requested exceptional consideration over secondary sources just because they tend to be more critical, which, as independent sources show, actually represents the majority and more neutral view regarding Adi Da and Adidam. --Dseer 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:BLP sounds like "soapboxing" propaganda to me, and there may be a degree of malicious intent in this ( or to assume good faith--perhaps just ignorance ), there as well, which is sad to see.Be very careful in pigeonholing people and attacking minority religions, because WP is quite influential these days it can do actual harm to minority religious groups(.. that is real people..not caricatures )Even if your view is completely secular, I can see no justification for disparaging peoples religion and presuming a superior position on your part. So I suggest you remove the above - thank you --202.63.42.221 21:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
User 202.63.42.221, this is not an article about "minority religious groups" in general, or the peripheral issues you attempt to raise, it is specifically about Adi Da and Adidam, and the article must be encyclopedic, not apologetic, regarding religious as well as factual claims. There are specific, documented controversies regarding Adi Da and Adidam and issues with Adidam sources that have nothing to do with other minority religious groups. Please confine your discussions to the article's subject and try to follow Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, including the evaluation of sources for statements within the article. It is clear to any objective observer, for example, that the newspaper and scholarly articles and other secondary sources are far superior as sources to self-published material lacking meaningful fact checking or independent assessment based on the very policies and practices of that group as documented in numerous secondary sources. The article must be not be based primarily on such sources and those sources must not be given excessive weight vis a vis secondary sources. As for editors "disparaging peoples religion and presuming a superior position on your part", not true. However, Adi Da and Adidam specifically and repeatedly claims that no one else has ever attained his level of realization and that he specifically criticizes not only mainstream religions, but every other religion, and for example he specifically criticizes Jesus, Buddha, and Ramana Maharshi, as being of a lower stage than himself. I doubt all these other "minority religious groups" you want to irrelevantly drag into this discussion would not find this position by this particular leader and organization you advocate "disparaging and assuming a superior position". --Dseer 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
On The Dawn Horse Press, you realize this is a respected business ?, by implying no fact checking you are actually disparaging a business in a public place , they actually carry a small range of very high quality books ( for discerning spiritual readers ) apart from the huge range of Adi Da's books —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.63.42.221 (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As you well know, Dawn Horse Press is a business created by Adi Da and Adidam for the purpose of promulgating Adi Da's publications, not fact checking the leader's assertions, even if they conflict with previous ones. What little other publications they have published conform to this primary purpose, and do not in any way support any critical view of Adi Da. Since some of those who may comment here may be unfamiliar with this issue, I will once again refer to a classic example, the publication of "Secret Mark", which superficially might seem independent of the primary purpose of promoting Adi Da's writings.
However, the following, from among other links , illustrates the relationship between Adi Da and what Dawn Horse Press publishes you assert does not exist:
Secret Mark and Da Avabhasa's Initiation to Ecstasy
Perhaps the strangest chapter in Secret Mark's long history was its appropriation by the Free Daist Communion, a California-based Eastern religious group led by American-born guru Da Avabhasa (formerly known as Franklin Jones, Da Free John, and Da Kalki). In 1982, The Dawn Horse Press, the voice of this interesting sect, re-published Smith's Harper and Row volume, with a new forword by Elaine Pagels and an added postscript by Smith himself.
In 1991 I made contact with this publisher in order to ascertain why they were interested in Secret Mark. I was answered by Saniel Bonder, Da Avabhasa's official biographer and a main spokesman for the Commununion:
PHeart-Master Da Avabhasa is Himself a great Spiritual "Transmitter" or "Baptizer" of the highest type. And this is the key to understanding both His interest in, and The Dawn Horse Press's publication of, Smith's Secret Gospel. What Smith discovered, in the fragment of the letter by Clement of Alexandria, is--to Heart-Master Da--an apparent ancient confirmation that Jesus too was a Spirit-Baptizer who initiated disciples into the authentic Spiritual and Yogic process, by night and in circumstances of sacred privacy. This is the single reason why Heart-Master Da was so interested in the story. As it happened, Morton Smith's contract with a previous publisher had expired, and so he was happy to arrange for us to publish the book. Because of the general compatibility of Smith's interpretation of the historical Jesus and the practices of the Da Free John community, the group's leader was inclined to promulgate Smith's theory. It is difficult to judge the precise degree of ritual identity which exists between Master Da and Jesus the magician. Some identity, however, is explicit, as revealed in Bonder's official biography of Master Da:
Over the course of Heart-Master Da's Teaching years, His devotees explored all manner of emotional-sexual possibilities, including celibacy, promiscuity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, monogamy, polygamy, polyandy, and many different kinds of living arrangements between intimate partners and among groups of devotees in our various communities. The parallel between the Daist community during this time and the libertine Christian rituals described by Smith is made stronger by the spiritual leader's intimate involvement with this thorough exploration of the group's erogeny. "Heart-Master Da never withheld Himself from participation in the play of our experiments with us . . ." Georg Feuerstein has published an interview with an anonymous devotee of Master Da who describes a party during which the Master borrowed his wife in order to free him of egotistical jealousy. Like the Carpocratians of eighteen-hundred years ago, and the Corinthian Christians of a century earlier still, the devotees of the Daist Communion sought to come to terms with and conquer their sexual obstacles to ultimate liberation not by merely denying the natural urges, but by immersing themselves in them.
For many years Da Avabhasa himself was surrounded by an "innermost circle" of nine female devotees, which was dismantled in 1986 after the Community and the Master himself had been through trying experiences. In 1988 Da Avabhasa formally declared four of these original nine longtime female devotees his "Kanyas," the significance of which is described well by Saniel Bonder:
Kanyadana is an ancient traditional practice in India, wherein a chaste young woman...is given...to a Sat-Guru either in formal marriage, or as a consort, or simply as a serving initimate. Each kanya thus becomes devoted...in a manner that in unique among all His devotees. She serves the Sat-Guru Personally at all times and, in that unique context, at all times is the recipient of His very Personal Instructions, Blessings, and Regard. As a kanyadana "kumari", a young woman is necessarily "pure"--that is, chaste and self-transcending in her practice, but also Spiritually Awakened by her Guru, whether she is celibate or Yogically sexually active.
The formation of the Da Avabhasa Gurukala Kanyadana Kumari Order should be seen against the background of sexual experimentation and confrontation through which the Master's community had passed in the decade before, and in light of the sexuality-affirming stance of the Daist Communion in general. The Secret Gospel presented a picture of Jesus as an initiator into ecstasy and a libertine bearing more than a little resemblance to the radical and challenging lessons of Master Da Avabhasa, in place long before 1982 when The Dawn Horse Press re-issued the book."
This explanation, including clarification from Adidam itself as to why they wanted the book out, to associate Adi Da's behavior with controversial and unvalidated claims about Jesus, makes clear to an objective editor the relation between Dawn Horse Press, and Adi Da, and that Dawn Horse Press, so named because Adidam itself associates the term with their group, is a self-publishing arm that provides no independent, critical oversight over Adidam publications or publishes anything other than materials designed to associate favorably with Adi Da. Aparently you have no better sources and so feel the need to deny what is apparent regarding Dawn Horse Press, but that does not alter the fact that Adi Da's works are, in Misplaced Pages terms, self published and subsidized by Adidam itself, and lack meaningful, independent and critical fact checking.--Dseer 00:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


  • User Quatloo made the following copmment (above)If there are insufficient third-party sources available, the size of this article must be reduced drastically. Lack of such sources is no excuse for reliance on self-published sources to this degree. Which in this case is appalling This seems to sum up the view of editors , so on this basis will remove the 3 sections I inserted some time ago , there is no need to keep this request for comment open, further , --202.63.42.221 03:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Categories: