Talk:Adi Da/Archive 3

message: Don't like this tag ( which it is, a tag ) rather than a useful category , what is it with the WP people -- list madness -- cat : blonde eskimos etc , short for " freaks" ,  " wacko's"  " ,weirdo's"  " nutjobs by category "
Is Adi Da a messiah at all in the Judeo-christian sense ?  He clearly states he is not the "Creator God" here  "Therefore no one should misunderstand me. By Avatarically revealing and confessing my Divine status to one and all, I am not indulging in self-appointment, or illusions of grandiose Divinity. I am not claiming the status of the 'Creator God'." 
Messiah  is really a judeo-christian-Muslim cultural construct . Avatar is much closer to the  Hindu  root of Adi Da's lineage ( and he is listed in the list of avatars ). Although Adi Da is salvatory in some sense he is not a messiah ( definately not in the Judeo Christian sense as this cat seems to indicate ) in my opinion and does not fit this ( rather silly cat )
I have met at least 2 unfortunate messiah claimants in my life , both were clearly and very sadly tortured and sad souls in need of help , both claimed to be JC , this is the usual pattern and is a medical condition but even then many don't like to categorise people -- you know "mad" etc , should not be in WP at all perhaps 
New Tags at top are good --Scribe5 08:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, agree that categories should be used with care and not applied if they are controversial, per WP:CG.  They can be too sound-bite-ish.  Better to present sig POV's in the article body.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 17:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The self proclaimed messiahs 

message: Would anyone else be interested in a short section on the future of Adidam?  I am curious to know what will happen to the movement on the passing of Adi Da, and what sort of political/philosophical ramifications this may have.  Are there procedures in place for when this occurs? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celebrityguyxy (talk • contribs).
:Jones has written/said in the past that he may designate "murti-gurus" as successors if he believes anyone has attained to his unique 7th stage.  (Can't remember where -- Dawn Horse Testament?)  Their role would basically be to channel him aka God; he'll always be the FLO Narcissist in Adidam.  My guess would be that Jones keeps it all in the family and designates one or more wives a/o daughters as successor(s).  I wouldn't be surprised to see some wrangling after his death; the group's accumulated wealth (real estate, art etc.) that Jones controls is not trivial and may be worth an attempted schism or two.  The usual, IOW.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 04:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Celebrityguyxy,  re your Q about the future of Adidam in the event  of the Gurus passing , Adi Da as an authentic Spiritual Master  has put and continues to put immense spiritual  and practical effort into the survival of Adidam as an authentic New Religious Movement, a  means to God Realisation for devotees , now and into the future. He has also stated Adidam  is unlikely to, or  cannot survive ( with true integrity ) without spiritualy mature ( or enlightened devotees )into the future, so nothing is for sure, as with all things --Scribe5 22:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of Adidam

message: This article has a negative tone and needs re working the teaching section has been written by active enemies of Adidam and weighted for a negative impact , rather than a neutral positon, it has been argued over and again that the Lead should not have these allegations in it, as it burdens the overall life to a negative critical degree. The tag should remain until ( and if ever ) balance is restored --202.63.42.221 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concerns about the Lead section from Da advocates, but from WP's standpoint, the sources cited for 1985 are the most reliable ones in the article (see WP:RS).  These events occurred, and Jones bore substantial responsibility for them.  The teaching section should comment on books actually in print, e.g. his most notable ones like KOL, Easy Death, DHT, etc.  I have no objection to expanded it in that way as long as it's written encyclopedically and not devotionally.  Overall, it's up to the reader to decide the overall good/bad balance; as editors we need to allow all verifiable, significant views adequate space to be expressed.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tag, please explain why on talk.  You explained your thoughts on POV above.  What specifically is unverifiable, unsuitable material, or original research?  BTW, your assumption that "the teaching section has been written by active enemies of Adidam" is pure speculation and unsupportable.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 07:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Tag 

message: Continuing comments from User talk:82.103.133.39:  The reason Wilber is mentioned in the lead is that he (a) notable and (b) has made various comments (pro and con) over a period of a couple of decades.  Watts apparently went on the record twice:  the first time authoring a forward to Jones's autobiography, and the second apparently around the time Jone's second book was published (interesting sympathetic account from Jack Garvey in East-West Journal).  Watts never met Jones.  It's theoretically fine to cite Watts in the article, but we should be careful of "quote creep", wherein the article gets overpopulated with various quotes from various POV's.  Hence Wikiquote.  I don't think Watts' two comments are notable enough to cite in the lead, however, cf. WP:LEAD.  thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 01:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Facts are that despite Adidam claims that Alan Watts intended to join Adidam, he simply liked what he read in Knee of Listening, and original Method of the Siddhas, consisting of talks from the opening of the Ashram on April 25, 1972 to early January 1973. His "avatar" comment was written after being personally visited and recruited by members of the group and watching a video of the then Bubba over a meal and wine, and Watts was known to have a weakness for alcohol. He did not visit the Ashram or Da, and he did not rush to become a student, he agreed to a future meeting with Bubba (Da) to consider their future relationship, and the Ashram at that time was in a more conservative period of strict conditions, preceding the wild period described as "Garbage and the Goddess". There is no reason to believe that Alan Watts would have remained enamored with Adi Da, since as he said in his forward: "...But if you genuinely know this, it is nothing to be proud of nor humble about. It is just what is so, and there is absolutely no necessity to parade it by defying social conventions, on the one hand, or by coming on as one who is extremely holy, on the other. The hapless Rasputin was, perhaps, an example of the first case, and Meher Baba of the second though he had a jolly face and a lively twinkle in the eye..." Even if he had eventually joined, had he lived, after a little experience he would have left as disillusioned as Mr. Garvey did a few years later. Furthermore, the Watts family has apparently requested Adidam to stop misusing the "endorsement". Mention of Watts in the article is fine in principle but not in the lead when it is falsely implied that Watts "repeatedly" commented favorably about Da or that he had any personal knowledge or experience of Da. It just isn't so. Dseer 06:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote