Talk:Intermediate zone

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)

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

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)