No general framework covers everything. For this
reason, if the framework we have presented here conforms to the
"80/20 rule"
— the framework
provides 80% of the necessary context for understanding Adi Da's
Word, while the remaining 20% must be supplied by special-purpose
(e.g., line-by-line) commentary for each specific talk or essay
— it will be extremely useful, obviating
the need to supply what would essentially be the same general
commentary over and over again for each of Adi Da's talks, essays,
books, Note sets, etc.
So for example, relative to Adi Da's use of terminology, a
generic approach goes a long way: if it's 1978, this is what
He meant by the word "God"; if it's 2006, this is
what He meant (and in 2008, He typically would use the phrase,
"Real God" instead of just "God").
That approach covers a lot of ground, but it doesn't capture
everything, because of the immense scope of what Adi Da was
covering in His Teaching. While He developed His Own special
uses of terminology, and applied terminology with great consistency
(indeed, this was one of the primary jobs of His editorial staff:
to edit His Writings so that they used terminology throughout
in a fashion consistent with His most current use of terminology),
nonetheless one can find examples where, in writings from roughly
the same period, the same term —
for example, the word, "religion" —
is used in different senses. (See our article, Is
Adidam a religion?, for examples.) A special purpose commentary
would be required in a case like this.
So looking at this from an "80/20 rule" perspective,
we could hope that a glossary that mapped out Adi Da's use of
words and phrases (and what He meant by them) during different
periods might provide 80% of the commentary needed to understand
the terminology in a particular passage He wrote (from a specific
time); the remaining 20% would require special-purpose commentary
(as in the "religion" example).
