Talk:Meher Baba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Random comments

We need to get some better citations on this page. For example "Many who attended this darshan have commented on the palpable feeling of Baba's presence" has no citation. Also, this seems to be more of a propaganda tool rather than an informational article presented in a Neutral Point of View.

I agree. Most of these comments were added on July 8. I tried reverting since there were so many NPOV problems and citation problems but it was reverted back. See my comments on these additions bottom of this page.

Excellent entry on Avatar Meher Baba. There are active communities throughout North America, and the world - leave message here if you'd loke more web information.

Ron F.

Good Point 203.221.55.142 02:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

April 13th 2004: I agree with Ron F. that it is an excellent entry but I did edit it by reversing the sequencing of the alphabet board and gesture use. In the article as I first read it, Meher Baba was described as using gestures first and then the alphabet board later when in fact the reverse was true.

BBesar (Jakarta)

6/24/2004: I agree with BBesar re: edit is historically correct. Meher Baba first used an alphabet board and later used gestures.

Yes.203.26.122.12 03:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I edited the information about the defination of Avatar. Meher Baba stated that Avatar means "Being of beings".{Actually Avatar means God descent to Human form}

05 November 2005 Christina Arasmo (www.MeherBabaTampaBay.org) 01 February 2006: It's taken me a while, but I've managed to find the reference to Mother Theresa: she's quoted as saying "Meher Baba is a Christlike person" in "A Tapestry of Meher Baba's Connections with the West" by Steve Sakellarios (http://www.omplace.com/articles/Meher_Baba.html) in the section "First trip to the West". I agree that the references to Tommy had better appear in the section on Pete Townshend, so I apologise for the inconvenience - I did receive a lot of positive feedback, though. Remember that Wikipedia is meant for the general reader, who may have come across Baba's name through "Tommy" ... not everybody is as well informed as you. I happen to know the film maker from Amsterdam who made "Beyond Words" - why is there no reference to this documentary? Keep up the good work! Cheers for now, Frank 202.150.34.8 10:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...seems a bit biased to me, you guys. The writing here can hardly be called objective, as terms like "left his physical body" are scattered throughout.

Based on the nature of Meher Baba's claims to Avatar, and because his followers believe that the Avatar is ALWAYS incarnate on earth in some physical form, the phrase "left his physical body" is both accurate and in keeping with the philosophy described in the article.--Nemonoman 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Because he was a new religious figure, Meher Baba no doubt recieved accusations of being a cult leader, etc. but such necessary viewpoints go unmentioned in the article.

It's my impression that this particular religous leader's history was remarkably free of such accusations. If you document some, however, please include them. --Nemonoman 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to work on it that is better versed in Maher Baba's thought than I. I think that people have the right to KNOW, devoid of a slant from either side, about this thinker's life, his philosophy, and the subsequent public reaction to his work.

Thanks again. Hope I'm not too harsh.

Not too harsh at all; these are constructive criticisms

I very much agree, but it is hard to find an "expert" on the man who is not also a devotee or opinionated critic. I'm far from objective, and I know it, and my edits at least have been as objective as I can make them, considering. If you would please edit this article to reflect a better sense of objectivity, I'd be grateful. --Nemonoman 01:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jacob King

So far so good! Thank you Nemonoman!

(PeaceofMeat -- Christina Arasmo MeherBabaTampaBay.org)

I am disturbed by heading that seems to imply that Baba is most known through travels and Pete Townshend. I know very few Baba followers that came to Baba through Peter Townshend. It's time to get beyond this 60's psychodelic allusion. No wonder so few young people are attracted to Meher Baba. Saying Meher Baba is best known from the music of Pete is like saying Steven Spielberg is best known for his episodes on "Night Gallery." 16 Feb 2006: Just for the record, Townshend loathed the hippy movement and Woodstock, and after kicking his heroin habit reaffirmed his faith in Meher Baba. The drug culture and the concept of Free Love (especially premarital sex)were criticised by Baba, so where's the "psychodelic/psychoderelict/psychedelic(?) connection anyway? With due respect,your comparison to Spielberg is witty but flawed, for Townshend is still active in promoting/celebrating Baba's work, his most recent contribution being his contribution to the documentary about fellow Baba lover Ronnie Lane (the late bass player of the Small Faces, The Faces and Ronnie Lane's Slim Chance)shown in the UK last January. So whether one loves or hates Townshend's contributions, his name deserves to be mentioned in a general discussion of Baba's image and influence in the West - what has Bobby McF. done for Baba's reputation except hum his way through that ditty and state that the song title represented a pretty neat philosophy? Cheers, Frank 202.150.34.8 08:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Why ARE Townshend and Tommy so prominent in this article? At best, they are worthy of no more than asides, but are treated as quite significant. Certainly, there are great numbers of followers of Meher Baba who have either never heard of Pete Townshend or have no interest in his connection to Baba. Further, as hinted at above, the further we get from the Who's heyday, the less relevant these facts become to those seeking information about Meher Baba. - LaurenBrns

[edit] Meher Baba and Category "Persian People"

[edit] Note to Nemonoman

Dear Nemonoman, as you deleted previous posts about ethnicity of Meher Baba ....:

'Persian is an ethnicity and it refers to an ethnic group. I agree that it may also be equivalent to Iranian as the name of the country was Persia before 1935. However the word's main meaning is related to Persian ethnic group. Parsis of india are from persian ethnicity, as you probably know. Being from persian ethnic group has nothing to do with the nationality of the person. One may be from Tajikistan or Afghanistan or India or Israel and be Persian at the same time. You wrote: an't see how he's both a "persian person" and an "indian religious figure". Born, lived, died in India. He's Indian. Yes he is indian and at the same time belongs to persian ethnic group. -- Mensen 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Please note the header of the "Persian People" Category.

Classification: People: By nationality: Persian also: Countries: Persia: People

Since the category defines itself as describing a person's nationality, I stand by my edits.

Your description of Persian as an Ethnic Group is pretty worrisome to me.

I am very uncomfortable with describing someone's ethnic group in general. I am especially uncomfortable with suggesting that Meher Baba's ethnic group was "Persian". Baba didn't identify himself as Persian or as Parsi. So this is your label. I don't think its necessarily accurate, and I deny that it adds any value. What's next, for Pete's sake? Semetic? Caucasian?

My edit was not vandalism. It was an edit based on reason and scholarship. What was yours based on?--Nemonoman 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible compromise?

I asked a friend about this concern. He answered:

I always thought "Parsi" referred to an Indian of Persian extract, that is, to an immigrant from Persia living in India - "parsi" being a corruption of farsi, the persian language. Of course, usually these people were also Zoroastrians, which was Meher Baba's original faith.

Meher Baba is in still in the Parsi category. Is this sufficient?--Nemonoman 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

If one looks up Parsi in the dictionary one will see that Meher Baba was not a Parsi but an Irani.

Parsis emigrated to India centuries earlier than the Irani community into which Meher Baba was born. Both comunities are of course traditionaly Zoroastrians.

I stand by the Parsi category, since most contemporaries of Baba consistently identified him as such. Meher Baba's inclusion in that category is consistent with the definition of Category:Parsi.

However I am absolutely content is anyone wants to remove this category.

I will continue to remove references to categories: Iranians, Iranis, Persian People, etc. Meher Baba was born in India to Indian Parents, as attempts to subsume his nationality based on the nationality of his great-grandparents are not acceptable.--Nemonoman 21:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Purdom's book "The God-Man" (p. 15) Sheriar, Meher Baba's father, was born in "Khooramshah, a village in Persia" (also mentioned in Bhau Kalchuri's book "Lord Meher", p. 118). [1] I don't know what that makes Meher Baba in the technical sense, but as I've found others, myself too, considered and identified as half the nationality of at least one of their parents, even if different from one's birthplace, it seems possible to conclude without rejection that Meher Baba is half or some mix of Persian. (Actually,Baba's mother too was concieved in Iran but born in india of Persian parents!) Considering the modern use of appending one's identity by whatever national ancestry one has for many generations, it seems not so far fetched to consider Meher Baba a Persian, in part at least, due to his father being Persian, fully I presume. Moreover, nationality is not the only concept that accords identity, and for many people, it seems to me, one's ethnicity is a very powerful identity. It is rather more possible to worry some people that ethnicity is not considered an identity or attribute thereof. Nations change, rapidly sometimes, in relation to the people that may inhabit a geographic region, yet a group that identifies itself by its uniqueness certainly is not necessarily limited by the change of nation that may sweep over it. Nor would offspring immediately be considered, by themselves or others, as not at all of their ancestry, especially the more immediate ancestry, known also as ethnicity, if not also nationality (a concept that some historians consider a rather recent event). So far as I have found, Meher Baba did indeed not identify himself as a Persian or Parsi, but there is little doubt that before he became Meher Baba, and was a young boy in a Zoroastrian family, he was Zoroastrian in a Parsi family in India with a Persian father. The facts readily identify him as a Parsi, a word that also readily hints at its deep connection to that region formerly known as Persia. Should we be surprised that there are not as easily created categories as those considering only nationality, such as Nemonoman brought forth, that describe ethnicities? This is a sensitive topic to many people, from the descriptions to those that claim identity to some group--it is no wonder Nemonoman found it worrisome. He claims Parsis emigrated from Persia hundreds of years ago, but according to "Lord Meher" (page 117ff), even in the 19th century Zoroastrians lived in Persia, oppressed--so what should Zoroastrian emigrants going to India around that time be named if not Parsi? Even if you were to not consider Sheriar a Parsi at this point, I find it much more difficult to believe that all of the people, hundreds, connected and close to Meher Baba did not object, find fault with, but rather even published that his family were Parsis and his father Persian, and furthermore thus by extension (as done by nearly everyone) Merwan was Persian, at least in part. Lastly, the dictionary Merriam-Webster defines Parsi as "a Zoroastrian descended from Persian refugees settled principally at Bombay". If this definition is to be taken as definitive, then the argument is merely about what Meher Baba's (biological) ethnicity is and by which characteristic it is to be taken, if not both, namely, national or ethnic (by this I suggest either cultural, biological, or geographic identity, or a combination thereof). The national identity is questionable for the reason that a) Persia became Iran, i.e. a different nation, and b) Meher Baba seemed not to care, nor were the governments he dealt with particular about it. [2] Though this may not be a final argument, I believe it is suggestive of Meher Baba's identity as Persian, in part for he is also Indian. If there is true merit in this claim, then to delete every occurrence of Meher Baba as Persian is a violence to the other perspectives of reality not limited to considering people merely according to nationalities; one should at least consider appending such claims with the fact that among the community of people that were with Meher Baba, he was Persian, rather than deleting outright all mention of such. BeyondBeyond 09:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: According to "The God-Man" (p. 83) the Persian Consul in 1929 offered Meher Baba a passport (even without a signature) since "as a Persian subject he was entitled to have" one. He accepted this, though eventually, "as a British-born subject, Baba took a British passport"; British-born obviously means Indian, as he was born in India while the British ruled India.BeyondBeyond 07:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Judging by a comment on my talk page, clarification appears to be needed:

Among Zoroastrians, the terms Parsi and Irani are both religious qualifiers that denote an *Indian* *Zoroastrian* (or more correctly, a Zoroastrian originally of the Indian subcontinent). So, first and foremost, the terms imply community and religion. Present-day nationality (Indian, Pakistani, etc) is altogether irrelevant. These two Zoroastrian groups are distinguished by when they landed on the subcontinent: The Parsis did so over 1000 years ago, the Iranis during and after the 18th century.
Although this highly specific meaning of the term 'Irani' is not understood by anyone outside those two communities, Wikipedia distinguishes between the two groups of Indian Zoroastrians. Both Parsi and Irani have their own article, and both have their categories.

For this reason (and only this reason), *IF* Meher Baba was a Zoroastrian *THEN* he belongs in the Irani (but not Parsi) category because his father migrated (relatively) recently.

However, *IF* Baba's father was a Sufi (as it says in the article), *THEN* Meher Baba could not possibly have been a Zoroastrian (unless he converted, which he didn't), which disqualifies him from either category.

Note also that the Meher Baba article is already in Category:Sufi, thus again disqualifying it from inclusion in any of the Zoroastrian categories. The sentence "[his father was a] Zoroastrian who had been a wandering Sufi" is likewise contradictory. Meher Baba's father cannot have been a Zoroastrian and a Sufi. He also cannot have been a Zoroastrian and a mystic, since Zoroastrianism has no mystics, mendicants, ascetics, or monks (would contradict the philosophy).

-- Fullstop 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is admittedly an enigma that Meher Baba's father Sheriar is referred to both as a Zoroastrian and a Sufi Dervish. But this fact is well explained (as strange as it may be) in Bhau Kalchuri's Lord Meher and in Kevin shepherd's book From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics. It may be precisely because of what you say, that there are no mystics, mendicants, or ascentics in Zoroastrianism that Sheriar chose the to practice an Islamic mystic path. However, to say that he would have had to convert back to Zoroastrianism once he had a family in India would only be true had he officially converted to Islam, which he did not. After his marriage he rejoined his Irani community in Pune and was a householder and followed all Zoroastrian practices. Thus he could be said to have returned to his roots. Also, Meher Baba wore the sacred Zoroastrian thread all his life inside his garments. I'm not sure what it is called. Also Meher Baba always signed his name M.S. Irani and never Meher Baba. Certainly one could say that Meher Baba and his father were somewhat 'outrageous' Zoroastrians, but I think they were Zoroastrian nonetheless. Chris 19:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

aaah, that explains a great deal. I suggest the addition of a footnote in the article to explain this. Perhaps something along these lines:

1. change the line

"a Persian Zoroastrian who had been a wandering Sufi dervish before settling in Pune"

to "wandering mendicant^[a] before settling in Pune"

2. followed up a note at the end of the article that reads:

a. ^{^} as explained in Bhau Kalchuri's Lord Meher and in Kevin Shepherd's From Oppression to Freedom: A Study of the Kaivani Gnostics, Sheriar Irani's personal philosophy incorporated elements from both Zoroastrianism and Sufi mysticism; before becoming a householder in Pune, Sheriar had spent some time as wandering Sufi dervish. His son, Meher Baba, likewise acknowledged both philosophies and wore the Zoroastrian Sudra (a muslin undershirt) and the 72-thread Kusti girdle all his life.

-- Fullstop 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

btw: In my previous note, I forgot to mention that the surname 'Irani' is adopted (by the later Zoroastrian immigrants, and only by them) for legal and communal reasons. Sheriar was then not born with 'Irani' as a last name, and would originally have had his father's firstname as a surname. Inversely, in Indian Zoroastrian tradition, which goes back to the days before family names were introduced by the British, the middle name is always the father's first name, so if you know a person's middle name, you know the name of the father.

-- Fullstop 08:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fullstop, This added explanatory information is pure gold. I don't personally know how to add it to the Meher Baba article yet, but I am going to move this information (as much as I can fit) into the Sheriar Irani article now. Chris 14:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Books about Meher Baba

I removed the following book from the "Books about Meher Baba" heading:

Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism by Kevin R.D. Shepherd. Citizen Initiative (2005) ISBN 0952508931. Contains substantive new biographical evaluation of Meher Baba from his period at Sakori with Upasni Maharaj to his death in 1969. Illustrated with many hitherto unfamiliar photographs of Meher Baba, from the author's own collection.

While it is valuable to know about books that mention Meher Baba and give his life context, "Investigating the Sai Baba Movement" is predominantly about Sathya Sai Baba. Kevin Shepherd has done a lot of valuable research on the subject of Indian masters and the book of his that deals particularly with Meher Baba, "Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal," has already been included. If there is material in the book that you feel adds valuable context to Baba's life and mission, then please include that information in the body of the article. Thanks. Chris 14:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The title is potentially misleading, I agree, especially as the book is also advertised as a revision of Shepherd's "Gurus Rediscovered", his early biographies of Shirdi Sai Baba and Upasni Maharaj. Nevertheless, I can't agree that Meher Baba is merely mentioned. A quantitative analysis of the contents reveals:

Sai Baba of Shirdi: major section of 79 pages incl. notes, 1 photo
Upasni Maharaj: major section of 44 pages incl. notes, 7 photos
Meher Baba: major section of 119 pages incl. notes, 48 photos
Sathya Sai Baba: 3 appendices of 31 pages incl. notes, no photo

The Meher Baba total is considerably higher than indicated here, since he features in both the Shirdi Sai Baba and Upasni Maharaj biographies (particularly the latter). Nor is the lion's share a simple revision of material from "Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal". Perhaps you will change your mind when you have had the opportunity to read the book. Cheers, Naqshandy 11:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you begin a new section under "Bibliography" called something like "Books that mention Meher Baba" or "Books including Meher Baba" as "Investigating the Sai Baba Movement" is obviously not a "book about Meher Baba" as the category says. I tried to order the book through interlibrary loan, but got a letter from my library that no lending library could supply the book. Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble don't have the book. However, the book is available on Amazon.co.uk. Chris 20:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Meher Baba is one of the four gurus shown on the front page of the book. Andries 20:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that works. Chris 21:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: "false," "unnatural" sanskaras

I removed the "false" before sanskaras in one section. Since all sanskaras by definition can't but be already Mayavic, classifying them as "false sanskaras" (which implies there are also "true sanskaras") is misleading. Unless one wants to get into the whole "vidnyani sanskaras" issue...

I changed "unnatural" to "non-natural" sanskaras since that's the terminology Baba actually used (or at least approved) in the Disourses. http://discoursesbymeherbaba.org/v1-55.php "Unnatural" has all sorts of moralistic connotations which don't help clarify the issue, since even very "moral" actions can still produce non-natural sanskaras, etc.

[edit] Recent Reversion

Recent edits by 61.68.2.157 violate Wikipedia's NPOV, remove documented events and people without cause, and offer no new verifiable information.

[edit] "Being of beings"

Where did Meher Baba say that the avatar is the "Being of beings"? I can't find this anywhere. Please go to section "The Avatar" and include a source or remove the quote. It may very well be that he said this, but couldn't find it in "God Speaks," "Discourses," or on the Web.

I'm not concerned whether that phrase is in the article or not (IMHO, it's prone to misreading & too Heideggerian-sounding anyway!), but the phrase "Being of all Beings" is used in Eruch's story "Who Is Meher Baba?" (in _That's How It Was_, p. 157), maybe elsewhere too? Hdtnkrwll 02:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional Brochure?

This article needs much work to make it sound more like an encyclopedia entry rather than a promotion by followers. Many of the statements are incomprehensible to the average person looking for information on Meher Baba, such as "Perfect Master." The English-speaking and largely Christian community who reads this site will not understand any of these mystical terms. Try to look at it as an encyclopedia entry, not a book written by Baba's ashramites.--Mylitta 07:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition to linking of a term, the term can be shortly described in brackets in this article. Andries 20:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Recent Revisions

The following are some of the problelms with recent revisions:

The name Hafez was changed to Hafiz. While this is in keeping with Meher Baba's spelling of Hafiz, note that on Wikipedia Hafiz does not link to the medievel Persian poet, but Hafez is the Wikipedia spelling for the poet.
The next change was from "quoting freely from all the holy books" to "quoting freely from those traditions." I'm not sure you can "quote" from a tradition.
The change to "the four perfect masters of the age" violates Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. You would have to say, according to... or give a citation.
The change from "Subsequently, he went without food or drink" to "Thereafter..." isn't as good as the first word. The word "thereafter" generally refers to an ongoing condition. The inclusion of the word "reportedly" was a good idea.
The new wording, "Later he contacted the 'perfect masters' Sai Baba of Shirdi and Sadguru Upasni Maharaj of Sakori..." gives the appearance that "perfect master" and "sadguru" are two different things, and makes it appear that Sai Baba was not a sadguru. The earlier version, simply calling them both "perfect masters" was much clearer. You could substitute the word "perfect master" with "sadguru" and that would be just as good.
~~Adding "sadguru" to the next paragraph is redundant.~~
The newly added line, "He also indicated that his silence served a salvific effect, similar in signifigance to Christ's cruxifiction." as far as I know, is simply false. If Baba said this, it ought to have a citation. If not, then it is POV.
The change to "Baba met with interested individuals who had heard of his spiritual status and his work in India, many of these were celebrities and artists..." is improper sentence structure. The word "whom" that was there before was correct. You could, however, make two sentences. But it isn't clear what this improves. It was a very clear sentence before.
The reference to Ghandi being allowed by Baba to read his "book" is unclear. While Baba insiders might know what book this refers to, it is not clear enough for an Encyclopedic article.
Next two changes are excellent. "Various" and "many" are good changes.
~~"each drop soul evolves through experience of each form in the seven kingdoms of evolution." This is incorrect. Souls evolve consciousness, but souls do not evolve.~~
"This development is accomplished through the accumulation of innumerable impressions, orsanskaras, which adhere to the drop soul as it experiences creation." Nowhere does Meher Baba say that sanskaras "adhere" to the soul. The soul is infinite and eternal, according to Meher Baba. It is one with Paramatma actually and sanskaras are imagination. The word "adhere" means To stick fast by or as if by suction or glue (Dictionary.com).
The sentence "Many who attended this darshan have commented on the palpable feeling of Baba's presence" sounds subjective, reads like propaganda (see first comment top of this page), and has no citation.

Point 11 above is well taken. But, how do you concisely detail evolution/involution in this small section without having to introduce the mental body? If you do, then you're stuck explaining the subtle and gross bodies as well (i.e. you open a barrel of monkeys).

Likewise with 12 and the same problem in addressing it arises. I guess my own reading of Meher Baba on this topic lead me to the conclusion that the drop-soul is Paramatma+a mental body (which is nothing but the accumulation of sanskaras). From that perspective, I think it works as it is. (i.e. the drop-soul "evolves") From a strict advaita standpoint this won't fly, but I think avoiding adding the bodies into this section is desirable. Adhere has been changed to accrete. Better?

"Which accrete to" has been changed to "acquired by." Not sure that's an improvement. My reading sees this process as more passive than "acquired by" suggests.

In the "Discourses" Meher Baba uses the words "accumulation" and "forging new sanskaras" and "creating further sanskaras." Sanskaras are close to what we in the west would call trace memories. Thus we could use any word that would fit such a psychological concept, e.g. accumulate, acquire, forge, gather, create, form, etc. The important thing is not to see sanskaras as independent entities or metaphysical objects.

[edit] POV

I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but please try to keep contributions limited to facts or citable facts about other's beliefs or opinions according to Wikipediai's policy on NPOV (neutral point of view). Sam Spade 11:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Matter, Energy, Mind...

With all respect to keeping articles encyclopedic, I think that for many readers or seekers, Meher Baba's "cosmology" of Mind, Energy, Matter would be a very interesting and enlightening issue to find in this article. It's like not mentioning the Energy, Mass, Light Speed Constant equation in Albert Einstein's entry. I have to take it that for those working on this article, it may indeed be like opening a barrel of monkeys, but it would still be an important contribution for those trying to understand the nature of the Universe and looking at what various sciences, religions and spiritual paths have to say on it. This would also define some basic concepts, before one comes to the mentioning of gross, subtle and mental sanskaras, which may be mystifying as it stands. Otherwise I find this article quite good and not like a promotion by followers. Yet it may be for such ommissions that it gives to some this feeling. On the one hand I wouldn't like to find in an encyclopedia a note telling me that if I want to learn what this person said I should read his books. On the other, I wouldn't like to run into some jargon that only those who have already studied his books can understand. I think a very good source text for such a progressive outline of terms is in the Discourses, under Meditation, The Divine Truths. I also think that various books of Baba speak to various kinds of mentalities. In an encyclopedia, every kind of mentality should find what it's looking for. If under Cosmology, in this article, you only find mention of the soul's journey to self-awareness, it may be that the structuring of the article has gaps that leave people with the feeling of having run into jargon. I hope my remarks have not upset anyone and that this article can still be improved to reach the quality it deserves (like the Bahai entry for example). If I can help you in any way, please, let me know in my discussion page. I'll be glad to contribute.

Hoverfish 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This thing you're talking about is a very hard thing to do. But feel free to try. First of all, Wikipedia frowns on POV and original research so to interpret Baba's teaching in different words becomes difficult to do without becoming controversial. You would need to site sources. If you could do it well though, I think people would be thrilled. Another option is to quote a lot from Discourses or God Speaks, but that has problems too... too wordy, copyright violation, etc. Perhaps a new article could be created on just this subject. There is already a page for God Speaks and that might be a good place to go into depth. Another option is to create a new page for The Discourses or one on his Cosmology itself.

Sam Spade 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meher Baba as Parsi

Please see the lengthy exhausting discussions above on this subject. My understanding is that the words Parsi and Irani refer to different periods of migration of Zoroastrians from what is now Iran. The earlier migration were called Parsis. People who immigrated later are called Iranis. Both of Baba's parents migrated with the second Irani group, and thus his last name "Irani" from his father. So to call him a Parsi is technically wrong, even if it's right in spirit and well intended. Also, in fact Baba was born in India before 1948 so he was actually a British subject. So it is very hard to call him one thing. Indian isn't quite right, but partially; Irani refers to his parental line and his last name, and British actually refers to his birth certificate. He also had an Irani passport. To reduce all this to the word "Parsi" is at least incomplete, and at worst totally incaccurate, since the meaning of Parsi refers to a different sub-group of immigrants. Therefore, due to the long debates in the past which seemed to end rather peacefully with the compromise of "Iranian-Indian" I've reverted it to that. Also, note that in the categories section it includes him as | Indian religious figures | Persian people | Iranis | Parsis -- so all bases are covered and everyone ought to be hopefully happy. Thanks for understanding.

Meher Baba was born of an Indian Mother and a father who had left Persia at age 13, and lived the next 2/3s+ of his life in India before his son Meher Baba was born. Since Meher Baba was an Indian native who lived all his life in India, was born of an Indian mother and a naturalized Indian father (from Persia, which only much later became called Iran), I think it is therefore absolutely essential that he be identified as Iranian. Anything less than this does dishonor to the noble Iranian people.--72.192.144.119 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Silent communication

Didn't Baba originally use chalk and slate to communicate? It runs in my mind that he wore a slate around his neck during the first days of his silence, and that some mandali member created the alphabet board. ???? Somebody with better resources than me could review tales of the early days, maybe??--Nemonoman 15:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the online Lord Meher it mentions the chalk and slate several times, mostly between pages 738-742.

"From that day on for several months, Baba had a new companion; constantly with him was a young boy named Bal to whom he had taken a liking. Bal, an Arangaon village boy, would accompany the Master around Meherabad with a pencil and paper, or chalk and slate so that Baba could convey whatever he wished." (p. 738) [3] Chris 18:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar claim

As per recent changes, Meher Baba said he was "the" Avatar, and not "an" Avatar. There are 32 references to this in his biography, published in 1986 and now online. [4] Whether or not he truly was is irrelavent to the article, as it is at least an encyclopedic fact that he said that he was.

[edit] Townshend

Whats the point of having this one person here in at all.I mean the mans just one follower and frankly is of no interest to many Baba people I have meet. Its not required to have some quasi famous person here to validify Baba. And anyway his life is not what I would like people to exemplify.

Previous comment by User:Liam7. - I agree that the mention of Townsend should not become a big deal here, but so it is that up to this date Pete is one of the very few publicly known people honoring Baba's memory in concerts and articles. Historically his music and Tommy have made Baba known to thousands of people around the world. So it's not just "of no interest", encyclopedically at least. Also no one (including Pete) is suggesting that his life is an example of anything, and surely his mention isn't intended to validify Baba. Hoverfish 08:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I also reverted the deletion. It should be first discussed here and if a consensus is reached, it can then be deleted. As it is done by User Liam7, it can be considered vandalism. Hoverfish 08:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Also for the note added, some acceptable citation is needed. I will not mark it with a "citation needed" template in the article, as this does start making a big deal out of it. Why not ask for a vote instead? Hoverfish 09:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned above, thousands of Baba followers don't even know Townsend. However, some other thousands do, whether they make much of it or not. Many Baba lovers do follow Pete's concerts (some travelling big distances to attend) and the atmosphere in the concerts is no more as it once was (reactionary and noisy), but one of love and harmony. I still think the best way is to rephrase the section, or integrate the section in another one, without a heading for itself, so that it doesn't sound more important than it is. It should neither dissapear as completely irrelevant nor include unencyclopedic footnotes. Respect for Baba, yes, respect for Wikipedia too. Most important would be an effort to bring this article to GA status. Hoverfish 09:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that the section on Townhend is already a nice compromise made after much discussion and after reaching a consensus of several editors. Originally Townhend was mentioned in the lead paragraph. This bothered some people as it made it appear that this was what Baba was known for. So after discussion the section was moved to the bottom and given its own heading for a good reason. To show that it is a seperate side-issue. It is also last for a reason. To revert this and integrate it into the article might have the reverse affect as intended. I went ahead and reverted the phrase that the section was an "abomination" as it seemed to insult the article (in the body of the article no less) and that seemed to be rather non-encyclopedic. It 'might' be an abomination. But it would be hard to call that claim a 'fact' about Meher Baba. Also, 'what most Baba people think' is also hard to give citation for. I hope this can be worked out here in the discussion page. It is a very good article generally and has recently been nominated for peer review. Abronkeeler 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just did the request/nomination a few minutes ago. I hope I am not second to another request. I found no template or mention of any previous request. About the Townsend section, I accept that it stays as it is. I have a feeling that if we call for a vote, there will be no consensus against it. I have not studied the edit history yet, so I take it what we see here today is indeed the result of much effort, compromises etc. I am also ready to contribute here, whenever a peer review defines the points that could be refined. Hoverfish 13:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be a good idea to hold off on any important revisions until the peer review is heard. The impartial reviewer will likely point out problem areas that will need to be improved for consideration for GA status, and then that would make clear the places to put most emphasis. So I am for holding off on major changes until we see what the reviewer thinks. Chris 17:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is how the article appeared when Townshend was right up at the top, before a consensus agreed to move him to his own side-area near the bottom. [5]. You can see some of that discussion above. Abronkeeler 17:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well thousands of flies think shit tastes good too. Numbers arent everything. If you look at Babas life and then place Townsend in perspective, where is he. Does he rate up their with so much stuff thats been left out. Think about it, but not with your ego. Think of all the important stuff not here and then look at the Townsend space. His section is a squatter. Liam7 "when vandalism is just"

Liam7 Ive read the five pilars of wiki and disagree with hoverfish in some of his appraisals. Townsend is a grain of sand on the Baba beach. People who want Townsend in this page may feel odd about Baba and need some quasi famous figure to say "hey look its not odd knowing Baba is God, because look Townsends in with us" Get over it. Make this site representative of Baba life not have some bisexual ex drug user with a whole title. Baba is God, he dosnt need false Americam marketing. We all know thats doomed, shallow and on the out. Liam7

Liam7 to the peer reviewer. You need to understand that this process is being instigated to justify the current content of Townsend. For you to review this process properly you would need to read books, lots of books and uuderstand Babas life as much as someone like me does who has been to India six times, spent years on all three places of pilgrimages, meet many mandali and been a Baba lover for coming on the third decade. In all thsi time Townsend has been as a nothing. Yet here he is occupying a significant percentage of the page, guarded by people who want him there. Their warped motivation does not concern me. He should be a few lines in the followers section at most. While more needs to be made of other stages in babas life i.e. the Book. edited out by someone, or Avatars Abode. Lots of stuff.

Again unsigned Liam7 above. Who it is that has an ego problem and warped motivation is up to the reader to decide. What is up to us to do is to decide what to do with a user who has for the third time messed up the article without any consensus. Hoverfish 08:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC.

Hoverfish: I started this discussion subject with a straight forward query. You are the person who mentioned vandalism, while wikipedia guidlines for editing call it editing. You are the person who deleted these edits because you stated they needed a consensus. Not so according to Wikipedias five Pillars. You are in an editwar and are attempting to claim the high moral ground. The trouble is you are wrong. You may have been here first, but thats no justification to subvert the editing process. You are not some sort of gatekeeper. This is not American style tainted democracy. My guess is you are American. Wikipedia is a more real democracy. Have your say, but dont get up yourself and call anothers editing messing up. --Liam7 08:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

For your information, please, read here: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy. Hoverfish 08:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense stated in the above link. If you read what I said I stated that wikikpedia is more of a democracy than the American one with its inherent corruption. The point is that people are allowed to edit. But some people may bring their tainted views of fairness, shall we say, gained from the processes they are used to (democracy) and apply it here, and for instance undo others edits. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry Liam7, but some of your edits do appear to be vandalism. [6]. And a few paragraphs up you wrote, "when vandalism is just" at the end of your comment. Also you are not in a conflict with Hoverfish. There are several who have expressed similar concerns about your edits. Please do not make this personal. Let's all calm down and wait for a peer review. Otherwise take this up with arbitration. Chris 14:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Would I have written that if you had not labelled me as such? Have you the sense of humour required for the spiritual journey, pilgrim? I still hold that Townsend as a percentage of this article should be a line at most. If you dont like my way of expressing it. Too bad. I woundnt have to come in hard if sense had prevailed and Townsend had been culled years ago. Baba wants this site sorted out. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Look, here is a calming down paragraph. I am new to Wiki. Its a learning curve. I am a University Honours recipient. I am a fast learner. I will learn more as time goes by. Life is short. If you are rational about this state what deternmines Townsends high percentage of space here in relation to Baba life. If one wants to find out about Townsend go to the Wiki Townsend site. this site is about the Avatar of the Age. If you cant see Townsend should be a line, you just dont get it, and therefore you dont get me. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing worth considering is the long term stability of the article. This is exactly why consensus is needed. If all editors and other interested users can settle this here, in the discussion page, then any modification of the article agreed will have much better chances of surviving in the future. If the disputed section is simply deleted by one editor, others will be encouraged to treat the article likewise. The one will add a section, the other will delete it and the only loser will be the quality of the article. Hoverfish 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats a fair point. What about applying critical reasoning? Are you familiar with the model? In this model everything would be examined objectively. I await the objective reasoning for the % of Townsends content. Also if you are not a hypocrite you would not edit out little additions I have added that increase depth and breadth where it is lacking. Is that you doing this? See below, edit title. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish to take back my word "messing up", as I understand that from the editor's point of view, it was not so intended. "Vandalism" (even unintentionally done) is a technical term here, implying that an editor, without giving prior mention of his intentions and waiting three days for a reaction (if I remembering it correctly), has made a deletion of a part of an important article, especially on an issue already debated and settled between previous editors. I have not the slightest personal bias against user Liam7 or the part of his opinion that a mention of Peter Townsend should happen under a more general section of publicly well-known personalities (philosophers, writers, poets, actors, musicians, etc), who have contributed culturally or in any other way. I am also not biased against Townsend for his past with drugs, or whatever "sins". In my opinion, when one leaves his/her past bad habits, out of confidence for Baba's message, blaming or disliking him/her for his past "sins" is poinless. I accept the term "he is a nothing", only in the philosophical sense of "we are all nothing(s) - One only IS". Yet, none of this entitles Townsend to a more extensive mentioning than others. There may be other, encyclopedic reasons that I may not be aware of, since I'm not all that long a wikipedian. Also IMO, a peer reviewer doesn't have to read all the literature of Meher Baba, or even agree with his message, to give us his/her assistence. Hoverfish 18:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism, if a techincal term, needs to be stated as such, to allay the significant cultural position this word has. I am new here and have never seen any previous debates. Life evolves and on Wiki if its here and now, its relevant. Past resolutions will change as different people move on. The past is frozen. This is evolution in some respects. You are quite welcome to mention past debates, but I think discussion, to mention these relics, before acting on the past debates is warranted. Hence I opened up this discussion for the now debate. yes a peer reviewer is limited by time. But he can decide if something is unbalanced, gets too much space, is unbalanced. I dont really care if he/she gets it right. I know its wrong. --Liam7 02:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment as class B article

According to assessment standards, the article is useful to nearly all readers and includes a good treatment of the subject. It should be peer reviewed, as it may reach GA status with some refinements. Hoverfish 10:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lets Hope

that this peer review locates the correct percentage that Townsend had in the scheme of Baba vast and busy life and that this miniscule percentage be reflected in the content of the article. That is one line at best. Even as a percentage of Baba followers there should be tyhe briefest mention, only to placate the.....the....Who groupies. In my view he shoundt even get a mention. Its pathetic. --Liam7 08:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Editing

I have been putting in material under various titles using my 23 years experience as a Baba lover and my research skills as an honours student. Its an ongoing work. References will be supplied. However someone is deleting this input. This is my latest contribution to Wikipedia:

Baba has stated there is either a 700 or 1400 year incarnation period between Avatars. In the current cycle of time, which began with Zoroaster 10,000 years ago, there appear to be several Avatars who have slipped into mythology or whose role has escaped historical ducumentation. Speculation about who was a past Avatar will continue amoung the Baba community in lieu of definitive answers. Baba's mandali were no exception in this debate i.e. Francis Brabrazon, Babas poet, queried whether Odysseus from ancient Greece, was an Avatar.

If this discriminatory editing continues I will be requesting a block on that person.

--Liam7 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Replies to recent previous posts embedded in text under Townsend title

It will not be necessary to request any block. Blocks are against vandalism, not against editors trying to keep an article free of POV (point of view) and original research. Any caring editor with enough experience should do this part. If valid references are offered and the additions fit and are properly integrated in the wider context, the article will benefit. If they are debated, corrected or moved to a more appropriate section, it's all part of wikipedia's processes. The above statement on avataric incarnations and Barbazon's querry have offered me a new point I didn't know in my 30 years of contact with Baba's messages and related literature. It may however prove to be harder than it seems, to make this information encyclopedically valid. Hoverfish 09:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"As mentioned above, thousands of Baba followers don't even know Townsend. However, some other thousands do," This line is one of yours and seems to sum up your support for the % of Townsend (TS) content. Can you reference this please, and explain just how this supports the high content of TS over say Kitty Davy, Elizabeth Patterson, Francis Brabrazon, Wendy Haynes, Joe Blow. Also I'll update my time with Baba's messages to 40 odd years. Hoverfish, you seem to take the bait readily, as your username implies. But you need to slow down and answer the above request and also critically justify your support for the % of TS content in the Meher Baba article, which I requested days ago. Dont be a hoover fish, sucking up online time without rigour. Justify your inclusion of TS with a rationale, encyclopedically valid response, with references --Liam7 06:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please Liam7 refrain from personal attacks in your messages. It is considered uncivil. If you have noticed, I am rather in support of the idea that Townsend is simply mentioned along with all the personalities you have mentioned, so I don't feel any need to provide references on Townsend's audience %s. I am sure there must be somewhere a box-office record on his concerts, but I do not wish to waste time researching it. The editors who wish to keep the section may need to do this, when a consensus to remove the section is reached. However since some of the respectful people attending the concerts may be among those who read the article or the discussion, I find it uncivil calling them names here, which is the reason I gave the above mention. Also this will be my last posting here until more editors step in for a stable decision. Hoverfish 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Look since you asked nicely I'll play the civil game which I will remind you, you didnt play first up. If you live in a glasshouse....OK enough lets move on now as we may have the beginnings of resolution. Now here is how a lot of talk can be quickly settled. Lets take these step like points to arrive at a result. 1/ TS may have been, is?, an influence on many Baba lovers. Just because I Havnt meet anyone who said so to date, dosnt mean its not possible 2/ Baba lovers have a lot of things that are a big influence on their Baba lives. Everyone has their life moments, unique to them. 3/ for some these are personal i.e. the day they went to the tomb, India, got the first job, fell in love, had a child, came out of the closet. The point is that Baba (faith, belief) plays a big part in so many day to day things. 4/ People feel Baba was there for them, at certain key events, times. Its special, personal. 5/ for some this may have been a TS concert or TS thing. Fine. 6/ some of these people may have created the article here, with this big TS % 7/ For them its special, a Baba moment 7/ They fight for it, taking affront at edits, deletions. 8/ At what point do we take out the personal in this article and make this site reflect Baba's life more accuratly? i.e.in terms of followers, is TS deserving of so much space? More than ...(name a follower). Can he not have a line and a link to where he has his own page in Wiki? 9/ I think sense will prevail in time and this will occur. 10/ whats the delay? Who is out there ready to say exactly why TS % is soo big? --Liam7 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

A peer review has been requested to help locate any refinements or changes needed, so that this article may attain class GA. Any comments concerning the request, should be given here: :Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review. Hoverfish 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The peer review is in. I thought the suggestions were good. Would anyone like to volunteer to start making these changes? Chris 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC). See: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Meher Baba

I will do my best, which may not be enough without help and feedback. Are you volunteering too? I think we have to call in a team of several experienced editors. Hoverfish 14:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I made a couple minor alterations in line with his suggestions already, but didn't want to go too fast on my own. In response to his suggestion, "The lead could be a bit more expanded" I thought maybe the opening pargraph could be merged with the first paragraph under "Meher Baba's life" which seems like an extension of the general overview. That might help also with the chopiness that he mentioned. Do we really need a subsection called "The Early Years?" There is no correlating section called "The Later Years." So perhaps a merged first paragraph could be followed by the heading "Meher Baba's Life" followed by the paragraph that begins "Meher Baba was born in Pune..." Also, I liked his suggestion of shortening Cosmology and adding

For more details on this topic, see God Speaks.

I will try what I mean in the opening. Let me know what you think. Chris 16:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think a most helpful hint of the reviewer is the creation of a subpage on the Townsend issue. It will relieve the main article from the impression that Townsend is needed to "validate" Baba (which I don't really think was so meant) and will not disappoint the people who use the concerts as an additional pastime in Baba's memory. The reason Townsend would fit as a subpage, while all the other famous personalities can do perfectly well with a whole article to link to, is that Townsend's past as a rock star is mostly irrelevant to the main title. So a subpage concerned specifically on PT's Baba-related works and activities, is a much better link as to the general article on PT. The reason even the reviewer thinks we should expand (in a subpage) rather than just delete, is something that we cannot avoid in an encyclopedia. It has to do with public notability, which none of us can change. What we can do is give it the right perspective, connect it with the message Baba passed to the young generation at the time and not let Townsend appear as more significant than so many other notable personalities who have lined themselves with Baba's spiritual work. I will not start with the subpage, however, until I hear several editors or users (especially ones in favor of the Townsend mention) agree or at least give consensus opinion to this suggestion. Hoverfish 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead section is now much better and in proportion with the overall length of the article. Removing the Early life subheader is debatable because of the structure of the whole section. At the index box, it looks like Meher Baba's life starts from Silence. I will put it back right after the heading, but if it is not acceptable (suheader right after header), please remove it and we can find another way around it. The other changes I also find good. I cannot express opinion on external links due to lack of experience. Hoverfish 18:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes a subpage would do it for TS, at a minimum. It would help take away the "TS needs to be there to validate Baba" issue. Heaven forbid. I must say however that the referencing on this article is way below the standard required in Universities. Its abyssmal. To have book titles in the body of the text is very unprofessional, amateurish. Its not even high school level referencing here in Australia. Universities use either the Harvard system or a modified version. The reference list is of a low standard, its practically non existant!. The in text references are very clumsy and should appear in brackets as the author(s) date and and page number, if a direct quote, or no page numbers if paraphrased. Heres an example. (Smith and Jones, 2004, pp. 223-225) or (Smith and Jones, 2004). Then one looks in the correct reference list at the END of the article, to find the extra details, that are currently appearing in text i.e. Titles. The end of the article is a missmatch, hodspodge mess of material, poorly categorised. I concede its probably too much to ask here for the correct referencing to appear on the gathering place online of so many who KNOW they are right. Yet the errors need to made clear so that Wikipedia is put in the right perspective and not overrated. Wikipedia is full of average writing, not good writing. In this case, that is, these articles do not meet accepted University standards. Marking of the references would be about 2 out of 10. I would like to see this page better reflect Baba, hence the TS battle. In doing this I have to say that Wikipedia appears to be a battle ground for big Egos, who use the anonyminity of the internet to express their firmly held views, which they appear unprepared to accept are sometimes a load of codswallop. I have taken an abrassive approach, I will concede, as it gets results in a short time frame, however unpleasnt the process may be --Liam7 02:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Call for a Vote on Townshend Issue

In keeping with what Hoverfish just wrote I'm going to posit a vote, just so we are sure anyone who cares to be counted is. Let's give this at least 3 days before counting. Chris 18:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, consider Wikipedia's following guidelines on consensus and straw polls before voting. To vote, please start with # ~~~~ - Hoverfish 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want the Pete Townshend section to be moved to a sub-page and expanded, with a reference to it within the artilce, add your name below this line.

Hoverfish 18:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) - I am for expanding on it in a subpage, while including Townsend within a new section after "Followers" for some notable (to the "West", since this is the English Wikipedia) persons who have contributed to Baba's message.
Liam7 02:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Yes, go with the sub page as an exercise in compromise and commonsense.
Imogen4 08:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Yes farewell and goodbye noname. I am voting also for the get Townsend out of here. It is in wrong place. I dont care one bit who this Townsend is, Baba site is for Baba.
Waylander.one 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Ive got nothing against Townsend or his particular fancies, whatever. If the mans a tailgater I dont give a toss. This is about organisation man. Ive been to India, mostly its a trainwreck, but not Babas place. Oh no. This site here should reflect that. Townsend must go. As for the whinging about what Wikipedias editors accept or not all Ill say is User:202.150.34.8 get a real problem

If you want the Pete Townshend section to remain basically where and how it is now (In the body of the Meher Baba article) put your name below this line.

Chris 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC) I'm for basically leaving the section as it is, or possibly reducing the parts that seem to be original research (interpreting "Tommy") unless those sections can be referenced to some source. I don't think there's enough for a subpage.

202.150.34.8 05:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC) [Refrained from voting] I'd like to remind everybody involved of a golden Wikipedia rule, namely "Do NOT write nonsense". As Meher Baba "dropped His body in 1969" and the next Avatar will take another 700 to 1,400 years to appear, writing or claiming that "Baba wants this site sorted out" amounts to nonsense. 202.150.34.8 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Liam7 01:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) You fall into the same nonsense trap yourself User:202.150.34.8. First you claim the 700 to 1400 year span for an Avartaric advent "As a Fact". Then your saying that because hes not here, having you say "dropped His body in 1969" so he right now cant say what he wants done with this site.

Oh boy where do I start to unravel this nonsense. Well from a non Baba follower point of view this is just plain nonsense. I can hear them laughing about the 700 tp 1400 year thing, from here. Real Wacko. You could only be making a little sense from a Baba followers perspective. But if you are taking this approach you are very basic, limited and arrogant by assuming that everybody is like you and has no inner contact with Baba, who I might add, has unlimited powers and can do anything, including establishing an inner contact with even a knuckle head like you, if he so wished. --Liam7 01:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note: There is currently an ongoing administrator investigation for Liam7, Imogen4, and Waylander.one under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. The vote should not be tallied until after this investigation is complete. Chris 16:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Re this investigation: Look Ill save you some time Chris. They will find several people have established an account recently and are voting from their computers, predominantly at work. They are entitled to vote. Your gripe, OH Townsend groupie (ex partner?) is that your ploy to limit the pending cull to the TS content on the Bab page, by going for this redundant subpage thinyg is looking tenuous. You remind me of our devious Prime minister who scuttled Australias chance at a Republic by giving a choice that was no choice. Because of your LIMITED straw vote options, I proposed an amendment. This is your real gripe. That saint Pete will end up with a link to his own page. Is that such a crime? No. --Liam7 01:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppetry

Imogen4 and Waylander.one appear to be sockpuppets created on December 2, 2006 for the purpose of voting. [7] [8] If so this is a very serious violation of Wikipedia policy. An investigation by a check-user clerk will be proposed at the close of the vote on December 4 as per Wikipedia policy on sockpuppetry in voting under the terms of Situation Code D. Chris 13:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the check-user investigation, this is a serious matter. Hoverfish 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT a sock puppet issue. I do know the person Liam. We talk. So What. I agree with his views and he pointed me to this site. Is this crime? I havnt joined up to Wikipedia before, hadnt sen the point till this vote. You will see my computer is about 7 kms from his place. What is problem --Imogen4 02:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

IP user 203.26.122.12 is editing since 10 December 2004, mostly on articles on Australia, and has even some history of vandalism warnings and two blocks. The former comment was done by this IP and then the signature changed to Imogen4. Hoverfish 07:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) User talk:203.26.122.12, is registered to Southern Systems (South Australia Government). Hoverfish 08:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Imogen is using a computer that has been used by other people. She told me she forgot to log on when she wrote the first message, then logged on, clicked Edit again, and changed the numbers that had appeared when she clicked the 'your signature with timestamp' previously when she hadnt logged on. She is very bright, but very busy. Oh she is real, tall, slim hips, green eyes, graceful but strong too. Yes Imogen exists. The reason the IP user 203.26.122.12 has a history is that as I said whoever this was used this office at some previous time. --Liam7 09:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

As for Waylander, well he is an old soul, who trys his hand at anything and usually does very well. We meet, us three and discuss matters over a good red wine. So he's entitled to vote. I would call him a 'Baba liker'. Not a man to cross Im afraid. Big man. Im here in defence of my esoteric wayfarers to defend against these outrageous allegations. Esp since I got them involved, sort off. --Liam7 09:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Waylander just called me to say that he tried to fix the numbering of Imogens vote, as it wasnt reading correctly. He wisely gave up this attempt, being somewhat computer challenged. Having read the above fuss he thought this might be important. --Liam7 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance of a fraudulent reference

Liam7, Please explain this citation you've added to your information about this cycle of time and Zoroaster. "In the current cycle of time, which began with Zoroaster 10,000 years ago, (Lord Meher, vol. 3, p. 944)..." Here is a link to that page: http://www.lordmeher.org/index.jsp?pageBase=page.jsp&nextPage=944 Please explain. Chris 02:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is in the wrong place, thats the reference fo 700 to 1400 years, well done. I put this hear to get the ball rolling on poor references. Read above my notes on poor referencing. Im glad you picked this up.Someone is alert. Now, most of the references are incorrect i.e. titles do not appear in text etc . Is a vote required on whats correct referencing? --203.26.122.12 09:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To clear up any confusion I wrote this on Imogens computer after we discussed some of the issues in her office. I will try to post new stuff from my computer from now on --Liam7 10:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Straw Vote

I am starting a new straw poll. If this new vote wins then it superceeds the above vote, but only in solutions not the spirit. That is if the above poll votes for a sub page for TS then the voters are essentially saying they want TS out of the main article. This new poll is about what is the best way to get TS out, once it is decided to remove this large content that TS has. If the above poll votes TS out on a sub page, this new vote is a choice between a subpage and just having a standard link in the Baba article to the Townsend page already on Wikipedia. Rationale? Read on. (forgot to sign this earlier) --Liam7 10:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC) P.s Not only did I forget to sign on earlier (fixed now) but the time limit for the new vote wasnt posted. Its three days from the end of the above vote. --Liam7 10:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Subpages were used on Wikipedia during most of 2001. A long debate then took place over whether they should or should not continue to be used. Larry Sanger, then editor of Wikipedia, took the position that they should be removed entirely. He wrote: "I think we've discussed subpages quite a bit--certainly enough to air the issues and give people a chance to state their views and change their minds--and in view of this, I've decided to get rid of them. (...) Finally, and probably as importantly as anything else, my well considered opinion is that the arguments in favor of getting rid of them are much, much stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping them. I predict yer gonna thank me in a year. (Maybe not all of you. :-) ).His prediction turned out to be true, as subpages were then increasingly weeded out and replaced with redirects to standard article titles or deleted entirely. Many Wikipedians now have a strong aversion against subpages, so please do not be surprised if you see comments like "AAAHHHHHH SUBPAGE!!!! KILL KILL KILL" in the recent changes comments. However, due to inertia, some subpages still linger on Wikipedia, and new ones are occasionally created".

Ok lets vote.

After the allocated time of three days for the above poll on TS and a sub page is over, if the poll, as looks likely, votes for a sub page I do want the subpage to be replaced by a standard link to Pete Townsends Wikipedia page.

--Waylander.one 22:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC). Yes I support having a standard link in the Baba article to Townsends own site in Wikipedia. I do not want a sub page as the arguments for getting rid of them are very strong.
--Imogen4 23:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC). yes I agree. just a standard link to own TS page, no sub page.
--HectorTroy 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Yes I vote for this.
Yes I support just a standard link to the Townsend site to be placed in the Baba article NOT for a subpage to be used. They are redundant. --Liam7 10:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or, After the allocated time of three days for the above poll on TS and a sub page is over if the above poll, as looks likely, votes for a sub page I do not want the subpage to be replaced by a standard link to Pete Townsends Wkipedia page. I want a sub page.

Please note: There is currently an ongoing administrator investigation for Liam7, Imogen4, Waylander.one, and HectorTroy under Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. This vote should not be tallied until after this investigation is complete. Chris 16:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote: No subpage (and no section either): Can't believe this requires a vote. The following lines will suffice:

Meher Baba achieved additional fame in the West through the work of Pete Townshend of The Who. Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Meher Baba, to whom the album was dedicated.

The other information properly belongs on the Townshend page, not a Meher Baba subpage.

I personally think a section "Baba in the 60s" would be helpful: the explosion of Meher Baba followers during the 1966-1969 time period. Tommy and Townshend would be highly relevant in that regard; also the numerous publications, meetings, communes, etc., and the last darshan. IMO. --Nemonoman 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should include in this section "God in a pill" ? Hoverfish 20:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also one argument for getting rid of all the research/pov is that in the article Tommy, no such analysis exists, not the slightest mention of Baba, so here it is completely out of place. Hoverfish 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I like both suggestions, the one by Nemonoman and the one by Hoverfish. The Townshend section reduced to: Meher Baba achieved additional fame in the West through the work of Pete Townshend of The Who. Parts of the rock-opera Tommy were inspired by Townshend's study of Meher Baba, to whom the album was dedicated. Then moving any other information to God in a pill?. I also like Nemonoman's suggestion of creating a Baba in the 60's section. It seems worthy of mention due to his close associations with Timothy Leary, Baba Ramdas, and Pete Townshend, all of whom have Wikipedia articles so are considered noteworthy. "God in a pill?" was historically very relevant, as it was mentioned in Rolling Stone in 1970. There ought to be an article on Meher Baba's extremely unique reaction to the 60's counterculture movement. Chris 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

--Liam7 01:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) The first straw vote was over on the 4 Dec at about 1800 hrs. It was decisive. What people are saying now in the discussion above validates the need for the second vote. That is a sub page is unpopular and was not a good choice. People want the TS issue sorted, but a subpage is dumb. I like the single line written above and reproduced here.

If the second vote wins I support this as the solution. --Liam7 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This is for the paronoid Chris. look Chris at the end when I sign off. its me Liam and my user number is not the one you say it is in the stupid argument you have re sockpuppetry. Its not 203.26.122.12 with its history of vandalism its 203.221.55.142 02:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Liam7 01:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)As per protocol I am discussing this here before editing takes place. The first vote is clearly won, despite the apparent sour grapes of Chris who propsed it and lost. This Chris is not it appears even a Baba follower. What is it about Wikipedia that people get so a--- retentive? So a sub page is agreed initially. That means the TS content in the article can be removed. Chris is trying to delay the result with a sockpuppetry delay tactic. No go, the backlog is months long. He knows this. The next vote is even more decisive. If you people out there do not respond to this discusion, thats your loss. The other vote ends tomorrow at about 1800. After that I will be waiting for agreement on the above proposal, that is insert the single line above. Jai Baba!

Hi all, lets cool this down. I am Hector.Troy and I have an extensive history. I will sign off using the IP number that I have always used. Liam dosnt know me. I decided to log on an account to Vote as I am a Baba Follower. Sorry for not explaining this. I do know Imogen. She works in this complex. Lets sort this out with manners. 203.26.122.12 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please remember to be courteous

While editing, please remember: 
*No personal attacks: be upset with the contributions, not the contributor

Certainly we can discuss our different opinions and concerns with respect. --Nemonoman 01:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, please notice that Cott12 (Chris) himself took the Townsend section away and replaced it with Nemonoman's suggested line on the 4th of December and all the lattest comments were completely unnecessary. Hoverfish 06:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this action of Chris's surprises me a little. Liam has been berated for making changes, quite correctly, without discussion. Liam now discusses any edits here. Now Chris, an experienced Wikipedian, does a major edit before the second straw vote is in. This second straw vote has not been declared null and void. Now since I voted in it I would like to see it finished, tomorrow time is up I believe. Chris previously had some high ground in my opinion but he has blown it. Im a little saddened by his undisscussed action. Courteous behaviour extends to deeds as well. Thoughts Words and Actions. Baba spoke about this. Baba also spoke about the nature of the ego, how it goes from one position to another, striving to gain ascendancy. Chris may be caught in such a battle. Wasnt it him who voted to keep the Pete Townsend sectionas is? Now he doing the editing to remove it without approval from a vote. Hector. 203.26.122.12 08:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I am reverting the changes till the second vote is finished. This is fair. Cott12 has committed vandalism by preempting a vote he voted against. 203.26.122.12 08:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes this is indeed fair. By the way Im from Scotland, and my slang is celtic laddie. Waylander.one 10:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes what is wrong with no vote. Has someone got ice in a private place Imogen4 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Votes are not required for editing. I agree that it would have been good form to wait for the outcome of the vote once it was initiated. But it is up to individual editors to edit, and not subject to majority rule or even consensus. (The controversy over this vote should explain why so few edits are made through votes.)--Nemonoman 15:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this is better. But there is a smell of hypocrisy re reverting edits and calls of vandalism. Some want votes others want edits with discussion. Well we have both now so TS is to be edited. Liam7 07:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Vandalism by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?)

The blanket changes made by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?) are basically vandalism. The "Hector" changes remove many individual edits entered over time. Each of these edits was documented, and most were based on the Peer Review the article recently underwent.

I don't particularly like or endorse these edits, but the fact is that they were made by a thoughtful editor in plain view with clear reasoning. A blanket reversion by 203.26.122.12 (User "Hector"?), calling these changes 'vandalism' and threatening 'measures against' the editor -- this is the opposite of thoughtful editing.

Please Assume good faith.

If you feel that my RVV is wrong, then follow good Wiki manners. Revert changes one by one if you feel the need. Explain your edits. Get a username. Use the discussion page to discuss your edits. --Nemonoman 15:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Vandalism by Cott12

Look I dont know Hector, he has a user name, but I read where people said he had no wikipedia history, was a sockpuppet and that it seems is why he didnt log on. But he made this clear. I have a query. How can the undiscussed edits made by Cott12 before the vote was finished have been changed without affecting all the othet edits he made AFTER the edit to Townsend.? Cott12 should have left this undisscussed edit to Ts last or not done it at all. That is the problem. Cott12 knew that his edit was wrong and tried to make it unchangable by putting a lot of legitamte edits after it. Very low behaviour. Hector acted in a straight forward way. Its Cott12's fault Liam7 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Liam's Revert

Let's not get into an edit war. Please. If you have problems with individual edits by Cott12, please edit them individually, and provide some explanation, if not justification, for your reverts. If you don't like the Townshend edits, it's easy enough to change that without affecting the rest of the article. --Nemonoman 04:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting Nemonoman Revert

Good point. But lets wait till three days afetr the first vote ends 18:01, 1 December 2006 which is the start of the second vote. This is up at 1801 hrs today. Fisrt one on after this gets to cull TS. Not before. Liam7 05:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you have a hair up your ass about the Pete Townshend section. I have retained your prefered verion of that section, and returned the rest of the article to the improved version based on the Peer Review. If you have problems with an individual section, I suggest you edit the section individually. I am not very pleased by your attitude, and ask you kindly to please act in cooperation and good faith with your editing colleagues. The changes to this article are viewed by many individuals. --Nemonoman 05:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: There is NO provision for a waiting period based on a vote or any other deadline, absent the intervention of a moderator. I am trying to accomodate you, since you are acting in a childish and malicious fashion. I will not respect any additional arbitrary rules you decide to establish. This is not YOUR article, nor YOUR wikipedia.

--Nemonoman 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You are being a hypocrite re malious behaviour. See the policy on a vote when required. The vote is over now and the decision by those who voted is no subpage but a standard link to TS own page as suggested by the above discussion. I assure you I do not have a sinus. I care not a jot what you think of my attitude. Now as agrred by the vote TS will be replaced with a standard link. Fell free to teak this. Did you notice you have -- before your name? Watch out Hooverfish knows this means you are a sockpuppet Liam7 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your previous edits. The Ts section is now replaced by a single line, as discussed above. I believe you even had input neoman, well done. Never ever accomadate someone who is being childish, its a failed policy that ends in tears. You are in truth being a passive aggressive as evidenced by your PS which is not accommadating. Hmmmm I suggest you rethink your position so its no flip flop. You may find a strong stance as I am taking is a good idea. Its assertive, but gets interpreted as aggressive by those who are uncertain what they need or want. Liam7 08:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs a Full Rework

I have a confession. Today I read the first half of the article for the first time. Oh Boy. Its a long way from being good. There is hope. I put in where citations are needed. The worst paragrapgh from the top is Automobile accident in India. Needs a grammar and syntax workup. Below average, its a fail. No referencing at all. People are not born with knowledge. We aquire it, and if writing it we need to say where we aquired it, so others can check the source. To do othrewise, well who says its not made up. One needs to prove it isnt. Thats the writers responsibility. Liam7 00:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Rather than cramming this article with doubtful ^{[citation needed]} elements, I have placed and unreferenced template at the top of the article.

Every statement in the article does not require a specific footnote. I don't know where Liam got this idea. The idea is that a reasonable person readin the referenced books, articles, etc., should be able to validate the facts in the article. The Biography group that peer reviewed this article offers suggestions and good examples. See Linus Pauling, one of the articles that they recommend, for an indication of how and when to use footnotes and references.

In fact, I sincerely hope that Liam7 will review the prefered style for these sorts of articles, and of his own will remove the unreferenced template. As is the article is in reasonable shape for a b-class article. If Liam7 would actually improve the content, instead of just noting how bad everyone's work sucks, I'm sure I would be joined by others in applauding the change.--Nemonoman 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Good CallWaylander.one 03:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Liam is correct and your Pauling article has citations in text as he used them, and also there is many more references in best places in text in Pauling article. More than in Baba article. Liam is talking about a good University standard, not USA college standard which is lower. I have seen someone else put shit load of citation neede on Liam work. Nemonman you have a hair up your arse re Liam. Imogen4 07:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant good call Liam. Its not enough to say 'I have placed and unreferenced template at the top of the article'. The intext citation needed is specific and points to te fix required. Its accurate. This article is ONLY a B grade. Its one up from the start. Do you know why Nemonoman? In part its tied down in mediocrity and subjectivity. Your taking it personally man. Detach oneself. Its a piece of work that is in need of an upgrade. When? When people get time, but lets call a spade a spade. Waylander.one 09:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I certainly hope that I can learn from my betters. I certainly look forward to seeing how really good editors like Liam, Imogen, and Waylander will improve this article. The first step, apparently, is to insult those who have gone before personally, and to grouse about their work, and to invite them to butt out! Good going, guys! Mission Accomplished. You're doing a helluva job! --Nemonoman 14:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm all eyes too, by the way. Hoverfish 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For answers to your post to me re -- see the evidence used to try to nail me as a sockpuppet. Speak to Hoverfish.

For other uses of 'citation needed' see what someone did to my edits. Speak to Hoverfish.

On where I learnt to use citations. Well in your note to me on my page, you didnt reference where you got your views on citations. I can tell you this now. University standards if applied to the Baba article would get it evaluated at the top level. Thats the Gold standard. Thats where I learnt mine. As for if its me who will fix it? Cant say, there are certainly more people out there than those involved in this discussion. Some may have more time than others. I be watching to Hooverfish Liam7 01:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nemonoman when are you quitting for a rest like you said on your messages?. Are you masochist, and do you like a thrashing? Mmmmm. I have a good whip.--Imogen4 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice new opening

Good intro and summary by Abronkeeler--Nemonoman 02:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nemonoman have you been to India, specifically Baba' place? Im serious here. Where are you editing this article from? If you were in the Baba community you would know that Baba and Baba followers NEVER EVER have or do refer to Meher Baba as a Guru. Its an old word sure, its not the RIGHT word. It ghas connotations that Meher Baba was particular to avoid. Gurus can and often are manipulators of matter (what the West calls miracles) i.e. walk on water, create stuff. Rubbish. Miracles are worth NOTHING AT ALL spiritually. Oh some Gurus were very spiritual, in the old days. So your first line misses the point completely about Baba. I think this is where Wikipedia falls down. People get a hair up their arse about stuff and they dont know they know very little about it. Then take offence when it is pointed out by someone who does know. --Liam7 03:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Nemonoman, the introduction that Abronkeeler added, was an introduction me and Cott12 had been working on in my Sandbox since 22:35, 3 December 2006 (check edit history). The reason we didn't proceed in editing, was because we were waiting for some civil cooperational atmosphere here, so we could first presnt it to the rest of you and if we got an OK, then make the edit. Normally Abronkeeler should have discussed this with me, or at the very least, mentioned something in the edit summary, to avoid copyright breach. But in this case I (and hopefully Cott12 too) don't give a damn about breaches, so long as the article keeps developing in the lines of the peer review. Anyway, thanks Abronkeeler for being bold enough to do this change here, and please, do leave a line in user talk pages if you intend to do such moves in the future. Hoverfish 06:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As for "Spiritual Master" instead of "guru", I'm all for it, except I don't know how many people who are not familiar with such matters can take "Spiritual Master" as a clear definition of something. So, although I prefer it so, let's see where and how we can define this term for them. We shouldn't forget that this article addersses any reader and not only ones familiar with such terms. Cott12 and I have been working on Perfect Master (Meher Baba), to provide a wiki-link/reference for its first mention, as per peer review. Should maybe something similar be done here? Hoverfish 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Gurus who were, as Liam7 informs us, "very spiritual, in the old days" are the very ones that MB was refering to in this passage, as presented by Bhau:

Merwan would later repeat this couplet from the Hindu Sadguru and poet Kabir, that Upasni :Maharaj had inspired:

"Both Guru and Govind stand before you;to whom should you bow?

Bow to the Guru's grace which has shown you Govind!"

Govind is God thye Absolute – Impersonal God. The Guru is God in human form– Personal God.

--Lord Meher v1 page 223

Hmmmm...God in human form -- doesn't that sound familiar??

Anyway, that was then. This is now. Thankfully for all of us Liam has set things right.

PS I think the best part about this discussion (apart from the wonderful grammar) is how so much editing is being attributed to me that has actually been done by others. "Do everything while doing nothing." Who said that?? Anyway, I'm apparently well on the way. --Nemonoman 07:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lao Tsu maybe, or the Dalai Lama? Wish I was good in it too... Hoverfish 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I love it. Nice work all. Chris 15:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One detail, Nemonoman, I realize I had squeezed paragraphs. The reason was this: Wikipedia:Lead section#Length. Also the review sais to avoid small paragraphs. It surely reads good now. Hoverfish 16:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) - Yes, the rearrangement is excellent. Hoverfish 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo... Kabir was a long long time back. and Bhau is not Baba. Bhau's word is not some latter day Gospel. He's fallible too. He writes in a subjective narration. I know him. Guru is also associated with Yogis. Upasni WAS King of the Yogis. (most Yogis are just nowhere on the spiritual path-Baba ...go source it yourself). Have you read Donkins clasic piece, Wayfarers? There is a plethora of God in human form souls, some are in a spiritual heirachy. Have your little snigger re Hmmmm...God in human form -- doesn't that sound familiar??

I'll be frank with you here...dont muck around with Baba. He hated hypocrisy above all else. So when people just dive in and edit without discussion, did they 1/ rebuke those who rebuked me for doing that earlier before I knew protocol? 2/ are they indeed the same poeple who did the rebuking? 3/ are they editing in the spirit of geting the best article here on wiki? or 4/ are there EGO's getting a good airing instead. Hmmmm --Liam7 04:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/h/Talk%7EMeher_Baba_c6ae.html"

Categories: Requests for Biography peer review | B-Class biography articles