Talk:Adi Da

Return to "Adi Da" page.

I think it's important that quotes about this interesting and controversial guru reflect experiences of present and former students, who have had direct experience of him and his religious community, as well as the opinions of relatively "famous" people who know him primarily through his writings. To that end, I've restored a critical quote deleted by a user who (on Wikipedia) has in the past deleted material critical of Adi Da. —Jim Butler 2005 June 3

categorizaionEdit

How should we categorize him? Wikipedia put him under "New religious movements". I got an impression "religious leaders" is inappropriate, neither thinkers or philosophers. But I am not sure "movements" is a good grouping for people. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 06:15 (UTC)

I don't see why "leader" is bad. If people follow him, he's a leader -- no matter how cranky we happen to think his religion is. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 06:56 (UTC)
The problem is, not the part of "leader" but "religious". Many new age thought people protest to be attributed "religious" or gives no comment if such attribution is adequate. And I have no idea if he is thought as such. For example, English Wikipedia doesn't classify him as "religious leader"... --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
Our intro text currently says "the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam". So we already blame "Adidam" for being a religion, might as well be consistent about it. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)
I concur. --Aphaia 6 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Verifiability, etc (edits on April 1st 2006)Edit

Added latest verified Wilber quote. Updated links, using most verifiable ones where possible. Qualified sources when likely verifiable (by virtue of having been published in some other verifiable source in the past) but hosted on POV or personal sites; some such sites have online copies of stuff that has been published elsewhere (like the Watts and Wilber book blurbs), and those seem fine. The Regardie quote, however, needs an original source to be verifiable, as may a couple others from the About Adidam site. I am assuming that devotees like Dan Roberts have consented to have their words used there, so that it's in effect a primary source for devotees. But other folks like Regardie need to be verified.

Quotes that has not been published elsewhere may not be verifiable by Wikipedia standards: e.g., the unpublished Wilber letter to Adidam and probably the Broken Yogi (Conrad Goehausen) Lightmind posts. Mr Goehausen will undoubtedly vouch that the quoted words are his own, but they're not notable enough and it's not worth the trouble: he has since published his own blog and makes the same points there, so that materiial can be used instead (I'll do this later). The Wilber Adi Da letter I don't have a problem with in "truth" terms, but in verifiability terms, I'm not sure. Has Wilber vouched for it?

Adi Da is a guru with a relatively small following (1-2K current, ca. 10K ex, estimated) and it's understandable that "experts", i.e. people who have been directly involved, would tend to self-publish their stuff. So the self-published sites and blogs are cool as primary sources. I trimmed the Jim Chamberlain quote; it's offlinked anyway.

I am tagging the Alex Grey and Godfree Roberts quotes which do need citations, and will delete if no one sources them. It's fine if Godfree Roberts chooses to self-publish his thoughts somewhere, and his quote is valuable, but Wikipedia itself cannot function a primary source for self-publication of such things. thanks, Jim Butler 07:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I'm having difficulty, obviously, tagging the quotes that need citations. Ther tags that work on Wikipedia don't work here, such as {{fact}}, which just leads to en empty Template page on Wikiquote instead of the functioning page on Wikipedia. Maybe there is a Wikimedia-specific template page; need to find out. Jim Butler 19:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotes page clean upEdit

The wikiquote page on Adi Da has been used as a anti- pov propaganda page up to this point and is a mess for the reader or any one seeking quotes by Adi Da Samraj , cannot see any need to have quotes about Adi Da (rather than by Adi Da) here at all (from any source --if nessacery these could be external links at bottom of page --) after looking at many Bio Article quote pages , this approach seems out of step with how this page is generally used ( wikiquotes ) so will edit out the current format --Scribe5 21:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the page but it's not appropriate to delete quotes by others about Adi Da as these exist on other wikiquote pages. I restored the section and will fill out over time Carry18 01:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion they really have no useful place here only personal propaganda material ( pro or anti) , if you choose to use them , one liners and very few should suffice , otherwise will edit them to a useful length, best if you do this to avoid conflict --Scribe5 01:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


I will be happy to comply with your suggestions if you can show a basis for them. Otherwise we should follow guidelines like this one. AFAIK there is no special limit on quote length (if there is, please practice what you preach!). Quotes should be notable. Miller is a notable critic of Adi Da. Carry18 03:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Miller is a notable critic of Adi Da but Miller is not noteworthy, is he a famous person of any description? other than an ad homien critic of Adi Da , the fact that he is "the champion" used by other non noteworthy critics does not add up to being famous or of note , you may as well say 'joe bloggs" got a letter in to the editor in 1960 , therefore he is some one of note , also check your Cromwell page only famous people there . To bring quotes in merely to defame someone is just not right, no matter what specious arguemets you use. My point is made clearly will tag this page and get outside views if you persist

I think critical quotes are allowed under NPOV. Miller's statements refer to sworn statements and allegations covered in major media so I do not think they can be considered defamation. So please feel free to tag and request assistance, thank you Carry18 03:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Also realize that the problems that Wilber refers to are exactly the controversial events of 1985 which involved Miller and others. Da is himself not that notable. But when speaking of Da, the 1985 critics are notable. That would be my interpretation. Carry18 03:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Last modified on 30 April 2006, at 03:45