Talk:Adi Da

Welcome to the Adi Da Talk page. Please add new content under old content. Please start new sections at the bottom of the page. Please use colon to indent added discussion. Thank you!

Kemper Museum

I don't want to create a big fuss about this, but... I know the Museum well; was even there recently. I recognized the place in a photo of one of Adi Da's pieces months ago. So I called them and asked three different staff members, including a curator. No one knew who the heck he was, nor could anyone find a record of him having exhibited (there are only two rooms in the place, mind you. The Adi Da pic was in the lobby. No one who works there had heard of him? Questions...)

With Adi Da's track record, I assumed his work hung for one night for some sort of fund raiser or something - they rent the place out for such events.

But beyond such conjecture, a gallery press release by nature is unacceptable as a source - especially with Adi Da/Adidam's record of intense self-promotion and this commercial gallery's interest in exaggerating Da's modest exhibition history. Press releases are pure hype by definition (I have written many). I simply ask that you find a better source for this information. Too many questions.Tao2911 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The testimony of an anonymous Wikipedia editor is also unacceptable as a source. — goethean ॐ 21:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the Tagore Gallery catalog has that picture of the exhibition of the piece (page 7) and it says the exhibition was from "September 2009 - March 2010." That is more than for one night for some sort of fund raiser or something - they rent the place out for such event! And... your calling the Kemper does not constitute a 3rd party source. This is similar to when we had the debate relative to Lowe's book and whether it was self-published.I called the San Antonio College to find out if San Antonio Philosophy Group was a publisher associated with that school. Nobody had heard of that press .... and I talked to several people in various departments and admin. You at that time questioned the validity of that research. So...this looks like a legitimated showing of Adi Da's Work with a reliable source.Jason Riverdale (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

@goethean: I'm not saying in any way I am a source. As editors we can check sources and verify their validity. As others, including JR, have done. If questions exist, we ask them. @ JR: again, a press release is not a valid source. If he had a legitimate show at a museum in the last decade, there will be a record on the museum/gallery website, and/or elsewhere. The lack of such mention before caused me to call Kemper. The point here is the question raised. It's a big one. Find a better source, or no way to mention this. (And per your comparison, the difference between a college with thousands of employees and dozens of departments vs. a museum with two rooms and a staff of about 10 is significant. The listing or not of that text did not hinge on your phone call, but on finding listings for it elsewhere. So do that.)Tao2911 (talk) 02:25, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the complete list of the 2009 exhibitions at the Kemper Museum, including those that extended into 2010. Not one mention of Adi Da. Not any show that matches the dates you state (Sept 2009-March 2010). I called before to ask if he was in their permanent collection, and therefore possibly in the "perm. collection" show listed during part of the time you state. He isn't - nor is he in the catalog for that show (staffer checked). Contemporary curator had never heard his name. Nor is he apparently on staff, therefore in the "staff exhibition", the only other show listed during that time. Again, two rooms, two shows. No room for the Da man to have a show too...I'm not calling Tagore a liar, but...something ain't kosher...Tao2911 (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia policy goes, your research really doesn't have any bearing on whether the press release is valid as a source. — goethean ॐ 02:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if Tagore is not lying, as you feel he is not... and he is an international gallery owner with three galleries, it looks like, and he states in his catalog,and in his press release, that a piece of Da's work was shown at the Kemper,and also has a picture of that piece shown in the Kemper,in the and says what that piece is, and that it was on display from Sept 2009-March 2010, and as you say he ain't lying, then we have to assume that this is real. I am holding the catalog which I sent away for, looking at page 7 and this is what it says ... original research I know I know, but it really does say all this.

So we can change the language to say "a piece of Adi Da's art was on display" etc etc But clearly it was there.And... a catalog from a reputable gallery owner say this IS a legitimate sourceJason Riverdale (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since you didn't get my sarcasm - Tagore may be lying. Or at least potentially misinformed or misled. WP guidelines state we don't use self-promotional materials. A press release (or gallery promo cat.) is not a secondary source. It is a commercial for a product, no different than a TV advertisement. Advertisements are not acceptable source material. If a source is clearly false or inaccurate, we don't use it. Until you find another independent source confirming that Adi Da showed ANYTHING at that museum, you don't include the mention. A gallery who wishes to increase the artist stature in order to sell his work says it was in a show from such date to such date. There is no evidence that such a show ever occurred! In fact, the opposite - we have the museum refuting any connection. The museum is known to rent space for private events. The museum presents a complete list of exhibitions since they opened, and no show fits the dates Tagore material states. It is entirely too sketchy. "So we can change the language to say "a piece of Adi Da's art was on display"...uh, no, we can't. That is pointedly NOT notable, and in no way independently confirmed (gallery is not secondary source; it is primary, with vested commercial interest.)Tao2911 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and let's get something else clear. Jason, when you read a source (as in your promo. catalog), that is not "original research." That's reading a source - somewhat necessary for what we do here. To Goethean and Jason: when you check a museum website to cross fact-check a source, and then call them for a possible explanation when there is a discrepancy with said source, that is not "original research." That is fact-checking a source. This is what editors do.Tao2911 (talk) 14:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Call whomever you want. But your word (or my word, or Jason's word), regarding who you called, and what they said is not admissible to the debate over this article. It's hard to understand how you think that it could. Maybe we could make a list of sources which have been deemed invalid due to Tao2911's detective work. Is that really how you think this works? — goethean ॐ 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You simply don't get it. We take each other's word all the time on texts that we quote (up to a point) - because we can also get those texts and check them. If a source is accompanied by red flags, we check up on it. My calls are only confirmation that the MUSEUM WEBSITE refutes the claim here - that Adi Da had a show there, during the specific time claimed (the initial claim being posited remember was that he had a solo show there.) Simply wishing to see if that source was mistaken, I checked. It wasn't mistaken. No Adi Da, no show during those dates, says website, confirmed by staff at museum. You can check, too. Do your job.

Again, I AM NOT THE SOURCE. There are discrepancies here enough to warrant caution, and non-inclusion of this material at this time. Just using the museum site alone, not to mention Adidam's history of exaggeration and massaging of Da's stature. Forget my calls if you want. As I've said 12 times, find one secondary/tertiary source confirming this show. And I'll be happy to see it included.Tao2911 (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok so let's clarify what your argument is... you do say that Adi Da's art was actually in the Kemper I recognized the place in a photo of one of Adi Da's pieces months ago

You question the time it was there from Sept 2009-March 2010 page 7, Sundaram Tagore Catalog ... and that Tagore may be lying about this in his catalog or potentially misinformed or misled Correct?Jason Riverdale (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You can check, too. Do your job.

My job is not to play Sherlock Holmes. My job is to write an encyclopedia. — goethean ॐ 16:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Put the pieces together, Jason. I've explained that yes, I recognized a Da piece at Kemper (labeled as such on some Da website.) I was so incredulous that I checked their website to see if he had a show there. When it was clear he didn't, I called to see if there was a mistake. They'd never heard of him, but said they rent the space out for events by way of possible explanation. But that call is extraneous - you say that Tagore says Kemper showed "a selection of Adi Da's art" there. Kemper's own otherwise quite complete website says this never happened. You now want to say that "they displayed one work" based on a photo? That's ridiculous. And THAT is original research. We have no confirmed reason for the existence of that picture. It could have been up for one night. It could be photoshoped. FIND A SOURCE that fixes the discrepancy. Until then, no way.Tao2911 (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

and lastly, let's hypothetically say he displayed a single work for some brief amount of time. This is not a notable exhibition worthy of mention in an encyclopedic entry. "One work was temporarily displayed at a tiny midwestern art museum"? That's just silly.Tao2911 (talk) 17:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

been out of town with work.. just looked at last entry... ok I will drop this for now unless another source is found.Jason Riverdale (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Garbage and the Goddess

There are several second-hand sources which apparently serve as citations for a dramatic allegation that all the extant copies of "Garbage and the Goddess" were bought up by Adidam and burned. This may be a cited fact but it is also a dubious one, given that used copies are quite readily available, and given that he released other works with extremely similar titles. The book went out of print simply because it was superseded by newer works. It is no harder to find on the used-book market than any of his other works from that period. Also, the 1985 lawsuit is massively overemphasized. Right now, this is the main event of his life and everything which happened afterwards during Adi Da's time on this earth is depicted as an anticlimax. But, that last quarter century (even though it was scandal-free) was in fact the most eventful years of his life. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We go by sources here - preferably 'second-hand' and even third hand are (ie secondary and tertiary) since those are the recommended sources by Wikipedia. None of them happen to share your estimation about the "last quarter century of his life" which are little documented due to so few events of any significance, save a profound emphasis on his silence and solitude. And we have sources both pro Da, neutral, and more critical that all attest to Adi Da/Jones having Garbage burned. That doesn't mean copies don't exist. But Adidam also fails to include it in his official bibliography. Don't let your bias cloud your evaluation. We reflect sources - most sources emphasize the most active and media-attracting periods of his life. That would be when he was building his church and garnering attention from a small specific segment of the public as guru, and of course when the larger public became aware of him through scandals - which were extensive and widely reported (look at the sources, including the Today show: a two-part 'expose' that was totally damning.) By his own admission he retreated after that, after having a nervous breakdown/spiritual transformation, and was little seen or acknowledged by the wider public after 1986. The church stopped growing. This is what our SOURCES say. Not perhaps what his followers or fans necessarily wish to believe. The Garbage passage was banged out by editors on all sides (including Adi Da devotees), as was the rest of the page. The article has GA status, reflecting this neutrality and thoroughness.Tao2911 (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't care about the editors; I don't know you guys & I am not a member of your little club. I just care about getting the story straight. And I think the story is far from straight the way it is. But I am not sure if straightening it is possible. But, I will ask: when was the Adi Da's "own admission" after 1986 and what did he say which you are construing as an admission of "retreat"? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 07:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You should care about the editors - they are the ones that write the articles and actually constitute the Wikipedia community. The quality of the editing exactly constitutes the measure by which an article can be evaluated and trusted. This version has been written, with considerable effort, argument, and research, by numbers of editors with many different points of view. It was subsequently reviewed by Wikipedia administrators, who approved this article's nomination for 'Good Article' status (the final reviewer in fact declared it "not just good, but very good")- at that time one of only 75 articles (of potentially thousands) on religious subjects with such a designation. Virtually every line in the article has been disputed at some point, hence each has at least one source citation if not several. Those sources have been compared with other sources, which often have been quoted verbatim in footnotes at the bottom of the page. If you read them, and check those sources further, most of your questions should be answered.Tao2911 (talk) 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that you made extensive biased edits to the entry without any sources whatsoever. This is not the first time. I am not the first editor to have to reverse such edits, which contradict existing sources. If such behavior continues, you face possibly have your IP address blocked from editing on Wikipedia. This page has faced contentious editing in the past, and admins have stepped in to block editing a number of times. When pages have this kind of historical contentiousness, it is suggested by WP guidelines that editors bring disputed edits to talk to be discussed before adding them to the entry. In addition, the edits you are making do not cite accepted independent sources. Please review guidelines for such sources, and perhaps basic editing guidelines, before proceeding. Thanks.Tao2911 (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

My previous comment about "your little club" was on the snide side and I apologize. But I am baffled by the insulting nature of your response, especially given that my edits were quite innocuous and quite factual. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

your edits are clearly biased. This page has achieved a hard won stability after a lot of hard work. nearly every change you wish to make has already been discussed and dismissed in the past, due to innumerable reasons. As requested, please bring your proposed edits here to be discussed - again, I suggest you carefully review footnotes and get your hands on sources cited to see why the phrasing exists as it does. Your phrasing is biased in every instance, and your edits clearly show a pro-Adi Da POV. This isn't that complicated.Tao2911 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

You're just a random volunteer like me; please get off your high dawn horse. Perhaps you would care to explain why "all" my edits are biased. I will admit to being pro-Adi Da, but it is not unusual for Wikipedia articles to be sympathetic to their subjects. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm on no horse. Your edits are biased, don't adhere to guidelines, and don't respect the integrity of the hard work of a lot of preceding editors. My explanation for why your edits are off-base was just nixed with your intervening comment. But basically they simply don't adhere to existing sources, which invariably explain all of your questions about them if you'd read them. You're just writing stuff they way you'd like to read it, sources not withstanding. All your "who?" tags for instance - every one is explained by the source cited for that line or claim.Tao2911 (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The main reason so much hard work was needed is obviously because you have bullied everyone else who has tried to edit the article over the past year or two, by responding to even the most innocuous changes with a barrage of adverbs and adjectives. You have impugned the integrity of several other volunteers by questioning their motives and by trying to "out" them as Daists, even though you yourself reveal little if anything of your own background. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll simply respond by asking you to bring up specific points of contention on the subject in question (being Adi Da), if you have any, and we can discuss them on their merits - not either of our perceived personal qualities or linguistic acumen (I clearly have my own issues with yours). Again - the article has been stable since achieving GA status. The bar is set high for any major content edits.Tao2911 (talk) 02:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed. (The other changes are just minor alterations to references.) I also see a massive volume of insulting comments in the discussion page. That tells me that it is futile for anyone other yourself to try to edit this article. It is also evidently futile to try to "discuss" anything related to the Adi Da with you. Or maybe I should say that the bar has been set so high that no one else can make edits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

"Looking back three months to your September 30, 2010 edit, Tao, I see that only one substantial change was allowed." That is because we (multiple editors) have been trying to get the page to stable state which is one of the criteria for Good Article status. It reached that state, and people have been respecting it. This is yet another aspect of WP guidelines and community awareness, of which your user talk page indicates a consistent failure to comprehend or respect.Tao2911 (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking back over your edit history, I see that you have been working this article over since July 2008, deleting anything positive about the Adi Da's life, insulting anyone else who works on it, and applying your own unique standards of how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be put together. Your behavior is inappropriate. This is not the place to debunk the Adi Da. The Wikipedia is a repository of the conventional wisdom on any subject known to man--- and this article, like all bios, is supposed to be a brief and (mostly) positive overview of its subject's life and work. The 1985 lawsuits are part of that life, but they were settled out of court, they weren't repeated, and they were just one incident in a long and eventful life. Happily, the article is not all bad, and the POV issues are blatantly obvious to the unfortunate folk who read this article looking for actual information on its subject. I doubt that anyone with even a minimal knowledge of Wikipedia's strengths and weaknesses is being fooled. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have actual issues to discuss re: the entry, or do you just wish to insult me? If it's the latter, please note that's against WP guidelines and can get you banned. If it's the former, I'm happy to discuss your points, as I have been with many others - including the editors above who all nominated and worked together to get this page to GA status.Tao2911 (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

re: lawsuits - multiple reliable sources state, as reflected by the entry, that lawsuits/threatened suits extended beyond 1985, and Adidam was forced to pay settlements in subsequent years. There is no rule that says articles should be "mostly positive" - rather, they should be neutral and accurate on balance to secondary and tertiary material on the subject. If you have new sources that would add material about Adi Da's "long and eventful life" that is not already here, I am happy to know about it. A number of us got our hands on what appear to be most if not all the secondary/tertiary materials, as well as a lot of primary (ie Adi Da penned) materials in various editions, on Adi Da and his church and worked vigorously to get it all to sync, in proportion to that coverage in sources ("proportional coverage" - another guideline to bone up on, Tim.) Again, points backed by sources. That's where it starts here - but which is by no means the end of the story.Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been reading the last few days discussion. A couple of things. I think that Tim's entries are very benign and simple. The example of O'Mahoney wife being "estranged" is actually true. The issue is,as Tao points out, are there some 3rd party source that can verify that. Tim, Wikipedia is a strange creature. It is not about fairness, or necessary truth of issues, or even accuracy. It is about a verifiable 3rd party sources. Sometime these sources are true and accurate, sometimes they are not. Personal opinions creep into these sources, especially in authors writing books. They are building their careers on being "authorities" on subjects etc. and will have strong opinions, which they will sometimes try to "mask," but still are there. So it can be sometime hard to get a "fair" article when a controversial figure such as Adi Da was covered mainly in the 1986 lawsuits through the media and authors who are not necessarily always positively disposed to him. But if change in the article is to occur one has to work within the "rules" set here. Tim, I have been one of a number of editors, who has been working hard to get 3rd party sources, for more accuracy about all aspects of Adi Da that can be used in the article. Tao, myself and others did work cooperatively to hash out issues and to get more balance into the article. However it is by no means all accurate. Tim I want to encourage you to stay involved here. Your contributions are welcomed. By the way Tao... threatening Tim with being banned for insulting you certainly is odd, since this has been an issue pointed out to you many times by a number Wikipedia editors. Pointing to and asking for civility is however appropriate for all editors to remind each other. We have managed to work cooperatively at times here ... so that makes it work and give some balance and allowed GA status to occur. But as you say .. is by no means the end of the story Jason Riverdale (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

By his own admission, Tim is an Adi Da partisan - like you, Jason, so I understand and expected this exact response on your part. His edits invariably showed this bias, and I did not find them "benign" - in most instances he simply changed wording and even added new passages (once again about the Aletheon/Source Texts etc) without changing or adding new sources. In other words, just winging it as to soften the controversial aspects of Adi Da's legacy, and increase the stature of Adi Da without any substantiation from accepted sources. He's said as much - in regards to the "Garbage" section, he evinced clear (willful?) ignorance about the matter. Understandable, if you believe and wish to promote the Adidam line. Also, he added a bunch of "who?" tags that just didn't make any sense (like saying "some (who?) followers of Zen Master Rama became followers...". We don't need to know who. It simply means "not all". Other tags were simply answered by the source and footnote already there. Random tags like this again simply impugn the integrity of the text, which seemed their intent - they only occurred in sections that Timothy admittedly found offensive.) And in the controversy section, like others before him, he tried to remove all mention of anything but the O'Mahoney lawsuit, despite multiple sources contradicting this; and the addition of "estranged" (not used in ANY of four sources cited for that passage) in this larger pattern is highly suspect - it clearly is meant to undermine the credibility of the plaintiff in the lawsuit (which happens to be the exact attitude Adidam took at the time and since). Again, these are all things that have occurred over and over and over in this section by Adi Da partisans. My attitude is that I will continue to defend this article, hard won as it is, from what are sure to be the periodic attempts of Adi Da followers to get this page in line with Adidam's hagiographic rewrites of history - or their obverse, the rabid critics whose edits I have likewise had to reverse. Remember, I have made many edits throughout the page expressly to neutralize all POV - my goal is to have an un-impugnable, thorough, objective article of the kind I came here wanting to read three years ago. We've achieved it, as evidenced by the admin. review above. I am all for decent edits, and have been happy to see some nice clean up edits in recent weeks. As I said, if someone finds a new source and can add some modest new info here or there, I'm all for it. I just happen to doubt that info exists right now, and the page clearly strikes a careful balance right now between all partisan POVs, largely due to finding the sources the necessity of which you rightly indicate.Tao2911 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I stopped trying to improve the article is NOT because I saw the wisdom of anything Tao said. I still think he is totally out of line. It was because I have a life and fighting with Tao isn't worth the trouble. There is nothing to be accomplished by continuing the fight, and nothing to be learned. Tao didn't even let Goethean use an M-dash improperly— I am unsure if he would ever allow me to make any substantive changes, no matter how civil I was, and no matter how extensively I discussed those changes in advance. I am not all that sure that I agree with what Jason said— although I certainly thank him for his kind words. I think it is perfectably acceptable to use first-hand sources judiciously in the interest of telling the story truthfully but positively— especially when, as is the case here, the subject is noteable primarily because of his writings and speeches. And I think the best way to edit an article is to go ahead and edit it, not to have endless discussions about how to edit it.Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Your "First hand", ie "primary" sources as used in WP guidelines, are highly discouraged, ESPECIALLY when dealing with such a contentious figure, your feelings about it not withstanding. If you'd been around longer, you would have witnessed this debate get exhaustively played out, until it was realized by all concerned that the only recourse was to stick to the letter of WP guides, and avoid primary sources at any cost - especially because Adi Da (as everyone who's written about him, pro and con, points out) changed his story, or his interp. of his story, over and over, making him highly unreliable as a source for factual information. Also, anyone involved with his church likewise is heavily invested in precisely NOT being objective. So your argument is, in a word, specious. However, editors (including myself) have used certain agreed upon instances of Adi Da's writing when it has verification from secondary/tertiary sources or is backing up those sources, and when they are more factual or believable prima facie. Again, you can keep insulting me, but if you have actual worthy proposals, they will be considered by everyone interested in this page. Re: Goethean, he's made some fine edits to the formating and grammar of the page that I've had no problem with. In this case, he made what I felt to be an easy enough mistake with an mdash (the use of which is tricky). The passage is clearly a parenthetical, not an addendum.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for wikipedia articles to be slanted positively, even when the subject is involved in much worse scandals than those 1985-1986 lawsuits. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

a somewhat sad argument, in favor of what exactly? Bad editing? If you were to find such cases, one would hope for action to correct such biases, in order to adhere to Wiki. directives to create profiles that reflect available information/sources accurately and in proportion.Tao2911 (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The goal of human life

The Lead foreshadows the discussion of Adi Da's teaching with this sentence: "His philosophy was essentially similar to many eastern religions which see the ultimate goal of human life as spiritual enlightenment." The problem with this is that Adi Da consistently taught that spiritual enlightenment is not a goal, and that the tendency to treat it as such actually has a causal role in the persistence of un-enlightenment.

Three sources (Forsthoefel, Chryssides and Daniels) are given for the sentence, but when the idea is repeated at the start of the Philosophy section a different source (Gallagher) is given. Why is this? The first three are the same ones used for the sentence that the current one replaced: "He expressed a teaching, similar to eastern religions, that seeing oneself as an individual separate from a divine, unitive reality is an illusion and the cause of unhappiness" (removed June 15). A significant distortion of meaning has occurred (it is described as 'simplifying' in the edit summary), but the sources remained unchanged. An even earlier version had this sentence: "He taught that the search for liberation from suffering only creates suffering and is a fundamental impediment to enlightenment" (removed June 2). This is virtually the complete opposite of what is currently there, but again the sources are the same. The changes were unnecessary, misleading and questionably sourced, yet they were never discussed or queried. It is difficult to understand why.

Any source that describes the essence of Adi Da's "philosophy" in terms of spiritual enlightenment being the goal of human life is guilty of lazy generalization that borders on complete misrepresentation. Wikipedia then becomes guilty of the same thing. The characterization deviates so fundamentally from everything in the primary sources that these secondary and tertiary sources, if they do say this, should simply be ignored. Referring to the primary sources in this case would not be original research because the assertion that Adi Da taught that enlightenment could not be a goal is not an interpretation. There is no ambiguity about this: it is there in all the literature, it is there on video and audio. Not only could countless statements be quoted to illustrate it, but the dictum that the spiritual process is not goal-oriented, is not a matter of any form of seeking, that enlightenment is not something to be achieved or accomplished but is a present Reality, can be considered an essential foundation of the entire teaching argument.

Here are a few typical statements taken from one talk:

"The way of Reality is not a search for a goal."

"The Way of the Heart is not a matter of seeking... it is about transcending the very act that makes you a seeker."

"Enlightenment is not about seeking Reality as a goal... but finding out why you are not already realizing it."

"Reality does not have to be achieved because Reality is always already the case." Norm Declavier (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the actual line: "His philosophy was essentially similar to many eastern religions which see the ultimate goal of human life as spiritual enlightenment." You're simply being overly literal, hung up on one word, and not comprehending the phrase in its total context. It's clearly written for a general audience, not for a reader of one of his texts (which are all listed for those interested.) The line in lead clearly just means that Adidam, like other Eastern religions, ultimately prioritizes (as in, "1st place" - or "7th Stage"?) a state called 'spiritual enlightenment' - which, btw, nearly ALL traditions say that actively seeking is problematic, then provide provisional techniques to encourage its realization (hmm, just like Adi Da. oh wait, that is what the passage, and all the sources, say!) It is even QUALIFIED with 'essentially similar' acknowledging that his teaching has (to him and its followers at least) unique features; which are discussed in...the "Philosophy" section, where it clearly states that "egoically seeking" that state is paradoxical, as you go on about at length ("[Adi Da] said that fundamentally, all efforts to unite with the divine from the point of view of a separate self were futile, since that separate self itself is illusory.[126]). Natch. Not perhaps as paradoxical as having to worship Adi Da in order to access a state that a priori exists naturally for everyone, but there it is - I will add that this is exactly the kind of issue that some of the sources you list point to as one of the contentious issues regarding Adi Da and his teachings. In addition, the lead/intro section once had all kinds of material that has since been removed, just as in this case, because it was redundantly mentioning material better discussed and covered in the article proper - as I've just pointed out. The passage is clear, has been agreed upon by editors with various POV, and accepted by Admin review for GA status.Tao2911 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Rickross.com

In regard to rickross.com, I think the two links in this article to it should be removed. In particular, the link in the external links section, to the list of articles re-posted on the Ricckross.com site, needs to be removed as it directly contravenes the contributory copyright policy, as the works included there are, in themselves, copyright violations. Thus I've removed it again, as that one is fairly unambiguous.

The second link, to http://www.rickross.com/reference/adida/adida1.html, a transcript of an NBC Today Show interview, is a bit more problematic. It is used three times. The first time it is unnecessary, as there are two other references which support the point being made, neither of which has any copyright issues. The second time it is used, it is being used to support the claim "However, due to the controversial nature of its contents, all available copies were quickly retrieved and ritually burned at Adi Da's behest." However, the transcript doesn't mention the book at all. Instead, it seems the ref is being used to add the quote "Da Free John orchestrated bizarre sexual practices, forced sex, drug use. The church admits these things happened, but it was always adults involved of their own free will." This is unrelated to the paragraph where the reference is being used. Finally, the third use is to support the line "The story gained greater attention with a two-part exposé on The Today Show that aired May 9 and 10." It doesn't, of course, support the "greater attention" part of that, but it does support the claim that there was a two-part exposé on The Today Show. However, for that we can just reference the show directly. Given that it doesn't seem particularly valuable, such a transcript is a bit of a problem in regards to copyright, and it isn't official, it seems safest to drop that reference. - Bilby (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. Especially since you are cross-checking other ref's. At one point we had a real problem here with a number of Adi Da defenders who wished to remove all mention of any of these possibly less savory aspects of his life, and these sources were needed to say "no, look, it says this, right here!" I can live without them.Tao2911 (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Just to clarify this, I have no problem with Rick Ross being used as a source where he is reliable and the work is ascribed to him. Nor do I have a problem with articles he includes on the site being used, as they are generally from good sources. My concern is just the use of copyright violations (which isn't the case for all rickross.com links) as convenience links - which means the content and reference should stay, but the link might need to be removed. :) In this case I'm not sure of the copyright status of the source - it is a tad iffy, but might be ok (a new transcription of a copyrighted show) - but as it isn't needed, I'm inclined to remove it. If it is needed to support content, though, then I'm happy to either get alternative sources or look into the copyright status of this particular situation. :) - Bilby (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you could check into the letter of the copyright situation, that would be great! Having that bulk of stories at one handy click has been extremely helpful, for the issues mentioned above and for sourcing the article. The nature of this page and the perpetual contentiousness of arguments regarding Adi Da make it worthwhile to see if as much secondary source material as possible can be kept in play. Thanks!Tao2911 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a past discussion on the Rick Ross site as well.It may in fact violate WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO The site has copyrighted material from newspapers and publishers without license. http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links Also it seems that Rick Ross is available for hire and the website may be acting as a commercial platform for this. http://www.rickross.com/reference/expert_witness/expert_witness6.html Jason Riverdale (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)