Talk:Adi Da/Archive 2

message: :Hi Scribe; of course Lightmind is biased, but isn't Adidam.org, which is also a self-published site?  The issue is whether the source is verifiable for the POV for which it is cited, and NPOV requires treatment of all important POV's.  Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:
::Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.  ... Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources about themselves in articles about them. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources.
:and the Reliability guidelines add,
::At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Rare exceptions may be when a well-known professional person or acknowledged expert in a relevant field has set up a personal website using his or her real name. Even then, we should proceed with caution, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
:I think it's pretty clear that by these standards both Adidam.org and Lightmind.com are verifiable sources for the sympathetic and critical POV's respectively.  (Elias, BTW, is not anonymous; that name is a pseudonym for his real name, Tom Veitch, which he has made public and I can document that.) For the critical POV, Conrad Goehausen's blog is also acceptable since he is a prominent critic (and previously was a prominent advocate in various media).  Of course all of these are biased, but not in ways that impact their credibility for the POV for which they are cited.  The key is that we must cite them only as primary sources for pro- or anti-Da opinions, as opposed to factual data about Adi Da that is in dispute.  The lawsuit stuff isn't in dispute, and all Lightmind is doing is duplicating it online, so it's fine for that.  I think it's fine for anything that has been published elsewhere, e.g. in print media.  For novel assertions other than statements of critical opinion, Lightmind should not be cited, and conversely for Adidam.org.
:I also realize the first entry above could be read as allowing Adidam.org in an article about itself, but not Lightmind.com since the article isn't about Lightmind.com.  But there is no reason to create an article about Lightmind.com except in reference to Adidam.  Thus, we need to reconcile the principles above with keeping Da-discussion within a single article if at all possible:
::A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Point of Views on a certain subject are treated in one article.
:Finally, why would you remove the stuff about the number of current and ex-devotees?  Shouldn't the reader be given some idea of the relative size of this group?
:And:  with regard to tone, I meant to mention that the NPOV principle of fairness and sympathetic tone applies to each POV, and not just the pro-Da or anti-Da views:
::If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization — for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.
::We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. Let's present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
:Therefore, the Response section should stick to facts and avoid insinuating either that he's a Divine Avatar or a cult leader with NPD.  Maybe an "Adidam" section should be split off from "Response"; that way views of pro and anti could be summarized, and then a brief counter-argument put in at the bottom of each.  The Teaching section is also too wordy and fawning and needs to be pruned.
:OK, that's my take for now; I will make some edits to the article later with these issues in mind.  Thanks, -Jim Butler 08:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal sites/blogs as primary sources 

message: Hi Jim just on the Mccready edit ( yes happy to discuss this with Mccready to )
This is the version he chose 
"Adi Da Samraj (born Franklin Albert Jones, November 3, 1939 in Jamaica, New York) is a controversial spiritual teacher and religious guru and the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam. He is a former Scientologist. Adi Da has used names such as Bubba Free John, Da Free John, and Da Love-Ananda,[1] to correspond with changes in his work as a spiritual teacher (see the section on name changes below). He has twice settled out of court on charges including fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery."
If people want a very mediocre Article with a lead as above ,reducing a Great Mans Life (opinion ) to the summary of 1 / being a former Scientologist and 2 / the assumption of guilt by litigation (only) then that is what you may get. Now that is not my wish or intention, whether it is the wish and intention of others ( after first giving them a good faith presumption ) will most likely be demonstrated ( not at all suggesting that is your will or intention ) --Scribe5 09:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Scribe5 -- How do your concerns square with WP:LEAD?  The lead section should concisely summarize the most important points.  The second part you bolded above is a concise description of the controversy, not an implication of guilt, and without question relevant.  The first part ties into his being both a guru and a controversial one, though the Mukti thing should also be added.  If you want more on the devotional POV maybe a sentence like:  "He is worshipped as the Incarnate Divine by approximately 1000 followers worldwide"?  (Or 2000; I don't know if Adidam releases official stats). -Jim Butler 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section 

message: Hi Jim , while I think of it ( will address your concerns  above shortly, although I did think  it was already clear enough) whoever created the quotes section  appears to have merely created it so the 2/3 contentious linked quotes can be accessed there , or perhaps they just took advantage of a messy situation , my understanding was quotes from Adi Da were to be here , since that is what people would be looking for not quotes about Adi Da , all the other spiritual teachers I have looked at only have quotes from the person the article is about. The other point is the “read full text link “ on particularly the negative quotes is not necessary , surely a small amount of  “nastiness” which is bordering on hate speech  is enough to get the point across. Example from Jim . C  
He grows up to become a brilliant, megalomaniacal, secretive, controlling, authoritarian, messianic guru who abuses himself and others, is closed to feedback and criticism, and whose occupation in life is to awaken others to the reality of everpresent Happiness. And who isolates himself from the general public and has no toleration for what he calls “the usual man or woman.” ... Despite his background as a psychologically wounded child, Da has never shown any signs of low self-esteem, or any lack of self-confidence and self-assurance. Criticism does not lead him to reconsider his position or reevaluate his behaviors. I seriously doubt if the word “sorry” has ever passed his lips, unless he had occasion to utter it in a sarcastic manner
Jim seriously, do you think this sort of shite is ok ?? And further his spelling is worse than mine !
:Wikiquote is for quotes about people as well as by them.  NPOV allows multiple views as long as important ones are fairly covered.  A lot of what Da says would offend some people, but guidelines don't requires its removal.  Why don't we discuss Wikiquote on its talk page, and stay on topic here?  (BTW I count nine positive quotes, six critical ones and a couple mixed ones from Wilber.)  -Jim Butler 18:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV does not apply for Wikiquote. Wikipedia and Wikiquote have different policies. I do think that quotes by Adi Da should be added. Andries 21:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Andries!  Always appreciate your help.  Wikiquote does require verifiability, though, and I've been working on that.  Any idea how to tag a quote there as needing a reference?   isn't working apparently because there is no such template (yet) on Wikiquote. -Jim Butler 22:07, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes Horrible !  

message: :Hi Scribe, the idea that Adi Da is himself a classical Narcissist (aka has NPD) is commonly expressed among critics.
:*First, please read Wikipedia:NPOV sections 7 and 8, re presentation of competing views, for why criticism of Adi Da belongs in the article as a prominent POV.  Followers characterize him as an Divine Incarnation.  Critics characterize him as a narcissist.  Both are verifiable, cf.:
:*Second, Lightmind and personal sites and blogs of ex-followers are reliable primary sources for the critical POV's of ex-followers, as I showed above.  For references critics holding this view, see Mark Miller , Conrad Goehausen   and Tom Veitch aka Elias .
:*Third, verifiable secondary sources have corroborated that critics say Adi Da is a narcissist, e.g. San Francisco Examiner 1985 .
:thanks, Jim Butler 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable sources for criticism of Da as Narcissist

message: Adi Da Samraj himself states that everyone, including Franklin A. Jones Jr., is a narcissist.  Moreover, narcissism is an inevitable human shortcoming.
Furthermore, "Narcissistic Personality Disorder" is a technical term borrowed from psychiatry, whose use you and the various bloggers you cite are hoping will increase the credibility of your criticism, simply because it has a professional ring to it. But in fact, the only people you can cite that actually are in a position to rightly use that term are professional psychiatrists. None of your bloggers is a professional psychiatrist, so your citations do not justify the use of that professional term.
As for the Scientology bit, this is not mentioned in either his own autobiography or in Carolyn Lee's biography, both of which mention a wide variety of other spiritual quests and disciplines.  Also, his spiritual practice shows many visible reflections of the Buddhist, Hindu, and Roman Catholic traditions without any visible reflections of Scientology aside from generic stuff common to a wide variety of "New Age" practices.
:Hi, please sign your posts to help others follow the discussion here.
:Narcissus = ego in Adidam terminology.  Adi Da teaches that he alone has transcended it.  His critics disagree, and they say he's not just any old garden-variety narcissist either, but a pathological one.  Those who say he has NPD are expressing an opinion, not rendering a diagnosis.  Saying Da has NPD is one POV; saying he's the most enlightened adept ever to appear in the manifest cosmos is another.  (Which is the more extreme claim?)  Anyway, both are cited as important POV's, and hence belong in the article.
:Check the original Knee of Listening for Scientology.  He says he spent about a year there, 1968-1969.  It's also in the revised edition by Bubba Free John, 1978, pp 83-85.  It's omitted from the Da Avabhasa version, 1992.  Comparing the relevant passages from both is interesting.  I can post scans later, if you like.  Also, see Beezone's excerpts from Water and Narcissus, which probably isn't verifiable and thus not citable in the article, but nonetheless interesting (and accurate; photocopies circulated in the community and I had one). As for Scientology's lasting influence on him, that's a matter of perspective.  Some critics would say he probably learned plenty there about running a cult.
--
I'm amazed that there are still questions regarding Scientology and Da. Today's public stance from Adidam is to ignore that he was deeply involved in Scientology. He and his then wife Nina both worked for the Scientology organization for a year. They met early devotees Patricia Morley (his mistress), and the Lucanias in Scientology. There is no attempt to smear Da by mere Scientology involvement, though, as some here claim. The important issue is what appears to be the attempt to hide his involvement and doing so in part to preclude discussion of why he joined Scientology and how he might have been influenced. I would like to counter the claims that Da was not involved (false); not deeply involved and not trying to be a teacher in Scientology (false); did not totally abandon the meditations recommended by Muktananda (false); was merely 'waiting' as he claims in newer versions of the Knee of Listening (false); and was not influenced by Scientology (this is a debatable assumption). The first four of these claims are refuted by the early Adidam references. The fifth assertion is direclty challenged by an ex-Scientologist that knew him personally in this link. Early sources disclose Da took the OT level training, which this source describes as it was back then. At that time, there was a lot of emphasis on mental exercises intended to develop what Da later called siddhis. This former Scientologist has no doubt Da was influenced by Scientology in the manner he set up his own religion, Adidam. As he says in the text:
----
Concerning Franklin Jones, aka The Da Avatar
I wasn't asked this question, but I'll answer it anyway, because
refugees from Franklin's group seem to be showing up on ARS.
It is indeed true that Franklin was a Scientology OT who launched
his own religion in immitation of Ron.  Unlike the ususal
freezone group, he copied the religion instead of the tech.
I believe that he is currently wealthy, worshipped, and living
in Tahiti.
In 1968, Franklin, his wife Nina Jones, and his mistress Pat
Morley (his two high priestesses) were all on New York Org staff.
Then he went to the Advanced Org in Los Angeles and did his OT
levels.  It was later claimed that he helped Sal Lucania (the
Mafia plant) fake his way through OT 3, but this might just have
been dead agenting.  The bunch of them were all declared suppressive
in 1969.  He neatly sidesteps all of this in his biography
"The Knee of Listening" and talks about his cognitions on the
OT levels while saying that he was doing nothing, no meditations
or anything, and having wonderful ideas just coming to him out
of the blue.
He was very charismatic, almost glowing with an inner light.
An interesting and enjoyable character.  Its too bad that he
wanted worshippers instead of friends.
----
Entry above by ~mds on 7 April 2006
:I respect that different opinions exist.  I also respect Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and verifiability, which provide guidance on how to include them. -Jim Butler 21:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just changed NPD to "pathological narcissism" which is a less technical term.  Same idea though, cf references provided in section above.  -Jim Butler 22:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Da as Narcissist & Scientologist

message: Scribe5's recent edits/deletions are plainly POV.  He's labelling POV's as "propaganda" and engaging in ad hominem attacks.  I'm reverting, and assuming that we'll end up calling in mediation unless Scribe5 is able to understand and address the points I've made repeatedly about NPOV and primary sources.
I agree that Scientology isn't important enough in Da's life to be mentioned in the lead, but it does deserve mention in the article.  Fixed that.
The article would benefit from some stuff about "teaching periods" and significant events in Adidam, e.g. the move to Persimmon, Garbage and the Goddess, Divine Ignorance, move to Fiji, etc.  I've got source material for all that (old books, magazines) and can stick it in later. -Jim Butler 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting, Scientology and lead, stuff still needed 

message: I'm a Christian, but I was interested in this Adi Da or whatever it's called. Do you think this article should be renamed "Da Free John"? I have a book that credits him as that and all these names (Bubba, Adi, etc.) are a bit confusing. Janet6 22:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Janet, agree it's confusing but no need for change.  If you type in "Da Free John" it redirects to "Adi Da".  t should stay "Adi Da" because that's his current name. -Jim Butler 23:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Da Free John" vs. Adi Da 

message: Hi jim , via wikipedia standard I think it is very clear that the critical section should be very small, by the same argument you have already used
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." 
The reference texts  are books ( at least 70 ) jim many highly acclaimed and reviewed by scholars , one sensationalised newspaper account from the 1980's actually puts perspective on the hugely dipropionate influence the critics have been given by your editing style on this article which I and others have complained loudly about , now other critics coming in to bolster your flagging arguments ( not saying they have anything to do with you Jim , they come by there own steam ) who supply more of the same " opinion presented as fact " and clearly original work ( via WP definition when unverifiable original work is  against policy and should not be included   )only increase the strength of my argument. I said before the constant push by the critics for the cheap shot ( scientology, cult, sex, pathology ) continues to be  their achillis heel because they cling to these obvious low quality smears harder than " a limpet on the side of a fish tank when someone is trying to clean it up " just increases their appearance of extremist and minority view  Put this before any fair minded editor who knows wiki quality articles and has worked on them and I believe they must ultimately concede that by wikipedia best practice your edits must be severely pruned ( and I mean severely ) 
The critical voice is very vocal via the low standards of "opinion presented as fact" websites where no fact checking goes on and any one can allege anything at any time about anyone with no chance of rebuttal by the people involved. By the same token the low quality blogs and web links you continue to push reflect just that, the minority value of the negative view( per WP guidelines )do you really think the opinion expressed in the 2 blogs ( as it is a sort of rant style and the other embellished personal opinion without fact checking ) could get into descent hard cover, or where are the reputable scholars citing lightmind.com ? Does the website owner have his real name listed on the website ? If not it is anonymous, it does not matter that you know his name it should be clearly stated on his website , then there is all the anonymous material and (perhaps) copyright violations on that domain . Which I would however allow ( at this point )as one link only in the critical external links section. 
So just to recap Jim 
1/  No hyperlinks in actual body of article they should be clickable citations that take the browser to the link list ( of citations) this will take some time and effort to do , so in the mean time a little bit of flexibility here
2/ Very modest and non sensational critical section , to the point and in line with my argument above for its brevity and no links to extreme views including the 2 blogs mentioned and lightmind.com must be in external links only , the newspaper article will be the one I have provided 
3/Expansion of  Adi Da’s life to cover major events , and other interests  such as art and photography , this should be primarily Adidam orthodoxy , since this is the official version of Adi Da’s life until present time , in line with most other articles about living people
--
One of the problems I see with some critics is an inflated sense of their own importance, wherein they make bellicose claims about being scholars and scholarly websites where as in fact they operate in a very closed environment not exposed to the actual critique of there own objectivity which they espouse voluminously in there opinionated slams of Adi Da and Adidam often with a ridiculously superior tone, a sort of " Toad Hall " strut with a  puffed out chest : "Oh look at the egoism of this  Adi Da" . The message is clear turn your own espoused objectivity back on your selves, get out into the sunlight of clear thinking and actual objectivity and then you will stop creating a sort of " stinkiness " that pervaded some parts of the internet. If you want respect as critics then earn it by respectable means.
--
:There is a natural, fair, and NPOV resolution, Scribe5, one I continue to propose. Adi Da and Adidam is controversial, period. All should accept that this article is on is a controversial topic, because (1) religious advocacy and belief are involved, (2) because because the subject of this article does not live an open, independently documented life accessible to those who have not expressed favor towards Adi Da, (3) because self published material by a religious advocacy group is still self published, however professionally packaged, (4) there are documented inconsistencies even within the materials whose origin is Adidam, and (5) the issue of whether the accounts of ex-members are reliable in these types of cases is a matter of dispute but what studies have been done find no hard evidence supporting the unreliability you imply. In these circumstances, the recommended wiki solution for a controversial topic is: "If you contribute to a controversial article then it can be handy to separate the non-controversial contributions from the controversial ones." That is what I am proposing. So, fundamentally, the article should be structured so that stipulated facts and assertions are identified in the beginning. Then the areas where there is controversy should be explored in depth, but in separate sections, advocacy and criticism. That not only simplifies the article's structure for the neutral reader, but allows the pro and con regarding Adi Da to work on improving their own section rather than trying to over edit the other side. So, Scribe5, you could make whatever claims you want about Adi Da in your section, and offer a rebutal whatever critics say that is suitable for mention here; but fairness and NPOV dictates that critics deserve an equal opportunity to rebut controversial statements and a reasonable number of critical information links, not some tiny critical section put in like an afterthought. A strong case isn't weakened by allowing adequate space for an unsound attempt at rebuttal to retain the NPOV. As a critic, I'm not interested in telling you how to advocate for Adi Da or suppressing your ability to make your case, I'm only interested in making sure alternative perspectives from other sources are also offered in every case so we have an NPOV here, then let the reader do the research and decide. I hope you among others take this as the good faith offer that it is, in which case we can all get on with the work at hand. Dseer 04:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it is not only possible but best for all concerned, especially the reader, who probably isn't that familiar with the subject and I suspect is confused by reading the various versions of the article and comments here as it goes back and forth. Our moral responsibility as editors is to build a quality article here that recognizes there are differences of opinion, and fairly covers all sides, not make it an editorial, and save the other stuff for more appropriate forums. Lets expand what is stipulated, we should be able to do that, and then go from there being fair to every reasonable POV. It isn't that the advocates and critics don't have documentation and respective positions on everything of importance that could be said here already, so it is just a matter of time to craft concise statements for each position on controversial issues that meet wikipedia standards. To be fair it can be done in stages, as long as there is meaningful progress. While we may like to think that what we put here will definitively convince readers to adopt our POV, that is unrealistic in the limited space nor is it the purpose of Wikipedia. Neither Adidam advocates or critics are going to convince each other to switch sides by what is put here, and we need to consider the reader. Putting myself in the position of a neutral and unfamiliar reader, IMO what we need to do is provide agreed upon information so the casual reader doesn't get bogged down in trying to figure that part out, and enough of the respective perspectives where there is controversy, so that readers can assess what to consider and explore the topic in other, more expansive sources further if they want. To some extent, I submit that is the value of this place, the nature of what we are doing requires of us a higher degree of editorial excellence than the quick opinion pieces we tend to want to write and what we see in some other sites. I am confident we can do it if we keep this vision in mind. Dseer 03:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics represent inflated vocal minority via WP standard 

message: What is wrong with using Wikiquote?  Quotes section is being phased out from Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Quotations.  If quotes are of interest to the reader why wouldn't he just follow the link to Wikiquote?  Carry18 22:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes section and Wikiquote 

message: As mentioned above, much of the material from below is anti-NPOV (tone), original research (Matson, Jesus rhetorically compared to Narcissist), or unverifiable (Adidam members' self-published page with criticism of Wilber).  Wikipedia doesn't allow this sort of thing in articles, but does allow it on Talk pages.  (Nor do I mean to say that such arguments are without value; we just need to be consistent in how we treat them, pro- or anti-.)  So, here is the old Criticisms section containing some Adidam refutations and counter-arguments (indented):
::::A range of critical opinion exists about Adi Da and Adidam.  Adi Da's writings have been praised by a number of popular authors. His claims of unique and ultimate enlightenment have been received more skeptically, as would be expected of a unique and ultimate spiritual realization (since, if unique, no one else has realized it). Outside of Adidam, Adi Da's behavior is generally considered to be much more problematic than his teachings.  Adi Da and Adidam have been the target of numerous critical allegations, primarily by disillusioned former students, and secondarily by journalists and anti-cult activists.  The substance of these allegations is that Adi Da and/or the organization deceitfully engage in financial exploitation, casual violence, and sexual abuse of members.
::::In 1985 Adi Da and his church were sued by an ex-member for (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; the suit sought $5 million in damages   (San Francisco Chronicle, Thursday April 4, 1985 ).  The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million , and eventually withdrew that suit and settled out of court with the plaintiff for an undisclosed sum.  In 1986, Adi Da was again sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress , and again an out-of-court settlement was reached.
::::No new reports of such abuse have appeared in the news media since that time.
::::Around the time of these lawsuits, Adi Da and Adidam (then known as Da Free John and The Johannine Daist Communion) were subjects of a report on The Today Show (transcript).  Members of Adidam complained that the report was very negatively biased. They also point out that the reporter, Boyd Matson, approached them under the pretenses of doing a favorable presentation of Adidam, only to later turn it into a tabloid-style expose. Finally, they point out that they only later discovered that this supposedly objective reporter had fundamentalist Christian ties and thus a strong incentive to "trash" non-Christian Adidam: Matson is an 1969 alumnus of Southern Nazarene University ,; SNU is a strong advocate of Christian proselytizing ,,. Their Christian denomination is the Church of the Nazarene, one of whose founders, Phineas Brisee, wrote the book, "700 Plans to Evangelize the World" . Matson continues to fund one of SNU's scholarship programs, the E. Boyd Matson Scholarship . One of the lines in the transcript of Matson's show reads: "His ambitions, as far as I can see, know no limit. He wants all of mankind to be his devotees." Members of the Church of the Nazarene would have a serious problem with that since their Church states: "We will proclaim the ultimate goal of missions: all nations worship Him [Jesus]" . In other Today Show programs, Matson has demonstrated he has no problem letting his "reporting" be influenced by his Nazarene background. For instance, in a 1987 Today Show series on Papua, New Guinea hosted by Matson, he had Nazarene missionaries serve as guides for NBC journalists .
::::Among ex-followers, Adi Da's strongest critics argue that he shows a pattern of abusive, addictive and self-serving behavior (San Francisco Examiner, April 5, 1985 ).  They view him as engaged in a self-glorifying pursuit of material pleasure and wealth is more consistent with charismatic cult leaders who have pathological narcissism than with the "crazy-wise" avadoots to whom Adi Da compares himself.  Others echo or acknowledge these criticisms to varying degrees, while still praising Adi Da's teachings and/or realization (e.g., Georg Feuerstein ).
::::Supporters perceive spiritual import in Adi Da's conduct.  They hold that even if the teacher acts in a manner that appears controversial to those holding a solely materialistic viewpoint, it does not detract from the value of the teaching, which they hold is most worth pursuing. They point to similar controversial behavior in many traditional and highly respected spiritual teachers. They point out that Jesus of Nazareth, for instance, was stigmatized by many of his contemporaries for fraternizing with whores and tax collectors, fighting in the Temple, working on the Sabbath, stirring up revolutionary speech and activity, and engaging in behavior reminiscent of pathological narcissism such as claiming to be God, claiming to be the unique path to God ("I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ), and insisting that his disciples drop absolutely everything else for him ("If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."  "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." )
::::Popular author Ken Wilber has repeatedly commented on Adi Da, both positively and negatively .  In 1998, he wrote: "...I affirm all of the extremes of my statements about Da: he is one of the greatest spiritual Realizers of all time, in my opinion, and yet other aspects of his personality lag far behind those extraordinary heights. By all means look to him for utterly profound revelations, unequalled in many ways; yet step into his community at your own risk."  Wilber has never at any point in his life been involved as a formal member of Adidam.
::::Critics of Ken Wilber point out that his attempt to reconcile his own conflicted statements about Adi Da with "He's a great Realizer, but a flawed personality" is inaccurate. They cite those of Wilber's writings where Wilber praises the man (including praise for his "moral fortitude" ) as well as the teaching.''
My comments on the above:  These issues have been extensively debated on sites such as the Lightmind Daism Forum (also cf. The Knee of Daism) and discussed on ex-follower blogs such as The Broken Yogi and The Frank Blog.  Like the adidawilber.com material mentioned above, most of the material from these sites is generally not considered verifiable by Wikipedia standards, so it also belongs here on the Talk page (tho the links themselves are all fine for External Links).  I'll just link to them rather than attempt to summarize them for now.  Suffice it to say that these issues have been hashed out extensively (albeit often anonymously) in cyberspace, and people new to the debate should have no trouble tracking down the various arguments.  My suggestion is to consider ALL arguments on their own merits and refrain from ad hominem judgement of the people making them.  -Jim Butler 05:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing I'll add here on Matson, the Today show reporter:  he may well have been biased against Adidam, and from what I heard among Adidamers did choose to include the most flaky, emotional statements from Adidamers (Lesser waxing devotional, Bakker getting mad).  But when you read the transcript of that show, you'll see that he didn't have to do any spinning of what the critics were saying.  That was damning enough without any adornment or filtering.  -Jim Butler 07:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted material from User 12.218.145.107 edits to criticisms section

message: Personal attacks aren't going to deter me from editing, Rustyc, quite the opposite in fact given my contrariness, so you might as well come out and try to defend your views substantively.  Your changes to Wilber in that section were extremely POV; can you recognize this?  Scribe5, the controversies surrounding Adi Da are bigger than you want to give them credit for.  Even that "unofficial" Wilber letter that Adidamers like to quote says "The general consensus, believe me, is that the Community and its final Authority have demonstrated a genius for negative public relations."  Wilber is talking about the reports of Adi Da's misconduct that started coming out in 1985.  Da's 15 minutes of fame in the national media were dominated by these reports of him and his group engaging in financial, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse.  If the lead section (see WP:LEAD) is supposed to function as a brief summary of the article, then this stuff needs to be in there; it has had a profound and lasting impact on Da, Adidam, and how they are perceived by others.  Happy also to add something about some scholars praising his books as long as it doesn't go too far.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section again

message: Notice use of the word "controversial" in the lead section of today's featured article on Pope Pius XII (version as of now).  There is even a subsection entitled "Hitler's Pope"!  Could anything be more offensive to a devout Roman Catholic?  But that's what NPOV is about; that view is well-sourced so it gets covered even if some find it repugnant.  As the NPOV FAQ says (emphasis added), "It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides." Carry18 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Speaking of "controversial"...