Talk:Meher Baba/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Meher Baba @youTube

• [1]

Can this message be added here?

Austerlitz -- 88.75.200.163 (talk) 16:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. But I like [this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNSJN_vOnQ] too. Maybe there could be both. LittleDoGooder (talk) 19:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, why not both [2].

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.53 (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

oh no, none of them, because of that: [3]

Austerlitz -- 88.75.223.53 (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

The Youtube addition was a botted, but I have reverted and will see if there isn't some way to calm the little bot down. --nemonoman (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you Nemonoman. LittleDoGooder (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Automobile Collisions?

I think the headings Automobile collision in the U.S.A. and Automobile collision in India seem odd. It seems they should be called by their ordinary term - "accident." The word "collision" instead of "accident" seems to be intended to imply that Baba knows all and thus there are no accidents in his life - a little like using the term "dropped his body" rather than "died" to alert the reader to the fact that Meher Baba never dies. But this is an encyclopedia and I think it ought to change to the common term. Also the term collision is just a little confusing. I didn't want to change it myself, until I gave at least a little time in case there are any strong objections. Also, his biography Lord Meher uses the term "accident" on the pages cited within the article. "The ambulance brought the victims of the accident into the hospital at about 11 A.M." (LM 3840) Meher Baba himself referred to his "automobile accident." (LM 3971) AguireTS (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer NOT to ladle metaphysical speculation into topic headings. Accident it is.--nemonoman (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is of a fawning, reverent tone. It is difficult to discern any factual content amidst the creedophilic devotion ladled on here by the followers of this mystic. I wouldn't deign to enter into the edit war but wish y'all would stick to the facts. Grunionspawn (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you don't feel up to editing, please suggest some facts which need to be included -- ideally with sources -- and I will personally do my best to include them. --nemonoman (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture move

Not that it's a big deal but I'm really not clear why the don't worry be happy picture was moved up. It now sandwiches text between two images and no longer is near where it is mentioned in the text. Also, not clear what the other change did - changing the reference template. Looks the same to me. Can the editor explain? AguireTS (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you. Picture move created cramped layout. Narrow column ref section made footnotes harder to read. I have reverted these format changes and invited Jayen to discuss. Jayen seems a very capable editor, and maybe we'll learn something. --nemonoman (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I am looking at the page at 1600x1200, and the "Don't worry be happy" picture protrudes into the Notes section, reducing the width available for the two columns all the way down to the bottom of the section, so there is a large area of white space to the right with nothing in it. That's why I moved it up a little, so it would end before the Notes section begins and allow the Notes section to use the entire width of the screen.

The colwidth parameter I inserted creates a display that adjusts the number of columns to the browser window and font size. So if you have a small window and/or large screen font, it will show only one column, but if you have a large window/small font size, it shows as many columns of the specified width (measured in Em) as will fit. (In my case, that was 5 columns, and I could see all the refs at one glance; they took up just half my window. As it is now, the refs run to more than one window.)

The number after colwidth= specifies the minimum column width in "Em" units (equivalent to the width of a small letter "m" in the current display font, so "colwidth=50em" means "minimum column width should be 50 times the width of an "m"). Quite a lot of the refs on this page are very short (e.g. "Kalchuri (1986) p. 5450"), so they don't really need half the screen width. But it's a matter of personal preference. Best, Jayen466 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of an article where the system works well: Millennium_'73#Notes. The editors there Harvardised all the notes; when you click on them, they jump to and highlight the relevant work in the References section. As a result, all the notes are very short, and it's possible to specify a small column width so they don't take up that much space. It's quite neat. But it's up to you guys how you want to do it here. Cheers, Jayen466 15:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't have the problem on my screen with the don't worry picture, one solution I can think of besides moving it up, would be to move it up to the top of the Legacy section, on the left, and remove the Lyn Ott painting. I think the card by itself would manage to convey a legacy immediately after his passing away. I'll make the change so it can be seen. If anyone doesn't like it, change it back. As for the footnote issue, it's over my head. Whatever Nemonoman and Jayen466 decide. AguireTS (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

::I get what you did to the notes, Jayen, but to me the short note problem < the LONG note problem, particularly notes 15, 16 and 64. As to the Lyn Ott painting, Aquire, I've always had mixed feelings about its placement and (large) size. Let's leave it out for a while and see if anyone puts it back in. More relevant maybe to Lyn Ott than to MB??--nemonoman (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have had argument with myself and lost. I'm rv'ing my rv of the notes width. --nemonoman (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I now see how the new refs look and it looks good. Depending on how far I stretch my browser window it appears as either two or three columns. It looks nice. I didn't get it before. AguireTS (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Indian Zoroastrians

Just noticed this category. Would this be a helpful addition or redundant or wrong? AguireTS (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no right answer to this question. --nemonoman (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I was afraid you might say that. I am going to put it in. Anyone who objects can remove it - but please explain to the rest of us. My thinking is that someone might want to know some prominent Zoroastrians - and at least culturally Meher Baba was a Zoroastrian. AguireTS (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone asks, I'm comfortable. --nemonoman (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking Place Names

I'm not clear why the new user 216.254.156.247 removed links to England, New York, Europe, and United States. Does the user know of a Wikipedia rule that they are citing? The other changes look good. AguireTS (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

For now I'm going to reconnect those words. If the editor wants to explain my error please do and revert. AguireTS (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

[sic]

My apologies. I hadn't noticed the "a" in sadgaru.Redletternight (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

?? An apology?? scarcely needed. --nemonoman (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

This section has some problems. The first is this. 'Although Meher Baba had initially begun gaining popular notoriety...'

This is poor use of English. The last two words create an oxymoron.

Notoriety is commonly used in an unfavorable sense in this language and it thus clashes with popular.

As it stands its a type of writing that is common in cheaper magazines or newspapers. It is not good English. It is common English.

A simple solution is using one word only 'popularity'. There are other solutions. Suggest some.

If any one wants this to stay the same please explain why, with justification using educated arguments that the current words are the best choice.

--Jones.liam (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You mean our arguments have to get an education? You left out the apostrophe in "its". Redletternight (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no oxymoron: Popular == related to people. Notoriety == lots of notice. Maybe you speak a different brand of English.

Popularity would not mean the same thing. That word suggests general familiarity and approval, which the current wording doesn't suggest. But perhaps you would prefer a different thought and different meaning? Like the WP says: Be bold.

By the way, I'm not that aware the type of writing found in more expensive magazines and newspapers is remarkably better than their poorer relations.

Common English, eh? Perhaps you'll grace us with some Uncommon English sometime. For example, I have never heard that notoriety is a meant as pejorative. Can you suggest a reference that reflects this: some dictionary or other of Uncommon English?

Thanks for stooping to our simple, common level with your comments above. Its grate!--nemonoman (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Notoriety

Concise English dictionary definition. Notorious means being famous for some bad quality or deed. Derivatives, notoriety.

In this sense considering who Baba says he is its 'Case closed'.

Examples of who was notorious, Ned Kelly, Hitler, Stalin.

Neonoman, Its not about you. Im sure you have put a lot into this site, but its about Baba. No one knows everything....except him...but for us mortals the Concise English Dictionary IS a very good standard. Wikipedia relies on certain standards. This issue is about getting this site accurate and up to a good quality using standards like this. Grammar aND punctuAtion" in the "dISScussioN"" isnt a high priority and you seem insecure and combative and like to get personal. Need to get out more? Your level? What are you going on about. Do you feel inferior? Are you too emotionally involved? Thats a bit sad. I dont know, cant know, dont want to know and frankly DGAS. Just stick to facts and dont play the player, play the ball. I repeat. Concise English dictionary definition. Notorious means being famous for some bad quality or deed. Derivatives, notoriety. Case Closed.--Jones.liam (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

--Jones.liam (talk) 08:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I was wrong and you are right about notoriety. Thank you for helping me. I will edit. I really don't need a wheel-chair general analyzing my combativeness however. You might have made a simple change yourself without a 20 line scolding. And if you plan on spanking an editor for use of English, you might reasonably expect to be held to a similar standard. --nemonoman (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. I tried that approach once and people jumped up and down and undid the edit saying one needs to discuss first. Im pretty sure you were one of them. sure im ok you do the edit.--122.111.224.95 (talk) 04:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing. While you could work on being a little less insulting and resentful in tone, you still handled yourself well. I appreciate the effort to work with other editors. Redletternight (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I accept your thankyou. thankyou. I give back the Criticism part to you. I reject that gift thankyou. You may want to carefully re read how this started in the legacy bit above, and who threw the first stuff that was outside the difference in style, how one chooses to communicate. My style was a bit formal, sure, for good reason. I have seen in the past how people pounce on ambiguity. Formality can nullify any such ambiguity. However it can rub some people the wrong way and n's response is such an example. One of my lifes tenets taken from Baba is 'always resist aggression'. You dont have to bite, but barking is OK. Thats why I then did not tolerate his sarcasm. Goodbye for now. --Jones.liam (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

One Wild Paragraph

I've pulled this paragraph by Randomnahua which is full of interest, but needs some work:

During the '30s and '40s, Meher Baba visited literally thousands of masts throughout the subcontinent. He also set up several ashrams where they and ordinary mentally afflicted persons could be cared for. This concept was considered innovative for India of that time, as was the 'hands on' approach Meher undertook with lepers especially in this decade, and the manuscript he compiled through his British physician Dr William Donkin. The latter - The Wayfarers (1949)- detailed the mast phenomenon, listing many of the contacts referred to above. Despite masts being described in several medieval Sufi texts, categorization and analysis has been limited before this volume was written. The Shambhala Guide to Sufism (1997) consequently rated The Wayfarers as “unparalleled in the history of religion”

Taking it in steps:

During the '30s and '40s, Meher Baba visited literally thousands of masts throughout the subcontinent. << This is sort of stated in the opening of the Masts section.

He also set up several ashrams where they and ordinary mentally afflicted persons could be cared for.<<This could use a citation. Also we can probably find better word than "ordinary mentally afflicted persons"

Here comes one of the wildest sentences I've seen in this article EVER. Go Randomnahua! (this said with affection).

This concept was considered innovative for India of that time...<<Citation?

...as was the 'hands on' approach Meher undertook with lepers..<<Citation? Also where did Lepers come from in this paragraph??

...especially in this decade,...<<Again, citation please?

... and the manuscript he compiled through his British physician Dr William Donkin. <<This reference has come out of thin air: Are you saying here that not only were these treatements innovative but the Manuscript was innovative? Is this a paragraph about innovation or about Masts?

The latter - The Wayfarers (1949)- detailed the mast phenomenon, listing many of the contacts referred to above. <<Now we've changed the subject from Masts to the Wayfarers.

Despite masts being described in several medieval Sufi texts... <<this could use a citation or 2

...categorization and analysis has been limited before this volume was written. <<this definitely needs a citation (and also a little editing for verb tense.

The Shambhala Guide to Sufism (1997) consequently rated The Wayfarers as “unparalleled in the history of religion” <<An nice, cited factoid - -but is this section about Musts or about the Wayfarers?

I do have citations for all this including the Sufi Mast stuff - will send later (I did my doctoral thesis on Meher Baba in 2002)- Randomnahua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.151.120 (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Another paragraph that had problems

I removed the following paragraph, and put the section back as it was before, with one exception of the cited "enthusiasms" line.

In the West, Meher Baba met with interested individuals, including some celebrities such as Charles Purdom, Norina Matchabelli, Nadine Tolstoy, Helen Dahm, Thomas A. Watson, and Mercedes de Acosta. Other Hollywood notables who met Meher Baba included Gary Cooper, Charles Laughton...

Here's why:

1. I don't think most of the first were in fact celebrities. Thomas Watson certainly was not, nor was Charles Purdom. He was an economist. Nadine Tolstoy was a distant relative of a celebrity. Also that his meeting with these people increased his notoriety I don't think is right. These were not meetings with famous people, with the possible exception of Norina Matchabelli and possibly (but it's pushing it) Mercedes de Acosta.

2. The lead to the next part of the paragraph begins: "Other Hollywood notables..." This implies that Thomas Watson and Charles Purdom were Hollywood notables.

3. The paragraph seems to lengthen an already somewhat exploitative paragraph, trying to increase Baba's notability for knowing people like Helen Dahm (who became famous after meeting Meher Baba). In some cases I believe it was the other way around. The movie personalities that follow are at least interesting to readers, thus notable in themselves. Redletternight (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. I've also removed this phrase: interested individuals who had heard of his spiritual status and his work in India. First obviously they're interested or they would not be there. Second, what they had heard of MB is not verified or verifiable, I guess. Next the "Spiritual Status" line just drips with POV. So I killed it. So sue me.--nemonoman (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually you bring up a good point. For all anyone knows, most of the Hollywood celebrities likely came to Pickfair that day for the drinks, and were surprised to find it a reception for Meher Baba. My understanding is that Pickfair was a major party spot. I read that Douglas Fairbanks use to enter parties swinging on a rope, literally.Redletternight (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redletternight. I know the Maharastran Bhakti (= Datta lineage) reference is unfamiliar, but it is actually a term used by about a dozen Indian scholars to describe figures Meher Baba alluded having a connection to, including his own Hindu Masters. My Doctorate was about placing Meher Baba into an objective historic contect, such as I thought Wikapedia would appreciate. I could send you a series of quotes wherein Meher Baba himself identified with this particular mode of Hinduism, and explains the connections (particularly with regards to his activities at Pandhaphur...) I know Meher Baba's background included other creeds (indeed, one of my finds was the length and authenticity of Meher's Chistiyyah Sufi and Qalandari Sufi lineages). In over a decade of intense research in India and the West, I looked into a lot of sources not familiar to your readers, being fairly obscure, archived or unpublished, or from non-Baba lover scholarship, so I guess unless I sent you the all citated material - which runs into many chapters - a lot of what I was attempting to write into this Wikapedia article (e.g. on masts) is going to sound "wild." Rather than getting bogged down in arguments at every point, or having to defend what I write so frequently, or explain every comment (most comments I made concentrate a whole lot of data which is why they aren't referenced), I think it best you just delete all I've added, as you have been. The Doctorate sourced several hundred books, articles, audio-visual material, etc. and was read and approved by Baba's Mandali, and also reviewed and very favourably received internationally by world experts on New Religious Movements (Professor Robert Ellwood was one reviewer, who kept urging me to publish...).. but I realise now a lot of what I found simply requires too much explanation. Thanks, though, for the comments. - Randomnahua —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.13.246 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the drug culture

I have a problem with the term "Maharastran bhakti", used twice in the Drug Culture section along with the term "Maharastran figures" in the same section. This seems to me to be merely a divisive distinction, for which I can't see the benefit to the article. Also, I've never heard this term. Check here how many times "Maharastran bhakti" (click and scroll down to see) appears in Wikipedia. And even more interestingly how many times it appears in Google. Exactly once in each case, and that being on this article as of yesterday. Here are my problems with it: Bhakti is not unique to Maharastra, nor have I ever heard that there are various types of bhakti (which means devotion I understand) across the states of India. Second, In his Discourses Meher Baba described several margas (paths) in the chapter, "The Deeper Aspects of Sadhana" (Vol II, 1967). Perhaps he, like all gurus that come to mind, emphasized bhakti for most people, but I can't see how this is notable since it is nearly universal to India, and applies just as well to Krishna, Jesus, Ramakrishna, etc. Next, Baba does not seem to be teaching a local Indian brand of any portion of his teachings; he seems instead to nearly always start whole cloth with his own explanation. If he quotes anyone to backup his claims it is generally Sufi Persian poets such as Hafiz and Rumi (See God Speaks). I can hardly think of where he quotes Hindu scriptures, much less the "Maharastran" version. Finally, I am not clear what all this is doing in the section about Meher Baba Addressing the Drug Culture. Even if corrected, it belongs under Legacy. Redletternight (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redletternight - I realise I answered your query in the wrong section, and also - in haste- haven't put a lot of what I wrote in the most appropriate spot, but here's just a paste from my thesis(unfortunately the footnotes don't show - and each page was profusely referenced from innumerable sources - I can do this but it would take ages... is there a way of sending you a download or pdf? ) to illustrate re/ your contention about "Maharastran Bhakti" - and I could do the same re/ a whole lot of other stuff you deleted, but I really can't see why I should - it would take so long to explain each and every point you disagree with/ deleted. As a "by the way", Baba quoted Maharastran (Hindu) figures a great deal - esp. their bhajans, but we in the West tend to be more familiar with his Sufi connections. I could also go on about the specific Sufism and for that matter Zoroastrianism that Meher Baba referred to/ preferred to align himself with, but that's another huge volume of pages..

II. Maharashtran Datta (Hindu Avataric) Lineage through Sai, Upasni and Narayan

a. Hindu Traits and Maharashtran Datta Bhakti

Given the in-depth analysis we have just completed of Meher Baba’s Muslim Sufi connections, it might seem a contradiction to additionally place the Silent Master’s lineage within Hinduism. However, we have seen that such multi-faith designations are not unusual for India.

Meher Baba was in some ways quite Hindu. He carefully observed certain Hindu holy days, visited Hindu shrines, discoursed and wrote on Hindu metaphysics, and arranged for marriages to be conducted “strictly according to Hindu rites.” He was also lauded very much in the manner of a Hindu Guru.

Presumably for such reasons, Marc Galanter describes the Meher Baba movement as “based on Hindu concepts.” Robert McDermott classified it as jnana-bhakti, akin to Sri Aurobindo, Ramana Maharashi and Krishnamurti. Similarly, Purusottama Bilimoria and Gerald Larson place Meher Baba alongside Rajneesh, Anandamurti, Swami Muktananda and others as a "Neo-Hindu revisionist-internationalist" figure.

Hinduism is a vast phenomenon and to call anyone ‘Hindu’ does not mean much in itself unless a narrower definition can be added. Meher Baba claimed to have “a very close connection with Dnyaneshwar (= Jnanesvara, 12th century) and ...the Dnyaneshwari.” At the same time, he indicated that Swami Ramdas (16th century) was the ‘seed’ of his mandali (‘circle’ members or disciples):

“The seed of my present circle (of disciples) was laid nearly four hundred years ago at the time of Shivaji. Swami Ramdas, the Guru of Shivaji and one of the five Perfect Masters of the time, laid the seed of the new spiritual circle-to-be.”

The significance of these comments is clarified if we turn to the work of Dr. Tipnis, a leading scholar on religion in Maharastra (Meher Baba’s home state). Tipnis considers Deccan Hinduism a unique tradition: “Maharashtran bhakti.” This is what is known to other savants as the “poet-saints tradition” or “the religion of Maharashtra.” A major branch of this tradition is the Datta (Dattatreya) cult.

Tipnis considered the “religion of Maharastra” to be a type reconciliation between Advaitist monism and bhakti. He traces its origins to Jnanesvara in the 12th century and notes that it was mostly codified by Swami Ramdas in the 16th century - the same two figures to whichMeher Baba’s claims a ‘special link.’ In other words, Meher’s claim of a ‘special connection’ with Ramdas and Jnanesvara amounts to claiming to perpetuate the Maharashtran bhakti tradition.

Dr. Tipnis considered Upasni, Narayan, Sai Baba, Jnansevara, Swami Ramdas and Meher Baba as examples of Maharashtran bhakti. Dr. S. Mokashi-Punekar similarly argued that the latest batch of Datta Avatars included Meher Baba and his Hindu Masters. He views them as a new type of Datta ‘God-men,’ having highly eclectic followings.

This ‘religion of Maharastra’ (Maharastran bhakti) had a distinguished pedigree. Entire groups (often families) of famous 'poet saints' were associated with it. The likes of Dattatreya, Ekanath, Namdev, Cokhamela, Muktabai, Janabai, Nrsimha Saraswati, Bhanudas and Tukaram, have been placed within the Maharashtran bhakti tradition by savants as diverse as Krishnarao Gajendragadkar, Anne Felkhaus and Charlotte Vaudeville. Of particular relevance to us is the fact that ever since medieval times, Maharashtran bhakti ( especially through the Datta cult ) was a blend of Hinduism and Chisti/ Qadiri Sufism. Skyhawks’s researches (1992) established that various major early figures of Maharashtran bhakti (notably Eknath) themselves derived from Sufi Masters, indicating that the practice of drawing Masters from different faiths (as Meher Baba and some of his Masters did), was as ancient as Maharashtran bhakti itself.

Many distinctive practices, beliefs and cults set Maharashtran bhakti apart from other forms of Hinduism (see Appendix I). The devotional movement surrounding Meher Baba seems to betray elements of traditional Maharashtran bhakti. For instance, padukas (imprints or models of the Master’s or god’s feet) play a part in devotional practice, and Meher Baba centres carry a sense of kshetra (sacred) status. As in Maharashtran bhakti, abhangas, bhajans and other oral literature take the place of scriptures and there is a pronounced fusion of Advaitist monism and bhakti. Indeed, the central themes of Maharashtran bhakti which Professor Krishnarao Gajendragedkar identifies can all be found in Meher Baba’s teachings (compare Appendix I and Appendix II).

More telling than this is the fact that the works and lives of previous Maharashtran bhaktas are an important reference point within the Meher Baba movement. For example, at Ahmednagar in 1954, Meher Baba spoke to a crowd of 25,000 about Dnyaneshwar, Mahipat, Eknath and other figures. Similarly, Meher’s schools featured lessons on Tukaram, Dnyaneshwar and Ramdas and he encouraged Harijan children to sing bhajans to Pandarinath/ Pandurang (Vithoba of Pandhapur) and Dattatreya. Both Meher Baba and his disciples made pilgrimages to the tomb-shrines of these bhaktas, and Meher had a temple was built to Datta cult deities at Meherabad. Indeed, the Parsi guru taught local children devotional songs in honour of Vithoba - himself composing bhajans on the theme of Vithoba and the holy city of Pandharpur. One such was Bala Kare, which follows the style of Tukaram: “Lord Vitthal of Pandharpur is my Guru.. O lover of God, please utter only two sweet words, chant ‘Govinda, Gopala.’”

As for the spiritual status of this creed, it is best gauged by its ‘poet-saints.’ The fame and significance of figures such as Tukaram, Jnaneswara and Eknath within Hinduism hardly needs repeating. Most of these were considered God-realised. In fact, their personal cults and the cults of this tradition’s chief gods fused, particularly at Pandhapur. There the poet-saints’ tombs are temples. Significantly with regards to Meher Baba’s own Avataric claims, Maharashtran bhakti believed its poet-saints to be Avatars of gods Vithoba, Khandoba and most of all Datta (Dattatreya- the Hindu Trinity: Brahma, Visnu, Siva).

Meher Baba’s initial connection with Maharashtran bhakti seems to have begun at the age of seventeen (1911), when he attended kirtan programs of the renowned Maharashtran bhakti saint Gadge Maharaj - a figure who would later feature in authorising him (see Chapter Four). Otherwise, his association is traced through his Masters: Sai Baba of Shirdi, Upasni Maharaj and Narayan Maharaj. Each of these was considered a Dattaist within the Maharashtran tradition. Below we will examine the historicity and spiritual authority of these persons, and the authenticity of their connection with the Datta cult/ Maharashtran bhakti tradition.

b. Shirdi Sai Baba - a Datta Avatar?

We have already viewed Shridi Sai Baba as a Chisti Qutb. Sai is widely acknowledged as straddling both Islam and Hinduism. Rahela believes he continued the tradition of Nanak and Kabir in being simultaneously Hindu and Muslim. Such leanings were also not unusual for a Dattaist. At any rate, Sai was often called a Datta Avatar. Mani Sahukar notes that he actually said: “I am Dattatreya.”

Sai was probably born a Hindu. His Masters included the Hindu saint “Venkusa” (who both Osborne and Rigopolous identify as Gopal Rao Deshmukh, a figure who was known for his philanthropic work) and the famous Akkolkote Maharaj (d.1878) - an avadhuta Master similar to the 16th century Swami Ramdas. Akkolkote had his own shrine and following, and is, like Sai, widely revered as “Perfection Personified.”

There were many itinerant monks devoted to Datta living in Sai’s district in the late 19th century, so it may be presumed that he was influenced by these. A more direct connection to the Datta lineage came through one of Sai’s mentors, Akkolkote Maharaj. Hariprasad Shivprasad Joshi lists Akkolkote as a Dattaist saint, but even if Sai had no direct lineage through Akkolkote, Charles White has already shown that Sai Baba had doctrinal precedents and role models in Datta Sadgurus such as Gorakhnath and Dattatreya (the quasi-legendary, quasi-historical 12th century boy-saint of that name).

Dattatreya (the god) was the main Hindu deity Sai extolled. A temple featuring Dattatreya is a centrepoint of Shirdi to this day. As would be expected of an adherent of Maharasthran bhakti, Sai also had an affinity with the god Khandoba. For instance, when Sai was first publicly encountered, and first named ‘Sai’, his home base was a temple dedicated to this ‘robber god.’ It was here that he later sent Upasni Maharaj, and then Meher Baba.

Thus Shirdi Sai Baba can be considered a ‘genuine’ link between Meher Baba and the Datta tradition. As that link was through Sai’s disciple, Upasni Maharaj, we should next consider the authenticity of Upasni’s claims.

c. Upasni Maharaj (1870 - 1941) - a Datta Avatar ?

1. Upasni in Meher Baba’s Lineage

Aside from Hazrat Babajan, Meher Baba’s main Master was Upasni Maharaj (Figure 14). After initially staying with Upasni for three days in 1914, Meher Baba spent long periods of close contact with Upasni from 1914 to 1921. This culminated in a half-year stay (1921), after which the two made occasional contact for a year. Then, for two decades, they occasionally exchanged messages, until a final meeting shortly before Upasni’s demise. It seems that Meher Baba was one of Upasni’s earliest disciples. Meher claimed that Upasni made him “Know” who he was.

2. Historically Placing Upasni Maharaj

A definitive study of Upasni Maharaj does not as yet exist, despite the large quantity of source material on Upasni Maharaj published by the organisation that originated with him: Kanya Kumari Sthan of Sakuri. Kanya Kumari Sthan has issued English editions of Upasni’s multi-volume Discourses, a video about Sakuri (his centre) and various studies of Upasni’s life, his teachings, and Godavari Mata (who ran Sakuri until her demise last decade). These Kanya Kumari publications range over three decades. They include G. S. Khaparde’s Selections from Upasni Vaksudha (1936), S. Subbarao’s The Sage of Sakuri (1948) and The Secret of God-Realisation: Discourses by Shri Sadguru Upasni Baba Maharaj of Sakuri (1953), R. S. Junerker’s Eternal Flame (1964), Dr. S. N. Tipnis’ Contribution of Upasni Baba to Indian Culture (1966), and Mani Sahukar’s The Immortal Gurus of Kanya-Kumari Sthan (1968).

In the West, Marvin Henry Harper wrote on Upasni and a few other figures in his Gurus, Swamis and Avataras (1972). This was followed by Kevin Shepherd’s Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori (1985) and Eleanor Zelliot’s article ‘Four Radical Saints’ in Religion and Society in Maharastra (1987). For the following section, I will concentrate on combining the findings of all these writings with other lesser-known reminiscences and accounts, such as the oral recollections of Minoo Bharucha (a disciple of Upasni Maharaj).

From what we can piece together, Upasni Kasinath Govinda was an orthodox, well-educated Brahmin, the brother of a famed Sanskrit scholar (Balkrishna Sastri). Upasni himself was an Ayurvedic doctor of some repute - one-time editor of Bheshaja Ratanmala, a renowned medical journal. Since childhood, Upasni had been known for his disgust with life and for undertaking severe austerities. He nevertheless became a married householder, until breathing problems brought him into contact with Narayan Maharaj (see below) and Shirdi Sai Baba, which radically changed his life.

In term of placing within the Maharashtran Bhakti Datta cult, it would appear that Upasni Maharaj more closely fulfilled Dattaist ideals than the Master through which he inherited that lineage (Sai Baba). Upasni’s appearance and manner after his transformation from householder to Sai-disciple was that of a disreputable, naked and shaven-headed ascetic. These Datta renunciate (avadhoota) traits existed at least since the 15th century (compare Figure 14 with Figure 15 : Ramdas). In everything which characterised Upasni - his emphasis on vernacular teaching, his wit, his family deity (Khandoba), his desire to fortify varna (caste), darna (duty, the social order) and Vedic ritualism - he was a deeply conservative Dattaist. Moreover, he emphasised Datta in his discourses, and it is no accident that a major feature of Upasni’s Kanya Kumari Sthan at Sakori was a Dattatreya temple - just as at his Masters’ centres: Sakori and Kedgaon.

Upasni’s first Master was another Dattaist figure, Narayan Maharaj of Kedgaon- one of Meher Baba’s Masters. Upasni himself was worshipped as a Datta Avatar, and his status as a God-realised Master was first proclaimed by the Dattaist Master just named (Narayan Maharaj). The latter had garlanded him with a garland from his own neck and told him: “You have been thoroughly coloured inside and out. Now nothing remains.”

As Meher Baba’s Maharashtran Datta lineage derived chiefly from Shirdi Sai Baba through Upasni, we should consider here how these figures were connected. Upasni often declared that “part of the work left unfinished by Shri Sai Baba... had devolved upon him..” Even the writings of Shirdi Sai Baba followers attest that in 1910 Sai Baba told Upasni that he was going to be an Avadhuta, and that hundreds would rush to take his darshan. He also consoled him that:

“... I will personally conduct you to the Place... I myself will buy a ‘ticket’ for you. I will give you such a Pass that the Train you take will lead you to your Destination without any halt anywhere.”

According to accounts from both Shirdi (the Sai centre) and Sakori (the Upasni centre), Sai had Upasni confined to a small, bare Khandoba temple for four years to endure austerities and spiritual states under his guidance.

During that time, it seems that Upasni became instrumental in establishing Sai Baba’s cult. In 1911, he composed Shri Sainath Mahimna Stotra - which is now recited daily during arati at Sai’s shrine. A year later, Upasni had Sai Baba’s footprints (padukas) installed under a neem tree at Shirdi, and had a verse inscribed there: “I bow to Lord Sai Nath.”

Finally, on 18 July 1913, after numerous hardships and mystical experiences - so intense that they drove Upasni to wallow in dirt and excreta, to plough and mill alone for hours, to sleep oblivious to biting snakes and scorpions, and to generally reduce himself to skin and bone, Sai “declar(ed) him (Upasni) to be a guru worthy of worship.” He then sent a disciple to worship Upasni in the same fashion he was worshipped, and told others: “I have given him all I have. Whatever he may be, he is mine. There is no difference between us.”

There was initially limited acceptance of Upasni by Sai devotees. Although he headed the party which performed Sai’s remaining obsequies at the Ganges, it was seven years after Sai’s death before “the whole (Shirdi) village hailed him as the living prototype of Sai Baba” and took him to Sai’s Samadhi “amidst deafening shouts of joy.” That is, it was seven years before Upasni was received as Sadguru at Shirdi. Some of Sai’s followers remained opposed to him as late as his second visit in 1934. Today both Shirdi Sai Baba and Sattya Sai Baba followers without hesitation acknowledge that Upasni was groomed to succeed Sai’s seat. They regard him as Sai’s chief disciple.

3. Rating Upasni’s Authority

As will be shown in Chapter 4, no figure played such a major role in authorising Meher Baba’s Avatar-hood as Upasni Maharaj. It is therefore crucial that we determine the extent to which Upasni was acknowledged as a ‘Divine’ authority in India.

Compared to other Masters of Meher Baba, we are dealing with a quite controversial figure in the person of Upasni Maharaj. Mahatma Gandhi remarked after meeting him (in 1927) that “neither he (Upasni) nor his ways impressed me.” Maharaj had uncovered his genitals before the Indian leader and shouted at him: “You think you are Mahatma (‘great man’)?! What is that to me? Why have you come here?”

Those who personally knew Upasni, such as Minoo Bharucha, recall a naked, foul-mouthed giant of a man, prone to hurl sticks and stones at visitors. This hardly seemed the signs of a great spiritual authority. However, Maharaj’s gruff words and actions were alleged to work wonders on those he ‘attacked’ - saving them from all kinds of mishaps, improving their fortune, or veering them toward a higher life. His reputation for wisdom, insight, integrity and foreknowledge, and the many miracles which seemed to occur around him meant that even in his own lifetime, devotees of their own accord raised temples and ashrams to him as far afield as Surat, Hyderabad, Stana, Nagpur, Dharampur, and Vile Parle. In his own lifetime, Upasni hostels and Upasni groups arose in various towns and cities, performing festivities and puja in his honour. Sri Subbarao’s biography of Upasni alleges that in this manner, Maharaj effectively had “jurisdiction” from Bombay and Pune to Surat and Ahmedabad in the west, Sholapur and Hydrebad in the southeast, Nagpur and Kharagpur in the northeast, and Benares in the north.

Upasni’s followers came from all over India (see Figure 16). The site of Upasni’s rough hut is now the pivot of a vast religious centre: Sri Upasni Kanya Kumari Sthan, the heart of a powerful Indian movement devoted to Upasni.

The Sthan contains dozens of richly-decorated, well-kept buildings (see Figure 17), including shrines and temples to various Hindu deities, accommodation facilities, offices, a bookstore and large kitchens. Upasni’s Kanya (nuns’) order is likewise still expanding, and the Sthan issues a regular journal: Devotion. Buildings continue to be improved or added to the centre.

What is worth noting in terms of ‘egoless authority’ is that such widespread fame occurred despite Upasni’s best efforts to turn people against him. Upasni fled to Khargpur, in what Junnerker describes as a futile effort to lead an unnoticed life, for: “in spite of his garb and acts of a dirty lunatic, thousands of devotees worshipped him and a series of miracles happened there.”

After a year at Kharagpur, Upasni moved to the bare earth of the cremation grounds of an obscure village, Shirdi. There he abused and drove away those who sought his darshan. Even so, within a decade, a large centre and ashram developed around him.

Kings such as Maharaja Bahadur and Raja Narasing, businessmen, outcastes, famous holy men such as Chandu Baba and scholars poured in from all parts of India to see the naked ascetic, or sent their representatives and disciples. As a result of the flood of visitors, “the railway authorities found it essential... to mention this place (Sakori) even on their name boards at their nearest stations.”

The hot-tempered yogi even enjoyed the official sanction of the Hindu priesthood. In 1939, the Shankaracharya of Jyotirmath visited Upasni and exclaimed his full satisfaction with the ashram. The Upasni movement won the support of some of the higher ranks within local government. In fact, it was the Maharashtran Member of Council, the Honourable G.S. Khaparde, who had Upasni’s discourses (Upasni Vak-Sudha) published as a five-volume set in English.

Today, quite aside from Meher Baba’s assessment of Upasni as a “Perfect Master,” Upasni has been lauded as Sadguru, “the great sage of Sakori,” “the King of yogis.” Like his Master Shirdi Sai, Upasni is one of the major figures honoured by NRMs such as the Sathya Sai Baba movement, Siddha Yoga and the Da Free John cult. There is a photograph of him standing on bricks in a Vithoba pose - a potent statement on his purported identity with Avatar Krishna and his connection with the Maharashtran bhakti cult of Vithoba (Krishna) (see Figures 18 and 19).

Both Marvin Harper and Eleanor Zelliot hail Upasni as “the radical saint.” Zelliot argues that Upasni was single-handedly responsible for the regeneration of women’s priestly role in Hinduism and the revival of ancient Vedic customs (through his Kanya Kumari -‘priestly’ nuns- institute, a radical move at the time).

Upasni Maharaj’s prominent status in the eyes of several major Hindu movements; the strong evidence for his Dattaist lineage-claims, and the general potency of his character suggest that Meher Baba’s second and main guru was a figure of considerable spiritual authority.

d. Narayana Maharaja Kedgaokar (1885 - 1945) - a Datta Avatar?

1. Narayan in Meher Baba’s Lineage

Narayan Maharaj (Figure 20) was the last Master Meher Baba contacted. It is said that through Narayan, Meher Baba began to feel and convey the “Glory” of his Godhood. After initially meeting Narayan and possibly staying with him a day or two (in 1915), Meher Baba maintained sporadic, indirect contact with Narayan, through exchanges of messages and letters over three decades.

2. Historically Placing Narayan Maharaj

Perhaps due to Narayan Maharaj’s highly orthodox Hinduism, there is very little material about him available in English except a small booklet produced by his cult’s main centre (Kedgoan Bet), compiled by Dattaraj Sathe: Shri Sadguru Narayan Maharaj (1984). However, there are sections and chapters about this figure in Hariprasad Joshi’s Origin and Development of Dattatreya Worship in India (1965) and Dr. S. Mokashi-Punekar’s Introduction to Avadhoota Gita (1979). Krishna Joletkar has also produced an article titled ‘The Servant King: Sri Narayan Maharaj’ for The Laughing Man journal (1981).

Otherwise, an overall assessment of Narayan Maharj has not been attempted to date. In what follows, I will combine the above studies with other eyewitness accounts of Narayan Maharaj such as Sri Purohit Swami’s and Cursetji Maccabai’s.

According to available sources, Narayan Maharaj was born Narayan Rao, in the village of Sindgi (southern India). Hariprasad Joshi’s Origin and Development of Dattatreya Worship in India (1965) which devotes an entire chapter to Narayan, depicts him as immersed in Datta and the Datta cult almost from birth. His direct ancestor was Bhimasankar, a poet-saint whose Padas are still sung in Maharashtra. He was already a wandering avadhuta at the tender age of nine. Orphaned by that time, Narayan spent most of his childhood and teenage years as a wandering avadhuta beggar. He visited shrines of Datta-lineage Masters such as Jnaneswara and Gorakhnath.

Excepting a slight connection with Akkolkote Maharaj (who, as we have seen, was a Dattaist and one of Sai Baba’s Masters), it seems that Narayan had no Master. He was directly devoted to god Datta himself (Figure 21). After a prophetic dream of the deity, Narayan traveled to the Dattatreya centre, Gandgapur. There, Narayan passed his teenage years repeating the name of God under a tree opposite Datta’s padukas. He eventually had an intense experience of Dattatreya through which he was purportedly God-realized.

Given such a background, it is hardly surprising that Mokashi-Punekar lists Narayan Maharaj as an avowed Dattaist and Datta Avatar. The focus of ceremonies at Narayan’s Kedgaon centre was a magnificent Datta temple and palace, and his whole manner and life story betray his emulation of the legendary/historic Dattatreya Avatar who, like him, was both a child and child-like.

Similar to Upasni, Narayan promoted Dattaist “duty-centredness” and strict social responsibility through Vedic ritualism. To fully realise the latter, Narayan staged stupendous Vedic ceremonies. One such rite, in 1935, consisted of 1,008 separate Satnarayan pujas, performed with great intensity and speed by no less than 2,000 Brahmin priests. The following year, Narayan topped this by having 108 pujas conducted every hour, 24 hours a day, for an entire week. His grandest act of all was a three week yagna shortly before his death. For this event, people came from all over India. According to Krishna Jogletkar: “Such a major ceremony had not been performed in India for more than two thousand years.”

3. Rating Narayan’s Authority

Although Narayan was not a major player in Meher Baba’s emergence, he frequently said things which seemed to indicate his acknowledgment of Meher Baba as Avatar (see Chapter Four). For this reason, we will here consider the extent to which Narayan’s own ‘Divinity’ was generally accepted.

Like the other Masters of Meher Baba we have examined, Narayan was convinced that He was God. He once explained that:

“The Divine Name is God Himself... I am the Name that you have taken. I am He.” (italics mine)

Narayan was worshipped as a ‘God-man’ - giving darshan from a sumptuous Dattatreya-decorated seat made of silver (Figure 22). On this he sat enthroned as the living Datta - a god he was also attired to resemble (see Figures 20 - 21).

Most Hindu studies portray Narayan Maharaj as a figure of high spiritual status, although there is less consensus about his exact standing. Hariprasad Joshi calls him a “saint... known for his divine power from his very childhood,” whereas Tipnis alludes to him as simply as an “exponent of bhakti.” On the other hand, Georg Feurerstein’s Holy Madness (1991) identifies Narayan as an exemplary Avadhuta and “a living image of the Divine.”

Whatever the case, there were many people who were prepared to believe that Narayan Maharaj was a God-man. Three thousand followers lived with him at Kedgaon. Rajas, Maharajas and British administrators sought him out. He was a favourite of the British Raj, and played polo with various elite Raj dignitaries. Both civil and religious authorities in several Indian states permitted Narayan to stage massive ceremonies, employing thousands of Hindu priests, and attended by “as many as half a million people”.

To deploy so many priests from all over India so frequently, for such lengths of time, and in front of such a vast audience, demonstrates that Narayan wielded great influence within the Hindu priesthood. To perform certain ceremonies and ritual pilgrimages, Narayan traveled for years all over India by train. Often the entire train was booked out completely to his devotees, who crammed every available seat. Hindu high priests such as Srikrisna Shastri Uppanabettigir and the Sankaracarya of Sivaganga Matha openly supported him.

by contrast, at the turn of the century Narayan was only known over a 5 - 6 mile radius. His immediate fame was due to A. G. Woodhouse, the Professor of Hindu philosophy at Deccan College (Pune) who stumbled upon him when out riding. Woodhouse wrote a feature article in The Times of India about this teenage avadhoota and the miracles he encountered around him. Subsequently, there were sporadic news articles about the saint’s growing following and miracles. For example, The Indian Daily Mail of 5 January 1929 ran a story on the swarms of Narayan devotees at the Datta Jayanti celebrations, at which, the article informs us, “the sage” Narayan miraculously identified a pickpocket for police. In the famed An Indian Monk (1932), Sri Purohit Swami likewise observed that:

“Thousands of people flocked to see him (Narayan). Special trains were run, in order to relieve the congestion.... they found it very difficult to cope with the crowds. ...Thousands went to have a sight of him at (the) house (he visited). It became a sacred place of pilgrimage, and ultimately developed into an ashram, the monastery of the saint.”

Narayan also enjoyed the respect of other Indian ‘holy men.’ He was received by renowned saints such as Sai Baba of Shirdi, Nityananda and Ramana Maharishi of Arunchala. We have seen that he was Upasni’s first guru. Sai cryptically claimed he is Narayan, and Ramana Maharishi told others, according to Krishna Joletkar: “You will never find another person as great as Sri Narayan Maharaj!” Joshi marks Narayan’s association with noted ascetics Sri Lele (guru of Yogi Arvinda) and Sri Vidyanandaswami of Belapur.. The latter advised followers to seek Narayan’s guidance after his passing.

Nevertheless, similar to avadhutas such as Upasni Maharaj, Narayan Maharaj attracted a degree of notoriety. The expenses for his lavish ceremonies and his splendid Datta temple were met by a high-class prostitute who had become one of his principle disciples. Minoo Bharucha, at whose house Narayan would sometimes stay, recalled “so much rubbish” being in the newspapers of the time about Narayan’s connection with this lady. It was a major scandal.

Minoo Bharucha had first gone to Narayan to ridicule him on this point, but he was, instead, deeply impressed upon meeting him. Sri Purohit Swami, who met Narayan in the early decades of this century, had a similar experience: “Many went to him merely to ridicule, but remained to pray...” Purohit Swami observed that even the High Court Pleader of Bombay called on Narayan. This dignitary was “disgustingly drunk” and vomited all over Maharaj’s clothes, in front of the crowds. Narayan “loved him all the more, and gave him his blessings... (which) impressed me very much.”

Such “impact-through-example” is a major testimony of Narayan’s status. A Parsi lady, Cursetji Maccabai of Pune, had been highly critical of Narayan, but whenever Narayan visited Pune, he would leave by a route that passed her house, and bid her hello. Eventually, she became very devoted to him, explaining: “How can one hold out against such love?”

Since Narayan’s demise, his home has become a place of pilgrimage, attracting visits from various NRM founders, notably Swami Muktananda and Da Free John. More significantly, Upasni’s successor Mataji Godavri visited Narayan’s samadhi in 1954 and performed a major yajna in his honour. The Sakuri complex has a number of photographs of Narayan prominently displayed.

Narayan’s following persists. Todd and Koontz estimate that it runs into “millions.” This is almost certainly an exaggeration, but Narayan’s Bet remains impressive: covering 120 acres. It contains two temples, a Trust office, a post office, about 20 bungalows, two modern dharmashalas (with accommodation for 5,000), some 45 single room tenements for staff, and various shops (see Figures 23 and 24).

The Bet’s Sansthan Trust continues to expand. Dattaraj Sathe describes how in the 1980s extra accommodation and the Sri Narayan Vachanalaya library were completed. Kedgaon Bet provides textbooks for schools and mass-feedings for the poor. Beyond the centre itself, there are Narayan groups in places such as Mumbai and Pune, and a major Narayan centre in Bangalore, where some of Narayan’s remains are kept.

Thus again, this Master of Meher Baba seems a major spiritual figure in the sense of being a leader of considerable, lasting influence and wide-scale following. Narayan Maharaj also seems very obviously connected with an authentic spiritual tradition (Datta bhakti ), although lacking direct lineage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.13.246 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This material would be an excellent starting point for beginning a new Wikipedia article on the new academic term Maharastran Bhakti. If you like I can help you set up, format, and categorize the page by Wikipedia conventions. However, it doesn't belong in a section on Meher Baba's response to Drug misuse in the United States and Europe. The new article on Maharastran Bkakti can then appropriately mention Meher Baba in this broad context you are interested in along side the others mentioned that form the context. Incidentally, many of the opinions cited above are highly specious. It shows misunderstanding of Baba's meaning in the context of his other words and explanations and also fails to grasp the way that Baba fits into broader Sufism more than Hinduism. The ideas in God Speaks are far closer to Sufi concepts than Hindu. Redletternight (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Redletternight. Thanks - I am new to Wikapedia and can't even work out how to sign these posts so help would be great... I didn't mean a large section on Maharastran bhakti needed to be included right here. The reference was purely to the Western popularity of some of the key tenets of Maharastran thought (both Hindu and Muslim) in the 1960s/1970s due to Meher Baba's works and to a lesser extent the activities of a few other popular '70s gurus who hailed from Maharastra and drew from a similar tradition (e.g. Muktananda). However, I have two qualms: 1)What "opinions" do you find "highly specious" and what shows "misunderstandings of Baba's meaning"? If i sent you the fully referenced work, I think you would see I haven't offered any opinions but merely compiled a large range of scholarship or source-based quotes on this topic about which you seem mostly ignorant. 2) It seems to me incredible that you appear to be implying you are some sort of authority who (alone or better than others?) understands Baba's meaning!! Since when did the Meher Baba movement become orthodox? Is only one view on anything permitted? I am fully familiar with God Speaks and Baba's other works, and also with just about everything written by and about Meher Baba, and the more I read, the greater scope for diverse interpretation (according to individual stances and backgrounds) becomes apparent. If I could send you the material I have on Sufism you would see that I am hardly saying Meher Baba is less Sufi and more Hindu. What I posted above was just the section dealing with his connections/ references to Hinduism, and I could send you similar work on his connections to Zorastrianism or Sufism if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.13.246 (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I deleted a second paragraph that talked more about Baba's legacy in Rock and Roll. This material is already stated in the Legacy Section of the article at the bottom. Please work this material into that section. I don't see the section on Baba's drug work having a direct bearing on pop musicians. Did they write songs because of his drug message? Redletternight (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is VERY good now, I'd stop messing with it and just check on it so nobody else messes with it. DropSoul Early in the morning EST, 28 May 2009 (AMBKJ)