Talk:Adi Da/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Please note: this is an archive page. New content should be added at the active Talk:Adi_Da page.

NPD

It's pretty clear to me the man is suffering from narcissistic personality disorder. If anyone relevant to the article also makes this allegation, it should probably be mentioned. It was, before someone anonymously deleted it, but vaguely attributed to "some critics".

From a spiritual perspective, there's no reason why someone who gives lifechangingly brilliant spiritual insight should be in any way perfect, infallible, or the one God-Man even if they say they are. —Ashley Y 11:11, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

Although Adi Da makes much of the "pattern" he has animated as being unique and unprecedented, it actually does parallel that of the charismatic cult leader with NPD, as numerous posters on [Lightmind's Daism Forum] have pointed out. A number of authors have explored that ignoble pattern, and I've compiled a page of some relevant links [[1]]. Adi Da's own unpublished, unedited comments are often telling:

"There is a Lowery auction tomorrow which, potentially, will go high. They are making Me feel like I have to pass on this auction, but I just clearly feel that I cannot pass on the Santa image and clearly on the rest of the Disney Art. Can I say yes to a potential $50-$70,000 for this Disney art when we have this traditional art which we absolutely must get? We should be able to get all of it, the traditional art and the Disney art and the Santa art. That is the way that it should be. What do we have to do to make that so?" ~ Adi Da [[2]]

—Jim Butler 2005 April 20

Why would an encyclopedic reference to the work of Adi Da be a place where those who hold extremist views against Adi Da can continue their negative campaign against him? From the Wikipedia definition of “Hate Group”: “The hate group continues to propagate assertions, myths, narratives and rumors, playing upon fear, xenophobia, blame or jealousy, with the aim of harming the individuals and groups they target, and inciting others to distrust or hate them also.”

These assertions of clinical diagnosis of NPD may be your opinion, so perhaps you should put your statement to that effect in the opinion section. I had earlier inserted factual statements regarding the lawsuit and pointing to the fact that there is a small but active group of people whose aim is to destroy Adi Da's work, (which is a fact easily verified at the Daism Forum, and that cannot be disputed), but for some reason this is deleted by Ashley and Jim Butler. It would seem to be an important fact to present since these 20 year-old allegations are still held to be relevant and so precious to a few, (and are now propped up by so much anonymous libel). The only foundations for the current negativity against Adi Da are decades old legal briefs taking as extreme a point of view as allowed by law against Adi Da in order to receive a judgment, and a negative media campaign that lasted from April 3rd 1985 to April 17th 1985. All that’s left is the accumulations of 7 years of anonymous libel and smear built upon this foundation at Lightmind.com. D. Gomez 2005 April 26th

Obviously, the idea that critics of Adi Da are "extremist" members of a "hate group" engaged in "smear" is a POV, and hardly a "factual statement". One might as well make the same argument about those who criticize the Roman Catholic Church. The controversy around Adi Da is real and ongoing, and is based on the ongoing conduct of Adi Da and members of his group, as observed and commented upon by a steady stream of people who become disillusioned and leave. Virtually all of the critical opinions or unflattering statements of fact in the article, as it now stands, are referenced to valid sources: lawsuits, newspaper articles, non-anonymous observations, or unpublished notes from Adidam itself, including Adi Da's own words. Some of the material in lightmind.com's "Daism Reports" does come from sources within Adidam who chose to remain anonymous, but whose identity the webmaster carefully verified in order to protect himself from a libel suit. And we know Adidam has filed such a suit in the past.

Is it possible for the article to remain NPOV and mention the controversy? Admittedly not without a lot of weasel words on both sides. However, if we stipulate that the opening statement of the article is true -- that Adi Da is a "highly controversial" teacher -- then it deserves to be covered. Since Adidam is relatively small I doubt that a separate "controversy" article (as with Scientology) is warranted for now.

You imply (in fact seem to state outright) that most or all of Adidam's critics are anonymous, but that is false. Many regular Lightmind posters (and former members of Adidam, who speak from experience in the group, such as myself) who use handles have made no secret of their real identities. And I think you know very well that not all of the criticism is anonymous, DGomez, because a certain anonymous Wikipedia editor who just happens to have a writing style identical to your own recently edited some handles in the "Opinions" section, and changed them to the correct real names! Overall, I believe that the above facts and arguments refute your assertions regarding anonymous libel. —Jim Butler 2005 April 29

I was wondering if Jim could tell us how the unpublished materials that are referenced in the Daism Reports were obtained? Word on the street is that they may have been obtained by theft. Also, I disagree with the personal nature of your criticism here, insinuating that your profane and derogatory inclusions to the Adi Da article were somehow painful to me because they were true, but they are not. My concern is with the continued defamation of Adi Da on the Internet.

I am against the defamation of anyone. I feel that defamation causes pain and emotional distress to others, and because of this, before you publish hate-speech, you might want to do a little more than just take someone’s word for it and then publish their statements anonymously.

Adi Da is certainly not above criticism, and he has always called his teaching a teaching “argument” from the very beginning of his work. I praise the active discussion and criticism that occurs on the internet regarding his teaching and his life. However, the fact remains that there are a few individuals with malicious intentions towards Adi Da who like to make anonymous defamatory remarks and statements. These remarks, which are sometimes profane and graphic, become the object of the Lightmind group focus which then incites hatred and victimizes members of the church. Unfortunately, this hatred is not filtered by “Elias” at Lightmind, but instead it is championed. This is what refutes the statement that what is going on there is only scholarly debate. That would imply a NPOV by its moderator. To say that Lightmind is “neutral” would be a lie. Lightmind has an agenda to harm Adi Da and his followers possibly because "Elias" apparently disagrees with their right to worship as they choose, or he actually believes he is “helping” them.

I also sense a great deal of grief from the anti-Daists whenever doubt is cast to the veracity of their claims. They seem to be extremely beholden to the idea that Adi Da rapes, tortures, and molests his devotees. They refuse to see the legal complaints from the two lawsuits as being extreme, (but legal complaints are not meant to stand on their own, they are one side of a legal battle and are written by attorneys seeking monetary gain.)

It is my understanding that the “verified ex-wife report” is not only derived from the book “The Painted Bird” by Jerzy Kozinski, (a book that was required reading in the church in the mid 70’s) but also that the person making that outrageous claim is most-likeley one of a handful of anti-Daist activists, (some of whom were part of the original lawsuit), who are still involved in a personal vendetta to bring down Adi Da and his church. It is also my understanding that this person could possibly be discredited if their true identity were revealed, and this is the real reason behind their anonymity. This is the basis for my objecting to it’s inclusion in the Adi Da article. D. Gomez, 2005 May 1

"The Painted Bird" (Kosinski; correct spelling) is still in print, so if anyone can locate this allegedly plagiarized passage, please post it. My only other comments are that I disagree with your opinions about the motivations of critics of Adi Da, and that I believe that many of those who sympathize with Adi Da seem to be in denial about the extent of the corruption in Adidam and the fact that it goes straight to the top. As long as that is the case, of course such people will mistake criticism and recounting of unflattering experience as "defamation" (as if power has never before corrupted a charismatic religious leader). —Jim Butler 2005 May 2

The Painted Bird by Jerzy Kosinski contains many graphic yet apparently fictional scenes of suffering and atrocities in Nazi-era, rural Europe. It was required reading in the early days of the Adi Da church. The scene in question that is most likely the source of the “verified ex-wife story”, as best as I can recall, took place in the book as the town whore had been exposed as having had sex with many of the husbands of the village. The wives of the husbands chase the whore into a field where they brutally beat her. At the end of the beating they take a bottle, put it into her, and kick it until it breaks. It is one of the most disgusting scenes that I have ever read in print.

There are many prima fascia problems with the “verified ex-wife story” besides the fact that the coke bottle idea seems to have come from this book, and the fact that the anonymous person is recounting events that allegedly would have occurred over thirty years ago. First and foremost is the claim that Adi Da broke a Coke bottle inside of a woman. Glass Coke bottles are designed to be basically unbreakable. If you dropped one from a counter onto a concrete floor it would not break. The glass was made to be very thick and was intended to be re-usable and recyclable for Coke vending. It would take many consecutive blows from a hammer to break a glass Coke bottle. To break a Coke bottle inside someone would be very difficult and would cause such serious injury that it would most likely be fatal, and at the very least would require immediate emergency room admittance and surgery beyond the capabilities of an ordinary M.D. If someone were admitted to an E.R. with such an injury, a police investigation would be required by the attending physicians as there would be no explanation for such a brutality.

A search of the internet using appropriate search terms [3] finds no examples of bottles being broken inside a woman, and no references to this ever happening to anyone. This alone shows that such an idea is very rare, even as a fiction. If in fact this story is untrue, its use to defame Adi Da constitutes a grave and malicious attack, that in my opinion, most certainly meets the criteria of a hate crime. It’s the cheapest shot in the ongoing attack and defamation of Adi Da, and I for one find it appalling. David Gomez 2005 May 5

Oh, I see: the fact that a novel mentions torture via insertion of a foreign body into the vagina means that any such allegations made subsequent to that novel's publication must be plagiarized? That's interesting logic. And your Google search is absurdly narrow. Google or check Medline for foreign bodies in the vagina and you'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about some aspects of human behavior. BTW, even thick bottles can break if they've previosuly developed tiny cracks, e.g. from being dropped. Also, if you ask around, David, you'll learn that at least one devotee (H.L.) sustained pelvic injuries and received a settlement. Sorry if the truth hurts, but just imagine how much the alleged events themselves did. —Jim Butler 2005 May 17

Jim, you keep saying "the truth hurts" to me in our discussions here. It reminds me of something that would be said in the school-yard by a spiteful playmate in elementary school. I don't say that to you when I make a statement countering your claims. You see that is the hatred. That is the anger. It is self-defeating. D. Gomez May 21st 2005

-Interesting that D. Gomez chooses to focus ONLY on the one incident described here. There is a HUGE body of evidence that there have been many abusive incidents in which people were injured by Frank Jones. This body of evidence takes the form of unpublished transcripts documenting everything Mr. Jones does or says, which are stored in the archives maintained by the Adidam community. In these transcripts, a great many of which I have read, the tape-recorded sexual "theatre" events were documented, including the events that led to many of the lawsuits that are known to have ocurred in the 80s.

Why focus on this one event? Because it appears to be the most inflamatory and the most easily debunked? Why would Mr. Gomez not address any of the other incidents? Because Mr. Gomez has not accessed the archived transcripts? Because he has not been given permission to do so? Or because he hasn't even asked?

I challenge Mr. Gomez, or anyone within the Daist community, to actually research these events within the community-maintained archives, and then tell the world that none of this has ever happened. They may find it necessary to access transcripts that have been moved out of the sanctuary archival facilities for safe keeping elsewhere, to avoid discovery in the event of legal action. They should thoroughly read transcripts that go back 20 or more years, because the abuse has been happening - and documented - at least that long.

I hereby challenge the Daist community to make all such transcripts available to Mr. Gomez, to other members, and to the public. Let the world see, through a gesture of utter transparency and trust, the truth about Adidam and its abusive leader. Katherine, May 19, 2005

Excellent points, Katherine. To be fair, I think DGomez is focusing on this particular incident because I originally placed an account of it (authored by the victim [[4]]) in the Opinions section. But yes, there are plenty of other highly questionable trees in the forest of Adi Da's behavioral patterns. It does appear to be characteristic of cult apologists to split hairs and argue over isolated things and ignore larger patterns. —Jim Butler 2005 May 19

Use of anonymous material

I'm wondering whether anonymous material should necessarily be avoided in cases where authorship has indeed been verified by a reliable third party (in this case, the webmaster of a critical site exposed to legal liability) but the author chooses to remain anonymous. Under "Opinions", I had added a "Verified report" from a so-called "ex-wife" of Adi Da [5], and an (apparently regular) anonymous editor deleted it. The author states that she has furnished proof of her identity to the host of the website on which her testimony was published, and would proviude sworn testimony if the veracity of her statement is challenged. The allegations of this author are indeed sordid, but that alone is not reason to delete them to the extent that there is reason to believe they are true, is it? The issue is credibility, and what anonymity really means in such a case. —Jim Butler 2005 April 26

This is supposed to be a place of reference, not a place to carry out ones personal negative vendetta or agenda. It is unfair to add this profane and inflammatory anonymous statement (which cannot be "verified" except by another anonymous person who has an agenda against Adi-Da) and put it next to opinions and statements by others who are putting not only their names next to their statements but also their organizational affiliations and/or accomplishments, by which anyone could check to see whether they are credible or not. By far, we find that those who are willing to make profane statements intended to inflame and disturb, do so anonymously. So how can you verify their credibility, or their sanity for that matter? If I have something destructive to say about someone, but I am not willing to be responsible for my statement, then where does that put us? This is why libel is illegal. Destructive speech injures others. At the very least you are stooping to the very thing that you claim to be against, - abuse. D.Gomez 2005 April 26th

The quote that you deleted itself contained an explanation of the author's desire for anonymity and of how she had verified her identity with the webmaster who published her words. It's not abuse if it's true, except that to some the truth hurts. Also please see comment above under "NPD", dated today. —Jim Butler 2005 April 29

Trying to Find Balance in the Response Section

I whole-heartedly agree with looking at both sides of every coin. Adi Da is no exception. I support criticism and exposure to all sides of this fascinating teacher. But I am concerned that there is an anti-Daist agenda being brought into this article that is made extreme by their use of defamatory, anonymous material from their own biased chat-room site that berates Adi Da daily. They claim that it is a place for scholarly debate, but in actuality, those expressing a positive point of view there often become victims of hate-speech themselves. Their recent inclusion of a profane and anonymous statement known as the "verified ex-wife report" was also alarming and showed their continued intention to exploit the 20 year old negative media campaign and lawsuit of 1985/86. Because of this I feel that it is important to retain language that adds balance to negative paragraphs in the response section which contains numerous links to "Lightmind", the anti-Daist website. D. Gomez 2005 May 1

Although the webmaster of Lightmind.com definitely has POV (as do most people), I find it amusing to assert that this website is "anti-Daist". The fact is that supporters of Adi Da can and do post there, and in fact its most eloquent defender for many years was finally FORBIDDEN by Adidam from posting (interestingly, he later left and became one of Adidam's most eloquent critics, a fate evidently risked by many who dare to subject Adidam to careful criticism). Adidam, by contrast, hosts no forums that allow criticism, and engages in massive propaganda. Adidam actively attempts to rewrite history and suppress known facts about Adi Da, such as his drug use, his consistent preference for selecting multiple sexual partners from amongst the most attractive females in his community, his passing herpes on to his sexual partners via knowingly having unprotected sex with them, his anxiety attacks, his unedited speech denigrating devotees and bemoaning his lack of fame and followers, and his appetite for expensive material pleasures at others' expense. So who's opposed to free speech? What I just stated about Adi Da are facts ("profane" or not), not opinions, and anyone who says otherwise is simply misinformed. (In an earlier edit, I'd said that such people are "either lying or ignorant", but I recognize that there are actually many reasons why people may make incorrect statements, and I'd rather avoid pouring further gasoline on this fire). Still, at the very least, stipulate the facts. Then let people argue and decide about whether this "apparent profanity" is really "Sacred".

Also, the idea that every criticism referenced to Lightmind has to be "balanced" by statements to the effect that that site is a "hate group" is not valid. "Hate group" is just as subjective a designation as "cult", and the use of the term should be avoided, or at least qualified as opinion. And it really needs to be emphasized that people posting at Lightmind, many of whom are disillusioned former followers of Adi Da, are just as qualified to comment on him as his current devotees, and AT LEAST as informed as celebrities who have been impressed by his books but have had little if any practical experience with his community. (Alan Watts only read Adi Da's first book and never even met him; Ken Wilber has never been a formal member, etc.) Adi Da is indeed a "highly controversial" teache, so citing only devotees and celebrities who like his books is hardly NPOV.

In accordance with Wikipedia's standards, both sides need to aim for brevity, and to separate opinion from fact. (Opinion: "Adi Da may have NPD"; or critics are engaged in "hate speech"; fact: devotees are frequently asked to participate in fundraisers for Da's Disney Art collection; Adi Da was sued for X, Y, and Z in 1985). I think the article needs to be reworked such that there are two sections for positive and negative criticism respectively, eliminating any appearance of rhetorical one-upmanship and the constant creeping-in of "spin-doctoring", from whatever POV, of every other. I'll work on this. —Jim Butler 2005 May 2

Condemnation. This is another example of the smear and how it works. The anti-Daist group propagates narratives, myths, and assertions designed to create hatred and disgust. As I said before, I for one encourage criticism of Adi Da, but why can’t you criticize him on the merits of his work? Why does it always have to go to below-the-belt personal attacks? If you want to condemn people because they have herpes, well then you are going to have to condemn 80% of the population according to most sources. [6] Also, it is widely known that many people show no symptoms of having herpes and yet, the virus can still be spread by them, even with a condom. The idea that Adi Da somehow maliciously spread herpes to others is just another cheap shot from the haters. (And what about the person who gave it to him? Shouldn’t they be condemned also?)

Why would you condemn Adi Da for having gone through a debilitating physical condition? (anxiety attack) Most people would feel compassion for the apparent suffering of others. Drug Use. Sounds pretty ominous. The fact is that Adi Da wrote all about his drug use in detail in his autobiography, and has been very open about it from day one. So your characterization of it being some kind of hidden thing is false. And it's interesting that you bring up the eloquent defender of Adi Da who became Adi Da’s critic, and then criticize Adi Da’s drug use in the same paragraph knowing that this so called eloquent defender/critic is being brought up on “drug-charges” as we speak, according to your own anti-Daist website. So it’s probably better if you left him out of this.

So where does this all end up? This negativity just goes round and round until it eats away your insides. If your going to accuse someone of something really bad in print, I think it should be based on something other than a 20 year old lawsuit and anonymous chat-room postings from a website that unfortunately fits the definition of a hate group. Are you aware of the strict adherence to diet and celibacy that Adi Da and community have been embracing for the past several years? Or is it that current affairs are irrelevant?

I understand why anti-Daists feel the way they do, although I feel that they may have been misinformed. They apparently have no actual experience if Adi Da and his church within the last twenty years, because if they did they would know that there is a great divide between the smear that gets anonymously reported at Lightmind, and what is actually going on in Adi Da's church. And I don’t blame or judge them for it. Isn't it possible that good people are sometimes mistaken? David Gomez May 5

Of course good people are sometimes mistaken. Whether consciously or not, cult-leader types like Adi Da count on that. They count on good people denying, overlooking or rationalizing known facts about their behavior, and believing it's all lies, or to the extent that may be true, that it's somehow spiritual rather than selfish [[7]]. Keep your eyes and mind open, David, and you may come to a better understanding of this dynamic. Until then I'd expect you to keep repeating things like "anonymous chat-room postings from a hate-based website" like a mantra, despite evidence to the contrary (e.g., using a pseudonym is not the same thing as anonymity).

BTW, I don't condemn Adi Da (or anyone else) for using drugs or for possibly having mental illness, though some may consider these issues relevant to his claims to be someone whose body is a uniquely transparent window to the Divine, and the most enlightened being ever to have lived. (I have no problem with the use of psychedelics as a spiritual tool, for example, but poppers?) What I do condemn is abuse, and of course secrecy about it. Are you a member of Adidam, David? If you are, then you have (like many in the outer circles) managed to stay blissfully ignorant about a lot of things, including Adi Da's reckless transmisison of herpes to devotees, and you probably have to work awfully hard to rationalize things like Adi Da's frequent complaining and the constant requests for money to buy him things.

—Jim Butler 2005 May 17

Good job, Jim. Thanks for keeping the article balanced and the vandals on notice.

Speaking of hate speech, David, I am aware that Adi Da is on record as having called the mass of humanity, quote, slugs, unquote, and, quote, unwashed dogs, unquote, among other things. Now that IS hate speech, but you don't dare bring it up, do you? So who do you think you are kidding with your double standard, David? This is Wikipedia, not a place for one-sided propaganda. Dseer 2005 May 18

Vandalism

I just currected extensive vandalism from anon editor with IP address [130.194.13.103]. On the main page, the sections "Teaching" and "Teaching Literature" were entirely deleted, and this Discussion page was (after a series of edits, in which entire sections were removed) completely eradicated! User is not a newbie, and has made constructive and concise edits to other pages, so vandalism appears intentional. Strange. —Jim Butler 2005 May 20

-Not so strange in a community where ends-justifies-means thinking rules. Questions such as "Is there anything you wouldn't do for the guru?" are taken quite literally. As in many fundamentalist religious groups, fanaticism is a way of life for devotees of Adi Da. Katherine, May 20, 2005

That's often true in Adidam and other cults, but in this case it's hard to tell what the vandal's motivations may have been. Critical material was left intact while sections on Da's teaching were deleted. Cults attract people with various issues, and simply leaving the cult doesn't necessarily resolve them, so it wouldn't be unimaginable that an ex-Adidamer might have something of an "ends justifies the means" mentality. —Jim Butler 2005 May 20

Just a question about the term "vandalism" on a Wiki page --- how can you vandalize a site that allows any anonymous user from anywhere on the Internet to freely edit not only your own, but others' posts? Website vandalism is a term usually reserved to describe a cross-site scripting attack. Anyone is free to edit these pages. And on a slighty different, but related topic, I don't see the problem with statements like "supporters say...", or "Adi Da proclaims that...". However, there is obvious spin in a statement such as "Despite his high praise of Adi Da, Wilber himself has never at any point in his life been involved as a formal member of Adidam." What would happen if you reworded that statement to say - "Despite his criticism of Adi Da, Wilber himself has never at any point in his life been involved as a formal member of Adidam." The statement is factual, however either way, there is a subtle spin involved. You can freely delete this paragraph, and I would not be offended, because heck, it's a WIKI PAGE!

On Wikipedia, vandalism does have a particular meaning. Still, your point is well taken in that there's a grey area between vandalism and NPOV, since the former depends on the editor's intentions which aren't always apparent. Re the Wilber comment, the point is that Wilber either isn't practicing what he preaches, or isn't the kind of person he is preaching to when he recommends Adi Da to those who "realize full well the extremely risky nature of the adventure, but who feel a strong pull toward complete and total surrender of their lives to a spiritual Master". (Is Wilber that type of person or not? If so, why doesn't he join? If not, how would he even know what he's talking about?) That point does seem relevant as part of the article's "Response" section; it illustrates the undisputed fact that while some people praise from afar, few of them end up joining, and fewer stick around. - Jim Butler 06:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

About the Wilber comment, I think a more NPOV way to state the fact that he has never become a member of Adidam, and also get your point across more clearly would be to phrase it as simply: "Wilber himself has never at any point in his life been involved as a formal member of Adidam." Then you are not spinning it as saying his praise has no basis because he hasn't ever been a formal member OR you are not spinning it as saying his criticism has no basis because he hasn't ever been a formal member. I'm just trying to add a bit of neutrality. There are many places on this article where similar analyses can be made. Based on your point of view, you would rather say "Despite his PRAISE..." yada yada. Someone with the opposite point of view would want to say "Despite his CRITICISM..." yada yada.

Fair point on deleting the "despite his praise" implying POV, and I just changed that. I agree re subtle spin, but some of that is inevitable if the article is to present both sides of the controversy, and plenty of subtle pro-Da spin remains as well. That seems reasonable enough. Also, a minor point: I don't see why anyone would want to say "despite his criticism" in that passage, because it simply wouldn't make sense. It would make sense if it were followed by "he HAS been involved" or "has remained involved". - Jim Butler 03:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hate - Based Website Now Links to the Adi Da Page

This is supposed to be a reference to the life and work of Adi Da, but unfortunately it has been taken over by those who wish to express their hatred for Adi Da as can be evidenced by the rash of recent edits and comments such as this one, ""In my opinion this man is a madman who should be locked up for raping his students and writing and speaking such inane and dangerous bullshit. His true name should be La-Di-Da- Lover of His own Pleasure and Enforcer of Spiritual Fascism"- A concerned seeker of Truth."

Allegations of rape are part of the myth making machinery of the hate group. "Hate groups usually assert that the targets of their attacks are harmful to society, malicious, less fit to be members of society, or operating some hidden cabal, usually presenting poorly-corroborated "evidence" with the target's intrinsic religion, belief, race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability being the common element. The evidence is usually tied together by arguing either that members of the target group are guilty by definition or overwhelmingly tend to be guilty (making blanket statements against the group possible)."

It cannot be stated strongly enough that there is no actual evidence of rape in Adi Da's case. But sadly there is a group of people who are maliciously involved in a campaign of attacking Adi Da as a form of religious persecution. The only basis for their attacks are a 20 year old lawsuit and a media smear campaign organized by the anti-Daists. Their anger is self-evident here and it is a taint that I unfortunately am not interested in associating with. Its too bad, because Wikipedia could be a beautiful thing, but it can only represent the maturity and fairness of those who participate there. As soon as it becomes the place of propagandists, (in this case anti-Daist propaganda) then it fails as a place of reference where balance is found.

In my participation here I was absolutely supportive of those with negative views to be heard, it is a basic right. But, it does require responsibility, not anonymous defamation of the subject matter. Balance and fairness are not allowed by the anti-Daists, only the propagation of their negative myth-making and assertions. Shame on you. May you never be the victims of hatred and irresponsible statements such as rape, may they never be made against you. To do so is criminal. But I guess that doesn't stop you, does it? Who cares if you malign, offend, and persecute those who practice a faith based in Love. That's Love actually, not the perverse fascinations of the hateful few. David Gomez, May 21st 2005

What on earth are you referring to, David? Nothing in the current version of the article, that's for sure. You cite a silly quote which I already had reverted by the time you posted your comments. I see you still like the "hate" designation, but conveniently ignore some arguments already raised about it (e.g., reductio ad absurdum: the term, as you use it, is so loose that it fits victims who speak out against pedophile priests). You keep bringing up anonymous allegations of rape and abuse: where is anything like that in the article? Are you still referring to the now-deleted ["Verified Ex-Wife Report"]? That isn't anonymous, but pseudonymous. (Hey, wait, I made that point already too.) And in any case, because I thought you made a good point even about pseudonymity, I didn't put it back when you deleted it almost a month ago. So where's the beef?

If you object to linking published reports on lawsuits at all, I really don't think that's a valid objection: the controversy was reported in major news media; it is a major aspect of the subject matter; and the lawsuits were never found to be frivolous. Furthermore, contrary to your repeated assertions, credible allegations of exploitation and abuse have continued since 1985, including from members who have both joined and left Adidam well since then. —Jim Butler 2005 May 20

Jim, thank you for this response. It accurately demonstrates the mechanics of the smear and how it works. Instead of debating the many issues that I have raised above, the response is based on more links to the same old tired accounts from 20 years ago, bringing them forth as though they were absolutely fresh and newly relevant, simply because in the past, you have found that by doing so, you can negatively effect peoples perceptions of Adi Da.

To be clear, my objections are to you “vandalizing”, (as you seem to like to phrase it, I would simply say that you removed them), lines that I had added to several paragraphs in the response section that I felt justly brought neutrality to the negative agenda that were contained in those paragraphs. The phrases you removed were “On the other hand, supporters claim that such statements are distortions created by "anti-Daists" as a form of religious persecution because they disagree with Adi Da and his church”, and “(Supporters claim that the Daism Reports from which these links source are part of an ongoing attempt to defame Adi Da, and to bring an end to his church.)” In adding these phrases I completely allowed your point of view to be heard, but also expressed another view as well. In your deletion of these lines of mine you have instead suppressed my right to be heard. So this is the kind of behavior that I disagree with. You will also note that I have not moved to delete any of your material against Adi Da, because I support your right to be heard, even though I disagree with you. - D. Gomez, June 4th, 2005

The stuff I deleted had nothing to do with a personal vendetta against you or anybody. I deleted the statements above, and others having POV on both sides, because they were weasel words and I wanted to tighten up the article. Anyone is entitled to edit at Wikipedia, but not to express their personal POV, and that is what you were doing with those "supporters claim..." statements that I deleted. I have followed debate at Lightmind for quite some time and have seen your POV about "hate speech" and conspiracy expressed only rarely. It is more common for Da's defenders to advance different arguments, such as that his work is "crazy-wise" and cannot be understood by th "usual man". THat said, I am in fact unaware of any official stance that Adidam has expressed on a website or in any recent book about criticisms of Adi Da. There's something that could go under "Response", if it existed.

And once again, for the record, there are many fresher-than-1985 criticisms of Adi Da just a click away at [Lightmind], as anyone can verify. People leave routinely and often have much to say about Da's self-serving behaviors that have been justified as spiritual teaching. [Wikiquote] has some insightful comments. mdash;Jim Butler 2005 June 6

Challenge to the Haters

People usually hate most in others those things that they have not yet dealt with in themselves.

I have thoroughly investigated the claims made by the anti-Daist website, (including actual interviews with the alleged victims). As a victim of child-abuse myself, I would NEVER be involved in defending anyone guilty of crimes of abuse. So I made it a point to thoroughly investigate the claims made by the anti-Daists. I have found that almost every single allegation was the product of a community that liked to spread rumors about its guru. The primary motive for these rumors were jealousy and spite within the community itself. I am not saying that Adi Da has been a gentleman, for he certainly has not. His sometimes harshness in dealing with people has made him a target for what is now a snow-ball of anger and hatred. The most that Adi Da is actually guilty of is yelling at people. His yelling is for real. But so is his teaching, his transmission, and his work with many who have been helped positively by his participation in their lives.

Because of the nature of hatred and it's addictive quality, the idea that Adi Da could have a positive role in peoples lives is unacceptable and unbelievable to the haters. Their anger is apparent in their dialog and it is like a poison. This poison has spread and is spreading. So it becomes necessary to defend someone who is being unjustly abused by the hate-group, Adi Da. To call someone a rapist is very serious. You better have more than " he-said, she-said" to back up such a claim. And so far, there is absolutely no real proof. I have even read statements made at the anti-Daist website were a woman who they claim was raped says emphatically that she wasn't, and they call her a liar!

I challenge anyone of the hate group to have anyone claiming Adi Da physically abused them, to take a lie-detector test administered by a licensed and neutral party. I also challenge anyone of the haters to have those persons interviewed by a private investigator, including the revelation of their full identities to the investigator, back-ground check, and whether or not they have a criminal history, (some of the propagators of the original lawsuit were convicted felons) and post the results on their online forum. The fact that you haven’t bothered to do this is loathsome and wrong, especially in the face of your defamatory statements. I'm willing for your allegations to be proven, but so far you have failed miserably. This failure makes your allegations wrong and possibly criminal. D. Gomez May 21st, 2005

Mr. Gomez, you state that you have "thoroughly investigated the claims made by the anti-Daist website". Since you are so concerned about providing proof for the claims against your guru, why not provide proof of your investigations. Where is your proof? Have the people you spoke to taken lie-detector tests? Will you make this "evidence" available for everyone to see? -Katherine June 6, 2005

Mr. Gomez, with all due respect, you are not telling the truth here. There is no "hate group". People who post at the Lightmind site [8] are not part of any organized movement. There is no such organized group or movement. The Lightmind site is a public forum, where anyone can express any point of view they like. This is free speech, not hate speech. The Lightmind Daism forum, and others like it that have sprung up on the web, are the ONLY PLACES where anyone can publically express a point of view that differs from the official spin of the Adidam organization. That free speech is not expressed in the Adidam community is well known. Your guru has said repeatedly that Adidam is not a democracy. Adidam may not be a democracy, but (last time I looked) the rest of this country is, and we all have a right to our opinions. Opinions are not, by themselves, hate speech. Speaking for myself, I do not hate Adi Da or the community. But I do feel a responsibility to tell the truth about what went on there during my tenure, and to aid others who are coming to terms with their own experiences. There is no hate in this. You are simply wrong. -Katherine June 6, 2005

I wish you'd respond to my responses, David, rather than just start a new section and repeat yourself. It would be easier on other readers, and better netiquette as well. Anyway, a couple of comments: (1) you obviously haven't talked to the same people I have. Maybe you could clarify exactly which allegations you have investigated and which you haven't. (2) Re your "burden of proof" argument, if you're going to place such a burden on those who allege abuse by Adi Da, why not subject Adi Da and senior members of his group to the same demands? Why not have them all take lie detector tests, including the people who allegedly destroyed evidence of Adi Da's abuses? I'd also point out that the author of the "ex-wife" report alleging sexual abuse stated, in that report: "If there will be any legal question as to the veracity of my statement, I will provide written sworn testimony in a court of law to protect the owner of this web-site and possibly bring in corroborating witness if called for." [9]

Finally, the larger, unaddressed point is this: By focusing on the most extreme allegations of abuse, and demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt when such cases haven't even gone to court, you tend to gloss over the more obvious problems that are evident to many observers of Adidam, whether they have been students or not. I don't know whether or not Adi Da is guilty of rape or other extreme abuses, and I may never know. However, there's plenty else that is known about Adi Da that I find less than indicative of the spiritual greatness he believes himself to have attained. People can judge these things for themselves. —Jim Butler 2005 May 22

Jim, as you know, we, for the most part, live in a democratic society. We are governed by the rule of law, which says, you are innocent until proven guilty. And the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. This is to counter a part of human nature observed in history known as the lynch mob mentality where someone in the group shouts an accusation at a target. This quickly snowballs as more accusations follow. And without a trial or jury that target becomes the victim of the mob. Later, it is shown that that first shout was mistaken. Thus a great injustice occurs.

The Adi Da article currently is more negative than positive. I am intending to replace the lines that you erased in the response section, and I also am intending on balancing the article to be a more honest reflection of the real Adi Da, a being who has accomplished a great deal, but to whom this article makes little of. I am hoping that these additions will be allowed and not removed as they have been in the past. - D. Gomez, June 5th 2005

Innocent until proven guilty is about the law, and, as you know Mr. Gomez, it is used in legal trials where the defendant faces his accuser. It would be very nice if, in this case, the accusers could have their day in court and face Mr. Jones with their accusations. But this will never happen. Mr. Jones has done everything in his power, including surrounding himself with armed body guards, to avoid having to ever face his accusers. He has entirely ignored all attempts we have made even to have a conversation with him. As you also know, his followers must first submit to a vow, donate large sums of money, take numerous hours of courses, and submit to a highly invasive cultural indoctrination before they can ever see him. He is very well insulated from his followers as well as the rest of the world.

It was Mr. Jones who took the first legal action, you see. The people who sued in the 80s did try to talk to Mr. Jones first, but were rebuffed. Then Mr. Jones filed suit against Mr. Miller. Mr. Miller counter-sued. And then, while he was also making sure nothing from the archives could be discovered through the legal process, he settled with them, paying out large sums of money in exchange for an agreement that his accusers would never talk to anyone about their complaints. In this way, Mr. Jones attempted to make certain that the facts of these cases would never be known.

I suggest that if you have a problem with this, rather than defending him in places like this, you would be better advised to take up the matter with your guru. -Katherine June 7, 2005

With all due respect, the above statement bares very little resemblance to reality. The whole archives thing and the Mr. Jones appellation. Who are you talking about? There was never a subpoena of church records, so how could there be an attempt to destroy evidence? I mean really. Lets get real here. By the way, some of the people involved in the 1985 alleged extortion attempt / lawsuit actually had criminal histories (unlike Adi Da) and would later, again, be convicted of serious felonies after the lawsuit. These people were kicked out of the church because they were really out of it, and refused to stop partying and take up the disciplines again. With people like this around, (who still, to this very day, incite hatred and anger toward Adi Da), it's no wonder he has needed to surround himself with ample security.

You have a great sense of humor, Mr. Gomez, but your argument is patently ridiculous. There has to be a subpoena before records can be destroyed? I have to wonder what world you live in. Do Daists still avoid reading the news? Records and documents are destroyed all the time by corporations, individuals, and organizations in anticipation of legal action.

In the Daist cases, after the lawsuits were filed, Mr. Jones saw fit to remove any documents - in this case transcripts of parties where the abuse took place - that would incriminate him if there was a subpoena. He didn't want to wait for a subpoena: he - and his attorneys - wanted to make certain nobody could ever see those documents. This is because they were incriminating. Everything he said to all those people was completely documented. This is why Adidam settled with the parties involved for millions of dollars. Millions of dollars is what it took to buy their silence. Fortunately, mine was not for sale.

The project was carried out at the direction of Mr. Lesser, who oversaw the work of 7 or 8 people. The documents weren't merely removed. The originals were microfiched, the microfiche films taken to a secret off-site location. Then the originals were edited by various means or destroyed. Some of the sanitized transcripts made their way back into the archives. But the complete originals - with the discoverable incriminating evidence of Mr. Jones abusing his followers - were hidden away. How do I know this, Mr. Gomez? I am one of the people who carried out this project. As when I first wrote about it, I sign myself -Speaker #2 June 14, 2005 Addendum to Lawsuit Details; Revising History

Taking vows is nothing new. In fact, it is what separates a true religious practice, (as in monastic faiths and many other religious orders), from some fake cult that makes no demands on its membership. The haters want you to believe that this is some kind of crime, for people to be asked to take vows. It's a kind of ignorance about the realties of the entire religious tradition, both eastern and western. And Katherine, if you can't even bring yourself to address him as Adi Da, then what are you doing involving yourself in a discussion about the "Adi Da" article? It is very interesting to me that people are so attracted to Adi Da. Whether to love him or to hate him, one thing seems to be for sure, they just can’t leave him alone.

Trotting out that tired old Daist line again? According to Franklin Albert Jones and his followers, you can check out anytime but you can never leave. What a nightmare the Daist community is.

I'm not sure what "taking vows" has to do with lawsuits and coverups. Perhaps you interjected it here to confuse readers, instead of addressing my more important points. Sure, many religions require their members to take vows, but I've never heard of another that makes the monetary demands on its members that Mr. Jones does. Adidam Tithing Guide In case you don't remember, Franklin Albert Jones was his first and legal name. -Katherine June 25, 2005

I’m sorry Katherine, even though you would obviously rather I didn’t defend Adi Da, I am happy to enjoy the freedom to express my thoughts here. My problem is people who would rather have people like me silenced.

Apology accepted, Mr. Gomez. I enjoy expressing my thoughts freely as well. I wonder who would have you silenced. Is that something you read here? -Katherine June 25, 2005

I think that much of what the anti-Daists breed in one another is very similar to a lynch-mob mentality. Most of what is anonymously reported at the anti-Daist website is rumor and speculation driven by a destructive agenda. The whole “destruction of evidence” idea at the Archives speaks as though there were actually a criminal investigation that had occurred. Adi Da has never been accused of committing a crime in a criminal action. There has never been substantial proof to bring such an action. Ever. That is why the 1985 action was a civil action, because the standard of proof is substantially lower. So the idea that there was some kind of massive conspiracy to destroy evidence is a false statement right out of the gate. It’s only “evidence” if there was sufficient reason to conclude that a crime had been committed, thereby allowing a judge to issue a subpoena. This has never been the case. So these are the kinds of claims one finds from the other side. The inherent un-American-ness of vow-taking, and if you throw anything away, you are destroying evidence. Thank god for due process, or we would be looking at another Spanish Inquisition right here, right now. And what if there was such a thing as the second-coming of Christ? He would be the first in the anti-Cultist's cross-hairs. And they would slay him all over again for sleeping with prostitutes and calling himself the Son of God!

The article as it exists today is still full of the anti-Daist agenda. It really is an unfair portrait colored by the negativism that they are putting forward. The article appears to pay lip-service to Adi Da's life and teaching while linking extensively to their anti-Daist site. Any attempt to make changes is met with a "vandalism" claim, and then reverted. Where is Nat Kraus when you need him? D. Gomez, June 10th, 2005

What's the matter, Mr. Gomez, can't you stand for anyone but yourself to exercise free speech? Any article that purports to represent a balanced view must allow a balance of opinions. I realize that you find it offensive to read points of view about your guru that you don't agree with. If there IS a second coming, perhaps your suffering will be liberated. Until then, buck up old pal. Cheerio!

-Katherine June 25, 2005

I've spoken personally with someone who claimed to be involved in the destruction of Adidam's records. Adidam's motivation is obvious even in the absence of a subpeona, for they had much to fear from the outing of Adi Da's behavior. However, getting back to the article, it seems, David, that you object to its linking to Lightmind.com at all because you consider Lightmind to be a "hate group". That's like the anonymous poster 210.0.200.2 (June 7, 2005) objecting to the article's linking to Adidam.org because Adidam is a "cult". Both your edits and those of 210.0.200.2 were blanket attempts to smear an opposing view, and thus themselves pure POV.

Please be specific about your objections. Which statements of fact do you dispute? I'm waiting for someone who thinks the article is too "negative" to answer this question. Perhaps the real objection is to the unvarnished, unspun presentation of simple facts about Adi Da and Adidam, facts that a lot of people would consider to be inherently "negative" (like Adi Da's consistent pattern of selfish self-gratification at others' expense). Here again is a good post about the specific tendency of Adidamers, and believers in general, to rationalize the selfish and degraded behaviors of their leaders: [link]. —Jim Butler 2005 June 12

Third Party

note: user "Karakal" removed all his comments from this page, so comments referencing his posts may appear out-of-place. -Jim Butler 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Karakal. Please be specific about any "unproven allegations" in the article itself that you find objectionable. If Wikipedia is NPOV, and Adidam is controversial, why should the article include only the pro-Adidam side and merely, coyly, deign to allude that controversy happens to exist without explaining its substance?

That said, I have to smile at the implication that a website can be a "hate group" but a small, insular religious group run by a charismatic, self-apotheosing guy who routinely indulges himself at others' expense, and even abuses them, can't be a "cult". Or can it? If you're going to define "cult" so narrowly as to exclude Adidam, or argue that the term is just too vague to be used, then why use the term "hate group" so loosely as to include within its umbrella not even a loosely-networked group of people, but simply a website that hosts free discussion and includes critical commentary by people who have actually belonged to Adidam? Once again I will raise the point, since it goes ignored: If Lightmind is a hate group, then surely those who have spoken out about pedophile priests are also haters, by your logic. —Jim Butler 2005 June 2

The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate on the internet. Some examples can be found here. [[10]] In some cases the target of hate is that a person is black or Jewish, or perhaps because they are homosexual. In the case of Lightmind, the targets are Adi Da and Daists and it is considered hate because the defamation occurs as a result of prejudice against Daists and their religious beliefs. In another example of how hate occurs on the internet, recently a man murdered the parents of a federal judge after being incited by what he read on an internet hate site targeting that judge. [[11]] While Lightmind has not yet reached this level of hate, some fear that if left un-checked, they could eventually incite violence against the Daist community. There have been examples of threats being made against Daists via the Lightmind site.

In the case of using those against pedophile priests as an example of what Lightmind is about is not a useful comparison. By the year 2002, at least 300 lawsuits alleging clergy sex abuse had been filed in 16 states; nearly 250 priests had resigned or been suspended; four bishops had resigned; In the case of Adi Da you have a group of people suing Adi Da in 1985, a negative media campaign that lasted 10 days, a counter-suit made by the church, and as a result, a great deal of anonymous defamation being posted to a hate-based internet site 20 years later that then gets re-posted and sourced as fact. That is the difference. Overwhelming, irrefutable evidence on the one hand, 20 years old allegations and anonymous chat-room postings on the other hand.

Lightmind also routinely blocks access to their site by anyone who they see as a threat to their agenda. Their agenda does not appear to be one of finding out the truth, but rather one of creating the impression that Adi Da and his church are harmful to society, and in so doing they wish to bring an end to this religious faith. They appear to be willing to post reckless claims of rape and abuse without verification or proof in order to further this program. They also appear to seek to malign those who publicly endorse Adi Da and were apparently quite successful in the case of Ken Wilber. The Adi Da article appears to have become another example of anti-Daist fervor and is tending towards misinformation and propaganda by extensively sourcing their anti-Daist website. - D. Gomez, June 3rd, 2005

Mr Gomez, you are deliberately misleading the readers. Why? Given that less than 10% of those who've been formally involved over time are still involved, the assurances of those 10% that are still involved and new converts who have no first hand knowleged saying none of the charges are true proves little. The Lightmind site is not a hate site. What you call anti-Daists are mostly former members or former prospective members. Adidam members can post anytime at Lightmind, but Adidam chooses not to reply to these charges. After all, public discussion with those who were actual members and who know the inside information makes recruitment difficult, and defections resulting from reading that site have been documented. Readers who doubt that can refer to the Yahoo Da-Friends group. Daists demeaned a former member there, then stopped posting when he responded. Ex-members are not motivated by hatred of Daists and their religious beliefs, since they were drawn to those very beliefs at the time, but by a desire to expose what Adidam is really like and that they were misled. Your statement that Daists have been threatened on the site is false. In fact, the opposite is true, in 2001, a Adidam member stated that Adi Da could strike posters dead if he wanted to. The claims of rape are based on first hand accounts from credible sources, and the group did for a time encourage men to beat their spouses. The 1985 charges did result in the group publically admitting they had lied to the outer membership about what was going on, and substantial defections. The lightmind site is open to anyone who wants to ask questions to establish credibility. But none of this misinformation is surprising coming from you. Above, you claim 80% of the population is infected with herpes, but what is being described is genital herpes, which is less than 20%, and Franklin Jones' irresponsible sexual contact with way over 100 females which spread the disease. That last claim pretty much sums up your logic and credibility, Mr. Gomez. It isn't hate, it is the desire that you don't mislead the public without an alternative voice. Your broad brush avoidance of specifics should be noted. MS 4 June 2005

Can this dicussion re-focus on possible improvements of Adi Da's Wikipedia article instead of discussing the person of Adi Da? Thanks. Andries 09:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Andries, but I can't let these defamatory accusations by "MS" remain unanswered. To say that I am deliberately misleading readers is itself an untruth. I am currently blocked by "Elias" from accessing the Lightmind site even though I have never posted there, simply because he was able to glean my IP address from the history of this article and because he doesn't want someone who can defend Adi Da to have a voice and interfere with his agenda. Are you saying that I am lying about this? I am sitting here connecting to Lightmind right now. I’m just connecting to the site. I’m not trying to post anything, and I'll tell you what it says. It says: "Sorry, your post was not accepted by the system. Please contact the Webmaster for further information." How would I know that it says this if I weren’t actually being blocked? So tell me, exactly how am I misleading the readers?

Note to Mr. Gomez: I know for a fact members of Adidam have posted there without interference in the recent past, because I've seen it myself, and that was the basis for my assertion. I see now that Elias, the webmaster of the lightmind site has recently responded to your allegations about being blocked. He denies deliberately blocking you and says you should email him if you are having problems. I edited the response for clarity as follows:

"I've never blocked this guy and wouldn't. It would be great if he posted his arguments here. That said, it is possible he is using the same IP as somebody who got blocked. My suggestion is he send me his IP address if he knows it, and I will check if it is blocked. Or he could register and post to the New Daism Forum. There's really only a handful of people who are "blocked". Most of them are ad-spammers. I purposely put a link to the Wikipedia discussion group on the sidebar of this forum for the very reason that I feel that Gomez should be heard. He's a rare bird -- a guy like old Conrad, who wants to defend his guru."

The lightmind site also gives this information on how to contact the webmaster:

If you need information about anything related to the website, you can contact the webmaster (Elias) at books@lightgate.net. Thus while you may be having access problems, you have not proven your point.

"The claims of rape are based on first hand accounts from credible sources" is your statement above. I dare you to name one single credible first - hand account of rape. I double dare you. It will be the first known existence of such a claim, but I am all ears. You have to remember that just because someone anonymously posts it to an online chat-room does not make it credible or first-hand. They could be reporting a rumor or just totally making it up.

And about the herpes issue, because I am tired of hearing this distortion. In 1975, there was apparently an outbreak of herpes within the inner circle of Adi Da, This was 30 years ago. At the time, no one even knew what it was. No one had even heard of herpes in 1975. It was a brand new disease. But yes, some people got it at that time and apparently Adi Da was one of them. But what does this have to do with anything? And how does this become a malicious act on Adi Da's part? I submit to you that this is another product of the hate. The haters will take anything like this and turn it into the most vile and evil thing. I'm not saying that it was a good thing that this happened. I just think the way that it gets distorted is just not right and goes way beyond malice towards Adi Da. So now we are reporting on Adi Da’s sex-life and we are saying that he purposely gave herpes to over 100 women. And what are we basing this on? Well, we read it on the internet. It must be true. Why would anybody lie about such a thing? Hmmmmmm. Let me see. Perhaps because they hate Adi Da? Noooooooo. They would never do that. Get real. D. Gomez, June 10, 2005

Dear D. Gomez, Were you even alive in 1975? If you were, you would know that anyone who was sexually active in 1975 knew about herpes. It was spreading rapidly through the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll culture of the time. Franklin Albert Jones knew about it of course. He had been sexually promiscuous for years by then and an avid participant in this culture. He knew full well what it was and what to do and not do about it. Herpes wasn't the first or only sexually transmitted disease in the community. In 1974 the whole group lined up at a local free clinic and got shots for gonorrhea because someone in the community had it. He had passed it to his wife, who passed it to ... guess who, none other than FAJ! And guess what David. He gave herpes to me. He didn't say this to me personally, but he said in front of me to my friend that he had given her "herpes prasad". Oh boy, what a gift. We were all so fortunate. He knew he had it and yet he has continued to this day to have unprotected sex with anyone he wants. Mr. Responsibility was never one of his names. Sincerely, Janis P. Octrober 2005

Improvements should retain a reasonable balance and avoid an excessively and unreasonably favorable presentation of Adi Da. I think the basic article does that, provided Adidam can be prevented from vandalizing the site and then making absurd accusations of hate as they did which started this whole dialogue. MS 4 June 2005

You might want to read Criticism of Prem Rawat that deals with similar issues including "hate group" accusations. In hindsight I think that having a separate criticism article was not a good idea. Andries 10:05, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Exellent! I am interested in cults in general, having seen too many fall victim to them and the same attacks against defectors from many different cults. Those not familiar with cults and cult mechanics have difficulty weighing the credibility cultist and cult apologist arguments supported by members against ad hoc accusations by motivated defectors. There are a number of cults, same game, different name. Improvements to presentation could be used globally. MS 4 June 2005

Balance vs. Weasel Words

Regarding the most recent four edits starting on June 6: it seems to me that with such changes, the article is beginning to descend into the "supporters say - critics say" hell characterizing the Criticism of Prem Rawat article mentioned above by Andries. I applaud DSeer's efforts to bring some balance to both DGomez's added paragraph and the counterpoint added by the anon 210.0.200.2 poster, but still, one can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The new paragraphs are filled with weasel words, simply thinly veiled vehicles for individual editors' POV, and are out of place in what is supposed to be an encyclopedic reference. I much prefer the previous version of the article, which simply outlines the controversy and links to external sites (whose POV the reader is, as always, free to determine for himself). The ideas expressed in the added paragraphs, while not without value, IMO belong here on the discussion page rather than in the article itself. I'm pasting them in below for posterity, and I think the present version of the article needs either to be reverted or at least substantially pared down. —Jim Butler 2005 June 7

Please note: Wikipedia’s success depends on the fairness of the editorial treatment of the articles contained therein. Readers will find the dynamics of interactions between members and ex-members is similar to that of other guru-based groups, and should evaluate claims carefully. The teaching section of this article uses links to Daist websites that source the group's propaganda as valid biographical information. Critics of Adi Da claim that this pro-Daist movement fits the definition of a destructive cult and is part of an ongoing campaign to mislead the public about Adi Da and Adidam in general as a form of enslavement and mind control, which Daists catagorically deny. Critics also point to significant revisionism and inconsistency in the literature as evidence of unreliability, while Daists point out that apparent inconsistency was always an accepted part of the teaching.

-- from paragraph prepended to "Teaching" section by 210.0.200.2 on 02:02, 7 Jun 2005; edited by Dseer 03:45, 7 Jun 2005

Please note: Wikipedia’s success depends on the fairness of the editorial treatment of the articles contained therein. Readers will find the dynamics of interactions between members and ex-members is similar to that of other guru-based groups, and should evaluate claims carefully. The response section of this article uses links to a public website run by a former member of Adidam. The site contains lots of archived discussions between supporters and critics of Adi Da, and material critical of Adi Da and Adidam from primarily ex-members and sympathizers that sources both attributed and anonymous postings as fact. Supporters of Adi Da claim that this is an anti-Daist movement that fits the definition of an online hate-group and is part of an ongoing campaign to defame Adi Da and Daists in general as a form of religious persecution. (Please see “discussion” link to Adi Da article.) Critics say that the accounts are primarily from ex-members and former sympathizers who maintain that the full truth is not being told based on their own experiences, and who catagorically deny the hate-group allegation.

-- from paragraph prepended to "Response" section by DGomez on 20:32, 6 Jun 2005; edited by Dseer on 03:45, 7 Jun 2005

The article can be improved. I was thinking of adding a section something like a voter's pamphlet, where each side advocates key points of their position and the other side rebuts it in the same section, so readers can see both arguments together. I do think the point that the dynamics here between members and ex-members seen here are similar to those seen around other controversial guru based groups with substantial defections and so readers should evaluate claims from either side carefully, is a good one to make. Historically, ex-members of these more secretive groups with very high defection rates have usually been found to be more accurate simply because they usually have broader perspectives and having considered the pros and cons from the inside are less vulnerable to group think. Dseer 7 Jun 2005

Hi Dseer. Looks like we were both adding comments here at the same time! I think that the point you make about dynamics in the group being similar to other groups is the one thing worth keeping and that everything else should be reverted. The "pro" and "con" idea is fine, and appropriate for a debate forum or this discussion page, but I think it would wreck the article for reasons I stated above. Here are the comments I was about to post:

Regarding the objections implicit in DGomez's and 210.0.200.2's changes: what exactly is unfactual about the previous version of the article? DGomez claims that the Lightmind website "sites anonymous postings as fact", and 210.0.200.2 claims that the Adidam site presents propgaanda in an effort to brainwash. While both of those claims are debatable, they are not the point. The issue is THE ARTICLE ITSELF, and whether any of the claims in it (version dated 31 May 2005, before this series of edits and counter-edits) are false. And I think it's pretty clear that none of them are. One can of course question whether or not Adi Da is the most enlightened being in the history of the manifest universe, but there is no question that this is what Adidam teaches (just as Christianity teaches that the only way to salvation is by accepting Jesus, God's only begotten Son, as one's savior). One can question whether or not it's flattering to Adi Da to discuss the substance of the lawsuits, or whether or not his "auditioning" female devotees to be his intimate "serving ladies" is indicative of spiritual greatness, but there is no question that these things themselves did and do transpire (just as the selling of indulgences and the Spanish Inquisition also transpired). Anyone who disputes these straightforward statements of fact about Adi Da and Adidam is either dishonest or misinformed or both.

As an ex-member of Adidam, I'm pretty familiar both with the organization and the controversy about it, and I cannot find a single unfactual statement -- or excessive use of weasel words -- in the earlier version of the article. If anyone can, then please edit accordingly rather than insert blanket disclaimers, as DGomez and 210.0.200.2 have done, that attempt to cast aspersions on referenced sources.

As far as I can tell, the only purpose served by the recent edits (Dseer's excepted) is to further an ad hominem agenda on both sides. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is not to pass judgement on the credibility of Adi Da himself or upon those who criticize him, but simply to provide an introductory, factual overview of his life, teaching and the response thereto, which includes the controversy. I appreciate Dseer's attempt to caveat to both sides of the debate, but again, I think extensive comments along those lines are more appropriate for this discussion page, and the existence of parallel "disclaimer" paragraphs attempting to one-up each other is plainly inappropriate for any encyclopedic reference that hopes to be taken seriously by intelligent people. For now I'm simply going to revert the article to its earlier, de-weaseled state, and add the cautionary note from Dseer mentioned above. The article should remain substantive, and not degenerate into a "point-counterpoint" battleground. —Jim Butler 2005 June 7

June 08 2005 post removed by "Mike".

Thanks "Mike" for this quote from Conrad telling a story that would have occurred (if it were true) 15 years before our recently arrested friend Conrad was even a member of the community. So how would he know? From a rumor that he heard of course. Well if you hear it in a rumor, it must be true. And how can someone with Conrad's proven bad judgement and alleged criminal behavior be someone who could be trusted to tell the truth about these things anyway?

---> CORRECTION: "15 years before...Conrad was even a member of the community" ??? Conrad joined the community in December 1976. How do I know this? I was there. I remember him. I don't know where you gather your "facts" from, Mr. Gomez. but obviously you have no compunction in playing fast and loose with them.

\m June 14, 2005

These stories that you are telling here are slanderous if they are not true. Do you really think it's a good idea to slander someone based on anonymous postings you read in an online chat-room? You must not have any assets. Adi Da has not touched a drop of alcohol in over 12 years. So I don't know how that fits in with your "life-long" characterization. D. Gomez June 10th, 2005

June 11 2005 post removed by "Mike", who refuses to engage in a dialogue with "Gomez".

I think it is okay if criticisms are accompanied by rebuttals but both have to be sourced to websites, memoires, articles or books and not made up/invented here. Andries 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are engaging in sophistry, Karakal. Nor are you a lawyer. Adidam has in house lawyers and millions to spend on lawyers, while the dissidents had little after losing so much to the cult, yet Adidam settled those lawsuits out of court and paid money in return for silence. Adidam has paid a number of people off, depending on how much they know. Why? It is not that there are not those who would testify against Adi Da under oath in court, it is that Adi Da avoided the legal system, refused to even meet with the dissidents, let alone go to court in an attempt to clear himself, etc. Unproven allegations where the party with more money and high powered legal team settles may be unproven in law, but in civil suits the burden is simply preponderance, not the higher, beyond reasonable doubt standard, and so reasonable persons can draw reasonable inferrences as to why Adidam didn't go to court but settled. By the way, should Adidam really and foolishly attempt to actually sue those making these charges, be forwarned there are those willing to testify today and lots of documentation. As for your definition of Defamation as: "Communication to third parties of false statements about a person that injure the reputation of or deter others from associating with that person" – http://www.answers.com/topic/defamation, who are you kidding? Since you only believe the statements about the incidents are false, while those more directly involved say otherwise, including more honest Daists who interpret the events differently but do not deny them, at best they are in dispute, and that is not defamation. Let Adidam sue for defamation if they think so, but they won't, those at your level have no idea what would await them if they did, but others do.

Your claim the article is biased against Adi Da is without foundation. The issue here is whether Adi Da's exaggerated and demonstrably false claims about his life and teaching, his continual revisionism proven by comparing old and new works, his claim to be the First, Last and Only completely enlightened Avatar in all the Cosmos, should not be balanced by the reports of those who tested this and found it wanting. Belief in a higher power vs atheism is abstract, is not to be reasonably compared against the belief or tested non-belief that Adi Da is exactly what he says he is now, given the extreme claims he makes and the testimony of those who found otherwise, any more than belief or non-belief in any destructive cult leader had anything to do with the atheism vs. belief. Your proposal to only reference Adi Da and his literature creates a false impression and must be balanced by references to critical information, with the caveat Jim has added about the dynamics between cult members and ex-cult members.

The claims of "hate" are absurd. If you enter into an agreement based on misrepresentation and discover that, and then break the agreement and expose the duplicity, while others still choose to believe for whatever reasons, how is that "hate"? It isn't, and you know it. If you want to talk about "hate", how about Adi Da's use of terms like slugs and unwashed dogs for humanity.

If you find Adidam credible, you either don't know enough yet or have a cultic mindset. But you are properly programmed to use loaded terms like brainwashing, when it is really voluntary self-deception. As I said, there here are a number of cults, same game, different name. One good reason to look at other cults is that the same pattern is evident, whether the guru is Sai Baba, Rajneesh, Sri Chimnoy, Kriyananda, Castaneda, Muktananda, etc. Change the name of the guru, the arguments are virtually identical, and time and facts have proven ex-members more reliable there too.

As for your claim that opinions are inappropriate, Adi Da's works are opinion. His interpretations of events in his life are opinion. His conclusions are opinion. His criticism of all the great spiritual figures in history while claiming to be a unique incarnation of the Divine itself is an opinion. Your claims that ex-members are motivated by hate are opinion. And just as he criticizes everyone else, including Buddha, Jesus Christ, Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi, and those who he has harmed, so should he be equally open to criticism. Sorry, the criticism of Adi Da is much stronger than an opinion. MS 8 June 2005

wikipedia is in the first place about facts but notable opinions can added too. Andries 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Karakal -- I have a website geocities.com/jcbloka where I offer my thoughts on the usefulness and limits of the term "cult", and many of my thoughts on that term and the underlying phenomenon to which it points would also apply to "hate group". And I agree with you about the subjective nature of much if not all of religion. But that isn't the point. The point is the article itself. You've said repeatedly that "allegations" against Adi Da haven't been proven in a court of law. So? That is not the commonly agreed-upon threshold for including material in Wikipedia. If it were, the vast majority of articles would have to be severely pruned or deleted. The material in the "Response" section that describes the lawsuits and controversy are all well-referenced to newspaper articles and websites hosting investigative reporting, i.e., interviews with present and former members of Adidam. Referencing those does not constitute defamation under the law. Echoing my request to DGomez, would you please be specific about exactly which statements in the article you find troublesome, rather than engaging in sweeping generalizations? Thanks. —Jim Butler 2005 June 9

It's not that hard to figure out for old timers who've seen this pattern, not unique to this cult. Those who remain in Daism from the early days, a small percentage compared with those who left, did so by rationalizing problematic issues, the rest left. At each juncture, those who can no longer rationalize leave, those who can stay. So the core of those who seem to be providing credible history and testimonies are only a small fraction of those involved, but all that are left. And then new converts coming in have only read crafted stories, and hear what seem to be sincere and credible testimonials and rationalizations, from those approaching from a highly dependent perspective where even abuse, humiliation and violence is really a blessing. They also hear stories about the faults and motives of those who departed from the biased perspective of those who stayed, and hear the testimonials and rationalizations of of those who return and why they couldn't keep away. And the recruitment efforts are organized, while at most they might see the words of some critics here or there. So they do not have meaningful interactions with those who have left, and so to them, the vast preponderance of evidence, personal testimony and the staged behavior they see seems credible. If there is anything that concerns them, they can find ample evidence that it is the fault of the devotees, never Adi Da's fault. And since most converts are tired of the search and want to believe they have found truth as they have been told because it relieves them, they aren't motivated to dig further. So their minds are already predisposed to assume that hatred must be the motive and that critics are lying because there is always a handy rationalization, and if not, they find a diversion so they don't have to deal with specifics. If you been through this pattern even a little in this or any other similar group and then saw it and left, you understand what I mean. MS 9 June 2005

This statement that you make above, that to those in Adidam, “abuse, humiliation and violence is really a blessing”, is just the kind of problematic lie someone who supports hate will tell about the target of their bigoted mentality, in this case those who practice with Adi Da.

In fact the people that you are targeting in your irresponsible statement are practitioners of a religion based on love as a religious practice, (or have you forgotten about that?) That’s love actually, not your twisted fantasies of abuse and torture. To make these kinds of statements about any group of people based solely on their practice of religion and faith is irresponsible at best. This is how the Nazi's got their start with the Jews, or how it started with the African Americans in the south. You could have just as well have said, (with a good-old-boy southern accent), “to the Jews and the African Americans, abuse, humiliation, ,and torture are really a blessing.” My point is that you are castigating a group of people that you do not know, and that have done you no harm, and you are making this irresponsible statement about them simply because you have grown used to it by virtue of your spending a lot of time in a chat-room that incites this kind of prejudice, bigotry, and intolerance. It’s not really a good thing to be like this, in case you didn’t know. So maybe this is the real root of the hatred towards Adi Da. Because in actuality he stands for the opposite of what you have stated. D. Gomez, June 10, 2005

Mr. Gomez, I was very clear why you think like you do, despite the body of evidence to the contrary that the charges against Adidam are essentially true. Once again you avoid any specifics, and jump to general allegations of hate, hoping the public will not see what you are doing. Your views reflect the opinion of the less than 10% who stayed with this controversial cult. Your claim that Adidam is based on love in practice is simply not what most involved at some point find to be true. I was explaining clearly how it is you could believe that, and you simply don't want to admit how likely that explanation is to yourself. There are clear statements by multiple and independent witnesses, going back to the early 1970s, that Adi Da, for example, beat his estranged wife Nina, sometimes brutally. There are reports of converstations with Nina saying she felt she deserved it and that it was a blessing. That is what I am talking about, what makes some stay in spite of the evidence, and that is the belief they are being blessed. You are denying what more honest members of Adidam admitted a few years ago. What Adi Da stands for is he wants to be worshipped and treated as the Living God himself, greater than all who have come before him, not love. Anyone who doesn't give him whatever he wants will find out soon enough about Adi Da's love, and anyone who runs afoul of the hierarchy will find out how little love there is. Adi Da is not a gentleman at all, you know at least that much. MS 11 June 2005

Note from Mike Jamieson, June 12 2005: Someone has complained that I removed two of my previous posts. They were removed because I felt intimidated by DGomez. ("I take it you don't have any assets") Posts removed were dated june 8 and june 11.

Echoing Andries, why don't try to limit discussion here to improving the article. We can always debate Adi Da and Adidam on other available fora: e.g. there are "hate groups", and "brave people unafraid to speak the truth"! So many choices under the sun!  ::—Jim Butler 2005 June 12

--Karakal, you now demanding your idea of neutrality by gutting the article, while you are hardly neutral, you are clearly sympathetic to the Adidam position. This was evident from the first by your use of the term 'hate-groups', smear campaigns, propaganda, and defamation in relation to sites critical of Adi Da, in consonance with the Adidam position and which implies the charges have no merit. Further, you imply I used inflamatory terms like brainwashed and fanatical to describe you, I did not. Your lack of formal involvement with Adidam, not to mention being in the inner circle around Adi Da, makes your claim that you are 'in full possession of the facts' patently absurd. The judgement of anyone who would make such a foolish claim is clearly suspect. At best you are familiar with their literature and other material, videos, etc., and with some of the arguments and issues, yet you refuse to answer what you allegations you specifically believe are disproven and why. Thus, as I said, your level of involvement as a sympathizer without first hand knowledge puts you in no position evaluate the legal issues. And your claim that reporting allegations not proven in a court of law is 'defamation' is equally absurd, that is simply incorrect, particularly in regard to a more public figure like Adi Da. As I said to you, common sense would tell you that since Adidam has an in-house legal staff but isn't suing critics and settled the claims with payoffs and demands of silence they more likely than not have some legal exposure. Especially it is a matter of record Adidam publically admitted they lied about what was going on to the outer membership in 1985.

--You state that: "And yet, I, and many others, continue to agree with what 'Adi Da' has written". You agree with all of it? You assume Adi Da realized everything he teaches? What is your position on the First, Last and Only Seventh Stage Avatar claim? You agree with his appraisal of the hermetic, gnostic path you say you follow? Is there anything Adi Da has written you don't agree with? Stop hiding behind generalities, Karakal, respond to specifics.

--Your real purpose in seeking an article 'all can agree on' is obvious, Karakal. You claim that "To leave it as is, would be to present a biased argument against the Community for those who are reading about it for the first time". Sure, Karakal. Two thirds of the links are to pro-Adidam sites. All his major works are listed without criticism and without disclosing how many have been revised or are no longer available since the original versions were published. His teaching is presented simply but accurately, but with the caveat that many serious allegations have been made, that most followers have left, and that most of those sympathetic to him don't actually take up the practice, but rely on the writings and second hand information. God forbid we would want readers to know this before they have read the literature which presents only one side. You've made up your mind, Karakal, and want the article to support your conclusion by avoiding the issue, effectively dismissing the critics charges. Others need to be aware there is a controversy similar to that of other cults, and exposed to both sides so they can make up their own minds, just as you did. Your self-serving suggestion should be rejected out of hand. ~MS 14 June 2005~.

Karakal, you are incorrect. The debate hasn't even started. You've come back and repeated yourself a few times, but addressed none of the points specific to the article. If you want to debate Adi Da generally, there are fora for that. Your request for my definition of cultism, which I answered as best I know how ([link]), is likewise a red herring. It has nothing to do with the article's content. (Edit -- correction: what I should say is that my opinion of what constitutes a cult has little to do with the fact that that term is widely used by Adidam's critics. It's a real and widespread criticism, not one that one or two people just made up. Also, the article does lay out the basis for the use of that term, and doesn't just rely on it as a weasel word.)

More importantly, you still haven't worked out the specifics of your argument (just a gut feeling about "tone"), and on that basis alone you want to massively censor the article? I don't think so. And let's look at your underlying logic:

1) You say you've reviewed a great many "facts" (facts per se, as well as relevant interpretations and opinions) about Adi Da as presented by both his supporters and his critics.

2) You want to delete much of that same stuff (however well-referenced -- still no specific objections) from Wikipedia.

Why, Karakal? Are you afraid people won't be as responsible with this information as you feel you've been? (Tsk, tsk. It's so hard to control how one's own mind processes information, let alone those pesky minds of others.) Well, you needn't worry. I think you've done a GREAT job of sorting through all this crazy, conflicting, complicated stuff about Adi Da, and coming to your own conclusions. And I have every confidence that other readers can do that too, unassisted by the big favor you seem to want to do them: namely, cutting down on all that confusing information by massively vandalizing the page.

It's too bad if our positions seem irreconciliable, but not all positions (cf. evolution vs. creationism) are worth attempting to reconcile. Merit, and not merely a wan attempt to whitewash diversity, ought to be driving the debate. Rather than just reiterating your argument and insisting that (simply by virtue of being repeated) it should become a basis of compromise, try actually engaging the debate. Can you suggest any specific examples of inaccuracy or POV that you think should be fixed? —Jim Butler 2005 June 14

Why is Adi Da's hour of birth mentioned? This is very unusual in Wikipedia. Andries 19:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Adi Da included it in the earliest (and maybe later) editions of his autobiography, probably because he feels it may be of interest to astrologers. Whether or not one believes that the study of astrology is worthwhile, there is no question that astrologers do find such information valuable. —Jim Butler 2005 June 714

Karakal, Adi Da's opinion on your gnostic/hermetic path would be that, at best, it is a "fourth stage" tradition, and at worst, simply subjective, mentalized fantasy based on the lower mind of the "first three stages of life" (particularly if you aren't practicing in full submission to a realized teacher). Cf. "The Basket Of Tolerance" (have you read that book? -- link to Google cache of table of contents: [link]). For comparison -- and to address the issue of what Adi Da says he has realized -- he says that Jesus is a "fifth stage" realizer, Buddha sixth, and Adi Da himself alone seventh. Perhaps you agree with these teachings of his, perhaps not, but your apparent ignorance of what he even says about these things goes straight to the heart of the issue of NPOV itself. NPOV should be based on description, not advocacy, which means being based in fact, and balanced presentation of facts. Your statements above suggest that you are ignorant of some very basic facts about Adi Da's teaching and community, such as his extreme self-apotheosis and self-pleasuring. That doesn't help your credibility when you object to what you perceive as POV. You are compromised in your ability to distinguish what is credible from what is not because you don't have access to the facts, or choose not to assimilate and consider them.

If your problem is with citing Lightmind.com at all because that site contains statements of advocacy as well as factual information, then you might as well object to linking to Adidam.org for the same reasons. As for your suggested addition of a statement to the effect that many supporters of Adidam consider Lightmind.com to be biased, yes, I know that some have said this, but how many? Is it a significant position among Adi Da's supporters, and if so, can you back that up with a citation? I am a former devotee of Adi Da and have been following debate about him on the internet for over a decade. The arguments of his critics are well-known and accurately described and referenced in the article. The counterarguments of his supporters could perhaps be likewise summarized, but there is both less and more to that than you suggest above. For example, I am aware of NO official Adidam position regarding the critical arguments, or even much acknowledgement that they exist, other than a couple of paragraphs in an out-of-print biography authored by ex-devotee-cum-guru Saniel Bonder. Go ahead and look through all the official Adidam sites and see what they say. I am also aware that defenders have made other counter-arguments, notably that of "crazy wisdom", i.e. that Adi Da really did do much or all of what his critics say he did, but in any case those critics, being unenlightened beings (along with every other sentient being in the universe other than Adi Da) can't possibly understand the Divine "logic", so to speak, behind Adi Da's actions. Only Adi Da can understand and justify his actions; owing to his radical and unequalled realization, he is literally, according to his teachings, above any sort of criticism. (Cf. Broken Yogi's second quotation on the Wikiquote page.) I don't know if you would agree with that, either, but it's unquestionably a biggie as counter-arguments go, at least judging from the public discourse.

So all these things have to be considered in any revisions to the article. Above all else, the facts must be stipulated before attempting to reach agreement. And of course, as with Flat-Earthers and so on, some people may never agree, largely because of refusal to acknowledge and consider the facts.

Finally, you said: "I would presume that if the whole organization, cult or whatever you want to call it was a sham, that such teachings would also be rubbish." That is grossly flawed logic. First, one can teach and affirm all sorts of high principles and not live up to them in practice. Happens all the time, particularly in religion, doesn't it? Therefore, failure to practice what you preach does not mean that what one preaches isn't true to some degree. Second, you are creating an artificial dichotomy between the ideas of Adi Da and his teaching and organization being a "sham" and "rubbish" on the one hand, and utterly authentic on the other. A more reasonable conclusion is that he is a mixed bag, and more exaggeratedly so than most people. But the purpose of the article is not to advocate such a conclusion. It is to present the facts in a balanced way. Perhaps those are what you really object to, because taken together they confound your either-or thought patterns.

And that leads back to the question that you and David Gomez have yet to answer. What, specifically, in the article do you suggest is not factual or presented in a balanced way? I ask and hope, at some point, to receive an answer from you. If you say nothing else in your reply, please address that request. —Jim Butler 2005 June 16

++So, Karakal, do you agree Adi Da is the first, last and only Seventh Stage Avatar as is claimed, or not? As for the characterization of your path in Basket of Tolerance, that is what it is in terms of Adi Da's system, so go argue it with him. Your use of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in this case to give accusations any credit is illogical for the reasons previously stated, not to mention your perfect willingness to give Adidam extraordinary credibility, despite the over 90% attrition rate. As for giving Adi Da credit, that is exactly what mixed bag means. Your contention that no one could produce a teaching like Adi Da's without it being mostly true of them is simply naive. Don't you ever wonder whether the endorsements from contemporary figures of high spiritual attainment are, and why Adi Da avoids contact with them? Apparently not. But again, the points of these proposed edits are to simply reinforce your own view gained from a distance, not to be balanced. MS June 21, 2005

"Cult" argument a red herring

MS, I agree with all your comments in the section above, dated June 21, 2005. As I think about Karakal's comments and the U-VA Religious Movements page he linked to (whose [page on Adidam] is pretty close to NPOV, but whose [page on the "anti-cult movement"] is not; cf. the ad hominem arguments against Ross and Hassan), I'm wondering if the term "cult" should even be used in the article. Check out the Wikpedia entry for cult. There is no agreed-upon definition for the term, even though the phenomenon is real enough. It seems that for many people the mere use of the term sidetracks the debate into semantic arguments and away from recognizing underlying patterns of abuse, insularity, groupthink, megalomania and so on.

There's no question that the article should lay out the facts about Adidam and criticisms of it in a balanced way, and I think it does that. But to the extent that the dreaded "c-word" is functioning as a lightning rod-like distraction and conveying no useful information, maybe it should go. It's not as if the majority of Adidam's critics even fit the mold of the so-called "anti-cult movement" (that term itself being a made-up category as well, of course!): they're not objecting to Adi Da because he isn't Jesus or because he's enslaving minds. For the most part, as we both know, they are disillusioned ex-devotees who have seen that Adidam is rife with financial corruption, that Adi Da says one thing and does another, and that Adidam is devoted to providing Adi Da with maximum gratification at the expense of others who are misled about his history of selfish and even abusive conduct. Those are criticisms that would be valid whether or not Adidam were a small religious movement, or even a religion at all. All the term "cult" does, perhaps, is distract from the substance of these criticisms. What do you think?  ::—Jim Butler 2005 June 22

Karakal - (1) Your speculations above about Adi Da's teaching on the Seventh Stage are incorrect. Adi Da says explicitly that he is the very first seventh-stage realizer who has ever lived at all, anywhere in the manifest cosmos. Prior to Adi Da, no one ever realized the 7th stage before, even though others may have had some preliminary intuition of it. In the future, anyone who realizes the 7th stage will do so only by direct devotional submission to Adi Da, and at best such people will function as "Murti-Gurus" who in effect channel Adi Da, who is the First, Last and Only Seventh-Stage Adept-Realizer.

(2) Your understanding of what his critics say is likewise off-base. "Mind control" is a pretty secondary complaint. Adi Da's abusive and self-serving behavior are primary. I said this clearly in the post right above yours. If you're not going to inform yourself on basic stuff that Adi Da or his critics say, how can you reasonably evaluate the accuracy of the article? You're objecting to the fact that the article doesn't fit what you imagine to be true, not to its fit with what actually is true.

(3) Wikipedia is not a place for dueling arguments, whereby critics say what they think and supporters say what they think. NPOV is based in balanced presentation of fact, including facts about significant arguments or criticisms of topics. It's not about you and David saying what you happen to think or I and MS saying what we happen to think. If you have an issue with something specific in the article, please put that on the table. (Funny, I have a feeling of deja vu when I say that.) -- Jim Butler 29 June 2005 17:30 (UTC)

I have chosen to leave this debate. I am achieving nothing by engaging it, therefore I have removed my posts. --Karakal 7 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)

How could you expect to "achieve anything", Karakal? You are favorably disposed to Adi Da, but as a casual observer, not a practitioner, former or present, who would have any real inside knowledge. And you do not address specifics, despite repeated requests, but instead make claims about Adidam that are demonstrably false. Because of this, you do not even understand or seem to care that Adi Da is very clear that he is the first, last and only seventh stage avatar and adept, no one else has ever attained that state, and that your path is a lowly fourth stage path under his system. Your explanation as to why over 90% of formal practitioners who followed the disciplines for a time have left is that they found the practice too difficult. But that is not the most likely explanation, because you ignore the fact that neither Adi Da or his inner circle consistently followed the disciplines they expected other to follow, as the group finally admitted back in 1985, and that has changed since. Pundits like yourself find an interesting affinity with Adi Da and fascinated with his writings, and seem to always assume they "understand" while those who leave don't. But it is pundits and a few mediocre teachers who are the "spiritual authorities" that endorse Adi Da, not the great spiritual teachers who Adi Da refused to meet while they were alive. If it is any consolation, most of those who got involved and then left made the same assumptions you do, but learned otherwise. To get to that point, you have to honestly balance the evidence, and look at the whole teaching, not just apply an unreasonable burden of proof to critics. ~MS 7 July 2005

Why Adidam settled the lawsuits and for how much

Most people who have read about the lawsuits from the mid-1980s know that Adidam first sued Mark Miller, after hearing that he intended to sue the Adidam institution. Mark Miller and others then filed their own lawsuits, all of which were settled. Not much has been said about how these settlements came about.

Adidam decided to defend itself on the basis of its First Amendment Rights. It hired a very expensive First Amendment Rights attorney in San Francisco. He did a reasonably good job of arguing - before a judge - that Adidam was protected under the First Amendment. But then the attorney for two of the plaintiffs, Beverly O'Mahoney and Heather Lupa, found a way to convince the judge that the First Amendment did not apply in this case. The judge agreed.

Adidam's lawyers were smart enough to understand that they were likely not to prevail if the suits were allowed to go to trial. Their insurer, Lloyds of London, who paid the settlements, threatened to pull the policy if there was another lawsuit.

Soon thereafter, Adidam settled with all the plaintiffs. The two people mentioned got around $7 million, with millions more being paid to the remaining plaintiffs.

-Candace, July 7, 2005

That's interesting, re the lawsuits; I'd never heard the amounts discussed before and was under the impression that the terms of the settlement were confidential. What is the source of this information, Candace? -- Jim Butler 9 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Attorneys talk you know. -Candace July 9, 2005

Yes, as do people in general. They say all kinds of things, don't they? --Jim Butler 06:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Boy they sure do, because those figures are total and complete bull. I suppose the bigger a settlement sounds, the bigger the attorneys male member sounds like it is. No? Use about two seconds of common sense sense boys and girls and remember that the entire law suit with with eveyone involved was for 5 million. Then how could it have ended up spewing out "7 plus millions with millions more"? Answer. It couldnt. Someone was yanking Candace's chain. And Jim, you surprised me how easily you would fall for this version of "shinola" as you have represented yourself as a person with some descrimination. Just goes to show what people tend to fall for just becasue something appears to support ones point of view. As you recall in Lawsuit 101 parties settle cases out of court for amounts of money that are considerably less then the original stated lawsuit amount, not for more! and from what I can see thats not the only hooey that "Candace" was being fed. Use an ounce of descrimination next time somebody says they want to sell you some snake oil. Ok girl? --MJ.

Regarding the lawsuits, Adidam has retreated into claims that Mr. Gomez states again above, but without evidence to support it. He stated: "By the way, some of the people involved in the 1985 alleged extortion attempt / lawsuit actually had criminal histories (unlike Adi Da) and would later, again, be convicted of serious felonies after the lawsuit. These people were kicked out of the church because they were really out of it, and refused to stop partying and take up the disciplines again. With people like this around, (who still, to this very day, incite hatred and anger toward Adi Da), it's no wonder he has needed to surround himself with ample security."

That is not true of Mark or any of the above plaintiffs. And, Mark's approach was hardly that of an extortionist. Here is the text of the entire letter he sent to the membership of what was then called the JDC, now Adidam. The allegations are specific and validated by others, and the letter hardly seems the work of a "criminal" and "extortionist":

8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)68.8.165.91 8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC) AN OPEN LETTER TO THOSE INVOLVED WITH DA FREE JOHN AND THE JOHANNINE DAIST COMMUNION

Mark Miller

May 25, 1985

Dear Friends,

This letter comes to you from someone who no longer associates with The Johannine Daist Communion (JDC), the community of Da Free John (DFJ). Of late, my friends and I have been labelled "dissidents", and worse, by JDC's leadership. While reading this letter it would be helpful if you could simply consider me an old friend.

I had intended to write to you long before the lawsuits and media circus began. In fact, the prospect of presenting the ideas contained in this letter is what inspired me to speak out in the first place. Please permit yourself the clear space to receive these thoughts and feelings in order to work with them as completely as possible. Given the current situation, I understand that this will not be easy for you. It certainly has been a disturbing process for me as well. However, I have been overwhelmed by the weight of my observations and feel duty bound to share them with you.

This letter is not intended to serve as the last word on DFJ or the JDC. Nor is it written to prove or establish a particular point of view. Instead, I hope that it will create a balance to the information you have received from JDC, and act as a springboard from which you may begin a long overdue reappraisal of your own feelings and presumptions. Many of you are mired in a way of life which, for myself and many other ex-members, was neither happy nor enlightening, but instead offered little more than tedium, suppression, exclusivity and debilitating dependency.

Of late, JDC has required all of you to believe that certain ex-members, as "dissidents", are "bad" simply because criticism of DFJ and JDC is not now and never has been permitted. These people have been described as "vindictive", "crazy", or "liars" and some have been termed "extortionists" and "conspirators". Apparently it is unthinkable to JDC that anyone could sincerely believe (or know) that the allegations directed at DFJ are true. But given a history of intense involvement with DFJ, do you really believe that ex-members would turn around and speak this way unless they really felt that something was wrong? From JDC's narrow point of view, one would have to be fallen, dark, and just plain wrong to criticize their "guru". I implore you to remain open to the possibility that your old friends are none of the above.

The author of this letter has over the past year spoken with approximately 40 ex-members who have uniquely personal and varied perceptions of DFJ and JDC. Among these people are a number of former high-ranking JDC officials and board of directors members, as well as personal and sexual intimates of DFJ. Thus the information related to the media and which appears in this letter is not based on hearsay, but on first-hand accounts, impressions, and observations by those who have had close contact with DFJ and JDC throughout the years 1968-1984. These people are honest and intelligent, have serious and sincere motives, and are each acting and speaking out of deep and personal conviction.

They are all united in the belief that accurate information, dialogue, real consideration and anything remotely like discrimination have never been offered or encouraged by DFJ or JDC. Therefore, they would like to see a free, full, and honest discussion occur. Such a discussion would benefit everyone, except for those who desire only the maintenance of their status and claim. Everyone, especially the "rank and file" JDC membership, must be set free in order to find their own true way through this controversy.

It is obvious however that as long as ex-member "dissidents" are seen as negative, dark, angry, unspiritual "others"--and "you" in JDC remain the righteous, holy lovers of god, unjustly criticized, god's army fighting off the heathen masses and demonic media--as long as this contrived dichotomy persists there can be no clarity. If you are seriously interested in discovering the truth, you must not allow the "white knight" or "defender of the faith" within you to be manipulated. Do not permit the JDC leadership to call you to a false, childish, and simplistic understanding of this controversy. It is a complex, personal and deeply emotional matter that cannot be resolved or dismissed through name-calling and character assassination. What does the character defamation that JDC has chosen to involve itself and many of you in have to do with your avowed practice of "blessing all others"? This matter cannot be reduced to a battle between good and evil.

So, the first assumption that we would all do well to be relieved of is the sense of one side being inherently right and the other side being inherently wrong. In letting go of this basic assumption, please understand that the people you call dissidents did not create your negative media. They did not write those headlines. One woman, feeling badly hurt and mistreated, filed a lawsuit. One curious Marin investigative reporter happened to stumble upon this suit in the County Courthouse and decided to write a story. That is how all this began. Sorry, but there was no backroom conspiracy, no scheme to do anything horrible, none of the fine drama you have been led to believe.

JDC has claimed that Beverly O'Mahony's lawsuit against them consists of fabrications and exaggerations and "was designed specifically for media consumption." To all but the most deeply biased and misinformed observers, this would more accurately describe the lawsuit which JDC has filed. Beverly's lawsuit was quietly filed in Marin County on March 4th, without press releases or media contact of any kind. If her suit really had been designed for the media, why would she and her lawyer have gone to all the trouble to prepare a 33 page lawsuit, and then leave it to chance that some reporter would dig it up on his own three weeks later?

Contrast this with the lawsuit filed by JDC, which was delivered along with a highly inflammatory press release directly to every newspaper covering the story. Reporters were already working away on their stories about the JDC lawsuit before anyone being sued ever even heard about it. The lawsuit is replete with sensationalized statements, many of which are pure fiction, and others which result from statements that have been placed in a context which entirely reverses their true meaning. The suit also asks for $20 million dollars. If this number was not designed to attract media attention, then what was it for? Given the fact that the "defendants" are worth closer to $20,000 than $20 million, the answer should be obvious.

The lawsuit also contains statements about individuals which, even if true, would not constitute anything other than descriptions of people fulfilling their rights and duties as citizens. Ex-members are made to be seen as involved in some kind of dark "conspiracy." But a conspiracy to do what? Libel or slander are not even listed among JDC's claims, perhaps because people have only spoken the truth, and we all know that truth is a defense against defamation. So what going on here? This suit is nothing more than an attempt to intimidate and silence those speaking out, to scare away others from talking, and to divert the attention of everyone away from the real issues involving DFJ.

Instead of encouraging an open discussion, JDC has used the same tactics that any political organization would use. They have created a "cause" for you to rally around and feel emotionally committed to and identified with, so that you won't stare the accusations against DFJ straight in the eye. They would rather hook you into a fight to protect "the right to freely practice religion", a right which they claim ex-members have tried to deprive you of. But in what way has anyone actually done this?

Let's take a little closer look at the constitutional protections afforded to "religions" such as the JDC. The right to believe whatever you want is protected absolutely. However, the right to do whatever you want is not afforded the same absolute protection at all. Many of the things which DFJ has been accused of do not fall into the category of actions which are protected. Additionally, is it not reasonable as a common citizen to ask why people who have been involved in illegal activities should be granted the privilege of tax-exempt religious status, as claimed by JDC? And if, in fact, abuses of people have occurred (through actions which are commonly recognized as abuses in our society) shouldn't the victims have a right to address them in all the forums available? How then does this amount to an attack on religious freedom?

JDC has also called the recent activities of ex-members "extortion." However, the author of this letter has been advised by attorneys that extortion means a threat that if certain actions are not performed, such as the payment of money, then other activities, usually designed to harm the extorted party, would follow. No such threat was ever made. Offers for settlement prior to the filing of a lawsuit for alleged acts recognized as "causes of action" under the law were made in formal settings between attorneys for both ex-members and JDC. This is not extortion, but a legitimate first step as allowed in every citizen's constitutionally protected right to petition for redress of wrongs through the legal process. It was always made clear that monetary settlement, or lack thereof, had no bearing whatsoever on other constitutionally protected actions which might be taken. The right to freely speak the truth and express legitimate opinions to anyone, including governmental agencies, the media, and other individuals is protected under the First Amendment. Any indication ex-members have made that they might do these things does not represent the violation of any law. This is also true for any other person, speaking either for or against JDC.

The months which preceded the filing of the lawsuits were filled with unsuccessful attempts by two ex-members to gain the ear of DFJ and JDC in order to sort through a variety of unresolved hurts and contradictions. Seeing that JDC had no real interest in assisting anything like an honest healing, others became stirred as to their own disgust and frustration with JDC's haughty spiritual claims on the one hand, and its long-standing record of contemptuous treatment of its membership on the other (once again in evidence in the treatment of these two ex-members). You should know that as far back as early last November, JDC officials began to make threats against some of those merely suspected of being "dissidents" (and they have continued such behavior even during the current month).

Thus, when the media came looking for people to speak with, many were ready to express their own true and heartfelt feelings. This is honestly the way things developed. You should know that ex-members were pursued and misquoted by the press just as much as JDC was. At times their statements were not presented in the proper balance so as to form an adequate description of the whole picture of life in JDC. Everyone was just as shocked to read the headlines as you were, and would have preferred that the media undertake a more serious and complete discussion regarding DFJ and JDC, such as this letter attempts. However, many of the issues which have been expressed in the media are real ones, and the events described (other than a few mistakes by reporters) did in fact occur. In its better moments, the media has at least provided the service of creating an awareness in the general public and all of you about events whose occurrence DFJ and JDC had refused to admit. They have also provided a forum in which these events could be described and interpreted in ways that DFJ and JDC have never encouraged or even allowed.

So let's get real and cut out the sabre-rattling and war cries. Those of you who are mindlessly involved in "advocating" the point of view of DFJ would benefit from pausing long enough to recall that, in truth, there is no fixed position to defend. What is needed is a release from positions, assumptions and battle-ready defenses so that each person can discover for him or herself just how they feel and are related to DFJ and JDC, as well as to the call to reflection and reappraisal which this letter suggests. The difficulty for many of you is that it has been so long since you entered into an examination other than one created for you by DFJ and JDC that to do so on your own and to examine "the authorities themselves" is a very difficult task indeed. And yet it must be done if there is to be any clarity or passage through this controversy.

All I ask then is that this process of unfettered examination be permitted and actually encouraged by JDC. Ask yourself how it is that you are now "advocates", burdened by belief and fixed presumptions. Why hasn't DFJ and JDC welcomed and seen the necessity for an open airing of issues? Why have you all been programmed and "educated" by the JDC propagandists on their way to whitewashing the so-called "JDC sacred history"? How does spiritual practice properly lead to all this manipulation and defense? Who and what is requiring that you become politicized rather than clear? And how well do you really understand that which you are being called upon to defend?

I invite you to regain the discrimination and inquisitiveness many of you have unconsciously chosen to relinquish in order to associate with DFJ and the myth he has drawn you into (both as to who he is and the necessity of turning to him for your liberation). If we assume for the moment that DFJ began his "teaching work" by speaking to our desire for liberation, apart from excess dogmatic baggage and entanglements, it is evident that he has now "moved on" and is at work merely cultivating in his students a yearning for salvation in a system where only he can do the saving.

It is on this basis that his devotees have all too often been reduced to "drones" and "believers". Many have become willing to give up everything, including their self-respect, integrity and honesty in order to climb up the shaky ladder of "stages of practice" (which are constantly being manipulated and redefined) in order to gain "access" to DFJ, the carrot held out in front of their noses. And if we accept that DFJ's writings carry a credible message, they do so only insofar as they release the reader into his or her own inherent sense of "being" and "truth", free of the game of "the search". It appears impossible for this to occur in the midst of all the medieval, dogmatic, exclusive, ritualized form beneath which direct, unmediated truth has been buried by DFJ and JDC. After all these years, where is the real evidence that any type of "spiritual process" is uniquely occurring within your community? People are just growing older. The greatness of god has been subordinated to the glory, of DFJ and his hierarchical empire. Needing to be nurtured and fathered, and being naive as to true spiritual culture and to the game of spiritual authority, most of us never even noticed the light go out.

This is a large part of what ex-members are trying to address. You are part of a highly ambitious and politicized "machine of seeking" where you no longer own your own perceptions. Ideological dogma coupled with the edited information of the group dominates and molds your life. You are required to adapt to a complex, sophisticated technology of mind and emotion, through which you understand yourself and upon which you view the world; it is a hierarchical scheme with DFJ as the head, reigning above and beyond the world of man, as external savior or father. We have all been too much in need of an external mediator to serve the participation in and awareness of our own true condition. We must grow beyond the childish and incapacitating dependency bonds which are everywhere propagated by DFJ and JDC.

In many ex-members' experience, the first doubts and questions about their lives as devotees centered around the observations they had regarding the "community" and "institution" of JDC. But they found it much harder to take the obvious next step and look directly at DFJ, the source and creator of every aspect of the "culture", institutional structure, and spiritual life of those in JDC. These ex-members, like many of you, dared not break the great taboo of seriously questioning or doubting DFJ; either their comparative lack of in-depth or prolonged personal experience with him or their incapacity to break through the indoctrination prevented them from seeing him clearly. But finally, in the face of what is now obvious, their relationship to the mythology and imagery which is DFJ has broken down. These people have "discovered" the man Franklin Jones, and now know that "the emperor wears no clothes."

At this point it would be good to examine the specific activities of DFJ that many people are concerned about. Some of the information recently brought to light will be recounted here for those who are unfamiliar with what has been said, or for those who have been confused and distracted by JDC. In order to avoid sensationalism and out of respect for those involved, I have not included names nor great detail regarding the incidents cited. You might ask DFJ or others involved for such details, or review the various TV and newspaper presentations which have, and will continue to cover the JDC controversy.

To begin with, DFJ has historically had control over the finances, properties, and other assets of JDC as if he personally and solely "owned" JDC, in stark contrast to the purposes and laws governing non-profit religious organizations. He has personally made all key decisions and has gratified his every whim, caring not for the financial strains he has placed on others. There are serious questions regarding whether DFJ has over the years abused the tax-exempt status of the JDC corporation for his own personal gain. Perhaps this is why JDC officials in the past few years have strategically destroyed documents that tended to reveal that DFJ was actually "running the show."

DFJ has always demanded that people "go beyond themselves" to give him more money than they could afford, and then has spent the money on whatever he wanted to create or consume in that moment. Like a child, he has demanded the immediate gratification of his material desires, and then has often abandoned what he has been given in search of a new and more expensive "toy". Manner of Flowers, his extravagant but rarely used personal home in Lake County, California is certainly a case in point. In private, DFJ has laughed at those who have shown any concern about his financial exploitation of others. This is purportedly an example of the fact that DFJ is "free of conventional morality."

While speaking against drugs and alcohol in his literature, DFJ has himself used many drugs during his years with devotees, including marijuana, hashish, peyote, psilocybin, nitrous oxide, LSD, other exotic hallucinogens more powerful than LSD, and most consistently, amyl nitrate. Did this all occur during the period of time erroneously labelled "the teaching demonstration" in 1976? Absolutely not. And DFJ has at times used drugs and alcohol to the extent of creating serious health concerns for himself. His drug and alcohol usage has continued into the 1980's.

The drug which appears to be DFJ's favorite is amyl nitrate. This fact raises some interesting questions. If, as DFJ claims, he is a "tantric master", who practices the transcendence of orgasm, why does he take amyl nitrate during sexual encounters? Amyl nitrate, for those unaware, is a drug which is used to intensify orgasm.

Also, DFJ has consistently failed to live the dietary disciplines that he has both espoused in his literature and required of others. There are brief periods when it appears he has lived the diet he recommends, but for the majority of the time he has not. This includes both recent years, and times past. DFJ has been a fan of junk food, meat, cigarettes, champagne, beer, liquor, caviar and fancy foods. Do you really believe him when he says his body looks the way it does because "he conducts the life force through his navel"?

DFJ has also physically beaten devotees, including his wives, to the point of causing significant physical harm to the victims and/or himself. These beatings have occurred within a timespan which includes the 1980's.

DFJ has participated in and required others to perform in sexual and related acts of a highly degrading and demeaning nature which have caused psychological and/or physical damage to those participating. JDC has recently admitted to examples of these types of activity, which many people believe are a reflection of the perversion of DFJ, rather than anything like enlightened "spiritual instruction." DFJ also has a particularly destructive habit of having sex with other men's wives when married couples have come to "serve" him at his hermitage. Is this a proper way to treat people who look to you for spiritual guidance? These sexual excesses of DFJ are not a thing of the distant past. In fact, each of the things which have been described in this paragraph has occurred in the 1980's. And it is the firm belief of many people that the inordinate amount of time and attention DFJ spends on sexuality reflects nothing more than his own obsession and desires.

The vast discrepancy between what DFJ claims and says, versus what he does and intends must be thoroughly examined and understood before one can make an informed response to the man. What should be clear to everyone is that no one in JDC is given the opportunity to "cast the light" directly on DFJ. Why is he so estranged and hidden from you, really? Apart from your child-like fantasies and subtle beliefs about "who he is" and "how he works", how much and how privately have you observed him and then tested your observations? The fact is, apart from what you have read and are told, intermixed with a variety of contacts with DFJ years ago, most of you know very little about your teacher. You have therefore been called to relate to only the most superficial imagery about who DFJ is, and at the same time you have become steeped in an officially prescribed method for relating to him which permits only subservience and fawning devotion. And those of you who have been close to him should ask yourselves to what degree you own hopes, needs, and self-generated projections and expectations, coupled with the mythology about how DFJ's "unconven-tional behavior" has been designed to teach you, has colored your perceptions of him. Ex-members know from their own experience that many of you are paying a heavy price in terms of emotional suppression, confusion, and self-delusion in order to maintain the false conclusion that you have actually been served by this "crazy-wise" madness.

Another disturbing matter regarding DFJ is the ritual of secrecy and deception surrounding him. Some of the things described about DFJ's life would not in themselves be worthy of any real concern if they did not stand in complete contradiction to an idealized image which has been used to exploit the people who have supported the whole affair. For years, many of you have been told that DFJ's abusive behavior, undertaken in order to "teach" people, ended after a brief period in 1976. He then allegedly became involved in a life of prayer, spiritual discipline, contemplation and renunciation. It was on the basis of this lie that so many accepted the notion that his past behavior was in fact a "teaching demonstration", and went on to give their lives, minds, hearts, and money to this man. However, upon discovering this deception, many were understandably outraged. According to recent statements by JDC to the press, all of you have been lied to because you are not spiritually mature enough to hear the truth. However, you are most certainly spiritually advanced enough to surrender you life, money, and trust in order to provide a life of luxury and delusion for DFJ, his nine wives, and those closest to him. What kind of logic is this? What utter arrogance and contempt! The obnoxious nature of this deception is surpassed only by the fact that when it could no longer be maintained, DFJ had the nerve to blame others in JDC for creating it.

You may ask yourself why those who know all of these secrets have always withheld them from you. But we already know the answer. How glamorous to be associated with the ultimate matter and the ultimate master! But what a conceit and what a foundation for the pursuit of power. Through the screening mechanisms of the so-called "culture", only the few "mature" or "committed" members are given access to DFJ based upon a paranoid and patriarchal mentality of obedience. The demonstrated signs of your "maturity" (i.e. submission and obedience) gauge the level of your "status" and regulated, controlled access to events, places and people on the political (not spiritual but political) pecking order. Only people who are "trustable" (sufficiently indoctrinated) are allowed to get a glimpse of the "crazy wise man" up close, otherwise the truth might leak out.

It would also be worthwhile for you to take a critical look at what is really meant by the superficial references to the "Crazy Wisdom Tradition" concocted by the official JDC apologists on behalf of the "mad avadhoot." As if the fact that such a "tradition" really did exist for abusive activities would somehow make them legitimate. We already have "traditions" for war, tyranny, racism, and the subjugation of women. Must we now add "crazy wisdom" to the list? The attempt to lend spiritual legitimacy to DFJ's aberrated, unloving, and destructive behavior is a travesty. His character flaws bear no relationship to Nityananda's nakedness in the public square. Do you really believe that DFJ's particular form of emotional and sexual exploitation has any precedent in the annals of legitimate spirituality? No one I have talked to has been able to find any historical accounts of a genuine spiritual master who has acted this way.

Many ex-members no longer accept the guilt-ridden pap that it is the immaturity of his devotees which is killing DFJ, when they know that it is much more surely his own chronically abusive and toxifying life-habits which threaten the man. DFJ's behavior is a reflection of his own character and motivations, just like everyone else's, and he should rightfully take responsibility for the problems his shortcomings have created in his own life and the lives of others. He is anything but free of ego. He has his own strengths and weaknesses. Yet through the process of indoctrination and manipulation, coupled with the weaknesses of those around him, he has been successful at keeping himself invulnerable and unquestioned. In so doing, he has become afflicted in all the ways that any man would be corrupted and deluded by excessive power and isolation from critical feedback. He has also thus imprisoned himself within the expectations he created in others and the torment of pretending to be something he is not. Faced with such a creation, it is no accident that DFJ began to create a peculiar ideology in which he described himself as a "crazy-wise avadhoot." In this way he has allowed himself a "safety valve" wherein his aberrations could coincide with his purported divinity. Otherwise, he would have exploded long ago from the psychological pressure of attempting to appear to be a superior spiritual being.

On top of all of this, DFJ has also chosen to physically separate himself to insure the maintenance of this myth of his superiority. He has simply taken whatever he wanted and gone off to create his own little fantasy kingdom, apart from his "friends and devotees", who have provided him with everything, and apart from a "world" that he has never been able to deal with, and from which he has always tried to escape. People no longer accept that if you give him everything, you will receive everything in return, for it is obvious that in "his plan", only he will have and be "everything." Is this not the epitome of "Narcissus"?

Nor is it any longer accepted that "the world" is a terrible place full of terrible people, and that spiritual life ends when one leaves JDC. People now know better than to become ensnared in the tentacles of this argument. And where there was only "one" worthy of love and respect, all others became unworthy and worthless. This is what happened in JDC, for as we were all divested of our own selfworth and simultaneously invested in DFJ, we were rendered nothing rather than "no-thing." Can you feel this?

We have all (current and ex-members), along with DFJ, cooperated in constructing this insane empire. It is a classic and perverted play on what might have been. And it is nothing like what most of us signed up for or thought we were choosing. But so long as you are exposed to the "system" which life in JDC represents, there is no space within which to understand this and be set free.

We are all now painfully aware of the pitfalls of anyone presuming that he or she is somehow responsible for the life process of "lesser souls." Please do not state that DFJ says this or that about not being able to relieve anyone of their responsibility in and for life. He says everything and in so doing says nothing. One is only left with confusion and disorientation if one seriously contemplates all of the contradictions and "paradoxes" of DFJ represented in the mass of literature and descriptions of "practice" which have been espoused at one time or another by him. And since all "experiences", "relations", and your "independent reactions" are systematically criticized, DFJ becomes your sole and ultimate point of reference and support system. Even those responsible for communicating "the teaching" to the membership over the years admitted they had no idea what the teaching really was or what the practice really was. All that could ultimately be recommended was to somehow "turn to the master and do exactly what he has asked." And it is on that basis that what DFJ has created is essentially a "cult of personality."

It is also on that basis that those who serve critical functions in your "culture" adapt to a profoundly dependent form of relating to DFJ and a resulting righteous, exclusive, self-glorifying, self-protective and politically charged "life of service." You are all aware of the institutional mentality of those who lead you at JDC. They are part of a machine and priesthood of aberrated spiritual seeking and corruption, an exclusive club, reigning in association with the "enlightened" source or "goodie" who is offered as a reward to those giving over their center, discrimination, and direct unmediated ability to live the truth of their own condition. In this process many of you have lost yourselves, your power and your way. And for DFJ to hide behind a claim of "blamelessness and divinity" while placing all the blame on the immaturity of his devotees, those very people who depend on him for their spiritual guidance, is not only irresponsible and cowardly, but the perfect vision of a perfectly narcissistic megalomaniac. Surely there was a time before you came to JDC where you could have simply recognized this to be so.

But can you now? It is so hard from where you are. I know, for it has taken many people years, even after leaving JDC, to wake up from the sleep which had settled into every corner of their mind's eye. Although discrimination is spoken about in the teaching, it is nowhere present in the lives of devotees. Many of you have, through non-use, lost your own personal, instinctual feeling for life, having been conditioned to believe that it represents recoil from the divine. You have become good at obeying without reflection. Your blank agreement is applauded as "equanimity" and the transcendence of reactivity.

Those who are in the JDC hierarchy have the most to lose. And they are among the most corrupt and in need of help. These people are relieved of the ordinary responsibilities of life and live instead a bizarre fantasy life. To do the bidding of their teacher they have become proficient at selectively withholding and releasing edited information, and have made the poor choice of abandoning their native sense of human decency in exchange for power and prestige.

Many of these same people are the most seriously ambitious in their "search." It is as if they have not yet adapted to the rudiments of the practice as it relates to the "search" and yet are influential simply because they are "submitted." Having made such a heavy investment of time and energy in gaining their status and position, they are now banking on their "personal" relationship with DFJ to save them. In this way there is a tremendous amount of manipulation around the poles of hope and fear. You spin and turn but rarely find a seat from which to observe the play. The ideology and belief that you are blessed with "the ultimate truth and the maha-siddha" fuels the madness. The shocking news that thousands of people see this "master" of yours as a tyrannical and deluded power broker never quite reaches your ears or cannot penetrate your rehearsed belief.

When finally pressed up against this blunt observation from "the world" outside, you hold up "the teaching" like a crucifix to stave off the heathen hordes. You retreat into the "certainty" that nothing like "the teaching" could ever have been written by a charlatan. But many believe that DFJ's, or anyone else's ability to artfully synthesize, categorize, and recapitulate ideas and insights does not bear any necessary relation to spiritual realization and maturity. Aside from his particular style of presentation and arrangement of things, there is nothing uniquely described in DFJ's literature that does not appear elsewhere. And through his familiarity with literally thousands of volumes of spiritual writings, he has borrowed from or been heavily influenced by numerous others to whom he has given no credit at all. The fact that he has been able to articulate the free and transcendent relationship to life that we all instinctively feel in moments, coupled with the fact that he writes and speaks about many things which are beyond the realm of your personal experience, is offered as "proof" that he is spiritually superior to you.

Many of you have apparently forgotten the simple truth that actions speak louder than words, and that insights which are not practiced are meaningless, if not dangerous. Your distraction with a complexity of abstractions and a sophisticated, "pre-packaged" context within which to interpret everything has left you "incapable of seeing the forest for the trees." "By their fruits shall ye know them", said one spiritual teacher nearly 2,000 years ago. And it is on this basis that each one of us must draw our own conclusions regarding the spiritual status of Da Free John.

I am so glad to no longer be where many of you are, and I wanted to take the opportunity to tell you why. In many respects it would have been far easier to write this entire matter off as just another set of experiences. But I have felt too much passion and serious caring to have made that choice.

Should any of you meander out beyond the fences and psychological barriers of JDC, you will find that there is "unavoidably" only god outside your temple walls. Your spiritual life may change in form, but it will continue. And there are many people who have been through what you have experienced and can thus offer help. Many have needed and received support in order to make the critical transition back to a measure of self-respectability.

Therefore, many ex-members are happy to offer support to anyone wanting to climb out from beneath the astral fog. They are not however in the recruiting business, and are not any type of organization dedicated to any purpose; merely a number of old friends willing to lend a hand. Please understand that I do not want to debate or confront any of you. The consideration this letter hopefully sparks in you should primarily occur amongst yourselves, including DFJ personally, the so-called "renunciate order", and the entire JDC hierarchy. On the other hand, should you ever wish to communicate about anything discussed here, in confidence or otherwise, I would welcome your letters. I can also direct you to books and to other people who can assist during the initial period of re-orientation to what can be "an ordinary pleasurable life", free of exaggerated dependency, concern for spiritual attainment, and the ensnaring arguments for living in submission to someone who controls your root fiber but does not love you.

It would have been preferable for all of you to have done the work of provoking this discussion. But I understand why this could not be so and trust that you will soon recognize the benefits which will ultimately come from what has been started. If in the end there is a bit more openness and honesty in JDC, a degree of self-critical inspection, or a drop less arrogance and exclusivity on the part of Da Free John, we will have all been served. I wish you well and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mark D. Miller Sausalito, California USA

8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC)68.8.165.91 8 July 2005 04:03 (UTC) MS 8 July 2005

Adding a 20 Year-old Statement to a Live Discussion Board

I don't think it's appropriate. I'm sorry to be adding another section but the posting of this Mark Miller letter takes up so much room that I am unable to edit it or add to it. Why couldn't you have just added a link to the article?

There are several things that are factual that one should also consider in light of Mr. Miller’s accusations however.

One, Mr. Miller is one of a handful of anti-Daist activists who have made their livelihood by using the attack tactics that are the norm of all “cult-buster” litigants. So Mr. Miller has apparently made himself rich by asserting negative charges against Adi Da in civil, not criminal, courts of law. Two , Mr. Miller claimed in his lawsuit that Adi Da “stole” his onetime girlfriend who was in fact a Playboy centerfold. Most men who lose their girlfriends to other men have very unkind things to say about such rivals. But the fact that this could possibly motivate Mr. Miller to possibly assassinate the character of Adi Da never once enters into his dialog. Of course anyone would be upset if they had lost their onetime girlfriend to another person, and the fact that she was a Playboy centerfold would only add another level of angst to someone like Mark. It is no wonder that he apparently “hates” Adi Da. I am unaware of anyone ever suing the person who stole their girlfriend, but I suppose it has happened before. It’s not really something to be proud of, and that is probably why he needs to find other justifications for his anger at Adi Da. At any rate, it is not at all surprising that Mr. Miller had negative things to say about Adi Da 20 years ago. Has anyone botherd to ask him how he feels today?

The Adi Da article is heavily weighted as being negative towards Adi Da. Specific proof: There only three links in the article referencing positive links to Adi Da’s life and work. Conversely, there are 16 links to negative anti-Daist materials. This is in contrast to the fact that positive materials on the Internet about Adi Da outnumber negative materials by at least 40 to 1. This is a specific objection I have to the negative slant presented in the current form of the article. This and the fact that any attempts to make this article more balanced are met with accusations of “vandalism” by the anti-Daists who continue in their negative campaign against Adi Da.

The question I ask is this: are people here interested in a fair and balanced representation of Adi Da’s life and work? Or is Wikipedia to be hijacked as just another propagandist tool of the anti-Daist hate group? D.Gomez, 10 July, 2005

The better question: is Wikipedia to be hijacked as just another propagandist tool of the Adidam group? There is nothing of the truth in D. Gomez' postings. Nothing! I'm really glad I found this site. -Candace, July 14, 2005

Yes, I agree, MS should have just added a link. But there's nothing wrong with the letter itself, which is not only totally relevant today, but was posted as a refutation of the notion that Mark Miller was some sort of greedy opportunist who hadn't pondered these issues sincerely. And you really don't know how much money Mark Miller received. Candace hasn't offered any evidence.

As for Mark Miller's grievances, are you aware of the circumstances under which he was "relieved" of his girlfriend, and has it ever occurred to you to ask why on earth a guru would need to ROUTINELY do things like relieve his devotees of their money and girlfriends? And nothing's changed today, despite the fact that Miller's lawsuit is from two decades ago. Adi Da is still voraciously consuming money and seeking women for his harem, there is still an inner circle enabling his work, and still an outer circle (e.g., you, David) kept in the dark, lied to and relied on for tithe support. Nothing has changed at all, except that Adi Da is more bitter and disappointed than ever at his not being embraced and worshipped by the world. And everyone's a little bit closer to the grave, with nothing to show for their misguided efforts except a whole lot of empty rhetoric and wasted lives.

As for the article's balance, first, I don't see how you get the numbers you do (more below). Second, what would make you happier -- to have factual (but "unflattering") statements about Adi Da presented with no support whatsoever? Most of the article doesn't discuss criticisms at all; it's the article as a whole, rather than the link density of any given section, that's a better barometer of NPOV. The only two sections that do discuss the controversy, other than the introduction, are the "Response" and "External Links" sections. The former is composed of four paragraphs and 16 links, 12 of which are to a critical site BUT REFERENCED TO FACTUAL MATERIAL. The first paragraph discusses the group's missionary work and titheing policy (something Adidam would rather not talk about publically, for some reason). The next two paragraphs discuss the controversy and lawsuits, again something Adidam chooses to be silent about; references abound, as they ought to. The final paragraph, somewhat pointlessly, is all about Wilber's comments and links to the same. And the External Links section comprises 19 links, nine of which are maintained by Adidam or devotees engaged in outreach, seven of which are critical or mixed, and three of which are nominally neutral sites. Doesn't sound real slanted to me.

In general, with regard to religious and political controversies, I keep coming back to a saying that I believe I first heard in the debate over teaching evolution in schools: people are entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts. Let the article present the facts, and let people draw their own conclusions. That is of course very irksome to Adidam apologists, who have their own set of ready-made rationalizations for Adi Da's self-serving and abusive behavior and can't stand to see the facts presented without the spin. However, Wikipedia's not a place to be hijacked as a propagandist tool for proselytizing. What's especially ironic about apologists like yourself, and those for similar groups like Scientology, is that you're ignorant of the inner workings of the very thing you claim to champion. What you object to is the divergence of fact from what you idealistically wish were the case. --Jim Butler 06:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Gomez, you made the public charges here that Mark Miller was associated with criminals and part of an extortion conspiracy, without evidence to support that statement. You also claim now that he was motivated by the fact that Franklin Jones manipulated and relieved him of his girlfriend, even though that event took place circa 1976 and Mark Miller stayed very involved until the mid-80s. During that period, the actual lifestyle of the guru and his inner group was hidden from many of the outer members, who were deemed not spiritually mature enough, as the spokesmen admitted after the story broke in the press. Mark's break with Franklin Jones was as a result of that behavior, the deception, and Franklin Jones' refusal to even meet. The letter is in response to your evident reckless and false claims about him, so that others can judge your credibility versus his. It is relevant because it shows the lengths to which your group and yourself will go to in attacking those who expose facts you don't want to hear. Mark Miller has not changed his position on Franklin Jones, or on those who after over 20 years still continue the denial and rationalization on the one hand, and the character attacks on critics on the other hand. As for your claims that positive materials outnumber negative materials 40 to 1 on the internet, much of that is only because Adidam's expert webmaster Chris Tong has manipulated the internet to make it appear so, using lots of domain names and sites. MS 12 July 2005.

Recent Edit comment

I removed the line that stated that Adi Da "temporarily left Muktananda and Rudi in May of 1968 because he joined Scientology from May 1968 until September 1969." because it is rife with inaccuracies. First of all the Abriged version of the Knee of Listening said that Adi Da sought his separation from the organization (which he began in the spring of 1968) in May of 1969, so the length of period is incorrect. Secondly, a reading of the current Knee of Listening shows that he was still very much involved in written letters and communictating with Swami Muktananta,and that there was not a "temporary break" with Muktananda which the previous author indicated. He or she is assuming a cause and effect relationship between Adi Da's investigation of scientology and his relationship to Swami Muktananda and Rudi, when there is no such relationship. If anyone can find any statement written by Adi Da that shows a cause and effect connection to his brief involvement in scientology and his actions in relation to Swami Muktananda and Rudi as well as the other points I have elaborated here in print I will be happy to retract my ommision of this statement.

If you want to put in a sentence about Scientology You could probably say that he investigated Scientology for a year but discontinued his involvement because (He) "began to rea;ize that (He) had already produced this experiment during His period of writing in California" (from the Abridged version of the Knee of Listening page p. 84 1973). But it is not accurate to associate his relationship to his teachers with anything He did with scientology. THere is nothing in print in the abridged version or of the newer versions of the Knee of Listening which explicitly indicates such a causitive relationship. MM Dec 5, 2005

++++MM, once again, you are simply wrong, simply read the unedited account of his Scientology involvement. The fact that Adidam revises its own history to hide unfavorable information and that you won't find it in Knee of Listening is precisely the point. ~MS, 6 March 2006

Scientology material reposted from Beezone

Baba had all but told me to abandon my work with Rudi. For my own part, that whole motivation had already passed. I felt no need to condemn Rudi, and the Ashram gossip that opposed him seemed only a manifestation of particular Indian predilections for certain ways of life. I needed very much to be free of Rudi but I was certain that his way was appropriate for him and anyone else who felt a genuine urge in the direction he could lead them.

Even so, the path of life had simply emerged as a totally different matter. I was convinced that the way of effort was simply a further manifestation of life lived as a problem, a motivated search. Yet, the mind and the whole habitual pattern of life appeared to me to be a source of difficulty, which in fact prevented the continuous assumption of life on a radically free basis.

Baba's way was peculiarly tied to Indian notions and methods. Although he suggested these to me, he did not seek to enforce any kind of method in my case. It all seemed a suggestive communication that should lead me to my own truth. He even told me that I would eventually teach the ways of spiritual life, in perhaps a year or more. But he did not tell me what to teach. I took his teaching and my experience on the broadest level, to be freely and meaningfully adapted to my own case.

Thus, when the old problems began to arise, and I saw no immediate way to use the specific methods Baba described or even to enforce the vision of my particular experience, I felt moved to find a solution to the dilemma by any means available to me. The history of my own development led me to be open to any form of solution, whether or not it involved the specific means or mentality of yoga.

While I was established in this mood, Julio Delatorre, an old friend from my days at Stanford, came to dinner. He was animatedly involved in an organization called Scientology, which was headed and exclusively developed by a man named L. Ron Hubbard.

After I had worn out the conversation about my years of yoga and my experiences in India, my friend became more enthusiastically involved in describing his experiences in Scientology. I began instead to listen to him.

Scientology made use of a peculiar technique called "auditing." A trained person sat with you and, by careful use of a pattern of direct questioning, sought to remove the force which certain key experiences in your past had on your daily life. My friend had experienced great benefits from this method, and he had even been led to re-experience his birth, the violence of which he felt had determined a kind of nervous and aloof quality in him all his life. Now he felt peculiarly "cleared" of the force of that experience and all kinds of other reactions that he had retained as unconscious controls on his behavior.

Scientology sought by these means to relieve a person from the machinery of memory and unconscious reactivity so that he could eventually attain a state called "clear." In the state of "clear" the reactive or unconscious mind was supposed to be entirely eliminated as a force.

The more I listened the more this method seemed perfectly suited to what I now considered to be the essential problem of life. I knew that our essential nature, the Self or Divine Consciousness or Soul, was not something that needed to be created or recovered by effort. It was always already the case. But we are usually identified with an unconscious pattern of mentality that enforces a life of seeking and trouble and prevents a direct awareness of our true state. If a man could only reduce the power of this subliminal mechanism he would stand free, in his original nature.

I determined to investigate Scientology for myself. The next day I went to the Scientology organization, near 34th Street and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan. The atmosphere of the place was one of constant activity. It was filled mainly with young people, who seemed very open and communicative. I was constantly greeted with what later became known as the "Scientology stare." The people approached me with a wide smile and fixed on me with their eyes, with the same sense of necessity that Rudi had demonstrated whenever he shook my hand.

I was shown around the organization by one of its enthusiastic members, named Sal Lucania, who would later become a close friend. He kept insisting on how I had finally come "home." I saw an impressive array of books, an expanse of highly organized departments, and a huge classroom where many people sat with headphones listening to tapes. Some sat in groups on opposite sides of a long table. They stared at one another or made efforts to distract one another into laughter. I was shown a young girl, about ten years old, who was the "world's youngest auditor." And another young man who was having difficulty staring at his partner without breaking up. He would have to do this very well before he could qualify as an auditor.

The place had all of that strange air of an ingrown organization, but there was a certain freedom and freshness to the place that was a nice change from my cloistering in seminaries and yoga. I was taken to a "registrar," whose charge, very obviously, was to get me to buy as much auditing as she could. We discussed the process, and it continued to interest me. She said that results were guaranteed or I, by contract, would be free to get a refund within a reasonable period. If I paid somewhere between a thousand and twelve hundred dollars I could get all of my auditing and training up to grade IV release," the highest grade offered in New York. To get the higher grades toward "clear" you had to go to England. And there were also higher levels called "O.T." ("operating thetan"), now being given in Spain, that brought a person who was already "clear" up to the state where he could leave his physical body at will and perform certain higher functions in the environment without having to inhabit the body.

It was all presented as a revolutionary new tool for spiritual advancement, one that had been planned scientifically and found to be 100% effective in all cases. It seemed to be an absolutely irresistible opportunity. Another young man came and demonstrated to me the basic apparatus of auditing. The auditor not only used the questions appropriate to each grade of "release." He used an instrument called an E-meter, a device patterned after the Wheatstone Bridge, which indicates changes in body resistance. These changes could be interpreted by a trained auditor as he watched the moving needle on his meter. By these reactions he could determine what areas of questioning were vital, or, by a peculiar manifestation called a "floating needle," he could tell that a state of "release" had been attained in a particular area.

The "grades" themselves were patterns of questioning that moved in a gradient of depth up the scale of difficulties that the individual could confront. Thus, by a scientifically graduated approach to the clear state, a person would never pass "over his head" or by-pass problems that would prevent his higher and stable realization.

The whole matter seemed to be highly sophisticated, and the people I met seemed so firmly convinced of its effectiveness in their case, that I was persuaded to buy some auditing. The price was quite high, but I considered that it would be worth it if the process worked. If I paid the full price I would not only get the total amount of auditing but also the training necessary to reproduce these same states in others. This seemed a valuable addition to me. I thought perhaps this would be an opportunity for a career in actual and effective spiritual work. Perhaps it was in Scientology that Baba saw I was to become a teacher.

I immediately set about finding some way to get enough money for auditing. I sold my library, took my savings, and got a small loan from Pan American. Within a day or two I appeared for my auditing. Six days later I was a "grade IV release."

My experience of auditing did not produce any radical changes in my awareness. It was largely a recollection and reassessment of memories, thoughts and bits of certainty that I had already recovered, less formally but also more exhaustively, in my years of writing. It produced no remarkable or sudden knowledge such as I had experienced in college or seminary. But neither did it contradict anything I knew as a result of my own experiments.

The auditing I experienced at this level dealt mainly with memories and reactions of a clinical nature. It was the same body of experience that one might bring to a psychiatrist or any other socially-oriented therapy. Even so, it verified my previous estimations of my life. I did not gain any new advantage in self-knowledge, except that I did have the opportunity to communicate what I knew and what I had suffered. This had a certain value. It had a socializing effect. Just as my work with Rudi drew me out of solitude to the world of present experience, the Scientology processes drew me even further out of the cloister of yoga and effort. I thought that auditing had a certain logic and value that could be useful to others in the same way my private researches had served me. Perhaps as an "auditor" I could act as a medium for the communication of self-knowledge in others. Perhaps the upper levels of "clearing" and O.T." would indeed provide sources of transformation in my own case that would penetrate the untouched barriers of my mind. The world of Scientology was attractive, youthful and public. The value it held most dear was communication. It was a form of society, and this seemed important. To be present with others was a healing opportunity. Thus, I decided to leave Pan American and go to work for Scientology.

I convinced Nina to get auditing too, and within a few weeks we had both become working members of the Scientology staff. At about that time I received a letter from Baba. It was a long letter with lots of poetic maxims on yoga and Self realization, and there were some practical indications on how to meditate. I sat down with Nina to discuss our relation to these things, when suddenly I felt the space of the room expand in a curious way, and I felt Baba's actual Presence. The Shakti moved up my back and produced that peculiar bliss in the mind, and I sat for a long time enjoying his Presence, waiting for some kind of message or advice.

After a while the experience subsided. Nina and I both had felt it. But it seemed to us both that it was not an experience radically opposed to our use of Scientology. I felt that it only demonstrated a reality that I would hope to attain in a more stable form as a result of the process called "clearing." I didn't feel at the time that meditation or the attitude of yoga was necessarily useful in permanently removing the obstacles of the mind that now seemed to me to be the point of my practical investigation. We decided to continue in Scientology until it should outlive its usefulness or prove to be a detriment to real knowledge. We were told that Scientology demanded the radical abandonment of other practices as long as auditing was being used. Thus, we had already abandoned our usual practice of meditation meditation The methods of Scientology seemed to reproduce the same condition of openness and well-being, and I could in any case make use of the knowledge gained by spiritual practice over the years even without the practice of meditation.

I also broke off with Rudi at this time. At one point in my auditing I was led to consider my relation to him, and it was causing me difficulty. I was sent to the "Ethics Officer," who was supposed to help a person relieve himself of influences that tended to suppress his awareness or his freedom. It was determined that Rudi functioned in this way in my case. It was true that I had begun to feel that relationship as a burden, and he seemed to have no sympathy with the point of view that had begun to guide me since seminary. He would certainly not approve of my work in Scientology, and this itself would require a break between us.

Thus, I agreed to write a "disconnect letter" to Rudi. It was a letter in which I ungratefully severed my connection to him and said I would make no further effort to communicate with him. The form and motive for the letter were not really my own. It was a traditional Scientology practice at that time. However, I felt greatly relieved to be so easily free of a relationship I didn't otherwise know how to end. Rudi's reaction to the letter was as you may imagine, and it would be two and one half years before we would be on speaking terms again. But with this letter I brought another phase of my life to a summary end.

Nina and I worked for the Scientology organization for more than a year. During that time we became painfully familiar with the fanatical politics of that organization and suffered a great deal of humiliation by its seemingly endless internal purges. But these politics will not be my subject here. I am only interested in detailing my experience there as an extension of my life-long search for spiritual or conscious transformation.

I was determined to take advantage of the processes of "clearing" and "O.T." I became willing to exercise extreme patience and even self effacement in order not to lose the opportunity. Thus, I passed through the constant internal warfare and personal chaos we created at that time while doing everything I could to prevent my being removed from the organization and so lose the opportunity to go further. As an auditor I encountered serious problems. An auditor is supposed to be able to let his "pre-clear" or auditing subject be completely free to communicate and so enjoy the benefits of the auditing process. I was very willing to have it be this way, but the experience of Shakti that had been generated in me by years of yoga had produced a profound expression of that Force in me that also affected others.

In auditing sessions people would have experiences of Shakti and become distracted by my presence. The need to maintain direct contact with the person with the eyes or simply one's concentrated presence made it impossible for me to remove the effects of the Shakti in my auditing sessions. I finally had to tell one of my superiors what it was that was taking place, and he was quite insistent that I manage somehow to empty myself of this Force. He thought it must be some kind of suppressive use of energy that would trap people and fix them in bodily consciousness.

Thus, I had to try very hard to draw myself out of the consciousness of Shakti. Obviously, I was in a very unusual position, and even to talk about it seems a little unreal, but it was for me a very practical difficulty. I knew I had to eliminate this effect from my auditing work or else suffer possible expulsion.

By the time I had nearly mastered the ability to empty myself of this experience, the opportunity arose for me to go on to prepare for the Clearing and O.T. levels. Thus, in March of 1969, 1 returned to California. The organization had since created a headquarters in Los Angeles for the upper levels of training and for the operation of its higher political organization called the "Sea Org." It was a focal point for Ron Hubbard's secret political and auditing work, and even today he controls it from a fleet of ships at sea. He is a former science fiction writer, and the pattern of his organization as well as the pattern of philosophy and interpretations of human history that inform the higher levels of Scientology auditing, bear all the marks of a great work of the imagination.

Early in my indoctrination into Scientology I heard public lectures that described the things that were to be dealt with in the upper levels of auditing. Those processes work under the assumption that the human mind is not primarily bound to the separate experiences of the present life or even of many previous lives. Rather, what is really at work to trap us in the mind are a series of terrible betrayals far in the past in which we were subject to "implantation." These implants were akin to the methods used to "brain wash" people who are politically dangerous, particularly in Russia and other closed societies. In the distant past, when we were part of a large confederacy of galaxies and planets and operated on a very miraculous, super-human level, even without physical bodies, we were supposed to have been trapped by various politically motivated groups and subjected to implantation. These implants usually made use of electronic instruments and every kind of scientific hocus pocus to program the mind and remove certain of our higher abilities. Thus, we have, over millennia, degenerated into our present condition of mere humanity in constant mystery. A person who is Clear and O.T. is supposed to be entirely free of the mind and its implantation's, and so able to move about freely as a spiritual entity outside a body.

When I went to California I was only tentatively aware of this basic philosophy of implantation. I had been attracted to the work on other grounds. For me, "clearing" was a matter of dealing with the fundamental mechanisms of the mind and not at last with its contents. If some considered those contents to be on a level with science fiction, that was theirs to Pursue. I was interested in the mind as a present mechanism. I was not Particularly interested in its contents except as they arose in my own case and needed to be handled for the sake of my own clearing. But when I came to do the upper levels I found that the whole affair was inseparable from these assumptions about the politics of the universe. I had in my own experience quite a different awareness of cosmic reality. I had reached to dimensions of the mind and cosmos that were quite apart from anything as paltry as some kind of electronic hoax. And I knew very well that no experience, however devastating, in fact acts as a radical deterrent to the realization of higher consciousness. I had passed into those realms myself and witnessed the genuine mechanisms of ultimate reality. And there was no sign in all of that, or in the whole history of spiritual literature, of there being a fundamental structure of mind, created by historical implantation, that in fact was the primary source of unrealized existence.

Of course, there is an infinite history of cosmic events in which we all share, but the detailed analysis of them could never amount to a fundamental liberation. The structure that actually prevented real consciousness and growth was not the historical deposits in the mind but the unconsciousness of our true nature, of the Divine or real Presence of ultimate reality, and the present tendency to operate on the basis of limited awareness rather than a conscious relationship to higher reality.

Thus, I had sought the clearing processes as a means of dealing with and even eliminating the present, ongoing structure of the mind. If this could be perceived and controlled, it made no difference what it contained as memory. But when I actually performed the Clearing and O.T. levels I found that they continued to deal only with the content of the mind. And that content was continually identified with the peculiar cosmic politics favored by Ron Hubbard. Thus, I found that these levels never dealt with the fundamental problem of the mind itself, prior to any content. In fact, they only led people deeper and deeper into a fanciful, paranoiac dilemma in which they were indoctrinated into the mentality of a cosmic political holocaust.

The people with whom I worked were chronically seeking release and "exteriorization" from the contents of the mind and from the physical body. This was itself a motivation grown out of fear and very little wisdom. To be sure, the evidence for exteriorization is conclusive, as it appears in works such as those of Jung. But nowhere in spiritual literature is it offered as the goal of life. Neither is it declared to be a necessary event in every case, prior to perfect knowledge.

In Scientology, however, exteriorization is the object of constant seeking. It is the sign of a period in cosmic history when spiritual beings had great powers and mobile freedom in the physical universe. Thus, it is pursued quite apart from any kind of higher wisdom. Exteriorization and various powers are sought for their own sake. Even the phenomenon supposed to be attained at "O.T. 8," the highest stage of Scientology auditing promoted at present, is called "total power."

I had taken up Scientology for reasons of my own and allowed myself to discover in it parallels to my own motives and experience. Thus, I had failed to recognize the precise nature of the study itself. It was only on the upper levels, when the activity of auditing had degenerated into exercises of pure nonsense, that I realized what I had in fact led myself into. While I was busy doing the O.T. levels I dropped all of my resistance to the internal operation of the Shakti and began to recover my earlier state of awareness. The phenomenon of exteriorization was not unfamiliar to me, but its importance was quite different from that in which it was conceived in Scientology. For me, it was only one of the possible phenomena encountered in the growth of real consciousness. I attached no necessity or radical importance to it, nor to any other kind of "power."

I saw that Scientology was actually a political entity created along the lines of a fanciful interpretation of history. Its goals were political, not spiritual. Thus, its leading concern was power, not wisdom or realization. The "clearing" level was only another manipulation of mental images, and not at all a radical approach to the mind. It pointed to the O.T. levels and the creation of a certain mentality whose effects were political. In most cases those levels did not even momentarily produce such phenomena as true exteriorization. It simply indoctrinated people into the mentality of power and paranoid cosmic politics. Even where the phenomenon of exteriorization is sought intentionally, there are many levels on which it can be produced. In spiritual literature it is sought as an entrance into the subtler planes of reality. But in Scientology it was always promoted as a way out of the physical body but into the physical universe.

After my experience of the "upper levels" of Scientology auditing I realized clearly that it did not deal with matters that were fundamentally important to me. I returned to New York with the intention to separate myself altogether from the Scientology organization. The whole experience had even served to separate Nina and me. We had become chronically unwilling and unable to understand and create our relationship. We seemed to become obstacles to one another's freedom. We became "released" and "exterior" to one another.

Thus, I returned to New York much the same as I had been year before. The year of Scientology seemed to have been vacant space in time, a moment turned aside from the current of my life. I was ready to begin again. There were no games to be played, nothing to be sought. I saw again the fundamental relatedness that is in all things and which is the source of real love.

In May of 1969 I had definitely decided to separate myself from Scientology. From then until August I was devoted to the understanding of the problem of the mind rather than to its solution. But this was also a period of expanded experience in the Shakti, the manifesting energy that proceeds from the highest reality or Divine Consciousness.

During the exercise of the Scientology O.T. ("operating thetan") processes I gave up all effort to suppress that Force in me. One evening, while I was still in California, it rushed again into the form of my being with tremendous power, so that it seemed I was no longer even remotely concerned with the petty contaminations of the mind. I was suddenly returned to an experience of my Self-nature and a sublime recognition of the Divinity of even the physical world. I lived entirely in this consciousness, making no effort at all to maintain or create it. The O.T. levels ceased to involve matters of importance to me. I passed through them quickly and returned to New York.

In the weeks that followed I became aware of a new dimension of the activity of Shakti. Not only was my own state expanded in its Presence, but the people who were closest to me began to experience the effects of Shakti through contact with me. My wife Nina, Patricia Morley, a girl whom we had met in Scientology and who had come to live with us, and Sal Lucania, now a former Scientologist and my business partner, were particularly affected with these experiences. And there were a few others who seemed drawn by this Presence that had begun to operate through me.

At first I merely talked to them about my understanding of real spiritual life, and they began to discover parallels to this understanding in their own experiences and doubts. Then they began to have uncommon experiences of a Presence that affected them separately and in different ways while they were otherwise apart from me. These experiences took the form of visions, or the sensation of a real but invisible Presence, or the sense of being sublimed and surrounded in a form of energy and fulness that quieted and clarified the mind. They would ask me about these experiences and, before long, I found myself having to function as a teacher and an instrument for the Shakti.

My own state was so profoundly drawn into that Consciousness that I found no difficulty in speaking to them and making recommendations that seemed wholly intelligent and even inspired. At times I even experienced visual communications of a psychic nature. I would see auras of light about the person, or see his thoughts appearing in my mind, or intuitively perceive certain images in his forehead or his body. I would also become directly aware of the Shakti as it passed through these people or was expressed in them, and I could easily trace the currents of energy and see where they became concentrated, halted or obstructed at the various vital points or "chakras." On more than one occasion saw Baba appear and initiate a person with the Shakti by touch, and I could see a blue light appear and surround the person's body.

More on response

Adi Da likes to revise history and I'm not sure if there's a way to know what his intentions really were back around 1969 when he was into Scientology. The original, abridged KOL does, as I recall, say that he broke off with Muktananda at the time. But here, simply mentioning his involvement w/ Scientology suffices. - Jim Butler 10:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC

Edit comment student levels five years ago were just under 1300. I've seen the stats myself, rather than "having done investigations" which Elias from Light might did 6 years ago. I recommend pulling his reference #5 as being inaccurate and at the very least obsolete in regards to the tithing amounts and the number of students. More recently (July) around 1700. And a few hudred more since Adi Da came to the mainland 6 mnths ago and the rate of those leaving at this time (last 6 months) have dropped compard to those joining. Hence it is more accurate to say close to 2000. It is certainly closer to 2000 than to 1000. The first level of student is student novice who tithe 5% then the next level tithe 15%. So 5 to 15 is accurate. "Numerous" is somewhat subjective. (I count 3 other fees which do not involve contracting a service (such as internet, book subscriptions,etc.)which other organizations would charge for as well. "additional" seems more neutral. But if you insist on throwing "numerous" back there I wont stop you! Also those other fees are, in total, small compared to tithe stuff. And an individual can get those other fees waived and the tithe deceased for an indefinite period of time if fiancially unfeasilbe for them. How do you say all that with finesse? I know dont. Ive taken a crack at it. If you dont like my modifications, do your thing. As far as hovering around 1000 since the mid 70s, that sounds like it was written by someone who was not there. I arrived in mid 1976 and the number of student was nowhere near 1000. When I joined it was in the mid 300's . The Day of the Heart in late 1979,the entire communion was gathered there, 600 people present, It reached 1000 for the first time in the mid 80's. Therefore the notion of "hovering around 1000 since the mid 70's is just plain inaccurate. It did come to a big slow down from about 1985 until around 1998 or 1999 and started slowly to grow from there. But I didnt pull that sentence yet since I got other stuff in my life to do that fix all the boo-boos here. Plus i dont know how you'll react to what I have changed and I dont want ot annoy you too much. I ll leave that creative work up to you. In addition it is not accurate to say that all the fundraisers are to buy Adi Da gifts. THey are for a whole plethora of reasons that range from gifts, to raising money for new buildings, to starting a new marketing campaign, to helping a friend who is retiring who needs a helping hand, to beautifying the sanctuaries with flowers, to improving the toilet facilites. There are many, many reasons for fund raising. To Say they are all or even mostly for gifts for Adi Da is a statement made by someone with an ax to grind. Its not factaully accurate. Please do something with that. Ive run out of time-MM

I restored the tithing guide link, and quoted from it. Being a member of Adidam goes hand in hand with heavy financial demands, and these come straight from Da himself. Most of it is about feeding his gargantuan appetites, and the article should be straight about that, irrespective of your desire to spin things otherwise. - Jim Butler 00:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Its good that you mentioned "feeding his gargantuan appetite" so the public can judge how balenced and impartial an editor you are. But you really ought to state up front that even though the history of spirituality is replete with Spiritual Masters making incredibly difficult demands on thier devotees for the sake of their spiritual growth the editor summarily dismisses that this is the mechanism being exersized in Adi Da Samrajs ministry. Further more you, should state up front that even thought the article is assembled based on a number of different authors attitudes about Adi Da Samraj, the editor of this page is extremely offended when it comes to anything that has to do with Adi Da and he has the last say so here. At least that way you wont be offering this information under false pretenses of "unbaised" reporting. Tell the public what they are really getting.

What "editor of this page" are you talking about? Anyone can edit a Wiki page.

As for my neutrality, I don't have to be neutral. Only the article does. And I doubt you're neutral either. I think the article ought to present facts about Adidam, and let readers decide for themselve what they mean: whether Da is a charismatic cult leader with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or a religious genius of the ultimate degree, or The Completing Late-Time Avatar, or whatever. Information about the financial requirements of Adidam does belong in the article; interpretations like "gargantuan appetite" or "sacrifice for the sake of devotees" don't, unless specifically identified as a POV.

Adidamers aren't used to unvarnished facts being presented without a load of Da-as-avatar interpretations, but this isn't an official Adidam page, so you'll have to get used to that. - Jim Butler 09:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me. I was under the distinct impression that you had some sort of senior editing function with the wikipedia organization which allowed you to have the last say so in any edit on the articles page. If this is not so I stand corrected. Neutrality of the article is my concern as well as yours, not your neutrality. I certainly dont expect that from you nor do I need it. However, the article as it stands is a long ways from representing a balanced point of view between opposing sides. It is quite a bit slanted towards the negative. -MJ

Definition of "negative", from unofficial Adidam glossary: "presenting facts independent of relentless pro-Da interpretations". Also referred to as "neutral" in the real world. -- Jim Butler 11:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me give you typical examples of how you and those who are sympathetic to your point of view slants information in a negative fashion; Imagine you were reporting on the activities of Marpa the Translator. You would be sure to report on His drunkeness, and in one instance his mecilessly driving a devotee to build rediculous structures everywhere for no good purpose. Commenting on Drukpal Kunley you would decribe him as a serial rapiest. Commenting on Jesus you would comment on how he mercilessly beat up some church officials who were financial officers of the church. Commenting on Krishna, you would decribe him as a mesmorizer who destroyed the viability of thousands of marrigages. Commenting on Shirdi Sai Baba - one who spent a lot of time mumbling to himself while clutching the local currency. Commenting on Naropa -one who in one instance ordered one of him devotees into a pool of leeches for the express purpose to "break" him. Commenting on the Zen tradition - laced with unpremeditated violence as the Zen Roshi can take a heavy stick and strik thier students for no reason whatsoever. Commenting on Ramakrishna -known to be a cross dresser and climbing trees at night all the while howling in dispair about where his devotees could be.

I could go on and on here. This is the fashion in which you treat Adi Da's material. My point in all of this is that you dont seem to be able to notice that the greatest of Spiritual Masters engage in totally unconventional behavior and sometimes offensive behavior by any conventional standards of conduct. The present Dali Lama has commented on this fact. And such behavior seems very offensive if one does not feel the Transformational blessing that flows form it. THen those who dont feel the change in their lives feel ripped off and those that do feel Blessed. Then each side of this experience feels as though the other side is unfeeling and disturbed. I acknowldege that both sides exist and I am willing to make room for yours as long as you are willing to make room for mine. You somehow seem to find that worthy of criticism. All because in your own time you didnt feel the transmission in Adi Das company as life Transforming in the most positive context.

I placed a comment about how the asking of money, gifts, etc has a traditional spritual context and I see that that comment has been removed. It wasnt even particularly pro Adi Da, merely informative from a traditinal standpoint. Perhaps you objected to my placing the quote in the text instead of placing it on its own page? I didnt know about that possibility until the other day. I will attempt to replace the comment about the traditional context of such giving which is steeped in the Spritual Traditions throughout the ages and see if it survives an edit by yourself or others. It was a totally fair comment to add to the text to begin with. You or someone edited it out--didnt see fit to provide the public with both sides of the story, which places the actions of gift giving to a Realizer in the context of a traditional spiritual context and provides both sides of the story to allow the public to make up their own minds about whether they think such actions are based in tradition or in fakery. Removing the comment I mentioned above was a way of insuring a one sided presentation about this point...

Thats what I mean by "Negative". You neednt invent a book in your mind and quote from it to acertain my meaning any longer. -MM

Your examples above still conflate fact (e.g., sexual activity) with interpretation (e.g., mesmerizer vs. great adept) to some degree, and heavily emphasize semilegendary figures about whose lives little is factually established. In any case, there is nothing inherently negative about facts, unless you are put off by "naked" facts, un-dressed with ornate interpretations about their spiritual import. On the article, I did add a segment under "Response" summarizing the interpretive viewpoints of both sides. You may also find this account interesting in terms of "conventional" vs. "Traditional Spiritual" import. -Jim Butler 08:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

JB, your observation about semi legandary figures conveniently overlooks the Zen tradition which I mentioned above which advocates Zen Roshi's braining their students if it will serve a teaching demonstration. It conveniently omits Nityananda's behavior who died in, what? 1962 wasnt it? Nothing semi-legenary there. There are some modern Tibetian masters who could be mentioned here as well. And if you call Jesus Semi-legendary you'll have approximately 900 million christians picking a fight with you!

Oops! Better rephrase that chum. What is more to the point, your criticism about my examples as semi-lengendary and therefoe subject to circumspection, entirely misses the point I am making. That point is that hundreds of millions of individuals around the world, worship, admire, contemplate, and participate in these kinds of activities with these Masters, or of these Masters willing, even joyfully! But If beating someone, for example must be considered to be abusive on the surface of it,why is Jesus worshiped inspite of his violence perpetrated on the church financial officers? Why are the Tibetian Masters from Durkpal Kunley to Marpa revered by millions if not hundreds of millions of worshipers? Why did people continue to come to Nityanada's feet even though they might find a a rock being thrown at them? Why is Shirdi Sai Baba's sometimes strange and sometimes appearing abusive behavior joyfully accepted as his Blessing Grace? Why is Krisnas homewrecking activites praised by hundreds of millions? The answer is found in the present day recongnition of hundreds of millions, even billions of people and neednt be dismissed as dwelling in the pervue of semi-legends. It is because in the present day, all these teaming millions recognize that the behavior of the Greatest teachers must be understood in a larger spiritual context or it will be misunderstood, esentially lost. Whether that behavior is understood to be simply "abusive" or "Divinely inspired" is largely dependent upon the individuals belief system, but is more properly rooted when that individual has actually been brought to Communion with God as a direct result of coming into the company of that Realizer. It is the direct result of these kinds of experiences of Communion which enable one to discern whether the Master is a phoney, an abuser, or a Divine Crazy Wise Realizer, whose behavior, which the present Dali Lama noted,(the Greatest of Realizers) cannot at all be judged by ordinary standards of morality. THe nature of these rarest of opportunities, to come in the company of such a Realizer, is so extremely rare, that His or Her Behavior gets lumped in with all the rest of the lesser teachers or outright Charlatans, because mankind has such a short memory. Talk about abuse? The history of humanities interaction with these greatest of beings is the very definition of abuse: Jesus crucfied, Mohammed Poisoned, Buddha Stoned, Al Halaj beheaded, Shams al Din knifed to death, St John of the Cross imprisioned,....It is an exceedingly long list of abuses perpetrated upon the greatest and near greatest of Spiritual Beings who have even lived, all in the name of their perceived "abusive" behavior. Your statement "there is nothing inherently negative about facts" misses the point that the narrowest interpretation of those "facts' have been the basis of the cruelist behavior that humanity can demonstrate--the persecution and even termination of the life of another, all in the name ofwhat one or a group of individuals perceive as the "facts". In other words, To ignore the larger Divine context of these Beings,and to ignore the larger context of accepted behavior even in traditions like Zen, and to make the statement that 'abusive behavior in any context is wrong" is the statement of one who see religion strictly from the point of view of mind, bereft of a greater Spiritual Reality. Or, it is the statement of an indivdual who totally denies the ancient and modern day living tradition of such Beings. It is at the very least a statement which denies the ancient and modern day recognition (tacitly demonstrated in their worship of Modern, Historical, or semi-legendary Divinely Awakened Masters, inspite of their apparently "abusive" acts of behavior, on the part of billions on this planet), that not all behavior is "abusive" because it could be described on the surface as that way. It may be the greatest Blessing imaginable, if it initiates God Communion.

I can understand why you say some of the things that you do. There will always be this tension between those who only see events and do not have the experience of profound Spritual Awakening, and those who see events and do experience Profound Awakening of the Divine in their lives. One side feels Blessed, the other Betrayed. And both sides feels as though the other is either self deluded, or failing to see, or feel, the obvious. That just such a state of affairs exists between human beings, both passionate about what they feel is their experience based measure of what is true, all the while fighting to assert their own side, is a sad state of affairs for both concerned, when it sets up a feeling of animosity on the part of one side towards another side. I for one wish that it was possible for both sides to genuinely respect that their point of view is based solely on their experience, and therefore leave more room for the possiblity for others to have experiences which are just as valid, if not more so, in their own description of Reality. Even those who have never experienced profound awakening have an intuition of what is greater, and because of that, their are many millions who believe the stories of those who have been so Graced that have lived before them or with them. That is one of the primary tenats of what Religion is fundamentally based upon, when its real-- the Honoring of that Reality which far exceeds mere appearances. -MM 1/28/06

MM, people are free to interpret spiritual teachers' behavior however they choose. (Personally, I prefer to assume that such choices are made on the basis of what works for a person, and reflect preference rather than Adherence To Profound Spiritual Understanding.) What is appropriate for a Wikipedia entry is to describe a teacher's behavior in a balanced way, and present important interpretations of it (including all sides of meaningful controversies). It's fine to mention some modern teachers as well, but it's also important to draw distinctions. As has been pointed out many times, crazy-wise teachers don't accumulate offshore bank accounts. And if Da's "teaching demonstration" was really intended to cover all the bases of spiritual seeking, where was the selfless service to the poor and needy? Was that less important than an extended meditation on sex and drugs? If you want to present Adidam's side and compare Da to revered teachers, fine, but expect differences to be highlighted as well. And while we're at it, Da's conduct should also be compared and contrasted to the pattern of "charismatic cult leader with Narcissistic Personality Disorder". That too is an interpretation held by many of his critics. It's fine to present such interpretations in the article, but I don't see why only the flattering comparisons should be cherry-picked. -Jim Butler 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)