Talk:Intermediate zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Please remove the ridiculous Daist reference can give you half a dozen WP reasons including promoting your own site as a source etc I am sure you know the rest , nothing personal , thanks again

I don't know what MAK's position is yet, but mine is that once again, scribe5, you are letting your pro-Adidam bias get the better of you. You are only here because it was linked on the Adi Da discussion page, not because you have demonstrated anything to contribute to the subject of the article, and because of your position supporting Adidam, so there is good reason to believe it is personal, as your use of terms like "ridiculous" and "silly" shows. The originator of this article is a recognized advocate of and authority on Aurobindo's works, not just some casual blogger self referencing his site, and is in a much better position to assess whether something is "ridiculous" and "silly" in relation to Aurobindo and Brunton's writings. This is an obscure topic primarily of interest to trained occultists, which you have shown no evidence you are. A number of sources besides just the Kheper site independently suggest and publish via the internet a theory (with references) that Adi Da is a possible illustration of what Sri Aurobindo and Paul Brunton are describing by "intermediate zone", and your response is to use inappropriately judgemental terms like "ridiculous" and "silly". Instead of constantly trying to censor critics of Adi Da, why not take the opportunity to instead reference parts of Adi Da's works, like this one: [1], among others, where Adi Da claims to have mastered and transcended this "intermediate zone" level, and let readers decide for themselves. Nobody is implying Adidam agrees with critics and nothing is stopping you from presenting the pro-Adidam position relative to Adi Da on this topic. Your tactics of demeaning and suppressing critical POVs regarding Adi Da everywhere you find them here could be seen a lack of confidence in the strength of your case. DseerDseer
My comment on this. I disagree that this subject is "original research", because the article simply reports comments made elsewhere than on wikipedia. While it is true that blogs, bulletin boards, and websites are not considered formal references in the way that printed books are, they still constitute links of interest and can still be used as references, if no other refernces are available. For example I wrote a long section on wikipedia overviewing criticism of Ken Wilber, and no-one complained about that, even though I only referenced blogs and web pages.
Note also that the present article is not saying that Da is stuck in the intermediate zone (and if it is, that is a pov and should be reworded), only that some ex-disciples claim he is. Big difference. So no-one should be offended.
If as Dseer says Da claims to have transcended the intermediate zone, then Da is himself acknowledging the existence of the intermediate zone, which further strengthens the relevance of including this subject. I myself haven't read this article by Da, nor am I an expert on Da, so I am not in a position to judge on that point.
I am most happy to remove any references to the Kheper website on this page, if it is felt by other wikipedians that they constitute a biased POV. However I included several references to essays on the Kheper website (including one by myself) in my critique of Ken Wilber and no one complained. I concede however that the Wilber controversy is better known, and there are many more refernces and essays to cite. But just because an issue or subject is less well known doesnt mean it should be ignored.
Finally, it's the role of Wikipedia to include all POVs, not simply a single POV on a controversial and partisan issue. Although I wrote the original page here, I feel it is absolutely essential and necessary for others of all POVs (in this case pro-Da, anti-Da, and non-aligned) to further comment, elaborate, include varying povs representing the views of all factions, etc. That's the way that Wikipedia works. M Alan Kazlev 23:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all your points, MAK, and particularly with the necessity for all POVs on controversial and partisan matters like this to be allowed adequate expression, even if some editors consider them "ridiculous" and "silly". To clarify, Adi Da does not actually use the term "intermediate zone" in the link, but he claims to have awakened to and then transcended all the limitations of the subtle which would include that which Aurobindo terms the "intermediate zone"--the link provided describes some of this process--and to have achieved the highest enlightenment. In the full link referenced, Adi Da describes not only his own magical and shamanic approach in his sadhana and after, but instructs followers that: "Your practice must become true magic. You must be a shaman, but you also must be more than a shaman. You must practice beyond the limitations of the vitalistic shaman, but you must be at least as good as that, at least as conscious as that, at least as aware of the magical nature of everything, at least as perceptive and sensitive, and at least as capable of acknowledgment, so that you can see what is trying to influence you through the medium of all kinds of relations, odd appearances, and coincidences." I see no need to remove the Kheper site references, particularly since that site allows responses from all POVs.Dseer 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Dseer[reply]

Hi what does this mean ? "I disagree that this subject is "original research", because the article simply reports comments made elsewhere than on wikipedia" Of course it is original research in regards to Adi Da also are you aware of this ? "Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page. [1] These principles also apply to biographical material about living persons in other articles."[2]

Your sources are very poor indeed and I am not going to push the point any further at this stage but the living person note , should be taken seriously --Scribe5 13:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scribe5.
To answer your queries:
You wrote what does this mean ? "I disagree that this subject is "original research", because the article simply reports comments made elsewhere than on wikipedia" Of course it is original research...
First of all, imho everything (including this reply!) is "original research"; there is no such thing as a "neutral point of view", because even if you try to be "neutral" you are still pushing some pov (e.g. secular materialism etc). NPOV is a fallacy of the western secular mindset and academia; the best that we can have is many POVs expressed in neutral, non-judgmental language.
But to reply to your question, what I meant (and my sincere apologies if my wording was confusing) is that the claims regarding Da and the IZ were not first made on wikipedia. They were made elsewhere on the web (hence the links), and when made they represented an original opinion ("original research" if you like). That opinion has then been "reported" here, without saying it is correct or not. Hence they do not represent original research first appearing on wikipedia.
Re "poor sources"; if we were all totally fastidious about sources then 99% of wikipedia pages would have to be deleted, and what remained would be very limited and dull indeed. Remeber also, Wikipedia is a project in constant growth and progress. Inevitably most pages will begin with "poor sources" - or with no sources at all! - and then over the years and with input from many wikipedians will progress to better reseach and better references. Thus the quality of the articles (including this one) will improve.
You have to understand, Scribe5, that no-one is attacking Da (except in your mind). What is being currently reported on this page are two povs: the IZ hypothesis of some critics, and the fact that "Adidam considers this concept of Adi Da as absurd and without any merit, and point to Adi Da's own warnings about becoming attached to subtle phenomena" . I strongly encourage you to add to this material, including additional references, if you find the current section of this page unnecessarily biased. M Alan Kazlev 22:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to understand, Scribe5, that no-one is attacking Da (except in your mind)." I think placing negative theories about Adi Da on WP would qualify as an critical, and your sources are from Anti Da sites including your own. You have a liberal approach to WP but it is supposedly an encylopedia , not a bulletin board. Just to pick up on your loose point about original research the refs are supposed to be first class , not biased sites such as you include here

[3]

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer material placed into articles by Wikipedia editors that have not been previously published by a reputable source. It includes unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

"Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications.

For non-academic subjects, it is impossible to pin down a clear definition of "reputable." In general, most of us have a good intuition about the meaning of the word. A magazine or press release self-published by a very extreme political or religious group would often not be regarded as "reputable." For example, Wikipedia would not rely only on an article in the Socialist Workers' Party's newspaper The Militant to publish a statement claiming that President Bush hates children. However, if that same claim was in The New York Times, then Wikipedia could refer to the article (and to the sources quoted in the article). The political newspaper could, however, be used as a source of information about the party itself.

Ask yourself some questions when you are evaluating a publication. Is it openly partisan? Does it have a large or very small readership? Is it a vanity publisher? Is it run principally by a single person, or does it have a large, permanent staff? Does it seem to have any system of peer review, or do you get the feeling that it shoots from the hip? If you heard that the publication you are about to use as a source was considering publishing a very negative article about you, would you (a) be terrified because you suspect they are irresponsible and do not fact-check; or (b) feel somewhat reassured because the publication employs several layers of editing staff, fact-checkers, lawyers, an editor-in-chief, and a publisher, and will usually correct its mistakes? If it is (a), do not use it as a source. If it is (b), it is what Wikipedia calls "reputable."

When dispute arises regarding whether a publication is reputable, you can attempt to get more editors involved and work toward a consensus. There is no clear definition, but don't ignore your intuition."

Like I said earlier I am not going to pursue this at this point , but reserve the right to remove or alter the text at a later time , the problem as I see it , is you only view this in abstract impersonal terms as if a living present person is not involved and you have a sort of insular academic view of it all , I have looked at your stuff on Sri Aurobindo and it has something of the same quality I went to Pondi some time ago and spent sometime at his samadhi site and Auroville The general impression was one of remarkable idealism , but beauty and tragedy failed in the harsh light of day, the mandir becoming absorbed by the jungle seemed to sum it up . great aspiration to some place else ! --Scribe5 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to understand, Scribe5, that no-one is attacking Da (except in your mind)." I think placing negative theories about Adi Da on WP would qualify as an critical,
Have a look at, for example, the Sathya Sai Baba page. Do the various negative statements mentioned there qualify as "critical" of SSB, or is that page simply reporting what others have said? (including both positive and negative comments).
and your sources are from Anti Da sites including your own.
Look at the history tab of this article. In my original Da and IZ write-up (which you removed, fair enough, your privelage as a contributer to wikipedia) i never linked from there to my own site. The current Da & IZ section is by Dseer, not by me. The only sources I have listed in my original write up and still on this page are in external links; including a link to a mirror of the complete IZ letter on my website. However this letter is also found elsewhere on the web, as a simple google search will reveal, so if you disapprove of the link i gave you can replace it with another.
You have a liberal approach to WP but it is supposedly an encylopedia , not a bulletin board.
If this page contained only supportive and devotional references to Da, would you still call it a "bulletin board"? Is your own strong pov determining which pages you consider good and which not?
Like I said earlier I am not going to pursue this at this point , but reserve the right to remove or alter the text at a later time
isn't that the way that wikipedia works anyway - someone writes something and someone else edits it?
the problem as I see it , is you only view this in abstract impersonal terms as if a living present person is not involved and you have a sort of insular academic view of it all
For many many years I thought Da was a genuine enlightened being. I read his books (this was in the Da Free John days) and attuned to the presence behind the words. I definitely felt his light, although he was never my guru and imho he wasn't (and isnt) comparable to S.A. And I can honestly say I still do feel that presence when I read his words. But as the numerous reports by ex-devotees, and allegations made by those people who were abused and traumatised by Da show, things aren't as simple as they originally seemed. Again, look at Sai Baba. Same thing. Occult powers, and abuse of devotees. (I was a "devotee" (maybe too strong a word) of Sai Baba for more than 20 years btw, and likewise felt his presence. And while i never had any negative experiences regarding him, i cannot ignore the numerous allegations of those who have.)
And are you saying one cannot report both sides of the picture, critical as well as praiseworthy, about people still alive?
I have looked at your stuff on Sri Aurobindo and it has something of the same quality
The same quality as what? Insular and academic? Do you mean on my website or on wikipedia? I have only modified aspects of the wikipedia page on S.A. (again, check the history tab of that page if you are not sure) But if you mean my website, have a read of it again.
I went to Pondi some time ago and spent sometime at his samadhi site and Auroville The genral impression was one of remarkable idealism , but beauty and tradedy failed , in the harsh light of day , the mandir becoming absorbed by the jungle seemed to sum it up . great aspiration to some place else.
If you have references (including web references) I strongly encourage you to add those comments to the relevant wikipedia pages. Otherwise it is just your opinion. Your opinion may or may not be valid, I cannot say. I am not closely associated with the S.A. community, nor have I lived at Auroville, so it is not my place to judge these things. My affiliation is not with the community but with S.A. and the Mother's original teaching and revelation. So even if Auroville is a "failed dream" (and others who have been there and meditated there report very differently to what you have said!) that makes no difference to me. Very very rarely do the human disciples live up to the message of the enlightened teacher. Doesn't your Adi Da say the same thing? M Alan Kazlev 06:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of "each to his own' , and "be informed by direct experience( only)" a parting gesture ( you may place this in your Adi Da pages on your website, as a personal experience endorsement if you wish )
I think Adi Da’s lasting legacy ( amongst many other things ) will be his understanding and transmission to others ( of that understanding ) of “ egoity “ (note # in the precise manner he defines it ) As it is, there is a blanket dismissal by secular ( naturally ) and past based traditions of his sacrificial “Work” and even “Present” sacrificial existence Speaking from my own experience (and many others I know ) I have found that relationship (to Adi Da as Guru and Realiser ) to be exceptionally and genuinely liberating and En-lightening incomparable to any other meeting or idealistic notion from the past--Scribe5 22:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be glad to place your comment on the Adi Da section of my site, Scribe5! It's good to have comments and experiences representing different povs. Actually I invite you to expand what you say here (because it is too brief for a decent webpage) into a short essay if you wish, about a page or so (or however long you feel suitable), and email it to me. You can find my email addie on my website. Cheers M Alan Kazlev 23:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material in violation of WP: V, WP:RS,[edit]

Removed material about gurus that was neither verifiable or properly sourced. Please do not revert unless you have verifiable sources. Self-pub websites do not qualify. Succinct1 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Intermediate zone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intermediate_zone&oldid=1205293646"