Talk:Barry Long/Archive 1

Barry Long & Eckhart Tolle

I have been with Barry Long on two occasions when he was in Germany. The first time around he came across as "not authentic" but many friends of mine insisted it must be my intepretation so I gave it a second shot. I should have known better as my intuition usually is quite on the spot. He is something but not what he proposes to be. As opposed to E. Tolle whom I never even met - but his first audio CD convinced me within minutes of his true enlightenment (not really convinced in a mental way but in an intuitive way). To state that Tolle was a disciple of Long is putting the cart before the horse. I have encountered many "enlightened" ones, real ones and fake ones, I usually tell them apart quite easily. I just need to tune in.

Barry Long's Teachings

The explanation demonstates a simple yet fundamental misunderstanding of BL's message. The only advice he gave was to still the mind and love each other. He propounded no belief system, therefore cannot be considered to have started any 'cult'. He had no 'followers' (unless they misunderstood what he was going on about).

He denounced 'belief' full-stop as irresponsible and indeed precarious (cult members take note!) Did he charge a fee for his sessions?! To even refer to this in relation to his teaching suggests the 'historian' has little interest in a serious appraisal of Barry Long's work.

Not true. Barry Long produced hundreds of pages and hundreds of hours of audio/visual material related to his beliefs, in addition to his spiritual guidance, and in addition to denouncing the beliefs of others. If you form an opinion, let's say, on the genesis of the human race or any other topic which you cannot immediately demonstrate, you have formed a belief. Timmy Toenail (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)tt It's OK though, you can relax. Even though Barry talked and wrote a lot of gibberish, you can still enjoy your life and meditate etc. Do I have to start telling you that you only disbelieve me because of the treachery of your rational mind?Timmy Toenail (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

"Continued controversy"

I'm not sure if I would describe two individual articles (Vineeto & Tapert) and posting by a few individuals on Blog of Death as 'continued controversy'. Any comments? 212.32.118.160 21:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Have allowed 6 days for any comments on the above and as none have been made have made the following changes:

Removed paragraph on 'continued controversy' and links associated with it.

Why? The information is still available through the link to the 'Blog of Death' and the 'What is Enlightenment' article at the end of the page. To call these items 'continued controversy' and link to them both within the article and at the end is to give them more prominence than they deserve. Indeed, some of the comments on the Blog of Death have become farcical. 212.32.81.3 21:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

"Continued Controversy 2"

I happened not to look at this article during those 6 days but, yes, I have some comments.

There is more material on the web questioning and critiquing Mr Long's teaching than that which you mention. There is for example the letters page from WIE magazine following the interview of Barry by Andrew Cohen. Even if that were the total of such material, that would not mean that there is no continuing controversy. Those documents clearly show that there is. There is also discussion and controversy in "spiritual" circles and meetings which doesn't get onto the web and therefore cannot be referenced here, save as hearsay.

If this Wikipedia article and the Barry Long Foundation's website were the only two websites giving information about Barry Long, would that mean that there was no information about Barry Long? No, it wouldn't. Obviously it would mean the opposite. Hopefully you see your faulty logic.

Providing one link to all the WIE material on Barry long was helpful. Thanks. I have added a separate link to the letters sent to WIE in response to the Cohen-Long interview since this is not referenced by the page to which you link.

I don't see the validity of removing the link to Maggie Tapert's article. She has an informed and strongly held view on Barry's teaching which may be interesting to those using this page for research. Her piece is clearly a polemic, but then so is the majority of this Wikipedia article, cut-and-pasted as it is from one of Barry's publications.

It is indeed a real pity that the Blog of Death page has degenerated into such silliness. There are some detailed, seriously intended and well informed critiques on that webpage which have unfortunately become obscured.

I think that it is quite valid to include a one-line reference (or two lines, depending on the width of your screen and the font size that you use) to the continued controversy surrounding some of Barry's teaching and some of his actions, in the middle of several hundred lines of uncritical (although accurate as far as it goes) precis of his teaching and direct cut-and-paste of Barry's words. Indeed not to include mention of the controversy, which is a simply verifiable fact, would leave this article in danger of bias.

I have therefore reinserted a similar line to the one removed, taking into account the changes in links at the bottom of the page. I think, on reflection, that it is confusing to include these comments in with the section on Barry's teaching, so I have separated the line with a title.

It is, by the way, very common in Wikipedia to have links referenced both in the body of the article and at the bottom of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.133.8.24 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I can't help but wonder why there is so much resistance to the ascended master thing, yet no one has chopped Long's absurd statement that he is making stars.Timmy Toenail (talk) 06:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Timmy Toenail (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the stars that Barry said he made and all the others? Who made all the rest of them?Anthony Ammonite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC).

Gurus listing

Don't just revert without some explanation. I'm with the person who removed the gurus listing. Read the article Guru -- it has a specific meaning that's inapplicable here. We have no evidence that Long himself or any of his followers called him a guru or used that term. Or that he had much involvement with Hinduism, Buddhism or Sikhism, the three religions that use that term.

The "spiritual writers" category is much more apt. Msalt 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The facts:

1. The person who removed the 'Guru' category gave no explanation.

2. One of Barry Long's first public announcements was titled, 'I am guru, who are you?', the text of which is in the book 'The Way In'.

3. As Wiki stands, the category 'Spiritual Teacher' defaults to 'Guru'.

4. The 'Guru' article allows for usage other than solely within the religions stated above.

5. Barry Long was not only a writer. His main means of communication was speaking to the people at seminars and allowing the people to question him.

I will leave reinstating the category giving a chance for responses. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.32.73.123 (talk • contribs) .

I agree that it was wrong for Spiritual Teacher to default to Guru, so I fixed that. I might also agree that Spiritual Teacher is a better term than Spiritual Writer, but the distinction is not significant. Nearly every writer also speaks. And very few teachers don't write, certainly ones of encyclopedic importance. Is David Sedaris a comedic teacher because he gives lectures as well as writing?

If you read the Guru article, while it of course references the variant uses (I've been called a computer guru), it's very clear what the general meaning of the term is. We have no sourced information that places him in the tradition of gurus. Clearly it's not appropriate to place everyone who claims to be a guru in that category.

The prime activity in this case is 'teaching' (David Sedaris is quite clearly a writer who also speaks about his writings - it would be absurd to call him a 'comedic teacher'). The writings of Barry Long are a teaching. Re: 'Guru' - A dictionary definition is 'spiritual teacher'. I would therefore place Barry Long in both 'Guru' and 'Spiritual Teachers' with 'Spiritual Teachers' being a seperate category to 'Spiritual Writers' - the difference is in fact very significant. 212.32.86.162 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The first definition of guru (here on the wiktionary) is "Noun guru (plural gurus) 1. A Hindu spiritual teacher. 2. A mentor" The only spiritual meaning relates to the specific religious traditions that use that term. Any other meaning is a generic term taken from that, not even religious necssarily. Seriously, have you LOOKED at the gurus listed in that category? Barry Long clearly does not belong.

As for the broader issue of Spiritual writers vs. spiritual teachers, if you are really concerned with that I started a discussion on the Spiritual writers category talk page, where I proposed reversing the two categories. But I strong feel that one should redirect into the other. Take the Venn diagram of encyclopedia-worthy Spiritual writers, and encyclopedia-worthy spiritual teachers; the overlap is 95% or more.Msalt 04:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ultimately all I am concerned with, 'Is what Barry Long says the truth for me?'. Only the individual can know that for him/herself and for that you need to go directly to his books and recordings. I'm bowing out of this discussion for now to let wiki go on its way and I'll come back later to see what has transpired. Just out of interest (just asking the questions, no judgement intended) did you (Msalt) ever attend a Barry Long seminar or video seminar. Have you read any of his books and practiced what he taught? 62.164.251.220 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent attempted vandalism

That was me, sorry, this is the first time I have edited a wikipedia article, went a little overboard in adding content, and then tried to restrain it a little.

Linkspam

After looking up the definition of linkspam I have undone the edit by Herrick that removed two links to wie.com pages. To me these links are a valid contribution to the article. A similar previous edit was also re-instated by another person. Looking at other edits, Herrick seems to have some concern about links to wie.com pages. Perhaps Herrick would like to explain his/her concerns. 89.240.2.29 17:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV and sources

This article is written entirely from Long's own material, does anyone outside his organization think he is important? --Peta 02:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The following link [1]gives details of international publications where articles by / about him have been printed. His obituary was published in the Sydney Morning Herald [2]and possibly elsewhere. He was known to thousands of people in Australia, England, Netherlands, Scandinavia, USA and many other countries around the world. He spoke in numerous countries and his books are published in 11 languages.

Note that not all of the sources are connected with the organisation. The Barry Long Foundation International exists solely to publish and disseminate Barry Long's work. There is no membership or anything to join.

What suggestions do you have to improve the article? 89.240.7.173 10:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Have removed NPOV marker. Re: 'does anyone think he is important?' above; notability was discussed at the beginning of writing of this article. Re: NPOV; at present there is very little third party material available. The article includes interviews with BL, liks to sites of detractors and links to excerpts of his work. If anyone wishes to see what he was actually about then it is easy to get an overview from the article and follow links for further info. The basic biography and description of his teaching have been kept very simple so as to not be NPOV, and links provided to third party/actual quotes and articles. 89.240.14.144 09:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Have removed link as there is no evidence that the man concerned was connected in any way with the Barry Long Foundation. 89.240.15.218 07:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed two external links as the contributor is obviously trying to put forward a POV and the articles were both inaccurate: 1. The Barry Long Foundation does not have any members 2. The Barry Long Foundation is not a cult or spiritualist organisation. 89.240.14.121 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

3. The Barry Long Foundation has no connection with the occult. 89.240.14.121 22:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the two external links deleted on 29 April. NPOV means providing a wide range of information on a topic so that readers can come to their own POV. It does not mean censoring information with which you disagree. That's a POV.

By defintion the Barry Long Foundation must have members or it could not exist as an organisation - and it does exist. In some people's opinion, it has many of the characteristics of a cult.

Barry wrote a section of almost 1500 words in his book "The Way In" about Ascended Masters, in which he addresses them directly, the following ones by name: Kuthumi, Djwhal Khul, Morya, Maitreya, Archangel Michael, Serapis, Hilarion, Ramtha. I can't see how it can be claimed that he wasn't a spiritualist. (I have added a link to the extract).62.189.189.132 13:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't remove the links because I disagreed with them. Disagreement is an opinion. Incorrect facts are incorrect facts. I would re-iterate that the organisation doesn't have members. There are people who work on publishing material and organising events but no members. See the answer to the question, " If I came to a Barry Long video session would it be like joining a group or cult?" [[3]]. Barry Long's words are presented simply to the individual who may or may not see any value in them. Re ascended masters; to speak on Christianity does not make one a Christian, likewise to speak on spiritualism does not make one a spiritualist. Re: Use of the word cult in a newspaper articles; newspapers are sensationalist - they will use such words to evoke an emotional reaction and sell newspapers, not in the interests of accurate reporting. 89.240.13.216 17:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ho hum. Do we really have to do this? Obviously an organisation must have members, or it wouldn't exist. The Barry Long Foundation exists, so it has members. Who do you think works "on publishing material and organising events"?! You are right that speaking on Christianity doesn't make one a Christian ... but to pray to the Christian God does. To speak on spiritualism does not make one a spirtualist, but to address spritual entities directly by name, as if they exist, does make one a spirtualist.

I'm not going to waste time engaging in a "reversion war" on two links to newspaper articles, but, by your censorship of access to public information about the actions of someone involved with Barry Long, and clearly so deeply affected by that experience that he killed himself, you have shown yourself for what you are. 62.189.189.132 10:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I would point out that there is no evidence of the depth of any involvement with Barry Long and more importantly no evidence that this was what caused him to kill himself. This is the problem with short sensation seeking newspaper articles like this which are often lacking in correct factual information. How do you know that the man was 'clearly so deeply affected by that experience that he killed himself'? Did you know him?

To have a small group of people working to put on events and publish books is different to having members.

And another question, how do you know that these entities do not exist?89.240.13.12 09:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How tedious. The man's brother gave some pretty good evidence. Is that what you wanted to censor? Re members, I am employed by a company and I am a member of that company. Same with the people who work for the Barry Long Foundation. Perfectly normal use of the English language. Not difficult. What's your problem with it? How do I know that these entities don't exist? I don't, and nowhere did I say that I did. But I don't know that they do exist either. Nobody's shown me any evidence that they do, and until I see some I shan't consider the matter any further. Anyway, how is that relevant? The point is that Barry Long obviously thinks they exist (so much so that he talks to them) and that was part of his teaching. 86.137.167.119 19:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

More normal usage would be that you are employed by a company therefore you are an employee or worker of that company. More normal everyday usage of the word member is in relation to joining a group (wiktionary - 'one who officially belongs to a group') whether paying for that privelige or not, not an employee or worker. Hence the word, 'membership' which the Barry Long Foundation doesn't have. Again, were you at the coroner's court or are you inferring 'pretty good evidence' from the reported speech of the brother statement as written by a newspaper (newspapers not being well known for the accuracy of their reporting). The articles are misinformation on several points. 89.240.7.174 20:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Where I come from I am a member of the company which employs me. Perhaps we speak different dialects of English. Are you British? The newspaper article was written in British English. You may be misunderstanding it if you speak a different dialect. Could you let us know specifically the "several points" on which the articles "are" misinformation? (Do you mean "give" misinformation or "consist of" misinformation?) Please correct the misinformation - it's what Wikipedia is all about. And please let us know the independent sources of information to which you have access and which enable you to judge these articles as innacurate. It would be helpful. Were you at the coroner's court, for example? Or did you know the man who killed himself?86.137.167.119 12:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I speak British English. You don't seem to be reading what I have written above. Eg. - the wiktionary definition and the points in my initial comments about the inaccuracies in the articles. And you are asking my questions back to me?? I have provided quite some detail as to my thoughts regarding these articles. 89.240.14.100 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest that the recent two external links added will soon make the links section longer than the article. The Woman and Love article is available on the barrylong.org website which is the first link. The 'Draconic Transverse' article as far as I can see is not on the barrylong.org website but the article does already contain a link to an excerpt from the same book. May I ask the specific reason for adding these two links? 89.240.14.100 20:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read through the 'Draconic Transverse' article. It is quite a tour de force. I can see that this link provides insight into another area of BL's teaching. I would still be interested in your comments on the links though. 89.240.14.100 21:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, this really has gone on long enough. There is no conflict between the wiktionary definition and the way that I am using the word "member". I officially belong to the company that employs me. I am a member of it. End of argument.

You say that there are inaccuracies in the newspaper articles but you have failed to point out specifically what they are apart from one. You have said that the Barry Long Foundation does not have members. It does. You have said that it is not a spiritualist organisation and that it has no connection with the occult. In fact it promulgates teachings which involve speaking directly to "Ascended Masters", which is both a spiritualist and an occult activity. You have said that it is not a cult. That is the one true statement that you made.

I can't see the problem with having a lengthy links section if there are lots of things to link to. If you think that the article itself should be longer you are free to lengthen it.

I added the links because I had not seen this material linked to before and I thought that they would be of interest to those researching Barry. I would have thought that was obvious. It is the same reason that I added the links to the newspaper articles which you deleted. If you think that there are duplicate links you are free to delete them.

As I noted above, you state that the articles "are" misinformation on several points but so far you have only demonstrated one. Please do not continue this correspondence unless it is to point out the other precise inaccuracies in the articles together with your sources of information. For example, were you at the inquest or did you know the people concerned? If you don't do so within, say, a week, I shall reinstate the links. 86.137.167.119 11:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't changed what I see as incorrect information in the links. I have looked at the articles several times and the two points that you disagree on - spiritualist/occult and 'member', I still see as incorrect information. No I was not at the inquest, did not know the man concerned and neither did you. But I can look at the articles and see what their content is and look at BL's teaching and see what is in it. Are you saying that this man was an employee of the BLFI (using your own definition of 'member' which seems to be only used by yourself)? If so then that is pretty bizarre. You know how newspapers work - anything for a story. Did you read the link provided I provided above[[4]]. There is nothing to join and there never was. 89.240.15.218 20:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Possibly excessive number of external links

Re the external links template added today, I have removed one external link to an article that is already available through the barrylong.org link. Having such a long list with a relatively main body does make the article a little unbalanced. 89.240.15.218 19:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:EL fore some useful guidelines. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have reduced external links to what may be considered an acceptable number. Have removed three that are already referenced in the article and should in fact be references not external links. That is yet to be done. 89.240.15.218 20:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Have retained third party links - in particular interviews. As stated above there is very little third party material available at present. BL presented his teaching to the individual and for the individual. It is up to the individual to see if it has value to him or her and if not to look elsewhere. 89.240.15.218 21:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that the trimming of the external links section detailed here is in response to ≈ jossi ≈'s placing of the external links template (now removed) and my own perception that this section was becoming overlong. 89.240.13.152 08:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

All links in the 'External links' section excepting the BL official site are now third party sites. 89.240.13.152 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Have removed primary sources template. Basic biographical details are referenced by the Sydney Morning Herald article and are not controversial. Details of his teaching are referenced to the actual teaching so the reader can see for themselves if the article accurately portrays what is in the teaching. In addition there are external links such as What is Enlightenment? magazine and Spirit Radio. If the reader wishes to look further than the barrylong.org website contains press quotes and articles on the books. There are also third party references to sites of those who have some criticism of BL's teaching. 89.240.15.42 08:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Third party book reviews are available on the Barry Long Books catalogue website [5] 89.240.13.116 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits of 26.07.08

Have undone these - hardly relevant material - especially the link. 78.151.246.66 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that 'Timmy Toenail' includes the Barry Long quote here in full for those without access to the book so it can be seen what BL is actually saying.

I would suggest that you stop being lazy and expand the quote yourself. If you can make his idea on stars seem comprehensible, I'll bake you a cake.Timmy Toenail (talk) 08:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be more appropriate for TT to start a page on environmental toxins if this is his speciality as he seems to be saying (tried to stop people poisoning themselves) and add a quote there. 78.151.246.66 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

An expanded quote would take unneccessary space, and provide no more insight. I have summed up his statement succinctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmy Toenail (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC) It would be appropriate for the BLF to read some science books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmy Toenail (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that you have read quite a lot of BL's material but missed the point. Have you got something against BL? I suggest re-reading and re-reading as Barry suggests at the beginning of 'Only Fear Dies'.

I have read and re-read. I have not missed the point. Constant repetition is a known propaganda device. You seem to believe everything he said, you have even been persuaded that your beliefs are not beliefs. Timmy Toenail (talk)User:Timmy Toenail|Timmy Toenail]] (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

78.151.246.66 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, reading and re-reading is not the issue here: that just leads to original research. If anything goes into the article, it needs to be based on third-party writing in independent, reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I think Barry Long has no basis for his claims, that I will have to cite a third party reference or you will come and chop out my edit? Why can I not reference my own close reading of his material? I don't mind keeping as close to wikipedia form as possible, but i am just stating facts.Timmy Toenail (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You cannot reference your own interpretation of his material because it is original research. See WP:OR. —C.Fred (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK ref, I'll try to get the hand of wikipedia formalities.Timmy Toenail (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ascended master myth

It seems that Barry Long was very unsuccesful in getting rid of several ascended masters. No one into the Barry Long teaching seems to be able to cope with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmy Toenail (talk • contribs) 04:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Before we discuss any alleged "banishment" of ascended masters, please provide independent sources that document it. —C.Fred (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The only source is the one supplied in the links section. That's it. I'm not saying he was successful, or that they are real. They are as real as Noah's Ark, or Santa Claus- you have entire articles devoted to them, yet do you ask for any third party verification of their reality.Timmy Toenail (talk) There is a lot of interest vested in the ascended masters game, psychological and financial. I doubt if anyone would be willing to give up their cash cow just because Barry Long tried to bend the rules of the game to his own advantage, and thus declare their channelled entity gone. That advantage now goes to anyone who can profit from Long's corpus of work. Long's declaration is a clear banishment or exorcism, plain for any who read it, and verifiable by any dictionary. It is so despite the efforts of his followers or business associates to play dumb and twist words.Timmy Toenail (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is, it can't be verified. The supplied link leads to Barry Long's own assertion. I don't know why you keep chopping it out(the controvesy). It's as valid a part of the subject of Long as any other.Timmy Toenail (talk)

Timmy, I don't think the extract implies an excorcism. You say yourself that Barry was "very unsuccesful in getting rid of several ascended masters". He simply addressed a message to a number of named persons who may or may not exist or have existed in reality or in some people's imaginations. 62.189.189.132 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Does it not imply an exorcism? The results are not included in the piece, so I suppose you could say that strictly speaking, it is only an attempted exorcism, but a declaration of exorcism is what it is. The results can be found by looking for any evidence that he was successful. Can you find any? It's pretty simple. In the piece in ascended masters, he says that the people who channel them are possessed by them. Read it. That's what it says. Then he says that they must leave their hosts. He dispossesses them, he banishes them, he exorcises them. He does not say may or may not anything, the entire piece is written as if the ascended masters are real. So, he was either deluded, or stringing people along. Anyway, wether you like to play games or not, I'm pointing out the flaws. You may not understand, but others will.Timmy Toenail (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Timmy, there's no need to be rude. I did read the piece, obviously. I'm not playing games and I do understand what is a perfectly clear piece of Barry's writing. (In fact his writing was always clear, whether or not you agreed with what it said.) I agree that it is an attempted exocism. I can't find any evidence that it was successful, but then I can't find any evidence that the people he names existed in the first place. As you say, Barry obviously thought they did or he wouldn't have addressed them directly, and he obviously thought that they possessed other people's bodies. 62.189.189.132 (talk) 10:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)#

Ah, see, just because he addressed people as if the A.M.'s were real, doesn't mean he believed it himself. If he did believe, then it seems he was wrong about his own spiritual capacities. That would make him not a master after all, certainly by his own definitions. What a colourful character, eh? Maybe I missed the joke somewhere. Google books has 'The Masters Revealed', have a read. Anyway, I think I've laboured these points enoughTimmy Toenail (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Have removed 'controversy' from title of this section as I can find no evidence of controversy.78.151.204.174 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're adding to the controversy right now.Timmy Toenail (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

To me the piece on ascended masters and the piece on constellations, taken out of context of the whole of BL's teaching, don't improve or add to the article in any way. It seems that 'Timmy Toenail' has some personal reason for including them.78.151.204.174 (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What context? Please explain how Barry Long was making a constellation or new stars. Also please explain how what Barry did with the A.M.'s was not an exorcism.Timmy Toenail (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Timmy Toenail (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Timmy, that was a good idea to introduce Barry's cosmological perspective. I've taken the liberty to expand on this by including his direct challenge to the proponents of the Big Bang theory, the mysteries beyond which (i.e. what was there before it happend?) that scientists refuse to explore. 58.169.180.32 (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientists refuse to explore the time before the big bang do they? Oh I think they do, look here. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070702084231.htm[link title]

Frankly, I thought it was a good idea to point out the absurd bits, so that people don't just swallow his philosophy whole. Do scientists refuse to explore what happened before the big bang? I think there has been an awful lot of speculation, theorising, and exploration about that subject. In fact, you would have to be extremely blinkered and lazy not to know this. Did you not follow any of the info on the wiki entry about western spiritual views of the big bang, where you also posted the quote? You say that his idea is original. I'll bet it isn't. I bet this idea was expressed when buddhists first started to hear about the big bang theory. Long's claim to originality only stands if you don't read around the subjects he describes. If you take the care to check, or already know, you will see that a lot of his ideas are steals from other sources. I have no proof or confidence that he just came up with them originally. Example? The Egyptian Pharoahs said that they formed a star when thay died. So Long is hardly original on that count. Long says that the theory is proven correct when the scientist understands his own mind, but that doesn't prove the theory to be correct. He's comparing apples with oranges (metaphor). Still, personally I like his take on cosmic mind, even if it is buried in jargon. What happens if the big bang theory is proved incorrect, where will Long's take on it all be then? Timmy Toenail (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

"Good artists copy. Great artists steal." (Pablo Picasso). Also, Barry wouldn't have been bothered by the absurd bits in his writing, "Contradiction is the way" (Barry Long). Thats the freedom he clearly enjoyed, which inspired many (affirming his notability, Malcolm). As for the observation "buried in jargon", did you read the wiki entry on the Big Bang theory? Barry's writing in the Origin's Book, while not easy to read, hardly contained obscure terms and definitions that required a glossary. Rather, it was the idea of what he was saying that was challenging (not to mention thrilling). 121.222.32.193 (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's another quote from me, 'Good artists copy, forgers pretend to be original'. Does it matter if Long wasn't bothered by his own cotradictions- of course he wasn't, that's pretty obvious. His followers should have been tougher with him. Would you go to a mechanic who put both sugar and petrol in the tank at the same time, and told you not to worry because he is beyond rationality, and his contradictions are proof of his competence, that life can contain the contradictions? His quote did include his own jargon from his own work. A glossary would be very handy. Anyone reading that quote would be scratching their heads over 'non-existant now-point' and such like.Timmy Toenail (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the use of the term 'exorcism' in the ascended master entry. Barry Long never used the word, he used dispossessed. Barry Long took the action of giving the ascended masters a reflection of their position in limbo, a benevolent and beautiful action that would bring them closer to God. In the Ascended Masters piece in The Way In, page 176, Barry Long writes "Dispossessing a living person (a channeler) of a genuinely powerful psychic priest can only be done through the intelligence of the entity, not the person. The entity must hear the truth of the master and face it honestly. He must voluntarily withdraw from the person's consciousness by going on, as he should have done long ago." From this I see it is the free will of the entity to leave voluntarily, and is dependent upon whether the entity can recognize the truth when it hears it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.157.177 (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying it was friendly advice to the masters, not an order. Interesting point, interesting. Hadn't thought of it that way, gotta admit. It still seems like an attempted exorcism to me, but more by persuasion than force, you are right. Thanks for that. Still doesn't mean they are or were real, or that Long had that power.Timmy Toenail (talk) 20:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) What makes you think they are/were real entities, and not just some old rubbish cooked up by the theosophists for their own obscure purposes?Timmy Toenail (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, Long says that these ascended masters were devotees of a real master. That's quite a lot of masters. How many ascended masters can we get from one real master? If a new ascended master arrives on the scene, does that mean a real master has just died? Are there any ascended masters who used to sit at Mr Long's feet? Has anyone bothered to ask, say, Ramtha what he thinks of Long's suggestion? What about the ascended master Jesus, if he is Jesus, who was his master? Long said that Masters never come back when the die, so how come Jesus, a master, is floating round in the astral? What about the ones who say they are archangels, can a devotee of a master become an angel? Can an angel be an embodied devotee of a master? What about Mary mother of Jesus, who it is said is an ascended master, did she sit at the feet of a master too? If the theosophical ascended masters are for real, do you also think that the rest of theosophy is true, too, such as the assertion that aborigines of Tasmania, Borneo and Africa are semi human, from Lemurian stock? Did the ascended masters learn these theories from their masters or did they make them up by themselves? Timmy Toenail (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Timmy, but putting sugar in your petrol tank defies common sense. Even the fiercest pundits of Barry Long (Anthony Conway from the Blog of Death) agreed that the "truth" he stood for amounted to nothing more than common sense. Well, if Barry Long's publications are all about common sense, that's mighty fine by me (all the more reason to appreciate it)! Timrobinson81 (talk) 10:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can't be all mighty fine by you, because Barry Long's publications are not all about common sense. They are partially about common sense, and partially about nonsensical blather. Did you go to school at all?Timmy Toenail (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I went to school, needless to say I wasn't the prize pig of that brainwashing cult. 165.228.7.238 (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article does not establish the notability of Barry Long. If the problem is not corrected, I may nominate the article for deletion. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is correct. The article references the obituary published in the Sydney Morning Herald. It also references the articles and letters published in 'What is Enlightenment?' magazine. His book, 'The Origins of Man and the Universe' was published by RKP (Routledge). The Barry Long Books website lists the publications which have published articles about or by Barry Long [6]. IF you still consider that the article does not sufficiently establish notability could you please give me some pointers as to what is needed. Thank you. 78.151.255.93 (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Barry Long Books site also carries reviews of each book, for example - [7]. Note that these are reviews printed in paper newspapers and magazines rather than online. 78.151.255.93 (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is best to have secondary sources, that is citations to writers in the field (in this case esotericism) that mention Barry Long. Primary sources, i.e. the books written by Barry Long himself, or written by his students and supporters, are not considered to establish notability, and particularly not if they are self published. Evidence of a significant amount of media coverage could also help. It would be best if you read Wikipedia:Notability. Perhaps it would help to look at how other biographies, such as Alice Bailey (not an endorsement of Bailey), cite sources in a way that proves that the individual is notable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is not much by way of verifiable sources. Long slipped under a lot of radars.Timmy Toenail (talk)

According to this [8], "In 1984 Routledge published his Origins of Man and the Universe....". Is that correct? When I checked on Amazon it showed only a self published edition of Origins of Man and the Universe, but if any of his books were ever published by a publisher as reputable as Routledge that would go a long way to establish his notability for Wikipedia. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

'Origins' ISBN 0710203373 (0-7102-0337-3)- Routledge. A great attempt to make sense of unusual psychological experiences, but full of flaws and bumf.Timmy Toenail (talk)

If you want to save the article, put The Origins of Man and the Universe: The Myth That Came to Life at the top of article's bibliography, with publisher and ISBN. It might be helpful to find something good from it to mention in the introduction too. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Origins ..." was originally published as a 300 page paperback by Routledge & Kegan Paul in September 1984, ISBN-10: 0710203373, ISBN-13: 978-0710203373. Here's the link to its Amazon page: [9]. Subsequent editions were self-published. 62.189.189.132 (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought that the link provided above [10] would be sufficient evidence of notability. It provides details of 102 independent publications in 16 countries in five continents in ten languages (counting all the Germans and all the Englishes as single languages) that have "... reviewed [the] books or published extracts or editorial articles about them". The Barry Long Books website is obviously not independent, but I don't think they would lie so I think they are reliable in this instance. 62.189.189.132 (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That comes from his own organization, and does not establish notability. Any books published by reputable publishers do count (but not self-published books), and newspaper, magazine, and (particularly) scholarly journal reviews of his books, or for other things, do count. If he has gotten significant mention in publications such as Parabola, please do put that in the article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, Routledge is not his organisation. The Book was around before being sold by Barry Long books. I now see how flawed wikipedia is. Still a handy site though.Timmy Toenail (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Timmy Toenail (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

Malcolm, what is it going to take? The Barry Long Books website references over one hundred independent publications that have referenced Barry's work. Are you saying that they are lying? And we have provided an easily traceable reference on Amazon to the publication one of his books by Routledge & Kegan Paul which you say yourself "would go a long way to establish his notability for Wikipedia". What else do you say is needed? I think it's really up to you to show that Barry is not notable if you still think that is the case. 62.189.189.132 (talk) 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)