
Adi Da Samraj (born Franklin Albert Jones, at 11:21 A.M., on November 3, 1939 in Jamaica, New York) is a highly controversial modern spiritual teacher and religious guru and the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam. At various times, Adi Da has also used names such as Bubba Free John, Da Free John, and Da Love-Ananda, to correspond with changes in his work as a spiritual teacher (see the section on #Name changes below). For clarity, in this article he will be referred to simply as Adi Da, as this is the name he is currently known by. ==Life== Adi Da was born and raised in Queens, New York. He attended Columbia College, where he received a degree in philosophy, and Stanford University, where he completed his M.A. in English literature. In 1965, Adi Da (then still Franklin Jones) became a disciple of Swami Rudrananda, also known as Rudi, and, later, in 1968, a disciple of the Indian teacher Swami Muktananda. Adi Da temporarily broke with Muktananda in May of 1968, and also severed his relationship with Rudi, when he became involved with Scientology until the Spring of 1969, and then permanently broke with Muktananda after a meeting in India in 1973. [http://lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/appendix2.html]. He founded his own group in April of 1972, operating out of a bookstore in Los Angeles, California. Initially known as the Dawn Horse Communion, the movement founded by Adi Da has been through several name changes: previous names have included The Free Primitive Church of Divine Communion, The Johannine Daist Communion, and Free Daism. It is now known as Adidam, or The Way of the Heart. ==Teaching== While some of Adi Da's teaching bears a close similarity to aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, the messianic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and other spiritual traditions, Adi Da argues that his teaching is based on his own direct spiritual realization. Adi Da states that his realization, although hinted at by a few historical religious figures and traditions, is unprecedented here on Earth or anywhere in the manifest universe, and that he is the unique means for sentient beings to attain such realization now and for all future time. Adi Da teaches that, in reality, there is only God: not in the sense of a "creator God" who is omniscient or omnipotent, but rather the "Source" or "Ground" of everything and everyone.[http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html]. However, according to Adi Da, virtually everyone (with the exception of Adi Da himself) is living in a state of delusion, presuming that their own personal self and the "things" and "others" that appear so real have absolute reality. This portion of his thought closely resembles the concept of Atman (Hinduism) in Advaita Hinduism. Adi Da teaches that the greatest purpose of human life is to awaken from this "dream" to our real state of identity with God. But he also teaches that one cannot Realize the Divine through one's own efforts; one cannot awaken oneself out of the dream. This is inherently so because of the nature of egoity. One must be awakened out of this "dream" by the Divine Principle itself, appearing in human form as the guru.[http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/gorilla_sermon/index.html] Adi Da describes his own appearance on Earth as the result of a rare conjunction of circumstances, which he describes in his 2003 autobiography, ''Adi Da'', that led God to appear in human form. He says that the primary purpose of his appearance is not specifically to communicate a teaching but rather to provide a direct revelation of true reality through his devotees' devotional and spiritual relationship with him. Adidam is, according to Adi Da, a "Divine Revelation never given before"[http://www.adidam.org/adi_da/index.html]. Adi Da has repeatedly emphasized that Adidam is based on the revelation of who he is, which he contrasts with religions that he considers to be "belief-based", such as Christianity. According to Adi Da, through advance in the practice of Adidam, focusing on the contemplation of and direct service to Adi Da's "bodily (human) form", the devotee eventually is led to complete "awakening" from the unhappy and mortal dream of "separate self" and "conditional reality". In a number of books in the Adidam literature, such as the 2003 book, ''Adidam'', Adi Da's devotees provide testimonials about their own spiritual experiences. ==Response== Adi Da's devotees number approximately one thousand worldwide. There are a number of Adidam communities around the world. In order to support the growth of Adidam in the world, devotees are generally expected to tithe at least 15% of their gross income and pay numerous additional fees [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-04.html]. Devotees also frequently take part in fundraisers, the purpose of which is to provide Adi Da with various gifts that he requests [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-03.html]. The number of formally practicing devotees in Adidam has hovered around one thousand since the mid-1970's, with substantial turnover; the number of ex-devotees has been estimated on the order of 10,000 or more. The number of people who appreciate Adi Da's teaching but have not made the decision to become his devotee is estimated to be about the same. Adi Da has sometimes complained about the smallness of the response to his ministry: "Why have people been so unresponsive to me? Why is there such destruction of my work? After thirty years there still aren't any missionary results. So what is the source of this non-event? What is defeating it? Why are there no signs of this resistance changing?" (July 25, 2000). [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-05.html] Adidam has been the target of numerous critical allegations, primarily by disaffected former students [http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles/], and secondarily by journalists and anti-cult activists. (Readers will find the dynamics of interactions between members and ex-members is similar to that of other guru-based groups enmeshed in controversy, and should evaluate claims from both sides carefully.) The substance of these allegations is that Adi Da and/or the organization engage in typical cult-like behavior, including severe emotional manipulation[http://www.rickross.com/reference/adida/adida2.html], financial exploitation, casual violence, and sexual abuse of members [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html]. Critics also point to certain of Adi Da's behaviors that appear unconventional, exploitative or self-serving: e.g., Adi Da had nine "wives" or consorts at one point, and more recently has reportedly created a formal process wherein female devotees may apply to be his consorts, with one stage of that process being posing for photographs while clad in lingerie [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-05.html]. Adi Da has said that he requires such attention in order to keep himself "favorably disposed to embodiment". In 1985 Adi Da and his church were the target of a lawsuit alleging (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; and seeking $5 million in damages http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles/omahony.html. The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/mvr-06.html, and eventually withdrew that suit and settled out of court with the plaintiff for an undisclosed sum. In 1986, Adi Da was again sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress http://lightmind.com/thevoid/miller-vs-jones.html, and again an out-of-court settlement was reached. The advent of the internet has seen an increase in public, sometimes anonymous, and frequently heated debate regarding Adidam and Adi Da http://www.lightmind.com/daism/. Popular author Ken Wilber has repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed Adi Da's realization and spiritual importance. However, after the allegations against Adidam were made public, and Wilber "received an enormous amount of grief, from personal and professional quarters, for my endorsements" [http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbers_letter.html], he then made a point of adding many cautions and caveats to his endorsements for his reading public [http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida.cfm/xid,4572/yid,4887247], even while in private letters to his Adidam friends, he confessed "I have not, and have never, renounced Da as Realizer, nor have I in any way abandoned my love and devotion for Him. . . I hope my work will continue to bring students to the Way of the Heart." [http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbers_letter.html] When his private letters became public, he explained the contradiction in the following way: "Contradictory? Perhaps, but only because Da is contradictory. Contradictory and problematic—deeply problematic. This is why, as a blanket statement, I can no longer—and do no longer—recommend Da’s community for the typical spiritual aspirant, and I have asked his community to cease using my name in this regard. Nonetheless, for those individuals 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, I can certainly recommend Adi Da—with all the caveats of which I have written." [http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida_update.cfm/] 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. ==Teaching Literature== Although Adi Da has authored over 70 books on spirituality and the process of God-Realization over the last 35 years, his full and complete teaching argument is now contained in a 23 book canon, known as his "Source Texts". The texts comprising this body of work—the Dharma (or Scripture) of the Way of the Heart—are distinct from other general or introductory Adidam books. While such introductory books are merely ''about'' the process of Adidam, the Source Texts, in their study, are a necessary component of that process. Although these texts may be beneficially studied by anyone, they are primarily directed to formal students of Adi Da. The structure of this canon is as follows: ===The Dawn Horse Testament=== The Dawn Horse Testament Of The Ruchira Avatar - ''The "Testament Of Secrets" Of The Divine World-Teacher, Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj'' This is the core text providing full instruction for the entire process of the Way of Adidam. ===The Five Books Of The Heart Of The Adidam Revelation=== 1. Aham Da Asmi (Beloved, I Am Da) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 2. Ruchira Avatara Gita (The Way Of The Divine Heart-Master) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Great Secret Of The Divinely Self-Revealed Way That Most Perfectly Realizes The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 3. Da Love-Ananda Gita (The Free Gift Of The Divine Love-Bliss) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 4. Hridaya Rosary (Four Thorns Of Heart-Instruction) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Universally Tangible Divine Spiritual Body, Which Is The Supreme Agent Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 5. Eleutherios (The Only Truth That Sets The Heart Free) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The "Perfect Practice" Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God) '' These 5 texts summarise the essential process of the Way of the Heart. ===The Seventeen Companions Of The True Dawn Horse=== ====Paradigms of Reality: The Real Nature of God, Cosmos and Realization==== 1. Real God Is The Indivisible Oneness Of Unbroken Light - ''Reality, Truth, and The "Non-Creator" God In The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' 2. The Truly Human New World-Culture Of Unbroken Real-God-Man - ''The Eastern Versus The Western Traditional Cultures Of Mankind, and The Unique New Non-Dual Culture Of The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' 3. The Only Complete Way To Realize The Unbroken Light Of Real God - ''An Introductory Overview Of The "Radical" Divine Way Of The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' ====Original Writings and Talks==== 4. The Knee Of Listening - ''The Divine Ordeal Of The Avataric Incarnation Of Conscious Light--The Spiritual Autobiography Of The Divine World-Teacher, Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj'' 5. The Divine Siddha-Method Of The Ruchira Avatar - ''The Divine Way Of Adidam Is An ego-Transcending Relationship, Not An ego-Centric Technique'' 6. The Mummery Book - ''A Parable Of The Divine True Love, Told By A Self-Illuminated Illustration Of The Totality Of Mind'' ====Esoteric Principles and Practices==== 7. He-and-She Is Me - ''The Indivisibility Of Consciousness and Light In The Divine Body Of The Ruchira Avatar'' 8. Ruchira Shaktipat Yoga - ''The Divine (and Not Merely Cosmic) Spiritual Baptism In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 9. Ruchira Tantra Yoga - ''The Physical-Spiritual (and Truly Religious) Method Of Mental, Emotional, Sexual, and Whole Bodily Health and Enlightenment In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' ====Stages of Life: The six potential stages of ego-based life, and the Divine seventh stage of life==== 10. The Seven Stages Of Life - ''Transcending The Six Stages Of egoic Life, and Realizing The ego-Transcending Seventh Stage Of Life, In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 11. The All-Completing and Final Divine Revelation To Mankind - ''A Summary Description Of The Supreme Yoga Of The Seventh Stage Of Life In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' ====Process of Adidam: Five Comprehensive Views of the Practice of Adidam==== 12. What, Where, When, How, Why, and Who To Remember To Be Happy - ''A Simple Explanation Of The Divine Way Of Adidam (For Children, and Everyone Else)'' 13. No Seeking—Mere Beholding - ''The Always Primary Practice Of The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 14. Santosha Adidam - ''The Essential Summary Of The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 15. The Lion Sutra - ''The "Perfect Practice" Teachings In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 16. The Overnight Revelation Of Conscious Light - ''The "My House" Discourses On The Indivisible Tantra Of Adidam'' ====Great Tradition: The Total Spiritual "Effort" of Humanity as a Unified (and Progressive) Process==== 17. Basket Of Tolerance - ''The Perfect Guide To Perfectly Unified Understanding Of The One and Great Tradition Of Mankind, and Of The Divine Way Of Adidam As The Perfect Completing Of The One and Great Tradition Of Mankind'' These 17 texts either elaborate and refine key aspects of the Dawn Horse Testament, or else provide additional information to serve the overall practice of the Way of the Heart. The essay "First Word"[http://www.adidam.org/teaching/first_word/complete_text.html] appears at the beginning of each Source Text as a way of orienting the reader to the right understanding of the "point of view" expressed in the text, and to counter the inevitable cultic mind-set that most "unenlightened seekers" bring to their approach. ==Name changes== Adi Da is noted for his frequent name changes in the past [http://names.adidam.org/]. As a student of Muktananda, he was given the name Dhyanananda. Shortly after becoming an independent teacher, he took the name Bubba Free John, "Bubba" being a colloquialism for "brother" and "Free John" a loose translation of "Franklin Jones". In 1979, he began calling himself Da Free John, "Da" meaning, in Sanskrit, "the giver". From 1986 to 1990, he was known primarily as Da Love-Ananda, "Ananda" meaning, in Sanskrit, "bliss". From 1990 to 1991, he was known as Da Kalki, in reference to the Hindu avatar Kalki, the 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu, and from 1991 to 1994 as Da Avabhasa, "Avabhasa" meaning "brightness". The title his devotees currently use for him is the Ruchira Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, literally "the radiant avatar, primordial giver, universal ruler". They also frequently refer to him simply as "Beloved"--- which is self-explanatory. ==Selected writings== *''Adi Da and Adidam'' (2003) [http://www.adidam.tv] *''Adi Da'' (2003) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2444] *''The Way Of Adidam'' (2003) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2437] *''The Knee of Listening'' (1972, 2004) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2801] *''The Dawn Horse Testament'' (1985,2005)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2863] *''Drifted in the Deeper Land'' (1996)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=1086] *''The Transmission of Doubt'' (1985)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2274] *''The Bodily Location of Happiness'' (1977) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2275] *''The Seven Stages Of Life'' (2000) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2193] *''The Method Of The Siddhas'' (1995, ISBN 0913922013_ ==External links== *[http://www.adidam.org Adidam official website] *[http://www.aboutadidam.org Unofficial Adidam website] *[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com Publisher of the literature of Adidam] *[http://www.daplastique.com DaPlastique] Adi Da's "Transcendental Realism" Art *[http://www.mummerybook.org The Mummery Book] Adi Da's Epic Theatrical Work *[http://www.fearnomorezoo.org Fear-No-More Zoo] Adi Da's teaching related to "non-humans" *[http://names.adidam.org The Names of Avatar Adi Da Samraj] Comprehensive resource on Adi Da's previous and current names *[http://www.dabase.org Another unofficial Adidam website] *[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/adidam.html Profile of Adidam] from the Religious Movements Homepage Project *[http://www.beezone.org Beezone], an outreach site for Adidam followers *[http://lightmind.com/blogs/adiblog.html The Frank Blog] ~ a personal memoir of involvement with Daism, plus essays *[http://lightmind.com/daism/ The Daism Seminar], a critical site, with related links and research materials and a forum for online debate *[http://www.integralworld.net/smith12.html A critical appraisal of Adi Da's philosophy], by Andrew P. Smith *[http://bewareofthegod.blogspot.com/ Beware Of The God: The Pitbull of Gurus], a memoir by Jim Chamberlain, a former student and devotee of Adi Da from the mid-'70's to early '80's *[http://www.rickross.com/groups/adida.html Collection of critical links] about Adidam, from Rick Ross *[http://www.american-buddha.com/franklin.jones.htm The Strange Case of Franklin Jones], by Scott Lowe *[http://www.lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/ The Knee of Daism]: Deconstructing Adi Da *[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/adidam.html The Religious Movements Homepage Project] *[http://www.adidam.tv Introductory overview of Adidam], an official Adidam site 1939 births New religious movements
I think we need to merge in the recent changes by 12.218.148.57 with the deleted information, which mostly seems to be information critical of Adi Da. —User:Ashley Y 02:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC) OK, I've done this. —User:Ashley Y 09:03, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC) Vandal removed all information not favorable to Adi Da, and any hyperlinks to any sites not favorable to Adi Da. Reverted to earlier text with minor edits to provide more balance. 14 March 05. Dseer Vandals back again, Ashley. 15 March 05. Dseer. Regarding some recent deletions, subsequently restored by myself and Ashley: The argument that Lightmind's "Daism Reports" -- simply by virtue of their use of unpublished, copyrighted material -- violate Fair Use is not valid; cf. Wikipedia's own article on same. Unpublished material, like published material, is perfectly acceptable under Fair Use as long as certain criteria are met. (Also, contrary to assertions by anonymous editor from 18 April 2005, the "Daism Reports" are not themselves anonymous.) I think it's pretty evident that these links (which reference Adi Da's own words and those of his students, whose factual content is undisputed, and which Adidam has never legally challenged) are being deleted because they are unflattering to Adidam, not out of concern over compliance with Fair Use. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 13; revised 2005 April 19 Good and much-needed reorg, Ashley. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 19 Re anon edits on 20:04, 21 Apr 2005: Although I don't think it's inappropriate to mention NPD under "response", it's also fine to let that be referenced that in "opinions", which (in all but name) it already is (second Broken Yogi quote). That said, there are too many value judgements in this revision as well as deletion of unflattering but well-researched and referenced material. Subjective characterizations like "hate speech" and "smear campaign" belong either in external links or "opinions", not in the main body of the article. Will revise accordingly. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 22 OK, got around to removing lots and lots of "weasel words". —User:Jim Butler 2005 May 18 == 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''. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/daism/daism.mv?row= 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 http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/cults.htm. 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 http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/mirrors/lowery.htm —User: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 Roman_Catholicism#Criticisms . 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. —User: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). —User: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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=breaking+coke+bottle+inside+woman%27s+vagina&spell=1] 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. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=) 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. —User: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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=], 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. —User: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. —User: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. —User: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. [http://www.herpes.com/] 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 http://geocities.com/jcbloka/lightmind/no_expl_necessary.htm. 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. —User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=130.194.13.103 130.194.13.103. 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. —User: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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 May 20 == 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal 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 http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row= \"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 [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html 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. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/daism 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. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adi_Da Wikiquote has some insightful comments. mdash;User: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 [http://lightmind.com/daism/daism.mv] 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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-04/daism-04.mv?module=view&viewid=2753&row=63 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." [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=] ::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. —User: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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-04/daism-04.mv?module=view&viewid=2753&row=63 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. 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. 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 ::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: http://geocities.com/jcbloka/lightmind/no_expl_necessary.htm link. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 12 == Third Party == Mr. Butler, it should be sufficient to refer to Adi Da as 'controversial' and that such accusations have been made against him, rather than adding information apparently gleaned from the 'Hate-groups' sites in this article. As anyone who watches the news can see, smear campaigns and propaganda are rife, both in the 'real world' and particularly on the internet. We can't let Wikipedia degrade into something like Fahrenheit 9/11. Wikipedia is not a court room, I suggest we keep wikipedia free from such unproven claims. If need be, perhaps the article should not exist at all until there is resolution of these claims. 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. I should mention, I am not in any way associated with the Daist community. Indeed, I am part of a hermetic/gnostic group who is aware of the existence of the Daist community but does not engage in any contact with them. -Karakal ::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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 2 The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate on the internet. Some examples can be found here. http://www.tolerance.org/hate_internet/index.jsp 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. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_030205K.shtml 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. User: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 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. User: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. —User: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 Mr Gomez, Would you mind if I contacted you via email? --User:Karakal 05:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) 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. —User: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. User:Andries 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. Butler. My apologies in the slow reply. Very well, if you do not agree with my use of the relevant terminology. Please give me your definition of "Cult", "Defamation" and "Hate Speech". I believe this would be a step to clear up misunderstandings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, My understanding of the legal system is that of a layman. However, it is my understanding that none of the allegations that were leveled at 'Franklin Jones' were proven in a court of law. Until they are proven, whatever any of our opinions, he is innocent of such charges. Therefore, any accusations that are expressed outside of the court constitute the following: Defamation... "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 It is my view that the article, particlularly the discussion section, is biased against 'Adi Da'. Views notwithstanding, I should point out that wikipedia is not the area for such a debate. I believe that it is difficult, if not impossible to achieve a Neutral point of view on the subject. An atheistic scientific viewpoint would automatically deny the legitimacy of any claims by such an individual as 'Adi Da'. Whereas, to someone who believes in God with an open view (I realize what we might refer to 'open' is debatable) such as myself, it is more than plausible that such a person could exist. In my own case, I have no quarrel with the claims that he has made. Without weighing into any lengthy discussion about the existence of god, cults, etcetera, I doubt there is such a thing as a NPOV for this subject. In other words, I doubt that we will be able to settle on any kind of article regarding 'Adi Da'. Therefore I suggest (to prevent further disputes) that this article only include the introduction section and references to his literature. Although I would like your opinion on this plan, I believe that this would eliminate any for/against arguments. I would also like to ask, if I believe the Adidam to be credible, does that automatically mean that I have been 'brainwashed'? I find that somewhat amusing but also an insult. MS, with your generalization: “here are a number of cults, same game, different name.” -- MS 4 June 2005 What are you insinuating here? 'MS', 'Katherine' and others: You are certainly correct with respect to your right to your opinion. My point is that the article in question is not the place for opinion. If you wish to warn others about the 'perils of cults', you are welcome to your opinion, please fell free to create your site dedicated to the subject. It is my understanding that Wikipedia and it's affiliated sites are the place for opinion. --User:Karakal 00:45, 9 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. User:Andries 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Karakal -- I have a website [http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/ 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. —User: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! ::—User:Jim Butler 2005 June 12 MS. By your statement “those at your level”, I presume that you think me as some kind of low initiate that is fanatical, inexperienced and eager to defend my Guru. As I have stated before (please read), I am not part of the Adidam organization. Your concept as the 'cult' as an organization dedicated to fulfilling the every desire of the leader does not account for people such as myself. Having no contact to the 'cult', as you put it, I therefore offer them no material gain. Furthermore, since I am not in contact with them, I cannot be 'brainwashed' by the 'recruiters'. And yet, I, and many others, continue to agree with what 'Adi Da' has written. I am in full possession of the 'facts', both what has been presented by the Adidam and those who oppose it, for whatever reasons. And yet, you suggest that those who support the cult should be fanatical and unaware of the facts. Furthermore, I have read 'Adi Da's' literature. If were simply reading something that should affirm fanaticism, being the observer that I am, I would have dismissed it. However, I have understood it and indeed I consider his teachings to be of great value. And again, I ask you this; Am I a cult fanatic who worships the leader? No, and unless you are questioning my competence and intelligence, I am no different from the ordinary person down the street in that respect. As for your statement “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”. I have a rough understanding of the teachings of two of those you mention; Castaneda and Muktananda. While I have not read on either to any great detail, upon cursory examination, you are (in a way) correct. Their teachings are similar. Similar in the respect that they are both teaching the same fundamentals, as each other and those of Adi Da. Unlike you though, I believe that they are both genuine and useful (albeit perhaps, limited). However, don't make the mistake of considering me a fool who would believe the claims of any 'cult'. Again, I state, I have reviewed the facts presented by both sides. The reasons for the out of court settlement are unknown to me, however, you are jumping to the conclusion that this is because there was sufficient credibility to the accusations. Mr. Butler, you are correct. This debate can continue on and on. We are achieving nothing. All I am interested in is the creation of an article that both parties can agree on. In it's present form, I (and I'm sure Mr. Gomez as well) dispute the neutrality of the article, nothing more. There are particulars, but I find that the problem is the entire tone of the article. There is no need to lecture me on the problems of self promotion on Wikipedia, I understand and agree with these guidelines. As I have suggested already, perhaps the only form of neutrality in this is to only to use the introduction and reference the books written. What do you think Mr. Butler and Mr Gomez? All I ask of all participants is some form of article that we can all agree is sufficiently neutral. As a side note, Mr Butler, thank you for your site reference. However, I was unable to find an actual definition of 'cult' or any of the other words I requested on there. I admit that my examination was cursory, but would you mind posting your definitions here. --User:Karakal 06:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) --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 (http://geocities.com/jcbloka/ 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? —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 14 Why is Adi Da's hour of birth mentioned? This is very unusual in Wikipedia. User: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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 714 MS, Mr Butler: I have been asking for some form of article that we can all agree on. As yet, I am not demanding anything, please read what I have written. The idea of a “gutted” article is a suggestion. I should also note that much of the repetition in my arguments is intentional. You did not respond in relation to some of the points that I brought up. I have already asked what is neutral? and can it be achieved on this topic? I consider myself as being one side of this debate and you on the other. I doubt that either of us, or anyone for that matter, could be called truly neutral. I am sorry you misunderstand me. I used terms such as 'hate groups' and other such terms because that was already being used in the paragraphs above by both parties (note the ' marks). With regard to my references to 'brain washed' and the like, that was in humor. I see such notions being used in this argument as absurd and laughable. I have no reason to avoid specifics. Again, please stop jumping to conclusions. Ask and you shall receive what information I have on the subject. With regard to my agreeing with his 'claims'. Of those you've stated there, With two exceptions, I would have to say that yes... I do agree. The first exception is I don't know what you are referring to with the statement “You agree with his appraisal of the hermetic, gnostic path you say you follow?”. If you give me a direct quote I will answer that too. Also, What do you mean by “You assume Adi Da realized everything he teaches?” are you referring to that Adi Da was himself a devotee at one point? if so, yes I am aware of that. With regard to the statement “You say you've reviewed a great many "facts"”, I have reviewed those presented by Adidam, and those presented by you and the websites “critical” of Adi Da. Is that sufficient? Or do I need to be subjected to more sarcastic commentary. You're rather a conspiratorial lot, I mean what I say. When I ask for an article that we can all agree on, that's what I mean. No hidden agendas and nefarious plotting. Perhaps such an attempt at compromise was naive of me, considering the zealousness of both parties. Mr. Butler, with such statements as “It's so hard to control how one's own mind processes information, let alone those pesky minds of others” you are still insinuating that I am somehow a deluded fool, incapable of an independent assessment of the situation. That is your opinion, can you back it up with fact? My Problem with the article is this; much appears to be based upon opinion and unconfirmed allegations. As I have said, and I maintain, that such accusations are very common. Therefore, I base my views on what has, or has not, been independently verified. It would be hypocritical for me to weigh in to any discussion over the credibility of specific claims and allegations leveled here. I also judge Adi Da on what he has written, (as I have already stated) I understand his teachings. Including what you might call his philosophy. 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. However, his teachings are supported by many authors (my lack of specifics in this case is intentional. I am preserving my right to anonymity). You can deny his legitimacy all you wish, however this remains an undeniable fact. If this article is to be partially based on opinion, well then, two can play that game: “This is the opinion of many of those who consider Adi Da authentic: That those appear foremostly critical of his organization, namely lightmind.com and the associated 'c
Adi Da
Adi Da Samraj (born Franklin Albert Jones, at 11:21 A.M., on November 3, 1939 in Jamaica, New York) is a highly controversial modern spiritual teacher and religious guru and the founder of the new religious movement known as Adidam. At various times, Adi Da has also used names such as Bubba Free John, Da Free John, and Da Love-Ananda, to correspond with changes in his work as a spiritual teacher (see the section on #Name changes below). For clarity, in this article he will be referred to simply as Adi Da, as this is the name he is currently known by. ==Life== Adi Da was born and raised in Queens, New York. He attended Columbia College, where he received a degree in philosophy, and Stanford University, where he completed his M.A. in English literature. In 1965, Adi Da (then still Franklin Jones) became a disciple of Swami Rudrananda, also known as Rudi, and, later, in 1968, a disciple of the Indian teacher Swami Muktananda. Adi Da temporarily broke with Muktananda in May of 1968, and also severed his relationship with Rudi, when he became involved with Scientology until the Spring of 1969, and then permanently broke with Muktananda after a meeting in India in 1973. [http://lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/appendix2.html]. He founded his own group in April of 1972, operating out of a bookstore in Los Angeles, California. Initially known as the Dawn Horse Communion, the movement founded by Adi Da has been through several name changes: previous names have included The Free Primitive Church of Divine Communion, The Johannine Daist Communion, and Free Daism. It is now known as Adidam, or The Way of the Heart. ==Teaching== While some of Adi Da's teaching bears a close similarity to aspects of Hinduism, Buddhism, the messianic traditions of Judaism and Christianity, and other spiritual traditions, Adi Da argues that his teaching is based on his own direct spiritual realization. Adi Da states that his realization, although hinted at by a few historical religious figures and traditions, is unprecedented here on Earth or anywhere in the manifest universe, and that he is the unique means for sentient beings to attain such realization now and for all future time. Adi Da teaches that, in reality, there is only God: not in the sense of a "creator God" who is omniscient or omnipotent, but rather the "Source" or "Ground" of everything and everyone.[http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/parental_deity/index.html]. However, according to Adi Da, virtually everyone (with the exception of Adi Da himself) is living in a state of delusion, presuming that their own personal self and the "things" and "others" that appear so real have absolute reality. This portion of his thought closely resembles the concept of Atman (Hinduism) in Advaita Hinduism. Adi Da teaches that the greatest purpose of human life is to awaken from this "dream" to our real state of identity with God. But he also teaches that one cannot Realize the Divine through one's own efforts; one cannot awaken oneself out of the dream. This is inherently so because of the nature of egoity. One must be awakened out of this "dream" by the Divine Principle itself, appearing in human form as the guru.[http://www.aboutadidam.org/readings/gorilla_sermon/index.html] Adi Da describes his own appearance on Earth as the result of a rare conjunction of circumstances, which he describes in his 2003 autobiography, ''Adi Da'', that led God to appear in human form. He says that the primary purpose of his appearance is not specifically to communicate a teaching but rather to provide a direct revelation of true reality through his devotees' devotional and spiritual relationship with him. Adidam is, according to Adi Da, a "Divine Revelation never given before"[http://www.adidam.org/adi_da/index.html]. Adi Da has repeatedly emphasized that Adidam is based on the revelation of who he is, which he contrasts with religions that he considers to be "belief-based", such as Christianity. According to Adi Da, through advance in the practice of Adidam, focusing on the contemplation of and direct service to Adi Da's "bodily (human) form", the devotee eventually is led to complete "awakening" from the unhappy and mortal dream of "separate self" and "conditional reality". In a number of books in the Adidam literature, such as the 2003 book, ''Adidam'', Adi Da's devotees provide testimonials about their own spiritual experiences. ==Response== Adi Da's devotees number approximately one thousand worldwide. There are a number of Adidam communities around the world. In order to support the growth of Adidam in the world, devotees are generally expected to tithe at least 15% of their gross income and pay numerous additional fees [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-04.html]. Devotees also frequently take part in fundraisers, the purpose of which is to provide Adi Da with various gifts that he requests [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-03.html]. The number of formally practicing devotees in Adidam has hovered around one thousand since the mid-1970's, with substantial turnover; the number of ex-devotees has been estimated on the order of 10,000 or more. The number of people who appreciate Adi Da's teaching but have not made the decision to become his devotee is estimated to be about the same. Adi Da has sometimes complained about the smallness of the response to his ministry: "Why have people been so unresponsive to me? Why is there such destruction of my work? After thirty years there still aren't any missionary results. So what is the source of this non-event? What is defeating it? Why are there no signs of this resistance changing?" (July 25, 2000). [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-05.html] Adidam has been the target of numerous critical allegations, primarily by disaffected former students [http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles/], and secondarily by journalists and anti-cult activists. (Readers will find the dynamics of interactions between members and ex-members is similar to that of other guru-based groups enmeshed in controversy, and should evaluate claims from both sides carefully.) The substance of these allegations is that Adi Da and/or the organization engage in typical cult-like behavior, including severe emotional manipulation[http://www.rickross.com/reference/adida/adida2.html], financial exploitation, casual violence, and sexual abuse of members [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html]. Critics also point to certain of Adi Da's behaviors that appear unconventional, exploitative or self-serving: e.g., Adi Da had nine "wives" or consorts at one point, and more recently has reportedly created a formal process wherein female devotees may apply to be his consorts, with one stage of that process being posing for photographs while clad in lingerie [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daismreport-05.html]. Adi Da has said that he requires such attention in order to keep himself "favorably disposed to embodiment". In 1985 Adi Da and his church were the target of a lawsuit alleging (among other things) fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and assault and battery; and seeking $5 million in damages http://lightmind.com/library/daismfiles/omahony.html. The church, claiming extortion, counter-sued for $20 million http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/mvr-06.html, and eventually withdrew that suit and settled out of court with the plaintiff for an undisclosed sum. In 1986, Adi Da was again sued for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress http://lightmind.com/thevoid/miller-vs-jones.html, and again an out-of-court settlement was reached. The advent of the internet has seen an increase in public, sometimes anonymous, and frequently heated debate regarding Adidam and Adi Da http://www.lightmind.com/daism/. Popular author Ken Wilber has repeatedly and enthusiastically endorsed Adi Da's realization and spiritual importance. However, after the allegations against Adidam were made public, and Wilber "received an enormous amount of grief, from personal and professional quarters, for my endorsements" [http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbers_letter.html], he then made a point of adding many cautions and caveats to his endorsements for his reading public [http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida.cfm/xid,4572/yid,4887247], even while in private letters to his Adidam friends, he confessed "I have not, and have never, renounced Da as Realizer, nor have I in any way abandoned my love and devotion for Him. . . I hope my work will continue to bring students to the Way of the Heart." [http://www.beezone.com/Wilber/ken_wilbers_letter.html] When his private letters became public, he explained the contradiction in the following way: "Contradictory? Perhaps, but only because Da is contradictory. Contradictory and problematic—deeply problematic. This is why, as a blanket statement, I can no longer—and do no longer—recommend Da’s community for the typical spiritual aspirant, and I have asked his community to cease using my name in this regard. Nonetheless, for those individuals 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, I can certainly recommend Adi Da—with all the caveats of which I have written." [http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/misc/adida_update.cfm/] 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. ==Teaching Literature== Although Adi Da has authored over 70 books on spirituality and the process of God-Realization over the last 35 years, his full and complete teaching argument is now contained in a 23 book canon, known as his "Source Texts". The texts comprising this body of work—the Dharma (or Scripture) of the Way of the Heart—are distinct from other general or introductory Adidam books. While such introductory books are merely ''about'' the process of Adidam, the Source Texts, in their study, are a necessary component of that process. Although these texts may be beneficially studied by anyone, they are primarily directed to formal students of Adi Da. The structure of this canon is as follows: ===The Dawn Horse Testament=== The Dawn Horse Testament Of The Ruchira Avatar - ''The "Testament Of Secrets" Of The Divine World-Teacher, Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj'' This is the core text providing full instruction for the entire process of the Way of Adidam. ===The Five Books Of The Heart Of The Adidam Revelation=== 1. Aham Da Asmi (Beloved, I Am Da) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 2. Ruchira Avatara Gita (The Way Of The Divine Heart-Master) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Great Secret Of The Divinely Self-Revealed Way That Most Perfectly Realizes The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 3. Da Love-Ananda Gita (The Free Gift Of The Divine Love-Bliss) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 4. Hridaya Rosary (Four Thorns Of Heart-Instruction) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The Universally Tangible Divine Spiritual Body, Which Is The Supreme Agent Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God)'' 5. Eleutherios (The Only Truth That Sets The Heart Free) - ''The "Late-Time" Avataric Revelation Of The "Perfect Practice" Of The Great Means To Worship and To Realize The True and Spiritual Divine Person (The egoless Personal Presence Of Reality and Truth, Which Is The Only Real God) '' These 5 texts summarise the essential process of the Way of the Heart. ===The Seventeen Companions Of The True Dawn Horse=== ====Paradigms of Reality: The Real Nature of God, Cosmos and Realization==== 1. Real God Is The Indivisible Oneness Of Unbroken Light - ''Reality, Truth, and The "Non-Creator" God In The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' 2. The Truly Human New World-Culture Of Unbroken Real-God-Man - ''The Eastern Versus The Western Traditional Cultures Of Mankind, and The Unique New Non-Dual Culture Of The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' 3. The Only Complete Way To Realize The Unbroken Light Of Real God - ''An Introductory Overview Of The "Radical" Divine Way Of The True World-Religion Of Adidam'' ====Original Writings and Talks==== 4. The Knee Of Listening - ''The Divine Ordeal Of The Avataric Incarnation Of Conscious Light--The Spiritual Autobiography Of The Divine World-Teacher, Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Samraj'' 5. The Divine Siddha-Method Of The Ruchira Avatar - ''The Divine Way Of Adidam Is An ego-Transcending Relationship, Not An ego-Centric Technique'' 6. The Mummery Book - ''A Parable Of The Divine True Love, Told By A Self-Illuminated Illustration Of The Totality Of Mind'' ====Esoteric Principles and Practices==== 7. He-and-She Is Me - ''The Indivisibility Of Consciousness and Light In The Divine Body Of The Ruchira Avatar'' 8. Ruchira Shaktipat Yoga - ''The Divine (and Not Merely Cosmic) Spiritual Baptism In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 9. Ruchira Tantra Yoga - ''The Physical-Spiritual (and Truly Religious) Method Of Mental, Emotional, Sexual, and Whole Bodily Health and Enlightenment In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' ====Stages of Life: The six potential stages of ego-based life, and the Divine seventh stage of life==== 10. The Seven Stages Of Life - ''Transcending The Six Stages Of egoic Life, and Realizing The ego-Transcending Seventh Stage Of Life, In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 11. The All-Completing and Final Divine Revelation To Mankind - ''A Summary Description Of The Supreme Yoga Of The Seventh Stage Of Life In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' ====Process of Adidam: Five Comprehensive Views of the Practice of Adidam==== 12. What, Where, When, How, Why, and Who To Remember To Be Happy - ''A Simple Explanation Of The Divine Way Of Adidam (For Children, and Everyone Else)'' 13. No Seeking—Mere Beholding - ''The Always Primary Practice Of The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 14. Santosha Adidam - ''The Essential Summary Of The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 15. The Lion Sutra - ''The "Perfect Practice" Teachings In The Divine Way Of Adidam'' 16. The Overnight Revelation Of Conscious Light - ''The "My House" Discourses On The Indivisible Tantra Of Adidam'' ====Great Tradition: The Total Spiritual "Effort" of Humanity as a Unified (and Progressive) Process==== 17. Basket Of Tolerance - ''The Perfect Guide To Perfectly Unified Understanding Of The One and Great Tradition Of Mankind, and Of The Divine Way Of Adidam As The Perfect Completing Of The One and Great Tradition Of Mankind'' These 17 texts either elaborate and refine key aspects of the Dawn Horse Testament, or else provide additional information to serve the overall practice of the Way of the Heart. The essay "First Word"[http://www.adidam.org/teaching/first_word/complete_text.html] appears at the beginning of each Source Text as a way of orienting the reader to the right understanding of the "point of view" expressed in the text, and to counter the inevitable cultic mind-set that most "unenlightened seekers" bring to their approach. ==Name changes== Adi Da is noted for his frequent name changes in the past [http://names.adidam.org/]. As a student of Muktananda, he was given the name Dhyanananda. Shortly after becoming an independent teacher, he took the name Bubba Free John, "Bubba" being a colloquialism for "brother" and "Free John" a loose translation of "Franklin Jones". In 1979, he began calling himself Da Free John, "Da" meaning, in Sanskrit, "the giver". From 1986 to 1990, he was known primarily as Da Love-Ananda, "Ananda" meaning, in Sanskrit, "bliss". From 1990 to 1991, he was known as Da Kalki, in reference to the Hindu avatar Kalki, the 10th and final incarnation of Vishnu, and from 1991 to 1994 as Da Avabhasa, "Avabhasa" meaning "brightness". The title his devotees currently use for him is the Ruchira Avatar, Adi Da Samraj, literally "the radiant avatar, primordial giver, universal ruler". They also frequently refer to him simply as "Beloved"--- which is self-explanatory. ==Selected writings== *''Adi Da and Adidam'' (2003) [http://www.adidam.tv] *''Adi Da'' (2003) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2444] *''The Way Of Adidam'' (2003) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2437] *''The Knee of Listening'' (1972, 2004) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2801] *''The Dawn Horse Testament'' (1985,2005)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2863] *''Drifted in the Deeper Land'' (1996)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=1086] *''The Transmission of Doubt'' (1985)[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2274] *''The Bodily Location of Happiness'' (1977) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2275] *''The Seven Stages Of Life'' (2000) [http://www.dawnhorsepress.com/products/ProductDetail_Main.asp?PID=2193] *''The Method Of The Siddhas'' (1995, ISBN 0913922013_ ==External links== *[http://www.adidam.org Adidam official website] *[http://www.aboutadidam.org Unofficial Adidam website] *[http://www.dawnhorsepress.com Publisher of the literature of Adidam] *[http://www.daplastique.com DaPlastique] Adi Da's "Transcendental Realism" Art *[http://www.mummerybook.org The Mummery Book] Adi Da's Epic Theatrical Work *[http://www.fearnomorezoo.org Fear-No-More Zoo] Adi Da's teaching related to "non-humans" *[http://names.adidam.org The Names of Avatar Adi Da Samraj] Comprehensive resource on Adi Da's previous and current names *[http://www.dabase.org Another unofficial Adidam website] *[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/adidam.html Profile of Adidam] from the Religious Movements Homepage Project *[http://www.beezone.org Beezone], an outreach site for Adidam followers *[http://lightmind.com/blogs/adiblog.html The Frank Blog] ~ a personal memoir of involvement with Daism, plus essays *[http://lightmind.com/daism/ The Daism Seminar], a critical site, with related links and research materials and a forum for online debate *[http://www.integralworld.net/smith12.html A critical appraisal of Adi Da's philosophy], by Andrew P. Smith *[http://bewareofthegod.blogspot.com/ Beware Of The God: The Pitbull of Gurus], a memoir by Jim Chamberlain, a former student and devotee of Adi Da from the mid-'70's to early '80's *[http://www.rickross.com/groups/adida.html Collection of critical links] about Adidam, from Rick Ross *[http://www.american-buddha.com/franklin.jones.htm The Strange Case of Franklin Jones], by Scott Lowe *[http://www.lightmind.com/Impermanence/Library/knee/ The Knee of Daism]: Deconstructing Adi Da *[http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/adidam.html The Religious Movements Homepage Project] *[http://www.adidam.tv Introductory overview of Adidam], an official Adidam site 1939 births New religious movements
Adi Da
I think we need to merge in the recent changes by 12.218.148.57 with the deleted information, which mostly seems to be information critical of Adi Da. —User:Ashley Y 02:26, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC) OK, I've done this. —User:Ashley Y 09:03, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC) Vandal removed all information not favorable to Adi Da, and any hyperlinks to any sites not favorable to Adi Da. Reverted to earlier text with minor edits to provide more balance. 14 March 05. Dseer Vandals back again, Ashley. 15 March 05. Dseer. Regarding some recent deletions, subsequently restored by myself and Ashley: The argument that Lightmind's "Daism Reports" -- simply by virtue of their use of unpublished, copyrighted material -- violate Fair Use is not valid; cf. Wikipedia's own article on same. Unpublished material, like published material, is perfectly acceptable under Fair Use as long as certain criteria are met. (Also, contrary to assertions by anonymous editor from 18 April 2005, the "Daism Reports" are not themselves anonymous.) I think it's pretty evident that these links (which reference Adi Da's own words and those of his students, whose factual content is undisputed, and which Adidam has never legally challenged) are being deleted because they are unflattering to Adidam, not out of concern over compliance with Fair Use. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 13; revised 2005 April 19 Good and much-needed reorg, Ashley. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 19 Re anon edits on 20:04, 21 Apr 2005: Although I don't think it's inappropriate to mention NPD under "response", it's also fine to let that be referenced that in "opinions", which (in all but name) it already is (second Broken Yogi quote). That said, there are too many value judgements in this revision as well as deletion of unflattering but well-researched and referenced material. Subjective characterizations like "hate speech" and "smear campaign" belong either in external links or "opinions", not in the main body of the article. Will revise accordingly. —User:Jim Butler 2005 April 22 OK, got around to removing lots and lots of "weasel words". —User:Jim Butler 2005 May 18 == 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''. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/daism/daism.mv?row= 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 http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/cults.htm. 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 http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/mirrors/lowery.htm —User: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 Roman_Catholicism#Criticisms . 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. —User: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). —User: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 [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=breaking+coke+bottle+inside+woman%27s+vagina&spell=1] 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. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=) 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. —User: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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=], 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. —User: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. —User: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. —User: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. [http://www.herpes.com/] 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 http://geocities.com/jcbloka/lightmind/no_expl_necessary.htm. 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. —User: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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=130.194.13.103 130.194.13.103. 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. —User: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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 May 20 == 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal 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 http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row= \"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 [http://lightmind.com/thevoid/daism/sfchron-04.html 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. —User: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 http://lightmind.com/daism 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. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adi_Da Wikiquote has some insightful comments. mdash;User: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 [http://lightmind.com/daism/daism.mv] 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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-04/daism-04.mv?module=view&viewid=2753&row=63 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." [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-02/daism-02.mv?module=view&viewid=893&row=] ::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. —User: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 [http://lightmind.com/archives/daism-04/daism-04.mv?module=view&viewid=2753&row=63 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. 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. 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 ::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: http://geocities.com/jcbloka/lightmind/no_expl_necessary.htm link. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 12 == Third Party == Mr. Butler, it should be sufficient to refer to Adi Da as 'controversial' and that such accusations have been made against him, rather than adding information apparently gleaned from the 'Hate-groups' sites in this article. As anyone who watches the news can see, smear campaigns and propaganda are rife, both in the 'real world' and particularly on the internet. We can't let Wikipedia degrade into something like Fahrenheit 9/11. Wikipedia is not a court room, I suggest we keep wikipedia free from such unproven claims. If need be, perhaps the article should not exist at all until there is resolution of these claims. 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. I should mention, I am not in any way associated with the Daist community. Indeed, I am part of a hermetic/gnostic group who is aware of the existence of the Daist community but does not engage in any contact with them. -Karakal ::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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 2 The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate on the internet. Some examples can be found here. http://www.tolerance.org/hate_internet/index.jsp 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. http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_030205K.shtml 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. User: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 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. User: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. —User: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 Mr Gomez, Would you mind if I contacted you via email? --User:Karakal 05:08, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) 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. —User: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. User:Andries 19:39, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. Butler. My apologies in the slow reply. Very well, if you do not agree with my use of the relevant terminology. Please give me your definition of "Cult", "Defamation" and "Hate Speech". I believe this would be a step to clear up misunderstandings. Please correct me if I'm wrong, My understanding of the legal system is that of a layman. However, it is my understanding that none of the allegations that were leveled at 'Franklin Jones' were proven in a court of law. Until they are proven, whatever any of our opinions, he is innocent of such charges. Therefore, any accusations that are expressed outside of the court constitute the following: Defamation... "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 It is my view that the article, particlularly the discussion section, is biased against 'Adi Da'. Views notwithstanding, I should point out that wikipedia is not the area for such a debate. I believe that it is difficult, if not impossible to achieve a Neutral point of view on the subject. An atheistic scientific viewpoint would automatically deny the legitimacy of any claims by such an individual as 'Adi Da'. Whereas, to someone who believes in God with an open view (I realize what we might refer to 'open' is debatable) such as myself, it is more than plausible that such a person could exist. In my own case, I have no quarrel with the claims that he has made. Without weighing into any lengthy discussion about the existence of god, cults, etcetera, I doubt there is such a thing as a NPOV for this subject. In other words, I doubt that we will be able to settle on any kind of article regarding 'Adi Da'. Therefore I suggest (to prevent further disputes) that this article only include the introduction section and references to his literature. Although I would like your opinion on this plan, I believe that this would eliminate any for/against arguments. I would also like to ask, if I believe the Adidam to be credible, does that automatically mean that I have been 'brainwashed'? I find that somewhat amusing but also an insult. MS, with your generalization: “here are a number of cults, same game, different name.” -- MS 4 June 2005 What are you insinuating here? 'MS', 'Katherine' and others: You are certainly correct with respect to your right to your opinion. My point is that the article in question is not the place for opinion. If you wish to warn others about the 'perils of cults', you are welcome to your opinion, please fell free to create your site dedicated to the subject. It is my understanding that Wikipedia and it's affiliated sites are the place for opinion. --User:Karakal 00:45, 9 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. User:Andries 04:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::Karakal -- I have a website [http://www.geocities.com/jcbloka/ 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. —User: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! ::—User:Jim Butler 2005 June 12 MS. By your statement “those at your level”, I presume that you think me as some kind of low initiate that is fanatical, inexperienced and eager to defend my Guru. As I have stated before (please read), I am not part of the Adidam organization. Your concept as the 'cult' as an organization dedicated to fulfilling the every desire of the leader does not account for people such as myself. Having no contact to the 'cult', as you put it, I therefore offer them no material gain. Furthermore, since I am not in contact with them, I cannot be 'brainwashed' by the 'recruiters'. And yet, I, and many others, continue to agree with what 'Adi Da' has written. I am in full possession of the 'facts', both what has been presented by the Adidam and those who oppose it, for whatever reasons. And yet, you suggest that those who support the cult should be fanatical and unaware of the facts. Furthermore, I have read 'Adi Da's' literature. If were simply reading something that should affirm fanaticism, being the observer that I am, I would have dismissed it. However, I have understood it and indeed I consider his teachings to be of great value. And again, I ask you this; Am I a cult fanatic who worships the leader? No, and unless you are questioning my competence and intelligence, I am no different from the ordinary person down the street in that respect. As for your statement “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”. I have a rough understanding of the teachings of two of those you mention; Castaneda and Muktananda. While I have not read on either to any great detail, upon cursory examination, you are (in a way) correct. Their teachings are similar. Similar in the respect that they are both teaching the same fundamentals, as each other and those of Adi Da. Unlike you though, I believe that they are both genuine and useful (albeit perhaps, limited). However, don't make the mistake of considering me a fool who would believe the claims of any 'cult'. Again, I state, I have reviewed the facts presented by both sides. The reasons for the out of court settlement are unknown to me, however, you are jumping to the conclusion that this is because there was sufficient credibility to the accusations. Mr. Butler, you are correct. This debate can continue on and on. We are achieving nothing. All I am interested in is the creation of an article that both parties can agree on. In it's present form, I (and I'm sure Mr. Gomez as well) dispute the neutrality of the article, nothing more. There are particulars, but I find that the problem is the entire tone of the article. There is no need to lecture me on the problems of self promotion on Wikipedia, I understand and agree with these guidelines. As I have suggested already, perhaps the only form of neutrality in this is to only to use the introduction and reference the books written. What do you think Mr. Butler and Mr Gomez? All I ask of all participants is some form of article that we can all agree is sufficiently neutral. As a side note, Mr Butler, thank you for your site reference. However, I was unable to find an actual definition of 'cult' or any of the other words I requested on there. I admit that my examination was cursory, but would you mind posting your definitions here. --User:Karakal 06:41, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) --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 (http://geocities.com/jcbloka/ 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? —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 14 Why is Adi Da's hour of birth mentioned? This is very unusual in Wikipedia. User: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. —User:Jim Butler 2005 June 714 MS, Mr Butler: I have been asking for some form of article that we can all agree on. As yet, I am not demanding anything, please read what I have written. The idea of a “gutted” article is a suggestion. I should also note that much of the repetition in my arguments is intentional. You did not respond in relation to some of the points that I brought up. I have already asked what is neutral? and can it be achieved on this topic? I consider myself as being one side of this debate and you on the other. I doubt that either of us, or anyone for that matter, could be called truly neutral. I am sorry you misunderstand me. I used terms such as 'hate groups' and other such terms because that was already being used in the paragraphs above by both parties (note the ' marks). With regard to my references to 'brain washed' and the like, that was in humor. I see such notions being used in this argument as absurd and laughable. I have no reason to avoid specifics. Again, please stop jumping to conclusions. Ask and you shall receive what information I have on the subject. With regard to my agreeing with his 'claims'. Of those you've stated there, With two exceptions, I would have to say that yes... I do agree. The first exception is I don't know what you are referring to with the statement “You agree with his appraisal of the hermetic, gnostic path you say you follow?”. If you give me a direct quote I will answer that too. Also, What do you mean by “You assume Adi Da realized everything he teaches?” are you referring to that Adi Da was himself a devotee at one point? if so, yes I am aware of that. With regard to the statement “You say you've reviewed a great many "facts"”, I have reviewed those presented by Adidam, and those presented by you and the websites “critical” of Adi Da. Is that sufficient? Or do I need to be subjected to more sarcastic commentary. You're rather a conspiratorial lot, I mean what I say. When I ask for an article that we can all agree on, that's what I mean. No hidden agendas and nefarious plotting. Perhaps such an attempt at compromise was naive of me, considering the zealousness of both parties. Mr. Butler, with such statements as “It's so hard to control how one's own mind processes information, let alone those pesky minds of others” you are still insinuating that I am somehow a deluded fool, incapable of an independent assessment of the situation. That is your opinion, can you back it up with fact? My Problem with the article is this; much appears to be based upon opinion and unconfirmed allegations. As I have said, and I maintain, that such accusations are very common. Therefore, I base my views on what has, or has not, been independently verified. It would be hypocritical for me to weigh in to any discussion over the credibility of specific claims and allegations leveled here. I also judge Adi Da on what he has written, (as I have already stated) I understand his teachings. Including what you might call his philosophy. 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. However, his teachings are supported by many authors (my lack of specifics in this case is intentional. I am preserving my right to anonymity). You can deny his legitimacy all you wish, however this remains an undeniable fact. If this article is to be partially based on opinion, well then, two can play that game: “This is the opinion of many of those who consider Adi Da authentic: That those appear foremostly critical of his organization, namely lightmind.com and the associated 'c