from The Nonduality Highlights
Death of Adi Da – Adi Da Mahasamadhi
What follows is a series of announcements that are out of chronological order and reproduced as received from my informant.
Dear Devotees,
It is the middle of the night here at Adi Da Samrajashram, devotees remain in what is now clearly the Mahasamadhi Vigil of Beloved Bhagavan Sapta Na Adi Da Samraj. The time of Beloved Bhagavan’s Divine Mahasamadhi is being placed at approximately 5:10 PM on Thursday, November 27th, 2008.
Everyone here has been shocked at how quickly the Mahasamadhi occurred. Bhagavan Adi Da was sitting in His Chair Working in Picture Perfect. Just a minute before, He had been Giving Instructions relative to His Divine Image Art. A few minutes before that, He had been speaking humorously and laughing. And then He silently fell over on His Side and within a very short period of no more than a couple of minutes, He had entered into His Mahasamadhi. Dr. Charles Seage and Dr. Andrew Dorfman diagnose that Beloved Bhagavan suffered a fatal heart attack. There were no signs of struggle, but a quick and painless transition.
Beloved Bhagavan had given no indications that He was going to be taking Mahasamadhi. Up until that point, He had been experiencing what seemed to be a normal day. He had been continuing His Divine Puja of preparing gifts for Danavira Mela earlier in the day, and had been in Picture Perfect for a good part of the day.
Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da’s Body is now sitting upright on His Bed in His Bedroom at Aham Da Asmi Sthan. He is draped in orange clothes.
The Ruchira Sannyasin Order and a few intimate devotees are sitting in the bedroom with Him. Devotees are also sitting on the veranda outside of His Room in silent meditative communion.
Beloved Bhagavan has previously Given Instructions that His Body is to be allowed to rest uninterferred with for a minimum of three days before it is taken to the Outshining “Brightness”, His Permanent Mahasamadhi resting place. The pre-burial Vigil may last longer, even for several weeks, if Beloved Bhagavan’s Body does not show signs of decay.
Ruchiradama Quandra Sukhapur has invited all to come to Naitauba during this time. Everyone is invited. All four congregations of devotees. And anyone else who wishes to come who will be rightly related to making this pilgrimage. This has all happened so quickly that we have not yet figured out how the practical details will be managed. But anyone who is moved to come to Naitauba to participate in Beloved Bhagavan’s Mahasamadhi Vigil should begin to consider their practical arrangements to make the pilgrimage.
As mentioned, there is no way to know exactly how long it will be before Beloved Bhagavan’s Divine Bodily Human Form will be Sacredly Interned at the Outshining “Brightness”. If the pre-burial Vigil only lasts the minimum period of three days, Beloved Bhagavan’s Divine Bodily Human Form could be Installed at the Outshining “Brightness” as early as late Sunday. So all who wish to be here for this Sacred Ceremony should begin to make immediate plans for the journey.
This is a very difficult time for all devotees and friends of Adi Da Samraj. Adi Da has always told us that His Mahasamadhi would be the time when He would most fully enter into His Divine Translation. He has said that it would be for Him a Divine Outshining of this Realm altogether. And He has also told us, that it would unleash a further Siddhi of His Divine Blessing. This is already being felt by devotees here at Adi Da Samrajashram. So even though this is one of the most difficult times that all devotees will ever experience, in terms of the Mahasamadhi of our Beloved Divine Master, it will also best also be a time in which we remain focused in our Divine whole bodily turning to Beloved Bhagavan. It feels here that somehow He is “holding up” all of His devotees to go through this moment with equanimity and continued reception of His Divine Blessing.
(From James Steinberg at Adi Da Samrajashram)
Om Sri Parama-Sapta-Na Adi Da Love-Ananda Hridayam
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 11:37:39 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Fwd: Adi Da Samraj Health Situation
Dear Fellow Devotees,
Praise to Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj.
At this moment Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj is experiencing an extreme medical crisis. We do not know the full extent of what is happening with His Divine Bodily Human Form. However, this crisis is an extreme one in which He has Swooned out of His Body. This has occurred to the extent that He has not had a heart-beat or pulse, for nearly an hour’s time. Medical procedures are not reviving Him.
Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da has in the past Approved a medical protocol relative to such a circumstance. He has made it plain that nothing should be done to interfere with His Bodily Human Form for an extended period of time, a minimum of three full days. This is because He may always and at any point resume ordinary Consciousness and Life. However, at this moment, He is not animating the body at all.
He was working in Picture Perfect at the Matrix, at Adi Da Samrajashram. It appeared to be a normal day, and He had been with the healers last night and was doing very well physically. He has actually been stronger and in better health over the past few weeks. Therefore it was a surprise when He simply collapsed, while working on His Divine Avataric Image Art.
As devotees know, Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj is a Divine Yogi. There is a long history of such beings having very unconventional “death events” or moments in their lives. We have seen this in Beloved Bhagavan’s Case in many circumstances in the past–the Ruchira Dham or Lopez Island Event, and the Divine Emergence, as merely two of them. Certainly it is the hope of this moment, as we write, that Beloved Bhagavan will Re-Enter His Body and begin a new Phase of His Work. It is our hope and intention that He will Re-Animate the Body and wake up.
Here at Adi Da Samrajashram we are all invoking and praying for Adi Da Samraj to resume His Bodily Functioning. Ruchiradama Quandra Sukhapur Rani has repeated to us, that His Motive in Returning to the Body will be devotees’ heart-need and calling. All devotees are asked at this moment to engage in a Vigil of Prayer and Invocation of Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da, and a Calling to Him to Stay here with us.
In the history of the Great Tradition, there have been many great Yogic Realizers who have dropped out of their bodies for an extended period of time, without heartbeat or pulse, and later Spiritual Revived. This was the case with Swami Nityananda in the 1920s. He left the body for many hours and was believed by many to have died. Upon returning, he declared that his work was simply not done. Also Shirdi Sai Baba left his body for a full three days in the 1880s, and upon returning there was a dramatic change in the fullness and potency of his work. Examples like this are numerous. And Adi Da Samraj is the Greatest of Master Yogis. Therefore we call upon devotees to invoke and call upon Adi Da Samraj with our full heart-need for His Continued Presence amongst us in Bodily Human Divine Form.
At this moment, Adi Da Samraj remains lying in horizontal position at Picture Perfect. The devotees here are gathered around the building, doing Vigil and calling upon Him to remain with us, with full heart need. Drs. Charles Seage and Andrew Dorfman are with Beloved Bhagavan, as well as the Ruchiradamas, and many devotees to assist in tending to Adi Da Samraj.
One recommended action you can take, is to go into your Communion Hall and invoke Beloved Bhagavan down into His Divine Body, through waving of lights, chanting, recitations, the Devotional Prayer of Changes, or simply heartfelt invocation and communion with Him.
We will continue to inform and update you as the evening progresses.
Om Sri Parama Sapta Adi Da Love-Ananda Hridayam
Subject: Update on Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj
To: All 1C / 2C Devotees ~
Dear devotees,
At 8 pm Fiji time, Lesley Huber, speaking on behalf of the Ruchira Sannyasin Order Authority Office, made the following communication:
“At approximately 5:10 pm Fiji time, while working with His Divine Image Art in Picture Perfect, it appears that Bhagavan Adi Da suffered a massive heart attack, and since that time has shown no heartbeat or pulse. At this time, 8 pm, medical intervention has been suspended in respect for the Divine Yogic Integrity of the Master’s Body.
Masters choose their time of relinquishing the body, and saints and realizers have returned after extended periods without apparent life signs.
At this point, all devotees should understand that this is a Divine Yogic matter, and participate accordingly. Devotees in Hermitage are in a deep Vigil in and around Picture Perfect, and it is essential that devotees worldwide likewise enter into a Vigil in their own places of Communion and Worship. We encourage devotees to gather, wherever possible, in the Empowered Halls of the gathering, and stay connected.”
We will continue to send further updates as they become available.
Om Sri Parama-Sapta-Na Adi Da, Love-Ananda Hridayam
Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2008 12:55 AM
Subject: Fwd: Further update
Update on Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da’s Condition
Beloved Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj’s Bodily Human Divine Form is now lying on His Bed in His Bedroom at Aham Da Asmi Sthan at the Matrix.
His Bodily Human Form was carried on a stretcher in silent procession from Picture Perfect to Aham Da Asmi Sthan. Beloved Bhagavan was covered with a sannyasin orange shawl during this time.
A number of devotees are now in the Bedroom with Adi Da Samraj keeping Vigil with lit deepa lamps. The rest of the Adi Da Samrajashram devotees are keeping Vigil outside on the veranda in front of the Darshan swing.
Please continue to invoke and call Adi Da Samraj to Reanimate His Divine Bodily Human Form for the sake of each of us and for the entire world.
MODERATION OF COMMENTS
All comments are moderated. There is only one moderator. Sometimes he sleeps or works. Therefore, hours may pass before you see your comment. Please send your comment only once, and wait for it to appear. Unmoderated, you would see spam and haters. Thanks for your understanding.
–Jerry Katz nonduality.com
November 28, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Advanced souls leaving the body and coming back is a common occurrence, like we go out of our house and come back. Most of them, however, take some precaution so as to be not found by the public. But I guess occasionally they slip and we find out that these are different folks.
I am not sure if I should give condolences for Adi Da having left the body for good. For he will always be around for those who loved him.
November 28, 2008 at 4:28 pm
I’m not sure how to feel right now….other than grateful for all the love, and insight I have recieved from Samaraj Adi Da. My experience with him has been a blessing, and the great gifts that have emerged as a result of my involvement with him will never die.
I think of his children now, and send them my love.
Thank you to all of you who served him personally. I have not chosen to live that way of life, but his message will always be alive in me, shining with recognition.
November 28, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Anyone want to take bets that this guy will stay dead? No way is he coming back. Get over it folks- he’s dead and gone.
Now go find the Godhead within each of you and quit chasing after others you place on pedestals.
Game over.
November 28, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Adi De Nada…This is not the time or place.
November 28, 2008 at 5:55 pm
I never met him in the physical but he deeply touched me in the subtle and opened my Heart. His books, the Love that ran through him, his teaching, and the teachers I worked with who learned from him have enriched my life beyond measure. Though the human form is no longer animated the love remains alive. In gratitude.
November 28, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Well what WOULD happen if we stopped chasing after gurus?
November 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Jaya Sri Adi Da.
Jaya Sri Bhagavan Adi Guru.
Words cannot convey the immensity of this moment, nor how much we will all miss His bodily human form. The sky crys with sorrow for this loss. I pray Your Divine Brightness is forever magnified amongst us all, Beatifull Beloved Guru.
I also pray that, in this case, dead Guru’s can still kick ass.
We stand and weep in rememberance and Love.
Thankyou Da.
November 28, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Adi Da Samraj is little understood by the world. He claimed to be a World Teacher, but only had a handful of formal devotees at anyone time. Why was this so, in all of 30 years?
For me His teaching has given me a destiny of True Love and True Happiness that I as an ego could never have found in the world. I cry with gratitude and appreciation for His Presence in my life and with the certainty of His presence as I continue to live. May He continue to shout and bark in our ears so that we might Hear and transcend our separative nonsense. The Divine can only Live. There is no death.
thank you Lord
November 28, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Madhu, sometimes spiritual teachers find us.
November 28, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I am profoundly saddened by the loss of this great master. You can see based on the comments by some that this is why humans are in they state they are in. Masters are rarely recognized by the masses and the ones that are, usually aren’t of a truly profound nature. Adi Da Samraj was true. He found me when I was not looking for a master. He literally saved my life from imminent death and transformed me into a man of understanding. With very little contact He changed my life in ways that could never happen in therapy or with drugs. He has always lived truth with me despite the madness that surrounded Him and His community of devotees. If you don’t know what an esoteric spiritual practice is, then you could never know who He was. I never believed in Him and always questioned everything He did and said. And He always revealed the truth to me in my heart and that is how I continue to live to this day.
I recommend anyone that is moved to try asking Him to reveal Himself to you.
November 28, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Madhu: I would venture to guess it might even be worse than it is now around this planet. If we got the percentage of humans that chase gurus vs the ones that don’t it’s probably less than .00001% of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet. If we reversed that and did what you think, chase gurus around, I would guess there would be much less violence, terrorism and environmental issues than there currently are. What do you think?
November 29, 2008 at 3:58 am
He was a Great, Great Being. We who know even a little of this were blessed to be alive during the lifetime of this One. Those who come after will, paradoxally, appreciate Him far more than we did.
November 29, 2008 at 5:55 am
moderation is censorship
adida was not god
November 29, 2008 at 12:04 pm
indiaplazabooks Says:
> Advanced souls leaving the body and coming back is a
> common occurrence, like we go out of our house and come
> back.
There are lots of STORIES like this. But since they’re just stories, not supported by solid evidence, it might be better to not confuse the stories with reality.
NC Says:
> Adi De Nada…This is not the time or place.
When there’s great loss and suffering… that may well be the BEST time and place to examine one’s own desires, expectations, and life-direction.
When things are going well, when we’re happy, when we’ve got the tings that we want… it’s very difficult to question life and our ideas storngly and sincerely. It’s the virtue of suffering that it inspires us to question our own ideas and attachments that underlie the suffering.
It’s like… if someone is attached to money, the current financial situation is causing great suffering. Out of that suffering can come a clear examination of the attachment itself.
Dave Says:
> I would venture to guess it might even be worse than it is
> now around this planet. If we got the percentage of humans
> that chase gurus vs the ones that don’t it’s probably less
> than .00001% of the 6.5 billion humans on the planet.
While it may be true that few people literally follow someone they call a “guru”… isn’t it true that most humans have a habit of believing in an external authority of one sort or another? Whether this is good or bad for the planet is an imponderable. But each of us as individuals can look into our own thinking, our own tendency to believe in an authority over our own direct experience. No one can tell you whether this is good or bad, but each of us can look into our thinking for ourselves.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
November 29, 2008 at 12:20 pm
lol, one can say what one wants, but discourse can be be expected, unless of course you are wanting only your point of view percieved as right. There is nothing remotely wrong with common courtesy.
November 29, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Stuart, there is a difference between motivating people to examine there motives, and just being downright disrespectful, but even that has to arise in the midst of our reality. Perhaps I was just asking for respect for the grieving process. Over the years, I’ve questioned my motives many times. I still wonder what my relationship to Adi Da was all about, and I seem to have developed an inability to embrace religion, but I still love Adi Da Samaraj. I can not comprehend what that is all about, and I will not attach any meaning to it. I’ll leave that to others who are more involved with the yoga of the mind, but no matter who he was, is, or will be does not change the fact that the love I feel remains. One can not help who they love. I’ve just learned to bring intelligence to it, and act with as much integrity as I can.
November 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm
NC Says:
> lol, one can say what one wants, but discourse can be be
> expected, unless of course you are wanting only your point
> of view percieved as right. There is nothing remotely wrong
> with common courtesy.
OK. When I read the initial comment about “this is not the time or place,” I thought it was suggesting that this forum shouldn’t be questioning Da’s teachings, or the beliefs of his devotees, or the truth of “mahasamdhi” ideas, etc.
If the suggestion is that this discussion should be done in with a style of courtesy and decency, then wonderful. Since Da was a public figure who presented himself as an authority, a figure upon whom many projected strong ideas and beliefs… I think his death is a fine time to question his teachings and the beliefs that swirl around him. To continue this questioning frankly and sincerely, doesn’t in itself violate my sense of common courtesy.
Stuart
November 29, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Stuart, I agree. Thank you.
November 29, 2008 at 1:45 pm
It is always obvious when someone does not know a teacher and probably never had one.
Stuart – you are taking the hits – because you have never known Beloved Adi Da as YOUR GURU and Divine lover and teacher and friend.
I am thrilled to Be His Devotee and feel His teaching effects.
STuart – i would ho[e you would find a teacher you can surrender to and learn who you are before you die.
You are not Stuart, Stuart – you are The Divine event of your own life.
This is what propels us to Know For Sure – this is Who We Are in multi-universes of causal movements of manifesting forms and more causes . . .Here And Now . . we somehow consciously float in the Stillness. . . awakening without effort . . .to Know Ourselves – Finally – without doubt!!
We are each This One Being – Here and Now – Each in our own true Divine Birth reality and process.
These Roots – these authors, adepts and sages are Here to Open Our Own Witness to Our Own Presence –
Our Cosmic Causal Event is Most Served when we Understand these Ciphers of Consciousness reveals Our Evolutionary Message to each other: Wake Up Now ! . . . .release the false uninspected Thickness of Mass called “humanity”.
We are Waking Up: As Our True Spiritual Beingness.
This Event Is Truly What Is Happening To All of Us – these days of the “early years of the 21st Century of Man!” . . .this Eternal Moment Of Divine Birth!!
We Each are Being Divinely Born – Right Now!–
We Are this Living Event of Our Birth As Individuated Consciousness – awakening, growing, learning and receiving the certainty of this feeling of Our State of Being . . .and Our Silent Beingness is enough – - – for Now!
November 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm
No one can comprehend what this being represents. He is beyond the ordinary constructs of our minds. Whatever you say about “Him” can be asserted or denied. That the beauty and frustration of his teaching.
You either understand, or you don’t. No praise, no blame.
“God” not only exists in all of us, but prior to us, and in the midst of all things, and beings. God is a term to describe what is unknown, and what is unknown is beautiful, and terrifying all at once. The only constant is embracing the present moment.
Samaraj Adi Da is a doorway to reality. He brought back the sacred. On his sanctuaries it is felt. There is need for this in the world. I don’t believe in false gods anymore.
November 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
petrananda says:
‘He claimed to be a World Teacher, but only had a handful of formal devotees at anyone time. Why was this so, in all of 30 years?’
answer:
he was obviously a charlatan and a fraud
November 29, 2008 at 4:40 pm
dave says:
‘He literally saved my life from imminent death and transformed me into a man of understanding.’
i wonder if dave knows every other devotee says the same thing verbatim
November 29, 2008 at 4:50 pm
dave also says:
‘Masters are rarely recognized by the masses’
oh, but you, the extraordinary ONES, can see adida revealed for his true divine self. the rest of us are merely ordinary and cannot perceive such a thing.
do you realize how insulting that is to anyone with half a brain? the ones who know da is a fraud are the true enlightened ones. you are all just sheep.
there are over 1000 guru/teachers claiming divinity in this country right now, with an average of followers well above the 1100 in adidam. are all of these gurus gods? or was it just adida, the true one?
November 29, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hubbell Says:
> It is always obvious when someone does not know a
> teacher and probably never had one.
When you have ideas about others, you may think it’s obvious that you know someone else’s mind… but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Each of us can speak with authenticity about our own experience. Once we switch to judging someone else’s experience, it becomes speculation, very difficult or impossible to extract any truth from our projections.
I’ve never met anyone who didn’t claim to have a teacher. Sometimes people say they learn from another human being, sometimes from the blue sky, the green trees, the barking of a dog, etc. Sometimes people emphasize teachings that come from another person or group or scripture, sometimes the teaching of their own experience. As children, we ALL know what it’s like to rely on authorities for our teaching. Some people at some times turn more to their own inquiry.
> Stuart – you are taking the hits – because you have never
> known Beloved Adi Da as YOUR GURU and Divine lover and
> teacher and friend.
People who think of Adi Da as a Divine lover etc have one perspective. People who don’t hold that idea have a different one.
> STuart – i would ho[e you would find a teacher you can
> surrender to and learn who you are before you die.
Different people at different times hold different ideas about who they are. And sometimes people drop such ideas and only don’t know.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
November 29, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Who will lead now that he has passed?
On a personal note, I never understood why any God would require large sums of money from those that follow him; further, it seems like with most religions or organised belief systems, the real God or enlightenment comes from those that follow, lightening their own ‘burden’ of worldly goods, while enriching he or she offers spritual guidence.
November 29, 2008 at 5:30 pm
I have been reading the comments on this blog and I can’t argue with anyone about who is right or wrong. If you truly want to know if Adi Da is who he says he is, ask him. I have had several people in my life ask that question and almost all of them have gotten an answer soon after they asked. He has spoken to them, shown up in subtle form with them, but almost all have gotten the answer. Almost none of them became devotees, but they all got to personally find out from Adi Da himself what they needed to know. He has told some they are not ready to be his devotee and others have been asked to surrender something they cling to. Most leave as quickly as they can because they are not ready for real spiritual life. He was and is a fire that will burn up everything that is between you and realizing your true nature. But only if you allow it.
November 29, 2008 at 7:05 pm
It is with great respect that I observe the passing of Franklin Jones, aka Adi Da. He was not my guru, but I respect the fact that so many got so much from his ministry. And although it is never a good time to point a critical eye at someone so beloved by so many, during his life I never felt it appropriate to do so, and even now I am apprehensive. But I want to share a possibility with all those who read these comments, which is this:
Adi Da was not an avatar. Nor was he awake or enlightened. He was a man with tremendous insight, and a vast amount of emptiness (the good kind) permeating his consiousness. Beyond that, he was as human as the rest of us.
The litmus test that I use, and I propose to you, is that if you look at him or interact with him, you can get a sense that he is pulling you into him. With a true avatar, there is no one there to pull you. An avatar just IS, and has no investment in your acceptance of who or what they are. They receive those who come. That is all.
Adi Da spent way too much time talking about his divine nature to pass such a litmus test. I write this not out of disrespect for him, for he embodies Divine Reality as much as anyone, but to provide another perspective to those who might find it useful. For those who mourn his loss, my heart goes out to you; it is never easy to lose a beloved teacher, and wish you and the passing soul of Adi Da many, many blessings.
November 29, 2008 at 7:34 pm
In Bhagavan Adi Da’s own Words:
“You spend your entire life within the dream, within this vast adventure, to find the princess in the crystal palace and save her from the dragon, or to wait in the crystal palace to be rescued by the prince. You live an endless, endless adventure, millions and millions of ages, year after year after year in numberless complications. But at some point along the way you become serious enough to examine your motivation to seek, to examine the cause, the root, for which this goal is only the symbol. At last one realizes that one cannot find one’s symbolic satisfaction. And this falling into one’s dilemma, then falling through it, is the unqualified Intuition of one’s Ultimate Nature and Real Condition…
“The waking state promises something relatively undesirable to one who is suspended in the twilight state of a pleasant dream. Such a one is reluctant to understand, too distracted to be interested in understanding. The ordinary reluctance of people is not truly caused by a premonition that the life, or sadhana, of understanding is so difficult. It is only that they do not yet care about it. Somehow, for the moment, everything seems all right. For the most part, the usual man or woman possess a relatively healthful physical life, with certain satisfactions, certain opportunities, things to do, books to read, a future of places, physical pleasures, mental pleasures. With all of that, who wants to Awaken? And most people come to Me in that condition. Therefore, I do not take them seriously. I know they are only indulging themselves, even if to others the new arrivals seem to deserve only mercy and the grin of promised salvation. When these seekers come to Me, they make all kinds of complaints about their fundamental suffering. Please give me this salvation, this realization, this release! But they are not really looking for that. They are unwilling to endure the discipline of Truth.
“There are certain limitations to the entire adventure and pleasure of ordinary life. You know you are going to die some time, but, essentially, mysteriously, life still seems to be full. Thus, Truth is not likely to enter the real picture without the intervention of some fundamental, transforming event. But if you are smart, if your life is generated with Conscious Intensity, you do not have to become desperate before you will turn to the Truth. Your circumstances do not have to become empty, corrupted, and diseased. You do not have to wait for the failure of life itself before you will turn to the Truth. Someone who is waiting for life to disprove itself is only indulging himself or herself. There is nothing profound about the search or suffering of such a one. But if one is smart, if one’s life is an intensity, one is always turning to Truth from birth….
“When you become less concerned for your particular search, for your inwardness, for your adventure, you have simply become more sensitive to your Real Condition. You have felt the sunlight falling on your sleeping eyes. When your eyes have opened in the morning light, everything will be obvious to you. And you will know that you have never slept, that you have never dreamed, that you have never been limited to any thing that has appeared, you have never been in any condition you have assumed. There was always only Reality Itself, your True Nature, which is Love-Bliss, Consciousness, the Unqualified Intensity.
Taken from “The Method of the Siddhas”, the Gorilla Sermon by Adi Da Samraj. An older book, perhaps his second book, which may be available on
Amazon.com.
November 29, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Da, what a tragedy that you have left us in bodily form. I felt your body was ill when healers common to both us went many weeks ago to aid you. Now that your work is complete it is a gift to us all. One we can take from it a deep emanating love. Thank you.
November 29, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Honest question, Sanctuaries require money. It is one way to preserve beauty in the world. I’d rather see large sums of money go to these endeavors, than trashing the earth.
November 29, 2008 at 10:38 pm
I spent 8 very interesting years with adi da — in the “early days”. I left when I realized that he was standing in the way of realization. i was so tired of his constant self reference and insane demands. yes, i had all the experiences, dreams, ecstacies, etc. — but i also realized that all of these experiences were self created. truth has nothing to do with any experience. and there is nothing spiritual or material if there is only god. logically, if there is only god, then there is no god. and if there is only god then where is the need for a guru?
adi da actually created duality in every word he spoke.
I was very fortunate because i came upon U.G. Krishnamurti. Then I had a chance to see the real thing. It is true that an “enlightened” person will not talk about enlightenment and ask people to worship him.
the reason adi da had so few followers after years of teaching and writing, is that he was unapproachable and only people with money had easy access. his doors were not opened —
After i left and finally threw him out of my system, i often wished i could talk to him one to one and tell him what i thought about him. but no one could get near him unless they were completely “surrendered.” Reminds me of Bush’s style of leadership.
He died, just as we all will.
And our bodies will break down into their constituent elements. And that’s that.
November 29, 2008 at 11:00 pm
To me Samaraj Adi Da is no longer an external authority. I made Him that at first in order to fufill a childish need to find approval from a father figure. And while I have not been exclusively served by him spiritually, his teaching effected me in a most fundamental way. I realize that I often choose to live as a self involved separate personality, but he showed me there was another way.Even though I am no longer a formal student the argument of his teaching has stayed with me, and I have remained suspicious of my self involved motives at every turn. It has made me more tolerant of other ways of life, and more open to change. I can’t say I didn’t go through a dark night of the soul after I left the community but it was necessary, that I suffer my attachment to my ordinary perceptions till I was willing to change.
He criticized me for being an idealistic romantic, and wanting to make my own religion rather than turn to him. In fact, I seemed incapable to submit to that relationship in a mature fashion, and I came to wonder if the whole construct of the guru-devotee relationship was even possible for me. I entered into it very naively (and also with a lot of baggage).
But everytime I saw him, I was so immersed in love. Even when I view a picture of him I come to rest in truth. He awakens me to love.
I have experienced awakenings with viewing other murtis, viewing a tiger, and even just being present with anyone brings me into that experience again….but with him it always goes deeper.
I can not believe in anything anymore. I can’t be anything anymore, but I can simply admit, that whoever Samaraj is, I love him, to the best of my understanding.
November 30, 2008 at 12:13 am
Finally a world of opportunity is ahead for the wifes of the tiran “Adida”. Hopefully the slavery and the abuse will end in Naitumba. This charlatan has escaped prison time since his last three law suits, Refer to 1985 with his drug abuse, sex abuse, etc,. He’s gone forever, thanks to the real GOD.
November 30, 2008 at 12:54 am
I am an EX-devotee…theres a reason for that…Trust, or rather the violation of, being the main reason for leaving.
As cynical as this may sound the only people that have “seen” the body are in Fiji. There is precident in the “divine play” (see divine comedy) of “death experiences” and “reimergence” in the world of Da. The “church” is dying and has been for years. James Steinbergs comments about Da’s “instructions” for his body for “three days” (how very christian) and a “possible” “reimergence” have a certain familiarity to them.
As I said…TRUST…I don’t trust this. Wouldn’t it be realy cool if Da came back on the third day? Who will move the stone away from the front of the tomb? Will there be a final Accention for all to see. What a needed shot in the arm for this dead church (bled to death by the “master” himself) this could be!
Sorry kids…gotta see the body first otherwise it’s just an unsubstantiated rumor.
November 30, 2008 at 6:00 am
Picture an island on fire. See the brillant flames illuminate the night sea. Hear the drums and the singing. Hear the wailing. Hear the wind in the black trees.
Ours is a world ruled by terrible myths. War lords, billionairs and charletans erect times towers and subdivide space. Horrors are imagined and realized.
We are born from nothing and drift to nowhere. There is no victory or success.
How strange and rare when sweet genius devotes itself to gardens and songs and love. When the mind crumbles under paradox and the body rises on the heat of discipline. How strange when the heart opens and the moment is a lovers tear!
I wandered up and down the ladders of experience. I saw the gates of light swing wide open. I sat with Adi Da Samraj and was carried to the edge of madness or freedom. I could not tell which it was. I was torn. I was not worthy. I could not surrended at the deepest place. My corrurption and dillusion was total and profound.
He called me, whispered to me, wander in my dreams. He articulated what I saw but could not speak. He forgave me. Let me go back into the lost worlds. He reminded me with laughter. Showed himself when I did not expect it. He let me love him as life, as a sea shore, a bird on a twig. He let me love him imperfect, as the people near me, as the world with all its sorrow.
I could not answer his calling. I fell short. He criticized me but then kissed me. He was generous at a distence. He knew my weakness.
I am far from that island but I see it shinning in the middle of the black sea. I knew he had come. I tried to be with him. I was made dizzy and made with my failing. He loved me anyway. He shone everywhere.
Beautiful Adi Da, you are the world and what is prior to it. You are what remains when it vanishes. You are the mystery that is this new day. You are what beats our hearts. We are not as wise as you. We struggle to surrender and try to understand…
Yet, as you have said “if it is the truth it is always already the case”.
I am so sad that I was never able to come around again. I am so blessed to have sat with you in the past. I will not forget you. I will creep on slowly, imperfect and dim but seeing you everywhere.
I feel your presence now. I weep. I feel your presence now. I rejoice. All that you said is true. I will serve you the best I can. I thank you for your wonderous, joyful, mad, brillant, exstatic, wild, stoic, austere, indulgent, sublime beautiful life and love.
May we all be free. May we all transcend the mortal news. There is only God! None of us are worthy. Still, there is only God!
November 30, 2008 at 6:02 am
As a once former student 1975-1981; recently returned in 2007.
Considering the great range of opinions (here and on any forum); my thinking is that people arrive at a belief and support that belief–whatever it may be–as “The Truth!”
I think it is indicative of humans that they then follow such beliefs as ‘the path’ that they should take.
I am grieved at the passing of one that I love; but I wish for the greatest good to come from this event.
I know not what to expect from here on out, but I know what I feel…and I know that those feelings affect my decisions on which path to take.
I ask myself: “What path will create the greatest good?”
November 30, 2008 at 9:51 am
I notice that our criticisms of others, often say more about ourselves.
November 30, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Adi Da often referred to His devotees as “coins.” And He sometimes referred to all humanity as His “coins.” One of the inherent characteristics of a coin is that it has two sides which never “see” each other. There are those who embrace Adi Da, there are those who reject him — opposite sides of the coin. Those who have embraced Adi Da, and have found great joy in doing so, then praise Him, chant for Him, live for Him. Those who have not embraced Adi Da then go about expressing their negativity. These apparently opposing positions will not come together, and, therefore, any attempts of one side to convince the other are utterly futile. Yet, these apparently opposing positions do nothing to change the fact that they are still of the same “coin.” As experts of duality and non-duality, we should all know this, eh?
Devotees of Adi Da will continue to serve the Guru, because the Guru is not about the Bodily Human Form, He is about the Divine Person. The Guru is as present and potent today as He was two weeks ago. The Bodily Human Form is spent, but the Guru, the Divine Person, is not. Devotees won’t change the mind of any critics, any more than critics will affect the minds of devotees. You’d think the arguments would simply end…
Every one — both devotees and critics — will, one day, pass into the next realm, whatever it turns out to be. When this becomes a kind of “in-your-face” realization (and not just an idea), then we can make a conscious choice about how to conduct our lives, in the world or in a blog forum. The disciplined path is always the difficult one. It is far easier to be casual. Life is not an individual affair, so it shouldn’t be treated as such.
November 30, 2008 at 12:54 pm
NC Says:
(November 30, 2008 at 9:51 am)
“I notice that our criticisms of others, often say more about ourselves.”
Well said NC!
To my way of thinking, and to what I believe…this statement is probably the most profound…here and in any forum!
Thank you.
November 30, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I really appreciate your beautiful, poetic but pointed description John Koenigshofer! My heart is moved….
November 30, 2008 at 1:25 pm
NC:
I understand that all religions need money, it is the amount they require I have serious issues with, especially when a guru is living in the lap of luxury and many of his followers barely scrape by.
I would still like to know, how it will be decided who will take over the leadership of this group. The way I understand it, Adida said he was the living God, at risk of sounding snarky, how does one fill that position?
November 30, 2008 at 1:26 pm
NC Says:
November 30, 2008 at 9:51 am
I notice that our criticisms of others, often say more about ourselves.
In reply to this comment:
Like the many comments that claim that only those enlightened have come to accept and understand the teachings of Adida?
November 30, 2008 at 2:44 pm
NC — our criticisms or praise are coming only from ourselves and our thoughts — so what else can they be saying? I only speak from my point of view and observation. i am aware that people all over the world are worshipping some form, idea or another. and criticize others who choose not to do that.
no praise, no blame. just my humble opinion.
the poetry is nice though when people are moved by death.
November 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I agree with NC, as I have much in common with what s/he says.
I was involved with Adi Da during the years of 1985-1997. Off and on a formal devotee. When the claims grew more and more inflated to the point of “I am more ONE than anyone.” I found I could no longer stay on course within the Community.
However. BIG however. Da has been a part of my life and a fundamental influence on my world view despite the apparent detachment. No one struck so deeply at the core of me via any Teaching. The first Knee of Listening, The Method of the Siddhas, Enlightenment of the Whole Body and The Bodily Location of Happiness remain, for me, the greatest texts of all time. Nirvanasara is brilliant as well, but Method is the one that has been like a Bible to me.
Many leelas of connection to Da, dreams, synchronicities etc. Just today while walking in the forest I suddenly smelled the scent of Sant Yellow Rose Incense…….a Daist production.
It’s all a Mystery. As he would say, ‘tcha’.
November 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Some very enjoyable confessions and insights here – thank you!
Bhagavan Adi Da has been my Spiritual Master most of my life and though I could say much about the emotions that come up with His Physical Departure, I know that He has been preparing His devotees for this inevitability since the early teaching years. And so I feel Him ever more… though I still miss Him greatly.
He has only ever wanted to include all beings in His Embrace. He has always loved us, always taught us, always moved us to transcend all arising by yielding everything to Him – this is His Guru Function and will always be whether physically present or not.
For many of us, His Presence can be seen to emanate from His photographs – this is what I initially noticed having also been originally touched by Sri Ramana Maharshi’s photographs in my search for truth in my teens. And then, after reading Adi Da’s The Knee of Listening, this heart-understanding was confirmed that I was in the Presence of the Divine. Having spent many years in His physical Company, I can only prostrate in deepest gratitude for That which He continually Gifts us with – His very Self.
For those amongst us posting here who criticize Adi Da (and even all great Realizers) and who actually think they can realize the Acausal Reality without the Grace of the Realizer, I suggest that they are trying to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps. No amount of conditional struggle, whether it be full of effort or so-called effortless, will ever realize the Non-Conditional.
And to those who feel they can simply call Adi Da a charlatan, given all that He has written, spoken, and created:
I would very much appreciate your posting a link to your picture, and let our hearts confirm your own depth of understanding to be seen in your eyes and felt in your presence. Such depth is a necessary attribute you would have in order to make such absolutely judgmental statements about any great realizer.
November 30, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Thank you Feel4God, for your words.
November 30, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Ellen, I appreciated your post, and believe me I’ve felt as you have many times. I’m not trying to make you wrong, and trying to make me sound right would be ridiculous. I can feel your intelligence and discrimination.
All I am saying, is that I am grieving the loss of his physical form, but grateful that I can still feel His Grace.
I turned away from Him years ago, but he never let me go. Not because he was attached to me, but because he saw that moment I understood, and was free.
I don’t know where to go from here. It seems I’ve been catapolted to another reality after his passing. I can only be present.
November 30, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Honest Question I respectfully post this article from the Fijian times.
Adi Da dies
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Adi Da Samraj, 69, the leader of a spiritual community based at Naitauba in Lau, has died at his home on the island.
Born in the United States, Adi Da established Naitauba as his principal teaching retreat in 1983 and became a Fiji citizen 10 years later in 1993.
Matt Wilson, a spokesperson for the Naitauba Trust said Adi Da’s followers from many countries around the world would continue to maintain Naitauba as a centre for quiet study and contemplation for those who come there.
Courses at the Naitauba retreat focus on Adi Da’s teachings of spiritual self-realisation, tolerance, respect, the unity of humanity, world peace and cooperation.
Mr Wilson said Adi Da wrote many books about his beliefs.
He also encouraged his students to study the world’s great religious traditions.
Adi Da was a legal renunciate, who owned no personal possessions.
Mr Wilson says Naitauba is a significant contributor to the economy of the Lau Group.
“It provides employment and contributes to social and educational causes including scholarships for students in the Lau and Cakaudrove provinces.”
November 30, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Honest Question, I would be a fool to claim I was enlightened…but is it wrong to confess love?
Do you assume that everyone who loves Da is a cultish blowhard? That would be as ridiculous as saying all christians are fundamentalists.
December 1, 2008 at 12:13 am
With all due respect, Who died. What appears and disappears is not the eternal Now and non physical Self. That which is ever present is still so. No grief. Just relief. Birth, storylines and death are transitory concepts and trails like the tail of a comet. Be the sky..
December 1, 2008 at 2:55 am
Michael Says:
> Those who have not embraced Adi Da then go about
> expressing their negativity.
Many people have not embraced Adi Da. Just as many people don’t embrace Jesus, or Zeus, or George Bush. If “not embracing” someone is equated with “negativity,” then everyone in the world is expressing negativity.
> These apparently opposing positions will not come together,
> and, therefore, any attempts of one side to convince the
> other are utterly futile.
Different people have different experiences and perspectives. In forums like this, we share our unique viewpoints with each other. If we listen and communicate sincerely, there’s something to be learned from exchanging our perspectives.
The other alternative is to cling only to our own views, and reject anything different as “negativity.” This greatly reduces the chance of learning anything from others. Still, we’re always learning from any human communication, and surely such discussions have some chance of broadening our minds, regardless of how tightly we initially hold to the idea that considering the views of others is futile.
Feel4God Says:
> For many of us, His Presence can be seen to emanate from
> His photographs
Whenever we look at a photograph of someone else, we get some sort of feeling about the person. One option is to insist that the feelings we get are undeniable truth. A more humble option is to realize that when we look at the photo, our reaction is a reflection of our own feelings, our own beliefs, ideas, and expectations.
When you look at a person or a photograph and get some idea of who the other person is… it’s a huge, unsubstantiated, and unnecessary leap to insist that your idea is an absolute Truth.
> No amount of conditional struggle, whether it be full of effort
> or so-called effortless, will ever realize the Non-Conditional.
Cultivating a desire to “realize the Non-Conditional” is one way to go. Another possibility is to attend to the truth that’s always already appeared, right in front of you, in this very moment.
> I would very much appreciate your posting a link to your
> picture, and let our hearts confirm your own depth of
> understanding to be seen in your eyes
Police detectives can look into someone’s eyes and get a intuition of whether they’re guilty. Even the best detectives are frequently wrong. Poker players look into each other’s eyes to decide if they’re bluffing. Even the best poker players frequently get it wrong.
If you’re claiming that you can look into someone’s eyes and know with absolute certainty what they do or don’t understand, I’d say you’re over-estimating the infallibility of your speculations. Besides which, why is it important to judge the mind-state of others, whether through gazing at their photos or through other techniques? Isn’t it possible that examining one’s own mind is sufficient?
Stuart
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 1, 2008 at 3:06 am
Of course the Da devotees will continue the same canned rhetorical tactics to try and undermine critics who are simply reporting their own insights and experiences. And their are two sides to a coin, but if the group is not what it appears, devotional blindness is not spiritual superior to sound criticism. Criticizing Da is claimed to be the same as criticizing all great Realizers–but it is ok for Da to claim only he attained the so-called highest stage not other Realizers who were not fully enlightened according to him. The truth is it is only Da that is being criticized as not being Realized, not these great Realizers. Da is not widely recognized as a great Realizer despite what is claimed, and so there is no reason critics should assume it. And employing the old rhetorical trick Da himself used of claiming critics only reflect on themselves, as Da did when condemned by Hindu authorities for his distortion of the dharma, only works if you do not investigate Da thoroughly. They claim that ordinary mortals are in no position to judge Da, and gloss over the rejection of Da’s claims by his former teachers, and his isolation and deliberate avoidance of meeting living recognized figures like Nisagadatta and Ammachi who indirectly criticized his claims. They do not acknowledge that only a relatively small number of those who became devotees from long ago are still involved because there comes a point for many when the rationalizations no longer work even despite the leelas and shakti effects which are after all just kundalini based and not proof of enlightenmen. And they do not admit that unlike for example Realizers like Ramana and others who have a public life, outside of an inner circle most followers have only second hand knowledge of events and are only repeating what they are told. Even more precarious is the postion of those who have read books and seen videos and felt the presence and use that to judge Da but have not taken time to see by actual engagement that the results in practice prove that the tree itself is not producing sound fruit despite enthusiastic claims otherwise. That is not to say that there is not much to appreciate about Da, but he is also the epitome of Narcissus in spiritual drag who demanded devotional depedency, and a part time hedonist who ruined his health long ago who finally died prematurely of a massive heart attack despite endless pontificating on health and life extension. And, though a great writer and speaker, what he said did not reflect his own state but what he inspired to be and to convince others that he was, nor have many of his prophecies made in grander times proven to come true.
December 1, 2008 at 8:01 am
In my mind, Wizard Baldour I know your words are true, and often times experience is showing it to be true, but sometimes when I see a picture of him, I feel saddened that I will never see that particular vehicle animated with His Bliss again. It is a necessary and perfectly natural transition that has happened, but still I feel the loss of it….as do I feel the gain. It seems that I’m closer to “Him” now.
I think it’s natural to grieve our loved ones for a time, even though there is the reality that there is no death, and no one to really die. It’s just applying the yoga of this to a life that is everchanging. Attachment does bring suffering, but it is also just one of the things we all have to transcend from moment to moment.
That being said. I’m cutting myself a break. A little twinge of grief, in the midst of gratitude seems human enough to me.
December 1, 2008 at 8:08 am
Former follower, and critic, how do you know that what you say is true? It is only your perception, and while it is a valid one, can you really discard the experiences of others absolutely?
December 1, 2008 at 11:12 am
Dear All,
Just happened upon this site for the first time.
Looking for company in this poignant moment.
Have been a formal devotee of Adi Da for 36 years.
Of course, I am deeply touched by this passing .
It is a very intimate and personal choice to accept the
guru-devotee relationship.
Just like any profound relationship , it is uniquely meaningful to the ones involved.
We all need love and deep meaning in our lives.
It is important to respect how that may work out in the circumstance of any one’s life.
I have struggled with my own motives to have others choose
the circumstance I have chosen…and finally understanding that this was dis-respectful on my part…
What seems to work , peacefully and happily, is when I exercise respect and curiosity for the deeply meaningful choices of others.
It is much more interesting, enjoyable, and intimate to be curious and admire the great process at work in any one’s life.
Then I can respectfully cooperate to further peace , positive growth, well-being and creativity.
There are great paradoxes in appearing here for all of us.
There are always apparent limits to note in all of us.
There are inevitable limits to any point of view…and yet the truth is also there in any point of view.
I am feeling forward into the light of what is ultimately unknown .
Adi Da impressed me with the sense that the unknown is bright , love-blissful, and sacredly beautiful beyond limit.
Not to be feared.
He teaches me to behold the divine reality in the form of all.
To love and serve that truth humbly and respectfully.
To bow to what is great and be unburdened of my suffering
and the sense of separation.
To love life and surrender fear of life and death.
To honor the truth in all beings.
To be responsible for my choices.
I am so grateful.
I am mourning a bit.
Yet consciousness is bright.
Let us all cooperate to manifest a more tolerant and peaceful world .
Much Love,
Wes
December 1, 2008 at 12:36 pm
@ Stuart – A picture alone may or may not work for some people to recognize their Master. In my case, I also had to read Adi Da’s literature, so as I stated in my post, “after reading Adi Da’s The Knee of Listening, this heart-understanding was confirmed that I was in the Presence of the Divine.”
It was only after studying many other traditions and practicing some of them that I even found Adi Da, so I was not totally naive spiritually, nor was I basing my decision to take up His Way solely on something I felt about His picture.
I appreciate what you say about how egos can hide whether they are lying from detectives, etc. However, no ego can hide deep enough away to not have it show up in their eyes and/or the feeling of their being. The heart instantly recognizes egoity in another – and that self-consciousness will rear its ugly head sooner or later. In fact, the first few years of my approach to Bhagavan Adi Da, I actually hoped to find egoity somewhere in His eyes, etc., because the practice was very offensive to my ego! So I looked at Him under many many circumstances of every possible nature, very up close and personal (like a few feet away for endless hours) – but never found Him to “lose it” to egoity. No self-consciousness under ANY circumstance. So I remained to this day…
And so on that note, as far as requesting a picture of those people who are just attacking Adi Da as a charlatan, etc., this is one way to help determine the depth of their own being/realization. For to criticize a Master of any greatness, one should at least be as great – at least that is how I see it.
December 1, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Adi Da was the first Guru I came in contact with but he did not awaken me. No, I was awakened by a few words that grabbed me from an opened book as I passed by it in the bedroom of Wizard Baldour. It was a picture book containing brief excerpts of the teachings of Ramana Maharshi. Ramana Maharshi and the Wizard modeled pure beingness for me – with nobody home. To be in the presence of one so dissolved is the ultimate gift. It is the direct experience of who we are. Without this gift it is difficult to realize the truth.
Ego sees ego and as one who often likes to carry his bags on the train, I saw a lot of ego in Adi Da. He seemed very preoccupied with his own divinity. While I had no trouble acknowledging it, I wondered why he bothered. Others, more complete in their surrender than I, were able to see beyond the ego and into the pure beingness of Adi Da – and hence their own.
Being the instrument of awakening for only one other human being is a tremendous gift. So we should be grateful for Adi Da. On the other hand, we should not ignore his very human failings. For those of you feeling lost by his physical absence may I suggest a look/rereading of the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi? There is sweetness and loving grandfather and light and unbroken compassion in that humble man. When it comes to teachers, it is clear you can only trust the ones who want nothing from you.
peace, love, and everlasting awareness…
Trip
December 1, 2008 at 1:14 pm
In regards to Samaraj Adi Da, the grief I feel is hard to describe. Mostly I feel grateful for my time with him. Make no mistake, I could never be a student in the way I was before. I’ve made a lot of choices that have helped me grow out of that childishness. …but being his devotee is an integral part of who I am….and in spite of all my “criticisms” and concerns about Him, my involvement with the community, I deeply love Him. Perhaps I will never understand what he represents, but there has been no one in my life that has conveyed such beauty to me.
I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything anymore…and though I know in my heart there really is no death, I grieve that I will never again see the bliss animated through his physical form which leaves me to only transcend the final throes of my attachment to Him. I’ve called Him a madman, I’ve called Him a saint, I’ve called him a hedonist, and a trickster. I’ve called myself a sheep for following him, but now I yearn for him, and can only find him, in everything and everyone.
And so my friend, I see Him now as I write, mad with Love, and longing to be connected to something beyond my ordinary limitation. Anything short of that is unbearable.
I am the God He has come to serve, just as you and your beautiful families are.
Of course, I’m not saying that he is your guru, I’m just saying that I am choosing to see him now in everyone and everything. Not “him” as Franklin Jones, or Samaraj Adi Da, but him as bliss, and life itself. I’ve been catapulted into a different awareness. I hope you don’t mind that I write this way. I just felt that I had to be truthful about my experience for the sake of our friendship.
I need to shed that feeling of complaint I had about him. I think I have made choices that have allowed me to become a discriminating woman in the past few years, so as a result my relationship to Samaraj Adi Da changed, and I didn’t even really know it till his physical passing. I went to the santuary and felt the strength and happiness of my being. He was no longer my father, but the friend that had revealed not only Himself to me, but my particular form of narcissus.
When I was a student, I served his sanctuary at the Fear No More Zoo. I got to visit there, and I remember how truly happy I had been there, and what a privilege it was to have done that. I received many gifts from my involvement with the community, and I may never be able to be a cookie cutter devotee (if there is one) but I will help my friends there during this time.
December 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm
I am in Fiji on retreat now and was a few 100 meters from Adi Da the time of His leaving the body, We Buried Him yesterday. There are few words to describe the heartbreak and love I feel for Adi Da, who ever He was. We had just been documenting Him on film in the last six weeks (how is that for timing) and also the extraordinary spiritual process He was/is taking people through in ‘transmission sittings’ here, we had the grace of interviewing people as they came from the Sittings with Him, and again and again they would utter words of utter transformation and Bright revelation of prior unity, I along with many others who have flocked to be here now, are being brightened and overwhelmed with His perfect bliss touch, I feel Him opening up the head and melting down into the body, the air on this Island is thick with His presence, the ongoing vigil of His passing is like entering a Bright heart opening realm..
i have read these responses..I share the praise and love and other beautiful offerings of a Master who will be recognised more in the coming years for the unbelievable and ignored massive wealth He left the world.. far beyond the humble abodes he lived in on this island ! (marble palaces what the f ?)
His unending insistance on The Reality as opposed to our reality like a great lion who would roar and bite off your head if it would be 1 step closer to your liberation.. and then in the next moment laugh and make a joke…
He played in the places that we fear the most… and He won… He already Had and that is the point.
But there will always be the shout of outrage and opposition a perfect reflection of every egos massive defiance to Brightness itself.. mine included..
because as He so wonderfully put it.. Your Objections to anything don’t mean shit !!! Reality is always already the case..
nothing changed when He left the body.. except the revelation of brightness the feeling of His unmistakable touch and warm embrace became all the more potent and something in this mind blowing process feels like it has ultimate importance but right now I am to mentally mashed with the moment to grasp what it is.. but take this with you for free, on the day that Adi Da passed he put His pen down on His master work the Altheon… and here is just one line from this massive work ;
The total pattern of the universe Is, now and forever hereafter, the Incarnation Vehicle of My Divine Avataric Self-Emergence, here and everywhere.
and if anyone wants to put that in a pipe and smoke it be my guest.. but He was not playing by any of our games wether we like it or not. and the proof is not in the whys and wherefores…it is in the utter undeniable unending LOVE.
with more love then I could possable self generate ..blisscake
December 1, 2008 at 2:17 pm
In addition to my remark I would like to confess, that I have been criticized by Samaraj Adi Da about my tendency to “help” rather than be an example of spiritual practice. I finally get It Beloved. My only true help to anyone is feeling beyond my limitation.
December 1, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
> Criticizing Da is claimed to be the same as criticizing all
> great Realizers–but it is ok for Da to claim only he attained
> the so-called highest stage not other Realizers who were not
> fully enlightened according to him. The truth is it is only Da
> that is being criticized as not being Realized, not these great
> Realizers. Da is not widely recognized as a great Realizer
I’ve done lots of work with computers (as an MS Excel expert). When people come to me with their computer problems, I don’t waste time telling them that I’m a great Expert, or comparing myself to other Excel Experts, living or dead. I just fix their problems, and once they see that it works, then they’re happy.
Some spiritual teachers operate like this also. People come to them wanting to understand themselves, and explore how to live their lives and relate to others. The teachers point them to practices and inquiries, and encourage them use these pointers to find truth for themselves. None of this requires the teacher to make any claims about their own greatness, what a wonderful “Realizer” they are, or to judge any other teachers living or dead.
So the important issue to me is… what, if anything, about Da’s life, words, actions, and death… is helpful to any of us as we live our actual lives just now? I see that as a useful line of inquiry, and everyone can try and see for themselves whether they find any of Da’s words etc to be useful. The whole issue of what a “Realizer” is, of whether or not Da was one, of what other living or dead teachers were superior or inferior… all of this is a different issue entirely (and for me personally, not the issue I find interesting).
Also… we can exercise care re how much weight we put on whether or not a teacher is “widely recognized.” Following a crowd, believing in things because they’re widely recognized by others, can sometimes be a useful strategy. But we can also look into things independently, seeking whatever’s most helpful to our particular life situation. In that case, we examine what best works for ourselves, and it becomes irrelevent whether or not masses of other people recognize it.
NC Says:
> I think it’s natural to grieve our loved ones for a time
I don’t see any problem with grieving. Some people have the idea that life ought to be non-stop bliss. They try to ignore or deny grief and sadness in themselves, and criticize it in others.
All of this is rooted in the initial idea: “I want to be happy all the time.” That want can be questioned also. Maybe it’s possible to keep a clear mind, in which it’s no problem to be happy sometimes and grieving sometimes, healthy sometimes and sick sometimes, alive for a while and then dead. A clear mirror reflects each moment as it is, beautiful or ugly, without making it into a problem.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
December 1, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Thank you Blisscake, Wes and all of you who have posted.
December 1, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Thank you NC for answering my question regarding what will become of the communities that Adida lead.
While I respect your and the rights of others to believe as you find correct according to your spiritual calling; I would also be a liar to say I can dismiss many of the stories, reports, and lawsuits regarding the behavior of Adida in the years his own teachings evolved.
I have met many that follow the teaching of Adida, some have been very helpful and open willing to discuss the teachings with extreme openess, and they also have been able to answer the ‘harder’ questions without the ‘failsafe’ terms such as before mentioned, that ‘only those that wish enlightenment’ or ‘only those that release the ego’ will be able to understand.
Now, in regards to your reply to my post—
No, I do not think that all that follow Adida, anymore than all that follow more commonly accepted and known faiths are churlish–but it seems that some do exert far more ‘ego’ and have an ire of superiority that transcends any message or teaching they claim to understand.
I do not believe Adida was a great man; I do however believe that he had many great people that believed in him–so any greatness he had in this life is only due to those that openly, and honestly not only followed their hearts spiritually, but where also willing to follow their hearts for those that took a different spiritual path, befriending them, as well as respecting their personal journey.
So for those that are mourning the loss of Adida, honestly, my sincere condolences; and thank you for those that were willing to share your innermost feelings; however, as still as much as I respect your rights to religious freedom, I still have serious questions about the actions and behaviors of Adida.
December 1, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I-Dolls, Deification & Role of Toto
Deifications and I-Dolls are constantly sticking their heads up in the ocean of Now. They appear in many incredible forms, not just Da. They are a part of the mortal and mystical drama. Most are simply ego trips when propped up by desire doership. They are projections from the veneer of the mind. They can be awesomely seductive and trap attention. This is not to say that sincere saints and sages are not worthy of veneration. The true sage, however, will exhibit genuine equality of the highest common denomunator and expose deification for what it is.
Many I-Dolls are situated around the very well of our being. Don’t be fooled because the water you drink is pure. The water in the well is the same for everyone. Some set up toll booths to sell you, you. Usually it is in the form of a secret method or secret school of the esoteric arts with hierarchies, vows, levels, mantras, memberships, God squads, gawking wannabes… they are all the same. It is carrot stick quackery. Don’t be fooled! Drink freely from your own Well.
In the story of the Wizard of Oz, Dorothy’s pet, Toto, pulls the curtain back on the Wizard at just the perfect time to reveal an extraordinarily ordinary Being. Toto is a fact of life. Toto happens. A blessing.
We are all One. Toto is making sure equality is recognized. We are all unmasked at the perfect time. Welcome Toto when he appears. He comes in infinite forms to level the playing field. Surrender. Allow Toto to pull the curtain back. Understand how Toto’s perfect action empowers Dorothy, the Tin man, the Lion and the Scarecrow and restores love to the Wizard. Empowering others as thy Self is a true guru. They are extraordinarily ordinary. Love is Oneness. Nobody is a guru. Everyone is the Guru. This is the Truth. This is Wizardry. This is Love.
December 1, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I wish Da peace in his transition.
I was, and am, enormously critical of him.
The fundamental truth simply is.
He didn’t discover it. I don’t feel he illuminated it particularly skillfully. I don’t think his writings will last – they’re not very good. I could be wrong (look at the Mormons). I think he was often deeply confused, and often confused others.
But the truth is. He couldn’t obscure it. He couldn’t create it. He lived his life in the manner of his choosing or destiny. It’s not the right way for many others – certainly not for me. But you can’t really call it the wrong way either. It was his way. Not your way.
If you found him helpful, excellent. Your life will bear the fruits of your insight, sweet, sour, or under-ripe. At best, by any standard, he was a (crooked) finger pointing at the moon in your own eye. Don’t mistake the finger, the moon, and your own eyes.
December 1, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“I” have no fingers pointed at my crooked eye.
The moon has taken me in. I rest in the one that pointed the way.
December 1, 2008 at 4:44 pm
MODERATION OF COMMENTS
All comments are moderated. There is only one moderator. Sometimes he sleeps or works. Therefore, hours may pass before you see your comment. Please send your comment only once, and wait for it to appear. Unmoderated, you would see spam, haters, and sickos. Thanks for your understanding.
–Jerry Katz nonduality.com
December 1, 2008 at 5:13 pm
He was an important part of my spiritual development in the 70′s and 80′s. Being in his company informed my practice, even to this day. And even though I ceased being a formal student many years ago his presence was always felt and those teachings, that I found useful, will always be a part of me.
Great Sorrow at his passing.
December 1, 2008 at 5:33 pm
As a former devotee, I have the utmost reverence and respect for Adi Da Samraj. He opened me up to a love that allowed me to see and feel beyond my “self” . . . he also opened me up to confusion and disenchantment . . . no matter, the universe clapped loud with thunder upon his bodily death and what remains is Consciousness Itself . . . this is what we are all responsible for in evolving . . .
Adi Da Samraj was also famous for saying: Dead Gurus Don’t Kick Ass . . . I wonder what is next for those that may continue their search . . .
you might want to check out: http://www.enlightennext.org
December 1, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Da was arguably the most innovative and compelling exponent of the non-dual tradition in the 20th century. He was truly a remarkable Being, despite the controversy surrounding him…I am saddened by his passing…
December 1, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I’ve read twenty to thirty of his books in over twenty years. Started in my early 20′s, (male). Have some videos and audio tapes too. He was a great man who accomplished much. Incredibly profound thinker, very insightful. Great critic of society and conventional religion.
I felt his best work was when he talked normally in the 80′s. In the 90′s and on to the end, he would always say, “By the Only by Me Revealed Divine Way of Adidam” almost every other sentence in his discourses.
Seemed a little pretentious in the end, stating he was the one and only 7th stage realizer. I found little difference between his level of realization and Ramana Maharshi’s.
Maharshi never claimed to be a master or guru. Said once he realized the truth he saw that it was like he woke up from a dream and everybody else in the dream had been his projection and creation so he saw no difference between himself and other selves.
Adi Da Samraj always encouraged his devotees to submit to him which is really not a western thing
There is however a tradition of guru devotion in India and eastern cultures which might be more appropriate for easterners as westerners tend to pervert this method. It always seems to get a little twisted.
For those who were attuned to him maybe his always telling his devotees to turn to him in every moment of self contraction may have had it’s merit.
When I found out he passed at only 69 I was a little suprised and spontaneously became silent with head bowed for a couple of minutes.
I learned a lot from him and I will miss this crazy, profound individual.
I am thankful for his presence in my life.
Adi Da…
December 2, 2008 at 12:59 am
Having spent the better part of my adult life (20+ years) in the community and having been gone several years I feel moved to write something for others to read.
I loved the man as a man loves God and after discovering that I, and others, had been systematically lied to, I left.
To be sure, there were warning signs along the way that I chose to ignore because I was so convinced by the sheer brilliance and power of the man, Adi Da. He was the most impressive individual I have ever seen to date.
I can only summarize the whole tour of duty as a spiritual rape. The cover-ups and cultic mind-set were, to me, a most extreme form of betrayal of trust of sincere seekers of truth.
In the case of Adi Da, we had a truly gifted man that suffered a from an ultimate degree of Narcissistic personality disorder and surrounded himself with hundreds of enablers.
It took me a long time to work through the rage but now I see that he was truly suffering a terrible delusion and his students were feeding it for their own personal reasons. It was, and still is a crazy situation.
I don’t know what will happen to the cult now. I’m certain that many will leave since the main attraction is gone forever. But the hard-core will remain along with a few that don’t know what else to do with their lives.
I was under Adi Da’s spell and I found that after I realized the lie, it was a rude awakening but my life didn’t end.
His death was the only escape from his infirmity and now others may have the chance to get on with something real in their lives beyond this fantasy.
I know how some devotees will take this communication because I was once a true believer. I would have posted my name but since I have had the experience of being threatened by one of these fanatic followers I have chosen not to.
Only time will tell what happens to the rest of the followers and the millions of dollars in the church’s trust accounts. I suppose there will be the customary jockying for power when a cult leader dies.
I hope there can be a time when the truth is no longer suppressed in this group of people and real awareness can take the place of make believe.
December 2, 2008 at 1:00 am
With my tears,
I watered the creeper of love that I planted;
Now the creeper has grown spread all over,
and borne the fruit of bliss.
The churner of the milk churned with great love.
When I took out the butter,
no need to drink any buttermilk.
I came for the sake of love-devotion;
seeing the world, I wept. ”
- Mirabai
December 2, 2008 at 4:17 am
i was adi da’s devotee for 15 years and i served him intimately (spending up to 8 hours daily with him) for several years. just as an indicator that i might know what i am talking about.
adi da was clearly not a realized being. he was an amazing artist, no doubt (referring to his visual and written art) and a being with charisma.
i find it amazing that he is described here as an “compelling exponent of the non-dual tradition”. that he was most certainly not. his writings (that which attracted me to him in the first place) are amazing and could be – at superficial glance – characterized as “non-dual” but his actions, his rules, his daily conduct showed no LIVING understanding of non-duality at all. he was a despot with a HUGE ego, just full of himself. and btw – i am not one of those that received harsh criticism by him and ran away. he usually treated me well (as i said i had many hundreds of hours of direct interaction with him), probably because he needed certain skills for my service.
he was VERY attached to personal gratifications, never got tired of mentioning that he was “the greatest realizer to ever walk this earth”, completely depleted his organization of money and using this money for utterly ludicrous things like buying dozens of the most expensive watches, or porcelain dolls, or disney art. he spent many millions of dollars on his personal collections. i would not have an issue with this if his organization had been rich. but it wasn’t. in fact, it was so poor that MANY of his devotees on his fijian island suffered from malnutrition because there was no money to buy decent food. i spent many years on that island. i know what i am talking about. an act of love? you tell me…
i have met a few REAL non-duality teachers since i left adi da’s organization. sailor bob adamson, john wheeler, jeff foster, to name a few. there is a difference like night and day between those and their teachings and adi da and his teaching. you can’t really compare them, so vast are the differences.
just the fact that adi da stresses again and again that he is the first and only 7th stage realizer. in other words he is more enlightened than enlightened. even if one accepts the concept of enlightenment, which most non-dual teachers do not, how can it be that one is more enlightened than others? either you are or you are not. how can one be more pregnant than pregnant? adi da’s ego just needed those glamorizations. also, nobody EVER realized anything in his company. that was his constant criticism of his devotees, even of his most intimate ones, the two ruchiradamas. of course, it was always and only the fault of his devotees. but it was his own admission that NOBODY realized ANYTHING after more than 30 years of being exposed to the greatest realizer! ridiculous!
he engaged in all kinds of spiritual experiments. like his special retreats or his “silver hall sittings”. but there was a constant pattern of always terminating the experiments before anyone could expect any “results”. in other words he always avoided and failed the proof of being a real guru (if such a thing exists, but according to him it did). he ALWAYS did that in the 15 years i was his devotee. and so it was with his death. utterly ordinary, completely unexpected, and coming at a time where his organization and the world (according to him) needed him most. he bailed out yet again, in his final act!
truly amazing! he was in the middle of doing his art work, which according to him was so utterly important and very dear to him. no to belittle his art. he truly was an amazing artist! but if you know him and his relationship to his art, it is unthinkable that he would leave the body in the middle of it – if he had any say in leaving his body, which is clear to me he had not.
to sum it up:
adi da was not your ordinary john doe. he was an amazing artist. he was a man of charisma. but he was no realizer and had no right to teach anything spiritual. he had a HUGE ego and leaves a depleted organization in a very desolate state. the chapter adidam is closed. many have moved on already and many (if not most) of his current devotees will move on soon. luckily, there are plenty of REAL non-dual teachers out there.
December 2, 2008 at 4:57 am
Da predicted from his earliest teaching period that he would be seen as a paradox, and he rapidly became a polarizing figure, recognized as a genius with a palpable shakti ability, but not necessarily as Realized nor widely recognized as the Avatar he considered himself to be. Da was what he was and did what he did. And he did indulge hedonistic tendencies during his life and he make the unprecedented claims about himself, including the later Avataric Emergence claim and an early statement in the beginning that those who ended their relationship with him went back to zero, and he was rightly accused of contradictions in teaching and behavior. It is the polarizing interpretations of all that which result in the polarized views of him, not just ego resistance, as Da devotees tend to claim just like their guru did.
I happen to believe that Da was telling the truth when he said:
“At least that is the way it seems to me. What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers, and none of them agrees with me. They all tell me that I’m mad, that I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. If you consult the usual books they won’t tell you such a thing. I’ve read them all myself…I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have!”
And I and some others believe that that explains the paradox of Da and his life, his genius and his failings, in his own words, far clearer than anything someone could make up.
To clarify a comment above, I do not discount the experiences of others regarding Da, I certainly had my share of interesting samadhis and can understand how Da devotees view them. Da devotees will find confirmation for their beliefs in those experiences where I do not. I do not agree with their interpretation or the underlying assumptions on which they are based. Adidam is essentially a guru bhakti group that uses Da and his particular teachings, rather than mainstream non-dualism, as the yardstick to measure and assess spirituality which affects their interpretation and the view of critics as just resistant egoists. And those who stay long enough tend to adopt this view and see things and experiences through that perspective, including the significance of experiences, and his Avataric claims and assessments of spiritual figures, and the rampant modifications he made to his teaching and claims since he began teaching a small group in 1971.
As an example of how this process works and why the unusual polarization exists around Da, I want to highlight a few statements from the Da devotee “blisscake” from Fiji.
“I along with many others who have flocked to be here now, are being brightened and overwhelmed with His perfect bliss touch, I feel Him opening up the head and melting down into the body, the air on this Island is thick with His presence, the ongoing vigil of His passing is like entering a Bright heart opening realm”.
The presumption is that this bhakti experience of a bliss touch opening the head and melting down into the body, what Adidam now considers the unique and highly advanced Thumbs Samadhi and a previously unrevealed short cut to the highest, non dual realization, is not just a charismatic if blissful kundalini shakti effect but validation of Da’s claims. Critics consider the emphasis on these experiences which devotees view as proof validating Da’s unprecedented claims about himself, and the general guru bhakti and bliss based emphasis of practice in Adidam rather than traditional non-dualism, as a problematic distortion of mainstream non-dualism.
“But there will always be the shout of outrage and opposition a perfect reflection of every egos massive defiance to Brightness itself.. mine included..because as He so wonderfully put it.. Your Objections to anything don’t mean shit !!! Reality is always already the case.”
Challenging the asssumption of Da’s realization and claimed Avataric status, though not his genius, and criticizing his many controversial actions that alienated so many, has nothing to do with what is objecting to what is already the case. But this statement does demonstrate why assumptions are unchallenged and the problematic aspects of what has become public is still only a fraction of the totality of problematic aspects of the group, because such things are considered defiance to the Divine itself.
“On the day that Adi Da passed he put His pen down on His master work the Altheon… and here is just one line from this massive work ; The total pattern of the universe Is, now and forever hereafter, the Incarnation Vehicle of My Divine Avataric Self-Emergence, here and everywhere. and if anyone wants to put that in a pipe and smoke it be my guest.”
Da devotees are free to assume that Adi Da is the historically unique, Divine Avataric Self-Emergence, and that the universe is his Incarnation Vehicle, as he claimed. Others can legitimately question whether this radically new doctrine and its implications about traditional Realizers and realization being inferior is really a non-dualist position or that of a guru bhakti group instead, and an indication that Da was a flawed human being with limits as many former followers and critics assert. Despite Adidam attempts to link criticism of Da’s claims with criticism of the non-dualist Realizer tradition because they personally view Da as the epitome of the ultimate Realizer, there is nothing to suggest that those widely recognized as Realizers like Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta (who responded to a question about Da’s teaching critically), or more historical figures like the Buddha would have supported Da’s claims or his behavior.
None of this criticism alters the fact that a remarkable human being who influenced many to explore non-dualism even if many ultimately found him and his claims wanting has now passed. Nor will it change any minds of those already convinced. I simply hope to paint a broader picture of Da than offered only by devotees.
December 2, 2008 at 8:32 am
Hi,
It is becoming more clear as the days pass following this death.
The guru-devotee relationship is a very personal matter.
It is always a bit odd one way or another.
Universal proclamations of truth are whatever they may seem to be to any individual. including the one proclaiming.
One’s own personal experience is the only arbiter in the matter.
It is good to see some appreciation mixed with the inevitable criticism in the entries above.
I feel we have to trust the process of our own awakening and follow it where it may go.
Each has a unique sense of Adi Da or anyone else .
I have found Adi Da to be a perfect window- and a perfect mirror .
I came to him out of a great need for peace of mind, guidance , and grace.
This was given. This continues.
I am grateful.
The daily cutting edge – is to actually practice the way one has chosen and be transformed beyond fear and doubt.
It is ultimately confusing when I try to describe with words,
what is most simply available in the silence of being.
For all his words, often apparently contradictory or confusing, Adi Da principally worked in silence.
It is in silence that the truth of any of us is tested and found.
” Who could own the Holy brightness ?”
Indeed.
It is not owned.
Each is responsible to find it, awaken to it , be it, as we may,
” In Place.”
Eventually all find what they truly need where ever they may.
Eventually all awaken to their true hearts desire.
Time to meditate.
It is well.
Love,
Wes
December 2, 2008 at 9:11 am
Thanks critic for the feed back I will seriously ponder it in my mind so as to distract myself from dissolving into the portal of perfect Brightness…. hee hee
or a wonderful Adi Da quote “you may be right but I am Happy”
To me it is simple: you either know He is your Guru or you don’t, He is my Master and Has awakened me to a bright overwhelming and utterly freely given pure Love time and time again … as well as a never ending list of gifts of maturity and life transformations.. I love my Master.. He has proved over and over in this seeming body, what He says.. but i am not talking about the mental conceptual understanding.. but when by shear mysterious grace you find yourself dissolved in DA then His words are like melting forms of perfect clarity dissolving all mind about any damn thing… didn’t work for you.. well then maybe He is not your Master ..so what is the problem.. i just find the intensity of the critics so strong.. and yet all I have been given in the 14 odd years is incredable heart breaking Love and Gifts and many many friends, i don’t see any people with malnutrition.. !!! i see here on the island a group of inspiring devoted rather extraordinary people.. who like me know that Adi Da is their Guru… whatever its totally profound to be here at this time, the vigil continues and the deep deep bliss is pervading everything.. Adi Da had said that on His dropping the body there may well be stronger signs of His Siddhi.. it is definatly my and others here confessions… as i write this i am feeling Him pouring into the head from above.. as well as a blissfull energy pervading the whole island like we are in a cloud of MDMA gas !! and my friendly critic this may well be a kundalini phenominon but what the fuck do I care ! He is my Master who is bliss even with out a body !! He says it I say OK Master if you say so, because what the bugger is a kundalini anyway. or anything else for that matter ! kundalini curdled creamy.. and if this is spiritual rape then bring it on… because whatever shit this world is in..slowly grinding the dreamers into the shredder.. i am holding onto the form of the Bright one…the place where there is only the brightness felt as all pervading love bliss, where there is no percieved world or other..this shown to seeming me, not understood by me in any other mental terms.. just clearly and spontaniously (spelling not my thing) authenticated through the being, being undone in this perfect bright unity… and you want to get into a consideration about Adi Da as being something that you speculate Him to be !! what the F !! the whole world is full of that mindy bullshit… that is why He is my Master and not a book by my bed… what a absolute wonder.. what a wonder to be undone in perfect love without a damn qualification for it. felt as perfect all pervading bliss felt as everything that obviosly already was and now freely given with not even a body here !!! (still has not sunk in) I am a fraud and a mere mortal identified everyman.. addicted to every kind of bullshit and still… The Brightness, the overwhelming attractiveness of the Brightness, that Is DA Is and Is felt by heart… that (to me at least) is perfect. but if you want to call it kundalini then you are welcome !
OK friends of The Bright One.. here is another utterance of perfection.. from Alethion
14. I Am always dissolving (Myself, and all-and-All) in My own “Brightness”.
15. This is What I do.
16. This is What I am always doing.
17. This doing is Who I Am.
18. This is the Force and Nature of My Avatarically-Born, Avatarically Self-Transmitted, and Avatarically Self-Revealed Divine Company.
19. I am not merely in the Divine State.
20. I Am the Divine State—here and forever now.
And, when the orb of “Brightness” rises
in the midnight eye,
all the rain of freedom falls upon
the heart’s horizon—
of pure Consciousness!
So if you disagree with this.. prove it ! all questionairs have to be handed in by 2pm on tuesday sharp !
sing it how it IS Beloved
with more love that I could possibly self generate Blisscake
December 2, 2008 at 10:02 am
There are contrarian points of view about Adi Da held by many ex-devotees. After all, at least 90-95% of those who were devotees over the years faded away from close formal involvement with Adi Da, and the group never became large.
The website at http://www.adidaarchives.org explores some alternative perspectives on Adi Da that those who are interested in the man should at least consider.
December 2, 2008 at 10:19 am
God Is Not a Gentleman and I Am That One
Adi Da Samaraj
December 2, 2008 at 10:53 am
It doesn’t make any difference to me if he was “crazy”, I still love Him.
There are an infinite amount of ways to describe an apple, just are there are an infinite amount of ways to describe the divine.
Accepting my guru as a madman, has helped me to see my own madness. My resistance to seeing it almost killed me, but now I know that real sin, is not being rested in the heart.
December 2, 2008 at 10:57 am
To Shiva: Thank you very much for your outstanding post and clear personal observations about the actual behavior of Adi Da, which did not even remotely reflect the kind of spiritual realization he wrote about in his books.
Your experience matches that of many of us who spent years in the Community feeding the ego and desires of this talented but needy narcissist, Adi Da. We were worked to death and sucked dry of money and energy, with no regard as to the impact it had on US. It was all about HIM.
What so many fail to do is separate the teachings from the teacher — like so many others, Da did not practice what he preached.
Yet he was able to live an idyllic life where nearly all of his fantasies were fulfilled by preying on the hopes, fears, and PROJECTIONS of others who shared the mythology of “Frank as Da the God-Man” that became the foundation of our collective lives together.
December 2, 2008 at 12:23 pm
@ blisscake – HAHAHAHAHAHA! That was very enjoyable! A green drink toast to one and all!
I practiced the non-duality teachings of Ramana Maharshi for several years, and my heart always recognized him as the Self of all. I enjoyed many meditations of deep peacefulness and silent inwardness, and became less and less “of this world” and more and more about meditation on the heart on the right – sometimes meditating eight hours a day.
After these years of practice, someone gave me The Knee of Listening, and upon seeing Bhagavan Adi Da’s picture, I intuitively sensed this was a man of Truth. I read the book which further confirmed this, and went to see Him in Hollywood. In my very first sitting with Him, He gave me everything I was searching for and then some – including opening my heart on the right, which never happened in my earlier meditations on the source of the I-thought.
It became utterly obvious in all kinds of ways that Adi Da is my Guru, my Lover, my Greatest Friend and Teacher – and my fullest recognition of Him is all He has ever wanted, for He continuously shows us that such direct recognition of the Unconditional is the only way that realization can occur.
He has demonstrated to us over and over that no conditional means will ever cause realization of the Unconditional. This is the ultimate non-dual Truth, and Who He Is.
However, teachings of non-duality are readily “understood” by the mind and can even allow for brilliant states of equanimity, cosmic awareness, heart on the right intuitions, etc. And it is this mind-based presumptuousness that Bhagavan has criticized me and many others for being advocates of the “talking school” of realization.
How can one realize the Unconditional without recognizing the One Who Is the Unconditional, and thereby having the Unconditional Grant the Grace of realization whole bodily?
Adi Da has always insisted on in-life, whole bodily enlightenment, and that the body-mind needs to be righted for such recognition/enlightenment. Without such a preparatory foundation, it is not possible to utterly recognize the Divine in every moment. Yes, the Divine can be intuited, even felt strongly, etc., etc., – but not realized utterly, absolutely, whole-bodily, altogether.
It is the talking school advocates of non-duality that tend to think that such preparation and submission to a Guru is unnecessary because such advocates tend to be more mind-based, even wanting to exclude the body and whole bodily right life disciplines.
Even Ramana Maharshi in reality was the Guru for his closest most serious followers. Bhagavan Adi Da is that One for me, and He has undermined much of what I would have spent years (even lifetimes) attempting to do given my “talking school” tendencies!
Sheesh, even this post is too long!
December 2, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Conventional thinking, and conventional constructs always lead to an endless circle of merry-go-round assertions and denials. You stand in the one place that “Samaraj Adi Da does, flawed, egoic, and absolutely perfect.
Can you feel the freedom in that?
December 2, 2008 at 2:14 pm
I am so grateful that Feel4Good, and Blisscake have posted. I’ve been far away from spiritual practice for many years….but my heart never could give up Samaraj Adi Da. I have been feeling my relationship to Adi Da very strongly the past few days. Far from the group it has been a struggle to keep my equanimity. Your words are soothing to me now. I hope you keep posting. I’m praying for equanimity to keep me turning it over during this time….and reaching out to my friends in the community.
December 2, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Thanks to Shiva for his interesting (if disturbing) insight into the day to day life of Da. Da’s repeated claims to avatarship and reports of exploitation by community members always brought me to question him as an authentic realizer (Nityananda never did a thing to promote himself, yet ashrams sprouted in his midst as a result of the natural and spontaneous devotion of those around him).
When I commented that Da was a compelling exponent of the nondual tradition I referred mainly to his writings, particularly those from the 70′s through the 80′s. I agree with LongTime, Da’s writings from the 90′s on are so thickly laden with his exclusive final avatar claims as to make them virtually unpalatable to me. But his writings, along with audio and video taped talks from the 70′s and 80′s, shows a person with keen insight into psychology and spirituality. What was also remarkable about Da’s transmissions during this time is that he remained consistent in his verbal/written teachings, did not engage in metaphysical platitudes and encouraged people to take responsibility for their lives here and now. To paraphrase Ken Wilber, one cannot afford to not at least be a student of Da’s written teachings.
December 2, 2008 at 3:37 pm
As another long-time devotee of Adi Da who became a critic of his limitations and delusions, I have to second the very insightful post from Shiva. Yet I also have to second my old friend Wes (how’s it going, dude? Great to hear from you!), that the relationship to the Guru is very personal, and on the strictly personal level no one else can really understand what is going on.
On the personal level, I loved Adi Da every bit as much as any other devotee, every bit as much as my own wife and children, and I don’t regret that at all. You can’t regret love. But love doesn’t mean slavery or bondage, it means freedom, and eventually I came to see that freedom did not lie in the direction of endless bhakti devotion to Da and his organization. Love of anyone, or any object, or any conceptual teaching, is conditional, and leads to all kinds of problems and delusions. Da is not different in that regard. But as Nisargadatta once said, the only thing we experience in this world that is real is love, regardless of its object. In my time with Da I came to understand that love is real, but in a strange way I never grasped how it transcends objects until I gave up Da himself, and let him die to me. So in a very real sense I underwent his death in very personal terms several years ago. Adidam was already over for me, personally, so I don’t really feel any sadness now over news of his death, I just affirm the freedom I feel from any need to be dependent on him, or some “link” to him.
When I was fifteen I had what was for me an extraordinary experience of Ramana Maharshi when a relative sent a photo of him to me from Ramanashram. Yet in the experience I became afraid, and had to pull back slightly, and realized I wasn’t ready to simply let go. I tried to understand Ramana’s written teachings, but frankly I could not, I was simply not ready or mature enough. I couldn’t grasp the point of self-enquiry. A year and a half later, I came across Da, and he captured both my heart and mind for almost thirty years. As that relationship dissolved, however, I was left alone, and I felt it was time to look at that. Eventually I was drawn to re-examine Ramana’s teachings, and finally they made sense to me, and seemed to reflect my state of mind, and I began to practice self-enquiry, and I began to see the subtle (and not-so-subtle) distinctions between Ramana’s approach and Da’s.
It’s become rather obvious that Ramana’s approach is superior, but I must admit that in my case, without exploring the various failed approaches and ideas of Adi Da, I might never have exhausted myself to the point were Ramana’s teaching could finally come alive to me. So I have much to be grateful for in that, and am. The same love I felt for Adi Da is alive in me as the Self, not as an object, but as the very Being who is beyong every name and form, including that of Da, Conrad, Wes, and everyone else, but who is eternally alive in our hearts. So in spite of all Da’s mistakes and indulgences, the real limitations I’ve had to overcome, and still have to overcome, are my own. For a while, we shared those limitations together in Adidam, and now we must transcend them wherever we are, however we ended up. Good, bad, or ugly, we are all going to follow Da into death alone, and so we have to deal with ourselves alone first and foremost. Everything else, including Adidam and every other religion, is prologue at best.
December 2, 2008 at 4:41 pm
NC, our loss is beyond any consolation – that we will never see His physical form again here, nor hear Him laugh or speak. But if anyone is laughing about all of this, it is Bhagavan Adi Da! From a very old talk called “The Baptism of Immortal Happiness”:
“I am here to Teach you out of this un-Happiness. Poor me! I will be laughing about this for countless ages, as I have been laughing about it since eternal time.”
“I am full of all space-time. All Bliss, all Wonder, all the Marvels of Being are in my Being. I know it absolutely and you do not. All miracles are potent in my Heart. I come here to give you everything without the slightest reluctance. I am not here to tell you about some asshole ego. I am here to Wonder and Marvel with you about the Great One.”
“There is this Great One. This Great One is totally known to me. This Great One is myself. I am the Self of God. I have no doubt in me about it. All miracles are evident in me. All time is obvious to me. It seems Great to me, but you poor people who cannot submit yourselves to God, you are the ones that I must Teach. How do I Teach you? By countering your self-contraction, your reluctance to submit to Divine Intoxication.”
“My entire life has been involved with countering the un-Happiness of people, and I am profoundly weary of it. I cannot tell you how weary I am of it. I have always thought that I would die any day because I am so weary, so tired, so bewildered by this resistance to God. This world is a terrible place. Therefore, I do everything, because I have nothing to lose. I have nothing to gain by action; therefore, I have nothing to lose by action. I do everything to make a picture for Man. Everything. I submit myself to you to make pictures, to make an Argument for Grace. I do not know if anyone will ever understand.”
“I am absolutely nothing like you people. All of this has nothing to do with me as an ego. I am not a person doing this. The Great One is such a Wonder, such a Marvel, such a Graceful and Loving Being to countless beings such as all of us here. But the Great one does not love beings. The Great One is Love…”
******************
I have noticed a certain theme that those most critical of Adi Da seem to focus on in this thread. Also the same theme is on many of the posts over at LightMind – where I was also going to post after linking to it from here – but after reading a bunch of the threads there, so many seem so negative, superficial, wrong, and ironic about my Master, that I am reluctant to.
Anyway, what I notice is that the most critical people seem very reactive about Adi Da making statements that He is the only One, the Great One, the Avatar, Only God, the Only-By-Me-Revealed Teaching, etc.
From the “standpoint” of the Absolute, Acausal Unconditional Non-dual Reality there IS only ONE – so I find such statements by Him a constant reminder that ultimately there is only the Unconditional – not all this conditionality!
He also tells us that He is us, everything arises in Him, that He is all Realizers, etc., etc., etc. These statements are utterly non-dual in nature and certainly paradoxical to our conditional, conventional, and reactive minds because once we identify with the point-of-view machine called ego-I, we forget our Unconditional nature which is beyond all point-of-view – and may even become so naive as to think that somehow, because we are ultimately all One, that we are already enlightened and therefore only have to persist in some kind of abstracted mental presumption that this is the case in order for it to be so. I wish! No, it takes whole-bodily recognition of the Unconditional to allow Absolute Grace to break up the egoic presumptions at every level of the being.
Such has been the function of true Spiritual Masters since ancient times.
December 2, 2008 at 5:49 pm
shiva Says:
> even if one accepts the concept of enlightenment, which
> most non-dual teachers do not, how can it be that one is
> more enlightened than others?
Many of the teachings called “non-dual” point students to “before-thinking.” That is, they point to something that’s not dependent on words and ideas. Even beautiful ideas like “enlightenment” are still ideas, and our just-now experience doesn’t depend on them.
Non-dual and Zen teachers don’t encourage clinging to any concept at all…. and concepts related to “enlightenment” are no exception.
In our Zen school, when someone first takes precepts, they get a certificate, which includes a poem that begins with the lines:
“Good and Evil have no self-nature;
Holy and Unholy are empty names…”
I believe that the 2nd line can also be translated as “‘Enlightened’ and ‘Unenlightened’ are empty names.”
Making and holding any sort of idea may be a hindrance to clearly and compassionately connecting with this very moment. Many teachers promote non-attachment to certain names and forms, but replace it with attachment to ideas about the Guru and his “Realization.” Maybe for some Da’s teaching is like that. It can be like a medicine that people take to cure one illness, not noticing that it’s giving them a new illness.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
December 2, 2008 at 5:57 pm
ahh, blisscake! i love you brother! i know who you are and you have probably figured out who i am. we just skyped a few days ago. i totally dig your passion and your outspoken postings. and there’s not a hint of sarcasm in that. i know how it is to be in love with adi da. who am i to criticize THAT? hell, i might have written a similar post a few years ago!
i also very much appreciate wes’s moderate and wise posts.
at the end of the day, however, there are simply way too many inherent contradictions in his teachings and actions to take adi da seriously as a NON-DUALITY TEACHER. that is what i understand this blog to be about. and that is why i am posting here.
non-duality. there is only ONE – without a second. as a principal (although not really non-dual) i can even understand the bhakti yoga approach that you become what you meditate on – through meditating on a truly realized being. that might work, although many strictly non-dual teachers would probably reject that principle.
but to claim ANY exclusivity is just preposterous and a clear sign of delusion. nobody can be more one with one-ness than others! that is just ridiculous!
just examine adi da’s teaching from that point of view: his constant repetitions of “the only-by-me revealed…”, his constant reiteration that only HE can give true liberation, etc. that is just a load of crap. sorry, my adidam friends, but that stuff simply doesn’t hold up.
to illustrate this point further, let me tell you what i have found in real non-duality teachers:
1. the constant stressing of the fact that you are always already liberated. nobody can become enlightened. the very concept of time (in which this “becoming” could take place) is an illusion.
2. “don’t believe a word i am saying. examine it for yourself”. i have heard that (or a similar quote) constantly from the teachers i mentioned.
3. no guru games WHATSOEVER. no self-glorifications. hell, they even refuse the label “teacher” because to them there is nobody to teach anything and nobody to receive a teaching.
4. utter humbleness and refusal to acknowledge ANY difference.
let this be enough and now compare this to adi da’s teaching and more importantly to his day-to-day behavior. it becomes immediately obvious that adi da is clearly not a non-duality teacher. FAR from it.
i am not here to rant about adi da. i think he was a genius of an artist. i do not regret the time i served him intimately. in fact, i had a blast doing so. it was crazy, yes. but i can appreciate the “crazy-wise” approach. i dig it.
but adi da utterly failed to deliver ANY of his claims of him being a spiritual master. his teaching was and is dangerous from a non-duality point of view because it only serves delusion in the student, not clarity. it only serves to bind the student to him. there is a subtle from of brainwashing going on in adidam. although, i am the first to admit that i was not harassed at all when i announced that i would leave. no pressure at all on me. so, i am not talking about the typical brainwashing associated with other sects. however, the entire “culture” within adidam is set up to enforce a subtle form of brainwashing that condemns ANY form of criticism of adi da or his teaching. ANY form whatsoever.
but again. back to the basics. non-duality. there is ONLY ONE – without a second. how can anybody claim exclusivity on the ONE? adi da, however, did just that. nothing more needs to be said, really.
December 2, 2008 at 6:02 pm
A friend just sent me this. Not to get all “starry-eyed”
– it is at least interesting psychophysics being played out.
From one friend:
This photo was taken in China . . . a “happy face” sky
ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: November 26, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) – On a holiday weekend full of gatherings, the three brightest objects in the night sky—Venus, Jupiter and a crescent moon—are getting together for a rare one. A senior editor at Sky and Telescope magazine says by Sunday and Monday nights, Venus and Jupiter will be separated in the sky only by about the width of your finger held out at arm’s length. On Monday night, they’ll be joined by a crescent moon right next to them. The lineup will be visible even without a telescope or binoculars to anyone looking toward the southwestern sky around twilight. But get a good look this weekend, because it won’t happen like this again until November 18th, 2052.
(Another astronomer said it will happen again in 2014.)
The great conjunction offers something extra to Europeans. For more than an hour this evening, the crescent moon will eclipse Venus.
http://english.rednet.cn/c/2008/12/02/1650372.htm
@ Conradg – Weren’t you an astrologer in Adidam for a while? I think it is also interesting to note that Jupiter, Venus, and the Moon were all part of a Grand Trine in Pisces, Scorpio, and Cancer (all three water signs) respectively, upon Bhagavan Adi Da’s birth. Those two planets and the moon are generally equated with expansiveness, love, and nurturing respectively – if I recall correctly.
And another friend mentioned this:
This Happy face was made from the three brightest lights in the night sky.
Anyway, what a mystery all of this is!
December 2, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Feel4God,
In regards to your comments about there being only One, if Adi Da had merely affirmed this ancient truth, I don’t think people would be reacting to his claims so strongly. Certainly they might still be doubting if he had realized that One, and be critical of whether his life and teachings reflect a genuine realization of Oneness, but I don’t think you’d see such a negative response. The truth is, people respond negatively to Da because he claims an exclusive and unique realization of this One and Only Truth, and a unique and exclusive role for everyone else. I’m trying not to distort his message, but he certainly does claim to be the only genuinely and fully realized person who has ever lived, and that the only way for anyone to ever genuinely and fully realize this One is through him in his bodily human form, and all the agencies created by him in his bodily human lifetime, including his teaching and sanctuaries and human devotees. He claims there will never, ever be another Guru to compare to him, and that of course there never has been. This of course smacks of the very kind of cultic delusion that most people find corrosive and corrupt in religion, and which even Da himself originally seemed to be critical of. So it’s no wonder that people react to this, especially those who favor the non-dual traditions, just as they don’t react favorably to conventional Christian claims about Jesus, or Mormonism, or any group that claims to be the one and only vehicle of the One God.
So it’s good from my point of view if you interpret Adi Da’s claims about being the One and Only to refer merely to the unitary nature of reality, but if you do so to affirm Adi Da’s claims as being the one and only true and complete vehicle of the Divine, well, I think you can expect quite a lot of criticism and unfavorable reaction. All the true realizers I know of who speak of themselves as having realized the One, don’t promote themselves as some exclusive and unique vehicle of it. In fact, generally it is assumed that anyone who does so is automatically highly suspect and probably a fraud. Certainly such an extraordinary claim would require some kind of extraordinary proof, which neither Adi Da nor Adidam seem able to provide. 2000 years have passed and Jesus still hasn’t returned. How long will we have to wait for proof of Da’s uniqueness?
December 2, 2008 at 6:10 pm
What a fantastic response all these posts have been and show how influential he was! For that and some great literature, we should all be really grateful. ..and I am.
He certainly was a “fool for god” but would have served us all and his message better, if, just once, he was able to hear from any other p.o.v. No receptivity there whatsoever; just total hyper-macho man. “I am !00% right about every single iota of everything and I’ll bust your ass if you disagree with me!”
Well he (Daddy-Da) certainly chewed up and spat out quite a few of us….luckily some of us were forced to dive deep and trust our own sense of truth and integrity (there we go “self-guru-ing again”…ho hum) and managed to break free of the terrible mind-control and double-think, double-speak that permeated the cult from the top down. Self-understanding begins with self understanding (for starters the unconscious need for a 100% authoritarian father-figure is the basis for fascism: see Wilhelm Reich) Hard as it is, each and everyone of us needs decide what our truth is and who we listen to. I know that many ex-devotees feel angry at the abuse they suffered, rightly so; some even had break-downs and never recovered..but let’s also be thankful for what many of us learned. Won’t ever get fooled again.. and did get to study enormous amounts of the “great tradition” that would never have done before. The “shakti” experiences and quasi drug affects also showed us how labile infantile emotional states can be engineered with endless indoctrination, working, studying, low-protein diet meditating etc.till you drop. But YOU are doing it to yourself. There is no Other…great or GREAT. Only your own consciousness…ain’t that the point? But the arrogance and smug hard-heartednes that came with being a “good devotee” was sick-making. “Destroy all “dissidents” comrade!” “Bust Ass” etc etc. all a mirror to Frankie’s own paranoid outbursts of violence…he would undoubtedly have felt so “Free” that murder would not phase him….morality went out the window when he became convinced of his Utterly Utterly Unique status (interestingly Rudi also suffered the same illness and said that nobody like him had appeared on earth for 10,000 years…yeah, right!)
As a former long-term devotee, I have to agree with the critics (thank you former follower and critic, you are concise and spot-on in your post) and also understand those Still In The Cult (Sorry about The Caps..it Just Started Happening Blissfully On It’s Own). Ultimately what a shame that such a talented, intelligent charismatic and obviously spiritually experienced man should become so enamoured of his own ego and experience, that he created a monstrous collective ego (the cult) to see that his inflated ego stayed that way.
The art, by the way, ain’t all that good, new or different, but even his farts must have been rose-scented for a good devotee!
What a difference if a real dialogue and human communication had been allowed…Whilst I was with the cult I visited Ramanasram and was told by a wise old man who had known Franklin, when he was there in ’73, that he was a “spiritual criminal”. I was deeply offended and re-acted in exactly the same way as all the da-lovers above have. I also met Bede Griffiths who had put all of Da’s books in the occult section of his library. When I asked why this was he said that he was clearly an occult master like Aleister Crowley. Again I was offended. I asked him why he thought this was so apparent; and, without missing a beat, he said that it was the constant self-referencing. “Oh but He Means the Transcendental Self” I said. Bede smiled and raised one eyebrow…”Watch what he does…” Indeed! And he could have added, “Watch what they do in his name”. Any non-believers, myself included were threatened and abused in
the “god’s name”. The abuses occurred..we all saw them, but suspended our simple human morality because it was all “crazy wisdom” or “theatre” ….just as decent Germans explained the actions of their glorious leader in WW2..Yes! A great lesson. One I am extremely grateful for and so sad to see him die before “getting off it”and joining the rest of us humans down here. I knew that he never could, having taken it so far…but I secretly hoped he might. But hey all you “da-lovers”, now is your chance….WAKE UP and look around you! You maybe dripping in an “MDMA cloud” over in Fiji, but the real world is out here saying, “If you really got love-bliss, come and share some with us!” But don’t expect us to join in your seriously skew-wiff cultic worship of The Emperor’s New Clothes…many, many of us, sorry…we’ve seen him naked!
December 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
did adi da enter MAHASAMADHI?
the definition for mahasamdhi (for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahasamadhi) clearly involves the CONSCIOUS leaving of the body.
no such thing happened with adi da. he just died. very ordinary. very sudden. completely unannounced and unexpected – by anybody, even himself and his inner family. his flesh started to decay after 2-3 days, as it does with any ordinary human. there was nothing extra-ordinary about his death whatsoever.
anybody who has lived with adi da for some time and seen his relationship with his inner circle and family will see immediately that there was nothing conscious about his death. he would have certainly told sukhapur (one of his most intimate devotees) and/or naamleela (his most beloved daughter) had he known about his imminent death. nothing of the kind happened. it came as a shock to everybody. and from an adidam point of view his death was VERY untimely.
this is not to belittle the mourning my adidam friends go through. but i cannot help but notice the inconsistencies even in his final “act”.
December 2, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Shiva….while I agree with you totally, as a former student from 1976 to 1989, there were still moments of utter and sublime wonder in his presence. I spent some incredible days at the Mountain of Attention that were nothing less than divine bliss. But, I agree with you that, in the end, his ego and abuse (by Da as well as his inner circle) was all too much to take and I left to search out and find a ligitimate path of non-dual realization. After 8 years of searching I finally found the path of Mahamudra and Dzogchen under the tutilage of a true and qualified master and lineage holder of those Buddhist traditions. The Buddha Dharma has taken me where Da could not or would not take me. While I value the time I spent in his presence as one of many steps along the way I feel that, perhaps, we can all take a step back and evaluate the event called Adi Da (aka: Bubba Free John, Da Free John, Da Love Ananda, et al) with clear eyes and free of the nonsense of cultic peer pressure and a guru with little regard for those he professes to serve.
December 2, 2008 at 8:56 pm
It has been very interesting for me to read these posts. I have never been a formal devotee, but was introduced to Da through my partner, who was a devotee when we met.
It has was interesting to read the reference to Da’s work being kept in the “occult” section, along with Crowley’s, as my partner seems to have always been torn between wanting to serve Adi Da and on the other hand follow Thelema. Now that you mention it, I can see a common thread there.
I must concede that being in any association with Adi Da, then metaphysical things begin to happen, but I think for me the jury is still out as to the source of these events. His devotees will say it is from Him, but I still entertain the notion that many of these things are self-produced. Didn’t AdiDa once say himself, that if he wasnt kicking your arse, then you probably just made it up in your own head?
For me, the main sticking point was how the Adidam community treated me (and many of the personalities found there). Even without being a formal devotee, I would recieve phone calls asking for money for various events etc, and me with small children living on government benefits trying to get through university. If I didnt pay, then there would be no association with the community allowed.
I could never figure out how much of these things came from directions from the Guru, and how much was just the adidam community running amok without his knowledge. I guess I will never know.
I think it is easy to have love for the Guru, there is something there, unfortunately I am not one to believe that he is the one and only promised God-man, and perhaps I am poorer for that, however, I feel that in accepting that, it negates a certain fundamental wonder of the fact we are all created equal and alive here together experiencing the same things. I dont need to go looking for something other.
Perhaps it is because I was raised essentially as an animist, I am too primitive to really “get” what his devotees seem to.
I think one of the things that was of enormous value in Adidam was the concept of devotion, unfortunately, unlike the message of, for example, lord Caitanya, devotion alone didnt seem to be enough. It is fair to say, though, that through my brief association with Adidam, I am much more appreciative of all forms of devotion.
At the moment I am torn, because my partner, who has not been in association with Adidam for many years, suddenly went haring off to Fiji with 12 hours notice on a one way ticket, leaving me with no money and 2 small children under 5.
On the one hand I know I am expected to be “cool” with this, and understanding of his special relationship and spiritual path etc etc, but on the other I desperately want to open a can of whoop arse on the self absorbed so and so.
I hope the crankiness from this event hasnt overly pervaded my writing here, as I am also genuiney sorry for the loss his family and devotees are experiencing, and wish to extend my condolences.
December 2, 2008 at 10:13 pm
MODERATION NOTE:
New comments will be held in the moderation queue until around 6AM EST.
Jerry
December 2, 2008 at 11:44 pm
puonamu – You have every reason and every right to be angry at and concerned about your partner. The fact that their action is, to me, the height of irresponsibility (not to mention some very deep misguided clinging) is just another indication of what that Guru and his community amounted to. So much misplaced attention…such fixation on their own delusions…
I was a devotee for 12 years, but I have not read any of the teachings in over 20 years so I have some experience both with the teacher and the community. I left my first wife there and have found a far deeper love and true spiritual partner since.
Once, when I was waxing poetic about my devotion to the teacher, another devotee interrupted me and told me I was just sucking on the tit of God. It was like a slap in the face. And it was true! It was the day I started to “kill the Buddha” on the road. I am so glad I left that “body” behind.
Da has done all his devotees an unparalleled service. Since they wouldn’t kill him, he did. All blessings to him and to his followers. I mean that sincerely.
Now it is time for them to grow up, or better, grow out.
“Whoever you are, no matter how lonely,
the world offers itself to your imagination,
calls to you like the wild geese, harsh and exciting �
over and over announcing your place
in the family of things.” – Mary Oliver, Wild Geese
December 3, 2008 at 2:49 am
Whether one sees a given teacher to be their guru depends, as Ramana Maharshi said, on where their mind is attuned, and not necessarily that they have met their Satguru. The Adi Da quote “you may be right but I am Happy” above is intended to be dismissive but is quite illuminating, actually. Da is actually more direct than he is often given credit for, as in that, and the earlier quote about his teaching being not in agreement with any other teachers or traditions and his not listening to anyone. The statement made above, that critics are “reactive” about “Adi Da making statements that He is the only One, the Great One, the Avatar, Only God, the Only-By-Me-Revealed Teaching, etc.”, and that “He also tells us that He is us, everything arises in Him, that He is all Realizers, etc., etc., etc.” is another example where Da is actually quite clear. Conradg has accurately described his claims of exclusivity which mean exactly what they appear to mean without all the elaborate explanation. It is the interpretation placed on these various statements by Da devotees that presents the paradox they refer to because they want to read into them a no-dual rationalization that is suspect and not supported by actions. The indiscriminate pursuit of the bliss of guru bhakti and shakti experiences and the unquestioned adoption of every single change and claim common in Adidam despite problematic signs which has now become the norm, is just a much a distraction as Da originally claimed in his earliest talks in relation to others. There is a parodox in the fable of the emperor with no clothes, and an analogous pardox with Da’s claims and behavior, and the solution to both paradoxes is the same. But until you see it, it can remain a parodox, and that may be part of the karmic lesson of a particular life. But that does not mean objective observers should be under any illusions that Da actually only meant that he was One in the traditional, non-dualist sense, and that criticisms of Da are criticisms of this traditional view of the Self and non-dualism. Rather, the collective claims of Da regarding his status and behavior are radically unprecedented in non-dualism.
I too am one of those drawn both to Ramana Maharshi and (initially) to Da. And I too was resistive to and dismissive of wiser ones who saw the same Crowley like aspects in Da that Crowley’s ex-Secretary Israel Regardie obviously saw when he made an early endorsement of Da. And I too was resistive to these those wiser than I who saw the progressive growth of rationalizations for the so-called paradoxical but egoic statements for what they were in the light of Da’s actions. Today, older but wiser, I agreee that not only are there significant differences between Da and Ramana Maharshi, but those differences reflect poorly on Da in terms of both claimed realization, dogma and the results of practice. Those who really thought Ramana Maharshi was encouraging students to meditate or focus on opening the heart on the right (he was not), or were unclear about what he actually said on the so-called amrita nadi (yes, it has been proven he described it, just differently than Da), and who misunderstood self-enquiry as being the way Da described it even though he never engaged it himself, might be drawn to choose Da, as some have. But an examination of the criticism Da made of Ramana Maharshi and his claimed inferior state of realization and alleged deficiencies as a guru shows that Da distorted and took Ramana Maharshi’s life and teaching out of context. Regardless, it is Ramana Maharshi who left an lineage of apparent Realizers and with a reputation among millions as the greatest Sage of the 20th Century, while Da died prematurely of his own life choices without warning or consciousness and left only followers focused on shakti bliss experiences. For some of us, Da played a role leading to greater understanding of non-dualism, for which I for one am grateful, but this was only preparatory to a more mature practice attuned to the non-dualist tradition.
To those whose destiny is to allow Da’s presence to blissfully melt their mind and body from above their head in the assumption they are close to the final stage and that this is a superior practice even if others can’t see it, so be it. Praise Da here by all means, live your bliss, and interpret your experiences as you see fit. But I suggest that the Da devotees consider that the criticism based on what is projection of their own resolutions to their internal conflicts reflects more on themselves than critics. The claim that critics are “resisting” the Divine and Da’s claims out of ego, just because they equate that criticism to their own sense of internal resistance to their own practice. Those of us once involved know all too well what they are talking about and once accepted the same idea, and we now know the criticism of Da’s claims is not about ego, the claims themselves, understood, are improbable to say the least. For at least some of us, the “resistance” to Da’s claims comes more accurately from a reliable inner intuition that finally broke through, that we would have been wiser to have heeded earlier in relation to Da, but for the necessary maturity needing to be developed first.
So, would I rather be right or happy? Personally, I would rather be right and at Peace, i.e., assured about Realization, than just be Happy, however blissful for a time, no matter how much love and bliss comes crashing down from above, leaving one with a craving for more. Otherwise I can find enough happiness in a conventional salvation at a charismatic church. I think all that comes from the conditional realms and has nothing to do with the Heart or Self.
December 3, 2008 at 8:29 am
In light of the non-conditional Presence his form was a vehicle for, the death of Adi Da Samraj is no more Real than anything else that goes on here. In duality land, there is nothing of any ultimacy occurring. The only thing that can truthfully be said to be happening is Grace, intimate and subjective. But short of that, there is an unending confrontation with ourselves–the great illusion, ‘I’–represented by everything else until we recognize it as so and surrender, too. The ego (and its attachments) might not want to hear it, but no one’s physical departure has any effect whatsoever on the Reality that Is. Da was a perfect mirror and contributor to the drama of our lives, always working to expose us to ourselves because we are all he had to work with! What I think is offensive or problematic to some is that the ‘me’ we identify as our’self’ died in him a long time ago and he made no bones about it! His constant reminders of who he Is are for the purpose of frustrating us to the point of recognition/surrender in our own case. Our reactive projecting onto him is virtually unavoidable yet inspired–meant to reflect us to ourselves in a paradoxical dynamic that cannot be simply explained. But those who miss the point become disillusioned with him alone and forget to include themselves (this is a relationship after all). So be it. But there’s no escaping from it and we’re reminded now that no one here gets out alive, thank god. That’s the beauty of it All.
December 3, 2008 at 8:37 am
Once again, former follower and critic hits the nail squarely on the head. This is exactly the way I understand my many years of involvement with Da. A few years after leaving I felt that this may have indeed been the covert purpose of the whole she-bang..to dive in as deep as you can, take it to the limit and,develop enough understanding in the process to be able to “kill the buddha” and walk away with enough to live your own practice, self-enquiry or whatever. N.B. to kill the buddha it helps to meet him first. Reading the literature is good, but almost surely not enough. I hope that many ex-Daists left the club able to pursue spiritual practice free of all the clutter, nonsense and artifice so often required. Our cultic radars should be finely tuned. He let us know that it was O.K. to be an ego as well as pure freedom. Nirvanasara! I too experienced samadhis, raptures, openings etc. Those are what kept me hooked in there so long, as well as the warmth, humour, charm, charisma and intelligence of the guy (N.B. the man not the god or the utterly Utterly etc.) The crux of his error (intentional? a joke?) was, despite his claims of non-dual realization, he overtly argued in favour of his personal uniqueness and Divinely Avataric etc etc…a clearly dualistic p.ov. How ironic he should write a book against cultism and then become more cultic than ever and write a book about the complete non- necessity for a Gomboo-Ananda and then become just that. Didn’t anyone get the joke? He became enamoured by his own apparently non-dual experience and related it to himself as a body-ego what-you-will….clearly a dualistic interpretation. If I AM and that’s it…who gives a fuck what I do, might as well take as many drugs, screw as much as I want, beat up on the serfs, hey, even found a religion….or with wisdom is there responsibility?
Franklin, Franklin, how I wish you had done that psychotherapy and uncovered your unconscious drives towards power, control and indulgence! I am and always will be grateful for the “hard school” that he created. I miss the chance to see him again and grieve his personal loss with all the die-hard religionists from the community…really! As for the conjuction of the planets and moon on the day he passed…well, I saw the face of LL Cool J in my omelette this morning! Let us not forget that Franklin studied scientology and as Ron Hubbard famously remarked, “If you want to get rich, start a religion. Now the proof of his value will be what happens next….more of the same or some sprinkling of humanity among the starry eyed ones..Boy, these posts are getting interesting! Maybe the moderator should publish a pamphlet, open a centre, blah blah blah…humour has suddenly always been here! Enjoy the dance! Especially, if you’re in the MDMA cloud on Fiji! with love, Stevie
December 3, 2008 at 10:42 am
I lived in the Bay Area in the 70’s and 80’s, and used to watch Bubba Da Free John like one might watch a circus freak show. I read a few of his books and got to know some devotees, from whom I heard one outrageous story after another, always couched in terms that glorified The-Man-Who-Would-Be-God. Truly, those of you who were his devotees were enablers for all that he got away with, and what he imagined himself to be. From what I’ve heard and read it sounds like he was over-the-top in love with himself, and could get followers to do just about anything he wanted them to do.
I was always amazed that devotees could imagine they were involved in anything other than a cult of personality, which they always denied. How could anything be more obvious?
From what I saw, this group was never involved with anything like non-dual teachings or practice. It was a bhakti cult, and a degenerate one at that. Da turned out to be a corrupt guru just like so many others, and in his later years slid into the kind of obscurity he deserved. Where I live now, it’s extremely rare to find anyone who’s even heard of Adi Da, or Da Free John.
While I appreciate that his passing is a big deal for those of you who were followers, to the rest of the world his death is a non-event. And to people like me, his very ordinary, unexpected death was an appropriate way for his time on this planet to end. Maybe it will serve as a wake-up call to a few of those who lived under his toxic, occult-like spell. But no doubt many will choose to hold on to their illusions.
December 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
This being a non-dual post…
I will get to that in a moment, as best I can.
Hi to many old friends posting here.
I wish I knew more of your names again. To connect the face with the feeling of you.
As you may know, I have continued in the formal community for all these years.
Along the way, there has been so much dis-illusionment with my utopian vision of both community and Guru .
I have done my own share of inhumanity along the way.
And am humbled by the evidence of my own cultism and naiveite’.
All that being so. I found that Adi Da is my Awakener.
Perhaps another way of saying ” Non -Dual ” is
“No- Separation ” or ” Unconditional Love “.
I have always experienced an unconditional love as an essence of Adi Da all this time…throughout the process
of dis-illusionment with all appearences around and about Him
as an ” Other “. And around and about all of us as seeming separate.
I am left to make peace with how that gift of unconditional love or no-separation works out … forever.
Personally, I am sorry for the immature egoic excesses that
I was a party to in the community .
We have mostly grown on…
Most devotees have softened and become more compassionate and open minded over time.
Most have despaired of casual , or formalized cultism .
During His last couple of years the Guru became so translucent, so shattered of the earlier teaching personas.
During this time, Adi Da awakened me to His Spherical Form.
Which is not an ego -or owned -or other.
It is an all embracing , all inclusive bright consciousness as unconditional love.
This is what takes me forward in practice.
That is the ” It ” for me now … the Bright Sphere of the Guru is not owned or other.
In the mystery of all, when I give my attention to Adi Da,
feel to Guru, that is what arises as consciousness.
So His spiritual legacy to me is awareness of consciousness
as non-dual in that manner.
Yet transcendently bright and all embracing.
This gift continues to shine and there is no roster or external gate or external temple, that can prevent anyone from access.
This is beautiful to me. Adi Da is that to me now.
I hope there is beauty , happiness and grace in all your lives in what ever form it is revealed …even all form.
Recalling…” It is better to be happy than concerned “.
Always enjoyed that simplicity.
Much Love to you,
Wes
December 3, 2008 at 11:28 am
I have taken the point of view of nearly everyone on this forum, but the fact still remains that the gift he gave me was like no other gift I have received in my life. With his passing, every hurt, every word of criticism, every moment of my dark night of the soul was necessary.
All my life I have run away, because I felt if people really knew me they would reject me. How many of us feel the same way? If anyone of us had our lives inspected to the degree the Adi Da’s is, how many of us would look like pillars of our community, and what is that all about anyway? In our culture we almost take a sadistic pleasure in tearing others down who offend us. Every one can build a relic out of anyone. Every icon can be smashed and turned to dust. Every body will disappear.
I found in Samraj Adi Da, a doorway from maya, even though it nearly killed me to see what was necessary. I saw that I was not a victim. That every situation that presents itself is a gift to break through the limits of bondage. He offended me in every possible way. I felt that I would never be his chosen one. I would never be his beloved, his consort. It took his death for me to see that I was eternally bound to HIM, not him as Franklin Jones, Bubba Free Jones, my husband, my father, or some power hungry despot, but as the gift he gave me, when I first saw him and understood.
I remember one Darshan I recieved in Fiji, where I witnessed his form take on all the faces of who I loved, and then finally become the visage of death. I remember weeping with gratitude because I felt I had really seen reality in all it’s beauty and terror and I sat there swooning in love, not for the limitations you describe in Him….but for the unreasonable Happiness I felt in the mids of my dissolution.
December 3, 2008 at 11:45 am
Wow, some bruised egos coming here and can’t help but get nasty in the midst of it, it seems. And the basis for this nastiness seems to be what purportedly happened to some of you 20+ years ago. I thought this was a forum about non-duality. Hmmm….
Anyway, minimally I would hope there would be more respect shown to Adi Da – especially with His physical passing, and also since very few of even the harshest critics seem to question the greatness of His Teachings. Some feedback – if someone calls my Master “Frankie” or any other such ironic reference, just understand that whatever else you are communicating has lost most, if not all, of its effectiveness in my opinion.
Since Ramana Maharshi seems to at least be a common ground for some of us to actually discuss non-duality, I will first say again that I practiced and studied intensely for several years what Ramana Maharshi taught – and that I have the greatest respect for him. Also, I am well aware of Adi Da’s insistence that all His devotees have the utmost respect for all true realizers. With that being said, I proceed with humble and respectful cautiousness.
Regarding a difference between Sri Ramana Maharshi and Bhagavan Adi Da – Ramana clearly recommended an introverted inspection of the source of the I-thought via the question “Who am I”, etc. Adi Da understood this approach to still be a form of seeking, and so made that critical point, among others.
It was only after meeting Bhagavan Adi Da and hearing His instructions that I became suspect of the dissociated introversion that such a practice of Self-Enquiry was resulting in. Regardless of Ramana Maharshi’s actual Realization, what I am talking about right here is his instruction to devotees. Much of it is still based in the Eastern tradition of introversion and world denial (to escape the world), and such was Ramana’s own basic expression in the world – he hardly acknowledged the world, much less gave detailed advice about right life, etc.
Adi Da has always very respectfully embraced all true religious and spiritual traditions, and has made great sense of them in His Basket of Tolerance essays. Whatever egos might want to interpret His statements to imply – He always embraces everyone, regardless of religion, race, etc. Adi Da (Adidam) is utterly inclusive, not anything like fundamentalism with its exclusive salvation messages, etc.
I have looked at many realizers’ teachings and pictures, and this helps to confirm what Adi Da has said about the point-of-view or limit of each of these traditions. For instance, the ascending traditions spoken of by Swami Muktananda, as well as some other very great yogis still alive today – their pictures (and of course their teachings) often indicate this upward point-of-view or concentration above – lots of energy focused in the upper terminal of the head and eyes. Regarding the non-duality traditions, for instance, pictures of Sri Ramana Maharshi yield a sense of absolute sublimity, but also a sense of inwardness, and exclusive of outward life.
In all the years of being in Adi Da’s physical Company and feeling innumerable moments and pictures of Him, I never have a sense of any point-of-view being assumed. There is no fixation whatsoever anywhere that I have ever witnessed with Him. Because He is beyond ALL point-of-view (ego-I), He can speak of being the Absolute Acausal Unconditional Reality in no uncertain terms! And where else could such magnificent Teachings even arise from? Like I said much earlier, had I witnessed any form of self-consciousness or point-of-view (ego-I) with Him under ANY circumstance, I would have left.
For the record, I am not some starry-eyed spiritual enthusiast that has been deluded by shakti experiences. I have always tested everything I have been given, and never have blindly believed anything – and besides, I am too much of a scientifically-inclined doubting type to do such a thing.
And finally, as others have rightly expressed, one’s choice of their Sat-Guru is a very personal matter and deserving of respect – so just understand I am not trying to convert anyone here. However, I am going to express what I have directly experienced in my Spiritual Master’s Company – partly to put it out there, partly to learn, and partly to counter what I have seen to mainly be misunderstanding by the critics.
December 3, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Adi Da was a dualist who thought he was more God than everyone and everything else. Here’s an interesting quote from an article I found:
“Adi Da criticizes devotees for relating to him as if he personally were God Incarnate, while at the same time requiring them to adopt forms of bodily worship and ways of referring to and relating to him that absolutely enforce that point of view. The honorific titles and capital letters he uses to refer to himself (and requires devotees to use) are obvious proclamations of personal divinity, to say nothing of the ritual worship of his person that is required of devotees. These facts are obvious on their face.
However, Adi Da attempts to muddy the waters by criticizing devotees’ cultic approach to him, and giving convoluted explanations of how references to him as God are not personal references, but “ecstatic” speech about transcendent God who is somehow revealed more through him than through anyone else. The inherent conflict between his criticisms of devotees’ cultism and his requirement that they treat him as God keeps devotees in a constant state of failure for “being cultic.” That failure allows Adi Da to criticize them in a way that provides “cover” while he preserves all of the core mechanisms that reinforce the presumption of Da’s superiority. It allows him to remain the Object of devotees’ cultic worship, which is what he wants.
The frequent criticisms of cultism in Adi Da’s edited talks and books are convenient for placating the public and newer members, and are an exercise in extreme cognitive dissonance for serious devotees.
Any sane person who has even a cursory familiarity with Adi Da’s personal interactions with devotees cannot fail to see that he is (and expects to be) treated as God Incarnate.”
December 3, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Well, after reading so many of these posts the past came rushing back and reminded me of this:
1. True believers will always be, no matter what.
2. Truth about the real man explains the pain and abuse suffered by so many.
3. As far as his written and spoken teachings go…use what you can and ‘can’ what you can’t. I found some parts of the original “Knee…”, “Method of the Siddhas”, “Garbage and the Goddess” and “Elutherios” usefull. Everything after that is just rehashing of the same teachings dressed up in fancy book covers. Beyond that, there are traditons and teachers out there that represent the true essence of non-duality, if you are so inclined.
One thing I might note. After years of reading, study and practice I am truly convinced that Da… “borrowed” most of his essence teachings from Kashmir Shaivism (which Swami Muktananda was a proponant and teacher of). The doctrine of the heart, Radical Re-cognition (Pratyabijna Hridayam), the union of the outer and inner world process (Shakti) and absolute consciousness (Shiva) found in Bhairava Mudra and Krama Mudra practices. He did not come out of the melieu of Advaita Vedanta, as most believe (Ramana Maharshi was a dodge for him). His description of his union with the Goddess at the Vedanta temple in 1971(2?) is testimony to that. You should read the Doctrine of Vibration – Spanda Karika, the Pratyabijnahridaya by Ksemaraja and the Vijnana-bhairava, all ancient texts of Kashmir Shaivism. It’s all there. Da was a self made Shaivist in disguise. The only difference is that Kashmir Shaivism is a tested tradition over 1000 years old, with ample scholarly cometary by truly great masters and siddhas. Da was a truly great con man…that was his real genious and siddhi.
December 3, 2008 at 1:44 pm
In response to NC, thankyou for your compassionate responses to those who have written insinsitive remarks here..
In response to those who did not know Adi Da and who have made questioned or made negative remarks here….now is not the time…
all anyone needs to understand in this moment is that people love, they love their family , their friends, their lovers, their chosen gurus and spiritual masters. No one has the right ever to say who can love who……everyone is deserving of love, Adi Da loved…. with all His being, his life was a sacrifice to teach others, some people were able to use that love and teaching , others weren’t …. please leave those of us alone who are mourning the loss of someone, loved deeply ….. I would never myself say anything negative to someone , even if I disliked them , if a member of their family was mourning their death, please have some respect and feel that people are simply in pain at the death of a great human being, thankyou.
December 3, 2008 at 4:47 pm
All this is interesting. (Coradg…good to hear your voice. Last I heard it we were on retreat in Hawaii…I was from the Boston region)
I am an ex-devotee that left the “community”10 years ago after having been involved with the”teaching”, at one “level” or onother, since 75. In those years I received a lot of gifts so I can’t honestly dismiss my time or the gifts involved. Nor can I dismiss the other insights given during my time there and be honest as well.
The two most important gifts came at the very begining and the very end. “I give you everything in the first moment”. Well…Confirmation. Here was this man speaking and writing the very insights and intuitions that had been given to me in my youth only spoken far more eloquently. Confirmation only…the first gift. “I am not your Daddy or DADDY”. This was the “theme” of my final formal retreat with him. The gift? Time to kill the Buddha. Any kind of oedipal play that I was having with him or any other man died and is gone to this day. For both of these gifts I am very grateful.
From that day on my relationship changed dramatically with him and the “community”. He set me free. In that freedom, what I refused to openly speak of before, came out completely un-inhibited…free. He showed me both Frank and Da. I saw him completely. I saw his community completely. Needless to say when I returned to my region and started to talk about my observations it wasn’t well received…hell, it wasn’t received at all. “Criticism”, contrary to popular belief in the community, is not accepted. “Criticism” of the guru is heresy…period. The verbal and mental gymnastics that students will use to discredit, manipulate, violate any veiw that is not in accord with the group-think come direct from the teacher himself. So let’s look at that.
FrankenDa. He is both…two…not one or the other. He is dualistic. Both sides…Frank and Da…are there. Both. I will not dismiss the yogic qualities that are there no more than deny that Frank, in all his glory, is there. He has written some of the most amazing words that I have read in my lifetime. He has written some of the most amazing garbage that I have seen as well. In both you get a very clear picture of “who” he realy is, not “who” he says he is, but who he is.
It is heresy to treat FrankenDa as the ordinary man. Why? Because if you do then his “doings” won’t be seen as they “are”. They are “crazy-wise” and can’t be understood from the conventional view. Is this true? Realy? NO! That is the blinder that Frank asks you to put on when you take your vows. Who says you can’t look at him and his “doings” from the conventional view??? Frank!!! Why? Cuz then he can do whatever the hell he wants to and so he has. It is the “Doublebind”. To say that a person can’t view FrankenDa from a “conventional” view is a condescention. It implies, and actualy comdems as heresy, trusting your own observations and intuitions. “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes”?
“You become what you put your attention on”. A great truth. “It is done unto you as you believe”. It’s been said before. It’s been said throught all time. Not unique to Adidam. Has anyone ever asked the question what does FrankenDa put his attention on? He does…all the time. So what is it. It can be seen in plain sight. He creates his own reality just like everyone else. So what is it? His body was the prime example of his own manifestations. His bodily human form is a monument to years of debauchery. Kids, this guy was pampered (and over indulged) in every possible way…he didn’t have a hard life. Yet, his body shows all the manifestations of alchohol, chemical abuse and non-exercise. He died young! Look at the community…he created that too. It’s a mess. It is totaly disfunctional as an organization. He has constantly criticized this very thing. This he “focused” on. That is an important statement. He focused on “mess”. In the call to grow the community he undermined it constantly. He got what he “focused” or put his attention on. Take an open-eyed look at Adidam.
What else did FrankenDa put his attention on? Narcissus. We know the story so need to repeat it here. He went into seclusion for most of his life. His “sanctuaries” and “inner circle” were no more than his own pond. Years of living like this only added to the closing in on his own self-attention. Is there any wonder that he would eventualy create “rankings” of all the great spiritual teachers and have the temerity to tell you what it is they were saying and how all that falls very short of his own new covenant. (7th Stage? What is that? Who says so? Who? FrankenDa. Validated by whom? No-one). The “rankings” are another example of the “Doublebind”. Then of course the capitalization to follow is only logical. Personaly I think it renders his writings useless. “It confronts the mind and undermines the ego”. So does a car accident. Bullshit. They are the very manifestation of a Narcissist…Mein Kampf comes to mind. Well…true enough…they are the “only by me given”. It is Narcissus’ best work to date. “You become what you meditate on”.
You can tell from early on where FrankenDa was going with what he would create in a community. ( Where did he put his attention). He needed something from Muktananda. Recognition. He got it. He needed more…authority to teach based on the “endorsement” of Muktananda. Does he play it straight with his guru? Nope. He composes a series of questions for Baba to answer with the INTENDED PURPOSE of undermining the “needed” endorsement. Why the FEAR? In the mind of Frank Muktanada could not answer the questons because his own understanding was greater and it would only confound Baba. It also has the handy conclusion that an endorsement would be rendered unneccesary. A “Doublebind”. Thing is…I read the transcript (from the original) of the reply from Muktananda. He did answer Franks questions. He answered them fully. It is only Franks assertion that Baba didn’t. Baba also told Frank that he was not finished and warned him. In Zen there is a term for someone that “realizes” to a certain “level” and then goes off…”spiritual drunkedness”. So Frank did with his own guru what he criticizes those who left him…ran off with his bone.
Quite simply, Adidam is the Cult of the Doublebind and FrankenDa the master. It is the very foundation… where and how Frank started. It’s how he serves devotees (undermining the ego)? No. Are there gifts? Yes. You may want to know what the tab for those gifts is going to be right up front. “Find Me Out”. You can hire the guru and you can fire his ass too. He works for you…or at least that’s what he presented. “My devotee is the God that I have come to serve”. Ah…right. There is some of that but you’ll need to sift through the rotten fruit to get a good one. Such is that tree.
Having said all that I have here one may be left with the impression that I am angry or have regrets…I’m not and I don’t. In truth I still love the crazy as a shithouse rat, but in a way that one would love a crazy uncle. I still have friends in community and cherish their friendship…love the friends, fuck the community.
He died too soon. I won’t condone his madness and I do not condem him. I just wouldn’t let him date my sister.
“Those that despise me love me in secret.
Those who love me openly have hidden doubts”. Adi Da
Well Frank, when it’s my turn to move on I’ll look you up and we’ll drink some chung and chase some skirts.
Via Con Dios partner.
December 3, 2008 at 6:39 pm
@Feel4God:
you say
“Since Ramana Maharshi seems to at least be a common ground for some of us to actually discuss non-duality, I will first say again that I practiced and studied intensely for several years what Ramana Maharshi taught – and that I have the greatest respect for him.”
and then proceed with
“Regarding a difference between Sri Ramana Maharshi and Bhagavan Adi Da – Ramana clearly recommended an introverted inspection of the source of the I-thought via the question “Who am I”, etc.”
it seems to me that you (and adi da) have not understood what ramana maharshi was saying. you are simply repeating a false point invented by adi da to artificially set him apart from ramana maharshi – as a false and artificial 7th stage realizer.
in non-duality there is no inner and outer. ramana’s suggestion to investigate the “i” through “who am i?” has only one purpose. to reveal the “i” as an illusion and as a false reference point. only from and for that false reference point do inner and outer (and all other dualities) exist. there is nothing introverted about this investigation. in doing this investigation you will see that the “i” is just another appearance on non-conceptual awareness. non-conceptual awareness is neither introverted nor extroverted. it is beyond ALL concepts. and of course, this was utterly obvious to ramana maharshi. any invention of an “introverted p.o.v.” in ramanas suggestion is just that: an invention.
it is no surprise that adi da didn’t understand that since his entire “basket of tolerance” scheme is only designed to artificially set him apart from everything else. adi da was blinded by his narcissistic desire to be different and better and more advanced and what have you.
Feel4God, you may want to revisit the talks by ramana maharshi and also (and especially) nisargadatta maharaj, another non-dual teacher of the highest order and respect who was falsely and artificially disqualified (as 6th stage) by adi da.
but again. back to the basics. non-duality. there is ONLY ONE – without a second. how can anybody claim exclusivity on the ONE? adi da, however, did just that. and in so doing he has completely disqualified himself as a spiritual teacher.
December 3, 2008 at 9:43 pm
“So His spiritual legacy to me is awareness of consciousness
as non-dual in that manner.
Yet transcendently bright and all embracing.
This gift continues to shine and there is no roster or external gate or external temple, that can prevent anyone from access.
This is beautiful to me. Adi Da is that to me now”.
I hope there is beauty , happiness and grace in all your lives in what ever form it is revealed …even all form”
“… is no roster or external gate or external temple, that can prevent anyone from access”.
That Wes, is elegant. It’s always been the truth. I take these words here as prayer and blessing. Thank You.
December 3, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Feel4God,
I appreciate the spirit you express here:
“I am not trying to convert anyone here. However, I am going to express what I have directly experienced in my Spiritual Master’s Company – partly to put it out there, partly to learn, and partly to counter what I have seen to mainly be misunderstanding by the critics.”
There is a karmic reason for where you are, just as there was when I was a follower. One should not try and “convert” a committed Da devotee, and such a conversion into mainstream non-dualism requires awakening to an entirely different POV and comes from within, not from without, and from my perspective, from grace rather than egoic effort. Similarly, I only wish to express from my experince and to counter what I believe is misinterpretation from Da’s devotees.
You state: “Ramana clearly recommended an introverted inspection of the source of the I-thought via the question “Who am I”, etc. Adi Da understood this approach to still be a form of seeking, and so made that critical point, among others.”
That is where we disagree. Those more familiar with Ramana Maharshi can state with relative certainty you do not understand the more mature forms of enquiry as Ramana Maharshi actually taught it. I think Conradg will support that assessment also from his own experience in returning to Ramana Maharshi after many years as a Da devotee, and Shiva makes the same point. In saying so, I understand there are books, more so earlier ones, some I have read myself, that give this impression. And I am well aware how Da has consistently but inaccurately Ramana Maharshi’s actual teaching, even if the reason for that is a matter of speculation. It isn’t really that important for most Da devotees who having assumed they have found their Satguru have no need to examine Ramana more accurately, but I do find it somewhat interesting that you can’t see that the one isolated quote Da uses in his critical essay to “prove” that Ramana only had one limited approach is not taken in context or accurately presented in relation to the larger source. But as more contemporary scholars like David Godman have demonstrated, these impressions have more to do with the qualities of those who asked questions and in other cases the understanding of the authors that wrote the answer down than what Ramana Maharshi actually taught. Even Da once, long ago, agreed that what Ramana Maharshi taught was tailored to the questioners and that it was more a matter of how westerners took Ramana Maharshi’s instruction. Also what Da either did not have readily available or chose not to mention was the accounts of those who were privately enlightened from association with Ramana Maharshi to compare with. In some rare cases the liberation was accomplished fairly quickly with direct transmissions and methods far different from the stereotyped and more preparatory level of practice towards mature self-enquiry you imagine.
You state: “It was only after meeting Bhagavan Adi Da and hearing His instructions that I became suspect of the dissociated introversion that such a practice of Self-Enquiry was resulting in. Regardless of Ramana Maharshi’s actual Realization, what I am talking about right here is his instruction to devotees. Much of it is still based in the Eastern tradition of introversion and world denial (to escape the world), and such was Ramana’s own basic expression in the world – he hardly acknowledged the world, much less gave detailed advice about right life, etc.”
That too is a misunderstanding of Ramana Maharshi. Ramana Maharshi’s instruction was perfectly appropriate for the devotees who came to him and thus his instruction reflected primarily but not exclusively the culture he lived in. For one thing, the culture most of his devotees cam from did not need so much instruction in basic life practices to begin with, and so he spent more time discouraging spiritual withdrawal than worrying about money, food and sex issues in his devotees. His method for dealing with karmic issues was not just to give detailed advice, but to allow the presence to do the work (a much more graceful process than seen in the community discipline of Adidam. And one that had better practical results over the long term. That some number actually became enlightened through association with Ramana Maharshi without spending decades doing anything like the type of self-enquiry approach you describe is practical evidence that it worked.
I notice you say: “Adi Da has always very respectfully embraced all true religious and spiritual traditions, and has made great sense of them in His Basket of Tolerance essays. Whatever egos might want to interpret His statements to imply – He always embraces everyone, regardless of religion, race, etc. Adi Da (Adidam) is utterly inclusive, not anything like fundamentalism with its exclusive salvation messages, etc.”
The problem with that statement is for one thing that as you well know, he did not see Nisargadatta when alive. Nor did he see those like Sri Ranjit (Nisargadatta’s co-disciple), Ammachi, Papaji, or even those like Robert Adams, readily available. If he really thought his Realization was beyond theirs, and if there was anyone who might have been able to really make use of his physical presence and recognize his claims if it were really what he claimed, it would have been such figures who deserved his company. And outside of that, the best way to describe Basket of Tolerance is like that of his criticism of Ramana Maharshi, stereotyping and damning with faint praise.
You say: “Regarding the non-duality traditions, for instance, pictures of Sri Ramana Maharshi yield a sense of absolute sublimity, but also a sense of inwardness, and exclusive of outward life.”
Identification with the Self it seems inward to “us” who identify with form, but is neither internal or external, and the outer world as we see it is a pale, karmic reflection. This absolute serenity you describe and the value placed on it over all other physical signs is the primary difference between those drawn to those like Ramana and those whose tendencies draw them to Da’s approach.
You state: “In all the years of being in Adi Da’s physical Company and feeling innumerable moments and pictures of Him, I never have a sense of any point-of-view being assumed…had I witnessed any form of self-consciousness or point-of-view (ego-I) with Him under ANY circumstance, I would have left.”
I believe that you would have left had you seen it, and that there is a karmic purpose in you not seeing it. Da was far more fluid and expansive in physical, mental and energetic terms than most can imagine, and so it can appear that way, as I well know. We will just have to disagree about the interpretation of your observations.
You say: “For the record, I am not some starry-eyed spiritual enthusiast that has been deluded by shakti experiences. I have always tested everything I have been given, and never have blindly believed anything – and besides, I am too much of a scientifically-inclined doubting type to do such a thing.”
Join the club, certainly Conradg from what I have seen fits in that approach as well. So what is it that I am saying then?
December 3, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Like vultures descending upon the carcass?
What do any of us really know about Adi Da, or Ramana Maharshi, the Non-Dual or ourselves?
From out of what process, background, social structure and mind do we arrive at, and give so much value to, our points of view…?
Quiet. Eat. Rest. The flesh is still fresh… this is what we do here, we eat one another. It’s what we still are… how we communicate.
All this dry philosophy and filtered points of view… what are any of us saying…? Who will we next devour?
Regardless of whether you’re a devotee, or agree with Adi Da or not, be bettered through whatever you respond or react to and move on to a life that is simpler and richer for it…. no ?
In a lion’s den one does not tend to find a sweet kitty or a pure saint, one finds a sheer supermarket of untamed, wild energy. No surprises to those (sadly too few) who know a lion from a house-cat… thus all the crying and complaining… it’s called growing up… may it come fast…
Adi Da was, is No Thing. Our points of view… we’re all wrong…
December 4, 2008 at 12:28 am
@ AKASHA – Adi Da has always spoken of His Lineage, which includes Swami Muktananda, the Goddess, etc. – so yes, there would be similar Teachings as you point out, but Adi Da constantly teaches us to transcend the search at all levels because no conditionality will ever cause realization of the Unconditional. Adi Da’s Teachings on no-seeking are clearly non-dual in nature.
@ shiva – I agree with you that Ramana was looking to reveal the “I” as an illusion, but he certainly characterized the practice as an interior one. Here is a very typical exchange:
V.: Am I to concentrate on the thought: ‘Who am I?’
Ramana: It means that you must concentrate to see where the ‘I’ thought arises. Instead of looking outwards, look inwards and see where the ‘I’ thought arises.
Also, Ramana spoke about seeking the source of “I” as a means to make it vanish, etc., etc.
I am very familiar with Ramana’s Teachings, and have several of his books still. Had Ramana been alive when I first studied his works 40+ years ago, I would have gone to him. Obviously he was always pointing people to the absolute Self, though he usually spoke in terms of seeking its realization via inward-turned Self-enquiry on the I-thought, and generally about dissociation from the outside world and all of its distractions.
I have often thought that the Self-enquiry Ramana would have given his closest disciples had he fully assumed the Guru function, would be the same “Who am I?” but with the “I” referring to Ramana himself – not the illusory “I-thought” of the disciple doing the Self-enquiry.
Regardless, Ramana did not completely assume the Guru function in the fullest manner that Adi Da has. And Adi Da actually admonishes us to find out Who He Is – not who “I” am. He is God-Realized, I am not – so let’s see, which would be more effective to meditate on: the Acausal Divine Reality in Person or my illusory “I-thought”? A no-brainer, really!
And yeah, I understand ultimately I am that same One – but such mental affirmations are just that – talking school yak-yak and lead to further mental fixation, with perhaps an occasional glimpse of the Witness Consciousness. However, in Adidam, after preparing the foundation, we are to tacitly assert the Witness moment to moment – not as some kind of mentally-based exercise, but in direct devotional recognition of Bhagavan Adi Da, the Acausal Reality.
shiva, you say:
“but again. back to the basics. non-duality. there is ONLY ONE – without a second. how can anybody claim exclusivity on the ONE? adi da, however, did just that. and in so doing he has completely disqualified himself as a spiritual teacher.”
Hahahaha! So there is some kind of cosmic ruling about this? Did you decide this or did someone else? I never got the memo!
Seriously though, to state that Adi Da is not a spiritual teacher is absurd! Have you thoroughly studied His Works?
Ok, as I have already posted, Adi Da confesses absolutely no separation with any conditional arising whatsoever. He has always told us that we are that same One – but don’t just be a fool and think that because it is “always already the case”, that we are – presto! – God-Realized! Only the One who is absolutely and altogether the Acausal Divine Reality can truly make such a confession for real.
Also, I have mentioned a few times on this thread of my own innumerable accounts of never seeing anything but Adi Da’s intrinsic egolessness, beyond all point-of-view. Such devotional recognition is the Divine Self, is Translation, is Da. That is the practice (Adidam) in its simplest terms.
Well thanks for responding at least in the vein of non-duality, shiva. I almost gave up on this thread given all the negativity being posted during this very emotional time for us Adi Da lovers. Off to bed, it is getting late here.
December 4, 2008 at 2:39 am
Feel4God,
Interesting viewpoint about Ramana and Da. I came at it from the opposite direction. I was a devotee of Da for almost three decades, and imbibed all of his teachings and criticisms to the core, including his criticism of Ramana. After I left, I re-examined Ramana’s teachings, and found that Da had clearly misunderstood them. Particularly in relation to the matter of “introversion”, it is a serious misunderstanding of Ramana’s use of that word to think that it refers to the psychological disposition we normally call “introverted”, in which one becomes disassociated from outward life and fixated upon one’s subjectivity. It really has nothing to do with that, though admittedly not just Da, but many who casually study and try to practice self-enquiry make this mistake. Self-enquiry as taught by Ramana is nothing more than feeling deeply into the very sense of self that is at the core of all experiences. It does not involve a disassociation from objects, just a freedom from becoming fixated upon them. Similarly, it does not involve a disassociated fixation upon the inward, subjective dimenions, but again merely a freedom from any fixation upon that. Feeling into the sense of self directly reveals that there is no such thing, and the prior freedom of our innate being becomes increasingly obvious and unmistakable. I could describe in detail the many errors Adi Da made in his criticisms of Ramana, and how his lack of understanding of Ramana reveals his own failure to fully realize, but I’m not sure you would be interested, and this is probably not the time or the place.
And btw, you should also be aware that Adi Da quite commonly made many rude, angry, and rather gross put-downs of other spiritual teachers, including Ramana, Nisargadatta, Muktananda, and many others, so it’s hard to see how his devotees can object when others sometimes address him with similarly disrespectful words. It’s not my style, but I think being prissy about that sort of thing just doesn’t work if you are going to be a serious devotee of someone as outspoken as Adi Da was.
December 4, 2008 at 2:59 am
Akasha makes a good point about Da’s involvement with the doctrines of Kashmir Shaivism. His human Gurus – Swamis Rudrananda and Muktananda – were part of the Kashmir Shaivism teachings, and Da was strongly influenced by them in almost every aspect of his teaching, and especially in his “tantric” approach to life practice. It also helps explain his misunderstanding of Ramana and advaita altogether to see him as a Kashmir Shaivite. For example, the criticism of Ramana as “introverted” is a classic Kashmir Shaivite reaction to advaitic teachings. Kashmir Shaivism tends to be wedded to the idea of “this world is Divine”, whereas advaita says that there is only God, which is quite a different thing. Da favored the extroversion of attention, upon himself as a Divine Object, but I think we see where that ends up.
December 4, 2008 at 3:22 am
Wes, it’s great to hear from you, very beautiful and moving. Hope our paths cross again one day.
Slyder, great to hear from you too. I’m trying to remember you from that retreat in Hawaii. I recall a guy from Boston, a poet I think. Was that you? Anyway, you make great good sense. Glad to hear you managed to reclaim some semblance of sanity from those years. It was kinda fun though, particularly that retreat.
December 4, 2008 at 4:03 am
Many points of view are written here. Those who respond to Adi Da Samraj are weary of the separate self with its endless points of view. The Way of Adidam is about understanding and relinquishing the separate self and losing point of view. That egoless Realization is what Adi Da Samraj eternally Transmits and what the Way of Adidam is founded in. One must be intensively devoted to That in order to Realize It, and all that Adi Da Samraj did or said in His physical Lifetime only served that devotion to the Transcendental Reality that is beyond point of view. Devotion to “Him” is only devotion to Reality Itself. There was never any ego or separate one there that I ever could feel or see any signs of in more than thirty years of close contact. The egoless condition can only be felt by the heart, it is not a matter of argument. Guru devotion has thousands of years of history, but is quite odd in the west, and thus some understandably react to this function, especially because there are so few true gurus here in consumer-land. Adi Da Samraj simply and vulnerably makes the offer of relationship for those who respond to His egoless State and find the Way of Adidam attractive. Those who are with Him find that there is indeed a process of ego-dissolution occurring, however slow it may seem to be from “inside” or “outside”. Certainly His Mahasamadhi has intensified His Presence. We do all we can to not communicate a cultic attitude, but we are just ordinary people doing our best to understand and grow.
December 4, 2008 at 6:19 am
Wow! This really is getting Hot! For whatever reason, this has become the place for discussion between those in, those that were in and those that were on the outside looking in. This type of real communication was never possible while he was alive! I think we all deeply respect the right for anyone to mourn and grieve the passing of a loved one. However, Adi-Da was not the “usual man”. His rejection of all other traditions and ways set him apart (as he wanted) and his influence on so many lives make his life liable for criticism. If you don’t want to read anything critical,or anything you may find offensive, don’t log on and only read what Adidam tells you to read. So many critics, like me, are still grateful for the man/teaching that was adi-da, but while being grateful we are still critical. Is that cause to reject everything we write? Surely any intelligent person can understand the need for dialogue? His early teaching is a truly wonderful new way of describing the spiritual process and the “Man of Understanding” a great literary contribution to the world store of spiritual writing. His description of his full enlightenment, however, is somewhat dubious. Remember, he “fucked the Shakti’s brains loose!” No compassionate embrace there! Just a recipe for the hyper-macho mysogyny that characterized his relationship to men and women, all of us, from then on. Top Dog, Pack Leader that all good pups were encouraged to look up to, worship, emulate, copy and then be criticized for doing exactly that. Crazy wise teaching? Or just trying to “fuck all our brains loose”? Who was the one that “fucked the shakti?” God? The Divine? Shiva? Non-dual Consciousnes? We devotees and ex-devotees alike let so much slip by our morality sensors. ..and if I personally learnt one thing it was to trust my own sense of morality. Thank you! The clues were there from the beginning. Feel4God is offended if anyone calls his guru “Frankie” .Why? Is the guru limited by name? Wasn’t he out to offend all egos? Does the name “Frankie” upset you and cause your image to get wobbly? Examine your image and what it means to you. Who is/was this Da or Frankie? If your own consciousness has been realized, where is another, or even a Great Other? From a non-dual perspective, “Who is to be offended?” I dread to think of the church that may be set up to enshrine Da’s One and Only True etc. As previously stated, all disagreement with The Glorious Leader was/is seen as the work of “dissidents” or “bruised egos”. Well, that’s that then; you, on the inside have obviously got the non-egoic p.o.v. well us that left are all bound for hell and damnation. Wake Up! The “inner circle” found it absolutely acceptable to attack, abuse, crush and destroy all those with contrary p.ov. or doubts, complaints and criticisms,just as he did. Wake Up! You’re in a cult! Even, A Great Cult! Break Free! De-programme yourself and breathe freely again. Burn the DVD’s books and photos! Come back to the real world and see what happens. You’ll find it difficult at first, but, believe me, life really is the best teacher there is. Pretty soon you’ll see that there was one set of rules for him, and by default the community, the bearers of the one true one’s message, but another rule for any doubters or non-believers; the same old double-speak that meant only the yes-men were accepted. No fun fundamentalism…plain ole plain ole..Is that transcendence? Those who are still in the club and, yes, egoically attached to an image of truth will find it hard to let go of this image. He was a man, period. Just as Ramana, Buddha etc. Everyone shits.Their legacy speaks about who they were. Ramana saw everyone as the Self and enabled numerous realizers. Buddha saw everyone as the Buddha and enabled numerous realizers. Da, well he talked the talk, but his actions certainly didn’t conform to his speech….and realizers? On this there can be no argument; he commanded the worship and subservience of all, and any who questioned were expelled from his court. He unquestionably demanded absolute power and we all know where that leads.. Those who are angry are angry. Those who criticize are critical. Those who a true believers, believe..Let’s not get caught up on who is “right”. For every one there will be a different p.o.v. Let’s be able to accept all these perspectives at once. He will remain a mystery, a warning, a paradox, a deeply flawed human being, and at least, from this perspective, a clear example of a ma with great potential that failed because of his unexamined unconscious motives. Time to feed the dog and get to work…’May a thousand flowers bloom, may a thousand schools of thought contend!’ The Guru is dead! Long Live the Guru!
December 4, 2008 at 9:39 am
OK its late from the Blissful heaven Loca in Fiji… many hours of chanting and dissolving… Thank you Lord… You did not leave us Your presence is brighter and more attractive then ever…
what a wonder… many more people here now.. and the grieving has become mixed with a great joy.. most of us are westerners and what do we know of the wonders of enlightenment… so i guess it was kind of scary on a level when He left the Body.. for me at least.. kind of freaked me out.. and then to reconnect with the One He always was in feeling and really get it… He Never left.. as He said He would.. “i will never leave you” OK so here is a gift for you Lovers of the Bright one.. (the miserable anti Da friends on this site unfortunatly you will not cry with an open heart when you watch this but if you want you can anyway !!!)
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=FXtJ4x0kE7w
Any way over the last days this process for me of descovering the continuation of His Brightness so strong has healed something relative to death… i read some comment about Him dieing quickly.. it was incredebly quick infact it was instant.. He had said it would be.. so many signs come around now.. the piece of art he was working on that day was about Death.. the title of the piece included the word five.. the time of His death..5.05 and the reason for His death was totally unknown.. His heart just stopped.. unyet His health was perfect.. But again those who Love The Bright One it is important to understand what Happened in 2000 to understand the miracle of these last years we have had with HIm…
Whatever.. more then that and for me what has been totally profound being here now is that the deepening process that started in the transmission sittings with HIm just over a week ago.. continues now.. there is no difference.. It is of coarse sad and hard to come to terms with the knowledge that you will never see the enlightened form so totally translucent in this last year.. i could not believe it when i saw Him this year he was so much more vonarable, like a tissue paper lantern, glowing through translucent skin.. I looked at His hands in one Darshan, I dont know why but the beauty of them blew my mind… Oh how i longed to touch His hand. He said one time that one day we would realize that we had treated Him shamefully in this life… Lovers of the Bright One we knew it was true when He said it… and Now that becomes more evident, He said you left me in my room watching TV… well we did.. and Now you know that there will be thousands apon thousands that will weep that they never saw His bodily incarnation and would have sat outside that room for weeks for just a glimps..
BUT what to do but turn again to the portal to the Brightness.. The heart of All and All.. why are some chosen to see and others not.. i have no idea… Do you ever get lost in His eyes… what a wonder what a marvel to just gaze in His eyes… we just made a film of him sitting in Darshan but used a lens to shoot very close up.. i will share some of these with you lovers of the Bright One… when i get an edit together.. we watched some last night.. Now His body is not here the sight of it is some how so much more potent.. like what you cant have you want even more.. the bloody miracle of it.. looking at His Darshan like this reminds me of days in nature on Mushrooms, when you spend hours getting into looking at a cloud or a flower endlessly lost in the unfolding perfection…
OK got to get to bed… but dear dear friends here is another morsel of unfolding Bright perfection in the form of words… from the Alethion
When Narcissus
looks into the water,
he sees himself.
When I am recognized,
the Water Itself
Is Found.
With More Love then i could possably self generate Blisscake
December 4, 2008 at 9:43 am
stephanie and others mention certain perceived benefits through their association with adi da. they talk about “ego-dissolution” and “heart-openings” for example.
that makes me wonder if we were part of the same organization!?
as i mentioned i spent many hundreds of hours in adi da’s direct company performing an (at the time) essential service for him for which i had special skills. i also want to stress again that i have no personal reasons to be disgruntled. as i said adi da and the ruchiradamas always treated me well. the same, however, cannot be said for many, many other people. i have personally witnessed adi da treating many other people very badly and in a despotic manner. there were always rationalizations for such behavior and in the beginning i actually bought that. but from my observations – and i had PLENTY of them – there was little to no ego-dissolution going on. quite the opposite! there was EXTREMELY ugly politics going on around him. and adi da always put the same punks into positions of power, where it was clear to everyone where it would lead (and did): to more such ugly politics because many of the old-timers in power were extremely power-hungry. those characters TRIED to get at me because i opened my mouth about things i observed but they never could because the ruchiradamas protected me (since adi da needed me) – much to their dismay.
so, while i was not personally effected, i saw what those ugly power games did to some of my friends and to the community in general. there was little to no ego-dissolving growth observable by me, heart-openings were usually limited to darshans (about the reasons i can only speculate) and very short-lived. people in adi da’s direct proximity (and i had plenty of opportunity to observe them) suffered from the same inflated ego as adi da did. and if anything the egos around him became more inflated!
this is my honest observation. i wanted to believe in adi da. i really did. i was at the time VERY happy to serve him so intimately and saw it as an incredible opportunity to grow. and i had and have no personal reasons to be disgruntled.
whatever i wrote here in this blog are either my honest opinions or my honest observations. and yes, i saw many people suffer from malnutrition because there was no money to buy decent food. and from what i hear that hasn’t changed much (although there are seasonal variations, depending on what can be grown on the island at any given moment). food-shortage was not constant, but there were long periods of it. the reason there was no money to buy decent food was that MOST of it went into adi da’s personal collections, entertainment systems and stuff like that. i saw it with my own eyes and there is no room for interpretation. a legal renunciate? not by any stretch of the definition! maybe there were legal tricks but he most certainly personally owned and controlled all of it.
also, i have personally witnessed how his literature was manipulated to fit the truth. one example that sticks out is one of adi da’s famous prophecies from the early 80s where he predicted certain events to occur 20 years later. when it was clear they did not and would not occur they were simply removed from the literature. those manipulations are a fact and they leave no room for interpretation. i confronted the editors about that and all they could do was give phony and evasive reasoning that no intelligent person could possibly accept. i am not sure if all of the editors were altogether comfortable with it but there were certain hard-liners in the editorial department who may have actually initiated that manipulation (i am not altogether certain about it but i have reason to believe).
the main reason i am here in this blog, however, are not my accounts above. i only mentioned them to balance out some of the – in my opinion naive and starry-eyed – statements made by some current devotees. my main reason to be here in this blog about non-duality is the fact that adi da’s teaching doesn’t hold up against an informed non-dual inspection. i believe that i and others here have made that convincingly clear.
and yes, Feel4God, there is definitely some cosmic ruling out on that one. you must have missed the memo!
December 4, 2008 at 10:22 am
The reason I can be compassionate towards those who cannot appreciate Samaraj Adi Da is that I can see the suffering behind the words.
Well that, and I’m basically one too. The truth is we all arise in God. There is only That One. Put whatever name you want on it.
After I left the community I went into a downward spiral. I only managed to see Beloved a few times after when given an open invite. I knew then that He loved all of us who had left him no matter what.
I had to get myself in a 12 step program because I was succumbing to all kinds of vices. I had become an alcoholic, vicodin addict with an eating disorder. I was giving in to all the patterns of my family of origin.
I remember once being invited to sit with him, I weighed in about 225 pounds. I’m not a tall woman, so that extra poundage showed big time. I was a little embarrassed to go before Him, but I hI had become some what indifferent to the whole guru devotee relationship(I was doing it out of curiosity I told myself). The minute I saw him I just laid my big butt down before him in full prostration, my heart leaping out of my chest. It was in that moment, I knew my connection to him was unbreakable. He wasn’t my rock star guru, He was the source of unconditional love. Indifferent to the personality I put before him, he only saw the divine reality that outshined “me”.
I continue to go to 12 step meetings because it is a gateway for me to embrace my spiritual practice again. I’ve lost most of the weight and live in a sober manner. I’m not sure if I will ever become a formal student again, but I will demomstrate my love and respect for Him that loved the truth so deeply. May grace allow me to fall into that well so I never have to suffer feelings of separation from him.
The one thing I’ve learned in my 12 step program, is to not do other people’s inventory, and turn it over to my higher power. That being said, and I say this with all respect, is the only reason I can put up with all you yahoos.
Blessings to all of you.
May I rest in the arms of my Beloved forever.
December 4, 2008 at 10:37 am
P.S. I’m not sorry if I offend you, or if you offend me. Pearls of wisdom can come from grains of sand rubbing up against each other.
December 4, 2008 at 10:48 am
Hi to all on this great discussion list… this is mostly a response to **puonamu**.
I feel much of what you are saying. I have been a devotee of Adi Da since 1983 and spent a lot of time in Fiji. So I’ve been up close and done the regional thing. About 10 years ago I went the route of having my own family, and in many respects are what you would probably call a more ‘conventional looking’ devotee.
In my own case, although I have been roundly criticised by the Guru many times, I always felt his embrace personally in terms of my family and loved ones. Indeed much to the chagrin of the cultural authorities, I have had my children go to darshan directly approved by QSP. On several occassions very small and intimate sittings.
So it really is a paradox and not fathomable. There are a lot of aspects to the way this organisation has operated that are not ideal. Nonetheless you have to keep your integrity and stick with your feeling as much as you can.
The way I have come to look at it is that Beloved was an *intervention* in this dark place to which we have all come for our various reasons. He intervened into a culture (i.e. western, materialistic, profoundly selfish) that really had no idea on how to respond to such a One. So all in all it has been somewhat messy, hard to comprehend with the conventional mind. However, for my part I am eternally grateful that I had the opportunity to know Him while he was associated with the body.
On initial reading, the description of your situation does not sound like something to me that Beloved would have approved. In my experience, He always called us to *rightly* respond to him and not neglect our duty.
Stay strong, whereever you are. FYI… unless your husband has a Fiji residence permit or work permit, he won’t get in the country with a one way ticket (need a return ticket for a visitors visa).
December 4, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Mistapita, Thank you for your thoughtful response.
It just goes to show that people from every walk of life, or point of view have responded to Samaraj Adi Da.
In spite of everything we may represent as egos, if our heart is open we will be received. Having once been in leadership, I know how difficult it can be to act with integrity. It’s an amazing sadhana. I definitely couldn’t take the heat of it. You have to be willing to be seen, and function through the embarrassment of making a lot of mistakes, and a lot of expectation from others to be the perfect devotee.
I appreciated what you said about responding “rightly” to him. This is something I feel I’ve failed miserably at, and I think it is part of my grieving process. Now it seems I can only turn to him for comfort by watching darshan videos, and by hearing leelas of people such as yourself.
Even the stories of those who criticize him are part of the legacy of what he left us with. In truth we can see that he will never leave us.
December 4, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Blisscake, Thank you for updating us, and thank you for sharing your experience of Beloved’s passing.
December 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Very beautifully said, Stephanie. Thank you.
Stevie in Wonderland – Sheesh! Try some paragraph markers, dude! I almost missed your comment to me in that wall of text. Your use of ironic names for Adi Da just shows your immaturity – your adolescence to be more precise – and as I said before, undermines your communication. This is true relative to any communication in life – if you communicate with hatred and separation in your speech, people will tend to shut you out because no one wants to eat your shit. And your attempt to justify your nastiness is just more of your own reaction – it is not positive, constructive criticism when you do that. You are being very disrespectful with that kind of childish name-calling – and no, your adolescence does not undermine my image of Adi Da. Remember, it is not based on belief or concepts – simply recognition of Who He Is.
I have read all these posts and can clearly discern those that are still respectful in their criticism and those who are looking to get their rocks off and justify their own choices once again. So Stevie in Wonderland, I “Feel4God”
in these moments – for Adi Da to have given so much and to have yours and others’ name-calling being posted here is sad, indeed.
Anyway…us Westerners want to be consoled in our body-minds – so we tend to look for and consume every kind of pleasure. We expect our gurus to even provide such pleasure for us – and if they do not, we tend to get very reactive in one form or another. There is no question with the great devotees in India about the need for Guru devotion and obedience. But obedience in the West flies in the face of us Westerners, stuck in our adolescent mindset and a need to feel equal to everyone and everything at all levels, especially spiritual.
J. Krishnamurti really helped to popularize the talking school notion of enlightenment in the West. No need for a guru, he would say – but Westerners generally took this totally out of context and ran with this message! You mean I can be enlightened by me realizing my one true Self? Yippee! I don’t have to be accountable to anyone! And especially screw all those damn bodily disciplines!
But who has actually realized the Great One without the Guru? Without real recognition of God, His Grace, submission, and right life disciplines there cannot be transcendence of the ego. Who is going to do that – the ego?
Most of what I read from the critics here seems basically what I just described – an adolescent reaction to the Guru and the need for obedience. I can certainly relate to shiva’s and others’ thoughts about the community around the Guru, especially in the very early days. It was for this reason I constantly hoped to see if Bhagavan would show some form of egoity – so I could split the community! It was a very rough and tumble group – and I had just come from India, meditating some 8 hours a day (Ramana “style”), straight into the Garbage and the Goddess period! If it had not been for Master Adi Da ALWAYS only being the Heart beyond all egoity – I would be so out of there. Believe me, I looked for at least two years but I could not see any ego in Him – no matter how crazy things got!
shiva – I also considered and wondered why Adi Da allowed some of the craziest people to run things – like in the early seventies, a “mafioso” type was in charge of administration, etc. But keep in mind, Adi Da always wanted to create a crisis for our conventional mindset about the ways things “should be”. He always told us that His purpose is to create a crisis in our lives to awaken us from this awful egoic dream. I bow in deepest gratitude for His persistence and feel Him ever Present and pervading my life more than ever. He is utterly Available!
I do sympathize with those posting here who are confessing all their difficulties with Adidam – and I am also very sorry you did not hang in there through thick and thin, although understandably each person makes their own choices. The community can always use the help of good people – and especially those who have gone beyond their need to feel betrayed and to reject others in order to justify their own sense of separative existence.
Conradg says:
“Self-enquiry as taught by Ramana is nothing more than feeling deeply into the very sense of self that is at the core of all experiences. It does not involve a disassociation from objects, just a freedom from becoming fixated upon them. Similarly, it does not involve a disassociated fixation upon the inward, subjective dimenions, but again merely a freedom from any fixation upon that. Feeling into the sense of self directly reveals that there is no such thing, and the prior freedom of our innate being becomes increasingly obvious and unmistakable.”
Conradg, I understand that is what ultimately Ramana was pointing at – but throughout his books he speaks about finding the source of the I-thought by concentrating within. He says this over and over – even relative to the Guru:
Ramana: The Sad-Guru is within.
Devotee: The Sad-Guru is necessary to guide me to understand that fact.
Ramana: The Sad-Guru is within you.
Devotee: I want a visible Guru.
Ramana: That visible Guru says that he is within.
shiva says:
“my main reason to be here in this blog about non-duality is the fact that adi da’s teaching doesn’t hold up against an informed non-dual inspection. i believe that i and others here have made that convincingly clear.”
Well, not really. What do you make of the book title “Not Two Is Peace”?
There are endless examples that I could post here. His Aletheon masterwork will be published next year – we have been receiving lots of Essays from it – great examples of Acausal Reality Speaking!
From “Reality Itself Is The Way” by Adi Da Samraj (which includes Essays from The Aletheon and this has been published):
“Consider” This:
All of this conditional “world” passes.
Thus, all of this appearance is already dead.
Watch!
Be Free.
Stand with Me–
Where I Am, now.
No sentimentality -
All-Love, All-Freedom.
The Witness-Consciousness Itself,
Invested in the Perfect “Place”.
Invest yourself in This Freedom.
“Know” It – now.
There is not anything you can do
to “otherwise” the always dying nature
of the conditional domain.
Likewise,
you cannot Be
in any other place
than Standing As I Am.
All forms pass.
Watch them pass.
Watch!
You Are the Witness-Only.
This appearance passes – will pass.
Even now, it is the past.
What arises is a shadow of the absent.
Find Me out.
There is not anything you can do
to “otherwise” the always dying nature
of the conditional domain.
Nevertheless,
you Are Always Already Standing with Me,
in My Indifferent “Place” -
if only you will find Me out.
This conditional “world” passes.
This “everything” always dies.
Even this can be tacitly (merely) observed -
by Always Prior Standing As Mere Witness here.
Therefore, Fall Awake in Me!
…
December 4, 2008 at 1:00 pm
I know, more of the same. But hey, it feels cathartic to get if off my chest after 19 years out of the madness.
Who can forget, those who were there, the world yajna debacle (right after his first ‘death’)? The era of the orange robed, Swami Da-Love Ananda?
The call to renunciation (meaning give every nickle you have to support the bottomless money pit). The back biting, the betrayals, the out and out lying. Not to mention the all night meetings with the entire community of devotees, to wear you down with the most outrageous guilt trips just to cough up more and more money. There were those in the community who sold their home and gave it all away to to what? Nothing! Nothing because it all fell apart anyway. They ended up living in a group home with nothing to show for it. And yes, they ended up divorcing due to the stress of it all. That was the end of it for me. Lies, abuse, endless emotional attack if you didn’t support the program. And what was Da’s response to all of this? Just more of the endless stream of rants. “If you don’t measure up and do it, I’m Leaving!” I remember saying to a fellow devotee, “I wish he would just leave. I’m tired of his endless, angry daddy routine.” And just to set the record strait where I came out in all of this. I had to declare bankruptcy for maxing out every one of my credit cards with no way to pay them back (tens of thousands)….a very very stupid me (yes, I take full responsability for it).
And when I bailed from the community I got those wonderful spiritual threat phone calls saying that those who leave their guru are, basically, damned to Rudra hell! What love and compassion, hey? Anyway, what was “Bubba Free-John’s” early pronouncement? “Dead Gurus can’t kick ass!” Should have gotten the clue right then and there. But it sounded cute and oh-so-spiritual at the time.
Well, that’s the end of my rant.
December 4, 2008 at 1:07 pm
NC says:
“The minute I saw him I just laid my big butt down before him in full prostration, my heart leaping out of my chest. It was in that moment, I knew my connection to him was unbreakable. He wasn’t my rock star guru, He was the source of unconditional love. Indifferent to the personality I put before him, he only saw the divine reality that outshined “me”.”
That is a great leela and testimony, NC! The very best to you!
December 4, 2008 at 1:38 pm
@ Former Follower and Critic Says – I just now saw your response to my prior post. I appreciate your feedback and thoughtful consideration. I still take issue with much of what you say and presume, but so be it for now.
Adi Da is my Heart Master eternally – this utterly obvious heart recognition is a blissful discriminating loving certainty beyond all conditionality – It is Acausal Reality, the Self of all, Da! And I am happy for anyone who has found the joy of devotional recognition of their Spiritual Master.
December 4, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Oops, typo!
@ Former Follower and Critic Says –
should read:
@ Former Follower and Critic -
December 4, 2008 at 3:43 pm
It’s not that I don’t think the community is not insane…the whole world is insane…I’m insane but all in all I’ve met more devotees that have been humbled by the sweat of their spiritual practice. It’s not easy to hang in there through the demands that Samaraj Adi Da placed before us. To think that we as unelightened human beings could do that with perfect equanimity is unreasonable. He was doing something radically different, and there was an urgency to what he wanted to accomplish…so he called out fiercely at times.
I’m one of those poor devotees, but honestly, I realize it’s a life strategy. I no longer blame myself, or the community for it. It’s just a difficult patterning I’ve struggled with in this lifetime…but truthfully I do not resent any luxury that Samaraj Adi Da had. He deserved it all, and more. It was for us that he asked for it. He wanted to create a space that was sacred, a place that’s construction was based on divine wisdom, rather than the ordinary constructs of a limited ego. If anyone here has spent any time on these sanctuaries Beloved has constructed they would realize the incredible gift to the world they represent. We are extremely lucky to have them. Whenever I am at one, I’m given an incredible gift.
December 4, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I have enjoyed reading these posts, and feel like speaking as at a wake.
The news of Adi Da’s death has been poignant for me even though I am long gone from being his devotee or associating with the community. In the mid-70’s I came across the amazing teaching and became a formal friend, then a formal student, then a devotee giving it everything I had to give from devotion to effort and money. I thought I was such a lucky man! The peak of the glory days for me was the “Love of the God-man” celebration in 1984.
But then things began to go south, and by the time of the “Divine Emergence” in 1986, I was feeling that something was off. It took a couple of years of chaos and self-doubt before I left, but I still maintained a thread of connection by supporting the “Basket of Tolerance”, and I meanwhile took up life as a Vajrayana Buddhist.
I went to the Sanctuary in Kuai in 1996 as a possible member of the “3rd Congregation”, but the trip only served to convince me that I didn’t want anything to do with Adi-Da any more. And with the news that the Basket of Tolerance now had only one fully realized being on the list, I kissed that good-bye as well.
Many, many, many extreme experiences, stories, emotions, and lessons are mixed into this water under the bridge! I’m sure all ex or current participants know what I mean.
It took some time, but I finally began standing on my own two feet, trusting the intuition that took me away from Adidam to be at least equal in validity to the intuition that took me into it. I gave up all notions of stages of realization, especially a 6th stage distinct from a 7th, which appeared to me to be more and more spurious. Etc.,etc.
Now another 12 years have passed, and Adi Da has died. I never related to him as Adi Da, but I still connect to some of the teaching of Bubba Free John and the Way of Divine Ignorance, and feel a Transmission there (gotta capitalize it!) that I can’t dismiss, nor do I want to. The years I was involved were amazing. I could go on and on for and against them, but overall I feel a bitter-sweetness. It was life fully lived, and it was incredible, full of shakti that is hard to find in this world. I am grateful for many things, and thank God I didn’t get too badly burned. But thank God I left.
I still love my friends in the community and wish you well…
December 4, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Shiva I love you brother… But I also know you.. to say that Adi Da is not a realized being on a public forum.. is not your style as you very well know that that is absolute Bullshit… and before i knew it was you i was joking that that man who wrote that must be made of concrete !!!! well it was you one of the softest hearts i know but who always as you know to my amazement has a feeling sense (so you tell me) of concrete !!! BUT brother i saw you when you came back from His company and you were bright brother he was flowing off your body..
So i am utterly disapointed that you would spread such an ugly abusive statement of the man that loved you more then any other…
that you don’t know that and feel the need to publicly denounce Him when your very friends and intimate are here dissolving in His never ending love is purely an indication of you incredable lack of sensativity and that famous anger of the world and ultimatly dad.
I am sorry to write this publicly but your own issues regarding not being able to feel Adi Da is not a good enough reason to make a public statement as if you could ever judge such a Great One… and that goes for all of you… shame on you.. He loved more then any of us and we just want to abuse Him… and here is the thing.. as you slip from this world in your death transition you will be flung into The Brightness and that Brightness feels like all pervading extacy of a level like you have (seemingly) never experienced… That Brightness has a name and that name is DA
with great love… from the heart Blisscake
December 4, 2008 at 5:17 pm
yes, blisscake, dear brother, i know what YOU saw when i came back from the island a few years ago. but that is absolutely not what i saw and felt and knew. otherwise, why would i have left? please note that your interpretations of my state are that: your interpretations. they may not reflect what was really going on.
again, what i am stating here are my honest opinions and observations. i have no agenda other than to put adi da in his proper place, which i have come to realize is absolutely not the place he proclaimed himself to be in. i know how you feel about adi da and i accept that. hell, my wife is on the island and a very devoted follower and i accept that as well.
but realize that i am entitled to my own opinion. don’t succumb to the peer pressure in adidam that is highly intolerant towards any but the “official” pov.
i have met REAL teachers of non-duality since i left adi da. and believe me, brother, there is a WORLD of difference in their attitude, humbleness and truthfulness. they live what they teach. they don’t have the need to manipulate their teachings because it doesn’t fit the truth any more. what i said above about adi da doing that can be verified by anybody. just compare the “mark my words” talk in the old books against the currently publicized version. why would any truthful teacher do that? just a small example.
please accept that i have very good reasons for my decision to leave adi da and my stance here in this blog.
please consider that. in love.
December 4, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I loved him once, for many years. I was in his personal service for many of those years. To be clear, I was never a gopi, a wife or a quandra. I was a trusted intimate. I partied with him and I served him and his family. I loved him deeply, dearly, devotedly. I would have done anything for him.
I left him soon after the 1986 debacle that others have referred to here. It wasn’t just that I didn’t believe he died and returned “for our sake”, though that WAS a bit much. I left because the only realization he led me to was that he wasn’t realized or enlightened.
I mourned him in my own way in my own time. The loss was total. I lost my dreams, my idealism, my lifestyle, my friends, and very nearly the shirt off my back. It happens. You get what you pay for, some say. I paid for a lie, and that was all I had left by 1986. His “death” then created a true awakening in me. It literally woke me up. For the first time there was no longer any reason not to see the truth. He was a fraud, a total deceit. His death now is a non-event. I am not moved, except to come here and see what people are saying and to speak my own peace.
I’d love to be there now, a fly on the wall in the rooms where the men gather to decide what to do next. I have a prediction for the future of Adidam.
They’ll do the mahasamadhi ceremonies. There will be a period of true mourning and a great outpouring of love. Many people will come to the sanctuaries and the centers. Many will experience an increased sense of his presence. Many will feel that he has become them – and they have become him.
There will be claims of enlightenment. There always were, but Adi Da was quick to slap them down. Fiercely and without mercy. Nobody could have a seventh stage realization but himself. Without his ultimate authority, who could ever say someone is not enlightened.
There will be fights. People will take sides. Politics will be fierce. It always was in this community. Leaders will emerge, ultimately, those who can convince others of their authority, and they will do battle.
Perhaps even little Naamleela, now a mature woman, will claim the mantle that was hers at birth. The miracles surrounding her birth. Her mother’s anointing by a dead saint, documented in stories and photos at the time. He said then that she would be his successor. But will she, can she? No one knows if she is capable of being “the guru”. Does she have her father’s transmission? Can she give his devotees what they really want, his shaktipat?
I predict that they will be able to keep it going for a while. There is so much at stake. So many people have poured their whole lives into his work, his institution, so much money, property all over the world. But without the ultimate attractor, that charisma, that addictive transmission, that booming voice and its mesmerizing message, devotees will no longer have what they came for. They will begin to leave one by one. They will drift away and the community will ultimately begin to fall apart.
The properties are valuable and expensive to maintain, especially without a steady stream of devotees willing to pay. What happens to the properties? I guess we’ll just have to see. I predict the ultimate feeding frenzy when the time comes.
And then what of enlightenment and the love they all had for him. Ah well, it was only ever a dream. A marvelous and compelling dream but really nothing more than one madman’s fantasy.
December 4, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Feel4God,
In regards to Ramana teaching that “God is within”, yes, he certainly did. And in my early days in Adidam, I was convinced by Da’s teachings that this was an error, that the whole “God is within” was a traditional mistake, and that the Adidam way of extroverting one’s way to God was the true path (through devotional worship of Adi Da as Guru). However, as I saw the very real limitations of Da’s teachings and practices, and the devotional path he taught, I began to reconsider Ramana’s teachings about the Self differently, and came to see that what he was describing as “within” did not correspond to what Adi Da had criticized. When Ramana says that the Self is within, he does not mean “within one’s subjectivity”, thus pointing towards a process of conventional “inwardness” or “introversion” in any disassociated sense. He means literally that God is in the Self position, and that we have to find him there, rather than in objects. He made it very clear, if one studies his teachings more than just in the superficial quotes you mention, that his poining “within” is a way of pointing to the witness and beyond, the prior condition that is our real being. The mind becomes deluded by focusing on objects and seeing itself as existing in a world of objects. “Looking inward” or “introverting attention”, means to reverse that process, to be conscious of consciousness itself, the very souce and condition of the mind that normally is attentive to objects.
The thing that strikes me as somewhat odd about Da’s criticism of Ramana is that if one examines Da’s teachings about this process, they aren’t actually any different from Ramana’s. Da tries to avoid using the words “within” or “introversion”, but what he describes is essentially the same process of going beyond object-attention, inspecting and feeling beyond the limited ego-”I” sense of self, and awakening to the transcendental Source of these, which is in the Self-Position. I’ve read all the Daist literature on this subject, I was considered something of an expert in it while in Adidam, taught courses in it, etc, was even called by Adi Da himself a scholar on these matters, so I think I have a fair idea what I’m talking about. It appears to me that Da didn’t really have a serious leg to stand on in criticizing Ramana, but was in fact borrowing heavily from Ramana’s own teachings, and those of Advaita altogether, and yet at the same time trying to make himself out as a unique source who was somehow better and greater than his own sources.
Da’s criticism of Ramana seems to be merely politically motivated, rather than of dharmically substantial weight. I was there for all those years, and I recall all kinds of criticism of Ramana by Da as being somehow withdrawn and disassociated, clearly some mere “six-stager”, when in fact this was not at all true of Ramana. Ramana was a very friendly, relational guy, quite active in the ashram. Even as a body he was a very active, friendly, relational guy, and apart from the very early years when he was going through some kind of yogic process after his realization, he remained that way all his life. He was completely approachable, and kept his door open, literally, 24 hours a day, where any devotee or even stranger could come in and speak to him if they needed to – and many did. He showed zero signs of “inwardness” or disassociation. He was silent a fair amount of the time, but that should not be confused with disassociation. For example, he got up early every morning and served in the ashram kitchen working for hours preparing the food for the day’s meals. He considered this his personal obligation to contribute to the work of one and all in the ongoing functioning of the ashram. How many hours of kitchen work did Adi Da ever perform? Or any kind of actual selfless service to others? Well, we know that just wasn’t his thing. He was too busy persuing the kind of outward enjoyments that a genuine realizer would simply not care about. And yes, I know the logic is that “seventh stage” makes persuing outward enjoyments all okay and right, but let’s be honest, it just doesn’t work that way. The failures of Adidam if nothing else prove that point. Even Da himself seemed to acknowledge that at times. The genuine path is much more like what Ramana taught and lived, and there are very good reasons he did not go down the road Da did. Da’s path was an enjoyable path in some ways, but it was not a path that leads to genuine Self-Realization, as the evidence well shows. For that one needs to re-examine the great traditional sources such as Ramana and others. But let’s be honest, Adidam was never really a serious place for serious practitioners devoted to realization, so it’s not surprising that realization did not result. It was a place to cater to Da’s pursuit of pleasurable enjoyments, art, theology, etc. It was a “theater” as he often described it. The results of that theater have been interesting and sometimes even dramatic, but that is not how the actual spiritual process of realization comes about. Looking at Ramana, one sees a curious absence of all that, and yet a far more productive scene in terms of spiritual maturity and realization. I think that is telling, and why Adi Da will simply never be looked upon as being in the same league with Ramana, despite his great spiritual talents and insights. He really should have listened to others, and received their criticism, rather than spending all his time criticizing everyone else, even the greatest of spiritual realizers, as not being up to his level. He should have examined his level, and seen that it actually fell short, which is why Adidam as a whole has always fallen short of its goals and aspirations. If you want to know what’s been wrong with Adidam all these years, look straight at the top. It’s not the politically motivated insiders and the egos of ordinary devotees, it’s the failings and limitations of Da himself, which he was never able to acknowledge, and thus was unable to address or correct.
December 4, 2008 at 6:31 pm
In relation to what Stephanie and a few others have said about Da being “egoless”, and not being able to find any “ego” in him, well this is part of the highly personal and subjective nature of the relationship to him. For years I felt similarly. Then one day I was talking with one of Adi Da’s daughters, and this matter came up, and she said she had no problem seeing an ego in him at all. Far from it, she saw ego in him most of the time, in all the ordinary ways that one sees ego in everybody else. This struck me as interesting, that someone so intimately related to him would observe this, when the more “common” type of devotee would always say that Da was “egoless”. And I began to examine my own presumptions, and overtime I began to see that I had just talked myself into seeing everything Da does as egoless, by definition, because I needed to. If I threw away that needy desire for a perfect Guru, however, and simply looked at him for what he actually was and did, it became rather easy to see him acting egoically, just as it was for his own daughter to see him that way.
But of course even that is subjective. I certainly respect those devotees of Adi Da who say that their confession is that he is without ego, or that he is a perfect realizer. There’s a tradition in India which almost requires the devotees of any Guru to not just speak of their Guru in this way, but to actually believe it and relate to their Guru in this fashion. Even if it’s obvious to others that the Guru in question is very limited and obviously not a true realizer, it’s still considered wrong to condemn or criticize them for it, because their spiritual practice depends upon this process of seeing the Guru as perfect, as an extension of the universal Guru. Unless of course there are issues of excessive abuse, which is what complicates Da’s scene.
I recall Da himself mentioning this in relation to Meher Baba, when he was asked what he thought of Meher’s claims to being the Avatar of the Age. Da said, that’s really a matter for Meher Baba’s own devotees to work out. The point was that even Da could acknowledge that it was okay for Mehe Baba’s devotees to see him as the Avatar of the Age, whether it was literally true or not. And of course many if not most did, and even still do. But it’s not as if Da felt that he needed to take that claim seriously, or that anyone who wasn’t a devotee of Meher Baba should either. And similarly with Da, it’s really fine for his devotees to worship him unequivocably, to make declarations of his greatness, his perfection, etc., if we merely treat them as purely personal confessions of one’s devotion to God through this particular human-created historical vehicle. There have certainly been less deserving dudes who have been treated this way. It’s just that if Da’s devotees actually expect everyone to agree and affirm their claims and exhortations, they are bound to be disappointed, just as Meher Baba’s devotees were bound to be disappointed if they expected the world to accept and affirm their claim that he was the true Avatar of the Age. In fact, the more aggressively they voice those claims, and criticize those who don’t accept them, the more ridiculous they begin to appear, and the more pointed opposition they arouse.
One’s ecstatic personal speech of love should not be objectified into a conflict with others. I may think my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, but I am not surprised if there are many other husbands who will make the same claim about their wives, and I am not going to get into a fistfight with them about it, if they point out my wife’s imperfections, and the ridiculousness of my claim. I know it’s a ridiculous claim, but in love one sees such beauty in those one loves that it somehow becomes true, even so. And so there is a great personal truth in the loving confessions of many of Da’s devotees here, and it’s great to hear them. But when such personal confessions of love cross over and try to make objective claims about Da, and assert that he really is greater than everyone else, and the ultimate and unique divine realizer, well, this is just silliness. It’s a husband who cannot accept that his own wife, as much as he loves her, is just a woman like every other woman, he has to put her on the highest pedestal of all, and knock off all the other wives who are loved by their own husbands, so that she can stand on the highest pedestal of all. There’s something neurotic and unhealthy about that impulse, and if the critics of Da point to anything, it’s to that narcissism in Adidam that is most unnerving and off-putting of all.
December 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm
NotQuandra, If one claims enlightenment, one will always have to be suspicious. His was a hard school, and perhaps that’s why I will never find myself fully involved again.
Having been in communications dept. within the community, I got wind of several things that made me feel very ill at ease, but I’ve also been party to some very uncomfortable things….and I allowed that because I was a very undeveloped ego. I hope that with open discourse that we can support the continuation of his message. Just because our experiences have shown us that leadership was less than divine doesn’t mean that the best of people won’t emerge.
By the way you write beautifully, I feel your heart…and though I don’t share your point of view I respect it.
December 4, 2008 at 9:46 pm
This comment:
Adi Da is my Heart Master eternally – this utterly obvious heart recognition is a blissful discriminating loving certainty beyond all conditionality – It is Acausal Reality, the Self of all, Da! And I am happy for anyone who has found the joy of devotional recognition of their Spiritual Master.
and this comment:
Stevie in Wonderland – Sheesh! Try some paragraph markers, dude! I almost missed your comment to me in that wall of text. Your use of ironic names for Adi Da just shows your immaturity – your adolescence to be more precise – and as I said before, undermines your communication. This is true relative to any communication in life – if you communicate with hatred and separation in your speech, people will tend to shut you out because no one wants to eat your shit.
come from the same person,
Feel4 God…
What was your experience at the time of writing these words?
Love? Compassion? Tolerance? Feeling for God? Or the need to attack and silence a p.o.v. that made you feel uneasy? Why? If your devotion to your spiritual heart-master is true; why not shine his deep radiant love towards all? Why only towards club members? Is this Da’s teaching?
As the great late Bill Hicks said when two Christian fundamentalists got angry with him about his Jesus jokes.
“You’re Christians, right?” to which they replied, “Yes, we believe in the Lord”. Bill retorted, “Well, forgive me then!”
These two quotes perfectly demonstrate the double-speak , double-mind that was Da and by extension,the collective ego of the community.i.e. swoon in bliss in god or for the god-man, but attack, abuse and cut down anyone who dares to express a contrary p.o.v. Call them “bruised egos”, “self gurus” “immature”or “adolescent”….even attack them for their imperfect grammar…”sheesh..”Sorry, dude, I’ll try better this time.
I suspect that none of these quotes express Feel4god’s innermost truth, but are the xpression of one who is not founded in love or tolerance but has deep insecurities and has to shoot down all alternative p.ov. to keep reminding himself that only his guru is the best, his p.o.v. the only valid one.
Others do it with nations or football teams. It’s called the collective ego.
Dear Feel4God, if you are really so founded in true devotional recognition? Why so angry?
Speak Love, Practice Hate!
Tolerance+ Compassion = Peace
(but, destroy the “dissidents!”)
Yes, the writings and some of the talks were sublime. What about the actions? That’s the point.
This talking the talk but acting in an opposite manner is, in a nutshell, is why I, and countless others, left…immaturity? adolescence? ego? Who knows? At least it was real.
I watched the video from the ’80′s posted by N.C. …thank you, …wonderful! It took me right back. Really, thank you, I mean that. As I wrote before, I am truly grateful for the sublime talks, literature and the hard school and everything he gave me. Thing was, once one sees through it all, it’s impossible to go backwards and it’s time to graduate, and to go out and get a life.
The video shows the beautiful side of Da speaking of love to all. Yet in his action as well as love, he also practised control, manipulation and abuse. I truly wish it weren’t true, sorry, Feel4God, it really happened. Was it all O.K? Was it crazy wisdom? Well I guess if that’s true, it’s all crazy wisdom all the time and everywhere, even the criticisms that get your adrenals pumping. I decided it wasn’t O.K. and trusted my deepest heart-feeling.
The sad thing was that anyone who didn’t jump when told to jump was labelled “adolescent” “egoic” or said to be “self-guruing”.
No way round that one, dude.
You are not upset that another one leaves the club or stopped believing……
I am adolescent. etc.
So start attacking me now!
They did back then….
The fixation with Bliss and “transmission” etc. also seemed
at odds with the teachings of the greatest realizers
Obstacles on the way.
Who gets to experience the Bliss?
What happens when the Bliss isn’t there?
This problem for me in the community that Da created was that in his and , by proxy, the devotees addiction to bliss and altered states, simple human personal morality went out the window for many. Finally, for me that was not acceptable and I left. What happened then was a far harder school; living in the world as an ordinary human being with no saviour and no method. No glamorization. No magic. Nothing to defend.
Try it as an experiment for a month….no guru-swooning for a whole 30 days….see if you can?
Really.
Dear Feel4God as you so rightly comment -” if you communicate with hatred and separation in your speech, people will tend to shut you out because no one wants to eat your shit.” Well, guess what? What you see and what you write is a reflection of yourself.
There is only your own consciousness.
Not-two .
Non-dualism.
Remember?
While you write that you are “happy for anyone who has found the joy of devotional recognition of their Spiritual Master.” Is that any spiritual master or only yours? What about those that have no spiritual master or found by feeling into their deepest truth that Da was not the way for them…do you feel happy for them? Can you allow them their truth or do you need to dismiss all but the true believers p.o.v?
When will you start building the gas ovens?
O Pandava, bowing down and being humble before all, serve all others as Me. In this way you will have My dearest support.
There is No Other.
I Am Here.
With great love to all ,
Stevie.
p.s. how’s the grammar this time, dude?
December 4, 2008 at 10:28 pm
He died and I cried, the rest is philosophy.
December 4, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I submitted the following to Guruphiliac (and received some nasty responses–go figure):
Yes, I know your blog/site is about taking the piss out of Gurus; still, I am a bit disappointed at your response to the passing of Adi Da. Adi Da was never your average phony guru (and I do not even like to use the word “phony”, as what is a guru is a personal matter). Even those who had doubts/reservations about him personally, never doubted that he was an authentic spiritual genius. Just what he accomplished in his life, in his literature and art, has never been remotely approached by any other spiritual teacher in history. (And I am not saying this to compare Adi Da with other Gurus. Ramana Maharshi wrote very little, and Bhagavan Nityananda hardly anything; yet I would never “rate” them as anything less than at the very top level of the Guru echelon.). Many of his books stand as the definitive treatments of certain subjects from the spiritual point of view: Easy Death, The Transmission of Doubt, even Love of the Two Armed Form. His first two books, his biography and the Method of the Siddhas are extraordinary masterpieces. And two, many of his books are taken verbatim from spontaneous talks he gave, even while a bit drunk, and yet they read like Shakespeare.
I remember how I first became aware of him. It was 1972 and I was 22 and had been practicing TM for four years. I had even met Maharishi personally. Maharashi in person was a radiant being with beautiful, magnetic eyes. He became my standard for a teacher, and in particular I was fascinated with eyes. I was walking past a row of books in a health food store and I looked at this book just in passing (It was the Knee of Listening). I was caught by the picture of the man on the cover and his eyes. Almost without volition I found myself saying to myself, “My God that man has extraordinary eyes.” I looked again and was just floored. They were the most stunning eyes I had ever seen or could imagine.
Later (after I had left the TM scene and also spent seven years in an ashram in New Mexico) I returned to studying him intensely. I read all of his books (at that time around forty volumes) some several times. I began to have dreams of him. To this day they are the most precious experiences of my life. In the dreams he was exactly as he described: Like your most intimate spiritual friend, and too, this friend was the very force of love bliss. I remember how I never wanted to be in any state but the state of communion with Adi Da I knew in my dreams.
At the time I was living with a lady who was one of the very first western devotees of Osho. She had known him in a hotel room in Bombay with only two other western students. She loved Osho so much. Her love for Osho always humbled me – because I am an opinionated fellow and this was the time of all of the Oregon ranch stuff, and I tended to get a button about it. But she would always disarm me by her simple and true love for Osho and what she had received from him. On her part, she thought my fascination with Adi Da a bit obsessive. She even asked me why I was always reading his books. I told her simply that if she ever had a dream of him she would know. One day in the morning she woke next to me with a sweet smile and told me that she’d dreamt of him. She said, “Now I know; you were right, to be with him is to be in heaven.”
I knew and was friends with many devotees of Osho at the time. One was a sort of aberrated film professional who had done almost all of the filming in the ashram in India. He too knew I was really into Adi Da. One day we were having lunch and he said, “You know, I remember one day someone showed Osho the book “Enlightenment of the Whole Body”. Osho examined it and the pictures of Adi Da and then said, “If you can be with this man, you are with a true Buddha.”
I guess, since your site is about taking the piss out of Gurus, and since Adi Da is especially easy to take the piss out of, since he was the most openly outrageous Guru ever; that I should make some comment on his personal behaviour. I will tell one story. It was told me in great confidence, a confidence I am probably braking by telling it publicly. I don’t care. The man is gone from this earth as the body/persona; and I just want to relate this one incident, which seems to say something about him and the way he taught.
In the early days when he was Bubba Free John, an incident occurred in his ashram where one of his devotees, who was an ex Green Beret, beat another devotee badly in a fight. Bubba had the ex-Green-Beret fellow brought to him and questioned him intensely about what had happened. He told him that the only way he could do such a thing was that he did not feel what he was doing, the pain he was inflicting. He asked him if he would like to fight his Spiritual Master – if he would like to fight him. The fellow was ashamed and said no, no. But Bubba wouldn’t let him off the hook and egged him on to the point they actually stepped outside and fought tooth and nail. Evidently Bubba got the worst of it and was rather smashed up afterwards. But then he had the fellow come into the house again and discuss it. He asked him if he could feel now what he was doing with his violent behaviour. The man confessed he could and that he was completely shattered by the realization.
You know, it is okay to be sceptics with cynical humour, and do your dharma by taking the piss out of Gurus, no problem. But if you are serious, I think that you can acknowledge that there is also Dharma with a capital D. That Dharma is almost always incarnated in the form of a Guru; at least traditionally that is where all of the great Dharmas have come from. The Guru may be a relatively benign character on the personal level, but he may not be; he may be a difficult man, crazy even to conventional points of view. But only his devotee knows the Guru in Truth. That devotee has the best, most accurate “point of view” of him. He knows. I was never fortunate enough to have been a true devotee of a Guru. I was closest to Adi Da. I was an appreciator of him, and occasionally let into his world by Grace to catch a glimpse of him in Truth. I will never forget him and am only grateful that I ever heard of him, that I could read his books, that I saw a picture of him, that I heard stories of him, that he touched my life and my dreams.
Hari Om
December 4, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Former Follower and Critic – As I said earlier, I appreciate your consideration, and am re-reading your post now. I agree that the teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi were certainly tailored for those that came to him – mostly Easterners. Every Master would necessarily do this – they respond to real questioners and according to their real needs, not just for some intellectual pursuit or whatever. But however we may want to interpret such teachings, Ramana does make references to inward-based techniques. For example:
Ramana: Think ‘I’ ‘I’ ‘I’ and hold to that one thought to the exclusion of all others.
Again, I have the utmost respect for Ramana Maharshi, but I have always found Bhagavan Adi Da, and His Teachings beyond all seeking, much more accessible.
Of course, as you also indicate, given Adi Da appeared in the West, and most of us being Westerners, the details of money, food, and sex were greatly elaborated by Him. As one can see in The Knee of Listening, Adi Da taught Radical Understanding from the beginning – and then when He took on devotees, He also responded to our needs in terms of all aspects of the body-mind. This is something many of us are extremely grateful for, and someday so will many more Westerners (and even Easterners) – as Adi Da’s Teachings are the fullest, most detailed spiritual Teachings ever given to the world, in my (and many others) opinion.
You said:
“The problem with that statement is for one thing that as you well know, he did not see Nisargadatta when alive. Nor did he see those like Sri Ranjit (Nisargadatta’s co-disciple), Ammachi, Papaji, or even those like Robert Adams, readily available. If he really thought his Realization was beyond theirs, and if there was anyone who might have been able to really make use of his physical presence and recognize his claims if it were really what he claimed, it would have been such figures who deserved his company.”
Did Nisargadatta, Sri Ranjit, Ammachi, etc., ask to see Adi Da? If not, what is your criticism really?
You also said:
“I believe that you would have left had you seen it, and that there is a karmic purpose in you not seeing it. Da was far more fluid and expansive in physical, mental and energetic terms than most can imagine, and so it can appear that way, as I well know. We will just have to disagree about the interpretation of your observations.”
With certain Realizers it is heart obvious from looking at their pictures what tradition they represent based on where light/energy is concentrated. I mentioned some examples earlier, and again, only in the person of Adi Da have I ever seen the Heart so utterly Divinely Full – whole bodily and altogether. No sighting or picture I have ever seen of Adi Da shows any egoic focusing in the being, psyche, mind, body, heart. And as I have mentioned, this direct heart recognition of Who He Is, is why I am His devotee and the actual basis for my devotional response to Him. And, of course, His Teachings are also a real confirmation, support, and means to such recognition.
Also, you said:
“…such a conversion into mainstream non-dualism requires awakening to an entirely different POV and comes from within, not from without, and from my perspective, from grace rather than egoic effort.”
Are you also an advocate of the “Adi Da does not Teach Non-dualism” “school”? No one has really posted anything convincing so far, in my opinion, in support of various critics’ claims. Also, what is the grace process you are referring to?
Non-dualism is beyond all points-of-view – that is why Adi Da is the perfect manifestation of Non-Dualism, and can lawfully admonish devotees to turn to Him. As He says:
“I am the egoless Absolute Person of Reality Itself – Coincident with this time, and Consequential forever.
I Am the Divine Self-Domain – the Perfect Sphere of Conscious Light.
The egoless Conscious Light of Reality Itself Is My Only State.
There Is a Way – and Reality Itself Is “It”.
Reality Itself Is the Way – and I Am “It”.”
(From The Aletheon)
What could be more Non-dual than that?
December 5, 2008 at 12:46 am
wow!!…impressed by so many long time devotees chiming in…I was 2 y/o when the man started his teaching mission, and came to his teachings many, many years later…after having sifted through dozens, if not hundreds, of Christian mystic, Buddhist, Dzogchen and nondual texts…I consider Da to be a terminal point…he pretty much sums it up…It’s true he draws big time from Kashmir Shaivism, Vedantic monism,etc…but I’ll be damned if he doesn’t hit the mail on the head…His teaching is all encompassing…he may have been a right bastard in real life, and at the same time the most loving expansive being ever…don’t know, wasn’t there…but in my opinion no other so called nondual teacher comes close to the clarity and comprehensiveness of Da…A deep bow to the Master, wherever he is…
December 5, 2008 at 1:00 am
That was a lot of interesting responses to read just now – a very wide range too.
I want to respond to you, Conradg, but it is late here and some business seems to be unhandled with my “neighbor” – Stevie in Wonderland.
Stevie, I think you have blown my comment to you way out of proportion. I was criticizing your ironic criticism of Adi Da – specifically, your calling Him disrespectful names like some angry kid might. That is the crux of what I said to you and others who did this. And I did offer you a bit of positive criticism about how to get your actual message across more effectively by avoiding those kinds of adolescent-anger-based jabs of a greatly loved One – especially at the time of His Passing.
And, oh yes, I tried to make a humorous request about using some paragraph markers – as it makes reading the really long posts much much easier, and more inviting. Really, I was not attacking your grammar, just your method of criticism.
However, I do understand that “it takes two to tango”, so my apologies for any lack of communication on my part that may have resulted in your misunderstanding my intentions.
December 5, 2008 at 1:30 am
Dearest Shiva it is just painful that a friend and brother would abuse one who has given me so much…the one who opened me to be a lover and a father who broke my heart open making it possable to cry and be love again…just by His meer presence The One who came to me in dreams and guided me to adulthood The One who has shown me the way beyond fear and seperation….and the one who through me has loved and hugged you…. not your style i thought no being has ever loved like Adi Da humble is not love.. love pervades beyond all.. it breaks hearts and you have people in your life that love you who are testiment to that.. so your judgement is personal but painful.
love Blisscake
December 5, 2008 at 2:39 am
Many people are only reacting to Adi Da Samraj. To react to Adi Da is not to know Him.
Penicillin is a life-saver, unless you have a bad reaction to it. The lives that have been affected and “saved” by Adi Da (mine being one of them) will always be shrugged off by those who have had, or are having, a bad reaction to Him because they can’t make use of Him.
A good example of duality in action: “How can you like Adi Da? / How can you NOT like Adi Da?” Those who are devotees will always only express praise and love. Those who are anti-Adi Da, who have had, or are having, the bad reaction, will always express their bite.
Arjuna had a bad reaction when Krishna showed his many-armed form. This did not negate Krishna’s Divinity. And why would Krishna show Arjuna his many-armed form anyway? Perhaps he was busting Arjuna’s balls. I imagine Krishna could do that. The problem belonged to Arjuna, who had to endure this bad reaction.
December 5, 2008 at 5:08 am
i believe it has been made very evident that adi da’s criticism of ramana maharshi was based on (politically or narcissistically motivated) misunderstandings. they are artificial arguments to artificially set adi da apart in his 7th stage illusions. nothing needs to be added.
also, Free4God, your quotes sound good but they just don’t hold up because adi da acted quite the opposite in his daily dealings and wheelings. i am very aware that his words in the last year or so have become more non-dual, but his actions remained the same. same old narcissist.
i think the biggest measure is what has been actually REALIZED by his devotees. the answer is simple: diddly-squat! rien! absolutely nothing! a fleeting few experiences here and there. whatever comes and goes is not the Real and has therefore no substance.
does nobody of you still-devotees ask why that was? i asked myself that question constantly while i was still his devotee and i talked with many of my fellow-devotees about this. i never heard a convincing answer. adi da himself admitted the fact that nobody (not even his most intimate and most long-time devotees) had realized anything. and that after being up to 30 years (!) in the company of the allegedly greatest realizer to ever have walked and ever will walk the earth??
take as a contrast, REAL non-duality teachers like ramana maharshi, nisargadatta, sailor bob adamson. to my knowledge there was not a huge flow of realizers (and that cannot be expected) but there was a constant trickle of realizers coming from all of them. i am most familiar with the nisargadatta and sailor bob “lineage” (they wouldn’t use that word) and i know most of them (except nisargadatta himself) personally. sailor bob adamson realized some 30 years ago in nisargadattas company and was active as a teacher since then. i know of at least 3 people who have since realized in sailor bobs company (“officially” recognized by sailor bob). that is a REAL teaching with real effects.
nothing of the kind has happened with adi da (who is active roughly the same amount of time as sailor bob). NONE of adi da’s devotees have realized ANYTHING. fleeting experiences – as we all know – don’t mean anything.
forget your fleeting blisses for a moment and ask yourselves: HOW COME? how can the “greatest realizer” be so stunningly ineffective??
December 5, 2008 at 5:29 am
Feel4God,
I think Conradg has done an excellent job of explaining why Ramana Maharshi often used references to going within, and that Adi Da was not really free of similar directional frame of references. It may not resonate with you, but it is a good way of putting it. In Ramana Maharshi’s case, it is practical advice to us given from our ordinarly frame of reference of body mind identification, including the immediate energetic field around us that we sense, that the origin of both the egoic I and the Self are intuited to be within. Self enquiry is really more like Self attention or Self abiding, and is about attention on the sense of self juxtaposed against our unconscious subtle background intuition of Self which all beings possess, even if not consciously. It is not verbally questioning “Who am I? (or “whence am I”), with the exact sense in Tamil the way Ramama Maharshi meant it not being quite conveyed in those english terms and with the modern cultural framework. We can’t help but see ourselves as a consciousness inside a body even if we seem to travel to subtle realms, and the intent is to illuminate and expose this fallacy in a way the conscious mind can’t do by mere belief or affirmation. In one way, using the term inward when the intent is to orient to the all pervasive Self intuited from a body mind perspective is not really any more unreasonably internal or bodily oriented that Da’s recommendations to intuit his “Bright” as infinitely above and his teaching that one should surrender to the Thumbs, when he is really claiming it to be all pervasive and only “above” from our limited perspective which again is not something we can just wish away through thought. The difference and to me the more effective approach is that Ramana Maharshi is saying that Self Enquiry, properly done, works directly on the Heart knot and the Nadis and dissolves the identification with the egoic I, and is in resonance with both the Self intuited as within and the Satguru intuited as without, although neither is strictly true. I find that to be consistent with my understanding. You are correct that Ramana Maharshi valued Satsang above all other methods, but Satsang is association with Sat, the Self, conventially seen as within and without respectively but in Reality all pervasive. Thus self-enquiry is not separate from Satsang and is not just some sort of self-help technique. Nor in its true form is it seeking something that is not already the case, it is more a matter of attention leading to Self-recollection.
Again, Ramana Maharshi’s statements were primarily intended to be practical and contextual because it was his presence that was doing all the work in the background and adopting the practice attuned to their particular state activated that connection more automatically. Failures in self-enquiry are primarily due relying on mental conceptions, some derived from not understanding that the original person who transcribed and published “Who am I” in the question version incorporated some of their own conceptions into the phrasing, and insensitivity to that Presence due to lack of cultivation. Furthermore, as I have said, there is good evidence that more than a half dozen living Realizers gained full realization through association with Ramana which is both evidence that his guidance worked, and evidence from their accounts that his verbal teachings that have commonly come down to us only provided a rough intution to follow on what he meant. You simply can’t using inaccurate and grossly misinterpreted and non-contextual critical statements about Ramana Maharshi and his life, Nisargadatta, etc., as Da was and not be lacking some of the kind of clear eyed ability that only jnanis have to see into the absolute truth of things. Using faint praise which makes sense to his followers who consider him a step above all others doesn’t alter that fact.
The above is not a comprehensive response but gives the gist of the position. Again, I humbly suggest that, which is natural since Da is your focus, you are probably not that familiar with the subtleties of Ramana Maharshi’s teachings as they are understood today after scholars like David Godman have compiled a more comprehensive comparison of what was said and the context in which it was said, and the truly active and engaged life that Ramana Maharshi led both in this world and in the subtle world as evidenced by personal accounts. Nor do I suspect have you read the accounts of some of those considered to have become jnanis privately (and here I do not refer merely to Papaji and definitely not to those claiming to be in his non-existant lineage), which illuminates some of the more subtle aspects of Ramana’s practice as proven in the case of these jnanis, and advice from his own pre-realization experiences. Understand that those of us who did consider Da as guru for a time but went back and realized Ramana Maharshi offered a better approach was our true Guru and that Adidam presented an inaccurate picture of Sages desire that his teaching be presented accurately as well. Where there is conflict between Da and Ramana Maharshi on a teaching and behavioral level, we may each choose our respective gurus based on present understanding but Ramana’s true teaching deserves to be presented here.
As for my criticism of Da’s failure to meet with accepted living jnanis, why should they have to invite him? They did not require an invitation to be seen because they all lived public lives, and there is a natural joy and mutual recognition when true jnanis meet. I require no invitation to see such people and I make no claims of advanced spirituality. The quality of Da’s criticism of Ramana Maharshi, and similarly of Nisargadatta, being as suspect as I have described it above, combined with his failure to visit Nisargadatta or Sri Ranjit for example which, since they were recognized jnanis, would have been appropriate for any self-proclaimed World Teacher and Avatar, may have no significance for you, but to many, it says something.
In answer to your question, honestly, I think that Da’s teaching draws from non-dualism but do not think Da truly is a non-dualist in practice and it bleeds into his teaching. I believe that he has conflated some of his unresolved egoic tendencies with creative understanding of the traditions which means that when he refers to his unique Avataric state, he has also glorified his spiritualized subtle ego. This is not just my assessment by the way, it is an indirect but referential assessment Ammachi has made as well. I believe he recognized no one else agreed with him but failed to see their position clearly, which I think is indicated by problems in his criticism of jnanis. It is fine that you disagree and state the contrary, I am just trying to clarify my position. I must be theoretically critical of Da because that is my understanding, but I understand we would have different views. To me the egoicity you can not see is so apparent a child could see it once I sincerely questioned problematic issues, although it took me time. But if you had asked me before that time, I would have agreed with your basic premise, and it is not my place to prove you wrong, only to point out alternative perspectives. It has been a long time since there has been any such relatively calm and measured communications on the internet between current Da devotees and those who left and chose another approach, which is strange since there was obviously some commonality. We just need to state our respective POVs honestly to clarify understanding and leave it at that, hoping we inspire others to take up spiritual practice learn something from each other. May your practice and that of those still involved who some of us knew be what ever you need at this point. In that we can agree.
December 5, 2008 at 9:50 am
So Shiva, what’s your excuse for being unenlightened?
December 5, 2008 at 10:54 am
NC Says:
So Shiva, what’s your excuse for being unenlightened?
who says i am, dear?
i have asked this and similar questions to sailor bob adamson many times. and he always gives me 2 pointers in return:
1. there is no such thing as enlightenment and nobody to become enlightened.
2. there are too many concepts in the way here of seeing this universal truth.
this might be difficult to understand for a da-ist (and i don’t mean that in any way condescending!). sailor bob and many other real non-duality teachers undermine the illusion of an “i” whenever they can. i find that VERY helpful, because whenever i actually look for one, it cannot be found!
teachers like adi da of course need the illusion of an “i” for their scheme to work.
“i” need to become enlightened.
“i” need to purify.
“i” need to adhere to all kinds of disciplines.
“i” need to surrender and worship adi da.
“i” need to advance in stages.
and on and on.
what does all of that do? for one thing it re-inforces and maintains the “i”-illusion, thus re-inforcing the search for freedom from the “i”. this kind of teaching achieves exactly the opposite of what it tries to accomplish.
in my 15 years with adi da, i have accumulated so much garbage and utterly false concepts, it seemingly takes time to get rid of them.
of course, all of what i just said are just more concepts, including the concept and illusion of time.
sailor bob expresses that much better. because he lives it 24/7. you can actually visit him 3 times a week, or call him on the phone. yes, he makes himself available to ANYBODY. he freely shares his realization.
he doesn’t feel the need to proclaim himself a world-teacher and then go and hide on a remote island in the middle of nowhere, where only a hand-full are allowed to visit.
December 5, 2008 at 11:09 am
Adi Da was the perfect manifestation of an American Realizer for our age. A perfect expression of the American archetype: brilliant, creative, a dedicated communicator, and deeply loving; yet materialistic, hedonistic, self-obsessed and sexually obsessed. He percolated out of the best and the worst of all of us, and I love him deeply.
December 5, 2008 at 11:24 am
Wow, it’s been great reading all these posts! Wes, how the heck are you man? I have to tell you, when people say that Adi Da never produced any “results” I think “but what about Wes?”. Seriously, you, Glen Johannes and a handful of others are the ones I have the most respect for. For one thing, you stay out of the politics – nuff said!
I wish I knew who shiva and blisscake are – is shiva brown (as in humble) perhaps?
December 5, 2008 at 11:40 am
What an amazing thread….with current members and former members and others not only sharing their own info and perspective, but apparently touching base with each other after some years….I don’t think this has ever happened on the internet except to some degree at the old Ken Wilber forum.
Interesting that Conradg is talking about Kashmir Shaivism and Advaita Vedanta. I called my friend Cyril a couple of days after Adi Da died (Cyril was on his way back home, hanging at the Las Vegas airport) to see how he was doing with everything happening and I started talking about Adi Da’s ties with the Kashmir Shaivistic tradition. All this was in the context of talking about how perhaps there might be now a creative period of people fashioning their own unique forms of practice. (Which are free of what someone here called “clutter”….like all that Mythology.)
Oh…hope blisscake keeps up the dispatches. Neat hearing directly what’s going on there.
December 5, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Yay Bill! Well said.
Shiva, I always felt that Samaraj Adi Da’s lack of attention to “me” was to my advantage. I always felt there was a tenderness to his not working with me in a more direct way that you describe. I recieved notes, that were always direct, and sometimes they blew me away, but never because of a lack of sensitivity on his part, but because of my own lack of sensitivity. I was a very neurotic fearful woman when I came into the community. I think he could have dealt with me a lot more harshly, but I think he always saw how fragile I was as a character. He was extremely sensitive to that. I guess hindsight is always 20/20. I wish I could have appreciated that more throughout these past years.
In truth he didn’t care about “me” he cared about nurturing true understanding.
When I look at Darshan videos all I can see is beauty. Why should I care about anything else. If enlightenment means never appreciating that, and dismissing Him as someone I love, then perhaps the enlightenment you describe is not for me.
December 5, 2008 at 12:07 pm
@ RandyH:
no, i am not the guy known as humble brown.
i think he’s still a devotee, but i’m not sure.
December 5, 2008 at 1:00 pm
shiva Says:
“i think the biggest measure is what has been actually REALIZED by his devotees. the answer is simple: diddly-squat! rien! absolutely nothing! a fleeting few experiences here and there. whatever comes and goes is not the Real and has therefore no substance.”
As I mentioned several posts ago, my very first sighting and sitting in the Company of Bhagavan Adi Da, He opened the heart on the right side and flooded me with a Love-Bliss that I inherently knew to be the Absolute Truth – and that He Is That One. That core understanding of Who He Is has never left me, has Guided my life for 35+ years now. I had many glimmers of that intuition in my practice of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s teachings beforehand, but nothing like this!
Many devotees can attest to a whole range of experiences of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Stages of life. However, Adi Da was never interested in any of us settling into such experiences, as you must know – and that is the great lesson of the Garbage and The Goddess period.
Has Adi Da been effective in Transmitting His 7th Stage Realization to devotees? In the sense that That is what He Is and always Grants us, then yes! That is available moment to moment to all devotees from the beginning, and in fact must be the case for this practice to be true. In the sense of absolute abiding in Him altogether free of ALL egoic encumbrances, then no, as far as I know – though I am reluctant to speak for the more advanced practitioners of Adidam.
However, He has grown in many of us a great discrimination – we now know what Realization is not!
A brief leela – about 10 years after the Garbage and the Goddess period, I spontaneously started having very strong openings in the right side of the heart again. I knew enough about my own tendency toward such phenomena (and also Adidam cultural politics) to pay it no mind nor to even tell anyone about it. However, this continued in meditation for quite some time. I had not seen Bhagavan for a few years as He was in Fiji, and as I just mentioned, I never told anyone (not even my wife) that this was going on. One night I get a call from a devotee who told me that I had gotten some Notes directly from Bhagavan. They read something like this:
Adi Da: “Tell , that the energy he is feeling on the right side of the heart is just energy, and to meditate on Me!”
Needless to say my meditation became much more about surrendering everything once again to Him!
Great discrimination is a tremendous Gift, shiva – and one that will save countless lifetimes of “reinventing” the wheel of the Great Path of Return. Bhagavan would never settle on a community of “just” 6th Stage practitioners. Of course, it would be far better if by now more than just a few practitioners were in those advanced stages, but that is not the fault of our Master, but our own reluctance to completely drop the egg of egoity in ALL of its forms. That is what He requires as you well know, from the beginning, as He is a Realizer beyond ALL forms of egoity, regardless of their origin. Most of us, and certainly myself, are very ordinary practitioners who have been Gifted mightily! Everyday my Guru grants me the Gift of Himself – tacitly and beyond all form.
shiva, I also looked at ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson’s picture – he certainly feels like a jnani to me. I also found his and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s quotes inspiring. Thank you for mentioning them here.
Even though the critics here seem to have no problem highly criticizing my Master, I am very reluctant to say anything critical at all about their Masters. However, given we are now having a very open discussion with some semblance of sanity to it
, I will say this: I still sense what Bhagavan Adi Da has criticized about the 6th Stage of Life in ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson’s pictures. There is still a very subtle kind of concentration I feel in him. It is similar to what I sense in Ramana Maharshi’s pictures though much more obvious in ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson’s pictures.
Again, in looking at pictures of Adi Da, I feel no such specific concentration or egoic focus whatsover – just pure Love/Acausal Reality. I really don’t believe that I am projecting something here onto ‘Sailor’ Bob Adamson’s picture – though that will be likely what my observation is said to be by some of you.
It is also interesting to me that most jnani’s speak in terms of “I Am That” – whereas Bhagavan Adi Da also confesses the same, in absolutely no uncertain terms by even using the “Me” reference. I imagine this is partly what offends people and from there they shout “Narcissus!” However, in absolute non-duality, such a confession would be true of the Only One Who Is, and such a One is obviously Free to Speak that way – even to offend our tradition-based sensibilities!
From the Aletheon:
All is dead.
All is gone.
Real God does not protect.
Real God Is the One Who Stands Firm,
Merely As the Witness-Consciousness,
As Free.
That Is Me,
As I am.
Real God is not on your side.
Real God Is Always Only As you,
in Always Perfect “Place”
to Wash your black of separation’s mind,
such that your Stand Is Firm
As Witness-Only,
with every “difference” rendered white
in Prior’s Conscious Light.
And now on to Conradg’s post… oh yeah, and some work!
December 5, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Shiva – any clues about your identity?
December 5, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Conradg; No…not a poet from Boston. Carpenter/Builder. That particular retreat was firey/fun. Perhaps you recall sitting and talking on the Sanctuary after the “moment” had changed (and it always did). It was the end of our retreat and I could see the unraveling in you as sure as it was in me. Begining of the end. “Served” well.
WOW!!! Some amazing comments since I last ventured in here!
Shiva and Bill: Right On!
Within the cosmology that Frank set up is the constant attention to ego…recognizing it…mens/womans groups to discuss it…trancending it…resisting it…blah blah blah. “You become what you give your attention to”. The ego is a “concept”. It ain’t real even as an activity…it’s a concept/belief. A belief is merely a thought that you keep telling yourself. The “cosmology” that Frank set up is the very “pond” that he said he trancended or looked up from. Concepts only. Babble. And so he adorned his “pond” and all came to worship at it and worship the creator of it. How delicious…how wonderful…how additcting. How completely unneccesary.
“But I’ll tell you right now–it is all garbage! Everything the Guru gives you is garbage, and he expects you to throw it away, but you meditate on it. All of these precious experiences, all this philosophy. (Leaning toward the microphone, in a confidential tone) Bruce, would you mind throwing that away? Bruce just had a kriya. All of these experiences are just more of that same stuff, but you’ve read so much bullshit spirituality and religion and all that, so you think all of these things are the Divine itself. None of them is the Divine. They are garbage”. Bubba Free John (Would “Love-Bliss” fall into this category)?
He could have stopped right there. Should have. All of the talk about ego and 7 stages and the only by me given, are “grease spots”. He didn’t recognize the garbage and stopped throwing it out. Well…it was “His” garbage…7th stage stuff don’t you know. High Dharma (what is high dharma anyway?) . Concepts.
Ramana Maharshi’ “instruction” is so much simpler than has been made of it. It is direct and elegant;
“There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep
seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We
think that there is something hiding reality and that
this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh
at all your past efforts. That which will be the day
you laugh is also here and now”. Ramana Maharshi
How about Sailor Bob;
“What’s wrong with right now unless you think about it”.
“Give up all ideas about yourself and simply be”. Nisargadtta
THIS is “Non-Duality”…even though that is a concept itself…hahaha!!! No “cosmologies…no “worship”…no handing over your last nickle so that the “guru” can self-indulge. No…Gratis…Open…Direct…Elegant in it’s simplicity. “But wait…that can’t be right…it’s all too simple”. Yup…it is!
“When the student is ready the teacher disappears”.
So Adi Da is standing at the pearly gates and Saint Peter walks up to him with a huge smile and hands him a shovel. “What the hell is this” Da says indignantly. Well Frank, first, welcome back. The shovel however will be part of your service while you’re here. You can start by cleaning up the mess in the stables that your Dawn Horse made”.
Via Con Dios
December 5, 2008 at 1:24 pm
FeelForGod, I now realize why he said “I am more you than you are.”
December 5, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Lots of great responses out there. Former Follower and Critic, I’m quite impressed with your analysis of Ramana’s teachings. I couldn’t have said it better myself. It really is an eye-opener to directly study teachings such as Ramana’s and his mature or enlightened devotees without automatically resorting to the standard Adidam interpretation. I hope that many current and former students can learn to do that, and see for themselves that the Adidam view on the traditions is not the pure and complete message it purports to be. Like some here, I was once utterly enamoured of his teachings, and thought he really did hit the nail on the head. Now I can see he only hit it at an angle, and bent the nail. Not bad really, close, but no cigar.
This is the problem with so many of us westerners. We approach these traditions as know-it-alls and think we understand them better than the traditions understand themselves. Adi Da just suffered from the usual western hubris. The same could be said of a great many western neo-Advaitins. The cure is a humble recognition that we often don’t know what we are talking about, and our grand pronouncements carry very little weight. This is why Adi Da’s grandiose criticisms of these traditions doesn’t penetrate very far, except in the minds of similarly hubristic westerners, of which I would have to count myself guilty. It takes some serious study to correct this error. I’ve done that to a degree in relation to some of these traditions, like Ramana and Advaita, and I know other former devotees who have done so in relation to other traditions, like Buddhism or Vedanta. It’s really eye-opening to take that step, but it requires relinquishing the certain knowledge of “how things are” that is actively cultivated in Adidam through such conceptual vehicles as the seven stages model. It requires the approach of “ignorance”, of not knowing the answers, which Da himself once advocated briefly back in the Divine Ignorance days, but later made even that into a conceptual trap that betrayed its own principles.
I couldn’t help noticing Michael’s response, which unfortunately is too typical of Adidam advocates. The notion that critics of Adi Da are simply “reacting”, like some people react to penicillin, presumes first that Adi Da is a benign medicine, and that the reaction is inappropriate. But what if Da is like poison ivy, and our reaction is merely a warning system in the body that tells us to avoid a toxic substance? The problem with the penicillin model is that it presumes that for most people, Da has been positive and good, whereas only a very small number have reacted negatively. The opposite is actually the case. Only a very, very small number of people who have joined Adidam have reacted in an ongoing positive manner, whereas at least 95% have left, reacting to one degree or another negatively. It’s not as if there is nothing positive about Adi Da. There certainly is, or none of us would have joined in the first place. But over time so many of us have seen a negative and destructive side to him, and to his religion, that we have left and voiced criticisms. I don’t think those criticisms negate what was positive, but neither do the positive elements of Adidam negate the criticisms, which I think is what Michael is trying to do. It takes a certain bravery, such as Wes displays, to admit that there is real truth behind those criticisms, and yet to affirm one’s relationship to Da anyway. That’s the kind of devotion I can respect. This is no different than loving anyone in life. I know all of my wife’s faults and problems, and I love her anyway, in spite of all that. I don’t have to pretend that she is above criticism, or perfect and unique, to love her. In fact, seeing her faults and vulnerabilities helps me love her even more. The same could be true of Da’s devotees, if they allowed themselves to be so vulnerable. It’s a shame so many of them think that would be a betrayal of Da, rather than a far more real form of devotion to him.
And Shiva, thanks for the discussion of Sailor Bob. I’ve read a few things here and there from him, and thought quite well of it, including his descriptions of self-enquiry. I’ll have to check him out.
December 5, 2008 at 2:02 pm
A few other things:
Former Follower and Critic, the only objection I had to your post was the criticism of Da for not meeting with other teachers. From what I know, most realizers don’t feel any need to spend time seeing other realizers, and they don’t go around seeking others out to affirm their realization. So it’s not really fair to criticize Da for not doing that (although it is fair to criticize him for seeking out Muktananda’s affirmation of his realization, and rejecting Muktananda’s criticism of him).
I recall a meeting David Godman described between Papaji and Nisargadatta. Apparently it only occurred because some of Papaji’s devotees tricked him into going to one of Nisargadattas satsangs. When Nisargadatta entered the room and sat down, he looked at Papaji and just asked “what are you doing here?” as if it made no sense at all for him to bother coming. I don’t think there was much of an exchange, but afterwards they both had very positive things to say about one another, and Papaji used to recommend that people read Nisargadatta’s “I Am That” book.
Papaji did, however, intentionally go attend J. Krishnamurti’s talks in Switzerland in the summer of 1974. He said he felt that Krishnamurti was a good teacher, and that he was probably even enlightened, but that he completely lacked the ability to yogically awaken people. So Papaji felt moved to attend that summer to help people in that regard, because Krishnamurti couldn’t do that for some reason. Funny thing is, that was the summer I travelled to Switzerland as a 16 year old spiritual seeker to attend J. Krishnamurti’s talks, and I vividly remember this extremely impressive looking bald India fellow dressed in traditional Indian gard who I kept wondering what he was doing there. The first time I saw him close up, I thought to myself “Now that’s what it looks like to be a real man”. I almost went up to him to ask him who he was, but he didn’t seem to want people to approach him, so I held back. Too bad, perhaps. Later that day, however, I had an extraordinary spiritual experience, which came out of the blue, but is quite typical of many people who encountered Papaji during his travels. It wasn’t until a few years ago while reading the biography of Papaji that I realized he was the same guy I had seen at Krishnamurti’s talks back in 1974.
The point, I guess, is that some people may have realized the Self, but be unable to transmit that wisdom. Others may be able to transmit experiences of it, like Papaji, but be unable to bring others to realization. Before he died, Krishnamurti despaired of his own inability to awaken anyone, as did Papaji himself.
So Adi Da is not alone in being unable to awaken others, or even seriously mature them. It’s quite rare to find a realizer who can also fully awaken others, like Ramana. I’m not saying Da was truly awakened himself, but if I’m feeling generous I can at least admit that he might have been, while not being the greatest vehicle for bringing about the awakening of others. I recall something Maharishi Mahesh Yogi said about Da, when someone asked him if Da was enlightened. Maharishi said, “Unfortunately, yes”. Now, I’m not so sure Maharishi was himself very much of an enlightened jnani, and his opinion may not carry much weight, but I think the sentiment is a fair one. In some respects, one can certainly say that Da was enlightened, even if not full and effectively so, and even if his general effect on other people was a very mixed bad. He certainly was not empowered to awaken others, but it doesn’t seem that all enlightened beings have that power given to them by the Self, even if he often loudly claimed it was so. He exhibited all kinds of nutty and crazy faults, but even those things are not in themselves reason to totally discount his teachings or spiritual transmission. Nor are they reason to imagine he was so great and unique teacher and transmitter of spiritual awakening. He certainly served me in all those respects, but it that doesn’t mean he’s the be-all and end-all of the spiritual process, for me or anyone else. It would certainly appear that he’s not the final step for anyone, and that he simply lacks the ability to actually enlighten others.That doesn’t mean he’s of no value at all. In many respects, even his faults are of value to us, as grand examples of what not to do.
December 5, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Conradq, I really appreciate what you have written, but I have a question for you because I don’t understand what people mean when they say, “positive” and “negative”.
What do you mean by those terms?
It seems that applying them to one quality or another will always be subjective to me. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I don’t use those terms, but I always feel suspicious of myself when I do.
December 5, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Shiva wrote:
> non-duality teachers undermine the illusion of an “i”
> whenever they can. i find that VERY helpful, because
> whenever i actually look for one, it cannot be found!
A monk asked Zen Master Mang Gong, “What is Buddha?”
Mang Gong replied, “Right in front of you.”
The monk asked, “Why can’t I see it?”
Mang Gong said, “If you make ‘I,’ then you can’t see it.”
The monk asked, “Can YOU see it?”
Mang Gong said, “If you make ‘I,’ then you can’t see it. If you make ‘you,’ then you REALLY can’t see it.”
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://home.comcast.net/~sresnick2/booboo.htm
December 5, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Real God says to Adida. Oh Narcissus, Your head has fallen from your sleeve at last!
December 5, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“Grand examples of what not to do” – good one, BY!
December 5, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Hi Conradg, thank you for your feedback. And your point is well taken. I’m sure I sound hard-headed… simple character flaw. It is such a “point of view” thing. When we present our points of view, we risk something. I understand there are critics of Adi Da. But I believe there are too many critics who, if Adi Da walked on water, would say “Look, Adi Da can’t swim!” I also understand that the spiritual path is a bizarre and maddening one. I understand that I don’t really know squat that amounts to the Truth, even though I can be defensive. I’m not convinced anyone else knows squat that amounts to the Truth, either, and can also be defensive.
In this world, it seems to me that, for some, the only avatar worthy of being believed in, is one who fulfills their own personal list of requirements. I’m not saying this sarcastically, I hope you see. The only option, then, is that each individual follows his/her own path, but then you have the “my God/ your God” stuff, you still have differing groups of followers, and on-going fragmentation that leads to conflict, war… This is how it has always been, right? Now, I don’t see war escalating between devotees and non-devotees, but there are some people (and I’m just generalizing, please) who are carrying a great deal of anger, and that is just not a healthy thing, period.
December 5, 2008 at 3:11 pm
yes, sailor bob adamson and also john wheeler (a (ex-) student of sailor bob) are highly recommended.
1. they speak with absolute and unwavering clarity of non-duality.
2. no guru-games whatsoever. for them there is no teacher and nobody to be taught.
3. both share their realization freely. you can visit them, you can call them on the phone, john also answers emails (bob does not). they are completely and humanly approachable.
i have spent a lot of time with them, especially with sailor bob. there is no censorship (as used to be with adi da in his talks in the last years; all questions had to be screened and were censored before adi da could be bothered). you can ask any question. and they only answer from a radical non-dual “pov”.
sailor bob usually starts his meetings by saying “i am only talking to the I Am that I Am”.
i have gained more insight into reality in 4 months in melbourne than i have in 15 years in adidam. incomparably more!
http://members.iinet.net.au/~adamson7/
http://www.thenaturalstate.org/
December 5, 2008 at 3:23 pm
It’s funny how this blog has become both an irritant and a healer in the process of feeling my grief. I feel the limits in everything I post. I appreciate the intelligence and the consideration each and ALL the posters have brought to this forum.
Reading these posts, and feeling the limits in my understanding have made me want to take my spiritual practice more seriously. I realize how I have gotten lazy about it. The only thing I’ve managed to open up in the past couple of years is Pema Chodren and the 12 step and 12 traditions books…but even those I haven’t been consistent enough about.
Anyway, it’s a new day. I’ve opened up Pema Chodren, and started listening to the Bright Revelation series.
December 5, 2008 at 4:04 pm
shiva Says:
“2. no guru-games whatsoever. for them there is no teacher and nobody to be taught.”
Again, this talking school approach is very well-received by Westerners – and was greatly popularized by J. Krishnamurti many years ago. It may bring about lots of insights, even relatively profound mental states, but without actual Transmission Satsang, how can the conditional self realize Absolute Acausal Reality?
So there are no formal Satsang-Transmission sittings with Sailor Bob?
Adidam has had some people leave, saying they were enlightened – and they even declared themselves to be spiritual teachers. Sounded like talking school to me at the time. When I saw them later, they sure didn’t look like they realized much more than some mentalized stasis by always assuming I Am That.
The illusory ego is a wily one! It takes the Sat-Guru to undo him!
December 5, 2008 at 4:32 pm
seriously, Feel4God, you gotta relax your adidam constrains.
there is no talking school going on around sailor bob. make a trip to melbourne and see for yourself!
bob only speaks from his living experience. even you may be able to see that when you meet him and if and when you are able to get your superficial assessments from his pictures (no less!!!) out of your system.
formal satsang transmissions? sailor bob would never call them that. for him, he is no different than anybody else. seriously. i know for a da-ist this is a difficult one to comprehend. all that “happened” for him was the seeing through of the “i” illusion and the recognition of one-ness. one without a second. there is no sailor bob. there never was one.
that is all he talks about. one – without a second. there is nothing formal about it. how could there be?
there is nothing to attain. enlightenment? for who??
he is LIVING that and yes, you could call it a transmission, being in the company of one who has fully realized one-ness and only communicates that. but at the end of the day, those are all just mind-made concepts. one-ness is utterly beyond ALL concepts. and THAT is what sailor bob (and john wheeler and others) communicate – not only verbally.
and it hits home. clear and square and silent. right home.
December 5, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Michael, I like that bit about how critics of Da can be too harsh. Quite a chuckle over “see, he can’t swim!” I can certainly relate. I also like what you say about how we chose Gurus that correspond to our preferences/needs, etc. I think this is quite true. It’s certainly true that Adi Da corresponded to my owh preferences and needs, and when those changed, I no longer felt he worked for me.
The best thing I’ve ever heard about this sort of thing comes from Papaji. In the last years of his life, lots of westerners began coming to him, often complaining about some exploitive or misleading Guru they had before him (lots of them former Rajneeshis). He told them unequivocably, “There are no false Gurus, there are only false devotees”. His meaning was very clear, that what ruins and falsifies the spiritual process is not the Guru, no matter how limited that Guru might be, but the devotee’s own false intentions and approach. In essence, he laid everything in the hands of the devotee. If they were true and right, their spiritual progress would be guaranteed, regardless of whatever Guru they were with. This message of Papaji’s has struck me very hard, and seems irrefutable. My time in Adidam certainly backs it up, not just in my case, but in the case of everyone I ever knew there. Some people who approached the process seriously got real wisdom and growth, and those who didn’t, just didn’t. The way to judge that wouldn’t probably be the same as it is judged within Adidam, in fact it might actually be close to the opposite of how it’s seen in Adidam, but the principle remains true nonetheless.
Another great thing Papaji used to say when people talked about false Guru is, “This is the Kali Yuga. Everyone gets the Guru they deserve.” That also hits home. For better and worse, I certainly deserved Da, and have to deal with that karma as my own responsibility, as do we all. None of us have any excuses.
December 5, 2008 at 4:54 pm
He talked the talk, but did not walk the walk.
but he was brilliant and i loved him.
I know you Wes ,your the real deal, Shiva, I agree with you.
soulsurfer
December 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Feel4God says
“Again, this talking school approach is very well-received by Westerners – and was greatly popularized by J. Krishnamurti many years ago. It may bring about lots of insights, even relatively profound mental states, but without actual Transmission Satsang, how can the conditional self realize Absolute Acausal Reality”?
Implicate in this reply is that this is a “talking school” as described by Adi Da. Is it true? No. This is merely a daist device to discredit by using Daist catechisms as a benchmark against which all else is measured. It is false in it’s conception. By the linking of J. Krishnamurti, as some-one that Adi Da criticized, the two are made one and discredited. As some-one who HAS sat with both Adi Da and Sailor Bob it is obvious that there is the living of a relization in Sailor Bob that is absent in Adi Da. The assumption that “Transmission Satsang” is absent in this man and present in Adi Da is false. There are none, in all of the years of being in Darshan with Adi Da, that have realized the “fabled” “Absolute Acausal Reality”. None. It too is a Concept.
The Sat-Guru is no-one. Quite clearly Adi Da was “Some-one”. The “illusory Ego”??? Well yeah…it is.
What do I know. Still haven’t figured out how my hand does what it does after contemplating all these years. And who the hell is making these legs work? Can some-one help me with that? And btw…where does the wind go? These are the things that are keeping me up at night!
December 5, 2008 at 6:01 pm
shiva, I actually seriously asked you if Sailor Bob offered Transmission Darshan. I did not mean to imply that he was just a talking school advocate. I already mentioned that he seems like a jnani to me from his picture.
It sounds like he is your Guru and what I am asking is do you feel him transmit his realization to you? Again, I did not mean to imply that he or any other true realizer is simply doing the usual talking school so many people do these days.
J. Krishnamurti, though he spoke of not needing the guru, actually had one for a while, and also acted as one for many many people for a very long time. But most Westerners don’t like the idea of having a spiritual teacher – so it was easier to give the people what they want! A guru telling you you don’t need a guru! Even most of the critics of Adi Da here seem to be following some other teacher.
So to just always be assuming that there is no “I” and no “Guru” is fine for the Guru to do – but to the aspirant, he is submitted to that Master for real – even to just assume what the Master is saying is true. If the aspirant does the assuming that no Guru is necessary – well that is just talking school on his part. Why would he even be seeing an adept in that case?
I hope that clarifies what I meant.
December 5, 2008 at 6:03 pm
This discussion about Krishnamurti and Adi Da brings back some memories about those two guys! The spring of 75.
First I see Krishnamurti give some talks (in SF). Then, a couple of weeks later, go on a little visit for a few days t o Bubba Free John’s Lake county sanctuary.
He wrote an essay one night after dinner, following a conversation this other visitor and I had with Saniel Bonder. He suggested (to us superficial examiners, which is what I saw he had written out on the copy Bonder was holding) that K was a proponent and practitioner of “mind” dharma. In effect, a limited or incomplete practice. What I think touched off that characterization was when Willie and I suggested to Bonder that perhaps Bubba’s “conscious process” was akin to K’s “Choiceless Awareness” process.
December 5, 2008 at 6:04 pm
slyder said:
“As some-one who HAS sat with both Adi Da and Sailor Bob it is obvious that there is the living of a relization in Sailor Bob that is absent in Adi Da.”
i completely second that.
when – after wasting time in adidam for oh so long – i met sailor bob, this unassuming, gentle and approachable man, who only speaks wisdom when he opens his mouth, i knew i had finally met the “real deal”.
is he my master?
no. a master for who? transmitting what? to whom? this is all dualism. more search. more concepts. more nonsense.
have “i” fully understood? no. and “i” never will. but seeing is “starting” to happen… and for that “i” am grateful.
December 5, 2008 at 6:33 pm
NC asked:
“Conradq, I really appreciate what you have written, but I have a question for you because I don’t understand what people mean when they say, “positive” and “negative”.
What do you mean by those terms?”
I try to use it in rather loose generic terms that could fit most people’s sense of positive and negative. I like to think of it in terms of a broad notion of “health”, not just physical, but mental, emotion, psychic, spiritual, etc. Some things, which we would call positive, promote and nurture our health, and some things, which we would call negative, harm and cause our health to deteriorate. Nothing is wholy positive or negative, the conditional world is always a combination of opposites, but we can certainly speak of various effects in this terms. For example, we can say that cigarettes are positive in the sense that they promote pleasure, sharpness of mind, and general feelings of euphoria. They are negative in the sense that they cause all kinds of diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, emphysema, shortness of breath, fatigue, etc. One has to make one’s own calculations as to whether the positives are worth the negatives, and it isn’t always clear cut.
With someone like Adi Da, there are so many calculations involved that you can’t just do it objectively, you have to feel it with your total being. Those who are attracted to and end up staying with Da, as I did for so many years, have to make that calculation with their feeling being, and keep making it, honestly and forthrightly. Eventually, in my case I began to see the negatives outweighing the positives, until I simply couldn’t rationalize my involvement anymore, kind of the way a long-term smoker eventually might realize that they have to quit smoking, even though the pleasure of the act is still strong and very addictive. I realized that if I wanted to recover my spiritual health, I had to leave Adidam. There’s a lot of factors involved, but that’s it in a nutshell. I didn’t see any short or long term benefits from staying anymore, either for me or for Adidam itself. I just didn’t fit in anymore. Eventually, this become undeniable, and I realized at some point that I wasn’t really a part of Adidam anymore. It’s like Zorba the Greek looking down at his cigarette one day, and just throwing it away, and not smoking again.
December 5, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Much has been made about whether or not Adi Da Samraj was a “Great Realizer” or not. The plethora of exceptional responses here are indicative of his greatness both positive and negative. He was like great nature herself, both beautiful and terrible. Like many great artists he was a difficult man. He was narcissus and he wasn’t. The ocean is beautiful and deep and full of creatures and it can drown you. So what if he was terrifically flawed, he was also a great awakener. Some people say he failed–that he failed to awaken others, that nobody got enlightened. 99% of the time even the greatest are not going to Enlighten you, because Truth comes from inside through sincere effort and passion–bhakti, or whatever. Inside, Inside–that’s where it resides. The guru points the way, but it’s up to us to wake up and get the point. Da did that, period. If others never woke up, that’s their problem, not his. Did he sabotage other’s efforts to actually get on with it and do that, yea, yeah, he did that. Did he fully empower others to be as Happy as possible, yeah, he did that too. We never want our parents to die when we are little kids, but they do and we’re left to grow up and walk on and be the parents for others, or whatever we are supposed to be. He who awakens you does not always Enlighten you. From then on it’s you and your heart and your conscience. You can sail to glory, or be a bozo. Ramana didn’t Enlighten people. He told you to go within and ask your SELF. Over and over, he said that. Those stories about Gurus Enlightening others with a glance, or a touch– that was because the disciple was the Real Deal. the disciple did the work. The disciple followed the finger and looked beyond at the moon, or the radiant sun in splendor. pick your image, it will take you there.
“Only you can prevent forest fires!”
I never met you in the flesh Adi Da Samraj. Were you an Avatar? I don’t know, but I know you invoked that spirit with your incantatory language of Love-Bliss. You touched me, I felt you. I had a mystical experience just below where you lived at Tunitas beach, before I ever heard of you. I saw Buddha and Jesus in the sky waving at me. I bowed and said thank you. I say thank you to you now. Thank you Franklin Jones, Bubba Free John, Da Free John, Da Love Ananda, Da Kalki, Da Avabhasa.
Jai Jai Avatar Adi Da Samraj The Bright!! Ki Jai!!
December 5, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Dear Friends and Lovers of The Bright One
still boats come in daily bringing anyone who wants to come and pay their respects and honour the Life of the Great Avatar.. The access is totally open so all who are moved come… His presence is so strong.
I had the pleasure yesterday of sitting with people and filming them as we chatted about their process in coming here.. many tears and incredable stories.. i will post some on you tube and our new public forum realityrevelation.com. when i get time..
I woke up this morning angry.. and disturbed.. my mind racing with the upset of some of the post on here.. like vampires banging the nails in to the coffin on the Bright One.. The true lover who was free enought to offend everyone because the truth poured from His being and who can argue with pure love when you feel it.
I knew i was just processing my own fears and anger at loosing The Beloved the one who had Love me more then any father could. I went to the Hall but there were to many shoes outside and I needed to be alone.. i went to the beach.. my mind racing with venomous responses.. sitting there my hands flat on the sand to feel the island, slowly the familiar feeling of His presence came, my being relaxed and at last I breathed in His perfect thick blissful love deep into my body.. the sea became his form glittering with a trillion specs of perfect light, the wind soft and warm like a gentle caress from the Breath of bliss Itself. then my mind was writing this letter to the true hearts of all.. with not a venomous tone in sight..
and who can argue with that ! all are one.. all want to be loved, all at heart our love.. and who can argue with that..
So dear friends and lovers of the bright one and even those dear beloved hearts who have at times declaired there love for him but for now defend there deeper oneness with the One who bought us once and for all the way to the Brightness.
I went to get breakfast and met a brother on the road.. i shared my beach conversion and he reminded me.. there was no other to argue with.. we laughed..
he started to recite a poem from crazy Da must sing…
here is the end line
“…I am the wave of light
within your mind
that happens
to be everything,
my love.”
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Adidam_In_Perpetuity/todoathingforman.html
So dear friends If you are reading these posts and actually do feel the heart presence of DA when you see His form.. then i would suggest you follow your heart and not get caught up in the mind of so many of these posts.. the reason why there are more negative then possative posts is because when you have found the sanctuary of His perfection through simply feeling His bodily form, why would you want to do battles with fear and mind.. it is a hell that is why sanctuaries are called sanctuaties.. feeling Adi Da is not an escape from feeling and emotion He awakens you to greater feeling and emotion He unfolds you into reality as IT IS , not escapes up and out or into a mind technique, so if it is time for you to step out of the baying crowds.. then please come to the sanctuary of realityrevelation.com or my youtube sites realityway and adidam videos.. and you can freely explore and contemplate with out your own demons being amplified by seeming others issues.. we have enough of our own creepies already and His form is The only way to the Brighness…He gives this gift to everyone.. no qualifications necessery ! if you understand me then you know who you are
and now I have to drop down again into the depth of His perfection to process the deep loss and perfect unloss through His unending grace.
with more love then i could self generate Blisscake
December 5, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Dear NC. Yes, it was a hard school, wasn’t it. He was hard. I found it hard to accept that because it flew in the face of what I felt when I meditated with him. The sublimity of his transmission. The felt sense of being loved so deeply, purely, and utterly without limitation. Bliss is not hard, so why must he be.
I’m struck by something you said. “I allowed that because I was a very undeveloped ego.” A moment of insight. So it was with me. I allowed all the things I saw and was involved in because I was so undeveloped that I either didn’t realize what I was seeing, or was simply unable to accept it. I felt comfortable in my blindered state. I wanted to believe his mythology. I needed it. I see it now as sort of a holding pattern in which I could more or less safely engage life within a structured environment until I matured enough to be able to accept life as it is. I am much stronger now, and cannot escape the fact that I didn’t altogether get to this point without his help. Whether or not he intended it to have this effect on me. He would no doubt be very critical of me now.
I am struck by the differences in so many of our experiences. I have seen some remarkable transformations in people that society all but abandoned. They were crazy, dysfunctional, weird. They became full of light in relation to Adi Da. However we can explain this, it happened. It was real.
Some claim that he was evil incarnate. Some have been very deeply hurt by him. We all felt his bliss and savored it, yet we all experienced him differently. I find, at this point, that it would be simplistic to deny all but my own point of view. How can I not admit that I also once felt that I had been helped, that he loved me more than anyone else ever had. And yet now I see him as a charlatan and an abuser. He himself admitted to madness. I cannot disagree. But I don’t see his madness the same way he did.
My point of view is unlikely to change, but I feel that it is important to respect each person for their own beliefs, understandings, and relationship to Adi Da. The whole array is on display at this blog, now after his death. It is likely that the legacy of Adi Da will always be mixed, but there is no reason not to respect one another, regardless of our individual experiences.
December 5, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Feel4God said:
“So to just always be assuming that there is no “I” and no “Guru” is fine for the Guru to do – but to the aspirant, he is submitted to that Master for real – even to just assume what the Master is saying is true. If the aspirant does the assuming that no Guru is necessary – well that is just talking school on his part. Why would he even be seeing an adept in that case?”
what if the “guru” does not function as a guru and tells you you need no guru? sends you in a bit of a spin, doesn’t it?
it seems you carry a lot of adidam concept baggage with you and are quick to condemn as “talking school”. why is the assumption that no guru is necessary inherently “talking school”? and why is only a transmission guru a true guru.
transmitting what? to whom? all dualistic concepts…
most non-dualism teachers do not function as gurus. they don’t even accept the word “teacher”. “teaching what to whom?” they ask. and they certainly don’t function as transmission gurus. adi da has artificially limited those terms to fit his bill only.
why do i go to sailor bob then, you may ask.
because “i” need the reminders, “i” need his pointers to remind me of the universal non-dual truth. and in so doing clarity increases. i was not exaggerating when i said that in 4 months with sailor bob i gained more insight into reality than in 15 years with adi da and his allegedly “divine transmission”.
whatever sailor bob does or does not do (if anything), it works!
December 5, 2008 at 9:19 pm
blisscake, thank you for all your service to Beloved. I genuine appreciate the gift of your sadhana, and thank you for being brave enough to speak ecstatically.
December 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm
From a decidely limited perspective it could be said Frank showed exactly what it would look like to be revered, have every craving gratified, have free and easy dominion over the lives of large numbers of devotees, wallow in unrestrained excess year after year and have fiercely committed volunteers to constantly clean up the mess…
…and now he has shown us what it looks like when it ends.
December 6, 2008 at 12:28 am
I was thinking further about the issue of why Adi Da didn’t produce any realizers, and it appears to me that it’s due to his lack of emphasis on this matter. It’s not as if Da didn’t talk about it from time to time, or complain about the lack of mature practitioners in Adidam, or try to goad people into taking the path seriously, but let’s face it, it wasn’t as if he was single-mindedly focused on that matter. Instead, there were all kinds of fascinating distractions most of the time, projects for people to do, artwork to produce, process, and promote, endless forms of service, and endless concerns about all kinds of ordinary matters.
Whereas, when you look at someone like Ramana, he just wasn’t interested in anything other than realization, and he seldom talked about anything else. If people came to him with questions, he usually told them to practice self-enquiry, to find out who was bringing these questions to them. Often he just ignored what they asked, if it didn’t seem to directly relate to realization. He was a monomaniac in that regard, always turning every conversation very quickly to the notion of radical realization. This is an important part of what, I would gather, made it possible for so many people to mature and even realize in Ramana’s company. He just wasn’t doing anything else.
But Da was even critical of this approach. His seven stages model had a negative effect on many people’s desire for realization, in that it led people to think that if they were just “third to fourth stage”, they shouldn’t really be considering or thinking about direct realization, but should just serve, study, and become involved in the usual stream of Adidam “culture”. This made for some fun activities, and some unpleasant activities, but worst of all, it led most people in Adidam to drop any pretense or interest in realization.
I remember a critical time in the period before I left, where I went to the MOA for a weekend after not having been there in a while, looking for some reason to stay, or at least a sign of what to do. While I was there, the usual meltdown occured, darshan was cancelled, and the community met in emergency mode to try to fix the situation. The usual solutions were offered, such as finding people who could serve full time, fill various slots on the org chart, on and on. I had been staying away from this kind of thing for a while, because I can’t keep my mouth shut, but here I was, and I felt I had to speak up. I suggested that the real problem wasn’t a lack of service, but a lack of interest in realization, and that if we really committed ourselves to that process, and told Da about it, this would be much better received than the usual nonsense. Naive, I know. I can’t tell you the stares I got. The woman at the microphone leading the meeting spoke up and said, “You know, I didn’t come here for realization, and that’s not what I’m even interested in. I came here to serve, and that’s all I really want to do.” I thought this was a rather amazingly honest confession on her part, but I was a little surprised when the whole crowd essentially agreed, and basically shut me down. At first I felt as if I must have taken a wrong turn on Seigler Canyon Road, and wound up at the wrong place. Then I realized this was what I had been looking for, a sign of where this community was really at, what it wanted, and why I simply didn’t belong here anymore.
I recall Da once criticizing Ramana for how he answered some practical questions from visitors. Some young men came to him and asked him questions about diet, what they should eat, what diet worked best for spiritual practice, and instead of answering, he simply told them to ask who it was who wanted to know these things. No matter how hard they pressed him for an answer, he ignored it, and told them to practice self-enquiry, essentially. Da criticized Ramana for not being practical and addressing this issue of diet, and said that this was why Ramana wasn’t a “complete” teacher, whereas Da was, since he spent years and years talking about diet, writing books about it, etc. He didn’t seem to understand that the effect of putting all that attention on diet meant that attention wasn’t being put on the pressing issue of realization, and that what Da produced was a bunch of people who are very well versed in dietary and health issues, but were not realizing anything spiritually. Whereas Ramana (who did actually make some very basic diet recommendations, essentially an ordinary vegetarian diet), by not focusing on those matters, but instead focusing single-mindedly on the matter of realization, actually did produce realizers, if ones who were not expert gourmet raw food chefs.
This is the primary lesson of Da, I guess: if you want your devotees to realize, you really do have to focus on that matter of realization day in day out, with virtually no distractions or side trips. You can’t get away with distractions, and you can’t allow your devotees to forget the reason they are there, day by day, minute by minute. It doesn’t take a lot of complex teachings or activities, it just takes a patient persistence in turning people’s attention away from their ordinary concerns, and constantly re-directing their attention to the matter of self-realization. And that’s the lesson for devotees as well. Don’t get involved in all the nonsense some Gurus think is important, and stay single-mindedly focused on the process of direct realization. The testimony of those who do is that the Self reveals Itself to them in all kinds of ways. The testimony of those who don’t is filled with all kinds of delusions and excuses.
December 6, 2008 at 1:01 am
Comedy is when you lose your spouse, your friends, your health, your career, your money, and your trust,
and tragedy is when Adi Da has a malfunction with his umbrella.
Adolescence is when you dare question the rationale for accepting this.
Childishness is when you accept that it must be true, and think that it will work out differently for you because you are accepting it in good faith.
Talking school is when someone actually realizes that there is only God, lives fundamentally beyond comedy and tragedy, and fully supports your true being.
Talking school can also be found in much of the radical teaching of Franklin, Bubba, and Da.
Talking school isn’t considered Truth within Adidam.
December 6, 2008 at 1:48 am
All of this is as amazing to me as…no…I lied…none of it is…I was just being”nice”. It’s quite common (not me being nice).
“Talking School”. Frank so often pointed out, and used at his discretion, need, or utter convienence, that of the “Straw Man”. Actualy, his chosen “devise”. J. Krishnamurti is a good exmaple of this. As with Jesus, as with Khristamurti, the “context” of their “time” and “culture” get left out of the mix in the criticisms. In the case of Khrishamurti he spoke on the non-neccesity of a Guru during a time and culture where that was heresy. It WAS his realizaton. Needless to say that “Radical View” pissed on the boots of the “Tradition” of his time. That IS the context…not much discussed or given credence to. Criticized by the current “Pharasees”…bet your ass. “There’s good money in the enlightenment buisiness (whatever the hell that is). Don’t come in here and ruin a good thing”. “Doubt everything…Find your own light”. Last words of Guatama Buddha. Find your own light! Any…and I mean any…”teacher”…a man/woman that understands anything…will direct you to That. “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him”. He’s a liar! To back up the argument by Frank is the apparent “lack” of “transmission” in Khristnamurti. Frank has also said that in the enlightenment of his devotees that his own “unique” sihddis may or may not appear in individual cases. They aren’t and never have been the importance. Well… who knows, maybe Khrishnamurti missed the “siddhi” gene. Siddhi/energy…Sun/heat…Water/wet. What other non-usefull concepts can we discuss? Siddhis and a couple of bucks will get you a small coffee at Starbucks (Suggestion…when you get “realized” and go to Starbucks…rely on the couple of bucks in your pocket instead of the Siddhi and you won’t get handcuffed by the nice policeman).
Jesus…talk about a “Straw Man”…( it is my suggestion that if you are interested, or have a leaning towards this great teacher, check out the works of Dr. Rocco Errico and Dr. George Lamsa)… is yet another example of a great teacher whose teaching is “removed” from the culture and setting of His time and bastardised to current”misconcepts”. Franks misunderstanding of what He said about Jesus is common…he thought he was clever quoting from the Greek ( and none to well ). The “context” of the time and place, Aramaic, “occupied Judea”…put into perspective the “usage” of His words. Check it out…He was non-dual before non-dual was cool! And…totaly rad! He too pissed on the boots of the “Gurus”. Another heretic. Just talking about His realizaton. Walking about. A few guys hanging. No Churches…no proclamations of worshiping my toenails ( the “God” thing came in the 2cd century AD…Frank was too lazy to look that very close…musta got by him). How does this great teacher respond to the recognition of who he is??? ” Man, why do you call me good…Only God is good”. Yeah…no “Graven Image”. No Guru Worship. (BTW…if you realy love Frank you’ll do well to get rid of the current picture on the official site…you may see what you see, but there are going to be a whole lot of people that aren’t bhaktas looking at that photo and there ISN”T anything attractive there. Graven Image comes to mind).
Point is…the Divine…Truth…I don’t know, give It a name of your chosing… Is Always Now…Kingdom Come…Closer Than The Breath…and there has NEVER been an “Intermediary” to go through. The only “authentic” “Teachers”, if that is a possibility, are as plain as wallpaper, a neighbor, that will talk about the thing that they have seen. And then you’ll share a cup of tea.
Personaly, I feel there is more “High Dharma”… more compassion…in this video than in all the gosples and sutras. Take a look…who are the bahktas, gurus or light there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo
Kill it all and watch it fall.
December 6, 2008 at 4:07 am
Conradg, I really do appreciate your words, and I do know you that you are being honest and not just mean-spirited when it comes to Beloved.
In the end, what really matters? It is all subjective for each of us, isn’t it?
I love Adi Da, Some others also love Adi Da.
And then some others do not. So be it.
I cannot speak for anyone else. Adi Da is like a laser beam, to me. That laser beam clears the way for (what I believe is) the Truth. That laser beam also destroys what is in its path, and if you are attached to what that laser beam destroys then too bad about that, eh? It is what it is… I will be destroyed, no matter what, I’ve got nothing to hang on to, in the end, and perhaps I’m being flamboyant, but I don’t blame Adi Da for this. Adi Da makes me smile, He makes me warm. Something else is more significant? I do not know. Better to be destroyed by smiles and warmth than any form of violence, this is what I bend to.
If you (and I don’t necessarily mean YOU, personally) have hard, difficult feelings about Adi Da, I am sorry, really (I’ll bet we – devotees – are all sorry that it has turned out this way). I truly believe this is not what Adi Da intended, but I admit I cannot, and do not, speak for Him. I do know that Beloved is also an offense to some. But, I believe that Adi Da was being honest when He asked devotees, “Do you know how much I love you?” This was my experience of Beloved. This is where I put my attention. We become what we meditate on, yes? In my own personal urgency, I do not have time to question what seems obvious to me, but that is me…
What I really feel is love, and I didn’t realize anything about that until Adi Da came along. Now I feel quite frustrated that I cannot adequately communicate this feeling to the world… which is what “causes” devotees in the first place, I think.
I do not wish to fight, or argue, or debate, or engage in any sort of conflict regarding Adi Da — not because I want to be RIGHT, but because I prefer Peace & Love over anything else. This is just my nature. Adi Da has fit perfectly with my nature. Everything else is just the practice of patterns, and scales, trying to make beautiful music of it all… This is what I think…
Much of this conversation has come about because of Beloved’s Mahasamahdi. I love talking about Adi Da (and I have for the past 35 years). I only have praises to sing, and I do grieve that He is no longer Bodily present. However, I hope this does not diminish my ability to communicate with others who are on a different page…
December 6, 2008 at 4:28 am
Conradg, I find agreement with what you have written. The hubris of westerners who exaggerated collective understanding of the depths of realization while minimizing the problematic aspects associated with western karmic tendencies, and I count myself in that group once, is a real issue. I too found that I got the guru I deserved at the time, in part because westerners tend to be impatient.
In respect to my criticism of Da for not meeting with various jnanis, your point has validity in general. There is no particular need for jnanis to meet on the physical plane, or avoid each other either, because there is no space or time for the jnani. A jnani recognizes another jnani.
My reason for being skeptically critical in this case relates to what you have said about his actions when he asked for and was not acknowleged by Muktananda, and a more general pattern Da exhibited in his life of anticipating recognition but then criticizing his teachers and jnanis in general. This is true even of Ramana Maharshi, who he actually praised in the original 1977 Paradox of Instruction as his guru. Up to that time he had said their realizations were equal, that he just had a different function, and he had said that while visiting India in 1973 that Ramana Maharshi had confirmed that in his transmission. One could argue the accuracy of some technical points with how Da described Ramana Maharshi in the 1973 version of Method of the Siddhas, but this would be understandable given the sources he would have had at that time. His 1990s criticism of Ramana Maharshi in the essay though, has so much inaccuracy that it falls right into the same pattern, what I believe was a subtle recognition that his emergent claims and actions were in such conflict with the increasing understanding of Ramana Maharshi that a clear break was needed. This is an interpretation and not statement of fact but the prior pattern clearly suggests it is possible.
So why then, despite this do I feel it is relevant in this case that he never visited living jnanis? First, I am not dwelling on it, it is one indicator of many in what I see as a larger pattern. Da was a forerunner of the modern type of guru, seen clearly in the many westerners who claim a lineage to gurus like Ramana Maharshi based on minimal contract with anyone remotely recognized as being at that level or even at Muktananda’s level, and in fact with their claims often rejected by those teachers who they then criticize. In the jnani tradition, there are some rare ones like Ramana Maharshi who have no living teacher to acknowlege them, but most like Nisagadatta were acknowledged by living teachers. And even in Ramana Maharshi’s case, he is recognized across many traditions as a Realizer. In Da’s case, he is asserting without any lineage unprecedented claims about his level of realization and unique Avataric function, but this was never acknowledged by either his teachers or later by widely accepted jnanis, who he consigned to a lower stage of realization. The point being that if he were in fact the World Teacher, Divine Emergence Avatar, etc., with a higher level of realization, if anyone would be in a position to use this demonstration to make the “leap” and really support his efforts among ripe aspirants, it would be those who were already jnanis. To use Ramana Maharshi’s , analogy, it would be the difference between trying to ignite gunpowder and dry kindling rather than wet logs. In this case and with this clarification I feel there is some validity. Again, if this was all there was to go on and there were no other factors, I would totally agree with you.
I do agree with Blisscake that there is a subtle difference between the jnanis he describes and Da. There are those who are drawn to a certain type of active, powerful transmission, which generates enlightening experiences, and find it lacking elsewhere. And there are those who are drawn to the type of more subtle but powerful presence transmission of jnanis like Ramana Maharshi, and who find the other binding and distracting. I simply look at the results in assessing which transmission is more pure and effective, and having experienced both, and based on the track record of the perennial lineage of jnanis, I come to the opposite conclusion of the Da devotees. To be fair, discourse is possible because each of us takes up the practice that appeals to them and gets the guru they deserve, as we would probably agree. All we can hope for here is clear expressions of our respective understandings at this time.
December 6, 2008 at 5:54 am
Shiva the deceiver says…
“i was adi da’s devotee for 15 years and i served him intimately (spending up to 8 hours daily with him) for several years. just as an indicator that i might know what i am talking about.
adi da was clearly not a realized being.”
How on earth is this statement at all ‘humble’ you know well that many many other friends of yours have daily experience of His enlightenment.. you also imply that you were in his personal service like in the room with Him..this is bullshit you are directly attacking Adi Da here saying Adi Da is clearly not enlightened as if you… one of the angriest brothers i know could have the incredable unhumbnes to say such a thing.. not something like, in my humble experience i never felt that Adi Da was enlightened but i have many friends and even my intimate who have incredable love and light in there lives through Him. you have finaly brother put Adi Da into the box occupied by all the other things you like to hate…so i guess it was pradictable.. this is not humble it is as I have told you before a perfect reflection of your own inability to allow love… so unless kicking Adi Da, the being that you chose to stay with for 15 years !!! and who you told me you loved.. is part of your new understanding and at the same time completely disregarding your friends own lives and experience… i would ask you to please apologise publicly for making such unhumble and self grandising statement which is directly aimed to put down Adi Da and turn people away from Him even though the ones closest to you have found only pure love and happiness from Him.. or is this why you attack him.
As you can tell I am having a hard time dropping this one.. which i fully except .. but you man.. i can not believe that you would get the dagger out… not your style brother… you are better then that…
your anger is painful it hurts others have you not got that yet…
SO lovers of The Bright one do not get decieved by statements from ones claiming to be ex devotees and critics.. I have once again found that when you actually uncover the charicter you find that the motive is the same… you don’t love me so fuck you… we ALL do this this is why He reflected it and this is the liberation from such horrors that we see here.. the need to attack and put down true love.. true heart openess.. A Great Great Being.. kick Him kill Him I know better i am the big clever man who knows better.. what a horror the ego is in its unlove and fear… mine included.. this is why He smashed it all.. broke all the Taboos.. and Loved in the face of incredable abuse over and over… what did he actually do to you Shiva… he loved you… He just loved you.. that is all, He totally excepted you… what is your repayment… to say it was not enough i wanted more.. like the spoiled child that didnt get it..
If you do not understand this then no sailor bob will be able to help you.. you are loved brother…. dont you get it…
Love Blisscake
December 6, 2008 at 6:00 am
Many thanks to all the wonderful posts here and genuine, honest, heart-felt expressions from all you lovely people!
Great that Blisscake realized that it was his own venemous mind that jumped up to defend what he feels are atacks on his Beloved… sheesh….Feel4God even kind of apologized to me and realized that his communication wasn’t exactly loving…maybe a human face of da-votees will finally emerge
It seems that the Non-duality blog is a good forum for sorting out the various strands of cultism vs. true non-dualism; as well as a kind of Friends Re-dis-united.
I laughed out long and loud at T.M. Maharshi’s comment on Da…and realized that actually Da did serve as a kind of clearing house…and put people through a hard school…some of us decided to check out other colleges; some of us got expelled for disagreeing with the teachers and the headmaster…and some of us realized that we were never going to graduate with honours and opted to become dharma bums instead. No praise, no blame. If you’re still in school and you’re 55 years old…..well….looks like the school just got burned down.
I resonate completely with Conradg and this:
“What ruins and falsifies the spiritual process is not the Guru, no matter how limited that Guru might be, but the devotee’s own false intentions and approach. In essence, he laid everything in the hands of the devotee. If they were true and right, their spiritual progress would be guaranteed, regardless of whatever Guru they were with. This message of Papaji’s has struck me very hard, and seems irrefutable. My time in Adidam certainly backs it up, not just in my case, but in the case of everyone I ever knew there. Some people who approached the process seriously got real wisdom and growth, and those who didn’t, just didn’t. The way to judge that wouldn’t probably be the same as it is judged within Adidam, in fact it might actually be close to the opposite of how it’s seen in Adidam”
and, also,
“In my case I began to see the negatives outweighing the positives, until I simply couldn’t rationalize my involvement anymore, ….. I realized that if I wanted to recover my spiritual health, I had to leave Adidam. There’s a lot of factors involved, but that’s it in a nutshell. I didn’t see any short or long term benefits from staying anymore, either for me or for Adidam itself. I just didn’t fit in anymore. Eventually, this become undeniable, and I realized at some point that I wasn’t really a part of Adidam anymore..”
Thank you Conrad, for verbalizing this; I could have written it myself.
Da spent time with Rudi….and walked away..he just knew it was time….Da spent time with Muktananda….and walked away….
Did Rudi’s or Muktananda’s students see that as “treason”..?
You bet they did (I was one of them!)
Why should only Da have the courage or insight to walk away?
But that was the golden web that Da spun…only he could ever “get it”…no other 7th stage etc…not possible..disagree?
Obviously an adolescent ego! Yeah, yeah, yeah. Beat me daddy!
It’s interesting that if one looks at the sub-text of so many posts here, there is the devotee post, re-using all of Da’s terms of abuse and put-down; “talking school”, “adolescence” etc etc. and, in the majority of cases, ex-devotees referring to listening to their own deep sense of morality, feeling appropriateness of continuing in the community etc. In other words, diving deep and, oh god, yes, stepping out.
Da did it.
Oh, yes, but he was unique…etc..
So is each and everyone of us.
Did he truly want you to stay wedded to him and the cult for all eternity, endlessly self-censoring and re-hashing his words?
Step into your own shoes!
As John Lennon sang, “There ain’t no guru that can see through your eyes!”
We don’t need to tear down others to follow our truth.
Like many who write about Sailor Bob; I have found great teachers do not point to themselves or their p.o.v. but rather, point directly to consciousness. How sad, that the opportunity to benefit from being in their company is wasted if they are categorized as “6th stage” “introverted” etc
We’ll never know his reality, but truly, I, for one can admit to still loving the old rascal and wish the students and ex-students Freedom Happiness and Joy!
As NotQuandra writes,
“It is important to respect each person for their own beliefs, understandings, and relationship to Adi Da.”
Amen!
There is the possibility to love your guru and accept an alternative p.o.v.
How’s the paragraph spacing, dude?
love, Stevie
December 6, 2008 at 8:41 am
Conradg – Of course there are great similarities between Adi Da ‘s and Ramana’s Realizations of the Self. However, Adi Da spoke in great detail about the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi and gives us a practice from the beginning beyond all seeking; whereas Ramana mainly spoke in terms of the Self to be found in the right side of the heart beginning with a practice based on the search to overcome a dilemma. I cannot find passages in the books that I have where Ramana speaks of the all-inclusive (regenerated) manifestation of Amrita Nadi nor completely direct address to the futility of all seeking. If you could post some examples, especially of the former (the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi), that would be very interesting.
I guess Dharma debates have gone on since ancient days, and this one could go on for an eternity – it already seems like it has.
Thank you for your post about Papaji’s consideration about the Guru-devotee relationship, Conradg. There is so much that can be said about the absolute need for the Sat-Guru. However, I have most likely already talked too much here. Instead, I will post the following in most loving gratitude for my Beloved Heart Master, Whose Accomplishments are innumerable, Who has served devotees always as needed, Whose Bodily-Human Form I miss greatly and weep for daily, Who Lives with us always, and Who demonstrates perfect egolessness! Look! See for yourself what even I, this very ordinary guy, can see! There is no ego there at any level!
http://www.adidam.org/
December 6, 2008 at 8:56 am
@ ConradG:
from my experience your analysis of why adidam has not produced any realizers is spot on. i don’t think it is the only reason but certainly one of them. the main other reason is that i just don’t see that adi da actually had it in him to awaken anybody. he gave people experiences and produced many bliss-junkies (as is evident in some postings here) but i have not spoken to anyone who has actually gained a deeper understanding into reality. many got insights into their emotional-sexual make-up but how does that help, ultimately?
———————
no124c41 Says:
“Comedy is when you lose your spouse, your friends, your health, your career, your money, and your trust,
and tragedy is when Adi Da has a malfunction with his umbrella.
Adolescence is when you dare question the rationale for accepting this.”
this is SO SPOT ON! everything around adi da was about not disturbing him. how could a true realizer be disturbed? by what? what i witness in that regard was just utterly ridiculous!
———————–
@ blisscake:
you say “How on earth is this statement at all ‘humble’ you know well that many many other friends of yours have daily experience of His enlightenment.. you also imply that you were in his personal service like in the room with Him..this is bullshit you are directly attacking Adi Da here”
how does “humble” come in here? i just stated a fact (my involvement) and an opinion (that adi da was not a realizer).
and no, none of my friends have daily experiences of enlightenment. they have blisses and other experiences. enlightenment is NOT an experience. it is what is beyond experience.
i do indeed imply that i was in his personal service for years, directly in the room with him, very often speaking directly with him and considering things with him. and because of this direct exposure i have seen A LOT of what was going on around him. how can you doubt that? if you know who i am (maybe you mistake me for somebody else) then you would know that. how can you say it is bullshit??
again, for the last time: everything i said in here i have either directly witnessed and is an honest account of my direct experiences in adi da’s direct company, or it is an honest opinion. i was not personally hurt by adi da, i don’t hate him, i often had great fun serving him, and yes, i even once loved him, because i then still believed his claims.
but i have come to the conclusion that he was a dangerous man because he misled people and he was not a non-duality teacher at all, quite the opposite, really. and that is why i am posting in this non-duality blog. i do not know what his motives were in misleading people. maybe it was not intentional.
actually, blisscake, you are a good example for being misled. your name already says it. you are a bliss-junkie. no praise, no blame, i am an easily addicted personality myself. but i mostly hear you talking about loves and lights and blisses you (and others) feel and experience. what does that have to do with realization? absolutely nothing! seriously. they are just experiences. they come and they go and because of that they ultimately mean nothing. and you are by no means alone. i have never heard (or at least cannot recall) any adi da devotee speaking about actual insights into reality they have gained. they all talk about love-blisses and temporary experiences.
that is how adi da misled people. and that is why he cannot possibly be considered a non-duality teacher. he re-inforced the search, instead of leading the way to end it.
December 6, 2008 at 10:49 am
FeelForGod when I see darshan videos, I can’t believe that I turned away. I always felt I was watching this beautiful phenomenon of nature. The pure feeling of every movement in his face is remarkable. There is one darshan clip I’ve seen recently where his face looks like it is matching the subtle movements of a cool breeze. All the wonders and sorrows of the world are fully felt within Him.
Since his death I have felt him strongly. Having fevers, and trying to conduct myself with some equanimity through a strong reception of His grace. He once criticized me for being idealistic, and for being a romantic. That always served me in my practice of inquiry which I never stopped doing even after I left the community.
I have not honored him. I know that, but now I will turn to Him the best I can. He is my light in the darkness, and being a bhakti was the ultimate freedom I have ever known.
December 6, 2008 at 11:07 am
People, myself included percieve guru devotion as weakness. When really, it is a discipline of attention, and a freedom from little “I” thinking. When we have been conditioned to not love, it is entirely useful to have someone point the way, so perfectly as Samraj did…and will continue to do even after his passing. He left us all with many Gifts to see that His work continues.
In truth he will never leave us. He is uncapable of that.
December 6, 2008 at 11:30 am
What shape and direction will Adidam take? Who are the primary people having the most impact on that shape and direction?
Will Adidam become mainly a fundamentalistic Bhakti cult? Or, evolve into something else (unlikely, or completely unexpected) where the deleterious affects of cultism, missionarism, iconic worship, and rigidified mind forms are addressed, countered, and moved beyond?
Will there be an emergence of teachers and gurus from Adidam, like the many who branched out from Papaji???
Could Saniel Bonder be an example of things to come?
Will Adidam just fade away? (This is the outcome I suspect will happen.)
December 6, 2008 at 11:43 am
Currents of bliss are so tiring, lol. As is the need to always melt away. Good that Shiva is addressing the matter of bliss junkies.
Just live in the “nothing is happening place”. Out of which there’s the constant rise and fall of thoughts, emotions, sensations. There’s a great workbook for folks, btw, that may take us out of this religion framework for a moment: Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life, Stephen Hayes. (Acceptance and Committment Therapy). Strip away all the frills from Adi Da’s language (and some of his dualistic graftings on thousands of years of basic non-dualistic teachings and practices), and you can discern hopefully the basis for a fruitful practice. Way I look at it though, you gotta get all those darshan pictures out of your minds eye.
December 6, 2008 at 11:54 am
Interesting question: what will Adidam become? It won’t fade away completely. It has an opportunity to transform. Turn the island and properties to a retreat and educational center for ALL teachings of nonduality, including Adi Da’s.
Install leadership that respects and allows all voices. Have no single spiritual head. Only have good organizers who understand what is needed.
Turn the properties into the nonduality center of the world where people can go, and be, and rejoice.
Or sell the properties and purchase new properties in more accessible areas of the world.
That is what leadership could do if they wanted to.
December 6, 2008 at 11:55 am
Conradg; your posting at 12:26 am points to something that is quite easily missed or dismissed. Focus or attention. In Adidam look at the thing itself. One will be informed by the “manifestation”. That “manifestation” and the heart felt communication of what it “is” is why so many left the “temple”. All of the people that I know who left had similar understandings of the need to go. It wasn’t easy for any of them and the time afterwards was a kind of “free-fall”. All have heard with new ears the commincations of people like Ramana Maharshi, Nisragadatta, etc… and the “contrast” to where they were previously. Leaving the “temple” is a maturity that is not seen or understood from the inside.
The “attention” that Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Sailor Bob and others “give” or “express” is simple and utterly profound. “Who” is asking these questions? “Where”? Direct…constant…one-pointed to the Clear and Obvious so easily missed or dismissed. They don’t move to the left or the right…no cosmologies…no concepts or constructs. Direct. They merely “point” to the “obvious” always aready the case. That is where “their” “attention” is. “You” are asked to merely see for “yourself”. Inspect the unispected…the “overlooked”.
It is a simplcity. Truely. The eye stops trying to “see” itself”. The “elegance” is in it’s simplicity and it is both.
“Realisation is to get rid of the delusion that you have not realised”. Ramana Maharshi
“You give reality to concepts, while concepts are distortions of reality. Abandon all conceptualisation and stay silent and attentive. Be earnest about it and all will be well with you”. Nisargatta
“The reflection is not in the mirror but of the mirror”. Sailor Bob
All of this leads one to “back” to attention. To “you”. All of these men live(d) this realization. What is, and what was seen “around these men, was a “manifestation” of where the “attention” (is) and why “others” did and do “realize” in connection with them. That “manifestation” is in stark contrast to the “manifestation” seen in Adidam. No-one realized. “Where” was the “attention” there. Look at the “thing” itself and you will be “informed” by it.
To all those who had the balls to leave the “temple” I suggest you honor and have gratitude for that Gift. I don’t know…maybe there are those who Adi Da weaned from the tit and this is what we look like. Perhaps a parting Gift. Who knows?
Om Sri Youse Guys
December 6, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hi Jerry, based on the language of the news reports from the Fiji Times, where spokespersons described the future use of the island as some sort of retreat, I thought there might be a slim chance of Adidam developing into a much less cultic/bhakti scene. A picture you’ve detailed there. I’m very skeptical of that. The reason for that is because Adi Da established a very solid picture that has been internalized by his followers. In that picture, the very physics behind awakening are forever tied personally to the agency of Adi Da alone.
December 6, 2008 at 12:31 pm
If you are referring to “me” Atiasrama, as a bliss junkie, I’m trying that shoe on, and it doesn’t fit. What I’m feeling is nothing like the consolation that the experience “bliss” suggests.
I’m not really feeling a need to become involved formally again, other than to be of support to the continuation of His work.
To me, complaint about not getting enlightenment is about searching for something that is already the case. Who am I talking to anyway? Is it conversation that opens me to where “I” stand as the “I” of understanding, or is separative, and more of the delusion that my life has not unfolded perfectly?
I don’t feel superior to those that have chosen to stay and be of servide to Samraj Adi Da. Nor do I feel riddled with guilt about my departure. I have regret about my lack of understanding, but other than that I feel freedom to make whatever decision I must from the heart. I respect all of your decisions as well, but it’s always good to inquire of ourselves. When we feel like we have arrived the world shifts again, and then where do we stand?
December 6, 2008 at 12:47 pm
will adidam survive? i doubt it, but time will tell.
there are a few things that would be an enrichment of the human cultural heritage:
1. the fear-no-more zoos (as far as i’m concerned the highlight of adi da’s heritage).
2. his art
————–
slyder said:
“The “attention” that Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, Sailor Bob and others “give” or “express” is simple and utterly profound. “Who” is asking these questions? “Where”? Direct…constant…one-pointed to the Clear and Obvious so easily missed or dismissed. They don’t move to the left or the right…no cosmologies…no concepts or constructs. Direct. They merely “point” to the “obvious” always aready the case. That is where “their” “attention” is. “You” are asked to merely see for “yourself”. Inspect the unispected…the “overlooked”.
It is a simplcity. Truely. The eye stops trying to “see” itself”. The “elegance” is in it’s simplicity and it is both.
“Realisation is to get rid of the delusion that you have not realised”. Ramana Maharshi”
that is so true, slyder! this – to me – is true non-duality. always bringing you back to what is always already the case: presence-awareness.
nothing else. no re-inforcement of the search through disciplines, blisses, guru-games; all those search-re-inforcing distractions adi da was so famous for.
December 6, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Atiasrama says:
“Hi Jerry, based on the language of the news reports from the Fiji Times, where spokespersons described the future use of the island as some sort of retreat, I thought there might be a slim chance of Adidam developing into a much less cultic/bhakti scene. A picture you’have detailed there. I’m very skeptical of that. The reason for that is because Adi Da established a very solid picture that has been internalized by his followers. In that picture, the very physics behind awakening are forever tied personally to the agency of Adi Da alone.”
Cultic/bhakti” scenes have a place in the world. It’s the theatre of devotion, which people need at certain stages of life. How are we any worse off for it? Especially if these rituals support beauty and moving beyond self limitation, I think there is an absolute need for it.
How many of us have been to rock concerts? Isn’t that a form of cultic/bhakti?
Now you tell me which one would feed your spirit more? Don’t get me wrong, I’d go to a Marcus Miller concert in a heartbeat. He illuminates the enjoyment of the physical being in me…but the celebration of the divine is another matter altogether.
I had an opportunity to go to a fire puja recently, and I found myself completely enjoying it. Even though when I saw the murti being carried to sit on the dais before the fire, I thought, “Well, there is no coming and going anymore” It’s all just divine play. His sanctuaries, and He, himself, were just a way to bring consciousness to that reality.
I think the mistake that I’ve made, is that I thought his fame, his calling attention to himself, made him somehow glorified, but now I think of it as a great sacrifice.
December 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi N.C. I think we’re all bliss junkies. There’s the obvious one with sex. There’s that hit from chocolate, enlivening the sense of bodily energy overall. There’s things like focusing on the audible sound current on the right side of the head and concurrently focusing visually deep in the center of the head, for some really electrifying travels in bliss lands. And, there’s always a few good tokes on a joint and the subsequent enjoyment of a glowing skeletal/musculature form. All of this is in the realm of bodily (including the subtle “koshas”) energies.
December 6, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I have been asked by the cultnews website to write an obituary for Adi Da. Here is my first draft, feel free to comment by email to: editor at adidaarchives dott org or post here.
“Franklin Jones, an American guru known by various names including Adi Da Samraj, Da Free John, and Bubba Free John died November 27, 2008 at the age of 69. He passed away suddenly and unexpectedly as a result of a heart attack while at home on his private island in Fiji.
Documents indicate that disciples in Adi Da’s inner circle expected that he might rise from the dead within three days and “Reanimate His Divine Bodily Human Form.” Adi Da and his followers claim that on several past occasions he has died and then returned to life for the sake of the world and his devotees. Accordingly, shortly after his death senior disciples reminded other devotees that Adi Da was a “Divine Yogi” and “the Greatest of Master Yogis,” and instructed them pray to Adi Da, asking that he return to his body. Alas, he did not do so.
Devotees also expressed the hope that Adi Da’s body would not show signs of decay, which they believed would be a sign that he was in fact a great yogi, and would also have allowed the body to be displayed for an extended pre-burial vigil. It is apparent that the body must have begun to decay, however, as Adi Da was buried on November 30th, only three days after his death.
Franklin Jones first emerged as a spiritual teacher in Los Angeles in 1972, after studying with the Indian guru Swami Muktananda and spending time as a member and employee of Scientology. Starting with a very small group of devotees who would meet with him in a bookstore, he eventually built a spiritual community known as Adidam that has properties in Fiji, Hawaii, and elsewhere around the world.
Educated at Stanford and Columbia, Jones brought formidable intellect and creativity to bear upon the task of westernizing some of the eastern spiritual concepts that young Americans in the early 1970’s were becoming interested in. Over the course of his life, he self-published hundreds of books outlining and revising his spiritual teachings, including his own spiritual autobiography “The Knee of Listening,” which first appeared in 1971. His core teachings incorporate many of the ideas he learned from studying the Kashmir Shaivite and Advaita Vedanta schools of Hinduism, but they also contain his own original insights and opinions about both spirituality and secular culture.
As Franklin Jones’ career progressed, he adopted a succession of “spiritual” names and eventually proclaimed himself to be the First, Last, and Only perfectly enlightened Spiritual Adept that has ever appeared on Earth or will ever appear in the future. He also indicated that his own spiritual stature and “spiritual realization” was superior to that of Jesus or Buddha. In 1983 he predicted that before he died all of humanity (whom he called “five billion slugs”) would acknowledge him, and said that if he had not come to Earth all of humanity would have been destroyed.
Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to lingering accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Adi Da claimed that these were forms of spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development.
In 1985, tensions escalated when a number of ex-devotees requested an audience with Adi Da to air grievances, and he refused to communicate with them. As a result, various lawsuits were filed by and against Adi Da, his organization, and former members. A great deal of international media attention followed. Adi Da himself refused to respond to any of the charges made against him at that time, preferring to withdraw into seclusion in Fiji during the controversy and allow devotees to defend him. He finally emerged to undertake a “yajna” of penance once the media attention faded and the lawsuits had been settled, and then returned to pursue his “teaching work.”
Although Adi Da described himself as the “World Teacher,” he did not have any significant interactions or communications with anyone outside of his group during the course of his career. His organization has stayed very small, with at most 1000 – 2000 active formal devotees. This despite the publication of more than a hundred books, some of them praised by academics and scholars, and the investment of millions of dollars on “missionary” efforts over a period of more than 35 years. The group has attracted an ongoing stream of new members over the years, but experienced a very high turnover rate that kept it from growing.
The Adidam organization has not yet made a formal announcement regarding any changes in structure or leadership following the death of its founder.
Further information on Adi Da is available at http://www.adidaarchives.org (critics’ viewpoint) and http://www.adidam.org (Daists’ viewpoint).
December 6, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Former Follower and Critic, I’ve really enjoyed all your posts and insights and experience with Adidam, so I don’t want to focus on a minor point. I’m glad you’ve explained your views about Adi Da not meeting with other realizers, and you do have a point that while this is not something that most realizers do, they also don’t usually spend time seeking the recognition of the world, and other spiritual figures, or complaining about their lack of recognition in the world. In fact, I can’t think of a single genuine realizer who has ever sought recognition, or complained about the lack of same, either from other realizers or ordinary people. This was one of the things that in my latter years with Adi Da never really made sense to me, and helped me to see that Da was simply neurotic about many things that shouldn’t have mattered to him.
You also make a very good point about shaktiblisses. I too was very taken with Da’s Shakti and yogic abilities. He was very impressive. But even though he made criticisms of this in the early years, as time went on he began to focus more and more on yogic phenomena, encouraging devotees to seek by these means for “signs” of their maturity, and we see even on this board examples of people not being able to tell the difference between yogic experiences and genuine spiritual understanding and insight. Not that there’s anything wrong with bliss. I experience a wonderful, loving bliss with every breath I take, I just don’t see any need to focus on that as if it has any greater meaning, or pretend that one can’t function in ordinary ways and use one’s discrimination at the same time. Love is what it is all about in any case, not bliss, and confusing the two is one of the problems Adi Da seemed unable to untangle.
Blisscake, in that regard, it’s wonderful to see you confessing/purging yourself here about all these things. I really mean that. I don’t want to discourage you. Even your anger is fine with me, and everyone here I think. I don’t think you are being fair to Shiva, he has every right and need to express his feelings about Adi Da here, just as you do, but your anger is probably a good sign. You just need to look at the source of your anger, and I think you will find that it’s not Shiva, it’s someone much closer to you. Anger is not a bad thing, as Adi Da himself would tell you. He was angry a great deal of the time. When I left Adidam, for example, he went on a long, cursing tirade against me that had people a bit taken aback. I was told by people who were there. I don’t say that as criticism against him, I think it’s fine for him to be angry. I was angry at him too. Anger is a good way to get yourself unstuck from the tamas of one’s inertia, and toss out the garbage. So Adi Da threw out my garbage, and I threw out his. It was kind of fun, really. And purifying. Anyway, I just don’t understand why devotees of a Guru who had such a huge temper, who got angry about all kinds of things very easily, could criticize people who get angry at him. You seem pretty angry yourself, which makes you a good representative of him. But should you really be taking it out on someone like Shiva, who has done nothing but speak from his heart here? It isn’t easy for these people to speak out about their time with Da, and let’s not make it harder for them. You could be a little more accepting of people as they are, just as we should be accepting of you as you are. We all share the same problems and conflicts, after all, it’s just laid out in time and space a little differently for each of us.
And Michael, I really appreciate your dialog, but be aware that from the start of this whole thread I’ve stated my unequivocal love for Adi Da, and my lack of regrets about loving him. I don’t have any hard feelings towards him, and haven’t for years. I’ve even told him so. I loved Adi Da so much for so many years that I couldn’t possibly not love him anymore. I just don’t see any contradiction between loving him and criticizing him, even leaving him. No one is forever, as Adi Da’s death shows. Every appearance is a limitation, even the appearance of realizers and those we love. We end up leaving even those we love, for all kinds of reasons, and they leave us too. We also have valid and meaningful criticisms of those we love that have to be spoken aloud sometimes.
I wrote before about something Nisargadatta once said, which I think is one of the most profound statements ever, when he was asked by a devotee if there was anything in this world that was real. He said that yes, the love we feel for one another is real, and nothing else. All the appearances here, even the people we love, none of that is real, but the love we have for them is real and eternal and never dies. In some sense, spiritual practice is nothing more than realizing this perfectly, and holding to this eternal love under all circumstances, even death. That is true devotion, true fidelity.
Now, if you want to only praise Adi Da, that is fine. That’s one way of expressing one’s love. But it’s not the only way. Using discrimination and one’s critical faculties is also a way of expressing love. Even anger can be a way of expressing love. One’s ear has to be attuned to the love within it, true, but it’s there. If our attention goes to the love in one another’s expressions, regardless of what those expressions might outwardly be, this goes a long way towards resolving our differences.
December 6, 2008 at 3:27 pm
da gainsville doobie tosser sends his deep Love and Graditude for The-Life-Lila of Avadhoota Da Love-Ananda.I will always Love You and I will never withdraw from You.
December 6, 2008 at 3:27 pm
NC Says:
“Since his death I have felt him strongly. Having fevers, and trying to conduct myself with some equanimity through a strong reception of His grace.”
NC, that sounds great even though it sounds like you may be uncomfortable at times. I haven’t needed much sleep – find myself going into the meditation hall for much longer periods each day. His Happiness is Overwhelming! This has been the most common response I have heard from devotees everywhere.
You and few others here would be very interested in a talk Bhagavan Adi Da gave July 12, 1976 called “The Death and Birth of the God-Man”. It is about what will become of devotees after His Physical Passing (which, in this talk, He equates with His actual Birth). I had prepared some snippets of it to post here because it is so relevant to His Physical Passing and what will become of Adidam – but unfortunately the tone of this blog is too often extremely disrespectful to Bhagavan at this time.
So NC and others, if you have friends on the Matrix, just ask them if they have this talk – it is prophetic and wonderful! There is no doubt that Adidam will live on in perpetuity! (This talk may even get posted somewhere on one of the Adidam websites, though I do not believe it was ever published.)
NC Says:
“People, myself included percieve guru devotion as weakness. When really, it is a discipline of attention, and a freedom from little “I” thinking.”
Guru devotion is the ultimate form of intelligent discrimination! All other arisings, including attention itself, are simply forms of addiction to the ego (contraction). The Guru is Reality – whereas the ego-I including any form of attention is not. So meditate on Reality directly, personally – not abstractly and mentally.
Hey guys, how about this idea? I want to submit the following as a new approach to Adidam’s Mission work in the world:
PICTURE OF ADI DA SAMRAJ HERE
INSERT PICTURE OF YOURSELF HERE
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEDITATE ON FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?
December 6, 2008 at 4:03 pm
PICTURE OF ADI DA SAMRAJ HERE
INSERT PICTURE OF YOURSELF HERE
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEDITATE ON FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?
How about Naamleela now that you put it that way?
December 6, 2008 at 6:22 pm
I feel as if I have come away pretty unscathed. The Community in Marin, which is the one with which I was affiliated, although sometimes seemingly quite a depressed group of people, never appeared to me to be abusive. That is probably a function of keeping myself no more than a Student Novice.
Additionally I think I was fortunate in that those I did meet were some very sweet, loving folks. I met people like Gaylin Williams nee West, Max Distenfeld, Jane Molnar, some who last names now escape me but Charles, Carol, Raph…..
Glad I missed the whole destruction of the bank account, personal relationships and psyche, although I have to say I carried the cultic approach to Teachers around for awhile. Although I saw that Da was flawed I thought that the approach he taught of Ishta Guru Bhakti Yoga was the WAY. I finally got past that as well when I began to read Nisargadatta and Ramana, rather than simply read about them.
I wish the Daists well at this point, sincerely. I can’t imagine what their hopes are now for the Community. Mine is that they wind down the hype and gain some clarity and Peace.
December 6, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Namaste:
This letter hints at a possible bright future for Adidam, and the possible next step in Adidam’s long-term cutting-edge project of helping to bring in the long-anticipated paradisiacal culture composed of huge numbers of true divinities living in unity on Earth.
Studies of the unconscious intelligence in people leads to a study of dream imaging and other forms of unconscious or subconscious intelligence that most young people today avoid studying. Either schools don’t teach these subjects, or young people avoid the subjects because they are too difficult for many young people to easily assimilate. The special value of these subjects isn’t yet appreciated.
The ages-old human problem is that there is more brightness in human babies than the ancients were able to access, develop, use, and teach. In other words, modern teachers are not yet wholly developed, inspired, and integrated. They don’t yet clearly understand this brightness.
Lack of body and brain development is why humanity keeps getting into serious trouble with itself. Present cultures are destined to transform themselves with the help of the cutting edge leading culture of brightness. This brightness is required for the nations to thrive and successfully spread intelligent life to other worlds in space.
Adidam can grow and become the cutting edge culture leading post-cult oriented humanity into unity and brightness.
The benefit of this new culture of brightness and unity is that humans can grow to become capable in ways that humans were not cultured to be in any traditional culture. This new growth greatly expands human awareness, capacity, and competence.
Adi Da appealed to many persons who kept searching for a cult-leader. Adi Da had a strong charm for such people, but in time he repelled many of his once-loyal students. For thousands of years other cult-leaders have similarly charmed their students using powerful body language, voice tone, physical appearance, and other special charms. These strong charms are appeals to human instinct, however. One-ness-integration-wholeness-unity remains a mystery to young inquiring minds. In reality we are all one here on the one world that we know is really alive.
Humanity needs to advance far beyond human vanity and instinct. Humanity needs to develop more clear and precise conscious intelligence. Children’s strong instinctual feelings need to be integrated with children’s strong intuitions and their strong intelligences in other areas, including the eight basic intelligences defined and promoted by Dr. Howard Gardner in his theory of multiple intelligences.
Post-cult Adidam can integrate this pedagogical innovation with present-day popular studies and make Adi Da’s cutting edge of brightness both sharper and cleaner. Adidam can open more people up to the creation of paradises on Earth.
The sense of divinity that Franklin Jones so often called “The Bright” can be studied and practiced by everyone- in theory and in practice- with the help of more and more Adidam teachers as soon as they can explain and demonstrate the unitive sense better both in theory and in practice.
An individual’s words are easy to reject. The collective dream is not.
Shalom.
personalunity
December 6, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Thanks for the e-mail feedback I received, indicating the need for clarification of a key point of contention between certain critics and Daists. Here is a revised paragraph:
“Adi Da was considered a controversial figure due to persistent accusations that he was having sex with large numbers of devotees, drinking obsessively, abusing drugs, engaging in incidents of violence against women, and financially exploiting his followers. Critics claim these activities were primarily a reflection of Adi Da’s own personal desires, preferences and character flaws, and were generally engaged in without regard for their impact on others. Some claim that their consent to participate with Adi Da was gained through fraud, deception, or cognitive dissonance. Others state that they were harmed or traumatized by his abuses. Adi Da consistently claimed that all of his activities were forms of selfless spiritual teaching or “crazy wisdom,” designed to reflect devotees’ own tendencies back to them and thereby accelerate their spiritual development.”
December 6, 2008 at 9:50 pm
[...] comments following Da’s passing… 07Dec08 The Nonduality Blog continues to be a site where some very active commenting and dialogue has been taking place since [...]
December 6, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Feel4God,
I find it difficult to believe that you would have a hard time finding any references in Ramana to the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi, when Adi Da himself quoted such passages in the Knee of Listening. I quote here from p. 261 of the 1992 Standard Edition (the nearly unedited version):
Later, on p. 262, Da quotes Ramana again:
The reason Adi Da originally quoted these passages from Ramana was to confirm that the regenerated Amrita Nadi, which Ramana describes here rising up to the Sahasrar following the opening of the Heart-knot, was in fact the highest realization. It makes no sense to later claim that somehow Ramana didn’t actually realize this regenerated form of Amrita Nadi, but somehow remained confined to this heart-center on the right. How would Ramana describe it unless he had realized it, and why would Da quote him here describing it unless he accepted that it was Ramana’s own experience and realization? The notion that Ramana had failed to realize the regenerated Amrita Nadi is contradicted by Da’s own words and knowledge. Tell me how that makes any sense?
And look, let’s be honest, the very idea of giving a teaching that is, from the start, beyond all seeking, was taken from Ramana, and Advaita altogether, as were a great many of the concepts and methods one finds in Adi Da’s teachings. These are not original or unique teachings and concepts, these are creative borrowings from Ramana and other traditional teachings. Ramana frequently described self-enquiry as a path that is without seeking, without even action, but is simply the directing of attention to That which we already are. That is why he gave very few practices, and did not engage in the kind of entertaining distractions one finds in Adidam. I would really, sincerely implore you to actually read the Talks and various publications of Ramana’s teachings someday, when your mind is cleared of all these Adidam presumptions, and see for yourself what he actually taught. It may take you by surprise, as it did me and many others here.
December 6, 2008 at 11:12 pm
“Hi N.C. I think we’re all bliss junkies. There’s the obvious one with sex. There’s that hit from chocolate, enlivening the sense of bodily energy overall. There’s things like focusing on the audible sound current on the right side of the head and concurrently focusing visually deep in the center of the head, for some really electrifying travels in bliss lands. And, there’s always a few good tokes on a joint and the subsequent enjoyment of a glowing skeletal/musculature form. All of this is in the realm of bodily (including the subtle “koshas”) energies.”
Okay..okay, atiasrama, you got me…It would have been more accurate if I said I’m a recovering bliss junkie. Listen, I can’t even do marijuana anymore. I just not one of those people that can stop, one toke and all of the sudden the whole world is my oyster….and we all know what kind of aphrodisiacs they are.
lol
When I referred to the “fevers” that I was having, I don’t think they’re necessarily yogic experiences. They just always seem to happen after I’ve seen the guru, or been on the sanctuary. It seems more to do with learning to conduct the energy that I recieve when I’m there. Samaraj Adi Da’s presence has always had an awakening effect on me. I don’t think it makes me any great yogina, a sensitive little flower perhaps.
By tendency, I’m just an angry wild shakti.
December 6, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Muddy Practice, I think I’ll start my own Blog so I can make my own point of view sound more important than yours. I’ll call my blog:” A Blog on a Blog on a Blog”
A picture within a picture till infinity. Isn’t there a word for those?
December 7, 2008 at 12:11 am
Where are the Lions now that Da has taken flight? Sailor Bob, Andrew Cohen? We’re truly living in the Kali Yuga (degenerate age)…
December 7, 2008 at 1:00 am
I must say, you devotional types certainly make for some good entertainment. Doesn’t seem to be a very effective method for coming round to here though, from what I can see. Understanding is lacking.
December 7, 2008 at 4:18 am
Devotion to Happiness Itself is The WAY.
Surrender to Happiness Itself is the practice.
But all desire to surrender is self-motivated.
The effort to surrender is fruitless.
Through devotion to Happiness Itself, one is already surrendered, already in the Divine Sphere of that Self Radiant Happiness.
That is The Gift I got from Samraj. Attraction is the Means.
That is my story.
That is it. Period.
December 7, 2008 at 5:24 am
Feel4God,
I was involved during that period but not at the sanctuary and do not recall the particular talk on July 12, 1976 called “The Death and Birth of the God-Man”. As you recall, that was during the early part of a period of extended considerations on presuming enlightenment. My recollection of the period was that Da’s plan then was to leave a community of devotees open to his eternal presence and empowered sites rather than a single successor. If there is value in this talk or others relevant to this passing, I would ask that yout post what you intended. Dharma dialogue does not necessarily indicate too much negativity, and no matter what is said, someone may criticize it, but that doesn’t mean nothing should be said.
I would like to respond to as well to your comments to Conradg, as follows:
“Of course there are great similarities between Adi Da ’s and Ramana’s Realizations of the Self. However, Adi Da spoke in great detail about the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi and gives us a practice from the beginning beyond all seeking; whereas Ramana mainly spoke in terms of the Self to be found in the right side of the heart beginning with a practice based on the search to overcome a dilemma. I cannot find passages in the books that I have where Ramana speaks of the all-inclusive (regenerated) manifestation of Amrita Nadi nor completely direct address to the futility of all seeking. If you could post some examples, especially of the former (the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi), that would be very interesting.”
Apparently in your readings you came to the less than accurace conclusion that Ramana Maharshi taught that there should be a focus on the Self found in the right side of the heart, and that he considered the dilemma real and requiring seeking. But this is not really correct. The main reason why he mentioned the Heart was only because there was in this time a pervasive dogma that Self Realization was tied to an experience of the seat of the Self in the sahasrara, and the ancient teachings about the heart center were being misuderstood. Ramana Maharshi’s point was that for those who identify with a body, the locus of the source of mind and world can be intuited and found at that location in the body, and not in the brain or sahasrara.
As David Godman says: “…belief that the mind can, by its own activities, reach the Self is the root of most of the misconceptions about the practice of self-enquiry. A classic example of this is the belief that self-enquiry involves concentrating on a particular centre in the body called the Heart-centre. This widely held view results from a misinterpretation of some of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s statements on the Heart, and to understand how this belief has come about it will be necessary to take a closer look at some of his ideas on the subject.
In describing the origin of the ‘I’-thought he sometimes said that it arose to the brain through a channel which started from a centre in the right hand side of the chest. He called this centre the Heart centre and said that when the ‘I’-thought subsided into the Self it went back into the centre and disappeared. He also said that when the Self is consciously experienced, there is a tangible awareness that this centre is the source of both the mind and the world. However, these statements are not strictly true and Sri Ramana Maharshi sometimes qualified them by saying that they were only schematic representations which were given to those people who persisted in identifying with their bodies. He said that the Heart is not really located in the body and that from the highest standpoint it is equally untrue to say that the ‘I’-thought arises and subsides into this centre on the right of the chest. Because Sri Ramana Maharshi often said ‘Find the place where the “I” arises’ or ‘Find the source of the mind’, many people interpreted these statements to mean that they should concentrate in this particular centre while doing self-enquiry. Sri Ramana Maharshi rejected this interpretation many times by saying that the source of the mind or the ‘I’ could only be discovered through attention to the ‘I’-thought and not through concentration on a particular part of the body. He did sometimes say that putting attention on this centre is a good concentration practice, but he never associated it with self-enquiry. He also occasionally said that meditation on the Heart was an effective way of reaching the Self, but again, he never said that this should be done by concentrating on the Heart-centre. Instead he said that one should meditate on the Heart ‘as it is’. The Heart ‘as it is’ is not a location, it is the immanent Self and one can only be aware of its real nature by being it. It cannot be reached by concentration.”
As I said in an earlier post here, in understanding Ramana Maharshi, it is important to realize that he gave practical instruction suited to the situation at hand. In his time, he regularly asked about his position vs the theory that the seat of Self-Realization was in the sahasrara. In fact, as Ramana Maharshi pointed out, everyone intuitively “knows” that the I thought arises from that location from a physical POV. Ramana confirmed the ancient teaching that there there is a “knot” of ignorance felt there that prevents us from realizing the all pervasiveness of the Self. And the Self that he refers to is not found in the Heart center, but merely intuited as being sensed there while in body.
Ramana Maharshi describes this clearly here:
========
Question: Can I be sure that the ancients meant this centre by the term ‘Heart’?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes that is so. But you should try to have rather than to locate the experience. A man need not find out where his eyes are situated when he wants to see. The Heart is there ever open to you if you care to enter it, ever supporting all your movements even when you are unaware. It is perhaps more proper to say that the Self is the Heart itself than to say that it is in the Heart. Really, the Self is the centre itself. It is everywhere, aware of itself as ‘Heart’, the Self-awareness.
Question: In that case, how can it be localised in any part of the body? Fixing a place for the Heart would imply setting physiological limitations to that which is beyond space and time.
Sri Ramana Maharshi: That is right. But the person who puts the question about the position of the Heart considers himself as existing with or in the body. While putting the question now, would you say that your body alone is here but you are speaking from somewhere else? No, you accept your bodily existence. It is from this point of view that any reference to a physical body comes to be made.
Truly speaking, pure consciousness is indivisible, it is without parts. It has no form and shape, no ‘within’ and ‘without’. There is no ‘right’ or ‘left’ for it. Pure consciousness, which is the Heart, includes all, and nothing is outside or apart from it. That is the ultimate truth.
From this absolute standpoint, the Heart, Self or consciousness can have no particular place assigned to it in the physical body. What is the reason? The body is itself a mere projection of the mind, and the mind is but a poor reflection of the radiant Heart. How can that, in which everything is contained be itself confined as a tiny part within the physical body which is but an infinitesimal, phenomenal manifestation of the one reality?
But people do not understand this. They cannot help thinking in terms of the physical body and the world. For instance, you say, ‘I have come to this ashram all the way from my country beyond the Himalayas’. But that is not the truth. Where is ‘coming’ or ‘going’ or any movement whatever, for the one, all-pervading spirit which you really are? You are where you have always been. It is your body that moved or was conveyed from place to place till it reached this ashram. This is the simple truth, but to a person who considers himself a subject living in an objective world, it appears as something altogether visionary!
It is buy coming down to the level ordinary understanding that a place is assigned to the Heart in the physical body.
Question: How then shall I understand Sri Bhagavan’s statement that the experience of the heart-centre is at the particular place in the chest?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Once you accept that from the true and absolute standpoint, the Heart as pure consciousness is beyond space and time, it will be easy for you to understand the rest in its correct perspective….
…Know that though it is said that the Heart exists both inside and outside, in absolute truth it does not exist both inside and outside, because the body, which appears as the base of the differences ‘inside’ and ‘outside’, is an imagination of the thinking mind. Heart, the source, is the beginning, the middle and the end of all. Heart, the supreme space, is never a form. It is the light of truth.
===========
His method of self enquiry was in fact “Satsang” in its true form, attention of the sense of self juxtaposed against the intuition of the ever present source, Self, and by turning attention to the Self, which is also the Satguru, and which through mental contact, purification is intensifed by the eternal presence itself. Regarding the claim about seeking, itt is well known that Ramana Maharshi said that the whole premise of sadhana as seeking was absurd:
==========
“There is no greater mystery than the following: Ourselves beingthe Reality, we seek to gain reality. We think there is something hiding our Reality, and that it must be destroyed before the Reality is gained. That is ridiculous. A day will dawn when you will yourself laugh at your past efforts. That which will be on the day you laugh is also here and now.”
=========
Ramana Maharshi’s teaching on amrita nadi was very straightforward. He said that:
========
“… in the man in whom the ego-knot, the Hridayagranthi, is cut asunder, a force-current called Amrita Nadi rises and goes up to the Sahasrara, the crown of the head….When this passage is open, you have no moha, no ignorance. You know the Truth even when you talk, think or do anything, dealing with men and things.”
I have read portions of at least one account of an enlightened Ramana Maharshi devotee which can be found on the web describing that exact experience in similar terms. And to be clear, Da was never particularly accurate in his description of Ramana Maharshi or his realization, never met him in body, and was inconsistent in his assessment of him. What Ramana Maharshi teaches is that the result of this awakening to what is always the case is everything, including the world, is directly and non-separately known as nothing but the Unitary Self, without center or circumference. Thus according to Ramana Maharshi, the Heart is everywhere without center or circumference and Amrita Nadi nadi is not separate from the Heart but that consious force and light which shines upward through the sahasrara and illuminates awareness of the conditional realms and thought itself as the Self, etc.
========
As Ramana Maharshi also said:
=========
When the effulgent Light of Awareness shines in the Amrita Nadi (Atma Nadi) alone, nothing else shines except the Self.
Anything that appears before (such a Jnanií ) has no separate existence. He knows the Self, as clearly as the ignorant one knows his body.
He for whom the Atman (Self) alone shines, within, without and everywhere, as clearly as objects to the ignorant, is called one who has cut the knot.
This nexus is two-fold : one, the bond of the nadis the other, mental attachment. The perceiver, though subtle, perceives through the bond of the nadis the entire gross world.
When the Light, withdrawn from all the other nadis, dwells in one nadi alone, the knot (between Awareness and the body) is sundered and the Light abides as the Self.
======
It is true that in the very early Knee of Listening, Da says of his own experience of Amrita Nadi as he calls it:
“Bliss and energy of consciousness rise out of the Heart and enter the sahasrar, the highest point in consciousness, and stabilize there as a continuous current to the Heart.”
Da seems to have either seriously misinterpreted or taken statements out of context to support his claims that Ramana Maharshi never experienced or described a regenerated Amrita Nadi. In truth, Da seems to have overemphasized the significance of the locus of energy above instead, which is only above in relation to form anyway and which is merely the reflection of the conscious light but not really “outside” either the Self or the Heart as it Is. Nor does the Heart, which is beyond space and time and without center or circumference in truth, require a post realization continous current to the Heart. The fact that Ramana Maharshi didn’t dwell on Amrita Nadi that much it is that knowledge of it prior to Realization does not do much to aid it, and the ajnani tends to make it a subject of mental imagination and thus of seeking, and because Self-Realization automatically regenerates Amrita Nadi in any case. This lack of emphasis does not that Ramana Maharshi did not experience it. I would hope that you can acknowledge that is a possibility.
December 7, 2008 at 8:41 am
In an attempt to “catch up” with posts through yesterday…
I have noticed that some people here think that the Love-Bliss Transmission that Daists mention is some kind of kundalini or body-mind-based process. At least speaking for myself, I understand why you might think this, since kundalini shakti phenomena are much more commonly experienced and known about in the traditions. However, having a spiritual relationship to Adi Da Samraj, He Transmits the Love-Bliss that is characteristic of Reality’s State – not conditional kundalini shaktipat (even though these phenomena may be catalyzed in the devotee by His Ruchira Shaktipat, such kundalini phenomena are not themselves His Love-Bliss Transmission).
I do understand that there is no convincing anyone of the need for the Sat-Guru and His Ruchira Shaktipat. But once the devotee’s heart truly recognizes Reality and receives the Divine Person’s Radiant Transmission, there is instant conviction – at and from the heart! This is not body-mind-based, but the fundamental being is drawn into the Unconditional Love of Reality Itself.
Stevie – To answer a previous question of yours, yes, I am very happy for anyone who finds their true Sat-Guru. As you must know by now, Guru devotion is of utmost importance to me. (P.S. Your paragraph markers made your post much more readable. Now if we can convince others to break up their posts a bit more…)
shiva Says:
“nothing else. no re-inforcement of the search through disciplines…”
That is one of the main reasons that Westerners love the non-dual teachings. Somehow it is assumed that no disciplines are necessary. No way the body-mind can conduct the spiritual power of Reality without real preparation; and that is also one of the reasons for the right life disciplines of diet, exercise, etc., etc. Otherwise, the depth of understanding tends to be mind-based only.
shiva says:
“…why is the assumption that no guru is necessary inherently “talking school”? and why is only a transmission guru a true guru.
transmitting what? to whom? all dualistic concepts…”
No amount of mental presumption of non-duality will ever relieve the being of its felt duality – simply because all that presumption is the same duality that is being suffered. It is all mind. No amount of “mind” dharma will ever transcend the root of attention itself – though it may be and feel very lofty in terms of its non-dualistic considerations.
This is why the Guru is necessary and why true devotion to a God-Realized Master demonstrates real intelligent discrimination. For the ego to think otherwise, but still talk the non-dual talk, is talking school.
shiva, your teacher, Sailor Bob, is clearly some kind of guru to you. You can do the “non-dual speak” to me to try and answer my questions of you – that is fine; but from your own posts, it sure seems like he works as a teacher to you. The Guru is necessary, and Grace is necessary because only the Divine can free the being from its apparent double-bind.
However, it is not the Divine separate from the aspirant as you apparently have concluded about the practices as given by Bhagavan Adi Da. Having been a student, you must have understood that His Gift of Realization is given from the very beginning – but apparently you didn’t get this or at least were unable to live consistently in His Company on this basis. Believe me, I know it is very very difficult! It is always upon that basis that the Reality Way of Adidam is practiced.
All attempts to seek egoically are futile and lead to endless problems – and which may get very exaggerated very quickly the closer to the Master’s egoless fire you are. To not intensely practice when in His immediate Company (including His Empowered Sanctuaries) could cook you real quickly – and not in a pleasant way as you apparently have experienced.
However, if you are happy with your current teacher, then great! And the very best to you!
As atiasrama posted, Adi Da mentioned that J. Krishnamurti taught a form of “mind” dharma. Adi Da also mentioned that J. Krishnamurti had suffered an extremely powerful kundalini experience very early on, which locked him into the upper terminal (mind) – and was very dissociated from his lower body after that. (This was about 30 years ago when I heard Adi Da say something about this, so this is not verbatim.) It is also interesting what was posted about Papaji initiating Krishnamurti students due to Krishnamurti’s inability to do so. I wonder if these two conditions are related.
Perplexed Says:
“How about Naamleela now that you put it that way?”
PICTURE OF ADI DA SAMRAJ HERE
INSERT PICTURE OF YOURSELF HERE
WHICH ONE WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEDITATE ON FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE?
Ok, just to be clear, that Adidam Mission “proposal” was an attempt at making a humorous point only. I guess I won’t quit my day job!
Seriously, only Adi Da’s physical body is gone – not Him. His Murti photos are still points of contact, just like His Empowered Sanctuaries are. And by most devotees’ confessions – He is being received more potently than ever.
If I missed anyone’s question to me, please repost it if you like – there are too many posts here now to go back through them again.
On the reverse side, I am not sure Conradg saw this question from me – I probably should have paragraph marked it so that my question stands out more.
Also, to Former Follower and Critic and any other student/devotee of Ramana Maharshi, I will post this unanswered question (at least unanswered as of last night) of mine again:
Of course there are great similarities between Adi Da ’s and Ramana’s Realizations of the Self. However, Adi Da spoke in great detail about the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi and gives us a practice from the beginning beyond all seeking; whereas Ramana mainly spoke in terms of the Self to be found in the right side of the heart beginning with a practice based on the search to overcome a dilemma.
I cannot find passages in the books that I have where Ramana speaks of the all-inclusive (regenerated) manifestation of Amrita Nadi nor completely direct address to the futility of all seeking. If you could post some examples, especially of the former (the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi), that would be very interesting.
December 7, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Thanks for all the continuing great posts, and thanks Former Follower and Critic for all the Ramana quotes.
Here are a couple of typical brief quotes on the 6th and 7th stages, taken from the original Basket of Tolerance:
“The 6th stage error is the tendency to hold on to the Subjective Position of Consciousness, as if the Realization of Divine Consciousness depends upon strategically excluding Consciousness from its objects and thus cutting off all awareness of objective conditional phenomena”
“The Enlightened individual in the 7th stage of life has (in the “Perfect” fulfillment, or transcendence, of the 6th stage of life) Realized “Perfect” Devotion, or constant, inherent, uncaused, and unconditional identification with the Self-Radiant and Self-Existing Divine Person and Condition. Through Self-Abiding in the Divine Condition, conditional existence and all its objects are “Recognized” to be merely unnecessary and non-binding modifications of Self-Radiant Consciousness, and in that case, no mattter what arises, no limited self arises.”
These distinctions have never rung true for me, and to try to place Ramana or Nisargadatta in this alleged 6th stage error doesn’t make sense to me. In fact as I read the Ramana quotes posted above, and I type these Adi Da quotes here today, Ramana shines like the sun, and Adi Da gives me the willies (not so good ones).
I could rationalize a lot of behavior as crazy wisdom while I was a student with Adi Da, but I couldn’t knowingly accept false teaching. That’s why when Adi Da proclaimed himself the sole occupant of the 7th stage, that was the last straw for me. (And of course, the whole notion of an Enlightened individual is an odd way to conceptualize the 7th stage understanding.)
Who am I to criticize Beloved’s Teaching? That’s a good question, but no more important than Who am I not to, or just Who am I? I want to understand this 6th/7th stage thing which has been important to me and has never made sense. My presumption now is that it is flawed dharma.
Dharma is important! I wasn’t there for Ishta Guru Bhakti Yoga. When I first signed on as a student, listening to the point of hearing was the real deal (as in Advaita, which is dishonored when that very real process gets tossed aside as “talking school”).
December 7, 2008 at 1:09 pm
“Love is the only godamm god there is!”….
don’tcha know?
tcha!
December 7, 2008 at 2:37 pm
This morning I woke up full of doubt, fear and self loathing. I realized that I was once again throwing away the gift of understanding my self. And while the yoga of the mind is a good discipline, without being informed by allowing the heart to remain open, and the body free of necessary agitation it is empty blathering and so I bid you all adieu, to mature in practice, and thank you for your gift of reflection.
December 7, 2008 at 2:52 pm
It’s the Right One, It’s the Bright One, Any When Any Where…It’s Arunachala Ramana Da ..The Radiant Heart of All
December 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I submit the following addendum: A..Any Who Any What,Any When Any Where…Glorious Golden Bright I AM
December 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm
SavagePilgrim asks where are the Lions?
I think in the past several months, whenever it was Oprah and Eckhart Tolle did their webclass on each chapter of Tolle’s A New Earth (great book!), the Lion population went up quite a bit.
Now I know that these popularizing, non-guru (and workbook) based mediums are something that many here may find as “talking” school or, even worse, merely commercial exploitation of advaitic teachings. I think, though, Eckhart and Oprah had a profound impact in getting a lot of people to enter that stream. It was great stuff. So, let me suggest that ordinary people are becoming the Lions here.
December 7, 2008 at 5:18 pm
The whole culture of Da-ists/ism is obviously self protective and designed to regulate (nulify) critisism, even when justified. Just using the honorific “Beloved” , or “Bright One”,would prevent one from clearly seeing fault when it is obvious. I mean, who would use the term asshole-beloved, dumb shit beloved, downright mean, manipulative and narcissistic beloved. It wouldn’t happen. If you buy the whole “Beloved” thing you are convinced of all the amazing and God-like qualities that comes with the name. You build a structure of mythic proportions to justify your pov. Yes, bliss and love are real effects when steeping yourself in an environment of bliss and love. But, that doesn’t justify a conretized vision of your Guru that is always above reproach. This becomes one’s philosophy and then you seek out the justifications for it.
When you sit down in front of your guru and feel the bliss of Divine Love (and then neme that guru the “Beloved”) “Beloved = Divine; Your lifes’ prayer has been answered and thus your Beloved is unchallangable, unquestionable. You tend to dismiss anything that challanges the pov of your faith. It is very similar to born-again Christians who put up a wall of scripture to discount any point that challanges their ‘perfect’ belief in Christ as the “one and only begotten Son of God”, period.
The thing I find most telling is that the devotees of Da who are so protective of their relationship with him, so convinced of him and so wrapped up in their “all about him” thing, are missing the boat of radical non-dualism. The Beloved has become this gigantic OTHER. Divine, Bright, Blissful, Loving, etc. That is not, in any stretch of the imagination, qualified as non-dualism. God is the condition of existence and prior to existence (to quote Da). God is to be realized as the condition of all being(s)…even you, before any objectification or self and other reference points.
What I am getting, and got years ago, is that Da bathed in his delight at being the “Beloved” Other. It was and is the stated practice to put all your attention on him (who has already transcended the world). So, let’s resolve this issue right now. Da-ism is a bakti cult (non-pejorative). It has been and still is that. There really is no need to make it anything else.
When I first became involved with the community and Bubba Free-john, it was about “Understanding” and the radical argument. He was the great Bubba the great friend to guide one to the radical realization of that. In time as the names changed from bubba to Da to others and finally Adi Da Samraj, etc. the radical became subordinate to the Ishta Guru Bakti yoga practice.
So, I get it. He is your Divine Ishta, no argument attached. The chasm comes between those who were under the impression that that it was about the non-dual realization without even the slightest trace of self and other and those whose motivation is all about attention to the Divine Beloved Other. What I have read from other detractors, and also offered by myself, is that, after all the angst settles, he just didn’t measure up to what what I was looking for. That’s all. No more no less. This in no way makes me any less devoted to God. It just means I don’t look for God outside of direct, natural awareness without reference points.
For those of us who were not there for the “Ishta Guru” it becomes understandable why the “teaching demonstrations” are often seen as abuse and manipulation and not Divine nectar from the Beloved.
December 7, 2008 at 5:50 pm
For Daists and non-believers alike here is a wonderful Gift from the Self to the Self that puts you straight into the Witness State beyond all differences and sectarian strife particularly if you’re having a difficult time getting over your own and other’s reactivity or you still feel yourself to be a victim of what happened in the past:
TAT (Tapas Acupressure Technique) with free downloadable instructions :www tatlife dot com (the jewel of newly emerging field of Energy Medicine) gently but rapidly & permanently releases reactive emotions trauma limiting beliefs etc.
Simple easy to learn and effective i have found it to be incredibly helpful with all kinds of issues both mundane and spiritual.
As an ex-student of BFJAD (Bubba/FrankJones/AdiDa) & Barry Long I found U.G.Krishnamurti to be extremely helpful in breaking away to find my own truth without the unconscious addiction to personality cults of teachers & perceived authority figures of all kinds dating back to my childhood.
I am very grateful to him for that, he really was the “real deal” and pointed the finger right back at me, truly “kicked my butt” (and everyone else’s whether they realize it or not, including BFJAD) like no-one else & showed me things about myself, life & the universe way beyond what I could have imagined or what any guru or teacher I have EVER encountered has been able to do, so that I could move on and honestly discover by myself who or what i really am without any kind of restrictions whatsoever..imho the true definition of a guru.Together with Sri Ramana he really takes the ticket)..
The teachings of the American Sage Arnold Patent I also found to be very down-to-earth and helpful, incorporating the highest spiritual teachings, with unconditional acceptance of yourself EXACTLY AS YOU ARE and the WORLD EXACTLY AS IT IS WITHOUT ANY JUDGEMENTS, through the simple act of FEELING and feeling Love for your feelings however “ugly”or “bad” they appear to be at first sight, thereby reclaiming any power you have invested in anything or anyone “outside” yourself … as a result some of BFJAD teachings finally appeared to make sense to me.
This proved to be my first real introduction to the true meaning and practise of Love in my everyday life , and a necessary bridge to help me to function, live in and make sense of the ordinary world after the years of dissociation & loss I felt after leaving behind BFJAD & the Daist community/cult/organization
Part of the process of being set free from the past:as some kind of cosmic joke the Universe even hooked me up for a time with a woman who was the spitting image of a younger Frank/Bubba.. isn’t that weird (or a gift..
..)?…she was a borderline sufferer too so i really got my money’s worth thank you..lol
Releasing beliefs and judgements and using of the Mirror Principle, namely all see (aka the world) is none other than my Self, appreciating myself just as I am, feeling grateful for life & the world just the way it is, were profoundly helpful to me after practising on a daily basis what initially appeared to me to be a flimsy lightweight New Age meditation called the Feeling Exercise (from Arnold Patent).
It goes like this:
The Feeling Exercise steps are:
1. Feel the feeling free of any thoughts you have about it. Feel the energy, the power, in the feeling.
2. Feel love for the feeling just the way it is. Feel love for the power in the feeling.
3. Feel love for yourself feeling the feeling and feeling the power in the feeling.
..it can be practised in front of a mirror aswell.Kind of pro-active vipassana or variant of the Taoist Inner Smile
It helped me to regain a connection to myself that I had lost through the cultic adoration of “others” at numerous times in my life, and unleashed a tremendous amount of creative energy that (shakti) had lain dormant for most of my life.
After a while I saw for myself that this regular practise of feeling, & eventually choosing love in every moment, led me to a “moment of recognition” that bore an uncanny similarity to what i read long ago of BFJAD’s “7th Stage Teachings” (Feeling without Limitation
), and I finally got what he was on about, or shall we say, in a way that was meaningful to me personally as a spiritual insight at the time.
This has formed a part of my “daily spiritual practise” if you can call it that, for many years, and helped me with feeling at home in the world and with everyday issues especially money sexuality and relationships, which are all areas where emotions reign supreme
…I have been guided all the while on my own unique path, aswell as to the ultimate realization that so many have so eloquently stated here on this blog & elsewhere : that there is “no self at all to realize” (Acausal Divine Reality perhaps
) ..what a paradox! for which I am eternally grateful NOW, and so pleased that so many are getting it..a happy “begin-without an-ending” 
I wholeheartedly agree with all the well thought criticisms of dissenters, particularly the astute comments of Ramana fans, and yet I cannot deny that BFJAD, aka the Beloved, who apparently re-created himself by channneling the ancient archetype of the Vedic pantheon Brahma Da Prajapati, The “Creator” (with all the attendant perils) had an undeniable influence on me.
Especially the last years, ironically helping me to recognize and release aspects of my shadow, using the above mentioned practise, which is an ongoing process of spiritual housekeeping, no more and no less ( to this end Arnold Patent’s Feeling Exercise & Energy Medicine like EFT, TAT and ZPoint have comprised my premium mental-spiritual toolkit)
…aswell as giving me my first glimpse and encounter with the elegantly simple & profound Way of the Heart as revealed through Bhagwan Arunachala the Golden Bright –
the Ever Present Self Existing Supreme Reality I AM and His consort PachaiAmman (Pacha Mama) Gaia the Earth Mother Who Are Eternally One Present and Gifted In and as the Heart of All Beings..:) For all this I express my gratitude to “seemingly separate” Adi Da, all the while remaining relaxed, firm & true to what I know to be be my own truth as I have experienced it firsthand.
I’ve also been moved & inspired by the devotion of devotees of Adi Da here on this blog, and I recognize their ecstatic outpourings very well, as they have brought back nostalgic feelings from that time, which is why i just wrote all that devotional stuff just there lol, and i am able to perceive them for what they are without an iota of cynicism thank god.
As my dear friend Stevie said above
“Love is the only goddamn god(-S) there is !”
..or as I would add: let’s remember we’re all just looking at an elephant folks and quit bickering..
..Freedom is FREE, She doesn’t belong to anybody
In Gratitude
Love Peace Freedom Laughter & Infinitely Abundant Blessings to All
(Regardless of your creed affiliation or “level of realization)
xxx
December 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Fare-well to the Muhammad Ali of Non-Duality xxx
December 7, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Thank you Conradg and Former Follower and Critic, for refreshing me with those quotes – I will definitely save those for further study. I actually was looking in the books I have of Ramana (very old) and could not find them about Amrita Nadi. Of course, I remember Adi Da’s passages in The Knee of Listening of how Ramana’s Realization was the only one that corroborated what Adi Da had Realized at the time – but because I was reading Ramana’s books, I missed those passages of Ramana quoted by Adi Da! Hahahaha! Go figure.
However, it does seem obvious that Ramana seldom spoke of Amrita Nadi, as Former Follower and Critic also points out. At the level of Being, I cannot assume that there is any difference between Bhagavan Adi Da and Sri Ramana. However, it is very obvious to me that Adi Da’s and Ramana’s emphasis and functions are very different.
As Adi Da points out in a poignant example in The Knee of Listening (2004, page 453-454), Ramana was speaking to a group of young men, who obviously were not ready for the non-duality practice of Self-enquiry – but Ramana still spoke to them in non-dualistic terms. This is an example of his predilection for only Self-Abiding and not actually addressing them directly about maintaining their health properly, etc. Also, in this edition of The Knee of Listening, Adi Da says on page 455:
“And, much like (generally) comparable Realizers in the various (specifically, and often, more or less exclusively) sixth stage traditions, Ramana Maharshi was not, in the Fullest (and Truly Yogic) sense, a True Siddha-Guru, Who directly Serves and directly Awakens devotees by direct (and consistently Effective) Spiritual Transmission – but He was a True Jnana-Guru, or One Who Serves and Awakens devotees indirectly, by Silent and thought-free Self-Abidance In and As the Transcendental (and Inherently Spiritual) Self-Condition (and Source-Condition) That Is Consciousness Itself, but (in contrast to the case of a True Siddha-Guru) not directly, through open, voluntary, even (at least, at times) intentional, and truly consistent Spiritual Effectiveness.”
“Therefore, Ramana Maharshi simply pointed toward the “fourth state” (beyond waking, dreaming, and sleeping), or the “natural state” (Which Is “like sleep”, but Which Is Only Consciousness Itself). And His fundamental Teaching can be summarized briefly (in His own Words):
Adi Da quotes the following From Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi:
“The mind is to be introverted and made to merge into the Self; … the practice must be long because [it is] slow and [it] must be continued until it [the mind] is totally merged in the Self. … All that is required of you is not to confound [or identify] yourself with the extrovert mind but to abide as the Self.”
So it seems entirely plausible to me that Sri Ramana’s emphasis and function were toward the Heart on the right and the Silence therein; and Bhagavan Adi Da’s emphasis necessarily had to be the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi for the sake of utterly completing and transcending the Great Path of Return for all men and women both East and West – and also quite probably for reasons no mere mortals could possibly comprehend.
Are there other modern realizers who have realized Amrita Nadi – and who have written extensively about it? Do you guys consider Ramana Maharshi your Guru? Have either of you Realized Amrita Nadi? There seems to be too little personal confession about most people’s practice on this thread, in my opinion.
Please understand that I am first and foremost a devotee of Adi Da eternally and that includes trusting Him as Spiritual Master. He has never told me to do anything that did not serve my practice directly. Did I always understand it at the time? No, but sometimes even years later, I realize how much something He said or did served me.
I have long had intuitions of the causal heart, as I mentioned earlier, even the circuit of Amrita Nadi, but I also see now that I clearly needed a very concentrated body-mind based practice of disciplines because of a strong tendency toward mind-dharma. (I very much related to Ramana Maharshi and J. Krishnamurti in my teens, to give you some idea.)
Of course, Adi Da has always admonished us to begin and end each day with extended periods of meditation. But I also know that I have needed all kinds of right life bodily disciplines all these years; and all of this testing and capacity to surrender because the practice is no longer a mind-dharma – it is Reality’s Love-Bliss directly Transmitted by Reality – no doubt about it! It frees me directly and on that basis I can do the disciplines happily.
So when I read The Knee of Listening (2004) once again, I not only trust what He says but also it really does make sense to me from an overall standpoint.
There are no absolute ways to prove or disprove what any of us are presenting about these very advanced processes, and really, what does it matter ultimately? If you have a personal, direct Guru-disciple relationship with Ramana Maharshi and He is Initiating you directly and fully – then great! That is the case for me with Bhagavan Adi Da.
What is most important is that we have True Realizers who Are Reality to Behold! What a blessing to directly recognize and surrender to Acausal Reality not just to our minds and some sense of the Witness!
Also, I do understand that “no-seeking” has been the basis for non-duality teachings for ever. However, no one has ever explained it so well, nor incorporated it into a vast body of Teaching that includes everything necessary about all levels of spiritual development, like Adi Da Samraj has.
Almost no one is up to non-dualism as typically laid out here in the West, but Adi Da has completely integrated the Truth of Non-Dualism (No-Seeking) with ALL levels of responsive practice! No one has ever done that in the entire history of religion and spirituality.
So with regards to “Adidam presumptions” that you are presuming I have, Conradg, would I be asking about all of this here if I were simply locked into some mind-set? And besides, what do I really know about any of this anyway? And unless you have realized this yourself, what do you know about it, really? That is the point of having a Spiritual Master, right?
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“I was involved during that period but not at the sanctuary and do not recall the particular talk on July 12, 1976 called “The Death and Birth of the God-Man”. As you recall, that was during the early part of a period of extended considerations on presuming enlightenment. My recollection of the period was that Da’s plan then was to leave a community of devotees open to his eternal presence and empowered sites rather than a single successor. If there is value in this talk or others relevant to this passing, I would ask that yout post what you intended. Dharma dialogue does not necessarily indicate too much negativity, and no matter what is said, someone may criticize it, but that doesn’t mean nothing should be said.”
I have no problem with the kind of discussion we are having now – but some people are simply spiteful and disrespectful with little self-understanding. This blog has seen too much of that, in my opinion. Even the person called “Editor” with his obvious agenda from adidaarchives, shows up here because so many dark critics were gathered here. But some of you have been at least respectful in your criticism. Anyway, here is something about that talk:
Yes, Former Follower and Critic, your memory serves you well – that was basically what Adi Da said back then, and as far as I understand it now, this still holds true for the future of Adidam. He told us that His death would come suddenly, but only when we were spiritually prepared to incarnate as Him – and, for Him that would be His Real Birth. He also looked at all of us and said “Taking that into account, this is obviously not the moment!”
Hahahahahaha! What a motley crew we were!
By the way, you have never told me what the process of Grace is to you.
December 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
I would like to share something from many years ago when I was in a relationship with a beautiful and crazy woman from Chile who was almost the spitting image of Bubba/Franklin. A gift/cosmic joke from the Universe in hindsight.
I confess I did something I never did before even though I’ve been a musician for over 20 years : I heard a song that actually moved me so much I decided to learn to sing it and accompany myself on guitar, and what’s more it was in Spanish which is not my mother tongue.I consider it to be one of the most beautiful songs ever written though probably few people in the english-speaking world ever heard it
It is written by Silvio Rodriguez Dominguez, a Cuban singer songwriter and one of the pioneers of the Nueva Trova that arose at the time of the Cuban Revolution and it’s straight from the heart.
He wrote songs with astoundingly beautiful and surreal lyrics and melodies with intricate classically influenced harmonies which couldn’t help but remind me of someone I once knew
As I couldn’t find an English translation anywhere of this song which is something of an anthem throughout Latin America I have endeavoured to freely render one of my own, so please forgive me if you notice any errors or it appears clumsy.
I dedicate this to Adi Da, as to me it seems most appropriate when I think of him (even though it has been dedicated imho erroneously by the author to leaders of an altogether more militant disposition).If there are any spanish speaking devotees perhaps they would like to make a better translation and correct any errors.
At the bottom is a link where you can listen to the original version performed by Silvio Rodriguez himself (who is a folk hero with a large following “south of the border as they say.
You can listen to it at the following link:
POR QUIEN MERECE AMOR
Te molesta mi amor?
Mi amor de juventud
y mi amor es un arte de virtud
Te molesta mi amor?
Mi amor sin antifaz
y mi amor es un arte de paz
Te molesta mi amor?
Mi amor de humanidad
y mi amor es un arte en su edad
Te molesta mi amor?
Mi amor de surtidor
y mi amor es un arte mayor
Mi amor es mi prenda encantada
es mi extensa morada
es mi espacio sin fin
mi amor, no precisa frontera
como la primavera
no prefiere jardin
Mi amor, no es amor de mercado
porque un amor sangrado
no es amor de lucrar
mi amor es todo cuanto tengo
si lo niego o lo vendo
para que respirar ?…
Te molesta mi amor?…
Mi amor no es amor de uno solo
sino alma de todo
lo que urge sanar
mi amor es un amor de abajo
que el devenir me trajo
para hacerlo empinar
Mi amor, el mas enamorado
es el mas olvidado
en su antiguo dolor
mi amor abre pecho a la muerte
y despeña su suerte
por un tiempo mejor
mi amor, este amor aguerrido
es un sol encendido
por quien merece amor..
FOR WHOEVER DESERVES LOVE
Does my Love disturb you?
My Love of Youth
And my Love is an Artistry (full) of virtue.
Does my Love upset you?
My Love without masks
And my Love is an Artistry of Peace
Does my Love perturb you?
My Love of Humanity
My Love is an Artistry of it’s Age
Does my Love disturb you?
My Love as gushing forth like a jet
and my Love is a Great Form of Art
My Love…is my Enchanted Treasure
It’s my Extended Abode
It’s my Space without End
My Love ..no precise border.
Like Summer, It doesn’t prefer the garden
My Love, isn’t a love of the marketplace
Because a Love that bleeds
Isn’t one to profit from
My Love is all I have
If I ignore It or sell It
Then what am I breathing for?
Does my Love disturb you?
My Love is not a Love of one only
but in the Heart and Soul of each and everybody
My love is a Love from below
That which urges Healing
That which Transformation brings Me
to make Itself Exalted.
My Love, the Most in Love
It is the Most Forgotten & Neglected One
In It’s Ancient Sorrow.
My Love opens It’s Heart to Death
And gushes forth It’s Good Fortune
For a better Day and Age
My Love, this battle-weary Love
It’s a passionately burning Sun
For Whoever deserves Love
I have freely capitalized in the Master’s style in order to make it a fitting tribute to Him. May His Blessing extend to All Freely.
In Love
I AM
December 7, 2008 at 10:11 pm
We have now posted a final version of our Adi Da Obituary at http://www.adidaarchives.org/adi_da_death.htm after significant revisions to the first DRAFT that was posted at this nonduality blog. Thanks to all who e-mailed with feedback. I am very happy with the final document.
December 7, 2008 at 11:36 pm
No124c41, I can empathize with your reasons for departing Da’s community. I had no issue with the Bhakti approach as Ramana Maharshi described, but not with the manner Ishta Guru Bhakti became modified in Da’s community. This was intensified particularly when I began to see signs of either repetitive distortion or lack of understanding of what those like Ramana Maharshi lived and taught, and an inability for any kind of “consideration” on this subject based on what Ramana Maharshi actually said and did.
Based on those quotes from Basket of Tolerance, Da teaches:
“The 6th stage error is the tendency to hold on to the Subjective Position of Consciousness, as if the Realization of Divine Consciousness depends upon strategically excluding Consciousness from its objects and thus cutting off all awareness of objective conditional phenomena”
“The Enlightened individual in the 7th stage of life has (in the “Perfect” fulfillment, or transcendence, of the 6th stage of life) Realized “Perfect” Devotion, or constant, inherent, uncaused, and unconditional identification with the Self-Radiant and Self-Existing Divine Person and Condition. Through Self-Abiding in the Divine Condition, conditional existence and all its objects are “Recognized” to be merely unnecessary and non-binding modifications of Self-Radiant Consciousness, and in that case, no mattter what arises, no limited self arises.”
What is interesting about all this is that from 1970-1993, Da made no attempt to publically claim that Ramana Maharshi was a incomplete Realizer of the sixth stage only, and had listed him as an example of complete enlightenment.
The problem is that the evidence does not support this claim. Da references only one specific example in his criticism of Ramama Maharshi, the one Conradg cites above, about the young men fixated on health and Ramana Maharshi’s instruction to them. Put in the proper context, Ramama Maharshi’s response is perfectly appropriate. There was a long standing tradition in India, related to Raja Yoga, that only after the body had been relatively perfected could the pursuit of enlightenment be engaged, and that is the context in which the question is asked. Ramana Maharshi dealt with these cultural myths a lot, and in this case, properly points out that there is no end to pursuit of physical health in an impermanent body, meaning that a more direct practice is better. He was not saying to ignore the body, and there is no evidence these questioners, interested in the dharma conflict between these two perspectives, needed advice on a money food and sex level because that was implied in the yoga path they were talking about.
What Ramana Maharshi actually said is nothing like the sixth stage error Da asserts:
===========
Question: If the jnani and the ajnani perceive the world in like manner, where is the difference between them?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Seeing the world, the jnani sees the Self which is the substratum of all that is seen; the ajnani, whether he sees the world or not, is ignorant of his true being, the Self….
Question: What is the difference between the Baddha and the Mukta, the bound man and the one liberated?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ordinary man lives in the brain unaware of himself in the Heart. The jnana-siddha (jnani) lives in the Heart. When he moves about and deals with men and things, he knows that what he sees is not separate from the one supreme reality, the Brahman which he realised in the Heart as his own Self, the real.
Question: What about the ordinary man?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: I have just said that he sees things outside himself. He is separate from the world, from his own deeper truth, from the truth that supports him and what he sees. The man who has realised the supreme truth of his own existence realises that it is the one supreme reality that is there behind him, behind the world. In fact, he is aware of the one, as the real, the Self in all selves, in all things, eternal and immutable, in all that is impermanent and mutable.
Question: Is there no Dehatma Buddhi (I-am-the-body idea) for the jnani? If, for instance, Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no sensation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is the sensation and there is also the dehatma buddhi. The latter is common to both jnani and ajnani with this difference, that the ajnani thinks only the body is myself, whereas the jnani knows all is of the Self, or all this is Brahman. If there be pain let it be. It is also part of the Self. The Self is Poorna (perfect). After transcending dehatma buddhi one becomes a jnani. In the absence of that idea there cannot be either Kartritva (doership) or Karta (doer). So a jnani has no karma (that is, a jnani performs no actions). That is his experience. Otherwise he is not a jnani. However, the ajnani identifies the jnani with his body, which the jnani does not do.
Question: You have said that the jnani can be and is active, and deals with men and things. I have no doubt about it now. But you say at the same time that he sees no differences; to him all is one, he is always in the consciousness. If so, how does he deal with differences, with men, with things, which are surely different?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He sees these differences as but appearances, he sees them as not separate from the true, the real, with which he is one….I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realisation you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True, the jnani appreciates the distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth.
Question: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality towards all?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.
“Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani.” (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37).
You ask about jnanis: they are the same in any state or condition, as they know the reality, the truth. In their daily routine of taking food, moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. Not a single action is done for themselves. I have already told you many times just as there are people whose profession is to mourn for a fee, so also the jnanis do things for the sake of others with detachment, without themselves being affected by them.
Questioner: There are said to be Sadeha Mukta (liberated while still in the body) and Videha Mukta (liberated at the time of death).
Sri Ramana Maharshi: There is no liberation, and where are Muktas?
Question: Do not Hindu sastras speak of mukti (liberation)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Mukti is synonymous with the Self. Jivan Mukti (liberated while still in the body) and Videha Mukti are all for the ignorant. The jnani is not conscious of Mukti or Bandha (bondage). Bondage, liberation and orders of Mukti are all said for an ajnani in order that ignorance might be shaken off. There is only Mukti and nothing else.
========
The above is just representative and not exhaustive of Ramana Maharshi’s comments. There is no evidence of “the tendency to hold on to the Subjective Position of Consciousness, as if the Realization of Divine Consciousness depends upon strategically excluding Consciousness from its objects and thus cutting off all awareness of objective conditional phenomena.” Since there is nothing except the Unitary Self and the differences are seen as superficial and never opposed to Truth, this “sixth stage” limitation obviously does not apply.
December 8, 2008 at 12:21 am
To current Da devotees: please don’t be offended
To current Da critics: stop laughing
To the “dharma debaters”: an irrelevant diversion
THE SEVEN TANTRA OF DA
http://mysite.verizon.net/mattbl/tantra.htm
The true interpretation of the 7-stage model.
Bona fides: class of ’75-76 (Bubba, Sadhana groups, Divine Communion, ashtray considerations, $6/day lifestyle, apricot kernels, Bill Stratton for Supervisor, naked household parties, etc.)
December 8, 2008 at 2:03 am
Let us be aware of the tendency to Spiritual Materialism (beautiful term coined by the “crazy wise” Tibetan lama
…namely we aren’t and never will be as perfect as this or that role model (that goes for ANY and ALL rolemodels not just the “heavyweights” in the spiritual marketplace)
ChögyamTrungpa) or trying to keep up with the Joneses — pun intended
..it’s exactly the same follow the leader (while you compare & belittle yourself) dynamic going on everywhere all the time on this planet in every single field of human activity.
You really are an elitist bunch you advaitins and non-dualists (btw has anyone ever even bothered to check out Ramanuja’s Visishtadvaita — “Oneness of the Organic Unity” or “the world is real and not an illusion” –which at the time resulted in more than one attempt on his life including by his Advaitin teacher during the 11th Century AD.His renegade stance in the face of Shankara Shaivist monism may assist in the Daist standpoint being a little better understood..as they say there’s nothing new under the sun).
Let’s Lighten up for god’s sake everyone lol.
So on a Lighter note here is a veritable “Song of the Self” written by Brazilian composer and father of the Bossa Nova Tom Jobim performed in a duet with Elis Regina, one of Brazil’s greatest singers, dedicated to everyone of you out there who has been graced beyond Grace (for me this is bhakti and jnana rolled into one..I mean even Sri Nisargadatta enjoyed singing his bhajjans didn’t he for god’s sake..
..)
THE WATERS OF MARCH (AGUAS DE MARḈO)
By Antonio Carlos Jobim
A stick, a stone, it’s the end of the road
It’s the rest of a stump, it’s a little alone
It’s a sliver of glass, it is life, it’s the sun
It is night, it is death, it’s a trap, it’s a gun
The oak when it blooms, a fox in the brush
A knot in the wood, the song of a thrush
The wood of the wind, a cliff, a fall
A scratch, a lump, it is nothing at all
It’s the wind blowing free, it’s the end of the slope
It’s a beam it’s a void, it’s a hunch, it’s a hope
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It’s the end of the strain
The joy in your heart
The foot, the ground, the flesh and the bone
The beat of the road, a slingshot’s stone
A fish, a flash, a silvery glow
A fight, a bet the range of a bow
The bed of the well, the end of the line
The dismay in the face, it’s a loss, it’s a find
A spear, a spike, a point, a nail
A drip, a drop, the end of the tale
A truckload of bricks in the soft morning light
The sound of a shot in the dead of the night
A mile, a must, a thrust, a bump,
It’s a girl, it’s a rhyme, it’s a cold, it’s the mumps
The plan of the house, the body in bed
And the car that got stuck, it’s the mud, it’s the mud
A float, a drift, a flight, a wing
A hawk, a quail, the promise of spring
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It’s the promise of life, it’s the joy in your heart
A stick, a stone, it’s the end of the road
It’s the rest of a stump, it’s a little alone
A snake, a stick, it is John, it is Joe
It’s a thorn in your hand and a cut in your toe
A point, a grain, a bee, a bite
A blink, a buzzard, a sudden stroke of night
A pin, a needle, a sting a pain
A snail, a riddle, a wasp, a stain
A pass in the mountains, a horse and a mule
In the distance the shelves rode three shadows of blue
And the river talks of the waters of March
It’s the promise of life in your heart
A stick, a stone, the end of the road
The rest of a stump, a lonesome road
A sliver of glass, a life, the sun
A knife, a death, the end of the run
And the river bank talks of the waters of March
It’s the end of all strain, it’s the joy in your heart
And to close (I hope you enjoyed that little gem btw) this:
“After silence, that which comes closest to expressing the inexpressible is music” Aldous Huxley
December 8, 2008 at 2:23 am
Feel for God wrote…
> It is the talking school advocates of non-duality
> that tend to think that such preparation and
> submission to a Guru is unnecessary
When someone speaks or writes criticism of the “talking school,” they’re “opening their mouth.” That means they’ve entered the talking school. To use words to criticize the talking school… is like promoting vegetarianism while eating a cheeseburger.
The authentic way to object to the talking school is to stop talking. But it’s only attachment to words that’s a problem — the wanting to get something from words. USING words is fine and good.
Also: to give meaning to the question of whether a Guru is “necessary,” we’d need to get clear on “necessary for what?” If you want something, then some technique or strategy may be helpful in the effort to get it and hold it for a while. Then there’s the separate issue of inquiring into the “want” itself… is it anything more than a thought appearing and disappearing? If we don’t want anything, then nothing is necessary.
> because such advocates tend to be more
> mind-based, even wanting to exclude the
> body and whole bodily right life disciplines.
No need to exclude disciplines, but we can examine the mind that wants to get something from a discipline. It’s not a bad mind; it may be helpful at some times. But if we’re inquiring, we can ultimately inquire into this mind that wants to get something.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 8, 2008 at 2:44 am
Feel4God,
This is a limited response. I will try and respond more later on. Since you asked, grace as I refer to it is like an unseen gentle hand that guides you even when consciously you are unaware of it and often can be seen only in retrospect. I find abundant grace in Ramana Maharshi and confirmation of his living presence, which accomplishes what it will despite my resistance in its own time.
Da has always put the relevant quotes on the Heart and Amrita Nadi from Ramana Maharshi from the earliest editions of Knee of Listening. I guess I paid closer attention to them because of my interest in Ramana Maharshi. This information was no secret. To give you just one example, I bought a copy of Mountain Path in the former Dawn Horse Bookstore that contained a reference to Amrita Nadi that taken word for word, if you did not take into consideration the differences in how they defined the word enquiry, would have been identical to what Da was saying then. But back then it wasn’t such an issue since nobody was questioning Ramana Maharshi’s realization.
Let us look precisely at the quotes Da and you are referring to:
======
A group of young men asked: “It is said that a healthy mind can be only in a healthy body. Should we not attempt to keep the body always strong and healthy?”
M.: In that way there will be no end of attention to the health of the body.
D.: The present experiences are the result of past Karma. If we know the mistakes committed before we can rectify them.
M.: If one mistake is rectified there yet remains the whole sanchita which is going to give you innumerable births. So that is not the procedure. The more you prune a plant, the more vigorously it grows. The more you rectify your Karma, the more it accumulates. Find the root of Karma and cut it off.
=====
As I have said, there is nothing in the context that drives the assumptions you are making, and no evidence that Ramana’s statements in front of the actual young people as a jnani “seeing the truth in all people and things”, is off. The setting is not the more modern scene in America where people just show up casually to see gurus and ask questions. These young men are, as I said, given the cultural setting, fully respectful of Ramana Maharshi and his basic teaching already. They are asking about the widespread dogma in India at the time, and the basis of raja yoga and some other schools, that body health is essential for undertaking practices like concentration and meditation and the higher stages of practice. They are not just talking about the local health club, and the principles of right living, satvic diet, and sexual balance were well known in India at the time and needed no restatement. Ramana is simply saying the obvious, that health is transient at best, and that spiritual practice is not dependent on maintaining good health, and is what is important. He is not saying ignore health.
The second question refers to another well known school of thought in India, that given the absolute law of karma, knowledge of past karma was essential to rectify it. Again, Ramana Maharshi points out the futilty of such an effort, since the assumption of the doer himself is the source of the karma.
And what is so wrong with that, gently explaining the flaw in their assumptions about how to resolve karma? In the meantime, it is well known that in the powerful presence of Ramana Maharshi these young men were being affected and given silent instruction, a method that has a proven track record of effectiveness over time. It is important to note that Ramana himself said his Silence was more effective and there is plenty of evidence of that. The grace from the look of a Satguru and its effect can not be evaluated by snippets from a book about what was said out of context. There are many, many talks in that book. The contemporary western based assumptions about where these young people needed advice, and the cultural understanding they would have had, are just that. I do not understand the inability of those in Da’s community to presume that the words Ramana Maharshi chose were to all appearances perfectly appropriate to what they needed to hear, that there was far more than just words going on, and that what is in that book is a summary of what was said and not a transcript in any case. Now it is true that regardless of what I say, you will presume Da to be correct in his assessment because you are a devotee and that is part of the Adidam dogma. But, do you not see that the resulting presumption that Ramana Maharshi who was enlightened and actually was there in communion with the young people was so far off, can only be based on that faith? Disagreement based on faith is one thing. But the evidence taken in the larger context of the culture and Ramana Maharshi’s way of doing things simply does not support your contention that something else would have been more appropriate.
Since you asked, there is only one particularly vivid account regarding in relation to enlightenment and Heart realization in a Ramana Maharshi devotee that I have seen that is readily available to read on the internet. If you refer to this site, you can find it: http://bhagavan-ramana.org/janakimata.html. This is the gist of it, directly copied as written from that site:
================
(12th January 1938) [Sri Matha's Moment of Realization] “…In a few seconds she [Sri Matha] was drowned in meditation. Right from her feet, her limbs became rigid gradually and soon there was no sign of life in the body up to the stomach. She also could not stretch out her hands, With the torpidity slowly gaining ground, Sri Matha thought that she was nearing her end and that he life would soon be extinct. But as she was ever ready to shuffle off her physical body, there was no fear of death. Her mind withdrew itself from all thoughts of objectivity and was beholding Bhagawan Sri Ramana in her heart.
She could see the whole of her inside in an X-rayed fashion. Sri Krisha with his captivating looks was sitting in her sahasara padma (centre of illumination) as the 16 year old Shyama Sundara, shedding the radiance of divine beauty. With a wink of his eyes, he glanced invitingly at the muladhara nodding his head. Next moment, his glorious form slipped into the void; some mysterious power hurried down to the hridaya (heart, seat of consciousness) and at the same time, kundalini sakthi from muladhara rushed up in one jump with a banging noise, tearing open as it were, the confronting obstructions. All knots were untied and they met each other at the anahatha (the heart), lost their individualities and with the way made clear by knocking open the door in the cavity of the heart, there was a grand confluence in the form of a Blazing Pillar of Light (Transcendental Limitless Self), which made haste to the sahasrara. To put in a nutshell, the subtle dynamic force, representing sakthi lying dormant in the umbilical region which has thus been aroused, ascended up and the Paramatma (The Supreme Self) came forward to welcome and embrace it. It was the merging of the jivatma (finite soul) with the Paramatma (Universal Self). The Formless Eternal Blissful Self danced in the sahasrara. It was Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. By the limitless grace of Bhagawan Sir Ramana, Sri Matha became a Jivanmukta (a liberated soul will living in the body) even before she completed thirty two years of age. The highest knowledge had dawned upon her…”
“…[17th January 1938, right after enlightenment] In the final stage, all the diverse manifestations sank into the Void and there was the Transcendental Self shining with a fascinating brilliant radiance. It was the Sun of Knowledge, Bliss of the Atman, Supreme Self, Atma Jyoti and Sri Matha has been and is in constant awareness of Her identity with the Atma since then. Just as the flame of wick mixes with a blazing fire, just as a tumbler of water mixes with an infinite mass of water, Sri Matha merged into the Paramatma as one with it without any distinction…”
[Now what did Ramana have to say of all this...?]
“… She stepped into Ramanashram at 5-30 a.m. on 17th January, 1938, knelt at the feet of Bhagawan in obeisance and stood aside deferentially. Bhagawan, that dazzling Son of Jnana (Knowledge of the Absolute) cited the famous quotation from the Gita: ["Real Wisdom dawns on an aspirant after millions of births. Then realizing everything as permeated by Me, he surrenders to Me. Extremely rare is such a lofty soul to be found"]. He dwelt at length on the glorious nature of the Transcendental Self with Sri Matha was sporting at that moment…[later]…pointing at her, Bhagawan put a question and answered it himself: “Where is Vaikuntam (the abode of Vishnu)? The mind that draws no distinction between it and the Univeral Self is Vaikuntam. It is just here…[later Ramana said]…”Let This [referring to Sri Matha] sit here”…[later (19th January, 1938) Ramana said]…”Can one get this for the mere asking of it? It seeks after the heart where it wants to shine. This is a sequel to your last birth’s attainment, I am just a Karana Guru (Causal Guru) to you.”
========
Apparently a remarkable woman jnani whose status it appears was approved by no one less than Ramana Maharshi himself, and hardly one detached from the world even while living as the Self. For a picture and short bio, see this site: http://janakymatha.org/aboutus.htm
The point of this being not that you have to agree that this experience meant anything at all. You do not have to accept that Ramana Maharshi was not properly understood in Adidam, since I understand your beliefs. But rather, at least consider the possibiity that Ramama Maharshi’s work as Satguru and his understanding of the Heart and Amrita Nadi can not be fully appreciated from speculation from a distance, as if he was just talking school when referring to Amrita Nadi, the Heart and the Self, since he did have enlightened followers proving what he said in their own lives. Nor can such speculation be proven by taking isolated portions of published comments out of context as if they represented all Ramana Maharshi taught. There is a reason other than mere egoicity why a number of former Da devotees have come to see Ramana Maharshi as more what they were looking for when they went to see Da, and have become highly skeptical of Da’s assessment of him. I would hope you find the topic interesting enough to research Ramana Maharshi in much more depth for yourself regardless.
December 8, 2008 at 10:44 am
Stuart Says:
December 8, 2008 at 2:23 am
Feel for God wrote…
> It is the talking school advocates of non-duality
> that tend to think that such preparation and
> submission to a Guru is unnecessary
When someone speaks or writes criticism of the “talking school,” they’re “opening their mouth.” That means they’ve entered the talking school. To use words to criticize the talking school… is like promoting vegetarianism while eating a cheeseburger.
The authentic way to object to the talking school is to stop talking. ”
************************************************
So the authentic way to object to those who don’t stop talking about their objections to the talking school is to talk? And here I thought people wanted to hear from some Daists!
Stuart, no doubt I indulge in talking school nonsense at times. However, Adi Da has addressed that in me and other devotees so directly, that I thought it good to share with others this instruction. The ego and its methods to avoid dissolution can be very very subtle – even causal!
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Since you asked, there is only one particularly vivid account regarding in relation to enlightenment and Heart realization in a Ramana Maharshi devotee that I have seen that is readily available to read on the internet.”
Just one. Hmmm, this does seem to support that much of the non-duality talk and self-made (guru-less) modern “realizers” are apparently of the talking school variety – or at best, they are still needing to understand and transcend these root aspects of our egoity. This is why a Spiritual Master Who has Transcended ALL of this egoity is so necessary.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“…since I understand your beliefs. But rather, at least consider the possibiity that Ramama Maharshi’s work as Satguru and his understanding of the Heart and Amrita Nadi can not be fully appreciated from speculation from a distance, as if he was just talking school when referring to Amrita Nadi, the Heart and the Self, since he did have enlightened followers proving what he said in their own lives. Nor can such speculation be proven by taking isolated portions of published comments out of context as if they represented all Ramana Maharshi taught.”
Apparently you don’t understand what I have been saying about Ramana Maharshi if this is your summary of it, after all of this consideration. When did I ever say anything about Sri Ramana Maharshi being of the talking school?
I do very much appreciate all those great quotes from Ramana. And even in those hand-picked gems from Ramana, there are still statements by Ramana which indicate a separative assumption between the Self and the world:
“The man who has realised the supreme truth of his own existence realises that it is the one supreme reality that is there behind him, behind the world.”
Adi Da’s Teachings do not express this Eastern tendency to separate the Self and world. Again, there seems to be a difference in emphasis and function between Their Teachings and certainly how They taught, and also Their actual Guru-Function relative to Transmission.
Also, thank you for that beautiful account from Ramana’s devotee. I found that description most interesting in terms of recognition of Ramana Maharshi and His function as Guru.
However, I also found this statement certainly one that supports the argument that such practice still has a predilection for excluding the body-mind:
“But as she was ever ready to shuffle off her physical body …”
It was also very interesting, and further supports what Adi Da has said about Ramana, in Ramana’s own statement to this great devotee of His function as Guru:
Ramana said]…”Can one get this for the mere asking of it? It seeks after the heart where it wants to shine. This is a sequel to your last birth’s attainment, I am just a Karana Guru (Causal Guru) to you.”
Again, Adi Da stated this about Ramana Maharshi:
“He was a True Jnana-Guru, or One Who Serves and Awakens devotees indirectly, by Silent and thought-free Self-Abidance In and As the Transcendental (and Inherently Spiritual) Self-Condition (and Source-Condition) That Is Consciousness Itself, but (in contrast to the case of a True Siddha-Guru) not directly, through open, voluntary, even (at least, at times) intentional, and truly consistent Spiritual Effectiveness.”
Obviously there is nothing “talking school” about Ramana Maharshi! And as I said before, if Ramana Maharshi is truly your Guru, I am happy for you. I also imagine Ramana must have caused a stir amongst the traditions when He spoke of the superiority of His Realization.
December 8, 2008 at 11:07 am
And since I have already talked too much, I will simply quote some statements from Adi Da’s “Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga” to help AKASHA and others to understand how true devotion and non-duality are not mutually exclusive in the Reality-Way of Adidam – quite the contrary:
“No amount of being studied, informed, or even scholarly about the Great Tradition of humankind can prepare you for the Real Transcendental Spiritual Process of the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam – even if you do practice devotion to Me, and even if you do discipline the body-mind-”self” in terms of right-life practice.”
“All who practice the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam – and even all who study and “consider” My Divine Avataric Revelation-Word – must understand that the by-Me-Given Process of Transcendental Spirituality is (necessarily) founded not only in right devotion and right-life practice but also in the tacitly assumed (and Intrinsically egoless and searchless) disposition of the Witness-Position.”
“The Transcendental Spiritual Reality-Process of the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam begins Prior to the ego – not on the basis of the ego.”
****************************
So after devotion, right life disciplines, and proper understanding are demonstrated stably in the devotee, the following becomes their constant spiritual practice – done always in the context of spiritually devotional recognition of the Master.
From Adi Da’s “The Teaching Manual of Perfect Summaries” – The Five Reality-Teachings:
Notice this:
1. You are not the one who wakes, or dreams, or sleeps.
2. You are the actionless and formless Mere Witness of the three common states – of waking, dreaming, and sleeping – and of all the apparent contents and “experiences” associated with the three common states of waking, and of dreaming, and of sleeping.
3. You are not the body, or the doer of action, or the doer of even any of the body’s actions or functions.
4. You are not the mind, or the thinker, or the doer of even any of the actions or functions of mind or of body-mind.
5. No matter what arises – whether as or in the state of waking, or of dreaming, or of sleeping – you Are the actionless, and formless, and thought-free mere-Witness of attention itself, and of every apparent “object” of attention, and of any and every state of “experience”, and of the entirety of whatever and all that arises.
Always intensively “consider” these Five Reality-Teachings.
Always intensively observe and notice every moment of your “experience” – whether waking, dreaming, or sleeping – and thus and thereby, “consider” and test and directly prove these Five Reality-Teachings in the moment-to-moment of your every kind and state of “experience”.
*******************************
December 8, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I’ve just been catching up on what’s been going on here. Still a bit of “Punch & Judy” going on…
It is clear that a chasm exists between the “pro-Adi Da” and the “anti-Adi Da” camps, and I see no way in this world that that chasm will be bridged. My own study, however, has shown that Adi Da is not the only spiritual leader who has had to endure criticism. They ALL have, including Sai Baba, Muktananda, Satchidananda, Swami Rama, Kriyananda, Rajneesh, Mahesh Yogi, and… must I go on?
Everyone can find plenty of “points” to support their own position. Each one’s position is directly related to, if not identical to, each one’s perspective, point-of-view, ego.
My religious point of view began as a Catholic, born into that tradition. I had many religious experiences as a child, which included a vision of Christ at the age of 4. By the time I got into high school, I was an unhappy, dark, doubtful, suicidal character… just the perfect candidate to become a spiritual seeker. Based on my lack of knowledge, I became a heavy Christian – you could even say a Jesus freak. But I was still always unhappy. My psychology teacher turned me on to many, many books. I went on to read as much religion, psychology, philosophy in a few years as any college student. One of the things I read then was “Garbage And The Goddess.” I thought it was a pretty bizarre book, and, to be honest, I didn’t really get it.
The first teaching to really hook me was J. Krishnamurti’s, who brought order to my chaotic mind. And I liked his anti-authoritarian approach, the idea that I didn’t need to do it according to someone else’s method. I studied him for many years. Eventually, the problem I had with Krishnamurti was: the individual (me, in this case) was the result of all kinds of conditioning, limitations, flaws, mis-perceptions, misunderstandings, seeing the world through the filter of the mind. And yet, there was (according to K) no teacher, no guru. So, how does this flawed being become “a light unto itself” on that basis – or simply by “watching?” I was up against a wall.
By this time, I’d been reading Adi Da’s books for 10 years. It took me that long to “get it.” And on the day (about 30 years ago) that I “got it,” it affected me throughout mind and body. I felt waves of energy shooting throughout my body, I was laughing uncontrollably, and, at some point, I simply “disappeared.” When I eventually “came to,” I was different. In that instant, my unhappiness, darkness, doubt and every other negative feeling was gone. I will not say that my life is 100% perfect all the time, but I have never been that dark and unhappy again.
On that day, Adi Da became my guru. I didn’t experience any of this by way of any other teacher or teaching. It happened from reading the words of Adi Da (and I know some others have had a similar experience). I am still His devotee 30 years later, and I am not even a “perfect” devotee. But I am a devotee in spite of “me” or “you” or anyone or anything. I do not speak for anyone else, I do not speak to try to convince anyone of anything, but I will strongly disagree that Adi Da is a fraud.
December 8, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Feel4God,Conradg and Former Follower & Critic,
On the subject of the ” the regeneration of Amrita Nadi,” I am in agreement with Former follower & Critic that the Maharshi could not have been more clear on the science of the Heart. Ganapati Muni questioned him on the crucial question of Heart knot on August 14, 1917 when he was in the Virupaksha cave. The Muni recorded his response in the Ramana Gita. The commentaries are by A. R. Natarajan.
On the 14th August, at night, I questioned the Maharshi on ‘the cutting of the knot’, regarding which even the learned have doubts.
The effulgent Bhagavan, Ramana Maharshi, listened to the question, meditated for a while, and spoke in his divine way.
The ‘knot’ is the link between the Self and the body. Awareness of the body arises because of this link.
The body is matter, the Self is consciousness. The link between the two is inferred through the intellect.
[Comm: Ramana explains the nature of the link. "The body is insentient, the Self does not rise. Within the body's limit an 'I' rises between the body and Self. It is named 'knot of matter and spirit,' 'ego,' 'bondage,' 'subtle body' and 'mind'... The ego, individuality, is the link, the knot, which has to be cut.]
It is by the diffused light of consciousness that the body functions. Since there is no awareness of the world in sleep, swoon, and so on, the location of the self is to be inferred.
[Comm: The Self is all pervasive. Yet It must have a location in the body... Daily, in sleep, the world is not perceived, though the body's existence continues... When there is no cognition of objects the separate consciousness, the body-mind, must have merged within, in the conscious source... From another angle it would be more appropriate to say that the body is within the Self instead of thinking the Self within the body, for it is the source from which all consciousness is derived.]
Just as the unseen electric current passes through the visible wires, the flame of consciousness flows through the various channels(nadis) in the body.
The flame of consciousness , taking hold of a center, lights up the entire body just as the sun illumines the whole world.
It is because of the spreading of consciousness that one becomes aware of the body. The sages say that the center of radiation is the Heart.
The flow of consciousness is inferred from play of forces in the channels.The forces course through the body, each hugging its particular channel.
THE CHANNEL THROUGH WHICH CONSCIOUSNESS FLOWS IS TERMED ‘SUSHUMNA’. IT IS ALSO CALLED ‘ATMA NADI’, ‘PARA NADI’ AND ‘AMRITA NADI’.
Because consciousness pervades the entire body, one gets attached to the body, regards the body as the Self and views the the world as apart from oneself.
When the discriminating one becomes detached and giving up the idea that one is the body, single-mindedly enquires, the churning of the channels take place.
On such churning of the channels, the self gets separated from them and shines forth by clinging to the SUPREME CHANNEL.
[Comm... Sri Kapali Sastri in his commentary refers to the churning of the sea of milk in the Puranas which produced the drink of immortality, amrita. He says that in like manner properly directed self enquiry dissociates the 'I'- thought (the first manifestation of ignorance) from other thoughts and establishes the link with the eternal, ever liberated Self. As a consequence of the single minded enquiry, the individual, functioning hitherto through the different nadis, stays in the channel linking the 'sahasrara' with the Heart.]
When consciousness stays in the supreme channel only, then ‘SELF ALONE SHINES’
Even though the objects are near, they are not seen as separate. He is aware of the Self as clearly as the ignorant one of his body.
The one to whom the Self alone shines, within, without and everywhere, as name and form would for the ignorant, has cut the knot
Earlier, on August 9, 1917 Ramana Muni spoke exhaustively about the Heart.
That from which all thoughts of embodied beings spring is Heart. Descriptions of the Heart are only mental concepts.
In brief, the ‘I’- thought is the root of all thoughts. The source of the ‘I’- thought is the Heart.
‘Hridayam means ‘This is the center’. Thus it stands for the Self.
The location of the Heart is on the right side of the chest and not on the left. The light of consciousness flows from the Heart through ‘Sushumna’ channel to ‘Sahasraha’.
[Comm: ...True, consciousness is all embracing and indivisible. It has no 'within', no 'without' no 'right' or 'left'. In this sense, Heart, which is consciousness cannot be assigned any place in the body. But for the person who is rooted in the notion of the body, a physical location and a relationship between the individual, the separate, and the whole has to be postulated. Here Ramana stated that the channel linking the the Heart and the mind which springs from it, is termed 'Sushumna'. The other names for the same are 'atma nadi, 'amrita nadi' and 'para nadi'.]
From ‘Sahasraha’ consciousness spreads all over the body, and then the experience of the world arises. Viewing themselves as different from that consciousness human beings get caught in the cycle of births and deaths.
The ‘Sahasrasha’ of one who abides in the Self is pure light only. Any thought which approaches it cannot survive.
The universe is only in the mind and the mind is nothing but the Heart. Thus the entire story of the universe culminates in the Heart.
Just as the sun gives light to the moon, the Heart lights the mind.
A mortal absent from the Heart sees only the mind just as the light
of the moon alone is seen at night when the sun has set.
Unaware that the true source of consciousness is one’s own Self, and mentally perceiving objects apart from oneself, the ignorant are deluded.
The mind of the knower, abiding in the Heart, is merged in the consciousness of the Heart like moonlight in daylight.
Though the verbal meaning of the term ‘prajnana’, intelligence, is the mind, the wise know its essential meaning to be the Heart. The
Supreme is only the Heart.
The difference between the seer and seen is only in the mind. For those abiding in the Heart the perception is unitary, one.
[Comm: ... All duality ceases when the mind is lost in the Heart.]
December 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Namaste:
For Adi Da and all of the other messiahs who claim or claimed to be “The One,” there is only one totality. The unitive sense of this universal one-ness is the sense of the Messiah in yourself.
The present need is for more and more people to both understand the universal one-ness and sense it, so that more and more people can present the Messiah in themselves both in theory and in practice.
Until now there have been so few teachers of divinity. Wordiness is a confusion, and different teachers use different words to teach divinity. On the other hand, Meher Baba, Ramana Maharshi, Mother Meera and other recognized human divinities projected or project the sense of one-ness most profoundly during speechless and thoughtless psychic connection. When you connect through such a silent practitioner your own divinity is made clear. It is then your job to keep the unitive sense alive by using some practical method.
Integrating the sense of one-ness with clear words and profound reasons helps older children and adults optimize their pleasure and their intelligence. This integration also helps people understand the basic importance of sharing the goods of life so that each and every person’s giftedness, hard work, and happiness all come together and contribute to everyone’s common wealth.
At present there are many esteemed teachers whom their followers claim to be God or the Messiah. Many loyal followers argue that only their teacher is or was “the Messiah” or “the Avatar,” or “God.” What is more basic, however, is even more profound and more beneficial: the Messiah is in each human baby but this divinity has to be taught in a theory of integration and manifested in reality as people actually put this integration theory into daily practice.
Shalom.
personalunity
December 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm
As a final note on the Amrita Nadi debate, I really don’t see how the quotes you have given from either Ramana or Da in any way demonstrate that Ramana was “exclusively” concentrated in the Heart on the right. If you look at the whole of Ramana’s teachings, the opposite is quite clear. He endlessly described how he saw only the Self in and as everything, without the least separation. Likewise, the quote you give from Da summarizing his approach in five steps is nothing more than basic Advaita Vedanta. It’s not bad, but it’s not at all different from the approach found within that tradition. So I really don’t see the point. You also have not addressed the obvious contradictions I pointed out in Da quoting Ramana’s reference to the regenerated Amrita Nadi, and then later claiming Ramana had only realized the exclusive heart, without Amrita Nadi. It’s obviously a false criticism, and yet you seem unwilling to acknowledge it, as if acknowleding any error on Da’s part would lead to the whole sand-castle of his teachings collapsing. If you constantly interpret everything through the lens of Adi Da’s teachings, ignoring what your own eyes and ears tell you, well, of course Da will seem right. I’m not accusing you of being brainwashed, but I don’t think you are willing to think for yourself just yet, because you seem to fear that might be a betrayal of Adi Da’s teachings. There is definitely a “mindset” issue in play here that needs to be examined. I think it’s important to step outside that mindset, and examine it critically. If it survives critical examination from outside its own assumptions, that should strengthen your convictions, rather than weaken them. But if it doesn’t, you will have to adjust accordingly, and I think I more than most know just how upsetting that can be. It’s understandable that you are reluctant to take that step, because it puts in play the very real possibility of finding out that Da was mistaken, and we all know that could possibly lead to the realization that you were mistaken about Da in all kinds of ways, and this could lead to leaving Adidam, as it did for so many others. This is why many devotees simply “won’t go there”. They have an emotional need which might be threatened by critical self-examination, and so any such criticial examination is postponed, or even condemned as “narcissus”, then it’s the opposite is actually the case. But I wish you luck in figuring these matters out for yourself, and really developing the personal autonomy and lack of dependency that will enable you to examine the truth of these things directly, rather than through approved dharmic logic. In the end, I think it leads to a much more rewarding spiritual path.
December 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Feel4God says:
> So the authentic way to object to those who
> don’t stop talking about their objections to
> the talking school is to talk?
Not at all. If I had objections to talking, then I’d shut up. But in fact, I have no objection to those who don’t stop talking about their objections to the talking school. I did, however, point out the inherent contradiction of these objections.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 8, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Sorry Feel4God, but that dog just don’t hunt.
Yes devotion and non-dual realization are not mutally exclusive as long as your devotion doesn’t require that you fall down wiled-eyed at the feet of your object of devotion. As long as your object of devotion engenders the very real non-dual realization that you talk about, that entails the release of any sort of egoic fixtation to the object of devotion. But, I saw and see no evidence of that at all. Certainly not in anything written in these tracts by supporters of Da, but I cannot really judge what another person experiences or feels, now can I?
You can talk the non-dual talk all day. You can quote Adi Da all day but the most ample proof was in the pudding. Unless you were a mind numbed, blissed out follower who dismissed all the ample evidence of Adi Da’s culture of abuse (and not just from him but eminating from him through his mandalic rings of the hierarchy of followers) there is no way to sugar coat the destruction of trust in a legitamate practice left in his wake.
The biggest testimonial to what Adi Da was all about was a very early quote of his, “I will assert what I have just denied and deny what I have just asserted.” How is any argument, valid or otherwise, possible with a position that can dismiss any contrary argument with a simple statement like that. Obviously, no argument can withstand that double-bind.
But at last, all I can say is if you are happy with your devotional life with Adi Da then fantastic. Go forth and be happy in joy and God and I will do the same.
Akasha, out!
December 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Feel4God,
[I have to break this post in two to make it fit]
It’s funny that you would mention the “four young men” incident, since I wrote a post here a few days ago on that very incident, and Adi Da’s resulting criticism of Ramana for not going into a long explanation of diet. I wrote that not just this episode, but Da’s reaction towards it, goes a long way towards explaining why Ramana was very effective at producing mature and realized devotees, whereas Da has not been.
What Da seems not to understand, first of all, is that in criticizing Ramana he’s actually violating his own dictum that true spiritual masters shouldn’t be criticized for “unorthodox” teachings, in that they are able to see in the moment exactly what devotees need, and teach accordingly, even if it doesn’t measure up to some kind of objective standard. Da pulls this argument out regularly to excuse/explain his own completely wierd, and hugely indulgent, and generally ineffective teaching history, but here he is trying to apply it to Ramana, second-guessing him and even suggesting this means he isn’t a true and complete Sat-Guru because he doesn’t dispense dietary advice like some Hindu cobmination of Dear Abby and Jack LaLane.
The truth is Ramana simply wasn’t much interested in teaching about diet, and asking him about diet questions is like asking Einstein oddsmaker’s questions about how to best play blackjack or bet on horse races. Ramana was only interested in one thing, realization and how best to achieve it, and he made it quite clear to these young men that their focus on diet simply wasn’t going to do that, that they had to put their attention on realization and self-enquiry, and not be so identified with the body-mind. It’s not that Ramana had no basic recommendations for diet – he did point out that a simle vegetarian diet was best for spiritual practice – but in tis moment, with these men, he clearly felt they were best served by being turned to the radical practice, which it appears he saw them as giving short shrift to.
And that is the problem with Adidam altogether. In general, very little of Adi Da’s face-to-face time with devotees has been committed to the direct matters of realization, whereas most of it has involved issues of diet, and rather mundane matters of that nature. The truth is that when devotees’ attentions is constantly focused on such things, they simply don’t pay much attention to the issue of realization, and the result is no mature or realized devotees. You do get plenty of people in Adidam who are virtual experts in matters of diet and raw foods preparation, but who know next to nothing about realization, and seem completely uninterested in the subject. At a certain point you have to ask yourself, which method is more fruitful. I would say it’s pretty clear that Ramana’s single-minded approach works better, and Da’s does not.
You may have heard the general philosophical distinction between “hedgehogs and foxes”. Hedgehogs have one big idea, and everything in their system focuses on that, whereas foxes dart around trying to cover everything. Ken Wilber, for example, is a classic fox, trying to come up with comprehensive and all-inclusive theories of everything, but in the process producing nothing in particular of much value. Ramana is clearly a hedgehog, interested only in realization, and not much else. Da, like Wilber, is a fox, trying to create a massive system that accounts for everything, and yet producing very little tangible results in the end. Now, suggesting that this makes Da a “true Guru”, and Ramana only a partial one, just misses the point altogether about spiritual realization. Da simply missed the boat, confusing complexity with profundity, and comprehensiveness with depth. All that time he spent talking about peripheral matters neglected the core issues that really count, whereas Ramana’s single-minded concentration on realization, and his disregard for most other matters, is what ensured his success as a teacher.
So when Da or you criticize Ramana for being “exclusive” in his approach to realization, neither of you appreciate how necessary it is to become so utterly committed to the process of realization that everything else pretty much drops away. This is not the “sixth stage error” as Da would put it, but the recognition that one simply cannot make compromises with the ego without fatal results to the spiritual process. Da was constantly compromising with the ego, constantly directing his devotee’s attention to this or that silly project or concern, and pretending that service to his person was the true form of devotion, rather than dedication to the process of realization, which is how Ramana measured the devotion of his followers, and how he constantly communicated to them what he wanted in the form of devotion. He wasn’t interested in having his devotees serve and promote and sell his art works, he wanted them to devote themselves to realization, to self-enquiry, and he was pleased when that was the case, and displeased when it was not. This is the sign of a true Guru, one who serves the Self, not his own bodily needs, at least beyond a very simple minimum.
I think there’s a great lesson here for Da’s devotees, to see how Da’s failures as a teacher were a direct result of his own wandering attention, which could not remain focused on matters of realization, but constantly become obsessively involved in issues like diet and artistic creation and endless sexual experimentation and discussion of emotional problems, health problems, a thousand different subjects, the price of which was a completely splintered and unfocused community that has very little interest in realization.
[Break] see part II below
December 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Part II of reply to Feel4God
It’s good that you seem at least to be interested in these issues. It’s not as if Da never talked about these things. In fact, he wrote quite a lot about them, but again, even in the context of considering matters of realziation, the focus is very much a talking school of various endlessly elaborated ideas, rather than a simple focus on what is necessary. A devotee I spoke with recently told me that Da had written a new set of five “core” books, and he described how one of them greatly simlified the core practice by throwing out all the various ways of faith and reverse-enquriy and so on, leaving behind only a single form, I think called “the preliminary perfect practice”. At first I thought this sounded like a move in the right direction, that he was cutting things down to the essentials, until I was told that that the book was so huge it would have to published in two separate volumes. How typical of Da, he’s just incapable of focusing and keeping things simple, he has to write endlessly until everything is left a complex mush of concepts. You see, that’s talking school.
Ramana avoided all that by keeping everything very simple. When most people asked about practice, he simply recommended self-enquiry (although in some cases he recommended a simple devotional practice, since he recognized that self-enquiry was not for everyone). He didn’t want things to become complicated an unwieldly, because it just confused devotees and filled their minds with concepts. He didn’t like talking about philosophy, and usually ignored such questions. He didn’t talk about Amrita Nadi much, or other yogic issues, because it didn’t much serve devotee’s process. Instead, he directed devotee’s attention back to its source, constantly, not just by words, but by his very Presence. As others have mentioned, Ramana’s primary method of teaching was in silence, and he said that his words were only for those who could not readily grasp what he communicated in silence. This did not make him an inadequate Guru, it’s what made him a real Guru.
All Da’s endless gabbing is what made him a talking school Guru, and Adidam into the ultimate talking school gathering. That’s the irony of Da. He criticized the talking school quite frequently, without acknowledging that this is essentially what Adidam is – a talking school. There’s no mature practice in Adidam, no realizers, just a lot of talk, and some yogic experiences that people think means they are not talking school, but are precisely what the talking school justifies all their talk with. There’s nothing wrong with talk, but unless mature realization follows, the talk is just distraction and counter-productive. We can all criticize ourselves for that, but if we are to compare Ramana’s ashram with Adi Da’s, we can see that it is in Da’s ashram that the talking school has pretty much replaced any serious interest in realization with mere talk and very little in the way of real practice. In fact, all the talk has made people extremely uncertain of what real practice is, whereas in Ramana’s case it’s pretty clear what he was teaching and how realization came about, if anyone was interested in that.
Now, as to whether Ramana is my Guru or not, I’m not sure what to say. I experienced a direct and personal initiation by Ramana before I even met Da, so I’m inclined to say yes, but Ramana himself was quite unorthodox, and didn’t like to acknowledge himself as part of the Guru system of India. He considered himself atiashrama, and never gave anyone formal diksha, nor did he consider it necessary or meaningful. This is not, contrary to Da’s insinuations, because he wasn’t a true Sat-Guru, it was precisely because true Sat-Gurus are not terribly interested in formal matters, as Da clearly was. Even so, the Hindu system recognizes realizers like Ramana very easily and clearly, and Ramana was universally recognized as a true realizer and Guru, whether he personally acknowledged it or not.
The same is not true of Da, however; quite the opposite. Neither traditional nor modern Hindus recognize Da as a genuine Guru, much less a Sat-Guru. He is widely considered a fraud and a charlatan, a typical westerner who tries to appropriate Vedantic teachings in a self-possessed, narcissistic manner, and glorifies himself in the process, which debasing the very teachings and traditions he borrows from. That’s the sad fact. Not even the more eclectic, mystical figures in the spiritual scene recognize Da as anything more than a very talented and interesting failure, someone with potential who severely crashed do to his rejection of his traditional teachers like Muktananda, and his misunderstandings of realizers like Ramana.
Imagine how different it could have been. Da could have had faith in his original radical teachings in the Knee of Listening. He could have rejected the temptation to “teach down” to his devotees, and just persisted in the radical teaching all these years, never faltering from it, never “experimenting” with all the various forms of nonsense he got into, just constantly re-directing his devotees attention to the source, and persistently reminding them of the basic truth. My guess is that this method would have been far more successful at producing mature and realized devotees in the long run, even if in the short run many would have had a hard time understanding what he was talking about.
Looking at the history of Adidam, he went off course almost from the start. I’m not even talking about Garbage and the Goddess, I’m talking about the Method of the Siddhas period, when he instituted all kinds of strict dietary and other disciplines, and people’s attention got fixated on such matters. Of course, each attempt to “correct” this by upsetting the applecart simply made things worse. Each experimental period produced even more errors that needed to be corrected by still more experiments that produced more errors, ad infinitum. Until now we have hundreds of useless books that could and perhaps should just be burned, like the literally tons of pages of his writings in the 1960′s that he burned on the beach. In the end, silence really is the best teaching, as Ramana knew all along, and had the courage to live by.
December 8, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Michael, I appreciate your story about becoming a devotee. Mine was rather similar. I don’t think any reasonable person here would suggest you simply accept that Adi Da is a fraud, and turn your back on it all. It’s certainly true that others teachers have had to endure criticism, even many who were actual realizers. But that’s the point, they endured the criticism and survived it.
Adi Da and his community has simply avoided and ignored all criticism, and derided all critics as somehow being spiritually crippled or hating God. Whereas Ramana, when a former member of his ashram wrote a phamphlet critical or Ramana, told his devotees it should be handed out at the gate of the ashram for all to read. He thought everyone should have a chance to consider the criticism of him, and if they found it convincing, to stay away. (I don’t think that happened, but the principle held true for him)
Similarly, Ramana raised no objections when people argued vigorously with him about some topic or other, whether it was a devotee or an outsider visitor. Sometimes he was just silent, if he didn’t think talk would do any good, but often he answered the objections as best he could. Other great teachers did the same. Nisargadatta was famous for allowing extremely harsh arguments from those who came to him, and not flinching, but patiently answering all their objections. Likewise with Papaji and many others. That’s the real tradition of realizers, not this fake tradition promoted in Adidam where realizers are “protected” by their devotees from ever having to face criticism.
So yes, there is a great gulf between Adidam and its critics, precisely because Adi Da never faced up to criticism in his entire life. He always denied it, ignored it, ran away from it, or protected himself from it. Once he had his own ashram, he simply edited it all out, and prevented any criticism from even being voiced to him. We all know what that produced in Adidam, an Alice-In-Wonderland world where only “good news” could get through to him. It’s what inflamed the 1985 dissident crisis into a full blown media scandal, as Adi Da refused to even speak with those who had criticism of him, forcing them to go to the media instead. And it’s what has kept Adidam a fragile, isolated community of weak and confused spiritual cultists, incapable as advocates of their religion of really forming mature, open, honest relationships with the world outside of Adidam, because they simply cannot deal with the criticism which inevitably follows.
There’s no real spiritual rationale for this. The history of spirituality is full of very intense public debates and arguments, even among realizers. Look at Buddhists and Hindus. There was never any shortage of criticism between those two groups, even at the highest level of realization and dharma. Thats one of the very things that kept those traditions strong and alive, their ability to criticize and acdept criticism, and grow from it.
But somehow, we are expected to accept that Adidam simply cannot survive criticism, and this “gulf” is due to the disrespectful nature of Adi Da’s critics. Well, no, that’s not it at all. It doesn’t matter how respectful Adidam’s critics are, Adidam will simply not respond honestly to those criticism, or engage the critics, and that’s a precedent that has been established by Adi Da himself, so I don’t see it changing, ever. Part of the problem is that to engage the critics, Adidam would have to admit openly to what it has actually done, what Adi Da has actually done, and that is well known to be so scandalous and abusive that Adidam simply wouldn’t survive that kind of openness and honesty.
So instead, Adidam simply ignores the criticism, and hopes that it will just go away. With the internet, however, and the virtually infinite survivability of threads just like this one, the criticism of Adidam doesn’t go away at all, it just persists and produces antibodies in the general culture against groups like Adidam, that prevent them from growing and gaining many new converts. If Adidam is ever to have a chance of growing and surviving as a spiritual community, it is going to have to open up to the truth of its past and the reality of the criticism of it. The fact that it very likely will not is a very bad sign for its future, I think, in that even if it were to beat the odds and grow, what would grow would be an authoritarian religion hostile to all criticism and self-examination, and the world simply doesn’t need any more of those.
I do appreciate your attempts to engage critics here. It’s very rare among long term devotees. I would never criticize you for choosing Adi Da as your Guru, or persisting in that devotion for as long as you have. I certainly did for nearly as long as you have. And I never chose to leave Adidam, it’s only that I examined the truth of these things closely enough, first in the process of defending Adi Da, that my conscience simply couldn’t deny these matters any more, and eventually I came to realize that I simply wasn’t a devotee anymore, and didn’t accept the things I had once thought to be true. That was a very difficult transition, but an unavoidable one as well, and it turns out, a very healthy passage. It begins with the willingness to actually face criticism honestly. From that, only good things can follow. O had assumed that what would follow would be a re-affirmation of Adidam’s essentialy Truth. To my surprise, it didn’t work out that way. Oh, well! If you have faith in your own process, all will turn out for the best, is all I can say. I wish you great good luck.
December 8, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I wish to stipulate that my earlier epitaph/eulogy/song translation was a sincere display in that moment in time of deeper hidden feelings from a time me long past, and simply a way to say farewell in as loving & peaceful way as I possibly could.
However in no way do I wish it to be construed by followers supporters and devotees of Da/FJ as a cloaked desire to rekindle that relationship.Over is FINISHED!
As it happens my views based on a critical evaluation of the facts here aswell as my own insights coincide very much with what has been said by the dissenting voices here, and the authoritarianism, abuse cover-ups and brainwashing of this cult is not something I have even one inkling of desire to support or get involved with EVER AGAIN in any way shape or form or on any level.
As far as i am concerned it really is FJAD RIP. (Requiescat in Pacem)
Thank you and goodbye
December 8, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Stuart Says:
“Not at all. If I had objections to talking, then I’d shut up. But in fact, I have no objection to those who don’t stop talking about their objections to the talking school.”
Good to hear because I also don’t have any objections to your not objecting about talking about those who don’t stop talking about their objections to the talking school!
akasha Says:
“But at last, all I can say is if you are happy with your devotional life with Adi Da then fantastic. Go forth and be happy in joy and God and I will do the same.”
Good! The same to you!
Conradg Says:
“Likewise, the quote you give from Da summarizing his approach in five steps is nothing more than basic Advaita Vedanta. It’s not bad, but it’s not at all different from the approach found within that tradition. So I really don’t see the point.”
The point of this quote was to show AKASHA and others that the Reality Way of Adidam is not just about devotion – but also right life, AND the tacit assuming of the Witness beyond egoity. AKASHA was making an argument that Adidam is not about non-dualism, but only about devotion. But he didn’t get my point, and now you don’t either? Hmmm… The quote from Adi Da addresses AKASHA’S mistaken presumptions about the Way of Adidam rather clearly, I thought.
Conradg Says:
“As a final note on the Amrita Nadi debate, I really don’t see how the quotes you have given from either Ramana or Da in any way demonstrate that Ramana was “exclusively” concentrated in the Heart on the right.”
You sure read a lot into my posts, Conradg. I never said that I thought Ramana was just exclusively identified with the heart on the right. He wouldn’t be able to function in the world if this was the case. I said He showed a predilection for that approach; and as reflected in various quotes we gathered from His Teachings – an emphasis on that, including Teachings about concentrating attention inwardly. And even He called himself a “Causal Guru” – which certainly ties in with what Adi Da says in terms of Ramana being a True Jnana-Guru. What else would you make of this statement:
Ramana said]…”Can one get this for the mere asking of it? It seeks after the heart where it wants to shine. This is a sequel to your last birth’s attainment, I am just a Karana Guru (Causal Guru) to you.”
And really, since it appears that no one but Adi Da and Ramana have Teachings relative to Amrita Nadi, I defer to what Adi Da says on the matter – and no, not just blindly. Your arguments don’t hold up 100% Conradg, as I have been continually pointing out with various quotes. Both you and Former Follower (in his last post about my so-called assuming that Ramana was of the talking school) make some very exaggerated fundamentalistic-type summaries of what I said, and then come to your same fixed conclusion.
Really, there is no way to absolutely tell until someone else with at least the kind of Direct Knowledge and Regard that Adi Da has on these most advanced Spiritual matters cares to share them with us. I don’t think I will wait that long.
All of this mindfulness, regardless of how discriminating it may be in your case, is still just mind, Conrad. It seems to me from your posts, that because you think you have found an error in Adi Da’s reasoning about Ramana, that your mindset was undermined and that was your rationale for leaving Him. I highly doubt that this is the REAL reason for your departure, but somehow it justifies it at a very intellectual level.
From a conventional standpoint, Adi Da “gave” us endless reasons to depart His Company – at every level! It was all a test to make us stronger, to grow up, to grow in our capacity to conduct His Love-Bliss, to surrender most deeply without reserve, bodily and emotionally – and not just with the mind – and to also prepare us for every change, even death, all worlds, all experiences. Why should we care about these brain-minds – they go in an instant! Just like they should in beholding Who He Really Is.
He shows us the Heart – and Invades us directly as the Love-Bliss of Reality Itself. I was mightily offended by Him in all kinds of ways, but I knew intuitively, at the heart, feeling His Presence, in His Eyes, that He Is Love and that I could surrender to and trust Him from the very beginning. I am certainly glad that I have stayed – I am not swayable in my fundamental conviction to Him now. It transcends all of this mindfulness, this enjoyable debate, right or wrong, this need to have it be some kind of perfection, this life.
Adi Da was always refining His Teaching, and His relationship with us. But from the beginning, it was always about Satsang, Communion, Oneness with Reality, the Love-Bliss of Consciousness Itself!
And even if He was apparently wrong about something, so what? I just know that He did what He did to get our attention to notice His Freedom, His Love, His Heart, His Absolute Bliss and Consciousness as the Bright – to Stand out for our sake! To wake us up to our Reality! And if that offended our egos along the way, so be it!
Let’s see, pick a direct relationship with Love-Bliss or my mind, body ….
Do I choose me or this: http://www.adidaupclose.org/Adidam_In_Perpetuity/announcement.html
Hmmm, not a tough choice in my book.
However, if He is not right for someone, or perhaps not just right yet, then so be it. But please don’t think that I or other Daists would all of sudden abandon our Communion with Him if we find something out we disagreed with Him on. Believe me, I have disagreed, and it matters not one iota in the big picture with Him.
Because you seem much more adamant that you are right about this Amrita Nadi consideration, than I, I can only presume that it opened up a flood gate of doubts, etc., when you came to this conclusion. Of course, you know that belief in the Master was never the basis for the relationship to Him, so doubt is also not an issue if that is truly understood.
If you do not RECOGNIZE Him as Acausal Reality by letting go all of this mind, then fine – that is your conclusion.
Personally, as you can probably tell by now, this debate makes no difference to me – I just wanted to relate to you.
Later!
December 9, 2008 at 12:42 am
I came to this website on the day after Adi Da’s passing, by browsing through whatever articles came up regarding His death. I would like to say that I’m very glad I came upon this site, and I’ve been exploring other aspects of it. It’s been extremely enjoyable and interesting. I’m hooked!
I also want to thank Conradg for sharing. Conrad, you are one of the few ex-devotees who has been able to express criticism without resorting to a lot of the adolescent-style biting that comes from some of the less disciplined, and I respect that. In the end (whatever that means), I have enough reason to believe that there is only God, and that we all – everyone and everything – are arising in God. Somehow, in that, we are One, non-dualistic, no-other; and, somehow, in that, we are just that. It’s just very hard trying to express it with this brain… ;-]
December 9, 2008 at 6:34 am
@ConradG:
i believe you are wasting your time.
i don’t see how one could possibly ignore your intelligent, well worded and constructed analysis of the da-ramana differences and of adidam and the devotees in general.
however, there is simply no getting through to the da-ists. i really appreciate Feel4God as an intelligent being who tries to be open in this debate but simply cannot bring himself to release his adidam-conditioning. and that would be necessary to see the truth in what ConradG is saying.
apparently, my posts here have created a bit of a stir on the island. i guess many have been able to determine who i am and they just cannot fathom how i could possibly have posted what i did here. i was not particularly trying to hide my identity that well, the main reason i tried it at all was to protect my wife who was on the island until yesterday. i know how intolerant, closed-minded and extremely fearful of ANY criticism whatsoever pretty much every long-term devotee of adi da is and i was afraid my postings here, despite my honest intentions, would have consequences for her. but they did. on sunday she wrote me a rather upset email asking me to not post here anymore, etc. she wasn’t specific about the pressure she experienced but i can imagine how it went. i know the drill. been there. done that.
in that sense Feel4God is a good representative of adidam. although clearly an intelligent being, he is not able to see beyond his adidam conditioning to accept obvious truths. and having been exposed to the adidam conditioning for so long, he cannot really be blamed. i do get the sense from him that he is trying to be open in this forum. but alas…
here’s how the adidam conditioning works (excerpts):
as one critic here said, if you loose your partner, your money, your life you are supposed to see the humor and the “lesson” in it. it is obviously a “purification”. if, however, adi da’s umbrella didn’t open immediately this was a matter of the utmost emergency and the entire ashram was mobilized to rectify the situation as this was obviously a failure in everybody’s devotion. as twisted as this may sound to people who have not been around adi da, this is EXACTLY how it worked. i’ve seen similar incidents many times. adi da simply could not be “disturbed” by “bad news”. even if they were important for him to know, they would not be reported. period. and this did indeed create a “alice in wonderland” sense of “reality” in and around adi da.
if adi da did something obviously stupid (like spending money that wasn’t there) or despotic (like seriously mistreating somebody) it was simply his “crazy-wise” teaching method that every devotee needed to understand as such. and if you nevertheless voiced concern or (god forbid!) even criticism you were “invited” to a group with your “friends” where your head was set straight. if that failed, you were disciplined by doing some service nobody wanted to do or you were taken off the darshan list. criticism or even concern in any way, shape or form was ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED. period.
i could go on and on here about how the adidam conditioning was set up, but i don’t think i need to. i am sure every long-term (ex-)devotee here will be able to confirm that i am not exaggerating.
to my shame i must admit that i actually bought that conditioning and supported it at times. as long as i was convinced that adi da was the god-man, i felt the need to protect him. there were, however, many things i did not agree with but then i was re-conditioned by the peer pressure and discipline machinery and because i still believed that adi da was the god-man i wanted to make sure that access to him was not withdrawn. let me tell you, the conditioning scheme works really well.
because it works so well, there is simply to getting through with reason. intelligent argumentation as demonstrated in this blog is by far not sufficient to get through the psychological walls erected by the adidam conditioning.
December 9, 2008 at 9:52 am
Dear Friends and Lovers of The Bright One.
Alas my last post from Fiji, and what a profound and extraordinary journey it has been.
The Vigil here continues and I was fortunate enough to sit at the site for some hours yesterday night, Infact yesterday all in all was a powerful day. I amused at one point about all the back and forth on this site, when there is actualy no question in the open heart, feeling the Bright perfect presence of The Great Avatar.. who never left, somehow and slowly the truth of this profoundity is sinking in.. He never left, infact nothing changed at all.. from the feeling point of view, also as the process of connecting to people here has continued and my own sitting at the Brighness site and In the meditation halls it is clear that the spiritual process that Adi Da was ingaged in with devotees here has continued unobstructed if not even intensified with many feeling the ease of communion to be greater. 4 new devotees became initiated a few days ago and it took a while for me to realize the segnificance, the way goes on, He goes on.. The way to the Brightness or Reality itself, Perfect prior unity itself freely given to all, The Portal, The form of Adi Da Samraj, Each Photo or video a vehecle for His transmission and a way for mankind to commune with ‘The Heart’ Perfectly… some get it and its clear.. no argument no mind about it.. Just obvious and many of those people are here sharing their incredable stories of How The Great One found them in the midst of this maddening dream..
Adi Da showed me one time how everything was arising in Him… all of this all the the minds and maddening maddness..all in Him seemingly seperate, so last night at the Brighness site, My befudled mind was once again outshined by His presence.. and all arising thoughts lost there grip as He, as He always said, Brightened seeming seperate me to the place where mind has no forms. and the breath is deep with the thick bliss of Da.
What a wonder and what did any of us do to deserve such a gift as to spend a second in the company or even the feeling perception of Adi Da Samraj, The Maha Siddha of Maha Siddhas, The Last Avatar who finally gave the simple and perfect revelation “Reality Is The One God There Is” and dear friends wether you like it or not, Bliss is bliss and love is love, light is light and happiness is happiness.. when you know you know and there is not a question about it.. because there is no one left to care.
Shiva I love you brother… what to do.. He washes everything..
let me dig in my little retreat bag and find a last quote for you lovers of the Bright one..
here it is this seems to fit the bill of this blog…
“You need not be concerned with how much concentration of mind there is, how much poetic vision there is, how much relaxation there is in the body, how pleasant the conditions of life are.
You need not be concerned with the fact that life is difficult at the moment, or that you yourself are obnoxious.
You need not be concerned about any of it!
All of that content is simply the inevitable suffering that is the result of conditional existence. All you need do is Find Me—by Means of devotional Communion with Me. Be Attracted to Me, and let the body-mind-complex be changed by My Divine Avataric Transcendental Spiritual Self-Transmission. ”
well I know we have all felt the truth of that here..
with more Love then I could ever self generate Blisscake xxx
December 9, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I wonder if this wonderful thread will continue on in some way?
(There’s always the lightgate.net setting….where everyone is older and mellower now and probably not going to be too terribly disrespectful to any Daists posting there….or, am I being Pollyanna again?)
BTW, great to get some sort of news from Naitauba.
December 9, 2008 at 2:44 pm
My, my, my… More debate posts from Conradg. Didn’t you say several posts ago “As a final note on the Amrita Nadi debate…”?
Conradg, so I started going through your last several long posts last night (which were not posted when I wrote my last one) but decided to just leave my last post as my final “debate” post – since that post actually seemed fitting, even given your very long resurrection of the debate. However, today, after reading this:
shiva Says:
“however, there is simply no getting through to the da-ists. i really appreciate Feel4God as an intelligent being who tries to be open in this debate but simply cannot bring himself to release his adidam-conditioning. and that would be necessary to see the truth in what ConradG is saying.”
“…in that sense Feel4God is a good representative of adidam. although clearly an intelligent being, he is not able to see beyond his adidam conditioning to accept obvious truths. and having been exposed to the adidam conditioning for so long, he cannot really be blamed. i do get the sense from him that he is trying to be open in this forum. but alas…”
…and even though my debate hat was very happily off, I have to put it back on (and, unfortunately, it never feels like a very good fit, to be honest) – just so shiva may become open enough to know that I am not “Adidam-conditioned” as he summarily pronounces (basically in order to dismiss everything I said and quoted).
This is what real conditioning is, guys – whatever does not fit into our egoic minds, we attempt to revise, to compartmentalize, to envelope it in order to control it, to even reduce it to some “fundamentalistic” (even bizarre) summary in order to dismiss it – so that it cannot threaten us. We all do that by tendency with Adi Da – the ego knows in order to “survive”, it must make whatever is Greater than it, subservient to it, or maximally, equal to it. So we all like the “Oneness” (non-dual) argument from an egoic (mind-dharma) standpoint because we can then feel equal with even the greatest of Masters! Plus we don’t even need them! But no ego survives that ultimate Event – and that is why very very very few beings have ever realized it – and no one without a true Master.
Our being ultimately One is not at all the same as this kind of “equality” the ego wants to settle for. The ego does not want Real God (actual Acausal Oneness), because then it will no longer be glorified separately. So we like to mentalize about this lofty state of “Oneness” – talking school – to try to reduce even the greatest of Masters to be contained within our minds (no matter how expanded our mind may feel the “Oneness”). It is the height of delusion – and has been thoroughly addressed by Adi Da Samraj.
So we persist in seeking to make Acausal Reality subservient to conditional reality in all kinds of more and more subtle ways – but it is impossible, as we can clearly see, with real study and beholding of Adi Da Samraj.
Conradg is making quite the effort to do just this, but it really has failed on so many fronts that in order to fully respond to his last few posts, there may have to be a new hard drive installed on this Blog site’s server!
Anyway, I will try to contain myself and post only a few of the many counter arguments that come to mind:
Conradg Says:
“What Da seems not to understand, first of all, is that in criticizing Ramana he’s actually violating his own dictum that true spiritual masters shouldn’t be criticized for “unorthodox” teachings, in that they are able to see in the moment exactly what devotees need, and teach accordingly, even if it doesn’t measure up to some kind of objective standard.
It seems to me that this was simply an observation by Adi Da about Ramana’s own predilection to deal with the highest levels of spirituality mainly, and not the more mundane (preparatory) aspects.
Hey, you even say this here:
Conradg Says:
“The truth is Ramana simply wasn’t much interested in teaching about diet…”
Conradg Says:
“At a certain point you have to ask yourself, which method is more fruitful. I would say it’s pretty clear that Ramana’s single-minded approach works better, and Da’s does not.”
So where are all these Realizers of Amrita Nadi? Sri Ramana Maharshi has many many thousands of followers – way more than Adi Da, so by your statement, there should necessarily be many many more Realizers – but there are not. Plus Ramana was born 40 years earlier than Adi Da in a country where Gurus are revered. This comparison is absurd, Conradg, and you know it, for these and many other reasons.
Conradg Says:
“Da, like Wilber, is a fox, trying to create a massive system that accounts for everything, and yet producing very little tangible results in the end.”
The “end”? What has ended? Adi Da, as I mentioned a while back, has always said that the community of real practitioners would be His Form – and even more so after His Mahasamadhi.
Conradg Says:
“So when Da or you criticize Ramana for being “exclusive” in his approach to realization, neither of you appreciate how necessary it is to become so utterly committed to the process of realization that everything else pretty much drops away.”
Are you actually saying Adi Da was not committed to the process of realization? Have you actually read The Knee of Listening? Adi Da was utterly one-pointed! And as our Master, He brought that same utter commitment to us! We were a very unprepared group way back then – and so began the Teaching years from the ground up.
Conradg Says:
“I think there’s a great lesson here for Da’s devotees, to see how Da’s failures as a teacher were a direct result of his own wandering attention, which could not remain focused on matters of realization, but constantly become obsessively involved in issues like diet and artistic creation and endless sexual experimentation and discussion of emotional problems, health problems, a thousand different subjects, the price of which was a completely splintered and unfocused community that has very little interest in realization.”
I thought you were more discriminating than this – now I think I understand why you left – you cannot recognize that Adi Da is the Acausal Reality because you want Him to look a certain way in your mind – like Ramana Maharshi, I guess. But even with Ramana Maharshi, you still sound ambivalent about Him being your Guru – which really does not surprise me, if you know what I mean.
Just look at Adi Da’s picture – any picture you like – there is no ego there! You are so stuck in your need to have your Guru and this process look a certain way, that you now blame Adi Da’s full consideration of all stages of development a distraction to you? How oedipal! How silly! You could have been sitting in the Meditation Halls as much as you wanted, invoking the Divine, bathing in all that Siddhi on those Sanctuaries, doing whatever worked best for you! Were you totally one-pointed in every Darshan? Did you go to every Darshan? Did you go on long-term retreats frequently? That was all made available in His Company far more often than most of us ever wanted! You obviously chose something else to do with your life and now you want to blame Adi Da?
So given your statements and your departure from Adi Da, are you now completely focused on God-Realization? Meditating constantly? Seriously, how is that going?
Conradg Says:
“As others have mentioned, Ramana’s primary method of teaching was in silence, and he said that his words were only for those who could not readily grasp what he communicated in silence. This did not make him an inadequate Guru, it’s what made him a real Guru.”
Again, you are twisting what was said. Adi Da never said anything about Ramana being an “inadequate” Guru – He said that He worked in Silence and was a True Jnana Guru. And just so, Ramana called himself – a “Causal Guru”. And, as you also point out, Ramana seldom acknowledged His even being a Guru.
This is another example, Conradg, of where you exaggerate what was said into something negative – in order to dismiss it and ultimately whoever said it. You are playing out an oedipal drama here of wanting to be rejected so you can feel more betrayed and justified in your decision to reject Adi Da and Adidam. At least for the sake of the debate, quit misquoting and misconstruing!
Conradg Says:
“And that is the problem with Adidam altogether. In general, very little of Adi Da’s face-to-face time with devotees has been committed to the direct matters of realization, whereas most of it has involved issues of diet, and rather mundane matters of that nature.”
This is just not true in my experience. I have been to hundreds and hundreds of gatherings and Adi Da almost always considered the most fundamental spiritual processes – and if He didn’t, He always brought the consideration full circle back to the core argument of Oneness with the Divine. And for us, it was always an extended Darshan occasion regardless. The entire Indoor Summer and Indoor Yajna periods for instance. And the endless hours of Revelation Discourses in 2005, etc., etc., etc. Are you kidding? Some 60+ books of the most sublime esoteric spiritual considerations ever to Grace this world – combined with the truth of non-duality with every stage of development!
Statements like this one from you, Conradg, make me think you really missed the non-dual foundation of devotional communion, and so were not involved in the same way as many of us are.
Conradg Says:
“I think called “the preliminary perfect practice”. At first I thought this sounded like a move in the right direction, that he was cutting things down to the essentials, until I was told that that the book was so huge it would have to published in two separate volumes. How typical of Da, he’s just incapable of focusing and keeping things simple, he has to write endlessly until everything is left a complex mush of concepts. You see, that’s talking school.”
The preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice is summarized by the Five Reality Teachings, which I posted yesterday, and you called “not bad”. That was as clear and as simple as it gets in terms of the non-dual aspect of this initial spiritual practice (once the devotional and right life disciplines are demonstrated). Those Five Teachings are what we are to consider and practice constantly each day, whereas the rest of the essays expand on all the various aspects of our spirituality, the Perfect Practice, etc. They are all Forms of Remembrance.
Well, I had been pasting some of the things you say from your last few posts, but after these last several quotes, it seems useless to me at this point to respond to each and every one of your statements. You draw various negative conclusions which I can only assume are due to unresolved issues you have. You also are basically complaining endlessly (albeit often subtly) in these last few posts and seemingly more and more “righteously” (pretentiously) rather than balanced in your criticism. I actually think you are trying a “tar-baby” approach to get some Daists angry at you here, so that your critic-friends and you can once again write off Daists and most especially, Adi Da – as being unloving, irrational, not understanding non-dualism, whatever. I imagine something like this has already occurred in the past – because when I have spoken to people who left, this was indeed the case. I have also noticed that critics can write all kinds of wrongful vicious statements about Adi Da, and not once has any one of you mentioned to them about that being unloving. But as soon as a Daist even offers the slightest constructive criticism to a critic – look out! Definitely feels like a double-standard is operating here – can that be called “critic-conditioning”. Who is the master critic?
Regardless, self-understanding is required in all of us before any real spiritual development will occur – and especially in these matters of understanding Real Non-Dualism.
Just to be clear and balanced, I am not saying that Daists are perfect – far from it. I know I am an asshole, however I also know that I have been Graced by the Divine in so many ways. I could have just avoided this whole blog, and gone the “way of Stuart” – by keeping silent about all this talking school non-duality business. I normally would have, but when I saw some devotees posting on this blog, and then some very aberrated posts by some “critics”, I decided not to stay quiet.
And to clarify further, I am no official of Adidam, and my statements are mine only. No one is telling me what to write here either. In fact only a few people know that I am even doing this, and they do not read this blog, as most Daists would not want to.
Now how does all your summarily dismissive exaggerated ranting, Conrad, tie in with what you quoted about Papaji relative to complaining about previous Gurus?
Conradg Says:
“The best thing I’ve ever heard about this sort of thing comes from Papaji. In the last years of his life, lots of westerners began coming to him, often complaining about some exploitive or misleading Guru they had before him (lots of them former Rajneeshis). He told them unequivocably, “There are no false Gurus, there are only false devotees”. His meaning was very clear, that what ruins and falsifies the spiritual process is not the Guru, no matter how limited that Guru might be, but the devotee’s own false intentions and approach. In essence, he laid everything in the hands of the devotee. If they were true and right, their spiritual progress would be guaranteed, regardless of whatever Guru they were with. This message of Papaji’s has struck me very hard, and seems irrefutable. My time in Adidam certainly backs it up, not just in my case, but in the case of everyone I ever knew there. Some people who approached the process seriously got real wisdom and growth, and those who didn’t, just didn’t. The way to judge that wouldn’t probably be the same as it is judged within Adidam, in fact it might actually be close to the opposite of how it’s seen in Adidam, but the principle remains true nonetheless.”
I can only assume that the debate stirred all of this up again for you, Conrad – because after a certain point in your posts, your complaints were way stronger than your rationale. And to glorify such complaining as an “anti-body” to Adidam… My God!
Adi Da never allowed us to create a fixed image of Him – and this, I know personally, is very very hard on the ego. So really, I do understand the great difficulty with all of this. Like you, I have also been through much and though I understand a lot of what you say, Conradg, I cannot be so pretentious as to jump to negative conclusions about my Spiritual Master. It would never be justified in my very direct and long-time relationship with Him. Again, I look at a picture of Him, and then me in the mirror – hmmm, totally obvious who the ego is here!
shiva, I have no idea who you are and that is fine. I only knew Conradg as someone who did astrology in Adidam, so we did not travel in the same circles. I had no idea until this blog that Conradg was studying Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings. Like I said, I mentioned Ramana Maharshi as a common ground to consider non-duality around. Go figure, the psychophysics of things – how related (one) we actually are!
And also, speaking of astrology and psychophysics, I was disappointed, Conrad, that you made no comment about that very cool “Happy Face” conjunction. Maybe you missed my post about it.
Feel4God Says:
@ Conradg – Weren’t you an astrologer in Adidam for a while? I think it is also interesting to note that Jupiter, Venus, and the Moon were all part of a Grand Trine in Pisces, Scorpio, and Cancer (all three water signs) respectively, upon Bhagavan Adi Da’s birth. Those two planets and the moon are generally equated with expansiveness, love, and nurturing respectively – if I recall correctly.
And another friend mentioned this:
This Happy face was made from the three brightest lights in the night sky.
***************************
Here is a different photo of the Happy Face than I posted before, that occurred during Adi Da Samraj’s Mahasamadhi – taken from the Phillipines very close to Fiji:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081202-venus-jupiter-photo.html
Anyway, I also enjoyed re-reading a leela about a Ramana devotee who saw a very unusual shooting star which turned out to be psychophysically timed with Ramana’s Mahasamadhi. Given Adi Da’s incredible sense of humor, it is no wonder that the cosmos’ psychophysics were that of a Happy Face! Hahahahahaha, that still really cracks me up!
I too wish you the best, Conrad. I hope your practice always becomes more and more whole bodily devotional recognition of Reality Itself!
Take care everyone!
December 9, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Feel4God says;
“And really, since it appears that no one but Adi Da and Ramana have Teachings relative to Amrita Nadi, I defer to what Adi Da says on the matter”…
Inherent in this statement, and many others, is that the ability of Ramana or Frank to speak to “Amrita Nadi”, is a sign of realization…6th or 7th stage. It is in fact a false argument implying “Authenticity”, and, in this case “Divine Authenticty”. It is a concept, and, to speak to it, is a “sign” of just that…conveying a concept. Its true value is only in the one that gives it that quality. In the case of Ramana, his speaking to it was used as a “pointer to” and he did not build up a cosmology around it as Frank did. Although Ramana spoke to it, it was not his focus nor did he infere importance to it, nor, did he claim it to authenticate his Divinity. Frank, on the other hand, has use this argument (one of all so many) to self-authenticate. All it realy proves is that he, like you and I, read about it. That he pontificated on the subject, self-proclaimed his own “unique understanding” of it, does not make it true. In order for that to happen one must convey to him “Authority” and even then it isn’t true. No-one but Frank has ever “authenticated” his take on this subject or any other.
Implied also, is that other non-duality teachers that have not spoken about “Amrita Nadi” are of a lesser understanding or are of the “Talking School”. Again, the argument is false based on the presumed “Authority” associated with “Amrita Nadi” (6th-7th Stage, arbritrary rankings). It is a Straw Man argument and implies nothing about other non-duality teachers; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It implies nothing in the end. Non Sequitur.
The use of the “Straw Man” arguments presented here by some is of no surprise whatsoever. It was Franks chosen devise as was his ad hominem approach. The responses from current devotees are to be expected as they are learned from within the culture and are endemic in it. The use of straw man and ad hominem in this forum is an expression of fear and doubt in the guise of “conversation”. It closes down any real conversation, a daist trademark, and is condescending, smug, abusive and quite tragic. The people posting here, ex-daists or others critical of Frank, are expressing an understanding that came to them legitimately and at a dear price. “Find me out”…and so we have.
****”Let’s see, pick a direct relationship with Love-Bliss or my mind, body” ….**** Begs the question doesn’t it? A perfect example. This statement, posed as a question, is a condescending slap, a dismissal, of the very real observations and heart-felt understanding that so many ex-daists have come to. It is also the very familiar cultic “club” that so many have been hit over the head with. It is very telling.
****”If you do not RECOGNIZE Him as Acausal Reality by letting go all of this mind…****False conclusion/ blame,/dismissal/condescention. “If I could only let go of this “mind” I would recognize”. I did, and do, recognize Frank as he IS…a very screwed up man that has abused people mightily.
**** And even if He was apparently wrong about something, so what? I just know that He did what He did to get our attention to notice His Freedom, His Love, His Heart, His Absolute Bliss and Consciousness as the Bright – to Stand out for our sake! To wake us up to our Reality! And if that offended our egos along the way, so be it! ****This is classic Frankapologetica. False conclusion/dismissal/lack of empathy. He was wrong and it does matter. It matters to me…it matters to all who have posted here. Your “knowledge” that he did anything for your, or anyones “sake” is unfounded. Yeah, you bought it…I bought it…so did others…doesn’t make it true and all the “evidence” is pointing in the other direction. Many of us have woken up to that reality…yes, out of a self imposed sleep…and can feel the sun on our face again. Come out into the light.
****”From a conventional standpoint, Adi Da “gave” us endless reasons to depart His Company”….**** Dismissive/condescending. I too once held the “unconventional” veiw of Frank. The “unconventional” veiw is what is required to stay in Adidam. No other “veiw” is accepted or tolerated. It is the very thing that allowed Frank to abuse so many. Once the seed of “conventional” understanding takes root however, a clarity sets in and the unraveling happens. This is a fire that is quite different than one might assume…it’s painful. It’s REAL. All of a sudden a statement like this; “The way that I teach is not who I am”. has a whole different sound. Frank could have said “I am not my shoe”…it’s meaningless. As something to hide behind it is useful. When you regain some clarity it’s meaningless.
I’ve tried not to make this personal. IT IS. It is very personal. In one of my first posts I said that I still have friends in community. I feel for them. It’s personal.
As to the queston of the “future” of Adidam…it was dying when I left 10 years ago. Stagnating. No REAL growth ( don’t believe the “stats”) No real joy. My own service in community was missionary/advocacy. During my time in this service there were less and less people interested, between the ever increasing “Capitolizations” and “pazooza” campaigns and even though Frank made himself more “available” to other “congregations”. The observations of these “public people” of the books and the community itself, despite the talk from the inside, was a good indicator of where the “church” is now. Add the internet into the mix and it doesn’t look good for Adidam. I have been in conversation with a friend still in community, 30+ years, that is realy going through it now as I did 10 years ago. He said…”it was my ‘investment’ that kept me in place and that’s what hurts the most”. I have tears in the telling of that. Understand it all too well. The heart commitment of this man to Frank was longstanding and very real. His hurt is unimaginable. I feel there will be more soon. Many more.
Franks (and co-founder Sal) time in Scientology has been minimized and almost eradicated by the handlers inside Adidam. A study of the life and times of Hubbard and his “church” will reveal some startling similarities. Just recently there have been some defections ( Adidam call them “dissedents” ). These are high profile people. The actor Jason Behge and Marc Headley, an insider for a long time, are talking about their experiences. Marc Headley’ account is very striking ( see links ). Remove the name Adidam and replace it with Scientology. His accounts of the aren’t “similar”…they are an exact description of Adidam. Astounding. The “tecniques” are the same…identical. Anyone with a memory of the early years will see it immediately. There has been much said about Frank “borrowing” . He did. Everywhere from Shaivite to Christianity to Vedanta to Stranger From a Strage Land ( my favorite “borrowing”…too funny). His “teaching methods” are right out of Scientology, or, shall I say, he was “influenced” by the techniques. Anyway, if you are inclined to listen to these two men the links are below. You’ll be amazed and saddened if not angered.
Jason Behge
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/jason-beghe-interview/
Marc Headley
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/stations/bc/glosslip/2008/04/25/Glosslip-From-Our-Lips-To-Your-Ears
To all my friends still in community I wish you well. I fully appreciate where you’re at and have no need to change your choice. It is your own. Speaking out is mine.
Feel4God I Feel4You
December 9, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Feel4God:
your lengthy non-reply just confirms what i stated: you are not able to shed your adidam-conditioning and listen.
but i leave it up to conrad to respond, if he has the energy.
maybe the happy face is just that: a constellation of planets that from one angle looks like a happy face.
it is so typical for da-ists to feel the need to look for so-called signs of franks influence in nature. they posted a pic of a double rainbow in fiji lately (on adidams message network) as a sign of nature responding to frank.
i saw double rainbows almost daily in melbourne – when it rained anyways. literally: almost daily.
indeed: Feel4God i Feel4You
December 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Feel4God,
For one, I’ll concede right off the bat that Adi Da has a genuine non-dual aspect to his teachigns. Adi Da certainly spoke and wrote at length about non-dual teachings, and the non-dual argument has always been at the heart of his teachings. On the other hand, the critics here are quite right that we can’t really call Adidam’s practicing path non-dual, in that most of what is taught in Adidam is clearly highly dualistic, and even contemptuous of non-dualism as some kind of “talking school” that is to be avoided at all costs. Generally, the living culture of Adidam fails badly at the non-dual test. Most people in Adidam aren’t much interested in non-dualism, and even seem suspicious or downright opposed to anyone who is. This is encouraged by the “seven stages” model, in which non-dualism is relegated to the sixth and seventh stages, and talking about it before that is considered “uppity” and even inappropriate. Rather, dualistic approaches, language, and concepts are considered far more appropriate, particularly the approach of dualistic devotionalism.
This unfortunately makes for separative arguments that consider devotion to be in opposition to non-dualism, and vice-versa, which is simply not the case at all. The non-dual schools are highly devotional, they simply understand devotion to itself be non-dual. Worship of the Guru in non-dual schools is considered worship of one’s very Self, and is not made into some kind of objectified glorification of the Guru, but is understood to go beyond all such concepts and notions from the beginning. Nisargadatta, for example, performed a puja to his Guru every day of his life, long after his own realization, explaining that it meant nothing, it was just the fulfillment of a vow he had made to his Guru long ago.
So while non-dual concepts are certainly a central part of Adidam’s teaching, they aren’t a central part of the culture he has created. Instead, a very dualistic approach is generally taken, based on dualistic forms of devotion, which is another source of the hostility towards non-dual critics of Adidam. Most Adidamers are of the mistaken notion that devotion and non-dualism are somehow enemies, whereas in reality they are two sides of the same coin, it is only the dualistic forms of devotion that are hostile to non-dualism, whereas true devotion is non-dual in nature and immediately recognizes non-dualism as central to its own existence. Guru-devotion is for them a non-dual process in which the Guru is found alive and active in the Self, not merely as some outer authority figure, and not objectified into the dualistic forms of body and mind. This is why Ramana, for example, refused to let people even bow down to him, or make him into some kind of formal Guru figure. He didn’t want people confusing his human form with the Divine Self, whereas obviously that was central to Adi Da’s own teaching and the practice he recommended.
Regarding this Amrita Nadi matter, I think we both know why we are focusing on it. It’s because it’s one of the linchpins of Adi Da’s claim to be the “First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Realizer”, the unique and only fully realized Guru ever, than which there will never be another. If it’s shown that this is hogwash, that Ramana clearly realized and mentioned this regenerated Amrita Nadi before Da, it makes him into a liar, or at least a guy who makes exagerrated megalomaniacal claims. That’s certainly not unprecedented, but it makes Da seem less of a reliable authority on anything, if his central claim is a false one. It’s kind of like Meher Baba and his claim to be the Avatar of the Age. I think most people who aren’t Meher Baba devotees would consider that claim to be nonsense, an exagerrated bit of puff, and it actually reduces Meher Baba’s credibility rather than enhances it. Adi Da mentioned that Meher Baba not only served the mast community, he was simply a devotional mast himself, and these kinds of claims were simply part of the kind of exagerrated, nonsensicalism that devotional masts were prone to.
I’d interpret Adi Da’s FLO statements, and his exclusive claims to the Amrita Nadi realization, to be similarly the product of this “mast” phenomena. That Adi Da himself is simply a western example of a mast, a somehow aberrated mystical individual with high intuitions about spirituality mixed with all kinds of common, even neurotic craziness. His whole “crazy wisdom” expression seems to fit this model of the mast, even his endless books of increasingly incomprehensible jargon and capitalizations are simply the expression of a mast, not something we need to take terribly seriously on their own merits.
Regarding Ramana, though you seem to be pulling back somewhat, you of course have indeed been saying Ramana’s realization is limited to the self-on-the-right, and does not include the regenerated Amrita Nadi. You claim that Ramana called himself a “Causal Guru”, when he simply called himself a “Karuna Guru”. You seem not to understand these traditional references, but impose some kind of Daist meanings upon these words. Just so you know, there is a system in India which describes the various kinds and levels of Guru, eight in all, and in that system the “Karuna Guru” is the highest level, defined as:
“The KARUNA GURU — Who is able to confer the ability to merge into the Eternal Absolute (Brahma). Who can effect transformation of the human into divinity.”
It’s only by trying to crudely fit traditional wisdom into Adidam conceptual categories that one confuses “Karuna Guru” with the Adidam concept of the “causal realm”. They aren’t in any sense the same. When Ramana used this term to describe himself, he was only saying that he was the highest kind of Guru, not that he was a Guru with some predilection for the causal realm.
This is what I mean why I say that your criticism don’t seem to have any validity. They don’t even get off the ground, and require rather crude interpretations of grammar and symbolism, without any real understanding of the context involved, to even vaguely support your notion that Raman’s realization ws limited, either to the heart-on-the-right, or the causal dimension.
Now, I would be quite glad to admit to you that I’m not a jnani, and that I’m not qualified to directly see or state who is realized and to what degree, Amrita Nadi or not. I wasn’t under the impression that we expected to acheive 100% certainty here, and if I have not made perfect arguments, well, I don’t think that’s much of a criticism. But I think the arguments I’ve presented are at least 90-95% certain, whereas yours just fall apart. And saying that we should all just defer to Adi Da because he is so wise and true, is kind of using the issue under debate as the basis for your argument, rather than its conclusion. I certainly don’t accept Adi Da’s judgment about these matters as authoritative in any sense. If you do, it certainly undercuts the very attempt to make a discriminating examination of the Adidam teachings, rather than as the lawbook to consult on such matters. I don’t object to your trying to discriminate between Ramana and this whole sixth and seventh stage argument of Adi Da’s, but if you are going to try to discriminate, for one you can’t argue that discrimination is somehow a false approach, and two, you can’t make arguments that don’t hold up, and then resort to Adi Da’s authority to artificially sustain them.
Arguing from authority is a terrible mistake, as is arguing from emotion. Why is it that whenever Adidam people get cornered in some consideration, they start spouting emotional devotionalism in vague, poetic gibberish? I suppose it’s because they can then always claim that the other guy is somehow anti-emotion and anti-love, a generally inferior form of mind-based dead-end “rationalist”. Or it’s just a defense mechanism that springs up when the facade of Adidam infallibility begins to crumble. Rather than actually acknowledge an error in Adi Da’s teachings and views, the devotee throws up a smoke-screen of idealistic devotional claims, like a smoke screen of puppies and kittens that no one would dare criticize. Well, surprise surprise, we are not fooled.
The reason this Amrita Nadi business is important is because it leaves a huge crack in the Adidam wall of denial. I think the evidence is pretty clear – Ramana had realized the regenerated Amrita Nadi, and even Da used to not only admit that, but use that as a way of confirming his own realization. What’s the explanation for the switch? Well, it’s not just a question of misinterpreting dharma, it’s a matter of a self-ish motivation on Da’s part to make himself seem unique, and everyone else inferior. Why would a truly realized being even consider such a motive, much less act on it? Why would he betray someone he considered his Guru, and responsible for his awakening to the highest state or realization? Well, it’s rather obvious when you realize that Da has an overwhelming need to be number one, unique, and perfect, as the result of his underlying emotional problems. So even his former Guru and final “enlightening agency” was thrown under the bus.
There’s obviously no real case on the merits for Da’s position, and since your feel that Adi Da has direct knowledge of these things, you have to consider why he would distort these matters so wildly. So following this line of inquiry would lead to your being forced to seriously consider the possibility that Da is not the perfectly enlightened being he claims, but a rather oddball and distorted vessel the Self has used, as he uses all of us, to demonstrate something of how spiritual egos consume themselves. And since I’m sure you don’t even want to enter that neighborhood, this whole thing has to be short-circuited from the start. Which is why, I would suspect, you try to half-heartedly hold onto the notion that Da really is right, that Ramana somehow had a “preference” for the exclusive heart on the right, when all the evidence points in the opposite direction, unless you take things out of context and don’t look at the whole of Ramana’s teaching.
For example, the “five reality teachings” of Adi Da’s are clearly lifted entirely from Advaitic teachings, which Adi Da says are limited to the sixth stage of life. And the five you quoted are, indeed, not descriptive of any ultimate and transcendent realization, but refer only to the Witness, which even Ramana clearly points to as a limited stage of maturity, and not ultimate realization at all. He in fact teaches that even the witness is an illusion, that there is no such thing, it is only at best a pointer to the direction of the Source of the mind, and that the witness is simply a dualistic experience that is at the base of our delusional mind-forms. It is merely an aspect of the “I”-thought, which must be penetrated and undone. So one could say that Da’s five reality teachings are just limited and exclusive signs of his failed realization. I don’t think that would quite be fair, because they are not meant, I gather, to be ultimate, but merely a recommendation for practitioners at a certain stage of the process. Well, similar things are true of Ramana’s teachings. He didn’t tell people to practice some duplication of the ultimate realization, he simply told them to investigate and find out what was true about themselves, leaving it open-ended as to what one would find. This certainly involves some kind of inversion, but guess what, so does Da’s method. Being the witness also involves a certain degree of inversion, and Da has even described a meditative exercise of withdrawing all one’s energies into the heart on the right, meditating on a current of bliss there, prior to full realization.
The truth is, non-dual realization is simply indescribable and incomprehensible. It has always been described as such. Creating conceptual pigeon-holes like the seven stages of life, these yogic descriptions of Amrita Nadi, and various conceptual fascinations about it all simply obscures the actual process of direct knowledge that goes beyond the mind, which is all that Ramana and Advaita have ever tried to point to. If you had ever had anything like a real “intuition” of Amrita Nadi, you would know that it is incomprehensible, that it has nothing to do with the heart, the head, or some current between the two. The heart and the head arise within the Amrita Nadi – and even that is a delusional picture that at best symbolically and in yogic language tries to approximate these matters. This is why Ramana didn’t like to talk much about it, because it simply can’t be reduced to such a description without being badly distorted in the process.
Papaji used to say that there was a great danger of developing a highly structured conceptual understanding of enlightenment, because the mind that convinced itself that this is the way the process works would also be able to spontaneously re-create those experiences, and convince the individual that they were enlightened, because here they were having all these classic experiences described in the books. This is how he explained the phenomena of people claiming to be “awake”, when he could see that no such thing had occurred, that their minds had merely created an experience that corresponded to the mind’s already fixed notion of enlightenment. Adi Da read Ramana in the final years before his own so-called “enlightenment”, and I think it’s a fair criticism to suggest that his mind simply re-created what he had read about, including this description of Amrita Nadi that is found in Ramana’s teachings, because his desire for enlightenment was so great. As the years went by, Adi Da’s mind continued to create all kinds of fascinating phenomena, and mystical teachings, and all kinds of conceptual descriptions, because he just has that kind of overflowing mental capacity. It created the “experience” of being the FLO, of being the only, the greatest, the perfect, the unique, the complete Divine Package. Well, pardon us if we don’t find that very convincing. Not only is it pretty clear that he simply borrowed most of these ideas from Ramana and Advaita, it’s also pretty clear that his mind distorted them and abused them in the process, and ended up turning them into a corrupt, ego-filled version of their original purity.
I take no pleasure in saying that, in that I myself was complicit for many years in believing and perpetuating these notions of Adi Da’s. It’s important, however, to break free of our delusions, and to move beyond them, past the concepts and symbols of enlightenment to the real thing. Non-dual teachings are themselves merely concepts and symbols, and they change and develop over time. There is nothing sacred about these descriptions, and many realizers don’t describe realization in the same terms because the terms themselves are not inherent to the actual realization, which transcends all such concepts. Non-dual teachings are there for the mind of the aspirant, but that mind must be undone, rather than trained to believe in these concepts. The mind undone in realization has no concept of Amrita Nadi, it has no concept of the chakras, the body, the heart, anything like that. When the ego has died, so does all its content. And everything we experience is mere “content”, empty in and of itself. There is only the Self, only God.
Again, I don’t consider it wrong of you to believe in Da and his self-descriptions. I know it would be very hard to admit there’s anything wrong with the picture he has painted, and it might even be a detriment to your spiritual practice to lose faith in him. I don’t want to destroy anyone’s faith in Adi Da. People believe in all kinds of things that I might consider deluded. There’s millions of Mormons out there, and I’m not suggesting they all declare Joeseph Smith a fraud and leave their church. Faith is important, even if the objects of our faith, the intermediaries we have empowered as embodiments of our faith, are less than stellar. This is why Ramana didn’t much like to criticize other Gurus, or if someone already had some spiritual practice they were happy with, he would simply bless them, and not try to get them to practice self-enquiry instead. If Adidam is your life-practice, God bless you in that. At least Adidam has some relationship to the real process of non-dual realization, even if a distorted one. In this world, you’re always going to get distortions anyway, and how we work out our own salvation is up to us. Ramana’s teachings aren’t perfect either, which is why he preferred silence. So I will leave the rest to silence, (unless something stirs my mind once more here) and let you get on with the process in your own way, in your own time, as I will with mine.
December 9, 2008 at 4:39 pm
1. There is only God, ergo God operated through Adi Da, as Adi Da. As well, as He/She/It operates through, and as, everything and everyone else.
2. Adi Da’s doctrines about realization’s “stages” might be right or might be wrong. Either the case, still: an unshaken devotional relationship with him worked for some people, as well as the breaking of such one relationship with him is what worked for some other people.
3. Adi Da was maybe realized or maybe he was not, or he was, just to some degree. Yet his ministry was still God’s work alone. Like anything else is God’s work alone.
4. Bhakti Yoga may result in total “outshining” of the devotee, that is, in nondual realization, where only the Guru remains as everything-and-all, including the being-ness of the devotee’s being.
5. Bhakti Yoga’s ultimate (or possible) nondual realization may work even when the object of Bhakti is a false guru; since What remains after total abnegation of the false/limited self is the True/Universal Self, the One Self (Which in the [devotional] process was projected on the [false or not] guru’s form).
6. Adi Da’s apparent (and definite, from a conventional p.o.v.) misbehaviours might have been Leelas of a Divine Avatara, or might have been compulsions of a narcissistic megalomaniac guy. Either the case, still: God operated through them, and was the real owner of Adi Da’s form, like He/She/It operates through all apparent events, and owns all forms.
Namaste.
This thread is superb and I enjoyed each and every contribution, from both “sides”. Wonderful insights from the nondualistic camp. Incredible demonstrations of surrender from the bhakta camp.
Every One’s “hour” of Home hitting is divinely ordered Any Way.
Much Love
Clara Llum
note: upper case letters are used only as a wink to Da’s style
December 9, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Feel4 god writes…
“Just look at Adi Da’s picture – any picture you like – there is no ego there! You are so stuck in your need to have your Guru and this process look a certain way, that you now blame Adi Da’s full consideration of all stages of development a distraction to you? How oedipal! How silly!”
“Oedipal” now!
“Adolescent” yesterday.
“Self-guru-ing” the day before….
Hey dude that’s the whole point…
Everybody ex-devotee was/is be-littled and put-down…
Always a cutting, hurting NASTY sound-bite to
put down other free-er individuals p.o.v….
“Methinks she prosteth too much…” (W.S.)
Why?
Why, do you need to put down all other p.o.v.
so much?
“Those who love me in open, have hidden doubts…” (DFJ)
mmmmmm????
Yet, somehow you “the only god-lover’s” NEVER see the
schizophrenic mind in this…
and I guess you never will…
unless, you do…
the “punch and judy” goes on…and on…and on…
Be the great vehicle and shine!
Reveal the truth of your great Sat-guru’s Blessing!
And.. puhleeze, being able to tell
a persons development by “looking at a photo”????
(you know Osama Bin Laden looks cool to me!)
Teenager’s get off on the latest pop-idol photo!!!!
You can magically discern a person’s level of realization
from a photo????
Wow!
You really have developed siddhi’s over in Adidam!!
I think you need a gig on the Jay Leno show, dude!
But, sadly…
“there is a great gulf between Adidam and its critics, precisely because Adi Da never faced up to criticism in his entire life. He always denied it, ignored it, ran away from it, or protected himself from it. Once he had his own ashram, he simply edited it all out, and prevented any criticism from even being voiced to him. We all know what that produced in Adidam, an Alice-In-Wonderland world where only “good news” could get through to him” :Conradg.
and..
Feel4god, again:
“Let’s see, pick a direct relationship with Love-Bliss or my mind, body ….”
I’ll have all 3 please!
And wasn’t that DFJ’s Way too?
love, peace, happiness..
(and Intelligence)
Stevie….who fell out of “Wonderland”.
(god, I am so glad you can’t see my photo!, dude!)
December 9, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Slyder, you probably haven’t read some of my posts (I know they are long) but Adi Da actually opened the heart on the right side the first moment I met Him. It was not something I would ever even anticipate. I could see He is the Reality of Love-Bliss and I was home – that same Ruchira Shaktipat has always been the case under all circumstances with Him.
I don’t mean to be sounding condescending when I say to compare an image of myself (or yourself) with that of one’s Master. It actually does remind me of why I practice. Ego is completely evident in anyone that is egoic – that is why in my very first post here, I asked the critics of Adi Da (or of any great Master) to post their picture so we can get a sense of their actual state of realization for ourselves. Really, why should I blindly trust what an ego says here about Adi Da given my experience – especially if I cannot see their eyes and feel their heart?
So Slyder, what is your understanding of non-duality? Are you an actual realizer of the truth of non-dualism, free of the body-mind, of the illusory ego?
And thanks – I Feel4u2!
shiva Says:
“your lengthy non-reply just confirms what i stated: you are not able to shed your adidam-conditioning and listen. ”
Hahahaha!!! And this is a “reply”? This is what I called “critic conditioning” – you don’t even respond to a single statement of mine but instead “summarily dismiss” it ALL – because I am a Daist. Being more specific is necessary for an actual consideration to continue, shiva.
And just to be clear, I think that Happy Face is very humorous and mysterious psycho-physics – just like on His Birthday, those same three planets were in a Grand Trine. Conradg knows what I am talking about.
I am sure various people thought the spectacular “shooting star” at Sri Ramana’s Mahasamadhi was also just a shooting star.
And you Feel4me too! Of course, I Feel4u2!
December 9, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Was anyone else as freaked out as I was when I saw the photo of Adi Da draped in orange on the “adidacloseup” page?
I thought for sure it was his “Not So Living Murti” but thank God it wasn’t, it was from earlier in the year. And yet he looks like a corpse in that photo from my POV!!
December 9, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Feel4God is curious about our photos, as if that will reveal anything, but I realized having a facebook account might help Adidam update its old Dawn Horse Communion files on old members like me by posting this:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/profile.php?id=505591021
I really gave those guys a very poor picture, way back then. This one is better because a really good photographer at this May 2007 sign making party (for Obama’s first Reno rally) took it.
When I was going to college (Humboldt State) way back in the early 70s, I remember overhearing this odd conversation. One guy was insisting to another that “you can TELL this guy is enlightened by looking at his picture!” Well….it’s my experience that when clearly abiding in that nothing is happening place, everyone seems to shine as a jnani. And, that’s here in Reno, where there sure are a lot of funny looking people.
BTW, Feel4God, take a look at my ears!! I do believe I’ve seen really big ones like that on Buddha statues.
December 9, 2008 at 6:35 pm
WHAT NOW MY LOVE?
(now that it’s over)
“As long as there is something left to defend, something with
which to resist, as long as there is something still left to die,
the same state persists, the same suffering, the same search.”
Franklin Jones in The Method of the Siddhas, p.12, The Dawn Horse Press, Los Angeles, 1973.
With the passing away of Adi Da it’s time for many of us who had a relationship with him to re-evaluate our lives and intentions without the parental deity. The person who towered over us for the past 35 years is gone and the requirement for integrity in all matters relative to Adidam (and the Truth altogether) is now as critical as it ever has been. If we do not respond honestly the significance of Adi Da’s life and teaching will be lost (or at least severely diminished) by the common deeds of sycophantic cultists, in a similar way to that seen after the death of most spiritual teachers. Moreover we will remain as children forever playing in the sandpit, all the while imagining we have matured as adults in God’s Domain.
At the risk of boring others with seemingly superfluous and gratuitous information, I must first state my place in all of this. I do so because, primarily, I find no value in assessing anything without identifying where I am coming from. The two are inseparable and I am implicated in everything that seems to be outside myself, including the evaluation of a teacher, his teaching and the community of his devotees.
I came across Adi Da in 1990 and became a devotee soon after. In the 7 years I was a formal devotee I lived in the hub of Adidam in Melbourne and Sydney and was the Australian Mission Manager for 2 or 3 of those years. The pinnacle of my time as a devotee was a 2-month retreat at The Mountain of Attention in 1995. I sat with Adi Da in meditation in the Manner of Flowers on dozens of occasions and I participated in many darshan incidents including chanting and celebratory events.
The retreat was both wonderful and difficult. On the many occasions when Adi Da looked me straight in the eye I felt as if the eyes of God were looking into me. I did not want him to ever look away. On the other hand, I was on retreat as a ‘delegate’ representing the Australian community and the pressure of responding to his continual demands via extensive communications tested me to the limit. The requirement to remain present was as difficult for me during the more formal occasions as they were during the weeks of celebrations with beer, cigarettes and spaghetti bolognaise. I returned to Australia elated and exhausted.
I left Adidam around 1999 because I felt my desire for free enquiry and expression was constantly being undermined by fundamentalists under the guise of guru devotion. (For a comprehensive examination of why I left Adidam download my essay ‘Leaving Adidam’ at http://home.exetel.com.au/eddieblatt/writer/Leaving%20Adidam.doc) I only got to see the full extent of the cultic nature of my participation after I had left and encountered other ‘spiritual’ groups with remarkably similar qualities. That Adi Da himself constantly criticized the community as being cultish was a sign both of our commitment to juvenile cultism and his inability (or reluctance) to diminish or eradicate its pervasiveness. I played my part in all of it perfectly. I was a cultist writ large.
Departure from Adidam was swift and unproblematic and I am not aware of any ill-feelings devotees might harbor towards me. I have no anger or resentment towards Adi Da or those who remained (or continue to remain) in the community. On the contrary, hardly a day goes by where an ordinary (or extraordinary) event does not evoke feelings of gratitude. Even my intimate partner, who had never heard of Adi Da prior to meeting me, and who remains mostly unaware of the depth of his wisdom, has thanked him for his influence in our lives.
Adi Da has left his mark in my heart that requires no authentication from an outside source. And herein lies what I consider to be at the core of the continuing childish disposition of devotees in general. We felt the guru had something we didn’t, and in order to acquire that ‘thing’ (be it some presumed realization or even just to be in his company) we submitted ourselves to a cultural hierarchy of cultic enthusiasts – the blind leading the blind.
As long as we presumed reality or God to be elsewhere and not our inherent condition, then nothing Adi Da (or anyone else) did or represented could prevent the continuation of childish endeavors. This of course does not mean that gurus are of no value. On the contrary, I consider Adi Da to have had the single greatest effect in shifting me from a stifling commitment to scientific materialism. Since leaving Adidam, however, I have encountered others who have inspired me to relinquish the reliance on all teachings and all teachers as well. Or as they say in the Zen tradition, ‘If you meet the Buddha on the road kill him.’
Attachment to the guru and the defense of Adidam itself (i.e., the institution, its artifacts and Adi Da himself under the guise of ‘protecting’ him), are the self-contraction at work. The difference between when I was a formal devotee and my current state of understanding is that in the former times I saw defending Adidam as spiritually legitimate, whereas now it feels like just plain old suffering. I believe Adi Da called it ‘the avoidance of relationship’!
It’s a mystery as to how this shift transpired. What I can say, though, is that now that it has happened, my previous situation seems a form of insanity. Even my response to his teaching is vastly different these days. In the past, reading his books would simply reinforce what I presumed I had understood. Now the words engender newer and far deeper recognition of the Truth and the nature of my past relationship with Adi Da. Thus the passage:
‘The crisis begins to come on. You don’t really have a path anymore. You may talk a lot about it. It remains a part of your mind, but you don’t really have a path any longer. That is really the most hopeful sign.’
now reveals the way I related Adi Da to be the same futile path as any other.
Adidam is a singularly unattractive proposition for those who cannot abide by the relinquishment of personal honesty and integrity, and for those who are sensitized to the degree of the community’s cultic nature. Can one be a formal devotee in Adidam (or a member of any ‘spiritual’ organization) and not be a cultist? Perhaps, but I have yet to find such a culture, and it is likely that in order to be absolutely honest at all times one cannot be enmeshed in a ‘spiritual’ community. I know I can no longer be a part of Adidam as a ‘formal’ devotee because that culture prohibits, or at the very least severely restricts free enquiry. I am not capable of conforming to anything anymore that does not feel true just to get some perceived benefit, such as going on retreat with Adi Da, or to maintain a false civility within the community.
I feel very much alone, but not lonely; incredibly grateful to Adi Da but not sycophantic; incapable of suppressing free expression but willing to listen to others who challenge me; unable to refer to an outside source for wisdom, but ‘suspicious’ of any exclusive source within; disinterested in joining any ‘spiritual’ community and/or worshipping a guru but see the value in doing so.
In short, everything is exactly as it should be.
December 9, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Feel4God,
Just when I think I can get away from this discussion, you keep pulling me back! Is this a scene from the Godfather, or what? Some people never let you leave the mafia, they insist that you must be loyal to the Don always, and breaking Omerta is the cardinal sin. Like I’m at all surprised that you would play the “oedipal” card. Jeez, guy, you don’t think I went through enough of that crap in Adidam, I have to sit through it here too?
This is just too hilarious. I can’t speak for anyone but myself, either, so kindly stop suggesting that I should police other critics of Da. Again, when your arguments fail, you resort to either arguments from authority or ad hominem. Honestly, what does it matter if I’m the worst kind of fool in the world, if the arguments I’ve presented here carry weight? You say that my arguments have failed, but have they really? I don’t see people flocking to Adidam.
Instead I see precisely the kind of arguments I’ve made here winning hands down in the overall discussion of Adidam where it counts, meaning outside of Adidam. I see Adidam failing miserably at convincing people of the truth of their arguments, and I don’t see you reversing that here. Quite the contrary, you are simply confirming the same problems everyone has seen in Adidam from the outset. You can argue that you are still right, that everyone else is wrong, but you can’t argue that you are winning and I am losing. Not if you actually do care about Adidam gaining any traction and respect in the wider world, which was a major objective of Adi Da’s efforts in recent years.
I know these arguments don’t care much weight inside Adidam. People in Adidam don’t even read this sort of criticism, but nonetheless, over the years many end up coming to similar conclusions, and leaving. I certainly did. You can disparage me all you like as lacking a “real” understanding of Adidam, but it’s hard to back that up. Adi Da certainly didn’t seem to think so. I recall a time when he said that I was the only devotee in Adidam who was actually practicing in direct relationship to him. Now, maybe that’s bullshit, he said all kinds of things that weren’t true, but pretending that I don’t know anything about the “real” Adidam is just not very credible.
I recall the RSO ladies sending me in to the high level meetings of the Samrajaya to “straighten them out”, which was utterly hilarious to begin with, and I knew it was silly even before I went in the room. What I found was people utterly obsessed with all the most mundane elements of their practice, the main feature of which at that time was finding a suitable bed for Adi Da to sleep on, and him acting like the Princess and the Pea, rejecting every bed they brought to him. These people were not talking about how to realize the non-dual truth. They were completely out of their minds trying to satisfy Adi Da’s material requirements.
And that’s how the inner circle around Da are for the most part. Yes, you can certainly point to many periods when Adi spoke about realization, had non-dual considerations, wrote books, but the nitty gritty day to day service to him was all about “stuff”. I can’t believe the nonsense people used to tell me, their fears about the dark forces, the ego. I remember carrying Adi Da’s personal, very expensive dishware to the Manner for some celebration meal, and the serving ladies walking next to me warning not to drop and break it, or I would suffer untold bad karmas in all future lifetimes. I almost threw it down the hillside, just to see how she’d respond.
Now, maybe you think those are “complaints”, but honestly, I don’t feel it that way. They are just funny stories about the silly things that have always gone on in Adidam. I don’t blame Adidam for this stuff, it’s just what it was. I don’t feel like any of that stuff hurt me, I feel quite the opposite, that it helped liberate me from all my beliefs about Adi Da. It doesn’t reflect all that well on Adi Da, I suppose, that he was telling his serving ladies that they should be terrified of bad karmas for breaking his dishes, or the time where he accused one of his serving ladies of producing conflict in the middle east because she got an ugly haircut that was displeasing to him. I mean, things like that are precious, you just can’t make this stuff up.
I’m not complaining, nor am I holding onto some “image” of how a realizer has to be. But I’m not so naive as to believe this means that anyone who claims to be a great realizer is one, and that we can’t examine their lives and teachigns to see if they actually live up to those claims. I don’t think anyone has to live like Ramana – even his enlightened devotees didn’t live that way. Papaji was a sexually active householder with children, for example, and a working man who kept up at various jobs for at least 20+ years after his enlightenment.
If you want a list of Ramana’s enlightened human devotees (there were proportedly four animals he enlightened as well, including Lakshmi the cow), I’d start with:
Annamalai Swami
Poonja Swami (Papaji)
Sri Muruganar
Sadhu Om
Ramana’s Mother (at her death)
Lakshmana Swami
Mastan (a muslim devotee)
Swami Ram Das
Sri Matha
And that’s just off the top of my head. There were undoubtedly more, these are just some of the most prominent examples. It’s not a huge number, and perhaps its unfair to Da, in that he never seemed to attract many serious people to begin with (I include myself there, unfortunately), so it’s not really a surprise that none became realized in his community. But then again, not being able to attract serious people isn’t a good sign either.
The point is, Ramana attracted many serious people because it was clear that he was serious himself, not just by calling himself serious, but by not doing much anything else, or talking about much else. Whereas I can’t imagine why anyone who was truly serious about realization joining Adidam, it’s like running off to join the spiritual circus, it’s not really a serious place for genuine practice. My own lack of seriousness is precisely what made Adidam attractive to me, and the same is true of most people I knew there. Da frequently said as much himself. But rather than close down the whole thing and just cater to the truly serious, Da was too attached to all the money, all the service, all the luxuries he could afford by keeping things as they were. He needed those millions of dollars, the Swiss bank accounts, the luxury accomodations, the women, the whole shebang. We in Adidam all knew this, and spoke about it frequently. It was part of the regular notes cycle. So what’s wrong with stating it openly?
As for Da not allowing a fixed image of him, this was certainly part of his game in the early days, when he was constantly “shape-shifting”. But this only added to the uber-mystique about him being above and beyond it all, some kind of great Trickster who could do whatever he liked, and it wouldn’t ever create any real “contradiction”. And that became his “image” in Adidam, the man who is above and beyond it all, who can do whatever he likes, who is perfect, errorless, the supreme authority, etc. This is an image of its own, and not even a terribly unique one. It’s Big Brother, in spiritual garb. And likewise, rather boring and not very attractive outside the authoritative world of Adidam. Which is why Adidam doesn’t grow. Defending that, or denying it, just doesn’t change the overwhelming widespread turn-off that is Adidam’s most serious problem.
Now, you’re right that I’m probably getting a bit more blunt about things as this dialog has gone on. I’m not here to dance on Adi Da’s grave, or rain on your mourning period. So maybe I really should just stop here. If you think I’m just being unduly negative, fine, write me off as just another failed devotee who couldn’t appreciate “the truth” about Adi Da. But the basic fact remains that Adi Da and his community have not aroused much in the way of positive impressions around the world of those interested in spiritual matters, and there are plenty of good, sound, and reasonable explanations that don’t require us to presume some conspiracy of egos trying to undermine the work of God in this world. Adidam has plenty of egos of its own who have done that, including Adi Da himself.
Now, I know you look at pictures of Adi Da, and see no ego there, but you must understand that’s hardly proof of anything. Pictures don’t have egos, as you must know. Even Da himself taught that the ego is an activity, not a “thing”. So I would suggest that instead of looking for a “thing” we might call “ego” in his photographs, look at his actions, and the overall pattern of his life. I think in that context, of action, you can certainly find plenty of ego in Adi Da, as have most around him. As I mentioned, his own daughter told me she saw him display ego all the time, it’s not really that unusual an observation. If you don’t see ego in him, it’s only because you aren’t looking at his actions, but only at an image you have in your mind. I think Da used to call that the “fourth stage error”. Well, sometimes these criticism bite one on the ass.
And really, enough already, don’t you think?
December 9, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Shiva, I’ve really enjoyed your posts. I don’t know who you are, but I probably do know you. Someone mentioned you might be Steve B., and if so, more power to ya. (I didn’t even know Steve B was on the outs). I second all the things you said, including the warning that I’m not going to “get through” to Feel4God or others here.
You are quite right, I just practice the Bhagavad Gita attitude of acting without any expectation of any results accruing. I’m pretty certain no results will accrue from these dialogs, but that’s no reason not to engage them to some degree. Truth will out. And practically speaking, even if no one in Adidam takes these words of ours seriously, but just reacts and dismisses us, plenty of others whose minds are not quite so closed down will refer to this dialog in the future, I think it will stand as a kind of testimonial to Adidam’s legacy in many ways. There’s been plenty of intelligent consideration on both sides, but I think the general impression it leaves won’t be much to Adidam’s liking.
I’m sorry that you, and especially your wife, are getting some pressure from the mahas out there. I know that drill well. My wife is still emotionally attached to Da, but hadn’t been allowed to participate for years because of me. Really, it’s been better for her, helped her to see what kind of people these guys are.
Funny, they called up the other day and invited us to some local event commemorating Da’s Mahasamadhi. I wasn’t sure if I should go, but I decided to just honor my personal relationship with Da and lay some flowers at his feet. I could have left after a few minures, really. I walk into this hall he used to work in a lot, so it had some personal connection to him, offered a flower, and instantly I felt him, the whole personal relationship, very directly. He was just laughing. He was making it clear to me that he found the whole scene really hilarious, the whole Mahasamadhi silliness, the whole Adidam scene altogether, the seriousness of it, the mourning of devotees, and most particulary my being there. He seemed to find it just plain funny that I was there. In fact, he seemed to enjoy my being there, because I hadn’t come to get anything from him. I wasn’t there to mourn, or experience anything at all, and he kind of liked that, and made that much clear to me. After that, well, let’s just say it wasn’t very inspiring is all. But I enjoyed that little bit of personal contact and humor, it was in keeping with the relationship I had with Da, and that was great. But all in all, my only purpose in this whole thing is to give it all away and be done with it. The past really is past. It’s just sometimes fun to talk about the past, but I’ve probably overdone that already. Good luck to you, and maybe our paths will cross again someday. You can always email me at conradg@gmail.com.
December 9, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Feel4God said:
shiva Says:
“your lengthy non-reply just confirms what i stated: you are not able to shed your adidam-conditioning and listen. ”
Hahahaha!!! And this is a “reply”?
i’m sorry Feel4God that is all i could muster in the light of your non-argumentation here. (i am surprised at conrads patience with you). looking at a person’s picture and concluding solely from that pic that the person might be a jnani but that you still feel “a very subtle kind of concentration in him”. wow. that was just awesome. and in the amrita-nadi discussion here many points were clearly made but consistently ignored by you. so, my point stands: “you are not able to shed your adidam-conditioning and listen.”
December 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm
What I have come to recognize (and suppressed in fear of being derided by members of Adidam and others) is that there is no absolute contradiction between different ‘spiritual’ endeavors and there is no source of wisdom outside of myself. No doubt I will be deemed a heretic in Adidam and a fool by others. Who was it that said one must lose face in order to realize God?
The argumentation beginning to appear on this blog is typical of those wanting to have one aspect of duality win over its opposite. It’s likely to continue into noticeable defensiveness, then outright abuse. It always does. People who fearfully defend anything end up angry when challenged by others. What is the mechanism underlying this defending? Is it the result of a great and free love for something worth protecting or is it because of the fear of the implications of being wrong about something? No one can decide this for another.
With regard to Adidam and the rest of us, the usual styles of contentiousness are appearing on both sides of the illusory divide. Adi Da said this, no, he said that. Adi Da meant this, no he meant that. Is Adi Da the greatest realizer or is Ramana? Always the pitting of one against the other. As if we really knew anyway.
Devotees of Adi Da live in platitudes and do not live the life of Humor Adi Da supposedly came to incarnate in this world. Freedom has no binding perspectives or points-of-view needing defense. In any case, any point-of-view or belief always has a bottom-line presumption that evaporates when the light of real enquiry is shined on it. Those who maintain a system based on a set of presumptions (like Adidam and every other spiritual organization) have simply not enquired deep enough. And those who ignore such enquiry because they are bhaktis full of ‘faith’, do not fully appreciate the real value of discriminatory precision.
How Adi Da behaved in the name of a liberator, and what devotees do in the names of devotion and spiritual endeavor, are legitimate topics for scrutiny and investigation, as are discovering the underlying motives for why many of us left Adidam. I don’t often do either anymore because…. well, I guess I would rather watch the football. But then again, here I am in front of the computer typing out my point of view to add to the malaise. I guess I will never learn.
December 9, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Okay, okay, I’m back…dammit I’m hooked but I’m feeling better. Here’s my self portrait.
From Drop Box
So, I’m not enlightened, or am I
December 10, 2008 at 12:00 am
Conradg Says:
“Just when I think I can get away from this discussion, you keep pulling me back! Is this a scene from the Godfather, or what? ”
Hahahahahaha! No, no pressure from me. I never knew any of this went on with you. I was not involved in the people politics/culture of Adidam.
Wait a minute! You are the one who reverted back to the debate again – so I did too. Fortunately, you restated everything you already presented so there is little I feel I need to reiterate back. But I do appreciate your consideration and also your criticism of myself in the midst of this too – there is always room for further self-understanding and self-transcendence.
Conradg Says:
“Like I’m at all surprised that you would play the “oedipal” card. Jeez, guy, you don’t think I went through enough of that crap in Adidam, I have to sit through it here too?”
I had no idea – I should have guessed it though. I just saw you being angry about your relationships in Adidam in some of your posts so what’s a little oedipal feedback between friends?
I am sorry to hear that you had so much difficulty serving so close in – but I cannot presume that any of this didn’t grow us in some kind of way back then – at least it resulted in my having to grow up more quickly than I would have otherwise.
Conradg Says:
“Pictures don’t have egos, as you must know. Even Da himself taught that the ego is an activity, not a “thing”.”
At the moment that a picture is being taken, the activity that is ego is still apparent in its effects on the face, in the eyes, the being, really the whole body-mind – this can be seen-felt-intuited from the heart. Even from a photo, it is often very obvious where someone is contracted as self – i.e., where they tend to “reside”. In Adi Da I see there is no self (activity) present – it is patently obvious. And all those pictures of Ramana Maharshi are so beautiful because they are selfless. So I don’t understand the logic of your comment.
Unfortunately, you do seem to take little of what I respond back to you into account throughout this whole debate – perhaps because you feel (and seem to be) more scholarly superior, but also I think you selectively ignore things. Of course, that happens in a debate, but I actually wished that this had been more of a real dharma consideration rather than a debate between an ex-Daist and a Daist. Also, having to type everything up, is a real pain and slows down everything and makes skipping things more likely; not to mention the limitations of the blog format.
Please understand that I have no problem with any of this consideration, and I hope that you at least inspect how much mind and emotion you seem to have wrapped up in this issue, just as I will inspect my mental presumptions more deeply. This certainly has resulted in my studying a bunch more – both from Adi Da and Ramana.
However, I still have found nothing that you have presented or that I have studied that undercuts what Adi Da has said about Ramana Maharshi. I have carefully read both His and your arguments openly – and what He says makes way more sense to me, and also intuitively rings true to me. His samyama is far deeper and gets to the real heart of the matter.
And really, if it were not for Adi Da’s detailed descriptions of Atma Nadi, the heart on the right, etc., etc., much of Ramana’s Teachings would be far less understandable, in my opinion. You even said you did not understand Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings at first – only after being with Adi Da could you.
For me, my relationship to Adi Da is based in inherent beholding, trust, and love, not any mental logic or belief – so nothing about the body-mind or arising whatevers, really threaten the core relationship. At death what good is mental logic and belief anyway? If I lost my mind today – which is possible after these debates – I would still have my devotional relationship with my Master.
I also see your list of enlightened devotees, but my understanding was that only Ramana’s dying mother was declared enlightened by him – and Lakshmi the cow. So the rest were enlightened after His Passing. Not that that can’t happen – but if it does in Adidam I can imagine what the critics will be saying!
Regarding my mentioning of Karuna Guru = Causal Guru – that was straight out of a Ramana book that I think Former Follower posted from. I just copied his quote.
Personally, the way I see it is Bhagavan Adi Da and Sri Ramana Maharshi have and had different Functions – and it is a total win-win for all of us. Adi Da is very obviously God-Realized, and so is Ramana. Their Teachings embrace devotion and non-dualism, and inspire many many people to transcend egoity in God. What could be greater than that?
Conradg Says:
“And really, enough already, don’t you think?”
Definitely – I will end with this very relevant section from Adi Da Samraj’s Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga book (which is published) that address both the prelimary Perfect Knowledge practice you questioned and what Adi Da has recently written about Atma Nadi – I thought you might appreciate this as a parting gift. It also has a section on Ramana Maharshi, but I think I will skip that since this debate is more than over from my standpoint too! Take care Conrad.
From Adi Da Samraj’s Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga:
The characteristic mature demonstration of the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice is the searchless Beholding of Me.
The preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice is not an exercise of dissociative introversion based on My preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” Teaching.
Rather, the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice is the searchless, tacit recognition of the Self-Evident Truth of My “Pefect Knowledge” Revelation.
To rightly practice the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice is to tacitly responsively Listen to Me in the Priorly Established Stand of moment to moment whole bodily turning to Me and right-life obedience to Me – and, Thus and Thereby, to Tacitly Stand in the Never-”objectified” Witness Position of Consciousness Itself.
…
I Am Standing Infinitely Above the body-mind – in My Self-Existing Self-Radiance.
I Stand here As the “Root”-Current of Transcendental Spiritual Love-Bliss (or Atma Nadi), Shining from the right side of the bodily apparent heart.
…
The “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam Is the Way of the “Regenerated” Atma Nadi (the “Root”-Current of Transcendental Spiritual Love-Bliss) – simply As the “Root”-Form, and As the Acausal Self-Condition and Source Condition of conditional appearances, and Always Already (and, thus, searchlessly, and not merely strategically, or eventually, or conditionally) Self-Established As “Perfect Knowledge” of the Intrinisically egoless Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State That Is Divine Conscious Light Itself.
In the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam, there is no turning toward “self” and no turning away from “not-self”.
In the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam, the practice of “Perfect Knowledge” (both in its preliminary form and as a mature Transcendental Spiritual “Perfect Practice”) is not about the search to dissociatively introvert upon the interior “subjective” (or strategically psycho-physically introverted) “Source” of the strategically (and, necessarily, egoically) presumed “I-object” (or any other “object” of ego-”I”) – but, rather, it is the Always Prior (and Intrinsically egoless) practice of tacitly and searchlessly and Always Already Self-Abiding As the Self-Evident Self-Nautre, Self-Condition, and Self-State That Is (Always Already) Not-an-”object”.
My Ruchira Shaktipat Has Its Own Intrinisc (and Perfectly Acausal) Purpose and Sign.
My Ruchira Shaktipat Is My Transcendental Spiritual Transmission in the Form of (and by Means of) Atma Nadi.
The Source of My Ruchira Shaktipat is not in the body-mind-”self”.
The Source of My Ruchira Shaktipat is not anywhere in the conditionally manifested cosmos.
Rather, My Ruchira Shaktipat Is the Intrinsic Self-Radiance of the Divine Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State of Reality Itself – Which Is My Own Divine Person.
Therefore, the Self-Evidence of My Ruchira Shaktipat Acausally Self-Manifests As Self-Awakening in Atma Nadi – not as any development in the Circle, or as any development in any of the structures (gross, subtle, or causal) of the body-mind-complex.
The Process of My Ruchira Shaktipat begins At (and Perfectly Prior to) the heart-”Root” – and It always leads to the heart-”Root”, by Means of the Samadhi of the “Thumbs”.
Atma Nadi – in Its “Regenerated” Form – is not merely a “line” of “conductivity” in the body.
Rather, Atma Nadi – in Its “Regenerated” Form – Is the Fundamental Condition.
Atma Nadi can be seen with reference to the body, but It has (Itself) nothing to do with the body or with the cosmic domain.
Atma Nadi Is the “Bright”.
In due course, Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga Manifests As the seventh stage Self-Awakening to Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi.
Atma Nadi Persists Non-conditionally – without “cause”, and without conditional requirements or “exercises”.
Atma Nadi Manifests Spontaneously.
The Manifestation of Atma Nadi can be felt with reference to the body as the Love-Bliss-Full Current of My Transcendental Spiritual Self-Transmission, Extending from the “Root” Prior to the right side of the bodily apparent heart to the Matrix Infinitely Above the body-mind-”self”.
…
December 10, 2008 at 12:08 am
When I first heard the news of Adi Da’s death, a lot of feelings began to percolate up as I recalled all my past involvement, and I found myself going through a kind of life review, and I stumbled onto this blog. I am enjoying and am helped by the excellent criticism here.
I think one of the hardest things about leaving Adidam for me was that it WAS so powerful and juicy, and I took that as evidence for its claims. I didn’t know any other yardstick to measure by. After I left, I went to several spiritual groups, and saw a good number of spiritual teachers, but none had the power of Adi Da, nor the intensity requirement for participation that Adidam had, and so I tended to find them lacking and suspect. At the same time, I had left Adidam because I no longer trusted it or could take it, so I was confused.
Still today, as I recall a Darshan with Adi Da, or the feeling of the sanctuaries I spent time on, nothing I have experienced compares in power.But I have come to realize that this has nothing to do with realization. I still don’t know what to make of it, how to explain the power, but it is not interesting any more, and it is a distraction, not realization.
So while it is true that my involvement in the community was amazing (as well as outrageous and hurtful and an assault on my intelligence), I think of it as unique life experience with an “energy kicker” and something toxic at the edges. That’s probably all it is for me anymore.
For me, since I got hooked into the teaching in 1976, it was a giant bait and switch operation, where the original teaching had brilliance and a focus on realization, but community life in the 80′s when I was formally involved turned into a bedlam of incredible (not credible) teaching demonstrations, and then finally came off the rails with the Divine Emergence, and then the FLO nonsense, and the eternal vows demanded of students (And BTW, what sense does it make to require an ETERNAL VOW from a student who is otherwise presumed to have no discernment in spiritual matters?).
The old teaching was my first guide to realization, and I studied it deeply. For years, this man was my most trusted source of wisdom. I grew up believing him. As he astonished me more with his brilliance, I trusted him more. When you drink the coolaid this much, it’s really hard to get it out of your system, but I believe the purge is almost complete.
December 10, 2008 at 12:36 am
This certainly is a difficult topic to stay away from… What keeps bringing me back? It is truly not a desire to debate or argue (to what end?). For me, it is simply being able to talk about Adi Da with other people. It is a tremendous pleasure for me. It gives me the opportunity to exercise my rapidly aging mind (everything speeds up after a certain point in life, no?). It gives me the opportunity to talk about Adi Da and his Teaching, because in my personal life there are very few people I can even discuss with the matter of religion, never mind discussing Adi Da — apart from the friends I have who are devotees.
And, in some odd way, I don’t really mind the negative talk, either. That which is prior to positive and negative still “contains” both, and so it is no surprise to me, anyway, that Adi Da would be confronted by both. I think it is fair to say that Adi Da is an awfully powerful magnet, cos you are either attracted to Him, or repelled. After that, I would say we are the only ones debating about which condition it’s better to be in. The rest of the world is going toward a far deeper depth of hell anyway, while we spew out a lot of intellect.
I can totally relate to Conradg’s image of Adi Da laughing right now. I will always see that Giant Grin! But I think Adi Da is laughing because, in spite of all the world’s BS, all the conflict, all the darkness, all the stupidity, all the cruelty, the world is still a pretty good place to play in. Didn’t He say, “You have to be mad to be happy in a place like this”? The world is what it is and we are all just a wee bit serious about it — serious about maintaining it, serious about organizing it, and serious about being right in it… even while it’s disintegrating before our eyes. Maybe we all missed His point.
December 10, 2008 at 12:46 am
Feel4God
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar … The noble Brutus
Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:
If it were so, it was a grievous fault,
And grievously hath Caesar answered it …
Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest,
(For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all; all honourable men)
Come I to speak in Caesar’s funeral …
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man….
He hath brought many captives home to Rome,
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did love him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then to mourn for him?
O judgement! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And men have lost their reason…. Bear with me;
My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,
And I must pause till it come back to me.
“You all did love him once, not without cause”. Thing is Feel4God…we all did love him once. That divorce was not a pleasent event. It was not casualy taken. For myself, for the many that I have talked with about their choice, it was heart rendering. The conflict of their mind and their heart was terrible. Although you may dissagree, it was their heart that won out and in their own private horror died to Adi Da. The heart did win…not without the pain…not without the loss. I’ve seen none here glad to bury him. Too much of us goes to his grave.
You must understand…when one concludes, especialy within Adidam, that the choice was egoic, oedipal, adolescent, etc., that these remarks are an offence to a choice made, a very mature and painfull choice, an offence to the people that made this choice, that you will be called on it. It is a reflection of ones own disrespect for oneself…a fear based response.
I have read your posts…all of them. To ask posters to put up their pictures so that you can see in their eyes who they are begs the “I”ll show you mine if you show me yours”. Perhaps a better approach would have been to put your picture up along with your proposal, kinda a “good faith thing…a bit conventional I know, but a good gesture. What does a realizer look like anyway? You have come to a conclusion about Conrad wanting his Guru to look a certain way…what’s yours ( see, that’s that sticky “show me” thang)? Jesus (originaly a 6th stage demoted to 5th or is it 4th?) said “You will know them by their fruit”. What does a madman look like (ok, maybe I’ll show you my picture first)? I don’t know…do you? I’ve been fooled before.
“Realizer of non-dualism”? What the hell is that? I don’t even have a clue about what the High Dharma is or what the hub-bub about it is. I can recite it wth the best, although Conrad would give me a run for my money ;-}. Do you know what it means ( ysmyf
). I know a lot of people that can talk about it, Frank included. Maybe you haven’t read all of my posts. Truth is, I came to the conclusion, somehow, that “I” had no clue how the hand works!!! How in the hell am I going to figure out “High Dharma” if I still have that unfinished buisiness? Do you know how it works? Anybody? Realy? Honestly, it is a time of a “consideration” of concepts and presumptions. I can’t take the discussion of high dharma seriously anymore than any other cosmology. It’s the same. All are pointers. All speech is pointers…”sacred” or casual. In the end babel. “Agreements” made, assumptions all the same. In the great dharma debate we talk about ego and the illusionary nature of the ego and how when one goes beyond the illusionary ego we see that it was illusionary all the time but cannot make that claim until we are realized cuz that would be the talking school and not it yet which you will know when you are finaly realized that the whole thing was a cosmic joke to begin with and you have a lot more time to play golf and chase your wife around the house cuz you ain’t chasing an imaginary tail or looking for the fucking gateless gate. Did I leave anything out? Oh ya…Freekin Amrita Nadi. Please do expound on it more…that is if you can tell me how my hand works…then I’ll have the attention for it. Keep getting returned to the mystery of it all…isn’t it? Where can I go to find out if I am a realizer of non-duality? Is there a test? Should I wear a suit for my interveiw? Don’t know what it is…hellofva “concept” as babel goes.
I understand and do appreciate your devotion, no irony here. There is nothing, nothing in me that has a desire to change that. It IS a very personal choice and I honor that. We do disagree, but, I mean you no disrespect. I cannot however disrespect myself by not speaking out. I hope you can honor that too.
Sri Sri Whatsitallaboutalfi
December 10, 2008 at 2:58 am
OK, as best as I can follow it, according to his own prognostications, not only was Da completely non-dual; he was more non-dual than anyone else ever has been or ever will be…which might seem to make him singularly something except he was beyond whatever that is also…right?
December 10, 2008 at 4:47 am
@ Clara Llum:
thanks for your post. i agree with every word you said.
it was a good reminder that there is always only oneness.
and no free will of course! who could have it?
everything always happens in oneness and as oneness. and therefore nothings happens at all! isn’t that incredibly funny!?!?!
always cracks me up when i see it again, especially how invested this “i” sees itself in all this nothingness. it is not always seen with the same clarity but your post served as a reminder.
thank you.
much love to you too, clara.
@ConradG:
thanks for your kind words and your outstanding posts here in general. always a pleasure to read.
i am not steve b. and i haven’t heard that he was on the outs. i’d be surprised if he was.
since the mahas know who i am anyways, i might as well reveal that i was quite well known in the community a few years back when i was performing a technical service (software development) for adi das art process. but that was probably after you left. you may not have seen the presentations and notes, etc.
@NC:
there is no “i” to be enlightened! and there is no “i” onto which any “divine other” could crash down.
that is why adi das teaching is so dangerous and flat out wrong from a non-dual pov. it keeps you locked in the search by re-inforcing the “i”-illusion and by re-inforcing a dependency on the “divine other”.
but then again: it is all a play on and as oneness. nothing ever happens. nothing to worry.
oh, dear Feel4God, i can almost hear your oh so well-oiled and conditioned thoughts at this point. enjoy the ride!
December 10, 2008 at 11:10 am
I understand that there is only one person who has to moderate all these posts (I sympathize and thank you for this!) – and so it tends to come in large batches at times. I very much appreciate their letting us use their blog space. However, this format sometimes makes for a very disjointed conversation. I would be willing, as atiasrama suggested, to take further considerations to a Forum where things get posted in real time, etc. However, after reading a bunch of the posts in the Daism section of the lightmind Forum, that looks like an even larger group of people biased against Daism than here. So if there is a more “neutral” Forum that we can speak openly and respectfully to one another about these great matters, I would be game. It should also have lots of emoticons!
By the way, atiasrama – I enjoyed seeing your picture. But I do think people have gone off the deep end with what I suggested. What are you guys trying to do with your various interpretations of what I suggested – make me look crazy?
I am just happy that you didn’t post a naked picture of yourself from the 70′s, atiasrama! 
Here is what I originally suggested:
Feel4God Says:
And to those who feel they can simply call Adi Da a charlatan, given all that He has written, spoken, and created:
I would very much appreciate your posting a link to your picture, and let our hearts confirm your own depth of understanding to be seen in your eyes and felt in your presence. Such depth is a necessary attribute you would have in order to make such absolutely judgmental statements about any great realizer.
************************************
I am glad I reread some of the posts here. There are still some misunderstandings that I would like to consider about non-dualism and devotion in Adidam. I felt what Conradg is criticizing here about non-dualism and devotion is particularly useful to consider further.
Conradg Says:
“This is encouraged by the “seven stages” model, in which non-dualism is relegated to the sixth and seventh stages, and talking about it before that is considered “uppity” and even inappropriate. Rather, dualistic approaches, language, and concepts are considered far more appropriate, particularly the approach of dualistic devotionalism.”
I hope you now understand that non-dualism is part of the initial stages of spiritual practice in Adidam – because, as always, they begin on the basis of Adi Da’s 7th Stage Realization. And the specific preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practices are what I already posted as “The Five Reality Teachings”. Obviously, those are non-dual and are practiced from very early on.
Conradg Says:
“This unfortunately makes for separative arguments that consider devotion to be in opposition to non-dualism, and vice-versa, which is simply not the case at all.”
I understand what you are saying – but this is due to devotees’ misunderstanding – which Adi Da constantly addressed. It was not the fault of the Master. However, He was not going to just let us be a talking school of “Witness” glimpsers either.
We absolutely needed Him to prepare us with a stable foundation in devotion and right life disciplines. He said once that was done and we were initiated into the spiritual stages truly, He would depart from here physically.
And of course, devotion to the Realizer has always been the necessary foundation in Adidam and since ancient days. We really need to be careful to rightly discriminate between what devotees do (and did), and what Adi Da has recommended – especially during those early days when we were so immature in our approach to Him.
Conradg Says:
“The non-dual schools are highly devotional, they simply understand devotion to itself be non-dual. Worship of the Guru in non-dual schools is considered worship of one’s very Self, and is not made into some kind of objectified glorification of the Guru, but is understood to go beyond all such concepts and notions from the beginning. Nisargadatta, for example, performed a puja to his Guru every day of his life, long after his own realization, explaining that it meant nothing, it was just the fulfillment of a vow he had made to his Guru long ago.”
Well said. Perhaps if the devotee is fully devotional, having already prepared and surrendered themselves physically, emotionally, mentally via the “lesser” approaches in the Great Tradition – then there may be the necessary basis for direct surrender to the Absolute Self.
It is just that the ego, particularly in our modern Western cultures, thinks that it can surrender to the Self without any preparation and without a real Spiritual Master to guide him. This is what is called Talking School – and rightly so.
Very interesting and impressive that Nisargadatta fulfilled his vow to his Guru. A lot of people give up on their vows to the Master – even before they are Realized!
Hmmm, I probably shouldn’t have reread your last posts, Conrad. As I progressed through them, I can see now that I did not address all of your misgivings about my part in the Amrita Nadi debate.
Conradg Says:
Regarding this Amrita Nadi matter, I think we both know why we are focusing on it. It’s because it’s one of the linchpins of Adi Da’s claim to be the “First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Realizer”, the unique and only fully realized Guru ever, than which there will never be another.”
This is funny to me – as I said before, I just started talking about Ramana Maharshi because He represents some kind of common ground for us to consider in a positive light. It was much more about a relationship to people here than some grand debate idea. I am not very scholarly, so I would not have done this by tendency. I have never debated about this before – though I do find it very informative and useful.
Conradg Says:
“It’s only by trying to crudely fit traditional wisdom into Adidam conceptual categories that one confuses “Karuna Guru” with the Adidam concept of the “causal realm”. They aren’t in any sense the same. When Ramana used this term to describe himself, he was only saying that he was the highest kind of Guru, not that he was a Guru with some predilection for the causal realm.”
Actually, until Adi Da, it does seem that the Karuna Guru does equal “Causal Guru” – that was Ramana’s Function and the word “Causal” was how Karuna was translated in the Ramana book – obviously a 6th Stage (“Causal”) perspective because that was all there was at the time.
I do whole-heartedly agree with you, Conrad, that we cannot blindly accept any Teaching as the “Word” and then just as blindly believe in it. Adi Da has always admonished us to study His Works, to test them, etc.
Given I am not a scholar, I no doubt did not do as much justice as one our Adidam scholars could have with Adi Da’s Teaching about these most advanced matters. But I can say that it is obvious from all kinds of statements from Ramana that He offered a Teaching that had to do with initially seeking within for the Source of the I-thought. This is undeniable and I quoted several passages to support this.
Also, Ramana no doubt Realized the Self, but His function with devotees was to awaken them via the heart on the right to the Self – usually via the approach of “Self-enquiry” or tracing the source of the I-thought back to its root. Also, He described Amrita Nadi very seldomly and not as clearly as Adi Da has, in my opinion. Amrita Nadi was also the final “goal” of His Teaching – not the starting point and always necessary foundation, as Adi Da teaches, in terms of the relationship with Him.
Ramana’s life and teachings also did not manifest as the fullest expression of Amrita Nadi – certainly not as compared to Adi Da with His most comprehensive radical Teaching Works, His great submission to devotees at all stages of development during all the Teaching years, His art, etc. etc.
Only the One absolutely coincident with Amrita Nadi in Its Fullness (and whatever other great spiritual Vehicles of Realization He associated with to incarnate here) could provide so much! His Life Work speaks volumes – at least no one can deny that, regardless of how many holes they want to speak about in terms of Adidam, devotees’ immaturity and our misunderstandings, childishness, adolescence, etc.
I will conclude with Adi Da’s very recent words on this matter (again from Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga). It goes into this most profound matter in more detail:
The literature of the Great Tradition (including the literature associated with the sixth stage of life) makes general references to the heart – but the right side of the bodily apparent heart is a Yogic indicator that has only rarely been mentioned in the recorded literature of the Great Tradition.
Ramana Maharshi spoke of the heart “on the right side of the chest” – but, in doing so, He was speaking of it from the sixth stage disposition (which was His own), and in reference to the sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion (which He taught).
Ramana Maharshi taught a sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion, strategically turning away from body and mind via Descent in Atma Nadi (or Amrita Nadi), and, thus and thereby, exclusively fixed upon the Transcendetntal “Root”.
The practice of “Self-enquiry” Ramana Maharshi taught revolves strategically away from the body-mind-”self”- through a process of dissociative introversion, in the characteristically sixth stage manner – and toward the interior (and thus, psycho-physically inward) “Source” of the egoic “I”-thought (or the “I-object”).
In and by means of dissociative introversion (in the form of “Self-enquiry” relative to the “subjective” interior ego-space of the “I-object”), the practice Ramana Maharshi taught revolves away from the fourth and fifth stage (or gross and subtle) potentials of Spirituality.
There was a causally-based (or sixth stage) mode of Spiritual Force in the Presence of Ramana Maharshi – but that Spiritual Force was associated, in His case (and in the characteristically sixth stage manner), with the strategically internalizing move away from the “world”, or the seeking effort of dissociative introversion.
The “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam Is the Way of the “Regenerated” Atma Nadi (the “Root”-Current of Transcendental Spiritual Love-Bliss) – simply As the “Root”-Form, and As the Acausal Self-Condition and Source Condition of conditional appearances, and Always Already (and, thus, searchlessly, and not merely strategically, or eventually, or conditionally) Self-Established As “Perfect Knowledge” of the Intrinisically egoless Self-Nature, Self-Condition, and Self-State That Is Divine Conscious Light Itself.
December 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Dear Shiva, I’m very glad that my post brought a smile of “already the case” light-clarity to your divine heart.
It’s funny how the oneness works. Few days before Da’s passing, I said some words, to my satsang friends, referencing him, on the subject of the ‘true object of devotion’. I remember mentioning something about how the role of God-Guru [in its most emphatic imperial version] can result deadly for some teachers. The audio is online; the transcript is not ready yet.
Much Love to you again.
Namaste.
Your friend Clara
December 10, 2008 at 12:48 pm
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I appreciate that you would like an unmoderated forum hosted by a neutral person.
If 8 or 10 of you are interested, I could open a forum on YahooGroups. The regulars here will not be moderated. New members will be moderated at first.
Let me know.
Jerry Katz
nonduality.org
nonduality.com
December 10, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Hi Feel4God, it looks like Jerry has come up with a viable idea.
(Meanwhile, I look forward to actually catching up on what’s posted altogether here! Wow, so much.)
I don’t think I’ve talked to too many Daists over the last ten years about posting online. Probably Cyril H and once William Tsiknas. When Adi Da was alive, I think it became something of a policy not to post at online forums. At least with one individual, lol! (Conrad) But, in those days we could be pretty wild and disrespectful. So, you had to be a real warrior, like I felt Conrad was in that context.
Actually, it sounds like to me that Jerry’s Yahoo group idea, with him as owner/moderator, would probably work in encouraging current Adidam members (and Adi Da devotees with an informal relationship) to post. Because he can be trusted in these matters, it seems to me.
I’m going to catch up at my own blog in posting planned articles related to personal encounters and experiences with Adi Da. Beginning with a few day visit to Persimmon (now, the mountain of attention) at the beginning of April 1975. It was awesome on several levels. It snowed heavily. I saw Bubba a lot. The yogic energies were flowing, very physically and concretely evident. (That particular long weekend wasn’t a party weekend….but, I did do service cleaning up broken beer bottles in the space between his house and the dining hall.) Just thinking over that time period, in preparing to write on that, evoked very detailed and specific memory images.
Of many different things. Including encounters and experiences visiting with devotees in various SF households during that time period.
December 10, 2008 at 2:58 pm
@ Jerry Katz, our Moderator – Thank you for the offer! So YahooGroups is a full blown real-time Forum? When you say the regulars will not be moderated, does that mean when we regulars submit a post, it just gets posted right away? Also, does it have paging, various topics, threads, etc., like lightmind’s Forum? Can the unmoderated people also start other topics?
slyder Says:
“You must understand…when one concludes, especialy within Adidam, that the choice was egoic, oedipal, adolescent, etc., that these remarks are an offence to a choice made, a very mature and painfull choice, an offence to the people that made this choice, that you will be called on it. It is a reflection of ones own disrespect for oneself…a fear based response.”
I never said that as a generalized thing for everyone. I always said that each of us have to have self-understanding and to discover whether Adi Da can be our Master now or not. If I said someone was being adolescent, it was specifically toward a post they made, not to everyone in general who has left.
You are twisting what I said into something generalized – in order to attack me on grounds of being some weird fundamentalist, I presume. I guess I will keep referring to this as “critic conditioning” (giving shiva partial credit, of course).
slyder Says:
“To ask posters to put up their pictures so that you can see in their eyes who they are begs the “I”ll show you mine if you show me yours”.”
This was in response to those who think it is just fine to be completely disrespectful to Bhagavan Adi Da – and especially during this time and on this blog. You are not the first one who has misinterpreted this request. Why is this getting so much confused attention? I have posted many other things and yet so many of you are getting focused on this one.
For Conradg and others to say that a photo cannot show the (activity of) ego is very strange to me. It is very obvious that Realizers look way more advanced spiritually than us ordinary folk do. If you don’t see this, so be it. But to say no one else can see this, isn’t that kind of presumptuous?
Again, please don’t twist my words into something I did not say. How about quoting my posts and then making your remarks like I am doing?
“…if you can tell me how my hand works”
I can appreciate your non-dual consideration here. In fact, that very argument is what Adi Da brought to us in 1976 called “Divine Ignorance”. And yes, it is all beyond mind, all a mystery in terms of ever knowing what it IS.
“I hope you can honor that too.”
No problem. Tell it like it is for you, but I hope with respect for others.
shiva Says:
”
“oh, dear Feel4God, i can almost hear your oh so well-oiled and conditioned thoughts at this point. enjoy the ride!
Hahaha! My thought processes are so well-oiled? But then how can you almost hear them? In any case, that is excellent to hear! Thank you for the warm words and the introduction to my last post as it turns out. (Where is the “heart” emoticon around here anyway?
)
no124c41 Says:
“And BTW, what sense does it make to require an ETERNAL VOW from a student who is otherwise presumed to have no discernment in spiritual matters?).”
I look at this as part of the approach to one’s Spiritual Master – to surrender everything, including oneself, to Him for eternal guidance and God Realization. And the Eternal Vow definitely requires us to more seriously consider what we are signing up for.
@ NC – Good to see you again – and a very funny photo!
Eddie B Says:
“Devotees of Adi Da live in platitudes and do not live the life of Humor Adi Da supposedly came to incarnate in this world.”
I am sorry you never got to experience that. It is very commonplace in my experience. Well, maybe not on this blog… Do people laugh around here, by the way?
HAHAHAHAHA! I just figured out what FLO means! Is there a “Critics Guide to Daist Terms” available so I can stay up with the jargon?
By the way, why do people get so upset over this one? From the Acausal Divine Reality’s “standpoint” wouldn’t there only be Reality – the First, The Last, and the Only would always already be that One Reality.
Okay, I admit that when Bhagavan Adi Da started making these statements, at first it bugged me too – especially when I thought of others not so involved in Adidam. But as I considered it more deeply, it became clear as a radically Non-Dual Statement that only the Acausal Divine Reality could truly make – and in such an outrageous manner! I just hope people understand it and see the real Humor in it.
Come on, guys, any true non-dualist can understand this. Think about it – utter ego dissolution would always be the same One Reality.
December 10, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Hi Everyone!
I am so grateful for everyone taking the time and energy to do all these posts.
What a great forum for examining non-duality, spiritual practice and the legacy of Adi-Da.
On a personal level, it has been really empowering for me to realize that, like me, many ex-devotees went through a very similar in-depth long-term period of immersion in Da’s and adidam’s pool and then after deep (and I mean deep) heart-felt consideration made the difficult, but necessary choice to step into their own shoes, see through their own eyes and feel with their own hearts.
On this note, thank you Conradg. Former Follower, Stuart, Shiva,NatRaj and Eddie B (Yes, I understand you completely!)
and, like you all (I presume) I am extremely grateful for all and everything that dear, crazy Da gave me….and glad that at last my own true heart took it’s rightful place….sorry it’s not up for argument about that…you gotta stand there in your own case for yourself!
To the devotees; we (the ex-devotees) have all been there and know where you’re coming from. We know all the rationale, all the blisses, all the put-downs, all the justifications..We also know that you’ll never see what we see…until you “kill the Buddha” and stand in your own place. I truly wish you a happy life and a Bright Now! May you find the place where your own true hearts stand free. If that freedom is truly to be found for you in being bound to Da and Adidam….so be it…but I wouldn’t count on world domination now the main attraction is gone.
Thank you feel4God (especially for the grammar tips!) , Blisscake, N.C. NotQuandra et al…..watch what they do!
Yep….it sure is a Big Mystery!
love,
Stevie
December 10, 2008 at 3:57 pm
YahooGroups is not a bulletin board as is Lightmind Forum. It’s an email list. The emails are broadcast to everyone. You can choose to receive individual emails, or a digest containing up to 25 emails in a single email, or you may choose to receive no emails and to read the postings on the yahoogroups website for the list. You can read the emails by subject/thread. The search engine is excellent. You can conduct polls and upload files and photos. I use only YahooGroups. http://groups.yahoo.com/
Jerry
December 10, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Posting here has brought up a lot for me, a lot of pain and unresolved feelings that needed to be examined and let go. That was why I withdrew from the forum the other day.
When I left the community, I went through such a downward spiral. So much pain and disillusionment! I had to confront the rage I had about not being the chosen one, not just by Samaraj Adi Da, but by everyman, and everywoman who had come into my life. It was a very intense wound that was at the core of my being. I won’t bore you with the dirty details of my family of origin, and why that little patterning got set in place, but let’s just say it was a deeply traumatic childhood. People close there heart off for much less, and sometimes much more. The past is not a detriment to me, if I allow my subjectivity to be released around it. There is grace in suffering.
A lot of criticisms of the community, and the guru, have been very painful for me, and not because I haven’t had my own issues, but because they encourage a kind of victim mentality that is disempowering. It has been very useful for me, to ask this question of myself: “What do I bring to the table, in each and every relationship?”
Everything that Samaraj Adi Da has said in His books, in his recorded talks, in the leelas of Him by devotees, and in the personal notes he gave me is starting to unfold in my consciousness in a new way. The reason I posted the self-portrait, was because it was done several years ago, when I first spun away from the community. It does reflect the separation I felt, and the feelings that I would be devoured if I continued on with my meditation on His form. Because I am more of a visually oriented person this was the only way, I could express it.
There is no blame to be had. I refused to practice in the tremendous way that He required. I understand why I was not able to make that choice. It is complete sacrifice. The self cannot do it, because it is bound to fear and attachments.
With His death, I realized I will always love Him. That is one of my great privileges. To many, he was just mad genius. He is a portal to me, beyond me.
I have felt “deeply dissatisfied, intensely unhappy, psychically imprisoned” With Him I experienced freedom from my dissatisfaction, and also an intensification of my resistance. He demanded everything, not for the sake of “himself” but for the sake of love. Jerry, I have experienced non duality.
If anyone has been to Fear No More Zoo, they will feel the incredible tenderness that was really at the core of his teaching. The reason we got His power foot, is frankly because we needed our asses kicked. If anyone thinks he didn’t do it in a loving way, I’d like to introduce you to my father, who was almost charged with attempted murder. The ego is a terrible thing, and we must forgive ourselves for being much less than perfect in relationship to Him. What He demanded was radical, total. But at the same time, there is personal responsibility. There’s freedom in owning up.
Pema Chodren gave a wonderful talk about the spiritual teacher having to be the biggest trouble maker in your life, so you can see where you are provoked, and get stuck. She says if we really want liberation we need these people in our lives. Check it out if you have the chance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7qFi52FX1Q
We are all troublemakers to each other. Samaraj Adi Da was a Troublemaker with a capital T!
As you can see, in spite all of my resistance I remain a lover of Samaraj Adi Da. …a very cautious one, but nonetheless…He stays with me
December 10, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Very personal and touching confessions! Thank you for sharing those. And a cool video too, NC.
Stevie, fallen out of Wonderland Says:
“…but I wouldn’t count on world domination”
Good to hear this – I am already busy enough!
Stevie, fallen out of Wonderland Says:
“Thank you feel4God (especially for the grammar tips!)”
Hahahaha! I am glad you got something out of my posts, Stevie – at least now it can’t be said that they served nothing positive. Lng liv gud grama!
Stevie, I have noticed that you (and several people here) made mention of the famous quote “If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him” as something relevant to your departure from Adidam. Do you think that this statement can be reconciled with what we have been talking about in terms of devotion and non-duality?
December 10, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Feel4God,
I sympathize with your desire to keep this consideration going in some kind of moderated forum elsewhere, in that I do enjoy good dharma discussions, and if I am going to waste time surfing the internet, which pray tell I am going to do anyway, it makes sense to do it in animated dharma debates rather than most of the other things I might entertain myself with. I’m just not that much into the whole “Da” debate anymore, it gets a little tiresome trying to untangle that mess, and I’m just not out to “win” this whole thing.
As Jerry Katz, our very patient host here, has suggested, we could create a Yahoo discussion group. However, I find the software on those groups very poor. To be honest, the best kind of software is the kind Elias uses at lightmind, and though you probably don’t much like his site’s emphasis on the negative, I would be willing to bet that he’d be open to allowing us to create a moderated forum there for civilized discussion of these Adidam issues, and leave unmoderated remarks for the regular forum there.
The problem is, any forum on any public website would undoubtedly be dominated by critics of Adidam, regardless of how civil they were. This is because the world as a whole, at least that part of it which knows much about Adidam, is heavily weighted towards criticism of Adidam, rather than praise. These are just the unpleasant facts any advocate of Adidam has to face up to. If Adidam wants to change that, they are going to have to demonstrate a different kind of engagement with the public.
I certainly did back in the 90′s when I became active on the Wilber and Lightmind forums, trying to defend Adi Da. I even tried, to no avail, to get Adidam to become more directly involved in facing these critics, even proposing a public Adidam website that would host these kinds of discussions. At first, it was agreed to, but later it was rescinded, by order of the RSO, and all kinds of strict rules were laid down forbidding devotees from posting on the internet about Adi Da without permission, which was of course not granted.
I was hounded by the Adidam leadership for my participation in these internet discussions, even denied Darshan, and at one point even labelled a security risk. So you really should be warned that you could be endangering your status within Adidam if you continue these discussions much longer. For me, it was no big deal, it just helped me to see that I was on the wrong side of the debate, that the people who were really interested in free consideration weren’t in Adidam at all. Adidam was interested only in quashing any kind of serious debate, and stonewalling all criticism instead. How well did that work out? I don’t think very well at all.
Anyway, if you like, I can mention the idea to Elias, and see if he’s into it. And I’ll post a response to your latest on Ramana/Amrita Nadi soon. But I don’t know that very many active devotees would ever participate in such a forum in any case. If you think otherwise, let us know.
December 10, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Dear forum,
one of The problems with setting someone up as your GOD man, and labeling him as crazy wise, leaves you open for any and all kinds of treatment with no accountability or limits .Everything, and I MEAN>>>> everything gets explained or {spun} off as cool because its the crazy avadhoot .Never give up your will to anyone,and if you do, be ready for whatever.
The other thing that doesnt fit is the constant contradictions, in the teaching. When I started in 1975 during the breath and name phase, there were no murtis, the hall had a picture of a chair ,flowers,fruit or offering. Photos of Adidam were not used then.Years later the close up photo took on a new meaning .
On the anniversarry tape with the 9 short talks spanning decades, he starts off with saying there is nothing to be realized, nothing!!! Then continuesto go on to say you should relate to him as in the Krishna story being totally distracted in the geru, almost like any seeker would do but with a little different job description.
with all due respect , I think this passing will force many to get jobs, take personal responsibility, turn to only GOD and surrender your functional fear.
God is everyone, or as the great one said, there is only conciousness itself!
Regards to you all.
December 10, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Thank you all for contributing so much of yourselves, something that probably would not have happened before Adi Da’s death. It seems his passing has created the opportunity and space for those affected by him to engage in real dialogue. Not everyone will use the opportunity well – some will continue to make differences when none exist – but I am grateful it has occurred.
The long debates over dharma really fascinates me probably because I was once a research scientist with a penchant for detailed complexity. I was also once a great nitpicker amongst also-rans. However, it occurred to me some time ago that we (scientists, philosophers, pundits, Adidam) create complexity out of utter simplicity. My greatest discovery was that the act of observation actually creates the complexity! (Is there any precedent for this statement in Adi Da’s literature? It has precedents in quantum physics.)
Having said all that, I find the on-going discussion between Conradg and Feel4God quite riveting. It will probably not change anything but hey, those guys can rap! I’d join in the fun if my brain functioned like it used to. And thanks Stevie fallen out of Wonderland – short and sweet. I don’t care if you, me (or anyone else) are fooling ourselves. How would I know anyway?
The astonishing thing about all of this is that whether I have a greater sympathy for one position (ex-devotees) or the other (current devotees) doesn’t concern me anymore. Yes, my experiences are closer to those who have left Adidam and can now look back with a new form of discrimination. And I do have difficulty communicating with those who remain bound in the drama of Adidam cultism. But, hey, what has any of this got to do with the Truth? Who was it that said “There is not the slightest difference.”
The greatest gift I got from Adi Da is recognizing that I simply do not know anything. Is there more to know than that? Who knows?
December 10, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Feel4God says:
” the Eternal Vow definitely requires us to more seriously consider what we are signing up for.”
I would say so!
But I can’t help but compare what my old teacher Bubba Free John said when asked about the Bodhisattva Vow:
“Why should anyone take such a vow? Who is there to take it? Who is there to fulfill it?”
December 11, 2008 at 12:25 am
Feel4God says;
“Stevie, I have noticed that you (and several people here) made mention of the famous quote “If you meet the Buddha on the way, kill him” as something relevant to your departure from Adidam. Do you think that this statement can be reconciled with what we have been talking about in terms of devotion and non-duality”?
YES…but perhaps only at an “individual” level.
“Your own self is your ultimate teacher (sadguru). The outer teacher (Guru) is merely a milestone. It is only your inner teacher that will walk with you to the goal, for he is the goal”.
~Nisargadatta Maharaj
For some “Killing the Buddha” becomes the most intimate expression of love and devotion.
December 11, 2008 at 12:48 am
First off Conradg, thanks for that very clear post about our options for going elsewhere with all of this discussion. I like discussing all this Dharma too and I can see why you were called a scholar when you were in Adidam.
But even more so, I like talking about what is going on in real life and how the practices apply in specific ways. This is partly why Adi Da’s Teachings have so much application in every area of life. Yes, Adi Da has spent a lot of time with diet considerations – and now all of this practical wisdom actually helps a lot of people. The same with the emotional-sexual considerations – vast amounts of wisdom that can help with issues in this area. Heheh, even a non-dualist can have a question or consideration about sex!
Of course there are also the areas of service, meditation, worship, spiritual experiences, etc., that we have also been instructed in.
The practices that Adi Da has given us can be summarized as devotion, right life disciplines, and the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice which “Awakens Tacit Establishment In and As the Witness-Position of Consciousness Itself”.. Adi Da Samraj has shown us how these three are all necessary. To me, these are of real importance to consider and apply rightly.
So there is an urge in many Daists to speak freely about all of these Gifts. I know I stumbled upon this blog and felt that it was a way of honoring the relationship to my Spiritual Master by posting about His Greatness; and to try and speak with anyone who wanted to consider whatever they were going through in their relationship to Him.
It is always about relationship – I care much much more about that than I do debating the Dharma. And during this time of His Mahasamadhi, a lot of people want to relate about this.
I like Michael being here – he brings an evenness and balance, plus he speaks very well. He genuinely seems to like to talk about Adi Da with anyone. I wish more Daists were here, but on these open Forums it can get pretty ugly at times and most Daists understandably do not want to deal with that – particularly with our Master just departing physically. For me, I find it a way to remember Him, even to distract myself with Him – though I can get riled sometimes when the posts are extremely disrespectful. They have greatly eased up though in this regard.
Conradg, I don’t know what to think about going forward with all of this. I am more interested in what peoples’ actual practices are, and how it works for them – whether they were or are part of Adidam or not. I also hope we can further consider what you brought up about devotion and non-dualism. This is very useful in terms of practice, in my opinion – so if we can speak about the Dharma as it actually relates to our current practices, that is best – although the Amrita Nadi debate has been very interesting.
In terms of practicalities – I agree that lightmind is the best choice in terms of software. That kind of Forum is what I also had in mind. However, given all the anti-Daist posts there, etc., etc. – why would I want to add to the activity of that site even if we had our own space? It is one thing to have critical discussions like we have been having here, and quite another to just hear people ranting extremely sarcastically every chance they get. So you can see why wouldn’t want to be part of increasing any traffic to such a site. You might say, well why not try to bring something positive about Adidam to lightmind – but it would just be a drop in a very large bucket of negativity, at least given the areas that I explored. If I am wrong about this, please let me know.
So, I guess I will just keep posting here if there is anything more any of us want to consider; unless there is some other neutral site with similar software to lightmind. This current blog site is all about non-duality, plus Jerry has been very gracious – and also seems very neutral, and that is the most important aspect to me anyway.
December 11, 2008 at 2:32 am
There is no doubt Franklin had serious psychological issues in the form of grandiose delusions. The problem is, he was smart enough to write some good books and convince a group around him to join in his madness. That group gave his delusions a sort of critical mass that helped get everything going for him. He couldn’t have done it on his own.
I was sucked in for awhile in the 70′s, but saw the group morph into outright hero worship as Franklin became a Golden Calf who expected everyone to worship him. For the first few years I believed that we weren’t a cult, partly because he criticized us for any cultic tendencies and put down other groups as being cultic. But eventually it became obvious that the things he made us do were exactly what a cult of personality would do. I think he always thought he was God in a way that no one else was, but became more confident about this as time passed and we reinforced his feelings of superiority. It was a two-way exercise.
The community was more about working, partying and trying to get near Bubba than it was about spiritual practice. Almost no one understood the teaching as far as I could tell, but we were too busy to worry about that.
The Way of Divine Communion was when it went over the top for me and the light went on. I wasn’t interested in worshipping God (or Franklin) like a traditional God figure. I came for the Way of Understanding.
But in hindsight, it was ALWAYS a cult of personality, even in the early days. Franklin took advantage of people. He got away with things I’ve never seen anyone do, and I hung with some pretty wild crowds in my younger years.
As far as him saying there was “Only God,” there was never any sense in which devotees were treated like God by him. It was always the other way around.
Our time together in the beginning was alternately exciting and boring, but eventually it became dull and repetitive. He pulled back and wanted to be worshipped like a life-size doll in his silly pope-like costumes and hats. Everyone became uptight about everything. He withdrew to Hawaii and there was only access for the inner circle, who wanted him all for themselves.
Earlier on, he was more approachable and very funny when he was in a good mood and drunk or stoned. I saw his moods swing more as time passed and the weight of managing a larger group started to weigh on him. I think Franklin had a good side to him and could be charming when he wanted but was very narcissistic, which was his downfall.
I left in the late 70′s but kept in touch with people after that. I could swear he went a little crazy or became delusional over the years. If you look at what he wrote in the beginning and what he wrote later it’s hard to draw any other conclusion.
After I left the community I gradually began to see just how messed up it was, and how far off track I had gone in accepting things that just weren’t right or true. But the journey into delusion happened one step at a time, rather insidiously, even though it started with the best of intentions. I accept responsibility for not seeing the signs along the way, and for allowing myself to be misled. That’s what growing up is all about.
So, RIP Franklin. My years with you were mostly a lesson about how not to live. I was sad to see what you turned into — I’m just glad I didn’t let it happen to me.
December 11, 2008 at 2:43 am
no124c41, That’s probably the purpose of taking it, to realize that there is no fulfillment. Different people have different karmas. The search takes on many forms. Some people have to learn about the religion business. It’s not that it’s without it’s usefullness. They are the caretakers of the esoteric way, and the sanctuaries, but to think it’s any different than chopping wood, and carrying water is, in my way of seeing things, deluded.
That is why I find the Mummery so powerful. Raymond Darling submits to the emptiness of the religion. Raymond has dropped the egg of expectation that he be fulfilled….so all it becomes is the theatre of bringing awareness to all aspects of the search.
There are so many ways he answers my questions about spiritual life, but I do enjoy my independence, and freedom to consider other ways of life. I know that I don’t have the karmas to do that kind of practice that the people on the island do. For whatever reason, my spiritual practice does not look like that. At one time, I thought it had to. Does that make me inferior, or superior? I don’t think I have to compete anymore. Been there done that.
December 11, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I’m having trouble finding this old gallery photo online that I’ve seen in Adidam video presentations on its history and a cropped version in Carolyn Lee’s bio of Adi Da (in the chapter covering the April 1975 events where “Bubba” became a General, capturing the evil chocolate covered auric forces mobilizing against him at that time). There’s a photo of him on the Dining Hall porch, with a guy in a long navy peacock standing right in front of him. Anyone knowing where there’s an uncropped photo of that please let me know. I would love to use that in my blog article upcoming on a weekend I spent there. (The guy in the photo is me.)
December 11, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Feel4God,
I can certainly understand why you wouldn’t want to have discussions at Lightmind. It would just be easier that way. Perhaps you should create your own website with a forum. I think good forum software has gotten cheap, and you might even find some open source stuff that’s good, or “borrow” some somewhere. Maybe it’s about time devotees had a place on the internet to talk openly, and deal with critics on your own terms. Well, I’d encourage you to do just that.
Regarding matters of practice, that’s kind of my feeling too. I enjoy dharma debates, but how you live is where the rubber hits the road. And that’s precisely the point I was about to make regarding these abstract debates about Amrita Nadi. We could of course argue forever about the technical matters here, of who said what when. I think on that level its very clear that Adi Da more than acknowledged Ramana as an “Amrita Nadi” realizer, he used Ramana to attempt to confirm his own status. Likewise, when he visited Ramanashram in 1977, he claimed to have an experience of Amrita Nadi there that fully confirmed Ramana to him, and the wisdom of Amrita Nadi. He said it was “like meeting my twin brother”. I’m not sure how much more specific you can get. How he turns around fifteen years later and tries to deny all this stuff is quite beyond me.
But it’s in life that we see whether someone is genuinely realized. Ramana didn’t like to talk about yogic experiences, such as Amrita Nadi, because to him such things were very much besides the point. They are just one more conditional way of talking about things. There are yogic traditions in India, but Ramana didn’t take a lot of stock in them, because they are all conditionally based. He made references to them now and then, to their systems of dharma, he even mentioned such things as the “heart on the right”, but really, it was not something he devoted much time to. Adi Da made a big deal out of Ramana’s “heart on the right” business, but Ramana himself did not. He considered it merely incidental and secondary to both practice and realization. He never told people to meditate on the heart on the right, in fact, he wasn’t big on meditation at all. And he didn’t put any undo emphasis on these yogic centers and experiences that might arise. He certainly didn’t recommend any kind of concentrated interiorization upon the heart on the right, or even the Self.
You quote Da at length accusing Ramana of being merely a sixth-stager who taught a dissociattive path that is clearly false to anyone who was at all aware of Ramana’s actual teachings and practices:
“Ramana Maharshi taught a sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion, strategically turning away from body and mind via Descent in Atma Nadi (or Amrita Nadi), and, thus and thereby, exclusively fixed upon the Transcendetntal “Root”.”
First, there was nothing disassociative about Ramana’s practice. He did not recommend meditation, introverted or otherwise, and even self-enquiry was only to be practiced as a concentrated practice for relatively short periods of time. Otherwise, it was simply to be a constant approach to every moment of a rather active life. He said that the life of self-enquiry was a “gregarious life”, filled with all the ordinary human relationships and activities of ordinary life. He was adamantly opposed to a renunciate lifestyle, and with very few exceptions he opposed any of his devotees becoming renunciates. He instead favored a householder’s life, filled with ordinary human contacts, within which the practice of self-enquiry would flourish, not some “disassociative” life that turns away from the body as you and Da would suggest. In fact, his ashram was quite different from many traditional Indian ashrams. Another famous local Guru, Sheshadri (sp?) Baba, who Ramana had great respect for, and vice versa, used to joke when visitors asked where Ramana’s ashram was that “Oh, there’s a group of householders up the hill”.
Ramana himself lived a very simple, relational life, not disassociated from the body. The Adidam stereotype around Ramana is based solely on the first few years after his realization, when he lived in a cave and had to be taken care of by others. As he later explained, this wasn’t because he was disassociated from the body or the world, it was just that a powerful yogic process was purifying and transforming his body for higher purposes of some kind. Once that brief period was over, however, Ramana lived a very open, happy, relational life with others that didn’t stop until he died. In his life practice, he treated everyone as an equal, as the Self, literally. He worked in the ashram kitchen every morning cutting vegetables and preparing the day’s meals, with a crew of other devotees. He gave simple instructions on all the basics of life over the course of the years, without all kinds of crazy “teaching demonstrations” being necessary, or obsessive concentration on diet, sexuality, etc. Beyond what is natural and necessary, such obsessions simply distract from the real matters of spiritual practice. He never even closed the doors to his bedroom, but insisted that it be kept open day and night, so that any devotee, or even outside visitor, could come in to talk with him if needed. He kept no secrets, and did not allow anyone to solicit money on his behalf, or the ashram’s behalf, but relied purely on wholly voluntary donations, because he wanted everyone’s relationship to him to be free and open, not disturbed by the worldly mind.
The notion that self-enquiry as Ramana taught it turns away from the body is also simple nonsense. In fact, Ramana himself was very critical of that approach, the negating approach of some traditional advaitins, the “neti, neti” approach that does indeed disassociate from all objects. Ramana pointed out that this approach could never achieve realization because it made separation the principle of its approach, and required that attention be put on the thing it wished to discriminate itself from. Instead of noticing the body, and disassociating from it, telling oneself that it isn’t real, etc., Ramana said that you should simply ask yourself who is observing the body, the world, the mind, etc. In this way, no effort of disassociation is made, no conceptual judgments are made about the body, mind, or world, one is simply directed towards the witness of these. If that is a dissociative approach, then so is Da’s own “five teachings” that you quoted the other day, which directs devotees to be the witness of what arises.
Self-enquiry as Ramana taught it could be summarized in two ways: one, as the simple approach of feeling the basic sense of self, of “I”, and feeling beyond it to its source; and two, as abiding as the witness of everything that arises. This is not a dissociative practice in any sense, it is merely “being real”, or “be as you are”, as Ramana often said. There is no need to disassociate from anything to be as you are, quite the opposite. It is mind and ego which are disassociative, and as these subside, one find oneself entering into a condition of egoless self-abidance. Ramana taught that even self-enquiry cannot bring about realization, it can only bring the mind to the point of stillness, in which the “I”-thought is held still. It requires the Guru’s grace to draw them “I”-thought down into its source, into the heart. If the ego is not fully surrendered, the “I”-thought will rise up again, and create more mind, but if it does not, it dies in the heart, the knot of the heart is opened, and the light of the heart rises up instead first through the Amrita Nadi, and then through all the nadis, so that body and world are recognized as the Self. This is hardly a disassociative realization. To see all as the Self is not some form of concentration on the Self. It is no different than what Da tries to exclusively claim for the seventh stage of life in his terminology, in which all that arises is recognized as the Divine Self.
So this whole notion that Ramana taught a dissociative method of turning away from life and body is, to put it kindly, a simple lie. You are admittedly not very well versed in these traditions, and I suppose you are just repeating what you have been taught in Adidam, so I probably can’t blame you for trying to be loyal and true to Da. You probably can’t even imagine that Da would lie. But frankly, there’s no other explanation. Da was way too familiar with the facts to suggest that he’s merely ignorant about Ramana’s life, teachings, and practices. This is kind of sad, really, and I take no great pleasure in pointing it out, but the facts speak for themselves, if you take the time to check them out, which hardly anyone in Adidam ever does.
In fact, it only raises the question as to whether Da himself has actually realized what he claims or describes, or if he is not merely one of those people mentioned by Ramana and his devotees, such as Lakshmana, who did in fact experience the “fall” into the heart, but whose “I”-thought did not perish, but rose up again, re-creating the mind once again, but in Da’s case, with a certain energetic conviction about his own self-realization. It is mentioned in the literature around Da that this does indeed happen to a number of people, who think themselves thereby enlightened, when in fact it is the ego that is protecting itself by creating a sense of Divinity about itself, and rendering itself immune to the real process of realization. If one studies the actual pattern of Adi Da’s life and mind, I think this is the more likely explanation. His obsession with Amrita Nadi, and his need to make himself out to be the unique realizer of this, could well be due to his own failure to surrender fully in the heart, and to have instead risen as the ego back out of the heart into the mind, confusing this with the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi described by Ramana. It would also explain Da’s obsessive megalomaniacal fixation upon himself, and his desire to make himself the perfectly Divinized ego of a whole new religion. It’s not that Adi Da didn’t come close, of course, it’s just not good enough, and ends up creating even greater illusions for the ego to overcome. But in that sense it’s a useful example for all of us of how the ego can create endless diversions to avoid its own extinction in the heart.
December 11, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Typo in the last paragraph of my last post. I wrote:
“It is mentioned in the literature around Da that this does indeed happen to a number of people, who think themselves thereby enlightened, when in fact it is the ego that is protecting itself by creating a sense of Divinity about itself, and rendering itself immune to the real process of realization.”
Instead of “Da”, I meant to write “Ramana”.
December 11, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Feel4God,
In describing your disinterest in having a forum at Lightmind, it occurs to me that you may be thinking of the old Lightmind site, which actually closed down for over a year, and only recently re-opened. The old lightmind forum used to be pretty wild and sometimes quite negative, but the new forum is quite small and pretty mild. Most people have pretty much walked away from the Adidam debate, and it just doesn’t have the same charge as it used to. I emailed Elias about this idea, and he’s quite willing to host a forum, and very open to whatever format and composition of the forum you’d like, even limiting membership so as to keep it fairly balanced between devotees and critics. He’s even opened a discussion thread over there about this. If you want to check out his site, this is the link:
http://www.lightgate.net/forum/index.php
The new forum discussion thread is here:
http://www.lightgate.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=113&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
December 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm
To Former Follower and Critic:
As I stated some days ago, I firmly believe that Da was a secret tantric Shaivist, which accounts for his assessment of Ramana Maharshi (and all traditional advaitists) as 6th stage realizers. who direct attention to the I-source in Consciousness and thus realizes Consiousness itself (as the prior condition [sic]) exclusive of arising phenomena, but where phenomena becomes subsumed in Consiousness. This of course would was traditionally explained, by Shankara, as seeing all existence as only Brahman. [see Crest Jewel of Liberation and the Avadhuta Gita by Shankara).
However, as I stated previously, in Kashmir Shaivism (a tantric tradition) there is no division between the energy of arising phenomena and Consiousness – a realization of the unity of Shiva and Shakti. This, I am pretty sure, is what Da tried to explain as his 7th stage realization. So, this debate about the intention of Ramana Maharshi obscures the fact that Da has deliberately set up his model of Sahaj Samadhi in the 7th stage, as superior to the a 6th stage realizer, as a conard that purposely is intended to beg for the superiority of his model. A disengenous approach that doesn’t truly define the terms that are being used in the debate about R.M. vis-a-vie Sahaj Samadhi.
But as I see it, it is a debate over emphasis and technique rather than ultimate realization. I don’t think that an advaitist is any less aware of the non-duality of phenomena and consciousness than a tantrika (or a realized Daist). Just as, ultimately, there is no real difference in the realization of a Zenist and practitioner of Mahamudra or Dzogchen in tantric Buddhism.
December 11, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Conradg, I would highly recommend that you study some of Adi Da’s most recent Works, especially if you haven’t already. His descriptions of the “Divine ‘Bright’ Spherical Self-Domain” are a most profound elaboration of this Amrita Nadi consideration. Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga and several other new books are available from the Dawn Horse Press. Of course, I only felt free to post some quotes from His published books, but He worked tremendously to pen His final Works in the Aletheon coming out next year. I have never read anything like this anywhere!
I agree, it does seem that we have hit an impasse with all this debate about Adi Da and Ramana. However, I don’t really understand how you can draw your final “mostly likely” conclusions given all evidence to the contrary with Adi Da – particularly the brilliant consistency with which He not only describes but further elaborates these processes, and most importantly, His constant absolute characteristic of Conscious Light and Love-Bliss, and His incredibly creative participation in every aspect of life. Regardless, the Way of Adidam has nothing to do with the mind of belief or doubt – we still must transcend ourselves and go through these processes just the same.
Regarding my time of practicing Self-enquiry by Ramana, I already mentioned that this started several years prior to ever meeting Adi Da. I immersed myself in the Teachings of Ramana Maharshi for those years (40 years ago), and the practice (as I understood it from the books available in the 60s and 70s), was one of “tracing” the I-thought back to its Source in the heart. So I was not under the influence of the “Adidam version” of Ramana as you implied. Yes, I agree, it was not a matter of concentrating on the heart on the right, but it was definitely an internalized abiding in (concentrating on) the sense of the “I-thought” and “tracing” it back to its Source.
Also, I very much got the impression that Ramana was quite ascetic in his overall orientation toward participating in life from those same books. Hey, maybe that is what his ashram wanted to have people think back then – I don’t know, but this was also my own sense of Ramana long before I became a devotee of Adi Da.
Last night I decided to experiment in meditation with Self-enquiry. I fell into a steady and all too familiar sense of self, and soon thereafter also felt a falling of attention toward the heart on the right. However, suddenly it became readily clear what the difference is between this “I-thought” practice and simply my beholding of the Reality that is Adi Da directly, based on the foundation of the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice. The latter always yields a sense of immediate and direct contact with Conscious Love-Bliss as the felt/intuited characteristic. In short, I found the I-thought approach as meditation on me and the other as meditation on what Is already the case. However, I will test this again very soon – unless of course I get infilled with Love-Bliss right away!
December 11, 2008 at 6:34 pm
I think akasha has really nailed it. Anyone remember Adi Da suggesting poetically this “watery” quality to Consciousness? I always liked that. I’m very sympathetic to the Shaivistic “feel” on this, in the way akasha laid it out. Not only are Shiva/Shakti (Consciousness/Energy) a unity, but they are not two distinct things merely joined together.
Now, so far as Ramana Maharshi being Mr. Introversion, just go to youtube, spend a couple of hours of actually looking at great old film of him, and then get back with your thoughts on that take!
December 11, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Feel4God… thank you for the nice comment. You are right, I LOVE talking about Adi Da and the Teaching, and I love discussing what it means to be human, what it means to be alive, what it means to live in a world, in a galaxy, in a universe…
Sometimes I feel that human intellectual activity is as much a problem as any other kind of problem humans have to deal with. We (and when I say “we” I include myself) spend much time using our minds, we formulate ideas and strategies, all based on our perception and experience, which is a highly subjective matter anyway. But one man’s liver is another man’s pudding. What one man believes is God, another man believes is the devil. What offends one man can be attractive to another. And, even more, that intellectual activity is seemingly hell-bent on reducing everything to some final conclusion about everything and everyone. We attempt to dissect everything and everyone, but it always seems there is a next step to reducing it further. And in that reductive mode, it seems we are often merely trying to find fault.
I recall Adi Da asking, “What is there?” That question could sound either ridiculous or profound, depending on how it impacts one’s mind and feeling. For me, it was a very profound question. What is there? It seems there is ALL of THIS (this life, these humans and non-humans, this world, this experience, this universe, hanging between birth and death). I believe Adi Da would say all of this is a matter of convention. Adi Da is very un-conventional, and so it is no surprise to me that some would be attracted to His un-conventional nature, while some would be offended by it. Adi Da even said this, didn’t he?
As for Adi Da’s “position” changing over the years, I am not surprised at this either. When Bubba Free John said he was not an avatar, that “there could be avatars all over the yard…,” that may have been the case at that time. But as all human beings change over time, why shouldn’t Adi Da have changed over time? It seems to me that His “development” throughout His lifetime was simply part of the Incarnation process. At the same time He was born into the human circumstance, the physical form, subject to the same circumstance as every other human and non-human form on this planet. His Realization became more and more complete over the course of time in this conditional realm. The universe, Existence, Consciousness Itself is not, and cannot be, a static, fixed “thing.” The universe is an expanding process, not just an object. Of course, I cannot say this is, in fact, how it was with Adi Da… I admit I am speculating.
When I contemplate matters such as duality/non-duality, for example, I am fully aware that I am using a mind that is completely subject to a conditional circumstance that reflects nothing but duality. Therefore, I am trying to contemplate non-duality with a dualistic brain/mind. (Am I saying this the right way?) It’s like a color-blind person attempting to imagine color.
Meanwhile, as I contemplate such matters, I am also aware of what a mass of stupidity humanity is (and, again, I include myself in this). I say humanity is stupid based on the vulgar, unintelligent, and destructive path humanity is on. There are human beings in this world who kill life without flinching, who cause tremendous suffering, who want to drag the common man down a road of history most of us do not want to go. Adi Da said in The Transmission of Doubt something like: “Those who rule the world are outnumbered by billions of people…” So why the hell are those who rule the world ruling the world? This is a tremendously important matter, don’t you think? And WHO in this world is going to kick our asses enough to actually do something about it, before it’s too late? Maybe it is already too late… J Krishnamurti used to say that if people (meaning all people) really loved their children, they would see to it that the world was a safe place. This seems like common sense, eh? So, what the hell is going on? Where is the common sense?
Adi Da often said that he could be an offense. But I cannot say Adi Da is an offense the way 99% of our world leaders are, but most of those people are accepted, glamorized, applauded, re-elected, and work to elevate themselves at the expense of the “ordinary man.” Or they are just monstrous dictators. This is the truly serious matter, IMO. We sit around contemplating what Adi Da said, or what Ramana Maharshi said, or what Jesus Christ, Krishna, Buddha, etc. said, but is that doing us (or the world) any good?
I love, admire and respect the great spiritual adepts, but they have not been able to crack human stupidity. They are not the problem. Adi Da is not the problem. Ramana is not the problem. Jesus is not the problem. You tell me what the problem is…
December 11, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I really appreciate following the debate between you guys. I kind of feel like I’ve snuck into the men’s tent, I hope my more intuitive perspective isn’t an intrusion….
That being said, I always had the experience that Ramana was a doorway to Samaraj Adi Da’s teaching. When I would meditate on his form, I felt a great compassion, and gentleness. With Samaraj Adi Da, it there was that, but also a kind of oblivion. The “I” at times would be obliterated, and I would experience wild sobbing accompanied with amazing gratitude. It was like my whole being was being washed of all karmic knots.
I liked watching the Ramana Maharshi videos Atiasrama, and liked this particular one:
I especially like his quotes on inquiry.
I hope we can continue this dialogue in some way, if not here. I really think it is extremely useful.
December 11, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Sorry for all the grammatical errors in above post.
December 11, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Akasha,
I don’t think that Da’s sympathies for Tantric Kashmir Shavism were that secret, since he considered himself a link in the Siddha Yoga chain at the time he wrote KOL, but I have no objection to your basic point. The reality is that Da had no experience with self-inquiry. He did keep a copy of the Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi with him during summer prior to his claimed enlightenment but had his own methods. His essays from that period show that he began to develop his own form of inquiry, “avoiding relationship”, instead. What we see in his account of his claimed enlightenment is a visionary tantric event, and Da seems to have wanted both worlds, recognition as a tantric realizer and as a jnani. Early sources disclose that originally Da felt he was influenced by both Nityananda and Ramana and was somewhat fluid on that issue. But it needs to be said that there is no sense in which a jnani at the level of Ramana Maharshi sees any level of separation between phenomena and Consciousness. These distinctions arise among philosophers among these schools of thought and not at the level of jnana itself, whether from bhakti nor not. As for a realized Daist, I have yet to see one.
December 11, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Feel4God says
“Ramana Maharshi’s Teaching is rooted in the Advaita Vedanta tradition, and whenever I have read it, I continually see that it is based on the presumption of seeking a way out of egoic suffering via liberation in the Self at the heart on the right. Yes, I know there are some quotes that are strictly non-dual, but the internalized method of tracing the I-thought back to its Source, and most of Ramana’s instructions about the practice, still communicate a sense that the seeker is in dilemma and the goal is liberation via that practice.”
The Maharshi’s instructions on practice are really not dilemma-based. Conradg has addressed this in his recent posting. You should read Maharshi again with an open mind.
From “Talks…”
D. There are said to be six organs of different colors in the chest, of which the Heart is said to be two finger-breadths to the right of the middle line. But the Heart is also formless. Should we then imagine it to have a shape and meditate on it?
M. No. Only the quest “who am I” is necessary. …Investigation of “I” is the point and not meditation on the heart-center. There is nothing like within or without. Both mean either the same or nothing. p116
Maharshi on meditation:
D. How is meditation to be practiced?
M. Meditation is, truly speaking, Atmanishtha (to be fixed on the Self.) But when thoughts cross the mind and an effort is made to eliminate them the effort is termed meditation. Atmanishtha is your real nature. Remain as you are. That is the aim.
D. But thoughts come up. Is our efforts meant to eliminate thoughts only?
M. Yes. …Meditation is only negative in effect, inasmuch as thoughts are kept away.
D. It is said Atma samstham manah krtva (fixing the mind in the Self). But the Self is unthinkable.
M. Why do you wish to meditate at all? Because you wish to do so you are told Atma samstham manah krtva. Why do you not remain as you are without meditating? What is that manah (mind)? When all thoughts are eliminated it becomes Atma samstha (fixed in the Self.) p256-7
Meditation is your true nature now. You call it meditation because there are other thoughts distracting you. When these thoughts are dispelled, you remain alone, i.e., in the state of meditation free from thoughts; and that is your real nature which you are now attempting to gain by keeping away other thoughts. Such keeping away of other thoughts is now called meditation. When the practice becomes firm, the real nature shows itself as the true meditation. p269
Mrs. Kelly desired to know how she should best learn to meditate.
Sri Bhagavan asked if she has made japa (rolling beads as Roman Catholics do). She said: “No.”
M. Have you thought of God, His qualities, etc.?
D. I have read, talked about such themes.
M. Well, if the same be revolved in the mind without open expression through the senses it is meditation…
Long for it intensely so that the mind melts in devotion. After the camphor burns away there is no residue left. The mind is the camphor; when it has resolved itself into the Self without leaving the slightest trace behind, it is realization of the Self. p133
December 12, 2008 at 12:48 am
THE FINAL QUESTION
I think a number of people both in and out of Adidam make their way to what I call “the final question.” Once you’ve spent enough time around Adi Da to see that he is very messed up and selfish, and that the people he chose to be closest to him are corrupt as hell, and that he undermines all of the group’s functional efforts through bad decisions and immaturity, the moment of truth comes.
Up to that point you’ve accepted that he was a superior, Enlightened being as reflected in the books and as he appeared in all the formal occasions you heard him talk or meditated with him. You always imagined those closest to him really were more spiritually advanced than you and your friends, because that’s what you were told. But once you get close enough to Adi Da the disconnect between the former image you held and the bald facts about Adi Da’s private persona looms large.
There were several people I knew in Adidam who got to this point around the time I did. This is the time when you have to either commit yourself to a form of illogical insanity and cognitive dissonance that ignores the obvious in order to remain a formal devotee and “believer”, OR you tell yourself that Adi Da’s true function is to bring you to the point where you see through the madness and physically leave him and Adidam (but continue a spiritual relationship with him), OR you conclude he and Adidam are just as messed up as they appear and chuck it all.
At first I made choice b, which is to assume that the point of the whole ordeal was to burn out my spiritual search and end my seeking, which it did. I saw my departure as a sign that I finally “got it” but didn’t question my relationship to Adi Da nor his status as Divine Realizer and agent of awakening. Another person I was close to came to the same conclusion and left, but a few others somehow remained devotees (at a big price psychologically, IMO).
After I was out of the group for a few years and regained my equanimity and self-confidence, it became clear that there was no good reason to assume that anything was going on around Adi Da other than what appeared to be the case on the surface. Why opt for tortured explanations when there was a very simple one.
As more time passed outside Adidam, and I spent time with people who were more focused on spiritual practice than on cultic drama, any confusion I had about Adi Da passed away. That man was nowhere near Enlightened, nor was he even a mature human being. The same goes for those around him I got to know (but of course I didn’t know every one of them).
Adi Da and his devotees were all addicted to personal drama and the “spiritual search,” and were hungry for each others’ attention. Adi Da and his intimates gave up their personal integrity in order to perpetuate the game they were playing and to keep the power it gave them within the culture they created.
Lots of games, lots of politics, lots of people and resources used up, all in furtherance of Adi Da’s one-upsmanship.
I find it very amusing that people on this website (pro and con)are spending so much time debating Da’s ideas about rare and obscure internal phenomena that we can’t be sure even exist. As if THAT were the true test of Adi Da’s worth as a human and a teacher, and as if we had to rely on something so hidden and unknowable as that for guidance in our lives and practice.
Adi Da must be smiling in his grave to see that his smoke screen is still functioning. He’s still got people staring in the clouds, looking at his mere words and pondering speculative fantasies, distracted from the obvious and real things that matter in life — human ethics, human love, human responsibility. These are the areas where Adi Da failed miserably and THIS is what shall be his legacy.
Namaste,
Dakini
December 12, 2008 at 2:41 am
Feel4God,
It is normally not that hard to communicate an accurate picture of Ramana Maharshi’s life and teaching to the broad audience of non-dualists who have explored a variety of non-dualist paths. Ramana Maharshi is widely recognized across many different schools to have been fully realized. It is much more difficult here when the communications offer information that conflicts with the personal view of the group’s guru, in this case Da, who does not seem inclined to accurately present Ramama Maharshi and who redefines terms and concepts to accomplish this.
It is understandable that some of those whose familiarity with Ramana Maharshi is based on what was readily available in the U.S in the 1970s might find Da’s assessment similar to their own. David Godman, the former librarian and contemporary author, has outlined some of the reasons for that, which include use of a more formalized english style that did not accurately convey the atmosphere, personal beliefs of the editor, limitations on the ready availabilty of some information, limitations on understanding the different cultures, and sometimes, nuances difficult to translate. But there is a wide body of material out there now, for starters the excellent chapters on Ramana Maharshi’s teachings and misconceptions found in “Be As You Are”, along with the “Power of the Presence” series, and it does not really support the contentions made by Da once you strip away the redefinitions. I realize you found confirmations of beliefs you had or acquired about Ramana Maharshi through Da, such as the opening of the heart on the right. All I can say about that is that as Ramana Maharshi warned and as Papaji said, the mind tend to visualize and create such conditional samadhi experiences under such circumstances but that is not the same as an experience of Being As the Heart.
You mention that these enlightened devotees were all enlightened after Ramana Maharshi had died. As Conradg points out, a good list of Ramana’s enlightened human devotees (there were proportedly four animals he enlightened as well, including Lakshmi the cow) would include:
Annamalai Swami
Poonja Swami (Papaji)
Sri Muruganar
Sadhu Om
Ramana’s Mother (at her death)
Lakshmana Swami
Mastan (a muslim devotee)
Swami Ram Das
Sri Matha
Several of these were enlightened while Ramana Maharshi was still in body. For example, in the dated material I quoted, Sri Matha was enlightened in 1938 at the age of 32. And again, there were undoubtably more we do not know about because Ramana Maharshi did not see any need to publicize such things, and the Presence did all the work necessary regardless. By comparison, Da has been teaching since 1970 and after 38 years of world wide publicity still failed to draw the recognition of a single person considered a jnani, nor did his ministry result in any one who anyone outside of Adidam would even consider to be a jnani.
I have said that I think Da was correct and acknowleged his lack of confirmation when he made this famous statement:
“…What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers, and none of them agrees with me. They all tell me that I’m mad, that I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. If you consult the usual books they won’t tell you such a thing. I’ve read them all myself….I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have!”
Therefore, Conrad’s suggested explanation is not that implausible in my view:
“In fact, it only raises the question as to whether Da himself has actually realized what he claims or describes, or if he is not merely one of those people mentioned by Ramana and his devotees, such as Lakshmana, who did in fact experience the “fall” into the heart, but whose “I”-thought did not perish, but rose up again, re-creating the mind once again, but in Da’s case, with a certain energetic conviction about his own self-realization. It is mentioned in the literature around Ramana that this does indeed happen to a number of people, who think themselves thereby enlightened, when in fact it is the ego that is protecting itself by creating a sense of Divinity about itself, and rendering itself immune to the real process of realization. If one studies the actual pattern of Adi Da’s life and mind, I think this is the more likely explanation. His obsession with Amrita Nadi, and his need to make himself out to be the unique realizer of this, could well be due to his own failure to surrender fully in the heart, and to have instead risen as the ego back out of the heart into the mind, confusing this with the regenerated form of Amrita Nadi described by Ramana. It would also explain Da’s obsessive megalomaniacal fixation upon himself, and his desire to make himself the perfectly Divinized ego of a whole new religion. It’s not that Adi Da didn’t come close, of course, it’s just not good enough, and ends up creating even greater illusions for the ego to overcome. But in that sense it’s a useful example for all of us of how the ego can create endless diversions to avoid.”
Support for this assessment is readily found. Realization is not the only explanation for what is observed about Da. When asked about the unnamed teacher who taught what was found in the Four Fundamental questions, Nisagadatta implied the teacher, obviously Da, was not realized. If you ask some teachers associated with the Ramana tradition privately, they point to a number of signs that imply Da is not realized. Similarly, Ammachi has pointed to those resembling Da as not being realized, but suffering from a peculiar effect of an expanded subtle ego. None of this is proof, of course, but it does illustrate the assessment of Da from those who would be in the best position to know whereas not a single jnani has recognized Da’s claims. So one making the statement Conradg has made is in very good company in doing so.
Finally, Ramana Maharshi himself pointed out that while there were gradations among jnanis based on the apparent karmas of the vehicle, since the ego was dissolved for the jnani, there was no further doer left. In Da’s case, the doer was clearly evident. This evidence for an unresolved egoic mental function is further indicated by Da’s comment that after realizing the Heart, the energy stabilized as a current from above TO the Heart, and his emphasis on the proper practice being surrender to his crashing down from above. This realm, as Da himself once said, may be psychophysical but is only one of many and is by no means near the highest level. Such spatial references reflect higher subtle activity, not realization. The Heart is what IS and there is nothing “outside”, nor has there ever been. Thus Amrita Nadi is not outside the Heart, either. One can find a very good fit here with the assessments of various jnanis regarding Da and it is not necesary to presume Da’s enlightenment to explain what I have observed about him and his teaching. Da devotees of course have a totally opposite POV and that is fine, it is simply an area we can’t agree.
My final point is that in regard to practice, a practice done in orientation to Da as the final spiritual authority on everything with the resulting mental and energetic expectations affects the results of the practice, compared with following the actual instructions of those jnanis like Ramana regarding those practices. I found that out myself when I initially let Da inordinately influence my understanding of Ramana Maharshi’s teaching prior to realizing what was subsequently revealed to me based on samadhi experiences I now realize were not what I thought. So I understand quite well that your understanding and results will be different. However, efforts are never totally wasted and I hope you derive some benefit from your experiments because the practice does work. Some people frankly desire a commanding guru to explain everything for them and a descending force to work on them, whereas I find Ramana Maharshi reveals everything I need in the most appropriate and graceful manner without all that. My relative frustratation remains that it is necessary to have a better understanding of Ramana Maharshi to even grasp the points being made in these discussions, but hopefully this discussion will illuminate the points at issue.
December 12, 2008 at 6:28 am
There is no adi da.
There is no ramana.
December 12, 2008 at 6:46 am
Hello Everyone
I have enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on this Blog. The funny thing is that even though I am usually quite intrigued by sorting out shit from shinola regarding spirituality and teachers, the overwhelming preponderance of my response to all of you, Daists and Exs, is a deep appreciation for you all as people. I would just love to know if I am hearing the voice of old friends from my days in Adidam (1976-2006). I would love to see all your faces! And I love everyone’s integrity and commitment to the Truth, as best they see it. Simply Beautiful!
On another light note I would like to invite you all to participate in a project that myself and Eddie Blatt are creating. This crowd seems like an ideal lot to contribute to this endeavor.
We are creating a book comprised of stories from students of EVERY religious or spiritual tradition, who want to share a story or two about how foolish or bizarre they (mis)behaved in the course of attempting a spiritual life. We are definitely NOT interested in tearing anyone or any system down with this book, only laughing at ourselves – the joke is on us.
It seems to us that that is a very important energy or connection to advance out in the World at this late date: have a laugh at how good hearted, but absurd, you behaved under the pressure of a spiritual regime. And even more: what do you NOW understand about yourself that you certainly didn’t understand back then!
One of the interesting issues that has arisen for us is to find that many people can’t see anything whatsoever humorous or funny about their past experiences! They tend to either regard their experiences as either sacrosanct and totally precious, or else as a traumatic and a disaster, best forgotten about.
So, many times we will listen to a few stories from a person and actually have to point out how hilarious many of the incidents of their lives were. Then, they may indeed “get it”. That is exactly why this book could arguably be of some genuine service to others. It can begin a process bringing some humor to aspects of our lives that have gone unexamined for years.
Of course we are offering a royalty to anyone whose story is published. You can learn more and decide whether this project might interest you by going to our beautiful new web site at http://laughinggodonline.com . Stories may be submitted in recorded audio form or written (please see the web site for more details)
Also, if you know a friend who might have a great story and be interested, please let them know.
Sincerely,
Brian Emmett
Now of Byron Bay, Australia
Then of New York and Boston
December 12, 2008 at 11:09 am
Thank you, Dakini. You write:
“This is the time when you have to either commit yourself to a form of illogical insanity and cognitive dissonance that ignores the obvious in order to remain a formal devotee and “believer”, OR you tell yourself that Adi Da’s true function is to bring you to the point where you see through the madness and physically leave him and Adidam (but continue a spiritual relationship with him), OR you conclude he and Adidam are just as messed up as they appear and chuck it all.”
I was in the first “OR” when I left, and I have since gradually concluded that Adi Da was a fraud. That should take me to the point of chucking it all and being done with it, but my whole frame of reference is based on Daist concepts. I can’t not think in terms like conductivity and the conscious process, Narcissus, re-cognition, divine ignorance, etc. Some of the concepts remain valid, and some have fizzled out, but that’s the programming I’m left with, even though I have clearly left the community and Adi Da. Of course I find the counterparts of the teaching all over the traditions, and find nothing “Only by Me Given”, (what a toxic, self-contradicting concept!).
I know that the spiritual mind I am carrying is irrelevant to whatever realization may occur, but my mind is definitely re-configured vintage Daist! Every day I think in terms of the teaching in some way or another, so hopefully I am close to separating the wheat from the chaff by now, but I’m still surprised at the stuff that’s there sometimes. That’s one reason reading the posts here can be good for me.
Anyway, what really matters is the simple matter of who am I? Maybe I am lacking in discernment, but I just don’t get levels of enlightenment. I don’t see a 6th stage realization that is not 7th stage. As Shiva has said, how do you get more enlightened than enlightened? “Realizers” say “I am That”, and Adi Da says “I am More That”. Apparently there is more to realization than realizing That, awakening as your true identity without separation. It makes no sense to me at all!
December 12, 2008 at 11:48 am
Former Follower and Critic Says:
> Ramana Maharshi is widely recognized across many
> different schools to have been fully realized.
Ramana offered a very simple practice: “What am I?” Anyone, at any time, can look into this question for themselves. We can actually do this, right now, just inquire into this “I.”
This inquiry doesn’t require holding any ideas or opinions about Ramana. Making ideas about anyone else, about who is or isn’t “fully realized,” or holding ideas about what “realized” means… is all irrelevent to just seriously and sincerely exploring the great question for ourselves.
The option is always open: leave aside all ideas about Ramana, about Da, about “realized”… letting go of all of it, and just giving rise to “What am I?”
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 12, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Do you presume to know who is Enlightened and who is not, or are you just convinced, or do you have proof, or does it take one to know one?
If I conclude that “X” is Enlightened, and “X” says “Y” is Enlightened, do I agree? And now “Y” gets my approval?
If I conclude that “X” is Enlightened and “X” says “Y” is not Enlightened, do I agree? And so “Y” is rejected?
And if I conclude “X” is Enlightened, upon what am I basing my conclusion that he/she is Enlightened anyway? Would that not imply that I am presuming the ability via myself to conclude who is Enlightened and who is not… which, it seems to me, would be a conclusion that I, myself, am Enlightened? Does it take one to know one?
One person says, “The Truth, or God, is your inner Self,” while another person says, “There is no inner (at all).” One says, “God is within,” while another says, “There is no within.” Isn’t this duality in the flesh, fully functional in the material world?
We might be able to conclude that mankind is unEnlightened based upon the condition of the human world, with all its negative, angry, destructive tendencies… we MIGHT conclude that. Or perhaps this is simply how it is in this realm, and we are all in the box and we only imagine and invent what is outside the box. Again, color-blinded attempting to define color… and with such intensity as to be an authority, to boot!
I am an authority on nothing, when it comes to Existence. I have certain feelings and beliefs (which I have pointed toward), but these are MY feelings and beliefs, none of which I can “prove,” and none of which may have anything to do with the Truth of this realm. What do I know, really? What does any of us know, REALLY?
What I know today, I did not necessarily know in the past, I may not know in the future, or after death, or maybe I’ll just change my mind. So, then, of what value is “what I know” if it is not something I would know throughout all Infinity and all Eternity? Would that not be the sort of evidence one requires in order to conclude any value to “what I know?” If I am going to speak with authority about matters such as who is Enlightened, who is not, who is real, who is false… well, who set “me” up as such an authority…. other than “me?”
Questioning is an important part of our endeavor, I think. Criticism, however, is not always an aspect of questioning. Criticism is either a form of investigation and analysis (according to its definition), or it is a bunch of comments about something we dislike. Where does criticism originate — from point-of-view, or from the object of criticism? Questioning is the means by which we try to understand something, isn’t it? So, is criticism also a means of trying to understand, or is it just about finding fault?
I’m not a Rajneesh follower, but I like the title of one of his books: “All Your Answers Questioned.” When it comes to matters of Existence, Spirituality, Enlightenment, and God, any conclusions I have deserve to be questioned.
So do yours.
December 12, 2008 at 1:37 pm
for peter: Sweet!
“A spiritual teacher worth his (or her) salt is in the dis-illusion-ment business. If you’re not disillusioned with your spiritual teacher, he isn’t doing his job.”
December 12, 2008 at 2:19 pm
No one absolutely knows who Adi Da really was, what he did, and why he did what he did with his life and its consequences. There are heaps of concepts, presumptions, assumptions and speculation, even from those who knew him well personally, but the bottom-line is, we really don’t know. As he so adroitly said, “We don’t know what a single thing is.” Good advice as we move forward with individual and collective conscious unfoldment and revelation. Eyes wide open, arms spread wide open, heart bursting with no-boundaries, we embrace all and thus all will embrace us. Namaste and Blessings.
December 12, 2008 at 4:05 pm
peter said:
“There is no adi da.
There is no ramana.”
beautiful. thank you. a much needed reminder of what NON-DUALITY (and this blog) is all about!
why would any teacher talk to his/her students as if they were separate beings who need to achieve something? as if “they” need to do some “right-life disciplines”, practices, breathings, etc..
how could THAT, which is always already the case, be achieved through anything?
why would any serious teacher talk this way (and thereby re-inforcing the illusion), UNLESS he believed it himself?
December 12, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Feel4God,
No, I haven’t read any of Da’s recent works, except some of the “Not Two” book, which I thought was pretty lousy, but I’m opening to considering the new books. Personally I’m just not that into studying books anymore, I find direct practice more interesting, and Da’s books leave me rather cold now, as if I’m looking at my old high school textbooks. I honestly don’t spend much time studying Ramana or Advaita in general, I feel that it either makes its point in you and comes alive in you, or it doesn’t, endless study won’t do the trick. (Although studying it until it makes that point come clear may take a little while).
“I don’t really understand how you can draw your final “mostly likely” conclusions given all evidence to the contrary with Adi Da – particularly the brilliant consistency with which He not only describes but further elaborates these processes, and most importantly, His constant absolute characteristic of Conscious Light and Love-Bliss, and His incredibly creative participation in every aspect of life. Regardless, the Way of Adidam has nothing to do with the mind of belief or doubt – we still must transcend ourselves and go through these processes just the same.”
But this is precisely why I consider my “take” on Da to be a reasonable explanation (I don’t pretend to actually know what’s up with anyone, nor past a point do I really much care). I simply don’t find his descriptions of these processes either consistent, or brilliant, or even true. As for his “incredibly creative participation in every aspect of life”, isn’t that the crux of the problem? Da sets himself up as the only “seventh stage” realizer, and his offers his own life as the demonstration of that, and other lives, like Ramana’s he downgrades as “sixth stage inversion away from the body”.
But what exactly has Da demonstrated? Shall I go down the list? Okay, we have long term alcoholism, drinking huge amounts of hard liquor on a daily basis for at least 4/5ths of over two decades, until he was forced by an intervention of friends and doctors to stop, after which time he switched over to boatloads of marijuana. There’s his long use of narcotics, of amyl nitrate “poppers” during sex to heighton the pleasurable experience of orgasm, which he used for many years and which most likely led to his early-onset glaucoma and the near blindness he suffered back in 1995. There’s the cigarette addiction, the food addictions, the gluttony, and so on. Do you really think all that extra weight Da carried for so many years was “yogic siddhi”? Do you have any idea what he ate on a fairly regular basis for most of those years? A friend of mine who was there at Lopez Island on the night of his “translation” event told me that if he’d eaten what Da had for dinner that night, he’d have died too.
So, is all this world-class indulgence in pleasure-giving toxic addictions some special sign of seventh stage realization, of “creative participation in life”. Let’s add sexual indulgence to the list, screwing as much as possible, and claiming that he “needed” all this sex in order to keep himself in the body. I thought it was Ramana who was tending to disassociate from the body? In reality, it was Da who was always saying that he was about to die if he didn’t get some pleasurable thing to keep him associated with the body. He needed sex and money and art work and all kinds of things, and he told his devotees if he didn’t get them, he would leave the body. Is that the seventh stage disposition and sign?
What about the anti-depressants Adi Da was on for years and years? How is being depressed a sign of seventh stage realization. I recall him yelling at his doctors, I’m depressed, give me anti-depressants! What exactly is so depressing about “seventh stage realization” that it requires anti-depressants? And then we can get into the power games he played, the abuses, the “lessons” that constantly involved humiliating his devotees in deeply hurtful ways. How was that “seventh stage”? In one infamous example, a woman confesses to him that she was sexually abused as a child, so Da tells her to give blow jobs to three of his male devotees, and then he fucks her himself, then has her left alone in the parking lot of the MOA to cry her eyes out all night. Gee, somehow this didn’t actually cure her of her “emotional sexual problem”. What a surprise. The thing is, how could a seventh stager not realize this wasn’t going to work, that it would tend up turning the woman away from Da and Adidam?
Which brings to mind the whole emotional-sexual theater around Da, which consisted for the most part of people fucking other people’s spouses in front of each other at Da’s direction, and Da often fucking the women in private as he pleased, creating huge turmoil in everyone’s relationship. This went on for the better part of thirty years, before Da finally admitted that it just hadn’t worked. Well, again, what a genius. I mean, it takes thirty years to figure out that this is a stupid way to bring about spiritual maturity in people? How many times does something like that have to fail to realize it’s useless? I’m a liberal-minded guy, I can grasp the experimental idea, but come on, try something like that a few times, and it becomes clear it doesn’t work. How is it that a seventh stager can’t figure that out in less than thirty years? It kind of makes one suspect there were other motives there than spiritual maturation.
And that doesn’t even end the list, I’m just running out of patience. The point is, this whole claim of a superior realization on Da’s part isn’t backed up by a superior life. Instead we get a crazy self-indulgent life that was hugely self-destructive and other-destructive, in ways that show little signs of any spiritual wisdom, much less “Amrita Nadi”. Now I’ll grant that there’s a more positive side to Da, he wasn’t all monster, but still, where’s the sign of real equanimity and balance, the hallmarks of truly transcendental realization. I knew many of the healers who treated Da, and they commented on how little bodily equanimity he had, that he was very messed up and disturbed, and that it was very difficult to treat him because he was always stirring up his own mess and never able to be truly relaxed and free of tension. How is that seventh stage?
So as you yourself say, the proof is in the practice, the demonstration in life, and that is where Da seems to fail most grandly. I can give him credit for failing grandly, rather than just mediocrely, but I can’t give him much credit for actually succeeding in demonstrating a truly higher spiritual realization. It seems he simply fell short in life, and I think this strongly suggests his realization fell short as well. Yes, he was a powerful yogi, a great spiritual force in many ways, I don’t deny that. But being a powerful yogi is not the same as being a genuine jnani who radiates true peace.
In regards to your experiments with Self-enquiry, I’d suggest based on your description that you’re not actually doing self-enquiry, but it’s hard to critique someone else’s practice. Meditating on the heart on the right is not self-enquiry, nor does self-enquiry lead to such a practice. If you find yourself meditating on the heart on the right, self-enquiry simply asks, “Who is meditating on the heart on the right?”, or “To whom does this experience arise”. As you describe it, the heart on the right is merely a physical object, not the actual “heart”. Ramana specifically criticized people who practiced self-enquiry as you describe it, as the search for some objective “self” located in some “place”. The practice of self-enquiry is about the feeling of self, which is not located in the right side of the chest, it is not located in any “place” at all. Who is observing this feeling on the right of the chest? That is the sense of self you should be feeling. When you say that self-enquiry involves some kind of motivated searching, I think you are simply projecting your own motivated searching onto it. If motivated searching arises in self-enquiry, self-equiry simply asks “who is seeking”, or “to whom is this desire arising?” Again, there is no search for an answer, but a constant redirecting of attention to the conscious awareness that is always there observing all thoughts and actions and desires. This is not directed towards any goal, but merely the inspection of what we already are in consciousness.
Another problem with your description of self-enquiry, and your description of “searchless beholding” is that you seem to identify these activities with whatever bliss or love you feel as a result of these practices. Such bliss and love will arise if you practice self-enquiry as well – they certainly do for me – but self-enquiry is not aimed at such experiences, rather it aims at the underlying reality that is already the case. Experiences of bliss and love are perhaps a sign of this underlying reality, but if one focuses on those experiences, one has lost the thread of present reality itself, which is what self-enquiry is aimed at. Who is having these experiences? Thinking that because one is having blissful experiences, one is doing this practice right, and that if one is not getting blissful experiences, one is doing it wrong, is a sheer beginner’s mistake. (I think even Da would agree). Experiences that come and go are conditional products of the mind. Self-enquiry is not much concerned with what experiences come and go, but what the underlying reality behind all experience is, namely, the one who observes them all. The observer of experience does not come and go, that observer is always present. If you bliss and love comes and goes, it is conditional bliss and love, not the real thing. So enquiry merely re-directs our attention towards the underlying observer of all these experiences, because that observer does not come and go. Discovering the nature of that observer, the source of the observer, that is what realization is about, not basking in experiences of love-bliss. Which is why devotees don’t realize much of anything, they are so addicted to experiencing love-bliss, addicted to the experiences of Darshan, etc.
I’m not knocking love-bliss, btw. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em, is what I say. But pretending that this is the way to judge self-enquiry, or any other practice, is nuts.
“In short, I found the I-thought approach as meditation on me and the other as meditation on what Is already the case. However, I will test this again very soon – unless of course I get infilled with Love-Bliss right away! “
Well, this is one of the taboos that needs to be broken. I felt the same taboo while I was in Adidam. How outrageous, meditating on oneself! But there were questions that always intrigued me in Adidam, such as “what is this self-contraction he always talks about?” Towards the end of my time in Adidam, I began to understand the self-contraction very directly, as this simple feeling of self. And Da had always said that we should inspect the self-contraction, so I did that. And ended up essentially practicing self-enquiry, such that after I left, and began reading Ramana again, I finally understood what Ramana was talking about, what self-enquiry was. It was the practice that was taboo in Adidam, of actually inspecting the ego as it was, as it was actually felt and experienced by us. Ramana made this exceptionally clear, and despite my resistance due to the teachings of Adi Da that labelled this “narcissism”, I found that it was quite liberating.
It works simply because there actually is not ego to meditate on, and so if we inspect the feeling of self directly, we do not find anything real there. There is no object that is the self, there is no “heart on the right” that is the place of self, that’s a complete misunderstanding of Ramana’s teaching. Instead, meditating on the feeling of self dissolves the feeling of self, unmasking it, making it more and more clear that there is no such thing, and that what is beyond and prior to this sense of self is the underlying reality that is always there, is always love, is always the heart, and is “who” we really are. The taboo against inspecting the feeling of self is erected by the ego, which is terrified that we will see through its game. It erects all kinds of spiritual taboos against this, and we have to have the courage to go past those fears and unmask this illusory pretender.
The Wizard of Oz will tell you not to look there, he will authoritatively tell you only to look at his magnificent form, his great and glorious facade, and not to look behind the curtain, but the serious devotee must have the courage to do so, and bring down the whole game. When that happens, when you see through these Gurus who put themselves in the way of things, who insist that we meditate on them rather than pull the curtain aside and see the foolishness of the whole game they are playing on us, then there is some real humor and freedom. And that requires us to examine ourselves at last, and first and foremost, rather than concerning ourselves with these magical wizards and their fascinating experiences of bliss and awe. As Buddha said, we must be refuges unto ourselves, and work out our own salvation.
December 12, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I sat with John Wheeler last night. Hes nice guy, talks about non dual truth, and plays guitar.I was with sailor Bob at some point. I liked him, very ordinary
and responsive.Ill probably go back.
best regards to you all.
December 12, 2008 at 6:11 pm
mistake, HE was with Sailor Bob not me
December 12, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Support for this assessment is readily found. Realization is not the only explanation for what is observed about Da. When asked about the unnamed teacher who taught what was found in the Four Fundamental questions, Nisagadatta implied the teacher, obviously Da, was not realized.”
“implied?” This is at best very vague to post even here. This could have been an interpretation by a follower (critical of Adi Da) who might readily jump to some desired conclusion, and the same for the rest of your anecdotal mentionings. Are there any transcripts with clear logic in them along these lines? Otherwise, to even be making these unfounded statements mainly indicates to me that you are trying to criticize/discredit Adi Da and His work with devotees for personal, emotional reasons on your part.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“If you ask some teachers associated with the Ramana tradition privately, they point to a number of signs that imply Da is not realized. Similarly, Ammachi has pointed to those resembling Da as not being realized, but suffering from a peculiar effect of an expanded subtle ego.”
There’s that word “imply” again. This sure is a stretch here too. Unless you actually have something concrete from a realizer, to bring it up here this way, is weak at best. It sounds to me like you have a extreme case of being “hyper-critical”.
Former Follower and Critic quoting Adi Da in a very lively and playful moment during a talk with devotees:
“…What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers, and none of them agrees with me. They all tell me that I’m mad, that I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. If you consult the usual books they won’t tell you such a thing. I’ve read them all myself….I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have!”
You are totally taking this talk out of context – even in view of your earlier posted logic. I was there for this talk and have a much different idea about it than you, but this is such a stretch on your part, I will leave it at that.
You also skipped over considering all the 7th Stage Processes and Teachings that only Adi Da has ever said. His Avataric Way is unique and ultimately most effective given it is beyond all conditionality from the beginning. This Teaching and Process have never been manifested in any of the traditions.
By the way, are there other areas in the Seven Stages of Life that you also vehemently do not accept? Do you see any truth in what Adi Da has said about the map of the whole body-mind and the Seven Stages – e.g., the 4th and 5th Stages?
Also, I do know the difference between descending and ascending energies/spiritual phenomena versus what Adi Da grants when we behold Him beyond all egoic seeking. It is nothing like those experiences which I have had – It is Love-Bliss Reality – not subtle, not causal – but absolutely direct Reality felt as inherent Heart Love-Bliss. The heart recognizes it. It is obvious in all kinds of ways, mainly tacitly. And again, His photos show it so clearly, His eyes, His Being… It is completely obvious to me. If not to you, that is something you might inspect further too.
Michael Says:
“I’m not a Rajneesh follower, but I like the title of one of his books: “All Your Answers Questioned.” When it comes to matters of Existence, Spirituality, Enlightenment, and God, any conclusions I have deserve to be questioned.
So do yours.”
I really appreciate this, Michael. Everything must be considered fully before incorporating it or discarding it. And, after enough consideration, firm conclusions can be drawn. However, regarding direct egoless contact with the Acausal Divine Reality, it is self-evident and self-validating in my “experience”.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“I hope you derive some benefit from your experiments because the practice does work. Some people frankly desire a commanding guru to explain everything for them and a descending force to work on them…”
Please understand that I never said the practices given by Sri Ramana Maharshi do not work. I also have no reason to disbelieve that some of His devotees were Self-realized. But the fact that during His physical lifetime Ramana Maharshi never acknowledged anyone other than His dying mother and His favorite cow is interesting. This could also be a good topic for discussion in light of Adi Da’s similar approach and His physical departure – and how His Ruchira Shaktipat has become even more magnified now for so many devotees. Could this have also happened with Ramana’s devotees and that is why there were several more realizers after His Mahasamadhi?
From what I know (second hand), Adi Da praised Ramana for staying alive so long through very severe pain and suffering. Even though Ramana could have clearly just let the body go yogically, He chose to stay as long as it held out. Adi Da said something along the lines of this allowed Ramana’s Blessing Presence to more fully remain with His devotees rather than any of His energy being used for an intentional yogic departure.
Regardless of whether there is a long list of enlightened Daists or not, Adi Da’s Teaching is being authenticated by some in the advanced stages (the “Perfect Practice”) – and many people have “experienced” Adi Da exactly as He describes in the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” Practice of egolessly beholding Him amd “experiencing” His “Tangible Divine Avataric Transcendental Spiritual Transmission.” When this occurs, it is self-evident as the Acausal Truth beyond all experience.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“…whereas I find Ramana Maharshi reveals everything I need in the most appropriate and graceful manner without all that.”"
I am happy that this is the case for you. Again, I love Sri Ramana Maharshi and His Teachings and certainly am not in any position to be critical of such a Self-Realized One. He just is not my Spiritual Master, nor did I find the process of “Self-enquiry” as direct and as immediately effective in beholding the Acausal Divine Reality that is Adi Da and His inherent Love-Bliss.
So Former Follower and Critic, what is your actual practice and “experience” of the Self now?
Conrad Says:
“The old lightmind forum used to be pretty wild and sometimes quite negative, but the new forum is quite small and pretty mild. Most people have pretty much walked away from the Adidam debate, and it just doesn’t have the same charge as it used to.”
I looked again, and it is the same site I had written the above post about. I think what we are doing right here is fine with me – and if a better (neutral) alternative comes along, and we still have interest in posting about these matters, then great. It has slowed down here anyway, so I vote to wait and see.
What I would find interesting would be to have a discussion about what people’s “meditative” practice is regardless of their approach. Also for that reason, this Nonduality blog is a more “wide-open” option/invitation than simply having just a Daism section under lightmind (or anywhere else).
For example, it seems we have moved into that discussion to some extent here with Ramana’s Self-enquiry being considered.
December 12, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Feel for God, I would be willing to help set up a forum for discourse between devotees and ex-devotees. If you can get my email from the moderater here, I would be open to having a conversation about that.
December 12, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Adi Da is dead (and I don’t feel so good myself).
December 12, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Responding to some comments above:
Michael says:
“Do you presume to know who is Enlightened and who is not, or are you just convinced, or do you have proof, or does it take one to know one? If I conclude that “X” is Enlightened, and “X” says “Y” is Enlightened, do I agree? And now “Y” gets my approval? If I conclude that “X” is Enlightened and “X” says “Y” is not Enlightened, do I agree? And so “Y” is rejected?
And if I conclude “X” is Enlightened, upon what am I basing my conclusion that he/she is Enlightened anyway? Would that not imply that I am presuming the ability via myself to conclude who is Enlightened and who is not… which, it seems to me, would be a conclusion that I, myself, am Enlightened? Does it take one to know one?”
I would say that that is actually the problem the Da devotees face when so actively supporting his conclusions about the alleged deficiencies in the realizations of all others in history when their guru’s claims about his own realization have not been confirmed by anyone else who is more generally accepted as realized, something Da himself knew. Especially given Da’s wildly conflicting statements over time on this very subject, and significant issues with the accuracy of some of his statements.
But it is true that the jnani tradition, including Ramana Maharshi, does conclude that a jnani can recognize another jnani. Therefore, the lack of endorsements and the specific implications Da is not enlightened from figures who are likely in a position to know are more significant than the opinions of devotees or critics. Furthermore, Ramana Maharshi does not say that those who are not enlightened are helpless in the matter and unable to discern reliable signs:
=========
Question: What are the marks of a real teacher (sadaguru)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Steady abidance in the Self, looking at all with an equal eye, unshakable courage at all times, in all places and circumstances.
Question: There are a number of spiritual teachers teaching
various paths. Whom should one take for one’s Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Choose that one where you find you get shanti (peace).
Question: Should we not also consider his teachings?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. If a teacher tells him to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities, can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation. Activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity is advocated the adviser is not a master but a killer. In such circumstances either the Creator (Brahma) or death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of a master. Such a person cannot liberate the aspirant; he can only strengthen his fetters.
Question: How is one to decide upon a proper Guru?…
Sri Ramana Maharshi: …If you ask, “How to decide who is the Guru and what is his swarupa?”, he should be endowed with tranquillity, patience, forgiveness and other virtues; he should be capable of attracting others even with his eyes just as a magnet attracts iron; he should have a feeling of equality towards all…”
Question: You have said that the jnani can be and is active, and deals with men and things. I have no doubt about it now. But you say at the same time that he sees no differences; to him all is one, he is always in the consciousness. If so, how does he deal with differences, with men, with things, which are surely different?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He sees these differences as but appearances, he sees them as not separate from the true, the real, with which he is one…I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realisation you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True, the jnani appreciates the distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth.
Question: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality towards all?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes. “Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani.” (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37).
You ask about jnanis: they are the same in any state or condition, as they know the reality, the truth. In their daily routine of taking food, moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. Not a single action is done for themselves. I have already told you many times just as there are people whose profession is to mourn for a fee, so also the jnanis do things for the sake of others with detachment, without themselves being affected by them.”
Question: What are the fundamental tests for discovering men of great spirituality, since some are reported to behave like insane people?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The jnani’s mind is known only to the jnani. One must be a jnani oneself in order to understand another jnani. However, the peace of mind which permeates the saint’s atmosphere is the only means by which the seeker understands the greatness of the saint. His words or actions or appearance are no indication of his greatness, for they are ordinarily beyond the comprehension of common people.
=========
Taking all the above into consideration:
If the best argument that can be made is that we have no way of knowing whether Da’s failure to gain acknowlegement of realization, and in fact dismissal of Da’s claims, from any of those considered jnanis are actually jnanis, one is on very shaky ground. And if one’s argument is that the vast majority of those who came to him failed to find the promised signs of pervasive peace and equality, etc. associated with jnana representative of his presence, teaching and organization.
I do not mean to suggest that active support of Da’s conclusions about the alleged deficiencies in the realizations of all others in history and by those clearly not being that familiar outside of what Da has said about the lives or teachings of said jnanis such as Ramana Maharshi by his devotees is somehow to be dismissed out of hand. What I do suggest is that this argument offers far less support to Da’s devotees than to critics.
And in response to the argument that we do not know what anything is and therefore can not assess Da:
It is true that Da famously said that one can acquire relative knowlege about something but can not know what anything IS, holding up the ashtray! I heard him say that personally, and I saw people in the group become endlessly fascinated with the idea without really understanding it. But to merely parrot that as some sort of unprecedented revelation does not really address to what extent the concept is actually unprecedented, and whether that statement is actually true in the way Da has publicized it.
The fact is that, as Sri Muruganar (one of Ramana’s enlightened disciples) states: “Knowledge and ignorance can only pertain to objects, the non-Self. They are not appropriate to the Self, whose form is pure consciousness.” The traditional understanding is that primary avidya (ignorance) prevents us from knowing the Unitary Reality (which IS) and causes us to assume knowledge of and about things which is illusory. This ignorance does not apply to the Self-Realized who are aware that there is nothing but the Self, and therefore there is no real question about what anything IS, since it must be the Self. But further, the jnani, having realized all is one, is also due to this inate Unity not deceived in relative terms by the apparent qualities of living beings either. So not only is Da not the originator of the understanding that, excluding jnanis, one confounds qualities with practical ignorance of what a thing actually IS, but he fails to properly clarify that Jnana is the state of knowing what everything IS, and that this primary ignorance is precisely the obstacle to Realization itself.
To elaborate:
Question: What is the difference between the Baddha and the Mukta, the bound man and the one liberated?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The ordinary man lives in the brain unaware of himself in the Heart. The jnana-siddha (jnani) lives in the Heart. When he moves about and deals with men and things, he knows that what he sees is not separate from the one supreme reality, the Brahman which he realised in the Heart as his own Self, the real.
Question: What about the ordinary man?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: I have just said that he sees things outside himself. He is separate from the world, from his own deeper truth, from the truth that supports him and what he sees. The man who has realised the supreme truth of his own existence realises that it is the one supreme reality that is there behind him, behind the world. In fact, he is aware of the one, as the real, the Self in all selves, in all things, eternal and immutable, in all that is impermanent and mutable.
Ramana Maharshi also made the following statements:
========
The state of pure being which is common to all and which is always experienced directly by everybody is one’s true nature.
You are awareness. Awareness is another name for you.
Since you are awareness, there is no need to attain or cultivate it.
Liberation is our very nature. We are that. The very fact that we wish for liberation shows that freedom from all bondage is our real nature. It is not to be freshly acquired. All that is necessary is to get rid of the false notion that we are bound.
Ignorant of this simple truth, innumerable methods under different denominations, such as yoga, bhakti, karma,
each again with many modifications, are being taught with great skill and in intricate detail only to entice the seekers and confuse their minds. So also are the religions and sects and dogmas.
======
Thus, the oversimplistic approach that “one can’t know what anything IS” is simply a confirmation of the primary Ignorance that prevents the conscious Awareness of Reality itself but not strictly true, and is a belief that must be understood and then penetrated itself, but is not the required solution to practical problems. Ramana Maharshi warned about the errors of application of non-dualism to relative situations where it did not make practical sense.
December 12, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Response to: THE FINAL QUESTION
Thanks Dakini for a spot-on summary of one’s choices regarding Adidam and how that related to Adi Da.
I am not able to come to a final and irrefutable conclusion as to whether the relationship between Adi Da and his devotees was completely messed up or not. If I look at my own time as a devotee and just consider the nature of my relationship with Adi Da then I fit into (b) of your scheme; i.e., ‘Adi Da’s true function was to bring me to the point where I see through the madness and physically leave him and Adidam (but continue a spiritual relationship with him).’ When I read and hear about some of the shocking deeds Adi Da enacted with other devotees in the name of wakening them up (the so-called “crazy-wise” Avadhoot), I feel disturbed and conclude ‘Adi Da and Adidam are just as messed up as they appear.’ With respect to the first option, I stopped ‘committing myself to a form of illogical insanity and cognitive dissonance that ignores the obvious in order to remain a formal devotee and “believer”, a long time ago!
It seems I waver according to where my attention goes. Perhaps that is the point!? Doubt and uncertainty about who or what he was and what he did with his devotees only occurs when I think about it. When I am simply present, free of mind’s prognostications, there is no dilemma and I am grateful for his influence in my life.
Your last paragraph warrants a comment: “He’s still got people staring in the clouds, looking at his mere words and pondering speculative fantasies, distracted from the obvious and real things that matter in life — human ethics, human love, human responsibility. These are the areas where Adi Da failed miserably and THIS is what shall be his legacy.”
Yes, if you choose the criteria of the maturation of human ethics, human love and human responsibility, then the whole thing has failed. Clearly. I find most devotees childish to the extreme. BUT, I’m not sure these characteristics have anything to do with Realization of the Divine. Mix with any ‘spiritual’ group (or indeed any groupings of people whatsoever) and you will find a complete spectrum of human maturation. In this regard, Adidam is no different in many respects. There are non-relational types, righteous types, hostile, defensive, etc. Some are open and loving (believe it or not).
Ultimately I can only take responsibility for myself – I am incredibly selfish! When I see a friend suffer while still childishly hanging on to the (now dead) guru’s coattails, I am moved to offer alternative suggestions and support because I don’t want to feel the pain of his/her unconsciousness. Maybe I am experiencing a form of madness – there seems to be only me!
December 13, 2008 at 1:10 am
Conradg, your attempts to discredit Adi Da are so exaggerated and in so many cases, just outright lies, that I realize all of this discussion can lead to nothing. Did you forget that I was very closely involved for many many years, whereas you were “close in” for a much much shorter period? So please quit the bullshit with me. To see you once again lose it to your emotions and start all of this negative attention-getting crap up again and again and on and on about my Spiritual Master right after His Passing, only says to me, that you are basically very angry and would rather rant about Adi Da than actually consider the depth of practice. I could counter so much of what you said, but you love the tar-baby approach – back-and-forth – so I have to stop falling for it.
If you don’t agree with how Adi Da worked with devotees and dealt with all of that, then fine, say that in a sentence or two. But to list paragraphs of real exaggerated bullshit and many lies, and in your case almost all hearsay, is just wrong on so many levels.
People who read your list there should know that Adi Da never did the same thing for years and years – other than grant Darshan both formally and informally. For instance, in 1975, I was at some parties where we drank for several weeks and listened to Him speak about most sublime matters, including much about Amrita Nadi, and then we would soon be on a very strict vegetarian diet, followed soon after by a purifying 20-30 day fast. There are so many examples of where our lives were in a constant flux – and I see how that served my capacity to deal with change in life, and to surrender much more deeply in meditation.
So Conrad, get your facts straight at least and quit painting an extremely one-sided and very dark picture around Adi Da. You sound like a National Enquirer reporter rather than a discriminating person. I really don’t know why all of this matters to you now after so many years – and now Adi Da’s physical person has left us anyway. Why do you have to create a huge negatively-biased list once again – to get those critical of Adi Da to join in on this blog too along this same vein? I guess this was inevitable but how incredibly boring and superficial of you – and what a waste of time! I now end up writing all of this in response to you instead of conversing with you about our process of meditation, etc.
I can see you have talked yourself into a box that you are not coming out of relative to Adi Da, so if we are to continue any conversation, it will have to be about the process itself, and not all of your need to rant long and loud about ancient “history” as told by you. If you don’t agree with me about something, then fine, say so, but do it with some class – otherwise I am done with this conversation. I know that may not matter to you, but just understand this in any event.
Conradg Says:
“…in ways that show little signs of any spiritual wisdom, much less “Amrita Nadi”. Now I’ll grant that there’s a more positive side to Da, he wasn’t all monster, but still, where’s the sign of real equanimity and balance, the hallmarks of truly transcendental realization.”
You have forgotten all the Darshans and meditations in which Adi Da would sit in perfect Stillness radiating the Heart to all of us – and quite often for very very long periods of time? Usually longer than any of us ever wanted to sit for! His Spiritual Force would bring up everything from the depths of the unconscious into the light to be released. Did you ever go on a three week meditation retreat in His Company?
In all my years of being in Adi Da’s Company, He always Loved and Granted great transformative Blessing via Ruchira Shaktipat and Instruction to those who recognized Who He Is. Never a moment did I see Him being an ego. You can say, “Yeah? Well look at His actions!” I did, and still saw only His Purity. Sorry critics, I know you hate that, but it is true! And really, I say, who are you to judge Him? Where is your Realization at? What does absolute ego-dissolution look like anyway when it is done as He had to do it coming to here? You are not talking about some ordinary Joe here, you know? You are going to tell us, I suppose, what the Acausal Divine’s actions should look like? Oh wait, you already did tell us – they should basically look like Ramana Maharshi! Do you really think the Divine Avatar would ever appear here and look the way your mind would like it to? Obviously, there was a need to shake things up – especially here in the Western world! And Adi Da did that in many many ways, and no doubt suffered it greatly in His physical person.
Oddly enough, Adi Da and Ramana died almost the exact same age – so what do you make of that in your assessment of their approaches to life? It is actually amazing to me that the Avataric Spiritual Master, dealing with Westerners of such immaturity, and generating so much Instruction, beautifully Empowered Sanctuaries, endless Blessing work with devotees, etc., even lived as long as He did. His Person, Empowered Sanctuaries, Instructions, Art, and devotees – The Way of Adidam – will remain forever, regardless.
Basically, I just find your negative, very long-winded and judgmental ranting incredibly immature and useless to this consideration. I can now see why most Daists will not enter into dialog with you and others, because of this tar-baby game you apparently love so much. You want to judge as some kind of real authority on what spirituality should look like. Sorry friend, but it may not always look so buttoned-down the way you like it – safe and able to squeeze your vision of the Divine and ego-dissolution into your mind to gain some sense of control over it – and to still be able to talk about it. It all goes – all of it!
I would have loved to discuss more about Self-enquiry and what I actually experience, but I am tired and disappointed with this conversation now. Perhaps at another time.
December 13, 2008 at 2:45 am
Feel4God,
When I say implied about the criticism from the spiritual figures mentioned as clearly intended in regard to Da, that does not mean there was any doubt about the criticism of Da. Rightly or wrongly, there is a cultural reluctance on the part of traditional Indians to criticize someone like in that manner by name rather than allusion in public, in part because of the belief that the lesson must be karmic, and in part because such instruction is more personal. You can see that same pattern in Muktananda’s last confrontation with Da where after dismissing his arguments, Muktananda’s main concern was whether he would help with the upcoming visit to America in 1974. That does mean sincere questions about Da in private are answered obtusely or that it is impossible to read between the lines. Frankly, Da wasn’t considered that significant in such circles to warrant any more attention. But I am not in a position to speak for others, I can only point out avenues for research and say that I am satisfied with the statement I made as it is. Nor would such criticism affect you in any case and you would likely not get the answers I did for karmic reasons. It is for others who can check it out in the same way I did to confirm if they wish. Whether the sources are deemed credible is up to the decision of those doing so.
I am also aware of the context of the Garbage and the Goddess statement I mentioned, and the more offensive portion of the original talk I did not mention which has since been edited. The entire talk is available on the web. I had both the tape and the record as well as the book which I retain a copy of and I understand that the community interpreted it as a big joke and not a self-disclosure. It is however a true reflection of the reception Da received from teachers and a summary of his approach to criticism, just as his response to criticism from Hindu authorities in 1975 resulted in a denial the critics were justified in criticizing any of his behavior. Georg Fuerstein, a former insider, has belatedly come to a similar conclusion about that statement in the talk, and in his book Holy Madness, postulates that Da is being self-revelatory here. Of course you will not agree, but I think that interpretation is plausible.
Regarding the 7 stages, that was a later development of the earlier Yogi, Saint and Sage model with a distinction between jnana samadhi and sahaj samadhi. You would also recall the correlation between the naval, saharara and heart centers in this earlier version, culminating in Amrita Nadi regeneration. I am not pursuaded that the current model is more accurate than the one Ramana Maharshi used because of what I now understand about the Heart itself.
I have also experienced what you are talking about in conjunction with Da and understand that you would see it as being far different than an ascending/descending experience. Conventionally, yes, your description is an accurate impression of how it feels even though I no longer think that is what is actually happening. I have more experience to draw on now than then, and I now consider it just a type of subtle immersion something like the thumbs experience Da described.
Muchl like Conradg, I found Ramana Maharshi’s practice works for me where Da’s did not. It is true that Ramana Maharshi’s presence is quite active and alive even this long after his death and others have been realized since then.
December 13, 2008 at 10:57 am
Conradg, it took me a while to realize that at least one of your main agendas in talking with people online seems to be to discredit Adi Da. I find your attempts at this to be extremely manipulative and at best mean-spirited – and probably due to you being angry and bitter about your ego not getting from Adi Da what it “paid” for. Consumer egos, that is what we tend to be here – not surrendered, not happy in the Divine, but always seeking for the “goods” we have in mind, whether they be materialistic or spiritual.
I did not “get” Self-realized even after years of practicing Self-enquiry and thoroughly studying Ramana Maharshi 35-40 years ago. But I don’t blame Ramana Maharshi for that. He just is not my Heart Master. I am not bitter and angry about that – I never was. It just did not work for me as He described it. I know this was my own limitation with Him, and I did not waste my time and life complaining about Him because of this. However, what Adi Da Samraj has given me, does work – and most directly.
Have you seen me bad-mouth Ramana Maharshi as though He failed me? No! But this is exactly what you are doing with Adi Da. You are being mean-spirited here and bitter about your time in His Company. You seem to think it is okay to list endless paragraphs to paint a very negative picture of Adi Da – but it is not okay for reasons I posted earlier. And what does all of that have to do with your process at this point?
I am very happy that the website http://www.adidaupclose.org addresses these “Hot Topics” – including the lawsuits, disgruntled ex-devotees, etc. That should be enough about all of this. He is no longer physically here, so you can rest easy now, and please allow Him and us devotees to do so too.
Take this or leave it – but it is clear that the same “true peace” you speak of about Ramana Maharshi (and I agree with you that Ramana does emanate That) is totally evident in Adi Da. Their photos and their lives do not lie about this – but only one of those fit your vision of what “true peace” should look like. That is fine, but allow us devotees to speak out about what we have discovered and not have you run your agenda to discredit Adi Da over and over. You are talking about our most personal Loved One and it is painful to hear you go on and on with all of these “half-baked truths”, outright errors, and all the rest of your dark painting of Him. Plus, you are no authority on these matters, so at least be a sensitive human being with regards to Adi Da no longer being alive and devotees having to deal with that. If you want to kill any further dialog (at least with me), then keep going forward with your agenda to discredit Adi Da. If you want to actually consider practice, then that is different.
I will wait for your response before getting into a whole lot of detail about Self-enquiry and the latter part of your post. I would like to address what I see as differences between the practice as given by Adi Da and Ramana’s Self-Enquiry. Since I don’t know if this conversation will actually occur again, I will respond to a few of your statements now:
Conrad Says:
“Again, there is no search for an answer, but a constant redirecting of attention to the conscious awareness that is always there observing all thoughts and actions and desires.”
Relative to this and your comment about The Five Reality Teachings the other day, and also what I read on lightmind about The Five Reality Teachings – maybe you do not know this, but The Five Reality Teachings is a Student-Beginner practice. So understand what has been traditionally considered an advanced practice (abiding as the Witness) is actually a Student Beginner practice (now called the First Congregation) in the Way of Adidam Ruchiradam. The practice is similar to what you say above, except that it never “objectifies” conscious awareness nor redirects attention because it is radically available as who we are in our devotional relationship to Bhagavan Adi Da.
Conrad Says:
“Self-enquiry is not much concerned with what experiences come and go, but what the underlying reality behind all experience is, namely, the one who observes them all. The observer of experience does not come and go, that observer is always present.”
Again, your description here is similar to the Student Beginner practice as described by Adi Da. He says in Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga that this Student Beginner’s “practice of ‘Transcendental Root-Standing’ is necessarily and always spontaneously, demonstrated As Tacit Acausal Self-Establishment in the Intrinsic and Always Perfectly Prior Self-Position of Consciousness Itself.”
“That Tacit Acausal Self-Establishment in the Intrinsic and Always Perfectly Prior Self-Position of Consciousness Itself is a most profound conversion, or “root”-change – or a “root”-transference of existence, from the psycho-physically “self”-limited ego-space of conditionally “experienced” bondage and (instead) to the Intrinsically egoless Divine Space of Intrinsically all-and-All-Transcending (and, in due course, Transcendentally-Spiritually-Realized and Love-Bliss-Actualized) Freedom.”
Conrad Says:
“Another problem with your description of self-enquiry, and your description of “searchless beholding” is that you seem to identify these activities with whatever bliss or love you feel as a result of these practices.
I agree that this tends to be a beginner’s mistake, however if one is actually searchlessly beholding, there is intrinsic egolessness, and direct contact with Acausal Reality – Whose characteristic is Conscious Light and Love-Bliss. This is beyond the experiencing of love and bliss as conditional body-mind-based phenomena.
In closing, I will say that I hope we can “agree to disagree” about our great differences in our relationship to Adi Da and drop all the ranting. I would like to go forward with considerations that may actually serve our practice as you can see from the above.
If you (or anyone) would like to talk more about all of that “history” or anything else privately, feel free to email me at Feel4God@gmail.com.
December 13, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Feel4God,
I appreciate what Conrad and others who were around Adi Da’s personal life have to report. They tell similar stories, and I have never seen those stories refuted, but only explained away (you can’t judge his actions, who are you to judge). You have called Conrad’s reports lies and exaggerations. Can you actually refute them? I know you may not want to, or think people can’t put it in the right context, or whatever, but do you actually refute all these stories (and not just Conrad’s, but the whole litany from others regarding drugs, sex, gluttony, abuse, money)?
I think this is incredibly important information for Adidam to be straight about, and the community never was when I was a devotee, because they decided for me that the majority of us weren’t mature enough to handle it. Yet you would have people take eternal vows!
I don’t want to pile on about Adi Da, just tell me the truth!
December 13, 2008 at 1:55 pm
“If you (or anyone) would like to talk more about all of that “history” or anything else privately, feel free to email me at Feel4God@gmail.com.”
Feel4God, why should discussion of history be done privately? I was a devotee for 8 years in the 80′s. I didn’t have much of an outlet for sharing with ex-devotees when I left and these last few weeks of logging on here have been very helpful to me. I don’t need to share my “story” but I will say that my experiences were similar to many, many others who posted.
I am very grateful to those who have shared and from one human being to another I also feel for you in your loss.
More later maybe.
December 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Feel4God,
Does it make you feel more devotional to attack me personally and attribute hateful motives to me, simply because I describe some of the simple facts about Adi Da’s life? You think it’s fine to tell me my criticism of Adi Da is based on bitterness and anger and egoity, simply because the facts of Adi Da’s life don’t fit your rosy descriptions? And what of your cultic ego? Could it be that you praise Adi Da to serve your own egoic interests here? Do you really want this discussion to degenerate to that level of personal accusation about our subjective motives?
Look, I have no motive to discredit Adi Da. As far as I can see, he’s already done that. Remember the old Garbage and the Goddess movie, where he raises a beer to the camera and say, “Now my reputation is destroyed, I am personally ruined”? (I don’t recall the phrasing exactly, but that’s the gist of it). Well, he was right. He succeeded quite well in ruining his own reputation, for many of the reasons I stated in my last post, and plenty more. Is that somehow my fault, just because I mentioned it? Stop blaming the messenger, dude. I’m not the one who did all those things, that have made most people see Adi Da in a very negative light. And trying to edit all that stuff out of the Adi Da’s obituary, just because he’s now dead, isn’t realistic. If you want to deal with Adi Da’s legacy, that’s a huge part of it, and pretending it didn’t happen isn’t going to change anything.
Is there really anything I said that you would factually dispute? And can you really claim that this stuff doesn’t matter when trying to determine how authentically we should consider Adi Da’s unverifiable claims to be the greatest and only seventh stage realizer ever? It isn’t just my own subjective notions of what a realizer might look like and how he might act, it’s the whole tradition of realization which seems to be critical of people like Da. You can certainly try to defend him, but please, don’t paint perfectly sensible criticism of the things Adi Da has done with some kind of crazed, angry, bitter hatred of him that has no basis in life. I don’t hate him, I’m not even angry with him anymore, but I can certainly see why some people would be.
I have no problem with your enjoying the spiritual practice you have in Adidam, and if it makes you happy, more power to you. I just don’t see why you have to pretend that Adi Da has merely been some kind of positive sign of love-bliss in this world, when the simple facts contradict that. Likewise, claiming that he’s a better example of full realization than Ramana doesn’t pass muster, if you actually look at their lives as lived, rather than as advertised. For years Adi Da lied about what he actually did, how he actually lived, and instructed his devotees to lie as well. He did so up to the moment of his death, and I gather has instructed them in perpetuity to keep on lying. Why? If he’s the true demonstration of the seventh stage of life, why not just be open and honest about it all? The truth is, devotees are ashamed of many of the things Adi Da has done, and they know he would not be viewed favorably if the facts came out.
So maybe you are ashamed of some of those things as well? Or maybe you just don’t know very much about it all? You want to talk about real practice, fine, I can accept that you find Adi Da’s teachings on that level to be good for you. I won’t argue with your personal choices. I haven’t criticized that at all here. I’ve only been critical of your obvious errors in describing Ramana’s practices. I don’t have a problem at all with your not being able to connect with Ramana’s teachings when you were younger. Very few people ever do. I connected to Ramana very directly, but I didn’t connect to self-enquiry either back then, and it didn’t really come alive in me until after I left Adidam.
I found that the Adidam practices were useful for a time, but there were aspects to them I always found troublesome or even contradictory, and more importantly, I lost my basic sense of trust in Adi Da. Hence, I don’t really trust his instructions, the practices he gives, etc. I’m not opposed to them, I just see certain limitations in them that finally began to impede my spiritual growth. As I’ve studied other traditions, and found self-enquiry come alive in me, I’ve developed a different perspective on spirituality, and on Adidam itself. I’ve voiced criticism of Adidam’s views on the traditions, especially on Ramana, but I don’t mean that you or anyone else should stop practicing in Adidam, or join up with Ramana. There is no “missionary agenda” to Ramana or advaita. It just happens that at a certain point, some people begin to wake up to its truth.
If I were to look at Adidam objectively, disregarding its claims and just see it for what it actually recommends in practice, it’s really just a kind of self-governing sect of traditional advaita, centered on a charismatic Guru, but teaching most of the basic advaitic truths under a more western system with a scientology-like organizational structure. There’s plenty to criticize in that, but on a basic level its still Advaita, and so I also see plenty of legitmate things to praise as well. I no more wish Adidam to fail than I wish any other American neo-Advaita teacher to fail. I wish them all great good luck, and I hope they eventally transcend their errors and realize perfect non-dual truth.
I just don’t see Adidam as some sort of perfect, completing culmination of the Advaitic tradition. It seems pretty far from that, regardless of how enthusiastic you are for it personally. Lots of people are very enthusiastic about their particular brand of advaita. Some are even missionaries of a kind for it, which I find obnoxious and silly, but that’s how westerners often are. And some teachers are abusive and cultic, and that needs to be brought out into the open as well. Adi Da has been one of the most abusive and cultic, so I don’t see how you can just sweep that under the rug with a lot of talk about love-bliss. It’s there to be considered, and taken into account, and like I say, it has pretty well destroyed Adi Da’s reputation, and no amount of devotional praise is going to reverse that. At this point, I don’t know what could, so I can understand your frustration. Just don’t take it out on me.
I’m glad you’re happy with Adidam. Really, I’m not being sarcastic. In all my years of criticizing Adi Da, I’ve never told people to either leave Adidam, or to stay away. I’ve just told them to look at the whole picture, and make up their own minds. I’ve even told people who feel drawn to Adidam to go ahead and join up, and see for themselves what it’s all about. So I have no agenda here except the truth, which can be somewhat painful to those who try to ignore truths they don’t like to look at. I certainly do understand that it’s painful for you to hear Adi Da described in the manner I did in my last post, but I have tried only to be truthful. If you can’t handle these truths, I don’t know what to say. You’re setting yourself up for some serious problems down the line, is all I can say.
Personally, I’m very, very happy not to be involved with Adidam any longer, and I’m very, very happy with the practice I now have. But everyone is different, and has different needs at different times and different circumstances. I would never have imagined that I’d be where I am today in relation to Adi Da, or that I’d be happy to be so. If you say that I’m bitter and failed, I just don’t relate to that at all. Not only am I not bitter, but even objectively speaking I didn’t fail. I got nearly everything I wanted out of my time in Adidam. By the end, I was one of Adi Da’s most trusted personal confidants, one of the few people in Adidam who could write to him directly without any interference. Even after I’d left, Adi Da sent his closest people to talk with me, and to tell me I could still come back if I wanted, all would be forgiven, and I could resume my place in his inner circle. That was really quite generous, but I simply had to turn it down, because I just wasn’t the same person anymore, and this scene just wasn’t for me.
If Adidam is the scene for you, then go for it, and practice it as long as if feels right. I have no problem with that. I have no problem with millions of mormons beleiving in Joseph Smith’s revelations. I’ve known plenty of mormons, and most of them are really decent people. But if they start telling me what a great guy Joseph Smith was, I’d have no hesitation in pointing out that he was a rather obvious fraud on a number of counts. Same with Adi Da. If you don’t want to hear facts that are displeasing to you, don’t make claims about Adi Da that makes such facts relevant to the claims. Which is a pretty difficult dance to do, I grant you. Call it the Daist eggshell shuffle.
Honestly, I’m not much interested in critiquing Adidam practices and teachings. Plenty of them seem fine on paper. It’s in life that the troubles seem to start. As Bede Griffith said, “What what he does”.
I’m not exactly sure why you want to talk about your personal practice with others here, or that we talk about our practice with you. Are you just wanting to show how your practice and results are better than ours? I’m really not into that game. Don’t you have enough devotional groups in Adidam for that sort of thing? I’m glad you enjoy whatever it is you do, whatever “searchless beholding” really is.
Which reminds me, you keep talking about acausality, and it occurs to me that’s what you were trying to refer to in calling Ramana a “causal Guru”, as if he were part of the causal realm, in the sense of being part of the causation chain. I understand you don’t have much actual knowledge of Ramana or Advaita, so it’s understandable that you would be confused on these issues, but Ramana considered the “Ajata Vada” of Advaita, first propounded by Guadapada, to be the only traditional view that corresponded to his actual experience. The Ajata Vada is the “uncaused view” of the world as being uncreated, uncaused, and without any independent existence or foundation. It’s often summed up by the dictum “Nothing ever happened”. So the idea that Ramana would ever refer to himself as a “Causal Guru” is simply absurd, in that this was completely contradicted by his own experience that reality is completely acausal in nature, with all that this implies. Even Da acknowledged this about Ramana and Advaita in his early writings about such things, such as Nirvanasara, so even he contradicts your claim that Ramana was merely a Guru of the causation realm.
December 13, 2008 at 4:33 pm
It says in the Bible ye shall know them by theyre fruits,
So take the 5 stage quiz! Da claimed that Jesus and Yogananda were 5th stage saints, 2 giant steps behind him, Im going by memory here so please be tolerant, yet Christ, healed the sick, raised the dead, brought sight to the blind, embraced the Lepers, encouraged the meek, AND!! embraced the poor! And for his encore rose from the dead!! If what they say is true. Plus a lot of other stuff.
Yoganadas day of death was filled with all sorts of “tells” visual indications,
comments both subtle and obvious. Forest Lawn wrote a notorized letter describing the incorruptability of the body for 21 days the most remarkable thing in there history. It also gave of f a flower fragrance and did not show sighns of aging. Pretty remarkable, and that community has grown and
thrived for 50 Plus years, with people benefitting in too many ways to list.
Let us judge by theyre fruits, whos work bares fruit richly??
Not to say Da wasnt a remarkable writer and speaker , but lets keep it in context shall we? I owe him much apreciation for his wisdom. ill try to remember that always. I kind of wish hed stayed Bubba,and been available for talks.
Regards to you all
December 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Feel4God,
I admire and respect your willingness to post here and advocate Adi Da in his death, even if you never did so while he was alive. I am an ex devotee but I can never deny the effect that Adi Da had on my life but the positives and negatives eventually balanced themselves out so I moved on.
I did want to comment, however, about your reference to the “Student Beginner” practice. One of the things that seemed designed to drive people mad was the regular, constant and periodic changes in how the different stages were defined and who was or wasn’t practicing in them. He was forever building certain people up only to later tear them – and everyone else – back to the ground. There were even a couple seventh stage transitions that were later retracted as I recall.
Ironic as it seems to me looking back, I see that the biggest taboo of them all within Adidam was to make any claim whatsoever in terms of ones “level” of practice or stage of life. Realization itself could never occur in Adidam while Adi Da was alive – he would have none of it!
Now let’s see what happens with a “Student Beginner” practice that is set in concrete as it were. I wonder what body of people will preside over the decisions relating to who is practicing at what level?
That’s going to be interesting!
December 13, 2008 at 5:33 pm
FEEL4GOD SAYS:
I am very happy that the website http://www.adidaupclose.org addresses these “Hot Topics” – including the lawsuits, disgruntled ex-devotees, etc. That should be enough about all of this. He is no longer physically here, so you can rest easy now, and please allow Him and us devotees to do so too.
So there it is! No validity to those “disgruntled” ex-devotees. The very word would beg to dismiss them as merely whiners without portfolio.
Feel4god, as you have been (by virtue of your staunch persistence) cast as the premier defender of Adi Da, his teachings, life and death and the community of devotees, you cannot just merely brush away the history of abuse, and complaint thereof, by directing those interested in the subject, to a website that is dedicated to presenting the epoch of Adi Da in a positive light.
Come on man. Put your back to it. If abuse happened and many of those who suffered it are not lying about it, which I know they were not, then defend your position in the face of it. If you can do that then you will certainly have done much to make your case.
December 13, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Five Billion Slugs!!!!!?????
Slug-Devotees, please explain?????
Tscha!
December 13, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Life in the average Adidam household hasn’t changed much if at all since the early days I have to say. Start with the aromas that are BAKED into the walls and furniture, from food is usually enough to make Breatharians out of Vegans! The rancid hummous mixed with the undercooked collard greens and a little soy milk was enough to create a Smell from the Kids in the Hall that was more like like HOLY SHIT than HOLY CAT incense! Most of the “spontaneous kryias” that I exhibited were due to the wafting aromas being steadily emitted from the guy’s BUTT in front of me, not Shakti Waves or anything!
Getting up in time for meditation and learning not to snore loud enough to wake the others who were also snoring was ALWAYS a challenge! Usually the drone of the harmonium was enough to bring people back from the dead, but not always – sometimes the screeching of the lead singer dragging out the final OM! Sri Daaaaaa Love-Anandaaaaa Hriiii Daaaaa Yaaaammmmmmm! was necessary!
You may laugh, and I REALLY do when I think of how righteous people got about whether I fidgeted too much in the Hall or not! It was a full 5 X 7 feet closet after all, and after about 30 minutes of Feeling Contemplation I almost always discovered that my LEGS had LOST their feeling and might require AMPUTATION more than CONTEMPLATION! (They never did, thank God, because student novices were always allowed to duck out early, ha ha ha!) The poor student beginners (a BEGINNER is FAR more advanced than a NOVICE dontcha see) would serve their entire 1.5 hours and come crawling out dragging their lifeless legs behind them!
The big challenge in household living is finding another couple or two to live with that you don’t HATE, of course. For the guys with good looking “partners”, it was always a problem to keep the not-so-happily-coupled guys away lest “party season” come along and SHE disappear with HIM Oliver Sudden! (That didn’t actually happen to ME, but I knew a few unlucky bastards who were so unfortunate unfortunately). But apart from matters of congeniality, sexual chemistry (or not), and sharing the common chores, the REAL trick to household living for ME was to STAY AWAY FROM HOME UNTIL IT GETS REALLY, REALLY LATE! THAT way you miss COOKING, CLEANING UP, STUDY GROUP and REALITY CONSIDERATIONS!
“Reality considerations” were about the most Unreal thing I had ever seen but I thought that WAS the joke! But they were SERIOUS! Oftentimes the “leader” of the discussion would single out someone he or she wanted to punish for some minor infraction and begin “SERVING THEM” (like the Gestapo served the poor Jews, that is)!
“You have NOT been practicing NOR have you been living the conditions! I SAW you put that EXTRA PAD of SALTED butter on your potato, and you didn’t even check the label for RENNET – RENNET IS FROM MADE FROM SHEEP INTESTINES, you IDIOT!”
(These were the people with so-called “food numbers”, which meant that anything you put into the fridge that cost more than your entire week’s allowance would DISAPPEAR into their GULLETS during the NIGHT! I had a food number until it became too expensive to maintain so I traded it in for a SEX number instead!”
Oh well, I was Hugely Helped in those days by a bunch of scraggly kids who themselves needed LOTS of Help, Huge or Tiny! And if you were there you will probably have to agree – the times are NOT a changin’ so much, are they?
Franklin, we hardly knew ye!
December 13, 2008 at 7:00 pm
http://randogblog.blogspot.com
Look for at least one new post a day – contributors welcome!
December 13, 2008 at 7:26 pm
FEEL FOR GOD vs CONRADG
I must be psychic. In an earlier posting I wrote that the “argumentation is likely to continue into noticeable defensiveness, then outright abuse. It always does.”
I’d like to offer something at the risk of being considered a simpleton. What if we communicated only what we “knew”, I mean really knew, not what others have said and we just repeat and analyze and argue about endlessly. Having communicated thus, then noticed that what Adi Da or Ramana or anyone else has said differs somewhat, we come across what seems to be a divide. I know ‘this’ on this side of the divide; he says ‘that’ on that side of the divide. The dilemma then manifests as “How do I get to that side if I intuit (but not necessarily ‘know’) his side to be superior to mine?”
Two of the things I ‘know’ from my time with Adi Da and the pilgrimages I have made to Tiruvannamalai with teachers of the Ramana lineage, is that the search for Realization is futile (Adi Da has said that he is always criticizing the search) and there is nothing you can do to Realize God (Ramana as well as many others have communicated this one ad infinitum).
If any-stage realization other than where I am now is to come my way it must do so without my knowing and probably without my permission. In the meantime I am likely to continue to brush my teeth in the morning because I don’t want them to rot prematurely and I will continue to do yoga so that my ageing body might provide some more flexibility into the future. (I know, this is boringly Zen-like.) I might even quietly sit in a comfy chair from time to time early in the morning and hope that what I am doing is real meditation. And I’ll probably enter into discussions about Adi Da and Ramana because… well, I was in-love with the former and can’t get over the serenity on the face of the latter. Are they good enough reasons or do I have to have understood something else?
I don’t have the capacity to add anything really esoteric here, but I remain fascinated by the intricacies of those who perform spiritual practices down to the nth degree of precision. I don’t know where your right-sides-of-the-heart are, but the right-side of my heart aches with our constructions of arbitrary divides.
December 13, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Feel4God,
“Relative to this and your comment about The Five Reality Teachings the other day, and also what I read on lightmind about The Five Reality Teachings – maybe you do not know this, but The Five Reality Teachings is a Student-Beginner practice. So understand what has been traditionally considered an advanced practice (abiding as the Witness) is actually a Student Beginner practice (now called the First Congregation) in the Way of Adidam Ruchiradam. The practice is similar to what you say above, except that it never “objectifies” conscious awareness nor redirects attention because it is radically available as who we are in our devotional relationship to Bhagavan Adi Da.”
I wouldn’t want to neglect this passage of yours. Once again, you have this completely backwards. The basic teaching about the Witness comes at the very beginning of Advaitic practice, not at some “advanced” stage. Advaita doesn’t really have stages of practice as Adidam does, and it doesn’t reserve the heavy stuff for last. Quite the opposite, from the beginning you are told that “I Am That”, that you are the Supreme Being, and are told to practice on the basis of that wisdom, not identified with the body-mind, but with the one who observes the body-mind.
Sri Nisargadatta described his practice in this way. In his first meeting with his Guru, he was told “You are the Supreme Being”. He was floored, and he wondered if it were true, and saw that his Guru had no reason to lie, he didn’t want anything from him at all, and he began his practice on that basis. He wanted to find out if this was true, and every step of the way confirmed it was true.
Ramana likewise always denied that there were stages to practice, or that self-enquiry was only for advanced practitioners. He said that no preparation was necessary, that one could being with this basic approach of always being reminded that one was only witnessing from the very start, and that this would produce any growth and maturity best.
In Adidam, this was never the case until, apparently, very recently. Adi Da used to scorn devotees who talked about this witness matter as “talking school”, and derided anyone who tried to practice it as engaging in a dissociative practice. Finally, after thiry some years, it appears that he has finally wisened up some and realized that he was wrong, and that people like Ramana were right, that one should begin with the radical approach, rather than trying to get oneself “prepared” for the radical practice for years and years and years. Well, this is good in once sense, to finally arrive at some sensible approach, but it doesn’t speak very well for Adi Da’s general wisdom or realization that it took him so long to get to where Ramana and the traditions had always already been.
So when you say that Ramana’s teachings about self-enquiry sound similar to Da’s “five teachings” approach, you are right, but which came first, and which is the copy? It’s obvious that Ramana and the Advaitic tradition adopted this approach long before Da ever came around, and he’s been very late to the party. There’s nothing in Da’s approach as you’ve quoted it here that is either new or unique or worthy of much praise. It’s a decent way of phrasing these approaches, nothing more, nothing original that points to Da as someone special for a greater insight that he’s now giving to beginners. If it works for you, that’s great, but it isn’t a reflection upon Da, it’s a reflection on the tradition of Advaita that originated it.
It’s worth noting again that Ramana didn’t separate his devotees into stages with different practices for each. He gave one and only one practice, and while acknowledging that people were at different degrees of maturity in that practice, there was no real distinction in the practice itself as given. He likened it to playing a musical instrument. There was no sense in “preparing” to play an instrument, other than actually playing it, and getting better and better at playing it. Clearly some people learn faster, or play better, than others, but it’s the same practice in all cases, of simply “playing the violin”. Likewise, to Ramana there’s one teaching, one practice, and no stages or levels or serious variations to worry about it. People have differing characters, and it may look a bit different in any individual’s case, but the basics are all the same.
If I have any regrets about my time in Adidam, it’s that I wasn’t taught to adopt this radical approach from the beginning, but was actually taught quite the opposite, to disregard the radical approach and adopt instead the “preparatory” approach. I think that accounts for a huge amount of the delusions within Adidam for all those years, in which Adi Da engaged in all kinds of nonsensical behavior and teachings justified on the grounds that it “prepared” people for something greater. Part of what made me leave was a desire to take the radical approach directly, rather than to wait until I was “prepared”. I find it funny that he finally seemed to come around to that way of thinking himself, a little late, but it’s better late than never. Think of how different things might have been had Da simply made that radical approach from the beginning, and never wavered from it. We’ll never know, I guess, but it seems like a truly wasted opportunity.
December 13, 2008 at 9:07 pm
In Garbage and the Goddess Bubba, Adi Da, promised “The Guru Will Ruin Your Life”. He liked this phrase so much that he repeated it over and over again. Sometimes he looked at us and promised “I will ruin your life.” And then he laughed that huge open-throated laugh of his. He was so funny.
Thing was, a lot of people thought he didn’t really mean it. Or that he meant it as a metaphor, sort of a euphemism that he would in the process of liberating us destroy our “conventional” attachment to the world. Or something like that. Nobody took him literally on that promise. We seldom took him literally about anything. It was hard to. His language wasn’t exactly literal. He spoke in swooning, heart swelling phrases, a mixture of classical spirituality and contemporary ideology. There was no way any of it could be applied to our literal existence.
Or could it. After some years, we started to get a sense of what he really meant. A couple of years later I met an old friend who was not involved, but had been. She commented with disdain that I had become dysfunctional “like all the rest of them”. I didn’t quite understand her at the time, but then I started losing jobs. People in my own household told me that I was “spaced out”. So were they, but that was beside the point. Who wouldn’t be spaced out after staying up all night functioning, serving the guru, for weeks on end.
Anyone who was anyone in the community got caught up in service to the guru. It became “the way” itself. Not enlightenment, but service to the guru was the way to liberation. Giving up oneself, turning over one’s ego in service to the divine. Oh yeah, THE DIVINE! The very divine itself!
Well, guess what! Some peoples’ lives were ruined in fact. I met an old friend recently who lives on the street. Hasn’t been able to hold a job for years. Piss poor, unhealthy, drug addicted, and still in love with his beloved, who he credits with giving him everything. Does he seem happy? Does he seem enlightened? Does he seem released from conventional existence? Well, sort of, but not in any kind of way that I would be interested in. Not exactly a spiritual mast, or anything even vaguely spiritual. But who am I to judge? At least he has his beloved.
I see quite a few of my old friends and even some new ones who used to be devotees. We all left with our lives in ruins. We found a way to put them back together and to make something of ourselves. We succeeded in material ways. We succeeded in spiritual ways as well. Some have jointed other spiritual communities or movements; others have found their own ways to express their spiritual intuition. We live full and contented lives, very conventional by Daist standards, but often unconventional according to most.
Various current devotees have accused me of “living the good life”. As if they know what that means. I always have to laugh at this. They know nothing of how I live. It is enough to live a life outside the community to be accused of profligacy. Whatever.
I am here to say, basically, that Bubba, Adi Da, failed. He didn’t ruin my life after all. He didn’t ruin the lives of so many former devotees. He may have ruined the lives of his current devotees, according to his and their beliefs. To each his own. They seem content with their choices and I am content to let them be. But I submit that their contentment is little different than mine. It is very conventional. It is self-satisfaction within the trappings of religious fervor and fanaticism. They got what they wanted. Now they have it. It is their own version of the good life. Meditative bliss instead of material means. Just the other side of the coin.
If Bubba, Adi Da, had truly ruined anyones’ life, he would have made all of this unnecessary. We would all be like Ramana, entirely at peace with all of existence, wanting, needing nothing. Contentment of any kind would simply be unnecessary.
He couldn’t do it for us because he couldn’t do it for himself. He was never at peace. He was constantly in need – in need of pleasuring, of massive quantities of material goods, drugs, alcohol, food, sex, money – of control over everyone and everything within his sphere … more, more, more. Anyone who was ever close to him saw his massive desires, his need to consume. To live the good life. The ultimate good life, waited on hand and foot, his every desire fulfilled the instant it was expressed, regardless of what it took.
What a joke. What a truly ruined and wasted life!
December 13, 2008 at 10:45 pm
JPB, I am glad this blog has helped you. I mentioned my email address as a way to contact me if anyone wanted to. I am not anyone official from Adidam, nor do I care to re-explore whatever “dirt” can be found on my or anyone else’s Spiritual Master. I am only interested in considering the practice of radical non-dualism. I offered to lend a sympathetic ear to anyone who wanted to talk about their practice or history in Adidam privately and sincerely. But everyone has their own point-of-view until all points-of-view are utterly transcended in Reality, so I don’t know if I would be of any help, but the offer still stands. Of course, I will very likely be pointing you to instructions I have received from Adi Da Samraj.
@ I Feel4U – Hahahaha! The son of my display name! I am glad to see my legacy will live on!
I Feel4U Says:
“Now let’s see what happens with a “Student Beginner” practice that is set in concrete as it were. I wonder what body of people will preside over the decisions relating to who is practicing at what level?”
The practice at each level has very clear signs. To be fully mature in the Student Beginner practice is described as follows in Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga by Adi Da Samraj:
“As That Intrinsically egoless Transcendental Spiritual Process of ‘Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga’ unfolds, My devotee is (in due course) Given My Divine Avataric Gift of the Samadhi of the ‘Thumbs’ – leading to Transcendental Spiritual Establishment In and As the Witness-Position of Consciousness Itself, and the Coincident Establishment in the ‘Perfect Practice’…”
“The ‘Thumbs’ Is the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Transcendental Spiritual Transformation-Process, That Perfectly Awakens and Firmly Establishes the Perfect Coincidence between the Intrinsically egoless Transcendental Witness-Consciousness and the Perfectly Prior Spiritual Current Evident in the right side of the bodily apparent heart.”
Conradg Says:
“I’m not much interested in critiquing Adidam practices and teachings. Plenty of them seem fine on paper. It’s in life that the troubles seem to start. As Bede Griffith said, “What what he does”.”
Conradg, since you do not want to “agree to disagree” as I suggested, and simply consider non-dualism and our practices – as you seemed to initially be positive about doing – that speaks volumes to me.
So (more than) enough said.
December 14, 2008 at 12:59 am
I recall that Feel4God said in one of his posts that Adi Da (Franklin) and Ramana Maharshi died at about the same age??
Ramana died at age 71 and Franklin died at age 69; however, life expectancy between 1950 and 1955 in India was 37.4 while life expectancy in the U.S. between 2005 and 2010 is 78.2. Ramana died 14 years beyond life expectancy of his time whereas, Franklin died 9 years earlier than the life expectancy of his present time.
Franklin would have to have died at age 92 to parallel Ramana’s death based on corresponding life expectancies of the times. Now, that’s a huge difference.
Furthermore, Franklin made a big deal of diet and longevity in his Eating Gorilla Book and kaya kalpa treatments in the Maharaj Tapasviji Book published by the Dawn Horse Press in 1986 about Tapasviji who lived for 185 years. At that age, Tapasviji looked younger than Franklin at age 69. Not that I believe the entire story but, in his pictures, Tapasviji at whatever advanced age does look younger than Franklin at age 69 and so did Ramana at age 71 when he died.
The implications of Franklin’s live style and his very early death of a common heart attack at that doesn’t say heck of lot about the entire picture of Franklin Jones.
And no mahasamadhi here!
And also no “God of all gods” here! Just a rotting and decomposing body (within 2 or 3 days) after all –just like everyone else—with all of his devotees in denial of the facts.
December 14, 2008 at 1:33 am
Feel4God,
“Conradg, since you do not want to “agree to disagree” as I suggested, and simply consider non-dualism and our practices – as you seemed to initially be positive about doing – that speaks volumes to me.”
I’m not sure what you mean. We have already been considering non-dualism. I just don’t want to listen to Adidam informercials. If you have something meaningful to say on your own, in your own words, that’s fine. But I’m not exactly looking for your help with my practice, if that’s what you mean.
BTW, I for some reason experienced the Samadhi of the Thumbs a couple of years before I even heard about Adidam or Adi Da, back when I was just a teenager. So it’s hardly unique to Adidam, or “only-be-Me-revealed”, unless that Me is the universal Self, and not just Adi Da. But again, if you want to talk about this stuff, why constantly relate it to Adi Da? If it’s part of your actual experience, just describe it as such, and stop trying to work in plugs for this or that Guru.
December 14, 2008 at 5:45 am
I posted early on and have been reading through some of the posts. This has been a good opportunity for some people to talk about what they thought about the Adidam experience.
It is really difficult to get one’s head out of one’s backside after totally believing in a cult. There are so many painful realizations that attend the recognition that we have been used.
Life is full of these painful recognitions. One of the primary functions of a cult is to make life seem more worthwhile and meaningfull in the face life’s inherent suffering. Life experience is hard and then we die. This is a perfect set-up to justify and enforce all kinds of fruitless enterprises of belief and “the search”, as Adi Da, himself, said.
For those devotees that don’t want to listen to the numerous reports of abuse and dismiss the well considered experience of ex-devotees I can only say: “Enjoy your certainty while you still can…milk it baby!”.
I was there and can truly understand how deluded the unbelievers and infidels appear to be. The years and years of struggle trying to convince these stubborn fools of the wondrous opportunity they were throwing away. The loneliness of being right but not joined by the rest of the world in a celebration of the Godman having appeared in our very midst. Oh, the burden of of it!
I took some satisfaction in knowing that I and a few of my community friends were on the true Path but it was still very saddening to me that most others couldn’t see or appreciate the beauty of the Master. We were all going to share a common destiny of world turmoil anyway because of this non-recognition. Adi Da spoke of this more than a few times and I thought that I had good reasons to beileve him.
Well, turns out I was wrong…Embarrassingly wrong for years and years on end.
Loyalty to a cause can have have a dear price when exploited by unscruplous ideologues and deluded leaders. Passion must be tempered by reason to make wise decisions. In this case, I was most unwise and wasted much time that I can never reclaim. I’m older and wiser now and intend to continue my spiritual study and practice; chastened by my past experience.
Those that avoid making a devotional response to their perceived truth limit themselves in an even worse way. Aren’t we all God’s Fools in the end anyway?
So I appeal to those that still mightyly believe in Adi Da to truly consider the full import and results of this man’s life from as many angles as possible. The truth is not dangerous and untruth even less so.
December 14, 2008 at 6:00 am
There is a process going on here that can serve many..
As an enquiring kind of person, I am still waiting for any devotee, anywhere to explain the Adi-da quote “Before this body dies , all 5 billion slugs will bow down to me”
Slugs?
Conrad writes to Feel4God
“Does it make you feel more devotional to attack me personally and attribute hateful motives to me, simply because I describe some of the simple facts about Adi Da’s life?”
Obviously, yes!
They did then, they do now and, I guess they will continue to do so…
What to do?
Conrad, there’s no point in trying to contact a rational/feeling human being, who can look clearly at truths of anyone’s behaviour when they are so deeply “programmed” as we all were…..till (through grace?) we woke up…
We are the lucky ones….
It’s a measure of how shakey the whole thing is when attack is the standard response towards data that doesn’t accord to the image….
I feel for you!
Ifeel4 feel4god!
As stated in somebody else’s previous post;
EVERYONE should look at the Jason Beghe interviews re:Scientology
here;
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/jason-beghe-interview/
They were a bit slow to download….but, dudes,when you listen to this guy, and take into account that Da spent time in Scientology….( even though that fact was edited out of later editions of The Knee of Listening)… it becomes crystal clear that he learned a LOT there re: the self-protective logic, double-speak, jargon, mind-binds, levels of practice, access, group dynamics, etc. etc. that keep those on the inside completely and utterly brainwashed….many good, good people convinced that they are saving “this sector of the galaxy”…sound familiar?
You even sense (as we all did with Da) that Jason still finds it very difficult to admit that LRH, as creator of the whole she-bang was ultimately responsible and way off-beam…such is the power of these self-assured, charismatic, guru-figures..a little bit of truth mixed in with control, abuse, manipulation, a vast all-encompassing mythology, and of course…BIG MONEY! (Thanks U.G.)
Jason’s comments on how to reach the “real person” subsumed inside the identity of scientologist (read:da-ist) are succinct and to the point…..
Wishing you all well…
Be As You Are!
Take the best, reject the rest….
Stevie…
December 14, 2008 at 6:32 am
Only By Him Given…why not simply “Courtesy of Da”?
December 14, 2008 at 7:52 am
addition and correction to my previous post on life expectancy:
http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/population-health/variable-379.html
Life expectancy in India between 1950-1955 is 37.4
Life expectancy in the U.S. between 2005 -2010 is 78.2
Ramana Maharshi who died at age 71 almost doubled his life expectancy of 1950 to 1955 in India which was 37.4 at that time; i.e., 34 years beyond it. Whereas, Franklin died at age 69 which is 9 years earlier than the U.S. life expectancy of 2005 to 2008.
Proportionally, Franklin would have to have lived until 149 years old to match Ramana who almost double his life expectancy using the life expectancy of the times respectively.
However, life expectancy doesn’t quite work out that way linearly because there is a genetically built in maximum age.
So just adding the number of years that Ramana outlived his life expectancy in 1950 in India which is 34 years (71-37=34) to Franklin’s life expectancy in the U.S. comes to 112 (78+34=112) —or taking an even lower figure; i.e, adding 34 years to Franklin’s early death of 69 years comes to 103.
(And again, comparisons like this lack other variables to make them more realistic.)
But, in any case, however you figure it out (even using other variables), Franklin died way before his life expectancy whereas, Ramana almost doubled his life expectancy and that’s a big difference.
December 14, 2008 at 8:36 am
Feel4God, Conradg, et al,
Shsh!! The Maharshi helps us to find the right perspective.
From “Talks…” —– on the Self nature:
Can anything be as direct as the Self — always experienced without the aid of the senses? Only one’s own awareness is direct knowledge, as is the common experience of one and all. No aids are needed to know one’s Self, i.e., to be aware.
The one Infinite Unbroken Whole (plenum) becomes aware of itself as “I”. That is Its original name. All other names, e.g., OM, are later growths. Liberation is only to remain aware of the Self. Though the “I” is always experienced, yet attention has to be drawn to it. Then only knowledge dawns. p88
What kind of help does one require to know oneself? People want to see the Self as something new. But it is eternal and remains the same all along. They desire to see it as a blazing light, etc. How can it be? It is not light or darkness (na tejo, na tamah). It is only as it is. It cannot be defined. The best definition is ‘I AM THAT I AM. The Srutis speak of the Self as being the size of one’s thumb, the tip of the hair, an electric spark, vast, subtler than the subtlest, etc. They have no foundation in fact. It is only Being. … It is simply Be-ing.
… Silence (Mouna) is said to be that state which spontaneously manifests after the annihilation of the ego. That state is beyond light and darkness, but still it is called light since no other proper word could be found for it. p110-1
The Self is known to everyone but not clearly. You always exist. The Be-ing is the Self. “I am” is the name of God. Of all the definitions of God none is indeed so well put as the Biblical statement “I AM THAT I AM” … The Absolute Being is what is – It is the Self. It is God. Knowing the Self, God is known. In fact it is non other than the Self. p102
“TO BE” is to realize — I AM THAT I AM. “I AM” is Shiva. Nothing else can be – without Him. Everything has its being in Shiva and because of Shiva. … You cannot be without Shiva. Shiva is always realized here and now p 424
M. To infer one’s existence no other evidence is necessary. The senses and the mind arising from the ego cannot serve as evidence relating to the Self. The Self is their basis. They do not exist independently of the Self. All become dear only owing to the love of Self.
D. Love postulates duality. How can the Self be the object of love?
M. Love is not different from the Self. Love of an object is of an inferior order and cannot endure. Whereas the Self is Love. …
D. Does Sri Bhagavan advocate advaita?
M. Dvaita and advaita are relative terms. They are based on the sense of duality. The Self is as it is. There is neither dvaita nor advaita. I AM THAT I AM. Simple Being is the Self. … Reality lies beyond the mind. So long as the mind functions there is duality, maya. Once it is transcended the Reality shines forth. Although it is said to shine forth, Self-effulgence is the Self. p401-2
M. … The Truth is that the Self is constant and unintermittent Awareness. The object of enquiry is to find the true nature of the Self as Awareness. Let one practice enquiry so long as separateness is perceived.
If once realization arises there is no further need for enquiry. Can Awareness ever think of questioning who is aware? Awareness remains pure and simple. p431
D. Seeking the “I” there is nothing to be seen.
M. Because you are accustomed to identify yourself with the body and sight with the eyes, therefore you say you do not see anything. What is there to see? Who is to see? How to see? There is only one consciousness which manifests as “I”-thought, identifies itself with the body, projects itself through the eyes and sees the objects around. The individual is limited in the waking state and expects to see something different. The evidence of his senses will be the seal of authority. But he will not admit that the seer, the seen and the sight are all manifestation of the same consciousness – namely, “I”-”I”. Contemplation helps one to overcome the illusion that the Self must be visual. In truth, there is nothing visual. How do you feel the “I” now? Do you hold a mirror before you to know your own being. The awareness is the “I”. Realize it and that is the truth. p161
December 14, 2008 at 8:45 am
A few more thoughts on Da, brought on by Feel4God’s plea to stop talking about Da’s life, and instead to limit ourselves to talk about non-dualism.
Something doesn’t smell right about this notion, and I think both genuine devotees and critical exes would agree.
First, Adi Da’s “non-dual” dharma is tied inextricably to himself, at every step of the way. And by “himself”, I don’t just mean some cosmic abstraction of the Divine, but Adi Da himself, humanly and every which way one could talk about him. He himself was very critical of his own devotees for abstracting him, and removing him from the equation of their practice. So it seems simply perverse for purported devotees to want to talk about non-dualism while retaining some kind of taboo about his actual bodily human life, what he did, what he actually said, the way he related to devotees, etc.
Likewise, putting a sugar-coated gloss on Adi Da’s life and his relationship with devotees seems to me to be a betrayal of the man and his “work”, whatever you want to think of it. He was not a sugar-coating kind of guy, and much of what attracted me about him and got my respect was his down and dirty, unsentimental manner. You could certainly criticize him for going too far with that, but you can’t make the case that he was some wimpy girly-guru afraid to call people names or to offend them. Likewise, I don’t think he really expected anyone to seriously accept his lies, at least not people he’d respect either as devotees or human beings.
Feel4God is perhaps a newbie at Adidam, and really doesn’t know much about Adi’s actual life and character, aside from what he’s read in books or heard in presentations by those who think it is their devotional duty to put up a respectable facade for Da to operate behind. I don’t want to come down hard on him, but I also don’t want to be party to his fantasies and need to be protected from the truth. The truth about Adi Da is a lot more interesting, and perhaps even enlightening in its sheer audacity, than the fairy tales Feel4God has been told, and dutifully believes.
Having spent the better part of my adult life as Adi Da’s devotee, to me it seems particularly insulting to hear this whitewashed betrayal of Adi Da enacted on this forum. And I don’t mean that merely because they don’t like to hear criticism of Da, it’s because they are actually ashamed of their own Guru, and what he has done, and lived, good, bad, and ugly. As someone who was quite devoted to Da for many years, this seems even worse than anything critical I or others might say about Da. It’s one thing to have been one of the greatest asshole Gurus of all time, it’s quite another to be sanitized and deodorized with the stink of enlightenment as some seem compelled to do. Who is hurting the real Adi Da more? I don’t think it’s me, to be honest.
I knew Da, and he was a fascinating guy, a hero, a narcissist, a wild entertainer, a jerk, a spiritual force of titanic and primordial immaturity, a lover, a shithead, an artist, a pretender, and a lot more. What he wasn’t was some dipshit love-blissful pussy who couldn’t take a joke, who couldn’t see himself as a joke. Guys like Feel4God seem not to have known this guy, and no one in Adidam seems to have told them about the real Da. What they get is a phony facade for the kiddies to smile at.
In many ways, that’s what so offensive about these kinds of communications about Da – and by that I mean virtually everything that comes out of Adidam, whether it’s official bullshit, Chris Tong crapola, or individuals like Feel4God who think they don’t represent “official” Adidam, but tailor everything they say towards some PR ideal put out by the same guys – is that it shows how little these people actually love Adi Da as he is. They are all ashamed of him, all afraid to describe him as he actually was, all hiding from him, all offended and angy deep down inside that he made himself so unpalatable.
If these people really loved Adi Da, they’d just love him as he was. What’s so hard about that? Is it so difficult to love someone who’s far from perfect, who makes an ass of themselves on a regular basis, who plays con games and makes a charade of his own life and those of so many around him? Well, maybe it is. Even so, people ought to at least try, rather than turn him into Sunday School Jesus with a golden halo around his head. What did Da used to say about the Goddess, you have to turn her around and see her asshole? Well, the same applies to God. Turn that motherfucker around, and see his asshole, rather than kissing up to him day and night thinking this is going to get you into heaven.
I remember a story an inner circle woman once told me about her time in one of those “emotional-sexual theater” fuckfests in Adi Da’s company. I shared a plane ride with her shortly after all this, and she told me all about it. She told me how much she and everyone else dreaded these things, it wasn’t her or her partner’s first time, and it was sheer hell as far as she was concerned. Getting to fuck a lot of different people might seem fun at first, but eventually it gets really old, and really tiring, especially when you have to watch your partner fucking other women day and night for weeks on end, and you have to fuck people you don’t even like, and even get to hate. Especially with Adi Da there egging everyone on, hurling insults and “insights” right and left, pushing everyone’s buttons, until there’s not a shred of “love-bliss” left in anyone’s cock or pussy, much less their brains and hearts. Anyway, this woman finally gets to the point where she’s had enough, and one night she just explodes at Da, and tells him off, tells him what an asshole he is, what a jerk, what a prick, what a douchebag, and finally is just yelling “fuck you fuck you fuck you!” at him over and over again until she just about collapses. Later on, she doesn’t know what got into her, she wonders if she’s going to be kicked out of Adidam, or sent to an insane asylum, or what. SHe goes back, and Da says nothing about it. But shortly thereafter, Da puts an end to the that particular cycle of these things, and sends everyone packing. As usual, he declares that no one got the point, no one made the real emotional-sexual breakthrough, it was all a failure once again. But then he sends word to this woman, and says to her, “You came closer than anyone to breaking through, you just didn’t take it far enough.”
Anyway, that’s the Guru I used to know, and I remember him fondly even now. Anyone who actually had much contact with Da knew him like this, and I don’t want some dumb-ass newbie telling me how to remember him, telling me they know the “real Da”, and I didn’t. What a bunch of crap. I’ll drink to that guy any time, but this whitewashed “love-bliss” sucker, forget about it. You can’t know his love-bliss without knowing his asshole, is one way I’d put it. And if you can’t handle the asshole in him, no way can you handle the rest of him.
So what’s the point of talking about Da’s non-dual teachings, if you can’t handle his life as he actually lived it? That’s the talking school, dude. I don’t have some need to berate Da for being an ass much of the time, but I’m not about to rob him of his asshole either, just for the sake of not offending people. What an insult to Da to treat him like that. Count me out, if them’s the ground rules here. I won’t be a party to the murder of Da’s real memories, and the creation of some safe fantasy for the kiddies to worship at their Mickey Mouse fan club meetings. That ain’t love, I know learned that much from Da. Too bad it’s a secret teaching his community is ashamed of.
December 14, 2008 at 9:20 am
Aro quotes:
“I AM” is Shiva. Nothing else can be – without Him. Everything has its being in Shiva and because of Shiva. … You cannot be without Shiva. Shiva is always realized here and now
my words exactly!
about time that i am recognized!
what took you so long?
i have been waiting…
you may all bow down to me now!
Stevie says:
“EVERYONE should look at the Jason Beghe interviews re:Scientology
here;
http://xenutv.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/jason-beghe-interview/
They were a bit slow to download”
tip: if you use firefox and the FlashGot extension (both freeware) you can download them to your hard drive and watch them without interruptions.
December 14, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Each and everyone of us in some small part is an asshole!
December 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’m amazed at all the posts here….there was a time I wanted to withdraw from this consideration, but now I can see that everything that is being stated here, negative and positive, his a song of praise to his legacy. He burned through his life so brightly and fearlessly, that he was unafraid of reflecting us to ourselves. I remember once he said, “I am more you, than you are.”. He worked with the worst of humanity, and in order to reveal narcissus, he had to go through the theatre of Narcissus to the ultimate degree. Who else but an enlightened one could have the energy to make that sacrifice? Some may want to dismiss him as a lunatic, but I’ve seen “His” beauty and been opened wide by it.
This is the face of God. Your own face. Entirely loved, no matter what the mechanism of the ego demonstrates.
December 14, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Bhagavan Sri Adi Da Samraj is our message to ourselves here in this 21st century:
Wake up to the joy and grace of your very own life – and choose living consciously, lovingly and passionately.
For your life is your personal & very Divine Essence directly allowing you to feel and know who and where you are right in this very moment = always growing to knowing more of your Being as full and complete expression.
Those of us who were Blessed with the actual physical company of Bhagavan Sri Adi Da Samraj as His devotees are beyond words – for He is everywhere we experience life . . . . we woke up.
Da
December 14, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I must respond directly to Conradg’s posting regarding Adi Da’s asshole. Although I never licked it (actually I never even got close thank God), I know it existed. Great stuff Conradg, you obviously have a penchant for straight-talk!
My favorite word in the English language is ‘And’. Whatever one has to say about Adi Da, or anyone else for that matter, the word ‘And’ summarizes it all. Adi Da was such-and-such AND he was this-and-that AND Adidam was whatever, AND we participated freely, AND he took drugs, AND I drank myself silly while on retreat, AND I felt his love-bliss, AND he was a “seducer, a madman, a hoax, a libertine, a fool. His teaching is every kind of nonsense.”
You’re spot-on Conradg. Without the awareness of all of it, the AND of existence, you only delude yourself into seeing a part of the whole that you have a tendency to want to see. For those who want to know what Adi Da did in his time on this earth open your eyes and see, and unblock your ears and listen. Do it first without judgment (Adi Da called such action a ‘relaxed inspection’), then continue doing it without judgment. If you must come to some conclusion, notice where the ‘I’ of it fits into the conclusion.
Adi Da was no white-bearded saint. Perhaps the main difference between the ‘believers’ and the out-casts is just interpretation. Consider the following line in The Knee of Listening: “His existence denies every truth, every path by which men depend on certain truths…” When I read that now I include being a devotee as one of the endless futile paths. That is the Humor Adi Da came to restore in this world. Was he successful? He was with me!
December 14, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Shiva writes:
“Aro quotes:
‘I AM’ is Shiva. Nothing else can be – without Him. Everything has its being in Shiva and because of Shiva. … You cannot be without Shiva. Shiva is always realized here and now
my words exactly!
about time that i am recognized!
what took you so long?
i have been waiting…
you may all bow down to me now!”
——————–
My dear Lord Shiva,
Haven’t you noticed? We’ve been doing nothing else but this (i.e., worshipping you) since forever! How could we do otherwise -
Shiva being the embodiment of happiness – of auspiciousness?
We are reminded of how the great Lord Shiva paid homage to the grieving Rama, a mere mortal, on the way in the forest; to Parvati’s discomfiture. And how she went to great lengths to find out from Rama as to why Shiva did so.
Rama replied, We are all only aspects of Shiva, worshipping Him at sight and remembering Him out of sight.
Ramana says:
There is no being who is not conscious and therefore who is not Shiva. Not only is he Shiva but also all else of which he is aware or not aware.
The Lord Shiva himself says:
The mere Consciousness of being as Awareness is itself Shakti and all this world is the projection of this Shakti. The true state of Knowledge is that in which the mind is not attached to this Shakti.
He who in the Scriptures is described as the unborn, ever existent Lord of all is the same as disembodied unqualified Self in each; I am He without a doubt.
I am Awareness pure and simple; I am ever free; I am indeterminable, neither grasped nor lost but indescribable. I am therefore Brahman and ever blissful.
I am live Consciousness and the sole Refuge of the Universe. I am the eternal Lord of all … transcending all creation.
December 14, 2008 at 11:42 pm
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
I allowed a couple posts about Lord Shiva, or Scientology. They’re peripheral to the topic, so I won’t be allowing more of them. Stay on the topic of Adi Da.
The moderation queue is not checked between approximately 10PM – 7AM EST, every day.
December 15, 2008 at 12:50 pm
I did enjoy the Shiva post Jerry. It seemed to be related to me. Perhaps the poster might have said a little about that relationship.
Eddie, I appreciated your post. For me though, with his passing I have realized my attachment, not to Franklin Jones, or Bubba Free John, or any of the other forms of persona that were assumed to do his teaching work, but to HIm as my very Self revealed. I thought I was through with it. Just the day before, I almost threw away some notes he had given me, but somehow I just couldn’t bring myself to do it, but I did think I am so done with that kind of relationship (the guru devotee kind). I’ve been out for about 15 years, but have tried to stay in good standing with the community because the love remained.
With the passing of his bodily form though, I realized my real desire for Him. My desire is not connected to Him as a man, but for Him as revealing my very heart wide open.
On the way to the celebration at the Danda the other day (something I thought I would never do again) my friend and I watched a flock of birds turning in mid flight. They were in perfect sync, one mind, turning in the vast light. In that moment, I saw that we are all truly alive as this demonstration points to. It is only the separative mind that makes us think we can choose to live otherwise.
Through my desire for Him, I find this reality. It is an ironic twist. In Beloved’s Mummery, Raymond saw Quandra floating towards him through the waters, and then dropped the egg.
James Steinberg had this to say about that.
“To those who simply are feeling the sorrow of His passing away and are longing to be with Him, Beloved Adi Da Samraj always Instructed us that that longing for the Guru is not a bad thing, but is actually useful. He always told us to turn that longing, traditionally called viraha, into present-time Communion with Him, or turning to Him. Allow that longing, or viraha, to become the finding of Him right now. It has been the testimony of so many that they have felt and feel Bhagavan Adi Da so tangibly since the time of His Mahasamadhi and afterwards. The truth of His Promise to Always Be with us is being fulfilled now, moment by moment. It is for all of us to truly practice this turning and so Realize that we will never lose our relationship to Bhagavan Adi Da Samraj. He was never simply the Body-Mind, but always the Very and Eternal Divine Person.”
James Steinberg, December 2nd
This longing helps me to realize how connected I am to every being. It is through Beloved, I realized my true desire to live as the heart.
December 15, 2008 at 1:35 pm
P.S. Conradg, you can write your ass off.
That was an amazing leela you told. Thank you.
December 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“Feel4God is perhaps a newbie at Adidam, and really doesn’t know much about Adi’s actual life and character, aside from what he’s read in books or heard in presentations by those who think it is their devotional duty to put up a respectable facade for Da to operate behind. I don’t want to come down hard on him, but I also don’t want to be party to his fantasies and need to be protected from the truth. The truth about Adi Da is a lot more interesting, and perhaps even enlightening in its sheer audacity, than the fairy tales Feel4God has been told, and dutifully believes.”
Hahahahahahaha! Ok Conradg got me posting again with that one! For the record, I am by no means a newbie nor a believer of any kind. I think my posts must be too long for even Conradg to read, if this is his conclusion! If Conradg cannot recognize this from what I have posted so far, that is ridiculous to me and just another attempt by him to sound perfectly right and perfectly calm about absolutely everything and everyone!
Why I react the way I do to Conradg’s approach to Adi Da is that Conradg always seems spiteful and angry underneath it all and extremely judgmental on top of that. He is not willing to consider any of that which may be coloring his point-of-view (“critics conditioning”) – along with his own brand of spiritual provincialism.
Also, there were many things that Conradg said that were wrong or exaggerated in his list. For example, Adi Da was by no means an alcoholic. This is Conradg’s attempt to put Adi Da into that “negative” box, to control and basically dismiss Him at various levels. Yes, we used these intoxicants during various gathering periods, but when they were over, sometimes after just a few days or even several months later, we quickly purified on a vegetarian diet, and even fasted for long periods. At least He did, as did many of us who saw the wisdom of it. Some people may not have purified, but not because of lack of instruction or example. I was very closely involved with a lot of this, as I already explained, and yet Conradg wants to talk about alcoholism; and also write me off as some brain-washed newbie. I guess now he is going to call me an alcoholic? Hahahaha, I am actually a raw foodist, and have always been very disciplined with the diet, except for gathering periods – but whatever.
Also, I know of no one that was involved in every gathering period, so there is always heresay involved – because everyone only has their own point-of-view anyway, and never the twain shall completely meet. On that note, Conradg, I don’t actually remember you at any “close-in” gatherings – were you actually there for any? Which period?
Regardless, I am certainly not embarrassed nor ashamed by what we all freely did – it was part of the Teaching demonstration and experiment, and everyone entered into it freely. I am actually very happy and feel undeservedly privileged to be part of this legacy for the sheer intimacy of being so personally related to Adi Da Samraj and being instructed so thoroughly in terms of my specific needs at the time.
It was always about radical devotional non-dualistic Satsang with Him – at least that is how many of us experienced our time with Him. I am sorry you did not get this, Conradg, as you indicated in your posts. Yeah, that would make it very very difficult, really impossible to deal with at a certain level, if you did not understand the actual non-dualistic basis of it. Perhaps that was the real test?
People were always wanting to go to gatherings, and certainly were not in general leaving Adidam during these periods – especially if they were the ones going to gatherings! There were probably more group considerations needing to be done with people who did NOT get invited to gatherings than with those who did! Jealousy was always a huge issue around all of this – and part of Adi Da’s Work did and, apparently still does, stimulate the emotion of jealousy.
Again, no one was ever forced to go to any gathering, so that says a lot right there. Anyone could leave at any time. The sad truth is that our membership numbers grew when Adi Da was participating in these gatherings, and the numbers shrank when the gatherings ended and the “student disciplines now apply”. Admittedly, more people wanted to “party” than to practice devotional non-dualism in His Company with all the associated right life (supportive) disciplines.
But gatherings, even the Avataric Discourses in the 2000s, all ended – as there was no need for Bhagavan to instruct us that way any longer or in any “social” manner whatsoever. His Darshan, Teaching, Art, etc., became all that was required, and because of this, He could Divinely Outshine this place. I am happy for Him.
I tire of this constant re-hashing of this history because it tends to become very sensational, exaggerated, based more often on hearsay and rumors, and often used in an attempt to discredit Adi Da – and seldom understood for what it really was.
But I also tire of it for a very different reason too – because I personally miss the sheer intimacy of this kind of physical contact with Adi Da. What a Master! I do find Him deeply in meditation and other practices given by Him, but I very much miss Him physically. I cry daily because of His Divine Outshining of here, but now mostly they are tears of great gratitude for Who He Is and His Gifts.
And finally, all of this history really has no direct relevance to the process Bhagavan Adi Da has always Gifted us with in terms of our eternal practice of radical devotional non-dualism with Him. If we had been up to that in the very beginning, then none of the Teaching years would have been necessary – the practices described in The Knee of Listening would have been sufficient.
Regardless, all those times are now just memories, feelings, etc. – all of which have to be transcended. I find all of this a distraction from the most direct process with Him whether it be a happy or a difficult memory.
The fact that some people, Conradg included, did not understand that radical devotional non-dualism has always been the root practice in Adidam from the very beginning and throughout all the years, makes it easier to understand why conventionally this is so difficult to comprehend. In these terms, I can see why you left, Conradg, and I have no problem with that. But your insistence that devotional non-dualism was not the root Teaching always, is just wrong from my experience. So it makes sense why you don’t want to consider non-dualism in Adidam here – you apparently deny it was there except maybe at the very end. Again, that is wrong in my experience, but so be it.
So if you want to keep talking about all of the history, I have no problem with that, but please understand that I won’t be going in that direction. For one, my time is very limited now during this season of giving, and also, I thought this Forum was about non-duality and that is what we actually value about our lives of practice, not past memories, history, etc., etc.
December 15, 2008 at 2:16 pm
First, I wanted to say “Thank you,” Former Follower for your feedback. I appreciate the material on Sri Ramana, and I have always had great respect for his life and Teaching.
Meanwhile, it is apparent that the two sides of the coin will not be seeing each other, at least not in this lifetime. Do any of us (devotees or critics) feel that any amount of debate/arguing will affect the other side? I do not. Ultimately, we are each preaching to our own choir.
The spiritual matter is a deeply personal and subjective matter, whereas the “objective” result becomes debate, argument, conflict, and (globally) war. This is not just a matter of “stretching” the truth, it is exactly how it is. If we do not see this, then we are contributing to the problem, no?
There were all sorts of games we used to play in school (I’m sure you all did, too), like one person would be given a few comments, and then that person would pass along the comments, and it went round and round. And by the time you got to the last person, the original comments had been altered — sometimes slightly, sometimes dramatically. The point of the game was to show how each person’s perception, interpretation, point-of-view would affect how they heard, and then retold, the comments.
I believe something of this nature goes on with matters of religion and spirituality, as well as contributing to the “differences” between various spiritual Adepts.
My greatest wish is always for Peace, and Love, and Happiness for all living beings, without exception, regardless of path. It is clear to me that such a wish seems a bit of Pollyanna fantasy, yet the only reason it seems this way is because we have never seen any evidence that human beings are capable of incarnating Peace, Love and Happiness (except in very small pockets). Despite the appearance of every Great Realizer throughout human history, mankind has never truly taken up the Way. If he did, we wouldn’t be living in the world as it is.
Adi Da said something like: “The true test of man (male or female) is not about what he achieves or accomplishes. The true test is whether or not you are willing to Love under all conditions.” I confess, I can only fantasize about what this world would be like if human beings’ first, most profound intention was to Love.
December 15, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Michael said:
“Meanwhile, it is apparent that the two sides of the coin will not be seeing each other, at least not in this lifetime. Do any of us (devotees or critics) feel that any amount of debate/arguing will affect the other side? I do not. Ultimately, we are each preaching to our own choir.”
i agree. that’s why i have basically stopped posting.
i was tempted for moment to respond to Feel4God when he said that adidam was about non-dualism (because in my 15 years i have not seen ANY non-dualism, but almost only the opposite) but then i read the above quote and yeah, there is just no denying it: nobody listening and nobody hearing, it seems.
but then again: since there is nobody – no “i”s – it shouldn’t come as a surprise. just patterns doing their thing…
i still read here occasionally – just for the entertainment value.
December 15, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Feel4God says:
“I tire of this constant re-hashing of this history because it tends to become very sensational, exaggerated, based more often on hearsay and rumors, and often used in an attempt to discredit Adi Da – and seldom understood for what it really was.”
Much of the history has been hidden and denied, and then what becomes undeniable is said to be misunderstood for what it really was. This is the pattern I’ve always seen, going all the way back to trying to recall the Garbage and the Goddess books. It would be really good for all of us to just simply be told the plain truth instead of some censored, pre-spun version. For example, I was told by two people, one involved directly, and one involved intimately with people involved directly, about similar sexual theater events to the one Conrad described. I have absolutely no reason to consider what I was told to be “hearsay and rumor”. What I can’t handle, more than my take on the story, is that Adidam denies such knowledge to its own devotees, and the truth only oozes out here and there. Maybe it’s changed from when I was there, but the way you write, not to dump on you, seems exactly like what I left, a group that is unable to be honest.
Michael says:
“Do any of us (devotees or critics) feel that any amount of debate/arguing will affect the other side? I do not. Ultimately, we are each preaching to our own choir.”
I personally don’t want to debate in order to persuade or win, I just want to get clear. Adidam has been the most confusing experience of my life, and I am appreciating this thread for helping me to clarify some things. There is some love here!
December 15, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Feel4God, it seems some got stuck in a particular era of his work. I’m sure it was hard not to for some, but I did feel Conradq’s love for Bhagavan Adi Da, even if it “may” be colored by his attachment to a particular aspect of His work. I appreciated the way you laid your position out.
“Regardless, all those times are now just memories, feelings, etc. – all of which have to be transcended. I find all of this a distraction from the most direct process with Him whether it be a happy or a difficult memory.”
But it is important for each of us to share the leela of our relationship to him. After all insight leads to understanding, understanding leads to being able to fully surrender to that which is true.
I don’t think Conradq needs defending, but in my way of seeing he is not wrong. His understanding just is what it is. I have no doubt that he is a lover of God. Your dialog here is a gift of advocacy and while Conradq’s may appear not to be, it is an important gift that he’s making to help all of us inspect our relationship to the Divine.
Thank you for continuing to share the leela of your service.
December 15, 2008 at 7:07 pm
from Seven Stages of Life
http://tinyurl.com/da7stages
“Adi Da Samraj has “mapped” the entire Spiritual Process culminating in Divine Enlightenment. He describes it in terms of seven stages of life.”
“In the sixth and seventh (or ultimate) stages of life, Consciousness Itself is directly Realized, beyond identification with the body-mind.”
This is an acceptable definition of the Vedantic realization. But the “stages map” is just downhorse poo-poo. See:
“In the sixth stage of life, the Realizer Identifies with Consciousness (in profound states of meditation) by excluding all awareness of phenomena.”
This would mean that Ramana or Shankara remained forever in nirvikalpa samadhi, without perception of relative reality, which is just absurd. Or would mean
that the jnani became again deluded by relative reality once nirvikalpa samadhi was off (since, according to Da, he or she could only identify with
Consciousness as long as awareness of phenomena was absent or excluded).
“Avatar Adi Da has Revealed that the sixth stage of life was the highest form of Realization known in the religious and Spiritual traditions previous to His
Appearance.”
What he defines as “6th stage” is a fabrication and not the actual realization of a jnani. Realization of Self/Consciousness and plain deluded dual
perception are not conditions between which the jnani falls back and forth.
“But this Realization is incomplete.”
Of course, if it was a ‘realization’ at all, which is not, just pure fantasy. No jnani lives in Pure Consciousness alien to the world or excluding awareness
of phenomena. He/she just knows that there’s no world, which very different, allowing him/her to say “I see no world, there’s no world” when talking from an
absolute point of view (from realization itself). Still, his/her awareness knows the door from the chair.
“Even the necessity to turn away from the world in order to fully Enjoy Consciousness represents a contraction, a refusal of Reality in its totality.”
To imply that jnanis need nirvikalpa samadhi to realize is plain wrong, let alone to imply that they may be addicted to it. In true nondual realization
there’s no world, as I stated above, so there’s nothing to exclude to begin with, and neither to integrate or include. Brahman is without a second.
“The seventh stage of life (or the Realization of “Open Eyes”), which is Revealed and Given only by Avatar Adi Da, transcends this last limit. No exclusion
is necessary, because the world is Realized to be a mere modification of Consciousness, not separate (or “different”) from Consciousness at all.”
Da’s definition of the “7th stage” borrows from pure and plain nondualism, and is nothing original. Consciousness is all there is, and there’s nothing to
include or to exclude that is not already consciousness (‘there’s only gold, no ring nor bracelet’). You can find this truth on Dzogpa Chenpo, on Kashmir
Shaivism, on Vedanta Advaita, and on the Vijnanavada and Shunyavada schools of Buddha Dharma. This is truly the Great Tradition and not what Adi Da pretended
about it.
In conclusion, what the text from Adidam describes as “6th stage” is not a realization at all, but some impossible ping-pong between ordinary dualistic perception and nirvikalpa samadhi (“Enjoy Consciousness”, “excluding all awareness of phenomena”) apparently (according to Adidam or to Da) without any jnana to enlighten the adept about the very nature of reality and things as Consciousness itself, i.e. about duality not taking place at all. Of course such predicament is not what actually happens in realization. The jnani knows things as they are, i.e. not existing (as such), but only as sat-chit-ananda. And regarding the “7th stage” is plain classic nondualism recycled probably from his [Da's] Kashmir Shaivism background, ignoring that is also the realization of Shankara (classic Vedanta Advaita), and of the Buddha as expounded on his teachings (Great Perfection vehicle, Consciousness Only school, Middle Approach school).
Anyway, still there was no Da that was not God alone, as everything is just That.
Love
Clara
December 15, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Wonderful! You people are absolutely wonderful!
Here in heaven, you get awfully funny looks.
Much love,
Rusty
December 15, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Feel4God,
I’ll take your word for it that you’re not a newbie, but damned you sure had me fooled with all these denials of reality! But it’s true that there are long-time devotees who are in denial as well. It’s understandable if you’re still mourning Da’s death and still feeling that longing for his personal company. I knew the feeling well. Didn’t we all? Of course, that’s part of the dualistic problem that needs to be overcome. That’s one of the primary issues that led me away from Adidam – the conflict between the non-dual relationship to him in Divine terms, and the dualistic relationship to him in human terms.
It’s certainly funny to me that you would claim I never understood the non-dual aspect of the relationship to Da, or at least the teaching about that. I came to Da for that, unlike most people, and he showed it to me from the very beginning, literally the first time I saw him, in his living room. But I also saw over the years that this non-dual reality was not what he taught much of the time, and he continually rationalized it over the years by saying that people weren’t ready for it. I kept waiting, and no matter how long I waited, it seems people weren’t ready. Well, what’s that all about, honestly?
You repeat the claim like some newbie that it’s somehow self-evident people weren’t ready for non-dualism back then, and not until very recently, after all these silly theatrical demonstrations, are people ready, and then maybe only First Congregation people, whatever that means at this point (I’m not up on the latest dualistic divisions in Adidam). But Ramana and others taught non-dualsim right off the bat, to anyone who asked, and that’s really all they ever taught. They didn’t feel the need to make some kind of decades-long preparatory theatrical “demonstration” of how futile the dualistic approach is. And look at the results in Adidam itself – not much to brag about there.
Like I’ve said before, I’m glad you enjoy your practice in Adidam, and I’m glad you think it’s great and rewarding, but you make a lot of egotistical claims about it all that don’t really wash. Likewise, you make claims about Da’s “demonstration” of non-dualism – that it is obviously superior to Ramana’s so called “disassociation” from life and body – which on closer examination of their comparative lives, doesn’t hold up. You don’t even want to discuss those details, because somehow that is improper or not allowed, but you want to make the claims anyway. If you can’t bear talking about the realities of how Da lived, fine, but don’t make claims about his life then, and don’t accuse others of “talking school”, or some kind of disassociative approach, when it’s you who are not willing to talk about these matters.
What I find rather odd about your criticisms of me is the notion that somehow I’m refusing to talk about non-dualism. I haven’t refused to talk about anything. I don’t have any taboos here, I don’t have any agenda, I certainly have viewpoints that differ from yours, and I don’t mind expressing them, but there’s no subject matter I am unwilling to discuss. I don’t even mind your putting forth a contradictory viewpoint about Da. Go right ahead. Just don’t shy away from the facts of life, including Da’s life. If you want to talk about Da’s various life-practices and defend them, by all means do so. But don’t pretend these matters are off-limits, and that anyone who does talk about them is trying to discredit Da or is refusing to talk about non-dualism. I think Da’s life and teachings are a very interesting lesson about the conflicting approaches to non-dualism that westerners have, yourself included. I just don’t have a lot of tolerance for PR BS.
For example, your claim that Da was not an alcoholic, where do you really get off denying this? You seem to base your story on the fact that official Adidam party-periods had some kind of beginning and end, and that if people dragged it on beyond those official periods, that was their business. But you ignore the reality that Da himself seldom abided by any of those “guidelines”. He had no guidelines other than what he felt like doing. And most of the time, he felt like drinking. Now, it’s true he would go dry for periods of time, clean himself up, go on juice diets, raw food, etc., but pretty soon he was back on the sauce, and that’s just how it was for him. He defended this quite frequently, stating that he need to drink for his “work”, to keep his body relaxed and “conducting” the spiritual force flowing through it. He also often stated that the people he worked “intimately” with also needed to be drinking, to make it easier for him to “transmit” his force to them.
Rationalize it however you will, the result was that Adi Da drank an awful lot of booze an awful lot of the time. From late 1973 to late 1995, he drank heavily a good 80% of the time. And I do mean heavily, in amounts that would kill a lot of people. So you gotta give him credit for being able to knock ‘em down. Is that alcoholism? By any objective medical standard, yes. I know Daists hate to call Da an alcholic, because there’s a negative connotations there they don’t like, but it’s still the simple fact of his life up to that point. He didn’t stop drinking until, following his health emergency in the fall of 1995, when he almost went blind and was diagnosed with heart disease, that his public doctors told him he had to quit. He didn’t want to, but his intimates and community doctors did a classic “intervention” with him, and finally convinced him that he had to quit for their sake, and his own. He finally agreed, and at that point switched over entirely to marijuana and others things like that.
You don’t say when you joined Adidam, so maybe you weren’t much aware of Da’s drinking habits back then. Maybe you only spent time with him when he was smoking the weed. I don’t know what you know, so I don’t know whether you’re being deliberately misleading or just naïve and repeating what you’ve been heard. I first came in 1975, so none of this is any mystery to me, or even controversial, it’s just the simple facts. You can spin those facts any way you like, but I don’t think there’s much of a conversation to be had if we deny those facts.
It’s certainly not unprecedented. Trungpa was a known alcoholic as well, and I don’t think many Vajrayanists will deny that. He was still a legitimate spiritual teacher, though it does cast some reasonable doubt about his self-mastery. There’s a number of other examples in the traditions. So I don’t see an absolutist dividing line here. You can certainly argue that Da was a non-dual alcoholic. But taking offense, and dishing dirt at me, just because I won’t censor the facts of Da’s life, seems pretty silly and ill-natured of you. That his alcoholism (among other personal habits) casts reasonable doubt about the extent of Da’s non-dual realization also seems undeniable. You can try to counter that impression, but don’t pretend that it’s some hate-filled venomous, bitter, angry invention on my part, or anyone else’s.
What I think you ought to examine is how you react to these things. There’s obviously some kind of real emotional charge in you that’s triggered by the mere mention of certain facts about Da’s life. You really might want to look at that, and free yourself from those buried emotions. Non-dualism doesn’t mean much if we can’t use it to transcend these emotional bombs hidden inside us. I certainly had to confront that when I was defending Da, and I have to do it now when I criticize him. I have to say, it’s much easier now, because I’m not required to defend Da or censor my own thinking in the process. I understand it’s probably harder for you, because you have to deal with a lot more internal and external taboos in the culture of Adidam, for which any kind of serious talk that admits any possibility of criticizing Da is considered heresy, pure and simple. It’s admirable that you’ve gone as far as you have, under the circumstances. But as I discovered in my own public advocacy of Da, my outrage over what I felt were unfair criticisms of Da were actually emotional defenses I had erected to deal with my own misgivings.
Now, if you want to talk about radical non-dualism, and to what degree Adi Da actually lived and taught that approach fine. But talking about these things seems like a minefield for you, in that if you are confronted by anything that doesn’t reflect your own built-in image of Da, it seems to explode in your face, and you accuse whoever brings such things up of deliberately wishing to hard you or Da. This is simple projection of your own inner hurts. I can be patient with you, in that I can certainly relate on multiple levels, but I’m also pretty much past that stuff, it just doesn’t raise my hackles. I guess you don’t even seem to like that about me, as if it’s a put-on, but really it’s not. You can rail against me as much as you like, it’s really fine. That’s part of my own non-dual happiness. I thought you might appreciate it. But perhaps not. What to say?
I agree that past memories aren’t all that important, but let’s not pretend they are meaningless either. I don’t need to dwell on Da’s past, but sometimes it’s relevant to the discussion. I can try to accept Da as he was, and not react, and I hope you will do the same. This doesn’t mean pretending there’s nothing there to react to, as if he lived some perfectly non-reactive life himself. He was reacting all the time, often rather pissed off, and he used all kinds of “accessories” to deal with it, and we can’t just deny that. I’m sure there’s a lesson there for all of us, and while we may differ on what the lesson was, we can’t make the subject taboo.
So long and short of it, I’m happy to talk about non-dualism all you like. I’m hardly an impossible person to converse with. If Adidam people don’t like to discuss criticism with outsiders, it’s because they just don’t know how to deal with valid and criticism, except by walking out of the room, or declaring the critic to be somehow spiritual incapable of understanding what Adi Da or non-dualism really is. That seems to be your line on me. But really, do you actually understand either Adi Da or non-dualism very well yourself? It’s not like you come across as some sort of mature master of non-dual practice and teachings. Kind of the opposite, sorry to say. No crime there, who is, but you might get off your high horse and be a little more down to earth about these things. It would make conversation a whole lot easier and more human.
December 15, 2008 at 8:26 pm
“Meanwhile, it is apparent that the two sides of the coin will not be seeing each other, at least not in this lifetime. Do any of us (devotees or critics) feel that any amount of debate/arguing will affect the other side? I do not. Ultimately, we are each preaching to our own choir.”
Michael, I appreciate your open-hearted views here, really I do. But I don’t think these conversations are all for naught, even if we often seem to be talking past one another much of the time. In part it’s just the format, that we write posts without out the physical person in front of us conversing face-to-face. Really, we end up talking with ourselves, arguing with ourselves, and working out our own problems, as much as we ever really “convince” anyone else. That’s not a fruitless excercise.
I know from personal experience that it’s possible to listen to others and let their criticism sink in. It took me a while, but I listened to critics for quite a while before I began to realize they had valid points and raised serious issues I needed to look at, even if I didn’t like the way they often expressed themselves. And I ended up changing quite a lot of my views in the process, because it initiated a process of self-inspection on my part that had real force to it. It didn’t end up the way I had thought it would, but any serious consideration never does.
If we think we know where the truth is, and try to lead our own consideration towards that end, we will be frustrated, first of all because we will never have really made a serious consideration in the first place. We have to admit what we don’t know, which is always far greater than what we do know. We always have to be willing to listen to one another, because there is no “other”, the voices on this internet thingy are just the many voices of our own mind projected onto the world “out there”, which doesn’t really exist in that fashion at all. So if used rightly, these discussions are just ways of reflecting our own inner reality back to us.
And that isn’t a meaningless exercise. Unnecessary, perhaps, but not meaningless. And certainly not fruitless if engaged seriously.
December 16, 2008 at 12:00 am
I have asked myself over these past 2 weeks why I keep returning to this blog and why I find it so interesting? After reading the latest offering by Conradg it became clear.
While a formal devotee I never experienced a real ‘consideration’ with other devotees. Whenever I brought up misgivings about Adi Da or his teaching or the community, I was quickly denied full expression. I admit that on some occasions my dissociative anger was more the issue than anything else, but there were other occasions when open consideration was just not acceptable even in the mood of real inquiry. In those occasions, I was seen as not living the correct disposition of a devotee. The belief was that irrespective of what one might feel, if it didn’t align with the hierarchy’s concept of what a devotee’s disposition should be, then you weren’t a true devotee. You were seen as not devotional! (Usually the ‘cure’ was to do more full body prostrations before the guru’s murti!!)
If the criterion for a devotee is to not voice any misgivings, and to be sanctioned (or put ‘on-hold’) for wanting to find out what is really going on in every area of Adidam, then I guess I was not and am not a devotee. That’s OK. As Groucho Marx said ‘I wouldn’t join a club that will accept me as a member.’
The culture of Adidam is drowning in its mostly uninspected cultism and its denial of the available facts regarding its guru. It typically goes like this (and I should know, I did it for years as a responsible institutional functionary!): ‘We have the only fully-realized guru, therefore, other gurus and other ways are inferior; we will talk about Adi Da’s teaching as if we have realized them ourselves (living in platitudes); them and us – you are either in or you are out, and if you are out you are not ready for true spiritual life, at least not like us; our guru constantly criticizes us for our cultism so it can’t be that bad, not like other groups where the guru says little or nothing about it; let’s not communicate the facts or our doubts to anyone outside the group because they do not have the necessary discriminatory capability (let’s not even tell those within the group who are lower down the hierarchy).
Those behaviors are acceptable to someone who is so enamored of Adi Da, or who wants it so much to be THE way, that they are simply overlooked, or worse, denied. So, in order for me to engage in (at least one aspect of) a real consideration I need devotees to simply communicate what they know of Adi Da’s life – all of it – the good, the bad and the ugly. Put it on the table and let me have a look so I, and others, can make a real and discernible assessment. If you don’t, Adidam will go the way of the dodo bird very quickly. And if you do, it will still go that way, but every thing does anyway. At least it will have shown uncommon honesty and bravery that might just keep me coming back to this blog for more real consideration.
December 16, 2008 at 1:22 am
I don’t think it is about “convincing” someone to “change sides” of the coin. It is about illuminating the areas of disagreement as well as agreement among those with similar experiences around Da who came to opposite positions, for the sake of truth. The issue here is intepretation of eveything using the Adidam model as the measure rather than looking at the differences between the Adidam model and the non-dualism of Ramana Maharshi, et al, based on multiple dimensions of consistency and results.
It is one thing to say that practices like self-enquiry and being aware of the Witness are beginner’s practices in Adidam. It is another to say that that is talking about the same thing Ramana Maharshi and Nisargadatta among others are referring to. It is also one thing to say that Adidam devotional practices leapfrog one into the highest stages of practice by bypassing seeking simply because that is how you interpret it and based on anticipated experiences of Light and Bliss. It is another to understand what Ramana Maharshi meant by Bhakti, Satsang, etc., and that these are still conditional phenomena.
I am puzzled over the criticism of those who allegedly never understood that Adidam was “always about devotional non-dualism”. Actually, the original Knee of Listening did not make that clear at all and that distinction really wasn’t codified until after 1978 when Da took the name Da. The group was marketed earlier as a non-dualistic path of understanding, but the actual approach from the early days once you arrived was modeled after a Beehive as Da himself said, a do as I say not as I do approahc that left the worker bees surviving off of the nectar of shakti and bliss. This began very early. One former devotee who left in early 1973 has said in an article found on the internet: “Although I respected Franklin [Da] as a genius in spirituality, I also knew that he was a fallible man with limits…I was not at rest. I did not want to become part of a disciple collective, a worker in a hive, or a permanent follower. I had come to Franklin for direct personal spirituality. A lifetime of endless, tedious effort and servitude did not make sense. At one point I expressed this feeling to Franklin privately and told him that I felt understanding alone was sufficient. He didn’t respond for a while, and when he did, his answer was equivocal. “Yes,” he said, “but effort is still necessary.” But at that time, the small, quiet inner voice that had always been my most reliable spiritual guide was telling me to leave. Franklin once said that those who ended their relationship with him went back to zero. But I didn’t believe that. I trusted that the true guru was within and that the external guru was only a manifestation of the inner. When I stopped by the ashram a few months later to buy a book, the disciple behind the counter chastised me in a distant, dreamy and blissful voice about how much I was missing since I had left. But I recalled that Franklin, through word and action, taught his disciples to remain awake and to be present to reality. The disciple’s other-worldly mannerisms only confirmed the validity of my decision. My inner voice had not failed me. I never returned.”
This illustrates what it was that from the earliest period until today makes discussions of practice difficult, compared with say a discussion between those following traditional paths. In every case, the Da devotee interprets their practices and experiences as evidence of some kind of superior shortcut while not showing evidence of properly understanding the traditional practices themselves, equating experiences of light, love and bliss with non-seeking and high spiritual states. And they have every right to think so, for themselves. Those of us who find from our own experience that these Adidam devotional practices were not only not what traditional non-dualists are describing, but are something less deep and lasting, also have an opinion.
December 16, 2008 at 10:34 am
Clara, great post! I almost missed it, because for some reason it was posted in chronological order, but after a bunch of later posts had already shown up.
You write:
“What he defines as “6th stage” is a fabrication and not the actual realization of a jnani.”
Exactly! What examples can anyone cite that actually match the 6th stage description? Certainly not Ramana or Nisargadatta.
As it dawned on me that realization from the traditions was apparently being falsified to fit into some non-existent category, that’s when I really lost my trust. The sacred dharma was bust.
I guess, even though I have an affinity for emotional intensity, with a lifetime of extremes from Adidam to primal therapy, in the end I’m one of those “way of insight” guys. What really attracts me to spirituality, inasmuch as I am attracted, is realization, which apparently is way too simple for my mistaken identity. So far…
December 16, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Let’s face it, we’ve all been burned. It may have been the necessary fire we needed to help us inspect ourselves as “Narcissus”, but nonetheless it has been a lot to process for each of us.
What I learned in the community of devotees was that people in the Guru’s inner circle were as capable of being as monsterous as some people living on the streets. You find that in any community of people.
The other day, I had the opportunity to see a darshan video. For some reason the cam spanned onto the group of devotees before Beloved. I saw this “jerk-off” that alway was abusive towards people (someone I felt had been party to a lot of real hurt I experienced), but I also saw his recognition of Bhagavan Adi Da. My heart was awakened to compassion. I knew listening to the Guru, serving the Guru, being the Guru’s devotee was his only recourse, and I forgave him. I forgave myself for being so enraged with him, because I realized it was only tendencies I was reacting to, not who this man is in truth.
December 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm
P.S. To my post about being burned:
I’m included in that equation above. Being passive aggressive was my modus operandi when being confronted with intolerance and more wolfish people. It’s easy to take on a cloak of being a sheep, and stab someone in the back. Yeah, people hurt me in the community, didn’t listen to me, defended themselves when I had valid criticisms, but hey that’s the nature of the ego. That’s what we do when we feel threatened. We have this expectation that people behave a certain way towards, and when they don’t watch out. I chose to run away. Maybe you think running away from the community is a healthy choice, but I’ve done that time and time again.
Listen, I say this, to put the record, straight, I’m a recovering addict by tendency,I’m also a creative bright person, but in truth, I’m just another mechanism alive in the brightness of being. I’m making these posts personal. Perhaps they’re too personal for some people’s tastes, but I have to stay on my page, if I’m truly going to listen to someone else.
Would I like some apologies for certain people’s behavior towards me in the community, that showed a lack of tolerance and compassion? Hell, yeah! …but at the same time I have some amends to make, as well, and I’ve come to see in my life, I’ve suffered my own lack of understanding, and unwillingness to love, more than anything anyone ever did to me.
Thank GOD I’m finally getting the message.
In my experience if the Guru had submitted to my expectation of what he should have been, should have done, should have demonstrated the world would be reduce to the eye of a needle.
His indifference was the perfect Gift, and as far as his seemingly erratic behavior, how else can a Realizer behave, when no one is listening to him. He had no one to really converse with, just separative egos, blinded by their own myopic takes. Sure He loved us, but it was awakening that was his business.
December 16, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Conradg Says”
“It’s certainly funny to me that you would claim I never understood the non-dual aspect of the relationship to Da, or at least the teaching about that.”
I mentioned this in terms of your relationship to Adi Da. This was based on the many things you said about how Adi Da did not act the way a teacher of non-duality should, etc. Also, if you recognized that Adi Da has always been Awake to that Non-Dual Truth, you would have spoken with much more inherent heart-felt respect, in my opinion.
Conradg Says”
“What I find rather odd about your criticisms of me is the notion that somehow I’m refusing to talk about non-dualism.”
You keep coming back to all of this history, memories, sensationalism, etc. It is all past, Conradg – and just like I have to let it go, so do any of us who are releasing the endless obsessively thinking ego-mind about anything and everything. I do understand that depending on what a person’s process is, it may be what is necessary to further consider. I can only assume that it apparently is still necessary for you to consider all of this history, Conradg.
Conradg Says”
“You don’t say when you joined Adidam, so maybe you weren’t much aware of Da’s drinking habits back then. Maybe you only spent time with him when he was smoking the weed. I don’t know what you know, so I don’t know whether you’re being deliberately misleading or just naïve and repeating what you’ve been heard. I first came in 1975, so none of this is any mystery to me, or even controversial, it’s just the simple facts. You can spin those facts any way you like, but I don’t think there’s much of a conversation to be had if we deny those facts.”
I already wrote here that I first met Bhagavan Adi Da in LA and came to The Mountain Of Attention Sanctuary in January of 1974. I immediately started living in His personal company at MOA, so I was there everyday for the entire Garbage and the Goddess period, and all of its wild spiritual and bodily intoxification, during the first part of 1974. So I know what I am talking about when I said that He and all of us would enter into these occasions and then abruptly stop with the “student conditions now apply” going into effect. This is what happened in 1974 and again in 1975 when most of those drinking occasions in the 70s occurred.
About April of 1975, there was only one six week period of drinking straight shots of Jack Daniels – I was one of the people there for that in a relatively small group at the Manner of Flowers at MOA. Even in the midst of all of this drinking, it was constantly about the Guru-devotee relationship – radical devotional non-dualism – in my direct experience. I already told you many posts ago that I was constantly looking for some glint of egoity in His eyes and/or Heart – something that would justify my taking leave of Him because what did all of this have to do with spirituality, I would also ask. l actually thought I wanted to just meditate more on His Non-Dual Presence in silence like He did in formal occasions of Satsang with us. So I can relate to you on that level Conradg – but given I often sat just a few feet from Him, I could see His Eyes and feel His Being very very readily and easefully.
So I kept looking and looking for some sign of self-consciousness/egoity in Him, but only kept being drawn into deeper and deeper non-dual Communion with the Divine Acausal Reality – even in this crazy, apparently drunken, circumstance! It was undeniable to me – and it was not just a one time glimpse or experience. I already told you I did this the first few years – always looking for Him to contract into self-consciousness, but I never saw it, and never have. (In the past, I had already noticed some form of self-consciousness about some other teachers, and so had left them.) And amazingly enough, even though I drank over a quart of Jack Daniels every day during this period, I never was hung over at all – even when we stopped. His Siddhi purified everything, even the grossness of that liquor, because of the depth of Communion He gracefully made available to us.
Conradg, even though you were involved in 1975, you were not in these “close in” gatherings, nor in the 1976 ones – and as far as I know, in any really “close in” period of gatherings – so a lot of what you heard about Adi Da in those gatherings must be second-hand hearsay, at best. That is the definition of hearsay, right?
Does all of this drinking, and more during some periods during the 80s and 90s make me (or anyone else) an alcoholic? I can only truly speak for myself, and I say no. I gave it up when it was time, purified my body-mind with right diet and fasting, and that was that. I never casually drank, and I never saw Adi Da casually drink. And He taught me how to engage life fully in many many ways – not just as described above.
I know Adi Da, who deeply instructed us during all of this, was the most extreme in terms of purifying too. Continuing on with the 1975 recounting, after the six weeks of drinking, we went on a ski trip. Us devotees thought we would continue some drinking, etc. – but nope, it was over – within a few days we were back on a vegetarian diet and soon thereafter a 20-30 day fast. Of course, all of this sounds crazy to do – and it does from a conventional standpoint, and certainly not recommended by anyone! It was never about fixing on any one experience or another – it was always subject to change, as life itself is, and that was the lesson. The only thing that never changed for us was (is) the constant Radiance of our Beloved Heart-Master – and many of us got this lesson back then.
Anyway, I can understand why you apparently did not get that the relationship to Adi Da is and always was about non-dual devotional Communion with Him. (I am assuming this from your own statements, Conradg, so correct me if I am wrong. And I am sure you will!
) It was very difficult for everyone in a lot of ways – but I tested it thoroughly, very up-close-and-personal, and could never see anything but His Purity and Love in all those times. All of them!
I am very discriminating by nature, and was not (and am not) going to be the victim of anyone’s “radical con”, Con-rad! Heh heh, I made a joke.
So my knowing these facts over against what you say, Conradg, just don’t add up to my being able to agree with you. I can agree that Adi Da was extreme with whatever He engaged – and I loved that about Him! No mediocrity there! But always at the root and pervading all was His utter Non-Dualistic Love, undeniable from the beginning, throughout all the years, and totally available to us even after His Divine Outshining of this world.
So I hope by now you understand that I am not in denial about history if I know that it is true. But I am not just going to accept what anyone says as truth though – especially when I was there for much of that history and can attest differently. And, Conradg, as I already said, you do have a particularly angry way of coloring your view of Adi Da, and I hope you will inspect that, just as I have and will always have to look at whatever I am tending to do.
Basically, I do find all of this re-hashing of memories fairly irrelevant for myself because it has nothing to do with my actual relationship with Adi Da now. It is all in the past, I am happy and feel incredibly privileged to have participated, but really, all of the history is, at best, interesting – but it is still history, and some of it ancient history. So forgive me if I sound too flip – but hey, there has been plenty of “non-dual” speak around here by the critics!
Seriously, I do understand some people still want to, and may even need to, talk about all of this history, what happened, what did not, etc. But ultimately, I think it would be like looking at a room as Bhagavan Adi Da would have us consider, from every point-of-view. Can you ever know what that room actually looks like? All points-of-view are conditional, and can never fully yield the actual way the room looks – much less, all of this history. What does all of this history actually look like altogether? Ahhh, but I guess we will keep on trying to make sense of it until we get the real lesson of radical non-duality altogether, yes?
And yeah, there is much about how all of the history has been handled by all of us that can be criticized. And certainly much about me that can be criticized too. Us devotees are by tendency egos here too, and have been turned to our Guru personally because He is so Attractive to us! But now I suspect that many of us will incarnate Him more readily as an outwardly expressed community of practitioners living and advocating the Way of His Person, Teaching, His Work altogether as Adidam. I hope that my even blogging here is seen as part of that, but if I come off poorly, just remember that I am no one special, other than I got to be part of this Way for a long time, like many of us, including you, Conradg. So be patient with us, like we all must be with everyone.
Even so, it does all have to be transcended, and so especially during this time of Bhagavan’s Divine Outshining, I have been focused on the practice of radical devotional non-dualism with Him – so I naturally prefer to speak of that rather than historical content. And on top of that, I am getting busier right now – so for now I will generally only be able to participate here if I cannot help myself.
December 16, 2008 at 8:17 pm
FFC (how dangerously close to FCC),
Excellent post, particularly this:
“This illustrates what it was that from the earliest period until today makes discussions of practice difficult, compared with say a discussion between those following traditional paths. In every case, the Da devotee interprets their practices and experiences as evidence of some kind of superior shortcut while not showing evidence of properly understanding the traditional practices themselves, equating experiences of light, love and bliss with non-seeking and high spiritual states. And they have every right to think so, for themselves.”
This is the same problem one encounters in conversations with Christians, or other monotheists, who truly do believe, because it is such a core teaching of their religion, that they have the one and only complete truth, and all other religions are in some way inferior, or even anathema. The problem with considering Adidam a non-dual teaching is that, unlike virtually every other non-dual teaching, Adidam claims to be far and away superior to every other non-dual teaching, a claim which is itself considered anathema to most non-dualist teachings. So there is a standoff from the start, and the conversation ends up being less about non-dualism than about why Adidam is or isn’t actually superior to every other form of non-dualism.
Feel4God’s obsession with Amrita Nadi is part of that whole agenda, of trying to somehow prove that Adidam is better or greater or more complete than any traditional form of non-dualism. Such a conversation isn’t really about practice, it isn’t really even about non-dualism, it’s a game of one-up-manship that seems beneath any serious non-dual practitioner. In fact, that agenda pretty much discredits Adidam from the start, in the eyes of most non-dualists. We fled from religions which try to promote themselves in this manner, such as the Judeo-Christian tradition, and remain rather unimpressed with those who make grandiose claims of superiority.
It would be interesting to discuss non-dualism with Adidam people who weren’t obsessed with trying to prove the superiority of Adidam. It’s certainly possible to find Christians who are able to discuss their faith with non-Christians, and not constantly try to demonstrate that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, and all who would be saved must believe in him. On the other hand, I must admit that most Christians I’ve encounterd on the internet seem pretty adamant about that point, and even if they try to seem intellectually open, in fact they are always trying to turn every argument back to this pre-conceived, revealed truth.
Daists tend to have the same inflexibility, and the same hardcore belief in the superiority of their path. It’s hard for them to let their guard down, and talk to people about spirituality without that sense that they’re slumming with the unwashed, the unsaved, the hell-bound – especially, of course, when talking with those who are critical of Adidam. I’m not really sure if Adidam should even be considered non-dual, it seems more monotheistic in nature, with the same “jealous God” one finds in such dualistic theologies. Adidam advocates almost feel as if they would be betraying their God not to constantly do this missionary work of letting people know that the one and only true God-Realizer is Adi Da, and no one else can genuinely “save” them, or enlighten them, whatever word you wish to use.
There’s an internal conflict between missionary zeal and ecumenical dialog that seems to make Adidamers uncertain as to how to proceed with any conversation about non-dualism. Feel4God is doing the best he can, but he hasn’t really thought through how he wants this to proceed. I think he’s sincere that he wants to talk about non-dualist dharma rather than about Adi Da’s personal life, and that’s fine, but even at that dharmic level, he’s not really sure what the point is. Does he actually want to learn something about non-dualism, or does he merely want to “teach” us about true non-dualism, meaning Adidam dharma, and demonstrate how limited the rest are? It’s not really clear to me.
Conversations with Christians often end up in this same impasse, because at rock bottom they are certain they have the “real deal”, and the rest of us don’t. At bottom, it’s a claim best on faith in a particular historical revelation, and you can’t really penetrate that. Daists have their own faith in Adi Da’s historical revelation, and they are equally impenetrable. What is there to actually talk about, then? As you say, various Hindus and Buddhists and Taoists can talk about their various notions of non-dualism, without claiming some kind of impenetrable historical revelation that is authoritative. Though of course fundamentalists from those religions do in fact believe in some version of that, but those people don’t generally focus on non-dualism as their core message. Adidam is somewhat different in claiming to be a core non-dualist path that is also fundamentally rooted in an authoritative historical revelation about non-dualism.
The question is, is that an oxymoron? Can there really be such a thing? Is non-dualism simply incapable of being rooted in historically revealed authoritarianism, and is historically revealed authority able to produce a genuine form of non-dual dharma?
History suggests not, but Adidam’s claim to historical uniqueness would suggest that this shouldn’t be a problem, in the same way that Christianity’s claims about Jesus being unique aren’t a problem within its own system. The problem is, Christianity doesn’t claim to be non-dual, and every non-dual form of Christianity I know of pretty much rejects the notion of Christ’s mythical birth and unique revelation.
Buddha did not rely on his own historical status as “Buddha”, but laid out an easy to follow line of thought that one could consider for oneself, and reject or see the wisdom of accordingly. Adidam claims at times to be based on a similar approach, but as most Daists know, at some point in the logic of Adidam there is a leap of faith that relies on Adi Da’s own revealed perfect Realization, and that becomes the end of all discussion, other than how are we to best honor and realize this revelation. Past that point, there is no room for criticism, questioning of authority, or discussion of alternative views. There is merely a processing of being “educated” in the Adidam Revelation, the maturity of which is judged sheerly by one’s obediance and fealty to it, rather than to some innate non-dual understanding that transcends even Adidam’s historical teachings.
So, what’s the motive for Adidamers here to actually talk non-dualism with the rest of us? Is it anything other than missionary zeal? Or is there some slight wedge of doubt and openness that will allow them to speak freely, without a pre-arranged revelatory destination to the conversation? We shall see.
December 17, 2008 at 12:45 am
Feel4God,
You may not believe me, but I honestly don’t mind your making personal claims about the non-dual nature of your relationship to Adi Da, telling your devotional stories, etc. Devotion of any kind has always been inspiring to me, regardless of the subject. `And I don’t at all mind your claiming that I must never have understood the non-dual nature of the relationship to him. I’m not in competition with you, I’m not applying for some higher level of practice, I’m not trying to get on the darshan list, so I really just don’t care. If it makes you feel better to think that way of me, be my guest. I’m all for people feeling better about themselves.
But for the record, I certainly did come to Da for that non-dual relationship, and that’s what I cultivated during my time there. It doesn’t get you very far in the community to do things that way, but it’s more rewarding, at least that’s what I found. I must have missed the post where you said you’d been around since 1974, sorry I can’t follow all of this thread. When I came in 1975 I was shown the whole non-dual basis for the relationship to Adi Da right off the bat. Except, it wasn’t really about Adi Da at all, it was about total transcendence of the very illusion that anything at all is happening. So I like to look at my time with Da in that context – as a total illusion, whereas in reality nothing is actually happening here.
I was only seventeen at the time, and very geeky, and not much of a socializer. I saw the whole party scene, I saw what was going on around Bubba, and I wasn’t at all angry or judgmental about it, and I’m still not. It was obvious to me that I simply didn’t have those kinds of karmas, and I just wasn’t interested in such things. It’s not what I came for. It was certainly funny that, coming out of that first encounter with Da, I was greeted by two devotees, one of whom handed me a glass of champagne, the other a cigarette. I politely told them I didn’t drink or smoke, and they said, “You do now!” So I had the first cigarette of my life, and almost my first drink, on the lawn of the Manner. Not bad, really.
But it was made clear to me very quickly, even before that incident, that Adidam wasn’t very much into the non-dual relationship to Da. It was very much about the dualistic relationship to Bubba. You can’t be so idealistic not to have noticed this? Very convincing arguments were made as to why we should relate to Adi Da dualistically, and he was often the guy making those arguments. So this created an inner conflict in me which really never got resolved in Adidam, up to the time I was declared a heretic for submitting a question to Da during those internet Q&A sessions a few years ago, asking him if he accepted any responsibility for the failures of his teaching work (a subject he was quite vocal about at the time).
The point I’ve made about Da’s relationship to the non-dual is not that he’s never had one, or never taught such a thing, or never had any understanding of the non-dual nature of reality. I certainly experienced great non-dual truth in Adi Da’s company. It’s just that most of what went on in Adi Da’s company was not about that, it was about a lot of very dualistic stuff. And he seemed to insist on the importance of all that dualistic stuff, things I simply had no interest in whatsoever. As I said earlier, it’s not hard to see why his devotees didn’t become enlightened, in that he spent a great deal of time dealing with all these secondary, dualistic matters, rather than concentrating on the non-dual stuff. Is that really an outlandish thing to say?
You would like to pretend that all that dualistic stuff was beside the point, that Da was just playing around, creating “theater”, that all the while he was constantly in a non-dual state of realization that never wavered. Well, who’s to argue with that? Who could? Who would really want to? The point is, regardless of what Da’s own state of realization actually was, since we can’t really know that anyway, there are clear consequences to teaching in the manner he did, in which the non-dual matters were constantly being sidelined by dualistic concerns and activities. Now, if you have been able to stay concentrated in the non-dual relationship to Da, great. But clearly you haven’t become realized as a result, so there’s been quite a few distractions as well.
I admire your devotion, just as I admire the devotion of Christians who sincerely believe that Jesus was the perfect Son of God. Devotion, love, is what life is all about, and wherever it appears, I consider it be real and true and wonderful. I frankly don’t care if someone is devoted to Britney Spears, the love they have for her is just as true and real as anyone else’s love for whomever they feel represents truth and happiness. I don’t feel I have to take that devotion literally, or presume that the object of their devotion really is somehow what they think, and I’d certainly say that people should be discriminating about who they love, but we can’t really argue with anyone about what attracts them.
Now, I can feel great empathy for you simply because I shared your love for Adi Da. I know precisely what you are talking about. I would only say that you are making a false presumption about other people, and how they love, and who they love, and if they don’t love Da exactly the same way you do, and don’t find him to be exactly as perfect as you do, they are somehow at fault, wrong, and even sinfully “angry”. This just isn’t true.
Non-dual truth doesn’t reside in anyone, whether it be Da or Ramana. Things work out differently for all of us. Some are drawn to Da, some to Ramana, some to Jesus, some to Ramakrishna, etc. Da himself was with Rudi and Muktananda only for a time, and while he was with them, he related to them as if they were God. When he had used up that relationship, he moved on to others. Well, the same is true with Da himself. Most people who have moved on from Da have used up what was useful in him, saw his limits just as Da saw the limits in Rudi and Muktananda, and have moved on to other teachers. Now, some people stayed with Rudi or Muktananada all their lives, just as you have stayed with Da all your life. That doesn’t make you any better or worse than anyone else – although you seem to think it does. But that’s just the usual spiritual vanity, nothing to take seriously. We all have different spiritual needs, different trajectories, and it doesn’t all fit into the nice neat categories of stages and levels as Adidam would have us believe. Of course, if you believe that, you are welcome to continue on with it, and see how well it holds up. I didn’t think it held up very well, but that’s just me.
You like to tell me I’m angry, but honestly, dude, I’d ask you to read some of your own posts here, and tell me you’re not angry. If you’re saying anger is a sign of a failed relationship to Da, then you have failed also. So we have that in common also. And then, we have to admit that Da himself was often very angry himself, even exceptionally so, and you have to wonder how to say he was angry, but in a non-dual way. And then we get into the whole personal thing about him, all the various habits of mind and body that, if I animated them, you would say I was full of ego, but when he animates them, you claim he’s free of ego. So where does that argument really go but in circles?
You claim it all comes down to that little flicker of self-consciousness you think you can discern in people’s eyes. Well, that’s fine for you, everyone’s entitled to their personal quirks, but do you really think this is some absolute measure of someone’s non-dual realization? Are we simply supposed to assume that all true non-dual devotees have this ability, and if we do not, we are clearly not up to your level? Do you have any idea how silly this not only sounds, but actually is? How is that any better, really, than my talking about how Da doesn’t fit the basic pattern of non-dual realization, except that at least I’m talking about something we can at least discuss realistically?
I’m really not that interested in debating Da’s alcoholism, but I must mention that your timeline doesn’t contradict anything I’ve said. Da was clean and sober about 20% of the time, so it’s understandable that he’d be clean at least 2-3 months a year, some years even more. As you know, Da left the community for a while in 1975, and he wasn’t very clean during that time. When I saw him in the summer of 1975, he was clearly drinking, as my story shows. Then, he went to Hawaii for a long spell, and partied over here. Then, he returned in June of 1976, when I saw him again, and he initated the wild parties of Indoor Summer, which didn’t really ever come to an end, he just went back to Hawaii near the end of the year and kept things going in private. He made a few trips back to the States, but mostly he just stayed in Hawaii, where he could party in secret, without all the crowds. And that went on for, how many years? Damn, until about late 1981, when he came back to MOA. Was he clean even then? I can’t remember for sure, but I think it was a bit sketchy. Anyway, he left for Hawaii within six months, where he partied hard through the whole Gomboo period, all the way into the aquisition of the Island in 1983, and up to the Love of the Godman scene in 1984, then back to the Island for two years up to the Divine Emergence in 1986, when finally he did some serious cleaning up. How long did that last? A year? I think even less than that, and he was back to partying on the island again. All through the late eighties, early nineties, up to 1995. that was the general scene at his house, on and off to be sure, but mostly on. So I really don’t see where the exageration is in calling him an alcoholic. If you drank as much as he did, as often as he did, I’d call you an alcoholic also. It’s not even an insult, though you seem to take it that way. It’s just a medical condition some people have, like his panic attacks. I used to talk with Da about this, he described his family’s problems with alcoholism, it’s in the genes even. It’s no big deal, but it certainly is one of the basic facts of his life, and it’s certainly one of the major causes of his recent death. Somehow, he managed to work it into his spiritual teachings and instructions. Fine, the Catholics obviously have done something similar. I’m just not sure what’s so non-dual about it all.
Now I agree that we don’t need to talk much about the past, I just have no taboos about it. Getting the real non-dual lesson is hard, especially if we already think we know what that lesson is going to be. Which is why we have to throw away not just our past, but all these conceptual dharmas. I was always inspired by Da’s way of talking back in the 70′s, when he talked about throwing away all dharmas, and simply standing bare to the universe, with no supports. Well, I still believe in that attitude. I just didn’t see Adi Da staying true to that. Instead, he built up monumental edifices to the mind, huge dharmic castles which his devotees seemed to want to worship rather than tear down. But as with Marpa and Milarepa, the real wisdom comes not from building temples, but from tearing them apart. And that is what I felt at last I had to do with Da, tear down that temple, and stand bare to the non-dual sky.
December 17, 2008 at 9:18 am
Feel4God says:
“it was constantly about the Guru-devotee relationship – radical devotional non-dualism”
what is that supposed to mean? that’s a condratictio in adjecto!
i have noticed that you have started to attach “non-dual” to just about anything lately. repeating the false doesn’t make it true, you know?
a relationship is INHERENTLY dualistic. and attaching the word “radical” to it makes it double wrong. in radical non-dualism there is no other to be related to. not ultimately.
you are so far gone in your adidam conditioning it seems that you feel the need to twist and turn anything into the false adidam system.
adi da may have had some basic non-dual insights but that’s about it. he was a mere beginner. how do i know? by his actions and by the way he structured adidam, which is structured entirely dualistic.
most adidamers are way too conditioned to be able to see that basic truth about adidam but i feel moved to set that straight for others reading this blog.
Feel4God also said:
“Even so, it does all have to be transcended, and so especially during this time of Bhagavan’s Divine Outshining”
what does have to be transcended? and what for?
those are all totally dualistic concepts. that has NOTHING whatsoever to do with non-dualism, and certainly not with radical non-dualism.
also, what is this “divine outhshining” supposed to mean? another empty construct created by adi da to artificially set himself apart from the rest.
just smoke and mirrors with very little substance. very, very little.
December 17, 2008 at 10:09 am
Funny, I thought my last post got lost, it didn’t appear at the time I posted, and I couldn’t get it back. So later in the evening I wrote a different post, which I guess covers another issue, more personal and probably more important. Here it is:
Feel4God,
I appreciate your devotion, really I do, but I think you need to stop using it to make yourself out to be superior to others. Devotion is real when it is humble, not when it’s a competitive sport used to denigrate others as inferior to yourself. You seem not to realize how much more impressive your devotion would be if you didn’t make grand claims for yourself and for Da, if you didn’t find it necessary to put me down as not being up to your “level” of non-dual understanding, of not knowing what a non-dual relationship to Da or any other Guru is about.
You say some nice things about Da, and I don’t question your love for him, but it doesn’t appear you’ve ever gotten over the most basic emotional issues that anyone who is serious about non-dual practice must confront in themselves from the start. Instead, you put out this same deadly energy that pervades the world of Adidam, from newbies to old-timers, the smugness of the saved. If you want to know why people are turned off by Adi Da and his community, look no further. The reasons are all right here, staring back at you.
Personally, I don’t mind being told I don’t understand Adi Da and his non-dual ways. I’m so over that sort of concern. I spent decades in Adidam listening to people brag about their profound understanding of Adi Da, who clearly didn’t know what they were talking about. I listened patiently to people like you preaching to the choir in their own minds, oblivious to what their human audience actually thought, unable to get over the sound of their own voice. It wasn’t all bad. I love devotion, no matter how imperfect. I can appreciate yours. But you gotta understand, I’m not applying for transition, I’m not being interviewed by some “higher up” dude who gets to play his number on me, I don’t want anything from you, or from Adidam, I’m not trying to get on a darshan list, I don’t need your “insight” or wisdom, and you aren’t my superior. Those days are over, and that’s part of what I mean when I say I am very, very happy not to be in Adidam anymore. You keep reminding me of the reasons why, unwittingly.
From the day I first came to Adidam, people like you made it very clear that I wasn’t welcome, that Adidam wasn’t suited for me, that I wasn’t up to understanding it. I resisted and even resented that for a very long time, and tried to make my way past such people to Adi Da himself. Some of the time I even succeeded. But eventually, I came to appreciate that these people really were trying to do the best thing for me, and I just didn’t appreciate it. I should have listened to them sooner, and realized that they were right, that Adidam really wasn’t for me, that the understanding they had was not what I was looking for, that their version of the truth was something I would never really be able to accept.
So now I do accept that Adidam simply isn’t for me. Adidam is a place where even the simple love and devotion that I gave to Adi Da is denigrated by people like yourself as inferior to their own, who claim I never really understood Da if I don’t submit myself to their superior authority. That’s the pattern of Adidam, established by Adi Da himself, and I have to simply accept that this is what he was always about, and why the people around him always acted the way they did. For decades I resisted the notion that Adi Da actually felt the way you do, but I finally came to understand that he did, that Adidam as a whole represents the egoic desire to be superior to others, exemplified by Da himself, and that I was attracted to it myself because I shared that fault.
I don’t question that Da or you have a desire for non-dual understanding. I certainly experienced plenty of that in relation to him, and Adidam altogether. It’s just clear that he was never able to actually live that way. Yes, he could sit in Darshan very still, and for periods of time be “empty”. I’ve certainly witnessed that. But he could never just plain love people, not without constantly reminding them of his superiority and authority. He only attracted people around him who could affirm his superiority and authority. Even when you testify to his not having any discernable ego, you can only describe this as some quality in his eyes, some lack of self-consciousness, rather than in his actions, as unconditional love. Adi Da’s love was always highly conditional, dependent on people acting a certain way around him. If he didn’t get what he wanted, you’d know it fast.
This created an aberrated culture of people around him. You are right that I wasn’t in his inner circle in the early days. I didn’t come for that sort of wild party life. I didn’t have those karmas. I came for the non-dual teaching and relationship, and oddly enough, he showed me what that was about at the very beginning. But he didn’t live that way, and the community wasn’t much interested in that sort of thing, so it was put on the side, and secondary matters were made more important. He once said that the essence of tragedy was when when primary matters are made secondary, and that is why Adidam was essentially a tragic place. He could have been so much more. I waited a very long time for that to change, but it never did, and I could finally see that it never would. Your own testimony here is evidence that it hasn’t changed. You haven’t changed. Yes, that’s tragic, and even more so that you don’t seem to notice it. Well, we have to work out our own salvation now, however you conceive of it.
For me, I was able to get out while I still had the desire in me for something more than Adidam could offer me, and through a lot of hard struggle and Grace I’ve been able to arrive at a simple understanding that doesn’t require any kind of superiority on the part of my Guru, myself, or anyone. It’s free of all that, and I’m very happy about that. What you offer as non-dual understanding doesn’t appeal to me. I don’t knock it if it works for you and makes you feel better about yourself. Some people need that. I don’t anymore. To me non-dualism means a radically personal form of equality, very different from what is taught or practiced in Adidam. So I don’t know what to say if you think I never understood the radical nature of the relationship to Da. Maybe I did, maybe I didn’t. I do know that you wouldn’t know if I did anyway, and it’s downright weird that you think you can be the judge of that. It’s also just plain irrelevant. What matters is only that I be founded in God, in truth, in the simple happiness of our existence. That’s the devotion that really counts, and in that devotion we are all the same, there is no difference between anyof us, no superior or inferior understanding, no levels, no stages, no mind, no need for salvation.
Again, I don’t object to your devotional expressions. If you think Da is perfect, so be it. I won’t object on the personal level, just as I won’t object to Christians who consider Jesus perfect, or Hindus who consider Krishna perfect, or Rastafarians who consider Hallee Sallassee perfect. I just consider that a sign of devotion, it doesn’t mean anything beyond that. But I do note that sometimes people consider themselves to be superior to those of other religions, because they believe they have a perfect master, and thus believe they have a superior understanding than those who have a less than perfect master. Well, this is how ego destroys religion, even non-dual religion. It’s certainly how Adidam, and Adid Da himself, self-destructed. It’s even how everyone self-destructs in their own private lives, just not as dramatically. But love has no such problems, and if we persist in devotion beyond all these secondary matters, we may actually come to realize what is primary, which is not the possession of any religion or Guru or teaching, it is our very nature. And if we realize what is primary, then we may realize freedom itself. That won’t be anything like what our minds imagine it to be.
I could answer a number of specifics in your last post, but I think I’ll leave it at that for now. I just wanted to make this one point, and not get into a series of rebuttals.
December 17, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Unfortunately, Conradg, I don’t have the time to comment on a lot of your posts now – maybe I will later – though I did read them. But this part really seems to be the crux of our differences here:
Conradg Says:
“And he seemed to insist on the importance of all that dualistic stuff, things I simply had no interest in whatsoever. As I said earlier, it’s not hard to see why his devotees didn’t become enlightened, in that he spent a great deal of time dealing with all these secondary, dualistic matters, rather than concentrating on the non-dual stuff. Is that really an outlandish thing to say?”
Based on Adi Da’s own confession, I assume that for One Who has Realized the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi – i.e., Absolute Non-Dual Acausal Reality – that none of what you call the “dualistic stuff” is dualistic. Why do you make this distinction? In other words, what is “dualistic stuff” versus … uhhh … “non-dualistic stuff”??? Are these defined somewhere? And by whom are they defined – the aspirant himself?
Again, you are demonstrating at best an exclusive sense about what true Non-Dualism actually is with these statements, and furthermore, how a Sat-Guru should work with His devotees. It is because of statements like this about Adi Da throughout your posts that I thought you did not understand that the relationship to Adi Da Samraj has always been Non-Dual Communion with the Divine from the beginning. Almost all of His conversations in gatherings were about this too, so what more can I say?
Regarding the effectiveness of Adi Da’s Teaching, we can only really judge that after a much greater time has passed, in my opinion. If you want to pass judgment now, that is your business, but it certainly seems, at best, premature to me. Again, I remind you that Ramana never acknowledged any living people as enlightened while He himself was alive.
Also, I never said you failed – you used the word “failed” a few times and that was your presumption about what I said; it does perhaps say something about your own feelings, but I did not say that. Probably just something (“critics conditioning”) you should also inspect?
Conrad, I have no problem at all with you (or anyone) practicing in some other manner, with some other Spiritual Master, etc. – and if I have sounded at all like I do have a problem with that, my apologies. Pointing instances out specifically (with quotes) will help too, rather than just a general critical statement as is usually done.
Conradg Says:
“You claim it all comes down to that little flicker of self-consciousness you think you can discern in people’s eyes. Well, that’s fine for you, everyone’s entitled to their personal quirks, but do you really think this is some absolute measure of someone’s non-dual realization? Are we simply supposed to assume that all true non-dual devotees have this ability, and if we do not, we are clearly not up to your level? Do you have any idea how silly this not only sounds, but actually is? How is that any better, really, than my talking about how Da doesn’t fit the basic pattern of non-dual realization, except that at least I’m talking about something we can at least discuss realistically?”
It is just obvious in all my personal contact with Adi Da that He is beyond all egoity – and, of course, it is hard to directly quantify or prove this here, and impossible in some kind of logical mental manner.
I even brought up on this blog that egoity and selflessness can be clearly seen in photographs, and you countered that the ego is an activity and cannot appear in a photograph. To which I responded that the activity of egoity certainly has its effects on the body-mind and these effects could be seen-felt-intuited in a photo. And at the same time, I also mentioned, why does Ramana Maharshi’s picture look so selfless?
You never responded to this. So if there is no way to feel-intuit-see whether some being has transcended egoity and is even emanating selflessness in their photographs, are you saying that Ramana Maharshi looks like an ordinary man then? And if not, based on what then?
I have repeatedly said that I can see no egoity at all in Adi Da Samraj’s photos, and so the same consideration above applies with Him. With other people’s photos, some effect of egoity is usually very apparent on their faces, in their eyes, being, whatever. And no, I do not think this is some special non-dual ability as you sarcastically imply – every feeling heart can inherently recognize Real Love vs. egoity.
December 17, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Feel4God wrote ” But ultimately, I think it would be like looking at a room as Bhagavan Adi Da would have us consider, from every point-of-view. Can you ever know what that room actually looks like? All points-of-view are conditional, and can never fully yield the actual way the room looks – much less, all of this history”
Thank you for sharing that! and this post about your participation with Adi Da has moved me to reconsider and question my doubts about him, most of these doubts have been accumulated through reading information online and it’s really great to hear from a devotee offering an alternate experience.
December 17, 2008 at 11:37 pm
NC says: “Let’s face it, we’ve all been burned. It may have been the necessary fire we needed to help us inspect ourselves as “Narcissus”, but nonetheless it has been a lot to process for each of us. What I learned in the community of devotees was that people in the Guru’s inner circle were as capable of being as monsterous as some people living on the streets. You find that in any community of people…In my experience if the Guru had submitted to my expectation of what he should have been, should have done, should have demonstrated the world would be reduce to the eye of a needle. His indifference was the perfect Gift, and as far as his seemingly erratic behavior, how else can a Realizer behave, when no one is listening to him. He had no one to really converse with, just separative egos, blinded by their own myopic takes. Sure He loved us, but it was awakening that was his business.”
NC, this is your personal revelation, perhaps, but not new. This logic is the same I heard long ago and has been in place the early days of Da’s group, and if you finally “heard it” now, that is where you need to be at this time.
But for others reading here, is it the only way of looking at the situation? I think after penetrating further, many find that insight gained through grace from the Self and a proven practice is the real answer, not being regularly burned, and that that is the essence of mainstream non-dualism, not the Da approach. I, along with many other critics, certainly agree with you that Da’s inner circle was capable of monstrous behavior. It reminded me very much of the Mafia, in fact. I recall vividly the praise among “advanced” devotees for beating spouses, for example, and the pressure to follow whatever the latest fad in the group was, and adopt whatever the latest “revelation” was without serious reflection. But the very last time I went to the MOA sanctuary, I was struck by not only the lack of progress over the years, but an actual regression in the qualities one sees in those maturing spiritually around Realizers. It was thus no surprise to me that Da left no Realizers or even those who would be generally recognized as having attained advanced states common around those like Ramana Maharshi. Regardless of what the books and marketing said, in fact, the environment was not focused on non-dualism, it was organized like a beehive and founded on devotion, and those who did focus on non-dualism found no support within the group, even from the “indifferent” Da. Since the realization is never questioned by devotees, whether such devotion and practice actually works if the guru turns out not to be realized and whether that is a possible explanation for the results is never considered.
Where we disagree is your assumption that the behavior of those around Da isn’t relevant in considering Da, or that the inner circle did not listen to or reflect his teaching which justified his behavior. You ask, “how else can a Realizer behave when no one is listening to him?”. I did an intensive consideration of this before leaving, never to return, and I am grateful that I was liberated through grace from that situation and the assumption that Da was reliable. The fact there are numerous historical examples of Realizers dealing with those who could not comprehend what they were saying, and a dearth of examples of one going to anywhere near the extremes Da did, because they realize the devotee’s real state is what it is. This is even if you assume, as I don’t, that the inner circle was not listening to him, when the evidence is they were and the erratic qualities originated with Da himself, not his followers. I realized that although the inner circle was generally seen as the problem, Da had far more control and influence over the inner circle and was not the “rescuer” we were led to believe as when, for example, his right hand man was kicked out. The fact is, one simply does not see this type of chronic inner circle situation on this scale historically around realized non-dualists, as destructive karmic bondages are undone or usefully mitigated in the presence far more gracefully historically than seen in Da’s group. Nor does one see this kind of response from Realizers to lack of comprehension, particularly when that same guru does not attract or accomodate those far more advanced spiritually than the inner circle Da chose. So we actually do have lots of examples of what a Realizer would do besides what Da did, and even Da acknowledged by 1998 that the historical crazy wisdom tradition was not adequate in explaining his actions,e.
Again, what hampers dialogue here is that Da devotees can only accept Da and what they experienced around him as the benchmark by which non-dualism can be measured, and do not seem to have a sound understanding of the non-dualist traditions as an alternate benchmark. Having experienced the states Da devotees refer to as evidence myself, I can state from personal experience with other teachers and gurus they are not that unique or unprecedented, regardless of whether Da was about the business of awakening. We also see matter of fact, blanket statements about Realizers, such as in this case, that are factually inaccurate or out of context. There is inadequate acknowledgment that compared with those of us who adopt established principles of a long history of the tradition that says “All Realizers are One”, not that they are precursors of Da himself, and they have only Da’s word for it that he brings a higher teaching and realization than those inferior Realizers outside of Da. Nothing wrong with taking that leap of faith and intensifying devotion if moved to by faith in Da. Just acknowledge that faith as the basis, and not present an inaccurate picture of traditional non-dualism and Realizers as a reason for not questioning Da here. It is unlikely to be very successful here where the readers probably know more about non-dualism than the typical Da devotee, in any case.
Having thought similarly myself once long ago, how can I deny others such beliefs as long as they find them valid? But the only way we can meaningfully dialogue about spiritual practices and experiences is when Da is one point of reference for sure, but not the only benchmark.
December 18, 2008 at 12:49 am
Well reasoned, Conradg. I particularly agree with what you say here:
“Getting the real non-dual lesson is hard, especially if we already think we know what that lesson is going to be. Which is why we have to throw away not just our past, but all these conceptual dharmas. I was always inspired by Da’s way of talking back in the 70’s, when he talked about throwing away all dharmas, and simply standing bare to the universe, with no supports. Well, I still believe in that attitude. I just didn’t see Adi Da staying true to that. Instead, he built up monumental edifices to the mind, huge dharmic castles which his devotees seemed to want to worship rather than tear down. But as with Marpa and Milarepa, the real wisdom comes not from building temples, but from tearing them apart. And that is what I felt at last I had to do with Da, tear down that temple, and stand bare to the non-dual sky.”
At some point, at least for those of us familiar with the difference, it seems to come down to whether you adopt the approach exemplified in the Knee of Listening as it was, written by a “man of understanding”, or Adidam the way it became. Would Franklin Jones himself based on his life have limited himself to the rigid approach Da eventually offered today? Obviously not. For that matter, would Buddha, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta or anyone like that have limited themselves to that approach? Obviously not. I think Da in some ways actually respected those who stayed true to his early teachings and did not get swallowed up in a dharmic beehive even if they left to pursue another non-dualistic practice based on the sources Da originally praised.
One other comment. Whether the term alcoholic applies to the behavior if one assumes their was a spiritual purpose behind it and there were periods of abstinence, Da’s adult life was always about a kind of extreme binge and purge pattern in the areas of drugs and alchohol, money, food and sex, and mental cycles, from the period at Columbia forward. Yes, with Rudi and with Muktananda, and prior to the Vedanta Temple, there were extreme periods of purification and periods of abandon. But this did not stop after the Vedanta Temple experience as one might have thought from reading Knee of Listening, and certainly did not stop after 1976, as was claimed for a long time. As you know, it really did not stop during his life, although he did have to finally drop his excessive use of alcohol in the mid-1990s for other substances. That toll on his body plus genetics had a lot to do with his relatively premature death just as he turned 69. Whether this is indication of unresolved tendencies due to lack of realization or letting the body just be a vehicle for resolving other’s karmas through such means after realization is an interpretation that can be honestly disputed. What should not be factually disputed is that Da did not really ever live the “straight” life he advocated in his written and oral teaching for years and years as some have suggested. I still recall showing up in San Francisco after some time in a small group elsewhere. While staying temporarily at an advanced household and going up to the Sanctuary, I found out they were more concerned with me finding out the real lifestyle there (as if I cared at that point) than acknowledging the lifestyle in the books was applied only during certain times, and that the rest was just for public consumption and for lower level beginners who didn’t know better. It was what it was and played a role in Da’s life and early death. It seems some things never change…
December 18, 2008 at 4:22 am
Conrad writes:
“And that is what I felt at last I had to do with Da, tear down that temple, and stand bare to the non-dual sky”
Right On!
Let’s turn all the temples into free museums, theaters and art galleries, all the sanctuaries into eco-projects and refuges for animals, burn all the books, DVD’s etc. and…
All stand Free in the Absolute Un-knowable Mystery; hearts blasted Wide Open to Infinity…
(just as that Crazy One implored us…)
Or….
Shall we make yet another religion with it’s inviolable icons, unchallengeable rules, sacred books, beliefs, priests, codes of behaviour, insider/outsider games, torture of “heretics” etc. etc. etc..?
The choice is yours!
Choose Wisely!
love to All,
Stevie,
December 18, 2008 at 5:36 pm
http://tam-tam.tumblr.com/post/65616724/das-7-stages-error
A slightly better formatted and punctuated version of my previous post, for a better reading of it.
Namaste.
Clara
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Feel4God,
I too have time constraints on continuing this much longer. It also takes a very long time to load this thread, given that I only have dialup. So we may be thinning down our responses for a while.
“Based on Adi Da’s own confession, I assume that for One Who has Realized the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi – i.e., Absolute Non-Dual Acausal Reality – that none of what you call the “dualistic stuff” is dualistic. Why do you make this distinction? In other words, what is “dualistic stuff” versus … uhhh … “non-dualistic stuff”??? Are these defined somewhere? And by whom are they defined – the aspirant himself?
“Again, you are demonstrating at best an exclusive sense about what true Non-Dualism actually is with these statements, and furthermore, how a Sat-Guru should work with His devotees. It is because of statements like this about Adi Da throughout your posts that I thought you did not understand that the relationship to Adi Da Samraj has always been Non-Dual Communion with the Divine from the beginning. Almost all of His conversations in gatherings were about this too, so what more can I say?”
This is an old fallacy that I thought you, supposedly being well-versed in Adi Da’s teachings about non-dualism, would not fall into. I’ll even argue against you in Daist terminology to make it clear that this issue isn’t, in itself, a result of some kind of conflict between Daism and the traditional point of view. Dualism is essentially about attention to objects. Or put more directly, the illusion that there are objects is created by attention itself. In reality, there are no objects. So attention to objects is a sign of a dualistic point of view. Da describes that as characteristic of the first five stages of life.
The non-dual point of view is one in which the illusion that objects exist is transcended. Da teaches that this begins in the sixth stages of life, and matures into the seventh stage of life. In the sixth stage of life, instead of attention being objectified as a world of separate objects, one recognizes that all that “stuff” is an illusion of the mind, and one explores instead the subject of attention itself, until one goes to the root of attention, and transcends the very “mistake” at the heart which creates attention, and seemingly separate “world”, what Da calls the self-contraction. When this self-contraction is transcended, the heart-knot is opened, the tendency for consciousness to take the form of attention is destroyed, and the energy of the Self, which previously appeared as separate objects, takes the form of “Amrita Nadi”.
Now, you may be under the false impression that objects really do exist, and than in this Amrita Nadi realization, these objects are seen as “God”, or “Self”, or are somehow Divinized and “recognized” as being True and Real. This is simply not the case. Even in Da’s own description, this “recognition” has nothing to do with seeing objects in a certain way. What to others might mistakenly appear to be objects, to the fully enlightened “seventh stage” realizer is simply the non-separate Divine Self endlessly modified, not as objects at all, but as the very Light of the Self.
So the realizer knows exactly what “non-dual stuff” is, and he knows it isn’t “dualistic stuff”. He recognizes all “arising” as non-dual in nature, not composed of objects at all, but merely the very Light of the Self, inherently non-separate. So the realizer’s relationship to all that arises is one of complete and instantaneous and prior recognition, not of seeking for objects. The realizer is not disturbed by anything arising, and thus he displays the sign of “Divine Indifference”, in which there is not the slightest sign of displeasure or dis-ease with whatever is arising, because he knows that whatever is arising is Himself. This is why realizers show the signs of being happy at all times, treating all equally, and not seeking any of the myriad forms of pleasurizing through objects that dualistically-minded people feel compelled to pursue.
Now, that is probably the heart of the criticism of Da’s life-sign in relation to non-dualism. Rather than showing this sign of Divine Indifference and no-seeking, we see all kinds of evidence of the exact opposite, of someone who is not at all Divinely Indifferent, but highly preferential for pleasure, and avoiding pain, and seeking objects of all kinds, from sexy devotees to expensive art work to the pleasures of drugs and alcohol. And likewise, he shows all the signs of egoic frustration when he does not get what he wants. There’s certainly an ordinary level of bodily need that must be allowed, but Da seems to exceed that to such a high degree that it certainly puts his claims to non-dual realization into doubt.
Likewise, because Da instructed his devotees to constantly supply him with all kinds of “objects” that he needed to keep himself at ease in this world, which he otherwise said he would leave if they were not provided to him, often highly expensive objects, his devotees were constantly drawn into his own search for these objects, rather than being rested in the simple inspection of the non-dual nature of reality. I recall one very high level guy, a famous public speaker and presentation giver, confiding to me during the whole art promotion period, that all he thought about anymore was money and selling art, he didn’t have a single bit of attention leftover for these non-dual aspects of practice. So if you say that I missed something about Da’s constant non-dual instruction, so did the very best and brightest of Adidam. Apparently only you have been flawlessly true to Da’s non-dual instruction.
But this is just the way things were most of the time in Adidam. He kept people very, very busy with all kinds of very conventional pursuits of conventional objects, which kept people’s attention on objects, which kept people from considering deeply the non-dual aspect of his teaching, which you say was always at the core, but which I say was deeply neglected most of the time. Yes, there were some periods when he concentrated himself in this non-dual consideration, such as that period in early 1996 in the Manner and Tumomamma. I was there on retreat during that time, so I enjoyed it very much. But this was followed very quickly with all kinds of “usual pursuits” once again, the sort of thing which many people lived for, but which I found rather absurd and “who cares?”
Well, you can certainly say that I wasn’t up to remaining perfectly true to the non-dual practice in the midst of all that. But I saw that no one else was either. It simply distracted people from the heart of what really matters. I don’t see the point, and no one else did either. Sure, people would say that he was “working” with us in some way, purifying us, but really, it just didn’t seem to do that. Instead, it just made people superficial and burned out, and there didn’t seem to be any spiritual point to it at all. I finally realized that I didn’t want to become like the people I saw there, I wanted on the one hand to live a more healthy and responsible lifestyle, and on the other hand, I wanted to simply approach the non-dual teachings directly without any filter.
Again, you can criticize me all you like, and say I missed the “true” teachings of Adi Da, but I saw very well what the endlessly repeated pattern was there, and I saw it didn’t really go anywhere but in circles. It wasn’t about non-dualism in life, it was about very dualistic pursuits. Well, you could certainly say that was the lesson I was supposed to get, that all of life is supposed to show its asshole to you, and you are supposed to learn to throw it all away. If so, then great, I got the point. And Da certainly served that much in me, even if it meant throwing him away as well. You could certainly say that’s what he told us all to do back in Garbage and the Goddess days. So maybe the prophecies came true after all, for some of us at least.
“Regarding the effectiveness of Adi Da’s Teaching, we can only really judge that after a much greater time has passed, in my opinion. If you want to pass judgment now, that is your business, but it certainly seems, at best, premature to me. Again, I remind you that Ramana never acknowledged any living people as enlightened while He himself was alive.”
There’s certainly some limits to criticism of Adidam right now, but there’s also limits at future times as well. There is no perfect time to form judgments about anything, but I must say you sound a bit like George Bush saying he shouldn’t be judged for another fifty years. Well, good luck with that. If Adidam does produce some genuine realizers, that would be great. But it’s pretty damning that he never succeeded in his lifetime. You never know, of course, anything could happen. Jesus could return and tell us the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right after all. What a gas that would be.
As for Ramana not acknowledging any enlightened devotees, you have to realize that he was entirely opposed to the whole idea of having a lineage grow up around him. He was categorically opposed, therefore, to formally acknowledging anyone as enlightened. A mentioned, he didn’t even formally acknowledge himself to be a Guru, and he didn’t give formal Guru-diksha to devotees. He found all of that unnecessary and obnoxious. On the other hand, it was very clear that he had numerous very mature devotees who most considered to be enlightened, and whom Ramana certainly informally seemed to treat as such. Now, if the same were the case in Adidam, I think we would know about it, even if Da didn’t formally acknowledge anyone. But Da had not compunction about formal acknowledgment. It was a huge part of everything he did that formalities of acknowledgment in levels of practice was hugely important to him, as was the whole notion of a fully acknowledged body of realizers around him.
Well, it clearly didn’t work out that way, and it leaves open many possibilities for devotees to at some point claim seventh stage realization, and who’s going to confirm or deny it? Without Da around, it’s hard for anyone to challenge such claims, but it’s also hard to verify them. So even if people do begin claiming realization at some point, how will anyone know that it’s genuine?
“Also, I never said you failed – you used the word “failed” a few times and that was your presumption about what I said; it does perhaps say something about your own feelings, but I did not say that. Probably just something (”critics conditioning”) you should also inspect?”
You don’t have to use the word “fail” to fulfill the definition of the term. If someone has tried for many years to grasp Da’s non-dual teachings and life and not come close to succeeding, as you say I have, it’s the same as saying they have failed to do so. So summarizing your criticism of me by saying you think I failed is just using the simplest term for your conclusions about me. And I don’t hear you actually suggesting you don’t think I failed, even if you say you didn’t use the term, so why this whole fixation on semantics? Another way of trying to twist the knife in a little tighter?
“I have repeatedly said that I can see no egoity at all in Adi Da Samraj’s photos, and so the same consideration above applies with Him. With other people’s photos, some effect of egoity is usually very apparent on their faces, in their eyes, being, whatever. And no, I do not think this is some special non-dual ability as you sarcastically imply – every feeling heart can inherently recognize Real Love vs. egoity.”
Again, let me dispute this within Adi Da’s own dharma, which I gather you consider authoritative on such matters. Adi Da has repeated said that there is virtually no physical, material distinction between a high fifth stage realizer and a seventh stage realizer, that the bodily state of the two is indistinguishable, because the difference is entirely unconditional by its very nature. He has said that even if you looked at the two side by side, in physical and even psychic terms, you can’t see a distinction that tells them apart. The root ego is not visible, only surface “ripples” of that ego, and in the high fifth stage realizer, thos visible ripples are just as absent as they are in the seventh stager. So if it is impossible to tell the difference between two living physical realizers, one high fifth stage, and one seventh, how is it possible for you, of all people, to see either the ego, or the lack of ego, in a photograph of those people? In other words, even Da could just be another high fifth stage realizer, and you couldn’t actually tell the difference from looking at either him, or a photograph of him.
So really, even by Da’s own standards, you are just full of it on this issue. I am sure he would ridicule you for making this claim, as he usually did with people who thought they had some kind of special knowledge about this sort of thing. I gather you’ve made this “vision” of yours into some kind of precious personal vanity, and I hope you can let go of it without losing something you consider essential to your “recognition” of Da, but you really need to, because it has nothing to do with genuine recognition of “egolessness” in any case. If you don’t believe me, check with someone like Steinberg who would know about this sort of thing.
And btw, I get the sense that even years after leaving Adidam, I still have a better understanding of his non-dual teachings than you do, given the kind of basic errors your seem to make on a regular basis, not just in relation to the traditions, but in relations to Da’s own teachings. So don’t try and pull any more fast ones, dude. Otherwise, I still enjoy your ripostes, and I try not to take things too personally.
December 18, 2008 at 9:03 pm
A few comments on Feel4God’s last post here:
It is true that Da’s teaching has always used language associated with non-dualism, albeit particularly heavy on a devotional perspective. But it is also true that it is a matter of belief, and a minority one at that even among non-dualists, that his endless self-references refer exclusively to the Divine itself. It is true that Da saw himself as essential and said early on: “Understand and be with me. If this is not possible in you, then be with me and understand”. It is also true that he postulates a unique role for his birth and appearance in terms of establishing a higher stage of enlightenment that was not previously possible, and that historical Realizers were not able to attain that state. One could easily say that Adidam teaches a kind of evolutionary non-dualism which is at odds with mainstream non-dualism. One could question whether the emphasis on his special role is a pure form of non-dualism. And given the lack of recognition of his claims by other, more mainstream non-dualists, and the high rates of attrition in his group, his claims of enlightenment itself can be seriously challenged. The mind is capable of many things, and it is one thing to write and speak brilliantly about non-dualism, it is another to have fully realized it without egoicity. So, one can understand Da’s teaching and simply not agree with his claims anyway, as well as understand and accept those claims. But let’s be clear that many non-dualists would simply not agree with Da’s evolutionary claims or claims about his state, and that acceptance of those claims is faith based and not inevitably resulting from non-dualism.
Respecting Ramana Maharshi’s not acknowledging living Realizers publically while alive, again, that has to be taken in context and not from the perspective of western seekers. It was not Ramana Maharshi’s way for a variety of sound reasons those more familiar with Ramana Maharshi might understand better. There are accounts of a living Ramana Maharshi acknowledging full realization more privately, including the one I mentioned, and there is every reason to believe there are others that never became public. Not to mention that he did mention cases where liberation from this plane was accomplished even if further subtle experience was necessary to resolve all karmas. Furthermore, the evidence of spriritual maturity in a number of those closely associated with Ramana Maharshi is far greater than the evidence of spiritual maturity in an inner circle, widely admittely capable of acts one associates with typical street behavior, that spent decades around Da. It is too early to close the books, perhaps, but until we see a number of Da devotees equally widely accepted as Realized and not just within the closed circle of Adidam, a comparison of the two does not favor Da.
A picture is certainly helpful in a personal assessment of spiritual states, but hardly definitive. You can find devotees of many gurus, even controversial ones, making similar and contradictory claims. And with increased maturity you see things differently than you did as a younger seeker. That is commonly said to be because it is not a one way street where one is only “reading” the picture, the mental link that creates the assessment is affected by the qualities and desires of both guru and devotee.
Many recognize that Da’s picture is not an ordinary picture, and experience a “charge” on it, but do not see egolessness there. I myself found that his picture was capable for me of initiating interesting subtle and blisssful experiences I interpreted devotionally as confirmation, but not deep peace or a radical non-dualist state. Ultimately, I never found around Da anything more than the same criticism he made of his experience with Muktananda, that in the end it was like being in someone else’s subtle world. While linked there, everything seems self-confirming because that is the nature of such things even if, or especially if, you resist it, an ancient spiritual law as Da himself pointed out, which has been said is perhaps a reason that Da worked so hard to stimulate resistance. When you finally turn towards the “sky” of non-dualism to use Conradg’s analogy, and are not trying to live forever in that Da world which you describe very well actually, you do experience it differently. That needs to be said because each perspective makes sense to the observer depending on their faith and focus even when discussing common experience, which explains the divide here. That is also true when trying to discuss non-Adidam non-dualism and figures like Ramana Maharshi. More than just an Adidam metric is required.
December 19, 2008 at 12:04 am
I built the house of Franklin Jones for some years; and I lived in it, too; well, not actually in it, but in the neighborhood, next door.
I would visit every so often, exploring the den, and peeking into the kitchen. Franklin would explain a few things to me, about the will-to-power and the will-to-love. I drunk it all in.
One thing I noticed: the house was too comfortable, even toxic. At some point, the resistance outweighed the dynamicism. Yes, “all is God”, but we all know how God treats his friends, don’t we ?
So I mounted my horse — at dawn no less — raised my bow, lined up my arrow (I was Karna for a day!), and let it fly. The “bright” flaming projectile crashed the window. I could see the kitchen table slowly darken and then catch fire. Soon, the den was a conflagration of mahayanic proportions. I don’t know where Jones was that day; I think he was in Mexico with don Juan.
I had to burn that house down. It had served its purpose, and Franklin couldn’t afford the property taxes (thanks, Governator!)
Jesus had his satan; Siddhartha had his mara; Rama had his Ravanna. (And, note, Rama’s relationship to the Mother was very different from Franklin’s!) This is not to say that Franklin is “evil” — no, far from it. Satan isn’t evil; he simply functions as the Jewish trickster. Ravanna had mastered the Vedas, for crying out loud! No, all of us have to experience the results of our actions. Compare your astrological chart to that of Franklin’s, and rejoice at the synastry, after you’ve weeped at the conjunctions! Even the demons can be saved, but only if we’re as crafty as serpents, and as harmless as doves. The demon only knows the craftiness. Even a fallen yogi bounces every now and then! (And some of them even break, inshallah.)
I told the cops. Yes, I burnt the house down. I built it, so I burnt it. Yes, Franklin was a co-signer, but he’s in Mexico, in the midst of debauchery! The cops had to buy my story. They came from a long line of brahmin policemen, and one of their own had taught Franklin the secrets of occultism. So they understood. I asked them to consider my adventures in arson as a love-puja, an offering to Agni, and to the pillar-of-fire that (1) guided the Hebrews; and (2) repulsed Brahma’s and Vishnu’s claims to devic superiority. There is only Allah, “the only Reality”; there is only Shiva, “the Tantric-Eucharistic Non-Dual Comm/Union”. That’s what drew me first to Franklin, he’s claim to be a revival of advaita for the Western Man: a sort of juicer, non-Aussie, pre-Barry Long.
But something happened, something changed. Or was it part of his plan from the very beginning? Who knows? I’m sure Ravanna understands.
It’s good to live in the house with the guru. But it’s suicide to stay there. And it’s down-right un-advaitic to burn it down.
I don’t fault Franklin. He did what he had to do. Just tell him that he can stay in Mexico. There’s no house for him here. Only sacred ash.
December 19, 2008 at 2:05 am
In view of some comments by Da devotees here about other’s assumptions about what Da has realized, I feel the need to clarify in reading such discussions that Da devotees may use similar words to those of Ramana Maharshi. But, when they refer to Heart and Amrita Nadi as exclusively realized by Da they are only using Adidam conceptions, not those of Ramana Maharshi, and assessments of Ramana Maharshi which were once, long ago contradicted even by Da himself. I also feel I owe it to non-dualists reading here to be clear here on key points of disagreement with Da and those aligned with Ramana Maharshi’s approach relative to the evolving reassessment of Ramama Maharshi by Da into an inferior, sixth stage level that bears no real resemblence to his life and teaching, and his criticism of traditional non-dualism.
Da once taught:
“Several times during seizures of childhood illness, when I would pass into delirium, I had an experience that appeared like a mass of gigantic thumbs coming down from above and pressing into some form of myself that was much larger than my physical body. This experience of the “thumbs” also recurred once or twice during these drug trials. The “thumbs” were not visible in the ordinary sense. I did not see them then or even as a child. They were not visible to me with my eyes, nor did I hallucinate them pictorially. Yet, I very consciously experienced and felt them as having a peculiar form and mobility, as I likewise experienced my own otherwise invisible and greater form. I did not at that time or at any time in my childhood fully allow this intervention of the “thumbs” to take place. I held it off in fear of being overwhelmed, for I did understand at all what was taking place. However, in later years this same experience occurred naturally during meditation. Because my meditation had been allowed to progress gradually and the communication at each level thus perceived without shock, I was able at those times to allow the experience to take place. When I did, the “thumbs” completely entered my form. They appeared like tongues or parts of a force coming from above. And when they had entered deep into my body the magnetic or energetic balances of my being appeared to reverse. On several occasions I felt as if the body had risen above the ground somewhat, and this is perhaps the basis for certain evidence in mystical literature of the phenomenon of suspension, transport, and even ascension. At any rate, during those stages in meditation the body ceased to be polarized toward the ground or the gravitational direction of the earth’s center. There was a strong reversal of polarity, communicated along a line of force analogous to the spine. The physical body as well as the form of energy that could be interiorly felt as analogous to but detached from the physical body seemed to turn in a curve along the spine and forward in the direction of the heart. When this reversal of force was allowed to take place completely, I seemed to reside in a totally different body, which also contained the physical body. It was spherical in shape. And the sensation of dwelling as that form was completely playful. The physical body was completely relaxed and polarized to the shape of this other spherical body. The mind became quieted, and then there appeared to be a movement in consciousness that would go even deeper into a higher conscious state beyond physical and mental awareness. I was to learn that this spherical body was what occultists call the “astral” body.”
Today, Da’s teaching has changed, and an experience of the astral body then (which seems more correct) has now become instead a uniquely revealed samadhi experience of “a vastly expanded spherical form of the Divine “Brightness”:
“As you mature in the practice of the Way of Adidam, the Circle becomes more and more tangibly full of Avatar Adi Da’s Divine Spirit–Current—first in the frontal line, and then also in the spinal line. On certain occasions in the practice of a Spiritually mature devotee, the entire Circle will become utterly full of His Divine Spirit–Current—so open to His Divine Infusion that one ceases to be identified with body or mind in the usual sense, and becomes aware (instead) of existing as a vastly expanded spherical form of the Divine “Brightness”. This is the Samadhi of the “Thumbs”—a form of Samadhi uniquely Given by Avatar Adi Da. Eventually, the experience of the “Thumbs” becomes constant, such that the presumption of existing as body and mind no longer “rules” one’s life. Then one is ready to receive Avatar Adi Da’s Gift of the Awakening to the Witness–Consciousness, which makes possible the beginning of the “Perfect Practice”.”
Da once taught:
“But as I continued to read the Maharshi’s works I found that he had also realized Reality in the same form I called the “bright.” In one place he describes it as follows: For one who abides in the Self, the Sahasrara becomes pure and full of Light. Even if thoughts of objects due to proximity fall therein, they do not survive. Even when objects are sensed by the mind, due to proximity, yoga is not hindered, as the mind does not perceive the difference between them and the Self. His idea of liberation or real freedom also agreed with my own experience: Once, unasked, he defined Moksha (Liberation) to one of the attendants. “Do you know what Moksha is? Getting rid of non-existent misery and attaining the Bliss which is always there, that is Moksha….And he describes in detail the experience in the heart in many instances…The more I read of Ramana’s works the more I realized his experience and its results as understanding almost exactly paralleled my own, although with a peculiar Eastern emphasis. I saw that Ramana was a source of confirmation and agreement with the outstanding realizations of my own life…This is a precise description of the state I came to enjoy at the end of all my seeking. And Bhagavan’s language contains certain concepts that may now be used as more precise equivalents to certain phenomena I have described….The “Self” is here meant to indicate the nature of Reality itself as identical to that which is ultimately signified and known as consciousness. Every form of our ordinary consciousness, usually identified with some role, subject or type of action, is in fact rooted in the present consciousness that is the “Self.” And it is not radically differentiated from anything. It is the source and “light” of all levels of being, bodies, realms and experiences. When it is known directly, tacitly, as one’s very nature, it seems to reside in the heart, neither the physical heart nor the heart chakra, but the area to the right of the chest…The original nature that I called the “bright” is exactly what Bhagavan calls the “Atma Nadi” or the “Amrita Nadi” and this concept stands as a more detailed and precise equivalent of what I have described. The “bright” is the “Amrita Nadi,” the nerve of immortality, the circuit of the current of. immortal joy or the “Atma Nadi” the circuit or nerve or form of the Self, or the circuit of Reality. It is the source, container and form of all energy, centers and currents. The “Amrita Nadi” is the “Form of Reality,” founded in the heart and terminated in the aperture of the head. It is the cycle or form of unqualified enjoyment that contains and is the source of all things, all bodies, realms, experiences, states, and levels of being. Its basic nature is unqualified enjoyment or bliss. It is all-powerful Existence or unqualified Presence. It is your very nature at this moment, and it is experienced as such when true understanding arises and becomes the radical premise of conscious life….Even Bhagavan at last justifies life as the Amrita Nadi and sees no radical distinction between it and the Self.”
But today Da’s teaching has changed, and he now claims Ramana Maharshi’s error was that “Such exclusive Union with the Divine, however, is not permanent (or eternal), because it depends on the effort of the individual—the effort to “go within”, or to exclude everything that is apparently objective.”
To be more specific, he teaches:
“A minority of the world’s Spiritual traditions (principally certain branches of the Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, and Taoist traditions) are focused in processes that relate to the horizontal dimension (and especially the right side of the heart)—seeking, as an ultimate result, an “interiorly secluded” Identification with the Divine (or Realization of Truth). In the fullest development of this “horizontal” approach, the practitioner does, in fact, experience an Identification with the Divine (or a Realization of Truth) that is achieved by excluding all awareness of body and mind and world. Such exclusive Union with the Divine, however, is not permanent (or eternal), because it depends on the effort of the individual—the effort to “go within”, or to exclude everything that is apparently objective. Thus, such exclusive Union with the Divine is not most perfect Divine Enlightenment. Rather, it is a matter of “choosing” the “Consciousness” aspect of the Divine—over the “Light” (or “Energy”) aspect.”
The third (and quintessential) structure of esoteric anatomy is what Avatar Adi Da calls “Amrita Nadi”, using the traditional Sanskrit term (which means “Channel of Nectar”). Amrita Nadi is a radiant energy structure, the “Bright” Itself as It Manifests in the context of the human body–mind. Amrita Nadi is shaped like the letter “S”, extending from the right side of the heart (as its “lower terminal”) through the chest, throat, and head, and then to the Source–Matrix of Divine Light infinitely above (as its “upper terminal”). Thus, Amrita Nadi encompasses both of the “locations” that have traditionally been sought as the ultimate Divine “place”—the infinitely ascended Matrix of Light and the right side of the heart. What makes Avatar Adi Da’s Revelation of the Way of Adidam utterly unique is His “Disclosure” that, although both the vertical and the horizontal approaches are capable of resulting in a true glimpse of the Divine (or of Perfect Truth), neither the vertical nor the horizontal approach can lead to most perfect Divine Enlightenment (which is permanent, or eternal). Only the simultaneous Realization of the Divine in both “locations”—the infinitely ascended Source–Matrix of Divine Light and the right side of the heart (or both “terminals” of Amrita Nadi)—is most perfect (and eternal) Divine Enlightenment. Only the Full and Indivisible Realization of the Divine as Conscious Light (Consciousness and Light) is most perfect (and eternal) Divine Enlightenment. Such is the infinitely glorious Realization Given by Avatar Adi Da to His devotees who complete the entire process of the Way of Adidam. That Realization has never been known before Avatar Adi Da’s Appearance in the world and His Gift of the Way of Adidam. Such is the culmination of the searchless process of simply Beholding Avatar Adi Da, the bodily (human) Incarnation of the “Bright” Itself.”
Da has not only significantly misrepresented Ramana Maharshi but contradicted his own earlier assessment. Why?
Having analyzed both Ramana Maharshi and Da’s descriptions, a possible answer is revealed in Da’s own words. He states of his experience: “I would feel the bliss and energy of consciousness rise out of the Heart and enter the sahasrar. Whereas this Amrita Nadi this intuitive structure, which duplicates the perfect structure or the Divine Reality was the form of consciousness, not exclusive containment in the Heart. Not exclusive distraction in the bright, or the light of the sahasrar, nor exclusive involvement in the life manifestation, but continuous intuitive relationship to the entire process. Bliss and energy of consciousness rise out of the Heart and enter he sahasrar, the highest point in consciousness, and stabilize there as a continuous current to the Heart.”
Whereas Ramana Maharshi taught: “When the very bright light of that active consciousness shines in the Amrita Nadi alone, there is none other except the Self. In that light, if anything else is seen, even then it does not appear as different from the Self. The Enlightened One knows the Self as vividly as the ignorant one perceives his body. When Atma alone shines, within and without, and everywhere, as body etc. shine to the ignorant, one is said to have severed the knot (Granthi Bheda occurs). There are two knots. One, the bond of the Nadis and two, egotism…For one who abides in the Self, the Sahasrara becomes pure and full of Light. Even if thoughts of objects due to proximity fall therein, they do not survive. Even when objects are sensed by the mind, due to proximity, yoga is not hindered, as the mind does not perceive the difference between them and the Self…the Heart is the center of the Real. But the ego is impermanent. Like everything else – it is supported by the Heart-centre. But the character of the ego is a link between spirit and matter; it is a knot (granthi), the knot of radical ignorance in which one is steeped. This granthi is there in the “Hrit,” the Heart. When this knot is cut asunder by proper means you find that this is the Self’s center…
It is perhaps more proper to say that the Self is the Heart itself than to say that it is in the Heart. Really, the Self is the Center itself. It is everywhere, aware of itself as “Heart,” the Self-awareness. “Heart” is the one center for the ego-self, for the Real Self, for the Lord, for all…The Heart is the center of the Real. But the ego is impermanent. Like everything else – it is supported by the Heart-centre. But the character of the ego is a link between spirit and matter; it is a knot (granthi), the knot of radical ignorance in which one is steeped. This granthi is there in the “Hrit,” the Heart. When this knot is cut asunder by proper means you find that this is the Self’s center…[there is a passage from this center to Sahasrara]…It is closed in the man in bondage; in the man in whom the ego-knot, the Hridayagranthi, is cut asunder, a force-current called Amrita Nadi rises and goes up to the Sahasrara, the crown of the head….This is the passage of liberation (Moksha). This is called Atmanadi, Brahmanadi or Amrita Nadi. This is the Nadi that is referred to in the Upanishads. When this passage is open, you have no moha, no ignorance. You know the Truth even when you talk, think or do anything, dealing with men and things….When the Self does not have the sense of active agency, karmas (tendencies, actions and their results) etc. are destroyed for him…Once the knot is cut, one never again gets entangled. In that state lie the highest power and the highest peace.”
It is obvious in comparing these descriptions that Da was still concerned about “exclusive containment” in the heart which must have reflected something his experience or he wouldn’t have mentioned it. But Ramana Maharshi says that for the Realized there is no such containment since the Heart is not a point in the body or a limitation in space, rather “It is everywhere, aware of itself as “Heart,” the Self-awareness”. And since when the Heart is realized, the result is that “in the man in whom the ego-knot, the Hridayagranthi, is cut asunder, a force-current called Amrita Nadi rises and goes up to the Sahasrara, the crown of the head”, and “the Sahasrara becomes pure and full of Light”, Da’s sense of “exclusive containment” and that “bliss and energy of consciousness…[that]…stabilize…as a continuous current to the Heart” instead, indicates that perhaps Amrita Nadi and ego knot dissolution did not really result in Da’s case at all and that the mind and tendencies never fully resolved themselves at the Heart but regenerated. This is also suggested by the contradiction between Ramana Maharshi’s statement that the doer dissolves along with the ego knot while Da sees continued effort as occuring. This possible lack of true realization may explain his complete contradiction of the assessment of Ramana Maharshi over time. It may also explain his need to increasingly focus on distinctions two separate points, an energy matrix “above” and outside of the Heart where his “Spirit Current” descends from, and an exclusive heart point on the right that bears no relation to the inclusive, “everywhere” Heart that Ramana Maharshi described. It may also explain his increasing misrepresentation of Ramana Maharshi’s statements lest the inconsistencies with his own claims come under scrutiny by those who have read both accounts. Of course, Da devotees will continue to claim that this only proves that Ramana was not fully enlightened and traditional non-dualism is incomplete, a natural faith based claim which I have no quarrel with as a faith based claim. But I think showing, if true, major errors on such a matter casts great doubt on the reliability of Da’s claims and his slant on non-dualism. A practice of only seachlessly beholding Adi Da may produce feelings of love, bliss and light but not produce the anticipated enlightenment expected, if that is the case. I leave that to others to judge for themselves. All I hope to establish is that using Adidam conceptions as the only metric does not address the issue properly. We need both viewpoints presented as they are.
December 19, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I thought I was free of Adi Da before, but his death brought up things to look at again. Now I think I am finally at peace and ready to move on. Being in the community altered my life, and the teaching was my first spiritual language. I don’t begrudge it. There were fantastic awakenings, experiences, friends, and lessons along with the ripoff and craziness. But the time came to leave, and truly getting free of the indoctrination has not been easy. In the end I don’t believe it is a liberating teaching, unless it is your destiny to get involved and then transcend it.
I am convinced that my problem with Adidam reflects more than adolescent resistance and willful misunderstanding on my part! Adidam has lost its ring of truth, and the real non-dual teachings are calling. A few main points, taken altogether, summarize my problem with Adidam:
1) The spurious 6th stage teaching and the invention of a new enlightenment; an allegedly non-dual teaching that is actually divisive and claims superiority over all other expressions of non-dualism, and reinforces the sense of separation in the seeker
2) Official version of the guru vs. the concealed reality –Bubba made his teaching demonstration, and then moved on to Da, etc., but the drugs, the abuse, the mismanagement, the gluttony, the alcoholism, the health problems, the extreme sex continued- common sense may tell you that all this was really not flowing out of the enlightened freedom described in the teaching, and so this reality was concealed from you lest you have that “conventional” response
3) Failures: Mark My Words; Fijian sanctuary (was an advantage no siddha in history had ever enjoyed); sahaj would lead to bhava Samadhi, kaya kalpa treatment; mahasamadhi or perhaps translation at death; enlightened devotees- Where are the fruits here?
4) Revisionism and mythologizing
5) The functional insanity of the community- obsession with levels of practice, (once we even had to solemnly consider our level without the criteria because the guru had to have the report!), jockeying back and forth between levels, chaos, frequent gifting interrupting everything else, wrecking your personal life, group think, intolerance, violence toward Narcissus
6) Confirming the guru by his power and brilliance and the energies he could stimulate (he WAS great in these areas, but in the end, so what?)
7) Confirming your practice by the intensity of your sacrifice including the sacrifice of trust in your own discrimination
December 19, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I appreciate your response, FFaC, and have been reading all of your posts. To address your most recent one…
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“But let’s be clear that many non-dualists would simply not agree with Da’s evolutionary claims or claims about his state…”
And how could (or why would) they ever agree with Adi Da if they themselves did not realize What He Is – Acausal Divine Reality, Fully Regenerated Amrita Nadi? I am sure there were those who disputed Ramana’s claims of the highest realization at the time as well. His devotees would also have to simply feel Him from their hearts rather than go to the texts or others’ (or their) minds to confirm His Truth. And this is the point – it is always a heart matter, tacitly felt and known priorly and directly, first and foremost – not an intellectual matter, though obviously discriminating intelligence is also necessary to whole-bodily devotionally respond to the Master. But discriminating intelligence is also a heart matter – not just an intellectual one. This thread seems mainly like an intellectual exercise to me – very few heart confessions of egoless devotion and surrender to the Self, God, Guru, the Divine Acausal Reality…
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“and that acceptance of those claims is faith based and not inevitably resulting from non-dualism.”
I have said this many times, but I will say it again because it is easily forgotten and wrong assumptions are then drawn. Adi Da has never expected anyone to believe anything – He invites us all to test everything and to make firm conclusions based on our fullest consideration. He has always undermined the believer’s stance in us. Egoically Daists want to fix on some Ideal about Adidam, or others here want to create an Ideal of what non-dualism is. The mind always objectifies everything to reinforce the ego-subject, but as Adi Da Samraj has recently written in The Teaching Manual Of Perfect Summaries:
‘The “knowing-subject” (or ego-”I”) is the “shadow” (or “Narcissistic” reflection) of the “known-object”. The “knowing subject” is the “shadow” of all “experience” that is presumed to be happening to a “point of view” – like a planet presumed to be the “center” of the Sun’s revolutions. The “knowing subject” is an illusion, an illusory “self”.’
In other words, the “knowing-subject” is not senior or even equivalent to objects – it is simply their “shadow”- so the ego is not only subordinate to Reality, it is subordinate to objects, and in fact, is an illusion as we all at least intellectually understand.
This thread has further encouraged me to inspect my motives toward objectifying “Reality” via beliefs, idealism, etc. (“Adidam conditioning” as shiva dubbed it) – as a means to egoically control and subordinate Reality to the confines of the mind. I see critics doing this (“critics conditioning”) constantly on this thread too. And I am sure there are plenty of past instances of Adidam “insiders” believing in some ideal about Adi Da, the practice, etc., that led to poor handling of various people’s circumstances. And that is how the ego works whether we be in Adidam or in the everyday world of common experience. I do however find that Daists are now a very tolerant group and many of the accusations on this thread are from the very distant past.
But still, the ego will revise the Truth to make it fit its own agenda – whether we are devotees of Adi Da or not. All of this delusion has to be transcended regardless, and the relationship to Adi Da and His Teaching is the best Help for that, in my experience. Whether it is best for any non-devotees of Adi Da is not what I am trying to discover here. There is, however, a vast comprehensive Wisdom Teaching that Adi Da has left us with – which no doubt can benefit anyone who simply listens to Him with an open mind and heart.
Thanks for your consideration of what a photograph might help illustrate. I do understand that everything can get colored by mind, but when it comes to Acausal Divine Reality, the mind alone simply cannot recognize That – only the Heart can. That is what my heart immediately recognized about Ramana’s photos and Adi Da’s photographs even before getting involved with their practices.
Hopefully Conradg will weigh in on this one too, as he said that egoity cannot be seen in a photograph. So, FFaC, do you see Ramana’s photos as “selfless”?
December 19, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Broken Yogi (aka, conradg) once produced a photo of Adi Da that to me said it all – it was equal parts black and white, leaving it entirely up to you which side you wanted to “notice”!
It’s human nature to focus on the negative, of course, so most people see him as “dark”. But even those people can’t deny the “white light” in the picture – after all, they wouldn’t even notice him if they didn’t!
Ultimately we are each and all the same – no more bad than good, dark than light, weak than strong.
What Adi Da may truly have Accomplished is to serve as an example of the most extreme manifestations of both sides. In that case, all the “negative” stuff is just as important as the “positive”!
Om Sri You and Me and We Hridayam!
December 20, 2008 at 2:44 am
the regenerated heart is beyond the witness dudes
December 20, 2008 at 6:29 am
To Jerry the Moderator
It would be interesting to some us of to get an idea about the amount of traffic you are getting to this particular topic over the past weeks. For one thing it would tell us how many people have been served by this discussion, and secondly it could tell us whether there is still great interest, or that most people have moved on.
Thanks,
Brian
December 20, 2008 at 8:51 am
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Here are the number of views since this entry was posted on November 29. Subtract around 70 from each number, which is average number of daily views this blog received prior to this entry:
624 (November 29, 2008)
808
665
715
553
413
505
677
600
582
542
571
439
454
360
395
397
376
357
343
304
Trivia: I waited about ten hours before posting this entry. It didn’t initially occur to me to put this in my blog. The first day of 624 visits was actually only half a day. I want to thank all the fine contributors.
December 20, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“This possible lack of true realization may explain his complete contradiction of the assessment of Ramana Maharshi over time. It may also explain his need to increasingly focus on distinctions two separate points, an energy matrix “above” and outside of the Heart where his “Spirit Current” descends from, and an exclusive heart point on the right that bears no relation to the inclusive, “everywhere” Heart that Ramana Maharshi described. It may also explain his increasing misrepresentation of Ramana Maharshi’s statements lest the inconsistencies with his own claims come under scrutiny by those who have read both accounts.”
Your comparison and contrast between Adi Da Samraj and Sri Ramana Maharshi made for an interesting read, FFaC.
Adi Da by no means completely dismisses what He said about Ramana Maharshi. In fact, there are some indications of their differences in the original Knee of Listening (page 157-158):
‘The path recommended by Ramana is “Self-enquiry,” the intensive enquiry in the heart “Who am I?” or “Whence am I?” His entire concern was to bring people to the conscious realization of the Self in the heart. Thus, his aim was liberation. He speaks from the point of view of the Self as the Self. His path is ideally suited to the ancient forms of culture in which liberation was the goal of existence.’
‘But, from the beginning, I have been founded in the “bright,” the Form of Reality, the living form of the Self. I have seen that real existence is apart from every kind of seeking. It is from the beginning radically free of any goal of liberation or salvation. It is unqualifiedly free, present, active, creative and alive. I have seen that life need not be tied to seeking and the pursuit of its own nature as a goal. However, such was not the case with the ancient path, which assumed the dilemma of existence from the beginning.’
Also, I think it was Michael here who posted something along the lines that Adi Da’s process did not just abruptly come to end with the Regeneration of Amrita Nadi. His Work with devotees, His World Work, and His own process through the never before revealed aspects of the 7th Stage of Life, etc. were to still come after His Re-Awakening in the Vedanta Temple. So for Adi Da to later more fully develop a critical difference between His Realization and Ramana Maharshi’s is understandable to me. All the years of being with Him, I always felt the “Sameness” of His Perfectly Non-Dual Realization, but that does not preclude that His Revelation and Expression here would never change.
So once again, it comes down to the heart-felt response and discriminative intelligence of the individual to fully consider Who their Spiritual Master is (if they even feel they need One).
I again looked at photographs of Avatar Adi Da and Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, and in my seeing-feeling-intuitive “experience” of each, this is what I continuously conclude:
http://www.arunachala-ramana.org/photos/restored_photos/restored_photos_frameset.htm
When gazing deeply at Sri Ramana, I feel His Great Love as the Self of all, but I always find my attention inevitably moves to the heart on the right in a concentrated manner.
http://global.adidam.org/media/photo-02.html
When I look at Adi Da Samraj’s photograph, I also feel His great Love – as the Divine Person – and most personally as inseparable Conscious Light and Love-Bliss as Reality Itself. There is no separative movement or focus of attention to any locus – just a communication of Reality Itself as Him.
And so, for me, it comes down to both discrimination in terms of the Teaching, but most importantly as a direct relationship to Him as Reality Itself.
To address those comments from shiva and others who dismiss the need for a Spiritual Master because it is apparently dualistic in nature, I can say this. True recognition of Adi Da is a radical non-dualistic realization from the beginning of this practice of Adidam Ruchiradam. It is His Gift to us from the start, and as that recognition of Who He Is develops, so does the response to that recognition develop – as radical devotion to Reality Itself, and the supportive right life disciplines.
I have never been interested in rote religious practices – “fake devotion” as Adi Da would call it. True devotion is a spontaneous response based on deepening recognition of Who Adi Da actually Is. It is a radical Gift of recognition-response. And the same with the right life whole-bodily disciplines of money, food, sex, cultural accountability, etc. – they are all to be radical (non-dualistic) in the sense that they are to be a response based on our recognition of His Non-Dual Truth.
Once this foundation is in place (as a Second Congregation practitioner of Adidam), the devotee enters the First Congregation because s/he is prepared spiritually to receive Adi Da and His Gift of intrinsic egolessness demonstrated as the Witness Consciousness, whole-bodily Spiritual Invasion, and the experience of the “Thumbs”. On this basis the Perfect Practice of Realization of the Divine Acausal Reality via the heart on the right, and ultimately Amrita Nadi, develop.
To those who think they can simply take the non-dualistic truth that “all of this is always already the Acausal Reality, there are no egos, no process of realization, and therefore there is only Consciousness Itself” – to justify their “killing the Buddha”, not preparing the body-mind for the radical transformation that necessarily must occur to receive the fullest understanding of Reality, etc. – are not taking into account that the ego will not and cannot dissolve itself into Non-Dualistic Reality.
And of course, some of you will say, “Ego, what ego?” To which I say, that is the talking school – show me your picture!
FFaC, I appreciate that you understand the necessity for the Spiritual Master and the reconciliation between this need and non-dualism. I would love to hear more of your personal experience with Ramana Maharshi, what your relationship actually is with him, etc. As I already said, if Ramana had been alive when I first discovered Him in the 60s, I would have gone to His Ashram. Oddly enough, I did go to India in the early seventies with some people who also studied Ramana Maharshi and who were going to His Ashram – but instead I was drawn to go to Benares for a while and had my most profound meditations to date there.
When I returned to the States, someone immediately gave me the Knee of Listening and there was the Truth I had been looking for all along – plus Adi Da was alive! So I packed my bags and went to Hollywood, and soon found out that Bhagavan Adi Da had been in Benares the same days I was there! Reality Works in mysterious and profoundly loving ways through the Incarnations of Adi Da Samraj, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and all the great Realizers!
December 20, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Former Follower and Critic, Thanks for your response. I fell out of that response that I confessed to about Samaraj Adi Da for many years, but I know one thing is true in my case, it produced a lot of suffering for me. Who knows, perhaps he is everything you claim “he” is….and everything negative I thought he was, but the one fact, in my personal experience that outshines it, is that I simply love HIM…not as the limitation you (or I have) described but as One who has led me to beauty and out of confusion. In my experience my refusal, has led me to suffering, denying my longing for His words, and the sight of Him have left me empty. It is a deeply karmic relationship I have to Him….do I want to go back to being a cultic fool about it, and denying other people’s experience because of it, absolutely not.
I simply love Him, unconditionally. Perhaps I will never be a formal student again. I don’t know, but I will apply the principle of inquiry, and contemplation in my life. I don’t need the Guru, but I realize, that I enjoy Him…and I want to help with being an advocate for Fear No More Zoo.
Do I find this consideration of Him useful, absolutely. Perhaps not in the sense that I will develop some absolutely fixed idea about who Samaraj Adi Da was, but it is my hope that I develop a relationship with Him, and the community built on intelligence, and integrity.
I have gone back from time to time to the community, and my experience has been different each time. I felt the growth of many people. It is reflected in the beauty of the sanctuary grounds, and some have always welcomed me back without judgement. There are a few that haven’t but you find people make that choice anywhere you go. It’s there lot in life to remain fixed, and problematic (and I’m not saying you are one of those people).
Before I left, I dreamt of Samaraj Adi Da. He actually asked me to leave in the dream….and it seemed like it was way of protecting me, because I was so stuck and at odds with a certain part of the community. It felt like I had no voice, no validity as a person. In the dream he said it with sadness, but it somehow seemed clear, that I needed to leave. Perhaps it was my own psyche preserving Samaraj Adi Da as one that I loved, because I couldn’t handle it any other way. Who knows, but I do remember that after ending a personal relationship with a man who was considered a “strong” devotee, and was in many positions of power over others I felt he was the only one who addressed this man properly. The man had beaten me physically, for months. Degraded me, vilified me and had harmed my children. The Guru was the only one who got in his face and screamed “Why didn’t you do better?” I felt Samaraj knew exactly what this man had done, while others chose to ignore it, and blame me for the abuse. Some people were kinder, and just tried to help me see my part in the horrible dance, and I’ve grown to appreciate that, but what was confusing were some of the men that actually seem to support what this man had done. I even had one man come up to me and say he would have beaten me harder. Can you imagine? I doubt that man has changed but others have, and the younger people are brighter, and more alive in the beauty of what Samaraj Adi Da offers. More capable of evolving and being free. I love these kids. I’m glad my children were able to participate in the Garden of Lions, to be on the sanctuary. Do I wish they didn’t have to be part of all the bull-crap surrounding it? Absolutely. ……but the truth is that we will find suffering anywhere we go in life. It is always up to us what we will do with it. Will we make lemonade out of lemons, or will we remain puckered in our reactions to our sour experiences?
I’m not saying you are soured on your experience necessarily, but confessing to the fact, that I can no longer throw out the baby with bathwater (sorry for using an old and tired euphemism).
To me Beloved’s teaching is not a dead horse, but a lively consideration to inspect my life with. Do I plan on enjoying and remaining interested in other ways of life? Yes would be the only answer I could give.
So, thanks for your input, and I hope that I have remained respectful to the differences, and while I don’t have the propensity for intellectualism, I do have a discerning mind. I’m able to question myself, and remain open to the experiences of others.
December 20, 2008 at 4:00 pm
One of Da’s most infamous assertions was that “Dead Gurus don’t kick ass.” What would that mean, now, for him in particular?
December 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Feel4God,
“And how could (or why would) they ever agree with Adi Da if they themselves did not realize What He Is – Acausal Divine Reality, Fully Regenerated Amrita Nadi? I am sure there were those who disputed Ramana’s claims of the highest realization at the time as well.”
Ramana didn’t make any claims to the highest realization, not directly. Claims were made about him by others, and he certainly talked about realization and its nature as if he knew these things directly, but he never actually made the kinds of claims Da has. In fact, I don’t know anyone, other than the usual frauds, who ever did. Part of the general tradition of non-dual realization is that one never makes claims about oneself, one lets others take notice themselves. So you would be hard-pressed to find historical realizers who actually make such claims apart from some rare instances of ecstatic speech. They don’t need to. The mere fact that Da constantly made escalatingly grandiose claims about himself sheds doubt in most people’s eyes that any of those claims are true. Rather, they seem more like the kind of insecure self-agrandizement that a only a phony non-dual pretender would make, and there’s plenty of those to go around. So in making these claims, Da is not in very good company. He’d have been much better off if he’d shown less self-regard. But it seems he felt a compulsion to proclaim his realization very loudly and very firmly, and finally as being greater than everyone else’s, such that fewer and fewer people found these claims at all credible by the very fact of his making them at all.
In Ramana’s case, he left it up to others to decide such matters. Most who became aware of him certainly did consider him to be fully enlightened. Some did not. But the proportions are pretty much the reverse of Adi Da’s case, where only his own small group of followers consider his claims to be valid, and most consider them to be false claims. You never know what the truth is, but that’s how the perceptions are.
When you say things like “And how could (or why would) they ever agree with Adi Da if they themselves did not realize What He Is – Acausal Divine Reality, Fully Regenerated Amrita Nadi?” It begs the question as to why would you, or other devotees, agree with Adi Da that he was so realized, if you and they have not realized the Acausal Divine Reality and fully regenerated Amrita Nadi? In other words, it’s certainly true that you could say that Da’s critics don’t recognize his realization because they are not themselves realized, but the same applies to the claims of recognition by Da’s own unrealized devotees. If you haven’t realized Amrita Nadi, how can you honestly claim that Da has? How would you know? The truth is, you don’t really know, right? So why keep proclaiming it loud and long, when it’s merely a belief on your part, and supposedly Adidam is not about believing anything?
Clearly you do have a belief about Da’s realization, and clearly you don’t actually know if its true. It seems that the more insecure you and other Daists are about his realization, the more loudly you feel you have to proclaim it. Doesn’t that follow? Especially since he is claiming not just the “usual” realization, but a realization that is unprecedented, the first and only seventh stage realizer. Since you haven’t realized any such thing, and can’t even point to any historical precedents, how can you actually proclaim that it’s true? I think it’s clear that you can’t, but somehow that doesn’t seem to stop you or other Daists. How do you explain that, while at the same time putting down Da’s critics as being unqualified to judge him? Aren’t you unqualified to judge him as well?
Personally, I gave up long ago trying to know the answers to questions like this. You may think that I’ve pigeonholed Da, but I haven’t. I honestly don’t know what the truth about him is. And I honestly don’t know what the truth about Ramana or any other alleged realizer is. Nor, frankly, do I really care. It’s a phony question, really. The only realization, or lack thereof, that matters to me is my own. For all I know, Da could be entirely right. Who cares? If I can’t actually know that he’s right, because I’m not realized, it does no good whatsoever to believe in it. So I don’t base my criticism of Da on whether he’s realized or not, since it’s an unknowable quantity. So I throw out all his claims and just look at the basics. One thing Da said long ago in Eleutherios is that the only thing you can ever know is yourself. I agree with that. And so on everything else, I’m basically agnostic. You are right that most of this debate on issues like Da’s realization is intellectual. I’m not opposed to intellectual debates, they can be quite entertaining, and even useful. But they are not central.
The reason I don’t talk much about my direct experience of spirituality is that it isn’t relevant to this topic, and its too personal for a forum like this. The subject here is Adi Da’s life, teaching, and legacy. I presume that everyone here has a profound inner spiritual life, we don’t need to describe it in detail, anymore than we need to describe our sex lives in detail. I’m not about to get into a competitive game as to who has the greater spiritual experience and understanding. This isn’t an Adidam transitions group.
“His devotees would also have to simply feel Him from their hearts rather than go to the texts or others’ (or their) minds to confirm His Truth. And this is the point – it is always a heart matter, tacitly felt and known priorly and directly, first and foremost – not an intellectual matter, though obviously discriminating intelligence is also necessary to whole-bodily devotionally respond to the Master. But discriminating intelligence is also a heart matter – not just an intellectual one. This thread seems mainly like an intellectual exercise to me – very few heart confessions of egoless devotion and surrender to the Self, God, Guru, the Divine Acausal Reality…”
Well, again, this isn’t a competition as to who can make the most “devotional” proclaimations. But for the record, I haven’t found your own confessions to be terribly “egoless”, whatever that means. Quite the opposite, really. You seem to make devotional confessions in order to bolster your ego, and make yourself out to be a much better devotee than the rest of us, one who is founded in a heart connection to his master rather than a merely “intellectual” and mind-based obsession. Isn’t that true? Honestly, would someone who actually felt a truly heart-felt relationship to the Divine be spending his time trying to make themselves out to be better than others? Where would such a motive come from, if not the ego?
Well, I understand that such attitudes are cultivated in Adidam by many people, not just yourself. You say that people in Adidam are more tolerant now than before, but it doesn’t seem to have changed much, given your own attitude towards others here. Where’s the genuine humility? Where’s the sign of love for others, the genuine sign of the heart? Where’s the confession of your ignorance of all these heady matters? It’s you who brought them up in the first place, who claim along with Da that Ramana is just a disassociated guy, and who keeps arguing that line as if you really know what you’re talking about, when it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you don’t even know the basics of Ramana’s life and teachings, much less have any heartfelt connection to him. Was all that a heart-felt egoless confession of yours, or a ridiculously competitive egoic claim? Honestly, think about it. Feel into it. It seems to me that you kept bringing up these claims about Da being the only true “Amrita Nadi” realizer, and Ramana being of a lesser realization, to bolster your own ego, because somehow it makes you feel stronger to think that your Guru is the best of all possible Gurus. But is this really necessary, if you are genuinely egoless in your devotion? Who but an ego needs to make such claims? If you genuinely see that you and Da are egoless, all that stuff just goes away. Who is there to care about any of it?
The only Adidam devotee I’ve seen on this forum who has seemed at all genuinely tolerant and loving and humble has been Wes, who of course hasn’t engaged this whole silly debate about Da being superior to Ramana, or his own devotional life being superior to that of Da’s critics. Of course, he was not made very welcome in Adidam because of his disinterest in the usual politics that was played out there. I would hope that would change, I just don’t understand why it would take Adi Da’s death for that to happen.
‘The “knowing-subject” (or ego-”I”) is the “shadow” (or “Narcissistic” reflection) of the “known-object”. The “knowing subject” is the “shadow” of all “experience” that is presumed to be happening to a “point of view” – like a planet presumed to be the “center” of the Sun’s revolutions. The “knowing subject” is an illusion, an illusory “self”.’
Perhaps this quote is taken out of context, but from the above it sounds like Da is claiming that objects are really “there”, and that the ego is simply a shadow created by these objects, rather than the other way around. This would be a reversal of his previous teachings, and the standard non-dual teachings of the traditions, that the ego is the first illusion, and it is the ego which creates the world of objects. Has Da changed his tune on that?
“But still, the ego will revise the Truth to make it fit its own agenda – whether we are devotees of Adi Da or not. All of this delusion has to be transcended regardless, and the relationship to Adi Da and His Teaching is the best Help for that, in my experience.”
For you, perhaps. For most everyone else, not. A little humility would go a long way, meaning dropping the whole pretense about Da being “the best” for anyone about anything. Why make the claim at all? If it’s true, it should be rather obvious, and if it’s not the claim is just false blustering of the ego anyway. Your experience is very limited, and it doesn’t mean much for you to say what is “best”. If you’re like most of us, and I think you are, you don’t even know what’s best for yourself, but are just trying to figure even that much out. I certainly don’t claim to know what’s best for me, or for you. The truth is, you simply ended up with Adi Da, and you don’t actually know whether he’s the best thing out there, whether he’s realized or not, whether he’s egoless or not, whether he’s superior to all others or not. You don’t know much of anything at all, and although I understand that’s a little scary to accept, it’s what we all must come to understand about ourselves. Just accepting that would seem to be a huge step for you to take, and maybe you’re not ready for that yet. But is it really that hard for you to complete a sentence about Da without inserting some claim of superiority into it? Honestly, what’s that all about?
“Hopefully Conradg will weigh in on this one too, as he said that egoity cannot be seen in a photograph. So, FFaC, do you see Ramana’s photos as “selfless”?”
Da also says that egoity can’t be seen in a photograph either, so what do you make of that?
The idea that any object could be either “selfless” or “egoic” is rather silly. The ego is in the “I” of the observer, not the object observed. When you think you see an ego in someone else, you are just seeing your own presumption of ego reflected back at you. The ego is not in the object or other or photograph, but in the one who observes these without inspecting the presumption of ego in himself. We see ego in others because we presume ego from the start in ourselves, and we look for a confirmation of that presumption in everything we look at. The truth is only found if we examine ourselves, our presumption of ego, and see that it isn’t true to begin with, that there is no ego in ourselves, that it was a false idea with no basis in reality.
The jnani sees no ego in others. He only sees the Divine Self in everyone. Only egos see the ego in others. So when you look at anyone’s photograph, and see “ego” there, it is only your own presumption of ego you see. If you look at a photograph and see no ego, it is your own lack of ego that you see, but somehow attribute to the “realizer”. It’s good that you can at least allow yourself to see Da as egoless, but it would be even better if this helped you to see that you, yourself, are egoless, and always have been.
When I look at Ramana’s photo, I don’t see Ramana with no ego. Instead, I experience the egolessness of my own existence. Of course, this could be my experience of looking at the wall as well = and oftentimes it is. Photographs of realizers simply serve as reminders to us of who we really are – sometimes, at least, if we are at all sensitive to who we really are. They are like a visual mantra, with no actual power in themselves, except as reminders of our own reality. But objectifying the realzier into a photograph, and looking for signs of egoity there is silly. No devotee will see “ego” in any image of the Divine, whatever its source or process of creation. Of course, no devotee will look at another person and see egoity there either. The devotee will always look to himself, to see if there is any ego there, and if his inspection is true, he will see that he himself is egoless. And when he sees that there is no ego in himself, he will also see that there is no ego in anyone else, that there is no one else, no separation, no objects, just a continuous Field of Divine Self. That is what realization is about.
It’s not about worshipping some realizer as “egoless”. It’s about finding out that you are always and already egoless.
December 20, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Thanks Jerry, very interesting.
December 20, 2008 at 11:29 pm
It’s so very simple. Adherence to any point of view is suffering. If it isn’t for you, then you’re a lucky person. All the practices and all the communications about advanced teachings and realizations serve the same purpose as everything else. They are like the garbage bag Rudi gave Adi Da to throw away. Let’s get rid of them! They create divisions when none previously existed. Hell, I don’t know if there is anything of a spiritual nature even worth advocating. What is there to say? “Pass the salt.”
When I was on retreat in Adi Da’s company I was responsible for replying to his constant communications to us retreatants. He wanted us to tell him who we considered him to be. Well, I could bullshit with the best of them, especially as in those days I could write quite eloquently, but one day I just had to write what was really going on for me. On behalf of the other retreatants I simply said we did not know who he was. End of story and end of consideration – Adi Da did not continue asking us that question any more.
Who was it that said “God is the Obvious?”
December 21, 2008 at 6:39 am
NC, I appreciate the response. I can understand it. I did not just leave and give up on Da suddenly, it was a gradual transition. It was only after I really decided to let Ramana Maharshi serve me as guru, since I had no doubts about him and his ability to serve even after death was already well documented, and after I read more, that I began to learn what I eventually concluded. First let me say that obviously there is something of value in Da and his teaching and karmic ties that drew those of us that got involved. It does no good to just leave until you acknowledge that, or you will be drawn back even if you find flaws. It actually happened to me one more time a number of years after I left when I started re-reading the books again. After a time, I was finally clear that Da himself had been part of my path but had a conflicted quality and all that distraction was no longer what I had been looking for and it wasn’t just the inner circle. I am now free of him and even in the dream of him I had since then, I was free of him and able to acknowledge him without being sucked back into the same cycle. What I wrote may seem intellectual but that was not how I left. It was Ramana Maharshi who drew me away from Da by literally showing me the difference first, not by “proving” Da was not what he claimed.
This was all before all the claims of superior realization. Had he made them while I was active in my presence as he did to Don Webley with the associated errors I would have considered that all the sign of unresolved egotism I needed and left forthwith. But I can say that having studied Ramana Maharshi far more closely than those who chose Adidam. That is why I can be quite precise in backing up my concerns about Da’s changing descriptions and increasingly grandious claims about himself and apparent errors in his statements about Realization and also Ramana Maharshi, who I know to have enlightened others regardless of what Adidam’s position is.
Since you do not have this certainty and have karmic attachments, what you propose makes sense since you are being drawn to do it. As I have said, it is not a matter of convincing anyone here. It is a matter of explaining views accurately and sharing what we have in common as well.
December 21, 2008 at 7:38 am
Feel4God,
“And how could (or why would) they ever agree with Adi Da if they themselves did not realize What He Is – Acausal Divine Reality, Fully Regenerated Amrita Nadi? I am sure there were those who disputed Ramana’s claims of the highest realization at the time as well. His devotees would also have to simply feel Him from their hearts rather than go to the texts or others’ (or their) minds to confirm His Truth.”
As Conradg pointed out, Ramana Maharshi did not proclaim himself enlightened and thus draw devotees and visitors. Rather, his presence drew some fairly advanced aspirants who recognized him as being in that state, and sought his guidance, and his fame spread. That is why he was reluctant to be called a guru even though he aknowledged if pressed that he was one. By the time of his death, he was widely recognized as enlightened by many different lineages in Inda. Jnanis do not go about regularly making the kind of claims Da does about himself, which does not reflect well on Da. But the other problem with your statement is that it presumes, as Da does, that jnanis have egos and despite being pure Consciousness and seeing the truth in all things are unable to awaken to Da’s level, and in the case of living jnanis who discount his claims, recognize Da. The implication is that their egos prevent them from recognizing Da for who he is. But where is the evidence of these egos, and if not living jnanis, who could possibly have any certainty about Da’s claims of a new, higher form of realization, or an intution it exists?
“Adi Da has never expected anyone to believe anything – He invites us all to test everything and to make firm conclusions based on our fullest consideration. He has always undermined the believer’s stance in us.”
What is being said is that you can not know that Da’s claims about the seventh stage are true, it is a matter of faith. If jnanis are unable to perceive an inkling of such a state after their realization, and they were all wrong about being fully realized, Sankara, Buddha, etc, how could any Daist who is not nearly at that level not acknowlege that it is their faith in Da that causes them to make the claim Da is right? That is not to say that you would not experience signs of what you you take on faith to be inklings of such a level, but still based on interpretation, not direct knowledge. I have seen myself that the body of Da seemed at times to be enveloped in light and consciousness which included the whole group around him, but that is still subtle, not jnana. Again, the point here is not to “prove” Da wrong, no such proof is possible except through jnana, but only that his claim of seventh stage uniqueness is in some conflict with the traditions and all accepted non-dual Realizers, who I admit I do have more faith in. I read all your posts and will respond to the rest later on.
December 21, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Conradg, I can only assume from your post (on December 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm) that you want to end this conversation. It is the only explanation I can come up with as to why you would so thoroughly misread what I have written to the extent you indicate by your responses. I can only assume this is just your “critics conditioning” talking again when you do this because you want to summarily dismiss whatever I say or quote from Adi Da. In case you don’t know what I am talking about, here is yet another instance:
Conradg Says:
“It’s you who brought them up in the first place, who claim along with Da that Ramana is just a disassociated guy, and who keeps arguing that line as if you really know what you’re talking about, when it’s pretty clear to everyone here that you don’t even know the basics of Ramana’s life and teachings, much less have any heartfelt connection to him.”
I have the utmost love and respect for Ramana Maharshi and His Realization, and also have studied and practiced His teachings for several years, albeit many years ago. For you to conclude from everything that I have said that “Ramana is just a disassociated guy” to me is downright bizarre and plain wrong. Again, I can only conclude you are doing this to somehow summarily dismiss everything I said as “silly”, and to have me leave this thread due to frustration, etc. It is becoming more and more obvious to me why Daists do not engage in these kind of discussions with you and certain others online – you attack at times without even being logical, and then if they choose to leave because of your abusiveness and your own lack of humility and self-understanding, you chide them for leaving. This is what you seem to do over and over, Conradg, and I have pointed it out several times. Please inspect this – if nothing else it reflects very poorly on your discrimination.
I have also explained a number of times that Adidam is not based on any beliefs – and yet you keep making out that it is. It is not, and if you cannot gather that from what I say, that is your business. But it appears to me that you like to make it look that way so you can then compare Adidam to some form of fundamentalism, and start criticizing Adi Da and all Daists on that very easy to criticize basis.
Here is another instance, in case you still cannot relate to what I am saying:
I said (as you quoted me):
“But still, the ego will revise the Truth to make it fit its own agenda – whether we are devotees of Adi Da or not. All of this delusion has to be transcended regardless, and the relationship to Adi Da and His Teaching is the best Help for that, in my experience.”
To which you responded:
“For you, perhaps. For most everyone else, not. A little humility would go a long way, meaning dropping the whole pretense about Da being “the best” for anyone about anything.”
First off, I said “in my experience”. That clearly states that I am only talking about myself. You respond as though I am trying to tell you that it is best for you. How do you come to that assumption? But once you do make this wrongful assumption, you then go on to conclude exactly where I am supposedly at because of it! Again, you are attacking me and not even on a correct basis.
I certainly hope you can receive what I am saying here, though, given I have tried to communicate this several times to you already, I am not very hopeful about it.
Conradg Says:
“When I look at Ramana’s photo, I don’t see Ramana with no ego. Instead, I experience the egolessness of my own existence. Of course, this could be my experience of looking at the wall as well = and often times it is. Photographs of realizers simply serve as reminders to us of who we really are – sometimes, at least, if we are at all sensitive to who we really are. They are like a visual mantra, with no actual power in themselves, except as reminders of our own reality. But objectifying the realzier into a photograph, and looking for signs of egoity there is silly. No devotee will see “ego” in any image of the Divine, whatever its source or process of creation.”
Of course Ramana’s photo can and should be a visual reminder to his devotees of ultimate Reality/egolessness. But I have always seen a difference between His photo and other traditional realizers – whether I was feeling egoically or not. I noticed this about Ramana Maharshi even before meeting Adi Da Samraj. Upon seeing a photo of Adi Da, I noticed this non-egoity as well, as I already explained. Why do you assume that the Acausal Divine Reality cannot shine through a photo of the Master, if it can shine through a Master’s body-mind – or, stated differently, that the signs of non-egoity cannot appear in a photograph? The effects of egoic activity certainly do appear in photographs, in my experience – it can display as a subtle focus or signs in particular parts of the body, etc.
I don’t agree that this kind of observation has to do with my state, as you say it works that way for yourself. For me, it is a direct and tacit heart matter like my relationship to the Divine. But of course, I will not convince you otherwise nor am I trying to. I assume it is okay on this thread to share our experiences – and hopefully you can receive mine a bit more openly than you tend to.
Conradg Says:
“It’s not about worshipping some realizer as “egoless”. It’s about finding out that you are always and already egoless.”
It is about recognizing and surrendering altogether into the Only One Who Is. We are not EQUAL to Reality, as the ego would have it. We are (to be) dissolved in that Reality, and that threat of absolute dissolution is what we react to the most. Egoically we want to be equal to Oneness, not dissolved in That. This may sound the same, but it is not. We want to be equal to great Realizers, but we are not until we are utterly and absolutely dissolved in that One Reality. There is no equality in That – there is Only the First, the Last, and the Only One.
It does appear that most Daists have stopped posting here. It has also been a while since I mentioned my email address – so here it is again in case anyone else wants to contact me privately. Feel4God@gmail.com
Happy Holidays everyone! And Happy Winter Solstice today too!
December 21, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Oh yes, and a Happy Summer Solstice if you are down under!
December 21, 2008 at 7:04 pm
You know, this is just how I remember it. A bunch of men debating dharma. By now, OLD MEN, sitting around jawboning about the nature of reality. Pissing wars. Mine is bigger than yours.
Can you say PLACEBO? Some people are so easy. Just give them a pill and they feel better.
Franklin was a spiritual placebo. Some people feel better in his company. Some people feel better just thinking about him. Oh the power! Oh the transmission! Oh Oh Oh! LOL
It was never anything more than that. There was never anything to him. It was just a placebo effect. People felt better because they believed him when he said he was the real thing. We wanted to believe. We needed to believe. We believed.
A lot of us did. A lot of us also realized our mistake and left. It just never panned out. That little feel good effect just wasn’t worth it.
How telling that the most hits you got on your blog here was only around 800. Whatever happened to all those thousands of devotees he claimed! Nobody’s even interested anymore. Not that he ever cared about having lots of devotees. All he ever wanted was lots of money, sex, drugs, and control over everyone around him. And he sure got that.
Placebo Da. I bow down to the First, the Last, and the Only Spiritual Placebo on earth. You’re gone, but there will always be others like you. You weren’t really all that special, now were you. Ha Ha!
December 21, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Feel4God,
You may be reaching your limit here, clearly. But blaming me because you cannot respond to rational criticism is not fooling anyone. I am not interested in destroying your faith in Adi Da, but let’s not pretend your arguments are based on anything other than personal faith. I am not summarily “dismissing” everything you say, I am just discriminating things you take on faith from things you actually know about. I’d advise you to do the same, and even with me.
“I have the utmost love and respect for Ramana Maharshi and His Realization, and also have studied and practiced His teachings for several years, albeit many years ago. For you to conclude from everything that I have said that “Ramana is just a disassociated guy” to me is downright bizarre and plain wrong.”
How is this even wrong? Would it be more acceptable a summary of your views if I said that you view Ramana as a “disassociated ego” rather than a “disassociated guy”? You have clearly quoted Da as describing Adi Da as disassociated from the body, and not demonstrating the kind of “creative participartion” in life that Da has demonstrated. You’ve clearly taken the view that Ramana’s realization is limited to the sixth stage “exclusive heart on the right”, rather than the seventh stage “inclusive Amrita Nadi”. And what do you base this on? Well, obviously you have faith in Da’s opinion, and your own weird claim of some infallible psychic ability to “read” someone’s realization from their photograph, and your claim that your “reading” of Ramana’s photograph demonstrates that he had only realized the heart on the right. Now, downright bizzare would be an understatement for just how strange these claims of yours is, but rational and reliably true are not even close.
Now, I can’t deny that you have some sentimental personal feelings for Ramana, but it’s also clear that you think he’s a disassociated ego. We’ve been through that argument, and in every verifiable aspect of your claim, you and Da have been shown to be wrong, and brazenly so, in that Da’s earlier praise of Ramana directly contradicts his later put-downs of Ramana. The only basis you have left to defend these claims is your faith in Da’s own “spiritual authority”, and your own claims to have an authoritative ability to discern spiritual maturity and realization from photographs.
What is downright bizarre is just how much faith you seem to have in your photographic talents. From the beginning of this whole thread, you have demanded to see photographs of Da’s critics, in order to “evaluate” their spiritual maturity using your so-called psychic talents. This shows that from the outset you have tried to turn this debate into a personal competition that is not about non-dualism, dharma, or verifiable matters of any kind, but your own personal claims of spiritual maturity and superiority. I and others here have been patient with you, but it seems that you really can’t let go of these faith-based claims, and simply confess your ignorance of these matters, even in the manner that Adi Da himself might respect. I recall a time when even Daists valued their confessions of Divine Ignorance, and their lack of faith-based claims of any kind, other than faith in not knowing what anything is.
“Again, I can only conclude you are doing this to somehow summarily dismiss everything I said as “silly”, and to have me leave this thread due to frustration, etc.”
Some of the things you have said really are downright silly, such as your photographic claims. Most of what you have otherwise said on contentious matters is either demonstrably false, or purely a matter of your personal faith. Again, I don’t desrespect your personal devotion to Da, but when this stretches into faith based claims about spirituality itself, you have to back these up with real arguments and verifiable information, which you simply seem unable to do. In many respects you are arguing as Creationists or Intelligent Design advocates do, relying on arguments of scriptural authority and faith rather than anything anyone other than an adherent to your faith could find convincing.
“It is becoming more and more obvious to me why Daists do not engage in these kind of discussions with you and certain others online – you attack at times without even being logical, and then if they choose to leave because of your abusiveness and your own lack of humility and self-understanding, you chide them for leaving. This is what you seem to do over and over, Conradg, and I have pointed it out several times. Please inspect this – if nothing else it reflects very poorly on your discrimination.”
When have I abused you? What lack of self-understanding have I demonstrated? Please, show me meaningful examples. If I have, I will apologize instantly. I have no interest in abusing you, I just want to be very clear about these matters, and I certainly won’t hesitate to criticize you when you say things that seem patently false. When have my criticisms been illogical? I certainly don’t expect you to agree with my criticism, but I hardly think it has been illogical. Perhaps you’re not even clear on the meaning of the word “logic”, because you are relying on definitions of logic that are produced within Adidam, and don’t translate to the greater world. I know first hand how logic gets stretched out of all recognition within Adidam, and how unfair it seems when those outside Adidam don’t allow you to make the same logical leaps that win applause within Adidam.
“I have also explained a number of times that Adidam is not based on any beliefs – and yet you keep making out that it is. It is not, and if you cannot gather that from what I say, that is your business.”
You cannot merely claim that Adidam is not based on beliefs, you actually have to argue that way, by not basing your arguments on beliefs about things. The reason I say that Adidam is in fact based on beliefs is because you keep arguing on the basis of faith and belief. You make claims about Da’s seventh stage realization that are clearly based on your own belief, rather than any verifiable sources. You simply point to Da’s own claims to having broken through to some unprecedented realization, one which you have not yourself even experienced, and yet you argue as if it were a fact, rather than merely a belief. You claim that Ramana is merely a sixth stage ego disassociated from the body, with a realization inferior to Da’s, that does not include the seventh stage “amrita nadi”. And yet, you haven’t realized any of these things yourself, you have at best a very mediocre psychic claim being able to make photographic readings of spiritual maturity, that is itself unverified and clearly a rather delusional faith-based claim of your own. Now, I don’t want to say you can’t choose to believe in such things if you like, but you can’t also claim that you are not basing your ideas on beliefs and faith. And certainly you can’t expect us to accept these things as rationale evidence, unless you are suggesting that we merely believe in these matters, which would contradict your claim that Adidam doesn’t want people to believe in things.
I gather that what you really mean by “not believing in things” is, “having some kind of unverifiable but subjectively logical rationale for believing in things, such that we can always say we are not merely believing in these things, even when we do”. But this doesn’t wash. Why not, if you really don’t just believe in things, actually not believe in things at all. I mean, throw out everything you don’t actually, truly know, even things you might like to think are true, even things Da himself has said are true, but which you aren’t actually able to genuinely confirm to be true? Why not just have a clean and free relationship to Da, not based on believing anything he says at all, but just proceeding on what is right before you.
Now, you can deny the charges of fundamentalism, but all the while you’ve been here, you’ve been arguing as all fundamentalists do, and I haven’t seen much evidence otherwise. You’ve been dedicated to the proposition that Adi Da is the best, the greatest, and the only true realizer, ever. And yet, you have no actual evidence that this is so, other than Adi Da’s own claims and scripture, and your own faith in him. That’s fundamentalism, pure and simple. I don’t know why you even bother to deny it. Why not be proud of it, as Christians and Muslims are?
On the other hand, you do have a point here:
“First off, I said “in my experience”. That clearly states that I am only talking about myself. You respond as though I am trying to tell you that it is best for you. How do you come to that assumption? But once you do make this wrongful assumption, you then go on to conclude exactly where I am supposedly at because of it! Again, you are attacking me and not even on a correct basis.”
You’re right that here I conflate the specific quote here with all the other things you’ve said previous to this. I should have given more weight to your cavaet, “In my experience”, but I’m not just responding to this one statement of yours and its particular parsing, but to the whole of your arguments on this thread. The problem is, even your experience doesn’t clearly include anything that would justify the claim you make here, that Adi Da is the “best help” for you in transcending egoic delusions. It seems from this thread that Adidam has encouraged you to embrace all kinds of egoic illusions you might not otherwise have been subject to, and you are quite unaware of them. The whole point I’ve been trying to make is that this obsession with thinking of Da as “the best”, however you phrase it, is just endemic to all your thinking here, and you simply can’t seem to shake it, even when it’s essentially meaningless. Wouldn’t a Christian, a Muslim, a Rastafarian, etc., say exactly the same thing , “in their experience”, about their religion? The whole point is that our experience doesn’t tell us anything ultimate about what is “best”, because our experience is so personal and limited, and we have to have a healthy respect for this limits.
For instance, I have no idea if Ramana is the “best” teacher or teaching for me. How could I? I know hardly anything of all the other great teachers and teachings out there. My experience is limited, my capacities are limited, and they certainly don’t mean much to anyone else. They don’t even mean very much to me, except that I have to work with what I’ve got. In the end, this all just boils down to “love the one you’re with”. But you’ve been claiming that the one you’re with is better than every other “one” there is. This is like me making the leap from loving my wife, to claiming that my wife is much more beautiful and loving that everyone else’s wife, including yours, and I’ve got categories and graphs to prove it. It’s just a form of insanity – unless, of course, most people will simply agree that my wife really is the most beautiful woman to ever live. In Da’s case, no such agreement seems in evidence, so the appearance is that it’s a crazy claim to make.
I know you think that your devotional heart-relationship to Adi Da entitles you to make these claims, just as you think it gives you the right to declare your photograph siddhi to be infallible, even to yourself. But this is just how a fundamentalist thinks. You ought to study them. Sure, now, after all this time, you finally start to hedge a little, and say you don’t expect to convince anyone on its basis, but why on earth have you been repeatedly bringing up these things, if not to try to convince us of Da’s greatness on their basis, and of Ramana’s inferiority to Da. It’s also why these arguments have proven so frustrating. You say these statements have nothing to do with your state, but simple self-knowledge should tell you that’s exactly what they come from: your state.
“I certainly hope you can receive what I am saying here, though, given I have tried to communicate this several times to you already, I am not very hopeful about it.”
Well, I agree that your hopes are probably fruitless, if you expect me to be in any way convinced that you have made honest and rational arguments here, rather than faith-based proclamations of your own personal beliefs, and the general beliefs of Adidam. To suggest that Adidam has no set of beliefs that people are expected to support and advocate is not terribly plausible. I have certainly received what you have said, unless you follow the odd logic that “recieving” what you have to say is the same as finding what you say plausible or convincing.
“Why do you assume that the Acausal Divine Reality cannot shine through a photo of the Master, if it can shine through a Master’s body-mind – or, stated differently, that the signs of non-egoity cannot appear in a photograph?”
Why do you assume that the Acausal Divine Reality can be discerned through a photograph, such that you could tell the difference between a photo of a sixth and a seventh stage realizer, when Adi Da himself says that there is no visible difference between even a high fifth and seventh stage realizer? Why can’t you simply accept the obvious explanation that you are most spiritual attracted to, or even seemingly “affected by” photographs of Adi Da, because he’s your Guru? It’s as if I were to say that my wife is clearly the most loving of all wives, because when I look at her picture I feel the greatest and purest love, which I don’t feel when I look at your wife’s photograph. Obviously the explanation is strictly personal and has to do with being reminded of the person you very personally love, not some “shine” that is coming out of the photograph.
And this is of course an example of why Adidam is considered by many to be a dualistic path. Suggesting that the Acausal Divine Reality actually and literally “shines” out of a photograph is to turn what is non-dual into a dualistic process, and what is acausal in to a causal relationship. Do you really have so little comprehension of what duality means not to grasp this? A photograph is an object. Objects are the definition of dualism. Even Adi Da says so. The Acausal Divine Reality has no objects, no photographs, and it cannot be “pictured”, nor is it some kind of invisible “shine” that comes out of objects and is percieved by others.
You are simply so enamoured of objects, like photographs and other images of your Guru, and by your own dualistic mind, that you have to try to insist that there’s something non-dual about this relationship, when clearly it is highly dualistic. I don’t even fault you for that. I’m not utterly opposed to dualism. Even Ramana acknolwedged that for thus who are under the spell of the dualistic mind, dualism is appropriate, which is why he said the outer Guru is still necessary for such people. But he would never be foolish enough to suggest that this is anything other than a dualistic understanding of the relationship which must be transcended, and even from the beginning understood as such rather than indulged in and reified.
“The effects of egoic activity certainly do appear in photographs, in my experience – it can display as a subtle focus or signs in particular parts of the body, etc. “
Any effect is the result of a cause, and hence is dualistic in nature, not non-dual, and not acausal – by definition. So the effects you perceive in these photographs are dualistic and causal, and they are perceived by your dualistic and causal mind, not the non-dual and acausal Divine Self. The “you” who is focusing on these effects is the dualistic mind. The dualistic mind simply cannot grasp the non-dual reality. It is the “ego”. It is the very “thing” which must be transcended, not the thing which must be cultivated as some kind of “judge” of the non-dualness of some clearly dualistic object.
“For me, it is a direct and tacit heart matter like my relationship to the Divine. But of course, I will not convince you otherwise nor am I trying to. I assume it is okay on this thread to share our experiences – and hopefully you can receive mine a bit more openly than you tend to.”
The problem here is that your conflation of this clearly dualistic process of your dualistic mind with the “heart matter” of your relationship with the Divine is that it suggest very strongly that your relationship with the Divine is also dualistic in nature, which is why they seem to fit together so well. I don’t mind you sharing your experience, but you seem to think that we will all congratulate you for having so profound an experience of the non-dual, when from your very description it sounds obviously dualistic in nature, and you come off as rather deluded about what non-dualism is really about. For you, non-dualism just means “anything having to do with Adi Da, or my own feelings about spirituality”. But it simply doesn’t work that way. Non-dualism means something profoundly transcendental, or it doesn’t mean anything at all. It certainly doesn’t refer to some glow we might feel coming from a photograph, or even from the physical body of a teacher, whether it’s Ramana or Adi Da.
“We are not EQUAL to Reality, as the ego would have it.”
Which is why I said, “It’s about finding out that you are always and already egoless,” rather than saying “It’s about finding out that you are always already equal to Reality.” If I made references to equality earlier, it’s within the context of the dualistic relationships of this world. In the context of those relations, we are indeed all fundamentally equal. That doesn’t mean there aren’t functional differences, or that we are all Gurus of Ramana’s functional capacity. In Reality, there is no ego, and no objects, so it’s silly to even talk about anything being equal at all, much less “egos” being equal to Reality.
You don’t seem to grasp that egos are not dissolved in Reality, because there is no ego to be dissolved, and Reality is not some separate thing that egos would dissolve into in the first place. This is the non-dual insight that is real enlightenment, rather than the dualistic process of dissolution that you and Da seem to think is how it all works. Of course, it’s true that many people can’t grasp the true non-dual process, so it has to be worded in dualistic concepts that these people can make use of, such as this language of “dissolution”, but if you were better schooled in the non-dual traditions you would already understand this.
As for “us”, these apparently dualistic body-minds that contemplate the non-dual Reality, we certainly are all equal from the point of view of Reality, and utterly non-different from Reality. But the dualistic mind always conceives of Reality as somehow “greater” than itself. And this is part of the problem, how the ego reifies itself through what it calls “devotion” to the Divine. By that devotion to something “greater”, the ego keeps the illusion of separation in place that is the heart of egoity itself. The ego doesn’t want to be equal to Reality, because if it was, it would cease to be different from Reality. The ego needs “Reality” to be really big, really immense, really awesome. It needs to devote itself to that “Reality”, in order to keep its own illusion going. This is why dualistic religion is so popular among egos! The ego loves devoting itself to Reality, as long as Reality is conceived of as something different from, bigger than itself. This is why dualistic Gurus and cults are so popular. The ego needs them. Whereas to undermine the ego requires that we no longer feed its illusions of separation.
The ego is always looking for “the best”, or “the greatest” realizer, in order to keep up the illusion of being separate from the Divine. So even when you have a Guru, you have to keep making sure to always say “he’s the best, he’s the greatest, we are not his equal, we are not worthy, he is everything”. It’s how the ego survives and thrives in the world of religion. True devotion has nothing to do with this game. True devotion is devotion to the Guru in truth, as truth, as reality, non-separate from our very selves, our very Self. Know that we are the Self is the liberating truth the true Guru always tells us, not some nonsense about how he is always greater than us, superior to us, the only one and only, and we are just egos for whom it is blasphemy to even suggest we are in any way “equal” to him, or to “Reality”, because these are defined as always being separate from us, rather than our very nature and being. Even in Adidam, these are the great taboos that you have to have great strength to break, or you simply remain trapped in dualistic delusions of egoity.
Anyway, here’s to breaking all taboos. That’s the kind of happy holidays I wish everyone. Be the Divine to all, one and all. You too, Feel4God. You’re not what you think.
December 21, 2008 at 11:41 pm
In regards to your post Former Follower and Critic:
“Since you do not have this certainty and have karmic attachments, what you propose makes sense since you are being drawn to do it. As I have said, it is not a matter of convincing anyone here. It is a matter of explaining views accurately and sharing what we have in common as well.”
What is there to do, really….other than be present, continue to study and be a friend to the community, not just the community of Adidam, but in my local community and in the world at large.
I’m not naive about how easy it is to get overwelmed by community demands, and that’s not exclusive to the Adidiam community. I know the kind of emotional tailspins I can get in when I feel pressured and overextended.
I’m not much of a joiner anymore. AA is about all I can handle at this point. I realize I have some major vulnerabilities, and while it’s good for me to accept challenge, I have know that I have the maturity and courage to communicate well in that circumstance. I’m just not sure if I have that….but I do have the capacity to a friend, and to give what I am able to give without risking my well being. In that much I can trust.
In spite of everything I’ve confessed, in spite of everything that I experience, I choose to live as a happy person. It’s my responsibiliy to my family, and to the world around me. I don’t live any longer as a disappointed person. (Well truthfully I have bad days-but they aren’t as convincing as they used to be).
That is the one thing simple thing I carry with me. In the midst of all circumstance I can choose to be happy. I suppose I’m revealing a certain limitation in my attitude that I’m not going for the gold of enlightenment, but I’m tired of the search. Nowdays I pray for grace, to be awake in this moment.
December 22, 2008 at 7:27 am
Feel4God:
do your first and last names start with
Le and St respectively?
December 22, 2008 at 11:55 am
One thing I’d like to ask you Former Follower and Critic, is about your statement:
“This was all before all the claims of superior realization. Had he made them while I was active in my presence as he did to Don Webley with the associated errors I would have considered that all the sign of unresolved egotism I needed and left forthwith. But I can say that having studied Ramana Maharshi far more closely than those who chose Adidam. That is why I can be quite precise in backing up my concerns about Da’s changing descriptions and increasingly grandious claims about himself and apparent errors in his statements about Realization and also Ramana Maharshi, who I know to have enlightened others regardless of what Adidam’s position is.”
I quess I always felt Samaraj Adi Da as a trickster, and I didn’t take the tone of those proclamations as being necessary to assert his divinity as to get under the skin of certain devotees that were bound to particular concepts. I mean sure it irked me to hear some of it, but I always felt it was some uninspected button in myself that needed to be pushed for the sake of my understanding.
I guess the reason in part I feel this, is because in his communication with me He always had a way of getting to the heart of where I was at. It was oddly psychic, and I always felt a loving quality to his criticism. It was difficult when being filtered through some community members, but nonetheless I always felt he was straight on, about what I was animating.
I remember once I had a little cat fight with another woman in the community. I got upset because of something she said to me, and I complained to a friend about it. Her husband, a man in leadership got wind of it, and made it clear that I would not be allowed to participate in a community event or go on retreat, and that I was immature, and demonstrating an unpreparedness to engage in that kind of service. I was devastated.
Anyway somehow I got on retreat anyway, in spite of this man’s objections. On retreat I was told that I should serve in leadership, and simultaneously the man who had banished me got notes that he should step down from his ministry. I then got notes that I was unprepared to be in Samraj Adi Da’s company, and then later I got notes saying that I was showing signs of recieving Him.
I remember that this man who had banished me, passed me, as I was walking towards the beach at Naitauba, we were both pretty sobered, but when we looked at each other we both started laughing at the irony, and the perfection of what we had both gone through together. We became lifelong friends in that moment.
This kind of theatre, although painful at times was illuminating. So, I just have to wonder if what you spoke of was your theatre you had to go through.
Even the drama, I went through with the man in the community, was a necessary purification for me. He shone a light on all that was hidden and dark in us, so we could be straight about what we were up to.
One thing that Samaraj Adi Da taught me, was to laugh at myself, to laugh in the midst of the most apparently devastating circumstance that may arise. I learned through Him that is where true freedom begins.
Of course I don’t mean laughing in a flippant way, as a way to avoid feeling but as a way to release the solidity around my fixed perceptions about what I witness.
December 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
There’s a dumbass typo in my last, incredibly lengthy post. In the third paragraph, I mistakenly wrote:
“You have clearly quoted Da as describing Adi Da as disassociated from the body, and not demonstrating the kind of “creative participartion” in life that Da has demonstrated.”
I meant to write:
“You have clearly quoted Da as describing Ramana as disassociated from the body, and not demonstrating the kind of “creative participartion” in life that Da has demonstrated.”
December 22, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“What is being said is that you can not know that Da’s claims about the seventh stage are true, it is a matter of faith. If jnanis are unable to perceive an inkling of such a state after their realization, and they were all wrong about being fully realized, Sankara, Buddha, etc, how could any Daist who is not nearly at that level not acknowlege that it is their faith in Da that causes them to make the claim Da is right? That is not to say that you would not experience signs of what you you take on faith to be inklings of such a level, but still based on interpretation, not direct knowledge.”
Conrad Says:
“You cannot merely claim that Adidam is not based on beliefs, you actually have to argue that way, by not basing your arguments on beliefs about things. The reason I say that Adidam is in fact based on beliefs is because you keep arguing on the basis of faith and belief. You make claims about Da’s seventh stage realization that are clearly based on your own belief, rather than any verifiable sources. You simply point to Da’s own claims to having broken through to some unprecedented realization, one which you have not yourself even experienced, and yet you argue as if it were a fact, rather than merely a belief.”
It is a direct, tacit understanding/knowledge from and by the heart in relationship with Adi Da. It is His Divine Gift of heart-recognition and that is what I keep saying. This recognition has nothing to do with me as an ego, it is all about recognizing Him as Reality Itself which includes “me” in selfless ecstatic Communion with Him. The practice of devotional bodily turning to Him is non-dual intrinsic egolessness, is based on recognition, and this is the gift of realization He Gives to devotees from the beginning.
Adi Da’s Realization and Gift of the 7th Stage is not based in the Great Path of Return. It is not about cosmic spirituality, but prior to all psycho-physical manifestations and seeking. It is no-seeking from the beginning in direct relationship to Him as the Acausal Divine. The heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – at least I will say that is true for myself because I don’t really know what is true for others, though many other Daists confess the same thing.
Only That has to be received as the Gift. So in that sense, those who recognize Who Adi Da Is have located Realization already – Him as That Reality which is intrinsically egoless and all-inclusive. The practice is simply one of releasing all the seeking the body-mind at all levels would do by tendency to not recognize Reality. In my heart-recognition, and by Adi Da’s own confession, this is a Spiritual break-through in the cosmos, and what I already said before is really all I can explain of it. I am getting a deeper understanding of the significance of this, but forgive me if I am not as clear verbally as I might be. Here is what Adi Da says about it:
From Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga:
“There is no consciousness in This Body that is egoic. There is no separate entity.
That One Who Is Is All That is Associated with This Body, without any accommodation to the human construct of egoity.
I am not here as “other”. I Am the Very Context of Being, of life, here in a bodily Form, and able to Speak. Nevertheless, It Is Only My State That Is Transmitted in My Company.
The Way I have Revealed and Given is not about any kind of process or “technique” or “method” for outgrowing the ego-principle. There is no ego-principle in Reality Itself. There is no ego-principle in This Body – and I See no ego-principle.
This is how I am Able, literally, to Address “everybody-all-at-once” – all the time. I am not speaking to egos – because I do not know any egos. There is no ego, no “other”, in My Awareness. That Is My Constant State.
Not only Am I here As the Perfectly egoless Divine Presence – the Perfectly egoless Divine Presence Is What I See, What I Know. I do not know egos – and, therefore, I do not speak to egos. You as apparent individuals have your own presumptions, but that is not My Awareness. I do not relate to people as egos. I relate to them As I Am – As Reality Itself Is.
I am not a “somebody” thinking in a room. Egolessness Is in This Body. The “Bright” Is in This Body. The “Bright” has completely Overwhelmed This Body. There is no separate entity in This Body, in any sense – not even as a vehicle of association.
In This Body are Shown all of the details of the Intrinsically egoless Demonstration of Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga.
Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga Is the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam.”
*************************
“Devotional recognition of Me is the recognition of egolessness – My Own Intrinsic egolessness.”
“Therefore, by means of whole bodily devotion to Me, there is participation in the Intrinsic egolessness of Reality Itself.”
“To be whole bodily turned to Me is to Realize Me – and the sign of Realization is both whole bodily renunciation and intrinsic egolessness.”
…
“I Am Acausally Coincident with all-and-All.
I am not “causing” Realization – in any one.
I Am Realization – in every one.
Such is the correct understanding.”
…
“My Divine Avataric Calling Is for you to Perfectly transcend what appears – no matter what appears.”
FFaC, you also have said at least a few times that jnanis have denied this realization in Adi Da, but when I asked for specific proof none was provided. Again, we have to simply judge for ourselves. I can only compare the Teachings of each Master, and most importantly, my heart relationship to them – and I have made my decision based on body, mind, and heart, tested and proven for myself innumerable times. You have made yours similarly. I do agree that nothing can ultimately be proven in the manner we usually think (more conceptually-oriented) until we ourselves directly prove it for ourselves.
Conrad Says:
“Why not, if you really don’t just believe in things, actually not believe in things at all. I mean, throw out everything you don’t actually, truly know, even things you might like to think are true, even things Da himself has said are true, but which you aren’t actually able to genuinely confirm to be true? Why not just have a clean and free relationship to Da, not based on believing anything he says at all, but just proceeding on what is right before you.”
If you cannot gather from all that I have said, and quoted from Adi Da’s Teaching, that releasing ALL presumptions, concepts, perceptions, everything(!) is necessary from the beginning, then you have totally misread my posts and/or I am a terrible writer. You seem to want to presume that I am believing in something – if I am I will observe this more closely, as I do understand that any and all mind forms about anything or any one at all, are to be released in direct and tacit relationship to Adi Da. Whether He is right about all the technical aspects of the yoga of Realization or not makes no difference to me whatsoever. I recognize Him tacitly, at the Heart – not just as some faith-based feeling, but Knowledge that is prior to the mind. He Is Who He says He Is – my heart recognizes this with far more authority than my mind would ever be able to know. It is tacit and self-evident to me! This is a great Gift from Him. Of course you can tear into this and say prove it, etc. But there is no way to do that as I have repeatedly said – Heart Knowledge cannot be proven to your mind – just like Ramana’s Realization could not be “proven” to any of his unrealized devotees using their minds. Again, I am sharing my experience and understanding – not trying to say this is the way it is for you or anyone else, Conradg.
Conrad Says:
“… just as you think it gives you the right to declare your photograph siddhi to be infallible, even to yourself.”
This is more of your same sarcastic crap, Conradg – exaggerate what I said to the point of making it sound completely weird and self-obsessed. This is a good example of you being very manipulative and out of relationship. In summary, I only ever tried to communicate that one can get a tacit “read” from a photograph as to whether the activity of egoity may or may not be present. Again, this is obviously not provable in your terms – but I thought it might be some common ground in which we could consider what may be observed and tacitly known. So presumably, you do not give any credence to “heart Knowing” or intuition?
Conrad Says:
“… but why on earth have you been repeatedly bringing up these things, if not to try to convince us of Da’s greatness on their basis, and of Ramana’s inferiority to Da.”
Ironically enough, and believe it or not, I brought up Ramana Maharshi as a common ground on which to consider these matters because others had studied him, as had I, and someone else had mentioned Ramana. I really don’t care what Ramana’s Realization is – though I do intuit that He is Self-Realized in reading His teachings and looking at his photos. Oh, I guess in your world I had better scratch the latter part of that statement about the photos, as only the mind should be the real basis for even making any statement at all about a Realizer, it seems. Seriously, is that right in your view, Conrad? I also still wonder if FFaC sees Ramana’s selflessness in His photos.
Conrad Says:
“And this is of course an example of why Adidam is considered by many to be a dualistic path. Suggesting that the Acausal Divine Reality actually and literally “shines” out of a photograph is to turn what is non-dual into a dualistic process, and what is acausal in to a causal relationship. Do you really have so little comprehension of what duality means not to grasp this?”
By your making this argument, you are apparently forgetting that true non-dualism states that all is the Acausal. So how does that fit into your comprehension? Isn’t true non-dualism a paradox to the mind that ultimately undoes it, not reinforce it with more concepts?
Conrad Says:
“You are simply so enamoured of objects, like photographs and other images of your Guru, and by your own dualistic mind, that you have to try to insist that there’s something non-dual about this relationship, when clearly it is highly dualistic.”
Another pretentious assumption by your mind – try using your feeling/knowing heart more, Conradg. Maybe it won’t argue so “logically”, but it tacitly understands and knows That which no one has ever proven via the mind, at least in my experience.
Conrad Says:
“… but you seem to think that we will all congratulate you for having so profound an experience of the non-dual, when from your very description it sounds obviously dualistic in nature, and you come off as rather deluded about what non-dualism is really about. For you, non-dualism just means “anything having to do with Adi Da, or my own feelings about spirituality”.”
Another example of your pretentiousness and looking to summarily dismiss what I said and quoted about radical devotion and non-dualism. You would have been a good at some anti-Daist rally – “Look, there’s a Daist! Get him! He thinks Ramana Maharshi is some dissociated guy!”
Conrad Says:
“You don’t seem to grasp that egos are not dissolved in Reality, because there is no ego to be dissolved, and Reality is not some separate thing that egos would dissolve into in the first place. This is the non-dual insight that is real enlightenment, rather than the dualistic process of dissolution that you and Da seem to think is how it all works. Of course, it’s true that many people can’t grasp the true non-dual process, so it has to be worded in dualistic concepts that these people can make use of, such as this language of “dissolution”, but if you were better schooled in the non-dual traditions you would already understand this.”
And you as the ego have “grasped” that?
I can play talking school too, Conrad. It can be lots of fun! Maybe you should start a class in non-dualism called “Conditional Radicalism” aka “The Way of ConRad”! 
Conradg Says:
“But the dualistic mind always conceives of Reality as somehow “greater” than itself. And this is part of the problem, how the ego reifies itself through what it calls “devotion” to the Divine. By that devotion to something “greater”, the ego keeps the illusion of separation in place that is the heart of egoity itself. The ego doesn’t want to be equal to Reality, because if it was, it would cease to be different from Reality. The ego needs “Reality” to be really big, really immense, really awesome. It needs to devote itself to that “Reality”, in order to keep its own illusion going. This is why dualistic religion is so popular among egos! The ego loves devoting itself to Reality, as long as Reality is conceived of as something different from, bigger than itself. This is why dualistic Gurus and cults are so popular. The ego needs them. Whereas to undermine the ego requires that we no longer feed its illusions of separation.”
I agree with you here up to a point. But go a step further and look at what the ego does when it gets beyond the Creator God side of it, which you basically are (rightfully) criticizing in your post above. Given the truth of the non-dualistic argument of there being only One, the ego then decides it is equal to Reality (and even greater than Reality by virtue of what it wants to actually do to Reality) – by making the truth of non-dualism into an Ideal and holding on to this Ideal, to the point of even allowing this Ideal to become the object of realization, and the justification that no Realized Sat-Guru is even necessary, and that the Sat-Guru is actually an impediment according to the ego! There are many examples of this being posted on this thread, so I don’t have to give any here.
In other words, the ego looks to subordinate Reality by making it into an Ideal within its mind. Your criticism about fundamentalism can also be applied to your positon as well – for making non-dualism into a knowable Ideal and never actually realizing it, but only endlessly talking about it. This is the basis for all mind-dharma/talking school. Only the heart knows and recognizes otherwise.
Conradg Says:
“The ego is always looking for “the best”, or “the greatest” realizer, in order to keep up the illusion of being separate from the Divine. So even when you have a Guru, you have to keep making sure to always say “he’s the best, he’s the greatest, we are not his equal, we are not worthy, he is everything”. It’s how the ego survives and thrives in the world of religion. True devotion has nothing to do with this game. True devotion is devotion to the Guru in truth, as truth, as reality, non-separate from our very selves, our very Self.”
If this is what you got from all the statements I have made about radical devotion in Adidam and especially the quotes from Adi Da, then you are misreading them again. My take is that you mainly want to justify that no Sat-Guru is necessary – except for some inward sense of Self.
And yes, the very best to you and yours, Conradg and FFaC, and to everyone else too!
December 22, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Regarding the “Samadhi of the Thumbs”…
Everybody needs samadhi thumbtime!
December 23, 2008 at 1:05 am
I’ve been lurking here since this thread began…and I want to thank you, NC for your posts. They are striking and beautiful and I’ve been getting a lot from them. Btw, I’m an AA person as well.
December 23, 2008 at 2:50 am
Susan,
I can appreciate that bringing back memories of the whole “culture” thing that evolved in the group in the mid-70s where the men discussed technical details about Da’s concepts, with and without substances, while females had their own role, would be irritating. That whole process was one of my concerns about the organization. Lots of talk, lots of putting others down, and little actual knowledge.
It is safe to say that many of those who met Franklin would agree with Mark Miller and some of the other dissidents I’ve listened to that the phenomena can be explained as a charismatic, belief based effect, basically a placebo effect, and when faith in Franklin goes, the experiences become more mundane. Based on my experiences with kundalini based groups, I think there is more to it and that highly active kundalini shakti can affect others, both positively and negatively.
I am sorry you see this dialogue that way. I prefer to think that areas of controversy around Da’s teaching and experiences that do not accurately match with respected figures who came before him should be considered. In part because this does not just apply to Da but to all those who want to “westernize” and reinterpret ancient traditions in conflict with them. Ramana Maharshi said something to the effect that higher stages of practice require having done one’s homework first. Homework would have made a difference in those who found they were only dealing with a placebo effect after the fact.
December 23, 2008 at 5:29 am
Feel4God,
You have said your certainty is because:
“It is a direct, tacit understanding/knowledge from and by the heart in relationship with Adi Da. It is His Divine Gift of heart-recognition and that is what I keep saying. This recognition has nothing to do with me as an ego, it is all about recognizing Him as Reality Itself which includes “me” in selfless ecstatic Communion with Him. The practice of devotional bodily turning to Him is non-dual intrinsic egolessness, is based on recognition, and this is the gift of realization He Gives to devotees from the beginning.
Adi Da’s Realization and Gift of the 7th Stage is not based in the Great Path of Return. It is not about cosmic spirituality, but prior to all psycho-physical manifestations and seeking. It is no-seeking from the beginning in direct relationship to Him as the Acausal Divine. The heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – at least I will say that is true for myself because I don’t really know what is true for others, though many other Daists confess the same thing.
Only That has to be received as the Gift. So in that sense, those who recognize Who Adi Da Is have located Realization already – Him as That Reality which is intrinsically egoless and all-inclusive. The practice is simply one of releasing all the seeking the body-mind at all levels would do by tendency to not recognize Reality. In my heart-recognition, and by Adi Da’s own confession, this is a Spiritual break-through in the cosmos, and what I already said before is really all I can explain of it. I am getting a deeper understanding of the significance of this, but forgive me if I am not as clear verbally as I might be.”
I understand what you are saying. It is essentially the same as in 1974, other than the direct, exclusive Avatar claim, when Da said: “It is not so much that you turn to the Guru anyway. The Guru turns to you. And by the time you realize that you have turned, you have become nothing. So it is not really the drama of turning to the Guru, it is the drama of living under the pressure of the Guru’s having turned to you. A piece at a time, you begin to feel like you have done some turning. That may be the way it seems to you, but that is really not the way it is. Nobody has ever turned to the Guru. It is true. Under the pressure of the Guru’s turning to you, you only feel the absence of your turning, the absence of your submission, the absence of your sacrifice in total. The sensation of that self-knowing, that understanding, that insight, serves the crisis that the Guru is producing in relationship with you. So you are indeed tinder an obligation to turn perfectly, but that demand is paradoxical, as I have said. It is nothing that you can fulfill. It is something that you must fulfill. So it is sadhana, it is heat, it is tapas, not perfection. It is not you that becomes perfect. God is already perfect, and God absorbs you. You become perfect by becoming nothing, by absorption in the Divine.”
I think you are clear, and we all, you, Conradg and myself among others, experienced the heart felt and expansive confirmation, at least as we saw it then, for Da’s state and what you are describing, and we all understand the basic concept of devotional attention to the Satguru as a means of letting the presence dissolve what stands in the way of Realization, already the case. What changed, and what I cannot convey, is that there is good reason to believe this experience is still in the realm of mind and not free from the taint of interpretation and ego on a more subtle level, whether true or not. Nor can I convey the reasons why, after having seen a number of teachers and more varied experiences, I am confident of this. People had incredible experiences around Ramana Maharshi but without the same emphasis.
I appreciate the more recent Da quotes I do not have from Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga:
“There is no consciousness in This Body that is egoic. There is no separate entity.
That One Who Is Is All That is Associated with This Body, without any accommodation to the human construct of egoity.
I am not here as “other”. I Am the Very Context of Being, of life, here in a bodily Form, and able to Speak. Nevertheless, It Is Only My State That Is Transmitted in My Company.
The Way I have Revealed and Given is not about any kind of process or “technique” or “method” for outgrowing the ego-principle. There is no ego-principle in Reality Itself. There is no ego-principle in This Body – and I See no ego-principle.
This is how I am Able, literally, to Address “everybody-all-at-once” – all the time. I am not speaking to egos – because I do not know any egos. There is no ego, no “other”, in My Awareness. That Is My Constant State.
Not only Am I here As the Perfectly egoless Divine Presence – the Perfectly egoless Divine Presence Is What I See, What I Know. I do not know egos – and, therefore, I do not speak to egos. You as apparent individuals have your own presumptions, but that is not My Awareness. I do not relate to people as egos. I relate to them As I Am – As Reality Itself Is.
I am not a “somebody” thinking in a room. Egolessness Is in This Body. The “Bright” Is in This Body. The “Bright” has completely Overwhelmed This Body. There is no separate entity in This Body, in any sense – not even as a vehicle of association.
In This Body are Shown all of the details of the Intrinsically egoless Demonstration of Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga.
Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga Is the “Radical” Reality-Way of Adidam Ruchiradam.”
Other than Da’s references to his own Avataric state and some wordsmithing and Adidam terminology, this is not that different from what Ramana Maharshi also said, ie. there are no others, no one is an ajnani, the ego does not exist, there is no method, etc.
And:
“Devotional recognition of Me is the recognition of egolessness – My Own Intrinsic egolessness.”
“Therefore, by means of whole bodily devotion to Me, there is participation in the Intrinsic egolessness of Reality Itself.”
“To be whole bodily turned to Me is to Realize Me – and the sign of Realization is both whole bodily renunciation and intrinsic egolessness.”
…
“I Am Acausally Coincident with all-and-All.
I am not “causing” Realization – in any one.
I Am Realization – in every one.
Such is the correct understanding.”
…
“My Divine Avataric Calling Is for you to Perfectly transcend what appears – no matter what appears.”
Ramana Maharshi did not assert causality, he pointed out that illusion was tied up with the identification with an illusory ego, and he said all appearances were seen as apparent but not separate from the Unity of Self, that there was nothing to be Realized.
FFaC, you also have said at least a few times that jnanis have denied this realization in Adi Da, but when I asked for specific proof none was provided.”
Nisargadatta was asked about the American Master who taught the fundamental questions. His response to that teacher and teaching was dismissive. But do not expect public pronouncements, since a jnani views such things as karmic and will only respond to questioners based on their needs. Papaji’s dismissal of these western teachers is well documented, and if pressed, you will find annecdotal evidence around Ramanashram about the opinon of jnanis still living.
Sri Ranjit was part of the same lineage as Nisargadatta and he lived until a few years ago, there is annecdotal evidence of a similar reaction. Similarly with Ammachi as well. As I said, you have to make some effort to ask in the right places and not because you want to blame someone, and for some, their karma is to learn for themselves. Jnanis usually make their point in silence and with their feet, so to speak. It makes more sense to simply point to the obvious, not a single living jnani had anything positive to say about Da or made any attempt to see him even knowing of his claims of higher realization. If you can’t get them to see it and aknowledge it even though they have no ego left, who else?
Again, we have to simply judge for ourselves. I can only compare the Teachings of each Master, and most importantly, my heart relationship to them – and I have made my decision based on body, mind, and heart, tested and proven for myself innumerable times. You have made yours similarly. I do agree that nothing can ultimately be proven in the manner we usually think (more conceptually-oriented) until we ourselves prove it for ourselves.”
Just so. I have found Ramana Maharshi to be what I had thought I might find in Da, and I find confirmation in the lives of others who made the same choice between Ramana Maharshi and Da, and in Ramana’s record of producing actual Realizers. Others find Da to their taste. The quotes are good, they help illuminate what is being discussed. Same blessing to you also, and hope to see more from you here.
December 23, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Just so. I have found Ramana Maharshi to be what I had thought I might find in Da, and I find confirmation in the lives of others who made the same choice between Ramana Maharshi and Da, and in Ramana’s record of producing actual Realizers. Others find Da to their taste. The quotes are good, they help illuminate what is being discussed. Same blessing to you also, and hope to see more from you here.”
Thanks, FFaC, and I am glad you are happy with your practice with Ramana.
Of course there are many similarities between Adi Da’s and Ramana’s Teachings, as Truth is Truth. However, there is a great difference in terms of Ramana’s and Adi Da’s own Confessions (and Functions) in that Adi Da from the very beginning always said that He was Awake to the Divine – even as a baby. From the first page of The Knee Of Listening:
“As a baby I remember crawling around inquisitively with an incredible sense of joy, light and freedom in the middle of my head that was bathed in energies moving freely down from above, up, around and down through my body and my heart. It was an expanding sphere of joy from the heart. And I was a radiant form, a source of energy, bliss and light. I was the power of Reality, a direct enjoyment and communication. I was the Heart, who lightens the mind and all things. I was the same as everyone and everything, except it became clear that others were unaware of the thing itself.”
“Even as a little child I recognized it and knew it, and it was really not a matter of anything else. That awareness, that conscious enjoyment and space centered in the midst of the heart is the “bright”. And it is the entire source of humor. It is reality. It is not separate from anything.”
So from the very beginning Adi Da spoke of His appearance as one of being already Awake, and that the Event in the Vedanta Temple was His Re-Awakening. Ramana Maharshi never spoke in those terms, but said His real Awakening only occurred later in his life (as a very young man).
Even “just” on this basis, I can see that Adi Da’s Realization, Teaching, and Gift would always be beyond the psycho-physical map of the body-mind and its various stages – whereas Ramana’s Awakening includes no description of already having been Awake as a baby. So this is a unique and very significant difference between Adi Da and Ramana Maharshi. Of course, I know that this can be debated as being all made up, but again, for myself, Who Adi Da Is, is tacitly self-evident to me, and His Teachings obviously support this recognition.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“What changed, and what I cannot convey, is that there is good reason to believe this experience is still in the realm of mind and not free from the taint of interpretation and ego on a more subtle level, whether true or not. Nor can I convey the reasons why, after having seen a number of teachers and more varied experiences, I am confident of this.”
If it is not tacitly self-evident to you that Adi Da is the Acausal Divine Reality, far be it from me to try to talk you into that. However, given this is an undeniable recognition for myself, I can only postulate that you are having a “subtle” vision yourself or a “subtle” point-of-view, given your recognition of Adi Da is described in terms of the subtle body – e.g., your description of seeing Adi Da and those gathered with Him enveloped in a subtle light. (I cannot find your exact quote so I hope the paraphrasing is close enough.) This could simply be the limit of your vision at the time, or perhaps what Adi Da graced you with given your predilections for subtle experience – I don’t obviously know, as it was your experience.
FFaC, you have also indicated critically that you find Adi Da’s descriptions of the Heart and the Light to include some kind of spatial reference in them. To address that and also some matters Conradg has brought up, this Essay is called “Real (Acausal) God Is Neither The “Creator” Nor The “Other” Nor The “Relation” of Anyone At All”.
From Adi Da Samraj’s book titled “Perfect Philosopy: The “Radical” Way of No-Ideas”:
There is no Consciousness of Energy (or Light) Itself.
Energy (or Light) Itself is not an “object” of (or to) Consciousness Itself.
There Is only Consciousness (Itself) As Energy (or Light) Itself.
Consciousness Itself Is Energy (or Light) Itself.
Energy (or Light) Itself Is Consciousness Itself.
Consciousness Itself only Self-Abides As Conscious Light Itself (and, Thus, As Energy Itself).
Consciousness Itself (Self-Existing and Self-Radiant As Conscious Light Itself, and Thus, As Energy Itself) Is Acausally Self-Organized.
Consciousness Itself (Self-Existing and Self-Radiant As Conscious Light Itself, and Thus, As Energy Itself) Is (As Such) The Self-Organizing “Shape” and Principle That Acausally Self-Organizes As conditionally apparent “world” (or the conditional appearance of “object”-universe – appearing, to any and every “location”, “point”, or “point of view” in time and space, to be “causes”, “effects”, “objects”, and “others” that are both “objective” relations of Consciousness Itself and “objectifications” of Energy, or Light, Itself).
Thus, Consciousness Itself can (from and as the “point of view” of any “location”, or “subjective position”, in conditionally apparent time, space, or space-time) “know” Energy (or Light) Itself as “object” (or “world”, or universe) – but Consciousness Itself (Which Is Energy, or Light, Itself) cannot “know” Energy (or Light) Itself As “Object”.
Likewise, Energy (or Light) Itself, or any conditionally apparent “object”, or any conditionally apparent “subject” (or “point of view”, or ego-”I”) cannot “know” Consciousness Itself (Which Is Energy, or Light, Itself) As “Object”.
However, Consciousness Itself, As Energy (or Light) Itself – or As One and Indivisible Conscious Light (or Consciousness-Energy) – can (Inherently, or Intrinsically) “Know” (or Self-Recognize) any and every conditionally apparent universe, or any and every conditionally apparent “world”, and any and every conditionally apparent “object”, or “other”, and the conditionally arising “self-subject” (or ego-”I”) itself In and As The Self-Condition of Conscious Light Itself.
Any and every conditionally arising universe, “world”, “object”, or “other” – and the conditionally arising “self-subject” (or ego-”I”) itself – Is Consciousness Itself, and Is Energy (or Light) Itself, and Is The egoless Divine Self-Condition That Is One and Indivisible Conscious Light (or Consciousness-Energy) Itself.
Therefore, Reality Itself, Which Is Indivisible Conscious Light (or Consciousness-Energy) Itself, is not (and cannot be) an “Object” (or “Other”).
Reality Itself, Which Is Real (Acausal) God, is not an “Object” or an “Other” or a “Relation” to or of any conditionally apparent “point of view” (or “subject”, or ego-”I”).
….. (There is a bit more to this essay.)
I think you and others here would find Adi Da’s new books very interesting, especially Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga, Perfect Philosophy, The Teaching Manual Of Perfect Summaries, Reality Itself Is The Way, and “Radical” Transcendentalism.
December 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Thank you for your kind words, Dan. I sometimes get self-conscious about a post, thinking I’m making an ass of my self, but then I remember, oh yeah, that’s already a done deal. I have nothing to lose but a little face. I’m always the better for it….and most people here seem pretty considerate, or too self involved to even give a crap about what I’m saying. LOL.
(big wink everybody, don’t get your karmic panties in a bunch).
Anyway, I’m glad they are helpful to you. It certainly is helpful to me to have a place to communicate about my experience with Samaraj Adi Da, and also, hear about other people’s process.
AA is a great way to learn how to take responsibility without self flaggelation isn’t it?
December 23, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
> It is safe to say that many of those who met Franklin would
> agree with Mark Miller and some of the other dissidents I’ve
> listened to that the phenomena can be explained as a
> charismatic, belief based effect, basically a placebo effect
The power of belief is constantly demonstrated around the world, from Indian holy places to Charismatic Christian revivals to Vegas hypnotism acts. It’s been scientifically proven over and over again that belief has great power. Is this seriously in doubt?
So of course when people encountered Da and his whole scene… the group dynamics, the belief and expectation… of course a certain small percentage got big experiences.
> Based on my experiences with kundalini based groups, I
> think there is more to it and that highly active kundalini
> shakti can affect others, both positively and negatively.
How could your experience verify this? For instance, if you have a sickness, and the doctor gives you a pill, and you take the pill and feel better… how could you possibly know whether this was a result of what the pill actually contained, or alternately the effect of your belief in the pill? I don’t see how anyone could make such a distinction.
The only way we know that placebos work is by doing controlled studies. It’s not like the experience of taking a placebo reveals anything, in the absence of such studies.
There are no controlled studies that demonstrate any magical invisible energies swirling around Da or anyone else. But there are endless studies demonstrating the extraordinary power of belief. What is there in anyone’s personal experience that would override that?
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Dear Former Follower and Critic,
You appear to have misunderstood me. I am not irritated by the bellicose displays of brainpower. They are funny. It is funny that they go on endlessly, forever, but to what end. You can argue the dharma – and which of you has a bigger you know what – all you like, but it seems like such a waste of time and breath. Do you ever prove or solve or accomplish anything? Perhaps in your own minds. But there it is. In your own minds. Perhaps women are just more practical. We like to get things done.
Hey listen, I am an old dissident myself. Though not in keeping with Franklin’s view that women can’t carry an argument or hold a thought, I do have my own ideas and observations. I don’t need Mark Miller to tell me what to think, or you, for that matter. You’ve made assumptions about what I said that aren’t correct. You did this without knowing anything about me, or even clearly interpreting my words. You jumped to a conclusion: “I am sorry you see this dialogue that way.” More likely you projected something of your own onto my words.
Truly, I don’t see the dialogue that way at all. I just see it as a basically mechanical activity, something guys do because it is what guys do. You may care about what the traditional points of view would say about Franklin, but you’ll never really know because they all existed a long time ago. In other words, Ramana can’t comment on Franklin no matter how hard you try to make it happen. Extrapolation and interpretation is the best you can hope for. Even if you had been his devotee while he was alive, you can never make his words apply. Perhaps it makes you feel good to think you can, but if you can be a little realistic, I think you’ll see that you are only arguing things which can’t be proven. And so it goes on and on.
It isn’t in just kundalini-based groups that the placebo effect happens. It happens anywhere people are, in any person who wants to believe something, in anyone who comes across someone with a little charisma and certainty of expression. People believe because they want to and because it makes them feel better. You could say this about all forms of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Muslimism, etc. What’s the difference of finding relief in a cult? Or in a drug? Or in any kind of fantasy or daydream. Remember the last time you woke up happy from a dream? What was that all about!
I agree that it would have been a good idea to have done my homework before I joined this cult so many years ago. But exactly where and how would I have done that? In fact, I did what research I could. Family members and friends who were spiritually inclined and had their own gurus all told me Franklin was not a true guru. But then Franklin said the same about their gurus. All religions claim to be the one true religion. It was just more of the same. He was proclaimed by some of the best minds of our time to be the true guru, the most profound contemporary teaching, the real thing. Remember? I got caught up in it, just like so many of my generation did.
And by the way, I had kundalini shakti-like experiences before I ever heard of Indian gurus, and I’ve had many since I left Franklin’s company. That, in my experience, isn’t all there is to the placebo-like response of his cult. It was what we believed, what we threw our hearts and souls into. He was the greatest of all time, the first last and only, blah blah blah. You get a taste of that, associate with that, become part of that, and it all feels really good, really special. We all want to feel that we are part of something really special and powerful. I suppose it is part of our evolution. The strongest, the best survive to pass along their genes.
So I forgive him and all of us. We didn’t know what we were doing. He didn’t either. He believed his own lies, the poor sod. Unfortunately, so did we. What a sad story this is. And so very common in human experience. He’s gone, but there will always be others like him. And like you … to second guess and argue over what happened in the past.
So do carry on.
December 24, 2008 at 10:08 am
Conradg, at one point I said I wanted to get back to a few of your posts when I had some time. On that note…
Conradg Says:
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“I too have time constraints on continuing this much longer. It also takes a very long time to load this thread, given that I only have dialup. So we may be thinning down our responses for a while.”
Before reading this, I actually wondered if anyone was trying to access this blog via dial-up, because even on high speed cable, it is taking several seconds to load. No big deal, but for dial-up people, I sympathize. Maybe Jerry can start a Part 2 if he agrees to – and if we think this is going to continue?
Conradg Says:
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“Now, you may be under the false impression that objects really do exist, and than in this Amrita Nadi realization, these objects are seen as “God”, or “Self”, or are somehow Divinized and “recognized” as being True and Real. This is simply not the case. Even in Da’s own description, this “recognition” has nothing to do with seeing objects in a certain way. What to others might mistakenly appear to be objects, to the fully enlightened “seventh stage” realizer is simply the non-separate Divine Self endlessly modified, not as objects at all, but as the very Light of the Self.”
Of course, ultimately I understand that all of this is the Acausal Divine Reality, but if a car runs me over today, if I survive, I think I will probably acknowledge that some kind of object hit my body. It will probably aid the medical people if I speak in these terms too about my condition when they inevitably ask “What happened to you?”. A bit of an extreme example I know, but talking as though objects do not exist as an intellectual exercise is all well and good, but that is not our realization altogether at this point – and also, for practical reasons, it is a convention we all use. In other words, I find it useless to play a “talking school” game as a way to somehow “talk” myself into or “reinforce” our ultimate Acausal Divine Realization verbally.
However, it does give me a good idea for celebrating this time of the year in the least expensive fashion! What do you think of this plan? To my wife I will say: “Honey, this year I want to celebrate the Season in a totally non-dualistic manner – so I got you no ‘objects’!
Conrad, first you quoted me:
“I have repeatedly said that I can see no egoity at all in Adi Da Samraj’s photos, and so the same consideration above applies with Him. With other people’s photos, some effect of egoity is usually very apparent on their faces, in their eyes, being, whatever. And no, I do not think this is some special non-dual ability as you sarcastically imply – every feeling heart can inherently recognize Real Love vs. egoity.”
Then you (Conradg) says:
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“Again, let me dispute this within Adi Da’s own dharma, which I gather you consider authoritative on such matters. Adi Da has repeated said that there is virtually no physical, material distinction between a high fifth stage realizer and a seventh stage realizer, that the bodily state of the two is indistinguishable, because the difference is entirely unconditional by its very nature. He has said that even if you looked at the two side by side, in physical and even psychic terms, you can’t see a distinction that tells them apart. The root ego is not visible, only surface “ripples” of that ego, and in the high fifth stage realizer, thos visible ripples are just as absent as they are in the seventh stager. So if it is impossible to tell the difference between two living physical realizers, one high fifth stage, and one seventh, how is it possible for you, of all people, to see either the ego, or the lack of ego, in a photograph of those people? In other words, even Da could just be another high fifth stage realizer, and you couldn’t actually tell the difference from looking at either him, or a photograph of him.”
Then Conradg also says:
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“So really, even by Da’s own standards, you are just full of it on this issue. I am sure he would ridicule you for making this claim, as he usually did with people who thought they had some kind of special knowledge about this sort of thing. I gather you’ve made this “vision” of yours into some kind of precious personal vanity, and I hope you can let go of it without losing something you consider essential to your “recognition” of Da, but you really need to, because it has nothing to do with genuine recognition of “egolessness” in any case. If you don’t believe me, check with someone like Steinberg who would know about this sort of thing.”
Ok, aside from your usual condescending pretentiousness, which I will try not to take too personally since it is ultimately just arising as a modification of the Divine, let me say this about these last two paragraphs of yours. You are talking about the “bodily state” of the Realizers in your paraphrasing of what Adi Da said about there being “virtually no physical, material distinction between a high fifth stage realizer and a seventh stage realizer”.
The key word here is “bodily”. You are focusing on what I have been saying in a scientific materialistic manner only, and judging my statements as ridiculous. But one cannot simply look at the “bodily” state of an individual, nor is that all that appears in a photograph. As you well know, Adi Da used photographs all the time to “read” where devotees where at in their practice, etc.
Why do you think that the light making up a photographic image simply and only reflects the bodily state of the person? It does more than that in my experience – similar to how being in someone’s company does. Yes, this flies in the face of scientific materialism, but for a non-dualist, Conradg, who speaks in terms of no objects even existing, why then do you take the materialistic gross-bodily orientation/argument about the photographic “object”?
How many people have looked at a picture of Ramana Maharshi or Adi Da Samraj and see the Truth of the Self shining in their eyes? That Light is not body-based and yet still can be seen-felt-intuited-known from the heart directly and tacitly – and, for me, at least as authoritatively as any body-based view or viewer may argue otherwise.
Then Conradg Says:
December 18, 2008 at 8:00 pm
“So don’t try and pull any more fast ones, dude. Otherwise, I still enjoy your ripostes, and I try not to take things too personally.”
Hahahaha! I could say the same to you! And, yeah, a little sparring helps to keep the mind sharp. Oh yeah, what mind? Shucks, I bet shiva would be proud of me for catching myself slipping into dualism-speak!
And speaking of shiva…
shiva Says:
December 22, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Feel4God:
do your first and last names start with
Le and St respectively?”
HaH! – Is that you shiva?
You think I am Levi Strauss, the German, whom some claim to be the first, the last, and only real blue jean manufacturer? Nope, I am not that one – well, I am ultimately that one, great shiva (you have taught me well), but that is not my experience currently. 
By the way, shiva, given your all-knowing relationship to the Shakti, can you tell me when Susan says this:
Susan Says:
“You know, this is just how I remember it. A bunch of men debating dharma. By now, OLD MEN, sitting around jawboning about the nature of reality. Pissing wars. Mine is bigger than yours.”
Is she suggesting that we just show photographs of our privates as a means for settling all of this once and for all? And would such photographs actually reflect the Acausal Divine Reality too? Would they really be a true measure? Or is she just trying to trick us into exposing ourselves – for her own devious reasons? Pray tell us, oh wise One!
Ok, I am getting way too silly…
To the Light in and as everyone!
December 25, 2008 at 4:28 am
Feel4God says in response to Conradg:
“I agree with you here up to a point. But go a step further and look at what the ego does when it gets beyond the Creator God side of it, which you basically are (rightfully) criticizing in your post above. Given the truth of the non-dualistic argument of there being only One, the ego then decides it is equal to Reality (and even greater than Reality by virtue of what it wants to actually do to Reality) – by making the truth of non-dualism into an Ideal and holding on to this Ideal, to the point of even allowing this Ideal to become the object of realization, and the justification that no Realized Sat-Guru is even necessary, and that the Sat-Guru is actually an impediment according to the ego! There are many examples of this being posted on this thread, so I don’t have to give any here. In other words, the ego looks to subordinate Reality by making it into an Ideal within its mind. Your criticism about fundamentalism can also be applied to your positon as well – for making non-dualism into a knowable Ideal and never actually realizing it, but only endlessly talking about it. This is the basis for all mind-dharma/talking school. Only the heart knows and recognizes otherwise.”
Acknowledging that none of us here are actually and consciously coming from the position of full enlightment does not mean that talk based on current understanding and logic is useless. I use Ramana Maharshi as a benchmark primarily because virtually no mainstream non-dualist authorities consider his enlightenment in question, and because he was able to catalyze Realization in others in modern times, not because he is the only source. Simple logic suggests that if we accept non-dualism from intuition, by then using mainstream non-dualism as a benchmark, we can conclude that if something is widely accepted by those considered as Realized, it has a higher probabilty of truth than obscure doctrines. Much of Da’s teaching is based on traditional wisdom but in critical points deviates from that. Logic demonstrates that one can certainly assume Da is at a higher stage when he deviates from the traditions and what all jnanis have taught, but it is more logical to assume mainstream non-dualism is more likely correct because of its long and successful history and Da’s failure to lead others to a generally recognized state even at the level of a traditional jnani. If Da does turn out to be correct about everyone else being limited, it is still logical to point out that not only has no one come close to confirming his claims, but traditional methods can produce those like Buddha, Sankara, Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta and a host of others, whose states most of us would gladly emulate if we could. Therefore, it is improbable to conclude that those who take a surer, proven path and guidance to prove or disprove in themselves are not taking a wiser course. Those seekers who trust only in their “heart knowing” do not historically have a high record of being accurate in their assessment, nor do those teachers who claim exclusive status and who deviate in so many areas from the normal ranges of established, mainstream non-dualism. This may be the exception but logic requires acknowledging the relative probability this is the case.
As Ramana Maharshi points out, although no one is truly an ajani (unrealized in truth), traditional wisdom affirms the need for a Satguru, as Ramana Maharshi himself did, and also those of his spiritual “lineage”, which includes only those reasonably considered as enlightened disciples. It does not include westernized gurus asserting a lineage claim who ascribe to the neo advaita school, widely and fairly criticized as similar to discredited doctrines, and known as such from ancient times. But what is this Satguru? It is only one who is truly Self-Realized and whose ego no longer functions on any level, even the more extremely subtle levels above this psycho-physical level commonly experienced. One must be a Satguru to accomplish that function.
The assumption that one must meet and recognize the Satguru first, and presumably in body, to have an effective spiritual practice is a more modern, western one, in part I think based on our impatience and subtle belief in our time of our more advanced perception. So, for example, in Adidam, it is a matter of dogma that by recognizing Da as the Divine Incarnation and turning feeling attention to him rather than one’s own tendencies, one is already assuming an enlightened disposition since he is the Satguru. Thus, all practices in Adidam revolve around perfect surrender to Da’s felt presence until the ego no longer arises, which is considered the purest form of devotional non-dualism in Adidam. All this being based on the advance assumption that Da is the Satguru and that these heart felt intuitions are exactly what they appear. We see in the westernized spirituality today all sorts of grand assumptions of the cosmic import of their guru in many, many groups, who all report experiences similar to other groups as proof. Having experienced some of this, I can say that what can be experienced and intuited around imperfect gurus can be quite compelling.
A more traditional perspective is that right intention and sound preparation gains the aid of the Self or of what we call the Inner Guru first as well as the Satguru, even if in absentia, that these are all aspects of the One, and that at the right time agents may appear, if not the Satguru, at first. Along with this is the caution that these agents and guru are to be tested throughly because one’s desires, beliefs and effects like siddhis can obscure the accuracy of this assessment. This includes an understanding that it is far sounder and safer to continue doing a sound practice based on one’s tendencies that reveals the illusion of the ego and the reality of the ever present Self rather than assume from a devotional practice involving a guru that you already know what that involves. That is why Ramana Maharshi did not generally advocate radical changes in the practices of those who came to him, but simply clarified the goal both in teaching and in presence, and then led the practices to evolve intelligently in his presence.
Like it or not, this is proved to have worked again and again, over time. Whereas Da’s claims that his devotees can pass directly from the beginning stages of devotional practice to his highest stage, potentially bypassing even the level of Self-Realization of Buddha and Ramana Maharshi, seem incredibly improbable. To each his own.
I do not detect that Conradg is asserting that a Satguru is not necessary, or that he is merely “talking school”. None of us are talking from the clear-eyed position of a Realizer. Those of us more familiar with Ramana Maharshi would find an actual practice from what he has said. What he appears to be doing is the traditionally wiser path of doing a sound practice which increases understanding and letting the Satguru do their work if they in fact exist. Others who doubt the existance or requirement for a Satguru are according to traditional wisdom simply where they are. The traditions do not support Da’s well publicized claim or even the implication that those who turn from him “go back to zero”. I realize those who consider Da their guru think this approach of doing sound practice based on one’s understanding and as taught by recognized Realizers first, letting the Satguru appear as/if they will in this life, rather than putting all efforts into finding who one thinks is the Satguru based on their current state of understanding, is putting the cart before the horse, but that is just one more area we diverge. As for which is the more correct approach, time will tell. The discussion is useful. Talking about the teachings of Realizers is not to be dismissed if one realizes their is empowerment in those very teachings and as long as one does not incessently exaggerate one’s understanding.
December 25, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Warm greetings and blessings to those in this group. I was a student of Master Adi Da from 1973 to 1977. I write about my gracious, tumultuous times in the community with gratitude. See the article “The Path of No Seeking” in the website above which is about my time living in the Master’s community. I want to extend my sincere feelings of condolences to old friends (many years in close touch with the Master) such as Jim Steinberg, Dennis, Annie, Crane, Janet, Marcia, Cheech, Glen Johannes Patricia, Willism Tsiknas, Wes Vaught, Nina, Mike Wood. Lydia. Wes has communicated in a very balanced nonjudgemental way–in this discussion. I also understand John K. and Mark Miller for their strong condemnation of the cultic tendencies, even in what for me was an experiment with the Master, with great love & daring esploration. So many years ago, but which influences to the present. So if interest in my story of living in Master Da’s company read “the Path of No Seeking” in the following site & I would welcome any feedback and wish all must peace. http://www.maieutikos.com-a.googlepages.com/home
December 26, 2008 at 1:01 am
NC wrote:
NC wrote: “Thank you for your kind words, Dan. I sometimes get self-conscious about a post…Anyway, I’m glad they are helpful to you. It certainly is helpful to me to have a place to communicate about my experience with Samaraj Adi Da, and also, hear about other people’s process.
AA is a great way to learn how to take responsibility without self flaggelation isn’t it?”
I’m glad you read my post, NC, so that you could receive that appreciation. While I almost feel that it’s inappropriate for me to lay claim to this, having never even been formally part of Adidam, I resonate so much with your descriptions of what you have experienced upon and subsequent to Adi Da’s passing that I want to say that my experience has been “similar” to yours…which is probably taking the comparison way too far…but the sense of resonance remains on my part, hand-in-hand with a feeling of being assisted by your posts, that “similiarity” which I’m so cautious about asserting on even a most subjective level giving me a sense of being accompanied in what I’ve been “going through.”
There were reasons that I never joined, but at least for the primary stretch of my focus on Adi Da and his teachings, which did include quite a bit of contact with a few members of the community, among those reasons was no lack of *wanting* to join. Mostly, what was being asked of formal students even at the level of entry was, in a self-evaluation that I believe was accurate and lacking in negative self-judgment, much more than I felt I could realistically deliver.
As for AA, I agree! I feel that the way of AA and the AA literature neither require nor encourage self-flagellation. I have, however, seen sadomastic streams present in 12-Step *sub-culture*, perhaps less in AA than certain other groups, being passed off as recovery. I do feel, and feel I have experience verifying that *at its best* AA is, or can be, sadhana of a kind. “It works”!
But that’s got to be off-topic for this thread, unless we’re going to debate in enormous detail and at prodigous length whether AA is really non-dual or not. Which side would you like to take, NC?
In any case, NC, thanks so much for responding to my post. It means a lot.
December 26, 2008 at 1:25 am
btw, this Dan, the one who has recently left a few posts mostly addressed to NC, and has mentioned AA, is not the same Dan who posted much earlier in the thread who said he “was a devotee for 12 years” etc.
In order to remain distinct — dualistically, as a presumed object among but distinct from other objects posting here (or perhaps as a presumed subject among other subjects?), as of this post I’ve added my last initial and have begun identifiying myself as “Dan J”.
Merry Christmas everyone!
December 26, 2008 at 1:45 am
Stuart,
I don’t know what you mean by “magical, invisible energies”.
You say: “There are no controlled studies that demonstrate any magical invisible energies swirling around Da or anyone else. But there are endless studies demonstrating the extraordinary power of belief. What is there in anyone’s personal experience that would override that?”
The effect I am describing is hardly magical or invisible, and is not merely based on belief. By experience, I mean that it is commonly seen in charismatic groups, and you do not have to believe at all to experience the effect. In fact, it can be observed even though you do not believe the person’s claims. What belief tends to do is convince the audience that something special is going on and make the experience more intense and them more open to the explanation desired. If one then sees that the person is not what they thought, the effects are more easily dismissed because the conscious mind is now paying more attention. A typical scientist might then probably conclude that because belief is found and can be demonstrated, that is the cause. In this case I refer to experience with Da, Mutkananda, and many others less known, but you can find the same thing around others. You can believe only reason anyone felt anything at all around them is belief, if that is your experience, and that if you don’t believe, there is no affect. It is a comforting thought.
December 26, 2008 at 2:17 am
Susan says:
You have your opinion, and your own ideas on gender and amusement, and it would appear some baggage left from your time with Da and the whole gender thing there as I said. Nothing I wrote was telling you what to think, and if you want to believe Franklin was nothing but a “placebo”, go right ahead. Pardon me if I don’t have to agree with you.
As for your putdowns, if you see no value in understanding the differences between what Da describes and what traditional sources describe, just stay amused at those poor fools who do. As for these great minds who endorsed him, if you are referring to those like Watts, Wilber, etc., they were western pundits and hardly in a position to know. Part of your homework might have been to examine their qualifications. What is more signficant is that not a single recognized spiritual authority in terms of attainment ever endorsed Da, and research shows that Da signficantly differs in his teaching even when he uses the same traditional terms and concepts, something you dismiss as meaningless. Another part of your homework might have been to understand that first. I agree with you that Da’s organization shows all the signs of a typical cult, but I never thought Da was the greatest of all time to begin with.
Hey listen, I am an old dissident myself. Though not in keeping with Franklin’s view that women can’t carry an argument or hold a thought, I do have my own ideas and observations. I don’t need Mark Miller to tell me what to think, or you, for that matter. You’ve made assumptions about what I said that aren’t correct. You did this without knowing anything about me, or even clearly interpreting my words. You jumped to a conclusion: “I am sorry you see this dialogue that way.” More likely you projected something of your own onto my words.
Truly, I don’t see the dialogue that way at all. I just see it as a basically mechanical activity, something guys do because it is what guys do. You may care about what the traditional points of view would say about Franklin, but you’ll never really know because they all existed a long time ago. In other words, Ramana can’t comment on Franklin no matter how hard you try to make it happen. Extrapolation and interpretation is the best you can hope for. Even if you had been his devotee while he was alive, you can never make his words apply. Perhaps it makes you feel good to think you can, but if you can be a little realistic, I think you’ll see that you are only arguing things which can’t be proven. And so it goes on and on.
It isn’t in just kundalini-based groups that the placebo effect happens. It happens anywhere people are, in any person who wants to believe something, in anyone who comes across someone with a little charisma and certainty of expression. People believe because they want to and because it makes them feel better. You could say this about all forms of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Muslimism, etc. What’s the difference of finding relief in a cult? Or in a drug? Or in any kind of fantasy or daydream. Remember the last time you woke up happy from a dream? What was that all about!
I agree that it would have been a good idea to have done my homework before I joined this cult so many years ago. But exactly where and how would I have done that? In fact, I did what research I could. Family members and friends who were spiritually inclined and had their own gurus all told me Franklin was not a true guru. But then Franklin said the same about their gurus. All religions claim to be the one true religion. It was just more of the same. He was proclaimed by some of the best minds of our time to be the true guru, the most profound contemporary teaching, the real thing. Remember? I got caught up in it, just like so many of my generation did.
And by the way, I had kundalini shakti-like experiences before I ever heard of Indian gurus, and I’ve had many since I left Franklin’s company. That, in my experience, isn’t all there is to the placebo-like response of his cult. It was what we believed, what we threw our hearts and souls into. He was the greatest of all time, the first last and only, blah blah blah. You get a taste of that, associate with that, become part of that, and it all feels really good, really special. We all want to feel that we are part of something really special and powerful. I suppose it is part of our evolution. The strongest, the best survive to pass along their genes.
So I forgive him and all of us. We didn’t know what we were doing. He didn’t either. He believed his own lies, the poor sod. Unfortunately, so did we. What a sad story this is. And so very common in human experience. He’s gone, but there will always be others like him. And like you … to second guess and argue over what happened in the past.
December 26, 2008 at 2:50 am
My previous comment to Susan was only partly finished when it accidently got submitted. Here is the completed and corrected version.
Susan says:
“You appear to have misunderstood me. I am not irritated by the bellicose displays of brainpower. They are funny. It is funny that they go on endlessly, forever, but to what end. You can argue the dharma – and which of you has a bigger you know what – all you like, but it seems like such a waste of time and breath. Do you ever prove or solve or accomplish anything? Perhaps in your own minds. But there it is. In your own minds. Perhaps women are just more practical. We like to get things done.”
You have your opinion, and your own ideas on gender and amusement, and it would appear some baggage left from your time with Da and the whole gender thing there as I said. You know nothing of me either. Nothing I wrote was telling you what to think, I never agreed with Franklin’s ideas on gender, and if you want to believe Franklin was nothing but a “placebo”, go right ahead. Pardon me if I don’t have to agree with you.
As for your putdowns, if you see no value in understanding the differences between what Da describes and what traditional sources describe, just stay amused at those poor fools who do. As for these great minds who endorsed him, if you are referring to those like Watts, Wilber, etc., they were western pundits and hardly in a position to know. Part of your homework might have been to examine their qualifications. What is more signficant is that not a single recognized spiritual authority in terms of attainment ever endorsed Da, and research shows that Da signficantly differs in his teaching even when he uses the same traditional terms and concepts, something you dismiss as meaningless. Another part of your homework might have been to understand that first. I agree with you that Da’s organization shows all the signs of a typical cult, but I never thought Da was the greatest of all time to begin with. The value of examining the past is that it repeats itself over and over. Had you realized in detail that Da was so totally different from the way jnanis are described in advance and that his interpretations of past figures and teachers were by most accounts not objectively the most accurate, you might have been more careful, great minds or not.
You say:
“And by the way, I had kundalini shakti-like experiences before I ever heard of Indian gurus, and I’ve had many since I left Franklin’s company. That, in my experience, isn’t all there is to the placebo-like response of his cult. It was what we believed, what we threw our hearts and souls into. He was the greatest of all time, the first last and only, blah blah blah. You get a taste of that, associate with that, become part of that, and it all feels really good, really special. We all want to feel that we are part of something really special and powerful. I suppose it is part of our evolution. The strongest, the best survive to pass along their genes.”
I did not say that Da was the be all and end all of shakti experiences, they are not that uncommon. Nor did I say that belief was less important than the shakti experiences because obviously belief caused people to think of Da’s shakti as more special than most think it really was. As I said, I never thought he was the greatest of all time, either, that wasn’t a requirement for membership back in the 1970s. And I observed this very things you describe, for example being told that the membership was highly advanced and special just because they had recognized Da when it was obvious they were quite ordinary seekers. My response to that inexorable trend was that it was obvious the organization was corrupted beyond hope, and I departed. Where I do agree with you is that belief plays a big role in Da’s organization, and that the male emphasis in that organization is apparent. Where I do not agree with you is that just because the past is past for you and you have come to some conclusions does not mean others may not learn from these discussions.
December 26, 2008 at 5:03 am
Feel4God,
I’m falling behind in this thread, due to family and friends and holiday cheer. I’ll try to catch up, but it may take a while.
“It is a direct, tacit understanding/knowledge from and by the heart in relationship with Adi Da. It is His Divine Gift of heart-recognition and that is what I keep saying. This recognition has nothing to do with me as an ego, it is all about recognizing Him as Reality Itself which includes “me” in selfless ecstatic Communion with Him. The practice of devotional bodily turning to Him is non-dual intrinsic egolessness, is based on recognition, and this is the gift of realization He Gives to devotees from the beginning.
“Adi Da’s Realization and Gift of the 7th Stage is not based in the Great Path of Return. It is not about cosmic spirituality, but prior to all psycho-physical manifestations and seeking. It is no-seeking from the beginning in direct relationship to Him as the Acausal Divine. The heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – at least I will say that is true for myself because I don’t really know what is true for others, though many other Daists confess the same thing.”
Now, this is the sort of thing it’s not easy to criticize, nor can I really find a motivation to criticize it, as long as it’s put forward as a purely personal matter of faith. A Christian could put forth something similar about their heart-based knowledge of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, as could members of any sort of religion you might name. I’m not interested in disabusing people of their personal faiths, no matter how whacky or unlikely. At the core of it is the same direct intuition of the Divine that makes us cherish this life and consciousness, and I wouldn’t want anyone to lose that sense of God in their heart.
But when the mind turns that heart-intuition into conditional forms of knowledge, and starts making knowledge-based claims from that about their teacher, they path, their tradition, and it’s logical superiority to all others, I consider this to be a debasement of the heart’s intuition. When you say “the heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – you are referring to jnana, meaning unconditional knowledge. Jnana does not confer conditional knowledge on the knower, quite the opposite, it destroys the illusion of conditional knowledge altogether. Thus, jnana is knowledge of unconditional reality, which is as you and Da say acausal, meaning uncauses, not part of the cycle of conditional causes and effects. That being the case, it doesn’t translate into knowledge about any conditional manifestation, even the conditional manifestation of Adi Da’s life and relationships and teachings. The only “recognition” it confers is the recognition that everything is merely unconditional, uncaused reality, bliss, truth, God. Not just Adi Da, not even Adi Da in some special way, but everything and everyone.
This is why people who come away from some sort of non-dual experience, and who then propagate some kind of sectarian path they consider greater or better than all the other paths, are in reality either betraying the non-dual truth, or never quite saw the whole picture. I won’t speak for Jesus himself, since his teachings seem to have been corrupted in translation and tradition, but Paul’s famous vision of Jesus seems not to have left him with a true understanding of non-dualism, but rather a desire to propagate a devotional cult around the figure of Jesus, as if only he is the Truth, the Way, and the Light. This turns what might otherwise have been a non-dual tradition of Jesus’ into the dualistic tradition of Pauline Christianity. Da has criticized this, but he hasn’t seemed to have avoided the temptation himself, of turning the non-dual teachings he has incorporated into Adidam into a bhakti cult around himself.
Now, I’m not saying that bhakti cults are wrong or even spiritually fruitless. Quite the opposite, I think they have a definite value for many people. It’s even true that non-dual teachings have a powerful bhakti component, and that genuine bhakti, if wedded to a non-dual approach, can produce realization just as well as jnana yoga approaches.
What kind of non-dual understanding actually gets realized in the course of one’s devotion is hard for anyone to say. There’s the example of Papaji, who had almost daily visions of Krishna and the other Gods from the time he was eight years old, when he had some spontaneous awakening, and who had one of the most intensive devotional practices on record up to the time he met Ramana at the age of about thirty. When he met Ramama for the first time, he was unimpressed. He asked Ramana if he could help him to see Krishna constantly, at all times, but Ramana said, “Any God you can see isn’t the real God. God is at the source of your own vision, your own consciousness”. This wasn’t what Papaji wanted, so he left. But he could tell there was some strange spiritual process going with Ramana, and it touched him, so after spending a few weeks on the other side of Arunachula with Krishna and the other Gods, he came back. Again, Ramana was unimpressed with his visions, and told him to find out who was having these visions of God. Papaji still didn’t understand what he meant. He was in love with Krishna, Krishna was his “Ishta”, and all he wanted to was to be with his Ishta forever. But he did notice that when some Krishnabahktis came to see Ramana, and showed him a picture of Krishna, he could see the devotion in his face, and he knew that Ramana was a true Krishna bhakti. So he started his job in Madras, and vowed to invoke Krishna with every in-breath. He did Krishna invocation 50,000 times a day, and then he felt this wasn’t enough, so he did it with the out-breath also, 100,000 times a day. But after a few weeks he found he couldn’t even speak the name of Krishna anymore, it wouldn’t come out of his lips. He couldn’t even think the name with the “tongue of mind”. He went completely blank. So he went back to see Ramana in the dead of night, thinking Ramana might be able to help. He arrived at two in the morning, and he was given a private audience with Ramana. He told him his problem, that he couldn’t invoke Krishna anymore by name, and Ramana just asked him how he got here tonight. Papaji said, I took the train, and then a cab from the station. Ramana asked, well, where is the train now? Papaji said, it’s gone on down the line. Ramana said, yes, you see, you don’t need the train anymore, because now you have arrived at your destination. You don’t need the Krishna invocation anymore, because it has taken you where you need to go, and now it has left. And then Ramana repeated his instruction to Papaji to find the source of the “I”, and for the first and last time in his life, Papaji practiced self-enquiry, and almost immediately realized the Self.
So devotion has its value, but in the end it must lead to true self-knowledge, not knowledge of the God or Guru who one is devoted to. Contemplation of the Guru is highly important, but it must lead to knowledge of the Self. The intuition that the Guru is that One is also important. Take Nisargadatta for example. When he met his own Guru, he was simply floored. A friend took him to see this fellow, and the guy simply told Nisargadatta that he, Nisargadatta, was the Supreme Being. He said it with such power and simplicity that Nisargadatta simply couldn’t deny it. He said he looked for some reason to distrust this guy, but he couldn’t see anything. His Guru was not out for money, or fame, or anything at all. He just freely told him he was the Supreme Being, and gave him the simplest of instructions to meditate on “I am”. So Nisargadatta did that. He said that he didn’t do anything in particular, he just meditated on this “I am”, and after a few weeks, he didn’t even do that much anymore, he just basically had complete faith in his Guru, and he says that this faith is what carried him through the whole process of realization. His Guru died after some nine months, but it didn’t matter, he had complete faith in him, and within three years he fully realized. He didn’t attribute his realization to any particular practice other than total faith in his Guru, and this inspection simple of who he was, and seeing over and over again, more and more deeply, that he was the Supreme Being.
So if you have total faith in your Guru, all I can say is go for it. You don’t have to be concerned with what I think or anyone else thinks, what Adidam thinks, etc. Nisargadatta just wasn’t interested in anything else, and he basically didn’t do anything else with his free time until he was realized. He had a family to support, a job to do, all that stuff, but he didn’t bother with anything else until he was realized. And he says that’s really the only way to do it. He said all he had going for him was a sincere, earnest desire to find out if what his Guru told him was true, that he was the Supreme Being. He said he couldn’t imagine why his Guru would lie to him, so he had to find out for himself, and he did.
Papaji, when asked how he became realized, said that everything he’d done all his life had been utterly useless, even as preparation. He said that all his devotions, all his practices, had been for naught, that the only thing that brought him to realization was his own desire for realization finally meeting someone who knew what realization was and could show him. And so he recommended no practices to his own devotees, except to simply cultivate this desire for realization and find out who they were – self-enquiry in its most basic form, which in his view wasn’t a practice at all, but what is left over when you give up all practices, all seeking, all efforts to realize. You are left with yourself, and then it becomes obvious who you are. He taught that if your desire for realization was sincere, and you devoted yourself to it, it wouldn’t matter if you had the wrong concepts in your mind, or practiced any number of false practices, because all concepts are wrong, and all practices are wrong. Eventually, you would get past them, and realize truth directly, as the obvious, as he had finally done through Ramana’s help.
So at the very basic level, I have no criticism of the Adidam approach, if you are sincere about realization. Devote yourself to it, find out if it’s true, then report back to us all. I’m just saying that right now, you have to acknowledge that you don’t actually know if it’s true. It’s a faith-based claim, based on what Adi Da and others have written or told you about. You may think it’s true, you may think Adi Da has no reason to lie to you, but to prove it’s true you actually have to go through a process that transcends every form of conceptual knowledge and which will leave you utter empty of every form conditional knowledge. And then you can talk about what comes of that. Until then, this is just the faith-based talking school.
So when you say things like:
“The practice is simply one of releasing all the seeking the body-mind at all levels would do by tendency to not recognize Reality. In my heart-recognition, and by Adi Da’s own confession, this is a Spiritual break-through in the cosmos, and what I already said before is really all I can explain of it.”
I look upon this sort of confession the way I look upon a Christian’s confession that Jesus has washed away the sins of the world through his crucifixion. In other words, I don’t take it literally, but as an expression of a certain kind of charmingly naïve devotion. This is of course a spiritual breathrough for you, in that it’s clearly a new understanding of things you hadn’t see before. But it’s hardly unprecedented. All genuine spiritual approaches “breath through” the conditional cosmos. All realizers have described their realizations in such terms. To attribute Da’s “breakthrough” to some unique and unprecedented spiritual role and achievement on his part, is well, just the kind of confusion between the causal and the acausal that plagues the partially realized and partially educated. You have been taught this catechism through decades of Adidam “education”, just as Catholics learn the Nicene Creed, and it certainly “works” for you, and is confirmed by your heart-felt devotion to Adi Da, just as Christian believers and mystics will similarly confirm their truths in their own hearts. I don’t see any need to disrespect that, on the level of faith. But I see no reason to take it seriously as a statement about reality. I am sure you are getting a deeper understanding of these things. We all are. But there are many ways to get such an understanding, and no necessity to use Da’s path to get there. If you choose Da’s path, fine and good luck to you, but nothing is lost by following any other non-dual path, as you would undoubtedly find out to your surprise if you did, just as most of us former devotees have.
rfectly transcend what appears – no matter what appears.”
“FFaC, you also have said at least a few times that jnanis have denied this realization in Adi Da, but when I asked for specific proof none was provided.”
Well, we could start with Muktananda, who clearly denied that Adi Da was realized. And that’s Adi Da’s own human Guru, so his opinion carries some serious weight. In fact, Muktananda in one of his books is asked the meaning of the name “Da”, and Muktananda says “Da means pretense”.
Now, Gurus in India almost never call one another frauds or unrealized. They have a more polite way of getting across their views. And that’s generallyhow it is with Da. Many contemporaneous realizers have been asked about Da, and they generally say something vaguely dismissive. That’s about as much as one could expect. Rather than formally declaring him unrealized, they get their views across by the absence of anything positive to say about him.
I recall, for example, how Anandamayi Ma conveyed her views on Sri Aurobindo. She went on travels to various ashrams, and she had long resisted visiting Auroville, but somehow she agreed to go there for a few days. She was greeted very warmly by Aurobindo and the Mother, they had tea together, and after a few hours, Anandamayi Ma bade her farewell and left. She said nothing, but the mere fact that she was supposed to stay for a few days, but left after a few short hours, told everyone all they needed to know about her impression of the two.
Similarly, the view of Da among most respected spiritual realizers around the world has been quite low. I don’t think that’s really a debateable fact.
“Again, we have to simply judge for ourselves. I can only compare the Teachings of each Master, and most importantly, my heart relationship to them – and I have made my decision based on body, mind, and heart, tested and proven for myself innumerable times.”
Yes, and of course no one can make that decision but you – not even Adi Da himself can do that. But that’s just the point, many other people have also made that decision for themselves, and most of them have not felt that Da passed those tests. You could suggest that they “failed”, and that only you and other Daists have “succeeded”, which I think is the highly pretentious route, or you could simply say that Da isn’t for everyone, and that your choice is for you alone, and has no real significance for anyone else, just as theirs has no significance to you. Fair enough, I would say. We each place our bets on something in this life, and have to live with the consequences.
“If you cannot gather from all that I have said, and quoted from Adi Da’s Teaching, that releasing ALL presumptions, concepts, perceptions, everything(!) is necessary from the beginning, then you have totally misread my posts and/or I am a terrible writer.”
Well, it could be that both are true – that I have totally misread you, and that you are a terrible writer!
But I think the explanation is easier than that. You simply don’t seem to comprehend that what sticks out from your posts is the constant theme that Da is the greatest realizer ever, superior to all others, and that you are superior to the rest of us here in being able to discern this. Now, of course you’ve said many other things during this thread, but what sticks out is this one theme, and for good reason. Anyone making that kind of claim is immediately going to draw a lot of criticism, because it’s a very extreme claim that seems to trump all other conversation here. You make it as if it were self-evidently true, and that if it is not self-evidently true to us, it is somehow our fault, and not Adi Da’s, or yours. If you can’t comprehend why making claims like that is going to crowd out every other issue on the table, I don’t think you understand much about human conversation and debate.
“You seem to want to presume that I am believing in something – if I am I will observe this more closely, as I do understand that any and all mind forms about anything or any one at all, are to be released in direct and tacit relationship to Adi Da. Whether He is right about all the technical aspects of the yoga of Realization or not makes no difference to me whatsoever.”
Well, you just as much as admitted right there that you have, indeed, been arguing on faith and belief, so why do you object to our criticism of you on this ground? For much of this thread, you have been arguing very pointedly on all kinds of technical matters about Adi Da’s realization, and the yoga of realization altogether, and now you admit that you don’t actually know about these things and that they don’t matter to you at all anyway. So what was the basis for those arguments? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that the basis of your arguments on these matters is faith and belief, and that alone is a strong indication that Adidam certainly does encourage people to believe in all kinds of things about Adi Da that they otherwise don’t really know are true. It’s not that I want to presume that you are believing in something, it’s just been rather obvious in most of your arguments that you simply do believe in all kinds of things about Adi Da. Personally, I’d prefer that you didn’t believe in these things, but I know that would get you into trouble in Adidam if you actually made that kind of confession.
“I recognize Him tacitly, at the Heart – not just as some faith-based feeling, but Knowledge that is prior to the mind.”
Yes, but knowledge that is prior to the mind is by definition not knowable by the mind. So you can’t speak it or form it into concepts without transcending the mind, which you have simply not done. You are well-meaning, I am sure, but you are still speaking from the point of view of the mind, and pretending you are speaking from the point of view of the heart, and that is just the worst kind of pretentiousness. Until you realize, no matter what kind of non-dual experiences you may have, you are still interpreting them from the point of view of the mind. This is the general mistake of all of us who think we know what we are talking about. The mind is the ego, and the mind continually recreates separation, even in its concepts of non-dualism. Pretending that you alone are bringing forth the “true” non-dual message about Adi Da is just naivete and hubris. Until you recognize yourself as the Heart, you cannot recognize Adi Da in your Heart, or anyone else for that matter. The mind will keep turning these non-dual pretensions into separative claims, that Da is special, and you are special because you are Da’s devotee, and you are even a special devotee because of your speical recognition of him, etc. Eventually, however, I feel confident that you will see through this and just drop it. Love Da all you like, and love him without any knowledge interferring with that love. That would be my recommendation.
Lakshamana Swami’s enlightened devotee Saradamma is a good case in point. She was the daughter of a devotee of Lakshamana, and she was so enamoured of Lakshamana that he actually adopted her as his devotee and daughter when she was just sixteen. Her practice was total devotion to Lakshmana’s name and form. As much as he tried to teach her self-enquiry, she wasn’t interested at all, she just wanted to repeat his name and contemplate his form. This went on for a few years until she could see his face even when he wasn’t there, and eventually she found him in her own heart. She went on devoting herself to him in the heart until she her whole mind descended into the heart and died there, and she awakened as the Self. This occurred when she was just tweny years old. For years afterward, she had no interest in teaching devotees anything. Instead, all she wanted to do was play with them. So devotees would come over, and she would just play all day, teaching them nothing. She had no mind with which to teach, and no interest in concepts or teachings, or anything like that. It took her a very long time to take on some of Lakshamana’s teaching role, and then only to help relieve him of those duties. But even then, she declared every day that none of it mattered to her at all, none of it made any sense, that life was just a senseless dream, a simple play, and that playing around was all that it was worth anyway.
But she’s an example of the kind of mindless devotion to the Guru that can produce genuine realization. But even then, only because she was able to go beyond the Guru’s outer form, and find him alive in her own heart. So if you can do something like that with Da, fine, go for it. But don’t pretend that this sort of thing is unprecedented, unique, some cosmic breathrough that’s never before appeared. It certainly doesn’t appear to be so from the stories of so many realizers and their devotions. But even if it were so, how would you even know? In fact, even if you were realized, how would you know? What would it matter? It’s merely a conditional claim about the historical, meaning causal, meaning of one realizer’s human life. Acausal realization wipes all of that away just as it cleans out every other conditional form of knowledge.
“This is more of your same sarcastic crap, Conradg – exaggerate what I said to the point of making it sound completely weird and self-obsessed. This is a good example of you being very manipulative and out of relationship. In summary, I only ever tried to communicate that one can get a tacit “read” from a photograph as to whether the activity of egoity may or may not be present. Again, this is obviously not provable in your terms – but I thought it might be some common ground in which we could consider what may be observed and tacitly known. So presumably, you do not give any credence to “heart Knowing” or intuition?”
Look, I’ve criticized critics of Da who made the same sort of claim, some kind of psychic knowledge gained by contemplating photographs or some other occult method of gaining spirital knowledge about where someone is really at. And yes, it’s crap, and I say that without sarcasm. It’s just a way of discerning one’s own feelings about someone, there’s nothing objective about it at all. If you already have positive feelings about Da, you’re going to find them confirmed by this sort of “exercise”, just as you will confirm negative feelings about him, if that’s what you have inside you. It’s a mirroring exercise, in other words, and means nothing about the objective person themselves. Anyone can “read” anything they like into such an exercise, and undoubtedly will. Those who have no distance from their own “readings” are just being narcissus, and not even realizing that the image they see in the water is their own mind, they somehow think they are looking at a “real person” outside of themselves. Well, I’m not that naïve.
“Ironically enough, and believe it or not, I brought up Ramana Maharshi as a common ground on which to consider these matters because others had studied him, as had I, and someone else had mentioned Ramana.”
I believe you naively assumed that we all had some common sense of Ramana as a merely “sixth stage” realizer, and were surprised to find out we did not share that “common ground”.
“I really don’t care what Ramana’s Realization is – though I do intuit that He is Self-Realized in reading His teachings and looking at his photos. Oh, I guess in your world I had better scratch the latter part of that statement about the photos, as only the mind should be the real basis for even making any statement at all about a Realizer, it seems. Seriously, is that right in your view, Conrad?”
I’m not in the habit of making statements about realizers at all, precisely because all of that is just more mind. I think that sort of occupation is for very immature people who need to make grandiose claims in order to impress other people, and hide their immaturity and insecurity. I haven’t made ANY claims during this entire thread about Ramana’s realization. You may not have noticed, because you were so busy making claims about both Ramana and Da, but I have merely disputed your claims, without making any of my own. At most, I’ve offered a few possible explanations, but I don’t hold those with any conviction, because to do so would just reinforce more mind, which is precisely the opposite of what my spiritual path values. I’m not opposed to mind, clearly, in that I enjoy these lengthy dialogs, but I don’t believe in holding any beliefs about matters the mind can’t possibly comprehend, such as the realization of someone like Ramana.
I’ll tell you my own little story about Ramana, and photos thereof. When I was fifteen, my older sister visited Ramanashram for a few days while on her own spiritual journey in India. While in the bookstore there she saw some photos of Ramana, and for some reason she felt certain I would want one. So she airmailed one to me, that very famous headshot photo of Ramana looking so full of love he’s almost crying. When I got the photo in the mail, for some reason I fell in love with it immediately, and I found a frame and put it on my wall opposite my bed. When I went to sleep that night, I could see the photo in the moonlight, and it reminded me of spiritual stories I had been told that if you prayed really hard to a Guru, he would actually come visit you. So I decided to pray to Ramana to come to me, but before I did I thought I should test this plan out on someone else, just to see if the placebo effect would work. I decided to call on Sathya Sai Baba, who was supposed to have magic powerrs, and so I began asking him to come. I prayed really hard, and felt the usual subjective heightening of energy in the room, but nothing terribly convincing occurred. Then I looked at the photo of Ramana and just called out to him, “Ramana, come. Ramana, come”. And within seconds this overwhelming spiritual Presence literally walked into the room. I felt as if Ramana had literally, not figuratively or metaphorically, walked right into my bedroom. It seemed more real than if he’d even physically apeared. And not only did he enter the room, he entered my own body. I swooned in his overwhelming spiritual Presence, until at one point I felt that I was swooning to death. I felt that if I let this go on any further, I was going to die, literally, and I remembered the story of Ramana’s own death experience, except for me it was a bit too scary. I called out to him, “Wait, I’m not ready for that yet!” – to my eternal regret – and so he simply “eased up”, and remained with me for the next two hours or so.
The point is, photographs can be “points of contact”, just as names and mantras can be, but what you experience depends on what your capacities are. I didn’t have the capacity at that time in my life to experience Ramana’s realization, because to do so would have required that “I” die in the process. And similarly, if you really want to experience Ramana’s realization through his photograph, you will have to die also. If you get that far, let me know. But don’t think you can pass off this cheezy photo-reading ability of yours with me and expect me to have any respect for it. It’s just your own mind playing the feedback game. If you really transcend the mind and it dies in the heart, well then, maybe you can tell us all something interesting about it all.
So, to answer your question, I don’t think either the mind or “experiences” the mind has, including ordinary material experiences, can tell you what someone’s unconditional realization is. My experience of Ramana didn’t tell me what his realization was, because I didn’t fully transcend the mind in the process of it. Nor do you seem to fully transcend mind in any of your experiences. So I wouldn’t give them any real significance in that respect.
“Conrad Says:
“And this is of course an example of why Adidam is considered by many to be a dualistic path. Suggesting that the Acausal Divine Reality actually and literally “shines” out of a photograph is to turn what is non-dual into a dualistic process, and what is acausal in to a causal relationship. Do you really have so little comprehension of what duality means not to grasp this?”
Feel4God replied:
“By your making this argument, you are apparently forgetting that true non-dualism states that all is the Acausal. So how does that fit into your comprehension? Isn’t true non-dualism a paradox to the mind that ultimately undoes it, not reinforce it with more concepts?”
You are not recognizing that anything that “shines” is causal in nature, not acausal. Any object that you can see, whether it “shines” or not, is clearly viewed by the dualistic, causal mind. Acausal, non-dual Reality does not “shine” because there is no “thing” to shine, and no one to observe any shining, much less a photograph. It’s like the story of Hei Neng passing two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One monk argues that it is the flag that waves, the other that it is the wind that waves. Hui Neng interrupts and says “It is your mind that waves”. Similarly, it is your mind that shines. All “shining” is the mind. And it’s clear that you are interpreting this “shine” you experience from the photographs in your mind. You are even interpreting your heart-feelings in your mind. That is all causation and duaity, which is all the mind really knows.
As for the notion that non-dualism says that “everything” is acausal is wrong, if you mean every “thing”. Objects are illusions of the mind, and they are by their very nature part of the conditional “world” of dualism. Thus, for every “shine” there is its opposite, a “darkness”. But non-dual reality has no opposites, and therefore there is no shining thing to it that could be opposed to a non-shining thing. That you perceive a shine is a sign of dualism, therefore, and your attempt to discern the non-dual from these dualistic perceptions is destined to fail.
“Another pretentious assumption by your mind – try using your feeling/knowing heart more, Conradg. Maybe it won’t argue so “logically”, but it tacitly understands and knows That which no one has ever proven via the mind, at least in my experience.”
That’s a strange standard you have. You claim to have near-magical powers of the heart to see into the egos of all others, and to discern the non-conditional realization of Adi Da as superior to all others, through photographs no less, but I am “pretentious” for pointing out that this is a rather dubious form of dualistic make-believe. I guess your standard for pretentiousness is “making sense”.
“Another example of your pretentiousness and looking to summarily dismiss what I said and quoted about radical devotion and non-dualism. You would have been a good at some anti-Daist rally – “Look, there’s a Daist! Get him! He thinks Ramana Maharshi is some dissociated guy!”
Yes, yes, now the victimization game kicks in. Is there any depth of silliness you won’t sink to? What pose of self-righteousness have you left to play? I hope you are running out of steam, because this is just getting embarrassing. Apparently you are so identified with this whole silly photographic claim of yours that you can’t let it go, but must drag it out forever and ever, no matter how absurd it makes you seem. Is it really that deeply held a belief, that you can’t just turn, look at yourself, and laugh at its nuttiness. I mean, there are nutty things that everyone believes in private, but usually when we let them out and see how absurd they really are, we can let them go, and even wonder how we ever came to believe them in the first place. How long before you wake up and learn to laugh at your own silliness? As if that would be a bad thing.
“And you as the ego have “grasped” that?”
Yes, as an ego I can grasp that my ego has severe limits, is deluded, is prone to nutty ideas just like yours, and that it needs to be lauged at on a regular basis. But that is what wives are for. The ego can gain knowledge of itself, and in that process, begin to dissolve. The best way to begin that is to realize how little we actually know, and how little we are even capable of knowing. Before I came to Da, even as a teenager, I studied mystics extensively, and the one common refrain I heard from them is that the mind, the ego, simply cannot know God. When Da began talking about Divine Ignorance, I thought, wonderful, I came to the right place. But now Adidam is full of “knowers” of all kinds, like yourself, and seems to be lacking anyone who is aware, like Socrates, that they know nothing.
“ I can play talking school too, Conrad.”
But of course you have been playing talking school. We are talking about matters that cannot ultimately be understood by the mind. A remarkable contradiction. If we are not aware of those limits to our speech, but somehow think that talk and the mind can reach into the unconditional and bring back some kind of “knowledge” about things that is ultimate and true, well then, we really are starting to believe our own bullshit. The only difference I see between you and me is that I know my bullshit is bullshit, whereas you think yours is Divine heart-knowledge.
“I agree with you here up to a point. But go a step further and look at what the ego does when it gets beyond the Creator God side of it, which you basically are (rightfully) criticizing in your post above. Given the truth of the non-dualistic argument of there being only One, the ego then decides it is equal to Reality (and even greater than Reality by virtue of what it wants to actually do to Reality) – by making the truth of non-dualism into an Ideal and holding on to this Ideal, to the point of even allowing this Ideal to become the object of realization, and the justification that no Realized Sat-Guru is even necessary, and that the Sat-Guru is actually an impediment according to the ego! There are many examples of this being posted on this thread, so I don’t have to give any here.”
Are you talking about Adi Da here? Isn’t he the fellow who decided that he was not only equal to Reality, but greater than it? The greatest Reality ever? Isn’t he the one who turned this ideal of non-dualism into an icon of the ego, such that his own ego became the object of worship, rather than the Guru? After all, look what he did to all his Gurus – he left them behind, and made himself into the Guru instead. He became his own Guru, and declared all his previous Gurus to be unequal to himself, from Rudi to Muktananda to Ramana. Is that the kind of delusion you are criticizing here? If so, I fully agree with you. Egos will certainly declare themselves to be “realized”, and make all kinds of claims about themselves. Which is why genuine realizers never make those kinds of declarations.
I don’t know if anyone on this thread is claiming that a realized Sat-Guru is unnecessary. I certaily am not. Nor did Ramana. I’ve only put forward an understanding of the role and function of the Sat-Guru that is different from the one Adi Da and you offer, in which the purpose of the Guru is to turn the devotee not to the human Guru himself, but to the Self of All, residing in the heart of all beings. The more the human Guru reveals himself, the more that revelation drives the devotee to understand himself, and surrender to his true Divine Self at heart. Not “the heart on the right”, but the unconditional heart of real being, unlimited, uncaused, unborn, merely present as reality itself. So yes, the Guru doesn’t merely show us reality in himself, he shows us that we are reality, not at all different from the Guru. There are many ways of describing that process, but there is no way that is “true”, and no way that is “false”. That whole notion is simply a dualistic imposition on a process that is singular at heart, no matter how it looks on the outside.
“In other words, the ego looks to subordinate Reality by making it into an Ideal within its mind. Your criticism about fundamentalism can also be applied to your positon as well – for making non-dualism into a knowable Ideal and never actually realizing it, but only endlessly talking about it. This is the basis for all mind-dharma/talking school. Only the heart knows and recognizes otherwise.”
To the extent that I do that, I openly plead guilty and renounce it. I could simply stay silent, but the mind goes on in any case, so why not let it be seen for what it is – an illusory limitation? But if you think all I do is “talk”, well, come walk a mile in my shoes some day. Of course only the heart knows non-dualism. Any fool knows that much, and I’m at least any fool. Why do you keep repeating this as if you are some special kind of fool who thinks only he’s aware of this truth? That’s the problem with Adidam – it’s such an isolated world, the people in it think they’re the only ones in the universe who have even the slightest understanding of the non-dual, when in reality they are among the least educated about it, even heart-wise.
“If this is what you got from all the statements I have made about radical devotion in Adidam and especially the quotes from Adi Da, then you are misreading them again. My take is that you mainly want to justify that no Sat-Guru is necessary – except for some inward sense of Self.”
That would be a strange motive on my part, seeing as I see things quite the opposite. I have been graced by the blessings of Sat-Gurus since I was a teenager, and I consider all those blessings to be helpful and necessary. I think, in the vein of Ramana, that the human Sat-Guru is necessary for all who are living in the dualistic mind, which includes me. The human Sat-Guru does not have to be physically present before one, however, and devotion to the Sat-Guru is best expressed not in money donated to some organization, or worshipful prostrations at their feet, but in honoring the Guru’s true position in one’s own heart. If you don’t yet understand that, I hope someday you will.
And by the way, don’t take any of my harsh words seriously. I speak sharply, but have a soft heart.
December 26, 2008 at 6:49 am
Quoting Feel4God:
“”Of course there are many similarities between Adi Da’s and Ramana’s Teachings, as Truth is Truth. However, there is a great difference in terms of Ramana’s and Adi Da’s own Confessions (and Functions) in that Adi Da from the very beginning always said that He was Awake to the Divine – even as a baby. From the first page of The Knee Of Listening:
“As a baby I remember crawling around inquisitively with an incredible sense of joy, light and freedom in the middle of my head that was bathed in energies moving freely down from above, up, around and down through my body and my heart. It was an expanding sphere of joy from the heart. And I was a radiant form, a source of energy, bliss and light. I was the power of Reality, a direct enjoyment and communication. I was the Heart, who lightens the mind and all things. I was the same as everyone and everything, except it became clear that others were unaware of the thing itself.”
“Even as a little child I recognized it and knew it, and it was really not a matter of anything else. That awareness, that conscious enjoyment and space centered in the midst of the heart is the “bright”. And it is the entire source of humor. It is reality. It is not separate from anything.”
So from the very beginning Adi Da spoke of His appearance as one of being already Awake, and that the Event in the Vedanta Temple was His Re-Awakening. Ramana Maharshi never spoke in those terms, but said His real Awakening only occurred later in his life (as a very young man).
Even “just” on this basis, I can see that Adi Da’s Realization, Teaching, and Gift would always be beyond the psycho-physical map of the body-mind and its various stages – whereas Ramana’s Awakening includes no description of already having been Awake as a baby. So this is a unique and very significant difference between Adi Da and Ramana Maharshi. Of course, I know that this can be debated as being all made up, but again, for myself, Who Adi Da Is, is tacitly self-evident to me, and His Teachings obviously support this recognition.”
I do not myself presume that Da is making this description up out of nothing, though some think so. The most I could say is not that I think he made it up, but that I have concerns his interpretation of his experiences is subjec to doubt. There are some who consider that his description was influenced by what he had read, and that this could be a rare kind of subtle experience which resembles but is not identical to full realization because the ego is not resolved, as was mentioned before. This is speculation, of course. As to what extent Ramana Maharshi’s realization, which occured fairly suddenly after a bhakti practice and with minimal effort at age 17, was also a reawakening of what was intuitively obvious as a baby, and to what extent his limited experiences prior to 17 were were not for his own benefit but for some other purpose, we can’t know. Ramana Maharshi simply didn’t discuss such personal details, other than a few references we can find that directly aided those who he was talking to. His view of realization was that it was simply awakening to what was always the case and obviously non-dual, beyond any limitations of time and space, and no entity left for any kind of further effort. Any references he made to any kind of structure associated with realization were made relative to the assumption that one was some sort of form, gross or subtle. He was clear that the Self conscious and aware “light” was associated with the awareness of the superficial patterns of apparent diversity that may appear in association with apparent forms, but never without non -dualistic awareness of their identity with the prior and present Unity beyond subject-object perception. Ramana Maharshi taught to the effect that the Heart with respect to all that arises appears to be a core “source” or singularity radiating light, but since all arising really appears in this “light” that is not really “outside” of the Heart, which is centered everywhere in every “thing”, and so tneither the concept of center or circumference really applies. It is only in duality, and space and time, that one could see the Heart and light as somehow distinct or polarized. In this conception, the Mind after realization would be illuminated by this brightness such that apparent objects are outshined within pure Awareness itself, which is the Heart itself, not some point or terminal.
Now, regarding Da’s account of his infant state of awareness, it makes sense to say that he found that at the end of his sadhana, his infant perception would be related to what he found to be realization itself. And it is true that the subtle differences between Ramana Maharshi’s description and Da’s can be noted in how he describes his awareness as a baby.
“As a baby I remember crawling around inquisitively with an incredible sense of joy, light and freedom in the middle of my head that was bathed in energies moving freely down from above, up, around and down through my body and my heart. It was an expanding sphere of joy from the heart.”
Again, the essence of this is that Da sees the primary aspect of this experience as energies flowing down from above, associated with an expanding sphere of joy from the heart. This is the same conception he wrote after the Vendanta Temple event, when he said that the flow stablized as a flow “to” the Heart. Ramana describes it in bodily terms as an ascending flow whose brightness illumines the Mind and dissolves all thoughts of separation.
“And I was a radiant form, a source of energy, bliss and light.”
Da’s conception has always been that the Ultimate Reality is a radiant “form”. Ramana considers it beyond all form.
“I was the power of Reality, a direct enjoyment and communication. I was the Heart, who lightens the mind and all things. I was the same as everyone and everything, except it became clear that others were unaware of the thing itself. Even as a little child I recognized it and knew it, and it was really not a matter of anything else. That awareness, that conscious enjoyment and space centered in the midst of the heart is the “bright”.
I could argue that there is a sense of a little too much self-reference in this and some other minor points in the wording, but obviously here there is not enough difference between Da and Ramana Maharshi’s conception to dwell on in these statements, as compared with the earlier ones. When I first read this long ago, I found these last sentences convincing. Even now, they read well. It is better to stick with more objective differences where they are found, realizing that conclusions can’t be proven.
Also, the quote you provided is interesting. What it boils down to though, is this statement:
“Reality Itself, Which Is Real (Acausal) God, is not an “Object” or an “Other” or a “Relation” to or of any conditionally apparent “point of view” (or “subject”, or ego-”I”).”
I doubt non-dualist will disagree with that. Non-dualists such as Ramana Maharshi are not asserting any causality or subject-object view of Reality, in fact, they deny such causality. They are not asserting some exclusive Self or anything distinct from Reality or Acausal God (ParaBrahman) as part of any Realization. Nor are they asserting any sense in which time or space would have any impact on what is already the case. Where they conflict with Da is the conception that Acausal Reality needs to appear in a particular time and space in a bodily form (Da) in order to make realization of Acausal Reality possible. This introduces a concept of time and space and causality (Da’s incarnation here) in conflict with the highest non-dual understanding that non-dualism also implies that just as time and space are illusory limitations, nothing ever happens. Yet because Da makes this central to his teaching despite the conflict with mainstream non-dualism, it is the matter on which many make decisions regarding his state.
One final comment on the issue of the photographs. I think it is well sourced that Da did apparently use photographs, as he said, to aid assessments and also to “work” on some devotees, and to empower certain sites remotely on occasions. There is anecdotal evidence that jnanis may have such an ability to some extent. The question is at what point such an ability is reliable. There is anecdotal evidence that even Da was not always accurate in his assessments. I think what Conradg is saying is that if even those who have made a reputation out of remote sensing methods have error, your ability to definitively sense all qualities from a photograph is subject to uncertainty. Of course, each one is free to draw their own conclusions on this subject. I know what I “see” in my Ramana Maharshi pictures.
December 26, 2008 at 10:46 am
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Someone suggested starting another blog entry for comments since their dial-up connection took a long time to load this page. I’m sorry about that, but I’m not going to start new blog entries each time a certain limit is reached. I have offered to start a YahooGroups list on this topic, if any a bunch of people are interested.
Jerry
December 26, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Feel4God,
I’m falling behind in this thread, due to family and friends and holiday cheer. I’ll try to catch up, but it may take a while.
“It is a direct, tacit understanding/knowledge from and by the heart in relationship with Adi Da. It is His Divine Gift of heart-recognition and that is what I keep saying. This recognition has nothing to do with me as an ego, it is all about recognizing Him as Reality Itself which includes “me” in selfless ecstatic Communion with Him. The practice of devotional bodily turning to Him is non-dual intrinsic egolessness, is based on recognition, and this is the gift of realization He Gives to devotees from the beginning.
“Adi Da’s Realization and Gift of the 7th Stage is not based in the Great Path of Return. It is not about cosmic spirituality, but prior to all psycho-physical manifestations and seeking. It is no-seeking from the beginning in direct relationship to Him as the Acausal Divine. The heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – at least I will say that is true for myself because I don’t really know what is true for others, though many other Daists confess the same thing.”
Now, this is the sort of thing it’s not easy to criticize, nor can I really find a motivation to criticize it, as long as it’s put forward as a purely personal matter of faith. A Christian could put forth something similar about their heart-based knowledge of Jesus as the only begotten Son of God, as could members of any sort of religion you might name. I’m not interested in disabusing people of their personal faiths, no matter how whacky or unlikely the claims might be. At the core of it is the same direct intuition of the Divine that makes us cherish this life and consciousness, and I wouldn’t want anyone to lose that sense of God in their heart just because some of the details of their faith aren’t anything I’d actually agree with.
But when the mind turns that heart-intuition into conditional forms of knowledge, and starts making knowledge-based claims from that about their teacher, their path, their tradition, and it’s logical superiority to all others, I consider this to be a debasement of the heart’s intuition. When you say “the heart simply Knows Acausal Divine Reality – you are referring to jnana, meaning unconditional knowledge. Jnana does not confer conditional knowledge on the knower, quite the opposite, it destroys the illusion of conditional knowledge altogether, leaving not only one’s conditional knowledge bankrupt, but the knower himself unmasked and empty. Thus, jnana is knowledge of unconditional reality, which is as you and Da say acausal, meaning uncaused, not part of the cycle of conditional causes and effects. That being the case, it doesn’t translate into knowledge about any conditional manifestation, even the conditional manifestation of Adi Da’s life and relationships and teachings. The only “recognition” it confers is the recognition that everything is merely unconditional, uncaused reality, bliss, truth, God. Not just Adi Da, not even Adi Da in some special way, but everything and everyone.
This is why people who come away from some sort of non-dual experience, and who then propagate some kind of sectarian path they consider greater or better than all the other paths, are in reality either betraying the non-dual truth, or never quite saw the whole picture to begin with. I won’t speak for Jesus himself, since his teachings seem to have been corrupted in translation and tradition, but Paul’s famous vision of Jesus seems not to have left him with a true understanding of non-dualism, but rather a desire to propagate a devotional cult around the figure of Jesus, as if only he is the Truth, the Way, and the Light. This turns what might otherwise have been a non-dual tradition of Jesus’ into the dualistic tradition of Pauline Christianity. Da has criticized this, but he hasn’t seemed to have avoided the temptation himself, of turning the non-dual teachings he has incorporated into Adidam into a bhakti cult around himself which acclaims his special, unique and unprecedented realization as towering over all others, and propounding a practice which centers on the contemplation and worship of his own outer form and name and deeds, rather than on the Divine Being in the very heart of us all.
Now, I’m not saying that bhakti cults are wrong or even spiritually fruitless. Quite the opposite, I think they have a definite value for many people. It’s even true that non-dual teachings have a powerful bhakti component, and that genuine bhakti, if wedded to a non-dual approach, can produce realization just as well as jnana yoga approaches.
What kind of non-dual understanding actually gets realized in the course of one’s devotion is hard for anyone to say. There’s the example of Papaji, who had almost daily visions of Krishna and the other Gods from the time he was eight years old, when he had some spontaneous awakening, and who had one of the most intensive devotional practices on record up to the time he met Ramana at the age of about thirty. When he met Ramama for the first time, he was unimpressed, because he didn’t see any of the outer signs of a devotional life. He asked Ramana if he could help him to see Krishna constantly, at all times, but Ramana said, “Any God you can see isn’t the real God. God is at the source of your own vision, your own consciousness”. This wasn’t what Papaji wanted to hear, so he left. But he could tell there was some strange spiritual process going with Ramana, and it touched him, so after spending a few weeks on the other side of Arunachula with Krishna and the other Gods, he came back. Again, Ramana was unimpressed with his visions, and told him to find out who was having these visions of God. Papaji still didn’t understand what he meant. He was in love with Krishna, Krishna was his “Ishta”, and all he wanted to was to be with his Ishta forever. But he did notice that when some Krishnabhaktis came to see Ramana, and showed him a picture of Krishna, he could see the devotion in his face, and he knew that Ramana was a secret Krishna bhakti.
So Papaji started his job in Madras, and vowed to invoke Krishna with every in-breath. He did Krishna invocation 50,000 times a day, and then he felt even this wasn’t enough, so he did it with the out-breath also, 100,000 times a day. But after a few weeks he found he couldn’t even speak the name of Krishna anymore, it wouldn’t come out of his lips. He couldn’t even think the name with the “tongue of mind”. He went completely blank. So he went back to see Ramana in the dead of night, thinking Ramana might be able to help. He arrived at two in the morning, and he was given a private audience with Ramana. He told him his problem, that he couldn’t invoke Krishna anymore by name. Ramana just asked him how he got there that night. Papaji said, I took the train, and then a cab from the station. Ramana asked, well, where is the train now? Papaji said, it’s gone on down the line. Ramana said, yes, you see, you don’t need the train anymore, because now you have arrived at your destination. You don’t need the Krishna invocation anymore, because it has taken you where you need to go, and now it has left. And then Ramana repeated his instruction to Papaji to find the source of the “I”, and for the first and last time in his life, Papaji practiced self-enquiry, and almost immediately realized the Self.
So devotion has its value, but in the end it must lead to true self-knowledge, not knowledge of the God or Guru who one is devoted to. Contemplation of the Guru is highly important, but it must lead to knowledge of the Self. The intuition that the Guru is that One is also important. Take Nisargadatta for example. When he met his own Guru, he was simply floored. A friend took him to see this fellow, and the guy simply told Nisargadatta that he, Nisargadatta, was the Supreme Being. He said it with such power and simplicity that Nisargadatta simply couldn’t deny it. He said he looked for some reason to distrust this guy, but he couldn’t see anything. His Guru was not out for money, or fame, or anything at all. He just freely told him he was the Supreme Being, and gave him the simplest of instructions to meditate on “I am”. So Nisargadatta did that. He said that he didn’t do anything in particular, he just meditated on this “I am”, and after a few weeks, he didn’t even do that much anymore, he just basically had complete faith in his Guru, and he says that this faith is what carried him through the whole process of realization. His Guru died after some nine months, but it didn’t matter, he had complete faith in him, and within three years he fully realized. He didn’t attribute his realization to any particular practice other than total faith in his Guru, and this inspection simple of who he was, and seeing over and over again, more and more deeply, that he was the Supreme Being.
So if you have total faith in your Guru, all I can say is go for it. You don’t have to be concerned with what I think or anyone else thinks, what Adidam thinks, etc. Nisargadatta just wasn’t interested in anything else, and he basically didn’t do anything else with his free time until he was realized. He had a family to support, a job to do, all that stuff, but he didn’t bother with anything else until he was realized. And he says that’s really the only way to do it. He said all he had going for him was a sincere, earnest desire to find out if what his Guru told him was true, that he was the Supreme Being. He said he couldn’t imagine why his Guru would lie to him, so he had to find out for himself, and he did.
Papaji, when asked how he became realized, said that everything he’d done all his life had been utterly useless, even as preparation. He said that all his devotions, all his practices, had been for naught, that the only thing that brought him to realization was his own desire for realization finally meeting someone who knew what realization was and could show him. And so he recommended no practices to his own devotees, except to simply cultivate this desire for realization and find out who they were – self-enquiry in its most basic form, which in his view wasn’t a practice at all, but what is left over when you give up all practices, all seeking, all efforts to realize. You are left with yourself, and then it becomes obvious who you are. He taught that if your desire for realization was sincere, and you devoted yourself to it, it wouldn’t matter if you had the wrong concepts in your mind, or practiced any number of false practices, because all concepts are wrong, and all practices are wrong. Eventually, you would get past them, and realize truth directly, as the obvious, as he had finally done through Ramana’s help.
(more to follow)
December 26, 2008 at 5:19 pm
So at the very basic level, I have no criticism of the Adidam approach, if you are sincere about realization. Devote yourself to it, find out if it’s true, then report back to us all. I’m just saying that right now, you have to acknowledge that you don’t actually know if it’s true. It’s a faith-based claim, based on what Adi Da and others have written or told you about. You may think it’s true, you may think Adi Da has no reason to lie to you, you may think you have some kind of psychic insight or intuition about it all, but to prove it’s true you actually have to go through a process that transcends every form of conceptual knowledge and which will leave you utter empty of every form conditional knowledge. And then you can talk about what comes of that. Until then, this is just the faith-based talking school pretending to know what it’s talking about.
So when you say things like:
“The practice is simply one of releasing all the seeking the body-mind at all levels would do by tendency to not recognize Reality. In my heart-recognition, and by Adi Da’s own confession, this is a Spiritual break-through in the cosmos, and what I already said before is really all I can explain of it.”
I look upon this sort of confession the way I look upon a Christian’s confession that Jesus has washed away the sins of the world through his crucifixion. In other words, I don’t take it literally, but as an expression of a certain kind of charmingly naïve devotion. This is of course a spiritual breathrough for you, in that it’s clearly a new understanding of things you hadn’t see before. But it’s hardly unprecedented. All genuine spiritual approaches “breath through” the conditional cosmos. All realizers have described their realizations in such terms. All the advaitic teachers speak about releasing all seeking and recognizing the Reality we already are. To attribute Da’s “breakthrough” to some unique and unprecedented spiritual role and achievement on his part, is well, just the kind of confusion between the causal and the acausal that plagues the partially realized and partially educated. You have been taught this catechism through decades of Adidam “education”, just as Catholics learn the Nicene Creed, and it certainly “works” for you, and is confirmed by your heart-felt devotion to Adi Da, just as Christian believers and mystics will similarly confirm their truths in their own hearts. I don’t see any need to disrespect that, on the level of faith. But I see no reason to take it seriously as a statement about reality. I am sure you are getting a deeper understanding of these things. We all are. But there are many ways to get such an understanding, and no necessity to use Da’s path to get there. If you choose Da’s path, fine and good luck to you, but nothing is lost by following any other non-dual path, as you would undoubtedly find out to your surprise if you did, just as most of us former devotees have.
“FFaC, you also have said at least a few times that jnanis have denied this realization in Adi Da, but when I asked for specific proof none was provided.”
Well, we could start with Muktananda, who clearly denied that Adi Da was realized. And that’s Adi Da’s own human Guru, so his opinion carries some serious weight. In fact, Muktananda in one of his books is asked the meaning of the name “Da”, and Muktananda says “Da means pretense”.
Now, Gurus in India almost never call one another frauds or unrealized. They have a more polite way of getting across their views. And that’s generallyhow it is with Da. Many contemporaneous realizers have been asked about Da, and they generally say something vaguely dismissive. That’s about as much as one could expect. Rather than formally declaring him unrealized, they get their views across by the absence of anything positive to say about him.
I recall, for example, how Anandamayi Ma conveyed her views on Sri Aurobindo. She went on travels to various ashrams, and she had long resisted visiting Auroville, but somehow she agreed to go there for a few days. She was greeted very warmly by Aurobindo and the Mother, they had tea together, and after a few hours, Anandamayi Ma bade her farewell and left. She said nothing, but the mere fact that she was supposed to stay for a few days, but left after a few short hours, told everyone all they needed to know about her impression of the two.
Similarly, the view of Da among most respected spiritual realizers around the world has been quite low. I don’t think that’s really a debateable fact.
“Again, we have to simply judge for ourselves. I can only compare the Teachings of each Master, and most importantly, my heart relationship to them – and I have made my decision based on body, mind, and heart, tested and proven for myself innumerable times.”
Yes, and of course no one can make that decision but you – not even Adi Da himself can do that. But that’s just the point, many other people have also made that decision for themselves, and most of them have not felt that Da passed those tests. You could suggest that they “failed”, and that only you and other Daists have “succeeded”, which I think is the highly pretentious route, or you could simply say that Da isn’t for everyone, and that your choice is for you alone, and has no real significance for anyone else, just as theirs has no significance to you. Fair enough, I would say. We each place our bets on something in this life, and have to live with the consequences.
“If you cannot gather from all that I have said, and quoted from Adi Da’s Teaching, that releasing ALL presumptions, concepts, perceptions, everything(!) is necessary from the beginning, then you have totally misread my posts and/or I am a terrible writer.”
Well, it could be that both are true – that I have totally misread you, and that you are a terrible writer!
But I think the explanation is easier than that. You simply don’t seem to comprehend that what sticks out from your posts is the constant theme that Da is the greatest realizer ever, superior to all others, and that you are superior to the rest of us here in being able to discern this. Now, of course you’ve said many other things during this thread, but what sticks out is this one theme, and for good reason. Anyone making that kind of claim is immediately going to draw a lot of criticism, because it’s a very extreme claim that seems to trump all other conversation here. You make this claim as if it were self-evidently true, and that if it is not self-evidently true to us, it is somehow our fault, and not Adi Da’s, or yours. If you can’t comprehend why making claims like that is going to crowd out every other issue on the table, I don’t think you understand much about human conversation and debate.
“You seem to want to presume that I am believing in something – if I am I will observe this more closely, as I do understand that any and all mind forms about anything or any one at all, are to be released in direct and tacit relationship to Adi Da. Whether He is right about all the technical aspects of the yoga of Realization or not makes no difference to me whatsoever.”
Well, you just as much as admitted right there that you have, indeed, been arguing on faith and belief, so why do you object to our criticism of you on this ground? For much of this thread, you have been arguing very pointedly on all kinds of technical matters about Adi Da’s realization, and the yoga of realization altogether, and now you admit that you don’t actually know about these things and that they don’t matter to you at all anyway. So what was the basis for those arguments? Well, I think it’s pretty obvious that the basis of your arguments on these matters is faith and belief, and that alone is a strong indication that Adidam certainly does encourage people to believe in all kinds of things about Adi Da that they otherwise don’t really know are true. It’s not that I want to presume that you are believing in something, it’s just been rather obvious in most of your arguments that you simply do believe in all kinds of things about Adi Da. Personally, I’d prefer that you didn’t believe in these things, but I know that would get you into trouble in Adidam if you actually made that kind of confession.
“I recognize Him tacitly, at the Heart – not just as some faith-based feeling, but Knowledge that is prior to the mind.”
Yes, but knowledge that is prior to the mind is by definition not knowable by the mind. So you can’t speak it or form it into concepts without transcending the mind, which you have simply not done. You are well-meaning, I am sure, but you are still speaking from the point of view of the mind, and pretending you are speaking from the point of view of the heart, and that is just the worst kind of pretentiousness. Until you realize, no matter what kind of non-dual experiences you may have, you are still interpreting them from the point of view of the mind. This is the general mistake of all of us who think we know what we are talking about. The mind is the ego, and the mind continually recreates separation, even in its concepts of non-dualism. Pretending that you alone are bringing forth the “true” non-dual message about Adi Da is just naivete and hubris. Until you recognize yourself as the Heart, you cannot recognize Adi Da in your Heart, or anyone else for that matter. The mind will keep turning these non-dual pretensions into separative claims, that Da is special, and you are special because you are Da’s devotee, and you are even a special devotee because of your speical recognition of him, etc. Eventually, however, I feel confident that you will see through this and just drop it. Love Da all you like, and love him without any knowledge interferring with that love. That would be my recommendation.
Lakshamana Swami’s enlightened devotee Saradamma is a good case in point. She was the daughter of a devotee of Lakshamana, and she was so enamoured of Lakshamana that he actually adopted her as his devotee and daughter when she was just sixteen. Her practice was total devotion to Lakshmana’s name and form. As much as he tried to teach her self-enquiry, she wasn’t interested at all, she just wanted to repeat his name and contemplate his form. This went on for a few years until she could see his face even when he wasn’t there, and eventually she found him in her own heart. She went on devoting herself to him in the heart until she her whole mind descended into the heart and died there, and she awakened as the Self. This occurred when she was just twenty years old. For years afterward, she had no interest in teaching devotees anything. Instead, all she wanted to do was play with them. So devotees would come over, and she would just play all day, teaching them nothing. She had no mind with which to teach, and no interest in concepts or teachings, or anything like that. It took her a very long time to take on some of Lakshamana’s teaching role, and then only to help relieve him of those duties. But even then, she declared every day that none of it mattered to her at all, none of it made any sense, that life was just a senseless dream, a simple play, and that playing around was all that it was worth anyway.
She’s an example of the kind of mindless devotion to the Guru that can produce genuine realization. But even then, only because she was able to go beyond the Guru’s outer form, and find him alive in her own heart. So if you can do something like that with Da, fine, go for it. But don’t pretend that this sort of thing is unprecedented, unique, some cosmic breathrough that’s never before appeared. It certainly doesn’t appear to be so from the stories of so many realizers and their devotions. But even if it were so, how would you even know? In fact, even if you were realized, how would you know? Who would be left to know anything? What would it matter? It’s merely a conditional claim about the historical, causal meaning of one realizer’s human life. Acausal realization wipes all of that away just as it cleans out every other conditional form of knowledge.
(more to follow)
December 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“This is more of your same sarcastic crap, Conradg – exaggerate what I said to the point of making it sound completely weird and self-obsessed. This is a good example of you being very manipulative and out of relationship. In summary, I only ever tried to communicate that one can get a tacit “read” from a photograph as to whether the activity of egoity may or may not be present. Again, this is obviously not provable in your terms – but I thought it might be some common ground in which we could consider what may be observed and tacitly known. So presumably, you do not give any credence to “heart Knowing” or intuition?”
Look, I’ve criticized critics of Da who made the same sort of claims, of having access to some kind of psychic knowledge gained by contemplating photographs or some other occult method of gaining spirital knowledge about where someone is really at. And yes, it’s crap, and I say that without sarcasm. It’s just a way of discerning one’s own subjective feelings about someone, there’s nothing objective about it at all, and it only tends to reinforce what the “psychic” already knows. If you already have positive feelings about Da, you’re going to find them confirmed by this sort of “exercise”, just as you will confirm negative feelings about him, if that’s what you have inside you. It’s a mirroring exercise, in other words, and means nothing about the objective person themselves. Anyone can “read” anything they like into such an exercise, and undoubtedly will. Those who have no distance from their own “readings” are just being narcissus, and not even realizing that the image they see in the water is their own mind, they somehow think they are looking at a “real person” outside of themselves. Well, I’m not that naïve.
“Ironically enough, and believe it or not, I brought up Ramana Maharshi as a common ground on which to consider these matters because others had studied him, as had I, and someone else had mentioned Ramana.”
I believe you. The problem is, you also naively assumed that we all had some common sense of Ramana as a merely “sixth stage” realizer, and were surprised to find out we did not share that “common ground”. Can you really pretend you didn’t know your claims would spark a lot of criticism, in that they were themselves very critical?
“I really don’t care what Ramana’s Realization is – though I do intuit that He is Self-Realized in reading His teachings and looking at his photos. Oh, I guess in your world I had better scratch the latter part of that statement about the photos, as only the mind should be the real basis for even making any statement at all about a Realizer, it seems. Seriously, is that right in your view, Conrad?”
I’m not in the habit of making statements about realizers’ realizations at all, precisely because all of that is just more mind. I think that sort of occupation is for very immature people who need to make grandiose claims in order to impress other people, and hide their immaturity and insecurity. I haven’t made ANY claims during this entire thread about Ramana’s realization. You may not have noticed, because you were so busy making claims about both Ramana and Da, but I have merely disputed your claims, without making any of my own. At most, I’ve offered a few possible explanations, but I don’t hold those with any conviction, because to do so would just reinforce more mind, which is precisely the opposite of what my spiritual path values. I’m not opposed to mind, clearly, in that I enjoy these lengthy dialogs, but I don’t believe in holding any beliefs about matters the mind can’t possibly comprehend, such as the realization of someone like Ramana.
I’ll tell you my own little story about Ramana photos. When I was fifteen, my older sister visited Ramanashram for a few days while on her own spiritual journey in India. While in the bookstore there she saw some photos of Ramana, and for some reason she felt certain I would want one. So she airmailed one to me, that very famous headshot photo of Ramana looking so full of love he’s almost crying. When I got the photo in the mail, for some reason I fell in love with it immediately, and I found a frame and put it on my wall opposite my bed. When I went to sleep that night, I could see the photo in the moonlight, and it reminded me of spiritual stories I had been told that if you prayed really hard to a Guru, he would actually come visit you. So I decided to pray to Ramana to come to me, but before I did I thought I should test this plan out on someone else, just to see if the placebo effect would work. I decided to call on Sathya Sai Baba, who was supposed to have magic powerrs, and so I began asking him to come. I prayed really hard, and felt the usual subjective heightening of energy in the room, but nothing terribly convincing occurred. Then I looked at the photo of Ramana and just called out to him, “Ramana, come. Ramana, come”. And within seconds this overwhelming spiritual Presence literally walked into the room. I felt as if Ramana had literally, not figuratively or metaphorically, walked right into my bedroom. It seemed more real than if he’d even physically appeared. And not only did he enter the room, he entered my own body. I swooned in his overwhelming spiritual Presence, until at one point I felt that I was swooning to death. I felt that if I let this go on any further, I was going to die, literally, and I remembered the story of Ramana’s own death experience, except for me it was a bit too scary. I called out to him, “Wait, I’m not ready for that yet!” – to my eternal regret – and so he simply “eased up”, and remained with me for the next two hours or so.
The point is, photographs can be “points of contact”, just as names and mantras can be, but what you experience depends on what your capacities are. I didn’t have the capacity at that time in my life to experience Ramana’s realization, because to do so would have required that “I” die in the process. And similarly, if you really want to experience Ramana’s realization through his photograph, you will have to die also. If you get that far, let me know. But don’t think you can pass off this cheezy photo-reading ability of yours and expect me to have any respect for it. It’s just your own mind playing the feedback game. If you really transcend the mind and it dies in the heart, well then, maybe you can tell us all something interesting about Ramana.
So, to answer your question, I don’t think either the mind or “experiences” the mind has, including ordinary material experiences, can tell you what someone’s unconditional realization is. My experience of Ramana didn’t tell me what his realization was, because I didn’t fully transcend the mind in the process of it. Nor do you seem to fully transcend mind in any of your experiences. So I wouldn’t give them any great significance in that respect.
“Conrad Says:
“And this is of course an example of why Adidam is considered by many to be a dualistic path. Suggesting that the Acausal Divine Reality actually and literally “shines” out of a photograph is to turn what is non-dual into a dualistic process, and what is acausal in to a causal relationship. Do you really have so little comprehension of what duality means not to grasp this?”
Feel4God replied:
“By your making this argument, you are apparently forgetting that true non-dualism states that all is the Acausal. So how does that fit into your comprehension? Isn’t true non-dualism a paradox to the mind that ultimately undoes it, not reinforce it with more concepts?”
First, you are confused about non-dual dharma. It does not state that everything in this world is acausal. Quite the opposite, it says that everything in this world is causal, which is why it also says that everything in this world is unreal, is illusory, is merely “mind”. The traditional Advaitic formula is that one, the world and the conditional self is an illusion; two, only unconditional Brahman is real: and three, Brahman is the world. You are leaping to step three, and confusing it with the notion that the things of this world are Brahman, which is not what it means at all. Step three is not a contradiction of step one, it is a clarification of it. It means the world is not the world at all, it is utterly empty, it is unconditional in nature, which is why it is objectively speaking unreal. So a photograph of someone has no reality to it which can be discerned by “jnana”. In reality, there is no object to be photographed, and no photograph to be viewed, and no viewer to see it. All these “things” are empty.
A photograph is caused, an effect of objective light and chemistry. Anything that “shines” is causal in nature, not acausal. Any object that you can see, whether it “shines” or not, is clearly viewed by the dualistic, causal mind. Acausal, non-dual Reality does not “shine” because there is no “thing” to shine, and no one to observe any shining.It’s like the story of Hei Neng passing two monks arguing about a flag waving in the wind. One monk argues that it is the flag that waves, the other that it is the wind that waves. Hui Neng interrupts and says “It is your mind that waves”. Similarly, it is your mind that shines, not the photograph. As long as you think this shining emanates from the photograph, rather than your own mind, you are missing the point. All “shining” is the mind. And it’s clear that you are interpreting this “shine” you experience from the photographs in your mind. You are even interpreting your heart-feelings in your mind. That is all causation and duality, which is all the mind really knows.
I don’t really blame you. What choice do you have? You live from the perspective of the dualistic mind, as we all do. Naturally you confuse these things with unconditional reality, as we all do. There’s nothing terribly unusual about that. It’s why religious people make the confused claims they do. It’s just worth pointing out, I think, because it helps us discriminate, and shed all kinds of conditional illusions, paring down our minds to the bare minimum. That’s useful, if initially unpleasant, in that we tend to cling to various beliefs our minds have constructed around religion. But it’s actually quite liberating.
“Another pretentious assumption by your mind – try using your feeling/knowing heart more, Conradg. Maybe it won’t argue so “logically”, but it tacitly understands and knows That which no one has ever proven via the mind, at least in my experience.”
That’s a strange standard you have. You claim to have near-magical powers of the heart to see into the egos of all others, and to discern the non-conditional realization of Adi Da as superior to all others, through photographs no less, but I am “pretentious” for pointing out that this is a rather dubious form of dualistic make-believe. I guess your standard for pretentiousness is “making sense”.
My own standard is to make the feeling-heart central to every moment of my practice, which means not confusing it with secondary matters and egoic claims and conditional knowledge and so forth. It is my feeling-heart which rejects your conflation of the heart with all kinds of subjective psychic hoo-ha, because I like the heart to be pure and free of mental intrusions and beliefs. The heart doesn’t know anything, that’s my experience. It should be kept that way, rather than whored out to some religious institution or set of beliefs. It’s not as if my mind isn’t around, but I like to keep the heart clear and clean even while the mind spins its verbiage. This leaves my mind free to be rational, and my heart free to be mindless. I rather like things that way.
“Another example of your pretentiousness and looking to summarily dismiss what I said and quoted about radical devotion and non-dualism. You would have been a good at some anti-Daist rally – “Look, there’s a Daist! Get him! He thinks Ramana Maharshi is some dissociated guy!”
Yes, yes, now the victimization game kicks in. Is there any depth of silliness you won’t sink to? What pose of self-righteousness have you left to play? I hope you are running out of steam, because this is just getting embarrassing. Apparently you are so identified with this whole silly photographic claim of yours that you can’t let it go, but must drag it out forever and ever, no matter how absurd it makes you seem. Is it really that deeply held a belief, that you can’t just turn, look at yourself, and laugh at its nuttiness? I mean, there are nutty things that everyone believes in private, but usually when we let them out and see how absurd they really are, we can let them go, and even wonder how we ever came to believe them in the first place. How long before you wake up and learn to laugh at your own silliness? As if that would be a bad thing.
“And you as the ego have “grasped” that?”
Yes, as an ego I can grasp that my ego has severe limits, is deluded, is prone to nutty ideas just like yours, and that it needs to be lauged at on a regular basis. That is what wives are for! The ego can gain knowledge of itself, and in that process, begin to dissolve. The best way to begin that is to realize how little we actually know, and how little we are even capable of knowing. Before I came to Da, even as a teenager, I studied mystics extensively, and the one common refrain I heard from them is that the mind, the ego, simply cannot know God. When Da began talking about Divine Ignorance, I thought, wonderful, I came to the right place. But now Adidam is full of “knowers” of all kinds, like yourself, and seems to be lacking anyone who is aware, like Socrates, that they know nothing.
“ I can play talking school too, Conrad.”
But of course you have been playing talking school. We are talking about matters that cannot ultimately be understood by the mind. A remarkable contradiction. If we are not aware of those limits to our speech and thought, but somehow think that talk and the mind can reach into the unconditional and bring back some kind of “knowledge” about things that is ultimate and true, well then, we really are starting to believe our own bullshit. The only difference I see between you and me is that I know my bullshit is bullshit, whereas you think yours is Divine heart-knowledge.
“I agree with you here up to a point. But go a step further and look at what the ego does when it gets beyond the Creator God side of it, which you basically are (rightfully) criticizing in your post above. Given the truth of the non-dualistic argument of there being only One, the ego then decides it is equal to Reality (and even greater than Reality by virtue of what it wants to actually do to Reality) – by making the truth of non-dualism into an Ideal and holding on to this Ideal, to the point of even allowing this Ideal to become the object of realization, and the justification that no Realized Sat-Guru is even necessary, and that the Sat-Guru is actually an impediment according to the ego! There are many examples of this being posted on this thread, so I don’t have to give any here.”
Are you talking about Adi Da here? Isn’t he the fellow who decided that he was not only equal to Reality, but greater than it? The greatest Reality ever? Isn’t he the one who turned this ideal of non-dualism into an icon of the ego, such that his own ego became the object of worship, rather than the Guru? After all, look what he did to all his Gurus – he left them behind, and made himself into the Guru instead. He became his own Guru, and declared all his previous Gurus to be unequal to himself, from Rudi to Muktananda to Ramana. Is that the kind of delusion you are criticizing here? If so, I fully agree with you. Egos will certainly declare themselves to be “realized”, and even “egoless” and make all kinds of claims about themselves. Which is why genuine realizers never make those kinds of declarations.
I don’t know of a single realizer who ever said they were egoless. Only Da and the regular mob of pseudo-realizers make that claim. So when you quote Da declaring himself to be egoless, it leaves exactly the opposite impression. Why not try something quite different, and actually act and be egoless, and let others notice on their own? That’s what Ramana and others like him seemed to do. In Adidam, however, the rule is to act as egoic as possible, and yet claim egolessness. You have to admire the brazenness of the act, but even still it’s not terribly plausible.
I don’t know if anyone on this thread is claiming that a realized Sat-Guru is unnecessary. I certaily am not. Nor did Ramana. I’ve only put forward an understanding of the role and function of the Sat-Guru that is different from the one Adi Da and you offer – in which the purpose of the Guru is to turn the devotee not to the human Guru himself, but to the Self of All, residing in the heart of all beings. The more the human Guru reveals himself, the more that revelation drives the devotee to understand himself, and surrenders to his true Divine Self at heart. Not “the heart on the right”, but the unconditional heart of real being, unlimited, uncaused, unborn, merely present as reality itself. So yes, the Guru doesn’t merely show us reality in himself, he shows us that we are reality, not at all different from the Guru. There are many ways of describing that process, but there is no way that is uniqely “true”. That whole notion is simply a dualistic imposition on a process that is singular at heart, no matter how it looks on the outside.
“In other words, the ego looks to subordinate Reality by making it into an Ideal within its mind. Your criticism about fundamentalism can also be applied to your positon as well – for making non-dualism into a knowable Ideal and never actually realizing it, but only endlessly talking about it. This is the basis for all mind-dharma/talking school. Only the heart knows and recognizes otherwise.”
To the extent that I do that, I openly plead guilty and renounce my own words. I could simply stay silent, but the mind goes on in any case, so why not let it be seen for what it is – an illusory limitation? But if you think all I do is “talk”, well, come walk a mile in my shoes some day. Of course only the heart knows non-dualism. Any fool knows that much, and I’m at least any fool. Why do you keep repeating this as if you are some special kind of fool who thinks only he’s aware of this truth? That’s the problem with Adidam – it’s such an isolated world, the people in it think they’re the only ones in the universe who have even the slightest understanding of the non-dual, when in reality they are among the least educated about it, even heart-wise.
“If this is what you got from all the statements I have made about radical devotion in Adidam and especially the quotes from Adi Da, then you are misreading them again. My take is that you mainly want to justify that no Sat-Guru is necessary – except for some inward sense of Self.”
That would be a strange motive on my part, seeing as I see things quite the opposite. I have been graced by the blessings of Sat-Gurus since I was a teenager, and I consider all those blessings to be helpful and necessary. I think, in the vein of Ramana, that the human Sat-Guru is necessary for all who are living in the dualistic mind, which includes me. The human Sat-Guru does not have to be physically present before one, however, and devotion to the Sat-Guru is best expressed not in money donated to some organization, or worshipful prostrations at their feet, but in honoring the Guru’s true position in one’s own heart. If you don’t yet understand that, I hope someday you will.
And by the way, don’t take any of my harsh words seriously. I sometimes speak sharply, but have a soft heart. There’s a place there for you, too.
December 26, 2008 at 6:24 pm
To clear up a couple of other matters, you somehow seem to interpret my reference to “the body”, in relation to our disagreements about whether the ego can be seen in a person’s body, as being a materialistic statement. I assumed that you understood I am talking about any and all parts of the body, not limited to the physical, but including all the koshas, gross, subtle and causal, etc. The point Da was making about high fifth stage realizers is that they are so purified in every aspect of the conditional body-mind – gross, subtle, and causal – that there is no visible distinction between them and a sixth or seventh stage realizer that any perceptual knowledge could discern. So the idea that you could psychically “see” their ego in a photograph seems absurd even from the perspective of Da’s own dharma. Especially seeing as you haven’t realized anything of much significance, and don’t have a greatly purified vehicle of psychic awareness to begin with.
The point is that what we see as “egoity” in someone is just the ripples of the ego as it spreads through the body-mind, not the ego itself, which is prior to the body-mind, and from which the body-mind itself springs. The ego is in the observer, not the thing observed.
Second, you said that only Da claimed to have been realized from birth. This is not true. Ananadamayi Ma, for example, claims to have been born realized also, and never did any sadhana at all tpo acheive realization. Whereas, though Da claims to have been born realized, he also claims to have lost realization at the age of two, which suggests it was a pretty fragile “realization”, and not unconditional at all, since it came and went. And yes, I know Da claims this was all some sort of conscious, sacrificial plan for God’s work, but really, how plausible is that? You might as well believe in Christian dogma about the crucifixion, which I don’t.
The facts are, Da was a seeker, he admits as much, and had to do all kinds of sadhana to purify himself. How successful that project was is a matter of debate.
December 26, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Well, gee. I just came here to say a few things, express my point of view. I didn’t come here to get into an argument or to put anyone down or to offend anyone. I took it in the ass a long time ago for this fake guru and that was more than enough. It didn’t feel good and it didn’t exactly enlighten me, though I could say that it opened my eyes. There are all kinds of ways to learn a lesson. Lesson learned. No reason to go through that again. I’m outta here.
So take care guys, and have a happy new year.
December 26, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
> The effect I am describing is hardly magical or invisible,
> and is not merely based on belief.
I’d question the use of the word “merely” in connection with belief. Through the power of belief, our experience can radically change, the body can be profoundly affected, even physical diseases may disappear. I’m not sure that anything is more powerful or less trivial than belief.
> By experience, I mean that it is commonly seen in
> charismatic groups, and you do not have to believe
> at all to experience the effect.
For example, if a group of people are in a supposed power vortex spot, or in the presence of a supposed holy man, then a certain percentage will reliably get special experiences… but only if they’re AWARE of the supposed power. If you put the people in one room, and they THINK a God-Man is in the next room, the effect will occur. If the supposed God-Man is in the next room, but the people aren’t told about it, if the idea that they’re in the presence of power isn’t put in their minds… then the effect doesn’t occur. That’s what I mean.
I agree that charismatic groups demonstrate great power among their members. I’m saying that this power, these special effects, are never separate from the minds of the experiencers, from their thinking, beliefs, expectations.
Gurus like Da, Muktananda, and many others claim to have powers that are like fire (which will burn you whether you’re aware of it or not), or like a air-borne virus (which will infect you whether you’re aware of it or not). They claim powers that aren’t dependent on the thinking of the experiencer (as with fire, virus, etc). But this is never demonstrated to be actually the case.
Such claims from a guru encourage the followers to feel dependent on the outside power supposedly emenating from the guru… rather than examining their own minds.
> In this case I refer to experience with Da, Mutkananda,
> and many others less known, but you can find the same
> thing around others. You can believe only reason anyone
> felt anything at all around them is belief, if that is your
> experience, and that if you don’t believe, there is no affect.
Claims of special powers can be tested. Muktananda claimed, e.g., that special energy radiated from objects he’d touched (such as beads or a hat or socks he had worn). Many people treasured such objects, felt energy, and believed the claims. But the difference is… when actually tested (to see whether they could distinguish socks the guru had worn from identical-looking mundane socks), they can never tell the difference.
Without the testing, no one would know this. Anyone who believes they really can feel such energy (in the absense of THINKING that the energy is there) can test it quite easily. If they can pass the test and demonstrate such para-normal perception, they can become world-famous and rich. If they can’t pass the test, then they can discard the false claims. It’s a win-win proposition.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
December 27, 2008 at 4:13 am
Conrad’s post that begins, “I’m falling behind in this thread, due to family and friends and holiday cheer. I’ll try to catch up, but it may take a while…” and continues with two paragraphs of quotation from Feel4God, followed by an argument that jnana doesn’t produce conditional knowledge (quite the opposite), followed by some appraisal of the value of bhakti and then Conrad’s wondrfully clear and succinct retelling of Papaji’s realization through Ramana…
That post is primo Conrad. I’ve read a lot of Conrad’s posts on other fora, often admiringly, and gotten a great deal from many of them, in both Conrad’s Daist and post-Daist evolutions. So I want to express my appreciation and gratitude for this kind of contribution here…while so much of the conversation between Conrad and Feel4God and FFaC on this forum has *literally* given me a headache (actually, one headache after another, day after day, which is not to say that the same passages I find cranium-splitting haven’t been of value to others…I’m not criticizing, just reporting my subjective experience) there are also passages and aspects of Feel4God’s contributions that I’ve found of value…I appreciate his faith and sincerity and occasional humor.
I guess I just want to jump in to “vote” for those contributions here that I *like*, as I’ve already “voted” for NC’s and I believe Wes’ contributions, perhaps, as I examine the impulse to do so, in hopes of influencing the conversation here in the direction of my own desires and tastes (an unlikely prospect indeed, now that I’ve articulated it!). I do so much feel the need and desire at this time to be in touch with discussion about Da and Adidam amongst those who have personal experience and knowledge of them or who know of them or have been touched by them, and this blog is serving that purpose for me to some extent, and I guess I’d like to see the proportion of material that engages me increase here, because wading through what’s here for what I like is such a chore!!! Well, “no pain, no gain”, they say, although I’ve serious doubts about that truism…I do wish there was more personal narrative, love, humor, and celebration here, meanwhile I’ve got no problem with someone ripping Da and Adidam to shreds if it’s done honestly (sincerely), and preferably trenchantly, perhaps with a little wit and verve, hell, maybe maybe even entertainingly!
What’s been going on for me upon and subsequent to Da’s death has been a dawning, growing realization of what a diverse spectrum of benefits and gifts have flowed from my years of attention all of this, a process that I see now continued to unfold in the years that followed during which I was *not* in any outward manner putting attention into this…I see also that I still love and appreciate Da much as I did before, or at least the Da that I made for myself out of all the raw materials provided by Adidam and my contact with it (most of it pre-1987)…although I do feel that there’s more to my Da than just that. This somehow even though I have in more recent years basically accepted as more or less true, or true enough in any case, the horror stories and profoundly dysunfcional image that have emerged from Adidam.
This process of evaluation and re-feeling I’m going through and trying to describe a bit here, well, it seems completely paradoxical and mysterious and almost downright impossible. Maybe I’ll post more about it later, I seem to have a need to participate here, but my Carpal Tunnel has brought me to the end of my capacity to type for the time being…
Meanwhile, thanks EVERYONE writing here, and thanks Jerry for the space…
December 27, 2008 at 2:07 pm
i once went to an adi da event in petaluma ca. it was at a persons home in early 2000 , michelle from adidam in terra linda let me go even though i was not a devote, wow! it was a trip , since then i always wanted to meet adi da , then i went to adi da in terra linda on christmas eve 2008 and found out adi da went back into the light, i was bummed , but now iam here, and all is ok , i hope all continues positive for devotes, i look 4ward to a time when i can sit in front of a pic of him like the one in terra linda , that area seems alive when i peek behind the curtin , i hope all devotes find his going back into the light as gain. adi da would want this to bring you joy and a will to move 4ward , may this day bring 100% joy to your relationship with adi da. in love -eric
December 27, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Susan,
For what it’s worth, I thought your post was great, and I don’t understand what all the fuss is about. You seem to have a very level head, and you’re quite right about our men’s tent. Maybe you could dance for us?
December 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm
It seems to me there can be no question Da suffered terribly because of the level and composition of the people who came to him; they not only allowed him to get away with all of that nonsense, they actively and enthusiastically supported him in it….still he does rank as one of the greatest Self-Gratifiers ever to have been publicized
December 28, 2008 at 12:26 am
So hard to catch up on this blog…Conrad, I’ve really enjoyed your recounting of inviting Ramana into your room at night when you were young, also your recounting of Saradamma’s bhakti and realization. And the latter has made me aware of a living Advaita teacher I didn’t know about–Saradamma, aka Mathra Sri Sarada! Thanks!
http://mathrusrisarada.org/
Wish I felt like I could spring for David Godman’s book on Saradamma and Lakshmana–I can find it available (apparently long out of print) only at $30 and $60.
December 28, 2008 at 10:18 am
Re: Placebo Da posted 12-21-08 by Susan
google “placebo” and you get over a million sites(URLs); and google placebo effect and gurus and you get to some interesting sites.
e.g., http://newhumanist.org.uk/697
I thought Susan’s post on Placebo Da and the subject matter of the placebo effect was excellent.
What if it is only that —all thought induced as UG (Krishnamurti) would say??? Certainly placebos (and placebo gurus) can trigger a lot of brain chemistry. Just physiology after all and no spirituality –and maybe not even ” spiritual transmission”. Just the placebo effect after all.
Certainly with all the so called “transmission” that myself as a long time devotee (now ex-devotee of Franklin) has received (same with all the rest of Adidam members), you would think that we would all be “enlightened” by now…. but zero growth and maturity in Adidam.
When Adidam Michael (earlier post) says: I like talking about Adi Da, it makes me feel good. Wasn’t that just the placebo effect.. Born again Christians are always like that ..As soon as you say Jesus (Da) they brighten up.
However, the lasting effect is questionable.
December 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I can’t help but feel that this has become a dump on the guru site….and that does really annoy me, but more than annoyance I feel a kind of disbelief. Have you people ever read his teaching? Most of you have paraphrased, and not really referred to his “actual” written word. I suppose I need to examine that observation in myself.
It always baffles me when people refer to Samaraj Adi Da’s charisma. Truthfully, when I first encountered video of him, I found his “character” offensive, but after studying the teaching I became hooked on it. I had dabbled with other teachers but found them dry, and inaccessible, but his teaching spoke right to my heart. What I’m trying to say, is that I didn’t approach the teaching as a gopi. I didn’t find myself seduced by imaginings that I be part of his group of ladies. That didn’t appeal to me at all. What I did find attractive was his constant way of revealing narcissus in my own case, and in the case of everyone around me….either you stayed in place, or you ran away. At some point I did choose to run away, to handle some business that left me unprepared to be a student in his company. Also, and primarily I was attracted to the amazing beauty, of not only his Presence (and I do mean that with a capital P) and the gift of his sanctuaries. I felt that He always gave his devotees an opportunity to be drawn beyond the revelation of narcissus.
I can’t help but feel that all this criticism is a way to put him away in a box of our own constructs but actually it is all the evils of the world we see. False praise is another way of binding someone to limited views. We have our own little Pandora boxes.
It is my sincere wish that we all open our box, and find what is at the bottom of it all. http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/pandora.html
It seems to me that the general consensus here is that anyone who has an actual real love relationship with Samaraj Adi Da is deluded. That’s a pretty unfair assessment….and also a form of intolerance. Perhaps, it’s because I’m an artist that in spite of all my twisting and turnings, I remained deeply connected to him, even in my period of disillusionment. I could never really altogether dismiss him because of the many gifts of understanding and beauty I received in His company.
There are few people in my life that I actually despise, but would I take this much time to take them apart, and spill my venom on them publicly. Absolutely not. Not because I’m above it because I am not. I’m probably one of the most violent people you could come across, but I have to choose to abandon that primal urge, because I understand that there is no cookie at the end of that tunnel of misfortune for me…and believe me I have to recommit to that proclamation daily.
Last night a housemates friend came over that I cannot abide, no matter how much delving I do into the root of it. My anger always feels justifiable, but I’m learning to let the anger be a motivator to turn to meditation, to turn to the reality of my own self, and let my “heart” Master reveal myself to me….and so reluctantly I have to thank this gentlemen for helping me to see that I cannot win. “I” was not intended to win, but to be surrendered, and not to some imagined, Daddy God, some “fake guru” but to one who I see to be, have experienced to be the ultimate servant of who “I” am in truth.
My father was a golden glove champion boxer, and a champion race car driver. He put himself on the edge with all the dangerous sports he could. Till finally he literally and figuratively crashed into a wall at Westboro, Ma raceway. From day one, I was set up to lose with him, and to lose him ultimately. That is my oedipal in a nutshell…and thank god for that. It brought great suffering, and liberation too. I know about being involved with competitions that I can never win. What I’m saying is that I can’t win the “my guru is better than your guru” contest anymore than I could knock my father out (as much as sometimes wanted to). I can only speak my truth, and if you want to dismiss me as a deluded bliss junkie, well, frankly, it is none of my business…but I will try to learn from you all…but one thing you will never convince me of, is that my time is wasted on Samraj Adi Da.
I know many of you are very generous in your disagreement and view our conversation as a consideration rather than argument, and I appreciate that. So, I don’t mean to generalize here, but I just wanted to address a tone, that I find less than illumined. It is useful in the sense that I have to transcend my urge to be “right”, but most the time, at the bottom of all this intelligent and some less than intelligent argumentation, is the frustration of an expectation. ” I didn’t get what I wanted from Samraj Adi Da, so he must be wrong, must be fake, must be “dualistic”.
Please don’t misunderstand me. It is useful to be upfront about one’s beliefs, and It really isn’t within my power to (nor would I want it to be)suppress any-one’s right to vent, but I just wanted to share my perspective on some of what I’m hearing here.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
December 28, 2008 at 2:51 pm
P.S. This is just one part of what I’m hearing. Many of the posts I find very uplifting and inspiring. And even in the midst of many posts I find abrasive, I find gems of gold….so it makes me question why the abrasiveness. Why set a tone of a battleground? Am I taking your affronts to each other too seriously?
December 28, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Just learned today, surfing the net on vacation, that Da is dead.
He was perhaps the most controversial of all of the recent “God-men” (and women). I remain confused about how someone with obvious spiritual powers can be so ethically corrupt. (His drug orgies, Muktananda’s pedophilia, Sai Baba’s lying and sexual secrets, etc. etc.
I had a passing interest in the man. I liked some of his earlier writings. I was watching him talk about death on cable TV in San Francisco when I got a phone call from my father about my mother’s ovarian cancer.
A few years later I asked him (in prayer) for a Teaching about death. I promptly had a nearly fatal experience climbing a mountain and broke out in a cold sweat that night, realizing on a deep level how afraid I was of ego/body death. I had always maintained it was no big deal to me. Well, it was, and still is.
That said, I had no interest in becoming a follower of someone who made such grandiose claims about himself.
Coincidentally, I followed a small-time guru for ten or twenty years who had the same guru as Adi Da: Swami Rudrananda. (Insufficiently recognized, in my opinion, by Da as the source for a lot of his basic teachings.)
Sadly, my guru has been claiming more and more powers for himself and I cannot follow him as I once did, although I still practice the valuable meditation practices he teaches, and I still have a lot of respect for him.
But giving one’s power to another is a treacherous path. I wouldn’t recommend it, although I would suggest that everyone interested in spiritual fulfillment try to learn from those who have spent many hours mastering the path.
Da may have. He may have been a charlatan. I don’t know. I do hope his followers find peace, truth, and happiness.
December 28, 2008 at 6:03 pm
NC,
I’m not really sure who or what you are addressing. Could you be more specific, and cite actual posters and passages you find offensive? Because honestly, I don’t find people here being vile and bitterly negative because they “didn’t get what they wanted” in Adidam. It seems to me that people have legitimate criticisms of Adi Da, and if anything many bend over backwards to be kind to him in memorium.
I think you have to be more careful making such harsh criticisms of posters who are simply speaking freely about their experience with Da. No one is suggesting that you not speak freely in more positive terms about Da, but the notion that others speaking critically of Da are somehow being vile and bitterly resentful, and putting Da in boxes, is itself just a straw man. In fact, without your citing examples of people actually doing this here, it seems like a kind of bitter and resentful attack all its own, an example of the very thing you are supposedly criticizing.
I don’t know of anyone who says being in love with Da is deluded, at least any more than being love with anyone is deluding. The question is, how healthy is that love? If you look around you, you will find countless examples of people being in love in a manner that does them harm. Well, there’s lots of people who were in love with Da who came to see that it wasn’t a healthy form of love, there were a number of delusions that went with it. Separating the genuine love from the delusions is not always so easy. That requires discrimination. And many people here voicing their criticisms of Da are just using their discrimination to see where the love relationship they had with Da was healthy, and where it was unhealthy. Pretending that it was purely one or the other would be to carry on the pattern of all-or-nothing thinking that got many of us into trouble in the first place.
Obviously there were good, healthy things about Da that helped us all in one way or another, and their were negative, unhealthy, even pathological things about Da which may have hurt us. No need to play the victim about that, but we should be able to honestly acknowledge every aspect of the relationship and deal with it appropriately. Lots of people felt the appropriate way to deal with it was to leave and build a spiritual life by other means. I guess you are even one of those people? So maybe there are negatives about your experience in Adidam that you don’t like being addressed here, but still, you must have had enough of your own to not be participating in Adidam anymore. (Or am I confused about your status?)
One of the central notions of non-dualism is that we have to transcend our love for “spiritual” objects by recognizing that what we seek in them, whether it be Da or Jesus or whomever, is actually located in our own being and Self. If we don’t recognize that, we of course end up loving these people in order to “get” God from them, and this corrupts us in so many ways it’s hard to keep track of them all. Loving without an object in mind is the secret of non-dual practice. When a supposedly non-dual path makes its Guru or some other objective person the object of one’s love, it tends to deestroy the non-dual nature of spiritual practice, and binds one to that person, rather than liberating one from the bondage of dualistic love. It’s not that dualistic love is unreal, it’s that it constantly undermines its own motive to be free. Therefore the Guru must always be setting his devotees free, and not creating dualistic traps, by always directing the devotee to find what he seeks in his own being, even if he uses the Guru as a means for that.
A lot of former devotees of Da don’t think he did such a great job of that. You may disagree, but don’t assume that those who disagree with you are full of false and hostile motives.
December 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I don’t see calling experiencing Adi Da a placebo effect.
First, isn’t a placebo effect having a harmless, inert substance work in place of real medicine because (apparently) you believed it would and didn’t know you weren’t getting the real thing? If so, then any fake guru is as good as the real deal if you believe enough?
Really? Then everything is a placebo effect. Every holy site is the same as a hamburger joint in Gary, Indiana; Jimmy Swaggart’s transmission = Ramana’s; etc. That’s the radical nondual teaching, all right! I can’t go that far, maybe some day…
But since it didn’t work, or worse, hurt you, where was the placebo effect? Still you doing it to yourself? You could call that the negative placebo effect.
Second, the act of turning to a guru who is specifically telling you that the you who is looking for fulfillment will be undone, as a means of avoiding exactly that, would be totally stupid and a complete lack of seriousness. Is everyone who is attracted to spiritual life that shallow and casual? Is there nothing real about people’s spiritual impulse?
Third, the idea that Adi Da’s energy effects were imagined or self-generated because of his hype and presentation, and the cult around him supporting it combining with the need of those who came to him, seems to me to be more of a stretch than just admitting that the man had powers. His undeniable powers presented the biggest hurdle for me getting free of him, even as I wanted to and believed he had gone off the tracks. The point finally was that the powers don’t signal enlightenment.
This is not meant to be confrontational BTW. The word “placebo” brought up some thoughts. I think it is unfathomable to figure out what is inside and what is outside.
December 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I would also agree that “placebo effect” does not adequately describe Da’s influence, or the general notion of spiritual experience, energy, etc. Non-dual teachings do not suggest that there is no difference between an awakened Guru’s capacity to communicate non-dual reality and an ordinary Joe’s. Nor does it suggest that there is no such thing as holy sites, spiritual forces, and so on. It merely says that these are part of the dualistic mind which must be transcended. It doesn’t suggest that the way to transcend the dualistic mind is to pretend it doesn’t exist, and impose some kind of literal notion of equality upon the world of objects.
If you see objects, you are living in dualism, and if you are living in dualism, you have to acknowledge its differences. When in Rome… That’s why discrimination is necessary. In non-dual reality, there is no discrimination – in fact, it’s discrimination which creates dualism. Going beyond non-dual is tricky business, which is why non-dual teachings are both remarkably simple and very confusing.
Spiritual transmission is a very strange concept. If taken literally, it’s ridiculous. Do we really think that radical awakening actually travels through the air and “hits” us? Of course not. And yet, the perception remains that spiritual agencies exist. Personally, I think it’s a primitive concept to actually think of spiritual consciousness literally being “transmitted” by anyone. You can’t receive a transmission from someone else of who you are. But you can be reminded of who you are by someone who already knows who you are. What the Guru does is nothing more, in essence, than remind you of who you are. He can do that, because he knows who you are directly, because he consciously knows himself as that same One. So it “looks” a bit like some sort of “transmission”, but that’s not what’s literally going on.
It’s like photographs. There is no energy coming out of photographs. But photographs serve as reminders to us, and that remembering they stimulate can help us to feel ourselves as we really are. It’s the same with any other kind of spiritual device, image, statue, puja article, etc. Some objects, because we have their image so hard-wired into our minds and psyches, have an especial capacity to trigger these memories of who we are. Even the word “memory” isn’t quite right, because it’s not really a past event, but a present reality that we have simply misplaced the knowledge of. Maya is like a vast realm of amnesia, and when we remember who we are, it’s suddenly no longer real. It might seem that we have been “given” some kind of information we didn’t have, but that’s not accurate. We just were able to make the connection within ourselves to who we are, even if it was triggered to some degree by a photo, a mantra, a glance of some Guru, a whack on the head with a peacock feather.
In a sense, of course, we could certainly compare this to the placebo effect, not in the sense of it being unreal, but in the sense of its being genuinely self-generated. The placebo effect doesn’t refer to an illusory kind of well-being. Quite the opposite, it refers to the capacity of the mind to create real physiological effects in the body without any kind of outside medical interference. Placebo cures are very real. They result from the body’s own immune system and physiology being favorably effected by the mood changes of those who feel they are being “cured”. In reality, there is no outside medicine effecting the cure, but the cure nonetheless really does happen. People really do, in many cases, actually cure their own cancer, or heart disease, or tuberculosis, or whatever it is that might otherwise have killed them. This just tells us the body and the mind have remarkable inner capacities that we don’t give ourselves credit for.
Similarly, many spiritual teachers and teachings like to pretend that they are what cures you, when in reality they merely stimulate your own self-healing. Even Ramana said that you simply cannot achieve self-realization without having a profound sense of self-confidence in not just your ability to realize, but the inevitability of it. But Ramana always said, it is your own Self which enlightens you, not him. Or, he is merely your own Self, seemingly alive as another human body-mind. It works out to the same thing. But Ramana always warned people not to impose non-dual concepts on ordinary life, or on the Guru. One doesn’t pretend the Guru is literally like everyone else. There’s a spiritual role that the awakened Self reserves for the bodily “ash” that is leftover in such cases.
December 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Once again I appreciate NC’s post (made December 28, 2008 at 1:17 pm). When I read it I interpreted her comments about tone as pointing to whatever quality it is in much of the discussion here that gives me a headache. So I felt validated by NC’s post.
But I also loved parts of Conrad’s critical response to NCs post. I find Conrad’s statement “Loving without an object in mind is the secret of non-dual practice” beautiful and clarifying. Love without object; reminds me of “happiness for no reason” as Da used to talk about.
Also really appreciate Gregg’s and no12C41′s recent posts.
I guess I’m just “voting” again!
December 29, 2008 at 1:48 am
Why I am a devotee:
#1 – In 2005, Adi Da sat with hundreds of devotees and caused us to feel a force of LOVE so incredibly powerful that dozens spontaneously wept at the heart-breaking beauty of it. This revealed Love to be a force at least as pervasive and immense as all the other lifeless forces of nature. But, perhaps most importantly, our own affinity with this Love demonstrated the divine depth of the human heart.
That such an experience is even possible is the greatest news for all beings, as one intuited that this Love-Happiness will somehow be the ultimate destiny of all.
#2 – On several occasions, Adi Da, without a visible physical gesture, caused me to perceive the direct Truth of his Teachings regarding Consciousness: what we conceive of as our limited, local “consciousness” is like a pinhole in a field of consciousness that pervades and underlies all of the cosmic domain. Adi Da had the capacity to supplant one’s own sense of “my” consciousness with this universal Being-Presence. The conventional sense of “me, here” was revealed to be an absurdity; there is only one Me; it is everywhere and “we” are It.
#3 – Finally, turning my attention to Adi Da through regular mediation and a consideration of His Teachings has proved to be BY FAR the most effective psychological and spiritual process I have found, after ten years of intensive searching AND practicing (not just reading) in other traditions. This practice also intensifies the ongoing sense of #1 and #2 above, even outside the physical presence of the Guru.
So, in short, my practice under Adi Da has been blissful AND insightful.
Reading these letters of righteous condemnation of Adi Da, (including via endless philosophizing), I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. People here act as if devotion to a guru is like chopping off your leg or something, yet they seem naively unaware of how retarded in our development and self-deluded we tend to become when left to our own “spiritual” devices.
Those who think we “must” be grooving on Adi Da’s Energy might be right, but have they fathomed exactly WHAT this Energy Is??!! They remind me of that freaked-out feeling you get when you first fall in love, in response to which some people always run for the hills.
I don’t expect anybody to believe my experiences, but we should recall that the ENTIRE domain of “psychological” and “spiritual” experiences, including simple “Love” and “Happiness”, is not “provable”.
It is therefor logically and socially imperative that we adopt an agnostic and tolerant response to the “unbelievable” experiences of others, rather than the dogmatic cynicism that tempts the over-eager intellect fresh out of tidy explanations.
Lucky in Love,
Karl Kaiser
“Do not believe in Me.”
[ rather ]
“Get to know Me better.” – Adi Da
December 29, 2008 at 5:50 am
Thank You to ALL early Devotees !
It may be just as well in my case that I was never in the thick of activity with Adi Da. I may have left if I were confronted with some of the wilder circumstances described here, but then it’s also possible that “knowing” this, my tendency, He might have worked me right at my limit.
On the other hand, I can still hypothetically accept just about EVERY outrageous claim of Adi Da’s behavior with devotees without deciding that this “disqualifies” him as a Realizer, or even “Divine”. One need only read about Marpa and Milarepa to know that many Gurus take all the latitude you’ll give them, and then some.
It’s clear that Adi Da meets many of the sufficient qualities of an extraordinarily Realized Being AND that the history of such Beings leaves little room for facile disqualifications (a delicious inscrutability that some mindy folks really Hate!).
Lest all these musings look like desperate rationalization, cult-think, etc. blah blah blah, I need only return to where I started, which is the unmistakeably profound, unique and clear demonstrations Adi Da made to me (prior post), and the effectiveness of His ongoing Felt Presence and Teachings as a personal spiritual process.
I think that historically there was a natural need for a degree of insularity in Adidam, in order to serve and even protect the Guru and His Work, to build powerful hermitage sanctuaries, to plant this seed of a wholly crafted new religion, to publish all the works, and jam through a core group of devotees as far as they might progress during His Lifetime. However, this insularity had its cultic downside, which was exacerbated by the small size of the organization (how many hard-working “jerks” can you afford to kick out of a fledgling low-budget organization?).
But now that the Guru’s physical form has passed, the central pressure is greatly relieved at the same time that we must become more relational with the world if Adi Da’s Process is to grow.
And so, I’d like to suggest the possibility of a “new chapter” in Adidam, which is not a repudiation of the past, but an opportunity to work with a “dead Guru” who is no longer “kicking our ass” or suffering His Own, and Whose Blessing Influence can become all the more constant for that. May we still kick our own ass as needed.
Finally, I would suggest a more temperate outlook on the following:
Don’t count out the (to-some-degree) Adidam “Realizers” just yet.
For former devotees, don’t lament your expenditures of time and energy. You created something astonishing which yet has the potential to serve to transmit all the Best of Adi Da’s Influence for ages to come. If good deeds count for anything, you probably made a fruitful looong-term investment.
Love,
Karl
December 29, 2008 at 6:07 am
A quick note to Eddie’s from 12/10.
I couldn’t resist a quick comment on this, as it relates to one of the most striking demonstrations of Adi Da to me, and also points raised here and there in His Teachings.
EDDIE WROTE:
However, it occurred to me some time ago that we (scientists, philosophers, pundits, Adidam) create complexity out of utter simplicity. My greatest discovery was that the act of observation actually creates the complexity! (Is there any precedent for this statement in Adi Da’s literature? It has precedents in quantum physics.)
Here is what Adi Da “Said” to me, by way of a psychic demonstration (which also comports with my pesky intuition), along with some of His Teachings (all thickly paraphrased):
Nature’s complexity of “patterns patterning” is the gross manifestation of Karma, or “the Cause of all causes”. But Karma itself arises as the immediate effect of every separative act or thought, just as the “torque” of physics arises orthogonal to the polar dance between opposing inertial bodies. (the torque analogy is Adi Da’s, and just Perfect.)
Put differently, it is the ACT of Objectification of self-and-other in the web of conditional reality that seeds the Karmic “potentials” which underlie the samsaric processes in the conditional worlds.
This neatly explains:
- how “karmic consequences” are effected with minimal transcendental “overhead” (no angelic accountants, etc.).
- how the conditional universe IS a form of mind.
- why the conditional universe will sublimate when all beings are finally Realized.
- that action out of self-surrender (via love or devotional communion) is non-separative, hence non-dual, and therefor without karmic consequence.
[ sound of mind blowing ... ]
Karl
December 29, 2008 at 1:29 pm
How Devotion is Non-Dual
I don’t have time to read the reams of posts on this matter, but if my perusal is correct, then here is my consideration of exactly how Adi Da’s Process transcends dualism:
Reality IS non-dual. “Dualism” is just another word for the ACT of egoic seperation-withdrawal from/within Reality.
Therefor, any spiritual process that undermines the separative ACT enables non-dual realization.
There is perhaps no other disposition more effective at undermining separativeness than active Love, including the devotional love of the Guru.
Further, the Realized Guru serves as a powerfully resonant and transformative locus of the radiant force of Reality (especially for those beings in “like form”), and many of us can testify to the intensification of this force in immediate response to spontaneous loving – devotion.
To sum up:
Loving devotional communion to the incarnate Realizer (“Reality-izer”) suspends the dualistic act while also opening the body-mind to Reality’s own transformative energies that then resonate from the Guru to His love-ers.
Love,
Karl
“Everybody dies to blow everybody else’s mind.” – Adi Da
December 29, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Conradq, I really don’t want to get into siting specific posters, because I don’t want to make it a personal battle. I’m mostly addressing a tone. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it. (Please note, that I’m saying this gently and without irony)
I will state a couple of things that bother me though; the reoccurring mention of Samraj Adi Da’s “sexual orgies” and supposed physical abuse. It was the sixties, or seventies when most of this stuff allegedly happened. I say allegedly only because I didn’t experience that period. So it would be engaging in gossip to make any absolute statements about that period of time for me. Hell, I wasn’t involved then, but I remember a couple of drunken orgies in my past. Am I proud of it? Not really, but I’m not ashamed either anymore. It was all experimentation to get beyond a puritanical way of thinking, but I learned hedonism isn’t it either. Also, taking his teaching words out of context is another thing that sticks in my craw. Saying that he was a seeker by his own admission, is just a partial picture of what his sadhana as a spiritual being was about, and what he communicated about that process.
It’s just a general mood of picking apart. All well known, creative people seem to have to go through this. Look at how the celebrities in this country are treated. I guess I’m just tiring of that. I think it would be more useful to talk about your own experience of (which in my view, you do Conradq) the spiritual process.
Certainly I went through difficult times in the community, but through my spiritual program, I’ve learned that I created it all. I had willing participants, people who were more than willing to add to my little drama, as I was to theirs.
Wherever “I” go, there “I” am. It’s a matter of doing the work of self inspection, to see how I am attracting negativity.
That is my confession; I live as narcissus, until I make a choice to practice spiritual principles before indulging in my fear.
The fact that I left my teacher, the community, doesn’t make them wrong. It doesn’t make me wrong. The way I was engaged in it was no longer useful. I had outgrown my need to be a religious fool, but I recognize that it was not the fault of Samaraj Adi Da, or the community, that I behaved in this way. Out of my feelings of being unloved, unworthy, I developed an immature approach to spiritual life. Samaraj Adi Da reflected all of that to me.
I have a lot of respect for the way you’ve conducted yourself here Conradq….and I am genuinely sorry if you mistook my criticism as feeling you were across the board hostile or false. I confess to feeling you may be hostile in fleeting moments. I only know what I’m capable of in un-inspected moments. Perhaps I was projecting.
I find your experience of non dualism very interesting and while, I don’t fully understand, or am willing to engage in the relationship I had with Samraj Adi Da in the same way I did in the past, I don’t find the notion of making use of that relationship unappealing or necessarily contradictory to non-dualistic principles. It’s all in the maturity of the spiritual practitioner, of how he will make use of a spiritual master. Ultimately, it is a relationship of love, and ongoing willingness to inspect one’s motives. So, even though, I departed from his company, what he initiated in me has not ended, and for that I am grateful. I suppose in my grieving process, I am probably very sensitized to criticisms of Bhagavan Adi Da especially since I have had such a strong turn around in my heart towards him, the community, and the world around me in general. Everything I see, both positive and negative is a reflection of myself. I have a choice in this moment to practice putting “spiritual principles before personalities.”
If I remember that everyone, is full of light, and if I turn to that I find freedom. If I see only the darkness I caught again in the web of Maya’s illusion of separative existence.
December 29, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I can’t say I am too clear on this issue of what’s subjective and what is not. Whichever way you go, either you could be self-generating it, or coldly non-responsive. There could always be a scientific explanation, even unknown, and a spirituo-magical construing.
All this talk about the photographs and realization. I am quite the opposite of Feel4god in that I cannot fathom judgment via photos. The very idea bothers me and seems flaky. Yet, it jogged my memory of an event which I feel is germane to this discussion; it even relates to Da in some way. I was in India at the time and I made a rare visit to a library, where I accidentally came across a certain book. I cannot clearly recall, I don’t even think I could say back then either, but it was as if a flash of light went from the front photo to me. I say as if. I seem to recall that that figure of speech was how I worded it at the time. Later, as I looked at the photos in that book of the guru, I felt a pureness which I had never known before. I showed this to others, but no one felt the way I did about it. Yet, I felt it so strongly. Again, I am by character very opposed to this; I tend to be literal and opposed even to metaphors. I took a train from one coast of India to the other to meet this guru. Long story short, the guru had no use for me. Through an intermediary I was told that devotees of Da were not wanted. (The intermediary assured me he had not mentioned that, nor was I a formal devotee). I found the whole thing extremely bizarre. I mean, I am not drawn to this type of thing and have no explanation that I can really believe. Perhaps I was just very impressionable and that’s all. The intermediary said that the photo had been carefully selected for a certain power shall we say, but that only I am responsible for my own response to it. I felt that I might just add this to the consideration. Was it a message or was it just an impressionable fool? How could this sort of thing be subject to a scientically controlled double-blind study? Truly, I was very drawn to Da Free John, and I liked the photos, but nothing like this had ever been felt, before or after. I was not under the influence of any drugs, or illness, nor fasting, nor sleep-deprivation or emotional duress. Why would I be so drawn in another direction, only to be summarily dismissed? Is there a mystery or just stupidity glorified? Before I go, what about dead gurus kicking ass? Now that DFJ is no longer with us, does his statement hence apply to himself? How is this to be reconciled?
December 29, 2008 at 11:33 pm
An interesting cat…before he went utterly off his rocker.
I didnt know he was a visual artist as well. And you — his stuff aint half bad. Looks like Leger on acid. Better than Alex Grey, at any rate. RIP.
December 30, 2008 at 4:48 am
No12c41: You pose very good questions on the Placebo Effect.
Part 1
I tend to think that symbols, ideas, and beliefs including perceptions and interpretations have taken us in the direction of wanting placebos to dull the pain of self consciousness, thus fear. We want relief and hence, palliatives. Adi Da (Franklin) doesn’t have the goods or someone by now (after 38 years) would have received them from him. But he claims to give you more than a neutral inert, harmless substance. He claims to give you god realization and not just a placebo but it ends that he doesn’t give any more than a placebo.
By the way: Hadn’t thought about Franklin in this way until Susan brought it up.
1) I love the label “Da Placebo”. It fits Franklin very well. Even, “Da Plastibo” fits well.
2) As a metaphor, “Da Placebo” or “it’s the Da Placebo effect” make good sense to me; 3) As a scientific theory or as an actual scientific proven fact, it’s definitely worth the research and discussion.
Wikipedia definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo
And http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026854.900-first-placebo-gene-discovered.html
Etymology: From the Latin meaning “I will please” –i.e., I will please the patient or I will please the believer, etc.
In the book, the Biology of Belief, 2005 by Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., p.137, there is a good section on Placebos: The Belief Effect and Necebos: the Power of Negative Effects.
He suggests that the terms placebo effect, belief effect, and perception effect could almost be used interchangeably.
Or, —The Other Side of Belief, 2005 by Mukunda Rao, p.244 on Body, Mind, and Soul, Do they Exist? This is a very good chapter on the subject beyond the belief effect.
Wikipedia: Mechanisms for the effect
It is universally accepted that, for a placebo response to occur, the subject must believe an effective medication (or other treatment) has been administered to them.
Expectancy effect: The subject-expectancy effect attributes the placebo effect to conscious or unconscious manipulation by patients in reporting improvement.
Conditioning: Classical conditioning is a type of associative learning where the subject learns to associate a particular stimulus with a particular response. In this case the stimulant is the substance perceived as medicine but is the placebo, and the response is
the relief of symptoms. It is difficult to tell the difference between conditioning and the expectancy effect when the outcome is subjective and reported by the patient
Motivation: Motivational explanations of the placebo effect have typically considered the placebo effect to be an outcome of one’s desire to feel better, reduce anxiety, or cooperate with an experimenter or health care professional (Price et al. 1999, Margo 1999).
Role of endogenous opiates: The discovery in 1975 of Endogenous opiates alias endorphins (substances like opiates but naturally produced in the body) have changed matters in investing placebo effect. When patients who claimed to experience pain relief after receiving a placebo were injected with naloxone (a drug that blocks the effects of opiates), their pain returned, suggesting that the placebo effect may be partly due to psychological reaction causing release of natural opiates. (Sauro 2005)
“Placebo” as a pejorative: Useless decoctions, drugs, treatments, remedies, and procedures are given the pejorative label placebo. In the 14th century the English word “placebo” denoted a sycophant and a useless flatterer, but this usage became obsolete.
______________________________________________________________________
December 30, 2008 at 6:54 am
Part 2
no12c41 Says:
December 28, 2008 at 7:19 pm
——“I don’t see calling experiencing Adi Da a placebo effect.”
Bottom line, it’s all about beliefs. Also, it’s about getting a palliative or relief and that’s all anyone at best ever got from Adi Da (Franklin). Did he ever give you the goods? Had he delivered the goods, some devotees would be 7th stage Realizers by now or at the very least, you would see growth in the Adidam community. But no, followers keep going back to get the placebo, i.e., the palliative and relief. And how long does it last? Usually after a day or two after being with the guru, you’re back eating “hamburgers” and craving to be enlightened again. So, the goods from the guru are never permanently received and the followers keep going back for the placebo—the sugar pill or rattle snack oil. Do we call him a quack? And what do you call the followers? Brainwashed/conditioned believers?
——“First, isn’t a placebo effect having a harmless, inert substance work in place of real medicine because (apparently) you believed it would and didn’t know you weren’t getting the real thing? If so, then any fake guru is as good as the real deal if you believe enough?”
That’s right; they both work as “anti-depressants” for a while. But what are the real goods that he promised you in the first place (based on surrender and your money)?
——“Really? Then everything is a placebo effect.”
That may be right? Maybe that’s what “believing” or “mind” is? The entire illusion may be the placebo effect. So do we need Franklin to give us another placebo or add to the illusion?
—–“Every holy site is the same as a hamburger joint in Gary, Indiana;”
Maybe? And maybe hamburger joints are even better? Maybe less delusions and brainwashing and fundamentalism going on in hamburger joints. Franklin’s teaching is all part of his value structure. He says this site is better and holier than that site or hamburger joint but it doesn’t make it so unless you believe it. In terms of relative truths or value sustems, well…maybe the hamburger joint is as good as the “Mountain of Attention” in Lake County or the Fijian Mahasamadhi site. (Mahasamadhi is now a myth –a belief system which will delude people even more than the hamburger joint). His mahasamadhi myth will be the future opiate or placebo for proselytizing. To most people on the planet (and myself included) having been around these so called Adidam sacred sites, I would go for the Hamburger joint as equally sacred but perhaps not too healthy as for as food goes. But without a doubt, I’ll value being out in Nature over both of them (and keep my money).
—–“Jimmy Swaggart’s transmission = Ramana’s; etc. That’s the radical nondual teaching, all right! I can’t go that far, maybe some day…”
You included the word “transmission” in there which changes or adds to the consideration and you called it radical nondual teaching. In any case, obviously, Ramana was a pure and more integrated and harmonious individual. However, a cat in it’s natural state with billion of years of built in intelligence at the genetic and cellular level keeps purring in front of Swaggart and Ramana equally so to speak and he (cat) doesn’t call it radical nondual teaching—just purrs or lives his life without beliefs. Again, it’s a matter of relative values as humans. Ramana doesn’t sell snake oil but his silence may be a palliative also ……..the perceptive effect, belief effect, and placebo effect work there also. It’s says more about the devotees than Ramana or in spite of Ramana.
How about: Jimmy Swaggart’s transmission vs. Franklin’s? Look at the debauchery of both of them and then what do you say???
——“But since it didn’t work, or worse, hurt you, where was the placebo effect?”
The placebo effect works best with certain diagnosis; e.g., depression. Also, studies show that there is about a 1/3 of the population who are susceptible to the placebo effect. Maybe they should make “seeking” a formal medical pathological diagnosis and the more you seek the more the placebo effect would work, thus mind control. In any case, even if the placebo effect doesn’t work, the placebo (Placebo Da) is still in place. He just wasn’t successful. That why you and I can have an open conversation and not try to win over each other– but just get down to “relative truths” which may even unload us of some garbage.
——“Still you are doing it to yourself? You could call that the negative placebo effect.”
Yes, you went to the guru-doctor for the pill so you have to take the responsibility for that but that doesn’t exonerate the guru-doctor making millions on the sugar pill. And yes, at least a million a year for Franklin not to mention the entire bonus in women and gold.
——“Second, the act of turning to a guru who is specifically telling you that the you who is looking for fulfillment will be undone, as a means of avoiding exactly that, would be totally stupid and a complete lack of seriousness.”
That in itself could be rattlesnake oil. Franklin always wanted his cake and eat it to. Of course he knew this teaching intellectually from age 30 just based on the books he was reading at the time. You and I know this also. But it didn’t operate in his case at all. It was and still is nice romantic abstract language.
BUT there is a key flaw in that statement (a consistent error by Franklin)): “the you who is looking for fulfillment will be undone”. Franklin also calls the “you” the ego or narcissus. Undoing the ego is the sugar pill in itself. A real guru in his or her natural state would say that the “you” is an illusion and there is no “you” to undo and leave it at that. And not give you endless sugar pill techniques of sadhana (with a value system thrown into the mix) and require endless tithes and service to undo something that is an illusion in the first place. All of this sadhana with Franklin simply reinforces the illusion. Even surrendering reinforces the illusion. Who is surrendering? One has to buy into the illusion of “you” and then surrender it; i.e., the “you” that is an illusion is what is to be surrendered????? It’s nonsense.
Can’t you tell that by just reading all the posts from these fundamentalist closet Christian/Adidam devotees on this site? It’s so obvious to me and that is why I haven’t been posting much here before. But in terms of relative truths or simple discrimination and clarity, it’s very obvious to me that the Maharshi and non-dualist individuals (of which I’m neither) posting here are so much clearer than the Adidam believers. You may as well be talking to fundamentalist Christians or fundamentalist anything. If one keeps the Ultimate Abstraction (god of all gods abstraction) at the top, what to you expect, everything below it has to conform to that ultimate abstraction (the higher abstraction covers the lesser and lower abstraction below- simple linguistics). Furthermore, if the premise is wrong then the whole thing is wrong. That just the way of language/linguistics which is only dualistic in nature and hierarchical in levels of abstraction?
——“Is everyone who is attracted to spiritual life that shallow and casual?”
You call it spiritual life and maybe there is no such thing. What about just simply being attracted to peace and harmony of the body which is our natural disposition and built in during billions of years of evolution… Natural intelligence is built in. Why go get sugar pills when it already has all that is needed already built-in (and who knows what else) in there already. –just more conditioning with the sugar pill/placebo given by the guru.
——-“Is there nothing real about people’s spiritual impulse?”
Maybe just a myth??? Maybe just a culturally learned response over millenniums. Maybe the impulse is just to relax like in deep sleep as needed bodily. Natural state impulse simply to get a good night rest and let the body be integrated and harmonious with itself. Why keep seeking for something that no one seems to be able to give to you anyway and no one seems to have the goods to give in the first place. What a waste of a life. No one anywhere is getting anything from these gurus but palliatives and temporary relief called the placebo effect.
——“Third, the idea that Adi Da’s energy effects were imagined or self-generated because of his hype and presentation, and the cult around him supporting it combining with the need of those who came to him, seems to me to be more of a stretch than just admitting that the man had powers. His undeniable powers presented the biggest hurdle for me getting free of him; even as I wanted to and believed he had gone off the tracks. The point finally was that the powers don’t signal enlightenment.”
He had power only if you belief that he had power. And of course I did like everyone else. But did he really have such a thing in terms of real energy transmission power going through “the electrical lines” from him to you any more than anyone else? If we are just transmitters and receivers, why weren’t we picking up the transmissions from all the devotees in Darshan equally or did you think his transmission superceded al the rest of the people. Isn’t it just one mind field or one thought sphere? He would like to think that he has a special gift as god of al gods.
I think your power in that respect is has strong has his but maybe not your charisma or your artistic skills. Why would nature have thrown out a mutation so much more powerful in transmission that the rest of us in the last century with apparently very ordinary parents that Franklin had; although it does throw out mutations but generally it supports the species more than the individual?
I’ve stood beside Franklin many times. He’s just a guy nothing more unless you make something more in your beliefs about him — and he is not that impressive—he was just a short little guy and fat at times –nothing more. If he sits on a platform above you and you sit below him then he’s got you by the balls and that’s it for you ——and the placebo is more likely to be effective. But was that what we came to him or to any guru for?
——“The word “placebo” brought up some thoughts. I think it is unfathomable to figure out what is inside and what is outside.”
Said from an esoteric point of view, I agree but you do have knowledge and reason and discrimination to discern what is mostly falsehoods. With the new genetics and cellular studies especially in the last 10 to 15 years, a lot of what is inside is good enough to deconstruct aspects of occultism and falsehoods even though one can’t ever know the whole thing.
But I’ll agree with you that the big picture is unfathomable. The vastness is too great to know and comprehend — and all you have is the illusion of mind “to comprehended” it with. Thought can never be used to know itself (itself is still thought or the “you”).
So, we probably can all agree that the devotee must believe that an effective “medication” was given for the placebo response to occur. And this says as much about the believer as it does about the guru-placebo. So, I don’t see a winning situation here. And Franklin can talk about grace and a prior disposition or prior unity all he wants but all you have from the very beginning is a belief system by the devotee and all he can do is reinforces that with a placebo and that is not “natural state”.
After having spent over 25 years around Franklin and reading all of his teaching, he doesn’t seem to know any more than you and me about this unfathomable vastness and never got any closer to it (nor could he) with his romantic abstract language. He only deluded himself or conned himself and conned his devotees. That’s your snake oil placebo salesman.
December 30, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Conradg,
There seems to be a general assumption on your part that belief = faith – and from there you like to break my arguments down into a belief-based religious zealousness comparable to Christian fundamentalism. Your very method of argument requires a real leap of “faith” to come to that conclusion! I always use the word “belief” to mean a concept that is presumed to be true but not necessarily known to be true, and is based in the conceptual mind – in other words, believing (perhaps even hoping) that something is true. This is very different from real faith. Faith is based in intuition, or heart-feeling that is tacitly understood to be senior to any conceptual (mind-based) belief. For quite some time in Adidam, as you know, there was the Way of Faith and the Way of Insight. However, there never has been the Way of Belief! Beliefs are just mind forms that are part of our egoic nature. For me, real faith is authentic and reliable – and far more so than endless arguing over mental concepts, beliefs, etc., because faith is ultimately founded in the feeling-heart not the mind.
However, my recognition of Who Adi Da Is is neither belief nor faith-based – it is recognition that is heart-based, Self-authenticating and Self-evident because the heart inherently recognizes intrinsic egolessness as Reality Itself.
So when I say that The Way of Adidam (Adi Da) is not based on any beliefs, please do not continue to misconstrue this to mean that I still simply believe in Adi Da’s Person and Word like a fundamentalist Christian believes in the infallibility of the Bible. It does seem to me that you keep arguing on this basis because you want to compartmentalize Adi Da as dualistic in order to keep justifying to yourself that the true or ultimate Guru is only within, etc. On that note…
Conradg Says:
“Until you recognize yourself as the Heart, you cannot recognize Adi Da in your Heart, or anyone else for that matter. The mind will keep turning these non-dual pretensions into separative claims, that Da is special, and you are special because you are Da’s devotee, and you are even a special devotee because of your speical recognition of him, etc. Eventually, however, I feel confident that you will see through this and just drop it.”
Conradg Says:
“I’ve only put forward an understanding of the role and function of the Sat-Guru that is different from the one Adi Da and you offer – in which the purpose of the Guru is to turn the devotee not to the human Guru himself, but to the Self of All, residing in the heart of all beings.”
Again, you are making the traditional error of the ego thinking it can be equal to Reality. You are also doing this by implying that there is nothing special about Adi Da (or possibly any great realizer?). No ego can recognize themselves as the Heart – never have, never will. Recognizing Adi Da as the Acausal Divine Reality, allows His devotee to identify directly with That which is truly always already egoless and non-separate. No individual will ever make that “jump” to their true nature on their own – and certainly not the likes of us, Conradg.
Presuming you are “always already” enlightened, and trying to abide as the Self, well, you may get glimpses, but, like your experience of Ramana’s Blessing, you will tend to run for the cover of the ego-I, back into separative mind once again. This is why radical devotion to Reality and right life disciplines are the necessary foundation for actual Realization of the Witness Consciousness and Absolute Acausal Reality (prior to the heart on the right). People get all kinds of glimpses, even drug-induced ones – but they never last. No ego is going to give it all up without the Grace of the Realizer. To think that the Self within your own heart is going to be sufficient is more egoic self-aggrandizement, in my understanding and personal experience. How many realizers have done this? And you think you are up to that? Well, who knows, perhaps you are such an extremely rare one – so let us know.
I do understand what works for me in my recognition of Adi Da, and if that no longer works for you, so be it. By the way, I have been meaning to ask you if you see any need for right life disciplines relative to food, sex, etc., or are such practices more “dualism” that impedes realization in your view?
Conradg says to NC:
“One of the central notions of non-dualism is that we have to transcend our love for “spiritual” objects by recognizing that what we seek in them, whether it be Da or Jesus or whomever, is actually located in our own being and Self. If we don’t recognize that, we of course end up loving these people in order to “get” God from them, and this corrupts us in so many ways it’s hard to keep track of them all. Loving without an object in mind is the secret of non-dual practice. When a supposedly non-dual path makes its Guru or some other objective person the object of one’s love, it tends to deestroy the non-dual nature of spiritual practice, and binds one to that person, rather than liberating one from the bondage of dualistic love. It’s not that dualistic love is unreal, it’s that it constantly undermines its own motive to be free. Therefore the Guru must always be setting his devotees free, and not creating dualistic traps, by always directing the devotee to find what he seeks in his own being, even if he uses the Guru as a means for that.”
Yes, non-dual love of the Guru is key – and that is why Adi Da has always said that identification with Him is necessary from the very beginning of one’s practice of the Reality Way of Adidam. You see, radical non-dualism does not preclude loving the apparently external Guru. Of course, whole bodily devotional turning to the Guru must always be founded in recognition of Who He Is and that we are egoless in that recognition/identification. I am happy to see Karl has also posted something about devotional non-dualism.
Conradg Says:
“It’s not as if my mind isn’t around, but I like to keep the heart clear and clean even while the mind spins its verbiage. This leaves my mind free to be rational, and my heart free to be mindless. I rather like things that way.”
You cannot keep the mind and heart separate as you suggest here – the mind is a reflection of your heart, as you must know.
Conradg Says:
“Of course only the heart knows non-dualism. Any fool knows that much, and I’m at least any fool. Why do you keep repeating this as if you are some special kind of fool who thinks only he’s aware of this truth? That’s the problem with Adidam – it’s such an isolated world, the people in it think they’re the only ones in the universe who have even the slightest understanding of the non-dual, when in reality they are among the least educated about it, even heart-wise.”
Conradg Says:
“But there are many ways to get such an understanding, and no necessity to use Da’s path to get there. If you choose Da’s path, fine and good luck to you, but nothing is lost by following any other non-dual path, as you would undoubtedly find out to your surprise if you did, just as most of us former devotees have.”
You seem to forget that I practiced the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and considered Him my teacher for 5 years BEFORE meeting Adi Da. Ramana Maharshi’s teachings did not address me fully enough, as much as I wanted to bypass the necessary preparations of body-mind in terms of real devotion and right life disciplines, and jump right into practicing the highest non-dual teachings I had to date found. With that foundation now in place, I frequently allow the Love-Bliss of Reality to invade me bodily, to demonstrate the truth of the Witness Position, and to feel Its egoless root prior to the heart on the right – as long as I am deeply surrendered in the intrinsic egolessness of Adi Da Samraj, the Acausal Divine Reality.
No amount of practice with Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings allowed this in me. And at best we can assume that a relatively rare few were actually enlightened by Ramana in His lifetime; and today, for most people, His teachings are too lofty and they themselves are most likely too unprepared to simply abide as the Self via Self-enquiry. Adi Da makes the practice clear to anyone who would listen at whatever level they are at – even children. Remember, He even wrote a book “What To Remember To Be Happy” for children.
However, as you, others, and myself have already said, one’s Guru is the most personal and intimate of matters and can only be decided by the Guru and the individual. So please don’t assume I am just saying that Adi Da is for everyone – I am simply giving a testimonial of my own practice and experience with Him, in case others are interested. Much more importantly, people should consider Adi Da via His Presence, His Murtis, His vast Teaching Word, Art, Sanctuaries, Communities, etc. with devotees face to face, if possible.
NC Says:
“…but most the time, at the bottom of all this intelligent and some less than intelligent argumentation, is the frustration of an expectation. ” I didn’t get what I wanted from Samraj Adi Da, so he must be wrong, must be fake, must be “dualistic”.”
This is very insightful, NC. I also appreciate your confessions of self-understanding and how Adi Da requires such self-understanding as a necessary component to Transcendental spiritual practice. There is much for us to move through in preparation for receiving Adi Da spiritually, but always in the context of the devotionally radical relationship with Him from the beginning. It has always been a very happy, albeit difficult, way for me.
December 30, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Welcome Karl, and thank you.
I love this quote:
“Everybody dies to blow everybody else’s mind.” – Adi Da
It’s my new mantra.
And thank you Eddie for sharing your story. There is so much of it I resonate with. Honesty and integrity take a lot of courage to manifest no matter what group of people one is involved with. Every organization, whether it be religious, political or just our family of origin has its own brand of dysfunction.
Your post reminded me of a time in the community, when I started to question the community, and Samraj Adi Da. I remember trying to share some of the doubts I was having in a small women’s group. One woman became so angry with me that she picked up a pillow and hit me in the face. She apologized later, but I realized that I couldn’t go through the process of questioning my beliefs, or anyone else’s for that matter in the context of the community. To me it seemed like a natural part of my growth process, I was childish, and I was finally up for adolescent consideration….but like many teenagers, I felt like I just got kicked out of the house…. I just ran away is more the truth of the matter. But it was good that I did, I went through a period where I just reverted to square one, and became spiritually bereft, but when I got on track, I felt like I understood much of what I received within the community.
It’s true; we have to hear the good, the bad and the ugly, in order to be really honest with ourselves. And I apologize if I seemed like I was attacking anyone for feeling less than positive about Bhagavan Adi Da but I had to speak my peace. I’m feeling just as vulnerable as anyone else here may be. We seem not to want to feel taken apart, but are perfectly willing to take apart someone else. Conradq says that I “have to be more careful making such harsh criticisms of posters who are simply speaking freely about their experience with Da.” I wonder how any of us would feel if one of our family members spoke freely about their experience with us. I’m not saying they shouldn’t mind you, I’m just saying that it may or may not be extremely challenging for our egos. I can suppose the Guru put himself in that position purposely to initiate this very conversation. I find it extremely hard to believe he was in it for the glory. I guess my experience of Him, is that each seeming demonstration of insanity, comes full circle in my mind to reveal some underlying truth. That being said, I have no other choice but to remain present and engage in the consideration here with the best honesty, and integrity I can muster.
I hope you keep coming back, Eddie.
December 30, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Question for Raymond:
Do you feel that you have demonstrated a superior argument?
December 30, 2008 at 7:03 pm
There is no point in trying to convince those who want to believe that Da offered nothing but a placebo effect. They will certainly find plenty of scientific support. They will not find support for that concept among jnanis, however, who merely point out that unusual factors that come with various practices are not indicative of realization and lie latent in everyone. The error from that perspective, as Ramana Maharshi said for example, is in assuming there are separate individuals who somehow may or may not have unsusual abilities when they come from the non-dualist nature of Reality itself. In other words, there is not a magic moment when there is nothing unusual and then all of a sudden one is a miracle worker, there is a whole range in between. Da, if nothing else, spent years exploring the fringes of such things, like visualization and kundalini yoga, and many methods for breaking down the psychic barriers. Although irrelevant, I have enough experience with many figures, most of who that I did not approach or leave believing all of their claims, to be comfortable with the idea that psychic states and certain kundalini effects can contagious even without belief just as those traditions state, and that belief affects how it is interpreted and experienced. As for testing that, each person has to do that for themselves. About the argument that Da’s effects, whatever they were, faded rapidly and led to attachment, that was my observation in general looking at lots of people, and for me personally another reason to doubt his full enlightenment compared with say Ramana Maharshi.
December 30, 2008 at 8:12 pm
With regard to the relative success of guruship of Ramana over Da, it seems that much has been taken relatively uncritically, in this case by Conradg, who, considering his interest in the subject, is perhaps playing favorites? I draw attention to the two or three specimens which Ramana may have said were realized: his mother, his cow, a dog, and a crow. I think I got that right. Now, three of them were not even human, and I am not sure any of them were alive at the time, other than as dying. Hmm. Please tell how a cow would be ready for the realization that we humans find so irksome. And before saying that it must have been a very, very evolved cow, ask yourself, why would such an evolved being be a cow in the first place, and not a human? Same for the dog, crow, cat, monkey or whatever subhumans are on the list. Even for the human, nothing happened until she died. So, woopie for that astounding record of accomplishment. Then, there are some, like Lakshmana and Sarada, the former of which says that he was awakened in the Master’s presence and that he acknowledged this. His own recount of the so-called acknowledgment is that he handed Ramana a note saying he just realized the Self, and Ramana smiled and asked him where he was from. He said Gudur, and Ramana asked if it was near somewhere else, to which Lakshmana said yes. Though he never travelled far, those are the only words ever spoken between the two. Sarada’s credentials, so to speak, are told in the same sort of vague, incomprehensibly simplistic way, basically saying her mind went into the heart and died and both of them had permanent unending realization ever since. Well, well. Is it really so simple as that? Were there no issues, no questions after that? Just slam-dunk. I find that incredible. Why accept this so uncritically just because it is presented as such? And then there’s Papa G. Why are they always papa this and amma that? Can’t these guys ever be brother or sister so and so? Do they HAVE to be mommy and daddy? Anyway, Papa G went on to tell a host of others that they were realized and I think we know how that panned out, so what of his judgment? Did Ramana acknowledge his realization also, perhaps with a wink or gesture of the eyebrow?
What’s there to speak of here? Some dead animals and his mother. Some people who say he smiled at their assertions. It’s hard to do much worse than that, is it not? Realization is such a hard thing. It seems one is better off non-human and without much of a cortex.
It would seem that the measure should be overall growth in the right direction perhaps. A very much harder to define area of inquiry in a way. Perhaps intuitions, glimmers should be counted. In this light, Adi Da does not do so badly at all. And, particularly for Westerners, who need more than most Eastern contemporary gurus give out in terms of clarity. Da grabbed us in a way that Ramana did not, in most cases at least. And, I am not sure if even Inquiry is original or if it is just a reworking of Upanishadic wisdom. None of the afore-mentioned four-legged devotees practiced it. Nor did Ramana. It seems that Lakshmana did, at least for a few days, and Sarada not.
We know so little of the lives of Nityananda, Muktananda, and so many other nandas. Then when someone like Da lets it all hang out, as it were, people judge him poorly. I doubt he was any worse than the rest of them, only we know the sanitized versions. Were they all white-haired saints, except for Da? We just don’t know the stories, and they were not in the modern West either. I am not sure that a balanced disposition is really the be all and end all or final analysis as many may assume. I think we tend to assume that’s how it would look, but maybe it’s false. Are we too hard on eccentricities? Do we expect realizers to be milquetoasts? Ramana’s your man in that case, but in terms of numbers of realizers, which he acknowledged? An interesting point is what do you think would have happened if Ramana moved to New York City instead of Tiruvanammalai? How many lives would he have touched? Da was for us. Most left. Most of those who visited Tiruvanammai also left. The expense of being able to attract us, Da also contained our excesses.
December 30, 2008 at 8:18 pm
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
The number of views of this entry was declining steadily, down to less than 200 per day. Today (my “day” ends at 7PM EST, since I never bothered setting the timestamp to my local time) there were 1128 views, 50% more than the day after Adi Da died. A link on metafilter.com sent them this way.
–Jerry Katz
December 30, 2008 at 8:39 pm
To understand what happened, just read The Mummery.
December 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm
In response to NC, December 30, I couldn’t resist your invitation to come back even though this is a non-dualistic blog and I know nothing about such matters. Also, I doubt there is anything more I could add to the discussion that I haven’t already enunciated.
I find dharmic debates tiresome, ever since I became sensitive to how enervating they really are. These days I’m happy to acknowledge that there is very little I know in the way of ‘spirituality’ preferring instead to just say what I do know and not bore others with what I don’t know. Since I know I don’t know what living a life of non-duality is, I prefer to say nothing about it. And given I don’t know a lot more about spirituality than I do know there ain’t much to say at all. Phew, I knew I shouldn’t have come back to this blog!?
I imagine meeting up with Adidamers again sometime in the future, looking at each other and just laugh. At our foolishness, our presumptiveness, our righteousness, our defensiveness, our childish cultism, our desire to be right more than be present and relational, our need to even argue a point of view. Winning a debate has lost all significance for me.
I feel a lot freer now than in the past when I was so sure of things. When I “knew” Adi Da was who he said he was, and I “knew” there were 7 stages, and I “knew” all about non-dualism, and I “knew” that Adi Da was a greater realizer than Ramana, etc., etc.
I would rather communicate with people who say only what they really know, not what they imagine or “intuit”, not because there is no value in considering all aspects of reality, but because… well, that’s what I am interested in. I am the fool on the hill who doesn’t believe anything. Hell, I don’t even believe what I say anymore. Yet I “know” my Guru served me well, really well!
December 30, 2008 at 9:19 pm
NC,
I appreciate your desire not to get into battles here with individuals. Even so, it’s important to listen even to those you might consider “enemies”, and try to at least figure out the basic facts. For example, when you say:
I will state a couple of things that bother me though; the reoccurring mention of Samraj Adi Da’s “sexual orgies” and supposed physical abuse. It was the sixties, or seventies when most of this stuff allegedly happened.
This simply isn’t true. The whole “sexual theater” continued into the new millenium. I spoke directly with people who were directly involved at the highest levels – the RSO – and they confirmed to me that this was going on, and the general “party scene” then was as wild or wilder than it had ever been. As for physical abuse, I doubt that continued, in that Da was getting on in years, but it did occur, and it remains meaningful. Just because Da hasn’t raped anyone recently doesn’t mean he isn’t a rapist. It’s the kind of thing that, if you do it even once, it brands you for the rest of your life. But I wouldn’t say that physical abuse was ever prevalent, it was a very occasional thing.
What got much, much worse over the years, and I certainly saw this with my own eyes, was financial abuse. I saw Da personally involved in the financial exploitation of his devotees to a truly sickening degree. I saw people give up their life savings for Da to buy crappy “art” objects, because he said it was of some kind of ultimate significance to his work and to the world’s fate. I saw people’s naivete and religious devotion being exploited in a fashion not at all different from what you see in the worst cults of fundamentalist Christianity. Tens of millions of dollars were siphoned off and remain in Swiss bank accounts, to be used for whatever purposes Da himself decided. He called this “my money”, which is hardly how you’d expect a renunciate to refer to it. And even Quandra Sukhapur said that he was “completely corrupt when it comes to money”.
Most of this financial abuse of devotees occurred in the nineties and post millenium, although of course it had been going on since the beginning of Adidam. So suggesting that all the “abuse” charges are decades old simply isn’t true. One has to at the very least get one’s simple facts straight before trying to evaluate the meaning of these facts. One could certainly argue, as Adidam did, that this is all “legitimate” religious fundraising, “sexual experimentation”, etc. But to confirm that this is so, don’t you have to openly examine what actually happened, rather than sweep it all under the rug and pretend it never happened? If it’s all legitimate, there should be nothing to hide, and all the facts should be on the table, and then we can try and figure out what those facts mean. But of course that’s not how Adidam treats these things. To even participate in many of these events, particularly the sexual stuff, you had to swear vows of secrecy that would make the mafia seem like an open society.
Again, I’m not suggesting anyone feel shame about this stuff. That’s not a productive way to deal with one’s past. But we do need to be fairly open and honest about it.
Also, taking his teaching words out of context is another thing that sticks in my craw. Saying that he was a seeker by his own admission, is just a partial picture of what his sadhana as a spiritual being was about, and what he communicated about that process.
Again, is this even accurate? There’s a chapter of the Knee of Listening entitled “The seeker”, which describes Franklin Jones’ youthful exploits. How can you get offended when I call him a seeker, when he describes himself by those very words in his own autobiography? Isn’t something else behind your offense? Maybe, the fact that Adi Da being a devoted seeker is somehow not very consistent with the “image” you have of him in your mind? The fact is, Adi Da never noticably gave up on seeking. He seemed to pursue pretty much the same basic seeking throughout his life, including sex, power, self-agrandizement, intoxicants, and literary and artistic creativity. I’m not saying that’s something he should be ashamed of, or his devotees should be ashamed of. I doubt anyone here is a prude about such things. But they form a consistent pattern of behavior that stretches throughout his life. It’s a very interesting life, no doubt, filled with all kinds of wonderful stuff, but also many not so wonderful things. If you can’t accept the not-so-wonderful-things, it’s hard to take seriously someone’s praise of the wonderful things.
It’s just a general mood of picking apart. All well known, creative people seem to have to go through this. Look at how the celebrities in this country are treated. I guess I’m just tiring of that. I think it would be more useful to talk about your own experience of (which in my view, you do Conradq) the spiritual process.
Adi Da was not much of a celebrity, and virtually everyone here who has been engaged in “picking him apart” has known him directly and been involved directly in Adidam for years. This isn’t some kind of celebrity witchunt, this is a conversation between people who have been intimately involved with Adi Da and his community for a good part of their lives, trying to sort through it. Comparing this to some sort of celebrity fascination is really getting pretty low, don’t you think?
Certainly I went through difficult times in the community, but through my spiritual program, I’ve learned that I created it all. I had willing participants, people who were more than willing to add to my little drama, as I was to theirs.
Wherever “I” go, there “I” am. It’s a matter of doing the work of self inspection, to see how I am attracting negativity.
That is my confession; I live as narcissus, until I make a choice to practice spiritual principles before indulging in my fear.
You learned that you were narcissus, true. But did you learn that this is not actually true? Did you learn that you are free, inherenlty so, that you are the Supreme Being? If not, why not? Didn’t Adi Da teach you that? And if not, why not? Why constantly tell you that you are narcissus, that you are this limited ego, that you are to blame, over and over again? Does it really serve any truly spiritual purpose? Is it even true at all? Who are you really? This seems to be something Adi Da failed to help you see about yourself. Instead, you seem to have gotten a very negative self-image out of it all, and I’m not quite convinced that this is a good thing. So while you say you are at fault in all that went on in Adidam, that confession in itself sort of tells me what kind of mindset Adidam encouraged.
It’s hard not to think that way, if you take Adidam seriously. Years and years of listening to critical notes from Adi Da have a way of beating down one’s soul and spirit, and convincing devotees that they are always wrong, and Adi Da is always right, until it’s just second nature. Even when people leave, they still tend to take that mindset with them, just like Catholics who still feel guilty even when they stop believing in the Church. I hope you can get past that, and see something positive about yourself, even something Divine in you, rather than constantly recoiling from yourself as “narcissus”, like some Christian always seeing the devil in oneself.
I find your experience of non dualism very interesting and while, I don’t fully understand, or am willing to engage in the relationship I had with Samraj Adi Da in the same way I did in the past, I don’t find the notion of making use of that relationship unappealing or necessarily contradictory to non-dualistic principles.
If I can help you or anyone else go beyond the dualistic mindset that held them back in Adidam, I’m very happy for you – even if it somehow led you to re-engage Adidam, albeit with a less dualistic and self-destructive approach. As I said, I could really care less whether people come or go from Adidam, it isn’t the important factor. What matters is that we not be limited by the silly dualisms that can afflict us no matter what our outwards involvements are. We need first of all to find out who we really are. If Adidam can help you do that, great. If it can’t, well, chuck it. My personal experience is that the more we come to accept ourselves for who we are, the more we will be able to make positive use of everything in our lives. But if we don’t accept who we are, or are filled with false images of ourselves based on the usual religious self-negating notions, we will not be able to make use of very many things, or discriminate well between what is useful and what is not.
December 30, 2008 at 10:24 pm
You have a way of twisting words Conradq. I never suggested it was a witchunt. You added that little extra detail. You seem to make a big point of saying you knew him intimately, but do you really know what anything is?
You apply a lot of meaning to what I said that I didn’t intend, and you didn’t really hear what I said at all.
Who says I haven’t gotten past that? In fact the process of Narcissus got in place way before my involvement in the Community. Do I really sound like someone who has no self understanding. To hate myself is to hate the gift of life, to bring others into my drama without any consideration for their well being. I’m not so stuck on my tendencies any longer….and when did I say I was at fault for everything that went on at Adidiam? I said I had my part in it. That is real, that is not a distorted view.
I remember once, years ago, I recieved noted about my service, and what I had written to him in response to being appointed ministerial rep. I said it was pleased to be of service and to help others turn to him. He criticized me saying it was not a matter of helping anyone, it was a matter of turning it over, and leading by example. He said that I was dramatizing exactly what was wrong with leadership. I was so caught in my act. I realized my wanting to help others was just my way of being disassociated, of not feeling worthy.
Honestly it has been a lifetime of undoing that strategy….and it only seems to get undone by surrender, prayer, meditation, and esteemable acts.
So, I have to say, I don’t need your help, and I’m not saying that in away to demean you as an aspect of the divine. Respect, and willingness to listen without turning my words around would be nice, but not required.
December 30, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Anomalous Poster:
“With regard to the relative success of guruship of Ramana over Da, it seems that much has been taken relatively uncritically, in this case by Conradg, who, considering his interest in the subject, is perhaps playing favorites? I draw attention to the two or three specimens which Ramana may have said were realized: his mother, his cow, a dog, and a crow. I think I got that right. Now, three of them were not even human, and I am not sure any of them were alive at the time, other than as dying. Hmm.”
Conradg probably undertands that it was not Ramana Maharshi’s way to make public announcements that so and so or such and such was realized while living. This was consistent with his overall teaching.
“Please tell how a cow would be ready for the realization that we humans find so irksome. And before saying that it must have been a very, very evolved cow, ask yourself, why would such an evolved being be a cow in the first place, and not a human? Same for the dog, crow, cat, monkey or whatever subhumans are on the list.”
It is perfectly consistent with the jnani position that nothing is attained, only the obstacles removed, and that all is Consciousness. There is an implicit assumption in your statement that of all possible beings only humans can be realized even though there is nothing to be attained. That assumption is just that.
“Even for the human, nothing happened until she died. So, woopie for that astounding record of accomplishment.”
Considering the remarkable transformation of Ramana Maharshi’s mother over a couple decades, and his description of how the Realization was actually accomplished, that would be your opinion.
“Then, there are some, like Lakshmana and Sarada, the former of which says that he was awakened in the Master’s presence and that he acknowledged this. His own recount of the so-called acknowledgment is that he handed Ramana a note saying he just realized the Self, and Ramana smiled and asked him where he was from. He said Gudur, and Ramana asked if it was near somewhere else, to which Lakshmana said yes. Though he never travelled far, those are the only words ever spoken between the two. Sarada’s credentials, so to speak, are told in the same sort of vague, incomprehensibly simplistic way, basically saying her mind went into the heart and died and both of them had permanent unending realization ever since. Well, well. Is it really so simple as that? Were there no issues, no questions after that? Just slam-dunk. I find that incredible. Why accept this so uncritically just because it is presented as such?
You have no need to accept this uncritically. And truthfully, from what you say, you can’t. There are other accounts besides this where Ramana Maharshi gave tacit acknowledgement of Realization. You did not mention the account of Sri Matha from 1938 of her Realization, and she outlived Ramana Maharshi and founded her own Ashram. You can find similar accounts around jnanis through the centuries. But it is not clear that basic tenets of the mainstream jnani tradition about realization and specific aspects of Ramana Maharshi’s life and teaching resonate much with you.
“And then there’s Papa G. Why are they always papa this and amma that? Can’t these guys ever be brother or sister so and so? Do they HAVE to be mommy and daddy? Anyway, Papa G went on to tell a host of others that they were realized and I think we know how that panned out, so what of his judgment?”
Papaji explained all that as an ego test he was moved to give, which all those western teachers failed by jumping to the conclusion their ego was gone. He specifically did not acknowledge any of them in his later period or in David Godman’s interviews. Not everyone (wisely) accepted these statements as license to teach, and kept up their practice.
“Did Ramana acknowledge his realization also, perhaps with a wink or gesture of the eyebrow? What’s there to speak of here? Some dead animals and his mother. Some people who say he smiled at their assertions. It’s hard to do much worse than that, is it not?”
That is a projection of what happened. There are other ways of looking at it.
“Realization is such a hard thing. It seems one is better off non-human and without much of a cortex. It would seem that the measure should be overall growth in the right direction perhaps. A very much harder to define area of inquiry in a way.”
That conclusion is inconsistent with the jnani tradition.
“Perhaps intuitions, glimmers should be counted. In this light, Adi Da does not do so badly at all. And, particularly for Westerners, who need more than most Eastern contemporary gurus give out in terms of clarity. Da grabbed us in a way that Ramana did not, in most cases at least.”
Grabbed who? In your case, yes, but far more were repelled than grabbed. Rightly or wrongly, Da is still far less respected, even in the West, than Ramana Maharshi is.
“And, I am not sure if even Inquiry is original or if it is just a reworking of Upanishadic wisdom. None of the afore-mentioned four-legged devotees practiced it. Nor did Ramana. It seems that Lakshmana did, at least for a few days, and Sarada not.”
Why would Ramana Maharshi need to be original? Other than the modern desire to have a “new” method, why? What most think of as self-enquiry is far from the most advanced stage of practice.
“We know so little of the lives of Nityananda, Muktananda, and so many other nandas. Then when someone like Da lets it all hang out, as it were, people judge him poorly. I doubt he was any worse than the rest of them, only we know the sanitized versions. Were they all white-haired saints, except for Da? We just don’t know the stories, and they were not in the modern West either.”
And how does this relate to Ramana Maharshi?
“I am not sure that a balanced disposition is really the be all and end all or final analysis as many may assume. I think we tend to assume that’s how it would look, but maybe it’s false.”
That mischaracterization is your opinion but it is not that of the jnani tradition going back many centuries. In other words, you want something different and more “modern” than mainstream jnana.
“Ramana’s your man in that case, but in terms of numbers of realizers, which he acknowledged? An interesting point is what do you think would have happened if Ramana moved to New York City instead of Tiruvanammalai? How many lives would he have touched? Da was for us. Most left. Most of those who visited Tiruvanammai also left. The expense of being able to attract us, Da also contained our excesses.”
Such hypotheticals make no sense. Nor to be accurate, does using the term left to equate those many who departed from Ramanashram but remained devotees, with the over 90% attrition rate reported around Da’s organization. In 1950, millions mourned Ramana Maharshi’s passing according to the NY Times. 1n 2008, despite vastly increased population and wealth, and instant communications, Da’s passing gets limited attention world wide. We shall see if that is significant. But it appears you have a laundry list of issues with the jnani tradition and are not precise in your criticism of Ramana Maharshi.
December 30, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Feel4God,
There seems to be a general assumption on your part that belief = faith – and from there you like to break my arguments down into a belief-based religious zealousness comparable to Christian fundamentalism. Your very method of argument requires a real leap of “faith” to come to that conclusion! I always use the word “belief” to mean a concept that is presumed to be true but not necessarily known to be true, and is based in the conceptual mind – in other words, believing (perhaps even hoping) that something is true. This is very different from real faith. Faith is based in intuition, or heart-feeling that is tacitly understood to be senior to any conceptual (mind-based) belief. For quite some time in Adidam, as you know, there was the Way of Faith and the Way of Insight. However, there never has been the Way of Belief! Beliefs are just mind forms that are part of our egoic nature. For me, real faith is authentic and reliable – and far more so than endless arguing over mental concepts, beliefs, etc., because faith is ultimately founded in the feeling-heart not the mind.
The whole relationship between belief and faith is very important, and I don’t want to get into some kind of cheesy labelling game here. We all have faith of one kind or another, and we all have beliefs of one kind or another. We tend not to actually inspect them, however, and we all tend to conflate the two when it comes to dealing with all kinds of matters.
My own, non-dual view of faith is that true faith has no object. It is the inherent intuition of our already free being and consciousness. True faith is always “in ourselves”, it is always an expression of who we really are, of our own intrinsic nature. True faith, in this sense, has no “proof”, no evidence to back it up, because it is inherently self-evident. We can’t come up with reasons to have faith, because there are none. But that is exactly the point – we don’t need any reasons to have faith, because it is the foundation of who we are, of what and who reality is. We are faith, in the fullest and deepest sense.
But obviously people seem to lack much faith in themselves. They are convinced that they are egos, separate and apart from even their own nature, which becomes projected outward as “God”, or even as “Guru”. They find themselves in a world of separate objects, and so they put their faith in those objects, and constantly find out that those objects are unworthy of their faith. They tend to blame either themselves, or those objects, for this failure of faith. What they don’t understand is that it is the very act of placing faith in objects of any kind – which is all seeking boils down to, really – that ruins or faith. Why? Because faith belongs to the Self, not to objects. Objects are illusory, only the Self is real, and only the Self can fulfill our faith, because it is the very source of faith itself.
So the spiritual process is basically about being freed from the search for objects to have faith in, and finding true faith in oneself, by finding out who we really are, and that it is our own nature that is the source of our faith, not some external person or object. It’s not even our own mind or “ego” that we should have faith in. These too are externals to our heart, to our very being. We have to cultivate faith in our very Self, beyond all these, at the Heart of all these.
So, where does belief fit in? Well, as you say, belief is the mind. It is external to the heart. But so is the whole world of objects, even the human Guru. I would suggest that the problem with belief is the same as the general problem with objects. We tend to put our faith in objects of all kinds, particularly other people, and we get burned as a result, because the true source of faith is ourselves, not objects. Faith does not come from the people we place our faith in, it comes from ourselves. Even when we have faith in a Guru, the faith does not come from the Guru, it comes from ourselves. But many people imagine otherwise. They really think that their faith comes from the Guru, and without the Guru they will have no faith. So they cherish and hold onto the Guru, and believe whatever the Guru says, because they cannot actually confirm the things the Guru tells them.
They fear that they will “lose faith” if the Guru turns out not to be correct about things. And they do not want to lose faith, so they cling to the Guru and his teachings, and they adopt his teachings as if they are literally true, because if they are not true, this casts doubt on the Guru, and one might lose faith in him. So it becomes very important to affirm whatever the Guru says, and find some way to accept it as true, in order not to lose one’s faith. This lead, naturally, to belief. It doesn’t seem like belief to the believer, because to him his beliefs seem to naturally emanate from his faith. He feels this overwhelming, transcendental faith from his Guru, and thus it seems like a small thing to accept what the Guru says on faith. But in doing so, he is cultivating not faith, but belief. Why? Because his whole realtionship to the Guru is based on not on true faith, but on faith in an objective person, the Guru.
Whereas the true relationship to the Guru needs to be founded on faith in oneself, not faith in the external person of the Guru. It is only when one has discovered this faith in oneself, in the very Self and nature of one’s own being, that one can actually relate rightly to an external Guru. And then the right relationship to an external Guru is not one of believing what he says or any such thing. It is one of recognizing the external Guru as one’s very Self and nature and being, gracefully pointing your externaly driven attention back to its own transcendental source and nature. So the external Guru is not interested in having the devotee’s attention put on himself, unless it is done in a free manner, recognizing the Guru as one’s own Self, and thus being drawn by the influence of the external Guru to develop true faith in one’s own Self.
So the question about any particular Guru is, do they just plain do this, or are they corrupting this process in some way? I’m not suggesting that anyone who has faith in their Guru is wrong or deluded, only that this faith must be known to come from oneself, and not from the Guru. The Guru can be of great help if we come to him rightly, knowing at least in some basic sense who we are, and where our faith comes from. If we think the Guru is the source of our faith, we are setting ourselves up for a disaster. I’d suggest that much of what has been disastrous about Adidam has been due to just this error, and that Adi Da’s inability, or even unwillingness, to correct this error, has been what has made it so difficult for so many people to see where things went wrong spiritually.
Has this led to a believer’s community? Yes, in my experience that is precisely what Adidam had become when I left, if not long before, and I don’t see any sign of that having changed since then. It’s not that people lacked a deep-felt faith in Adi Da. The probem is, very few people had much faith in themselves, either in this deepest spiritual sense, or even in the ordinary human sense. It’s hard to do so, when the Guru is constantly telling you that “only the Horse knows, you cannot know”, or is otherwise suggesting that recognition of him, and faith in him, is the only hope for your salvation and liberation. In practice, this led to widespread beleiver’s acceptance of, almost literally, everything Adi Da said. How could it not, when the Guru himself says that you must literally live by all his instructions? How could one do that without believing in such things? And what happens if those beliefs fall into doubt, because of such pesky things as facts? Obviously, there’s an existential crisis coming, because one’s very faith in God is cast into doubt.
But all of that can be resolved by means other than the ongoing affirmation of one’s faith in the outer Guru. It can be much more rewardingly resolved by developing real faith in the Self, in one’s own nature and being as the very source of one’s faith. And the crisis of faith in the Guru can lead to just this kind of maturation, in which one learns to cultivate faith in the Self, and faith in Gurus who cultivate this faith in the Self, rather than in Gurus who constantly try to undermine faith in the Self, and instead prolong the depenency on outside sources of faith.
This approach is not, contrary to your or Adi Da’s warnings, some kind of disavowal of the relationship to the Guru, or some kind of substitute of oneself for the Guru. Rather, this is just an expression of the what true tradition of the Guru has been about in Sanatana Dharma. It is what the basis of the whole Guru tradition in India has been, and it needs to be stated as such in the face of dharmas such as Adi Da’s which try to pretend that they represent the true Guru tradition, and that anyone who criticizes them is actually denying and rejecting the Guru tradition. This is what the genuine Guru tradition in India has been about ever since the time of the earliest Upanishads. For Adidam to pretend otherwise is simply to promote a false impression.
However, my recognition of Who Adi Da Is is neither belief nor faith-based – it is recognition that is heart-based, Self-authenticating and Self-evident because the heart inherently recognizes intrinsic egolessness as Reality Itself.
I’m not about to argue with you about personal matters of faith. But as I say, one’s faith in any objective person is secondary to faith itself, which is without an object. For faith to be truly egoless, it must know its true source, and accept its true source, without any reliance on any objective “other”, even the Guru. It is only when we know our own egolessness that we can say the Guru is egoless. You may be a faithful devotee of Da’s, but you are not claiming to be an egoless devotee, a true jnani, so when you say these things, it is your mind which says them. You have taken your faith and turned it over to your mind, which then repeats Adi Da’s words and claims and so on, as if they are its own experience and knowledge, when they are not. This is, indeed, what happens to the faithful when they become believers.
So when I say that The Way of Adidam (Adi Da) is not based on any beliefs, please do not continue to misconstrue this to mean that I still simply believe in Adi Da’s Person and Word like a fundamentalist Christian believes in the infallibility of the Bible. It does seem to me that you keep arguing on this basis because you want to compartmentalize Adi Da as dualistic in order to keep justifying to yourself that the true or ultimate Guru is only within, etc.
I would certainly like to not misconstrue you with a fundamentalist Christian, but what exactly would be the difference I should look for? I’ve know quite a few Christians who have a very deep faith in Christ, who have a deep mystic love for God through Christ, who through that faith have come to accept the general teachings of the Bible as true, not in some kind of phony-ass cartoon fashion, but in very much the same fashion by which you have come to accept Adi Da’s teachings as true. IN other words, their faith in Christ has made them believe all kinds of things about Christ and God that they don’t literally know to be true, but they accept “on faith”. Which means, really, that they believe these things.
Now, if your faith in Adi Da’s teachings are really different than that, I’d like to hear about it . But so far I don’t see any great difference in kind. You have faith in Da, clearly, and from that faith I hear the usual boilerplate Adidam theology following, almost word-for-word from his books. These are the kinds of things I heard people endlessly repeat in Adidam. I said many of them myself. It’s not that people don’t mean them. It’s not that people don’t have strong heart-felt faith in Da that leads them to accept these things. It’s that this is precisely how religious belief tends to work, even among people with mystical experience. It’s not really much different from those who think the Bible is the Word of God. Most Adidamers, I suspect yourself included, see Adi Da’s verbal and written teachings also as “the Word of God”. Is that unfair? I mean, really?
Again, you are making the traditional error of the ego thinking it can be equal to Reality. You are also doing this by implying that there is nothing special about Adi Da (or possibly any great realizer?). No ego can recognize themselves as the Heart – never have, never will. Recognizing Adi Da as the Acausal Divine Reality, allows His devotee to identify directly with That which is truly always already egoless and non-separate. No individual will ever make that “jump” to their true nature on their own – and certainly not the likes of us, Conradg.
Well, fortunately no one is “on their own” literally or figuratively. Fortunately, none of us actually are egos, which is why we are, in truth, identical to reality. We need not identify with reality, because we already are that, despite the illusions of egoity. Who would identify with reality, except someone who was not themselves real? Only the ego would do such a thing. Who would identify with Adi Da as the Acausal Divine Reality, except an ego?
Of course the ego can’t recognize itself as the Heart. If that’s what I or “the traditions” were advocating, it would truly be hopeless. But we are not the ego, and by either inspecting the ego, or simply surrendering radically, we find this out, the illusion that we were egos drops away, and we are simply left as we are, as the reality that is our real nature.
But the method you are advocating instead, of the ego recognizing Adi Da as the Acausal Divine Reality, how can the ego do this either? Obviously the ego can’t, so you are in the same boat if you begin with the premise that the ego is who we actually are. Again, be fortunate that you are not the ego, that in reality you are already identical to reality, and thus requiring to act of identification to be reality. Because otherwise, nothing could possibly work out for us.
You simply don’t seem to understand non-dual teachings such as Ramana’s. For Ramana, there is no “jump” from the ego to realization. The individual does not become realized, the individual sees that he is not an individual at all, and never was, and could never be such a thing. He sees that he is reality itself, as reality itself. No jump at all, no leap of faith, just the certain grounding in who we already are. The Guru helps the devotee to see this, and then gets out of the way.
Presuming you are “always already” enlightened, and trying to abide as the Self, well, you may get glimpses, but, like your experience of Ramana’s Blessing, you will tend to run for the cover of the ego-I, back into separative mind once again.
I would agree, which is why Ramana didn’t advise people to “abide as the Self”, or presume themselves already enlightened. Instead, he told them to enquire of themselves, and see what they find. If they would truly enquire down to the core of it, as a few of his devotees did, such as Papaji, them they find more than mere “glimpses”, they find the unpeakable Divine Reality. The fact that I, at the age of fifteen without any real instruction, wasn’t able to realize the Self in that moment doesn’t mean that Ramana’s path doesn’t work. It’s certainly worked for quite a few people. The fact that you didn’t get very far with it in the five years you tried it when you were younger doesn’t tell us much either, other than that it wasn’t for you. Even after that experience of Ramana, I didn’t grasp his teaching either, and I couldn’t get anything from self-enquiry, it didn’t much interest me at all,. Instead, I chose Adi Da, for all kinds of reasons, such as that I thought his way was much more accessible than Ramana’s and fit for people like myself. It wasn’t until I left Adidam and found the Adidam practices too limiting that I re-discovered Ramana and found self-enquiry slowly come alive in me. I gather that I simply wasn’t ready for Ramana’s practices back then, I had to go through a lot of things just to come to the point of receptivity to what he was really about. So if being in Adidam helped prepare me for that, even in the negative sense of the word by showing me what not to do, that’s all fine and good by me.
This is why radical devotion to Reality and right life disciplines are the necessary foundation for actual Realization of the Witness Consciousness and Absolute Acausal Reality (prior to the heart on the right). People get all kinds of glimpses, even drug-induced ones – but they never last. No ego is going to give it all up without the Grace of the Realizer. To think that the Self within your own heart is going to be sufficient is more egoic self-aggrandizement, in my understanding and personal experience. How many realizers have done this? And you think you are up to that? Well, who knows, perhaps you are such an extremely rare one – so let us know.
I certainly wouldn’t argue that we need to be radically devoted to reality. But if you are going to put down people’ glimpses, because they don’t last, you should also put down your own glimpses, which also haven’t lasted. Pretending that you know exactly what is going to work, and what isn’t going to work, is just more belief-based preaching on your part. You’ve read these things in Adi Da’s books, and you repeat them on faith, not knowing if they are actually true. Now, I don’t know what’s exactly true either, but I can certainly tell you that if the Self in your own heart isn’t sufficient, then nothing is.
The only Guru who can actually awaken you is the Guru who is your own Self. Trying to set up a false dichotomy, where if I talk about the Self this means I am denying the role of the outer Guru, is simply misleading and creates a conflict that has no real existence. It is the outer Guru who taught me this in the first place, and who instructed me to find the Self in the Heart, and see him as That Self in my own Heart. Am I to reject the outer Guru’s instructions, and instead of meditating on him in the heart, seek him outside the heart? That would seem like sheer folly. These matters are not contradictions, they are simply ways of describing a single truth using dualistic language. The outer Guru and the inner Guru are the same. Recognizing the outer Guru as the inner Guru is the only way the relationship can actually be spiritually productive.
I do understand what works for me in my recognition of Adi Da, and if that no longer works for you, so be it. By the way, I have been meaning to ask you if you see any need for right life disciplines relative to food, sex, etc., or are such practices more “dualism” that impedes realization in your view?
Life is a discipline, any way you slice it. What works for you is fine with me. If you are happy with your devotion for Da, far be it from me to dissuade you from it. Discipline is necessary for any undertaking, and even spiritual practice requires discipline of some kind. But there’s no specific disciline necessary. People require different approaches at different times, and I’m not the judge of that. There’s a general approach to these things in Sanatana dharma that is well known. As things go, however, I tend to side with Ramana and Nisargadatta that we should live a natural life, without some kind of imposition of “spiritual” discipline upon ourselves. These things tend to reinforce egoity, rather than relief us of ego. The best “discipline” is a natural, sattvic life of moderation. But making that into a rule defeats the entire purpose which is to draw attention beyond the ego, rather than to fixate it in issues of discipline and so forth. What I have found is that if one simply practices from the heart, the rest tends to fall in place over time. And if not, don’t worry, be happy.
You cannot keep the mind and heart separate as you suggest here – the mind is a reflection of your heart, as you must know.
Functionally speaking, the mind and heart are indeed related, but they are also distinct from one another. You might get a better sense of what I mean here if you think of Adi Da’s concept of an “inner” and an “outer” temple. The heart is the inner sanctum, which one does not sully with worldly matters, whereas the mind is the “outer temple”, which takes care of business.
You seem to forget that I practiced the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and considered Him my teacher for 5 years BEFORE meeting Adi Da. Ramana Maharshi’s teachings did not address me fully enough, as much as I wanted to bypass the necessary preparations of body-mind in terms of real devotion and right life disciplines, and jump right into practicing the highest non-dual teachings I had to date found. With that foundation now in place, I frequently allow the Love-Bliss of Reality to invade me bodily, to demonstrate the truth of the Witness Position, and to feel Its egoless root prior to the heart on the right – as long as I am deeply surrendered in the intrinsic egolessness of Adi Da Samraj, the Acausal Divine Reality.
No amount of practice with Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings allowed this in me. And at best we can assume that a relatively rare few were actually enlightened by Ramana in His lifetime; and today, for most people, His teachings are too lofty and they themselves are most likely too unprepared to simply abide as the Self via Self-enquiry. Adi Da makes the practice clear to anyone who would listen at whatever level they are at – even children. Remember, He even wrote a book “What To Remember To Be Happy” for children.
Yes, Ramana’s teachings are a bit “lofty”, and they aren’t for everyone. He said so himself many times. But simply because they weren’t useful for you when you were younger doesn’t mean they aren’t useful to others. What you describe in your own practice is quite common among those who practice self-enquiry. And obviously a number of Ramana’s devotees were able to mature well beyond this, and fully realize the Self, which isn’t the case in Adidam. But that in itself is no reason to stop practicing as you do. Clearly, most people attracted to Ramana don’t become fully realized either. I certainly have no such serious expectation for myself. I am simply very, very happy to practice as Ramana instructed, and I see the wisdom of it every day. I find it far more rewarding spiritually than the Adidam practice I was involved in for many years. But that may not be the case for others. To each his own, it is the same Divine Self behind every path, drawing us always to Himself, until we see that He is our very Self. One Self, many faces.
December 31, 2008 at 12:16 am
Anomalous,
You make a lot of good points. We really don’t know whether Ramana “enlightened” anyone. We don’t even know if Ramana himself was “enlightened”. But if we are talking about comparitive issues like who was more successful, one certainly has to use some basic judgment on these things. In that sense, I’d give Lakshamana a lot of credit, in that what he’s demonstrated since seems to me to be a fairly solid example of realization. Whereas, someone like Saniel Bonder, who claimed realization after years in Adidam, I wouldn’t give much credit. It’s a subjective judgment, certainly, but it’s shared by enough people to give it some weight.
I find the whole drama around Papaji quite interesting and even instructive. He was in the habit throughout his life of telling people they were enlightened. It wasn’t just a few westerners late in his lifetime who got this treatment. He seemed to love telling people they were enlightened, and it didn’t seem like you could ever get him to stop. David Godman, while researching his biography, came across at least 40 letters he had written to people the unequivocably stated that they had realized. And yet, when asked if any of his devotees were truly enlightened, he always said no, none were. Sometimes, he would even say that he’d only met two fully enlightened people in his life, Ramana, and some guy who walked out of the jungle in south Inda one day, and a few minutes later disappeared into the jungle again. At other times he’d speak more generously of others as enlightened. And then change again.
The basic idea you get from Papaji is that he tried to keep everyone guessing, and never liked the idea of enlightenment being some fixed, “knowable” quantity. Even his own enlightenment was always in question. Sometimes, he seemed to confirm that he was enlightened by Ramana in 1942 or so. But even more frequently, he asserted that he was actually spontaneously enlightened at the age of eight or so, and that Ramana had someone just clarified it for him.
And then there’s the whole issue of whether anything Papaji said could be taken as true. He often described himself as lacking any volition whatsoever, that everything he did was merely the Self actng and speaking, and that he had no choice in the matter of what he said or did. He even confessed that at times he would find himself saying things that he knew weren’t true, but the Self had him say them anyway. He said he just trusted the Self, had faith, and somehow found that things seemed to work out for the best in the end. This sort of puts some light on Papaji’s declarations about enlightenment. It seemed as if when he told people they were enlightened, he knew it wasn’t true, but the Self wanted him to say these things anyway, that somehow it would be helpful. The problem, of course, is that this puts into doubt everything Papaji ever said. How do we know anything he said was true at all? It could all have been some kind of useful lie. Or, it could be that Papaji wasn’t enlightened at all, but profoundly deluded and acting unconsciously. Who would ever know?
The point I get from all of this is, don’t believe anybody, not even Papaji or Ramana. Consider what they say, see if it makes sense, but don’t just believe it. Papaji seems to be ensuring that his devotees would have to do just that, by openly admitting that sometimes he was simply not telling the truth. And by making such a mishmash of all these “enlightenments”, he’s making it clear that you have to take all this with many grains of salt, and not believe any of it. If it’s useful, use it, and if not, throw it away. And even if it’s useful, throw it away after you use it.
Something similar could have been the openly received lesson of Da. Back in the day, he used to say that everything he did was just theater, that we had to throw away everything he said, rather than hold onto it as the precious word of God. But over the years that was forgotten, and even openly denied by him, and everything he said or did was deified and made unquestionable. As many here suggest, we’d be better off throwing most of what he said or did away, and not make it the basis for practice or belief or anything at all.
The point is, no one has any credentials. Where did Ramana get his credentials? He was a sixteen year old kid who showed up in a cave one day. Saradamma is a crazy girl who likes to play with dolls. Ramankrishna was a whacky guy who worshipped his own penis as a Shiva Lingam. Credentials, credentials, we don’t need no stinking credentials! You bet I have loose standards. How the hell do you think I ever got into Adidam in the first place, much less stayed for almost three decades? You gotta have some awfully lose standards and not question a lot of basic shit to do that. But it’s not as if I don’t question the basic about Ramana and others. I just find fewer reasons to be skeptical of their general stories and teachings. There’s a lot less BS being slung with them. And no great money-making business that depends on a lot of people swallowing their line. Ramanashram remains a small-time place not much different than it was the day he died. There’s no organization created, no membership, no growing worldwide bureacracy to administer, no fundraising, no slush funds, etc. Lakshmana and Saradamma, similarly, have no “scene” beyond a few devotees. No big following, no interest in generating such a thing, just a rather obviously happy disposition that makes her enlightenment seem reasonable enough on its own merits.
Even so, you still have a good point that’s worth repeating. Approach Ramana and others just as critically as Da, using the same basic standards. And don’t believe anything. Everything you do accept, accept only provisionally, not on faith, but just as a matter of “the preponderance of the evidence”, which will of course change as you gather more evidence or question its validity.
December 31, 2008 at 7:22 am
i just saw some you tube of adi da, man that is wild, iam talking about the ones where he says nothing , just him sitting there , thats heavy ! i would have like to talk to him, does anybody know if adi da ever got mad? did he get mad at folks that preached the bible to him?…. just wondering.
iam not a devotee , and my beliefs are not the same as adi da , but i truly find him very very interesting , i wished he could have lived another 30 yrs , ive been searching him out more now than ever , [got to love the web !] LOVE , BEAUTY, LIFE RULES.
December 31, 2008 at 10:48 am
I found an interesting site that some of you may enjoy.
http://advaitatoons.blogspot.com/
December 31, 2008 at 11:44 am
Raymond, I am interested in where you are coming from now that you see Adi Da as a mere snake oil salesman. Am I reading too much into your post to infer that you have basically reclaimed your power with a vengeance, i.e. aimed to deconstruct all beliefs, and have now thrown out the concept of spiritual realization?
I very much believe that spiritual realization exists. Some model such as the 5 sheaths in Hinduism can help explain why we mostly don’t access it, but in any case it is an article of faith with me, self-authenticating, that a greater identity than I usually take myself to be is my true identity.
You have mentioned some interesting books and otherwise speak strongly about the belief effect. You seem to be a definite non-believer rather than agnostic about a spiritual process and realization. Is this true, and do you care to comment?
December 31, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
December 30, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Anomalous Poster:
“With regard to the relative success of guruship of Ramana over Da, it seems that much has been taken relatively uncritically, in this case by Conradg, who, considering his interest in the subject, is perhaps playing favorites? I draw attention to the two or three specimens which Ramana may have said were realized: his mother, his cow, a dog, and a crow. I think I got that right. Now, three of them were not even human, and I am not sure any of them were alive at the time, other than as dying. Hmm.”
Conradg probably undertands that it was not Ramana Maharshi’s way to make public announcements that so and so or such and such was realized while living. This was consistent with his overall teaching.
“Please tell how a cow would be ready for the realization that we humans find so irksome. And before saying that it must have been a very, very evolved cow, ask yourself, why would such an evolved being be a cow in the first place, and not a human? Same for the dog, crow, cat, monkey or whatever subhumans are on the list.”
It is perfectly consistent with the jnani position that nothing is attained, only the obstacles removed, and that all is Consciousness. There is an implicit assumption in your statement that of all possible beings only humans can be realized even though there is nothing to be attained. That assumption is just that.
::Not so fast. There is precedent in the great tradition that only humans may attain, and even particularly males, as per the Buddhist tradition many centuries back. Human life is said to be of great, great value, and as rare as a tortoise in the ocean popping up through a doughnut shaped tube, or something like that. I reckon you are taking one edge of a paradox and ignoring the other. If you take your line far enough you end up with the highest realization belonging to plastic, because the less thought and awareness the better, the less obstruction. Even a rock would be more realized, because what would be there to obstruct what is? I chose plastic as even higher because rock might still have too much carbon-based vibration which would limit it in some way; better to stick with plastic. What obstacles would it have to remove? You find my assumptions unlikely, but consider the dog and the cow; how would they be different from other dogs and cows, please do tell. Are all the others neurotic and self-contracted?
“Even for the human, nothing happened until she died. So, woopie for that astounding record of accomplishment.”
Considering the remarkable transformation of Ramana Maharshi’s mother over a couple decades, and his description of how the Realization was actually accomplished, that would be your opinion.
::I am not privy to this information, although I am sure she was much changed by accepting her son as guru. My recollection is that he held his hands on her head and heart as she died. I am not clear what you mean by “how the Realization was actually accomplished.” I am not sure how any realizations are actually accomplished. Perhaps you could expound this for us to clarify how it’s done. Again, of course, there is nothing to be accomplished, as you have said, so then what was accomplished? Can you have it both ways?
“Then, there are some, like Lakshmana and Sarada, the former of which says that he was awakened in the Master’s presence and that he acknowledged this. His own recount of the so-called acknowledgment is that he handed Ramana a note saying he just realized the Self, and Ramana smiled and asked him where he was from. He said Gudur, and Ramana asked if it was near somewhere else, to which Lakshmana said yes. Though he never travelled far, those are the only words ever spoken between the two. Sarada’s credentials, so to speak, are told in the same sort of vague, incomprehensibly simplistic way, basically saying her mind went into the heart and died and both of them had permanent unending realization ever since. Well, well. Is it really so simple as that? Were there no issues, no questions after that? Just slam-dunk. I find that incredible. Why accept this so uncritically just because it is presented as such?
You have no need to accept this uncritically. And truthfully, from what you say, you can’t. There are other accounts besides this where Ramana Maharshi gave tacit acknowledgement of Realization. You did not mention the account of Sri Matha from 1938 of her Realization, and she outlived Ramana Maharshi and founded her own Ashram. You can find similar accounts around jnanis through the centuries. But it is not clear that basic tenets of the mainstream jnani tradition about realization and specific aspects of Ramana Maharshi’s life and teaching resonate much with you.
“And then there’s Papa G. Why are they always papa this and amma that? Can’t these guys ever be brother or sister so and so? Do they HAVE to be mommy and daddy? Anyway, Papa G went on to tell a host of others that they were realized and I think we know how that panned out, so what of his judgment?”
Papaji explained all that as an ego test he was moved to give, which all those western teachers failed by jumping to the conclusion their ego was gone. He specifically did not acknowledge any of them in his later period or in David Godman’s interviews. Not everyone (wisely) accepted these statements as license to teach, and kept up their practice.
“Did Ramana acknowledge his realization also, perhaps with a wink or gesture of the eyebrow? What’s there to speak of here? Some dead animals and his mother. Some people who say he smiled at their assertions. It’s hard to do much worse than that, is it not?”
That is a projection of what happened. There are other ways of looking at it.
“Realization is such a hard thing. It seems one is better off non-human and without much of a cortex. It would seem that the measure should be overall growth in the right direction perhaps. A very much harder to define area of inquiry in a way.”
That conclusion is inconsistent with the jnani tradition.
“Perhaps intuitions, glimmers should be counted. In this light, Adi Da does not do so badly at all. And, particularly for Westerners, who need more than most Eastern contemporary gurus give out in terms of clarity. Da grabbed us in a way that Ramana did not, in most cases at least.”
Grabbed who? In your case, yes, but far more were repelled than grabbed. Rightly or wrongly, Da is still far less respected, even in the West, than Ramana Maharshi is.
“And, I am not sure if even Inquiry is original or if it is just a reworking of Upanishadic wisdom. None of the afore-mentioned four-legged devotees practiced it. Nor did Ramana. It seems that Lakshmana did, at least for a few days, and Sarada not.”
Why would Ramana Maharshi need to be original? Other than the modern desire to have a “new” method, why? What most think of as self-enquiry is far from the most advanced stage of practice.
::I am not advocating novelty, just mentioning this because I think it is the common perception that Ramana laid claim to this particular approach as unique.
“We know so little of the lives of Nityananda, Muktananda, and so many other nandas. Then when someone like Da lets it all hang out, as it were, people judge him poorly. I doubt he was any worse than the rest of them, only we know the sanitized versions. Were they all white-haired saints, except for Da? We just don’t know the stories, and they were not in the modern West either.”
And how does this relate to Ramana Maharshi?
“I am not sure that a balanced disposition is really the be all and end all or final analysis as many may assume. I think we tend to assume that’s how it would look, but maybe it’s false.”
That mischaracterization is your opinion but it is not that of the jnani tradition going back many centuries. In other words, you want something different and more “modern” than mainstream jnana.
“Ramana’s your man in that case, but in terms of numbers of realizers, which he acknowledged? An interesting point is what do you think would have happened if Ramana moved to New York City instead of Tiruvanammalai? How many lives would he have touched? Da was for us. Most left. Most of those who visited Tiruvanammai also left. The expense of being able to attract us, Da also contained our excesses.”
Such hypotheticals make no sense. Nor to be accurate, does using the term left to equate those many who departed from Ramanashram but remained devotees, with the over 90% attrition rate reported around Da’s organization. In 1950, millions mourned Ramana Maharshi’s passing according to the NY Times. 1n 2008, despite vastly increased population and wealth, and instant communications, Da’s passing gets limited attention world wide. We shall see if that is significant. But it appears you have a laundry list of issues with the jnani tradition and are not precise in your criticism of Ramana Maharshi.
::I dispute that India and the West can be compared in this realm. J Lo’s impending divorce got more attention than Da’s whole life and death. I also counter that the 90% who left Da were untouched by it. They may not have called themselves devotees, and those who visited Ramana might have considered themselves as such, but that’s not a fair comparison due to different mores of east and west. Da, for all his excesses, did far more good than generally credited. He had an infinitely harder job establishing dharma in the west than Ramana had in the east, and it was a much dirtier affair necessarily. In the final analysis, Ramana could say he enlightened a potato, perhaps a potato chip, and no one would even raise an eyebrow about it. Perhaps the potato after all could practice true self-enquiry, “Who am Eye?”
December 31, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Dear Conradg,
The point is, no one has any credentials. Where did Ramana get his credentials? He was a sixteen year old kid who showed up in a cave one day. Saradamma is a crazy girl who likes to play with dolls. Ramankrishna was a whacky guy who worshipped his own penis as a Shiva Lingam. Credentials, credentials, we don’t need no stinking credentials!
::Nice to hear from you. From another tack, take “the other Franklin,” the other white meat (couldn’t help that), whom no one ever, ever mentions in all these years. He too was an American, contemporaneous with Jones, and who published and gave talks. Have you considered his realization? And, if not, why not?
December 31, 2008 at 4:35 pm
“I dispute that India and the West can be compared in this realm. J Lo’s impending divorce got more attention than Da’s whole life and death. I also counter that the 90% who left Da were untouched by it. They may not have called themselves devotees, and those who visited Ramana might have considered themselves as such, but that’s not a fair comparison due to different mores of east and west. Da, for all his excesses, did far more good than generally credited. He had an infinitely harder job establishing dharma in the west than Ramana had in the east, and it was a much dirtier affair necessarily. In the final analysis, Ramana could say he enlightened a potato, perhaps a potato chip, and no one would even raise an eyebrow about it. Perhaps the potato after all could practice true self-enquiry, “Who am Eye?””
No need to go into the details of the above, which does not reflect what I wrote and simply leads to a predetermined conclusion. I did not, for example, say most who came to him were not “affected” by Da. Nor did I say that Ramana Maharshi should be viewed uncritically. It is not that Ramana Maharshi’s statements should be taken uncritically. They are what they are, and some state them accurately, some don’t. If they don’t resonate with you, and how could they given your stated beliefs and assumptions and experiences, fine. They resonate with me after after examing them critically and comparing them with the traditions and my experiences. I simply want those traditions accurately stated, and since Ramana Maharshi’s life was an open book, that isn’t hard based on research. No one has to, or should, believe anything until the rules of the Kalama Sutra have been applied. The underlying theme you present is based on unproven assumptions common to what is called neo-advaita, about “East” and “West”. I simply disagree. Another take more on consonance with traditions is that most modern westerners want to have their cake and eat it too in their spiritual practices, confuse pundits whose state does not match the products of their minds with spiritual authorties, and thus that these westerners get the gurus and practices they deserve. What neo-advaita has not produced yet for all of this is evidence to support its effectiveness compared with traditional approaches. You provide common western explanations for this deficiency, which boil down to Westerners are different, and traditional accounts are not credible. One can believe those assumptions, or not. I do not, you do.
Further, last time I checked, the non-dualist “dharma” was well established in the West going back to Vivekananda’s visit in the 1890s, and well known before Da showed up. Even Ramana Maharshi had many western devotees while alive and many more now. That either means nothing or something depending on your POV, but your statement is not factually accurate.
December 31, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Conradg, I do appreciate and agree with some of what you said about the differences between faith and belief. However, your conclusions about this recognition of Adi Da being faith-based and even belief-based are incorrect. I spoke of the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice that is for devotees who have an established foundation in the right life disciplines and radical devotion to Adi Da Samraj. This Knowledge is the tacit Self-evident recognition of the Divine – which is not a matter of faith nor belief. Again, it seems you want to make it into faith and even belief because of your own experiences in Adidam, which I agree devotees have been party to one way or another, but that has nothing to do with this preliminary Perfect Knowledge practice. This is heart Knowledge, that is not just about faith – it is direct and intrinsically egoless, the Self nature, the one Reality, Adi Da, non-separate from any one.
Conradg Says:
“You simply don’t seem to understand non-dual teachings such as Ramana’s. For Ramana, there is no “jump” from the ego to realization. The individual does not become realized, the individual sees that he is not an individual at all, and never was, and could never be such a thing. He sees that he is reality itself, as reality itself. No jump at all, no leap of faith, just the certain grounding in who we already are. The Guru helps the devotee to see this, and then gets out of the way.”
Oh, you and your semantics, and word-twisting, Conradg. Please, I do understand that we are ultimately always already the Acausal Divine Reality and the realization of That is simply a matter of recognizing That to be already the case. This is why I am constantly posting about the non-dualistic devotional recognition of Adi Da Samraj as the Divine Acausal Reality – and His profound Help in this very heart recognition.
His Divine Help is necessary in my case – I have tried all sorts of mind dharmas, techniques, Self-enquiry, etc. – to no avail. Recognizing Who Adi Da Is and identifying with That One demonstrates the intrinsic egolessness of Reality DIRECTLY without any technique or self-involved method of turning within, Self-enquiry, etc. You deny this help as being necessary for you, and your posts often speak of you as the Self. You are currently not the Self, that is not your realization now, and this is obvious even by your own confessions here. This is the traditional error people make to “kill the Buddha”, etc. because they think they can somehow go off by themselves and practice the so-called “always already enlightenment”. This is very very common these days.
In the fullness of the relationship to the Sat-Guru, there is no ego there that could leave! Yes, the Guru admonishes the devotee, WHEN that devotee has established the proper foundation in discipline and devotional surrender, to always tacitly stand as the Witness Consciousness – but that is not the same as telling them to actually leave the relationship! Why would I ever leave my most Beloved? And Who would I even be leaving as it is my very nature ultimately. But I am not going to kid myself into saying that because ultimately I am always already enlightened, that I no longer need Adi Da! He is the very One I am meditated by, and Who establishes the Witness, and fills the body-mind with His Love-Bliss. He is Real God, the Self of all!
I really don’t think you want to hear what Adi Da has repeatedly admonished all devotees from the beginning to do – identify with His Intrinsic Egolessness (the Acausal Divine Reality) and receive His Blessing Love Bliss. Such tacit identification has nothing to do with internal nor external objects! In identifying with Him, we are given spiritual “qualifications” that no ordinary ego, such as I, will ever develop on my own. When I most fully enjoy the depth of this non-dual relationship with Adi Da, I immediately am released to the inherent egolessness of Reality and notice that I am the Witness prior to the Heart on the right, and that He is downpouring from Above through the opening in the center of my head as the Love-Bliss of Reality Itself. This is a profound process that is available to us ordinary folk because of Who He Is and His Samadhi made available here in this domain. Of course, whether this offering works for you, is for you to determine, as you apparently already have for yourself at least. I let others be – to determine it for themselves, whereas you are obviously very biased against Adi Da and Adidam. I know you sometimes pay some kind of lip service that you have no problems with people being devotees of Adi Da, but your posts indicate otherwise, as at least I and NC, have pointed out.
And really, Conradg, if the Self within your heart works for you, good! For me, the Guru in Person, even after His Divine Mahasamadhi, is the Very Self AND is absolutely intimate with me as His devotee – in non-dual Love as His Divine Conscious Light and Grace. That is the continuously unfolding realization or enlightenment that is already given.
Happy New Year everyone!
December 31, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Feel4God,
When you say:
“I practiced the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and considered Him my teacher for 5 years BEFORE meeting Adi Da. Ramana Maharshi’s teachings did not address me fully enough, as much as I wanted to bypass the necessary preparations of body-mind in terms of real devotion and right life disciplines, and jump right into practicing the highest non-dual teachings I had to date found. With that foundation now in place, I frequently allow the Love-Bliss of Reality to invade me bodily, to demonstrate the truth of the Witness Position, and to feel Its egoless root prior to the heart on the right – as long as I am deeply surrendered in the intrinsic egolessness of Adi Da Samraj, the Acausal Divine Reality. No amount of practice with Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings allowed this in me. And at best we can assume that a relatively rare few were actually enlightened by Ramana in His lifetime; and today, for most people, His teachings are too lofty and they themselves are most likely too unprepared to simply abide as the Self via Self-enquiry. Adi Da makes the practice clear to anyone who would listen at whatever level they are at – even children. Remember, He even wrote a book “What To Remember To Be Happy” for children.”
and:
“I really don’t think you want to hear what Adi Da has repeatedly admonished all devotees from the beginning to do -identify with His Intrinsic Egolessness (the Acausal Divine Reality) and receive His Blessing Love Bliss. Such tacit identification has nothing to do with internal nor external objects! In identifying with Him, we are given spiritual “qualifications” that no ordinary ego, such as I, will ever develop on my own. When I most fully enjoy the depth of this non-dual relationship with Adi Da, I immediately am released to the inherent egolessness of Reality and notice that I am the Witness prior to the Heart on the right, and that He is downpouring from Above through the opening in the center of my head as the Love-Bliss of Reality Itself. This is a profound process that is available to us ordinary folk because of Who He Is and His Samadhi made available here in this domain.”
Although the original KOL did not clearly state this, the practice you refer to is an application of three widely known metaphysical “laws”:
1) The Law Of Vibration, which states that anything that exists in our universe, whether seen or unseen, resonates and exists as a vibratory frequency or pattern.
2) The Law Of Attraction, which states that whatever energy is broadcast out into the universe is joined by (or attracted to) energies that are of an equal or harmonious frequency, resonance or vibration.
3) The Law of Resonance, which states in part that in a relationship of identification and attraction, especially over an extended period of time, the more energetic partner will alter the energy of the more surrendered one who resonates with him/her. It is best known among Da followers as the idea that you become what you meditate on.
So, if Adi Da is resonant as the Acausal Reality as you believe, then the Satsang type process involving identification with him you describe would be just another variant on the type of Bhakti that Ramana Maharshi equated with Self-Inquiry. The practice you describe can be seen to be related to the Pauline doctrine of the New Testament, the idea that Christ takes over your life after a spirit baptism and being saved you acquire that nature more and more purely as a result.
I do not dispute that you are free to describe the results as “…allow(ing) the Love-Bliss of Reality to invade me bodily, to demonstrate the truth of the Witness Position, and to feel Its egoless root prior to the heart on the right – as long as I am deeply surrendered in the intrinsic egolessness of Adi Da Samraj, the Acausal Divine Reality.” Or that: “In identifying with Him, we are given spiritual “qualifications” that no ordinary ego, such as I, will ever develop on my own.”
And that: “When I most fully enjoy the depth of this non-dual relationship with Adi Da, I immediately am released to the inherent egolessness of Reality and notice that I am the Witness prior to the Heart on the right, and that He is downpouring from Above through the opening in the center of my head as the Love-Bliss of Reality Itself.”
I do not doubt your description of how the experience feels is accurate in itself and as described in Da terminology. And you would see it as far more rapid progress than the methods Ramana Maharshi taught. I am simply not confident that description accurately describes the result, whereas you would be. Largely because I question Da’s full realization and do not accept his entire model, which means, if that were so, there are limits to what resonance in Satsang and identification with a functional ajani can accomplish. I remain skeptical that the process of surrendering via a kind of invasive spiritual force coming down from above actually leads to the same witness and heart on the right experiences Ramana Maharshi described rather than subtle ones. In part because such invasive experiences, as Da himself proved in his time with Muktananda, can produce all sorts of subtle experiences and mental creations that are not exactly what they appear. As I have said, Da is more clearly what you are looking for at this time based on your expectations, experiences and beliefs. And if I believed what you think about your state was absolutely true, I would choose a remote practice of that type even if I found the Da community problematic.
But outside of that, I do not think you have a very accurate grasp of what Ramana Maharshi actually recommends or is capable of doing in relation to what you think you have experienced and accomplished via Da. Naturally you have found your short cut as Da did more to your liking, and because you are confident you are on the right track. Whether it is or is not a true short cut or a detour is for each to decide. I just want to make sure Ramana Maharshi’s perspective is accurately represented here and not merely Da’s perspective on Ramana Maharshi where they are different. It may be we are talking apples and oranges even though using the same terms.
As David Godman puts it:
“A classic example of this is the belief that self-enquiry involves concentrating on a particular centre in the body called the Heart-centre. This widely held view results from a misinterpretation of some of Sri Ramana Maharshi’s statements on the Heart, and to understand how this belief has come about it will be necessary to take a closer look at some of his ideas on the subject.
In describing the origin of the ‘I’-thought he sometimes said that it arose to the brain through a channel which started from a centre in the right hand side of the chest. He called this centre the Heart centre and said that when the ‘I’-thought subsided into the Self it went back into the centre and disappeared. He also said that when the Self is consciously experienced, there is a tangible awareness that this centre is the source of both the mind and the world. However, these statements are not strictly true and Sri Ramana Maharshi sometimes qualified them by saying that they were only schematic representations which were given to those people who persisted in identifying with their bodies. He said that the Heart is not really located in the body and that from the highest standpoint it is equally untrue to say that the ‘I’-thought arises and subsides into this centre on the right of the chest.
Because Sri Ramana Maharshi often said ‘Find the place where the “I” arises’ or ‘Find the source of the mind’, many people interpreted these statements to mean that they should concentrate in this particular centre while doing self-enquiry. Sri Ramana Maharshi rejected this interpretation many times by saying that the source of the mind or the ‘I’ could only be discovered through attention to the ‘I’-thought and not through concentration on a particular part of the body. He did sometimes say that putting attention on this centre is a good concentration practice, but he never associated it with self-enquiry. He also occasionally said that meditation on the Heart was an effective way of reaching the Self, but again, he never said that this should be done by concentrating on the Heart-centre. Instead he said that one should meditate on the Heart ‘as it is’. The Heart ‘as it is’ is not a location, it is the immanent Self and one can only be aware of its real nature by being it. It cannot be reached by concentration.
Although there are several potentially ambiguous comments of this kind about the Heart and the Heart-centre, in all his writings and recorded conversations there is not a single statement to support the contention that self-enquiry is to be practised by concentrating on this centre. In fact, by closely examining his statements on the subject one can only conclude that while the experience of the Self contains an awareness of this centre, concentration on this centre will not result in the experience of the Self.”
Finally, I can’t speak for Conradg. But I do not accept the idea that the motive here is to enlighten oneself by one’s own bootstrap, rejecting outside aid. I never considered Ramana Maharshi “dead” because as many reported his presence remained active as does that of all jnanis according to that tradition, as I found myself. I found that far more effective and long lasting than anything Da did, for me. Now that Da is dead, his devotees will have to choose the same type of relation to practice with a dead guru once criticized.
December 31, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Anomalous,
::Nice to hear from you. From another tack, take “the other Franklin,” the other white meat (couldn’t help that), whom no one ever, ever mentions in all these years. He too was an American, contemporaneous with Jones, and who published and gave talks. Have you considered his realization? And, if not, why not?
I’m not sure which “other Franklin” you are talking about. Franklin Merill Wolff? Someone else? I don’t really know too much about Wolff. Seemed like a decent guy of some kind of genuine realization, but I’m not one to judge to what degree.
I realize I forgot to respond to your animal issues. Personally, I’m of the view that most of the traditional notions about these kinds of things are “useful lies”, such as the idea that human birth is some kind of incredibly rare phenomena, the only chance we have at realization, and we should value it highly. I think this is simply a way of goading people to take life seriously and not waste it on self-indulgences, but I don’t think it’s literally true. I mean, look around. The general quality of human beings in this world doesn’t seem very astonishingly rare to me, even compared to animals. Humans are certainly more advanced in some respects, particularly the conceptual mind, but I’m not convinced that’s the standard of spiritual maturity that leads to realization.
If human life is a special chance for realization, it’s because this world is such a fucker in so many ways, it helps bring out the frustrations. One general notion I’d accept from the traditions is that if you want realization, you don’t go to the “heavenly world”, you go to a very lowly place like the earth-realm. Most people here are looking to “graduate” from the lowly earth world and into some better, subtler, more enjoyable realm. But while that certainly makes life more bearable, it decreases one’s odds of achieving true non-dual realization. Rather the opposite is the case. So eventually, some people tire of the heavenly worlds, and their desire for realization brings them to places like earth, which suck in so many ways its hard to imagine it every solving all one’s problems. So in that sense, it’s not that human births are rare, it’s more a way of reminding those who have a spiritual orientation towards transcendence of conditionality why we choose a birth here at all.
As for animals, I’m not of the view that they can’t achieve realization. However, one has to distinguish between ensouled animals who reincarnate, and unensouled creatures, who only have one lifetime. I’m of the view that only higher mammals, some birds, etc., are ensouled, and thus with some likelihood to achieve realization. Particularly animals that have contact with humans, such as domesticated animlas.
I don’t see any reason such ensouled animals couldn’t achieve realization. It may be a different story for unensouled animals. The notion that one needs a highly developed conceptual mind to achieve realization is simply an anthropomorphic projection, in my view. Because humans do have a highly developed conceptual mind, they often need highly developed conceptual teachings about realization to get the point. But presuming that this is a requirement for all creatures is putting the cart before the horse. The true teaching is in silence, not in concepts, and any animal is as capable of grasping that teaching as humans are. There are also many other non-verbal ways of communicating realization that fit their capacities, and if an animal is driven towards that purpose, there’s no need for it to develop human conceptual capacities to do so.
As it happens, Da had a very elaborate teaching about animals and realization, much of it quite good in my view. On the other hand, he always had to insert his own specialness into the mix, by asserting that before he came along, no animals could achieve full realization, but due to his “work”, now they could. That would have been news to Ramana, obviously, in that he had already claimed to enlighten a number of animals. Likewise, there are many stories in the traditions of enlightened animals.
I remember, for example, U.G. Krishnamurti saying that after his awakening, he had visions of hundreds of realizers, some of whom he recognized historically, and others he had no idea who they were. He said that among those visions, were several animals, including a lion and a killer whale and a dolphin. I’m not sure I give a lot of credence to U.G., but it’s an interesting factoid.
I personally don’t put a lot of weight on Ramana’s mentioning of these enlightened animals, but it certainly does make sense, in that Ramana spent quite a lot of time relating to animals, almost as much as he did with humans. There’s numerous examples of even wild animals coming to him, such as squirrels who would sit on his chair with him and cuddle up by his side. And there was a whole big deal with all the monkeys who frequented the ashram. So if you accept Ramana as someone who had a number of realized human devotees, I don’t think it’s that far-fetched to imagine he had realized animal devotees as well.
The other general issue, as to how realizers get acknowledged, it seems to be purely a matter of reputation. In other words, the sum total of the views of the kind of people who are interested enough in this sort of thing, and respected enough by others, to form a general consensus. That’s the way it’s always been. It’s not always correct, I’m sure. But there are numerous standards, traditional and strictly personal, involved. Among Ramana devotees there is some controversy as to who was actually enlightened or not. The general consensus is that the most certain of these is Sri Muruganar, who wrote what are considered the most definitive texts on Ramana’s teachings. But as others here have said, Ramana didn’t ever draw attention to this sort of thing, and there could have been many such individuals who simply didn’t bother to stick around or gain notice.
In effect, all his devotees should be judged on their own merits. Lakshmana’s realization is not to be judged by whether or not Ramana acknowledged him, but by his own teachings and presence. Same with everyone else.
December 31, 2008 at 11:44 pm
FFC:
No need to go into the details of the above, which does not reflect what I wrote and simply leads to a predetermined conclusion.
::I feel exactly the same about your responses, which don’t answer my questions and seem as predetermined as anything can be.
I did not, for example, say most who came to him were not “affected” by Da.
::My meaning is that even though those who left may not consider themselves devotees, they in large may be considered as equivalent to what in the East would be devotees in a multitude of cases, in that a certain type of initiation, shall we say, occurred. You referred to them in terms of attrition, which is too perjorative for me, so I am drawing a comparison.
Nor did I say that Ramana Maharshi should be viewed uncritically. It is not that Ramana Maharshi’s statements should be taken uncritically. They are what they are, and some state them accurately, some don’t.
If they don’t resonate with you, and how could they given your stated beliefs and assumptions and experiences, fine. They resonate with me after after examing them critically and comparing them with the traditions and my experiences.
::The crux of my difference with you is that you make repeated use of the term “resonance” which I find uncritical. When I ask about the very obvious conundrum of Maharshi granting some sort of realization to livestock, you fall back upon it resonating with you. When I ask you to explain your understanding of this, you avoid answering critically, saying that you resonate to it and that’s all. Yes, you said that it is in accord with the tradition of jnani in general terms, but nothing is said about the question at hand. How do you grant realization to a cow, dog, crow, spider, ant, flea, and how would these specimens differ from the others? You have granted me no insight at all into that. You also seem to contradict yourself when you then say that there is nothing to be realized anyway, so what’s the problem with a realizer granting nothing to barnyard animals. How do you remove an obstacle from the mind of a crow? Basically, you seem to be issuing subtlely condescending remarks about my failure to correctly resonate with the jnani view. I don’t see this going anywhere unless something else can be said, not to waste either your time or mine really.
I simply want those traditions accurately stated, and since Ramana Maharshi’s life was an open book, that isn’t hard based on research. No one has to, or should, believe anything until the rules of the Kalama Sutra have been applied. The underlying theme you present is based on unproven assumptions common to what is called neo-advaita, about “East” and “West”. I simply disagree. Another take more on consonance with traditions is that most modern westerners want to have their cake and eat it too in their spiritual practices, confuse pundits whose state does not match the products of their minds with spiritual authorties, and thus that these westerners get the gurus and practices they deserve. What neo-advaita has not produced yet for all of this is evidence to support its effectiveness compared with traditional approaches. You provide common western explanations for this deficiency, which boil down to Westerners are different, and traditional accounts are not credible. One can believe those assumptions, or not. I do not, you do.
::Without going into all this in detail, I am just pointing out that relatively little favors Ramana in terms of realizer-production, so to speak. Even the great Ramana recognized but a few animals and his mother, and I am not sure in what order. I know there are others who attribute their realization to him, and I have commented on specifics, but compared to Da, it’s not surprising given the types of people they could attract based on their geographical differences. I don’t dispute that Ramana bears more of the traditional and even reasonable aspects of a realizer. I do not defend a lot of what I hear about the dark side of Da. I only say that no one here has a heck of a handle on realization, so far as I see, and that Da’s eccentricity may not disqualify his realization. Even if we accept Ramana’s superiority, I would still say that Adi Da did a great deal of valuable work on so many who would not have been drawn to Ramana or anyone else without him.
Further, last time I checked, the non-dualist “dharma” was well established in the West going back to Vivekananda’s visit in the 1890s, and well known before Da showed up. Even Ramana Maharshi had many western devotees while alive and many more now. That either means nothing or something depending on your POV, but your statement is not factually accurate.
::I don’t consider Vivekananda as having established non-dualist dharma in the West. I don’t know what standard you are applying to that. Anyhow, my point was more that Da had to set up a profitable center, which required attracting and holding devotees in ways that Ramana would never have dreamed of. The West is extremely different from the East in that respect. Da could not sit half-naked on a rock and have an ashram spring up based on charitable donations from the multitudes. Is there even one example of an Indian-like ashram in U.S. history? I think he had to be a showman and had to compromise his teaching somewhat, otherwise there would have been no one to teach. That’s not a good thing, but I think one has to use caution in comparing Da’s situation to that of Ramana.
January 1, 2009 at 2:28 am
Feel4God,
Conradg, I do appreciate and agree with some of what you said about the differences between faith and belief. However, your conclusions about this recognition of Adi Da being faith-based and even belief-based are incorrect. I spoke of the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice that is for devotees who have an established foundation in the right life disciplines and radical devotion to Adi Da Samraj. This Knowledge is the tacit Self-evident recognition of the Divine – which is not a matter of faith nor belief. Again, it seems you want to make it into faith and even belief because of your own experiences in Adidam, which I agree devotees have been party to one way or another, but that has nothing to do with this preliminary Perfect Knowledge practice. This is heart Knowledge, that is not just about faith – it is direct and intrinsically egoless, the Self nature, the one Reality, Adi Da, non-separate from any one.
I think it’s important to distinguish between unconditional faith itself, and various conditional beliefs one attaches to that faith. What Da refers to as the “preliminary Perfect Practice” is simply part of the traditional Advaitic approach, including the whole matter of devotion to the Guru. I have no problem with this in itself. It’s a perfectly valid approach. If Da wishes to adopt this traditional Advaitic approach and recommend it to his devotees, that is fine, because in itself it is free of any conditional presumptions and has no attached beliefs that need be adopted. One doesn’t have to do it in relation to any particular Guru, or any particular historical tradition, and one need not believe anything about these matters in order for it to be fruitful.
And if you kept it there, I would have no problem. But you seem incapable of actually resting in the unconditional Witness, you have to keep making “mind” out of this practice, and make claims about it that are derived from your mind, and various books of Da’s you’ve read. Primarily, you still seem to be claiming that this is some unique practice that only Da has given, and that only his devotees can do, and that it is superior to every other form of practice, and is producing results in you that we should all be in awe of and bow down to. I don’t think you realize just how egoic all this comes of as, even while you claim it is based on your identification with Da’s egolessness. You would think if you really had achieved some kind of egolessness, your dialog here would actually reflect that, and seem, well, egoless.
Instead, what we get are constant bragging, constant degridation of others’ practices, always trying to frame yourself and Da as the best and greatest, and the rest of us as spiritual dolts who are missing out on these profound gems of wisdom and bliss you are enjoying. In other words, most of what you say has exactly the opposite effect from what you seem to intend. Rather than establishing Da’s credibility, and your own, it diminises his credibility further. Don’t you understand that? Don’t you understand that egolessness actually lacks ego, meaning a lack of self-reference, a lack of any need to prove oneself or demonstrate one’s superiority to others?
This has been the problem with Adidam from day one. It’s a terribly self-frustrated group of people who can never seem to get their shit together, and the more they fail, the greater their self-inflating claims become. So now Da is gone, with nothing much accomplished, and as a result, we get even more self-inflated claims about the profundity of their egoless practice, from people who seem egoically full of themselves to a laugable degree. I mean, honestly, if you really were experiencing the egoless state of Acausal Divine Reality, is this how you would choose to talk with other people about it? Would you even need to say anything at all? But really, this whole macho competitive spiritual gaming, what’s the point of it? Who is it meant to impress? I’m rather at a loss.
Oh, you and your semantics, and word-twisting, Conradg. Please, I do understand that we are ultimately always already the Acausal Divine Reality and the realization of That is simply a matter of recognizing That to be already the case. This is why I am constantly posting about the non-dualistic devotional recognition of Adi Da Samraj as the Divine Acausal Reality – and His profound Help in this very heart recognition.
I think I’ve already made it quite clear that I think devotional contemplation of the Guru can, indeed, be non-dual. That doesn’t mean that it necessarily is, even when people claim that it is. But it does not confer any right to claim that one’s Guru and practice are the greatest ever, in fact, just the opposite. All such impulses to brag and make grandiose claims are dissolved. Simple happiness itself is the sign of egolessness, and an ease about these kinds of issues, aware that they are simply not important.
His Divine Help is necessary in my case – I have tried all sorts of mind dharmas, techniques, Self-enquiry, etc. – to no avail. Recognizing Who Adi Da Is and identifying with That One demonstrates the intrinsic egolessness of Reality DIRECTLY without any technique or self-involved method of turning within, Self-enquiry, etc. You deny this help as being necessary for you, and your posts often speak of you as the Self. You are currently not the Self, that is not your realization now, and this is obvious even by your own confessions here. This is the traditional error people make to “kill the Buddha”, etc. because they think they can somehow go off by themselves and practice the so-called “always already enlightenment”. This is very very common these days.
If it works for you, great, but why all this effort to prove yourself to us? Do you really think that what didn’t work for you is necessary “lower” than what does work for you? It could easily be the opposite. You could actually be a rather lowly spiritual naif who isn’t suited for higher practices such as self-enquiry, and instead can only make use of the kind of corrupted but easier to relate to practices Adi Da teaches. I’m being facetious of course, so don’t take that seriously, but I hope you understand the point. If your practice really were making you less egoic, wouldn’t it show that by your actually being less egoic? Instead, it seems to make you more egoic, more inflated, more full of grandiose ideas about yourself and your Guru, rather than humble, simple, and just plain happy. How do you explain that?
Now, I should correct once again this notion you have developed that I am denying the need for the Guru, and advocating “going off by yourself”. As I’ve said numerous times, I don’t agree with this notion at all. But seeing as you are determined to ignore what I actually say, I won’t bother protesting. You seem not to understand self-enquiry at all, and don’t appear to be at all interested in learning what it really involves, so I won’t bother explaining that either, but it’s not some sort of indirect “method”, and it’s not disassociated from the Guru. Quite the opposite. But you are a bit too narcissistically self-involved to give the attention to it that would be necessary to understand it, so what’s the point?
But when you say “Your are currently not the Self”, I think that does bear some correction. First, it’s simply not true. I am the Self. It’s simply that I am not Self-Realized. But my “lack” of Self-Realization doesn’t change the simple truth that I am the Self, and that you are also, and all of us. Your comment displays a lack of understanding of the process of Self-Realization, as if somehow we start off not being the Self, and as the result of some kind of magical acausal identification with the Guru, we become the Self. No, that’s not it at all. Our problem is that we are identified with a false sense of Self. In Daist terms, you could call that false self-sense the “self-contraction”, or “ego”. But all the while, even though we identifiy with this false self, this illusion of limitation, we are not that, we are actually and really the very Divine Self. And that being the case, it is why we are not “lost”, and we can have absolute assurance of our own realization. It is also why the Divine need not be “transmitted” to us, it simply rises up from within us to our present consciousness, as our own consciousness. If you pay close attention to any moment of Divine inspiration, you can’t help but notice this.
That is the heart of the entire Sanathana tradition, and is the entire basis for the Guru tradition, and if you don’t comprehend it, then you don’t comprehend what the Guru is, and you simply cannot “recognize” the Guru. The Guru knows himself to be the true Self, and he helps us to see that we are not this limited person we think we are, or some ego in the midst of a world, but that we are the very Self as well, the same as the Guru. He uses any number of methods to help us see who we are, but that is the crux of it all – finding out who we really are. One such method can be devotional contemplation of the Guru. I have no problem with your being drawn to that approach. But pretending that this approach is “better” or “superior” to every other means the Guru can give us is simply egoic, and it defeats the entire purpose of the exercise. The ego certainly can turn anything the Guru gives us into an egoic escape, and that is just as true of this kind of devotionalism as anything else.
This is why the Guru tradition does not value any Guru, or any form of the Guru, above any other. There are no superiors or inferiors. As they say, the fire may spit out many sparks, but each spark is the same fire. Arguing over which spark is greater than all the others, or which method of creating sparks is greater, is meaningless. The fire is one and the same in all cases.
In the fullness of the relationship to the Sat-Guru, there is no ego there that could leave! Yes, the Guru admonishes the devotee, WHEN that devotee has established the proper foundation in discipline and devotional surrender, to always tacitly stand as the Witness Consciousness – but that is not the same as telling them to actually leave the relationship! Why would I ever leave my most Beloved? And Who would I even be leaving as it is my very nature ultimately. But I am not going to kid myself into saying that because ultimately I am always already enlightened, that I no longer need Adi Da! He is the very One I am meditated by, and Who establishes the Witness, and fills the body-mind with His Love-Bliss. He is Real God, the Self of all!
No one “leaves” the Guru. Who is playing semantics now? I never even “left” Adidam. I just stopped showing up at Adidam events, paying tithes, etc. But I never felt any impulse to actually separate from Adi Da. I never told anyone I was leaving, I never had an “exit interview”, and all that crap. I had no sense of “leaving” Adi Da. I just allowed my life to move me along, and it didn’t involve going to Adidam kinds of things anymore. So if I ever say I “left” Adidam, it’s just a figure of speech. Trying to twist that into some notion that I “left the Guru” is absurd. I had no sense whatsoever of leaving the Guru. I simply found the Guru alive in many things and people other than Adi Da. I find the Guru alive to me right now, as we speak. I feel no sense of lack or bewilderment, not because I don’t need the Guru, but precisely because I know I cannot leave the Guru. There’s no sense in explaining this further, if you are so identified with Adi Da as the Guru that you cannot imagine that the Guru transcends your tradition and its personal imagery. The world is full of people like that, Christians, Muslims, Vaishnuvites, etc. If you move on to something else, you are considered damned, having killed the Buddha.
I really don’t think you want to hear what Adi Da has repeatedly admonished all devotees from the beginning to do – identify with His Intrinsic Egolessness (the Acausal Divine Reality) and receive His Blessing Love Bliss.
I guess I must confess that I don’t much like hearing the way you talk about this, all the braggadocio and egoic claims, all the parrotting of words and phrases and jargon from the Adidam books, rather than using your own simple words and experience as a guide. But that doesn’t mean I’m opposed in principle to this sort of thing.
I’m also not quite sure it’s fair to say that Da has taught this from the beginning. It’s not part of the Knee of Listening, it’s not part of the Method of the Siddhas, it’s not part of Garbage and the Goddess. I don’t recall Adi Da talking about his “Intrinsic Egolessness” until at least the late 1990′s. And he didn’t use the term “Acausal Divine Reality” at any time before then either. It sounds like a pretty recent phrasing. I guess you could argue that this is what he was always teaching, but it sounds like a lot of re-writing of history to me. I would certainly stipulate that there was always a core devotional approach that aimed at non-dual realization, but then there’s all the rest, and as I’ve said from the beginning, Da put a lot of emphasis on all the rest, unfortunately. If he’d just kept it simple, and kept attention on the real business of spiritual life, without all the endless fascinations and distractions, he might have really left something more behind that egoically self-inflated devotees trying to convince the world of their superiority to everyone else.
Such tacit identification has nothing to do with internal nor external objects! In identifying with Him, we are given spiritual “qualifications” that no ordinary ego, such as I, will ever develop on my own. When I most fully enjoy the depth of this non-dual relationship with Adi Da, I immediately am released to the inherent egolessness of Reality and notice that I am the Witness prior to the Heart on the right, and that He is downpouring from Above through the opening in the center of my head as the Love-Bliss of Reality Itself. This is a profound process that is available to us ordinary folk because of Who He Is and His Samadhi made available here in this domain.
To this I can only quote the Divine Lord from the Mummery, speaking to the Terrific Cute Creature: “That is a wonderful and miraculous power and being you are! And I am certainly Happy to know you!’ Honestly, the Mummery seems to be in full swing over there in Adidam.
Of course, whether this offering works for you, is for you to determine, as you apparently already have for yourself at least. I let others be – to determine it for themselves, whereas you are obviously very biased against Adi Da and Adidam. I know you sometimes pay some kind of lip service that you have no problems with people being devotees of Adi Da, but your posts indicate otherwise, as at least I and NC, have pointed out.
If I am biased against Adidam, it is due to my nearly three decades of experience with it. But I am quite serious that have no problems with people being devotees of Adi Da, if they can leave the PR BS at home. I have several very intimate friends who are still involved in Adidam, and we don’t get into these sort of arguments, because they just aren’t as egoically self-righteous as you are. They actually do accept me as I am, rather than just mouthing the words after denigrating my whole spiritual practice. One of them, I’m even married to.
And really, Conradg, if the Self within your heart works for you, good! For me, the Guru in Person, even after His Divine Mahasamadhi, is the Very Self AND is absolutely intimate with me as His devotee – in non-dual Love as His Divine Conscious Light and Grace. That is the continuously unfolding realization or enlightenment that is already given.
I can assure you, if you really do practice from a non-dual perspective, you will find the Guru in your heart as well. Where do you think he is anyway? You will also find your one-up-manship fall away. All this insecurity has no basis, once you begin to see that the Guru is, and always has been, alive in your very heart. DRRobin
January 1, 2009 at 1:55 pm
FFaC, I was preparing a response to your interesting post, but given Conradg’s accusations, I want to address those first. By the way, that talk I mentioned much earlier in this thread about Adi Da’s consideration of “post-Mahasamadhi Adidam” is now posted here:
http://www.adidaupclose.org/Adidam_In_Perpetuity/deathandbirth.html
Conradg Says:
“No one “leaves” the Guru. Who is playing semantics now? I never even “left” Adidam. I just stopped showing up at Adidam events, paying tithes, etc.”
When I spoke of not leaving the Guru, I was speaking for myself, what I have seen in myself egoically, and my understanding of Who He Is as non-separate Reality. I also said that I saw this mechanism in myself as the traditional error surrounding the very often quoted “kill the Buddha” statement. I was not judging you personally one way or another, as I do not even know your story.
Conradg Says:
“Instead, what we get are constant bragging, constant degridation of others’ practices, always trying to frame yourself and Da as the best and greatest, and the rest of us as spiritual dolts who are missing out on these profound gems of wisdom and bliss you are enjoying. In other words, most of what you say has exactly the opposite effect from what you seem to intend. Rather than establishing Da’s credibility, and your own, it diminises his credibility further. Don’t you understand that? Don’t you understand that egolessness actually lacks ego, meaning a lack of self-reference, a lack of any need to prove oneself or demonstrate one’s superiority to others?”
Well Happy New Year to you too, Conradg!
Okay, the above quote is a good example from you, Conradg, of what most of your last post communicated about me, so I won’t quote all the other repetitions of this. Some of your prior posts also seem to be saying that a whole group of you feel this way about what I have been posting. But basically I only keep hearing this from you, Conradg. So if others also feel that my posts are negative to this degree or whatever, tell me here, or you can write me if you don’t want to state it publicly. I have posted my email address a few times, and here it is again:
feel4god@gmail.com
Conradg, I stated very early on that I know I am an asshole, that I am an ordinary person, etc. But I too am most interested in the non-dual Truth beyond all conceptions, etc. I try to tell it like it is for me – and what Adi Da has granted me in this Reality Way with Him. And yes, I do find this Way superior for me – but I have always said it may not be for you or anyone else, that it is a most personal, intimate matter. But I am very enthusiastic about what I have discovered in my time with Adi Da, and so I am perhaps too loud about it?
Still, I am not lying about my recognition and experiences; and I do understand this Way in terms of identification with That which is intrinsically egoless from the beginning – and the huge advantage that this represents, at least in my case and by the testimony of many other Daists.
As I have often said, if Adi Da (Adidam) is not for you or anyone else, so be it. But because I tell it like it is for me, does that mean you have to get so mean-spirited and angry about what I say? You seem to be able to dish out any number of insults and half-baked remarks about Adi Da, and once again more of your personal insults about me being totally egoic – but if any of your buttons get pushed along the way, then you attack me with these generalizations like the one quoted above.
Is this how you think I will go away? You keep hinting at my leaving by making remarks like how much longer am I going to embarrass myself, that I am finally done here, or I must be running out of steam (to paraphrase a few). No, these kind of statements will not drive me away, Conradg, because you do seem to have an axe to grind here and that it seems to motivate you to make these comments; and also, I do assume others are interested in Daists speaking up. I am sure your tactics keep many other Daists from posting publicly, and few from ever getting into it to this degree. It takes a lot of effort to write up all these responses, as you well know, and if it only is coming across as me egoically bragging constantly without any useful substance, then let that be said by some other people with real conviction, sincerity, and specificity, and without an obvious axe to grind – and I will likely get the message that it is best to apologize and/or depart!
Anyway, I do sincerely wish you, Conrad, and everyone a very very Happy New Year!
January 1, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I have had two gurus, neither of them Da, but the difference in my relationship with them might be relevant to all the thousands of words on this post (which I found fascinating enough to post on Metafilter a few days ago.)
(Equally fascinating to me is that as large as Da looms in the presence of a few devotees, he has been such a minor footnote in spiritual history that I didn’t learn about his death until a month later, despite the fact that I am often on websites about gurus, having a morbid fascination for the subject, due to having been hoodwinked by one once.)
Yes, I am ashamed to admit that I was a disciple of Guru Maharaj Ji for several years. Actually, it was a good experience for me, in some regards, opening my heart to bhakti yoga. But it is apparent that, in contrast to the extensive practice and reading in spiritual matters exhibited in Da’s teachings, Maharaj Ji (Prem Pal Rawat, who was crowned Satguru an a very young age) has never, as far as I can tell, spent any time on the meditation cushion.
The Placebo Effect definitely accounted for the various spiritual awakenings I experienced while in this phase of my life, in my mid-Twenties, a prime time in life for serious spiritual searching. Two hours of meditation a day also had its effects!
I can’t help but notice similarities between my ex-guru and Franklin Jones. The changing of names and practices. The inner-circle knowledge of the Master’s alcoholism and philandering and all of the shadow side anger, pettiness, and general lack of spiritual compassion. Both of them have a history of blaming their members for not raising up their Guru to greater heights of fame. (I am, however, somewhat taken aback by Da’s blatant complaints about lack of “gifts” from his followers.) Both Maharaji and Da insisted, laughably, that their groups were not cults, and suggested, implicitly and explicitly that theirs was The One True Way. Not a good sign, folks.
(I am also interested in one comment above that Da had to rely on Xanax to get by. Rajneesh, as well, took 60mg of Valium daily, a similar benzodiazepine, in his later days.)
My second guru was truly enlightened on some level…five, six, seven, hell, I don’t know. After Zen training as a young man, he studied with Rudi and with Dilgo Khentse Rinpoche. His teachings were not totally dissimilar to Da’s, although Guru worship was not demanded. They did share the visual Transmission method taught to them by Rudi. (I will leave his name out of this; he only has about a hundred follwers, at best.)
However, over the decades he began to intimate his own powers as a Guru to a greater and greater extent. To me, that was a deal breaker. I am with those who believe that it is bad form in a Guru to proclaim his own powers and realization, let alone one’s position as the first and last of the world’s Godmen! As others who have left their gurus, I still hold him in high regard and have been changed for the better by his Work. (I cannot say that Prem Pal Rawat has distinguished himself very much, by contrast. His simplistic platitudes haven’t changed much in thirty years or so.)
There has been little doubt about Da’s siddhic powers in the posts above. However, from my admittedly limited level of spiritual development, whatever that means, I am not sure of the efficacy of utilizing these powers to alter the experience of others, in terms of maximizing their spiritual growth. For better or worse, using these powers does tend to induce the desire to be in the physical presence of the Guru.
I am thankful for this forum, and for the proliferation of Non-Dual teachings, wherever their source. Conradg’s copious comments have been helpful. I can relate to the Da devotees’ feelings, as well.
I am sure there have been a lot of vituperative comments posted here, given Adidam’s high attrition rate, and am glad that Jerry has chosen not to publish them. This has been an interesting few days, scrolling through all of this discussion!
Happy New Year!
January 1, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“I am sure there have been a lot of vituperative comments posted here, given Adidam’s high attrition rate, and am glad that Jerry has chosen not to publish them.”
Hi Gregg,
Thank you for posting the link to this blog entry on Metafilter. It brought over a thousand views. Since these comments started, I’ve only had to delete a small handful. The unpublishable negative comments were less than five. I delete irrelevant comments, comments that seek to take advantage of the readership to link elsewhere, duplicate posts.
Very few comments have been deleted, but they would have littered the landscape and attracted more litter until this conversation could no longer continue. I try to keep the highway clear!
Jerry
January 1, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Feel4God,
When I spoke of not leaving the Guru, I was speaking for myself, what I have seen in myself egoically, and my understanding of Who He Is as non-separate Reality. I also said that I saw this mechanism in myself as the traditional error surrounding the very often quoted “kill the Buddha” statement. I was not judging you personally one way or another, as I do not even know your story.
Are you aware that Adi Da used to refer to the “Kill the Buddha” statement himself, back in the early days, before he made an icon of himself? It’s a highly traditional, highly respected, highly truthful aspect of spiritual practice. It refers to the mind’s own capacity to create projected spiritual images which it then worships and is deluded by, and the need to destroy these. It’s not about “self-guruing”. Nor, for that matter, is recognizing the Guru as one’s very Self a form of self-guruing, making the mind the Guru.
Okay, the above quote is a good example from you, Conradg, of what most of your last post communicated about me, so I won’t quote all the other repetitions of this. Some of your prior posts also seem to be saying that a whole group of you feel this way about what I have been posting. But basically I only keep hearing this from you, Conradg.
I’ve been consistent in pointing out this aspect of your communications from the very beginning of this thread. It’s not in my imagination. You said you wanted to talk about non-dualism, and I said fine, let’s do that, but not if it’s going to be some Adi Da infomercial missionary drivel. And yet, that’s what we are getting from you for the most part. First it was a campaign on your part to let everyone know that Adi Da was the greatest and only true non-dual realizer, then a campaign to show how Ramana and all others were lesser sixth stage realizers of some exclusive, disassociated kind, and lately its been a campaign to show how your own practice in Adidam has made you into a great mystic with powers to see egoity and determine greater-than-heart-on-the-right realization through photographs, and who is able to transcend egoity and realize his own emptiness in a flash of contemplation of Adi Da. Is that incorrect? Am I somehow getting you wrong?
Yes, I know you have lately added the usual cavaet “in my experience”, or “he’s only superior to all others for me”, but really, you’ve made it perfectly obvious that you don’t actually believe that to be the case, it’s just something you’ve added to try to make an accomodation. Isn’t it true that you really do believe – no, feel certain – that Adi Da really is the one and only true non-dual realizer of the highest degree, and that if anyone wants that highest realization, they must go through Da? Just be honest with us. Don’t you really think that all other paths and realizations are egoic in nature, even Ramana’s, and that only Da’s path and realization is egoless? Don’t you really think that because you are on Da’s path, you have a superior viewpoint to the rest of us who are not, and are able to see and understand these matters in a fashion that we simply cannot, unless we start to see things Da’s way?
Now, it’s understandable to me that you would react to my criticism of you unfavorably. But let’s not pretend I’m fantasizing here. I think we both know pretty well how you really feel, you haven’t kept it hidden. It’s just the standard Adidam attitude I lived with for almost three decades. It’s in all the books. Anyone who has kept in touch with Adidam in any way over the last fifteen years or can’t help but be aware of it. Why do you even pretend otherwise? It would be one thing if you could simply step outside that box and engage the rest of us here as true equals, as people who simply approach non-dualism differently than you, but it doesn’t seem that you can.
I can even empathize. I remember when I first began to engage Adi Da’s critics on the internet, I had to face up to my own superior attitude and assumptions. I had to try to genuinely shed that attitude, and those assumptions, and look at all this fresh and clean, and even look at myself to see why I was so attracted to this attitude of spiritual superiority. What I found about myself wasn’t pretty, and I think everyone in Adidam who begins to question these attitudes, not just in others, but in himself, finds some very unflattering things about himself. Virtually everything you have said about yourself and Adi Da is something I once said as well, not even realizing what I fool I was making of myself. It simply seemed true to me. I wondered why I was getting so much reaction from others, until I just looked at what I was defending, not just in Adi Da, but in myself. It simply wasn’t pretty. It wasn’t even spiritual. It was just egoity, plain and simple.
Eventually, I made a conscious effort to shed all of that, to let go of all these presumptions about spirituality that were by then ingrained in me, including my own attitude of superiority. I thought such an effort was in accord with Adi Da’s own teachings. I presumed that it would strengthen my practice, and my devotion to Adi Da. I was at least half-right, in that it did strengthen my spiritual practice, but it ended up undermining my devotion to Adidam, because I was forced to see that Adi Da and Adidam are simply addicted to these presumptions of superiority that have no real basis, but are part of a very conventional, egoic syndrome common to so many cults and even major religions such as Christianity or Islam.
So if I’m reacting to you, it’s in part because I’m reacting to something in myself as well that is reflected in you. That doesn’t mean it’s imaginary, but I do have to be empathetic rather than merely critical.
Conradg, I stated very early on that I know I am an asshole, that I am an ordinary person, etc.
Yes, you’ve made it rather obvious! On the level of one asshole speaking to another, it’s fine that you’re an asshole. I’m not out for a witchunt. But just agreeing to be assholes isn’t where it’s at either. We have to actually recognize the down and dirty specifics of our assholishness, and renounce it. If you actually, really, truly want to renounce this whole superior, greatest of all the greats attitude of yours about Adidam and your own greatness-by-association, then wonderful, I’m glad to be of help. But if you just want to play it out here and expect me to put up with it, you’ve got another thing coming. If you want to engage someone else on this forum who is fine with that, great, you don’t have to talk with me. But I notice the guys you seem to engage, mostly me and FFC, are the ones who don’t support that approach of yours. So what’s with that? You seem drawn to engage the very people who are least inclined to accept your BS, which is good, but then you can’t really complain about us not accepting your BS, can you?
But I too am most interested in the non-dual Truth beyond all conceptions, etc. I try to tell it like it is for me – and what Adi Da has granted me in this Reality Way with Him. And yes, I do find this Way superior for me – but I have always said it may not be for you or anyone else, that it is a most personal, intimate matter. But I am very enthusiastic about what I have discovered in my time with Adi Da, and so I am perhaps too loud about it?
Look, it’s not that you’re too loud about it. It’s that it’s simply cultic obnoxiousness that doesn’t fly outside of its own box. I know in Adidam devotional groups you get applauded for talking like this, but that just goes to show how cultic Adidam is, and how devoid of even rudimentary insight its culture is. It should be pointed out within Adidam how egoic this sort of talk is, so that when you come out and engage the rest of the world, the superiority complex isn’t just oozing from your skin, but unfortunately that isn’t how things works there.
I don’t object to your speaking frankly about your actual experience in Adidam, I welcome it in fact. It’s just that I don’t hear anything that sounds genuine from you. It’s not that I think you are actually making anything up. I’m sure you have all kinds of mystical experiences of one kind or another. So do the rest of us. I had such experiences in Adidam, and I have experiences now too. The problem with your descriptions is that they seem so canned, so processed with jargon and textbook lingo, there’s virtually nothing personal left in them. Everything you say, even on a personal level, sounds impersonal and designed to make an impression of some sort, rather than coming from your heart. It’s almost as if you’re afraid to leave all that stuff behind, and just be yourself, speak in your own words, think for yourself, and leave the standard Adidam interpretations at the door. But even worse, it sounds as if you’ve been so indoctrinated into this way of thinking that you simply can’t let it go, can’t stand on your own, can’t separate the mind-talk from the truly intimate and personal spirituality of your real experience. That’s kind of sad, but I can understand.
I don’t say that out of hostility. I don’t even try to describe my own direct, spiritual experiences here, because it would be like describing my love life with my wife in public. Some things are better left unsaid, and don’t need to be said. But as I’ve also said, I don’t bring an attitude that my wife is the best wife in the world, and that all other wives are inferior. I don’t even believe that, not for a second. But you seem to really believe that about Adi Da.
Still, I am not lying about my recognition and experiences; and I do understand this Way in terms of identification with That which is intrinsically egoless from the beginning – and the huge advantage that this represents, at least in my case and by the testimony of many other Daists.
Again, this “huge advantage” you think you have over everyone else is just in your own mind. It’s pretty clear that you don’t actually have an advantage at all. If anything, there’s some serious limitations that Adidam appears to impose upon you, that you seem oblivious to, but which are pretty obvious outside the Adidam box. I understand though, I used to think the same way when I lived in the Adidam box, and it was just second nature to me. But now that I live outside that box, it no longer has any pull for me. And I notice that no one out here is impressed that I was in Adidam for so long. Quite the opposite really. It’s generally viewed as an embarassing negative that people try to be tolerant of, but they can’t help wonder how I could have been so deluded for so long. These “advantages” and the “instrinsic egolessness” of the Adidam path sure don’t seem very evident to most people who encounter Adidam, or devotees such as yourself. Not trying to be mean, but these are just the facts. I don’t think I’m imagining them.
As I have often said, if Adi Da (Adidam) is not for you or anyone else, so be it. But because I tell it like it is for me, does that mean you have to get so mean-spirited and angry about what I say? You seem to be able to dish out any number of insults and half-baked remarks about Adi Da, and once again more of your personal insults about me being totally egoic – but if any of your buttons get pushed along the way, then you attack me with these generalizations like the one quoted above.
I think I’ve been pretty direct with you, but I don’t think I’ve been dishing out insults or half-baked remarks about Adi Da. I’ve simply tried to be accurate about the facts. You haven’t even disputed these things on a factual level, and I doubt you would, because you know I’m being factually accurate. Nor have I been generally mean-spirited and angry, though at times my frustrations do rise. It’s obvious why you don’t like what I have to say, but I think it’s the actual content you object to, not the way I say it. And I feel similarly with you. It’s the actual content of what you say that I object to most.
Is this how you think I will go away? You keep hinting at my leaving by making remarks like how much longer am I going to embarrass myself, that I am finally done here, or I must be running out of steam (to paraphrase a few). No, these kind of statements will not drive me away, Conradg, because you do seem to have an axe to grind here and that it seems to motivate you to make these comments; and also, I do assume others are interested in Daists speaking up. I am sure your tactics keep many other Daists from posting publicly, and few from ever getting into it to this degree.
I’m not trying to drive you away. Far from it, I’ve been trying to engage you. I’m just hoping your facade will wear down, and you will begin to shed the Adidam agitprop approach. You said you just wanted to talk about non-dualism, and yet all we hear are Adidam missionary pitches. Can you stop playing those games, and just speak openly and honestly and without calculating the effect? You accuse me of “tactics”, when I have none. Isn’t it you who are approaching this whole dialog tactically, with some Adidam public relations agenda in mind? You don’t seem to understand, I’m just speaking my mind. I could really care less what effect it has on Adidam, positive or negative. You imagine I’m part of some kind of anti-Adidam conspiracy, that I am engaged in some tactical battle with you and other devotees, designed to prevent them from posting here? Oh, please, enough with the paranoia. I’m not stopping anyone from posting here. Adidam people have almost never posted on the internet, except a few lone semi-heretics like the infamous Karl Kaiser. They haven’t even been allowed to most of the time. When I was posting on the internet defending Adi Da, it was deeply frowned upon, and I was punished for it. I’m sure most people are simple afraid of “saying the wrong thing” and getting into trouble with the Adidam authorities. That’s why you don’t address any of these factual matters about Adi Da’s life, isn’t it? You would get slammed for even admitting any of it, right? So don’t pretend I’m the reason Adidam people don’t post here, or in public generally. It’s always been official Adidam policy to discourage or even ban just that kind of open speech.
It takes a lot of effort to write up all these responses, as you well know, and if it only is coming across as me egoically bragging constantly without any useful substance, then let that be said by some other people with real conviction, sincerity, and specificity, and without an obvious axe to grind – and I will likely get the message that it is best to apologize and/or depart!
There’s an alternative to running away. You could simply stick around and have an ordinary human conversation, shedding all the Adidam agenda games. In fact, Adidam devotees in general could just have ordinary human conversations here. I’ve had plenty of such conversations with Adidam devotees. They aren’t all playing some nutty denialist/triumphalist public relations game. There’s plenty of good, honest just-folks people in Adidam. That would be a lot more radical an approach than what you’ve been doing here so far.
And Happy New Year to all of you!
January 1, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Following the posting by Feel4God on January 1, I was moved to follow the link he provided to the “post-Mahasamadhi Adidam” web site. I went through it and felt I needed to respond, especially with regards to Adi Da’s vision of “A Functioning Global Institution.”
I wonder how often these days devotees consider why, on a worldly scale, there are, and have always been so few devotees. What is it about Adidam that makes it such an unattractive proposition for the overwhelming majority of the human race? Is it because such people are not ready for REAL spiritual practice (presumed by devotees to only exist in relationship to Adi Da)? Is it because of Adi Da and the claims he made about himself? Is it, as Adi Da repeatedly told us, because devotees are not practicing what he has given? Maybe it’s because of the Adidam ethos which is rife with childish cultism and the lack of relational availability to those outside of Adidam? Or perhaps it’s simply the dysfunctionality of the institution.
There is something about “knowers” (from any side of any proposition) that I personally find difficult to relate to. It feels like withdrawal to me, an alienation, a putting up of arbitrary divisions, no different to erecting a wall to physically separate us.
The ability to have a path and a practice AND to relate to others as emanating from the same Divine source is an artful endeavor requiring humbleness and “losing face.” As I see it, until devotees are humbled to the point of realizing they do not “know” anything (just like the rest of us including Conradg) and are thereby capable of relating to others as they are, Adi Da’s vision of “A Functioning Global Institution” will remain a fantasy.
Since leaving Adidam, I have encountered lots of groups full of “certainty” in their spiritual practice. No different to Adidamers, no different to me. No different to any “ism” whatsoever. There is something about freedom that has nothing to do with proclaiming anything…. unless of course it is actually true!?
Consider all of this for yourself Feel4God. If you are moved to enter a dialogue with me on such ordinary human matters, I would be pleased to continue such postings. You see, I reckon that no amount of posturing about 7th stage realizations (that we all admit we haven’t realized so how could we possibly speak about it with such conviction anyway), non-dual acausal realities, and the like, will make Adidam a more attractive proposition. (Of course, there is no point in hiring strippers either to fill the chairs in the Adidam introductory evenings, but I’m sure you get my jist.)
A Happy New Year to us all!
January 1, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Lol Ed! Lap dancing for enlightenment might be just the ticket. They could call the strippers the Quandra Quandaries. Now there’s a service function that would put everyone in a state of ignorance. Perhaps not divine ignorance, but hell it’s a start. Get those solid types right out of the mind, and show them where they really live….and the pecular types would just have to incarnate out of the metaphysical consolations. Trouble is the vitals might accidently burn the whole place down.
January 2, 2009 at 12:55 am
::The crux of my difference with you is that you make repeated use of the term “resonance” which I find uncritical. When I ask about the very obvious conundrum of Maharshi granting some sort of realization to livestock, you fall back upon it resonating with you. When I ask you to explain your understanding of this, you avoid answering critically, saying that you resonate to it and that’s all. Yes, you said that it is in accord with the tradition of jnani in general terms, but nothing is said about the question at hand. How do you grant realization to a cow, dog, crow, spider, ant, flea, and how would these specimens differ from the others? You have granted me no insight at all into that. You also seem to contradict yourself when you then say that there is nothing to be realized anyway, so what’s the problem with a realizer granting nothing to barnyard animals. How do you remove an obstacle from the mind of a crow? Basically, you seem to be issuing subtlely condescending remarks about my failure to correctly resonate with the jnani view. I don’t see this going anywhere unless something else can be said, not to waste either your time or mine really.
It is simple. You have a stated position and beliefs about enlightenment that makes among other things the idea of non-humans being realized improbable. I do not, while admitting I once would have found the idea incredible. The difference is not a matter of intellectual superiority or disdain for your position, it is one of resonance or lack of it for those positions based on differing experiences. My experiences have led me to adopt the older but more prevalent view that physical form is always associated with spirit, which always has the potential for realization. My period with Da did intensify this awareness significantly, and he openly acknowledged sympathy with what he considered the shamanic view of nature. Nor did Da, to my knowledge, exclude non-humans from the possibility of realization. I recall one early talk where he said “frogs and walls” were conscious as well. Just because I am not convinced Da was fully realized does not mean I do not find his psychophysical view of the world or everything I experienced from him suspect. Ramana Maharshi said he spent much of his time communicating and working with animals, and said that not only plants but the rocks were conscious. He even said that the very mountain of rock in spiritual form he lived on served him as guru. I “resonate” with that because it conforms to my experience, not just some abstract conception I choose to believe. I also find it perfectly reasonable if that is the case that syncronicity applies to both humans and non-humans, meaning that non-human consciousnesses might incarnate in various forms in association with a jnani. If you have not had this type of experience, or even if you have but do not accept that type of psychophysical experience as valid, you would not “resonate” with the idea as I would. How could you? Nor should you adopt something that makes no sense at this time. According to modern science I am wrong, but modern science has no place for enlightenment either. My point that there is nothing about Ramama Maharshi’s views on the subject inconsistent with the general jnani tradition, and that he certainly was not the only one of them with similar ideas, is valid. If you think that part of jnana is mythical, fine.
::Without going into all this in detail, I am just pointing out that relatively little favors Ramana in terms of realizer-production, so to speak. Even the great Ramana recognized but a few animals and his mother, and I am not sure in what order. I know there are others who attribute their realization to him, and I have commented on specifics, but compared to Da, it’s not surprising given the types of people they could attract based on their geographical differences. I don’t dispute that Ramana bears more of the traditional and even reasonable aspects of a realizer. I do not defend a lot of what I hear about the dark side of Da. I only say that no one here has a heck of a handle on realization, so far as I see, and that Da’s eccentricity may not disqualify his realization. Even if we accept Ramana’s superiority, I would still say that Adi Da did a great deal of valuable work on so many who would not have been drawn to Ramana or anyone else without him.
You started with the presumption that Ramana Maharshi enlightened no one living. The underlying theme being that if he couldn’t do it in India, how could Da be expected to do it in modern America. I point out that there is lots of anecdotal evidence from those now considered jnanis that Ramana Maharshi did not publically recognize those who may have Realized with his aid, not that it didn’t happen. In the West, we imagine that when we become realized, we will be the guide to many others. But the desire for recognition and to be a guru dies along with the impure ego and Ramana Maharshi states that the jnani affects the world even if he/she goes nowthere and does not attract many followers because the Divine is now in charge, not the ego. That makes sense to me. Now, a list of those considered today to have been jnanis associated with Ramana Maharshi includes Annamalai Swami, Poonja Swami (Papaji), Sri Muruganar (who stayed with Ramana after his awakening), Sadhu Om, Ramana’s Mother (at her death), Lakshmana Swami, Mastan (a muslim devotee), Swami Ram Das, and Sri Matha (who founded her own ashram with Ramana Maharshi’s blessings after realization in 1938 around age 32). That does not even include westerners like a teenage Robert Adams who went on to teach small groups, or another interesting american candidate who met Ramana Maharshi as a child personally according to this:
http://www.geocities.com/the_wanderling/rajamani.html. Given Ramana Maharshi’s approach to this, and the nature of jnana itself, there is every reason to think there were more we do not know of. None of these adopted the neo-advaita approach. Ramana Maharshi’s “production” is therefore quite respectable by any historic measure, and evidence suggests he was effective with westerners as well. When it comes to whether Da’s eccentricities mean he wasn’t fully realized, I am not just applying my own judgement. Da was endorsed by pundits who studied jnana, not jnanis. The lack of any endoresements by any jnanis contemporary to Da, and the few dismissive implications we have such as from Nisargadatta and less public sources, seems to me powerful evidence from those most qualified to know the truth of it, and that is all I can say. Since I learned more about Ramana Maharshi as a result of Da myself, and many others have as well, I do not disagree that regardless, Da served others needs.
::I don’t consider Vivekananda as having established non-dualist dharma in the West. I don’t know what standard you are applying to that. Anyhow, my point was more that Da had to set up a profitable center, which required attracting and holding devotees in ways that Ramana would never have dreamed of. The West is extremely different from the East in that respect. Da could not sit half-naked on a rock and have an ashram spring up based on charitable donations from the multitudes. Is there even one example of an Indian-like ashram in U.S. history? I think he had to be a showman and had to compromise his teaching somewhat, otherwise there would have been no one to teach. That’s not a good thing, but I think one has to use caution in comparing Da’s situation to that of Ramana.
There were established organizations teaching non-duality in the U.S., including Vivekananda’s Vendata Society, long before the 1970s. There is a Ramana Maharshi Ashram in NY. A number of non-dualist teachers are doing fine on modest means. And U.S tax laws allow virtually any church to thrive on donations. Da’s first book, Knee of Listening, did well. So it is not a question of needing the more controversial behavior to keep the doors open. It’s a question of what you want to do with your organization and the money coming in. Sustaining Da’s lifestyle and demands, and justifying his and his organization’s behavior, which led most to leave over time and made recruitment difficult, is what I think was a real drain on his organization. And what prevented those advanced spiritually from coming to see him in this modern age where anyone can go to India and back compared with the difficulties in the early 20th Century? Had Da drawn the acknowledgement of any jnani and produced some number of Realizers, you might have a better case. But he didn’t. I just don’t think your argument in this case is very strong when you look at the entire picture. Had Ramana wanted to and had he been alive, he would have done fine in modern America.
January 2, 2009 at 2:33 am
Well…a while back I made the conscious decision not to post here anymore. I have read here from time to time and recently saw the link to the “Adi Da Up Close” site. Oh my dear God!
The term “Whitewash” comes to mind but that would be giving this “site” and the “contributers” a generosity that they don’t deserve. Lies is the only way to put it…flat out lies and manipulation of the truth about Frank and the church. Astounding but altogether expected.
From “Hot Topics”…”Questions about Numbers”;
Question: What about this quote (published on another website)?:
“You have not done anything in all these thirty years, and here I Am, almost sixty-one years of age, and I have seen that My Work has failed…I have been rejected. You have not accepted Me. This entire gathering has never come to a point of accepting Me. There is no response or recognition…You have wasted My Life — My actual human Life. You have made Me into a cult figure…You have made Adidam into a non-event with your reactivity. [September 30, 2000] Adi Da
Is it false? If not, how is it that Adi Da’s mission, apparently by His own admission, failed?
Brian O’Mahony: “His Mission is just beginning. Thirty-four years is nothing. Look at what He has Accomplished. The most extraordinary and profound Teaching ever to appear in human culture, perfect in its elaboration. A community that is small, but authentic, and only beginning. Magnificent Divine Reality Art. Great Retreat Ashrams. I could go on. Is the cup half-empty or half-full? As always, it depends on your position.
I think if you were to make a close examination, it would be apparent to you and anyone else that the deficiencies in Adidam are on the devotee side. We are a profoundly ordinary group of human beings who somehow happened on the greatest Revelation and Gift in the history of human culture. Were we prepared for It? Not a chance! I can honestly say that we are still coming to grips with the great and overwhelming responsibility that comes with Adi Da’s Gifts.
Adi Da has not Concluded that His Work has failed. Yes, He Speaks Freely about the failures of our service to Him. Why shouldn’t He? He is our Master, and He uses every skillful means to draw a greater seriousness and response out of His devotees. I can’t comment on the authenticity of this quote. How can there be a serious treatment and analysis and critique of Adi Da’s Work if it comes in the form of a quote cherry-picked from what He may or may not have said? The “quote” seem chosen to evoke a gossipy and judgmental response — as if Great Work and Great Teachings could be boiled down into sound bites. They can’t. All I can say is that it requires great seriousness to examine Adi Da’s Work. Unfortunately, the Internet is full of everyman’s contribution to world culture. There is hardly a serious and fair evaluation of Adi Da’s Work to be found there. I do hope that this will change and the world will wake up to the Greatness of Adi Da”.
***In this you will hear the “Superiority”, that feels4god has continualy denied, and the blaming that Frank so very often did…the Hearts Pout”. Also, Brian blames devotees. Although he doesn’t explicitly say it, ex devotees, “everymen”, “cherry-picking”, “gossipy and judgemental”, posting on the Internet. What he doesn’t address is the voracity of what ex-devotees have to say about their real observations and insights while there. No…he plays the lawyer and promo-man as do the rest of them.
And this…
James Steinberg: “This quote may or may not be an actual quote of Adi Da’s, but it is taken out of context. When Adi Da Speaks, often He is tape recorded. And then the words are transcribed. But they are not formal communications. They are “of the moment”. What would it look like if any person’s private conversation ended up on the internet? These words were transcribed only to be shown to those who needed to see them. But when they then get posted broadly, and out of context, it all gets skewed. There is no way to know what was the moment for this quote. And it was not intended to be said to everyone. These words were most likely spoken in intimacy with one of the renunciates around Adi Da and never intended to communicated more broadly. Adi Da can be very passionate, forceful, intense”.
***As a formal devotee, at that time, I heard those words comunicated to the community at large. “Not intended for everyone” is the Daist way of saying not ouside the community. And BTW James, it is a direct quote and you know it is. That direct quote, and far too many exactly of the same type of “Notes” that we were all gathered to hear…when the “Moment” had changed…you know…he wasn’t happy with our “response”, say, for instance, to how much money the community came up with for his personal use, etc. This quote isn’t “skewed” and stands on it’s own as a direct indicator of Franks “mood” and diatribes. It happened frequently.
Again from James;
“So if Adi Da said, “The entire gathering has never come to a point of accepting Me. There is no response or recognition”, He was speaking in very strong terms, making a specific point, not making a blanket statement”.
***That IS a “blanket statement”.
From “Questions about Adi Da and Adidam”;
Question: Some people have suggested that Adi Da is virtually cut off from the world, getting no bad news concerning Himself or His community — is this true? Do you hide anything from Him?
***I am not going to place James response here because of it’s legnth but do check it out… http://www.adidaupclose.org/FAQs/question7.html
And this;
Question: Hasn’t Adi Da said a few times that by the year 2000, He will be recognized by the world as the messiah (or something to that affect)? If so, why has this not happened?
James Steinberg: I never heard Adi Da Samraj use the word “messiah”. He has ecstatically sometimes talked about how the whole world will feel Him and His Work. He gave one ecstatic talk in 1984 like that called “Mark My Words”. But it is not like that was a “legal” promise, or even a full-fledged “prediction”. It was a statement of how it should be and could be if things went well and right and appropriately and so forth. This is a similar question to why there aren’t so many devotees. I still hope that the world will come to recognize Adi Da more fully during His Lifetime and partake of His Wisdom and Blessing. But how many knew of Jesus of Galilee at his death? It is not a sign of His lack of Greatness, for me that is clear. It is more a sign of how things are working out, and is also a reflection on the closemindedness of the world”.
***Well James I have to agree with you on the term “Messiah”. I don’t recall Frank using that term either (btw…who on your site is “asking”, you know, framing the questions for you to “respond” to?), however, he DID make the “claim”*** “But it is not like that was a “legal” promise, or even a full-fledged “prediction”*** What? Huh? I’m embarassed for you for making such a statement even if you aren’t. Verbal gymnastics, embarassingly transparent. My God!
This is perfect; Chris Tong asking Brian O’Mahony a “question” about the “85 Lawsuits”. Again, the conversation is dismissive of the “events” and harkens the “problem” to “detractors” on the Internet and of course the Media Circus” at the time ( can you say victim mentality?). There are two stories here; one form Chris Tong the other by Brian O’Mahony. This is some of Brians;
Chris Tong: There are people interested in spiritual life who discover Adi Da and consider approaching Him as their Spiritual Master. Some of them run across negative websites that make much of a couple of lawsuits back in 1985, and the “media circus” that followed, and hesitate in approaching Adi Da or Adidam. What would you say to these people?
Brian O’Mahony: Recently I was among a group of devotees who spoke to a very reputable Intellectual Property attorney who has represented many religious organizations in matters of copyright protection. She is intimately familiar with the affairs of many well-known mainstream and alternative religious organizations in America, and she is also a student of history. We related to her the events of 1985 and the very negative impact that they had on Adi Da’s Work. She replied that “spiritual interventions” are always met with a backlash. The greater the intervention, the greater the backlash. A cursory look at history provides many examples. She said also that there are always going to be people who disagree, misunderstand, become disaffected, and even attack what they once held dear. And she cautioned us that, based on her own observations of the history of religious movements, the more Adidam grows, the stronger the backlash will tend to be, and the more the ranks of the disaffected will tend to grow. She admonished me and my friends to be strong, to remain focused in our service to Adi Da’s Spiritual Work, to expect backlash and disaffection, and to not make the mistake of trying to overcome it. Just tell the truth and serve our Master.
I found that conversation very heartening. It reminded me that Adidam is not unique by any means in being attacked. No matter how great Adi Da’s Work is, it is likely to always have its detractors and critics. There is something in humanity that likes to tear down what is great. In my 34 years as a devotee of Adi Da, I have seen that ugly motive in myself on many occasions. I have seen it played out on the Internet by many others, and collectively by the media. It is sobering and disheartening, but it is a fact that we have to live with”.
***No-where in this “response” are the acusations responded to. Amazing!!! Not unexpected, but, amazing all the same. Shabby comes to mind. Again, an unearned generosity.
And this;
“About This Site”
“What this site is not. This site is not officially associated with Adidam. The formally approved and official site is http://www.adidam.org. The perspectives or commentaries that you find on this site represent the viewpoints of the individual authors or our editorial and review staff. They should not be taken as an official viewpoint. The only voice truly representative of the Teaching of Adidam is that of Avatar Adi Da Samraj. For this reason, we have included, with permission, some of Adi Da’s own Teaching on this site so that you can know what He has directly said about a variety of subjects. If you find the materials on this site interesting, we encourage you to further study Avatar Adi Da Samraj’s Teaching, and His Work altogether — click here for a list of relevant sites”.
This “site” may not be “official”, but, given the Official Policies regarding the Internet and that nothing happens like this without explicit approval and consideration at the upper echelons in Adidam, it’s not just a little disingenuous to use the word “Unofficial”, and so perhaps we could use the “word” “Sanctioned” (hows that for verbal gymnastics James?) No…this site was set up with the sole purpose of responding to this, and other forums, that are critical of Adidam and the ever increasing voice of ex-devotees. The “Questions” being answered (most) are right off of this site. Take a good look at them and come back here…you’ll see their “origin”. Further, take a look at the people on this site that are “answerig questions” and telling their “leelas” and you wont find much of the “rank and file” of Adidam, but, you will find the “heavy hitters”…the “usual supects”. Not “Official”? How funny! As an aside, take a look at the age in these faces…the “Shakers” come to mind, and, even though the Shakers didn’t procreate, the “horse is out of the barn” for all of these devotees and the sun is getting closer to the horizon for them. Any young blood coming in these days boys? So much for the church between the natural attrition rate and the unattractivness of Adidam. Doesn’t look good.
It is my suggestion that anyone interested in Adidam, and all who have posted here, to check out this site. For those of you that are ex-devotees, I don’t know what your response will be, outrage…laughter…sadness…I know all that came up for me including the impulse to write a few words of warning for those that may not have been involved with Adidam. I do say this…read all that you can on the Internet and look at the site (posted below) as well and be as informed. Find out for yourself. I shouldn’t dismiss the voices of those who have left Adidam. We all found much in the early teaching. I still do, but, all things change and the whole thing became something else. A lot of us stayed too long at the fair.
Feel4God, given what is openly posted on this site, http://www.adidaupclose.org/FAQs/question7.html, I don’t see how an argument can be made to the contrary, that the superiority and group egoity within Adidam, and the utter unconsciousness of that fact, that is so very obvious from here, that it just isn’t true. I know that you don’t see it in your postings. I know that Chris and Brian and all the others on that site don’t see it either, however, in their hubris, or being “true believers”, they have pulled back the curtain on themselves and have done more to expose Adidam than any of us could. In fact, both Chris, James and Brian (and so many others) are consciously aware of what they have done there and know that they have either misrepresented, distorted, or outright lied in their presentations. It shows fear. It shows hubris. It shows egoity on a group scale. A Cult. Astounding. You’ve accused Conradq of trying to tear down Adi Da…you would do well to clean up your own house…what these people are doing will come back to bite them in their ass and Adidam as well. I was given a good peice of advice a long time ago…”Don’t put into writing that which you don’t want the whole world to see”…The lies are now printed in that site…I’m sure Adi Da would NEVER have approved it…and for just that reason. Chris, Brian and James got a little too cute. Such is egoity. That site is the direct manifestation of the fear and egoity of Adidam. It will be their undoing. But hey…the “heavy hitters” always played it fast and loose and now Adi Da isn’t there to rein them in. Good.
January 2, 2009 at 4:26 am
There has been some discussion regarding Ramana Maharshi’s mother and her liberation. This should provide a clear perspective.
Alagammal, Ramana Maharshi’s mother, moved to Tiruvannamalai in 1916 and died in 1922. When she arrived she was a fairly ordinary, devout but orthodox hindu with ingrained beliefs, and she viewed herself as his mother and their relationship from that perspective. Ramana Maharshi had to purify her of these restrictive beliefs which impeded her liberation. That he was able to do so in 6 short years is, I think, more remarkable than some here suggest, and that she was able to surrender all that baggage indicates that she herself was unusual even though only Ramana Maharshi saw it in her at the time she arrived. Yet in her last years she completely surrendered herself to Ramana who had become her Sadguru. Such was her faith in Ramana that she used to tell him, ‘Even if you throw away my dead body in these thorny bushes, I do not mind. I must die in your arms.”
The story of the process Ramana Maharshi followed to liberate his mother and what he said about it is interesting to non-dualists because of the insight it gives into what a fully realized jnani can apparently do in the right circumstances. And also because it shows the nature of the karmas that stand in the way of Realization:
Mother’s health started deteriorating from 1920. On the 19th of May 1922, her condition became critical. After his morning walk Ramana want to her room at about 8 a.m., and sat beside her. Throughout the day, he had his right hand on her spiritual heart, on the right side of the chest and his left hand on her head. Ramana took on the sacred assignment of liberating his mother from the travails of births. He had the power to bestow liberation. But he let her battle for it while at the same time he extended his gracious and invaluable support for it to fructify. What happened has been described by Ramana himself. “The vasanas of the previous births and latent tendencies which are seeds of future births came out. She was observing one after another the scenes of experiences arising from remaining vasanas. As a result of a series of such experiences she was working them out.” Later someone asked Ramana to explain the process to which he replied, “You see, birth experiences are mental. Thinking is also like that, depending on samskaras (tendencies). Mother was made to undergo all her future births in the comparatively short time.” At 8 p.m., her mind was absorbed in the heart and she was liberated from all tendencies which give rise to future births. Even so Bhagavan waited for some time. For in the case of his faithful attendant of many years Palaniswami, he had done the same thing. But after the subsidence of the mind in the heart, Palaniswami had opened his eyes momentarily and the life force left the body though them. After a few minutes Ramana got up. When someone said that mother has passed away, Ramana immediately corrected and affirmed, “She did not pass away. ‘Adangi Vittadu, Addakam’ (‘absorbed’).” He added, “There is no pollution. Let us eat.”
From this story, useful insights are possible. The position of the hands demonstrates his assertion that dissolving the mind in the heart (seen from a bodily perspective) leads to liberation. He also asserts that birth experiences are mental, as well as thinking itself, and these relate to karmic tendencies. We can infer from that it is because of our approach to these tendences and identification with the thoughtforms associated with them that we experience birth after birth and identify with a form, while in reality these are just “seeds”, including otherwise necessary “future births”, that only grow out of mind because of misindentification.
The complete story is found in “Timeless in Time”.
In this case, it made sense for Ramana Maharshi to make such a declaration because the differences between the way deceased jnanis and the ordinary are treated are significant in India. Likewise with the Cow. Otherwise, he avoided public declarations as we have seen from the account of Sri Matha, who he later encouraged to found her own Ashram, and accounts by others.
January 2, 2009 at 4:50 am
Anomalos…dude/dudette…no..dude…only a dude could make that argument, thought you were kidding, until I saw your response to NC.
About a month ago I was in Texas and there were these two churches across the street from each other and they both have signs out front. Well…one sign advertised “Do dogs go to heaven” and the preacher across the street put on his sign “Do rocks go to heaven?”. Well of course both of these men had sense of humor and it was all great fun…that is of course untill someone lost an eye. The disruption came when a fundamentalist Catholic parishioner..yeah they do exist…took exception with the concept that dogs, or any animals, could go to heaven since in the heiriachy of the Judeo/Christian world man had been given dominion over all such lower forms of life. Well…the “guy” is the brother of my sweetheart, so…we had to “talk”.
How does a lower life form realize? If they were so evolved before reincarnating why choose a lower life form? Well…I don’t know! So I went to my Cocker Max…Bird Dog Supreme…and asked him. Max told me, quite patiently, as is his Way, that only humans would make up any kind of a cosmology to get back to something that they are never separated from. “Well what about “Non Dualism”? “What”? he said. Non Dualism I replied. “Well…have you considered the Tao of Ball Licking”? Well no, I said. “It’s cause you beleive you can’t ” says Max and off he sent me with my new practice. After a week of this dicipline and a trip to the Chiropractors office I went back to see Max and confess my utter failure as a devotee. In his utter compassion for all humanity, and, me with the neck brace I was now wearing, he said…”Slyder…man who I love and adore, come lay in the sun beside me and stop listening to all those fools that told you that you could possibly be separated from God…nothing is you knucklehead whether you believe it or not. You’re only suffering the dumbass thought. What’s for dinner? and oh, btw…if you bring up Amrita Nadi I’ll piss on your boots”
Only man would create such foolishness…get to the other side of the “gateless gate” and look back. Tell me what you see. Then we can have some lunch.
January 2, 2009 at 5:10 am
Wow I am a guy myself and I have never seen so much head stuff talking in my life. I was in Adidam off and on since 1975 and am not for years now. I do not imagine that I could ever figure out someone like Adi Da. But I do feel that spriituality is a real thing, as opposed to many here like this guy Raymond, who feel that spirituality in general is just plain false. I personally have never thrown out the baby with the bathwater, no matter what my current feelings about Adi Da and Adidam. Contrary to the idiotic “scientific”: beliefs of our dark western “civilization” spirituality is real and so is realization. you cannot prove this with scientific means our through constant mental gymnastics and critiques. Certainly I have questioned the different aspects of Adi Da and Adidam like the financial stuff and all the other stuff, but there is no denying the sort of spiritually bright and conscious transmission around the person of Adi Da and in his sanctuaries and so forth . not placebo and not insane. I can read both side and will never have any answers, so be it. The only really balanced post I have read here is the refreshing and recent one by Morgan Callahan and on his personal site. thank you for that one. I had not heard his name for years and met him once in 1975 . Really I could care less about the jargon of arguments on either side of the fence, but have at it and have fun Flick Rahke who is not afraid to put his real name
January 2, 2009 at 10:47 am
Feel4God,
I used to believe that Adidam would become the first global spiritual tradition because of the Basket of Tolerance. All of the traditions were brought together for the first time and placed on a map of realization. Fantastic! I remember the introduction to “The song of the self supreme” where Adi Da spelled out the great purely 7th stage texts, and then went on to explain why other texts, while having been authored by 7th stage realizers, may have expressed too much of a lesser stage approach to be included, so “The 100,000 songs of Milarepa” was a realizer expressing too much the 5th stage for the list, and “The Ribhu Gita” showed too much the 6th, and so on. It was not about higher and lower, but about discerning truth. Adi Da said somewhere, “There is room for absolute realization in any tradition, if people will get down to it.” It was a great basket of tolerance to help people get past their provincial minds and educate themselves with great discrimination. True discrimination was a servant of intelligence, and the root meaning of “educate”, is “to draw out”, Adi Da pointed out.
But then Adi Da demoted every realizer to some fabricated lack of understanding. The basket of tolerance was no longer about truth, but about Adi Da. It became a communication of intolerance and superiority.
Since your guru claims superiority, and you are accepting that as the truth, then you are in a tough situation “out here”. There is no honest way to dance around what Adi Da claims for himself, and the divisiveness and offensiveness that brings to the table, just as there is no honest way to dance around how he lived. The Adidam party line smells a mile away to those of us who were involved. But when people speak honestly it is a different story, and some wonderful people are to be found in Adidam. I find more dancing around than honesty in you here on this forum, for whatever reason. I really appreciate your involvement here though, because you are generating some great commentary back and forth which is truly educational, “drawing out” the truth. Besides, how many people even want to try to talk about these things? It is a pleasure. So Happy new year!
January 2, 2009 at 11:00 am
Conradg Says:
“There’s an alternative to running away. You could simply stick around and have an ordinary human conversation, shedding all the Adidam agenda games. In fact, Adidam devotees in general could just have ordinary human conversations here. I’ve had plenty of such conversations with Adidam devotees. They aren’t all playing some nutty denialist/triumphalist public relations game. There’s plenty of good, honest just-folks people in Adidam. That would be a lot more radical an approach than what you’ve been doing here so far.”
Actually, I am not sure what is ordinary about this thread – it is about Adi Da’s Mahasamadhi. So “ordinary” conversation would likely not even be on topic. Why do you continue to judge from afar, Conrad, telling me to take a more “radical approach”, when I have posted so many of my personal experiences with Adi Da, both in the meditation hall and in my life with Him? I speak as sincerely and truthfully as I can – but whenever I bring up my spiritual experiences, you cut into everything I say as just endless bragging and some kind of missionary-speak. In other words, you dismiss what I am actually saying by criticizing its presentation – so you might examine this tendency in yourself.
You do seem to just sit in your ivory tower of mental concepts and tell me and others who are Daists where we are supposedly at, even where Adi Da was at, etc., but you will not even speak of your own spiritual experiences – citing that they are too private and intimate to be mentioned publicly. And yet you spew out all sorts of private and half-baked details about Adi Da’s personal life, most of which I have already said were hearsay on your part as you were never apparently involved in any intimate gatherings with Him.
So I don’t understand how you can do all of that judging but not even tell us what you experience spiritually! Why are you being so precious about your spiritual experiences? They should just be matter of fact, it seems to me, like talking about anything else relative to practice. What difference do they really make anyway? Of course you will say that I just want to compare my experiences to yours, blah, blah, blah – but it is interesting that you, who constantly tell us to break all taboos, are not willing to break this taboo of yours.
Your spiritual experiences are too private for this consideration? This thread is about non-duality, after all, and I would think you would show us how to break all taboos about self-protectiveness given how much you tell us to do so. Throw it all away, Conradg!
Strippers! Woohoo! Hmmm, maybe those strippers can seduce Conrad into baring his “soul” here! Girls! Go get Conrad to strip it all away! If you can’t do it, no one can!
Eddie B, thanks for your post – and the stripper idea!
Feeling Adi Da Samraj in egoless Communion and recognizing Him as Acausal Reality is what Daists are to be doing from the very beginning of this practice, so I am not sure why you would consider this some kind of unfounded 7th Stage proclamation and therefore not something that is about “ordinary human matters”. It is actually a most straight-forward matter and not really about “knowing” in any conventional sense. If I come off as a “knower”, my apologies – I think this is partly the problem with speaking about anything at all though.
Time to get mindless again… very nice strippers!
*kiss* *kiss*
January 2, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I have not written anything in a while, though I have been reading through the posts here. Since the last time I wrote anything, I haven’t seen much change in the conversation. I find it rather like watching a tennis match.
I am reminded of one of Adi Da’s comments, “Everybody’s waiting for their moment to lay it on everybody else.”
What about all this volleying? Are we (devotees or not) defending or criticizing Adi Da, or just our points of view?
You see, what begins as a simple notice about Adi Da’s Mahasamadhi turns into a long-winded debate by all of us (for our own reasons) who have turned Adi Da into the “man in the middle.” Our attention, nevertheless, is still on Adi Da… good or bad.
When I became a spiritual seeker, in the early 70′s, it gradually became clear to me (and I accepted) that the real spiritual path – regardless which guru/teacher/master you leaned toward – would, inevitably, unravel you. The spiritual purification that takes place (if you really embrace it) will peel away every layer of “you”, until “you” have no idea what is up or down, left or right, inside or outside, backward or forward. Is this entirely the “doing” of the guru, or is it simply what happens when you enter the realm of spiritual cleansing? And there may be many profound insights about the nature of Existence, but you still have to exist in a conventional world, full of conventional beings and conventional demands. The problem, therefore, as I see it, is that no matter what happens to you, personally, once the cleansing begins to affect you, is that you can never be “trusted” again. In moments of doubt, you aren’t sure if you can even “trust” yourself.
What I mean is that, say I have a remarkable experience in the company of Swami Awakened, which simply blows me away. I come out of it feeling wonderful and transformed. Well, as soon as I say anything about it, I can be sure there will be an uprising of people (critics, ex-devotees, atheists, etc.) who will tell me I’ve been duped, I’ve been brainwashed, I’ve been seduced by a fraud, or I’m simply feeling the effects of a placebo, and so forth. The point being made is that A) my personal experience should be suspect; B) I’ve been seduced by some kind of charlatan; C) I should find a more “trustworthy” path (and many of the critics just happen to know of one).
At the same time, suppose you are one who had a remarkable experience, or maybe you had no experience, but you came to feel you didn’t like the company you were in? Is your criticism of that company intended to “save” others from a similar plight? Are you still trying to purify yourself from that company? Even if you say, “I’m very glad for you,” what is the motive behind all the rest of the criticism? Would you say it is the same kind of motive behind the devotee who feels compelled to tell others about their fabulous experience? It seems human nature that when we are happy, we want to express that, and when we are unhappy, we want to express that too. In this case, when one is happy with Swami Awakened, and another is happy about Swami Illumined, then there must be something wrong because they can’t both be right. Or can they?
So, truly, is it the guru who is being considered, or is it just people’s experiences and attitudes? And, therefore, is the guru simply a scapegoat, being either praised for an experience, or blamed for a bad trip? This seems to be the kind of volleying that is going on. If you’re spiritual practice is working, then you praise the guru. If you had a bad time, then it’s the guru’s fault, and here’s a long list of his mistakes.
Very much the same thing takes place in the doctor/patient relationship. Except, in this case, if the doctor makes you feel better, that is readily accepted. If the doctor doesn’t cure you, or makes you feel worse, then the doctor is to blame. Just look at what a lawyer will do if a doctor misdiagnoses a condition! And patients are commonly heard to say completely opposite things about the same doctor. Is this not, essentially, the same thing going on here between devotees and critics?
J Krishnamurti once said something like, “You can move the furniture around the room, but you have to recognize that you are still in the same room.”
Someone, in an earlier post (I couldn’t seem to re-locate it, I’m just tired…) said something like, “Michael of Adidam says he likes talking about Adi Da because it makes him feel good.” I don’t remember my original quote, but I will agree with the gist of that comment… I enjoy talking about Adi Da the way I enjoy talking about the Beatles, or science-fiction, which also makes me feel good. But how I “make use” of Adi Da as my spiritual master is another matter… which I rarely speak about, except with others who might have some clue what I am talking about. Adi Da has (in my fiercely considered estimation) helped to “heal” me in numerous ways, and I have had to do (and endure) a fair amount of work, myself. I have no regrets or apologies to express. Adi Da has been a catalyst to get me to do the work. So, am I right in praising Him, and being grateful for His Teaching, which has spared me from living out the life I would have had, had I never found Him? Or should I be congratulating myself because I “got” something, I “realized” something, I “achieved” something? Again, I suppose it depends on your point of view. Everyone can argue that their point of view is valid because it is based on their very own personal, first-hand experience. But it is “point of view” that makes the difference, it is the reason why one man’s heaven is another man’s hell. And so, on that basis, this “tennis match” could go on forever. Personally, I’m not a big tennis fan, I prefer football.
Peace & Love & Happy New Year, everybody!
January 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Feel4God,
I don’t get the sense that you grasp what the word “ordinary” means. Yes, Adi Da’s death is an ordinary event. It happens to hundreds of thousands of people every day. Making it into some event of grand mystical significance is to lose the ordinary intimate meaning of it. Ordinary is not the enemy of the profound. When I came to Adidam, one of the things I liked about Adi Da’s teaching was that it was important to get ordinary, and stop creating grandiose spiritual meanings in the midst of this life, but to take things simply as they are. Adidam lost that sense of the ordinary over the years, and Adi Da did too. A shame, really.
With Ramana and others like him, I regained a sense for the ordinary, intimate nature of spiritual life, which is much deeper, really, than all these claims of yours to experience “egoless acausal divine reality”. Those are just words, just book jargon, they don’t really tell me anything about your actual experience. I might as well throw Advaitist jargon back at you, it won’t help you understand what I actually experience.
There’s a reason I made the analogy to my love life with my wife. I don’t spell out the intimate details of that in public either. She’s not a stripper entertaining me with porn show exploits that I’d want to brag about with the boys at the bar. She’s the woman I love. In the same way, my intimate spiritual experience isn’t some racy sexploit you read about in Hustler or brag about in public. As Jesus said, pray in private, don’t make a public show of these things like the hypocrites. It takes a particular kind of disassociated, abstracted viewpoint to write as you do about these intimate matters, and if you don’t understand why I don’t think it’s appropriate to make them the subject of public debate, then we must indeed have very different kinds of experiences.
Generally speaking, people in the traditions don’t much talk about their spiritual experiences, because it is such a private, intimate matter. It’s not even terribly describable. How can you describe love anyway? That’s what my experienes are about – love. The Self is love. Maybe nothing more needs to be described. All this angry, competitive taunting has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with it. If you think that taunting me is the way to get me to talk about my intimate life, you are sadly mistaken, and it tells me all I need to know about what your spiritual practice is lacking. You call it “precious”, and you are right – it is very precious. I am not about to debase what is precious to me for the sake of petty advantage in an internet discussion.
But this is the problem with so many frustrated people in Adidam like yourself. The lack of a satisfying intimate life, which is what spiritual life is all about even in its most mystical non-dual core, leads so many in Adidam to become all the more aggressive in their claims of superiority and mystical supremacy. Of course, that problem isn’t limited to Adidam, one sees it everywhere in spiritual society.
From the beginning of this thread you’ve been aggressively attacking anyone here who is critical of Da, wanting to get the goods on them, their “mystical qualifications”, in order to discredit them. Well, the only mystical qualification that counts is simple love. If you don’t have that, your experiences don’t amount to a hill of beans. If you do, they still don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Love is simply not a competition. At the level of my spiritual experience, there is just simple love, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. I think it’s best to leave it at that.
January 2, 2009 at 6:00 pm
This is an interesting passage I just opened up to about Adi Da’s relationship to non-humans, the human mind, Reality, etc.
From “Radical Devotion” by Adi Da Samraj (published in 2006):
“Human bondage comes from mind. The non-humans native to this Earth-world are not trapped in mind – at least, not to the degree (or in the same manner) that is the case with human beings. Of course, the non-humans here suffer a level of operative psyche that represents bondage even in their case – but, nevertheless, all the non-humans native to this Earth-world innately enjoy a fundamental freedom from the bondage-to-mind that is uniquely manufactured and exaggerated by human beings. That is why human beings have a unique obligation – relative to the transcending of egoity, and relative to the Ordeal of Divine Self-Realization. Generally speaking, the non-humans native to the Earth-world are, by their natural nature, innately extended into the Field of Transcendental Contemplation. Therefore, they can always readily drop out of their rudimentary bondage to mind. Fundamentally, as an innate characteristic, they Stand Prior to mind. In that sense, the non-humans here are (to some degree) already Free. They are not Absolutely Free, because they are still bound to conditionally manifested existence – but they do enjoy an inherent means for transcending conditionally manifested existence. Therefore, the non-humans native to this Earth-world do not require verbal Instruction in how to practice the ego-transcending, mind-transcending, and world-transcending Way.”
“I Relate very directly to the non-humans here – and I Freely Relate to them Spiritually. Indeed, I Do My Divine Avataric Spiritual Work in direct relation even to apparently inanimate “things” – including the very structures and materials of both human and natural spaces. This directness that characterizes My tacit relationship to all that arises conditionally does not require words, because the non-humans here (and even all material conditions here) have no innate requirement to overcome word-mind.”
“Human beings are (in their egoity) uniquely unavailable to Spiritual Influence – only because of the force of mind, the force of the patterning associated with conceptual and perceptual bondage. Every human individual virtually “carries the world around” in the form of his or her own mind. Every human being carries a “personalized” facsimile of the world in speech-mind, in mental pictures, in “point-of-view”-based psychology and psyche – and all of that is nothing but an illusion. That mind-world exists only in the brain-field, and in the energy-field otherwise associated with the physical brain. That mind-world does not exist otherwise. That mind-world is not limited to the present physical lifetime – but that mind-world is, nevertheless, a construct that is not (itself) Reality Itself. Indeed, that mind-world arises on the basis (or as an apparent modification) of Reality Itself – and therefore, the exercise of Reality Itself is the necessary Means for transcending the bondage to mind. Thus, the only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam, is, altogether, the exercising of Reality Itself. The only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam Inherently Stands Prior to and Transcends the mind. The only-by-Me Revealed and Given Way of Adidam is a life-practice that is an inherently purifying process that goes beyond all patterned bondage – not through some program of ego-activity, but by Means of the exercise of Reality Itself, such that you Stand As Reality Itself (rather than standing as your ego-patterning, and your ego-based problems, and your ego-reinforcing search).”
January 2, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Michael,
Good post. But I had an alternative interpretation of what you wrote here:
What I mean is that, say I have a remarkable experience in the company of Swami Awakened, which simply blows me away. I come out of it feeling wonderful and transformed. Well, as soon as I say anything about it, I can be sure there will be an uprising of people (critics, ex-devotees, atheists, etc.) who will tell me I’ve been duped, I’ve been brainwashed, I’ve been seduced by a fraud, or I’m simply feeling the effects of a placebo, and so forth. The point being made is that A) my personal experience should be suspect; B) I’ve been seduced by some kind of charlatan; C) I should find a more “trustworthy” path (and many of the critics just happen to know of one).
You brought up J. Krishnamurti, and I’m reminded of a story he used to frequently tell. God and the Devil are walking through town one day, comparing notes, when they see a man having a Divine Vision. Both God and the Devil become deleriously happy. God looks at the grinning Devil and says, “I don’t understand why you are so happy. This is great news for me, I have a new messenger now, but it seems like terrible news for you, so I don’t understand why you seem so pleased.” The Devil replies, “Yes, it’s true this could be very bad for me. This man has had a genuine vision of God. But guess what – I’m going to help him organize it!”
I don’t think the biggest problem we encounter when we have mystical experience is the reactions of other people – its our own reaction that does the most damage. And the reaction we tend to have is to “organize” these experiences into something our minds can understand and proclaim to the world. When we do that, we have in effect destroyed what we experienced, we’ve made it some crude message of the ego, rather than a dissolution of ego.
I recall when I first began having mystical experiences as a teenager, the thing I noticed was how quickly the mind asserted itself and tried to “understand” these experiences, or tried to talk about them with others, brag about them, etc. It was almost unstoppable. And that was what did me the most damage, not the reactions of people I might have told about these things. The mind is the devil organizing our religion, so to speak, and it does so internally long before it does so externally, or before others impose their own mind upon us.
One of the most important things we have to do, I think, is stop allowing the mind to take control of our intimate spiritual life, and simply let it be. We don’t have to put it in categories and yogic centers. To do so is to miss the whole point, if we had a genuine vision of God to begin with.
And of course that’s one of the big problems with Adidam. Adi Da had genuine Divine Visions, but then he had to go and organize it all into a collossal institutional mindfuck. He was always playing Evelyn Disc, and then complaining that Raymond was getting killed in the process. But these were internal characters in his own psychodrama, not impositions from without. It’s just that everyone tends towards the same internal psychodrama, so it plays out in the social world also.
I’m reminded of a story about Papaji, who used to travel all over the world spontaneously, giving people spiritual experiences. He didn’t even know why. He would feel a compulsion to travel somewhere, to South America say, and he didn’t know why. Then he would meet someone in a Satsang event, or even on the street, spontaneously give them some kind of spiritual experience, and then say, “Now we can go home”. He said in some respects he was the opposite of Ramana, who stayed in one place while people travelled to see him. Papaji travelled to where people were, showed them something, and then left. Even when he was a younger man working in the mines in South India, he developed a following in various villages there. To give Darshan, he would sometimes rent a train car, his devotees would decorate it with a chair and flowers, and as it would stop at train stations in all these rural villages, the devotees would stand on the railway platform, the car doors would swing open, and they would get darshan for a few minutes until the train went on to the next station.
Anyway, in one instance Papaji was in Europe, giving Satsang in a small group there, when one man suddenly jumped up in an ecstatic state and began shouting excitedly. He just kept saying ecstatic nonsense, and finally ran out into the street, still screaming, laughing, crying, utterly ecstatic, and people on the street got very upset. I think it was Germany or Switzerland, some uptight country, and someone called the police, because they couldn’t have this guy raving like this in public. So the police came, and they took him away, and locked him up in a mental institution. Papaji witnessed all this, and had his devotees follow the man to the jail to try to help him. He felt responsible, and wanted to follow up to make sure the man was alright.
A few days later, they helped get the man released, but then his wife came to Papaji to complain to him. She said he had changed her husband, he wasn’t the man she had married anymore, and she wanted her old husband back. Papaji said he couldn’t do that, and she said, then I’m divorcing him, he’s not my husband anymore. And she did. He went on to a different life, and that’s how it works I guess. If you have a Divine Vision, it may ruin the life you once had, but it makes a new one for you. You can’t count on it being received positively by others, but you can count on it being a form of Grace that probably works out for the best.
January 2, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Conradg wrote: “From the beginning of this thread you’ve been aggressively attacking anyone here who is critical of Da, wanting to get the goods on them, their “mystical qualifications”, in order to discredit them. Well, the only mystical qualification that counts is simple love. If you don’t have that, your experiences don’t amount to a hill of beans. If you do, they still don’t amount to a hill of beans.
Love is simply not a competition. At the level of my spiritual experience, there is just simple love, and no one is any better or worse than anyone else. I think it’s best to leave it at that.”
Conrad, I felt compelled to say something here. I agree with you that Love is not about competition of any sort, and there is just Love, and that is really IT.
At the same time, I just want to remind you that when you say: “attacking anyone here who is critical of Da, wanting to get the goods on them,” well, this is exactly what many critics do, precisely as Adi Da described in His discussion of the media, playing the “gotcha” game for all it’s worth. Adi Da isn’t worthy because He’s got dirty laundry, right? I’m not trying to slap you, personally, with a glove, mind you, but the “gotcha” game always works both ways.
I do not know whether or not I actually know any of the devotees who are posting here, and, in the context of this forum, I do not really care. I don’t think I know you, personally, Conrad, nor any of the other ex’s, and, again, in the context of this forum, I do not care. Ultimately, all that matters is that some of us are in disagreement, and it is unlikely to change.
I don’t mean to superimpose anything over this entire debate, but I’m just one of those guys who keeps asking, “Can’t we all just get along?” I try to avoid conflict of any kind, and I find it all tremendously disturbing. Nevertheless, it does seem to be the BIG THING in this world, it’s what drives the world, so I must be a fish out of water…
I also wanted to say something about the non-human conversation, since I am a great lover of animals of all kinds (alright, I could do without mosquitoes). When I am just hanging with my dog I call Siddhartha (when I got him as a puppy, he was really suffering), I contemplate how relatively short his life will be, and how short my life really is, and the lives of everyone I know and love. NO ONE can walk away from this. We may want to elevate humans or non-humans to various levels of spiritual evolution, but all of us can be wiped out by a tornado, or tidal wave, or hurricane, or lightning strike, or disease, or fill in the blank. We aren’t so magnificent.
We should all simply bow our heads and surrender to whatever the hell IT IS, and, on that basis, simply get along with each other. I guess I’m feeling rather simplistic at the moment…
January 2, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Michael says:
“At the same time, suppose you are one who had a remarkable experience, or maybe you had no experience, but you came to feel you didn’t like the company you were in? Is your criticism of that company intended to “save” others from a similar plight? Are you still trying to purify yourself from that company? Even if you say, “I’m very glad for you,” what is the motive behind all the rest of the criticism? Would you say it is the same kind of motive behind the devotee who feels compelled to tell others about their fabulous experience? It seems human nature that when we are happy, we want to express that, and when we are unhappy, we want to express that too. In this case, when one is happy with Swami Awakened, and another is happy about Swami Illumined, then there must be something wrong because they can’t both be right. Or can they? So, truly, is it the guru who is being considered, or is it just people’s experiences and attitudes? And, therefore, is the guru simply a scapegoat, being either praised for an experience, or blamed for a bad trip? This seems to be the kind of volleying that is going on. If you’re spiritual practice is working, then you praise the guru. If you had a bad time, then it’s the guru’s fault, and here’s a long list of his mistakes. Very much the same thing takes place in the doctor/patient relationship. Except, in this case, if the doctor makes you feel better, that is readily accepted. If the doctor doesn’t cure you, or makes you feel worse, then the doctor is to blame. Just look at what a lawyer will do if a doctor misdiagnoses a condition! And patients are commonly heard to say completely opposite things about the same doctor. Is this not, essentially, the same thing going on here between devotees and critics?”
I don’t think so, Michael. The problem with this classic Adidam “group think”, which goes back to the founding of the organization, is that it is a obvious way of deflecting attention from the guru’s role in all this. While I wasn’t there, some who were there in the Melrose Ave days point out that this logic arose because of Franklin’s more public “do what I say, not what I do” approach, and his belief that he would be betrayed by devotees. In retrospect, you can see some of this in the Understanding Talk, where Franklin neatly deflects legitimate questions into questions about the questioner’s state.
In fact, it is obvious outside of Adidam and similar groups that both the guru and the seeker share responsibility. A doctor takes an oath to do no harm. Being human, honest mistakes can be made but that doesn’t absolve the doctor of his responsibiliity. The patient also has responsibility to get second opinions and take reasonable measures, and being human, makes honest mistakes. Likewise, a seeker has responsibilities to throughly vet the guru first and should not seek a guru without having done what Ramana Maharshi termed “homework” first. But seekers are human and make honest mistakes. However, the jnani guru is held to an even higher standard. Lacking egoic bondage and blindness, nothing they do is for themselves–nothing! For example, the ancient Dattatreya remarked that although he had no limitations on himself, thus some of his eccentric behavior, he did not do anything that if observed could cause others to fall into error. Buddha and any number of other enlightened teachers did the same thing, they tailored their actions and statements to those in front of them. It is graceful, and it is called skillful means, because the “clear eyed” state unique to the jnani sees the truth in all people and things.
The evidence suggests Da’s approach is not like that, it represents a new extreme beyond even the extreme Drukpa Kunley, who did not show selective preferences such as age, beauty, taste and comfort in his actions. And there are his claims of excusivity of status which make one Swami in yhour analogy superior to all others. So it just may be they are not both right, in fact, how could they be, except in a sort of “tolerant” way.
Adidam has instead adopted the idea that you must get burned if you seek the fire and it was your responsibility for whatever happened or what harm resulted, with no responsibility for the guru. Apparently Conradg was punished not that many years ago for asking this very question about the guru’s responsibility which is a basic tenet in mainstream non-dualism. Yet there is so much secrecy in Adidam that you don’t know what you have agreed to in practical terms when you show up, and what price you might have to pay for the experiences. So how can the seeker be held solely responsible when they are only given vague assurances that everything is for their own good, even if they got some benefit as well? If there is one thing common to most critics, it is the rejection of this whole guru has no responsibility line of reasoning which is not unrealistic at all in traditional non-dualism.
Using your doctor analogy, if you had a doctor teaching radically new ideas of medicine not accepted by other doctors who produced testimonials from some enthusiastic patients, while there were far more dissatisfied with what they were told and with the results, there would be good reason to suspect their abilities. Yet Adidam tries to make it appear there are only a few disgruntled critics, the same thing I was told when I first approached the organization in its early years. Of course, I found that was not true and you know it is not true either. Traditionally, the guidance was your guru should be someone who you have thoroughly observed closely for a considerable period of time and who has shown evidence supporting their claims. Adidam has totally reversed this, as they have much of traditional wisdom. To each his own choice, but it should be an informed choice.
You may prefer the insularity of your position. It is certainly self-reinforcing, and nobody is denying your right to interpret your experiences as you see fit. The truth regardless is you simply don’t know. I have no illusions of convincing anyone here. I prefer to see it as an airing of various points usuing traditional understandings as a benchmark, where there may be a need to explore differences and commonalities, because I come from the position that Da is neither totally right or totally wrong. I am as interested in exploring differences and where he was right as where I think he was wrong. Why? Why not? It would be more interesting if you would actually engage dialogue beyond this superficial assessment of the situation.
January 3, 2009 at 12:26 am
Feel4God,
Thanks for the Da passage on non-humans. Hopefully it will provoke further thought in those who consider the very idea absurd. That is along the lines what I would have expected from his earlier statements.
From a non-dualist perspective, I think the conceptual flaw in the argument that non-humans can’t become realized is the asumption, that jnanis criticize, is that the mind can, by its own activities, become enlightened and reach the Self. It is not that the human mind is useless, but it can only go so far. In the end, what is realized can only be that which was always the case, which is necessarily more primary than variations in form. Placing such limitations for enlightenment on the Self seems a stretch. While that makes no sense to scientists, that does not mean I should reject it.
January 3, 2009 at 3:51 am
Feel4God,
Thanks for your response. I have a question that I would like you to answer without reference to what anyone else has said or written or what you have heard from any outside source (including Adi Da).
Why are there so few ‘formal’ devotees in the world (the numbers of which have not significantly changed for decades), and what is your contribution to this being the case? (I use the word ‘formal’ because there are many who consider themselves to be devotees but are not registered as such with Adidam.)
I look forward to your reply.
January 3, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Eddie B Says:
“Thanks for your response. I have a question that I would like you to answer without reference to what anyone else has said or written or what you have heard from any outside source (including Adi Da).”
Well, we are in relationship to everything and everyone arising, and we affect one another at many different levels, so whether this kind of response is 100% possible is arguable – but I will give it my best shot.
Eddie B Says:
“Why are there so few ‘formal’ devotees in the world (the numbers of which have not significantly changed for decades), and what is your contribution to this being the case? (I use the word ‘formal’ because there are many who consider themselves to be devotees but are not registered as such with Adidam.)”
Our greatest growth came during the 70s when we went from a few hundred in 1974 to over 1000(?) – and that was when Adi Da was very actively and personally engaging as many people as would approach Him. Many of us spent endless hours in the bathhouse with Him, listening to Him, laughing a lot, playing, even chicken-fights in the water, etc. Some of this time during the 70s did involve using various accessories – junk food, alcohol, etc. – and this attracted many more people.
We also noticed great attrition when these “party periods” ended for extended times – i.e.,the “student disciplines now apply” periods. So this statistic tells us something about these two modes of Teaching us – many many people were not interested in the disciplines over a long term period. Go figure!
Secondly, I think many people who participated close in with Adi Da were always reminded by His direct Person, Presence, and personal demand for constant ego-transcendence – i.e., that this Way is about a radical relationship to Him (always Satsang); not just the relationship to His physical body, but to Him altogether – His Presence and State. In His physical Company I could never forget this because He worked with us and talked to us about the true spiritual way constantly under all the various circumstances we were invited into – whether that be with accessories, sexually oriented considerations, disciplines, formal Discourses, meditation, whatever. It was always the same Communication, and His direct Regard was always fitted to my exact needs at the time.
However, these daily gatherings (when these periods were the case) only involved about 5-10% of our membership. Many of the members would come up on the weekends and serve, sometimes gather for a Discourse and/or celebration (with or without accessories), etc. – but again, not daily. The “close-in” group was supposed to engage the rest of the membership, and some of us did try, but outside of His physical Company I for one was not engaged in the radical practice nearly as strongly; and as already noted on this thread and elsewhere, we were not very good at that kind of engagement with others, to say the least. Hell, I was only 24 or so, and already have written that being relational was not my strong suit. So, this is clearly another reason – many of us “insiders” really failed to pass the Prasad, so to speak; and this was certainly the case for me.
Thirdly, us “insiders” were responsible for a lot of service as well – and that was one of the main reasons we were invited to these gatherings. But Adi Da did not just come here to work with a few of us – He has constantly told us that He is here for everyone – and certainly at least anyone who responds to Him at any level. He worked tirelessly to create a Teaching that I know of no other spiritual teaching comparable for its quality and comprehensiveness. He also created and empowered these beautiful Sanctuaries for us to locate Him most potently at, forever. And His Art, community, etc…
So creating Adidam in perpetuity was a major goal of His, not only individuals’ realization. I am certainly glad Adidam has a strong foundation even after just 37 years of Adi Da founding it. Us Daists are convinced by our own participation and experience that the world needs this! And I may very well, as may many of us, have future lives here, and I sure pray the beacon of Adidam is burning very very brightly with Adi Da’s Person, Teaching, Art, Sanctuaries, Community, etc.!
Adi Da always looked to the long-term, and so we were very very busy – but He always worked simultaneously with each of us in terms of our spiritual requirements. I remember in the 90s when I got too involved in service, I got Notes from Him asking how I was doing. Someone then said that I was serving to ensure this and that about Adidam – and He said that’s fine about his service, but what about his spiritual practice? Adi Da constantly reminded me (and many of us) that the spiritual was always to be at the core of our relationship and service to Him and Adidam.
But now the requirements to be turned to His physical Form and those kind of immediate demands are no longer the case for many of us, and we can turn outwards more than ever before. I sure feel this – I have never written so much about Adi Da and my own testimony of His great influence in my life, as I have lately. That link I posted the other day for FFaC relative to the talk in July of 1976 helps to explain what is happening now. I am sure I still fail miserably at communicating at a level that His Gifts warrant, but it seems best to tell it like it is for me, as best as I can, rather than nothing at all.
I imagine (and certainly hope) that more devotees will engage in dialogs on the internet, but yeah, many of us have been fairly isolated during Adi Da’s physical lifetime – mainly serving on the foundation of Adidam, our own practice and life requirements, etc., with too little emphasis on “passing the Prasad” in my view (in general terms), and certainly my own self-confession (in specific terms). So I am as guilty of that as anyone, but what can I say other than I will do what I can now.
Will people respond to Adi Da in the future? I can only assume they will, given the radical nature of His Gift. Hopefully a lot more of us Daists can do this Offering more justice than we have in the past. It is obvious to me that the Reality Way of Adidam is great, and completely embodies the Truth of non-duality. Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint. What can be more non-dual than that statement? There is only Brahma or One Person or Self that can be Realized. Also, I think such a statement will bring greater strength to Adidam in the long-run, as no one else regardless of their realization (7th Stage or otherwise) can now make it as unique to themselves and go off and form some other way or revision of Adidam. What would that look like anyway? To many of us, there is no greater Teaching – and generally this is not argued by even the most critical people of Adi Da.
Anyway, I probably have said too much already, but I will consider this further, Eddie, and let me know if you have any comments or questions about any of it. Thanks for your questions!
January 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm
FFC:
I see that Sri Mathru did not practice Self-enquiry at all, and was a bhakta only. Ramana considered her to be already a jnani, and that he was just a causal guru, whatever that is.
As for his mother, it isn’t clear how his hands played much of a part in her exhausting her karmas to me. And why not do that much earlier anyhow?
I don’t see where Ramana ever spoke about communicating with animals and plants. Do you have cites?
Lakshmana was asked by Ramana if Gudur was near Vellore. From this he assumes that R. acknowledged him.
The white boy saw some sort of golden halo or something, or cried at the glance of the Maharshi. Loads of people cried at the darshan of Adi Da. So?
I think we all just want to feel good, period, call that spiritual if you like the sound of the word, but it’s just about feeling really good, really at peace, ahhhhhhh. No matter what happens. Why dignify it with high-sounding words? Why is it that the Sanskrit words pertaining to truth include ananda, which is bliss? In the end, I am not sure that seeking bliss isn’t what it’s all about, despite the argument that realization is beyond experience, high and low. Still, ananda is one description of the truth, no? If people felt good all the time, would anyone bother with all this high-falutin crap? Ramana sat there half-naked, nodding out, and slicing veggies for the most part. What about that appeals to you so much? What about his presumed state is the big O for you?
I hope this is not too personal or anything like that. I can’t help being what I am.
January 3, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Michael,
I appreciate your desire to get along. It’s certainly true that we need not create warfare out of our differences. On the other hand, it’s simply not possible to eliminate conflict entirely. This is a dualistic world, which means a play of opposites, and necessarily conflicts therefore. To be reminded of the underlying reality of non-dual love is very important, but at the level of human relationship this will never result in perfect peace.
However, I do disagree with this point you make here:
At the same time, I just want to remind you that when you say: “attacking anyone here who is critical of Da, wanting to get the goods on them,” well, this is exactly what many critics do, precisely as Adi Da described in His discussion of the media, playing the “gotcha” game for all it’s worth. Adi Da isn’t worthy because He’s got dirty laundry, right? I’m not trying to slap you, personally, with a glove, mind you, but the “gotcha” game always works both ways.
You have to understand that Adi Da, his life and teachings and community, is the subject of the discussion here, so of course the details of his life matter. How could we have a discussion about him without discussing him? It’s quite natural that some will criticize him, some will praise him, some will attack him, some defend him. That’s perfectly natural and appropriate. What is generally not considered appropriate is to attack the people engaged in that discussion, trying to undermine their arguments by criticizing the arguer’s “credentials”. This is what is called an “ad hominem” argument, and it is considered a violation of the basic rules of sane argumentation.
Ad hominem attacks on debaters themselves are essentially distractions from the issue under discussion. When Feel4God criticizes me for “having an axe to gring” of bitterness or resentment, for example, he has said nothing about the value of my arguments themselves. I could be the most bitterly resentful person in the world, and still be essentially right in fact and interpretation, or I could be the most loving person in the world and be wrong on both counts. So what is added by any of that?
Likewise, when Feel4God presents his own subjective spiritual experience of Adi Da’s or Ramana’s photographs as some kind of proof of his superior credentials for evaluating Da and Ramana, it also means very little. It begs an ad hominem attack from critics, but since I dont’ believe such attacks are meaningful, I decline to make them. But then, seeing him bait myself and others with imputations that our own mystical experience is inferior to his own, and thus our conclusions about Da aren’t meaningful in the way his are, is simply pointless. If anything, as I’ve pointed out, it shows a kind of egoity on his part that undermines his whole claim to being initiated into some kind of egoless experience by Da.
In general, it’s certainly interesting to hear about the wide variety of experiences people have had with Da, whether it’s subjective mystical stuff or ordinary human relationships, but trying to attack those who make thei confessions here is simply coutnerproductive to meaningful debate. The notion that commentators on this forum who criticize Da should be criticized themselves in turn is simply not acceptable, any more than those who praise Da should be attacked for their praise. We as individuals on this forum are not the subject of the debate, Da is. We must show simple human respect and restrain in not going after one another simply because the other might say something we consider offensive about Da (which includes people offended by praise of Da).
To turn this forum into a discussion of one another’s qualities and qualifications is a distraction from the real subject of the discussion, which is Da. To suggest that anyone who criticizes Da is “fair game” for personal attacks and insinuations is simply not to be interested in maintaining a civil discussion of a controversial man and his legacy.
January 4, 2009 at 1:52 am
In response to Feel4God January 3
Thanks for such an (unexpectedly) long reply.
I reckon all points of view can be traced back to one fundamental tenet. All subsequent arguments are built from the acceptance (or belief) of that one tenet and therefore become completely coherent and self-consistent in their formulations. The fundamental tenet of the devotee in Adidam is that Adi Da is, as he himself claimed, the only fully realized being to have appeared. Thus, his teachings and proclamations must be uniquely true and are to be followed and defended.
I held to this fundamental tenet while a devotee and it justified all manner of behaviors aimed at my fellow devotees, as well as those outside Adidam. Being the mission manager also put me constantly in relationship with people approaching Adi Da. I learnt many things as a result of this service, not the least being that I should never presume I knew what might attract others to Adi Da.
But something shifted and there came a time when I no longer held to that fundamental tenet. (If you have the time and/or the inclination you can download my full ‘story’ about what contributed to the shift at http://home.exetel.com.au/eddieblatt/writer/Leaving%20Adidam.doc.) Not only did I no longer presume I knew Adi Da was what he claimed to be, but I found my previous disposition within the context of the culture of ‘devotion’ to be extremely cultic and childish. I further discovered that my missionary activity was mostly proselytizing and completely out of relationship with those approaching Adi Da. I came from a very righteous place!
Everything changes when you do not hold on to any tenet or belief whatsoever. One simply becomes present without qualification and without referral to any outside source. From the content of your postings such a disposition does not qualify me as a ‘formal’ devotee in Adidam, which is fine because no intermediaries are now required anyway.
I find most devotees in Adidam out of relationship and childishly cultic. That’s the main reason people are not attracted to join the community. And that’s why, when you ask the question ‘Will people respond to Adi Da in the future?’, my reply is they are very unlikely. At least not if they feel they have to join such a community.
I hope you receive this posting in the spirit it is intended – free inquiry. I do not know who Adi Da was and would never try to contain him in some ‘point of view’ posturing. And I reckon that when the culture of Adidam becomes truly relational and free of the childish dependency on the guru, people might then be attracted. When the fundamental tenet goes, and with it a mountain of uninspected ‘stuff’, the righteousness surrounding Adidam will go.
I am going on retreat for the next week and look forward to further postings when I get back.
January 4, 2009 at 4:46 am
AP:
“I see that Sri Mathru did not practice Self-enquiry at all, and was a bhakta only. Ramana considered her to be already a jnani, and that he was just a causal guru, whatever that is.
As for his mother, it isn’t clear how his hands played much of a part in her exhausting her karmas to me. And why not do that much earlier anyhow?”
Ramana Maharshi saw Bhatki and Self enquiry as equal and merging at the highest levels. What most think is Self enquiry is a useful but preliminary practice. In Sri Matha’s case, she was much like Ramakrishna, guided by forms of the Deity, and needed only some final karmic release of the heart knot aided by a human jnani. What he said to her after liberation was: “Can one get this for the mere asking of it? It seeks after the heart where it wants to shine.” That also applies to the Mother, and why he didn’t do it earlier.
As previously stated, he specifically designated four animals as enlightened. See http://bhagavan-ramana.org/jackie.html
And he had many creature devotees, see http://bhagavan-ramana.org/ramanadevotees.html.
The following is an example of he saw animals and plants as living beings:
D.: Does one who has realized the Self lose the sense of ‘I’?
R.: Absolutely.
D.: Then there is not difference between yourself and myself, that man over there, my servant. Are all the same?
R.: All are the same, including those monkeys.
D.: But the monkeys are not people. Are they not different?
R.: They are exactly the same as people. All are the same in One Consciousness.
Once he saw somebody cutting a twig in the night for use the next morning as a toothbrush. “Can’t you let the tree sleep in peace?” he asked. “Surely you can have your twig in the daytime. Why not have a little sense and compassion? A tree does not howl nor can it bite or run away: it does not mean you can do anything to it?”
His comment about rocks came when someone asked about vegetarianism and said that plants were also alive, he said that the stones were conscious too.
“Lakshmana was asked by Ramana if Gudur was near Vellore. From this he assumes that R. acknowledged him.
The white boy saw some sort of golden halo or something, or cried at the glance of the Maharshi. Loads of people cried at the darshan of Adi Da. So?”
The difference is that there are signs and recognition from others. No one outside of the group considers any of Adi Da’s devotees as being that advanced.
“I think we all just want to feel good, period, call that spiritual if you like the sound of the word, but it’s just about feeling really good, really at peace, ahhhhhhh. No matter what happens. Why dignify it with high-sounding words? Why is it that the Sanskrit words pertaining to truth include ananda, which is bliss? In the end, I am not sure that seeking bliss isn’t what it’s all about, despite the argument that realization is beyond experience, high and low. Still, ananda is one description of the truth, no? If people felt good all the time, would anyone bother with all this high-falutin crap?”
Even unusual bliss can be and is a trap if you settle for it. It is only permanent for the Realized. Karma will not let you settle for anything else utimately.
“Ramana sat there half-naked, nodding out, and slicing veggies for the most part. What about that appeals to you so much? What about his presumed state is the big O for you?
I hope this is not too personal or anything like that. I can’t help being what I am.”
Somewhat over simplistic but for the sake of discussion, while he was doing this, was that all he, or more precisely the Presence, was doing? There is a story of a devotee couple who saved up their money and came to see him from Chile. They were concerned about having to leave him. Ramana Maharshi proceeded to describe the area they lived as clearly as if he was there, even though he never (physically) left the Ashram and had no apparent way of knowing. He explained to them that time and space were an illusion and did not really exist. which explains why he said he was not going anyhere at death. There are similar accounts. If you focus only on appearances, you miss the bigger picture. Jnanis are beyond time, space and appearances. You can pick any of them that appeal to you based on your karma, although they choose you, you don’t choose them. Since Ramana Maharshi proved active in my life, I recognize him.
January 4, 2009 at 5:56 am
Michael says:
“At the same time, I just want to remind you that when you say: “attacking anyone here who is critical of Da, wanting to get the goods on them,” well, this is exactly what many critics do, precisely as Adi Da described in His discussion of the media, playing the “gotcha” game for all it’s worth. Adi Da isn’t worthy because He’s got dirty laundry, right? I’m not trying to slap you, personally, with a glove, mind you, but the “gotcha” game always works both ways.”
I think the discussion here should revolve around Da and his teaching and actions, not ad hominem attacks. There are controversial aspects of his life and teaching, and in comparison with other non-dualist figures and traditions. Up to now, Da’s devotees have not generally been willing to discuss these openly and in more detail because (not surprisingly) the reaction outside of Adidam is generally negative. Even among those drawn to Da, attrition rates over time were very high as you begin to see things in a new light. Naturally, Da’s devotees are going to see all that differently than critics, just as at one time critical ex-followers felt differently than now. That is acknowledged, and can be discussed without engaging in such attacks.
At the same time, it can not be ignored that Da’s claims of unprecedented realization compared with all others and flouting of all behavioral conventions are an issue. The truth is that Da devotees are not in a position to validate these claims, nor can they validate the superior efficacy of the actions except as seen in their own case. While others are in no better position to assert superior states, they can point to a body of traditional knowledge that does not readily support the Adidam position. As a result of the natural reaction, Adidam has become very insular, and has built up a whole system of apologetics to get people past the natural resistance, but to some extent at the expense of honesty up front. And they have built up an elaborate system of defining experiences and equating them with the most advanced states not recognized outside of Adidam. Nor is the description of these experiences and states consistent in all aspects with traditional sources. To some extent this inconsisently is acknowledged when Da says that the Thumbs Samadhi he alone has manifested allows one to bypass all intervening stages and attain the highest level of what Da calls jnana samadhi, and potentially his seventh stage. This might or might not be true, but what this does is bypass the normal metrics one sees as spirituality becomes mature, just as Da’s own claims lack metrics and are thereforeunverifiable in relation to anyone else.
So what we are left with, to be honest, is discussion of dharma, and discussion of experiences as we interpret them. If someone says they readily fall into the Witness position in the Heart on the right, or assume the enlightened, egoless disposition on contemplation of Da, or some other state they consider equal or superior to traditional states, or that X miracle occurred, that is still interpretation, which no one is denying is fine. Now if they went to see a number of recognized jnanis or highly advanced saints, and this was independently confirmed several times, that would be a strong argument. Otherwise, it all hangs or falls on whether Da was correct, particularly when there is conflict with more traditional dharma or improbable spiritual attainments. So for purposes of this dialogue, there is no basis for others to assume the interpretation of their experiences are proven to be what is asserted, or superior knowledge based solely on what Da has said. Again, if someone thinks they have some advanced understanding from practice, it is fine to state that is what they believe, but if others question that fairly, it is not just a “gotcha game”.
When I refer to Ramana Maharshi and his (apparently) enlightened followers, and sometimes the Nisargadatta lineage, I try and accurately convey life and teachings for comparison, and to expose what I think are misinterpretations and misinformation. I have no problem with any aspect of their life or teaching. And I do not see major differences between them and traditional dharma, compared with Da where I do. But that does not translate into claims of superior states respecting my own position. We can only really discuss dharma and experiences, with respect to commonalities and differences, here, avoiding mere repetion of talking points.
January 4, 2009 at 1:00 pm
“There is no separate “self”—except as a mere idea (or a fiction, or an illusion) that, without intensive inspection, seems to be suggested by a “point of view” (or “locus”) in the apparent context of a functioning psycho-physical organism.
There Is Only Reality Itself–Inherently Prior To all particularity, and Perfectly (and Acausally) Inclusive of the all-and-All of totality.”
Reality Itself Is Non-separate, One, and Indivisible.
—Avatar Adi Da Samraj
Last night I had the opportunity to speak to a devotee who has been closely involved with Bhagavan Adi Da for years, probably since the beginning of his teaching work. I was really impressed by the intimacy I felt with him immediately. Not in a man woman kind of way, but in a devotee to devotee way. I have been away for years and years from Adidiam, but there is an immediate closeness I feel with some devotees that is really remarkable. He spoke about Beloved’s final days, and moments, and how he just slipped away after telling a couple of jokes, and how that last 7 years of his life were simply amazing to the Guru because his experience of his bodily form had shifted so much since his maha samadhi 7 years ago. I won’t go into it here because it is hard to describe what he told me, but it blew me away.
I felt my friend’s presence and love, and was very moved to continue on with my spiritual practice, and I felt very fortunate to have simply ran into this man in the grocery store.
I have been so blessed to be part of this great process. Since I have been meditating again I feel a lifting of a level of problem and fear that I haven’t experienced in years. My heart is opening again, and I feel the hard edges of my assumptions slipping away. That being said, most of what we say is simply clikity clack, clikity clack. The mind without the heart rambles on to infinity. I imagine after enlightenment, in an ordinary experience all words are offered up as praise to the Divine Reality and it’s endless manifestations.
O My Mind
O my mind,
Worship the lotus feet of the Indestructible One!
Whatever thou seest twixt earth and sky
Will perish.
Why undertake fasts and pilgrimages?
Why engage in philosophical discussions?
Why commit suicide in Banaras?
Take no pride in the body,
It will soon be mingling with the dust.
This life is like the sporting of sparrows,
It will end with the onset of night.
Why don the ochre robe
And leave home as a sannyasi?
Those who adopt the external garb of a Jogi,
But do not penetrate to the secret,
Are caught again in the net of rebirth.
Mira’s Lord is the courtly Giridhara.
Deign to sever, O Master.
All the knots in her heart.
Mirabai
January 4, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Nice post NC it’s good to feel that connection with Spirit, wherever it comes from. Personally maybe I will get into a bit of “head” stuff here myself, since I am a man after all. I find it interesting that the three biggest teachers in my life of spirituality died in the past year. Maharishi, Sri Chinmoy, and Adi Da. I learned the TM thing when I was 22 and strung out on hard drugs and could not quit them. The TM worked for me. I did it for years. Now there is a lot of controversy around Maharishi too, like maybe he approache Mia Farrow sexually, but that has pretty much been debunked now. Certainly there has been a kind of “cult” grown up around him and the “yogic flying” seems pretty silly. Still TM saved my life and Maharishi and his teachings have been very beneficial to many. I can’t find fault with his ideal of “world peace” through the vehicle of many people meditating. Now it is is easy for the doubt mind to debunk anything “spiritual” and always throw out the baby with the bath water.
When I was a young ballet dancer in New York, I went to an intro with Sri Chinmoy and this was my first experience of a transmission guru. I felt an intense descending light and bliss in his personal company and also meditatiing on his photo. I became a disciple and wore all white and tried to be celibate and hung out with Carlos Santana and John McGlauphlin who were also disciples. Now I could not handle the sort of strictness with that guru and the two musicians also left in their own time, but that does not devalue Sri Chinmoy or his group in any way. he was very respected in the United Nations did some cool yogic tricks with lifting weights and so forth. His transmission was very real and quite blissful also. Also is was pretty cultic around him , as it always is around a charismatic transmission guru. people like to feel blissful.
I came across Adi Da in 1975 in New York when I heard “Garbage and the Goddess” on WBAI radio “IN the Spirit” by lex Hixon. I had a bad flu and was so moved by Da’s laughter, that I had a sudden and spontaneous lifting of the flu. I read the KOL and saw a “A diffiicult Man” and went to California to join the community. This was the only time I have every felt actual transmission from a book. I felt it in all of Adi Da’s books. For most people, including myself, a relationship with Adi Da is a mixed bag. I felt incredible light and clear and conscious bliss and also states of non separation or “non duality” around him just like he always described in his books. There was always a hard edge to being a disciple of his though. And a certain sort of “darkness” , but I would not necessarily say it is the community’s darkness or Adi Da’s darkness. We all have our dark side and I tend toward depression and fear myself. This is a pretty weird life. Of course Adi Da was not your usual teacher or guru. I know people who were around him in the inner stuff and some feel bad about it and others feel just fine. I never was around the inner stuff and only got the “trickle down” Some people say they were hurt. I don’t know any of them personally except for a couple ahnd they are both still very angry. So everyone who was ever with Adi Da is still trying to figure the whole thing out. many play the “gotcha” game and he is easy to play this game with because of his controversial activities. I think it is a good thing to call out abuses in any arena , whether it be political or spiritual. I would say that George Bush has dwarfed any guru in history with his abuse of the whole world . So is goes round and round and we always feel abused by life itself. But Adi Da has passed now, and people are still so angry that they are beating a dead corpse. Wow I would check out this anger thing.
I am pretty versed in the Traditions since I have studied extensively in Buddhism and under Tibetan lamas and also zen and vipassana. These are real practicing schools. I have never been much attracted to the Ramana lineage myself , partially because it can be pretty mental and I have seen the circus that Poonjaji created by creating all these mini gurus like Andrew Cohen and Gangaji, both of which I have seen and I feel to be real “talking school” so to speak, Just my opinion and preference,
But many love Ramana Maharshi and also Sri Nisardagatta and I respect that for their practice with their teachings. There is certainly and incredible radiance coming off the photos of Ramana and this is not to be discounted. I feel that your really can tell something about a teacher by their photo. This is an intuitive matter and not a mental one.
I have also spent quite a bit of tiime around Ammachi , the hugging saint, and there is a very strong transmission with her too. Of course, many people debunk her too. And certainly it is somewhat “cultic” around her. So what .
I gave lots of money to Adi Dam and to Adi Da personally although it was all underground. I am pretty broke now , but i do not regret it . I felt good about it at the time and felt like i was doing some good with my money rather than hoarding something that never really belongs to you to start with. Generosity is a founding principle of Buddhism. Money comes and goes, and we are closer to death every moment, Flick Rahke
January 4, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Good to hear from you again, Flick.
Conradg Says:
“Likewise, when Feel4God presents his own subjective spiritual experience of Adi Da’s or Ramana’s photographs as some kind of proof of his superior credentials for evaluating Da and Ramana, it also means very little. It begs an ad hominem attack from critics, but since I dont’ believe such attacks are meaningful, I decline to make them. But then, seeing him bait myself and others with imputations that our own mystical experience is inferior to his own, and thus our conclusions about Da aren’t meaningful in the way his are, is simply pointless. If anything, as I’ve pointed out, it shows a kind of egoity on his part that undermines his whole claim to being initiated into some kind of egoless experience by Da.”
It’s ironic to me, Conradg, that you twist my words around too many times to recount, and then jump to these absurd conclusions that actually look like an ad hominem attack by you. And where have I ever said anyone’s spiritual experiences are inferior to mine?
You have generalized and exaggerated so many of my statements to such a degree that I tire of pointing this tactic out to you. What is your purpose in doing this other than, ironically enough, an ad hominem attack?
Are the following samples, taken from your recent posts to me, your way that you “decline to make” ad hominem attacks (as you say above)?
Conradg Says:
“Instead, what we get are constant bragging, constant degridation of others’ practices, always trying to frame yourself and Da as the best and greatest, and the rest of us as spiritual dolts who are missing out on these profound gems of wisdom and bliss you are enjoying. In other words, most of what you say has exactly the opposite effect from what you seem to intend. Rather than establishing Da’s credibility, and your own, it diminises his credibility further. Don’t you understand that? Don’t you understand that egolessness actually lacks ego, meaning a lack of self-reference, a lack of any need to prove oneself or demonstrate one’s superiority to others?”
Conradg Says:
“This has been the problem with Adidam from day one. It’s a terribly self-frustrated group of people who can never seem to get their shit together, and the more they fail, the greater their self-inflating claims become. So now Da is gone, with nothing much accomplished, and as a result, we get even more self-inflated claims about the profundity of their egoless practice, from people who seem egoically full of themselves to a laugable degree. I mean, honestly, if you really were experiencing the egoless state of Acausal Divine Reality, is this how you would choose to talk with other people about it? Would you even need to say anything at all? But really, this whole macho competitive spiritual gaming, what’s the point of it? Who is it meant to impress? I’m rather at a loss.”
Conradg Says:
“Instead, it seems to make you more egoic, more inflated, more full of grandiose ideas about yourself and your Guru, rather than humble, simple, and just plain happy.”
Conradg Says:
“lately its been a campaign to show how your own practice in Adidam has made you into a great mystic with powers to see egoity and determine greater-than-heart-on-the-right realization through photographs, and who is able to transcend egoity and realize his own emptiness in a flash of contemplation of Adi Da.”
Conradg Says:
“In fact, Adidam devotees in general could just have ordinary human conversations here. I’ve had plenty of such conversations with Adidam devotees. They aren’t all playing some nutty denialist/triumphalist public relations game. There’s plenty of good, honest just-folks people in Adidam. That would be a lot more radical an approach than what you’ve been doing here so far.”
Conradg Says:
“But this is the problem with so many frustrated people in Adidam like yourself. The lack of a satisfying intimate life, which is what spiritual life is all about even in its most mystical non-dual core, leads so many in Adidam to become all the more aggressive in their claims of superiority and mystical supremacy.”
Conradg, this last one is particularly “interesting” – so now you have concluded that with me there is a “lack of a satisfying intimate life” ???? Wow! This one is over the top, even for you, don’t you think?
So would you please explain again what is and is not an ad hominem attack when it comes to yourself – for I am truly at a loss at least in terms of your examples so far.
January 4, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Eddie B,
“I reckon all points of view can be traced back to one fundamental tenet. All subsequent arguments are built from the acceptance (or belief) of that one tenet and therefore become completely coherent and self-consistent in their formulations. The fundamental tenet of the devotee in Adidam is that Adi Da is, as he himself claimed, the only fully realized being to have appeared. Thus, his teachings and proclamations must be uniquely true and are to be followed and defended.”
I think you are hitting on a very basic fact here, but it doesn’t entirely explain why Adidam has failed to attract people over the years, since technically speaking he didn’t come out with the whole FLO uniqueness doctrine until 1993, and Adidam had been failing to attract people for two decades before that. That fact aside, I think you are hitting on an important aspect of that failure, in that even before the FLO “revelation”, Adi Da had long cultivated an attitude of cultic superiority to others that had pervaded all of Adidam, and poisoned its missionary efforts from the start.
I remember when I first came in 1975, people were already incredibly stuck up and superior in attitude, and putting down all the newbies. It was far worse than any junior high school clique. And that attitude persisted for a very long time, with an almost impenetrable pyramidical hierarchy dominating the scene. I recall going to missionary events back in the 70′s and 80′s, and finding them really very obnoxious and condescending. And that’s when I was a devotee myself.
It seems to me that from the beginning Adi Da tried to “sell” his teachings as an elitist organization of “superior men and women”, appealing to people’s sense of themselves as being among the very greatest and most special people on earth, serving in the highest ranks of the greatest spiritual movement of all time. This attitude led to a very corrupt and self-rationalizing approach to people not involved in Adidam, even to people who were involved in Adidam, but not in the inner circle. And all this created an atmosphere that turned people off in droves.
I was involved in missionary stuff in Adidam at times, and I recall being on a local Marin Missionary board in the 90s. Things were so bad, we couldn’t get more than literally a handful of people to ever show up at our missionary events. We had long conversations about why this was, why people weren’t even interested in hearing what Da had to say. I heard all kinds of rationalizations about the world “not being ready” and so forth, and I just plainly said, “People just aren’t interested in joining a cult, and if we want people to join, we have to stop being a cult.” This of course went over like a lead balloon, but I think it has always been the problem with Adidam.
People in Adidam have a very hard time seeing themselves as a cult, because they see themselves as “superior” to cultism, as if they have “gone beyond” such things. Adi Da has criticized cults, so they think they have “handled that”, and it can’t be the problem. They simply have no distance from themselves, and can’t understand the cultism charge at all. I remember people back at that time even writing things about “Why Adidam is not a cult”, which simply flew in the face of what everyone not in Adidam could almost immediately see about it. But let’s allow that these people are sincere, if blind. They really do think that they belong to the most special spiritual organization ever, with the most special Guru ever. They believed that long before Da formally came out with the 1993 FLO doctrine, but it does explain why that accepted that doctrine so readily.
The fact is, there are very few people in the world who are even remotely interested in joining cults like Adidam. This isn’t even due to the fact that people in general don’t want to join a cult. There are still quite a large number of people who actually do want to join cults. The problem is that even in the world of small cults oriented towards eastern non-dual teachings, Adidam is pretty obnoxious and turns most people off. That’s saying alot.
Now, to give Adidam credit, I’d have to say that the social world within Adidam has changed somewhat for the better over the years. It’s mellowed with age, and isn’t quite as haughty and mean-spirited as it once was. A lot of older devotees are now quite human and friendly, and even kind to newer people, which used to be considered a sign of weakness and immaturity, to be sympathetic to people not high up on the ladder. Yet even so, you’re right that now the whole FLO doctrine has come to pervade Adidam, and enforces internal attitudes that might have otherwise been loosening. Loyal and committed devotees now feel obligated to perpetuate the FLO doctrine and its general notions of intrinsic historical superiority for both Adi Da and his devotees.
This is evident in many of the arguments we encounter here from Adi Da’s devotees. It isn’t really even an argument, but an assertion based on “revelation”. People may point to their subjective personal experience as some kind of support for these notions, but it all boils down to Da’s own “revelation” which some people “receive”, and others do not. If you receive it, you are clearly superior to those who do not, simply because you have demonstrated your ability to receive it. So it’s all very circular and self-justifying, and accounts even for those who don’t agree with it, because they have clearly not developed the capacity to receive the revelation, and are simply of an inferior spiritual capacity or level.
This is of course even reinforced within Adidam by a complex series of “levels of practice” that have always reserved space for only a few at the very top, and a pyramidal hierarchy stretching downward from there, for those whose recognition of Da is of a “lesser” degree. And of course this encourages people to cultivate all the various signs and symbols, the language and jargon, of “recognition” of Da, in order to rise up the pyramid. So the strict conventions of cultural and institutional hierarchy require this acceptance of doctrine based on Da’s revelation, which in practice means accepting his written word as the authoritative word of God, and accepting one’s own internal mystical experience as being some kind of definitive revelation of its own, demonstrating the truth of Da’s teachings.
When such people go out and speak in public, they can’t help but communicate these internalized attitudes of superiority, even if they try to put a friendly face on them. And so regardless of how “nice” Adidam people might seem, most people are still turned off, and don’t really want to join up. They can see the signs of a cult right off. They don’t even have to hear the official FLO doctrines said aloud, they can feel the general mood of a cult, of people who have rationalized their acceptance of doctrine by faith, and who believe themselves to be superior because of that. And people instinctively distrust such people, such groups, and such leaders as Adi Da. They can smell the opportunity for authoritarian abuse right off the bat, and it isn’t very appealing unless the person has some internal psychological inclination to be a part of such a dynamic. There certainly are such people, but even among that subset, the number of people interested in being part of the specific dynamic Adidam has going is really very tiny.
And this is why Adidam remains so small. They do get new people in small numbers, but they still have an internal attrition rate that more than makes up for that. Even the membership they still have is hardly “gung ho” either. A whole lot of the current membership is just sort of hanging on through inertia and long-standing relationships. They may still believe in the basic “revelation”, but they don’t really show a lot of enthusiasm for it, for the practice as given. Some people have quoted current Adidam insiders as saying that the total number of genuinely “practicing” devotees is around 100, which seems about right, with maybe 1000 or less on the books as formal students. That too would sound about right, given the general pyramidal structure of Adidam’s internal hierarchy. But even those numbers are probably in flux. Many people get a hard on for practice for a few years, then often burn out and go to the sidelines for an extended “break”, even while remaining within the group. Then maybe they give it a shot again, while others take their break. A few stay on the deep inside for a very long time, but coast on their reputation. And of course similar fluctuations occur everywhere along the pyramid.
How it will play out with Da no longer physically alive is anyone’s guess. I would assume that it would get friendlier but also less binding. Without Da around, there’s not that superhuman draw anymore, and the community and its message of superiority, as we can see, is not very attractive, or even very credible. I would imagine a slow erosion over time. And then, after a period of adjustment, I’d imagine some kind of resurgence of the whole superiority meme, as the higher echelons of Adidam start to proclaim their own realizations. I don’t really see how Adidam could survive otherwise, except as a caretaker institution for the sanctuaries and the aging devotee population. I sure hope the Trust funds are opened up to help care for these guys as they get old, because a lot of them are going to be shit our of luck otherwise. We’ll see if that level of compassion ever sinks in with this group.
January 4, 2009 at 8:24 pm
FFaC, even though I will probably get accused of bragging or breaking some protocol for posting about a spiritual experience, I think it is pertinent to this conversation that we have been in for a while. Heheh, now that I think of it, you have already spoken of some of your spiritual experiences (which I appreciated hearing about), so here goes.
FFaC Says:
“I remain skeptical that the process of surrendering via a kind of invasive spiritual force coming down from above actually leads to the same witness and heart on the right experiences Ramana Maharshi described rather than subtle ones. In part because such invasive experiences, as Da himself proved in his time with Muktananda, can produce all sorts of subtle experiences and mental creations that are not exactly what they appear. As I have said, Da is more clearly what you are looking for at this time based on your expectations, experiences and beliefs. And if I believed what you think about your state was absolutely true, I would choose a remote practice of that type even if I found the Da community problematic.”
This is actually part of what I find unique about Adi Da’s Transmission. When I was in my early 20s (before even hearing of Adi Da) I had an experience of being consciousness, and I witnessed my association with the circle in the energy body-mind, and aspects of this association animated itself over and over and over. With every descent through the frontal part of my energy body, consciousness was associated with grosser and grosser embodiment as I descended – as more and more meat-like existence, to the point of even being associated with very very simple forms of life – e.g., becoming a slug on a jungle floor, only to be squashed to infinity when the energy was at the lowest point in the circle.
From there consciousness would ascend upwards via this energy body, seeing innumerable incarnations, and getting more and more “monk-like” or traditionally renounced of the body, as I ascended higher and higher. This included many blissful visions, and also a sense of “righteous” avoidance of all the “lower” forms of existence, debating about the dharma from some fixed point-of-view, etc., etc., – until the lesson/suffering of holding on to any ascended position was understood and thereby released.
As this ascended “righteousness” (over against the lower body) came to a crisis, there would be this release of all the ascended movement of body-mind experiences, samadhis, dharmas, etc. And there would inevitably be a release of all the forms of separate ego-I that I was associated with both downwardly and upwardly, followed by the falling into the root or heart of consciousness as ecstatic Love and egolessness. This was tacitly understood to be “home” for it was conscious love-bliss reality. But inevitably there would be an “involution” or a reforming of the separate ego-I, and the moment I became a self-aware “I” or point of attention, other such points of attention would also arise with an apparent life of their own in the space of consciousness. Then I would rise out of this blissful root and there would be identification with the circle again, descending down, down, down, then back up again through all the endless seeking attempts to be free of this, followed by recognizing that all positions or points-of-view were egoic, and finally falling once again into the heart-root of consciousness as just described. Over and over and over this cycle was occurring – and it was maddening in its automaticity!
About nine months after this experience, upon my return from India, I met Adi Da, and participated in His Teaching demonstration of “Garbage and the Goddess” and its lessons – all about these experiences and throwing them all away. His consideration of the entire body-mind and the heart on the right helped me to understand this experience, and also the Garbage and the Goddess experiences and lessons, far more deeply than I ever would have on my own.
The reason I bring all of this up, FFaC, is because I am aware of what many descending and ascending spiritual forces feel like from a traditional standpoint – and they always occurred for me via assuming the position of the body-mind and getting in touch with that force through one or another technique or practice. In my experience, they are not the same as the “Atma Nadi Shakti” that Adi Da Transmits.
In the practice Adi Da has offered, that ego-I position is to be released from the beginning in recognition of Who He Is, and on the basis of this recognition, I grow in radical devotion, right life disciplines, and further allow His Descent as the Conscious Light of Atma Nadi Shakti to pervade the body-mind as Love-Bliss. This Conscious Love-Bliss feels similarly to what I experienced in the above-mentioned account, and certainly during the Garbage and the Goddess period, but now It is felt much more “in life”, especially in the meditation hall, when there is the tacit recognition of the Reality that Adi Da Is. I am still a student-beginner at all of this, but others have also testified along similar lines. Of course, each practitioner must discover it for themselves, and I do find it useful to hear what others experience both in Adidam and not.
FFaC Says:
“He said that the Heart is not really located in the body and that from the highest standpoint it is equally untrue to say that the ‘I’-thought arises and subsides into this centre on the right of the chest.”
FFaC Says:
“Because Sri Ramana Maharshi often said ‘Find the place where the “I” arises’ or ‘Find the source of the mind’, many people interpreted these statements to mean that they should concentrate in this particular centre while doing self-enquiry. Sri Ramana Maharshi rejected this interpretation many times by saying that the source of the mind or the ‘I’ could only be discovered through attention to the ‘I’-thought and not through concentration on a particular part of the body. He did sometimes say that putting attention on this centre is a good concentration practice, but he never associated it with self-enquiry. He also occasionally said that meditation on the Heart was an effective way of reaching the Self, but again, he never said that this should be done by concentrating on the Heart-centre. Instead he said that one should meditate on the Heart ‘as it is’. The Heart ‘as it is’ is not a location, it is the immanent Self and one can only be aware of its real nature by being it. It cannot be reached by concentration.”
You brought this up before and it is clear to me that the practice of Self-enquiry is not about concentrating on the right heart. As you say “the source of the mind or the ‘I’ could only be discovered through attention to the ‘I’-thought and not through concentration on a particular part of the body”. But also for this reason Self-enquiry appears to still be a seeker’s method because it assumes egoity and the need for liberation from it via a practice of attending to, in this case, the I-thought. Adi Da has always taught that identifying with intrinsic egolessness (Satsang) is the necessary basis for all practices in Adidam. Regardless, I do understand that using the mind to focus on the heart-root is only more supporting of that very same mind.
Thank you for your very interesting and balanced posts, FFaC.
January 4, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Feel4God,
I am fine with you sharing your experience, and your interpretation of it. I do not doubt your position is based on your experiences.
To cover your last point first, Self-inquiry does not really presume egoicity, despite what Adidam teaches. It is understood from the start that there is nothing really to be attained and no separate I. In truth there is never a time when there is not awareness of the Self because the Self is just Awareness without subject or object limitations. But obviously we habitually superimpose on this native Awareness a loci of perspective and separate experiences at a level deeper than the conscious mind and thus entwine the two. So we can’t just use thinking methods to penetrate that illusion, and when we think or feel I, we automatically entwine the illusory self with the ever present Self. What Self-inquiry does as Ramana Maharshi describes it is to begin to disentangle the conjoined perception of the egoic I from the underlying Self, not take attention off of the Self and onto an illusory ego to resolve it. To use the Ramana Maharshi’s analogy of the rope and the snake, the snake is only an image we we create out of the underlying vision of the rope. All that is necessary is to put attention on the rope-snake juxtaposition and not just assume it is a snake, and the snake is seen to be a mere appearance. Similarly, Bhakti as Ramana Maharshi describes it puts attention on the Self in the form of Satguru or God juxtaposed against the separate I sense, and the sense of egoic I dissolves because it is revealed to be an illusion. In either case, the underlying Reality gradually outshines the egoic self, and what was once seen as primary fades into a mere pattern appearing in an underlying Unity, not separate from the Self. There is no dilemma, no postulation of two selves, etc. It simply undermines the force of the ego knot until it dissolves.
Will respond to the rest shortly.
January 4, 2009 at 11:33 pm
“You brought this up before and it is clear to me that the practice of Self-enquiry is not about concentrating on the right heart. As you say “the source of the mind or the ‘I’ could only be discovered through attention to the ‘I’-thought and not through concentration on a particular part of the body”. But also for this reason Self-enquiry appears to still be a seeker’s method because it assumes egoity and the need for liberation from it via a practice of attending to, in this case, the I-thought. Adi Da has always taught that identifying with intrinsic egolessness (Satsang) is the necessary basis for all practices in Adidam. Regardless, I do understand that using the mind to focus on the heart-root is only more supporting of that very same mind.”
I don’t think you understand what self-enquiry is about yet, but seem determined to see it as a form of seeking. Ramana has made it clear that it is not. Rather than it presuming the existence of the ego, it makes no presumptions at all. Self-enquiry simply inspects what actually is, rather than assuming anything to be the case. It inspects this presumption of “I”, and sees that it is not there at all, it is merely a thought.
You seem to be making the same mistake with this reference to the “I” thought that you made with the “heart on the right”, assuming there’s really any such thing there to meditate on, or that self-enquiry actually involves “meditation on the “I”-thought. The inspection of the “I” shows precisely the opposite, that there is nothing there, nothing but a feeling of “I”-ness. What is meditated on then is not the “I”-thought itself, but the source of this.
It’s also quite inaccurate to imply that self-enquiry is just some method one does “outside of satsang”. Anyone who knows anything about Ramana knows this is not true. Ramana made it quite clear that Satsang was an essential basis for self-enquiry, he just also made it clear that it was not at all necessary to be in the physical presence of the Guru in order to practice self-enquiry in Satsang. He made it abundantly clear to everyone that he recommended self-enquiry to that he didn’t need to be physically present for it to be effective, that his Grace was constantly and always available to everyone. He also said that the evidence of his grace was not some kind of yogic energy, but simply the desire to practice self-enquiry at all. If one has the desire, one has already received Ramana’s grace, and one is free to practice self-enquiry.
The basis of self-enquiry, Ramana has said many times, is the Self itself coming awake in onself, as oneself. THe Guru works not from the outside so much, but from the devotee’s own heart. So if there is a presumption, it is that the awakened Guru is already alive in one’s own heart, at the very core of one’s being, and is not to be sought from without. Likewise, one does not even really seek the Guru within, one simply pays attention to the Self, to the Source from which even the “I” arises, and lets the Self do the work. This is why Ramana often referred to his path as “the lazy man’s way”, because it required very little to realize what one already is. It’s not without effort, to be sure, ot does required a concentrated inspection, but much less effort than a path of seeking to “become” something one isn’t already would require.
So the idea that self-enquiry is a search is just part of the very delusion that prevents self-enquiry from being effective in the first place. One can certainly engage self-enquiry as a search, but that approach actually makes self-enquiry ineffective. When self-enquiry comes alive in the heart as the Guru, however, it has no quality of seeking to it, no attempt to “find” the heart, or reality. Rather, it is reality itself awakening as one’s very Self and Being. The devotee’s participation in this process is very simply and basic – naturally giving one’s attention to the Self and Source of this process in the heart. This is not seeking, but merely surrendering to what is already alive and awake at the core of one’s very being and awareness.
Whether the practice in Adidam actually is egoless and searchless is a question for individuals to ask themselves, just as it is with Ramana or any other Guru or tradition. But this notion of radical practice that transcend seeking from the start has been part of the Advaitic tradition for a very long time. It didn’t begin with Ramana, or Da. If anything, Da has merely adapted this ancient teaching about the inherent transcendence of teaching to his own approach. Whether it ever actually produces a realization beyond seeking and founded in inherent freedom is yet to be seen. As dharma, however, it’s perfectly acceptable, except when exclusive claims are made that Da is the only one to approach spiritual practice in such a fashion, and everyone else fails to understand this matter of seeking and transcend it.
January 4, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Greetings & blessings from Los Angeles. Thanks for your comments about your relationship to Adi Da, Flick, & encouraging words about my article about living with Adi Da’s coummunity from ’73-77 (called “The Path of No Seeking,” can be found at http://www.maieutikos.com-a.googlepages.com/home.) I hope that it offers some balance, which Flick mentions.
I loved the Master and his teachings. I was never a blind sheep who does anything the Master says or uncritically accepts every teaching. I accepted and acknowledged my true spiritual relationship with Franklin Jones as a genuine spiritual teacher.
Franklin, for me, was the person who led me into the practice deep meditation in the Hindu tradition which I had first encountered at the Vedanta Temple in Hollywood. Franklin worked in this tradition with his own teachers and other teachers from India, such as Ramana Maharshi. In those early years, Franklin came to me as a gift, a source of humor, wisdom, yogic initiations into deeper meditation, a delving into the mystical within the varying great traditions, with a respect that there are many sacred teachers & teachings.” Adi Da said “All is Sacred” and St. Ignatius encouraged me to “Find God in All Things.”
I was very close to Adi Da, so when in the mid-80’s the media gave full uncritical coverage to some stories of dissidents in the community—they were only allegations—I was shocked and disappointed. In the 70’s I didn’t feel at all attached to conventional sexuality; I wanted to go with the “free love” currents of those years. Looking back I have to admit it was a failed experiment, but I don’t regret trying to live “in a hippie commune” while doing spiritual practices. I was never encouraged to abuse my wife. Rather I was encouraged to understand the anger inside and addiction to power that wanted “to dominate” anyone. I felt the sexual experimentation was between consenting adults, who always have the freedom to say yes or no. I wasn’t a dissident regarding sexual experimentation, but I was a dissident saying I just don’t believe in everything Franklin, Bubba would say and along with my best friend, Marcus Holly, never felt any compulsion or “thought control.” In the very early days, I felt questioning, even disagreement, was welcome. I openly said, for example, that I don’t believe in reincarnation.
By the time I began to see what I thought were mistakes in the direction that the community was taking. I felt that the attitude “we’re the only ones; I’m God exclusively” got the upper hand. Others felt as I did and several left like I did, but I didn’t leave with feelings of anger from or for the teacher or the community. Rather I felt that the community and Adi Da were forming a cult around the guru that was suffocating the teaching. It was the end of a cycle along the journey of growth.
I’ve never regretted those 4 years with Adi Da—they were great, but by 1977, my gut was telling me to leave. I was able to say good-bye and state my reasons for leaving the community. I didn’t like that the community was closing itself off. For example, one time, fellow former Jesuit Jerry Brown, came to the land to visit with Bubba but was turned away, for some dumb reason. I said this was such bullshit and my buddy, Marcus Holly, couldn’t get it either: “What the hell is Bubba afraid of. People like Jerry and Bubba would mutually benefit from connection.” I said that I didn’t understand why we were starting to get cultish when the teaching was totally against surrounding “anything”—a guru, a teaching, a drug, power—with absolute devotion.
Buddhists sometimes discuss gradual or sudden enlightenment. In early days, it was stressed that all of us share the same enlightenment, to be discovered through spiritual practice. Rumi says it so clearly: “Work. Keep digging your well. Don’t think about getting off from work. Water is there somewhere…Submit to a daily practice…Your loyalty to that is a ring on the door. Keep knocking… and the joy inside will eventually open a window and look out to see who’s there.” A relationship with a spiritual teacher can be authentically devotional, but I think that it is private, humble, not bloated up, and, as in my case, perhaps lived intensely for only a limited period of time. But even in 1977, the community around Master Da was still predominantly about spiritual practice, service, study, community living, yoga & sitting in meditation on a regular basis.
I confess that I loved Adi Da until the day he died, and that love will continue in some form for the rest of my life. He was a special teacher who showed me so much about meditation and the “Path of No Seeking.” At the same time, Adi Da, for me, was always only a human being, like any other guru.
Thanks for allowing me to share with you and your readers. There will be places where we don’t agree entirely, but perhaps others where the similarities of our thinking far outweighs any differences. This may become real conversation. Please feel free to communicate/disagree/encourage/blast me at morganzc@hotmail.com. or on this very interesting forum.
Peace to all in 2009! May Adi Da rest in Peace.
January 4, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Well a big thing that I have learned hanging out a bit on this blog is that sprituallity is purely a matter of intellect and the conceptual mind. Also busting all the gurus and cults. All gurus except for Ramana Maharshi are off. Devotion and bhakti are for cultists and fools and people who don’t think on our usual western lines of thought. Well I have never been much of a bhakti myself, but the purely intellectual and purely mind critical approach to spirtuality is a bit thick for me here . oh well whatever each to his own. Keep up the vindictive anger and the spiritual bantering. Unfortunately it just keeps producing more of same Flick Rahke over and out
January 5, 2009 at 4:43 am
Feel4God wrote…
> Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only
> Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent
> with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint.
> What can be more non-dual than that statement?
It’s self-contradictory to suggest that one thing can be “more non-dual” than something else.
Such a statement is literally Orwellian; i.e., it’s like saying, “Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
January 5, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Interesting thread, I keep coming everyday!
The statement that Da was the highest “realizer” ever is preposterous seen from nonduality. The view that God is all there is, is not much in harmony with “but I am more God than anyone or anything else”. A true jnani is a mirror: someone sending your awareness and devotion back to your Self. When understanding settles, thankfulness to the guru remains and that is parabhakti, nondual devotion.
I think this alone (“The One and Only Divine Person among all and All”) may prevent masses of people to approach his message at all, because the statement is not only against understanding of nonduality but contrary to most people’s sensibilities: there’s been enough messiahs to go for another one.
Another obstacle for Da’s message (does he have one? -aside the statement about his unmatched avatarhood) spreading through is the (in my opinion) unreadability and convoluted style of his texts. An intricate way of expression does not translate into more insightful or valuable, rather the opposite may happen: the ideas remain veiled, obscured and even absent under a varnish of solemnity.
Namaste
Clara Llum
January 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm
Stuart Says:
January 5, 2009 at 4:43 am
Feel4God wrote…
> Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only
> Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent
> with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint.
> What can be more non-dual than that statement?
It’s self-contradictory to suggest that one thing can be “more non-dual” than something else.
Such a statement is literally Orwellian; i.e., it’s like saying, “Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.”
Stuart
***Stuart: you just don’t get it.
This is the most non-dual statement that can be made.
What can be more non-dual than:
First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Realizer as compared to the Second, Second to Last and Many Sixth Stage Realizers.
What can be more non-dual than Only Seventh as compared to six, five, four, three, two, and one?
What can be more non-dual than being Absolutely Infallible?
What can be more non-dual than being Absolutely Unchallengeable?
What can be more non-dual than Absolute Control?
What can be more non-dual than use of Capitalizations vs. use of non-capitalizations.
And what can be more non-dual that First, Last, and Only vs. 5 billion slugs just waiting to be enlightened.
Besides this is being posted on a non-duality.com blog, what can be more non-dual than that?
It a paradox and a koan all rolled into one. It’s meant to be intuited. Be a bhakti, man! You won’t get this with reason or inquire or “even from a conceptual standpoint”. Have faith!
Orwellian, Fascism? no fuc*en way: — not when it’s Absolute.
Pass this guy another joint.
Raymond
January 5, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Flick,
Great seeing you here. How’s your health?
Any forum that is confined to words on a screen is going to be mostly “intellectual” in nature. Bhakti is the secret treasure of spiritual life, and for that reason it is not usually on display in public forums. You can’t see someone’s love on a computer screen. Doesn’t mean it’s not there.
I guess you’re rejoining Adidam now?
January 5, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Hey conrad I am doing o.k. although I have this bizarre flu that I cannot seem to shake. I would rather be surfing the ocean instead of the internet and dancing ecstatically rather than trying to to talk about it. Thanks for that post and clarifying it a bit for me. I am going to post again later and explain more what I feel is good about Adi Da and some other gurus, including Ramana. I am laughing as I write this when you ask me if I am rejoining Adidam now. It does sound like that doesn’t it? No I would rather watch from a distance and see what happens. I do feel some spiritual connection to Adi Da and other spiritual types which I will explain later. I mean I was on a retreat with Ammachi when Adi Da passed on. There were two friends of mine there too, both who only refer to
adi da as “Frank” and really hate him. Anyhow I was very “blissed out” on the retreat with Amma and did not really feel any grief over the passing of Adi
da, even though he has meant a lot to me over the years. No I am not rejoining Adidam now. I am not saying I would never be a part of it in the future. The future is uncertain.
hey Conrad I hope you and your family are doing very well and of course , do not take anything I say here personally, as we go way back and I like you and your family very much. I also respect your spiritual practice and have nothing against anyone on this forum Flick Rahke
January 5, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Feel4God,
“In the practice Adi Da has offered, that ego-I position is to be released from the beginning in recognition of Who He Is, and on the basis of this recognition, I grow in radical devotion, right life disciplines, and further allow His Descent as the Conscious Light of Atma Nadi Shakti to pervade the body-mind as Love-Bliss. This Conscious Love-Bliss feels similarly to what I experienced in the above-mentioned account, and certainly during the Garbage and the Goddess period, but now It is felt much more “in life”, especially in the meditation hall, when there is the tacit recognition of the Reality that Adi Da Is. I am still a student-beginner at all of this, but others have also testified along similar lines. Of course, each practitioner must discover it for themselves, and I do find it useful to hear what others experience both in Adidam and not.”
I’m not interesting in bashing or downgrading the Adidam practice, only in getting to the bottom of its various claims. For example, when you say “In the practice Adi Da has offered, that ego-I position is to be released from the beginning in recognition of Who He Is…” it’s evident from your description that this doesn’t mean you stop animating the ego from the beginning. Clearly you and all other Adidam devotees don’t actually become instantly and literally egoless as soon as you practice contemplation of Adi Da through “searchless beholding”. Aware of your innate egolessness perhaps, but only intuitively, rather than as something approaching full conscious realization.
So I’m not sure how this is really any different than what goes on in other non-dual approach that take the radical viewpoint that we and all beings are already One at heart? Your approach is clearly of the bhakti type, contemplating the Guru in order to arrive at this egoless intuition, but is that really the only way to do it? Ramana and others have always endorsed this particular approach as being valid, and there are many examples of it in the traditions, but I’m not sure why you feel that it is the only true path free of seeking, since it appears that there are many others that arrive at a similar direct method that relies on one’s immediate intuition of the already free condition, some leaning towards the Bhakti approach, others towards the Jnani approach, but always transcending those characteristics in a direct intuition that transcends the seeker’s path. So really, how is the Adidam approach actually different?
I’m not even sure how this notion that Adidam practice begins with the “seventh stage” makes sense. Certainly there is an intuition of this Reality from the beginning in any non-dual path. But even the Adidam practice clearly leaves one still unrealized, and thus a seeker by definition. It used to be that an essential aspect of Adi Da’s teaching was that we need to recognize that we are seeking, that all our activity is seeking. Likewise, Adi Da used to define genuinely seventh stage approaches and teaches as ones that simply do not offer any method of realization at all, that do not acknowledge anything other than realization already fully conscious and awake. He used to acknowledge that his own teaching was not of that nature, that he addressed all sorts of ways of “becoming realized”, which made even his own teaching methods less than fully “seventh stage” in nature – at best “6th tol 7th state transitional”. So I’m not sure how these claims you are making about the Adidam practice fit into that picture.
Also, iin relation to what Stuart quoted from you above:
“Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint. What can be more non-dual than that statement?”
Are you saying here that Adi Da’s FLO statements apply to all realizers of the non-dual? That if I were to say, for example, that Ramana or Jesus or Buddha were the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept-Realizer, you would agree with that statement? Is there no literal, historical truth to Da’s claim, or is it merely a statement of non-dual reality that is true for all? Because it hasn’t seemed to be promoted by Da in this fashion.
I’m certainly sympathetic to this way of reading Da’s statements, but I don’t recall that he was. Back in the 90′s Da personally sent me out to do some missionary work, and the first gig they gave me was a little local cable TV appearance on one of those tiny spirituality shows, being interviewed by a woman who was becoming involved with Adidam herself. I was supposed to promote Carolyn Lee’s then new book “The Promised God-Man is Here”. I gave a rather radical interpretation of that title, saying that it referred to the radical point of view that we are not to wait for some promised God-Man, but to recognize that what has always been “promised” is already here, and that this is the real message of Adi Da’s teaching. The interview went over very well from the audience perspective, but when the Adidam missionary staff saw it, they went nuts and that was the end of that for me. So I’m not really sure that what you are saying here represents the official Adidam viewpoint.
It’s funny, but when I recall how I got into that position, it was due to a presentation I gave on the Mummery at the first “Mummery Conference” at the Sactuary, back in 1996 or 97 I think. It went over very well, and some of Da’s daughters told him about it (He was staying at the MOA at the time), and his response was “send him out on the road”, the only cavaet being that I had to get a haircut (I had shoulder length hair at the time). So it’s arguable that Da was actually sympathetic with my viewpoint. It’s funny also in that my presentation seemed to be generally thought of by the audience as the best of the series, and favored by Da himself, and yet when it came time to publish these presentations in a book form, the editors refused to publish mine, saying that it was full of too many “heresies” that needed to be edited out. I would have no part of that, so it was never published, which was fine with me.
Anyway, if you really believe that Da’s FLO claims are simply a way of declaring non-dualism as being radically Single, that’s fine. It’s just that when you argue the historical relationship to non-dual realizers like Ramana, you seem not to apply this perspective in this fashion, but instead make it an historical fact unique to Da himself, and only to Da himself. So maybe you could clarify that.
January 5, 2009 at 6:58 pm
FFaC Says:
“To cover your last point first, Self-inquiry does not really presume egoicity, despite what Adidam teaches. It is understood from the start that there is nothing really to be attained and no separate I. In truth there is never a time when there is not awareness of the Self because the Self is just Awareness without subject or object limitations. But obviously we habitually superimpose on this native Awareness a loci of perspective and separate experiences at a level deeper than the conscious mind and thus entwine the two. So we can’t just use thinking methods to penetrate that illusion, and when we think or feel I, we automatically entwine the illusory self with the ever present Self.”
Conradg Says:
“I don’t think you understand what self-enquiry is about yet, but seem determined to see it as a form of seeking. Ramana has made it clear that it is not. Rather than it presuming the existence of the ego, it makes no presumptions at all. Self-enquiry simply inspects what actually is, rather than assuming anything to be the case. It inspects this presumption of “I”, and sees that it is not there at all, it is merely a thought.”
I do understand that Ramana often spoke in terms of not seeking, but He also very often said things like the following:
V.: Am I to concentrate on the thought: ‘Who am I?’
Ramana: It means that you must concentrate to see where the ‘I’ thought arises. Instead of looking outwards, look inwards and see where the ‘I’ thought arises.
Ramana: Think ‘I’ ‘I’ ‘I’ and hold to that one thought to the exclusion of all others.
Ramana’s books have many similar statements and so regardless of His Realization, His teaching will tend to “suggest” seeking in many aspirants just based on His words. It takes some “generous extrapolation” to say that Ramana Maharshi always spoke in the most radical terms regarding the practice of Self-enquiry and no-seeking. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but more likely it was a result of His tradition, those whom He was addressing, etc.
And of course it is always a most personal matter – I just find Adi Da’s Teaching regarding Transcendental spiritual practice most direct, never indicating anything even remotely suggestive of seeking via concentrating on some thought, form, or any “thing” whatsoever.
After some initial preparation, student-beginners in Adidam are instructed by Adi Da to simply behold Reality Itself and Its intrinsic egolessness – and as the Witness Consciousness, notice whatever is arising. In this asana of searchless beholding, the Master invades the body-mind with Atma Nadi Shakti, grants the samadhi of the “Thumbs”, and prepares the student for the “Perfect Practice”. Naturally, we egos make even the simplest instructions into a search, but Adi Da’s Teaching is very active in undermining that.
Another difference I see between Adi Da and Ramana is their modes of Transmission. Adi Da often spoke, even in the Method of the Siddhas, of working above the head and also prior to the heart (on the right) of the devotee. The invasion of the body-mind, and simultaneously prior to the heart, by His Brightness (Atma Nadi Shakti), directly Communicates the nature of Reality as Conscious Light and Love-Bliss, in my experience – but only during those times when I am abiding in radical recognition of Who He Is, intrinsically egoless.
From what I have read, Ramana worked in Silence, via the heart, with his devotees, but not also above the head. This difference may be indicative of any number of things, and is another discussion we could have at some time perhaps.
So these do indicate a difference in how they both Work. But I was never in Ramana Maharshi’s personal company, and though I recognized Him as Self-Realized upon reading His teaching and seeing His photos, I never fully felt Him to be my Spiritual Master. I would be very interested to hear more from those who have had experiences of Ramana’s way of working.
Conrad, I just saw your most recent post about FLO, etc., and will look to respond to that tomorrow – as tonight is, dare I say it here? – intimate night with wifey!
January 6, 2009 at 12:06 am
Feel4God,
Pressed for time again today. Will try and respond to your appreciated comments later. A few quick points:
“It takes some “generous extrapolation” to say that Ramana Maharshi always spoke in the most radical terms regarding the practice of Self-enquiry and no-seeking. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but more likely it was a result of His tradition, those whom He was addressing, etc.”
Ramana Maharshi was hardly as limited as Da claimed. When dealiing with those ready for enlightenment, he skillfully aided them to that point. When dealing with those who had ingrained ideas, he gently led them to the next level rather than telling them to do something else. Those who belived in a personal god he expressed his guidance accordingly. Even with those opposed to him he skillfully dealt with their karmic needs. So it makes no sense to refer to comments Ramana Maharshi made in isolation and then say that he failed to give them the right practice. In all this, he was very clear to anyone who paid attention and was ready to hear it the whole process was a joke necessary because of clinging to an illusory egoic state of mental identification. To really evaluate the guidance, we would have to look at their karmic needs and practices from the eye of jnana before making these criticisms. It is well known that Ramana Maharshi for example made some subtle modifications to the original Nan Yar book because some of the language reflected tendencies of the author and not the purest sense of what he was saying, for example. The point being that even a lowly practice, aided by the Presence, matured over appropriate time karmically.
“In this asana of searchless beholding, the Master invades the body-mind with Atma Nadi Shakti, grants the samadhi of the “Thumbs”, and prepares the student for the “Perfect Practice”. Naturally, we egos make even the simplest instructions into a search, but Adi Da’s Teaching is very active in undermining that.”
Ok, but how has this invasion proven more effective than Ramana’s approach ultimately? It is one think to displace the attention into higher levels where everything seems boundless. But in his original description of this experience in himself, even Da one said was simply a transfer of attention to higher level body forms. What I suggest this shows again is a kind of spatial and energetic component to the experiences you describe, which admittedly include a shifted sense of self, but may not be full egolessness. What Da essentially teaches is that he will duplicate his own ascending path and the fall into the heart for you, which since you are not doing it, undermines the ego. In comparsion, Ramana Maharshi’s approach works from the center of everywhere so to speak.
“From what I have read, Ramana worked in Silence, via the heart, with his devotees, but not also above the head. This difference may be indicative of any number of things, and is another discussion we could have at some time perhaps.”
You believe that this work above the head, again I think though you do not a spatial and energetic reference not inherently non-dualistic, is critical, because that represents Da’s own way of doing things. He never practiced any form of Self inquiry himself, he himself sought to duplicate and absorb, and then go beyond, the states of those who aided him on the path during his sadhana. What is hard for you to understand is that it is taught outside of Adidam that the Ramana Maharshi “silence” has no limitations. It works everywhere, on every level and dimension, beyond time and space, on all levels above and below, dissolving all in the Heart as it is–it is just another name for the Self, Heart, or Pure Awareness. It is subtle and admittedly harder to feel that what Da does, but it is not without effect on all centers, including those above the head. I believe that some are just not attracted to it and want more visible evidence which is likely faster with Da’s approach, although again his more invasive approach is dependent on his being fully realized as he claims, something we do not fully agree on. But I now think, from my experience with both, Ramana Maharshi’s approach is more durable and more powerful over the longer term. Just my opinion of course. My main point is that it is not clear just because Ramana Maharshi didn’t focus on the center(s) above the head that his approach wasn’t just wholistic considering his teaching that all of this does not really arise outside of the Heart. I prefer to look at it as analogous to the ajanis appearing within the center of a bubbles in an boundless ocean of consciousness. Within this bubble, every action has a reaction because it is functionally separated from the ocean. The object is to burst the bubble harmoniously and simultaneously by dissolving the bubble’s barrier itself in the ocean. That doesn’t necessarily require an invasion from any “where”, and it is “done” by the Self.
January 6, 2009 at 6:53 am
oh my!
haven’t been here for a while. i used to find the exchanges between conradg and feel4god, the great feeler, quite entertaining but soon it felt like watching a rather pointless tennis match (as somebody put it). not much has changed i guess.
but it is quite alright! everything is just the way it is and it could not possibly be any other way!
having read through some of the latest posts, it is just so obvious that the great feeler doesn’t know the first thing about non-duality. really, feel4god. you don’t.
so, let me run you through the basics:
non-duality. NO duality. there is only ONE – WITHOUT a second. ONLY one. without a second.
and without a third. no! not even a third.
without a fourth, fifth, sixth and most definitely WITHOUT A SEVENTH.
how could there be any duality in non-duality? it wouldn’t be non-duality then, would it?
“yes, but” the great feeler says.
yes. the “yes, but”! i know those! i know the feeling. i really do. the mind just cannot make any sense of it – whatsoever. so it does what it always does. it divides. it throws in unreal and invented concepts. it yes-buts.
“yes, but”, the feeler says, i see more than one thing.
“yes, but”, i feel this and that.
“yes, but”, adi da has said, and he was the greatest, so he must know!
“yes, but mind-fucking is sooo nice!”.
know that one too. i have a very well-trained and active mind. mind-fucking is fun. no doubt.
but when it comes to non-duality it is UTTERLY fruitless.
“yes, but, that is just talking-school!”.
there it goes! the feelers greatest argument!
guess what? there is no talking school in non-duality.
no, not even your beloved talking school exists. not really.
it is as real as the dream. as that feature-film we are watching all the time. just a movie. just a dream.
there is no duality in non-duality.
no time. no me. no you. no transmitter. all concepts.
there is no duality in one-ness. no, not even a tiny little bit!
only one – without a second. and no, not even your oh so beloved seventh bullshit. nope. no room for it in non-duality. out of the window. just nothing appearing as something.
so, dear feel4god, now you know a little something about non-duality. except – you don’t! there is nothing to know and nobody to know it! it is all fun and games. neither meaningful, nor meaningless. it just IS!
and so is your tennis match here. you can’t help it. conradg can’t help it. it could not possibly be any other way.
there is no duality in non-duality. not even a tiny little bit!
January 6, 2009 at 9:33 am
Feel4God,
I do understand that Ramana often spoke in terms of not seeking, but He also very often said things like the following:
Yes, Ramana often did speak this way, because he was not a talking school teacher, he was aware of the needs of his devotees to receive more than a mere admonition to be egoless, or meditate on his own egolessness.
Ramana’s primary teaching was not self-enquiry, it was silence. But he was aware that for most, silence was not sufficient, they required verbal instruction. His simplest and most common instruction was simply “Be quiet” or “Be still”, instructing his devotees to be attentive to him in silence. Or, he would simply say “Be as you are”. To him, this was a completely sufficient teaching in itself, but he was aware it was not enough for most devotees. He was aware that they could not immediately grasp the egoless condition of their own being, and needed some instruction on how to do this. He was aware that they lived in the mind-world of duality, and they needed some way to be directed out of that mess. Even if they could intuitively grasp something of Ramana’s presence and silence, they returned constantly to the mind, and remained trapped there as it were. So for these people Ramana taught self-enquiry.
Let’s be perfectly clear that all teachers who actually speak through words, including Da, are not teaching “true” non-dualism. All verbal instruction is directed at the mind of the devotee, and all practices given to the devotee are engaged by his mind, even very practical disciplines. So right off the bat, all instruction other than perfect silence is dualistic by nature, and thus a form of seeking. It is to be engaged by the mind of the devotee, and the mind is purely an instrument of seeking. So there is immediately a contradiction in all non-dual teachings which has to be understood from the outset. The only way to understand this contradiction is to have the awakened intuition that is given by the Guru’s Grace. In Ramana’s case this was self-evident to most everyone who became his devotee, and they grew to understand his path as being free of seeking based on this intuition given in silence. The experience I told you about when my sister sent me a photo of Ramana when I was fifteen is an example of that. Ramana showed me in silence his awakened condition, but I was unable to fully receive it. Thus, it was necessary for me to study his teachings until I grasped what he was really about, and what he was really teaching. My years with Da interrupted that process, and even added to it to some degree, but the basic communication was there from the start, in silence.
The practice of self-enquiry is engaged by the dualistic mind. It differs from the paths of seeking because rather than exploiting the dualistic mind, it inspects it to the point of self-dissolution. It can therefore only be practiced with the understanding already in place that the mind is an illusion, that the reality of our own being is egoless, and that who we truly are is always and already beyond the mind. That is why self-enquiry, rather than exploiting attention, undermines it, inspects it, and turns attention upon itself. When Ramana tells a devotee to think “I, I, I”, he is merely giving him a helpful tool for enabling this process. The goal is not to seek to make the “I” one’s icon, but to undermine the process of attention itself. Ramana compared it to using a stick to stir the fire of the Self. By stirring the fire, the fire becomes so hot that it burns up even the stick used to stir it. In the same way, self-enquiry burns itself up in the process of inspecting the Self. It is not meant to survive, and it does not. In realization, there is no self-enquiry, it was merely a useful tool for revealing the illusion of the ego for those who require tools at all.
And you are right of course that Ramana’s teaching has many similar teaching methods that provide tools for the devotee to use to transcend himself. Is that what you mean by seeking? If so, then how can you say that Adi Da doesn’t teach a path of seeking. He has taught countless thousands of methods, including all kinds of forms of the conscious process, not to mention a million practical disciplines, all to be engaged by the mind of the devotee, all therefore to be forms of “seeking”, if that is your definition. It’s not even a bad definition, in that prior to realization, as even Da taught from the KOL on, all action is seeking. Ramana taught this same truth, that all action is seeking, and thus, the true teaching must transcend action. That occurs in silence, in simply being still, as we are.
But of course, this is seldom enough for most of us, whether we are devotees of Ramana or not. You say that Da’s form of the conscious process is inherently free of seeking, and yet those who engage it remain seekers, do they not? You for example, you are still seeking, as are all other members of Adidam. No crime there, who isn’t seeking after all? A handful of true realizers. Everyone else is not able to fully grasp the significance of the teaching of no-seeking. Da himself may in a few places refer to this pure, egoless approach, but for the most part he seems to recognize that his devotees cannot make use of that alone. You have said that you practice this searchless beholding method, but you still seek, so it seems not to have been wholy effective. It seems that even when you practice it, the ego remains. What to do?
Well, you could keep practicing it. But as I recall, one of the most important lines from the Dawn Horse Testament stated (I have to paraphrase from memory) “The price of ultimate realization and freedom is complete inspection of the self-contraction.” So even Da recognized that ultimate realization required a process of inspection of the ego-illusion, to the point of genuine transcendence of ego, rather than merely asserting the truths of egolessness and contemplating his divinity. Maybe he’s eliminated such instructions from his teaching now, but if so, it’s a real shame, because those statements were very true. They are what keeps these radical teachings from becoming cultic talking school braggadocio about how egoless our Gurus are.
It takes some “generous extrapolation” to say that Ramana Maharshi always spoke in the most radical terms regarding the practice of Self-enquiry and no-seeking. Perhaps it was lost in translation, but more likely it was a result of His tradition, those whom He was addressing, etc.
No, it takes some genuine understanding to grasp what kind of practice Ramana was actually pointing to. It’s not lost in translation, it’s simply what is called in the traditions an “open secret”. In other words, you can analyze the words all you like, but unless you have directly awakened to its truth to at least some small but real degree, its meaning will always elude you. That is why non-dualism is considered a “secret teaching”. Originally, the Upanishads were not taught openly at all. It was hundreds of years before they began to get out, long after their authors had died. And even today, the ability to understand these teachings continues to be limited by the degree of awakened intuition in those who study them. It generally takes living realizers like Ramana to make it more clear to most people what these teachings are about, but even then one’s ability to understand him is limited by the degree to which one is awakened by the truth in silence that is only dimly reflected in his words. If that truth is awake in you, the words begin to make more and more sense, and help that understanding grow. Otherwise, one only becomes more and more frustrated, and attributes that frustration to some “seeking” quality in the teaching, when it is only the seeking in one’s own mind that is the source of that frustration. And that is why self-enquiry is such a useful tool, it is always pointing us back to ourselves, our own frustrated mind, and asking us to see through and beyond it.
And of course it is always a most personal matter – I just find Adi Da’s Teaching regarding Transcendental spiritual practice most direct, never indicating anything even remotely suggestive of seeking via concentrating on some thought, form, or any “thing” whatsoever.
Of course it is a personal matter. Da used to call his practice “Ishta-Guru-Bhakti-Yoga”, which was good in the sense that “Ishta” means one’s chosen form of the Divine. It’s a huge part of Hinduism to have one’s own Ishta Devatma, one’s own chose form of the Self to worship. But you must realize that to contemplate Da, even as one’s Ishta, requires that one turn one’s attention to him. This means the mind, the ego, attention itself, must necessarily be involved, and this means that the seeker is present and active in this process. Thus, whatever the intent Da might have that this practice be egoless, your ego will still be present in the process, just as it is clearly evident in you now. Searchless beholding can only truly be done by one who is already realized. If it is engaged by anyone else, it entails a form of attention and thus seeking. To suggest otherwise is to be enthralled by an idealistic view about one’s own practice, and the very method given.
As you have undoubtedly noticed, engaging in searchless beholding hasn’t undone your ego. Why is that? I suppose you could imagine it’s because you haven’t done it right, or you haven’t done it long enough. But really, it’s because you haven’t done what Da suggested in the DHT, of inspecting the illusion of the ego. You haven’t “paid the price” in other words. It’s the same for all of us, regardless of what path we take. There are some basics requirements that simply can’t be avoided. We have to inspect this ego-illusion, if we really want the truly radical practice to come alive in silence. Self-enquiry is one means for doing that. There are a number of ways of practicing this inspection of the Self, and Ramana refers to a number of them. But in essence they are all means of seeing what is actually and already the case – the egoless Divine Condition of our very Self. The less mature we are, the more mundane the practice might be, even just thinking “I, I, I” to get a feel for this self-sense we carry with us all the time.
As I’ve said, another aspect of that practice is contemplation of the Guru, or the Ishta Devatma. The Guru’s realization of egolessness is a profound advantage, and contemplating the Guru’s name or form can be hugely helpful. Ramana’s devotees spent as much of the day as they could contemplating him in silence. Sometimes he talked and answered questions, he was rather gregrarious really, but much of the time he just sat around in silence. That was one way of directly contacting and growing this direct intuition of the Self.
So in general, it’s not that I wish to criticize Da’s particular teachings on non-dualism as somehow being inadequate, either theoretically or for you personally. They are based on Advaita for the most part, and reflect basic Advaitic truths reasonably well. I simply don’t see how they represent a form of non-dualism that is superior to Advaita, or that they contain an understanding which Advaita has overlooked. Nor do I see how they are more free from seeking than Advaita or Ramana’s particular advaitic teachings.
I don’t really understand this effort to portray Ramana as offering a path of seeking, and Da offering a path free of seeking, if the practitioner in both cases remains a seeker. Cleary a seeker will seek through either Da’s or Ramana’s path regardless of how pure their teachings are. So the question is only whether they offer an effective means for understanding and transcending one’s own seeking, such that seeking can truly be abandoned, rather than merely called by some other name.
After some initial preparation, student-beginners in Adidam are instructed by Adi Da to simply behold Reality Itself and Its intrinsic egolessness – and as the Witness Consciousness, notice whatever is arising.
A good question to consider is, who is going to “behold Reality Itself”? Who is it who will behold “intrinsic egolessness”? Who will notice what is arising from the Witness position? Clearly, in all three cases it is the ego who will do this, and so the real matter has nothing much to do with what they observe, but finding out who this ego is, where it comes from, what is the source of the ego-sense, and knowing oneself at long last.
The practice of witnessing is actually geared towards this. As Ramana often said when asked about the witness, there is no such thing, it is just a pointer in the direction of the Self. When people would ask Ramana what to do when some phenomena arose, he always said, just ask “to whom is this arising”? This helps make one aware of consciousness as a free witness, but he didn’t stop there. He would tell people to find the source of this witnessing awareness. Da used to say something similar in Eluetherios, describing the second stage of the Perfect Practice as finding the source and nature of the Witness. That is simply a part of the process Ramana calls self-enquiry. Has Da thrown that instruction away also? It seems unlikely to me. One can certainly see the value in placing pure non-dualism at the center of one’s teaching, but in practice people require more explicit instruction to undo their own mind and ego, even as part of what Da calls “the conscious process”.
(to be continued)
January 6, 2009 at 9:53 am
(continued)
I do enjoy talking about these matters, in that it reminds me of some of the best things I always was drawn to in Adidam. Such as this particular passage from KOL:
The way of understanding, from the beginning, is not motivated in dilemma or in a predilection for an exclusively (or separately) liberated experience. It turns on the very (and inherently perfect) Form of Reality, and it is not dismayed, either by manifested existence or by the withdrawal in the heart. In all things, it is seated in the primary Form and Source, and is not turned to dilemma, separation, or seeking on the basis of any event.
Therefore, I am moved to speak the ultimate Truth that is the truth of Ramana and Vedanta, as well as of the various intuitions and paths that justify “creation”. And Ramana Maharshi is not a source radically different from Swami Nityananda, or my other teachers. He is there ultimate fulfillment and their perfect word. Nityananda is the “bright” incarnate. I see him always as that very and perfect Form of Reality. And Muktananda is his living form (or duplicate). It is only that, when my own way of life communicated its radical perception, I found its special forces uniquely duplicated in the recorded experience and words of Ramana. In fact, there is only the Perfect Form of Reality Itself, and all my Gurus have shown only that perfect Form to me.
The demonstration and revelation of Ramana Maharshi was that of the origianl (or mere) Presence and apparent birth of a realized one who is always already the Self, which is Reality Itself, and which is without distinctions. I am here to demonstrate and reveal the working out of this realization under the conditions of a more ordinary (even apparently worldly) circumstance of birth (such as is typical of the modern, even Westernized, world, bereft of spiritual culture).
“Self-enquiry” in the form “Who am I?” served well for the traditional East, where individuality is not (traditionally) developed to the degree of the extroverted West. The ancient races of the East remain aligned with race consciousness and a sense of oneness on the level of prior consciousness. Thus, in the traditional East, “Self-enquiry” leading to exclusive concentration in the Self, is not necessarily delusive, but, perhaps, practical and effective (since the cultivation of inwardness, even to an exclusive degree, is culturally valued in the traditional East).
But in the West, and even everywhere in the inclusive, highly communicative culture of the “new age”, such enquiry tends to be separative, leading to concentration in a self-consciousenss that is opposed to all the objects of awareness. That is because the Western mind represents a different order of humanity, highly individuated, and centered in separative mental consciousness, rather than in the unitive vital and psychic consciousness characteristic of ancient (especially Eastern) cultures.
In fact the true and inherently perfect “Self” is not the subject located in any body, realm, or experience. It is reality and real consciousness. Therefore, I recommend the enquiry “avoiding relationship?” in this “new age”. First of all, such enquiry is in the form of the same understanding that arises when the one observes life and recognizes the source of suffering and seeking. And, secondly, such enquiry operates on a level of awareness that does not “create” separative responses. The ancient (especially Eastern) cultures may have realized reality by concentrating exclusively on the inner Self, but the men and women of the “new age” are uniquely capable of realizing that same reality by the perception of that which is not the avoidance of relationship.
Now, this was the sort of thing that originally attracted me to Adidam, and I initially found it convincing. I assumed that Ramana’s path was geared towards easterners, and as a westerer, it was Da’s path that would be more fruitful for me. I even accepted his assessment of such practices as self-enquiry as being directed towards an exclusive, “inward” realization of the Self. But since leaving Adidam and renewing my interest in Ramana and Advaita, I have come to see that Adi Da’s views were a distortion of the radical teachings of Ramana and Vedanta, and that despite cultural differences, Ramana’s teachings did not lead to a disassociative inwardness, but rather to a natural relational capacity that people in Adidam struggled with but seemed incapable of actually achieving, suffering it seemed to me from an excessive cultic mindset brought on by an exclusive concentration on the outer form of their Guru. I found the teachings of Ramana and Advaita to be a very healthy corrective to those errors, and not, as warned, some kind of disassociative path suited only for easterners. In fact, as the years have gone by, I’ve seen them to be essentially free of the limitations Adi Da criticized them for, though indeed there are many people who do indeed have suffer from similar limitations in all spiritual paths, including Adidam itself.
From what I have read, Ramana worked in Silence, via the heart, with his devotees, but not also above the head. This difference may be indicative of any number of things, and is another discussion we could have at some time perhaps.>/i>
There is no “above the head” once one has realized the Heart. That, too, is merely the Heart. The Light of the Amrita Nadi is only the Heart. There is only the Heart. So to say that Ramana “worked in Silence, via the heart”, means that he worked from everywhere at once.
So these do indicate a difference in how they both Work. But I was never in Ramana Maharshi’s personal company, and though I recognized Him as Self-Realized upon reading His teaching and seeing His photos, I never fully felt Him to be my Spiritual Master. I would be very interested to hear more from those who have had experiences of Ramana’s way of working.
As I mentioned before in my first experience with Ramana, he appeared directly to me as Presence, overwhelming the entire body, entering me from every direction, not just through the top of the head, and swooning to an ego-death I was not ready to handle. After that, I often felt Ramana with me, even when I joined Adidam. I especially felt him when I did hatha yoga in the evenings. I recall one evening feeling him particularly strongly while doing yoga, such that when I was done I just sat in the living room feeling him, and my roomate came home, opened the door, and immediately said to me, “You look just like Ramana Maharshi!” And then I noticed that I was sitting very much in the classic Ramana pose, as if he were subtly and gently animating my body. But as the years went by I of course became more attentive to Adi Da, and didn’t pay much attention to Ramana until I left Adidam. Then I began to discover that Ramana was still with me, patiently waiting for me to notice.
January 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm
shiva Says:
“having read through some of the latest posts, it is just so obvious that the great feeler doesn’t know the first thing about non-duality. really, feel4god. you don’t.”
Oh great shiva, thank you for that grandest of compliments! To actually proclaim to me that I don’t know the first thing about non-duality brings the deepest joy of non-dual Unknowing to my heart! shiva, without your incredible wisdom how can there be anything but an endless display of duality?
But have you forgotten all form in your obvious Realization of non-duality? Do you still love the goddess as you did so much in the past? She is yummy to you still, yes?
Is this forgetting of form by you, Mr. shiva, why you have not answered my prayers and requests (reposted below) from a few weeks ago?
shiva Says:
December 22, 2008 at 7:27 am
“Feel4God:
do your first and last names start with
Le and St respectively?”
Feel4God Says:
You think I am Levi Strauss, the German, whom some claim to be the first, the last, and only real blue jean manufacturer? Nope, I am not that one – well, I am ultimately that one, great shiva (you have taught me well), but that is not my experience currently. 
December 24, 2008 at 10:08 am
HaH! – Is that you shiva?
By the way, shiva, given your all-knowing relationship to the Shakti, can you tell me when Susan says this:
Susan Says:
“You know, this is just how I remember it. A bunch of men debating dharma. By now, OLD MEN, sitting around jawboning about the nature of reality. Pissing wars. Mine is bigger than yours.”
Is she suggesting that we just show photographs of our privates as a means for settling all of this once and for all? And would such photographs actually reflect the Acausal Divine Reality too? Would they really be a true measure? Or is she just trying to trick us into exposing ourselves – for her own devious reasons? Pray tell us, oh wise One!
Ok, I am getting way too silly…
To the Light in and as everyone!
*******************************************
Stuart Says:
January 5, 2009 at 4:43 am
Feel4God wrote…
> Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only
> Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent
> with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint.
> What can be more non-dual than that statement?
It’s self-contradictory to suggest that one thing can be “more non-dual” than something else.
Such a statement is literally Orwellian; i.e., it’s like saying, “Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.”
*******************************************
More fun with semantics here, at least it seems to me. Stuart, rather than pick apart a statement in terms of semantics, why not express something about the actual intention of the statement? If I had put quotation marks around the word “more”, maybe that would have made more sense. But I actually thought we had gotten beyond arguing about semantics – I think it is obvious that the basics of non-duality are understood by us (and yes, that includes me, Mr. shiva) if people are actually reading our posts.
Let me try to explain how I understand this FLO statement again then, and partly in the context of responding to Conradg’s question (and others’ comments) too:
Feel4God Says:
“Even Adi Da declaring that He is the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept Realizer can be seen as consistent with non-dual Truth from even a conceptual standpoint.”
Ultimately there is only Reality, the Acausal Divine, Real God, whatever we want to call the non-dual Reality. That being said, if That is Realized to always and already be the case ABSOLUTELY, then such a claim to be “the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept Realizer” makes sense – as there IS ONLY the One Reality, always and already. That is, no other(s) ever existed before, or do now, or will ever – there never has been an “other”. And it is only from the egoic standpoint that we think there are multiple realizers of the Absolute One.
Conrad Says:
“Are you saying here that Adi Da’s FLO statements apply to all realizers of the non-dual? That if I were to say, for example, that Ramana or Jesus or Buddha were the First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Adept-Realizer, you would agree with that statement? ”
We have gone over a lot of this already, Conrad, and you must know by now that I have determined by my own experience that Adi Da offers a unique samadhi and approach to Realization. Many other Daists also testify to this, but I do understand that each individual must determine this (or not) for themselves. So I am not out to prove something here – but it is enjoyable to have a dialog about our practice and personal testimonies.
Also, I see no other spiritual teachings that come close to Adi Da’s in terms of His radical statements relative to no-seeking, the given practices being utterly Reality-based, and the Teaching being completely comprehensive for every stage of development.
Adi Da looks to include every being – not just a select few who understand something about non-dualism. The FLO claim is actually a way to include everyone ultimately, and not to have separate realizers claiming some exclusive realization and going off and making yet another way based on some limited realization. If they realize the ultimate Truth, they realize Adi Da, Acausal Divine Reality. This statement is offensive to the ego perhaps, but certainly not offensive to such a Realizer – as there would be no difference.
And for all I know, Adi Da Samraj, Ramana Maharshi, the Buddha, Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, Jesus, the Goddess, etc., etc., were all “in cahoots” to bring the Indivisible Truth of Real God to all of us – and they are laughing their asses off at us right now!
FFaC, I agree with you that Ramana had “skillful means” with those who approached Him. But His Teachings don’t seem really very inviting to most people, as they require a very “lofty” understanding of non-duality. What may be understood by many of us here is not generally understood, nor found useful by most people.
Of course some of this same argument can be made about Adi Da’s Teaching – and really, any spiritual teaching, lest we forget the world we actually live in. However, Adi Da’s Teaching is most comprehensive, dealing with all stages of life and spiritual development from birth through death, etc. A better Teaching I have never found – and I have read much, including minoring in Eastern religion/philosophy at university. Let me put it another way – I can find books I would give my mother from Adi Da’s Teaching, but none from Ramana’s Works.
And yet, no words, including Adi Da’s, are actually the same as the Truth Itself – at best, they are indicators of it. Adi Da’s Words have always worked as the best indicators for me, though I do draw much inspiration from other Realizers’ teachings.
January 6, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Raymond Says;
***Stuart: you just don’t get it.
This is the most non-dual statement that can be made.
What can be more non-dual than:
First, Last, and Only Seventh Stage Realizer as compared to the Second, Second to Last and Many Sixth Stage Realizers.
What can be more non-dual than Only Seventh as compared to six, five, four, three, two, and one?
What can be more non-dual than being Absolutely Infallible?
What can be more non-dual than being Absolutely Unchallengeable?
What can be more non-dual than Absolute Control?
What can be more non-dual than use of Capitalizations vs. use of non-capitalizations.***
Well, Raymond, the only way that these statements can be seen as non-dual is through the eyes of a bhakta, full of devotion, to a guru. In the instance of Adidam, it is “blind devotion” to a claim made by Frank of “radical non-duality”, and the bhaktas’ unquestionable faith in the “authority” of the claim. “Radical” it is, but, only in the fact that it is a “radical” departure from a true understanding of non-duality.
His descriptons and claims of a “Seventh Stage Realization”, is a confession of the dualistic mind. It begs the question; “Compared to what”?…stages 1-6. Perhaps this is the “Subtle Error” of the “seventh stage. The “stages” themselves, even though he claimed otherwise (again, a “radical” departure), IS the “path of return”, along with all the “attainments” and the “subtle errors” contained within. Frank has said that one could bypass all stages and realize the seventh stage, but, there are still “stages to bypass” AND a seventh stage. The “stages” are a description of a linear understanding, POV, dressed in “traditional language” and are not non-duality. “Who” goes through the “stages”,”who” bypasses, “who” gives their attention to “Whom”, and for “What”? ***”Give me your attention and I will do everything”.***To whom, for what? The statement is another confession of two and time…”I will do”…”Give me”…”your”…future realization. There is the devotee and the guru. “Guru says; Devotee does”…duality. It is only in the bhakta, or rather, a “blind bhakta” disposition, that the statements and claims made by Frank can be accepted as non-dual, or, even valid, and I do point now to “later” claims, as his very early teachings were much closer to non-duality than they became when the whole “Bhakta” thing started. But, that realy is the point…Adidam, and the “practices” given, are a Bhakti Yoga. There isn’t anything inherently wrong in Bhakti Yoga, but, that is what Adidam is and it is not a non-duality teaching, let alone a “radical” non-duality approach, and, the claim, albeit “dressed” in tradtional non-duality clothing, does not make the claim true.
“Absolutely Infallible”, “Absolutely Unchangable”, “Absolute Control”… do these statements even need to be addressed? This “exclusivity” that is so very much a part of Adidam, is the very expression of duality within the culture and is an expression of cultism. Perhaps “Radical Bhakta” could be used here if one were that generous, but, one would have to be to overlook the glaring differences between these kinds of statements ( this is the belief in Adidam) and non-duality.
As to Ramana, there was a reference to his form of enquiry as being “preliminary”. It was, and is, actualy a simplicity that didn’t need “more”. All the explanations and addressing to subjects like “Amrita Nadi” etc., were done in context to questions asked, and all such “questions” start with a “yeah but”, and so he addressed them. His form of enquiry was to the point, simple, direct, undermining concepts, and such is non-duality. But, much more has been made of the “addressing” than of the “pointing to” and the finger has been mistaken for the moon. Much of the give and take here reminds me of the Rabbis “splitting hairs” over what previous Rabbis have said about this that or the other text. Chewing around the edges. It’s all great fun, but, it’s the finger.
There have been references made in this forum to “neo-duality teachers”. There is a “penchant” here for “eastern” teachers and a disregard for some contemporary voices. When Europeans asked Nisargadatta if there was someone they could talk to about non-duality when they got home, he instructed them to see Douglas Harding ( The Headless Way ). Sailor Bob Adamson is a former student of Niragadatta. Both of these men are non-duality expressed. No bullshit…all concepts undermined…no chewing around the conceptual edges…direct. All “concepts” undermined. The Clear and Obvious seen…not talked about…pointed to…seen. Might “I” suggest seeing what these two men have to”offer”? Warning: all concepts, conventional, spiritual, thoughts of enlightenment…awakening…causal/acausal…jnani/bhakta/siddha… realization… will be undermined, so, if you are still attached to these wonderful jewels…stay on the Spiritual Porch. “I’d” rather go hunting.
Time for a cappaccino to go. May “I” suggest here?
http://urbangurucafe.com/wordpress/index.php
January 6, 2009 at 1:08 pm
blah be de blah blah blah blah blaahhhhhh….blah de blah blah blah all the live long day…blah in the morning blah in the night. Makes no difference it’s all blah de blah blah all the live long day and night.
Hence the birth of Jazz.
January 6, 2009 at 7:03 pm
A few things I am thinking about. Conradg’s p0oint about people being unwilling to join cults is apparently belied by the fact that Sai B and Ammachi have no prob getting adherents by the lakh, as it were. Surely the sense that their guru is superior is there. Why would anyone join a cult if they did not think their guru is the superior one? Does anyone join up thinking, well, this guy isn’t any worse than any other guru, so I guess I’ll go with him, her? I don’t think Da’s claims of superior realization is what turned people away.
It’s just easier to go with the others, since, what do they require except showing up?
I would really like to know what Da meant by God is a Person idea. What does that mean, that God is a person? Usually the Eastern idea is that God is what is, or a principle of being, or beyond being, but certainly not personal or person-like. that’s more of a WEstern thing. So, what’s up with that? Andk, he sasid that from the beginning.
I notice that Da did not claim realization on the part of any of his zoo animals, which maybe he ought to have done. It would be amusing to have a high-fifth stage gecko or sixth-stage tortoise with presentiments of seventh-stage realization. Of course then they would have to lead the community and well, there’s obvious problems with that. But, I’m sure some of his pets were up there, really grooving on the teachings. What stage was Robert, anyhow?
January 6, 2009 at 7:13 pm
I wonder where this anti marijuana witch hunt comes from? Are we returning to J. Anslinger and Hoover? Personally I see nothing particularly wrong with pot and what Is the big deal if Adi Da smoked it? I have smoked it myself and I did inhale and I am not the worse for it in any way. Sadhus in India use tons of hashish and ganja. Perhaps if someone around here got the joint passed to them , they might find a little humor and be able to laugh at things a bit more Flick
January 6, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Last night my friend says he dreamt we went to this huge Daist party. They had quite a bit of live music there, they had seven stages. Musicians were playing together on six of them. The first three stages consisted of very conventional, prosaic performances, and we didn’t pay very much attention to them. The musicians on the Fourth Stage played nothing but love songs all night long. The group on the Fifth Stage had a fantastic light show, with lots of really cool blue, pearly lights. The musicians on the Sixth Stage seemed very withdrawn and introverted, and played their instruments so quietly that you could swear the Silence at the Sixth Stage was louder than anywhere else at the party. On the Seventh Stage–well, that was kinda weird, there was just this one dead guy, all by himself….
January 7, 2009 at 2:50 am
no12c41 Says:
December 31, 2008 at 11:44 am
>>>>>>“Raymond, I am interested in where you are coming from now that you see Adi Da as a mere snake oil salesman. Am I reading too much into your post to infer that you have basically reclaimed your power with a vengeance, i.e. aimed to deconstruct all beliefs, and have now thrown out the concept of spiritual realization?
I very much believe that spiritual realization exists. Some model such as the 5 sheaths in Hinduism can help explain why we mostly don’t access it, but in any case it is an article of faith with me, self-authenticating, that a greater identity than I usually take myself to be is my true identity.
You have mentioned some interesting books and otherwise speak strongly about the belief effect. You seem to be a definite non-believer rather than agnostic about a spiritual process and realization. Is this true, and do you care to comment?”<<<<<
Hi,
I hadn’t forgotten about your questions but I wasn’t sure how to answer some of them.
….. But you were reading me pretty well right on.
Today, I came across a passage by Mukunda Rao in The Other Side of Belief: Interpreting U.G. Krishnamurti p. 293 that pretty well summarizes where I’m at ——————somewhere on a continuum as a deconstructionist (although I dislike labels).
He writes:
“The nirguna poets, the poets of non-duality, use techniques of metaphor, oxymoron and paradox in their poetry only to turn language topsy-turvy, and try to break rather than construct ideas and images. Names and forms create illusions, yet they use name and forms to demolish them. Apparently, one might think that UG too uses language in the style of these mystic-poets. But that is not so. The mystic-poets, like the deconstructionists today, deconstruct symbols, images, and ideas, but they are not finished with the language, not finished with the need to express the inexpressible. There is still that agony, that sense of separation and incompleteness.
With UG, there is nothing to express, for all expressions are false, even to say something is false, is false. There is only rejection, wholly and totally, and there is laughter……………………and at the end of it all what one is left with is emptiness.”
As for me, —–Yes I’m pretty well done with this whole spiritual thing —well just about done. I don’t say that casually. It’s been a full time endeavor with the spiritual search starting back in 1973 with Ramana Maharshi’s “Talks”.
And yes, I’ve pretty well thrown out the concept of spiritual realization and many other abstract notions at the very top of the pyramid of abstraction such as notions of god, reincarnation, re-birth of any kind, immortality, the beyond, greater purpose to life, etc. ……..and I’m letting the body integrate and harmonize itself without any sadhana.. letting it be and fall into place.
But as a “deconstructionist”, I’m still in the divided state (that sense of separation) but don’t care much either way about it anymore… i.e., I’m accepting my days as they come along either way –good or bad. If it’s acausal then it’s acausal and nothing that I do about it will make me fall into a “natural state”. If anything, any sadhana will reinforce the conditioning.
So, at best it’s a softening up position; —lightening up my load. I’m till a “deconstructionist” in some ways but not really a non-believer (vs. believer). It appears to me that much of what has been called “spiritual” is only an experience that is physiologically based. Recent research in micro-biology, genetics, etc. seem to support this position which has been well expounded by UG over the years. —Simply physiology with thought superimposed on it. And flushing out abstract notions seems to be a value without adding anything to it.
And as far as your comment on the 5 sheaths. –well, the chakra model turned out to be quite related to the ductless gland endocrine system. Who knows about the 5 sheaths, maybe it was invented by occultists of the times? You see what you want to see especially if someone proposed it in the first place in some early tradition— or maybe there is a physiological correlate to it also??? But there is duality here again, that is, from outside to inside which makes the whole thing of 5 sheaths questionable.
In any case, there have been 100 billion humans or so since the beginning of human evolution, with very few “enlightened” individuals, if any??? — and no “enlightened” followers (or any like their master) that I have found in my fairly thorough research; so it’s not too likely that we will fall into that “enlightened” state anyway by following any path or guru —the odds are not in our favor so why spend a life time seeking what may be a mirage.
Raymond
January 7, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Good post, Conrad. My time is limited right now, but I want to respond to some of your points.
Conradg Says:
“The practice of self-enquiry is engaged by the dualistic mind. It differs from the paths of seeking because rather than exploiting the dualistic mind, it inspects it to the point of self-dissolution. It can therefore only be practiced with the understanding already in place that the mind is an illusion, that the reality of our own being is egoless, and that who we truly are is always and already beyond the mind. That is why self-enquiry, rather than exploiting attention, undermines it, inspects it, and turns attention upon itself. When Ramana tells a devotee to think “I, I, I”, he is merely giving him a helpful tool for enabling this process. The goal is not to seek to make the “I” one’s icon, but to undermine the process of attention itself. Ramana compared it to using a stick to stir the fire of the Self. By stirring the fire, the fire becomes so hot that it burns up even the stick used to stir it. In the same way, self-enquiry burns itself up in the process of inspecting the Self. It is not meant to survive, and it does not. In realization, there is no self-enquiry, it was merely a useful tool for revealing the illusion of the ego for those who require tools at all.”
That is a good description of the process of self-enquiry as I understand it, Conrad, but this necessarily involves processes most aspirants are not ready for. Clearly, the advanced devotees of Ramana understood Satsang as key – and such practice only became fruitful based on their relationship to Ramana, and their own preparation relative to the body-mind disciplines already being in place. What does a fledgling aspirant do with such teachings as these?
Conradg Says:
“And you are right of course that Ramana’s teaching has many similar teaching methods that provide tools for the devotee to use to transcend himself. Is that what you mean by seeking?”
Ramana’s Teaching often seems to acknowledge that the devotee is dualistically oriented (based in the body-mind) and in order to overcome that, he should practice self-inquiry. Adi Da’s Teaching does not assume that the dualistic identification with the body-mind must be overcome via a method of turning upon the I-thought (or any kind of self-directed turning) – but this is not to say that all activities of the ego-I are not to be observed by Daists. Quite the contrary, the process involves one of noticing every aspect of the ego-I at every level of the body-mind – even our oedipal patterns, as you know.
Conradg Says:
“You have said that you practice this searchless beholding method, but you still seek, so it seems not to have been wholy effective. It seems that even when you practice it, the ego remains. What to do?”
In any moment of truly searchless beholding of Adi Da, all seeking subsides – so it is effective in those moments, however long they are.
Conradg Says:
“So even Da recognized that ultimate realization required a process of inspection of the ego-illusion, to the point of genuine transcendence of ego, rather than merely asserting the truths of egolessness and contemplating his divinity. Maybe he’s eliminated such instructions from his teaching now, but if so, it’s a real shame, because those statements were very true.”
No, of course those aspects have not been eliminated. What has occurred is that enough practitioners have matured that the practice of tacit recognition of the Witness as the foundation for Transcendental spirituality could be given to a much larger group of us. No matter how often Adi Da tried to give this aspect of the practice (of transcending attention in Him), almost no one was up to it for any substantial amount of time – so the focus was on stabilizing the foundation practices of radical devotion and right life disciplines (which include self-understanding).
Conradg Says:
“But you must realize that to contemplate Da, even as one’s Ishta, requires that one turn one’s attention to him. This means the mind, the ego, attention itself, must necessarily be involved, and this means that the seeker is present and active in this process. Thus, whatever the intent Da might have that this practice be egoless, your ego will still be present in the process, just as it is clearly evident in you now. Searchless beholding can only truly be done by one who is already realized. If it is engaged by anyone else, it entails a form of attention and thus seeking. To suggest otherwise is to be enthralled by an idealistic view about one’s own practice, and the very method given.”
Initially we turn attention to the Guru, but when radical devotion and right life disciplines have provided the proper foundation, we are admonished to transcend attention in the Guru. Given all your years in Adidam, you must know this. I am sure that you, like myself, always wished the practice was simply the advanced practices of the Witness Consciousness, etc. – but it became clear that I had much to handle in terms of becoming whole-bodily disciplined and radically turned in devotion to Adi Da. Only on that foundation is the Gift of the root standing of the Witness Given by Adi Da – and this is realized to be tacitly egoless.
Conradg Says:
“As you have undoubtedly noticed, engaging in searchless beholding hasn’t undone your ego. Why is that? I suppose you could imagine it’s because you haven’t done it right, or you haven’t done it long enough. But really, it’s because you haven’t done what Da suggested in the DHT, of inspecting the illusion of the ego. You haven’t “paid the price” in other words.”
No doubt there are many reasons for my simply being in the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice rather than the “Perfect Practice”. But to simply inspect the illusion of the ego apart from Satsang will not undo the illusion. It requires Self-Identification with That which is already beyond the ego to actually notice ALL aspects of the illusory ego-I – otherwise it is just the ego looking at itself and reinforcing itself.
Conradg Says:
“I don’t really understand this effort to portray Ramana as offering a path of seeking, and Da offering a path free of seeking, if the practitioner in both cases remains a seeker. Cleary a seeker will seek through either Da’s or Ramana’s path regardless of how pure their teachings are. So the question is only whether they offer an effective means for understanding and transcending one’s own seeking, such that seeking can truly be abandoned, rather than merely called by some other name.”
We have chosen different Gurus, and their teachings have great similarities. If either of us were truly animating all aspects of either one, that would make for a much more interesting conversation. As always, it comes down to a very personal choice, and the real need for uttter self-understanding/God-Realization.
“There is no “above the head” once one has realized the Heart. That, too, is merely the Heart. The Light of the Amrita Nadi is only the Heart. There is only the Heart. So to say that Ramana “worked in Silence, via the heart”, means that he worked from everywhere at once.”
Adi Da clearly states that He Works infinitely above the head of the devotee and prior to the heart on the right. Many devotees have experienced Him Working above the head, including myself. Contrary to what FFaC states, this does not have a sense of being about the “subtle” body. It is a direct Transmission into the devotee’s body-mind of Reality’s Love-Bliss – the heart recognizes this. Because Adi Da Works infinitely above, this does not have the “spatial” characteristics that FFaC suggests. Adi Da has described this as “the Divine ‘Bright’ Spherical Self-Domain, Where there is no “difference” whatsoever”.
January 7, 2009 at 6:45 pm
(this post did not get through four days ago, I’m trying again)
Interesting thread, I keep coming everyday!
The statement that Da was the highest “realizer” ever is preposterous seen from nonduality. The view that God is all there is, is not much in harmony with “but I am more God than anyone or anything else”. A true jnani is a mirror: someone sending your awareness and devotion back to your Self. When understanding settles, thankfulness to the guru remains and that is parabhakti, nondual devotion.
I think this alone (“The One and Only Divine Person among all and All”) may prevent masses of people to approach his message at all, because the statement is not only against understanding of nonduality but contrary to most people’s sensibilities: there’s been enough messiahs to go for another one.
Another obstacle for Da’s message (does he have one? -aside from the statement about his unmatched avatarhood) spreading through is, in my opinion, the unreadability and convoluted style of his texts. An intricate way of expression does not translate into more insightful or valuable, rather the opposite may happen: the ideas remain veiled, obscured and even absent under a varnish of solemnity.
Namaste
Clara Llum
January 7, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Well it is certainly true that it is not hard to become discouraged with the “spiritual” life because realization does not come easy or overnite and it is true that most humans do not even consider it real especially here in the west, where the cult of “scientific materialism’ is worshipped. Realization or enlightenment is certainly not common in the entire history of humankind. Yet still there have been enlightened and free beings in all the great traditions of humankind. So people do often throw out the baby with the bathwater, because realization is not guaranteed and does not come easy. It is easy here in the west to get lured back into a totally materialistic view of existence since that is our common brainwashing here.
If this is your view, then I think smoking a joint could be useful to counteract the terrible loss of humor that this view provokes. Our one could continue a meditative practice and contemplating things a bit deeper.
All the mentalizing and researching in the world will not satisfy the deeper need for nonduality and the free and natural state. It is a matter of deep intuition and knowing or gnosis, that can sometimes be supported by the mind and concepts in the form of studying and contemplating dharma. Still , non duality is not realized by seeking or all the practice in the world. I think it is a sort of a “Grace” or “Transmission” that allows the natural state of freedom to be revealed to the individual. And since nondualtiy means “not two” or in other words “Oneness” then there is no individual left over to realize “It”. So thus one describes the dissolution of the ego sense and activity. the “I” thought . The yogic practices balance the body and mind and the meditative process allows the squirming monkey mind to calm down and enough insight to dawn as to the nature of the small self. Then one can be open enough to actually realize what is given. I am sure that this is a for real process. It takes a commitment over a life time though . So please pass that joint this way.
I think people in general , including devotees of Adi Da and his detractors of which there are an abundance of here, have missed the point of what Adi Da was doing and is still doing. That includes Morgan Callahan, who mostly refers to Bubba as his friend and teacher and the whole Community experiment thing, which was and is a failure. People are obsessed with all the ways that Adi Da lived in his personal life and how he treated people harshly and yelled at them and so forth and squanderd money on art and went through periods of drinking a lot with people and then smoking a lot of pot with people and having sex and watching porn and it goes on and on. Of course all these things did not seem to me what an “enlightened ” person would tend to do. But it never bothered me much to speak the truth. I was lucky to never have a friendly or personal relationship to Adi
da and was never a climber in his community. It always seemed to me that the climbers fell the hardest and became the most bitter people in the long run. The biggest egos always seem to fall the hardest, which is o.k. since that is what they need in a “spiritual” sense. Still i never liked the trickle down guilt sort of stuff and that is the kind of stuff that got me to leave the community over time. I never really cared about Adi
da’s personal life, because it did not affect me.
What did affect me from my very first contact with Adi da in the form of even books and pics and movies was his spriitual transmission. He was and still is a transmission guru. There is still transmission even in his later and difficult to read writings, if yu can open to it at all. I have been around several transmission gurus of the “highest” type, and I have to say that the transmission I have felt around Adi
da and the places he empowered with his transmission and the books and so forth, for me, is of the most direct and touching the deepest part ot the being that is already living in nonduality. That is why he always called in a “revelation’ because it reveals your own true self or awakenend nature to itself. I have been involved with other teachers and other practices myself, and especially buddhism and tibetan buddhism, but I can still easily feel the transmission of
Adi Da and the deep feeling and revelation of my own deep happiness and freedom that it is if I open in that direction. I still study Buddha dharma and do my sitting practice every day and enjoy that too. but I also read adi Da off and on and always am directed to feel my own innate freedom in that and often when I sit to meditate , Adi da just sits down in my deepest awarenss and smiles as me. it is very immediate and tangible. i am not a cultist and not a community member of Adidam and have never been influenced or “brainwash’ except maybe to buy a Lexus.
I would not see any reason why this same sort of transmission could not be coming from Ramana Maharshi. In fact, I am sure that it does.
That lineage is just not my cup of tea. i think Poonja did somewhat of a disservice by giving his radiant transmission to many and then declaring all of them enlightened. so now you have lots of joe blows going around giving “satsangs” kind of silly and amusing at the same time. but i am digressing, just one of my pet peeves.
Anyone who was ever attracted to Adi Da was really attracted to what I am talking about here, not to Adi Da’s habits or life style or crazy and often not so skillful teaching methods. I mean he did a lot of experimenting and i could care less. Morgan was attracted to this . Every one has the intuition of freedom and happiness in this crazy event of life in the bleak natural realm of sickness old age and death. This intuition is before all the thinking and trying to figure it all out.
Enlightenment and freedom in the context of a human life certainly is paradoxical. It pretty much boggles the thinking mind for sure. I really do not care about any of the claims Adi Da ever made about himself either. I was offended by the only seventh stage realizer of all time, because I am a buddhist and I also feel a deep connection with some other gurus who i also feel to be “enlightened”. But as far as I am concerned, this does not detract from what I have said about his transmission. So I do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water since this is only counterproductive. Flick Rahke
January 7, 2009 at 7:54 pm
My beloved ones, this is Adi da Samraj…writing from the other
side of the light…you will never be like me, because like I said
I am the level 7 realizer…of course , I can not really accomplish a real mahashamadi…I just had to die a normal heart attack death to teach all how I fooled you into believing I was special…there are many people that die peacefully in their sleep in bed,,,but, as adi da I could
not do it, so the joke is on you…wake up! you are divine beings,
there is not one “above” and no one “below” it is all an illusion.
att,
ADI DA, the fool
January 7, 2009 at 8:35 pm
In any case, there have been 100 billion humans or so since the beginning of human evolution, with very few “enlightened” individuals, if any??? — and no “enlightened” followers (or any like their master) that I have found in my fairly thorough research; so it’s not too likely that we will fall into that “enlightened” state anyway by following any path or guru —the odds are not in our favor so why spend a life time seeking what may be a mirage.
Raymond
I’m sorry you feel that way. Consider these counter-thoughts posted by James Swartz, a modern traditional Advaita Vedanta teacher.
JOHN: Most of the people around here that I meet are looking for a particular experience and think that Ramana was in some special state.
Ram: When a person becomes a deity or a myth a lot is gained but a lot is lost too. You gain an ideal and inspiration but you lose a practical connection with the truth. Had Ramana realized in the traditional Vedantic way, at the feet of a jnani who was teaching the Upanishad he might have picked up the skill of wielding the means of knowledge and may have gone on to enlighten hundreds…assuming the Lord sent that many qualified people to him. This is not to in any way diminish Ramana, but while he was sitting at the foot of Arunachala teaching ‘in silence’ there were great Vedantic masters like Swami Chinmayananda and his guru Swami Tapovan churning out many enlightened persons using the traditional verbal methods passed down from the Lord through Shankara and other great links in the tradition.
If you know the real spiritual India, not just the export guru scene and the satsang culture, you will understand that while enlightenment is rare with reference to the total number of people on the planet there are tens of thousands of ‘fully’ enlightened people worldwide and particularly in India. I’ve lived here many years and was introduced to the highest levels of Indian spirituality when I was quite young and I’ve lived with a number of enlightened people of the same caliber as Ramana and have personally met more than one hundred enlightened people. And this is just India. Although I am not an expert on Buddhism I know that it is a living enlightenment tradition with roots in the Veda that has been going on for a couple of thousand years, perhaps more. And there are undoubtedly many thousands of enlightened persons who gained it through that means; Tibetans, Indochinese, Sri Lankan and Japanese and now Europeans and Americans.
JOHN: That sounds like heresy and contradicts the conventional wisdom.
Ram: Yes, I suppose it does. But conventional wisdom is often wrong. It is rare but not as rare as it is made out to be.
JOHN: So what accounts for this belief?
Ram: When you consider that human beings have been on the planet for a couple of million years and that the Self pervades and informs every living being every second of their existence and that the Self has been an object of worship and knowledge forever and that it responds to any sincere desire to know it, and that the soul transmigrates bringing with it the spiritual work it has done before, you can not seriously believe that in any age there are only a handful of enlightened people.
JOHN: That make a lot of sense. Are there any other reasons why people think it is so rare?
Ram: One source of ignorance accounting for this belief is the ego’s lack of spiritual self confidence. It always resists the truth and in fact often does everything it can to sabotage one’s efforts to attain it. So to keep it from doing the work, it imagines that only supermen are capable of it. A more insidious source is the gurus themselves…clever and powerful people who have had some kind of enlightenment experience but who are not enlightened…who are suffering enlightenment sickness i.e. the ego has carefully confused itself with the Self and built a new identity as ‘an enlightened being’, which is used to gain typically egoic ends: power, respect, pleasure etc. These people have a vested interest in creating the impression that there are only a handful of enlightened people because it makes their enlightenment seem more rare and important. Today you will find gurus who have mapped out their idea of the different ‘levels’ of enlightenment and have conveniently put the famous gurus of the past and present on levels lower than themselves. Or, at least, where it was obvious that their fame was not as great as the ‘greats’, put themselves on the same ‘level.’ People are so abysmally ignorant spiritually nowadays that they unthinkingly swallow this stuff.
January 7, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Conrad, Flick, Wes, and many others whom I have known and loved,
this is Charles Campbell.
I do not have the philosophical grounding to tread the tricky waters of “non-dualism” consideration, nor can I say, for sure, “who” Adi Da is (or was) – truly, even when I have been turned off of aspects of the teaching or the community, the irresistable attraction to him, the undeniable “something” communicated through his books and his mere Presence (and wow I saw him dance once, that really blew my mind – what can be said about such things except in the realm of poetry?) have led me to want to continue my association with him and his devotees –
One thing that is lost in some comments is that Adi Da was a Westerner, teaching in a context that neither Ramana nor most other Indians (except Osho) had to (or chose to) deal with –
Certainly, in the end, one MUST listen to one’s own heart-intuition – and trust that others must do the same.
Dharma debate is fine for those who’s minds can handle it, but Adi Da himself said that the Adidam community would never come to anything until the men in Adidam could learn to lovingly hug one another. “Love’s the only god-damned God there is.” I like that quote….
So, friends and foes, devotees current and former, and those curious bystanders glancing in to this most energetic conversation – be sure to hug someone you love today. And radiate whatever love comes your way out to all you meet.
Until we’ve become human, all the rest of the talk is blah-blah.
Charles
In any case, most Adidam devotees I know are not mean-spirited toward other teachers, nor toward other people.
January 7, 2009 at 9:57 pm
slyder says:
“Douglas Harding ( The Headless Way ). Sailor Bob Adamson is a former student of Niragadatta. Both of these men are non-duality expressed. No bullshit…all concepts undermined…no chewing around the conceptual edges…direct. All “concepts” undermined. The Clear and Obvious seen…not talked about…pointed to…seen. Might “I” suggest seeing what these two men have to”offer”? Warning: all concepts, conventional, spiritual, thoughts of enlightenment…awakening…causal/acausal…jnani/bhakta/siddha… realization… will be undermined”
i have attended sailor bob’s meetings in melbourne for a few months this year. his teaching and that of a few others i have met (john wheeler and jeff foster) do not even remotely compare to the half-baked pseudo non-duality that franklin tried to sell.
it is exactly as slyder describes it:
absolute clarity, ALL concepts constantly undermined, no leg left for the “mind” to stand on.
“i” have learnt and seen more in 4 months at sailor bob’s than in 15 years with franklin. there simply is no comparison.
of course, our great dillusional feeler feel4god has already determined – simply from looking at a picture of sailor bob on a website no less! – that “There is still a very subtle kind of concentration I feel in him.”
yes! our great dillusional feeler at his feeling best!
so, if any of you is interested in examples of REAL non-duality teachers i fully second slyders recommendations.
google for
“sailor bob adamson”
“john wheeler”
“jeff foster”
just to name a few.
also the link slyder gave:
http://urbangurucafe.com/wordpress/index.php
is highly recommended.
there is no duality in non-duality. not even a tiny little bit!
January 7, 2009 at 11:25 pm
yo Charles, from your title, then yu must still be dancing; I still dance a lot in ethnic dance and also contact improv {Charles was more or less a pro dancer and one of my teachers of contact before he got “sucked” into spiritual life. ha ha.
Well I read the interview between John and Ram here about there being enlightened people all over the place and i guess it depends on your definition of enlightenment. Certainly in Asia , lots people are more plugged into at least the possibility of enlightenment, but I think most spirtuality is there is pretty conventional. I have been in asia and seen lots of people there. Most practice in Hinduism and buddhism sort of like Christians here. They worhip a god or goddess or buddha and pray for the goods of life. The monks and nuns in buddhism often go much farther with it and I have seen and met several very shiny and bright tibetan lamas and nuns , even here in California who are very loving and very free but who do not even remotely consider themselves to be “enlightened” And they are defintitely quite a bit more freed up than most people on this planet. I do not feel it is a widespread event by any means. Enlightened beings seem special because , even though it is our natural state, there is a block that is very effective to its true realization and that is called the “ego” Well folks , the ego really does have a strong effect. Concepts and talking are extensions of ego and will not bring about the undermining.
Thus I have a preference for the more “practicing” schools and less for the “talking” schools of spirituality. “Nonduality” has sort of become a catchphrase for some of the new age spiritual stuff, even though it comes from a valid tradition. Of course, Ramana Maharshi did not emphasize this himself . but really emphasized direct transmission of truth in Satsang with him. People love to jump all over his spoken teachings and use some of the “tricks” he gave, because we as westerners like that sort of thing. The real practice of “listening and contemplating” at the feet of a master was what Ramana taught , and that is an advanced practice. many novices in spiritual life have jumped on this and we see this plethora of “nonduality teachers” all over the place all over the world giving satsangs and spreading the conceit of enlightenment. I don’t know the sailor bob guy and did look at his website and i would certainly not even try to say if he is “enlightened” or “nondual” based on his pic. I would trust the guys on here who said they have benefited greatly from him and leave it at that since I do not know.
But I have been around several of the “nonduality” teachers around here. Like Andrew Cohen and Gangaji and Adyanshanti, who is from the zen traditon. i have known a lot of people in the Gangaji community and have sat face to face with Andrew Cohen, when he was using me to try to cut down Adi Da. personally I thought he made a fool of himself and certainly was full of ego. People around Gangaji were all referring to each other as enlightened people like it was just ordinary and no big deal. Ideally I think this is true, but not in real world. The problem is that the ego is a real element even though it is not “Real” To say that “I am That” and “Thou art That” and think that is the end of it is pretty silly as far as I can tell. In effect, I think there is really a difference between Realization and non realization and there is a lot of illusion and delusion goin round.
Anyhow that is about as “heady” as I can get about that and it taxes my brain more than anything. I guess what Charles pointed out about loving is much more important than trying to figure it out anyhow. just my opinion Flick
rahke
January 7, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Feel4God,
Likewise, good post.
That is a good description of the process of self-enquiry as I understand it, Conrad, but this necessarily involves processes most aspirants are not ready for. Clearly, the advanced devotees of Ramana understood Satsang as key – and such practice only became fruitful based on their relationship to Ramana, and their own preparation relative to the body-mind disciplines already being in place. What does a fledgling aspirant do with such teachings as these?
The fledgling aspirant starts with where he is, rather than with an ideal. As Ramana said, “Be as you are”. He had no problem accepting devotee’s various capacities to practice, because to him they were all the same, all jnanis who had simply forgotten who they were. He simply taught whatever would help them remember. The aspirant may not even start with self-enquiry. Ramana never insisted that everyone do self-enquiry, and he acknowledged it might take time for people to grasp it properly and engage it fruitfully. But to Ramana there was no one so immature that they could not at least begin to consider their own self-awareness, so he usually recommended self-enquiry to anyone who asked, because it is essentially the same practice from the earliest phase to the latest.
The mere fact that someone came to Ramana meant to him that they were practicing in relation to him. He would not have approved of the notion of treating self-enquiry as some kind of mind exercise devoid of satsang, but since anyone who came to him was coming into his satsang, this problem never arose. Even so, contrary to the impressions of some, he definitely did approve of and even give other practices at various stages of a devotee’s progress. He just never felt it was useful to create a hierarchy of such things to apply en masse to people. He just responded as it fit the needs of whomever was in front of him.
I read recently a touching story in which Ramana was sitting and talking for a long time with a group of rather “advanced” devotees discussing in a very learned manner all sorts of topics. In the middle of the discussion, Ramana suddenly got up and walked across the yard to talk with a man who had been observing them from a distance. He asked the man why he didn’t join them, and the man said that he was an uneducated peasant, and he had no understanding of all these great teachings and philosophical ideas. Ramana talked with him for quite a while, and it was perhaps true, he was a very simple, unassuming fellow, but he clearly had an opennes about him, and so Ramana gave him a simple mantra to practice, and told him to come visit him again.
And that was simply how Ramana related to devotees. He didn’t see advanced devotees as better or greater than the least advanced. He simply responded to real devotion and need. His door was always open to anyone, regardless of their “maturity”. But it was not only advanced devotees who understood his teachings to be founded in satsang. Even the most raw beginner could grasp this, and often did.
Ramana’s Teaching often seems to acknowledge that the devotee is dualistically oriented (based in the body-mind) and in order to overcome that, he should practice self-inquiry.
This is utterly and completely untrue. There is simply NO assumption that the devotee is based in the body-mind in Ramana’s teaching. The most basic assumption Ramana constantly made, and constantly taught, is that no one is the body-mind, that our identification with the body-mind is an illusion, even the primal illusion, and he constantly reminded his devorees of this. Yet it is certainly true that Ramana took into account the paradox that most devotees did identify with the body-mind, and all the dualisms that implies, and he taught people how to unravel this illusion and see it for what it was. But he NEVER began with some assumption that his devotees actually were dualistic beings, quite the opposite. Self-enquiry would never work if dualism actually were true of us, it requirs that dualism not be true to work at all. Self-enquiry, in both theory and practice, requires that we not begin from the assumption that we are the body-mind. Instead, it begins with the free position of the observing awareness, and simply deepens that underlying intuition of reality until all illusions are transcended in that Awareness.
Adi Da’s Teaching does not assume that the dualistic identification with the body-mind must be overcome via a method of turning upon the I-thought (or any kind of self-directed turning) – but this is not to say that all activities of the ego-I are not to be observed by Daists. Quite the contrary, the process involves one of noticing every aspect of the ego-I at every level of the body-mind – even our oedipal patterns, as you know.
Ramana does not assume that dualistic identification with the body must be overcome by self-enquiry. Quite the opposite, from his perspective there is nothing to overcome at all, and those who intuitively grasp his teaching in silence understand this. Self-enquiry is simply a tool for those of us who don’t fully grasp that truth in silence directly and completely. Ramana felt that self-enquiry was a very powerful tool for such people, but not the only one, and he acknowledged that other approaches, such as that of devotional surrender, were equally effective for some. But in no sense did he consider the devotee to have a real problem that self-enquiry was the solution to quite the opposte. Self-enquiry is a useful way to discover that we have no problem to begin with, that our false identification with the body-mind simply hides the reality of who we really are. If that can be seen directly, there is no need for self-enquiry at all. It’s just that most people can’t see that truth so directly, and require a practical way of penetrating their self-delusive egoity.
Likewise, there is no inherent ego that requires Da’s method of “searchless beholding”. I assume he gives this method because people aren’t immediately able to fully and completely grasp the transcendental reality, and require some kind of help with the process. Likewise, he gives all kinds of other methods for dealing with the ego. If I have a problem with his approach to the process of inspecting the ego, it’s that his method of inspection, unlike Ramana’s, tends to reinforce identification with the ego rather than immediately free one. In Adidam, there is an endless amount of attention given, as you say,, to “every aspect of the ego-I at every level of the body-mind”. As Ramana taught, however, this kind of approach simply puts more and more attention on the body-mind, and thus keeps atttention fixated in the egoic identification with the body-mind.
Ramana’s approach essentially says that all that “inspection” is fruitless and unending. Instead of inspecting ALL the various “thoughts” that spring from the ego-illusion, and trying to fix them and purify them and correct them, one simply abandons that effort, and instead simply questions the very assumption of egoity itself. When Ramana talks about the “I”-thought, he’s not talking about something that really exists, he’s talking about the core feeling-presumption of separate existence that gives rise to all other thoughts, all tendencies, all desires, all concepts, all problems, and all activities. Rather than inspecting all those secondary thoughts and activities, self-enquiry goes directly to the root, and inspects the separate “I”-sense itself, and penetrates this illusion directly. In every moment of self-enquiry, the “I”-thought is penetrated, and the already free condition of the true Self is intuited. As this matures, one finds that the rest of one’s life starts to fall into line, and becomes less complicated and less of a drain on one’s attention. It doesn’t require some kind of oedipal group, or even the putting of attention on these peripheral things at all, except in the most ordinary way.
So my experience in practicing self-enquiry is that it’s a great relief in comparison to the Daist approach of endlessly “inspecting” the ego’s various levels of activity. Rather than trying to herd a bunch of cats, self-enquiry just ignores them and goes to the root. Oddly enough, not putting attention on these egoic levels of activity allows them to die out on their own, because the root of egoity is being transcended. They are not “fed”.
In any moment of truly searchless beholding of Adi Da, all seeking subsides – so it is effective in those moments, however long they are.
Yes, but clearly the ego remains, even if its force subsides. So seeking also subsides, but it does not disappear. So one can’t really say that this process is somehow operating at some level beyond seeking that other practices, like Ramana’s self-enquiry, fail to achieve. It may work for you, that’s fine, but the claims you are making that Ramana’s path is one of seeking, while Da’s transcends seeking, doesn’t seem valid.
What has occurred is that enough practitioners have matured that the practice of tacit recognition of the Witness as the foundation for Transcendental spirituality could be given to a much larger group of us. No matter how often Adi Da tried to give this aspect of the practice (of transcending attention in Him), almost no one was up to it for any substantial amount of time – so the focus was on stabilizing the foundation practices of radical devotion and right life disciplines (which include self-understanding).
That’s all fine and good, but the practice you are describing is no different in kind from devotional Advaita itself. As I’ve said, there’s a long tradition in Advaita for meditating on the Guru (just as there is in Buddhist non-dualism). It’s the basis for every other practice the Guru gives. Likewise, practicing “the witness” is not at all unique to Adidam – it’s such a basic element of non-dual practice in both Advaita and Buddhism that it seems ludicrous to somehow claim that this is what makes Adidam superior to these traditions. The fact that Adi Da has only very late in his life begun to “give” this practice is simply testimony to how slowly things in Adidam have developed. Ramana developed mature people far more quickly, and even had far more mature people come to him from out of the blue for further instruction and awakening. In part, I think, this is because he didn’t spend a lot of time trying to get people to practice lesser, “foundation practices”. He told them the truth right off, and gave them the most advanced practices right off, and let them mature in a natural fashion based on their own capacities. Now, Adidam clearly was something you and I were attracted to, and I wouldn’t criticize you for that anymore than I’d criticize myself for it. We are each attracted to our own path. But in my own experience, I’ve found that Ramana’s path is more direct and less cluttered with distractions.
Initially we turn attention to the Guru, but when radical devotion and right life disciplines have provided the proper foundation, we are admonished to transcend attention in the Guru. Given all your years in Adidam, you must know this.
Yes, of course I know the Adidam teachings backwards and forwards still. I don’t have any serious problems with its general admonitions at this level of dharma. As I’ve said, it’s all very much a form of Advaita, and in spite of all its problems, at the level of basic non-dual dharma it’s not bad. The devil is always in the details, of course, and I’ve never known Adidam to be particularly free of seeking, regardless of the ideals advocated. Nor has it been hugely effective for most people that I’ve seen. But that’s true of most everything out there. It’s certainly quite possible to transcend attention and seeking through devotional contemplation of the Guru in the heart. It’s not possible to do so, however, as long as the Guru is objectified. So the Guru must turn the devotee’s attention inward, and eneable the devtoee to find him and contemplate him in the heart. That is what it truly means to “locate” the Guru, and to “recognize” the Guru. Without that, the process is simply dualistic, and reinforces egoic separation.
I am sure that you, like myself, always wished the practice was simply the advanced practices of the Witness Consciousness, etc. – but it became clear that I had much to handle in terms of becoming whole-bodily disciplined and radically turned in devotion to Adi Da. Only on that foundation is the Gift of the root standing of the Witness Given by Adi Da – and this is realized to be tacitly egoless.
I took an opposite tack, obviously. For years I accepted the Adidam notion that only the most advanced devotees were ready for non-dual approaches, such as you dscribe. But at a certain point I just abandoned all those assumptions, not because I felt I was “mature”, but because I didn’t want to die without having at least tried. I had always been attracted to Da’s “alternative view” as described in the early versions of Eleutherios, and now, free of Adidam restrictions and limitations, I just let myself fall into myself without any real agenda or aim. In the process, I became attracted to Ramana once more and to his teachings, which helped awaken me to the practices of self-enquiry. This seemed more direct than endlessly “preparing”. I struggled with various assumptions about that which I carried with me from Adidam, and had to let go of along the way. And I found that those assumptions about “preparation” simply aren’t true. The non-dual approach of self-enquiry is itself the best preparation for its own practice. In Ramana’s view, one should always begin with the most direct practice, and not assume any limitations, and let that “prepare” you. And in my experience, it works. Self-enquiry leads not only to a direct intuition of the Self, but to a maturing process in the body and mind that duplicates the traditional process. In fact, that’s how the traditional process works. It’s not meant to be some kind of preparation for some greater practice, it’s a single practice that simply matures naturally according to the capabilities of each individual.
No doubt there are many reasons for my simply being in the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice rather than the “Perfect Practice”. But to simply inspect the illusion of the ego apart from Satsang will not undo the illusion. It requires Self-Identification with That which is already beyond the ego to actually notice ALL aspects of the illusory ego-I – otherwise it is just the ego looking at itself and reinforcing itself.
I guess you don’t grasp that the process of inspecting the “I” through self-enquiry is identical to knowing oneself to be beyond the ego. It’s not like they are two separate processes. And neither is some kind of exercise “outside” of satsang. Nor must one notice ALL aspects of the illusory ego-I, as is taught in Adidam. It’s not even possible to do so. The more one inspects these secondary thoughts, the more they multiply. It is by cutting off the ego at the root that the whole tree dies. The approach of self-enquiry is more direct. It simply examines and moves directly beyond the “I”-thought to the Source of the “I”-thought. Every moment in which one simply examines this “I”, it dissolves, because it’s only a thought, and one intuits the reality as one’s very Self, free and without any motive to seek. The motives to seek are all rooted in the ‘I”-thought, and exist nowhere else. So the more capable one is at seeing beyond the “I”-thought to its source, the more free we become of the seeking motive.
We have chosen different Gurus, and their teachings have great similarities. If either of us were truly animating all aspects of either one, that would make for a much more interesting conversation. As always, it comes down to a very personal choice, and the real need for uttter self-understanding/God-Realization.
Of course. I wish you great good luck in your practice, and hope it succeeds. It requires, of course, a basic sense of faith and trust in one’s teacher and Guru and their teachings. Even if the teaching or the Guru has serious faults, one can overcome these by sheer faith in one’s own process.
January 8, 2009 at 1:22 am
To: Slyder (and Stuart),
Excuse the “confusion” regarding the “more non-dual than…..” post by Stuart. I was totally agreeing with Stuart’s good insight and adding the superlative of “most” over the comparative of “more” to highlight the obvious dualism in a fun and “way-out” way.
Of course, I think that Franklin and his teaching is purely dualistic –and big time duality and also a cult. However, even with the “misunderstanding”, it did lead to another well written post by Slyder emphasizing the difference between duality and non-duality.
My very best book that really helped me break out of 26 years of the Adidam brainwashing was” The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power by Kramer and Alstad, 1993. It will remain my favorite book of all time for understanding and deconstructing dualism, monotheism, abstractions, etc., etc. I don’t think that there is a better scholarly book ever written on the subject matter and it’s a must reading for all of us interested in non-duality and “masks of authoritarian power”—and for those of us who really want to break out of dualistic conditioning in Adidam and elsewhere..
Raymond
January 8, 2009 at 4:12 am
Feel4God,
Still pressed for time, but want you to know I am still engaged here and reading as I have time.
Conradg also responded to this comment:
“From what I have read, Ramana worked in Silence, via the heart, with his devotees, but not also above the head. This difference may be indicative of any number of things, and is another discussion we could have at some time perhaps.”
He said:
“There is no “above the head” once one has realized the Heart. That, too, is merely the Heart. The Light of the Amrita Nadi is only the Heart. There is only the Heart. So to say that Ramana “worked in Silence, via the heart”, means that he worked from everywhere at once.
And Conradg’s response to this comment:
“So these do indicate a difference in how they both Work. But I was never in Ramana Maharshi’s personal company, and though I recognized Him as Self-Realized upon reading His teaching and seeing His photos, I never fully felt Him to be my Spiritual Master. I would be very interested to hear more from those who have had experiences of Ramana’s way of working.”
Which was:
“As I mentioned before in my first experience with Ramana, he appeared directly to me as Presence, overwhelming the entire body, entering me from every direction, not just through the top of the head, and swooning to an ego-death I was not ready to handle. After that, I often felt Ramana with me, even when I joined Adidam. I especially felt him when I did hatha yoga in the evenings. I recall one evening feeling him particularly strongly while doing yoga, such that when I was done I just sat in the living room feeling him, and my roomate came home, opened the door, and immediately said to me, “You look just like Ramana Maharshi!” And then I noticed that I was sitting very much in the classic Ramana pose, as if he were subtly and gently animating my body. But as the years went by I of course became more attentive to Adi Da, and didn’t pay much attention to Ramana until I left Adidam. Then I began to discover that Ramana was still with me, patiently waiting for me to notice.”
I must confess a resonance with this, and Conradg’s reply in general. It is so simple, really, but seems so hard for those whose perpective comes only from Da’s teaching. The Heart, the Self, is everything and everywhere. All jnanis are One, just as it has always been and always will be, already the ever present Acausal Reality as you call it which needs be associated with no specific name or teacher to be what is IS. And it should not be difficult to understand that all who are not yet consciously jnanis, including followers of Da, should be honest and admit they are seekers (how could they not be) because they still act as though “the rope is a snake”, even though there is nothing to be atttained from the beginning. And, anyone who truly listened to Ramana Maharshi would understand that the non-existance of any separate ego even now other, than our habitual practice of self-deception, is the fundamental basis of practice, regardless of what he said regarding the skillful means he used to respond to any given individual. When talking about this “work above the head” as some sort of limitation on Ramana Maharshi, for example, it reminds me of Da’s original criticism of those who established a “buzzing in ear” school as the primary sign of spiritual progress. Adidam has established all these special “signs” in contrast to the traditions, but for all of that, the results in terms of actual realization beyond the interpretation of these “signs” remain unproven. So while none of us have Realization to “prove” our perspectives, the traditional approach and that of Ramana does have many Realizers to act in testimony of its effectiveness.
It is essential to understand that Ramana Maharshi, in concert with ancient traditions referred to to the all pervasive and unlimited nature of the Heart itself, that there is nothing outside of it, including amrita nadi or the centers above. Non-duality includes the understanding that there is no ultimate reality to space or time either, ultimately no bodily references, whether gross, subtle or causal, and no heart on the right or anything else. And thus the Heart acts on all levels, including the centers above the head, and a Satguru alive as that Heart does likewise. So, while I can understand that current devotees prefer Da and are pleased with the tangible work above the head they did not find with other sources, I still find it strange that those who say they had a good understanding of Ramana Maharshi before they found Da have such trouble with describing even basic Ramana Maharshi teachings accurately. It is one thing to disagree with them, quite another to present them with less accuracy given the tremendous amount of information out on Ramana Maharshi today. I must say that much of what you consider to be unprecedented revelation can be found in the traditions if you look for it, and the only difference is interpretation. Those of us on the outside of Adidam do not find Da’s scholarship on the traditions to be as infallible as Adidam does regardless of his actual state, an issue which does impede commuications somewhat.
I too, like Conradg, came to Da with a pre-existing relationship with Ramana Maharshi whose presence I clearly felt, because I thought I saw something similar in Da’s teaching in the KOL, and because of tangible experiences that seemed real progress. But, I came not because I thought Da was “the ONE” he later claimed to be, but with the perspective all jnanis are One. It seemed foolish not to engage Da if he was a living jnani, while trying to mininize some of the endless drama we all know existed. But this proved too difficult. I was disappointed with the endless seeking, wild behavior, emphasis on status and general fadishness I found rampant in Da’s commmunity and what seemed a mass rush away from the essence of the KOL. And as you would recall and I have previously quoted, as of 1977, Da still considered Ramana Maharshi not only a Realizer of the highest type but literally called him his “Spiritual Master”. Yet, the questionable aspects of the organization continued their accelerated march away from the initial basis for many of us getting involved. And I saw increasingly a conscious dismissal of, and failure to comprehend and acknowlege, any of the wisdom of Ramana Maharshi’s teaching and approach, and that of other jnanis, that could have minimized this damage and focused the practice. Instead, the idea that Da’s devotees were spiritually superior and had some special understanding, despite practical evidence otherwise, became virtual dogma and was literally espoused by Da’s closest followers. I could not accept this. Where I differ from Conradg is only timing. Because as I saw this develop, I did not have his patience to wait this out because I considered the situation irreversible and counterproductive to real practice. I too found Ramana Maharshi was there waiting for me, literally! It may sound arrogant, but it was as if he told me I now understood what I had come to learn and it was time to go, and I have never regretted my decision. I found Ramana Maharshi was correct. My understanding of Ramana Maharshi and other jnanis only increased because Da’s community was for me an object lesson in egoic fallacies run amok, regardless of Da’s own state. I feel that on some level Da passed some of us on.
Feel4God, you also asked about how Ramana Maharshi works for others. My personal experience has been that Ramana Maharshi works on all levels, something a number of other ex-Da followers have found, and so I no longer need concern myself with this indicator or that indicator so prevalent in Adidam. How can I say it? It all happens in the background in its own time, and there is no need to assess stages of practice or worry about going back to zero. Personally, I believe that all jnanis are One already as they Are and anyone who claims to be enlightened who teaches anything else I simply find suspect. I must say I also find the same work on all levels with a number of other historical jnanis and contemporary figure like Ammachi, if you approach “in secret”, as the Ramana Maharshi, and for that matter the traditions including Jesus, advise. Even the ancient texts are “alive” and helpful. I no longer worry about having a “living” guru or large community either, because contact with those who resonate with these teachings serves well as my community. There is a freedom in all this, knowing what you need is ever present if you turn to it without all that formalized baggage, as Conradg says, that you in Adidam can’t know.
I want to say again that your practice gives you what you want and the experiences you describe and that is fine. The reality is that most people outside of Adidam do not see the results the way you do nor do they see evidence of a superior practice. When I once did run into some Adidam people I knew after I had been out for a while, I like many others have reported from day one found nothing in terms of results that would draw me back or any opportunity to actually communicate with another perspective other than the general idea that our sadhanas had “failed”. It is natural, because your experiences and interpretations are real for you but are necessarily subjective and within your group they mean something not seen out “here”. But it is all about what works for you and how you see it. I do think it is fitting that after all these years of isolation and what is seen from the outside to be insularity, there can actually be some ongoing communications here between our differing perspectives as present and former members. Someday we will all find we are Realized and on that day will laugh at all this in any case, just as Ramana Maharshi said. Nothing wrong with talking in the meantime.
January 8, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Gosh with all the talking, it pretty much is simple. Before awakening, it is all “duality”, after awakening, it is all “nondual” or “One” or “not two”. In the meantime, there can be “glimpses” either by real practice or by “Grace” One can “practice” or not. There may be awakening or not, but I think there is a much better chance with “practice” And cetainly a useful and skillfull practice could be to listen to teachings of “nondual” teachers.
Of course , you could spend your time reading all the guru bashing and generally spiriituality bashing books like “The Guru Papers” which are basically founded in Western Materialism Cult , that is offended by “spirituality” and wishes just to debunk it and its practices. I personally have read this book and some others and find it pretty amusing but silly. It talks of things of which it knows nothing about. I mean the people who wrote the book of course, “talking heads” with no feeling. good scientists. Of course, nothing like a real scientist like Einstein, who knew that you are more than what you look like.
Personally, I am not “in” Adidam and I don’t really see any “in” or “out” or “superior” or “inferior” I know people “in” Adidam and they are nice and intelligent people and sincere about their practice and do not bash other teachers or teachings. And I know very many people “outside” Adidam and they are nice and intelligent and do their practice sincerely and do not bash other teachers. Of course, Adi Da himself raised a lot of hackles by his various descriptions of his own “enlightenment” and trying to compare it to some other teachers from his own lineage and from the traditions. He sure could be offensive.
I think we in the West and particularly men, just love to argue. There is some conflict and pain in it , but some distraction and fun too. Since this is pretty much an “anti da” blog, I am surprised that there are some da people who come here and carry on these long debates with people who detest Adi Da. And I am surprised that they are even allowed here, although that speaks well of the open mindedness of the moderators of this forum. Anyhow, I find the whole thing rather “interesting” and curious myself and I guess that is why I post here myself. Flick Rahke
January 8, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Conradg Says:
“In Adidam, there is an endless amount of attention given, as you say,, to “every aspect of the ego-I at every level of the body-mind”. As Ramana taught, however, this kind of approach simply puts more and more attention on the body-mind, and thus keeps atttention fixated in the egoic identification with the body-mind.”
Actually, you are quoting me out of context here, Conrad. I said “the process involves one of noticing every aspect of the ego-I” – not as you say, granting “an endless amount of attention” to every aspect of the ego-I. The difference is the same as defined by Adi Da between true “self-observation” vs. egoically-based “self-watching”.
Conradg Says:
“Rather than inspecting all those secondary thoughts and activities, self-enquiry goes directly to the root, and inspects the separate “I”-sense itself, and penetrates this illusion directly. In every moment of self-enquiry, the “I”-thought is penetrated, and the already free condition of the true Self is intuited.”
Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion. In the Way of Adidam there is direct Self-Identification with Adi Da through His Gift of recognition of Who He Is. In my experience this cuts deeper because He is already beyond the root of egoity. All practices in Adidam are always to be done in that context – and the Teaching always reminds us of that.
Conradg Says:
“So my experience in practicing self-enquiry is that it’s a great relief in comparison to the Daist approach of endlessly “inspecting” the ego’s various levels of activity. Rather than trying to herd a bunch of cats, self-enquiry just ignores them and goes to the root. Oddly enough, not putting attention on these egoic levels of activity allows them to die out on their own, because the root of egoity is being transcended. They are not “fed”.”
Again, real self-understanding in Adidam is simply about observing patterns of egoity and understanding them to be the activity of self-contraction – always in the context of the radical devotional relationship to Adi Da. Again, these patterns of self-contraction are noticed or witnessed, if and when they arise; they are not sought out by any means. But also, they are not avoided by some form of inversion on the root of attention, concentration on the I-thought, or any concern with the “I” whatsoever.
Conradg Says:
“practicing “the witness” is not at all unique to Adidam – it’s such a basic element of non-dual practice in both Advaita and Buddhism that it seems ludicrous to somehow claim that this is what makes Adidam superior to these traditions. The fact that Adi Da has only very late in his life begun to “give” this practice is simply testimony to how slowly things in Adidam have developed.”
Conrad, it is when you make general statements like this, that it makes me wonder about your understanding of Adi Da’s Teachings. No one has ever (rightfully) claimed that recognition of the Witness is some kind of superior or exclusive understanding by only Daists. Adi Da has always spoken in these terms (e.g., the Perfect Practice Teachings) and always in the context of the anciently proven way of already being in a devotional relationship to the Realizer. The Witness is simply recognized as the beginning of the Perfect Practice.
From a talk in “The Seventh Way” by Adi Da Samraj:
“However, merely to Realize that you Stand As the Mere Witness is not sufficient.”
“Entire sixth stage traditions have been developed for the sake of achieving that Realization alone – traditions in which it is hoped that, through the practice of sixth stage exercises, the practitioner will come to Stand (in the detached sixth stage manner) as the Witness-Consciousness (with various numinous associations, no doubt, full of feeling, and sternness, and so forth) – but such are simply traditions (built on the principle of seeking) that prize Standing in the Witness-Position (in the detached sixth stage manner) and devote themselves to talking about That and doing various exercises in order to Realize That.”
Conradg Says:
“It’s certainly quite possible to transcend attention and seeking through devotional contemplation of the Guru in the heart. It’s not possible to do so, however, as long as the Guru is objectified. So the Guru must turn the devotee’s attention inward, and eneable the devtoee to find him and contemplate him in the heart. That is what it truly means to “locate” the Guru, and to “recognize” the Guru. Without that, the process is simply dualistic, and reinforces egoic separation.”
Yes, I agree that objectification of the Guru is a common dualistic error we make, just like any objectification is – such as “objectifying” an illusory I-thought. Regardless, this process is not as you say here: “the Guru must turn the devotee’s attention inward, and enable the devotee to find him and contemplate him in the heart”. Turning attention inwardly or outwardly will support the illusion of self and non-self. Here is what Adi Da has said about this – from a talk in the same book quoted from above:
“From the ‘point of view’ of the sixth stage of life, Consciousness is on the ‘interior’ side of attention. From the ‘point of view’ of the sixth stage of life, Consciousness is a Domain that necessarily excludes the ‘world’ (or the ‘objects’ of attention) – and, therefore, the traditional sixth stage effort is to enter into the Domain of Consciousness in that characteristic ‘world’-excluding manner, precisely because of the inability to Divinely Self-Recognize the ‘objects’ of attention. In general, you presume that the ‘objects’ of attention are ‘not-self’ …”
Now I know you and/or FFaC will probably say once again that I simply don’t understand how radical Ramana’s Teaching on Self-enquiry is, but I cannot help but think that you and FFaC, because of your study of Adi Da’s Teachings on no-seeking and the seventh stage practice, tend to “radicalize” Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings to make them more comparable to Adi Da’s. Over and over I find statements like the following in Ramana’s teachings regarding inward-turned practices:
From “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” (Edited by Arthur Osborne):
“There are many methods. You may practise Self-enquiry, asking yourself “Who am I?”; or if that does not appeal to you, you may meditate on “I am Brahman”, or some other theme; or you may concentrate on an incantation or invocation. The object in every case is to make the mind one-pointed, to concentrate it on one thought and thereby exclude the many other thoughts. If we do this, the one thought also eventually goes and the mind is extinguished at its source.”
Regardless of Ramana’s Realization, statements like these do support Adi Da’s criticism that such practices are “built on the principle of seeking”. Perhaps more recent editions of Ramana’s books by David Godman have contextualized these statements more in the tradition of non-dualism and no-seeking, I don’t know, as Godman’s books came after my time of immersing myself in Ramana’s Teachings.
But in any event, I find Adi Da’s Way altogether more direct in my case. You guys find Ramana more effective for you. So be it – and also, the very best to the both of you too, and thanks for the lively discussion!
Flick Says:
“I think we in the West and particularly men, just love to argue. There is some conflict and pain in it , but some distraction and fun too. Since this is pretty much an “anti da” blog, I am surprised that there are some da people who come here and carry on these long debates with people who detest Adi Da. And I am surprised that they are even allowed here, although that speaks well of the open mindedness of the moderators of this forum. Anyhow, I find the whole thing rather “interesting” and curious myself and I guess that is why I post here myself.”
Hi Flick! I’m glad you are posting your interesting and balanced points of view. I wasn’t aware that you sat with so many other teachers, so your comments go beyond simply reading about them – and I appreciate that.
Yeah, some of us guys (and gals) like to talk about the teachings that work for us, our experiences, etc. – if nothing else, it certainly points to the necessity for God-Realization in all of our cases!
January 8, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Lest one forgets, the FLO is not really “FLO”. Ramakrishna and Vivekananda have also realized the 7th Stage, as Adi Da has stated before, if only because of Adi Da’s own 7th-stage realization.
January 8, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Charles, great to hear from you. You’re certainly right, love is what it’s all about – and not just at the “human” level, but at every level. That’s what non-duality means, in non-intellectual shorthand – love. On the other hand, all this tussling is exactly what it means to be human. Human beings don’t seem to be very good at love, so I don’t know that simply “being human” is a very good solution. But I think I know what you meant.
I cut Da a lot of slack for being a westerner teaching westerners, but there’s a point beyond which that sort of explanation doesn’t cut much mustard. Too much corruption, not enough love on this human level. As with Osho, the corruption goes all the way to the top, and you can’t just blame your devotees for it all.
Flick, likewise, I don’t share the scientific-materialist mindset of the Guru Papers, but the pathological psychological phenomena they describe is very much active in many Guru cults, and it’s a destructive influence that can’t be excused by invoking some kind of “spiritual” explanation that these authors don’t understand. There’s no valid spiritual explanation for authoritarian abuse of the kind we have both seen in Adidam, and both been repelled by. I was joking the other day when I asked if you were rejoining Adidam. We both know that ain’t going to happen. Hope your health continues to improve.
January 8, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Flick,
I must respond to your last comment in case someone takes it serioulsy. It is well known for starters that this is not an “anti-Da blog”, it is a neutral site. I prefer it that way. As for your comments about Adidam, on the one hand, you want to be considered an outsider, while on the other hand, you make implicit claims about a lack of insularity and hierarchy within the organization that simply are not considered true. That does not make Adidam members “wrong”, nor am I rigidly defining motives for that, it is what it is. Pretending that is not the case at all reflects on you.
It is no problem with me if your understanding of the issues is obviously so poor and your statements erroneous in obvious ways. It only reflects on you, and does not help Adidam either. But, what reflects on you more is that you want to judge others based on your own tendencies. It reminds me of the old days in Adidam where we had so called peculiars, vitals and solids criticizing each other, and the sexes tolerating each other, like the pot calling the kettle black. This is not a sadhana group and no one is forced to participate, or read, for that matter.
I am not saying that Adidam devotees are “bashing other teachers”.That is not Adidam dharma. The issue is whether Adidam assertions about these teachers are accurate and fit the facts. That can be seriously disputed. I am happy that you have brilliantly analyzed this and have come to the pre-conceived conclusion that the only issue is that: “Adi Da himself raised a lot of hackles by his various descriptions of his own “enlightenment” and trying to compare it to some other teachers from his own lineage and from the traditions. He sure could be offensive.” The fact is, that is not the primarly issue. Whether Adi Da was offensive may be grist for the mill, but the primary issues are exactly as I have said. These are: Are Da’s comparisons and criticisms accurate and do they fairly represent the traditional figures? And, are his more recent claims of a superior realization compared with everyone else justified, particularly when they conflict with his earlier statements? Each will have to decide that for themselves. You have made up your mind, fine. Others may not have. And others find it interesting. Many just read without the compulsion to dismiss others. So be it.
January 8, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for weeks on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest.
January 9, 2009 at 12:59 am
Raymond
Still peeing my pants over the “misunderstanding”. Must have got my “spiritual” panties all bunched up. Kudos Dude!
“Da bashing”, “Anti-Da blog”… sorry, not what I get here. What I do “get” is voices that have not been heard, accept in a few older forums, and the majority of which (voices) do have something to say. That Frank is seen in a different light by many after leaving Adidam, does not amount to “Guru-bashing”; it’s discussing him and Adidam openly. The linkage, which is hilarious, to the “Western Mind”, or, “Scientific Materialism”, and the “not ready to hear” theory… that dog don’t hunt, and it is a form of apologetica for Frank. To hold his feet to the fire is not bashing. Perhaps the tone(s) ruffles ones sensitivities. Did Frank ever shy away from that? “God is not a Genltleman”. I think that bastard is wetting himself right now and is totaly honored by all this attention. I’ll go on record as saying that he, right now, is saying…”Now there are some Devotees”. (Still love this; “Those who despise me love me in secret. Those that love me openly have hidden doubts”. The Fucker’s got my number).
Missing in all the “assessments” of the “Western Mind” is the inspection of the “Eastern Mind”…”Spiritual Materialism”. The “Eastern” Disposition” is no different in any real way than the “Western Disposition”. In Franks case, we have a Western Mind speaking in Eastern Mind (thus the schizophrenia). It’s like Buddha using Aramaic, and blaming all the people that came to him that couldn’t understand, saying “Ya’all are just too caught up in the Eastern Mind”. See how silly that argument is?
What exactly is Material(ism)? Is it distinct and separate from Spirit? Does anyone believe that that is even possible? The body… material, right? What is breathing it? What is making the blood flow? Is any of this “separated” from the “Intelligence” that lives it? Is that a possibility? Is the mind..the “obstacle” to be transcended, separate from this Intelligence? Is it “your” mind? Realy? “Who” says so? Is the “problematic” mind separate from anything? “Whose Mind”? When did mind become “personalized”? By whom? Is that even possible? Is it “your mind” to transcend? Here’s a shortcut…NO!!!!! There is only mind and it ain’t-a-yours…It’s Universal! Give that shit up. It’s the very constipation that “you” are suffering. “You” may as well be trying to transcend bowel movements…and BTW…they happen, unless you think about it, and, get in the way, and, make up all kinds of cosmologies about shitting…1st stage;eating..2cd stage;digesting..3rd stage; gaseous emissions…4th stage; intestinal movement (error or the 4th stage: retention)…5th stage; bowel movement with a magazine (5th stage error; National Geographic…samahdi of the poop)…6th stage; “religious movement” ( taking too long on the pot and beckoning loved ones to worship your “movement”)…7th stage; totaly full of shit and making no bones about it ( no error ). The East/West thang is a wheel that the materialist/devotee, devotee/materialist squirrel. is sawing his balls off on (sahdana, “practicing”…”who” practices?), trying to get to the Acausal Acorn…bless his Heart (on the right side, of course). Pfffffffftttt! Drop it. Drop the egg. In the end it’s only a conceptual omelette.
All concepts…only. If the are ten people looking at an apple and describing it there will be ten descriptions. None are “more” right than the other…that is until the 11th person comes along and “resonates” with #8, and, convinces 12, 13 & 14 that #8 has the clearest description of the apple that he’s ever heard, and, now we have a “movement” (see 4th stage error above…bhakta origin). “Words”, conventional, spiritual, etc., are at best, pointers to…only, not the thing. That which is called “Enlightenment”, “Awakened”, will sound and be, “Unique” to the “person” Speaking their confession. The “Authority” is “Unique” to All.
“I” speak and the “Other” nods in faux re-cognition. “I” don’t trust him. He must die!
(Note to Self…must use “Inside” voice when posting)
January 9, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Is “devotee” telling everyone to put away the “books” and eat dinner now, lol. (I remember that happening to me and three other guys at the sanctuary, before dinner one night in 1975.)
What’s the news related to Adidam and their plans for the future? (I obviously can’t log in to http://www.adidam.org and practice my well known snooping siddhi! Maybe I should start remote viewing and see what’s up?)
Hope everyone is doing well. I like the discussion here because it helps (perhaps) many to flesh out their own practice dynamics.
January 9, 2009 at 1:44 pm
“Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for weeks on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest.”
I have no problem with this. 95% of what I’ve responded to here is just an attempt to correct misleading ideas and falsehoods put forward by devotees about the traditions and the history of Adidam. If devotees don’t put forward misleading ideas and falsehoods, you will leave me with very little to say. Which I would prefer as well. But honestly, don’t you think it’s a little creepy to try to get others to act in lockstep towards some goal of “serving Beloved” by censoring oneself and refraining from talking openly with critics of Adidam?
January 9, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“devotee” encourages fellow devotees to stop posting because in the people here are responding “in a perverse way that is not serving His Work”.
There couldn’t have been a more eloquent statement about the failure of Adidam – everything and everyone that does not “tow the party line” is “perverse”. The only way to “serve Beloved” is to not engage those people at all, just to ignore them.
Sigh.
January 9, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Yes I agree this is a more “neutral” site in general, because more than an “anti Da ” view is allowed and presented. Still most of the people who post here are definitley against Da big time and also pretty pissed at him. I personally have no reason to be pissed at him, although certainly I have myself questioned his behavior over the years myself. Still I personally find many things positive about his teachings and primarily his spiritual transmission and his actions do not derail this for me personally.
Certainly I have visited other forums that really are negative totally relative to Adi Da. One place even said he died of a viagra overdose and that Alan Watts had some sort of personal vendetta against him . To me that is like being in a Bevis and Butthead cartoon, where they say that “his boogers are greener than mine”
Anyhow I somewhat appreciate the conversations between Conrad and Feel for God . At least they get into the nuts and bolts of dharma in general.
I really am an “outsider” I have not been in the Adi Da community for many years and have been studying and practicing Buddhism with different teachers and practices and also was initiated by Ammachi and have done many retreats with her. So you see I still value a guru and his or her transmission. I also value what the Buddha said in “Be a light unto yourself” By the way, Buddha was also a guru and so was Ramakrishna and so was Vivekenanda and so was Ramana Maharshi. I wonder what the Guru Papers would have to say about these gurus, especially Ramakrishna , who was very eccentric and a homosexual and Vivekenanda who had a bunch of females following him around. My point about those books is that they really are written by “western” psychologist types who see an inherent problem in following a guru to start with and think that people who do it are “pathological” many some are and maybe some are not. Everyone really is somewhat “pathological” and are real fools if they do not want more out of this life than “money , food , and sex” These books I am referring to do not even acknowledge that a spiritual process can exist. I simply to not agree with that stance at all.
I have never been a blind follower of Adi Da or any of the other teachers I have studied with and I am sure there are plenty of other people like me that way. It’s not like Adi Da created a “Jonestown” {funny pun ha ha} and everyone drank the coolaid. Now that was a true cult in the negative sense of a cult.
I think that people making a big deal of the ordinary way that Adi Da died is kind of silly too. The way a teacher dies does not shed light on his realization one way or the other. Ramana died a painful cancer death and was moaning in pain. Ramakrisna the same. Suzuki roshi the same. Vivekenanda died very young. So what. Adi Da’s heart stopped and he fell over. His body rotted and they buried him. The devotees hoped that he would either “come back Into ” his body or at least show sign of non decay like a very few teachers like Yogananda showed. I don’t blame them for wishing this. so what . So I would hope that some of the anti Da hysteria dissipates over time. People should chill out a bit and get on with their awakening practice. Flick Rahke why do not people use their real names on these forums. what is there to be afraid of?
January 9, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Feel4God ,
Actually, you are quoting me out of context here, Conrad. I said “the process involves one of noticing every aspect of the ego-I” – not as you say, granting “an endless amount of attention” to every aspect of the ego-I. The difference is the same as defined by Adi Da between true “self-observation” vs. egoically-based “self-watching”.
No, that’s not actually the kind of difference I’m talking about. According to Adidam dharma, “self-observation” is spontaneous and unplanned, whereas I am referring to the whole discipline of “self-inspection”, including of course various things like Oedipal considerations, which are very well planned, pre-conceived, and not spontaneous. This involves a ton of stuff, as you know, and a thorough program of putting attention on all kinds of personal habits and issues with the intention of getting them “aligned” to the Guru, etc. In the midst of that very unspontaneous discipline, spontaneous “self-observation” is supposed to arise, but the main focus is one of conforming to a particular set of disciplines, ideas, ways of thinking, and life issues, so as to create this “alignment”. The issue I bring up is that this differs greatly from Ramana’s path, which does not impose some kind of outer discipline on the devotee, or even an intention to conform, or to deal with one’s tendencies in such a fashion, but rather a direct approach to the heart of egoity itself, this basic feeling-presumption of separation, this “I”, and in so doing, by directly transcending the “I”-feeling, in feeling, releasing oneself in a natural fashion from the whole motivation to act out egoity in life.
Ramana’s view was that by intentioning disciplining oneself, or seeking some behavioral goal of conformity, one would only reinforce the ego itself, because attention is put on the body-mind and the world in the process. His approach was not body or world negative, in that he didn’t recommend any sort of “avoidance” of the body or world, he simply recommended a natural, sattvic life, but it was not about putting attention on such things either in the hope that one could thereby “break through” or actually discipline the ego’s outer manifestations. So there was no attempt to “mature” in the fashion Adidam is always oriented towards, in some step by step method of gaining greater and greater responsibility for the outer manifestations of egoity through conformation to any predesigned set of relationships. It was remarkably free of that sort of thing. And yet, not irresponsible either.
Intuited.”
The difference between self-observation and self-enquiry is that self-enquiry is intentional. It is the intentional “discipline” that leads to the penetration of the “I”-thought, to seeing through its illusion to the Self. But rather than involving us in endless coralling of thoughts and desires through outer disciplines and self-inspection of our tendencies, it bypasses them and goes directly to the root, and cuts out the root of the egoic tree.
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion.”
Actually, no. The “I”-thought is not in the right side of the heart. It is a thought, in the mind. It is the core thought that is the root of mind itself, without which there can be no mind. It has no real existence, however, which means that the mind has no real existence either. It is only because the heart-knot is closed that the “I”-thought appears in the mind as a reflection of this closed heart. The heart is not in the right side in any case, it is everywhere you are, and thus the “I”-thought is everything you do. The point of self-enquiry is to constant locate this root of all action all the timem focusing not on the action, but the root of action, and going beyond that root to the Self and Source from which it arises, the Heart. Da appropriated this teaching when he wrote in the KOL that one should be aware of what one is “always doing”. What one is always doing is thinking “I”. That’s it, basically. Self-enquiry simply addresses this fundamental error directly, rather than the ripples from that primal stone thrown in the ocean of consciousenss.
In the Way of Adidam there is direct Self-Identification with Adi Da through His Gift of recognition of Who He Is. In my experience this cuts deeper because He is already beyond the root of egoity. All practices in Adidam are always to be done in that context – and the Teaching always reminds us of that.
To each his own. There is nothing about self-enquiry which precludes contemplation of the Guru as being prior to the “I”-thought. But it is understood that until the “I”-thought is thoroughly cut off at its root, it will continue to breed and proliferate without end. In that regard, self-enquiry is a basic means for concentrating attention on the Guru in the heart, which I don’t see as any different in kind from what you refer to as “Self-Identification with Adi Da”, or what a Vaishnuvite might call “Self-identification with Krishna” or whatever one’s chosen Ishta Devatma is.
Again, real self-understanding in Adidam is simply about observing patterns of egoity and understanding them to be the activity of self-contraction – always in the context of the radical devotional relationship to Adi Da.
Well, what is the activity of self-contraction other than thinking “I” constantly? But this is never known if one is always observing one’s patterns of egoity. There are no patterns of egoity other than “I, I, I” endlessly repeated, like a mantra. That’s the pattern, plain and simple. The sooner one focuses in on that pattern, the sooner one gets past it. The secondary patterns it makes in the manifest body-mind are basically hopeless, once they get that far. You can’t corral and reverse the waves in the pond, you can only stop the stone from dropping into it over and over again.
Again, these patterns of self-contraction are noticed or witnessed, if and when they arise; they are not sought out by any means. But also, they are not avoided by some form of inversion on the root of attention, concentration on the I-thought, or any concern with the “I” whatsoever.
We both know that the practice in Adidam involves a very thorough “inspection” of virtually every form of action we perform ever day, from diet to sex to work to exercise, etc. We both know that devotees don’t just “searchlessly Behold Adi Da as Acausal Divine Reality” all day long. The practice involves a very thorough process of self-inspection in all these areas, and an expected conformity in all these areas to a very complex system of discipline given by Adi Da. If you want to call Ramana’s practice of self-enquiry a form of seeking, I’m not sure how you can say that all of that Adidam “inspection” is not an even more comprehensive and complex form of seeking.
Likewise, there is no avoidance of these things in Ramana’s practice. Ramana’s use of the word “inversion” is misunderstand by Adi Da to mean avoidance by some kind of inward orientation, some kind of psychological introversion, whereas Ramana meant and practiced this quite differently, and that’s one of the major sources of Adidam misconceptions about Ramana and his teaching. Ramana’s recommendation to “invert” attention does not involve an “inward” orientation in the psychological sense. It’s more accurate to say that it merely means being present as one is, rather than outwardly oriented towards objects. Even Adi Da acknowledges that it is our orientation towards objects that keeps us bound to illusions, the primary illusion being “the illusion of relatedness”. Self-enquiry, in focusing in on the root of relatedness, the “I”-thought, cuts this illusion off at the root. This does not sever “relations” in the practical sense, and it does not induce “inwardness”, it simply transcends the ego, and thus all the “waves” the ego creates in the body-mind, as the body-mind.
If the Adidam practice really did not involve, at some point at least, an “inversion” on the root of attention, it would never transcend attention, but always remain bound to objects. And in fact one aspect of the Perfect Practice does involve “the contemplation of consciousness”, in the second stage of that practice, in which the source of the witness is inspected, involving a contemplation of the current in the right side of the heart, and seeing the Guru there. Ramana’s way doesn’t differentiate these kinds of stages (even if something like them naturally matures), but starts from the beginning with the direct contemplation of the Guru in the Heart and Source beyond the “I”. Ramana constantly told his devotees to find him at the Heart, as their very Self, regardless of their attachment to his outer, bodily form. He often used the term “within” or “introversion” to describe this, but again, not in any negative or psychologically inward sense. He advocated what he called “a gregarious attitude” in the midst of this practice of self-enquiry.
Conrad, it is when you make general statements like this, that it makes me wonder about your understanding of Adi Da’s Teachings. No one has ever (rightfully) claimed that recognition of the Witness is some kind of superior or exclusive understanding by only Daists.
I’m simply referring to the lack of any support for the general notion you have been putting forth here that Adi Da’s teaching and practice are somehow unique and superior to Ramana’s or general Advaita, or that Adi Da’s methods are free from seeking, while Ramana’s remain bound to seeking So I mention from time to time that the positive aspects of Adi Da’s non-dual teachings are derived from Advaita, and are not “only by Me given”.
“However, merely to Realize that you Stand As the Mere Witness is not sufficient.”
“Entire sixth stage traditions have been developed for the sake of achieving that Realization alone – traditions in which it is hoped that, through the practice of sixth stage exercises, the practitioner will come to Stand (in the detached sixth stage manner) as the Witness-Consciousness (with various numinous associations, no doubt, full of feeling, and sternness, and so forth) – but such are simply traditions (built on the principle of seeking) that prize Standing in the Witness-Position (in the detached sixth stage manner) and devote themselves to talking about That and doing various exercises in order to Realize That.”
Of course Ramana also said that the witness was not the equivalent to realization, but only a preliminary understanding. He said there is no witness in reality, it is just a pointer to the Self’s “location”. And I’m sure in the traditions there are various people who from time to time might confuse the witness with the Self, and Self-realization, but Advaita itself has long understood and addressed this issue, and is not in any sense limited to it, nor is Ramana. So it’s really a red herring to suggest that this is what the non-dual traditions are really about, when it’s well understood by them that this sort of detached “witness” orientation is not true non-dualism. You have of course read such non-dual texts as the Tripura Rahasya which make this same point rather dramatically, in a fashion Da himself used to acknowledged was clearly “seventh stage”, but later recanted from endorsing for reasons that have never made much sense.
“From the ‘point of view’ of the sixth stage of life, Consciousness is on the ‘interior’ side of attention. From the ‘point of view’ of the sixth stage of life, Consciousness is a Domain that necessarily excludes the ‘world’ (or the ‘objects’ of attention) – and, therefore, the traditional sixth stage effort is to enter into the Domain of Consciousness in that characteristic ‘world’-excluding manner, precisely because of the inability to Divinely Self-Recognize the ‘objects’ of attention. In general, you presume that the ‘objects’ of attention are ‘not-self’ …”
There of course is no “sixth stage point of view” in Advaita as Adi Da describes it, except perhaps in some of those not yet fully realized. But it’s not even a general point of view that Ramana ever gives much credence to. He’s certainly not at all oriented towards “world-excluding” practice or goals, quite the opposite, as he stated many, many times. How Da could ignore that is a little hard to understand or respect. He was very explicit in recommending to the vast majority of his devotees that they live the lives of householders, not world-denying ascetics, and he almost always refused to approve of any devotee who wished to become a sannyasin or renunciate, telling them instead to renounce the “I” while continuing to live in the world of relations.
As for some inability to “Divine Self-Recognize the “objects” of attention, this is simply patently false. Ramana often affirmed that the world is the Self, that what we see as objects are not objects at all, but only the Self, and that the jnani knows this without any doubt whatsoever. As for viewing objects as the “not-Self”, this applies only to the quality of their being “objects” at all, not to their very nature, which is the Self.
Now I know you and/or FFaC will probably say once again that I simply don’t understand how radical Ramana’s Teaching on Self-enquiry is, but I cannot help but think that you and FFaC, because of your study of Adi Da’s Teachings on no-seeking and the seventh stage practice, tend to “radicalize” Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings to make them more comparable to Adi Da’s. Over and over I find statements like the following in Ramana’s teachings regarding inward-turned practices:
Now this is where you have it backwards. Adi Da got a lot of his “radical teachings” from Ramana and other Advaitic sources, and then turned around and claimed them as his own. This is really a form of spiritual plagiarism, and only those who aren’t very well versed in Ramana’s teachings or the traditions themselves would accept these things as unique or even original to Adidam, when the record is there to show that Ramana had this understanding first, and Adi Da came later, borrowing and adapting them to his own westernized teaching perspective. Because I came to Adi Da when I was only seventeen, I didn’t really have a chance to fully comprehend Ramana or Advaita, and grew up learning to see it through Adi Da’s own teachings, which I accepted as authoritative, and did not understand that they contained severe distortions of both, while yet being derived from them for the most part without proper attribution. Since I’ve left Adidam I’ve been a bit shocked to discover that Da not only misrepresents these traditions, but large swathes of his teaching, including insights and understandings I had thought were unique to him, were actually taken from these traditions, and yet represented as Da’s own. So I can fully understand why you might think I am attributing an undestanding to Ramana which is actually Da’s, when in reality it is the opposite that is the case.
From “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” (Edited by Arthur Osborne):
“There are many methods. You may practise Self-enquiry, asking yourself “Who am I?”; or if that does not appeal to you, you may meditate on “I am Brahman”, or some other theme; or you may concentrate on an incantation or invocation. The object in every case is to make the mind one-pointed, to concentrate it on one thought and thereby exclude the many other thoughts. If we do this, the one thought also eventually goes and the mind is extinguished at its source.”
Regardless of Ramana’s Realization, statements like these do support Adi Da’s criticism that such practices are “built on the principle of seeking”. Perhaps more recent editions of Ramana’s books by David Godman have contextualized these statements more in the tradition of non-dualism and no-seeking, I don’t know, as Godman’s books came after my time of immersing myself in Ramana’s Teachings.
The context for this statement must be understood. In the first place, Ramana is not recommending that attention be concentrated in just any old thought, but the root thought, the “I”-thought, because that is what attention depends on and actually is. Second, the principle of developing “single-mindedness” is acknowledged throughout every tradition, Adidam included. As long as there is attention, it must be disciplined and kept single. This is the most basic truism of non-dualism. I doubt even Adi Da would disagree. “If thy eye be single, thy mind will be full of light”.
Ramana is also suggesting how methods other than self-enquiry can succeed – they end up concentrating the mind to such a degree that the Guru can draw the devotee into the Heart. Any genuine practice will lead to this if it is to actually make the passageway to Self-Realization. Ramana himself said many times that all the devotee can achieve at best is this “concentration” in the most primal sense of self or being. From there, it is the Guru who brings about realization, by drawing the mind into the Heart and destroying it there. The devotee must bring this greatly purified attention to the Guru, and the Guru then does the rest. Ramana merely felt that self-enquiry was the best or purest or fastest method for achieving this purity of approach. But others have certain done so by other means.
Papaji was an example of someone who came to Ramana through the bhakti approach, but nevertheless achieved such concentration of attention on his Beloved Krishna that Ramana was able to deliver him to the Heart and destroy his ego. When asked about the paradox of this, of how he could teach self-enquiry to others even though he himself had practiced bhakti all the way to the end, he said that the method itself was really unimportant, it was the desire for realization alone that mattered, that this would concentrate the mind and make one available to the Guru’s Grace regardless of the path taken, and would even draw the Guru to one, as miraculously happened in Papaji’s case (I told this story earlier).
But in any event, I find Adi Da’s Way altogether more direct in my case. You guys find Ramana more effective for you. So be it – and also, the very best to the both of you too, and thanks for the lively discussion!
Yes, I agree it’s been good. I’ve found it useful to compare and contrast these matters in the wake of Da’s passing in order to be clearer about the similarities and distinctions. The best to you as well. If you find Adi Da’s teachings more effective, I have no problem with that, or any other approach. As Ramana often said, there are no jnanis, there is only jnana. Whatever Ishta we choose, there is only One.
January 9, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Nice post Conrad, very balanced. I do disagree with you saying that Adi Da somehow plagiarized Ramana’s teachings in some way. People all through history have had similar realization and described it in similar and sometimes also different ways. Adi Da never read Ramana before the Vedanta Temple realization and later came across him and felt that his descriptions corroborated with his realizations.
The whole bottom line here is whether or not one feels that Adi Da was even an enlightend being to start with. If you do not feel that he was , then nothing he could possibly say would make any sense and he would just seem like a huge ego taking advantage of people. But if he was realized, then he functioned as a sort of transparent window to the Self so to speak, and the devotion to him and the meditation and practices are a way to facilitate the practiconer’s ability to make use of this ‘transparent window” And I sat down in front of Adi Da many times and I have sat down in front of many heavy weights , including the karmapa, and Muktananda, and Osho, and Rudrananda, and Sri Chinmoy, and Chogyam Trungpa, and Ammachi and others. Adi Da did seem to me to be “egoless” when I saw him in those formal times, and also a very few times being close to him outside of the formal stuff and he still appeared that way to me. I never had to get into anything personal or political with him so that was to my advantage. Also, my experience was that there was a very tangible and conscious spiritual prescence and transmission associtated with his body and also his places that was very easy and effortless to plug in to. I have experienced this same sort of thing, with a slightly different flavor with Ammachi. She is the feminine and motherly version of the transmission of love and bliss , which the world of humanity needs so much . The feminine aspect is very important now. Her style is service to the world, which is a very good style. Adi Da had a different style. All gurus have different styles.
In Hindu culture in India, there is no stigma or taboo about devotion to a guru. I don’t feel that our American culture has much wisdom about this sort of thing at all. Anyone of us who has chosen to practice in a spriritual tradition is certainly going against the grain here. Look at the horror that our country and materialistic culture has brought into the world in the form of domination and wars and so forth. people talk about Adi Da like he was some sort of Hitler or something. He did play the guru kingdom role, which is not uncommon in the siddha lineage of Hindu India. Many precendents for it. That along with his unsaintly life style of sexuality and use of alcohol and pot has disturbed some people.
Yes he was in Scientology for a year. he did not use the techniques of scientlogy to brainwash people and control them. Scientology techniques are not that powerful. I was using scietology myself for a year when I was 19 in Boston. Ron Hubbard was not my cup of tea. so what. Still many people find benefit from practicing in Scientology. I think Travolta and Cruise are doing just fine.
I saw a magazine in the doc’s office today of Ammachi,of all people and it had a talk of her describing Ramana’s work as a guru to different types of devotees. I will have to quote that talk here next time. Flick Rahke
January 9, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Flick wrote:
Nice post Conrad, very balanced. I do disagree with you saying that Adi Da somehow plagiarized Ramana’s teachings in some way. People all through history have had similar realization and described it in similar and sometimes also different ways. Adi Da never read Ramana before the Vedanta Temple realization and later came across him and felt that his descriptions corroborated with his realizations.
Perhaps you’ve forgotten this passage from the KOL, describing his trip to India in the spring of 1970, five months or so before the Vedanta Temple “event”:
“When we left for India, I made an assessment of all that I knew. I also took three books: the Bhagavad Gita, the Mandukyopanishad, and The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi.”
So, clearly Adi Da had not only read Ramana before the Vedanta Temple realization, but valued him so highly that he was the only modern source he relied upon for guidance. The suggestion obviously is that he had been reading Ramana for some time, and was very powerfully drawn to his teachings. And its quite obvious if one reads Ramana how much he influenced Adi Da’s radical notions, which he admits himself that he didn’t really begin to take seriously until the previous November of 1969, when he returned from his second Indian trip and decided to take a more radical tack than Muktananda had seemed to be leading him towards.
Normally, I wouldn’t consider this plagiarism. It’s completely legitimate to be deeply moved by other teachers and teachings, and to be inspired by them, and incorporate them into one’s own life and mind and practice. But Da himself has made a huge deal about the issue of acknowledging one’s sources, and has even at times turned this into an accusation of plagiarism on the part of others. He’s often claimed that the whole neo-Advaita movement in the west has been plagiarizing his own teachings for decades, when in reality they have simply been openly inspired by Ramana, Nisargadatta, and other Advaitics.
Likewise, he’s made a big deal of the claim that his teaching is original and unique to him, and superior to Advaita, when if one examines it rationally, it’s rather obvious that the opposite is the case, that Da was heavily influenced by Vedanta, Ramana, and the general teachings of Advaita especially, and that the teachings he gave after the Vedanta Temple were simply Advaita with a personalized, western interpretation that he liked to promote as if it came to him from out of the blue, when in fact it came to him from years and years of study of thousands of advaitic texts.
Da likes to claim that his teachings simply came out of his own realization, but the truth is that from long before he was strongly influenced by Vedantic teachings, and in the decades following the Vedanta realization he literally read and reviewed thousands and thousands of Vedantic and Buddhist texts which make up the bulk of the serious spiritual literature in his library, and has even been partially published as the “Basket of Tolerance”. And yet, when he makes comparisons between his teachings and these traditional sources, he does not acknowledge his debt to them. To the contrary, he considers them to be in debt to him for the “service” he has done to them. Well, pardon me for finding this a little wierd.
Now, I would agree with you that Da is a powerful shakti communicator. I’ve had powerful experiences with him of the non-dual variety as well. Whether there is any “ego” in him during such things is really not for me to say, however, nor do I really trust the whole notion of subtly detecting “ego” in others. I don’t even trust the subjective notion of deciding who is enlightened and who is not, nor do I find it a productive way of approaching the evaluation of a teacher. People are generally drawn to a teacher first, and only later decide the teacher is enlightened, based on their own attraction, which is rather circular. So while I remain skeptical of Da’s enlightenment, inherent in that is a sketicism towards my own discriminative ability, and that of anyone who is not themselves enlightened.
My criticism of Adi Da is not even based on the idea of his being unenlightened. It would be just as valid if he were enlightened. Your notion that enlightenment necessarily brings with it some kind of perfection and immunity to crititicism is itself the very idea I find suspect, and reject. Those who promote that kind of idea are superimposing some sort of mythic, dualistic fantasy upon the non-dual. Nothing and no one in this world is perfect, and no enlightened being is above criticism, including Ramana and the whole Advaitic tradition. As Ramana said, there are no jnanis, there is only jnana. So when we criticize “alleged” jnanis, we are only criticizing something that is a fabrication to begin with, that we should not be attached to or pretend is an absolute ideal that cannot be questioned.
The mere fact that Adi Da freely criticizes all the traditions is reason enough to turn all that criticism back upon him, and see how well he stands up in the face of it. To simply give him a free pass in all respects, as if “being enlightened” would make him immune to any criticism, does no one any good I think. I see him as a tragically flawed individual, a great spiritual being and a deeply messed up guy all at the same time. One can’t simply decry others for not understanding or accepting the Guru principle in the west. Most of Da’s most incisive critics are actually better versed in the Guru traditions of India than his devotees are, and with fewer illusions about it.
There’s a lot of leeway in the Guru tradition for idiosyncratic and iconoclastic behavior, but that doesn’t mean it has no discrimination at all. It has a powerful tradition for weeding out false claims and false notions about Gurus and their teachings, and one of these false notions is the idea that the Guru is an absolute authority whose teachings trump one’s own discriminative faculties. Those who truly defend the real Guru tradition would not be offended at all by those critics, such as in “The Guru Papers”, who point out the obvious perversions of that tradition into authoritarian cultism. That is not what the Guru tradition is about at all, despite the abuse of all kinds of teachers who claim to be representatives of that tradition.
As for your suggestion that Da’s critics are making him out to be Hitler, this is baseless hyperbole, don’t you think? I haven’t heard anyone here suggesting Da has ever killed anyone, only that’s he’s been quite self-indulgent and narcissistic. Just because Hitler is the modern archetype of the megalomaniacal narcissist doesn’t mean that all megalomaniacal narcissists are literally Hitlerian, or that when people criticize Da’s flaws they are somehow comparing him to Hitler. That’s your own mind’s associations at work, which no one here has remotely suggested has any truth to it. No one has suggested that Da’s self-indulgences have been remotely comparable to Hitler, or that he’s remotely as important as Hitler either.
Now, one can obviously point loosely to “precedents” for Da’s way of doing things to the traditions, but that doesn’t make the precedents meaningful. The fact that there’s a “kingly” precedent in India for some Gurus, such as Rama on down the line to Narayan Maharaj, doesn’t mean that any kind of money-grubbing self-aggrandizement can be excused by self-proclaimed Gurus as legitimate and “having precedents”. I don’t know of a single legitimate Guru who has done things the way Da has done them, unless you consider L. Ron Hubbard one.
I don’t think the scientology issue applies to the particular spiritual practices of Adidam, but to its overall organizational structure and functioning. The Guru and ashram systems of India don’t operate the way Adidam does, plain and simple. Adidam bears a much closer relationship to Scientology in that respect, including its very tight authoritarian hierarchical secrecy and exploitive relationship with the general membership, including the idea of “membership” itself, which simply doesn’t exist in the traditions. Likewise, scientology itself is inspired in part by authoritarian political movements, and also by authoritarian occult movements, particular those associated with Aleister Crowley and the whole system of occultism that developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which claimed in some cases (Blavatsky and the Theosophists come to mind) to modelled on eastern groups but was really a semi-fascist movement all its own. One sees a closer relationship to Adidam in these things than one finds in the actual Satguru traditions of India, Vedantic or Buddhist. Except, of course, in the perversions of these things, which of course are not uncommon.
The Sat-Guru tradition of India has always had to stay on its feet, purifying the perversions which arise in every generation. It’s a thankless task, but necessary. And much of that tradition has seen Adi Da as a perverse force corrupting that tradition, rather than a benign force purifying it. You can decide for yourself, of course, but if you want to debate the issue with others, you have to have some sound reasons to consider Adi Da a legitimate Satguru in that traditional sense, other than the notion that his “enlightenment” makes him immune to criticism.
January 10, 2009 at 2:37 am
Devotee says:
“Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for weeks on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest.”
Hmmm… let me get this straight. For current and former followers to discuss similarities and differences between Da and traditional figures, and what outside of Adidam is widely considered inaccurate information, and to advocate for Ramana Maharshi’s perspective, is according to this one devotee, to “rail”.
I don’t need to be “energized” to want to talk about non-dualism and those like Ramana Maharshi. You know, you probably live an insular existence to be offended by what is normal discourse. You don’t have to read here. And I don’t think your remarks are doing Adidam any good, either.
January 10, 2009 at 4:39 am
Flick,
I did not mean to imply you were an Adidam insider. What I was pointing out is that the very outsider perspective you bring does not really put you in the best position to make some of the assertions you make as though you had that type of knowledge. That handicaps you in understanding Conradg and also myself to some extent. Although I was not involved for such a long period, I was considered to have a good grasp of Adidam dharma while involved, and I read the books and talks of that period to some depth. You have made your assessment based on the limited knowledge you have and because Adi Da is one of a number of spiritual teachers you frequented, but your comments show a more superficial understanding of the discourse here. You show confusion between those who advocate materialism and those non-dualists who do not consider Da authoritative.
You said: “I do disagree with you saying that Adi Da somehow plagiarized Ramana’s teachings in some way. People all through history have had similar realization and described it in similar and sometimes also different ways. Adi Da never read Ramana before the Vedanta Temple realization and later came across him and felt that his descriptions corroborated with his realizations.”
That more superficial position is one reason why you inadvertently make such obviously false statements as “Adi Da never read Ramana before the Vedanta Temple realization and later came across him and felt that his descriptions corroborated with his realizations.” In fact, Da writes that when he sold nearly everything in his attempt to move permanently to India in May of 1970, one of only three texts that he kept and took to India with him, out of the library he had collected and then sold, was “The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi”. Obviously he valued the book! He not only read it but said he studied portions and wrote a number of notes in the book. Thus the basis on which your summary dismissal of Ramana Maharshi’s influence is based has no validity whatsoever. Also, this influence is indirectly suggested by some of Da’s comments in his early assessment of Ramana Maharshi. which seems to have been based not on all of what Ramana Maharshi actually taught, but peculiarities that come from interpretations by others like Osborne, who Da did read considerably before the Vedanta Temple event. David Godman who has researched Ramana Maharshi’s life more extensively that any other author, has pointed out that some of Osborne’s wording did not exactly conform to the full sense of what Ramana Maharshi intended, to include more emphasis on meditation on the heart on the right than was actually Ramana Maharshi’s teaching.
That there was no influence prior to the Vendanta Temple defies logic and common sense. And what most of those deeply familiar with Ramana Maharshi see is, even if unconscious, lots of plagiarism and adaption as Da gradually evolved his teachings over time and subtly modified some descriptions. Just an opinion but not an uncommon one. What else, for example, is the self-contraction but the same activity of identification with an illusory ego Ramana Maharshi talks about, yet Da erroneously claims Ramana Maharshi taught the ego was an entity not an activity as he did. How else can Da fail to acknowledge the significance of Ramana Maharshi’s clearly stating that when the mind finally resolves in the heart, a force current immediately rises up amrita nadi, permanately destroying the ego knot. There are many more examples, far too many to mention here.
You mention Ammachi. I too find her a guru of great value and enjoy her presence, and she is one who teaches both jnana and bhakti, and who recognizes Ramana Maharshi but not Da as fully realized. Who at that level has recognized Da’s claims about his realization? Not Nisargadatta, not Anandamayi Ma, not Sri Ranjit, not any of those jnanis associated with Ramana Maharshi who were alive during Da’s teaching period. Why not? Perhaps Da is partially awakened with a powerful presence of value but also flawed and not fully realized. Perhaps not. But this has nothing to do with disdain for gurus per se.
You say:
“He did play the guru kingdom role, which is not uncommon in the siddha lineage of Hindu India. Many precendents for it. That along with his unsaintly life style of sexuality and use of alcohol and pot has disturbed some people.”
Just what is the siddha lineage? Who are these precedents? Let’s get specific here. Ramana Maharshi, for example, had no issue with jnanis being sexual, but he pointed out that it was associated with the benefit of others. All evidence suggest that Da’s sexual practices were not pleasant for many, that his use of alcohol became problematic, and his use of marijuana and other drugs seemingly habitual. Where are the many precedents for that?
You mention Scientology. What critics have pointed out is that he tried to become Scientology teacher right after having experienced the profound samadhi Da says he experienced in 1968 from Muktananda, not as a spiritual novice. He took courses all the way to advanced OT 3 training, not just a few courses. And Scientologists who knew him have publicly said that he borrowed the religion from Scientology. It is reasonable to ask questions about that.
It is not necessary to agree about Da. It is interesting to dialogue with those like Feel4God. Where we agree fine, and where we disagree, it is worth discussion. Naturally I find much more agreement with Conradg whose assertions about Ramana Maharshi are based on sound sources and extensive knowledge of both Da and Ramana Maharhi’s teachings. In your case, it might be useful to check your accuracy rather than making so many assumptions. I am curious how you evaluate Da’s assertions that everyone else was not fully realized which is inconsistent with the teachings of others.
January 10, 2009 at 5:31 am
Feel4God,
Good to see your last comments. I do think your not having read David Godman’s works or having engaged in dialogue with him and other modern devotees, and non-familiarity with all the material now available, contributes to some of the difficulty here. I too recall what was readily available in the early 1970s in western bookstores. Books by Arthur Osborne, Mouni Sadhu, Paul Brunton and the like. Talks from 1936-38. Differences as vast as those between Maha Yoga and Sat Darshana Bhaysa. Very limited biographies. So I hear your perspective with some sympathy because I read the same things then, but can only say it is based on limited and dated information. You have your guru in any case, but others can validate what Conradg and I are saying with minimal effort.
You say:
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion. In the Way of Adidam there is direct Self-Identification with Adi Da through His Gift of recognition of Who He Is. In my experience this cuts deeper because He is already beyond the root of egoity. All practices in Adidam are always to be done in that context – and the Teaching always reminds us of that.”
Honestly I agree you would have read that, but modern sources point out that is inaccurate. You do not understand yet how Ramana Maharshi views the heart on the right. That experience isn’t even totally necessary! And Ramana himself said of self-effort, paraphrasing, of what use is a fan when the wind blows, in referring to recognition of the Satguru in the process. In fact, Ramana Maharshi taught Robert Adams that something like that was the fasted path (will have to look for the exact quote, but it is found in Silence of the Heart). Futhermore David Godman says:
“Although Sri Ramana Maharshi was happy to give his verbal teachings to anyone who asked for them, he frequently pointed out that his ‘silent teachings’ were more direct and more powerful. These ‘silent teachings’ consisted of a spiritual force, which seemed to emanate from his form, a force so powerful that he considered it to be the most direct and important aspect of his teachings. Instead of giving out verbal instructions on how to control the mind, he effortlessly emitted a silent power, which automatically quietened the minds of everyone in his vicinity. The people who were attuned to this force report that they experienced it as a state of inner peace and well being; in some advanced devotees it even precipitated a direct experience of the Self.
This method of teaching has a long tradition in India, its most famous exponent being Dakshinamurti, a manifestation of Siva who brought four learned sages to an experience of the Self through the power of his silence. Sri Ramana frequently spoke of Dakshinamurti with great approval and his name crops up in many of his conversations.
This flow of power from the Guru can be received by anyone whose attention is focused on the Self or on the form of the Guru; distance is no impediment to its efficacy. This attention is often called Sat-sanga, which literally means ‘association with being’. Sri Ramana wholeheartedly encouraged this practice and frequently said that it was the most efficient way of bringing about a direct experience of the Self. Traditionally it involves being in the physical presence of one who has realised the Self, but Sri Ramana gave it a much wider definition. He said that the most important element in Sat-sang was the mental connection with the Guru; Sat-sang takes place not only in his presence but whenever and wherever one thinks of him.”
That has been my experience as well. I think most will conclude after research that Da simply chooses to emphasize differences based on language nuances that do not objectively exist. World excluding, introverted, etc., these are questionable interpretations about Ramana Maharshi.
“Now I know you and/or FFaC will probably say once again that I simply don’t understand how radical Ramana’s Teaching on Self-enquiry is, but I cannot help but think that you and FFaC, because of your study of Adi Da’s Teachings on no-seeking and the seventh stage practice, tend to “radicalize” Ramana Maharshi’s Teachings to make them more comparable to Adi Da’s. Over and over I find statements like the following in Ramana’s teachings regarding inward-turned practices.”
These passages are not to be interpreted that way in the larger context. What Ramana actually taught was what David Godman entitled his book, simply “Be as You Are”. When you cut past the terminology, you find that Da often simply adapts and reinterprets the traditions as his own, then inaccurately represents those sources which only makes it appear his are unique. Unlike Ramana Maharshi, you can show evidence for a definite pattern of Da’s thinking being affected by and evolving from what he has read, just as it was before the Vedanta Temple event. That should have been acknowledged. I must agree with Conradg here. Many are shocked, upon leaving Adidam, to discover from the original sources how little is really original in Da’s teachings, even where he claims to have originated it.
January 10, 2009 at 6:38 am
I have posted a couple of times before and have been keeping up on the traffic. I have been reading Ramana’s material and believe it is useful to consider. Enquiry into the basic feeling and presumption of “me” is simple and may get easier through practice over time as I learn more about it and do it.
This thread has functioned as a debriefing for me: an additional way of bringing closure to a very troubling period of my life.
In the past I confronted two highly placed functionaries (about Adidam being a cult and full of corruption) only to receive an anonymous call from a man at a payphone telling me that I was “playing a dangerous game” and he hung up. I knew these functionaries and they denied having anything to do with the call (through a third party reporting back to me). They didn’t call me up to directly deny it or show concern for me.
This is scary stuff; classic cult behavior. It’s impossible to defend oneself from such people if they mean to do more than intimidate. But I want you all to know how I feel about it.
It’s all so thoroughly twisted and disturbing to me. I came for the Truth and it seems that I finally got it!
What a mind-fuck.
January 10, 2009 at 11:07 am
I’d like to suggest a movie called Doubt by John Patrick Shanley.
I’d like to remind us all how hurtful it is to tell unsubstantiated “truths”. After all our perceptions, are our own perceptions, and have no way of revealing the whole experience of every being involved with Adidam, or any other way of life.
So, in fact it is a dangerous game we’re playing here. Gossip brings it’s own brand of abuse. That is not to demean or diminish anyone.
January 10, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Yo Conrad and critic dude, I only meant by the Hitler comment that there is a sort of anti da hysteria on this and much more on the other forum that is reminding me of how people react to Hitler. I never said people said he was Hitler. I do think there are some major grudges being held of a more personal level that people had with Adi Da and I do not have that sort of personal grudge. Like i said , I was never an insider or a climber. But I did study Adi Da’s life and teachings very thoroughly for many years since I really was a formal “member” {this is pure semantics by the way, since if you live in any ahram, including Amma’s, then you are a “member’ } and I did feel that he was “enlightened” enough for me to benefit from as a guru. It is talked about in the traditions of “egolessness” and he did appear that way to me personally. whatever..
You did “get” me on the time line of his studies of Ramana . I did forget that and, you are right, I cannot claim any exhaustive knowledge on that one. I will leave it to you scholarly types, although I do dabble a bit myself. Mosty, I am not into debating, ,mostly just giving my own experience and view. But there is no way I could present that view on this particular forum without getting into some sort of debate. I think the only other person here who says anything positive about Adi Da is the Feelforgod dude and I have no idea who he is but he seems to like to get into it with you guys. He does toe the party line for sure and that is fine . I do not care really.
I am more of the “vital” and “peculiar” type as ole da used to say and i would rather be surfing on the ocean or dancing at a rave, but I have had this bizarre flu for over a month{Da probably gave it to me , although I contracted it at a large Amma retreat} and have been flopped on the couch with my ole Mac lap. so here I am, just a brainwashed fool , who does not know squat, but at least I am not bent out of my mind over Adi Da, I just feel like he had a real validity as a teacher and guru to at least some folks.
I do not believe he stole any of his teachings from anywhere in the tradition and I do know about the Basket of Tolerance and I have read the whole thing as it was published and I think that there is a lot of good stuff in it. Many teachings in the tradition are similar in their communication. I would not say that Ramana stole from Shankara or Buddha. Perhaps Saniel stole from Da though. And perhaps ole Deepak stole from Maharishi.
Yes one of the precendents I was talking about was Narayan as Conrad said. And Meher Baba to some degree also. Actually , I was just reading Amma again and she was talking about the guru function a lot herself. In Hindu India, the guru is very often worshiped as God and their word is taken as gospel truth by the disciple. Also the disciple serves the guru as God. I don’t think there are too many “Guru papers” floating around the ashrams in India. These books are writtten by people who do not even feel there is such a thing as real spirituality. They simply see what they consider to be a dysfunctional dynamic in the guru disciple relationship and they apply modern western psychology to their paradigm. People who have “fallen out ” and are dissaffected by their gurus find their answers in these sort of books.
Now I do think there are negative type cults. But no one has to stay in them. I found Adidam hard to enter and easy to leave. No one ever twisted my arm or called me from a phone booth and I said plenty, I mean plenty of cricitcal stuff out in the open. People used to say I was not a “real” devotee. I criticized the ridiculous aids policy right out front and many other things. I never personally went up against Da since I had no reason to do so since he never did anything to hurt me personally.
I know he would drink with followers at parties for months on end , but I don’t think he was an alcoholic since he could just drop it when he wanted to. That is how he really did that stuff. Alcoholics can’t quit. Same with pot, although it is non addictive. I know because I used to smoke it for a year straight and then just drop it with no problem.
i used to go to a wonderful and authentic Tibetan lama who had a very loyal following. There was a woman there who was very regular who asked the lama once to comment on “these terrible gurus who have sex with their female students” he got a smile on this face and said that it depended on the lama or guru and that it was often a great blessing when a lama would have sexual relations with a student. Now it turns out that this woman was the reporter who wrote articles against adi da in the 80′s in the Chronicle. She had been in the zen center and had some problems with Baker Roshi. She did not like this lama’s answer and stomped out of the temple never to return. This is what I mean by hysterical reaction. Throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Here is a little quote from
Amma “A person who has faith reposes all faith in the Guru, does not question or doubt the Guru, obeys the Guru unconditionally like a servant, never doubt that the Guru loves him or her,,” and it goes on and on in this vein. Of course Amma is a traditional Hindu guru. I hate to say it , but this is a real tradition.
Now the Buddha was a revolutionary, and the teacher in Buddhism is related to differently, the whole “spiritual friend” thing, although there is a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism of devotion to the teacher.
Adi Da took on the traditional Guru role as in Hinduism. That is more the format he came from ala Muktananda, not scientogy. The whole framework was Hindu spiritual, not scientology.
Here is another Amma delicacy.
She then asked him “What is Vedanta? Amma doesn’t know any Vedanta.People merely read books and preach Vedanta without practicing it.”
“Some people read books and they don’t practice anything. They merely mouth Vedantic statements. They say ‘I am not the body’, but their mouth waters if they see a delicious dish. They just read books, don’t do any sadhana, lose their tempers all the time, and don’t cultivate virtues, but they call themselves Vedantins.’
Amma continues “Even Ramana Maharshi, who is accepted as a real Vedantin talked about puja and japa in his work, Upaseda Saram Ramana says the seeker should start with puja , then go on to do japa and tapas. Only when the mind is in leenasthiti[and absorbed state] is he or she ready for Self Inquiry”
“In the olden days, the Guru used to make the disciples study the scriptures for 20 years. After 20 years of study, the Guru would select a few worthy disciples and teach them the Brahma Sutras. But nowadays , people just buy a copy of the Brahma Sutras and read them, without preparing themselves for it or doing any spiritual practice whatsoever.”
personally I think Ammachi knows what she is talking about.
personally I think I have a pretty unique perspective with which to see Adi Da. I was a devoted disciple for years and did see the good use of discipline for spiritual practice and also natural devotion. I also questioned things I did not understand or agree with. Also I have not just sat with a few other teachers here and there , which someone here snidely commented about. I have taken on the practices given by those teachers and traditions, including daily meditations and retreat times and disciplines such as yoga and tai chi and chi gung. I have studied these things and practiced them quite a lot and guess what, I still have a long way to go in practice. for example, my next big discipline is much more self less service or seva, which I resist since I am a selfish “western softie” who is still very much identified with the body and mind. This flu bug certainly reminded me of that for sure.
So I cannot expect to relate these kind of views here and not get criticized for it. I don’t mind really. I even posted my real name here. What do I have to hide? The only other “real” person I see here is ole Conrad who I knew when he was a snot nosed kid getting a job in Shandygaff on Polk street. Ah to be young again. Now that is a good reason to get “nondual” and the sooner the better with this aging body mind Flick Rahke
January 10, 2009 at 3:30 pm
To Another ex-devotee who remains a friend:
I think your suggestion to the group and, by inference, to me to watch a movie in response to my post is quite patronising and to accuse me of hurting or abusing others by spreading gossip is just such a load of horseshit. It’s an example of blaming the victim.
True, I can’t substantiate it; that’s the purpose of making an anonymous call. As far as I’m concerned this is not gossip; it’s a report of my direct experience, so deal with it. At the very least, this incident conveyed to me how little my relationship to the two people (that I had known for years) meant to them.
There was no offer from them to check into the situation or any word of comfort to re-assure me that they cared at all. Since they were in a leadership position (and I’m not naming anyone to try to convince you) in a “community of love” they certainly didn’t impress me with their response other than reconfirm my “perception”.
I think it’s time for you to wake up to the true nature of the group dynamic of Adidam and Adi Da.
I’m not the first person to complain about it and I further claim that it takes courage to even tell the story online because the people involved know me quite well.
Let me make it simple for you: I don’t like being threatened and that’s what happened.
This is a very sophisticated organization that pulled the wool over my eyes for far too long. When a close friend told me what was going on behind the official persona of this Church I was devastated.
I assume that you feel hurt by my unsubstantiated story and I feel your pain. Who are you protecting if not yourself? Adi Da is dead.
If you want to hear a more convincing story then you can easily seek it out. Only a few are under a court gag order and many others might be willing to speak with you in confidence if you showed a sincere interest in knowning the truth.
January 10, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Conradg Says:
“No, that’s not actually the kind of difference I’m talking about. According to Adidam dharma, “self-observation” is spontaneous and unplanned, whereas I am referring to the whole discipline of “self-inspection”, including of course various things like Oedipal considerations, which are very well planned, pre-conceived, and not spontaneous. This involves a ton of stuff, as you know, and a thorough program of putting attention on all kinds of personal habits and issues with the intention of getting them “aligned” to the Guru, etc. In the midst of that very unspontaneous discipline, spontaneous “self-observation” is supposed to arise, but the main focus is one of conforming to a particular set of disciplines, ideas, ways of thinking, and life issues, so as to create this “alignment”.”
Actually, self-understanding, whether it be relative to oedipal patterns or just some dietary or other gross life addictions, is always to be founded in real observation of the self-contraction and recognition of That which is beyond the ego. To see that in our separation we are dramatizing unlove, and to understand that we animate that in very precise and repetitious patterns is useful in preparing one for radical Transcendental spiritual reception of Adi Da’s Transmission.
Self-understanding is not a matter of dwelling on endless content, as you suggest Conrad – it should be simply a straightforward matter about this mechanism of unlove/betrayal-rejection we have “chosen” since infancy. It actually is very useful knowledge in my experience because I have a better idea of what I might tend to do in reaction to something I like or don’t like. In other words, self-understanding of these egoic patterns of addiction to unlove is a necessary process, just like taking care of any gross life addiction is – especially when preparing for more advanced spiritual processes.
Conrad and FFaC, I said the following:
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion.”
Then Conradg Says:
“Actually, no. The “I”-thought is not in the right side of the heart. It is a thought, in the mind. It is the core thought that is the root of mind itself, without which there can be no mind. It has no real existence, however, which means that the mind has no real existence either. It is only because the heart-knot is closed that the “I”-thought appears in the mind as a reflection of this closed heart. The heart is not in the right side in any case, it is everywhere you are, and thus the “I”-thought is everything you do. The point of self-enquiry is to constant locate this root of all action all the timem focusing not on the action, but the root of action, and going beyond that root to the Self and Source from which it arises, the Heart.”
Your response surprises me, Conrad. Here is a quote from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” page 113:
“That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires whence the ‘I’ thought in the body arises in the first instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind.”
Former Follower and Critic (FFac) Says (in response to my same statement above):
“Honestly I agree you would have read that, but modern sources point out that is inaccurate. You do not understand yet how Ramana Maharshi views the heart on the right. That experience isn’t even totally necessary!”
FFaC, are you saying that the above quote from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” has been changed in Godman’s versions? There are so many instances of Ramana stating that the mind rises out of the heart, that I cannot imagine that this has all been re-translated from these earlier translations. The following is on page 128 of “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi”:
D.: Bhagavan was saying that the heart is the centre of the Self?
Bhagavan: Yes, it is the one supreme centre of the Self. You need have no doubts about that. The real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self.
D.: Will Bhagavan please tell me where in the body it is?
Bhagavan: You cannot know it with your mind or picture it with your imagination, although I tell you that it is here (pointing to the right side of the chest). The only direct way to realize it is to stop imagining and try to be yourself. Then you automatically feel that the centre is there. It is the centre spoken of in the scriptures as the heart-cavity.”
FFaC, I have always understood that it is not a matter of concentrating or trying to locate this center – Ramana was always clear about that. But for Conrad and you to say my statement above is wrong, given the quotes I have provided in the past and now, doesn’t make sense to me.
Conradg Says:
“Ramana is not recommending that attention be concentrated in just any old thought, but the root thought, the “I”-thought, because that is what attention depends on and actually is.”
But, Conrad, here you say that attention depends on and is the “I”-thought, like I equated above. So are you saying here that attention does not arise from the heart on the right?
FFaC Says:
“These passages are not to be interpreted that way in the larger context. What Ramana actually taught was what David Godman entitled his book, simply “Be as You Are”. ”
Yes, I understand that Ramana worked in Silence fundamentally. Adi Da definitely states this about Ramana, and Adi Da works that way too – but also He Transmits from infinitely Above – so that the devotee enjoys Conscious Light/Love-Bliss whole-bodily AND prior to the heart-root. Adi Da’s work is also unique in that it does “both” simultaneously – if it can even be described that way. Again, we are in the land of my own tacit understanding here (and more advanced Daists testimony too), about a process that is unparalleled in the traditions from everything I have read. I certainly have never felt the Heart-Transmission via Ramana’s Silence (when I practiced His teachings in relationship to Him) in the same way that I feel Adi Da’s at and prior to the Heart AND also infinitely Above the head; however, I did have a strong tacit sense of Ramana’s Silent work at the time.
FFaC Says:
“When you cut past the terminology, you find that Da often simply adapts and reinterprets the traditions as his own, then inaccurately represents those sources which only makes it appear his are unique. Unlike Ramana Maharshi, you can show evidence for a definite pattern of Da’s thinking being affected by and evolving from what he has read, just as it was before the Vedanta Temple event. That should have been acknowledged. I must agree with Conradg here. Many are shocked, upon leaving Adidam, to discover from the original sources how little is really original in Da’s teachings, even where he claims to have originated it.”
Conradg and FFac, I knew when I read Flick’s mistake about the timeline of Adi Da’s reading of Ramana’s teaching and Adi Da’s Re-Awakening in the Vedanta Temple, that you two would point that out
, so no need for me to again. However, neither of you mentioned this section from the original Knee Of Listening, page 146:
“Ramana Maharshi had become familiar to me in the past through his various writings and recorded dialogues. He appeared to me to be a prime example of the living truth of Advaita Vedanta, the radically non-dualistic philosophy of the East. I had brought one of his books with me on my last trip to India, not so much for his own writings, but for the translations of ancient Vedantic texts included in his collected works. I had never been attracted to him in particular, apart from this non-dual philosophy that seemed to parallel my own understanding. But now I began to recall certain experiences that he had described in his own case. I remembered that he had given special prominence in his teaching to the experience of the “Self” in the heart, in the right side of the chest. ”
So it does appear that Adi Da had not given a lot of attention to Ramana Maharshi’s own experiences until 1970 and only then to corroborate what He was going through.
It is one thing to respond to Flick about a technicality, but then to go from there to state that Adi Da plagiarized others is absurd to me. Adi Da has quoted Ramana Maharshi extensively in His own literature and from there created unique arguments about its limits – just like He has done with the Basket of Tolerance. The Basket of Tolerance is not only a brilliant categorizing of thousands of books on every stage of psychophysical/spiritual development using the body-mind as its “map”, but also includes many of Adi Da’s radical arguments that help to shed light on what is otherwise such a huge mass of literature, few if any, could ever get through it all. It is a real spiritual treasure!
And what about Adi Da’s 7th stage of life Confessions, and the processes He describes therein? There are no comparable traditional writings on those processes of “Outshining” that I have ever read, and are certainly worth considering.
What saddens me the most about this conversation is that many critics, you two included, seem to have indeed “thrown the baby out with the bath water”. Adi Da’s Teachings are uniquely radical to many many people, and no one has ever generated such a comprehensive Wisdom Teaching; and though you studied it at one time, you still seem to show more a disdain for Adi Da, His Word, and Adidam altogether, – rather than a more open approach that real consideration warrants. Part of this criticism of you must be obvious, but the other reason for it, is you seldom, if ever, give the Teachings of Adi Da credit where credit is clearly due.
devotee Says:
“Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for weeks on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest.”
I understand what you are saying in terms of the very frequent negative tone of this blog; and that is part of the reason why I actually decided to post here about Adi Da. People should be able to read both sides of this, not just those posts that are critical of Adi Da. I don’t have a problem with people being critical, though as I said fairly early on, if people are being really disrespectful, that is very different. I addressed that in some of the posts, saying that being “adolescent” undermined their actual intended communication. I got blasted for that, but it still holds true. Generally, I will just ignore the mainly disrespectful and/or sarcastic/angry posts because it just gets to be too much to respond to, for one, and secondly, the poster may mainly just be venting something rather than really wanting to communicate and also perhaps understand something more about it and himself. For example, as I said before, calling Adi Da “Frank” or “Frankie” is disrespectful and I will generally just ignore those because of this, and usually because of their tone altogether. (Of course, this is not to say that if I don’t respond to a post, that I think it is disrespectful.) However, when someone makes a criticism that is balanced and straightforward and also shows their own self-understanding, that’s okay in my book. There is much about myself and other Daists that have been far from perfect in how we handled our responsibilities, and I have already written about that here.
I have posted my email address several times for anyone to write me about anything, whether it be from a devotee or a critic or simply an interested “passer-by”. “devotee”, write me if you want to say more about my participation here or whatever.
feel4god@gmail.com
“devotee”, at one point, because I wanted a better site in terms of software to post on, we were invited to carry on this consideration at lightmind – but that site has predominantly been disrespectful, so we remain here, because I have no interest in participating in any increased traffic to a site when the administrator and others speak as they do about Adi Da.
Whether this discussion should continue here or not is a good question for me. I like considering the Teachings of Adi Da and Ramana Maharshi, and have found that very interesting. But again, I am saddened that some very intelligent people here apparently have so much “baggage” relative to Adi Da and/or the Adidam community, that they seem to dismiss Adi Da’s radical arguments – like Flick said, throwing out the baby with the bath water. Anyway, I hope mine and other devotees’ testimonies have helped others to not do this.
And mainly (and once again) – if nothing else, we see that many of these arguments can truly only be resolved at the heart by each person, and ultimately only by actual God-Realization!
@ “Another ex-devotee and critic” – what year did all that happen in?
January 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm
i just want to say that I know there are people who post here who have strong and valid feeling about Adi Da and the community. Probably some of them might even be friends of mine in the “real” world. I do not know, but I do respect my friends who say they were hurt by Adi Da and I take them at their word. I do not doubt what they say.
And yet I also have friends who were close to Adi Da and they feel good about their relationship with him. I hear both sides. I just don’t really know about anything for sure. My roomate just told me{he was never in the community} that he feels that Adi Da was just a huge hypocrite since he did not live what he taught and that he was a “spiritual gangster” Of course, my roomie has his own views too. And yet I talked to a friend in the store the other nite who has very positive feelings about Adi Da and this guy was very personally connected to him. I respect this guys intelligence and integrity too. I don’t know , perhaps Adi Da was the biggest hypocrite and ego maniac. Still no one can seem to explain his transmission away. people say stuff like “yogic tricks” and shakti and “blackmagic ” ala Allister Crowley. No I read all the Crowley stuff in college and he does not seem much like Adi Da to me, although they were both chunkers.
It is interesting to note that , if you read the biography of Ammachi, you will see that most people hated her , including her own siblings and parents, during the first years when she was exhibiting strange spiritual signs and siddhis. She was hated and abused constantly by most of the villagers. When she first started taking on the personna of Krishna in the “bhava” darshans, some people were attracted and many thought it fake or bizarre. I have seen old videos of her in that state. really amazing. talk about full of shakti.
Groups of “piundits” hired assasins to kill Amachi and there were some attempts on her life. On guy who poisoned her died of the poison himself. I always felt refreshed by the fact that she has no body guards and is not afraid for her own safety. so Amma offended a heck of a lot more people than Adi Da ever did, and she now has millions of disciples and does huge humanitarian projects. But she is very eccentric and unfathomable. What do people expect from the paradox of enlightenment in human form? it might be nartural, but we humans are so far removed from the natural that it feels unnatural.
Many people feel that amma and her followers are “cultic” I have heard many people say this. They talk about how unnatural it is to put that kind of attention on a guru and take their words as gospel They must have been reading the “Guru Papers”
I mean, after all, many Amma devotees actually have dolls of Amma . Pretty cultic and bizarre to say the least. Actually I got one myself and put her on my mantle next to the Buddha. After all, one of my beautiful lamas, Anam Thubten, told me that Amma is a “living Buddha”. So there is this funny little doll sittiig up there next to Buddha. Now I don’t carry the Amma doll around with me and cuddle it or anything. some devotees do, espcecially the women, and it seems kind of funny to me, but who am I to judge? And there is the incredible free and blissful transmission that is spontaneous in Amma’s company. I have seen deep patterns of neurosis fall away from me spontaneously from me while receiving this transmission and darshan. Still they tend to come back because it requires individual practice and responsibility over a life time. There is a price for freedom and that is the ego and that requires real practice over time. Oh yes, I do lean toward the “practicing ” school of some effort. Not that I am not lazy myself, big time.
So even though I have done a lot of individual Buddhist practices, including daily shamatha and vipassana, I think the way of the Guru is still quite valid in these modern times, and it is an express route if you can surrender to it. I have not come to that place of devotion myself yet , but I know it is real. Flick Rahke
b
January 10, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Flick,
It is not a matter of “getting you”. I already guessed you were a vital/peculiar type, and being precise isn’t your forte, you prefer gut feelings. In summary, you give us your opinions (fine), but indirectly acknowledge are not qualified to discuss the details. So it is not a matter of “getting you”, it is simply that some of your assumptions are a real stretch and lack factual support. That is the general problem with discussions about Adidam, those who advocate for the validity of his claims and teachings do not even know as much about the traditional sources Da claims to have gone beyond. It makes it difficult because it comes across more as personal criticism when it is simply that Adidam has its own views compared with those more expert on the subject. Someone like David Godman, for example, would be shocked at the blatant misrepresentation and misunderstanding of Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisagadatta found in Adidam dogma. I attribute that more to wishful thinking and factual ignorance, combined with an inability to reverse course on opinions when other facts arise.
You say: “I just feel like he had a real validity as a teacher and guru to at least some folks.”
Again, you have adopted a them versus us attitude here and seem confused about what is being said. It is obvious some people find him a teacher and guru. The issue I have no problem with that, it is their karma. So it is not that we are discussing. It is questionable claims made by Da, and particularly by distorting traditional teachings, that lack definitive proof.
You say:
“I do not believe he stole any of his teachings from anywhere in the tradition and I do know about the Basket of Tolerance and I have read the whole thing as it was published and I think that there is a lot of good stuff in it. Many teachings in the tradition are similar in their communication.”
That is exactly the point, you believe it and that is it, you do not have a grasp of the details, and you jump right to the exaggerated term “stole” so you can dismiss the whole point. You certainly aren’t prepared to examine this belief to look at the pros and cons. What is being said is that there is evidence that suggests Da was first deeply influenced by, and then repacked the traditions, but in so doing did not accurately present them or credit them. There is no doubt Da was already well versed in the traditions very early, despite the impression you would give. And, you can see from his essays how he evolved, including, as Conradg says, evidence of attempts to move beyond Muktanada and integrate ideas that can be found in Ramana Maharshi’s teachings and other sources before that. It would be good if you would simply acknowledge that Da had been a scholar of the traditions for a long time before he wrote KOL and so it is just your belief. He himself says that as early as the Spring of 1964:
“…I began to read books. They would come to me quite arbitrarily. A couple of times people would come around to this house we had on the beach and I’d talk to them and they’d tell me about such and such a thing. I’d go and read that. I’d go to a party and there’d be some body there, talking about all these kinds of phenomena and a whole new form of literature would be indicated by them and I’d go to read those books. Quite spontaneously through the suggestions of others over the next several weeks I became acquainted with all kinds of literature, and within just a few weeks I must have acquired a grounding knowledge in the whole field of spirituality and occultists and subtle phenomena and yoga. I read hundreds of books within the next couple of months, cause I was just hungry for this whole thing. I wanted to become acquainted with this whole new possibility so I just read endlessly…Now I describe before meeting Rudi something about the reading that I did, and the kind of yogis phenomena and path or whatever that seemed to me from my reading from my preferential understanding to be something of the quality of spiritual life as I felt I wanted to live it. So on the one band there was the fact that the oriental teachers, the yogic teachers, and wisdom teachers, the traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism essentially was the area of the literature that most attracted me, because (it was) prior to my college years I was brought up as a Christian, a Protestant, a Lutheran and that was what I saw to be spirituality, this dogmatic ritualistic series of beliefs and propositions (whatever). But the oriental teachers were experiential in their point of view and essentially free of confinement to traditional notions and to dogma, and the ultimate state that they were recommending was liberation in fact, from all kinds of containment, including concepts. I was attracted to the yogic paths, rather than the purely philosophical ones, in other words to the experiential transformative activity rather than to just thinking about it all, and the teachings that referred to the self, self realization, and ultimate reality, Brahmin, the non dualistic teaching seemed to me to be the highest form of the traditional teachings. I studied the kundalini, some books about the Kundalini Yoga, such as The Serpent Power, and I began to understand now from my reading something about what my experience bad been in the past, and I saw that how the “bright,” Amrita Nadi the experiences of my early life, how they related to the technical descriptions of the chakras and the awakening kundalini and the Siva-Shakti unity, realization of Self through awakening of the conscious-force.”
So, the fact is that Da was a scholar of such things even before he found Rudi and very long before he started public teaching. This talent was known, and one reason why Muktananda put him to work editing his upcoming book when he moved to India in 1970. And, quoting early follower Tom Riley on how he found out about Da in February 1972, Tom says he was told: “Well, there’s a friend of mine that I spent time with in India. His name is Franklin Jones and you should go and talk to him, and you know, he knows more about the traditions than anybody that I’ve ever met.”
“I know he would drink with followers at parties for months on end , but I don’t think he was an alcoholic since he could just drop it when he wanted to. That is how he really did that stuff. Alcoholics can’t quit. Same with pot, although it is non addictive. I know because I used to smoke it for a year straight and then just drop it with no problem.”
This topic is somewhat a digression but since you present an mythology as fact I must say it. Ever here of binging and purging? Da’s life from the time of Rudi was one of periods of purification followed by more indulgence. According to Rudi students who knew him I have talked with, Da’s inability to keep the disciplines, alluded to in KOL but according to them not the full story, was one reason for the break with Rudi. You can see similar periods thereafter. Binging and purging is just another form of addiction masked by apparent control. We know up to 1985 that the indulgences, and periods of binging and purging, went on regularly despite public statements otherwise. There are soundly sourced accounts that, other than the need to quit alcohol in the mid-1990s and replace it with marijuana, this continued into recent years. Anyone can contact some who knew him in Rudi’s org, knew him in Scientology, knew him in Muktananda’s org, can talk to those who left and observed this first hand, and then decide for themselves. I like Conradg, will leave it to others to determine if this affects their assessment of Da, but wishful thinking and denial isn’t the solution.
Finally, since you value Ammachi, and so do I, let me point out that anyone can ask Ammachi about Da and his affect on their practice. Some have actually done it. Instead of presenting your opinion as fact and presuming you know so much, you might try that. I would give her some credibility myself.
January 10, 2009 at 8:40 pm
Feel4God,
To see that in our separation we are dramatizing unlove, and to understand that we animate that in very precise and repetitious patterns is useful in preparing one for radical Transcendental spiritual reception of Adi Da’s Transmission.
It’s useful in a psychological sense, perhaps. But spiritually this is ass-backwards, putting the cart before the horse. The body-mind is purified of its “patterns of egoity” by being immersed in the clear and direct happiness of being, in the knowledge (jnana) of one’s true Self, not by seeing all the patterns as they play out ad nauseum. It is only when we give up that futile quest for figuring ourselves out and simply and directly resort to the Self as our present reality that these “waves” are smoothed out. Of course, to each his own. I spent years and years in Adidam like everyone else having endless groups about these things, and I came to the conclusion that their only value was in seeing how useless that whole approach was. Which is to say, relatively valuable! So I will give them credit for that much.
Self-understanding is not a matter of dwelling on endless content, as you suggest Conrad – it should be simply a straightforward matter about this mechanism of unlove/betrayal-rejection we have “chosen” since infancy. It actually is very useful knowledge in my experience because I have a better idea of what I might tend to do in reaction to something I like or don’t like. In other words, self-understanding of these egoic patterns of addiction to unlove is a necessary process, just like taking care of any gross life addiction is – especially when preparing for more advanced spiritual processes.
One can gain this kind of self-knowledge from any psychotherapeutic path. I know people on such paths, and they find them personally rewarding. I’m not impressed with them either, however. To me real self-understanding of these patterns means simply seeing that this whole approach to life is nonsense, that love is direct and unmediated, and it really doesn’t matter what our patterns of unlove actually are, loving has nothing to do with them. There is no pattern to the ego except “I, I, I”. You get that basic truth down, the rest falls like a house of cards.
Your response surprises me, Conrad. Here is a quote from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” page 113:
“That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires whence the ‘I’ thought in the body arises in the first instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind.”
I guess you don’t understand what Ramana is saying at all when it gets down to it. Did you not read this quote above carefully? He clearly says that the “I”-thought is in the mind, not the heart. He further says that the source of the “I”-thought is in the Heart. That is the point altogether. The whole point of self-enquiry is to constantly go beyond the “I”-thought to its source, the Heart. The “I”-thought is not “in” the Heart, however, it is in the mind, it is the mind. From Ramana’s point of view, even the ego, the “I”-thought, arises from the Heart, it’s source is the heart. Thus, the whole mind, all our delusions, have their source in the Heart. Self-enquiry cuts straight through the “I”-thought to it source in the heart, rather than twiddling around in the mind trying to see all the patterns that develop there. I understand these are difficult concepts to understand intellectually, and one can easily become confused, but it’s all really very simple in practice.
D.: Bhagavan was saying that the heart is the centre of the Self?
Bhagavan: Yes, it is the one supreme centre of the Self. You need have no doubts about that. The real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self.
D.: Will Bhagavan please tell me where in the body it is?
Bhagavan: You cannot know it with your mind or picture it with your imagination, although I tell you that it is here (pointing to the right side of the chest). The only direct way to realize it is to stop imagining and try to be yourself. Then you automatically feel that the centre is there. It is the centre spoken of in the scriptures as the heart-cavity.”
FFaC, I have always understood that it is not a matter of concentrating or trying to locate this center – Ramana was always clear about that. But for Conrad and you to say my statement above is wrong, given the quotes I have provided in the past and now, doesn’t make sense to me.
I’m not clear at all what point you are trying to make here. It doesn’t seem to support your case that the “I”-thought is in the heart. Quite the opposite. He seems to clearly be saying that the false self, the ego-”I”, is in the mind, whereas the true Self is located in the heart (relative to the body-mind). So he recommends that we stop engaging the mind (imagining) and simply “be yourself”. If that is done, the mind falls into the heart.
I had an early experience of this before I even came across Adi Da’s teachings. When I was sixteen I went to Switzerland for the summer to hear J. Krishnamurti’s talks, with the intention of going on to Ramanashram in the fall and winter. While there, I saw Papaji, not realizing who he was (he wasn’t much known at the time). He was at the book stall of the tent where the talks were given, and I was immensely impressed with this guy. Just looking at him, I thought to myself “this is what a real man is”. I went over near him, and almost pointed out Ramana Maharshi’s talks to him, but I was too shy. It would have been very funny if I had, since he was in the Talks. I went home and read them instead, and while reading, I suddenly felt my mind speeding up. All my thoughts began to race around, like tape in a tape recorder, zipping in a circle, and then suddenly they all just sped down the back of my head, down my neck, and curled into my heart. I sat there mindless and awake as the heart, at least in some basic intuitive sense. I felt simply happy, free, and amazingly alive, yet quiet. This basic sense stayed with me for days, even for weeks, and even as the mind returned something was different in me.
Obviously I wasn’t realized, but the basic idea is there – the mind’s source is the heart, and when the mind dies, even temporarily, it falls into the heart, via amrita nadi. If it dies there, then what rises back up through Amrita Nadi is the pure Light of the Self. Otherwise, as in my case, the mind just returns and re-asserts itself as the ‘I”-thought, from which everything else we call ego and world follows. But an intuition of the Heart remains that helps guide one throughout one’s spiritual life. That is the Guru. Sometimes, the Guru manifests as a human person we see and relate to. But even that Guru helps point us back to the heart beyond the ego. He is that same force which draws the mind down into the heart. If the mind, the “I”-thought, were already in the heart, we would have lots less trouble. But because the ego appears to us in the mind, and ceaselessly multiples itself there, we have much complication to deal with. Ramana’s way of self-enquiry is to cut out the complications and deal directly with the “I”-sense and its source in the heart, by standing in the Heart that is beyond all of this manifestation and working from there.
But, Conrad, here you say that attention depends on and is the “I”-thought, like I equated above. So are you saying here that attention does not arise from the heart on the right?
Right. The Heart is pure awareness. The “I”-thought arises from the knot of the heart, as a reflection of this closed heart, as mind. Attention is how consciousness seems to function when the mind is present, always oriented towards objects, unaware of its own source. Spiritual practice in essence can be defined as the transcendence of attention in its transcendental source, the Heart. But while the Heart is the ultimate source of attention, the more direct linkage is the mind, the “I”-thought. Once the “I”-thought appears in the mind, it creates a world of objects that are linked to it by attention, which is consciousness in the form of objective mind. Mind as attention simply cannot find the Heart directly, because it presumes the “I”-thought to be the basis for all experience, and the “I”-thought is disassociated from the Heart, living as mind instead of Heart. So the “I”-thought must be seen as an illusion, must be undone, must be understood as not being our real Self, but only as a false, egoic self. That is the point of self-enquiry, to see throught this false self, this false mode of consciousness we call “attention”, and to see that our truth being and Self is at the Heart, not in the mind or its objects.
Yes, I understand that Ramana worked in Silence fundamentally. Adi Da definitely states this about Ramana, and Adi Da works that way too – but also He Transmits from infinitely Above – so that the devotee enjoys Conscious Light/Love-Bliss whole-bodily AND prior to the heart-root.
First, it’s important to understand that nothing is “prior” to the Heart. That’s the very definition of the Heart – That which is prior to all arising. Even Da acknowledges this in the KOL. The Amrita Nadi is not prior to the Heart, and is not different from the Heart. It is merely the Light of the Heart. In the awakened jnani, the Light of the Heart flows freely up from the Heart through the Amrita Nadi to the Sahasrar, and from there flows down into the body and all its nadis. Ramana describes this perfectly. So there’s no sense in which a jnani like Ramana could do anything but “Transmit from infinitely Above”. That is how the Heart-Force moves into the world, in his case and the case of all jnanis. There’s simply no difference descriptively between what you are claiming for Adi Da and what Ramana describes in the case of all jnanis. Yogically speaking, there is no other way for the Heart to enter into this world than through the Amrita Nadi and the descent of force from the Sahasrar, and Ramana describes that process, so what exactly is unique and special about Adi Da making this claim for himself?
Adi Da’s work is also unique in that it does “both” simultaneously – if it can even be described that way.
Well, no. There is no “both”. It’s a single process that simply appears, from the point of view of the body-mind, to involve two centers, the heart on the right and the sahasrar infinitely above. From the point of view of the Heart, there is only one process, one Heart, ceaseless active as its own Light. You are trying to reify a form of dualism here that simply cannot make sense from any non-dual understanding of these matters.
Again, we are in the land of my own tacit understanding here (and more advanced Daists testimony too), about a process that is unparalleled in the traditions from everything I have read. I certainly have never felt the Heart-Transmission via Ramana’s Silence (when I practiced His teachings in relationship to Him) in the same way that I feel Adi Da’s at and prior to the Heart AND also infinitely Above the head; however, I did have a strong tacit sense of Ramana’s Silent work at the time.
Again, this statement of your own understanding is based on Daist dharma that merely pretends to be unique and different, but simply isn’t. Your lack of complete experience with Ramana’s Silent Presence is not really determinative of these matters. If you choose to base your understanding of Ramana on the limited experiences you have had, fine, but don’t presume that Ramana’s work is limited to what you have experienced of it, especially when he clearly describes these same processes quite well.
If I were to suggest any difference between Ramana and Adi Da, it’s that Da is very much focused, as you say, on the Sahasrar, and rather than working from true Heart-Realization, he works from the higher mind, the reflected self high above. This is because, I would speculate, he never truly submitted to the Guru in the heart, never actually allowed his “I”-thought to die there, and instead “escaped” from the Heart with his ego intact, and fled to this place above, from which point he has tried to establish some sort of glorified egoic sense of himself as the one and only and most perfect ego who ever has appeared. This is a form of spiritual psychosis rather than full realization. It’s a demonstration of how even a very advanced and accomplished yogi like Da can go wrong at the very last stage in the process, and create for himself an immense spiritual “buffer” around his ego. He can thus appear to “transmit” a very powerful shakti, and even demostrate great knowledge and awareness of the heart and all the yogas involved, but still be egoically bound in the midst of it, and create a vast teaching that reflects his own egoic error, rather than true transcendence of ego in the Heart.
So in a sense I would affirm that Da does indeed “transmit” from above, much more so than from the Heart. He has from very early in his work, during the Method of the Siddhas days, worked deliberately “from above”, rather than from the Heart. He even tends to see the Heart itself from the perspective of the Sahasrar above, and as somehow “lesser” than his great and glorious Oz-identity above. This is merely because he hasn’t actually submitted his ego to the Guru in the heart, but has found a way to avoid this true surrender, a way of having his cake and eating it, so to speak. Da has re-interpreted Advaita from the perspective of a glorified super-ego above and beyond the world who descends into the world to play out this ego’s games with great spiritual force and power, but lacking the true Heart of genuine non-dual realization. Many are drawn to him, feeling the power of the Heart in him, and the great and wonderful shakti of his transmission from above. But they become misled by this power, and their own egos became identified with it rather than freed to truly contemplate the heart of their own being. Instead, they become locked into an endless contemplation of Da’s own greatness and glory, which never actually brings about true realization because it lacks that fundamental surrender of ego. Nevertheless, as with many similar spiritual paths, people can certainly grow and progress to some degree within it, and transcend even Da’s own egoic limitations and delusions if they are sincere. But at some point, they will inevitably move on to the pure path of direct enquiry and surrender in the true Heart, through whatever means and processes are given by the Self.
Of course, that’s just my own loose, speculative “take” on Da, based on my years of association with him, my observation of the community of his devotees, and the dharmas he has taught, all looked at in comparison with the traditions. In a basic sense, Da is a “mast”, a crazy guy, just as he always said he was. Like Meher Baba, he’s a bit daft and even delusional, and yet also a great spiritual force and influence. I wouldn’t dismiss him, but I wouldn’t take him at face value either. A lot of discrimination is required to see through him for those who are drawn into his sphere of influence. Most people’s discrimination warn them off long before that, however.
So it does appear that Adi Da had not given a lot of attention to Ramana Maharshi’s own experiences until 1970 and only then to corroborate what He was going through.
Yes, I recall the passage you quoted, but I’m not sure how much credence one should give to this notion that he wasn’t much influenced by Ramana, despite his protestations. It sounds more like he’s trying to distance himself from Ramana while at the same time taking his collected works with him on his last trip to India before the Vedanta Temple event. It’s simply more evidence to me of his conflicted relationship with all his spiritual influences, in that he wanted to be his own man, independent of all other “fathers”, and yet he really seemed to need these influences and teachings to formulate his own ideas, which turned out not to be very original at all, but mostly rehashing of these influences. I would call that a supreme Oedipal complex, and I think we can see that process growing and growing throughout his life, this conflict with his own sources and the desire to make himself supremely independent of them.
Otto Rank wrote some great books on art and psychoanalysis, and he put forward what I think is a better understanding of the Oedipal than either Freud or Da had, especially applicable to artistic and creative personalities like Adi Da. He felt that the real impulse of the Oedipal complex was self-creation, the desire to eliminate one’s male source (the father) and unite with the feminine origin (by having sex with the mother, taking the father’s place), thus symbolically becoming one’s own father, one’s own creator, one’s own source. In Da’s case, he was always trying to kill his spiritual fathers and fuck his spiritual mothers. Ramana, unfortunately, was cast in the role of his primary spiritual father and Guru, as he acknowledged early on, which required of Da that he later kill him and render him unnecessary, so that he could become the sole point of origin of his own spiritual path and teaching and self. This is how Da related to all his Gurus. He exalted them at first, then murdered them, relegating their corpses to lesser stages of life, but first ransacking their bodies for any treasure he could take and claim as his own. It’s a very amusing but tragic life story, and like Oedipus he ends up old and blind and mourning his lost kingdom, which somehow all went to shit, and he never seemed to understand why.
It is one thing to respond to Flick about a technicality, but then to go from there to state that Adi Da plagiarized others is absurd to me.
I’m sure it is absurd to you. But the facts speak for themselves relatively well, and most people who examine them without the bias of believing Da’s version of the story can see very well how he has appropriated traditional teaching and practices as his own without proper acknowledgment. I’m talking about all kinds of big and small matters, even remarks and insights I had thought Da came up with on his own, but which further study revealed he got from some traditional source such as Ramana. As even some good friends of mine in Adidam said to me years ago, there’s nothing in his teaching that’s really unique or new, except his own claims of perfect Incarnation for himself, and even that isn’t really unique, there’s plenty of people who have made such claims before, if not in precisely the same way Da has.
Adi Da has quoted Ramana Maharshi extensively in His own literature and from there created unique arguments about its limits – just like He has done with the Basket of Tolerance.
Even there, no, Ramana has had plenty of critics before Da and since who have felt that he was too Eastern, too oriented towards the “prior” condition, not active enough, creative enough, or life-postive enough. Likewise, there have been plenty who don’t take to his teachings about the heart on the right, or see him as not being truly “empty”, and thus from a Buddhist perspective, still trapped in some kind of inner Self-Realization that doesn’t correspond to full enlightenment. Those critics are in the minority, of course, in that even many Buddhists acknowledge Ramana as a living Buddha, but they do exist.
The Basket of Tolerance is not only a brilliant categorizing of thousands of books on every stage of psychophysical/spiritual development using the body-mind as its “map”, but also includes many of Adi Da’s radical arguments that help to shed light on what is otherwise such a huge mass of literature, few if any, could ever get through it all. It is a real spiritual treasure!
If you buy into Da’s system of categorization, the whole seven stages thing, then of course it all seems brilliant. But that’s true if you buy into anyone’s system of categorization. It’s a circular argument. It’s not as if his system has no merits to it, but is it how the world works? Only to the degree that it reflects basic truths already stated in the traditions themselves, where these kinds of distinctions are often acknowledged.
And what about Adi Da’s 7th stage of life Confessions, and the processes He describes therein? There are no comparable traditional writings on those processes of “Outshining” that I have ever read, and are certainly worth considering.
There are of course lots of traditional references to the life and stages of growth that occur post-realization. The traditional Jnana-Bhoomikas are one system for describing this. Ramana made reference to these numerous times, and described the last four stages as being of the same radical realization, just developed in relation to the body-mind. The whole business of “outshining” is described by Ramana quite well. Da even took his metaphor of the “clay dolls heating up in a furnace” from Ramana to describe this process, using instead “clay pigs”, and pretending it was some unique description all his own. Likewise with such stages as “Divine Indifference” and so forth.
The problem with these kinds of claims is that, where they are the same as the traditions, they appear to be imported from the traditions, and where they differ from the traditions, they appear to be false or baseless or at least unverifiable. I could come up with a “unique” description of some “ultimate” stage of realization that no one else has described before, and say, see, I’m more realized than anyone else, including Da. But why should anyone believe me? And why should anyone believe Da? I understand that as his devotee you naturally believe him, but that’s reason for us to actually be skeptical of your testimony, rather than seeing it as some kind of independent corroboration. If we had someone who was a seemingly genuine realizer out there who said, wow, this Da guy has really nailed it, he’s revealed great truths no one else every came up with, then maybe we’d all sit up and take notice. But none of those people have responded this way to Da. Quite the opposite, his claims seem to be dismissed or ignored by the spiritual adepts of our day and age.
Of course, one can always say that no one recognizes Da because he really is unique and unprecedented and is revealing truths the traditions never saw. It’s an unverifiable claim, of course, but it could always turn out to be true. Then again, it could turn out that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were right too. We all have to take our chances with what seems right to us. Which is why I don’t condemn you for accepting Da’s teachings. I certainly did for a very long time. I just don’t see him that way anymore, and once I stopped assuming he was inherently right and true, his teachings began to just crumble in my hands. I’m really not much impressed anymore by them. Quite strange, to be perfectly honest.
What saddens me the most about this conversation is that many critics, you two included, seem to have indeed “thrown the baby out with the bath water”. Adi Da’s Teachings are uniquely radical to many many people, and no one has ever generated such a comprehensive Wisdom Teaching; and though you studied it at one time, you still seem to show more a disdain for Adi Da, His Word, and Adidam altogether, – rather than a more open approach that real consideration warrants. Part of this criticism of you must be obvious, but the other reason for it, is you seldom, if ever, give the Teachings of Adi Da credit where credit is clearly due.
I can certainly give credit to Adi Da for creating a very comprehensive and relatively “good” set of teachings on a number of issues. In fact, if he didn’t make such grandiose claims for himself and his teachings, they would stand up fairly well in the overall scheme of things. No, they still wouldn’t be recognized as the apex of spirituality, but they would still be considered relatively sane and useable. But Da has unfortunately spent much of his life poisoning his own teachings and making them unusuable by anyone who isn’t a full-blown died in the wool believer/cultist/devotee, depending on where you stand. This limits his audience to a very, very, very small crowd of people, about a thousand or so, and even there it’s kind of sketchy.
There’s lots of similar spiritual groups with their own “brilliant” set of teachings that are considered the ultimate word on all things, and outside their own group they get varying degrees of respect of contempt. I think it’s a shame that Da has so poisoned the bathwater that most people ignore the baby too. But the truth is, he’s not the only one out there with a baby, and there are many who don’t wash the baby in as much shit as he does. So naturally people, myself included, are attracted to those teachings which have a clean baby and realtively clean bathwater. Arguing over whose baby is best is something that we all know can’t be resolved, because every parent thinks their own baby is the greatest ever. And at a certain level, every parent should think that way. But when they try to make literal claims for their baby, and get out charts and graphs to prove that their baby is the most beautiful of all, they are going to be treated with contempt by others. That’s the problem Da has created for himself. If he’d been modest and humble, he’d actually have a lot more admirers. But ego always destroys its own prospects for love and happiness, that’s how it works out, and why people see Da as not having transcended egoity at all, but rather has merely raised it to maniacal heights of delusion.
I consider this a shame, and wish Da had not degenerated over the years into what is almost a comical parody of himself, and become what amounts to an archetype of religious self-delusion. I stuck with him for a very long time, and excused a great deal of it, and so I don’t look down on those who are still sticking it out. It takes a great deal of courage and yes, devotion, to do that. You just have to understand that while I can give Adi Da’s teaching plenty of ordinary credit, I don’t see that they deserve the kind of credit you want others to give them, as being the unique and greatest teachings ever about a form of realization that is unprecedented in history and never to be repeated outside of his community. You seem disappointed that everyone doesn’t vote your baby the greatest ever by acclamation, and hurt that I have to point out the obvious narcissism of this stance. No one is literally asking you to throw out the baby, but only to acknowledge that we all love our babies, and that none are genuinely “greater” than any others. Just clean him up a little, and stop pretending his shit don’t stink.
January 11, 2009 at 4:02 am
hi , iam wondering if the adi da worship will continue ? or will there be a new guru type ?
does anybody have an idea of the future towards this whole adi da worship and what direction it is headed?
thanks i look forward to see answers as iam sure many others do as well from eric the end
January 11, 2009 at 4:59 am
Flick,
I’m not really sure what the point is of criticizing people who feel pissed off, hurt, or just have a negative view about Adi Da, any more than there is criticizing people who feel good about him. People are entitled to their own reactions, positive and negative. Are people somehow wrong because they have different feelings than we might? Everyone is entitled to their feelings. But the facts shouldn’t be so hard to sort out. Some people like to ignore the facts to suit their feelings, on both sides. I think we should make an effort to recognize the basic facts regardless of our feelings.
I still have a lot of good feelings about Adi Da. That’s what I wrote about at the beginning of this thread. But that doesn’t mean I can ignore a lot of very unpleasant facts. When your roomate accuses Da of being a hypocrite, well, duh! (That’s a sanskrit pun for those who must know). He even annouced from the beginning that he was going to be a hypocrite. Does that make it any better? Of course not. In some ways, it makes it worse. It’s like a con man saying he’s a con man, and you thinking no real con man would ever tell you he’s a con man, and then he cons you anyway, and you just have egg on your face. Of course, I have friends in Adidam who suggest that the real con Adi Da is putting on is pretending to be a con man, and acting like a con man, when in reality he’s the real thing. But no Daist can openly admit that Da acts like a con man, so they can’t really be honest about what he’s done. They end up having to pretend that what looks like a con really isn’t, when the whole point was to play the con man by actually conning people into thinking he’s a con man, which is the real con. So they end up conned even worse than those who think they were conned. And there’s several more layers on top of that, to be sure. You end up a little dizzy if you actually try to untangle it all. I mean, regardless of how fucked up all that is, you gotta admit it was pretty funny stuff.
On the personal level, I have nothing against Adi Da. It’s all water under the bridge. He’s at least been amusing and provocative. But enlightened? Well, that’s almost besides the point. Sure, he had lots of shakti, lots of charge, lots of wild consciousenss, lots of qualities you could like or dislike, lots of charisma. He came from a line of shakti dudes, Rudi and Muktananda, and shared a lot in common with them. But enlightened? I don’t really think that’s what any of them were about. Enlightenment is too boring for guys like this, they want action, and lots of it. Da was into action, like a high-rolling gambler at the casino playing with other people’s money. He needed to have wads of cash riding on six different bets and a showgirl on each knee, chain-smoking doobies, a drink in each hand and yelling at the waitress for more. High maintenance. A pain in the ass, but a lot of fun. Sort of a yogic Hunter Thompson. And then he got old, and it all got a little sad. C’est la vie.
So you think it’s unfair that Ammachi gets praised, and Adi Da gets creamed? I mean, dude, don’t you think if Adi Da went around seeing everyone for free and setting up hospitals for the poor all over the world he might have been seen a bit differently? Instead of, say, taking every dime he could for himself, and giving nothing to anyone in any real need? Look, Shirdi Sai Baba was famous for asking money from everyone who came to him. He put it all in a big stack in front of him, and gave it all away by the end of every day, keeping nothing for himself. If Da had done it that way, do you really think anyone would have objected? But endless parties, women, booze, drugs, luxurious hotels and travel, expensive personal digs, paperweights, Disney art, on and on, all for guess who? Not exactly a model of selflessness there. It’s not as if he can really complain about the unfairness of it all.
Sure, plenty of Gurus get targeted for criticism, sometimes unfairly. I just have a hard time seeing how any of the criticism of Da is unfair. Sure, he had his good side. A lot of people feel good about him, at least in parts. I don’t feel bad, overall, about the influence he had on me. In the end, no one really hurts us but ourselves anyway. That’s a hard lesson to learn, and if Adi Da helped people learn it, bully for him. Con men teach us a lot about ourselves, and Adi Da was definitely a con man. But that’s not all he was, and maybe that’s a mistake some critics make. Call him a post-modern ultra-chique dharma bum trickster con man. He was into Derrida and Foucault, you know, back when they were the new game in town? An English major at Columbia can learn an awful lot of useful things, it’s surprising but true.
I saw Ammachi once a little while after leaving Da. I noticed all the usual cultism too, it’s not exactly hidden. All the tackiness, the bhakti emotionalism, etc. But I didn’t notice much hypocrisy. She really did seem to be into the people who came to her. Even more impressive, the people around Ammachi really were into helping people get to see her. I didn’t see the game in Adidam where everyone is trying to protect their position around the Guru, and keep everyone else out of their lock on him. Da used to say that people should serve him by making Satsang available, but that was never how it worked. And yet in Ammachi’s group, the people really were into making her Satsang available. That’s all that went on. So I thought that was a big contrast with Adidam, and it kind of shocked me that it was possible to have a spiritual group around a Guru that actually seemed to be oriented that way. I’m sure there’s all the usual ashram bullshit going on behind the scenes, and people do get pretty cultic about her, but it’s certainly not hypocritical, and she really does seem to love people and give her transmission to everyone she sees. I would’t know whether she’s actually enlightened or not. I sure felt a lot from her, but there was no manufacturer’s label certifying her enlightenment that I could see. It’s not my scene, to be sure, but it’s not like I would want to slam it all that much. There seems to be a basic integrity there that just isn’t present in Adidam, I’m sorry to say.
January 11, 2009 at 11:05 am
Um, still want to know what Da meant by “God is a Person.” Sometimes he said that God is love. So, is God love itself, an intelligent force or energy or principle, or is God an extraordinary person, with whom one can negotiate, make deals, get commandments’n'shit? Why say God is a person, if you mean he/she/it is an unembodied principle, like gravity? Gravity does not have a personality and does not know or respond to our needs. Is God like that, or does he/she/it care about individuals like me an’ you? Does a Source-Condition choose where to shine, or isn’t that more of a person-like thing? I realize this is not a burning question on this list, but at this point I have sunk so low I can’t even get that wicked witch of the west to tell me I am just an old man playing with my penis. I mean, come on, how low can one go?
And, if there are no jnanis only jnana, then why do people still use their photos to “contact” them, when they would never have any real relation to their physical form anyway? Yet, don’t Ramana’s devotees use his photo, or the Hill? Why use that at all? Aren’t they clinging to a sense of personality, that Ramana’s essence is distinct from that of Niz, or Papa G, or Amma G, and yet still claiming complete freedom from any specificity? Why would someone remind themself of the Self by using someone else’s picture? Why would one associate the Self with a pic of Ramana and then say he transcended the self you are looking at? God has no form and then we look at forms to remind us that he has no form but you can use this form to remind yourself that you have no form. Aren’t these idols? Perhaps we should stare at the back of the photos; wouldn’t that be a better reminder?
January 11, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well You guys have at it if ole Feel for God sticks around to keep up his crusade. i think there are some wounded people around here . Surely that happens on the battlefield of life and also spiritual life. Cetainly I have studied some of the traditions a lot, but not a huge amount of Ramana Maharshi, only a small amount. That tradittion has never really attracted me much, because of its emphasis on technicallity and how it has been distorted by the sort of new age satsang thing with all the Poonja clones. Talk about claims for enlightenment . All the Joe and Jill blows giving Satsang these days and bestowing instant enlighenment put Adi Da’s claims to shame. Anyhow, that is just a little pet peev of mine and fogive me for being overcritical.
Still I have no excuse for not being versed in Ramana Maharshi, since I have posted on a blog that is about knowing about Ramana and pretty much picking apart Da based on this knowledge. It is the much more rational and much less hysterical version of the lightmind forum. Much more civilized and accepting of other opinions too.
I simply presented my experiences of Amma and my knowledge of her to put some of the guru lineage stuff in context. No one seems to have an answer to the quotes I put up here about what she said about Ramana and practice or what she said about Guru devotion. And she does do great work. Still she was hated by her own family and village for being “different” One friend of mine told me she sat on a pic of Adi Da and perhaps that is true, but I did not see it myself. Anyhow I am certainly not here as a devotee or rep of Adi Da. Still I personally have no problem that he drank booze or smoked cigs. and I certainly have no problem that he smoked pot or had sex with a lot of women. I have no problem that he was brilliantly versed in the spiritual traditions and his version was to make sense out of it all with the seven stages model. I don’t care that he claimed he was the best or the only or whatever. I don’t care that he bought the expensive art with donations from disciples. People knew what they were giving money for in all the money drives. Sure people had to get drunk to do it, but I just smoked pot myself.
I know someone who was in those “sexual” gatherings and he told me that they were not about sex at all, but about going beyond sex and attachment. I can only go on that stuff by what others have told me. so there are mixed signals. I don’t really care and I was never “conned” Maybe some of you were conned. I don’t know. I came and went a few times and have not been back for several years. If I was not doing well with things and not feeling happy, I just left. no big deal. I have always kept myself open to study with other teachers and do those practices, so I am not all blown out by whatever Adi da has been up to.
I never came for anything but his spiritual transmission anyhow. I guess that is altruistic, but that is the way it was for me. To me, I have not been able to see anyone here adequately describe what that was about or what it still is about. I am still aware of Da’s spiritual transmission and can easily feel it if I put my attention there. It is in the newer cumbersome teachings even. It is there in his decrepit old body before he died, although he certainly was harder to look at on a purely physical level in the last few years. Getting older does not always look so hot and all the yoga and raw food in the world works sometimes and sometimes does not. I could not care less about any mythology on either side of the Da coin, positive or negative.
So I will remain open to what brought me to Da in the first place, a silent and full comunication of Heart and Consciousness . I will remain open to this transmission wherever it comes from, from my guru in human form, Ammachi, from the transmission down from the “mythological” Buddha in the form of the meditation practices he gave and the transmissions coming down through my teachers in the
Tibetan lineage. Today I will enjoy the transmission of our beautiful sun and hope to get over the flu someday. I leave it to the pundits Flick Rahke
January 11, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Flick,
Everyone here is only asking you to have an open mind, so there’s no real conflict between us. If you can take from Da what is positive and leave the negative, that’s great. Separate the wheat from the chaff. But we both know you can only do that from outside Adidam, you can’t do it from within, which is why you aren’t a student anymore. No one is suggesting Da is pure evil or something like that, just that there’s plenty that doesn’t seem right. You can of course ignore or not be bothered by those things, but I think it’s kind of clear that they bother you at least enough not to be involved with Adidam anymore. It’s easy not to care about things that can’t affect you, because you aren’t involved, but clearly something led you not to be involved, and if you don’t want to talk about it, fine, but let’s not pretend you’re really completely positive about everything in Adidam.
Likewise, no one is required to be interested in Ramana. We’ve been talking about him because clearly Adi Da was deeply interested in him, and has remained so throughout his life, and has made claims about Ramana that just aren’t true. For example, just a few years ago, at the time I was leaving, he began claiming on multiple occasions that Ramana only told people that being around the human physical Guru wasn’t necessary because there were some people he didn’t like, and he wanted them to go away. This is just an outrageous lie, and Da would know it was a lie, and so you have to wonder what his motive was in spreading lies like this through his community. I could show multiple occasions in which loving devotees of his, even lifelong devotees of his, had to leave for personal, family reasons, and he would assure them that nothing would be different as long as they thought of him. In the case of one of his closest devotees, Annamalai Swami, he sent him away from the ashram to live in a small informal group of renunciates nearby, with the expressed purpose of weaning him of his physical presence, and finally reaching the point where he told Annamalai not to come see him anymore, but to find him in the Self. This continued until Ramana died, and it wasn’t until ten years or so after that that Annamalai finally realized the Self. The suggestion that Ramana just didn’t like certain people, and so invented this excuse that the human Guru wasn’t the whole point of practice, is just a lie that Da clearly made up to undermine the notion that his own emphasis on his own person was somehow supported by Ramana, when it wasn’t. This is just one example of Da creating self-serving falsehoods about Ramana and other traditional figures to justify his own way of doing things.
As for Ammachi, I’m not sure what the problem is with her remarks about Ramana. It’s certainly true that Ramana did indeed recommend puja and devotion and so forth for everyone who was drawn to such things, as a purifying practice that would help strengthen their practice. He certainly did consider bhakti to be inseparable from jnana. He was not some dry old coot advocating a feelingless, philosophical approach to consciousness. He certainly did consider devotion to the Guru to be essential to practice. He simply taught that devotion to him was best practiced by finding him as the Self in the heart. He didn’t much like all that outward devotional stuff, at least when it was directed towards him personally. He wouldn’t let people bow down to him, for example, or prostrate themselves. That was just his way, it doesn’t mean he considered it wrong for others to do it with other Gurus.
I have no problem with Ammachi creating a devotional cult around herself. I have no problem with Adi Da creating a devotional cult around himself. The devil is in the details, of what actually goes on within the group. I have very little experience with Ammachi, so I don’t know if there’s much abuse or not. I hear she overworks people sometimes, and she can be rather wild herself, but it doesn’t sound like there’s much to seriously complain about. With Da, well, I think things are a bit different. But you can’t just point to Ammachi and say, she’s got a devotional following, therefore all Gurus who have a devotional following are fine and good. Some are not. It’s always a mixed bag. Likewise, you can’t just say, Ammachi was hounded by critics when she was young, and Adi Da is also hounded by critics, so it’s all the same, and both are being unfairly hounded by critics. Again, what matters is the actual details of the criticism and whether it applies to the facts of each of their cases and evaluating whether it fits fairly. Unless you are somehow claiming that all criticism of all Gurus is somehow inappropriate.
As for transmission, I’m not sure why you think there’s supposed to be some kind of perfect explanation for Da’s yogic abilities. Or are you saying that anyone who has a yogic transmission is enlightened? Does that mean Muktananda was seventh stage? Or Rudi? Or Saniel? You may laugh, but plenty of people say Saniel has a powerful transmission. I’d be skeptical, but the point is that almost anyone or anything can seem to “transmit” consciousness if we really want them to and align our minds to that. You aligned yourself to Da at some point, so you find some kind of “transmission” with him. Now, of course I would agree that Da has yogic abilities, but that doesn’t mean he’s fully enlightened. If it helps you, that’s fine, we can be helped by the strangest things. I feel yogic transmission from all kinds of odd sources. In the traditions it is said that anyone or anything can serve this purpose, and even everything ultimately. So being open to whatever turns you on is just fine. That doesn’t mean you have to treat Da as some unique and special greater than all the rest source of transmission. In reality, there is no transmission, because in reality there are no separate beings. All are only the one and same Self, who constantly transmits Himself to Himself. It’s only when you see yourself as separate from the Self that this phenomena of “transmission” seems to take place.
Like you, I never had a problem with using “accessories” either, or even the notion of “sexual theater”. It’s how it played out that gets a little ugly and loveless. If there’s nothing wrong with it all, then why did Da and his devotees keep it all so secret and deny it, even today? And why did it simply fail to produce any kind of real spiritual maturity or enlightenment? Even Da admitted the whole sexual experimentation failed to do any good. I knew people who begged him to stop it all, because it clearly wasn’t helping anyone, and just left people hurt and messed up, regardless of what idealistic intentions might have been used to excuse it, and he insisted it was valuable. And then, at the end, he admitted it didn’t work and was basically useless. So I have a hard time understanding how you can be so offended by the Papaji clone scene, which Papaji himself quickly denounced, and which was all pretty benign if silly, yet be so tolerant towards Da’s very weird sexual scene, which went on for decades with his full insistance, and left a lot of people really screwed up in the process. It seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance there, in that you invested a fair amount (perhaps literally so) in Da’s scene, and so have reasons to rationalize it all, whereas with Papaji’s satsang clones you don’t have any investment, and so can see it as bullshit without any defense of it. Now, maybe there are good lessons in both cases, that of seeing a particular spiritual approach as being false, and that’s valuable. And while both Papaji and Da have to bear some responsibility for what they created, the facts speak a bit differently in both cases, in that Papaji rejected what his clones were doing and denounced it all pretty quickly, whereas Da went on with it for decades, and didn’t admit until the end that it was a waste of time.
As for being “conned”, oh come on. To some degree that was always present with Adi Da, this whole “I assert what I deny and deny what I assert” thing. We all fell for something he asserted along the way which later got denied. If that helped us grow up and stop being children about Gurus anymore, that’s good. If we kept falling for it and exusing it more and more deeply, well, that’s not so good. Some people have gotten themselves buried so deep in the quicksand they’ll never dig themselves out of it. So they call it Grace. What else are they going to do?
January 11, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Anomalous,
Da wrote an essay in one of his books not long ago about “God as a person”. I can’t really remember the whole argument, but the basic point was that everything can be considered a “person” in some sense of the word, and that as we enlarge our awareness to a greater and more inclusive consciousness, the sense of “personhood” remains, at least in some greater and ultimate sense, even when we achieve full non-dual realization.
There’s precedents for this in the traditions, particularly that of Vaishnavism, and Vishishtuadvaita, in which the Divine Person is Krishna, and all of us are seen as merely parts of this one Divine Being named Krishna, and even all other forms of God are actually forms of Krishna.
Ramanuja was probably the most famous exponent of this point of view, and his people and Shankara’s people were always debating and clashing. The basic idea is that if everything is consciousness, and consciousness is pure Being, then Being must be a Person of some ultimate stature beyond the merely human. It’s not the same as the concept of God as a person in western religion however, so it’s not considered a separate person, and yet because it is a non-dual person, those with dualistic minds will perhaps “perceive” this ultimate Person in even a human, personal sense. The human Sat-Guru is often considered an “Avatar” of this Divine Person, an appearance of the Divine Person within the realm of conditional human persons in order to relate to those who are under the illusion of their own separate personhood.
So when Ramama says there are no jnanis, only jnana, you could translate that in these terms as saying there are no people, only the Divine Person. But as for the physical form of “apparent” jnanis, as Ramana also taught, as long as we think of ourselves as people, the Guru will also appear to us as a person, and that is what the human Guru is, merely an apparition of the Self made by the Self for the purpose of drawing devotees beyond the illusion of their own separate personhood.
Using photographs as “points of contact” are useful to us simply because our minds are enmeshed in dualistic perceptions of ourselves and the world. It’s true that in such cases people are clinging to a sense of separate personhood about the Self, but this is merely a reflection of their clinging to a sense of separate personhood about themselves. Until they see that they, themselves, are not a separate person, they will naturally tend to see the Guru as a separate person, and relate to the Guru through the human forms of the Guru we see aroundus. This is not wrong, it is just accepting our own present limitations without conflict. It remains useful and even necessary as long as we are functioning within the limits of the conditional mind. To go beyond such things, one must not just throw away photographs, one must throw away the conditional mind.
January 11, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I agree with Anomalous Poster above, which is in my mind the best post of them all (500 plus and countin)~
January 12, 2009 at 3:42 am
Feel4God,
Conradg has expressed very well in his response what I would say also. I know you said think some of us are “radicalizing” Ramana Maharshi based on insights found from Da’s teachings that you think are not in Ramana Maharshi’s teaching or your experiences with it. This is natural after so many years inversion in Adidam and its peculiar way of looking at the traditions. I do understand more than you probably realize in that regard. I can only say once again that with the limited knowledge I had of Ramana Maharshi based on what was readily found in bookstores in 1974 when I first read KOL, I can understand that you are honestly not up to speed on Ramana Maharshi, just as I was not then either. I do not mean to imply anything by this other than I have had the opportunity that you have not. I only say that this is not some game of intellectual one upmanship, and if you are ever moved to check sources outside Adidam for yourself, for example all the David Godman material, and books like Timeless in Time, you will find that we are, I think, far more accurately conveying what Ramana lived and taught than you are. I also have the advantage of having been able to draw my own conclusions without having to conform to dogma that teaches that only Da in all of history can properly assess the states of others, and so read more about Ramana’s enlightened devotees and the personal accounts of those affected by his presence, including the 3 volume set, Power of the Presence.
My primary purpose here remains ensuring that the traditions, and particularly Ramana Maharshi, are presented honestly to the best of my knowledge in response to Adidam interpretations not considered accurate. To some extent, Da’s evolving claims over time, which necessarily conflict with the traditions, that he has attained a superior form of realization beyond the 4 recognized stages referenced again by Ramana Maharshi, to include a type of “outshining”, forces me to point out alternative explanations, as well as where Da does not accurately convey what Ramana said, did and intended.
Primarily, the difficulty here is that you still do not acknowledge that the Heart as Ramana Maharshi taught it, is everything in itself. There is nothing to be excluded. It is not really some place or point you can visualize yourself to be nor is it a dualistic point where you can “witness” anything, that is simply a creation of mind. Ramana Maharshi does talk about a temporary phenomena of “aham sphurana” which happens as the ego I dissolves (http://www.davidgodman.org/rteach/iandii1.shtml). But jnana samadhi as Da describes it is really his own creation and not what Ramana describes at all, nor is it found in any traditional source.
Da does focus more on the sahasrara and above than the Heart, but since Reality is formless, that is not necessarily a new revelation nor to me clearly indicative of complete resolution in the Heart. I have pointed out before that if you read Da’s description of his experience from KOL very carefully, it can read more like an experience of the ego “I” not dissolving but reidentifying above with a superegoic state just as Da said of Muktananda’s state. That could explain for me, though not for you, why Da mentions that after his realization he observed a continous flow to the heart and insisted on terminals in the form of amrita nadi in the S shape as as being the form of Reality rather than simply the Heart as Ramana Maharshi and others say it IS. I simply find Ramana Maharshi’s “work” more inclusive for myself.
I do not see it as throwing out the baby with the bathwater in considering some of Da’s teaching model unproven and deficient in some cases. Da does provide an excellent frame of reference. But that does not prevent me from subjecting it to critical analysis without presuming automatically that Da is right. Da did not have a realized guru to aid him, and over time his vision became that his state was nothing more or less than the highest form of Reality possible. He had an amazing gift for intuition of things as well as a powerful presence, and was well read on the subject. But without the guidance of a truly realized teacher, and by avoiding contacts with contemporary realizers, one can see that he presumed that what others were describing in his reading was what he had experienced, and where it did not conform to his experience or his interpretations, he presumes the traditions were not complete and amplifies on them from his own perspective. So as I see it Da’s admitted expertise on traditional matters results after contemplation in what most critics see as innovations that are influenced and derivative rather than really unique. I see evidence of that in the evolution of his essays over time as he incorporates new concepts. I can’t logically exclude the possibility Da is right, and that is not what I am trying to shove down somebody’s throat. But it doesn’t seem probable to me, compared to the alternative that trying to judge your own state is highly problematic enough, while trying to claim the traditions and contemporary jnanis are lacking is far more so. I am just being honest here. I can find traditional sources that mention almost everything, from the colors of the cosmic mandala to advanced stages of jnana such as outshining, and problematic aspects like the claims of exclusivity from a different perspective. I do not want our divergent views on Da to preclude discussions on the perspectives of Adidam and traditional dharma. and specifically Ramana Maharshi.
January 12, 2009 at 4:26 am
Flick,
You say:
I simply presented my experiences of Amma and my knowledge of her to put some of the guru lineage stuff in context. No one seems to have an answer to the quotes I put up here about what she said about Ramana and practice or what she said about Guru devotion. And she does do great work. Still she was hated by her own family and village for being “different” One friend of mine told me she sat on a pic of Adi Da and perhaps that is true, but I did not see it myself.”
You are referring to this:
>>Amma “A person who has faith reposes all faith in the Guru, does not question or doubt the Guru, obeys the Guru unconditionally like a servant, never doubt that the Guru loves him or her,,” and it goes on and on in this vein. Of course Amma is a traditional Hindu guru. I hate to say it , but this is a real tradition.
Now the Buddha was a revolutionary, and the teacher in Buddhism is related to differently, the whole “spiritual friend” thing, although there is a tradition in Tibetan Buddhism of devotion to the teacher.
Adi Da took on the traditional Guru role as in Hinduism. That is more the format he came from ala Muktananda, not scientogy. The whole framework was Hindu spiritual, not scientology.
Here is another Amma delicacy.
She then asked him “What is Vedanta? Amma doesn’t know any Vedanta.People merely read books and preach Vedanta without practicing it.”
“Some people read books and they don’t practice anything. They merely mouth Vedantic statements. They say ‘I am not the body’, but their mouth waters if they see a delicious dish. They just read books, don’t do any sadhana, lose their tempers all the time, and don’t cultivate virtues, but they call themselves Vedantins.’
Amma continues “Even Ramana Maharshi, who is accepted as a real Vedantin talked about puja and japa in his work, Upaseda Saram Ramana says the seeker should start with puja , then go on to do japa and tapas. Only when the mind is in leenasthiti[and absorbed state] is he or she ready for Self Inquiry”
“In the olden days, the Guru used to make the disciples study the scriptures for 20 years. After 20 years of study, the Guru would select a few worthy disciples and teach them the Brahma Sutras. But nowadays , people just buy a copy of the Brahma Sutras and read them, without preparing themselves for it or doing any spiritual practice whatsoever.”
personally I think Ammachi knows what she is talking about.<<
What answer do you expect? Ramana Maharshi and Amma were criticized, and so was Da. And so are a lot of false gurus as well as true ones. Since Ramana Maharshi himself practiced extreme bhakti prior to his death experience, and since he equated its value in mature practice with Self-enquiry, and since several of his realized followers were enlightened mainly through bhakti, you expect surprise or condemnation of what Amma says about its value? Nor did Ramana Maharshi not teach faith in the guru. But Ramana Maharshi and Amma both point out that their are unenlightened gurus as well, and they do not apply it to them. Traditionally, you were to study a guru for a long time to make sure all egoicity was gone and that they trully understood and lived the scriptures before you adopted such ffaith. I notice that you gloss over the part about the long period of study and practice recommended first, and want only to emphasize the emptiness of vendantic pretentiousness, something we all know. Since you haven’t done the study and have no temperment for it, on what basis do you claim to educate others who value Amma and Ramana Maharshi on what is wrong with such sincere study?
“I never came for anything but his spiritual transmission anyhow. I guess that is altruistic, but that is the way it was for me. To me, I have not been able to see anyone here adequately describe what that was about or what it still is about. I am still aware of Da’s spiritual transmission and can easily feel it if I put my attention there. It is in the newer cumbersome teachings even. It is there in his decrepit old body before he died, although he certainly was harder to look at on a purely physical level in the last few years. Getting older does not always look so hot and all the yoga and raw food in the world works sometimes and sometimes does not. I could not care less about any mythology on either side of the Da coin, positive or negative.”
You and lots of others came for the transmission. What is your point? I have mentioned Da’s transmission. Did I say it didn’t exist? What you seem to want is critics to confirm your subjective assessment of its value and as proof of enlightenment or presume they don’t know what you are talking about. I suggest there are different types of transmissions.
January 12, 2009 at 10:12 am
Maybe this whole thread is coming to its natural conclusion. I’m not sure I have much more to say without repeating myself. The dialog with Feel4god has been great, but we may not have much more to say. It’s probably time to give all this a rest in any case. Before his death, I haven’t written about Adi Da in a couple of years, and now that I’ve rehashed the basics, it’s about time to just let it all go.
But before I do, I think I ought to mention one last very amusing “finding” of mine. A couple of weeks ago an old friend of mine in Adidam emailed me to ask about the astrology of Adi Da’s Mahasamadhi. As most of you probably know, I was for several years Adi Da’s “court astrologer and patterning advisor”. This friend has also been involved in astrology, and after I left Adidam he helped fill in for me by giving Adi Da some astrological reports when needed. Anyway, he gave me the astrological details, and I looked at the chart. What I found was pretty interesting, but of course completely speculative.
I won’t go into the details, but the gist of it is that, if one puts any stock in astrology, and particularly the kind of astrological analysis I developed when serving Da in this capacity, it sure does look like he’s going to reincarnate, and probably within the next 7-10 years.
I should mention that one of the primary applications of astrology Adi Da was interested in was the links to his own past lives and the past lives of the people he was closely related to, including myself. In fact, the very first thing he asked me to look at was the complex astrological relationships between himself and the people around him and possible past life connections with others in the traditions, Vivekananda in particular (whose Mahasamadhi chart is well known). I went through a lot of very interesting astrological considerations with him, and came up with a lot of very useful techniques and patterns to look for in analyzing past life patterning connections. So, when I was asked by this friend to examine Da’s Mahasamadhi chart, I already had a way to examine this sort of thing that Da had himself already given considerable approval to, and had already “empowered” me to make this sort of analysis about him in particular. In fact, we had a number of conversations and exchanges about his own future potential Mahasamadhi and/or other possible ways of continuing his work, even going several centuries into the future.
Long and short of it is, if there’s any validity to the astrological work I did with Da in this area (a big “if” to be sure), I have almost no doubt at all that he is going to reincarnate once again. This shouldn’t be a surprise to non-devotees, of course, but I gather it might be viewed as something of a heresy to those still involved, who presume based on Da’s own proclamations that he’s incarnated once and once only. Let me assure devotees that I’m not basing this finding on any hostility to Adidam, but solely on the same kind of astrological analysis I used when serving Da in this capacity.
As for the timing and details of his reincarnation, I’m not quite so certain, but the indications do suggest a relatively quick rebirth, probably within the next 7-10 years, though I admit this is much more speculative and subject to further analysis. It may simply be that this is the first “window” of opportunity for rebirth, but not necessarily the one that gets taken. There’s another window in about 20 years that would also be auspicious.
Part of the reason for this rebirth – and again, I’m just looking at the astrology – is that Da has left a lot of unfinished business to handle, both in his spiritual work and in relation to the world at large. In other words, Da created a lot of karmas that require another rebirth, that even ensure it. I see a male rebirth, probably through someone who had some close family relationship to him in this life, possibly one of his daughters, but not necessarily. There’s even a suggestion of his being born to someone who is at odds with the community, so it may well be a connection to a devotee who either left or is somewhat on the “outs”, who is an aggravation to the general community. (Shawnee?). One thing is for certain, there’s a lot of conflict and aggravation associated with this rebirth, and yet something spiritually auspicious about it, in that it could give Da the opportunity to correct some of the mistakes he made in his most recent lifetime. But, anticipate Da being a big, very big, pain in the ass once again, to all concerned. Which seems about right.
Maybe at some point in the future I’ll write this all up with astrological details and publish it on my blog. It may, of course, have no validity whatsoever, so it should be taken with many grains of sale, but it’s amusing nonetheless.
January 12, 2009 at 11:25 pm
wow, adi da is being talked about like crazy! i would just like to add i think he looked best the older he got , i never was a devotee but i can see how one could get hooked onto such a person , i have searched very hard but yet to find what adi da taught concerning death and EXACTLY what happens , i guess i find him interesting because if iam not mistaken adi da stated near my home town of terra linda ca , i now live in menifee ca . anyway da was a trip and iam interest in where one thinks this flock will go , or how about the island on figi? whats gonna happen there? from eric the end
January 13, 2009 at 12:32 am
Before this thread completely winds down I want to thank ALL who have posted. I’ve been following this blog since it started and it’s been a like a gift to me. Maybe I said this once before but it’s really helped me understand and resolve some old feelings I’ve carried for years about my experience as a devotee of Adi Da and member of the community. And I’ve especially enjoyed learning more about Ramana from following this blog thanks to FFaC and Conrad.
Thanks everyone.
January 13, 2009 at 6:28 am
which is in my mind the best post of them all (500 plus and countin)~
Oh my, another competition….
January 13, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Actually the long period of study under the guru was to test the dispciple not the guru. The disciple has already decided by then if they want to “surrender” to the “discipline” of the guru. Anyhow, I already said pretty much o.k. to what you guys have been saying here, but that “o.k.” was deleted by the moderator, so I guess this post will also be deleted. I am not sure why my post agreeing with everything was deleted. I guess the debate is what is important after all. Whatever, I agree with every point of view here Flick Rahke
January 13, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Anomalous,
I think Conradg’s response is excellent. Da writing about the Divine Person is not in itself a contradiction and does not exclude him from non-dual realization. Realization can be said to be simply Being, transcending dualisms like personal and non-personal. From our current dualistic perspective, pure Being from a non-dualistic perspective is hard to comprehend because it means there is ultimately only One.
As for your comment:
“if there are no jnanis only jnana, then why do people still use their photos to “contact” them, when they would never have any real relation to their physical form anyway? Yet, don’t Ramana’s devotees use his photo, or the Hill? Why use that at all? Aren’t they clinging to a sense of personality, that Ramana’s essence is distinct from that of Niz, or Papa G, or Amma G, and yet still claiming complete freedom from any specificity? Why would someone remind themself of the Self by using someone else’s picture? Why would one associate the Self with a pic of Ramana and then say he transcended the self you are looking at? God has no form and then we look at forms to remind us that he has no form but you can use this form to remind yourself that you have no form. Aren’t these idols? Perhaps we should stare at the back of the photos; wouldn’t that be a better reminder?”
I see no contradiction here. Can one assume the Absolute position henceforth just by willing it? Everyone else has idols of one form or another, even if they are mental. If some symbolic form helps in practice, what is the issue? The critical, even esoteric, understanding is that we are not realized by our own egoic efforts, according to those like Ramana Maharshi. These efforts, rightly informed, have a purpose because they are based on individual karmas which are the obstacles to realization, but that is all. At the same time, recall that Ramana Maharshi for example spent some time in intense bhakti at the local temple filled with idols before his death experience. Ramana Maharshi also said, just as others have, that such Bhakti could dissolve even significant karmic impediments.
January 13, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Yes, it does appear we are wrapping things up here. The astrological analysis is interesting Conrad, though I only remember one time at a gathering that Bhagavan Adi Da mentioned possibly re-incarnating. As far as His Work being left undone as you say, I cannot agree with you there – as everything did seem to come to a full completion in terms of His Word and other Works. Of course, you are basing much of what you say on your presumption that Adi Da is a karmic being and so astrological analysis would have its place in those terms. But for the Acausal Divine Reality, what bearing does astrology actually have?
And, as you know, Adi Da never subscribed to astrology as a predictive science – but only as a psycho-physical “indicator” of patterns or synchronicities that were present at the time of birth, etc., and which could be read (similar to the I-Ching). Just like the Happy Face of Venus, Jupiter, and the Moon at the time of His Divine Mahasamadhi – it was not predictive per se (nor, of course, some “Divine” stellar manipulation) – but certainly an interesting psycho-physical synchronicity between the apparently outer cosmos and the Divinely humorous Master Da at the time of His Divine Mahasamadhi.
Just a few more things about Conrad’s, FFaC’s, and my recent posts about Adi Da and Ramana Maharshi that I have taken note of here and there over the past several days. I kept up with the reading, but I did not have time to post my thoughts until today.
Conrad and FFaC, I quoted Ramana earlier as saying:
“That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires whence the ‘I’ thought in the body arises in the first instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind.”
Conradg Says:
“I guess you don’t understand what Ramana is saying at all when it gets down to it. Did you not read this quote above carefully? He clearly says that the “I”-thought is in the mind, not the heart. ”
Well, to air things out a bit – first, I am not sure why you would make such a condescending statement about me in the initial part of this post, Conrad, especially after all of this dialog. Now I could mention that self-understanding, including oedipal groups, does cut into these kind of patterns of pretentiousness, when combined with radical devotion…
But anyway, it seems like it is you who did not read that quote from Ramana carefully enough. Ramana says here that “I” IS the mind – not that the “I” arises IN the mind – and that the source of the mind is the heart.
There is a real difference between the “I-thought” arising IN the mind and it being the mind (which arises from the heart). If the “I-thought” only arose IN the mind, then Self-enquiry would result in being left with the mind even once the “I-thought” is seen to be illusory. But since the “I-thought” IS the mind, and arises from the heart, once the “I-thought” is seen to be illusory, the source (heart) is fallen into.
Conrad and FFaC, earlier I said the following:
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion.”
Conradg Says:
“Quite the opposite. He seems to clearly be saying that the false self, the ego-”I”, is in the mind, whereas the true Self is located in the heart (relative to the body-mind).”
Conradg Says:
“But because the ego appears to us in the mind, and ceaselessly multiples itself there, we have much complication to deal with. ”
Conradg Says:
“Once the “I”-thought appears in the mind, it creates a world of objects that are linked to it by attention, which is consciousness in the form of objective mind. ”
Again and again, you say that the ego-”I” is IN the mind – this indicates that you may still be trying to envelope or grasp everything with your mind, even subjugating the “I”-thought to being within your mind, in some egoic attempt to control it and perhaps even Reality Itself. At least consider that possibility, given your statements above, Conrad.
From The Dawn Horse Testament by Adi Da Samraj:
“… The Entire Process In The Context Of The First and The Second Stages Of The ‘Perfect Practice’ Relates To The Knot In The Right Side Of The Heart (or The Stress Of self-Contraction There). That Knot Is the “I” of attention (or The Feeling Of Relatedness), Confined By the body-mind. When The Root-Source (or Heart-Source) Of attention itself Is (By Means Of My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Divine Spiritual Grace) “Located” (Prior To The Heart-Knot), The By-Me-Avatarically-Self-Transmitted Divine Spirit-Current Is Relieved Of All Stress.”
“My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Divine Spiritual Baptism Works At The Heart (and Throughout the Total body-mind) Of My By-Me-Spiritually-Initiated (and, In Due Course, Actually Me-Seeing) Devotee.”
There are many pages in The Dawn Horse Testament in which Adi Da describes these most esoteric of matters. I have never seen or read anyone making statements of such depth and clarity. The consideration of the “feeling of relatedness” being the primary knot of attention – most profound and yet, understandable in day to day life. I have never seen any traditional statement along these lines associated with the processes of the heart on the right.
So the “I” of attention is this heart knot – it is the first gesture of separation and this is called the “I-thought” by Ramana. The “I-thought is not something that arises in the mind, but is the mind itself.
Later I said:
“Adi Da works that way too – but also He Transmits from infinitely Above – so that the devotee enjoys Conscious Light/Love-Bliss whole-bodily AND prior to the heart-root.”
To which Conradg Says:
“First, it’s important to understand that nothing is “prior” to the Heart. ”
Conrad, once again, you misinterpret what I said here, and then go on to make an argument based on this misreading. Note that I said “heart-root” – which is the heart on the right. I did not say “Heart”. Adi Da works prior to that root with the devotee – directly and priorly as the Heart. Even devotees in the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice testify to this as tacit establishment in the Witness position – prior to the self-contracted “I”.
Conradg Says:
“There’s simply no difference descriptively between what you are claiming for Adi Da and what Ramana describes in the case of all jnanis. ”
I sure have not been able to gleen this kind of detail from Ramana’s statements about Amrita Nadi. And He Himself claimed that He only worked in Silence – not directly Transmitting the Conscious Light and Love-Bliss of Reality as Adi Da describes via the fully-regenerated Amrita Nadi.
“If I were to suggest any difference between Ramana and Adi Da, it’s that Da is very much focused, as you say, on the Sahasrar, and rather than working from true Heart-Realization, he works from the higher mind, the reflected self high above.”
I thought we were wrapping things up here – but you keep misquoting me! I certainly never said that “Da is very much focused on the Sahasrar”. Really, you seem to have a very hard time listening to Daists, or at least to me, Conrad; and I can only presume it is because you are so staunchly founded and biased in your contrary beliefs about Adi Da and Adidam. The number of times you have misquoted me and then used your mistaken assumptions to support your points is incredible! Anyway, relative to this particular misquoting:
Conradg Says:
“He has from very early in his work, during the Method of the Siddhas days, worked deliberately “from above”, rather than from the Heart.”
You are either showing your lack of study of that text, Conrad, and thereby demonstrating a weak understanding of this early book, or else you are deliberately manipulating what you think Adi Da has said, in a further attempt to discredit His unique Realization of Amrita Nadi. So is this why Adi Da called it “The Way of the Sahasrar”?
Oh wait! He calls it “The Way of the Heart”! Sheesh, Conrad! Of course you know that you can find many quotes in the The Method of the Siddhas about this:
“I am alive as Amrita Nadi, the Heart and its spire, the Bright or Conscious Light. This is always so. When I come to you I intensify the field of Brightness, the field of uncreated Light that rests above your head and which is drawn down into the body when the mind lies formless in the Heart. Whenever I have been with you I have done this from the Heart. The communication of the Heart and its Light are my constant practice.”
Conradg Says:
“Many are drawn to him, feeling the power of the Heart in him, and the great and wonderful shakti of his transmission from above. But they become misled by this power, and their own egos became identified with it rather than freed to truly contemplate the heart of their own being. Instead, they become locked into an endless contemplation of Da’s own greatness and glory, which never actually brings about true realization because it lacks that fundamental surrender of ego.”
Hahaha! So now you are claiming to currently know what us Daists are experiencing in relationship to our Master and our practice? You have hit a new “high” here, Conrad, at least in terms of your presumptuousness. Saving the “best” for last?
I have said over and over that many devotees, myself included, testify that the Witness disposition is enjoyed when we recognize the intrinsic egolessness that Adi Da Is and Grants. There is no way to become established in the Witness except by direct relinquishment of attention (egoity) in Reality Itself. This is a process that is also associated with the heart on the right, and most directly to the Heart that Adi Da Is and Transmits.
Conradg Says:
“If he’d been modest and humble, he’d actually have a lot more admirers.”
I really don’t think Adi Da was at all interested in a lot of “admirers”. He is adamant about revealing the Truth through Satsang and this is what He always demonstrated in every moment that I have ever been in His physical Company – and I have already written much about that earlier in this thread.
Regarding this matter, from the Knee Of Listening (2004 Edition, page 638):
“Therefore, no merely socially idealistic (or conventionally religious) expectation – and, indeed, no traditional expectation of any kind – is appropriate in relation to Me.”
“I am not an ideal human ego-’I’.”
“I Am the Inherently egoless Person of Reality (Itself).”
“I Am the Inherently Perfect Truth – Which Is Divine, and One, and Only (and Which Is Always Already The Case).”
Conradg Says:
“Likewise, no one is required to be interested in Ramana. We’ve been talking about him because clearly Adi Da was deeply interested in him, and has remained so throughout his life, and has made claims about Ramana that just aren’t true. For example, just a few years ago, at the time I was leaving, he began claiming on multiple occasions that Ramana only told people that being around the human physical Guru wasn’t necessary because there were some people he didn’t like, and he wanted them to go away. This is just an outrageous lie, and Da would know it was a lie, and so you have to wonder what his motive was in spreading lies like this through his community.”
I remember this statement – I laughed my ass off when I heard it. I guess you didn’t get the humor in it, Conrad. I also think this could be why Adi Da made statements like this – to see who would go away! He was always testing our recognition of Who He Is – that was always the point! Would we become distracted by conditions or would we abide in relationship to Reality? If someone no longer (or ever) recognized Him as Reality, yes, it would be extremely difficult – if not impossible – to persist in that direct bodily relationship with Him.
FFaC Says:
“Honestly I agree you would have read that, but modern sources point out that is inaccurate. You do not understand yet how Ramana Maharshi views the heart on the right. That experience isn’t even totally necessary!”
I have also studied “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi” after the initial immersion in Ramana’s Way in the late 60s and early 70s. However, you never answered my questions about whether Godman’s versions changed radically from the original versions I read and quoted from here, which clearly state that the source of the mind is the heart, which has its psycho-physical reference on the right side of the chest. Actually, all I did here was quote what Ramana purportedly said. Here is that issue I asked you about again:
I said:
FFaC, are you saying that the above quote from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” has been changed in Godman’s versions? There are so many instances of Ramana stating that the mind rises out of the heart, that I cannot imagine that this has all been re-translated from these earlier translations. The following is on page 128 of “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi”:
D.: Bhagavan was saying that the heart is the centre of the Self?
Bhagavan: Yes, it is the one supreme centre of the Self. You need have no doubts about that. The real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self.
D.: Will Bhagavan please tell me where in the body it is?
Bhagavan: You cannot know it with your mind or picture it with your imagination, although I tell you that it is here (pointing to the right side of the chest). The only direct way to realize it is to stop imagining and try to be yourself. Then you automatically feel that the centre is there. It is the centre spoken of in the scriptures as the heart-cavity.”
So again, I am quoting this to point out that Ramana often spoke of the heart on the right, and you seem to be saying that aspect of His teachings have been “re-translated”, “revised” or “de-emphasized”? I just read in a David Godman interview in which he said that Arthur Osborne tended to focus on the heart on the right, and I do understand that error. But even so, from everything I have read of Ramana’s statements, and this also includes “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, there are many many references to the heart on the right and the concentrated practice of Self-enquiry in locating the source of the I-thought – the heart – which Ramana repeatedly stated had its physical reference to the right side of the chest.
I also know that Ramana spoke very profoundly about the Heart being the Self beyond all conditions, but still, I can see something about what Adi Da is saying below – and also, especially as compared to how Adi Da explains in great detail in The Dawn Horse Testament, the processes of the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi.
From Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga by Adi Da Samraj:
“Ramana Maharshi taught a sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion, strategically turning away from body and mind via Descent in Atma Nadi (or Amrita Nadi), and, thus and thereby, exclusively fixed upon the Transcendental “Root”.”
“The practice of “Self-enquiry” Ramana Maharshi taught revolves strategically away from the body-mind-”self”- through a process of dissociative introversion, in the characteristically sixth stage manner – and toward the interior (and thus, psycho-physically inward) “Source” of the egoic “I”-thought (or the “I-object”).”
Again, regardless of what Ramana’s Realization is, I can certainly see what Adi Da is saying about Self-enquiry being a practice away from the body-mind and towards “re-locating” the internal source of attention. And this was my experience of Self-enquiry also – it was not as direct, at least for me. Of course, Ramana is not my Master, so to each their own.
FFaC, I will look into the following three books, some of which appear in the Basket of Tolerance, in the Traditional Esotericism section, if I am not mistaken. (So I know Adi Da was familiar with these. Unfortunately, I only had a chance to browse for them.)
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Edited by David Godman
Living by the Words of Bhagavan, by David Godman
Annamalai Swami: Final Talks, Edited by David Godman
In closing here, I want to address what both FFaC and Conradg have speculated about Adi Da somehow bypassing the dissolution of the ego-illusion, by “reidentifying above with a superegoic state” (as FFaC said). There are so many levels that this speculation can be argued against, and of course, many of my very long posts on this very very very long blog have been my doing that. So I won’t repeat much, but only try to summarize a few things about their presumptions.
First, how would Adi Da even be able to bypass all the processes of the Heart (and most specifically, the heart on the right) and still describe them with such clarity and conviction? I encourage everyone to read (again) what He says about the “Perfect Practice” and these profound (and technical) aspects of these heart-based processes to decide for themselves. Especially see The Dawn Horse Testament.
Second, many devotees testify to tacitly being established in the disposition of the Witness-Position – via relinquishing attention in devotional Communion with Adi Da, thereby allowing Him to do His Work. How all this works, I do not know – but that it does work, I can say for certain. Any time I am most submitted to Adi Da, recognizing the egoless Reality that He Is, “I” am “stepped beyond” my usual fixation of “I” to simply be the Witness. This is a Heart matter, and I find it is also associated with the heart on the right. (And no, I am not a natural “bhakti-type” – I tend toward mind, in case that is not obvious by now.
) Again, each person must find this out, but other Daists and myself, will at least testify that this is what is occurring.
Third, many devotees, regardless of their practice, recognize Adi Da as the inherent Heart that is the Self and that also has manifested in the world in many, even unconventional, ways – but always as Love and Blessing. Look at His photos, His Heart Disposition of “Open Eyes”- which to many of us, allow us to recognize directly that He is the Acausal Divine Reality.
Fourth, Adi Da created totally comprehensive Wisdom Works (Teaching, Literary, Art) and Empowered Sanctuaries for the benefit of all of humankind, and even all beings – so I look at these results and what He accomplished in 69 years, and can only prostrate in deepest gratitude for All that He Grants and Is.
@ Anomalous Poster – Adi Da has always related to us in a very inclusive and personal manner – and also as the Divine Person. In true recognition of Him as Reality, this paradox is deeply resolved at the Heart – but to the ego, it is definitely a conundrum, at best!
eric Says:
“hi , iam wondering if the adi da worship will continue ? or will there be a new guru type ?
does anybody have an idea of the future towards this whole adi da worship and what direction it is headed?
thanks i look forward to see answers as iam sure many others do as well from eric the end”
Yes, of course our devotional spiritual relationship to Adi Da continues – it was never simply about just His physical body anyway. It is always worship of the Reality that He Is – eternally. You can look at http://www.adidam.org and/or http://www.adidaupclose.org/index.html# for more about your questions. The very best to you!
I have posted my email address several times in the past, so here it is again in case anyone wants to contact me.:
feel4god@gmail.com
Love and Kisses!
January 13, 2009 at 3:51 pm
>Oh my, another competition….
Great idea! Let’s vote on the best post / poster.
January 13, 2009 at 4:23 pm
It may be that most from Da’s group and some sympathizers consider no discussion of Da at all more desirable than discussions that question the certainty of some basic Adidam dogma, especially with respect to traditional figures, also their possible influence on Da. It is unfortunate this may come across to some as unfair criticism of Da. We have seem some unfortunate extreme examples here from Adidam devotees of this belief that any discussion of Beloved must be devotional in nature, while fortunately we have seen others more willing to engage and agree to disagree in some areas, as it were.
But I see no good alternative, for the sake of true consideration. Because it is Da who ranks every tradition and realizer below his unique status, whereas the traditions consider all jnanis as one, the only traditional question about a teacher being, are they in fact a Realizer or not? However, the traditions have produced numerous widely accepted Realizers, and Ramana Maharshi is credited with over half a dozen alone, who have validated that tradition. While, Da has not produced anyone even remotely considered close to jnana outside the organization, and his claims are not recognized by any contempory figures widely considered liberated within the non-dualist tradition. And it is Da who does not, in the opinion of most who have studied the matter, always accurately represent the traditions, and the life and teachings of traditional figures, such as Ramana Maharshi. And as a secondary matter, it is Da who uses his own experiences and behavior as a benchmark for the highest stage, while these experiences and behavior collectively fall outside the range of that seen before in recognized jnanis.
I do urge those interested, whose knowledge of Ramana Maharshi is limited to the way Adidam literature potrays him, to look further, and judge for themselves. It has been demonstrated that Ramana Maharshi had plenty to say on the Heart, Amrita Nadi, enquiry and bhakti, advanced stages of jnana, signs of jnana, types of practice, the utility of a satvic diet and lifestyle, that there is already nothing to be attained, etc., and similar topics also found in Adidam. Adidam does, as we have seen demonstrated, have its particular interpretations and nuances of those topics that diverge somewhat from the traditions, including Ramana Maharshi. These are generally presented by Adidam as revolutionary or radical inspirations and insights, but are often not correlated accurately with what traditional sources have relative to the basic topic even though these sources were available. What has also been demonstrated is that Da was quite aware of Ramana Maharshi’s teachings and was well versed in the traditions long before the Vendanta Temple Event, even if he does claim personal revelation as the source rather than credit influences he was exposed to for similarities.
Conradg alluded to a wide range of Da’s concepts presented as unique and revelatory, where there is apparently already historical precedent which scholars have noted. I can think of one illustrative example of this from personal experience that does not require”technical knowledge”. Straightforward comparison of the text can illustrate the point. Most of those familiar with Da are aware of his teaching that “you don’t know what anything IS”. This summarized a concept of “Divine Ignorance” that Da first stated in the summer of 1976, while I was involved. An example of this teaching is found in Paradox of Instruction, the same early 1977 book which the initial version also stated that Da (then) considered Ramana Maharshi his Spiritual Master:
“…”I” may find out or know all kinds of facts or truths about any thing, or everything, or the whole world. But I may never discover or know what that thing, or everything, or any thing is. No matter how much time passes, or how much knowledge is attained, this fundamental Ignorance can never be changed to any degree. This Ignorance is Truth and the Way of Truth. It is the Truth or Condition of any thing and everything. It confounds the dream of knowing. It is Awake. It is Intuition, prior to all knowledge. The radical Realization of this Ignorance under all conditions is the presumption of Truth. Such is Enlightenment or God-Realization…”
This “you don’t know what anything is”, “Ignorance is enlightenment” concept was presented to us as a unique, radical, and unprecedented revelation, as compared to the “knowers” of the traditions. But was it? Perhaps the wild partying at the time in the inner circle made it seem so, but even then, I recognized it as based in ideas no different than those communicated by Ramana Maharshi years before, and in general terms readily available to Da before that period.
From Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad (with Commentary from Sadhu Om, considered by many one of his enlightened followers):
>>There is a two-fold ignorance, named as knowledge and ignorance, which is experienced by those not aware of the real Self. This pair is unreal just like all else.
The two are inseparable. Neither exists without the other, and because both arise from ignorance of the Self, both are equally ignorance. [Commentary: Worldly knowledge and worldly ignorance are both ignorance for the reason stated here. This is explained further.]
Everyone, being ignorant of his own real Self, seeks to know what is not-Self. The relative knowledge [acquired in this way] is an outcome of this ignorance. Hence, says our Guru, it is only ignorance.
Whatever knowledge one acquires by the intellect and the senses, if it is acquired without first knowing the truth of the one that arises, saying ‘I am the knower’, is all wrong knowledge.
He that does not know the Self might consider the world, which is unreal, to be real, and he will look upon his own real Self, which transcends the world, as an individual soul contained in the world.
The intellect, the senses and the mind are only the servants of the primary ignorance. Hence, the worldly modes of ‘proof’ serve only to delude the creature.
If the ego dies by the quest, ‘Whence arises the ego, the experiencer of the two, knowledge and ignorance?’ with it will be extinguished this pair [knowledge and ignorance].
Right awareness is only dwelling in the natural state of the Self, after the extinction of the ego. In that state, which is free from duality, these two manifestations of ignorance, which belong to the worldly life, do not survive.
The sages [Buddhas] call that the state of right awareness. In it there is neither knowledge nor ignorance. That is the highest state, in which there is nothing, whether sentient or insentient, other than the Self.
The illiterate, the literate and the ‘knower of the Self’ are all three equally ignorant. The third one also is ignorant, because for him there is nothing knowable other than the Self.
[Commentary: This was what Bhagavan said. The first two are ignorant because they do not know the Self. The sage is ignorant for a different reason, which is here stated.]<<.
Now, those who want are of course free to continue to believe that Da came up with this Ignorance idea as a revelation independent of any reading or study Da had done, and even though he Da at that point said he was focused on Ramana Maharshi as his Spiritual Master. But I think most objective observers will consider this theory very unlikely, particularly given Da’s life pattern. This example being only one out of many over the entire range of Da’s teaching.
In any case, the underlying point is that there is to many considerable evidence that when Da chooses to criticize traditions and traditional figures, such as Ramana Maharshi, he uses shallow and contextually inaccurate characterizations as if he was not really familiar with the subject. Yet, he is able to expound (in his own words and with nuances, and implying he came up with it) on ideas from those readily available teachings, without acknowledgement or credit to those traditional sources where many others can clearly see relation. So, while it can be said with general agreement that Da provides a comprehensive and interesting perspective on non-dualism, the ability to articulate this with great subtlety does not necessarily indicate full realization or accuracy in judgement of traditions and traditional figures. Nor is it a reason to either assume or not assume that Da is correct where he diverges from the traditions. Those interested should review the many sources currently available, and make up their own minds. Discussions can continue or not depending on interest.
January 13, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I began following this blog soon after its inception and discovered there were illusions of Adidam in my psyche even though I left a decade ago. I have since found it very useful in helping me discard those illusions. Thanks to all contributors.
Additionally, I just returned from an Ananda Marga retreat which was attended by many monks and nuns who came from all over the world. I couldn’t help but compare that event with public Adidam retreats and how we use to relate to those outside our community. The contrast was so shocking I had to briefly write my thoughts down here, especially for those still in Adidam.
I found the “Margis” to be real and accessible. They actually create wonderful things in the world such as wellness centers and educational schools. Not once in the 5 retreats I have attended over the past 5 years did anyone try to convert me. Not once did any of them allude to their guru (who died nearly 20 years ago) being greater than mine or greater than anyone or anything else. I felt completely accepted as I am, even though I have a different understanding of the Truth and the spiritual process in general based on my years in Adidam and my reception of Adi Da’s teaching.
Contrast this to Adidam where “our” guru is superior, and therefore “our practice” is superior. Public retreats are mainly about converting people, not about listening to them or relating to them as real people. Nothing of substance is being brought to the world. And to boot, most devotees are insular and avoiding relationship, and they don’t know it! It’s a shocking discovery… AND a liberating one.
No argumentation or debate is required here – it’s simply and unequivocally obvious to me. The delusional spell I put on myself has been broken. Thank God.
(P.S. As much as I enjoyed the retreat and the Margis, I have no inclination to join any “spiritual” group as a practitioner. I discovered there is no such thing as spiritual practice anyway. Go figure!)
January 13, 2009 at 11:51 pm
Da said (if so):
“Ramana Maharshi taught a sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion, strategically turning away from body and mind via Descent in Atma Nadi (or Amrita Nadi), and, thus and thereby, exclusively fixed upon the Transcendental “Root”.”
“The practice of “Self-enquiry” Ramana Maharshi taught revolves strategically away from the body-mind-”self”- through a process of dissociative introversion, in the characteristically sixth stage manner – and toward the interior (and thus, psycho-physically inward) “Source” of the egoic “I”-thought (or the “I-object”).”
—
The error here is that Da considers the body-mind-”self” as real, and other than (apart from), the “I”-thought. Instead, the body-mind-”self” is the illusory product of the “I”-thought, which when inspected is found without base and dropped, and with it the body-mind-”self” illusion. So, in inspecting the “I”-thought (vichara) there’s no “turning away from body and mind” other than looking into the root/source of said body-mind-”self”, which is anyway implicit, as product, in the “I”-thought. And therefore, when the “Transcendental “Root”", Consciousness Itself, is realized, there’s no “exclusive fixation” upon it, since there’s nothing else at all to be acknowledged on its own or as apart from That, so nothing that can be “excluded” to begin with, being Consciousnes the One and Only Reality (of all and All, by the way). In brief, the whole Da’s “dissociative introverted” reading of Ramana’s realization is mistaken and flawed, so (at best) he had to conceive that “6th stage” to accommodate his wrong interpretation of Ramana’s account.
January 14, 2009 at 1:07 am
Feel4God,
Thank you for your latest post. I am more than willing to discuss your points (realizing we all have our opinion):
You say:
>>FFaC Says:
“Honestly I agree you would have read that, but modern sources point out that is inaccurate. You do not understand yet how Ramana Maharshi views the heart on the right. That experience isn’t even totally necessary!”
I have also studied “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi” after the initial immersion in Ramana’s Way in the late 60s and early 70s. However, you never answered my questions about whether Godman’s versions changed radically from the original versions I read and quoted from here, which clearly state that the source of the mind is the heart, which has its psycho-physical reference on the right side of the chest. Actually, all I did here was quote what Ramana purportedly said. Here is that issue I asked you about again:
I said:
FFaC, are you saying that the above quote from “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” has been changed in Godman’s versions? There are so many instances of Ramana stating that the mind rises out of the heart, that I cannot imagine that this has all been re-translated from these earlier translations. The following is on page 128 of “The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi”:
D.: Bhagavan was saying that the heart is the centre of the Self?
Bhagavan: Yes, it is the one supreme centre of the Self. You need have no doubts about that. The real Self is there in the heart behind the ego-self.
D.: Will Bhagavan please tell me where in the body it is?
Bhagavan: You cannot know it with your mind or picture it with your imagination, although I tell you that it is here (pointing to the right side of the chest). The only direct way to realize it is to stop imagining and try to be yourself. Then you automatically feel that the centre is there. It is the centre spoken of in the scriptures as the heart-cavity.”
So again, I am quoting this to point out that Ramana often spoke of the heart on the right, and you seem to be saying that aspect of His teachings have been “re-translated”, “revised” or “de-emphasized”? I just read in a David Godman interview in which he said that Arthur Osborne tended to focus on the heart on the right, and I do understand that error. But even so, from everything I have read of Ramana’s statements, and this also includes “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi”, there are many many references to the heart on the right and the concentrated practice of Self-enquiry in locating the source of the I-thought – the heart – which Ramana repeatedly stated had its physical reference to the right side of the chest. <>I also know that Ramana spoke very profoundly about the Heart being the Self beyond all conditions, but still, I can see something about what Adi Da is saying below – and also, especially as compared to how Adi Da explains in great detail in The Dawn Horse Testament, the processes of the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi.
From Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga by Adi Da Samraj:
“Ramana Maharshi taught a sixth stage practice of dissociative introversion, strategically turning away from body and mind via Descent in Atma Nadi (or Amrita Nadi), and, thus and thereby, exclusively fixed upon the Transcendental “Root”.”
“The practice of “Self-enquiry” Ramana Maharshi taught revolves strategically away from the body-mind-”self”- through a process of dissociative introversion, in the characteristically sixth stage manner – and toward the interior (and thus, psycho-physically inward) “Source” of the egoic “I”-thought (or the “I-object”).”
Again, regardless of what Ramana’s Realization is, I can certainly see what Adi Da is saying about Self-enquiry being a practice away from the body-mind and towards “re-locating” the internal source of attention. And this was my experience of Self-enquiry also – it was not as direct, at least for me. Of course, Ramana is not my Master, so to each their own.<>
I understand what you are saying, and I have acknowleged that some can–and do–read it that way. At the same time, what you are talking about from the perspective I am advocating is not really mature Self-enquiry but a kind of meditative exercise most people consider as the practice. I am sure that is how you, I and others approached it. I do have some concerns as I have said when Da, as insightful as he was capable of being, so describes a practice he never did and in ways that even ordinary scholars find lacking and where jnanis like Sri Nisargadatta and a few of Ramana Maharshi’s devotees do not see it that way at all. That is because it is very simple in theory, if not in practice.
The ego “I” is an illusion, it does not and never existed. And the Self is the ever present Reality continually experienced in the background. So why then do we continually identify with an illusion and ignore the Self always “there”? Why do we believe it is a snake when it is clearly a rope? A continuous mental activity (and Ramana Maharshi did not teach the ego was an entity, either). The basis of the more mature practice is not to assume the ego “I” exists or visualize some goal, but be aware of that already existing sense of who we are which is all we know now. Because by doing so, the sense of self that comes from the entanglement of the illusory “I” sense with the underlying sense of Self begins to unravel at the source, until the awareness of Self which is always there breaks through. This is a natural process, and does not substitue another form of attention on some loci, but simply examines and unconsciously undermines the very loci we are always presuming to be the case. In Adidam terms, this undermines the egoic contraction rather than reinforcing it through some sort of activity. It is fine if it is not your path. All I ask is that you consider it from a different perspective, not that we necessarily agree.
>>FFaC, I will look into the following three books, some of which appear in the Basket of Tolerance, in the Traditional Esotericism section, if I am not mistaken. (So I know Adi Da was familiar with these. Unfortunately, I only had a chance to browse for them.)
Be As You Are: The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi. Edited by David Godman
Living by the Words of Bhagavan, by David Godman
Annamalai Swami: Final Talks, Edited by David Godman <>In closing here, I want to address what both FFaC and Conradg have speculated about Adi Da somehow bypassing the dissolution of the ego-illusion, by “reidentifying above with a superegoic state” (as FFaC said). There are so many levels that this speculation can be argued against, and of course, many of my very long posts on this very very very long blog have been my doing that. So I won’t repeat much, but only try to summarize a few things about their presumptions.
First, how would Adi Da even be able to bypass all the processes of the Heart (and most specifically, the heart on the right) and still describe them with such clarity and conviction? I encourage everyone to read (again) what He says about the “Perfect Practice” and these profound (and technical) aspects of these heart-based processes to decide for themselves. Especially see The Dawn Horse Testament.<>Second, many devotees testify to tacitly being established in the disposition of the Witness-Position – via relinquishing attention in devotional Communion with Adi Da, thereby allowing Him to do His Work. How all this works, I do not know – but that it does work, I can say for certain. Any time I am most submitted to Adi Da, recognizing the egoless Reality that He Is, “I” am “stepped beyond” my usual fixation of “I” to simply be the Witness. This is a Heart matter, and I find it is also associated with the heart on the right. (And no, I am not a natural “bhakti-type” – I tend toward mind, in case that is not obvious by now. ) Again, each person must find this out, but other Daists and myself, will at least testify that this is what is occurring.<>Third, many devotees, regardless of their practice, recognize Adi Da as the inherent Heart that is the Self and that also has manifested in the world in many, even unconventional, ways – but always as Love and Blessing. Look at His photos, His Heart Disposition of “Open Eyes”- which to many of us, allow us to recognize directly that He is the Acausal Divine Reality.<>Fourth, Adi Da created totally comprehensive Wisdom Works (Teaching, Literary, Art) and Empowered Sanctuaries for the benefit of all of humankind, and even all beings – so I look at these results and what He accomplished in 69 years, and can only prostrate in deepest gratitude for All that He Grants and Is.<<
He did leave that legacy, and affected many. Time will prove or disprove its value in the scheme of things. Regardless, Da left much to ponder and evaluate, even here. There is a lesson here, either way. Look forward to your next comment.
January 14, 2009 at 1:15 am
When your chest is free of your limiting ego,
Then you will see the ageless Beloved.
You can not see yourself without a mirror;
Look at the Beloved, He is the brightest mirror.
Rumi
Translator: Shahram Shiva
January 14, 2009 at 1:31 am
Feel4God,
Regarding the astrological analysis, I’m not trying to make a literal “prediction”. I’m well aware of Adi Da’s views about the “descriptive” nature of astrology, so we can, if you like, merely say that Da’s Mahasamadhi chart is “descriptive” of someone who is going to have another lifetime. Nor would I say that Da’s work was literally “complete”, at least not if viewed through the lens of astrology. Quite the opposite, in purely astrological terms this would not have been the time for a “completed” Mahasamadhi, but one which leaves a certain quality of something being “missing”.
I think anyone who is not completely in the tank and willing to come up with rationalizations for anything Da does as necessarily “complete” or “perfect” would agree, even not looking at the astrology. The astrological analysis merely describes this situation quite well, including especially this idea of incompleteness.
When I was working with Da on these issues, I came to see that, from an astrological perspective, a time of “completion” would best be described as occuring sometime around 2029, when Da turned ninety. In fact, there’s support for this in the KOL, in which Da says that as a child he repeatedly prayed to God that he be able to live to be “eighty-nine years or older”. In exchanges with Da about his Mahasamadhi, I told him that it would be best if he lived to at least this age, and in fact I pretty much felt certain that he would, and told devotees that they shouldn’t worry about an early death. Well, I was wrong about that clearly, in the predictive sense, but I don’t think I was wrong in the analytic sense. Meaning, that Da’s early death means that aspects of his life’s work were left incomplete and unfinished, probably necessitating another lifetime.
I recall one of my first conversations with Da was about this whole issue. I had given him a lengthy chart that mapped out his major astrological events through the year 2060 or so – the limits of my computer technology at that time. His first response was a mock-critical one, asking me why I had given him such a short lifetime? He said, “Why didn’t you make my lifetime go to the year 2350?” Naturally, I apologized, blamed my computer (I of course thought that extending the chart out to 2060, and an age of 120, was generous enough), and then said, “Well, if you really want to die at the most auspicious time, there’s a very rare conjunction in the year 2385 that parralels the life of Vivekanada, so you really should live to at least until then.” Da found this quite agreeable, and said, “Alright then, we should get together again in 2385 and discuss how much longer we want to live.” I told him it was a date.
Point is, I know Da was joking, but he’s often telling the truth when he’s joking too. I’d suggest that he was quite aware that “I was giving him a short lifetime”, and that he wouldn’t be able to finish everything he has to do in one shot. So, maybe Da reincarnates in 2350. Maybe he comes back much sooner. The point is, simply presuming that he can’t possibly come back because it would upset your picture of things is counter-productive to any consideration, astrological or otherwise. If anything, one ought to presume that Da would tend towards the unexpected, as even his death demonstrates.
I’m not even suggesting that reincarnation is inevitable because Da isn’t genuinely enlightened. When I do astrology I don’t like to bring any such prejudices to the table, which is one of the reasons Da liked the way I did astrology. Likewise, it’s silly to say that you can’t use astrology to describe the “Acausal Divine Person”. In fact, my very first lengthy report on Da’s astrological parallels went quite deeply into this very issue from the start, and when Da read it his response was “Conrad has a right understanding of this matter”. The general point being that while the Divine Person is beyond causation, when the Divine Person incarnates in any conditional world, that conjuction can be described by astrological signs and symbols, like anything else. My initial report to Da included a large number of predictions in it, which I viewed merely as a way of testing whether or not my methods were meaningful, and Da’s response was “don’t tell me about any of them, put the report away and let me know if/when enough of them come true”. The Kanyas did just that, and over the next eighteen months virtually everything I’d predicted came true, so they felt they had to tell Da, and did, and that’s when he made me his “court astrologer”. As I said, the first thing he wanted me to do were astrological analyses of his past life connections to Vivekananda and others, and that’s when the conversation mentioned above came up.
Another point is that, even if Da is truly the 7th stage FLO, there’s no particular reason to imagine that he couldn’t or wouldn’t incarnate, regardless of various things he’s said in the past. He always kept it open as a possibility, from what I know. The mere fact that he says his true “Translation moment” occurred back in 2001 at the Lopez event, and yet he lived on in the body for the next seven years, suggests that this body could also live on in future lifetimes. Why not? As I said, one can’t make definitive predictions about things like this with astrology, but the descriptive analysis literally just jumps off the page for me and points to another lifetime. Sorry. I’d be just as happy to say the opposite, but it just doesnt look that way. If I were still in Adidam, I’d be saying exactly the same thing. I never had any hesitation to go against conventions then, so why should I now? As for your objections, I’m sure if Da did reincarnate you would immediately be able to rationalize it, so why not just do so now?
January 14, 2009 at 3:51 am
Conradg wrote: “It doesn’t seem to support your case that the “I”-thought is in the heart. Quite the opposite. He seems to clearly be saying that the false self, the ego-”I”, is in the mind, whereas the true Self is located in the heart (relative to the body-mind). So he recommends that we stop engaging the mind (imagining) and simply “be yourself”. If that is done, the mind falls into the heart.”
This fits my experience too:
One night I was meditating, and the energy in my body withdrew into the centre of my head as a spark of light then descended down to the right side of my chest. There was a golden Being there who communicated psychically:
“I am the, in the, as the heart of all beings. All beings… (indicating within). All beings are connected.” Then this Being spread arms to the right and showed a kind of space scene where beings were meditating with cords connecting their hearts. Then this Being turned to me and said, “And… you…?”
Upon thinking of myself I began separating. The harder I tried to reconnect, the faster I separated. Afterwards a light was projecting from the right side of my chest for a few days.
But clearly the problem was objectification. Objectifying myself (i.e. thinking of myself) and trying to get back to the Being (i.e. thinking of the Being), caused the separation.
I would have liked to meet Adi Da to discuss this, but there were too many hurdles to jump!
I’m interested in others experience on this issue too. Please feel free to contact me here: worldwidehappiness@yahoo.com.au
January 14, 2009 at 6:14 am
I think this blog has been very useful and valuable. I think it is a first dialogue between mostly one devotee but also a few others of
Adi Da and others who have not so great feeling about Adi da, I thank Feel for God and Conrad and FFAc and some other regulars for staying with this for so long. People have been pretty considerate in spite of some rough emotions coming up. I don’t read every part of every post, since the discussion of the differences between Ramana and Adi Da are very technical for me and I am not very well versed on Ramana and his Teaching anyhow. I have heard before many good things about the David Godman literature on Ramana I think I will read at least some of it. Then perhaps I will delve some more into Ramana. Certainly worth a look and some study.
I think that Adi Da always encourage study of the traditions, although I do not think many Adi Da devotees made use of this recomendation, except a little dabbling here and there. I have studied a lot in the Buddhist tradition, because that attracts me. I have read all the maharishi literature too, but it is mostly about the TM technique. Vedanta has always seemed a bit “heady” for me although this could be said about Buddhism too.
There is no way I could really debate any of this stuff here. I have just mostly posted my own experiene of Adi Da and his teaching and a bit about my experience with some other teachers like Ammachi.
I still feel like Adi Da has the most direct spiritual transmission. Still i hear what Conrad says about me not being in the community for a long time now. Obviously I have some problems with the whole thing. I have no real idea about why Adi Da chose to live and teach in the eccentric way that he chose. I do not think that he cooked up some idea to manipulate a bunch of people and get rich being a guru. I think he was honestly seeking for spiritual answers in his time in scientology. I do not think he used any brainwashing techniques or anything like that.
I think he used his seven stage model as a way to make sense of his own realizations in the context of the overall traditions. I think he had great respect for the spriritual traditions of mankind and this is the sense i got in reading his teachings. I did get offended by his claim of the one and only seventh stage realizer. Still I think he was just trying to shed light on what he felt to be his own realization in the context of the traditions. My own personal feeling is that the traditional realizers like Ramana and Ammachi are so beyond me in reazlization, that it does not matter to me what “stage” of life or realzation they are at. I can always learn true spirituality from them. And also the Buddha.
Adi Da’s own teaching also spoke directly to me. It does have a unique feel to me. I think it has a tangible transmission associated with it that has a strong awakening power. I used to sit on my deck for an hour in the morning and play Indian music and burn good ole nag champa and study Adi Da. I would become aware that what the teaching was saying would communicate directly in my body and mind and I would be in a deeply meditative and contemplative state and then would formally meditate and would feel very happy and free. that seems to be the point to me.
Also I never got into a lot of serious formal puja, but I would do a very short and simple one and I could definitley feel a spiritual communication in the doing of it. I mean a strong blissful yogic force that felt very loving and conscious to me. That is the feeling that I got relating to a mediation picture of Adi Da. A bliss forceful direct communication of a sense of freedom and no problem. I have often had health problems and been in intense pain, and this transimission would often cut through all of that and I would fall into a much freer and happier state of being.
I have found this transmission to be very powerful in the case of Adi Da; I also feel a very blissful and loving and free transmission in the personal company of Ammachi. But , with her, I only feel it in her personal company and not from a picture. now I do feel the transmission of her when reading leelas of her play with devotees. i feel a heart opening there that makes me cry with feeling of happiness and also the sorrow and compassion of life.
My experience of Adi Da when around him was of there being “no one at home” personally I felt the emptiness and the Void that the Buddha refers to . He felt empty to me and yet there was this incredible juice and fullness. I know what Feel for God means about pictures and so forth, because there was something about Adi Da’s eyes that was special. A real emptiness that seemed to me to be a transcendence of the ego contraction. This seemed completely obvious to me. I felt no doubt about it and I was not brainwashed and i am not brainwashed now, unless you consider that we are all brainwashed by our media.
So that is my experience of all of this . I am not a representative of Adi Dam and I am not a devotee or student or member of the community. Flick Rahke
January 14, 2009 at 11:55 am
Apparently the last post doubled up my previous post with this one. Jerry, if you can, delete the last, longer post.
Feel4God,
Regarding the Ramana issues,
I say you don’t seem to understand what Ramana is saying simply because he says what he says very clearly and without any complication, and yet you persist in only understanding it in Daist terms, which requires you to see it only one way, regardless of what Ramana actually says. It’s rather frustrating to carry on a conversation under these limitations, and makes explanations rather futile. I’m not meaning to be insulting, but I’m not going to expend a lot of energy on persuading you to see Ramana’s descriptions according to Ramana’s own teaching, rather than through the lens of Da’s teaching. It would be one thing if you could grasp what Ramana says, and then compare and contrast it to Da’s teaching, but that doesn’t seem like something you even want to try. You’re clearly an intelligent guy, but so enamoured of Da that you can’t quite see anything without filtering it through his teaching first, and that makes any kind of objective comparison virtually impossible.
For example, you quote Ramana here:
“That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires whence the ‘I’ thought in the body arises in the first instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind.”
You seem unable to grasp what he’s clearly saying, that the “I”-thought, the mind, comes from the heart. For you, this suggests that the mind actually is located in the heart, and thoughts “rise up” from the heart. This is like saying that since I come from Connecticutt, my actions arise from Connecticutt. Well, no. My actions come from where I am now, in California, even though my origin, my place of birth, is in Connecticutt. Similarly, the mind’s origins, the “I”-thought, are from the heart, but the “I”-thought is not functionally in the heart, that is only its source. The “I”-thought is the mind, and it is the source of all the content in the mind, including attention, which is simply consciousness functioning from the differentiated point of view of the mind, experiencing objects of all kinds. So in Ramana’s teaching, the mind, the “I”-thought, is not found in the heart, but in the manifest world.
Yogically, this becomes complicated if you try to understand these things from the point of view of the body. If one conceieves of the heart as literally a yogic center in the right side of the heart, it seems as if the body is supreme, and the heart is conditional, when the opposite is the case. The heart is not on the right side of the chest, because the heart is prior to the body. The body does not even manfiest until the end of the line of originations. Similarly, the body itself is merely an apparition, not a reality. It is a sign, a symbol, a tangle of reified energy that is utterly dependent on its source and origin beyond the body.
To make it clearer, I’ll fill in the blanks of Ramana’s general yogic cosmology. In Ramana’s view, the heart is simply Reality Itself. In the case of unenlightenment, the heart appears closed, like a knot. This is not really true, the heart is never actually closed, but the illusion of unenlightenment makes it appear to be closed. This closing of the heart gives rise to the “I”-thought, the ego, the notion of primal separation, which then seemingly separates from the heart, and rises up to form an entirely separate sense of identity. This separate sense of identity, the “I”-thought, first manifests as “God”. Ramana calls God the first delusion, whereas most people consider God to be Reality Itself. Not so for Ramana.
This God is identified with the unmanifest Light infinitely “above”, and this God-Light then descends and “creates” all the manifest worlds. But this God is merely a thought, dependent on the ego, and what it creates is merely a world of egos, all of which are reflected images of this delusion we call “God”. This is why it is said that God created man in his own image. So God is the ego, and this is reflected in us as individual egos as the sense of separate “I”. None of this occurs, literally, in the heart, it all occurs within the mind, and the world appears as creations of the ego, the “I”-thought, and even though it might seem to be Divine in origin, it is actually egoic in origin. The ultimate source of mind and attention is certainly in the heart, but not literally, in that the direct precursor of all our thoughts and perceptions in this world are in the “I”-thought of the conditional mind. “God”, in dualistic speak. This is not located in the heart, but in the illusory separated world of conditional manifestation. So while the “I”-thought rises from the heart, it is not located in in the heart.
Using the yogic symbols of the body to describe this, the heart appears to be on the right of the chest, but of course this is only how it appears to the body, not to the heart. The “I”-thought rises up out of the heart on the right, travels through the Amrita Nadi, and takes residence above, manifesting first as the God-Light infinitely above. Then it descends down, creating all the manifest worlds, including the physical body, which comes just about last, as a reflection of the “I”-thought. Each seeming individual reflects this “I”-thought, and even seems to have a separate “I”. But in reality, there is no separate, individual “I-thought, there is just one “I”-thought, one illusion. And there is no separate God, just a thought of God that reflects this “I”-thought endlessly in all worlds.
Self-enquiry, therefore, is functionally speaking aimed at dissolving the illusion of the “I”-thought, not at “God”, because the “I”-thought is prior to God. But self-enquiry is more directly aimed at the source of the “I”-thought, which is in the heart itself, prior to the heart’s knot. To see that there is no separate “I” is, literally, to dissolve all the worlds, and all separate “I”s, and to see that there is only one illusion and one mind. Self-enquiry undoes the illusion of the “I”-thought by examing it directly, prior to any concept or vision of “God”. In so doing, it reveals the source of the “I”-thought, the heart. But it does not, and is not capable of, actually descending into the heart, because self-enquiry is done by the mind, not by the heart. It is a means by which the mind undoes itself, and releases attention entirely. As Ramana taught, self-enquiry can only bring one to the point of singleness, of readiness for this descent into the heart. Only the Power of the Guru can actually draw the mind down into the heart, and so it is the Guru who performs the final act for the sake of the devotee. The Guru draws the “I”-thought back down into the heart, and if one’s surrender to the Guru is true, if one is thoroughly purified of all desires and karmas, the “I”-thought will die there in the heart. But if one is not, the “I”-thought will rise up once again, and repeat the whole process of “creation”.
If the “I”-thought dies in the heart, however, by the Grace of the Guru, the heart opens up, and instead of the “I”-thought emerging and rising up via Amrita Nadi, the Heart Itself will rise up as “Heart-Light”, and move to the point Infinitely above, and then descend down into the body and the world, without actually creating any egos in the process. Instead, there is simply the heart itself endlessly mulitiplied as Itself. In such a case, the nature of reality is simply obvious and clear at all times as the heart, in all of manifestation, because nothing is manifest at all, all is the heart. One even sees that this was always the case, even when one had been deluded by the egoic illusions generated by the “I”-thought. In reality, none of that ever actually happened, it was simply a distorted perception of reality. The only reality was that of the heart, all the while, manifesting without any ego whatsoever.
Now, I understand to some extent why you don’t grasp what Ramana is saying. In part, you simply lack an extensive and mature understanding of Ramana’s teachings and cosmology. It’s understandable, in that you only read Ramana when you were quite young, and not well versed in this sort of thing. And since then, you’ve been so immersed in Da’s teaching that you have a hard time understanding that other cosmologies exist. You tend to conflate Ramana’s teaching with Da’s simply because there are some similarities, and you assume that the only differnce lies in this single issue of the “regenerated” form of Amrita Nadi which Da harps on.
I’m also aware of the kind of cosmological yogic descriptions of Da’s that you are relying on, such as this one you quoted:
“… The Entire Process In The Context Of The First and The Second Stages Of The ‘Perfect Practice’ Relates To The Knot In The Right Side Of The Heart (or The Stress Of self-Contraction There). That Knot Is the “I” of attention (or The Feeling Of Relatedness), Confined By the body-mind. When The Root-Source (or Heart-Source) Of attention itself Is (By Means Of My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Divine Spiritual Grace) “Located” (Prior To The Heart-Knot), The By-Me-Avatarically-Self-Transmitted Divine Spirit-Current Is Relieved Of All Stress.”
“My Avatarically Self-Transmitted Divine Spiritual Baptism Works At The Heart (and Throughout the Total body-mind) Of My By-Me-Spiritually-Initiated (and, In Due Course, Actually Me-Seeing) Devotee.”
The problem you seem to be having is trying to apply Da’s cosmology directly to Ramana’s, as if they are identical, when they are not. Da’s description of attention being located in the heart on the right would not be consistent with Ramana’s use of those terms. You could certainly try to reconcile those differences as merely semantic, or due to the imprecision of language, but there are other explanations, such as that Da simply hasn’t understood Ramana properly, and hasn’t actually transcended the heart-knot. Instead, Da has simply identified with the heart on the right in a yogic manner, through the experiential process of conditional descent into the heart, but did not fully surrender and allow his “I”-thought to die there, but instead experienced the ascent of the “I”-thought through Amrita Nadi, and went on to identify himself as God, and to experience himself “incarnating” as God in the body-mind. From this point of view, the heart on the right would be seen as the source of attention, the place of the mind, because his mind didn’t actually die there, but lived on and rose back up, Divinized but not
“dead”, not surrendered. Then, he was able to make a great deal of “mind” of all these yogic processes, and endlessly describe his own yogic system of cosmological and spiritual processes, but still from the point of view of a greatly “Divinized” ego who confused himself into imagining, literally, that he had transcended the world, and all of spirituality, and had become the One and Only true God-Realizer of the Heart and Amrita Nadi. This would certainly account for Da’s various endless explanations of yogic realization involving all these centers, and the claims of perfect and exclusive realization that trumps all others, including Ramana, while yet appearing to manifest a clearly demonstrable fixation upon himself as the source of all things.
Now, of course there are other explanations that this. I’m not putting forward a dogma about Da, and I have no particular “belief” in this explanation. It seems highly plausible to me, and seems to cover all the possibilities, and it’s not unprecedented either. Ramana and others have described how this sort of thing has certainly occurred before, how people whose have experienced this descent of the “I”-thought into the heart, but who haven’t let it die there, are capable of exhibiting some extreme delusions afterwards, along with immense spiritual and yogic power, that is deluding to both themselves and others. Ramana talked about a class of jnani who had not truly surrendered their egos or their vasanas, but nevertheless seemed to many to manifest many of the yogic signs of realization and transmission. There’s plenty of reasons to see Da as belonging to this class of jnani. Naturally, not many Daists would agree, and I’m not going to press the point, but it’s certainly something to consider.
There are many pages in The Dawn Horse Testament in which Adi Da describes these most esoteric of matters. I have never seen or read anyone making statements of such depth and clarity. The consideration of the “feeling of relatedness” being the primary knot of attention – most profound and yet, understandable in day to day life. I have never seen any traditional statement along these lines associated with the processes of the heart on the right.
I would agree that Da has much to say of interest about these matters. I just wouldn’t say that he’s right about everything. Devotees of Aurobindo are immensely impressed with his massive esoteric teachings too, and think it’s the best out there. I’m not all that impressed with Aurobindo myself, but I’m not saying he’s all wrong either. I’m sure there’s a lot of value in there to many people. And the same with Da. But just because someone writes a tremendous amount of very impressive literature that devotees think is the greatest thing every doesn’t make it so. The “feeling of relatedness”, for example, is a good phrase, but I wouldn’t place its location in the heart on the right, but in the mind, where the “I”-thought functions. Of course, if you think the mind is in the heart on the right, that would explain the confusion. But I tend to think that only an unrealized individual would make that mistake, at least according to my own understanding, which is of course not that of a realizer in any case, so there’s plenty of room for error. People will of course have to evaluate these arguments for themselves. I won’t expect you to agree, but I do hope you will at least see where the differences lie, and not confuse Ramana’s teaching with Adi Da’s.
Conrad, once again, you misinterpret what I said here, and then go on to make an argument based on this misreading. Note that I said “heart-root” – which is the heart on the right. I did not say “Heart”. Adi Da works prior to that root with the devotee – directly and priorly as the Heart. Even devotees in the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice testify to this as tacit establishment in the Witness position – prior to the self-contracted “I”.
Ramana only refers to the “heart on the right” as a reference point from the point of view of the body-mind to the “Heart”. To him, they are one and the same thing, without any conditional limitation by the body-mind. So there is no such thing as something “prior” to even the heart on the right, since it is the same as the Heart. Perhaps you mean to say “prior to the knot of the Heart”? That would at least make sense. But the heart on the right is not, according to Ramana, knotted by its very nature, but only appears so to the ego. So there is no distinction from his point of view between the heart on the right and the Heart Itself, one is just a yogic signpost of the other. For those not identified with the “I”-thought and the body, they are clearly and obviously the same.
Likewise, there is no “witness position” in Ramana’s teaching. Mere witnessing is of course critical to the practice of self-enquiry even from the very beginning, but he does not reify this into some “Witness” in either the traditional sense of the Mandukya Upanishad or Da’s teaching about the Witness. Rather, he continues self-enquiry even as one falls more and more into witnesses, asking “who is witnessing?” The general effect of self-enquiry is to fall deeper and deeper into a witnessing posture, but not to reify this into a “witness position” as if there really is such a thing. To Ramana, there is not, it is simply one more illusion to overcome, and even to be cautious of in practice, as it just reinforces the “I”-thought at a deeper level.
I sure have not been able to gleen this kind of detail from Ramana’s statements about Amrita Nadi. And He Himself claimed that He only worked in Silence – not directly Transmitting the Conscious Light and Love-Bliss of Reality as Adi Da describes via the fully-regenerated Amrita Nadi.
On what basis do you say that Silence refers only to some Heart-Transmission that somehow does not pass through the Amrita Nadi? How would that even be possible? Heart-Tranmission must by its very nature pass through the Amrita Nadi if it is to be communicated at all. There is no other “connection” to the manifest worlds, speaking in strictly yogic terms. And of course Ramana did describe his own teaching in silence as the radiate peace of the heart, flowing out to the manifest worlds through Amrita Nadi, recognizing all beings and all arising as the Heart Light itself, never separate or objectively appearing.
I really just wonder how you even come up with this stuff. Are you not aware that Adi Da himself, from the KOL on, also described himself as primarily teaching and working in Silence? Does that mean that he, like Ramana, must be limited to the heart on the right, and not to the fully regenerated Amrita Nadi? It seems like your reasoning process begins with the conclusion you have already arrived at from reading Adi Da, and then proceeds to invent and project an argument that will always come to that conclusion, regardless of whether it actually makes sense if you were to apply it to Da himself.
I thought we were wrapping things up here – but you keep misquoting me! I certainly never said that “Da is very much focused on the Sahasrar”. Really, you seem to have a very hard time listening to Daists, or at least to me, Conrad; and I can only presume it is because you are so staunchly founded and biased in your contrary beliefs about Adi Da and Adidam.
Yes, I thought we were wrapping things up. Apparently it takes a little more clarification however. I didn’t quote you saying “Da is very much focused on the Sahasrar”. That was my interpretation of what he himself has said, and which you interpret as being involved in this descending yoga from infinitely above. To me, his descriptions don’t sound like true realization, but what a highly evolved ego would describe, and even do, if their “I”-thought had risen back out of the heart, unsurrendered, and gone back to the Sahasrar, where it then became Divinized and identified with this yogic rising process. In that case, the yogi might well see this center above as being superior to the heart on the right, simply because he never actually surrendered in the heart, and never fully understood what the heart was. He might learn to see the Amrita Nadi as somehow superior to the heart, rather than simply being the heart, and evolve a teaching that was based on the egoic illusion that this made him the discoverer of some completely new yoga, some unprecedented realization never attained before, and superior to all previous realizations, including Ramana’s and all the traditional jnanis, and give him a sense that he must descend to the material worlds on some kind of special mission to liberate everyone from these illusions, when really it is he himself who still needs to be liberated from his illusions. So “working from above”, as Da said he did early on and still does, I guess, sounds consistent to me with what is actually in inferior egoic yogic realization, rather than a superior egoless realization. But that’s just me. Others will come to their own conclusions.
You are either showing your lack of study of that text, Conrad, and thereby demonstrating a weak understanding of this early book, or else you are deliberately manipulating what you think Adi Da has said, in a further attempt to discredit His unique Realization of Amrita Nadi. So is this why Adi Da called it “The Way of the Sahasrar”? Oh wait! He calls it “The Way of the Heart”! Sheesh, Conrad! Of course you know that you can find many quotes in the The Method of the Siddhas about this:
“I am alive as Amrita Nadi, the Heart and its spire, the Bright or Conscious Light. This is always so. When I come to you I intensify the field of Brightness, the field of uncreated Light that rests above your head and which is drawn down into the body when the mind lies formless in the Heart. Whenever I have been with you I have done this from the Heart. The communication of the Heart and its Light are my constant practice.”
Of course Da says he’s realized Amrita Nadi, and that he’s conscious as the Heart and its spire, etc. That’s not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether he actually has realized this for real, or has merely become delusionally convinced that this is the case. Most people who are not devotees will probably not be terribly convinced by his claims, regardless of his vast knowledge of the literature about this, and his yogic abilities. It’s rather easy to see how he could use the language of the scriptures, and Ramana himself, as a mask to hide behind. It’s certainly been done before by many people, and I’m sure many more will follow.
I’m not of the view that Da is an outright fraud of any kind, only that he’s delusional in the way that only very advanced yogically talented people can be. He’s certainly extremely well-learned in the scriptures, but this only makes it easier for him to create his own self-myth and make it seem credible. It’s difficult for most people without much of a traditional background to parse his statements and see how he might have come up with the complex cosmological ssytem of self-imagery he has. And most people don’t need to, they can smell something off whether they can technically analyze it or not. So for many people, what I’ve been putting forward is just icing on the cake, or even just plain unnecessary. For people interested in this sort of thing, however, it may at least give food for further consideration of Da’s fallen ways. But I wouldn’t expect devotees like yourself to accept it, or even consider it worthy of dispute. But who knows, some years from now you might think back about this conversation and find it might have belped your own process to some small degree.
Hahaha! So now you are claiming to currently know what us Daists are experiencing in relationship to our Master and our practice? You have hit a new “high” here, Conrad, at least in terms of your presumptuousness.
Have you forgotten that I was involved with Adidam for some twenty-eight years? Of course I know a lot about what Daists experience with Adi Da and their own practice. I experienced a whole lot of it myself. You’d be rather amazed at what I experienced, actually. Just because I’ve come to differing views about all that than you have doesn’t mean I have experienced it. That seems to be your biggest stumbling block, not being able to imagine how someone who has experienced Da as you have could possibly come to any other viewpoint than fully accepting Da’s teachings as Gospel Truth. You assume it isn’t possible. Let me assure you: it is.
I really don’t think Adi Da was at all interested in a lot of “admirers”.
Are you kidding me? What was all that endless effort to make himself well-known and “recognized” by the world at large for the last dozen years or so? He was very, very clearly looking for a good degree of what we could call “admiration” from the general world, from famous celebrities and rich people and people in government, high positions in society, etc. I wouldn’t say it’s all he wanted, but he certainly did want it, and couldn’t seem to understand why it eluded him. He was clearly resentful of Gurus like Ramana and Nisargadatta and Ammachi who were vastly more widely and more highly admired than he was. I recall him talking about Ammachi, jealous of her widespread fame, and he said, “What do I have to do to be famous, grow tits?” As if merely being a woman was the source of her fame and recognition in the world. I recall him saying, back in the eighties, of Nisargadatta, “How much longer must we be forced to endure these Hindu freaks, with their slavish followers endlessly hanging on the latest word from the Self”. Now, you can say these remarks, like his remarks about Ramana, are simply his way of joking around, but joking is always very revealing about the joker, not just the things he jokes about. It’s clear Adi Da really did harbor some resentment towards these dudes, and a fair degree of jealousy over their far greater reception in the world of spirituality.
He is adamant about revealing the Truth through Satsang and this is what He always demonstrated in every moment that I have ever been in His physical Company – and I have already written much about that earlier in this thread.
Look, I get it, you’re convinced. So what? Do you really think that’s enough for the rest of us, this anonymous guy on the internet who won’t even divulge his real identity is convinced that Adi Da is the egoless Acausal Divine Person? We understand you take every claim Adi Da makes as not only valid, but as some form of Divine Revelation. Again, so what? This sort of “argument” actually dimishes the effect of your advocacy, rather than enhancing it, just as Adi Da’s own voluminous claims also dimish their general acceptance by the rest of the world, rather than enhance it. The more guys like you “testify”, the easier it is to dismiss you as brainwashed cultists. I’m not saying you are that, but you sure don’t seem to understand how it comes off. At the very least, it makes you seem like you haven’t really critically examined your own assumptions and point of view, but just “go with it”.
For example, regarding all these Ramana arguments about the seventh stage, let’s suppose for a second that Adi Da had, before he died, revealed that Ramana had in fact realized the seventh stage. For the sake of argument, let’s say he came up with some reasonable sounding explanation. Let’s say he pointed out that Adi Da had, of course, first realized the seventh stage in Vivekananda’s Mahasamadhi (an actual aspect of Da’s own claims about his connection to Vivekananda). This is why, of course, Da calls the Vedanta Temple Event his “Re-Awakening”, rather than merely as his “Awakening”. Da has previously said that as Vivekananda he began influencing the world directly after Vivekananda’s Mahasamadhi, inserting himself into and through all kinds of people, from Einstein to Nityananda to Ramana. So let’s say that he now claims that Ramana of all people was most able to realize him, and actually did enter the seventh stage. He could say that Ramana had originaly only realized the sixth stage, but at a certain point in his life transitioned into the seventh stage. One could point to an incident that actually occurred in Ramana’s life in his more mature years, I can’t remember the year, but well into the 20th century, in which Ramana suffered a kind of temporary “death” incident of his own, in which is heart stopped breathing, and after which, when he came to, he seemed markedly different, more active and relational, etc. Well, what if Da had said this is when Ramana entered the seventh stage of life, realized the regenerated Amrita Nadi, and matured through it all, by Da’s own Grace, and as Da’s own devotee.
Okay, if that had happened, if Da had added that to his teaching, would you have argued against him in the same fashion you are arguing with me now? Would you have interpreted all the things Ramana has said in the fashion that you have with me and FFC, as representing a limited realization, or would you have simply re-interpreted all these aspects of Ramana’s teaching, quotes and all, the same things I and FFC have been presenting to you here, as a verification that Da was correct, that Ramana really was seventh stage, and that’s why he served as Da’s Guru, and why Da said all the things about him he has said from the beginning? My sense of you is that you would fall into step with that new argument in a second, that you would completely embrace Ramana as being seventh stage, and Ramana’s own writings about these matters as clearly describing the full Amrita Nadi realization – all simply because Da said so, when it comes down to it. You would even use the very same arguments we have given in support of Ramana yourself, and fully mean every word of it.
I don’t mean that you’d be wrong, I just mean that you would decide what was right about the arguments themselves based on what Da had said, not about the actual validity of the arguments. If Da had just been pulling everyone’s leg, and didn’t actually mean a word of it, had maybe left some kind of note saying “all that about Ramana being seventh stage was bullshit”, to be opened after his death, wouldn’t you have fallen for it completely? I think so. I don’t mean that as an insult, but I do mean it. In other words, I don’t really think you’re arguing this matter purely on its merits, but on the basis of the received wisdom you’ve gotten from Da, and that if he gave you something else to argue, even if it were the opposite of what you now put forward, you would put that forward instead, and argue just as intelligently as you do now, by which I mean, only superficially so.
I don’t mean that you’re not an intelligent guy. Clearly you have smarts. But you don’t actually use those smarts to think these things through for yourself, you use them to best argue the conclusions you’ve already received from Adi Da. I can’t see a single sentence in anything you’ve written thus far that actually parts from Adi Da’s teaching in the slightest. Whereas, if you were really thinking for yourself, you’d certainly have at least a few honest disagreements with him. Who wouldn’t? Well, only someone who considers such things not just heresy, but the wrong way to go about considering these things from the start. This is why I can’t help but view you as, basically, a believer. If you weren’t a believer, there’s be honest disagreement, even argument, with Da’s own teachings. The followers of Ramana and Nisargadatta frequently disagreed and argued with them. The didn’t just walk in lockstep. But we know such things aren’t allowed in Adidam. It’s why even when I was a devotee, I didn’t really fit in with the rest of Adidam. Others noticed as well, and they made me very much aware that I didn’t really fit in with the organization. At the time I was a bit pissed with them, but over time I’ve seen that they served me very well, to make it clear to me that I simply didn’t belong there.
Anyway, I at least appreciate your efforts at dialog. It’s been useful, up to a point. I think we’re pretty close to reaching the point where our differences are plain, and there’s not much more to gain from all this. I think you’re a fine and good fellow, but clearly I not only disagree with some of your conclusions, I also disagree with the way you approach these matters altogether. I certainly don’t expect you to change for my sake however. You remind me of myself when I first began to defend Da on the internet. At a certain point, I had to assess myself, and realize that much as I hated to admit it, I really was a fundamentalist Daist. And I accepted that for a while, until at a certain point I decided I didn’t like being that, and wanted to change. So I decided to drop the fundamentalist approach of arguing from received conclusions, and boy, I was amazed at how fast everything began to change. I don’t regret it, but it was very, very upsetting in ways that made me understand why most devotees might not want to take that route.
And please, don’t take any of this criticism as being ill-natured or mean-spirited. I think we’ve exchanged enough good will between us to weather a bit of honest criticism. I wish you luck. We may have a few more exchanges here, but it does seem to be winding down. All good things must come to an end, and I’m sure neither of us expected to go on for this long. I hope you can find a way to allow all this to strengthen you practice rather than weaken it, because it is not my intention to harm your basic faith in the Divine process that brings all of us to consider these things.
January 14, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Sometimes what I see here is a bunch of former “cultists” working to “uncultify” themselves. Of course there are a lot of mental considerations and such as in teachings like “Guru Papers” to help with this. heck , you could even go to one of those guys who forcefully “bail” you out of a cult. I think that would have been a very good thing for many in the Jim Jones group. i also think you can get seriously overmental about all this stuff. If you look at it from Adi Da’s teaching, you could say that it is a bunch of “solids” working it out. Of course , I am not a “solid” , so I guess i am on my high horse a bit and I have my own off balance stuff too for sure.
I have found the “devotee” thing overblown and tacky sometimes. Still I have felt myself as a “devotee” often when immersed in transmission of the Self. Cetainly this awakens a real “bhakti” It feels real to me anyhow. I have never felt myself to be emotionally hysterical about it or , when I was with Da, to feel like he was the only one , or even the “best” or the “greatest” When he would say that kind of stuff, I would often get offended for quite a while, but still “consider” it all since he was my teacher and guru. I did consider much of the tradition from his seven stages model and often it did click for me. The problem of comparing him and his teachings to Ramana is pretty tough though. I mean how do you compare to someone like Ramana, who is so totally realized himself and so sophisticated and yet so simple in his teaching. I”ll leave that to you more sophisticated intellectual types and I am not being facetious here.
Anyhow I never thought of Adi Da as the best or only. I just thought he was damned good and that was good enough for me. When I left Adi Da, I have studied extensively in other traditions and with quite a few other teachers and i never pigeonholed them in any stage or whatever. I went to them openminded and received what they had to give with the beat of my ability. That takes a sort of surrender of attention and ego too. For me, that is what it is about and then you can learn and grow from whomever you are studying or from whatever traditon you are studying in. I really do not try to pick it all apart piece by piece . I accept it as the truth in its own right.
For example, when I am with Ammachi, I see her as Divine Mother and feel the loving and conscious tranmission of the divine in that feminine and compassionate form. Actually that made it easier for me to digest in a lot of ways as compared to Adi Da’s very masculine more “father” type force. He tends to overwhelm people that way. That is how he communicated too and it can sure be offensive.
Anyhow, for me, the “transmission” from Da’s prescence and his teaching still stands for me How I make use of it is an open consideration for me and I am involved with other traditions and teachers and practices and mixing and matching does not always work so well.
Anyhow , as far as “cult” goes, I think that people get very enthusiastic when they are in a group and have received something they feel has really benefited them and helped them to be happier in this difficult existence. Some people tend to be more emotional and even hysterical than others. This plays into it also. I have seen football fans and soccer fans get pretty emotional and hysterical and even beat each other up over this stuff. “Cults” are much more than religious organizations and I believe that Adi Da expounded on this pretty thorougly and I don’t think he was doing that to seal his own “cult” down better. I think what he wrote about it pretty much rings true.
Flick Rahke
January 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm
FFaC, I appreciate much of what you bring to the table, especially your depth and equanimity in considering various matters about Ramana Maharshi. However, even though you make it sound like you are only interested in “true consideration” (as you called it), you seem to often have an agenda to discredit Adi Da at various levels, and ultimately His Divine Realization. This is also one of the reasons I think many Daists would not want to consider these matters with you, or anyone with a similar agenda. That is their choice, and I can certainly understand and sympathize with it. Minimally such a consideration like this involves a lot of time, as we are seeing here.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Conradg alluded to a wide range of Da’s concepts presented as unique and revelatory, where there is apparently already historical precedent which scholars have noted. I can think of one illustrative example of this from personal experience that does not require”technical knowledge”. Straightforward comparison of the text can illustrate the point. Most of those familiar with Da are aware of his teaching that “you don’t know what anything IS”. This summarized a concept of “Divine Ignorance” that Da first stated in the summer of 1976, while I was involved. An example of this teaching is found in Paradox of Instruction, the same early 1977 book which the initial version also stated that Da (then) considered Ramana Maharshi his Spiritual Master:”
FFaC quotes from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad:
“The illiterate, the literate and the ‘knower of the Self’ are all three equally ignorant. The third one also is ignorant, because for him there is nothing knowable other than the Self.”
Of course this is not a new concept – not even in the Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. The traditions have spoken endlessly of duality in terms of “opposites”, knowledge and ignorance, light and darkness, etc. – and that what is Realized as Truth is beyond ALL knowing. That has been always stated.
However, comparing the quote from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad and what Adi Da has stated – minimally, I find Adi Da’s statement more readily understandable:
FFaC quotes from Adi Da’s The Paradox of Instruction:
…”I” may find out or know all kinds of facts or truths about any thing, or everything, or the whole world. But I may never discover or know what that thing, or everything, or any thing is. No matter how much time passes, or how much knowledge is attained, this fundamental Ignorance can never be changed to any degree. This Ignorance is Truth and the Way of Truth. It is the Truth or Condition of any thing and everything. It confounds the dream of knowing. It is Awake. It is Intuition, prior to all knowledge. The radical Realization of this Ignorance under all conditions is the presumption of Truth. Such is Enlightenment or God-Realization…”
By the way, did Ramana give credit to all the traditions that one could argue that He derived the above quote of His from?
I certainly cannot find any place in the original Paradox of Instruction that Adi Da is claiming that His statements about Divine Ignorance do not have any comparative basis in the Traditions. However, I am sure that some of us (youngsters) back then were probably assuming that He totally originated this concept of “ignorance” or “not-knowing” – and we, albeit well-intentionally, were enthusiastically proclaiming something without proper consideration and the fullest understanding of the Traditions.
Be that as it may, Adi Da’s consideration of Divine Ignorance is much clearer to me than the paragraphs you quoted by Ramana. And much more importantly, what is radical about Adi Da’s considerations about Divine Ignorance are not merely that He very directly stated Divine Ignorance was equivalent to Truth or Enlightenment, but He also moved many of us into understanding this Truth in real life – not just intellectually, as we may have (at best) understood the quotes that you provided from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. There is a huge difference between reading the quote from Ramana, and hearing Adi Da directly bring to us, His (our) Divine Ignorance. This is the point – what is radical is Who Adi Da Is; and He has always told us that His words are simply an indicator of the Truth, not the Truth Itself.
As you know, the period you speak of, in 1976, was called “Indoor Summer” because we were with Him inside His house every day that summer, considering Divine Ignorance. Over and over He would initiate new arrivals to the gatherings, into Divine Ignorance. It was always about Satsang with Him ultimately – Divine Ignorance considerations were the context of those gatherings – however, it was always about noticing, feeling, being the Truth that He Is.
So, what was radical was that many of us were granted the Gift of Divine Ignorance in relationship to Him – really, it is the same recognition of the Witness when egoity is released long enough to allow for the Truth to show Itself. It was a period of Grace-bestowed “glimpsing” beyond our ordinary fixity of mind into the Truth that is beyond all knowledge.
The Divine Ignorance consideration also ushered in the recognition in many of us that what we call “I” was actually revealed to us to be the entire body-mind. As you must remember, this was summarized as “I Is the Body”. (I always thought that this must have sounded like really bad grammar to some folks!
) And on the basis of this recognition that there is no actual separate “I” within the body-mind, but that “I” IS the body-mind – we are inherently Ignorant, free of egoic separation. From here, what is understood is that “I Is the body is Love”. Therefore, with this understanding, we can (are) Love because we are no longer in conflict with our body-minds via assuming a separative ego-I (activity) presumed to be going on within the body-mind and which shuts out Love.
Now this consideration goes beyond what Ramana stated above, and is not based in the traditional assumption that the illusory “I” is within the body-mind complex. In other words, Ramana didn’t define “I” as the whole body-mind complex. In fact, Ramana never paid that much attention to the whole body-mind, as has been brought up before. So this matter of “I Is the body is Love” was a radical departure from traditional considerations.
All of the above consideration of the Truth of Divine Ignorance was always done directly with us in relationship to Adi Da. He Worked with us to demonstrate the “enlightenment of the whole body”. And for a time, this was true of us – certainly in those moments that we transcended our egoic separative attention and fell into our native state in relationship to the Divine.
What a great period this was! I very likely know you FFaC, as you said you were around for this period. I imagine you heard the talks available at that time given your comments here. I enjoy our anonymity here – this way we can just speak freely – completely ignorant of any past and personal history with one another that may change that. I also don’t really know Conradg from the past, other than he did astrology, so the same holds true there. Ignorance is Bliss!
To me, this “Indoor Summer” period points out a real difference in the way Adi Da worked with us, and Ramana’s way. Adi Da spent months on this same matter, allowing it to sink in to a depth that would then provide a foundation for other radical considerations – i.e., how to love, breathe, feel, serve whole bodily on this basis, etc. rather than get tied up with inward-directed searches and egoic subjectivity. Ramana clearly did not engage people in these terms for whatever reasons.
At the time, us westerners needed such demonstrations and concentrated considerations to break through all the “knowledge” we brought to Adi Da. Even with my having immersed myself in Ramana’s Works for several years before meeting Adi Da – in my egoic adaptations I still was burdened with much knowledge and inward seeking. Adi Da’s very detailed and thorough consideration provided a major cutting into my presumptions about “knowing” and the “knower”. This period was very enlightening, although as I said much earlier, many of us (myself included) failed at “passing the Prasad” to those not in direct and daily considerations with Adi Da.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Now, those who want are of course free to continue to believe that Da came up with this Ignorance idea as a revelation independent of any reading or study Da had done, and even though he Da at that point said he was focused on Ramana Maharshi as his Spiritual Master. But I think most objective observers will consider this theory very unlikely, particularly given Da’s life pattern. This example being only one out of many over the entire range of Da’s teaching.”
It is also worth asking again – did Ramana always give credit to all the traditions that one could say He “borrowed” His Teachings from?
As I have said a number of times, the Truth is the Truth – so what Adi Da and Ramana have said is obviously very easy to compare – and so too with many aspects of the Great Tradition.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Those interested should review the many sources currently available, and make up their own minds. Discussions can continue or not depending on interest.”
I hope the Basket of Tolerance is published soon. In this, Adi Da has quoted extensively from the Great Traditions, and by so doing, gives credit where credit is due; and also criticizes all the traditions based in the body-mind via His radical Arguments. This will be a very interesting study – but unfortunately, once it is out, none of us may get any sleep given how much we might start posting again!
January 14, 2009 at 5:37 pm
As long as you inhabit a sense of seperate self you will be motivated to want to protect your investment and to want to protect your protection by convincing someone else you are right about something.
January 14, 2009 at 11:36 pm
Flick says:
Actually the long period of study under the guru was to test the dispciple not the guru. The disciple has already decided by then if they want to “surrender” to the “discipline” of the guru. Anyhow, I already said pretty much o.k. to what you guys have been saying here, but that “o.k.” was deleted by the moderator, so I guess this post will also be deleted. I am not sure why my post agreeing with everything was deleted. I guess the debate is what is important after all. Whatever, I agree with every point of view here”.
I don’t believe this is entirely accurate, for several reasons.
The traditions do endorse extensive testing of the guru because it is not always easy to tell whether a guru is right for you in advance, and those fully realized are considered rare. For instance, even the great Vikekananda tested Ramakrishna for some time. Experiencing energies, visions and the like is not considered proof. There is an element of self testing on the part of the disciple, but premature faith based on less thorough examination than recommended is the primary cause of many disillusionments. Did I test Da? I did, but jumped to conclusions too rapidly, with a naive belief most ex-followers report that such experiences and siddhis reported combined with the KOL teaching were sure evidence of full enlightenment, and a kind of unwise longing for a living teacher without being sufficiently grounded in traditional wisdom first. This despite, as I see looking back, clear indications I should have paid attention to even with what I knew then. That is the nature of karmic lessons. It does no good to tell those who have their own karmic reasons even if you are right until they begin to see it for themselves. As for the jnani guru, the genuine ones can see right through the disciple and do not need to set up elaborate tests. And if you have faith in one, I found, they will not spare the necessary lessons but they do so in a graceful manner.
January 15, 2009 at 12:41 am
My experience of Daists is that they believe in Da because of their far out experiences with him. We should NOT judge a guru by our far out experiences. We should only judge by whether we became liberated or not, and at what cost.
As for Da’s yogic abilities etc, Ramana and others warned people not to get trapped in that stuff.
I see a big difference between Ramana and Adi Da: Ramana rarely referred to himself and instead focussed on helping the seeker (even into old age he stayed up past midnight in case someone came visiting), whereas Adi Da constantly glorifies himself.
TO CONRADG:
I am awed by your calm clear intellect and your knowledge! You should write a book or something! Would you say you are liberated? BTW, I’d like to discuss some things with you if you are willing. My email is: worldwidehappiness@yahoo.com.au
January 15, 2009 at 1:35 am
“FFaC, I appreciate much of what you bring to the table, especially your depth and equanimity in considering various matters about Ramana Maharshi. However, even though you make it sound like you are only interested in “true consideration” (as you called it), you seem to often have an agenda to discredit Adi Da at various levels, and ultimately His Divine Realization. This is also one of the reasons I think many Daists would not want to consider these matters with you, or anyone with a similar agenda. That is their choice, and I can certainly understand and sympathize with it. Minimally such a consideration like this involves a lot of time, as we are seeing here.”
I have already said that I consider Adi Da’s full enlightenment and some aspects of his teaching highly suspect for various reasons in comparison with Ramana Maharshi’s. I believe there is some evidence for that in dharma, that upon a fuller and accurate consideration of the two lives and teachings there are distinctions. How those distinctions are seen is varied. I am trying to avoid subjective arguments that offer nothing for others to look into. I tend to think myself the most probable explanation that fits all that is known about Da while having a traditional basis is what Conradg describes, a kind of fifth stage samadhi where the energy flows up and down from above in the higher mind levels but the ego I is not resolved in the Heart. I have heard that idea from different sources and it does has a traditional basis, as I mentioned one time. But it would make no sense to dwell on subjective speculations that only polarize but get nowhere. I will leave that approach for those on some other websites. The most I advocate s that there is nothing wrong with asking respected spiritual figures and living jnanis about it personally because I think their insight is superior to all of ours here. Although you do not see it that way, you should understand that many outside Adidam consider the dogmatic characterization of those like Ramana Maharshi as inferior in realization and in teaching as discrediting without basis. I know you all think you are being fair in stratifying all figures below Adi Da. I do not say Da’s teaching offers nothing. If there was nothing right about Da’s teaching, who would consider it? Nor is there anything wrong with offering the perspective of using Da’s teaching as a benchmark, while I would use Ramana Maharshi and the like, and then compare and contrast them. But to the extent I think Da was inaccurate, I offer why I think it is so, understanding and even expecting alternative views. All I can say is that in the world you run into all sorts of folks–athiests, religious skeptics, believers of all types. I do not have to agree with where they come from or expect that they will walk away accepting my position. Provided there is civil dialogue and a focus on dharma, engaging benefits both parties and those reading in my experience.
“FFaC quotes from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad:
“The illiterate, the literate and the ‘knower of the Self’ are all three equally ignorant. The third one also is ignorant, because for him there is nothing knowable other than the Self.”
Of course this is not a new concept – not even in the Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. The traditions have spoken endlessly of duality in terms of “opposites”, knowledge and ignorance, light and darkness, etc. – and that what is Realized as Truth is beyond ALL knowing. That has been always stated.
However, comparing the quote from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad and what Adi Da has stated – minimally, I find Adi Da’s statement more readily understandable:
FFaC quotes from Adi Da’s The Paradox of Instruction:
…”I” may find out or know all kinds of facts or truths about any thing, or everything, or the whole world. But I may never discover or know what that thing, or everything, or any thing is. No matter how much time passes, or how much knowledge is attained, this fundamental Ignorance can never be changed to any degree. This Ignorance is Truth and the Way of Truth. It is the Truth or Condition of any thing and everything. It confounds the dream of knowing. It is Awake. It is Intuition, prior to all knowledge. The radical Realization of this Ignorance under all conditions is the presumption of Truth. Such is Enlightenment or God-Realization…”
By the way, did Ramana give credit to all the traditions that one could argue that He derived the above quote of His from? ”
Da’s version reads more like an essay. which is fine. Ramana Maharshi’s version is more in the classic Indian style, which is fine. As for giving credit, Ramana Maharshi never claimed to offer an new teaching, his was implicity understood to tied to the traditions. In Da’s case, there was no mention I recall of the traditional roots of this concept.
“I certainly cannot find any place in the original Paradox of Instruction that Adi Da is claiming that His statements about Divine Ignorance do not have any comparative basis in the Traditions. However, I am sure that some of us (youngsters) back then were probably assuming that He totally originated this concept of “ignorance” or “not-knowing” – and we, albeit well-intentionally, were enthusiastically proclaiming something without proper consideration and the fullest understanding of the Traditions.”
That at least seems to have been the case.
“Be that as it may, Adi Da’s consideration of Divine Ignorance is much clearer to me than the paragraphs you quoted by Ramana. And much more importantly, what is radical about Adi Da’s considerations about Divine Ignorance are not merely that He very directly stated Divine Ignorance was equivalent to Truth or Enlightenment, but He also moved many of us into understanding this Truth in real life – not just intellectually, as we may have (at best) understood the quotes that you provided from Sri Ramana Paravidyopanishad. There is a huge difference between reading the quote from Ramana, and hearing Adi Da directly bring to us, His (our) Divine Ignorance. This is the point – what is radical is Who Adi Da Is; and He has always told us that His words are simply an indicator of the Truth, not the Truth Itself.”
I think Da had a talent for stating concepts in modern terms and in engaging demonstrations of various concepts. For many, this was their exposure. To some extent, the difference in impact is personal. Since I already had learned it from Ramana Maharshi, I saw it (then) as evidence for Da’s claims, but not evidence of Da’s uniqueness.
“As you know, the period you speak of, in 1976, was called “Indoor Summer” because we were with Him inside His house every day that summer, considering Divine Ignorance. Over and over He would initiate new arrivals to the gatherings, into Divine Ignorance. It was always about Satsang with Him ultimately – Divine Ignorance considerations were the context of those gatherings – however, it was always about noticing, feeling, being the Truth that He Is.
So, what was radical was that many of us were granted the Gift of Divine Ignorance in relationship to Him – really, it is the same recognition of the Witness when egoity is released long enough to allow for the Truth to show Itself. It was a period of Grace-bestowed “glimpsing” beyond our ordinary fixity of mind into the Truth that is beyond all knowledge.”
It certainly was liberating, at least for a time.
“The Divine Ignorance consideration also ushered in the recognition in many of us that what we call “I” was actually revealed to us to be the entire body-mind. As you must remember, this was summarized as “I Is the Body”. (I always thought that this must have sounded like really bad grammar to some folks! ) And on the basis of this recognition that there is no actual separate “I” within the body-mind, but that “I” IS the body-mind – we are inherently Ignorant, free of egoic separation. From here, what is understood is that “I Is the body is Love”. Therefore, with this understanding, we can (are) Love because we are no longer in conflict with our body-minds via assuming a separative ego-I (activity) presumed to be going on within the body-mind and which shuts out Love.”
I have the book. Whether you consider the body-mind as the I itself, “talking” , or whether you find the sense of ego “I” to be related to the illlusory body-mind identification, the connection is there. Love can be said to be the intution of no other, unity.
“Now this consideration goes beyond what Ramana stated above, and is not based in the traditional assumption that the illusory “I” is within the body-mind complex. In other words, Ramana didn’t define “I” as the whole body-mind complex. In fact, Ramana never paid that much attention to the whole body-mind, as has been brought up before. So this matter of “I Is the body is Love” was a radical departure from traditional considerations.”
Some see it that way. I consider the presentation more unique than the concepts, not saying the way it was presented had no value. I do not think this is the most accurate presentation of Ramana Maharshi’s views. From the perspective Ramana Maharshi’s teaching, there is no illusory “I” and the deep seated but false belief that one is a separate, body mind complex is the primary obstacle to liberation. And, as the tradtions say, when there is an other, fear arises. When the sense of other is not predominent, love arises.
“All of the above consideration of the Truth of Divine Ignorance was always done directly with us in relationship to Adi Da. He Worked with us to demonstrate the “enlightenment of the whole body”. And for a time, this was true of us – certainly in those moments that we transcended our egoic separative attention and fell into our native state in relationship to the Divine. What a great period this was! I very likely know you FFaC, as you said you were around for this period. I imagine you heard the talks available at that time given your comments here.”
It was a great period. Even if I look at things differently now, this is in part due to the depth of consideration unique to that period.
“I enjoy our anonymity here – this way we can just speak freely – completely ignorant of any past and personal history with one another that may change that. I also don’t really know Conradg from the past, other than he did astrology, so the same holds true there. Ignorance is Bliss!”
It is certainly possible to speak freely here.
“To me, this “Indoor Summer” period points out a real difference in the way Adi Da worked with us, and Ramana’s way. Adi Da spent months on this same matter, allowing it to sink in to a depth that would then provide a foundation for other radical considerations – i.e., how to love, breathe, feel, serve whole bodily on this basis, etc. rather than get tied up with inward-directed searches and egoic subjectivity. Ramana clearly did not engage people in these terms for whatever reasons.”
To me, there is a difference, and we each think our choice is better (at least for us). I think your perspective is more western. I don’t think those who came to Ramana Maharshi lacked the grounding in satvic practices many of us did. And I know people asked Ramana all sorts of questions on lifestyle and traditional practices like service, etc., that he answered. He also taught from more than the physical level, it is believed, based on the individual’s state. In your case and others, there was a desire for a commanding guru, as Da calls it, and more group work.
“At the time, us westerners needed such demonstrations and concentrated considerations to break through all the “knowledge” we brought to Adi Da. Even with my having immersed myself in Ramana’s Works for several years before meeting Adi Da – in my egoic adaptations I still was burdened with much knowledge and inward seeking. Adi Da’s very detailed and thorough consideration provided a major cutting into my presumptions about “knowing” and the “knower”. This period was very enlightening, although as I said much earlier, many of us (myself included) failed at “passing the Prasad” to those not in direct and daily considerations with Adi Da. ”
I do not doubt there was benefit from all of this consideration. Unfortunately, it also brought out some narcissistic behavior patterns due to lots of baggage.
“Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Now, those who want are of course free to continue to believe that Da came up with this Ignorance idea as a revelation independent of any reading or study Da had done, and even though he Da at that point said he was focused on Ramana Maharshi as his Spiritual Master. But I think most objective observers will consider this theory very unlikely, particularly given Da’s life pattern. This example being only one out of many over the entire range of Da’s teaching.”
It is also worth asking again – did Ramana always give credit to all the traditions that one could say He “borrowed” His Teachings from?
As I have said a number of times, the Truth is the Truth – so what Adi Da and Ramana have said is obviously very easy to compare – and so too with many aspects of the Great Tradition. ”
I would hope these discussion would spur others to look and consider for themselves.
“Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Those interested should review the many sources currently available, and make up their own minds. Discussions can continue or not depending on interest.”
I hope the Basket of Tolerance is published soon. In this, Adi Da has quoted extensively from the Great Traditions, and by so doing, gives credit where credit is due; and also criticizes all the traditions based in the body-mind via His radical Arguments. This will be a very interesting study – but unfortunately, once it is out, none of us may get any sleep given how much we might start posting again!”
I recognize that such comparisons do not appeal to many because they have not been that easy. I see this in Adidam and outside of Adidam. But I do think direct comparison is better than comparison of pro and con essays. Both perspectives will still be preferred respectively by those who look into it. That is fine with me. I do plan to post a more detailed rebuttal of some Adidam comments about Ramana Maharshi, but again, agreement is not required.
January 15, 2009 at 1:56 am
I have much appreciated reading everyone’s posts here and will, most likely, return to re-read some of them later.
This is the kind of consideration that wasn’t possible in the Adidam cult and I’m so glad that we have the Internet nowadays.
When I got an anonymous threatening phone call about 3 years ago after confronting a couple of the leadership about Adidam being a cult, it really was a shock.
I had spent years and years supporting this teaching and teacher (often at great social cost to myself) and to get this kind of blow-back from someone both frightened me and angered me.
But I understand the mind-set. Such people think that the end justifies the means. Since the party line is that Adi Da and everything he does is perfect, they rationalize that bending the rules to protect him and the group will work out in the best way for all concerned.
“Beware, young Skywalker, anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the force are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever it will dominate your destiny!”
Whatever side of the argument we take, by respectfully submitting our viewpoints to the inspection of our peers (in this manner) we are engaging in a form of sanyama. Hopefully, the truth will be made plain for those who are willing to see it and as it is said: “The truth shall set you free.”
Thank you, all, for this consideration.
January 15, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Personally I do not consider Adi Da’s spiritual transmission to be “yogic tricks” or simply “shakti energies” by any means like most here believe it to be. I have been around several teachers and gurus like that and it is very different. The transmission of Adi Da for ,me does go to the heart of intuition to awaken your own heart intution of “nonduality” , non separation and “Oneness”. And to me, it feels completely loving and benign and fully aware and conscious. And this is apart from however the man , “Franklin” lived his personal life and taught. And how much art and money he had or how much people gave him. Now I don’t feel like I or any else here could read the mind of Adi Da or ask him personally to his face why he did this or that.
Also much, if not most of the “evil” stuff {like sex and money and booze and pot} I have heard about him is all rumor and second hand knowledge. I do know that they had those “pazooza pujas” where people got drunk and bought stuff at auction of Adi Da’s for high prices, which is really a donation, so that he could buy more art “stuff”. I do know that he had sex with many women, a few of which feel bad about it afterwards. I do know that he drank with groups of people in “gatherings” for weeks on end and later used pot instead. I do know that people sometimes gave large donations of money{myself included}. Of course there are precedent examples in the tradition for this kind of stuff, like zen’s read thread in Japan who was quite a drinker and had lots of prostitute girlfriends, and Drupka Kunley of Tibet and I could go on.
Also , over time, Adi Da created a culture that was based on the old school devotional and worshipful relationship of disciple and guru from Hindu India. Being from my culture, I and many others have always had a hard time with that one. And then the capitalized teachings and the “seventh stage” stuff of “the first , last , and Only” I know all about all of that and some has bugged me off and on. Still I can relate totally to much of what Adi Da said about himself because I could feel in resound in my own awareness, such as how his transmission works. I have direct experience of this exactly how he described it. many times over and over. I don’t consider this “brainwashing” or shakti “yogic tricks” Personally I am not in his community now, because I prefer not to be in such a tight knit scene right now. I guess you could call it “the cult” , but I know tons of people in Adidam, and I have no problem with the vast majority of them. just regular people who feel good about Adi Da and want to have their practice with him. They do not seem to me to feel superior to me or people outside their community. This has not been my personal experience.
I think to judge a guru or teacher by how many of their disciples are “enlightened’ is pretty silly. Contrary to modern new age belief, “enligtenment” is not all that common. In the traditions, it talks about a “:lifetime of practice” and then there is no guarantee. The Buddha, one of the great realizer teacher in the history, supposedly spent huge amounts of lifetimes of practice before sitting down under the bodhi tree and waking up. People going to a guru often think they will just wake up permanently over night. Well you do get deep intuitions and glimpses of the natural state over and over again. that is one of the things transmission does. But these satoris have to be integrateda and the ego has to be gone beyond over and over again until awakening of the true Self beyond the ego or “self contraction” I personally do not feel like the bulk of people claiming “enlightenment” these days are really there. that is my opinion based on my experience.
And . yes, the disciple should have some discrimination and “investigate” the guru and not be some kind of fool blind follower. By the way, Ammachi gives her darshan and transmission to millions of people and every day and she has millions of practicing disciples at differnent levels of practice and I have not seen anyone there “enlightened” yet. perhaps some will be and perhaps not. Still this does not lower her status of a great saint guru and teacher at least in my eyes. So there is pleny of mythology of the “enlightened disciple” in the traditions and even in the present day if you check out Poonja and that circus of disciples. But I have not seen it for real. And I have checked it out myself.
I still cannot figure out why people on any of these forums use fake names and alias. of course Conrad and a few others are not who I am talking about, just the vast majority. I really am curious . It is this way on all forums not just this one. People are very shy and afraid in our culture I guess. I do not really expect to find a bomb in my mailbox from someone here who disagrees with me. And I am not shy to have my opinions and if one of you sees me on the street and yells “cultist” at me, big deal
Flick Rahke
January 15, 2009 at 3:08 pm
There is one thing that has been going through my mind of late. I know that devotees of Adi Da are suffering from grief now, and especially his daughters. Still I think in the scheme of things, that Adi Da’s passing is a positive thing for his teaching and blessing. He said that he had “finished his work” I feel that his transmission and blessing is still quite available , since death could not end that. But his eccentric personality life has ended,. People can focus now more direclty on his spiritual transmission. They no longer have to put attention on how Adi Da lived personally. Flick Rahke
January 15, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Okay, Conrad, I hope this will do it for my part in the Ramana discussion. It has been useful, but as you are also expressing, frustrating – and very time-consuming, not to mention the inherent difficulties with blogging in this format. It has also been a great goad to study the words of Adi Da Samraj and Ramana Maharshi once again in a very concentrated fashion – and that is always a good thing.
So, as I earlier quoted Ramana:
“That which arises in the physical body as ‘I’ is the mind. If one enquires whence the ‘I’ thought in the body arises in the first instance, it will be found that it is from hrdayam or the Heart. That is the source and stay of the mind.”
I have said from the beginning that I understand that the source of the mind is the heart, not that the mind is located in the heart. What I pointed out in several of your posts was that you were saying the “I-thought” is IN the mind, and I was saying that the “I-thought” IS the mind, and quoted Ramana, as above, to support this difference. I can only assume that you really dislike to hear any kind of criticism, so you went off on a tangent, almost going “postally ad hominem” on me once again.
In my last post, I said:
“He is adamant about revealing the Truth through Satsang and this is what He always demonstrated in every moment that I have ever been in His physical Company – and I have already written much about that earlier in this thread.”
Then you (Conradg) said:
“Look, I get it, you’re convinced. So what? Do you really think that’s enough for the rest of us, this anonymous guy on the internet who won’t even divulge his real identity is convinced that Adi Da is the egoless Acausal Divine Person? We understand you take every claim Adi Da makes as not only valid, but as some form of Divine Revelation. Again, so what? This sort of “argument” actually dimishes the effect of your advocacy, rather than enhancing it, just as Adi Da’s own voluminous claims also dimish their general acceptance by the rest of the world, rather than enhance it. The more guys like you “testify”, the easier it is to dismiss you as brainwashed cultists. I’m not saying you are that, but you sure don’t seem to understand how it comes off. At the very least, it makes you seem like you haven’t really critically examined your own assumptions and point of view, but just “go with it”.”
Why do you do this, Conrad? This is my experience and understanding of Adi Da, so why are you making yet another ad hominem attack – to summarily dismiss all that I say? Plus, you tend to come off like you are speaking for all others here! I have also written much about my own experience, even apart from Adi Da’s words and prior to even meeting Him.
I am not asking anyone to believe what I am saying – I am just relating my experience for the sake of consideration. Not everyone in Adidam is some kind of “Adidam fundamentalist”, even though because you said you were one, you may be thinking that this is true for everyone else in Adidam. It is not true – if it were, would I be listening to all of your contrary notions for so long, not to mention your condescending insults? You really should examine this pretentious/angry/dismissing attitude you take when someone brings something to you that you don’t like.
So, apparently more failure to communicate…
Conradg Says:
“You seem unable to grasp what he’s clearly saying, that the “I”-thought, the mind, comes from the heart. For you, this suggests that the mind actually is located in the heart, and thoughts “rise up” from the heart.”
As I said above, I have always understood that the source of the mind is the heart – not that the mind resides in the heart on the right! *insert frustration emoticon or bang head on desk emoticon*
Conradg Says:
“The “I”-thought is the mind, and it is the source of all the content in the mind, including attention, which is simply consciousness functioning from the differentiated point of view of the mind, experiencing objects of all kinds. So in Ramana’s teaching, the mind, the “I”-thought, is not found in the heart, but in the manifest world.”
OK, I see now you corrected yourself by saying the “I”-thought IS the mind. I hope you now understand why I kept bringing that up to you.
Conradg Says:
“This closing of the heart gives rise to the “I”-thought, the ego, the notion of primal separation, which then seemingly separates from the heart, and rises up to form an entirely separate sense of identity.”
Yes, however, Adi Da explains that the primary contraction of the heart is the root feeling of relatedness (which is the first gesture of duality or separation) – and this gives rise to attention, separate self-identity, mind, point-of-view, etc.
Conradg Says:
“This separate sense of identity, the “I”-thought, first manifests as “God”. Ramana calls God the first delusion, whereas most people consider God to be Reality Itself. Not so for Ramana.”
Nor Adi Da, as you must know. In fact, He wrote an Essay about the three great myths of man: the separate self, separate world, and separate God. Of course, what you say about Ramana’s use of the word “God” is also a matter of definition – some people define the “Self” as “God”. However, in terms of the Creator God, such a God is mind-based.
Conradg Says:
“The “feeling of relatedness”, for example, is a good phrase, but I wouldn’t place its location in the heart on the right, but in the mind, where the “I”-thought functions.”
This is the primal feeling of separativeness/duality – and gives rise to the mind, but it is not in the mind. The feeling of relatedness (“other” or duality) is the root contraction of the heart on the right and is the root of attention, giving rise to mind, etc.
Well at least we do agree on the absolute need for the Guru! A most important agreement too!
Conradg Says:
“Ramana only refers to the “heart on the right” as a reference point from the point of view of the body-mind to the “Heart”. To him, they are one and the same thing, without any conditional limitation by the body-mind. So there is no such thing as something “prior” to even the heart on the right, since it is the same as the Heart. Perhaps you mean to say “prior to the knot of the Heart”? That would at least make sense. But the heart on the right is not, according to Ramana, knotted by its very nature, but only appears so to the ego. So there is no distinction from his point of view between the heart on the right and the Heart Itself, one is just a yogic signpost of the other. For those not identified with the “I”-thought and the body, they are clearly and obviously the same.”
Again, we are struggling with terminology. Yes, even Ramana referred to the contracted heart on the right as a knot. However, your saying “there is no distinction from his point of view between the heart on the right and the Heart Itself” does lend itself to supporting what Adi Da says about identifying the heart this way in an exclusionary manner. Adi Da’s use of the word Heart always includes Amrita Nadi, the Matrix infinitely above, all the heart processes of the whole human body (right, middle, left), etc. Of course you will say Ramana also meant the Heart that way, and I can agree that He often spoke in those terms as the Realized Self – but His language always left me with a sense of the Self over against the world, the ego-I, etc. whereas listening to Adi Da’s Word is completely inclusive all ALL in the Heart. But really, people need to study these texts for themselves, and decide based on their own inspection.
Conradg Says:
“Likewise, there is no “witness position” in Ramana’s teaching. Mere witnessing is of course critical to the practice of self-enquiry even from the very beginning, but he does not reify this into some “Witness” in either the traditional sense of the Mandukya Upanishad or Da’s teaching about the Witness.”
As you must know, stably abiding in the Witness-Consciousness is the beginning (foundation) for the “Perfect Practice” in Adidam. It is associated with processes of the heart on the right, according to Adi Da, and also in my sometimes experience with the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” Practice. Ramana did seem to speak very little of the Witness per se, even though as you say, it is critical to true Self-enquiry.
Conradg Says:
“So while the “I”-thought rises from the heart, it is not located in in the heart.”
Again, I understand this difference, and all I mentioned was that I think it is best to consider the “I-thought” “as” the mind, not simply “in” the mind – and that the source of the “I”-thought is the heart according to Ramana’s quote above.
It would be interesting to consider if the “I”-thought is the same as the “feeling of relatedness” given both are described as the separative gesture that creates duality and gives rise to attention and mind altogether. Plus, the “I”-thought and the “feeling of relatedness” both have their source in the heart on the right according to Ramana and Adi Da, respectively.
Thanks for the summary of Ramana’s cosmology. This also helped to further illustrate to me a difference between Adi Da’s descriptions of His unique Realization of Atma Nadi and the Realization of the Self by Ramana. Well, you know the argument already about Adi Da’s unique breakthrough relative to Amrita Nadi, and rather than going through several more rounds, I won’t bring it up again now. Like you said, we are clear about most of our differences at this point.
And as always, who is our Guru is a most personal matter. After reading a lot of teachings, and sitting with some spiritual teachers, when I first encountered Ramana’s Teachings, studied them and gazed at His photos – I knew He had clearly Realized the Self. Up until then, I did not feel this about anyone else, but I had not read Adi Da’s Works. However, when reading Adi Da’s “The Knee of Listening” and gazing at His photos, I felt an even deeper recognition of the Self and Heart altogether. No other spiritual masters had ever struck me at the heart so directly as these two, and none have since. Of course, this is subjective, but still my experience – and really, this intimate heart matter runs much much deeper than all the words amongst us about esoteric heart processes, realization, experiences, de-construction, etc.
I said earlier:
So now you are claiming to currently know what us Daists are experiencing in relationship to our Master and our practice?
To which you responded:
Conradg Says:
“Have you forgotten that I was involved with Adidam for some twenty-eight years? Of course I know a lot about what Daists experience with Adi Da and their own practice. I experienced a whole lot of it myself. You’d be rather amazed at what I experienced, actually. Just because I’ve come to differing views about all that than you have doesn’t mean I have experienced it. That seems to be your biggest stumbling block, not being able to imagine how someone who has experienced Da as you have could possibly come to any other viewpoint than fully accepting Da’s teachings as Gospel Truth. You assume it isn’t possible. Let me assure you: it is.”
Again, you misintepreted what I said and ran with it. Note the word “currently” in my post. Relative to this, in the last few years many things have shifted and there is actually a stable spiritual culture emerging in Adidam. Adi Da even acknowledged this. In my experience, it is very different now than what we were as practitioners during your time in Adidam.
Anyway, the conversation about all of this has been lively and always reminds me of the saying “to each their own”. And mostly, I am reminded that only Realization itself will answer many of these questions for each of us. So how about if we speak again about this after Realization?
Conrad, I will respond to your interesting astrology post separate from this one.
January 15, 2009 at 10:28 pm
I am not a Devotee of the Physical Master Adida but i have been Devoted to Life with a Sat Guru Master for a while now. The tradition is new where i am physically based and He has much work to do with us, but through His Grace i have come to Understand many things in my time with Him. Firstly i Understand all Sat Guru Masters are Here as a Potent Function of Divne Love, they come to Re-Convert or Re-Orientate Love back to its Rightful Place. They are Potent and Powerful in this Function if one is willing to Dedicate and Devotionally Surrender their Life to them.
I have been reading these comments relative to my interest in how the Community of Devottees will respond to their Masters Mahasamadhi. I know it is reasonable to presume they will of coarse respond in the Masters Love.
I Understand that a Great testimony of the Sat Guru Masters time on this earth is the Devotional Response of their Devotees and how they live that in the world for the sake of Love. I Understand this is the Highest Demand of a Human Being and the Ultimate in Self-Responsibility.
On this basis it is obvious who the Devotees are here and i want to thank them for that…They offer through their words at this time the inspiring effect of a Life Devoted and Surrendered to the Great Master Condition of Love. It does not matter how many their are, just that there are, and therefore that, to me. makes it possible for any Human to allow Love to be the principle driving force. Because it is of coarse our Inherant Nature. A Devotees words are the Unreasonable words of Love for their Master, they soften the readers eyes and they Grace a page beautifully. Mental meandering and vague philosophical propositions do not, they create headaches and more mental meandering.,
The physical Master is gone but He remains in the functions and practice of The Living Devotees of Love and the Community that they provide as a result of this. If there are Unreasonably in Love Devotees of the Living Master Adida, the Divine Force of Love, then Masters work will be upheld. My thoughts and feelings go out to the Community of Devotees and the task they must now step up to to uphold the Great feeling Domain of Love for the sake of the Great Master and who is the Great Master? None other than Love itself and for these ones Given,Lived and Presented to them, in the form of Adida Samraj. What a Beautiful Privilage and all Deserved to those who have forgotten themselves in the face of their Unreasonble Love for Him.
Jai Jai to all Sat-Guru Masters who have Graced us with their Divine Forms. Jai Jai Adida.
January 16, 2009 at 12:42 am
Flick,
Where we disagree is not the discription of how the experiences feel, but what they represent. I see nothing beyond a temporary subtle (5th stage) experience in what you describe. Anything you can imagine can be experienced in subtle realms, but it may not be what it appears. For example,, it is common to think God has taken over your life and that may not be accurate, it is simply the ego in drag. That is not a shakti “trick”, it is dharma. Nothing you describe is something I and others am not familiar with. You are extrapolating meaning and making assumptions, just as we all do from our experiences. That is why I said despite your assumptions, it would be useful for anyone in your position to ask your other transmission sources about Da. I did. Knowing your own limitations is part of the successful path.
“I think to judge a guru or teacher by how many of their disciples are “enlightened’ is pretty silly. Contrary to modern new age belief, “enligtenment” is not all that common. In the traditions, it talks about a “:lifetime of practice” and then there is no guarantee. The Buddha, one of the great realizer teacher in the history, supposedly spent huge amounts of lifetimes of practice before sitting down under the bodhi tree and waking up. People going to a guru often think they will just wake up permanently over night. Well you do get deep intuitions and glimpses of the natural state over and over again. that is one of the things transmission does. But these satoris have to be integrateda and the ego has to be gone beyond over and over again until awakening of the true Self beyond the ego or “self contraction” I personally do not feel like the bulk of people claiming “enlightenment” these days are really there. that is my opinion based on my experience.”
You do not seem to understand what is being said. I saw nothing saying the number of realized disciples is how you judge a jnani guru. If you read the accounts of more modern jnanis, you see that there is evidence of enlightenments that are not publically announced, so there is no way of knowing exactly anyway. Egoically, we want to be jnanis so we can have disciples and we think that is how it should be. But many jnanis do not take on a public guru role, at least for a lonog time. And in Ramana Maharshi’s case, you confuse Papaji’s unrecognized self appointed, neo advaita gurus with those where there is good evidence. I agree those are all pretenders and Papaji said so in his interview with David Godman. When I say Ramana had at least a half dozen disciples considered jnanis, I refer to the real thing. And you also do not understand that since Da had none, there is no one in the position of a jnani to confirm his teachings that contradict Ramana Maharshi’s, while there are jnanis to confirm Ramana Maharshi. And that is the point. Decisive, no, but suggestive and reason to inquire of other teachers, yes.
January 16, 2009 at 1:05 am
Feel4God,
I am sorry if I’ve been a bit harsh on you, but it’s frustrating dealing with someone who seems not to take responsibility for their own words. You complain that I am being “condescending”, and then assert the following:
I have said from the beginning that I understand that the source of the mind is the heart, not that the mind is located in the heart. What I pointed out in several of your posts was that you were saying the “I-thought” is IN the mind, and I was saying that the “I-thought” IS the mind, and quoted Ramana, as above, to support this difference. I can only assume that you really dislike to hear any kind of criticism, so you went off on a tangent, almost going “postally ad hominem” on me once again.
Reading your post, I wondered if I had simply gone insane. So I checked back to the original post of yours that initiated this particular argument, and found this quote:
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion. In the Way of Adidam there is direct Self-Identification with Adi Da through His Gift of recognition of Who He Is. In my experience this cuts deeper because He is already beyond the root of egoity. All practices in Adidam are always to be done in that context – and the Teaching always reminds us of that.”
In my reply to this post, I poined out this simple error, but instead of acknowledging your error, you went on to defend it, drawing out this conflict through multiple posts of reactive defensiveness, and trying to blame me for the confusion. Now you seem to acknowledge that Ramana never taught that the “I”-thought or the mind is located in the heart, and claim that you were only saying the “I”-thought is the mind, rather than in it. Obviously this in not true, as the quote from your own post shows. So when you accuse me of disliking any and all criticism, and going to great lengths to defend or divert attention from such criticism, isn’t it you who are blatantly guilty of this, and not me?
I’ve never had a problem with suggesting that the “I”-thought is the mind, although it’s certainly misleading to suggest that the mind is only that. Pointing out that the “I”-thought is IN the mind is not a contradiction to this, in that if one goes looking to find the “I”-thought, as in self-enquiry, one would look in the mind for it, and not in the right side of the heart, or in the body, or in the “feeling of relatedness” as something that is not in the mind. I’ve just been clearly stating that, contrary to your original claim, Ramana did not see the “I”-thought as residing in the right side of the heart. Why you couldn’t just calmly admit error in that statement is beyond me.
Regarding my comment of “so what?” about your personal experience, you wrote:
Why do you do this, Conrad? This is my experience and understanding of Adi Da, so why are you making yet another ad hominem attack – to summarily dismiss all that I say? Plus, you tend to come off like you are speaking for all others here! I have also written much about my own experience, even apart from Adi Da’s words and prior to even meeting Him.
I am not asking anyone to believe what I am saying – I am just relating my experience for the sake of consideration.
But that is precisely the problem, your personal experience cannot be considered by anyone but yourself. I’m sure it’s very important to you, as is mine to me, but it means virtually nothing in the context of any debate, except as some kind of personal background about you. But you constantly insert these personal experiences and subjective opinions of yours as some kind of argument, as if it ought to carry force and even authority. What possible counterargument is there to your own experience? Am I to argue by countering your experience with my own? What exactly would that prove? Where exactly would that lead? The basic truth is, no one really cares about our personal experience. You I’m sure don’t care about mine, you care about your own. Is there really anything in my personal experience I could possibly tell you that would make you override your own personal experience and see things my way? Of course not. It’s a non-sequitar in terms of any rational human “consideration”, which has to be based on the framework of shared experience, shared language, shared concepts, etc. I cannot possibly know your personal experience or evaluate its truthfulness, nor can you know mine. I can’t say whether you are deluded or not, nor can you say that about me. So it’s pretty much meaningless. It’s “so what?”
The problem with using your personal experience as an argument in this discussion is that it leaves me with literally no way to respond except by “ad hominem”. In this case, however, ad hominem is appropriate, because you are making your own person the argument. So your own believability and reliability and understanding and delusions and so forth are the only way to evaluate your experience. Seeing as I don’t know who you are and how you write anonymously to hide your identity, that is virtually impossible, except by evaluating your contributions to this discussion on their own merits.
So when I call you a fundamentalist, I’m doing so only on the basis of how you have argued on this forum. You seem to think that because you have engaged critics here, you can’t be a fundamentalist, but that is in no way a counterfactual. Many fundamentalists enjoy engaging critics. They simply engage critics in a manner consistent with fundamentalism – which, as it happens, often means an overt reliance on “personal experience” that can’t be countered by others. You see this with fundamentalist Christians who will talk about their “personal relationship to Jesus” and how others simply can’t comprehend it because it isn’t part of their personal experience. We get the same thing with you talking about your personal experience of Adi Da as the Acausal Divine Reality, and so forth. Whether you like to admit it or not, that’s a classic fundamentalist tactic. You won’t hear Ramana arguing this way, or his devotees. But you will hear, say, phony non-dualist pseudo-enlightened people talking this way, which is not really the company I think you want to be in.
Now it’s true I openly admit I was a fundamentalist. I even admitted that while I was a loyal member of Adidam. I admitted that I really just plain accepted the fundamental tenets of Adidam. It’s not that hard to do, if one has a modicum of honesty. I just saw myself as a “liberal, open-minded fundamentalist” as opposed to those nasty “conservative, close-minded fundamentalists”. It took me a while to realize that the difference between the two was pretty small, compared to the distance between any kind of fundamentalist and any kind of non-fundamentalist. As for whether everyone in Adidam is a fundamentalist – yes, I would say at the time I left it was universally true of virtually everyone. There were certainly ranges and extremes of fundamentalism, but basically it was impossible to be in Adidam without being a fundamentalist of one kind or another, with all the attendent distortions of one’s cognitive powers. You don’t see yourself as a fundamentalist because you have some kind of picture in your mind of what a fundamentalist is, some caricature, that doesn’t fit your self-image, when in reality many fundamentalists are people just like yourself, and like me, bright, intelligent, personable, engaging people who just happen to very deeply believe in a particular world view, and accept its basic premises without serious questioning, and operate from that position in any argument, always assuming a fundamental position that becomes a circular reinforement of its own logic and perception.
There’s some very bright people in Adidam – Bill Stranger comes to mind – who I admire and like and have some feelings for, who unfortunately suffer from this fundamentalist disease like everyone else, and who suffer the consequences. A friend of mine suggested to me offline that you are actually him, but I don’t think so. Anyway, a few years ago someone let me listen to a presentation by Bill, and I was just shocked at how pathetic it was. The poor man had been reduced to the role of a cheerleader, and the quality of his thinking seemed horribly diminished. I wondered to myself if it was just me who was different, but to be honest it didn’t seem so. The effects of fundamentalism just aren’t pretty, they reduce very intelligent bright people over time to shadows of themselves, and the fundamentalist demand in Adidam became particularly strong in the years before I left, one reason I think that I simply could not endure life in Adidam any longer.
And by the way, I don’t dislike you at all. Quite the opposite. If I met you I’m sure I’d like you just fine. It’s many of your arguments that I don’t like. I don’t like fundamentalism, which is at the root of most of your arguments, pure and simple. In an internet forum like this there’s not much “person” on display anyway, it’s just argument that’s left. Which is good in a way, because it makes it easier to engage the argument without letting personal matters get in the way. Unless, of course, we constantly try to insert our subjective personal experience into the discussion.
Again, we are struggling with terminology. Yes, even Ramana referred to the contracted heart on the right as a knot. However, your saying “there is no distinction from his point of view between the heart on the right and the Heart Itself” does lend itself to supporting what Adi Da says about identifying the heart this way in an exclusionary manner. Adi Da’s use of the word Heart always includes Amrita Nadi, the Matrix infinitely above, all the heart processes of the whole human body (right, middle, left), etc. Of course you will say Ramana also meant the Heart that way, and I can agree that He often spoke in those terms as the Realized Self – but His language always left me with a sense of the Self over against the world, the ego-I, etc. whereas listening to Adi Da’s Word is completely inclusive all ALL in the Heart. But really, people need to study these texts for themselves, and decide based on their own inspection.
You’re still not quite getting the simple words on the page. While identified with the body, one sees the Heart from the point of view of the body, and from that point of view, the Heart appears as a center in the body, in the heart on the right. When not identified with the body, one is simply the Heart, not identified with any center or locus in the body, or the world; one knows everything as the Heart, including Amrita Nadi, the Sahasara, the astral and physical bodies, etc. And one sees, relative to the body, that the Heart communicates itself to the body-mind through the yogic center on the right of the chest, from which all arises. But that “center” is truly not in the body, and it is not even in any world, it is prior to them all, and it is their very Nature and Being, completely non-separate. There is no sense of the Heart as a center at all, because it is centerless, egoless, Infinite, All-Embracing Love. That Love is what flows out of the Heart as Amrita Nadi, and then descends through all the other nadis and worlds. All of the is merely the Heart.
Trying to find a way to parse this realization of the Heart or Self as “exclusive” is simply trying to find a way to justify Adi Da’s claims of superior realizaiton, because you are approaching this issue with the presumption that Adi Da must be correct, so there must be some way of seeing Ramana’s view of the Heart as exclusive, whether that is the case or not. Explaining this is very difficult and confusing, which is why Ramana didn’t like to talk much about the heart on the right, but it’s virtually impossible if there’s an agenda that insists on understanding it as an exclusive fixation on the heart center on the right that excludes or is lesser than Amrita Nadi. I could quote Ramana to the contrary until I’m blue in the face, and you still wouldn’t accept it, because Adi Da says otherwise, and that’s really all that matters to you isn’t it? Be honest, please, and don’t just pretend I’m being condescending.
As you must know, stably abiding in the Witness-Consciousness is the beginning (foundation) for the “Perfect Practice” in Adidam. It is associated with processes of the heart on the right, according to Adi Da, and also in my sometimes experience with the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” Practice. Ramana did seem to speak very little of the Witness per se, even though as you say, it is critical to true Self-enquiry.
Ramana frequently addressed the issue of Turiya. He got lots of questions about it. Basically, his attitude was always critical, because he did not consider Turiya to be final realization. In that, he would be in agreement with Da. But neither did he ever talk about turiya as if it were a real state of some kind,. He considered it to simply be another layer of illusion, so he was always undermining the idea that it was a real state that one could ever “be established in”. There’s no “there” there, and I think that’s why people in Adidam have had such a hard time becoming established in it. You can’t, basically. Seeing that you can’t is the closest you can probably come to whatever kind of maturity is necessary to go beyond that illusion. So in that sense Da’s teaching on the Perfect Practice is a bit misleading, and endlessly frustrating. Trying to be the Witness is basically hopeless. As Ramana kept asking, who is going to be the witness? The mind, the ego, is going to be the witness. So find out if there really is a mind or ego who witnesses anything. That’s what he was always doing, pushing people past the witness, never letting them settle merely for that. It’s not as if the practice of enquiry, asking “who am I?”, is supposed to be answered “the witness”. That’s not the point. Certainly, one finds oneself witnessing more and more deeply, but the point is to find out if there really is anyone to witness anything at all. One founds out no, there isn’t anyone there to witness. There is only the Self, and everything is known as the Self, so there is no witnessing possible. The impossibility of becoming established in the witness is what makes true realization of the Heart possible and necessary.
It would be interesting to consider if the “I”-thought is the same as the “feeling of relatedness” given both are described as the separative gesture that creates duality and gives rise to attention and mind altogether. Plus, the “I”-thought and the “feeling of relatedness” both have their source in the heart on the right according to Ramana and Adi Da, respectively.
I’ve wondered the same thing. It is perhaps merely a semantic difference. Perhaps when Da says the feeling of relatedness is in the heart, he merely means that it’s source is in the heart, a result of the “contraction” of the heart on the right. “Relatedness” clearly refers to the process of “differentiation”, and from the beginning of his teaching Da located “differentiation” in the mind. That would be the traditional description at least.
Thanks for the summary of Ramana’s cosmology. This also helped to further illustrate to me a difference between Adi Da’s descriptions of His unique Realization of Atma Nadi and the Realization of the Self by Ramana. Well, you know the argument already about Adi Da’s unique breakthrough relative to Amrita Nadi, and rather than going through several more rounds, I won’t bring it up again now. Like you said, we are clear about most of our differences at this point.
Not that I really want to rehash that further, but I don’t at all see what you are talking about here. There’s nothing that you’ve quoted so far that distinguishes Da’s cosmology of Amrita Nadi from Ramana’s, that I can see at least. I understand the claim of uniqueness, but descriptively speaking there seems no difference. Ramana considers Amrita Nadi to be identical to the Heart’s own Light, whereas you seem to be suggesting that Amrita Nadi is superior to the Heart in some way that makes little sense. Perhaps you could clarify this.
Relative to this, in the last few years many things have shifted and there is actually a stable spiritual culture emerging in Adidam. Adi Da even acknowledged this. In my experience, it is very different now than what we were as practitioners during your time in Adidam.
As I haven’t been around for a few years, I wouldn’t much know, but this doesn’t sound very different from what anyone in Adidam would have said at any time in the past. Adidam is always just on the verge of establishing some kind of stable spiritual culture, or at least claiming it. Pardon me if I’ve heard that wolf cry before. So I’m rather skeptical, but you never know. I saw some devotees around the time of his death, and they seemed to be up to pretty much the same old thing, but who’s to say. My boat has sailed, so it’s not really my concern anymore.
Anyway, the conversation about all of this has been lively and always reminds me of the saying “to each their own”. And mostly, I am reminded that only Realization itself will answer many of these questions for each of us. So how about if we speak again about this after Realization?
It’s a date. Let’s hope that’s sometime before 2385.
January 16, 2009 at 2:43 am
Att: Another Ex-Devotee and Critic
Two Posts Worth Revisiting regarding “The Other Side of Doubt is Belief; thus Duality”
Post 1
devotee Says:
January 8, 2009 at 11:43 pm
——–“Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrad’s, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for weeks on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest.”
————————————————————————————————-
Post 2
Another ex-devotee who remains a friend Says:
January 10, 2009 at 11:07 am
——-“I’d like to suggest a movie called Doubt by John Patrick Shanley.
I’d like to remind us all how hurtful it is to tell unsubstantiated “truths”. After all our perceptions, are our own perceptions, and have no way of revealing the whole experience of every being involved with Adidam, or any other way of life.
So, in fact it is a dangerous game we’re playing here. Gossip brings it’s own brand of abuse. That is not to demean or diminish anyone.”
Post 2 was in reply to the following post just 5 hours earlier:
Another ex-devotee and critic Says:
January 10, 2009 at 6:38 am
——-“I have posted a couple of times before and have been keeping up on the traffic. I have been reading Ramana’s material and believe it is useful to consider. Enquiry into the basic feeling and presumption of “me” is simple and may get easier through practice over time as I learn more about it and do it.
This thread has functioned as a debriefing for me: an additional way of bringing closure to a very troubling period of my life.
In the past I confronted two highly placed functionaries (about Adidam being a cult and full of corruption) only to receive an anonymous call from a man at a payphone telling me that I was “playing a dangerous game” and he hung up. I knew these functionaries and they denied having anything to do with the call (through a third party reporting back to me). They didn’t call me up to directly deny it or show concern for me.
This is scary stuff; classic cult behavior. It’s impossible to defend oneself from such people if they mean to do more than intimidate. But I want you all to know how I feel about it.
It’s all so thoroughly twisted and disturbing to me. I came for the Truth and it seems that I finally got it!
What a mind-fuck”
———————————————————————————————————
——————————————————————————————————
There you have it. Fundamentalism regarding post #1 but what does one say about post #2 especially from someone who claims to be an ex-devotee and still a friend of Adidam?
The first post has already been addressed by others on this thread but in light of the next post, something important about Adidam is being revealed.
For one thing, there is certainly a contradiction here in the 2nd post, i.e., – the perceptions of a former devotee should be doubted (according to this “friend” of Adidam) but don’t doubt the guru, the community or the teaching? Doubt yourself but not the community. Use the concept of doubt when it’s to your advantage but go into denial when it’s not to your advantage. So, send the “victim” with allegations to see a movie called, “Doubt” to undermine his perceptions. As anyone heard of anything so ridiculous— especially coming from a former member of Adidam?
I’ve spent 26 years in Adidam (and as a cultural server during my last 5 years) and 31 years around it and still in close proximity to it. I’m so used to hearing this kind of cultic and absurd language which is what I call fascism. I’m surprised that this ex-devotee who is still a “friend of Adidam?” would use this kind of language.
From the late 70s in Adidam (especially after the Jonestown incident and the Adidam and Adi Da paranoia that followed), we were all suppressed in critical thinking and inquiry by this kind of language in regard to “doubt”. I have endless examples over the years.
In the 90’s the first page of the beginning student manual (95 page 81/2 by 11 workbook) was on “Doubt”.
I’m sure we all remember the following:
There are 3 things that will occur once you join Adidam: You will either:
1-doubt the guru; and/or
2-doubt the sangha; and/or
3-doubt the dharma.
I mean –how many times have we heard this in Adidam –especially for student beginners just joining the community? Then the programming goes like this. And if you do doubt, you should know that that is a common occurrence and that is what the ego (Narcissus) is all about. Wow, what a set up from the get go for suppressing critical thinking and inquiry, maintaining a low self esteem, and not growing in Adidam.
Well, that covers it all. How much more fascist can that be? Well, it could be a little more fascist. At the beginning of everyone of Da’s books is the essay called “First Word” addressing the “man in the middle” and “cult” (which I have always claimed that this was put in there because of his own paranoia/fear and projection since Jonestown or before). So, don’t be doubtful and Narcissistic and target the “man in the middle” and since the term “cult” was covered in the first essay of every book, Adidam can’t possibly be a cult.
Well, now everything has been well covered with no loose ends for critical thinking and healthy doubting. Based on this (doubt as Narcissus concept), obviously Adidam is not a cult and we won’t target the man in the middle which is the common target and if we do, it is because of doubt of the guru, dharma, and/or sangha. And, therefore, we are simply Narcissus.
Well, Franklin is nicely off the hook at this point (or at least he hopes so), and it’s never the community’s fault. And if you don’t understand or agree with Franklin’s teaching, it’s the devotee’s fault based on the beginner’s doubt. Of course, the other side of doubt is belief.
Therefore, however you cut it; it’s always the fault of the devotee.
So, in regard to the two posts copied above, the first one suggest that you remain in the cult with no critical thinking with outsiders and the second post suggest that if you do any critical thinking about the Adidam management and potential corruption within, it’s basically only your perception and your doubt. And to further reinforce your conditioning of doubt, a movie is recommended to you called “Doubt”, and then you can be sure that it’s only your perception but definitely not the community or guru’s fault. What brainwashing!
This had been taught and programmed in Adidam members from the very beginning and it is being seen at many different subtle levels in these two posts.
One former ex-devotee confessed in the above blog a “relatively” minor but an important incident to him/her that occurred in Adidam. In this case, there is no significant reason to question the validity of what he/she says. For one thing, this person is not confessing a huge offense committed by “highly placed functionaries” in Adidam (and certainly only a small handful of Adidam members would do this but a significant “alleged” offense to him/her). And, on the phone, the language was threatening enough and for all kind of reasons this could be scary to an Adidam member (male or female)—the fear (mild to severe) may be valid enough even though it is only the “victims” perception (and the phone call is “allegedly” real enough). How else could it be, perceptions and interpretations are all that we have.
But what was equally important to this person was that he/she did not at any time receive any help after having been a member of Adidam for 20 years. And the incident occurred only 3 years ago so one would think that by now the community would have grown to the level of compassion and cooperation. Now the fact that no help was received after 20 years of involvement is very significant to me.
And thirdly, what was also important to this person was his confession about the incident ( on this blog which is one of the reasons why these blogs are so effective), but his confession and his perceptions were completely discounted by post #2. Obviously the first post above, the person sounds very much like a fundamentalist and in the second post that person sounds like he/she is very much a member of Adidam and still propagandized by it.
For this ex-devotee but still friend of Adidam, his response was obviously insensitive and out of context and actually just plain “dumb” and that’s why I’m re-posting it and elaborating on it.
And furthermore, to twist the words and come back and post a similar “threatening” phrase as originally used on the phone by the “mystery” person:— “so, in fact, it is a dangerous game that we are playing here” makes one wonder? This person almost sounds like the other “highly placed functionary” that called him on the phone in the first place???
And under the circumstances and entire context, to recommend a movie called “Doubt” is one of the must absurd thing that I’ve ever heard of .
On a different but related note, the thing significant to me about this confession is that these are relatively minor incidences (but not to the victim) which occur fairly frequently in Adidam. And the minor events which are somewhat frequent in occurrence are the most difficult ones to describe and confess. And if you don’t connect a name to it, the position of the person to it, the length of time, etc… then the whole incident sounds like sour grapes and even childish but there is always more to these small incidents and taken as a whole they are highly important. Most of the time, you seldom hear of these.
And another thing about this incident in Adidam even though it addresses only a small handful of persons who would do that particular mischievous endeavor, the rest of the community goes into a denial mode about it and after a while these things add up. But the denial part is what I find the most pervasive in the Adidam community. Almost a dumb- down mode and therefore a lack of growth in Adidam.
And as much as I say that this particular incident was made by a small handful of “highly placed functionaries’, there are dozens if not hundreds of small, moderate and large incidences occurring quite often with many other “highly placed functionaries” in the community (especially including Franklin) over the last 38 years and many of them are well documented.
I wonder if this “ex-devotee who is still a friend” feels like the hundreds of stories and incidences over the years reported by ex-devotees are simply a figment of their imagination, a perception only and that these ex-devotees ought to see the movie “Doubt”?
Does this person believe that since it was just the perception of the child who alleged that he was sexually abused in the movie (which in this case, it could have been his perception or not??) therefore all children who are sexually abused are only perceiving it and should see the movie called “Doubt”?. Should the parents of these sexually abused children should see the movie “Doubt” also. Should all women who have been sexually abused go see this movie before or after reporting the “alleged” crime? Should all victims of crimes go see this movie before reporting it just in case it’s their “perception”. Maybe the millions of victims around the world who are being bombed and tortured only perceive it and it’s not really real?? Should they go see this movie also? Maybe Iraqi war victims, should read a 95 page manual on “doubt” published by the Bush administration and remember that they are only Narcissus and therefore, not to doubt guru Bush, his dharmic doctrine, or his military sangha???
Of course, it’s all too absurd and so is this post. But it’s representative of the Adidam mentality and it is just being regurgitated here without inspection.
In a court of law, many if not most litigations are based on allegations (even if you have witnesses) so this is why integrity and credibility (as one variable) becomes most important in the courtroom.
I have posted this person’s (“another ex-devotee and critic”) previous posts and as jurors, you tell me if he/she doesn’t sound credible with integrity. He certainly sounds very much so to me and with my years in Adidam, I can post endless stories along “comparable” lines and many more serious ones also (as many others have already done—-and there are thousands of stories by now).
In any case, here are his previous posts and you be the judge of his credibility in the context of what you have heard about Adi Da and Adidam over 38 years.
Another ex-devotee and critic Says:
December 2, 2008 at 12:59 am
Having spent the better part of my adult life (20+ years) in the community and having been gone several years I feel moved to write something for others to read.
I loved the man as a man loves God and after discovering that I, and others, had been systematically lied to, I left.
To be sure, there were warning signs along the way that I chose to ignore because I was so convinced by the sheer brilliance and power of the man, Adi Da. He was the most impressive individual I have ever seen to date.
I can only summarize the whole tour of duty as a spiritual rape. The cover-ups and cultic mind-set were, to me, a most extreme form of betrayal of trust of sincere seekers of truth.
In the case of Adi Da, we had a truly gifted man that suffered a from an ultimate degree of Narcissistic personality disorder and surrounded himself with hundreds of enablers.
It took me a long time to work through the rage but now I see that he was truly suffering a terrible delusion and his students were feeding it for their own personal reasons. It was, and still is a crazy situation.
I don’t know what will happen to the cult now. I’m certain that many will leave since the main attraction is gone forever. But the hard-core will remain along with a few that don’t know what else to do with their lives.
I was under Adi Da’s spell and I found that after I realized the lie, it was a rude awakening but my life didn’t end.
His death was the only escape from his infirmity and now others may have the chance to get on with something real in their lives beyond this fantasy.
I know how some devotees will take this communication because I was once a true believer. I would have posted my name but since I have had the experience of being threatened by one of these fanatic followers I have chosen not to.
Only time will tell what happens to the rest of the followers and the millions of dollars in the church’s trust accounts. I suppose there will be the customary jockeying for power when a cult leader dies.
I hope there can be a time when the truth is no longer suppressed in this group of people and real awareness can take the place of make believe.
Another ex-devotee and critic Says:
December 14, 2008 at 5:45 am
I posted early on and have been reading through some of the posts. This has been a good opportunity for some people to talk about what they thought about the Adidam experience.
It is really difficult to get one’s head out of one’s backside after totally believing in a cult. There are so many painful realizations that attend the recognition that we have been used.
Life is full of these painful recognitions. One of the primary functions of a cult is to make life seem more worthwhile and meaningful in the face life’s inherent suffering. Life experience is hard and then we die. This is a perfect set-up to justify and enforce all kinds of fruitless enterprises of belief and “the search”, as Adi Da, himself, said.
For those devotees that don’t want to listen to the numerous reports of abuse and dismiss the well considered experience of ex-devotees I can only say: “Enjoy your certainty while you still can…milk it baby!”
I was there and can truly understand how deluded the unbelievers and infidels appear to be. The years and years of struggle trying to convince these stubborn fools of the wondrous opportunity they were throwing away. The loneliness of being right but not joined by the rest of the world in a celebration of the Godman having appeared in our very midst. Oh, the burden of it!
I took some satisfaction in knowing that I and a few of my community friends were on the true Path but it was still very saddening to me that most others couldn’t see or appreciate the beauty of the Master. We were all going to share a common destiny of world turmoil anyway because of this non-recognition. Adi Da spoke of this more than a few times and I thought that I had good reasons to believe him.
Well, turns out I was wrong…Embarrassingly wrong for years and years on end.
Loyalty to a cause can have a dear price when exploited by unscrupulous ideologues and deluded leaders. Passion must be tempered by reason to make wise decisions. In this case, I was most unwise and wasted much time that I can never reclaim. I’m older and wiser now and intend to continue my spiritual study and practice; chastened by my past experience.
Those that avoid making a devotional response to their perceived truth limit themselves in an even worse way. Aren’t we all God’s Fools in the end anyway?
So I appeal to those that still mightily believe in Adi Da to truly consider the full import and results of this man’s life from as many angles as possible. The truth is not dangerous and untruth even less so.
And finally, his response to Post #2:
Another ex-devotee and critic Says:
January 10, 2009 at 3:30 pm
To Another ex-devotee who remains a friend:
I think your suggestion to the group and, by inference, to me to watch a movie in response to my post is quite patronizing and to accuse me of hurting or abusing others by spreading gossip is just such a load of horseshit. It’s an example of blaming the victim.
True, I can’t substantiate it; that’s the purpose of making an anonymous call. As far as I’m concerned this is not gossip; it’s a report of my direct experience, so deal with it. At the very least, this incident conveyed to me how little my relationship to the two people (that I had known for years) meant to them.
There was no offer from them to check into the situation or any word of comfort to re-assure me that they cared at all. Since they were in a leadership position (and I’m not naming anyone to try to convince you) in a “community of love” they certainly didn’t impress me with their response other than reconfirm my “perception”.
I think it’s time for you to wake up to the true nature of the group dynamic of Adidam and Adi Da.
I’m not the first person to complain about it and I further claim that it takes courage to even tell the story online because the people involved know me quite well.
Let me make it simple for you: I don’t like being threatened and that’s what happened.
This is a very sophisticated organization that pulled the wool over my eyes for far too long. When a close friend told me what was going on behind the official persona of this Church I was devastated.
I assume that you feel hurt by my unsubstantiated story and I feel your pain. Who are you protecting if not yourself? Adi Da is dead.
If you want to hear a more convincing story then you can easily seek it out. Only a few are under a court gag order and many others might be willing to speak with you in confidence if you showed a sincere interest in knowing the truth.
———————————————————————————————-
Therefore, regarding credibility and sincerity, I see an honest and credible person here moved to “seek” the truth and not out to spread lies and I commend him for posting it.
Furthermore, we are only hearing a portion of the story as this is a only a blog but chances are that if the whole story is told in it’s entire context, his story would be much more credible. Knowing the Adidam community, one could almost guess who these “highly placed functionaries” are. And it would probably come down to less than a dozen –prioritized to the most highly “usual suspect”. And that would further support the allegation and credibility if others had the same feeling about the same “highly placed functionaries”.
It’s totally another issue to watch good movies on perception for the sake of learning about perception, doubt, and interpretation but it’s another thing to use it in order to suppress “whistle blowing” and critical thinking —-and to justify cultic and scary behavior in Adidam.
Regarding good movies on the subject matter, here are 2 of my favorites:
1-Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 “Rashomon” Definitely a 5 star movie. An examination of the nature of truth based on the audience being the jurors to a rape and murder with 4 witnesses.
2-And “Atonement” 2007 : a decent movie and worth examining the concepts of misinterpretation during a moment of misperception.
Just as the movie “Doubt” is a good movie for the study of perception, this movies should not be used to discredit anyone perceptions and allegations.
As I recall, J. Krishnamurti recommended the path of doubt many years ago and it still worth considering verses blind belief. It’s sure sounds healthier than blind faith, cultism, authoritarianism and fascism. Self–inquiry, critical thinking, deductive/inductive reasoning, and doubting with a mix of cynicism, realism, and with your feet well planted in the ground sounds healthier, more harmonious and integral …….—certainly more than anything that Adidam has to offer which is basically fundamentalism couched in non-dualism but basically dualism in its highest abstract form.
Raymond
Note to Jerry Katz: If you would be kind enough, please forward my e-mail address to :
“Another Ex-Devotee and Critic”
Thank you
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Raymond, thank you for your contribution. Sorry, I’m only hosting the forum and trying to stay out of the way. –Jerry
January 16, 2009 at 2:46 am
As I said, I want respond here not to anyone posting here, but with a specific rebuttal to the Adidam outreach comments on Ramana Maharshi at http://www.adidaupclose.org/FAQs/question1.html.
It seems from several accounts that the comments of anyone who tries to respond to challenge and rebut some of the misleading information there are screened out, and all you see is the canned, superficial and misleading talking points justifying why Da is the Avatar.
My issue remains the same. Adidam claims “respect” for Ramana Maharshi, but does not demonstrate it. “Respect” is not damning with faint praise, it starts with Ramana Maharshi being represented accurately and not misused to imply support for Da. Da claims to have a realization superior to Ramana Maharshi’s and everyone else, yet still wants to use questionable representations of Ramana Maharshi to support agreement on the jnani state up to a certain point, so he can say he went beyond Ramana Maharshi. That works until you delve more deeply. Then you see that while Da adopts common terms, there is little in common. From the Adidam “erspective, they would see this as a repeat of the discussions that led Da followers to conclude Ramana and Buddha were Stage 6, Jesus Stage 5, etc., where the attempt to show Ramana Maharshi was 7th stage failed in comparsion to Da, based on his standards. Others do not agree Da should be the benchmark for anyone else, or that he is even fully Realized. Since no jnanis have ever acknowledged Da’s claims, I believe the non-dualist traditions, proven through the ages, should be the benchmark. And where Ramana Maharshi is consistent with them and Da is not, Da must be examined critically as well. It is possible he was not at the claimed state.
Adidam teaches:
“Adi Da continues to have great respect towards Ramana Maharshi. He has said that among the individuals who have lived in the past, He feels a great affinity and closeness to Ramana Maharshi. And visiting his Ashram was, for Adi Da, “like meeting your twin brother”. Adi Da talked about the great corroboration of aspects of His Realization that He found in Ramana Maharshi’s teaching. But beginning in the the 1990s, Adi Da Revealed that His Own Revelation is Unique and unprecedented. Therefore, Ramana Maharshi and others who Adi Da had previously spoken of as seventh stage Realizers (Shankara, Nagarjuna, Gautama Buddha, etc.) were henceforth described as great sixth stage Realizers who exhibited premonitory signs or suggestions of the seventh stage of life.”
“Respect” does not alter the impact of Da’s later teaching that his enlightenment is unique and unprecedented, and at a higher stage. As an aside, this type of claim is traditionally associated with what Da calls fourth and fifth stage figures, as Ramana Maharshi teaches in the book “Maha Yoga”, and as as we see in numerous modern figures. This claim also contradicts the understanding from most ancient times that all Realizers/Sages are One, and that Realization it of that already the case, it does not change or evolve. Da’s teaching is thus akin to similar neo-advaita doctrines widely criticized. That is not to say non-dualists should not read what Da has written and consider it. But with the understanding that this particular claim clearly makes Ramana Maharshi, Sri Nisargadatta, Buddha, and every other jnani/enlightened figure fundamentally wrong about their state. And it means all non-dualist traditions about enlightenment are fundamentally flawed. The essence of this claim is equivalent to a doctrine that all who desire Realization must do so through recognition of Da’s exclusive status. So Da’s “respect” has very obvious limits, compounded by an apparent inability to accurately convey Ramana Maharshi’s actual life and teaching. In addition, Da went to Ramana Maharshi’s ashram and reported unverifiable, subtle validation. He has never been validated as Realized physically by a single jnani, only by obvious seekers. Naturally you will never see that on this site.
“Adi Da told us that He did not “change His tune” or His Teaching in Revealing this, but that in the earliest years He was intent upon showing similarities and correspondences, and therefore did not make this critique at that time. He felt that we had not sufficiently Recognized Him, or Understood Him, and therefore we simply would not be able to receive it. And so this was only Revealed in the 1990s, when Adi Da at last felt that such Recognition was present…”
That is one explanation, and what else would followers accept? That he was not infallible? But there is another. Each can make their own assesment of probabilty. No recognized historical jnani/enlightened figure has resorted to such evolving claims about their status. So let us think about this explanation a bit. In 1971, Da says he is not an Avatar or one of the Eternal Siddhas. Then this evolves to him being equivalent to Jesus, Buddha and Krishna in terms of expressing a new teaching. Then he teaches that “Jesus was fifth, Ramana and Buddha sixth”, and He alone is first, last and only Avatar of this true enlightenment. None of this acknowleged by any living jnani, who in fact don’t even acknowlege he is realized at their level. No evidence even hinting at this in the traditions. And we are told that such critical information as his Avataric status was withheld until 1993 because just as in many other controversial areas, such as lifestyle and other details, the devotees were not ready for it before hand. All I can say in turn is that as one who considers the traditions valid, that I respect Da for his interesting teaching, but likewise consider his realization and some of his teaching problematic based on the standards of maintream dharma.
“…Avatar Adi Da has great respect for Ramana Maharshi, and always has. Why? Because in all the Great Tradition, it was Ramana Maharshi whose descriptions most concurred with Avatar Adi Da’s Observations about the subtlest details about the esoteric anatomy as it is seen from the “point of view” of the Transcendental Awakening to Consciousness Itself. Namely, Ramana Maharshi described that the seat of Awakening was associated with the right side of the heart and that there was a special channel of yogic force that connected the place “infinitely” above the head with the right side of the heart. This is a huge deal because most of the schools of the Great Tradition — apart from Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, and some rare schools of Taoism, and a few other very rare examples — point to a “heaven” above, or “god” or “goddess” above, or “source” above (infinitely above the head), as the ultimate goal of Spiritual practice. This upwards orientation was true of Avatar Adi Da’s own Teachers, Rudi, Swami Muktananda, Bhagavan Nityananda (and is true of esoteric Judaism, Christianity, Islam, most of Hinduism, shamanism, etc.). But, Avatar Adi Da’s own Re-Awakening to Divine Self-Realization in 1970 made clear to Him that the “Seat” of ultimate Realization was associated with the right side of the heart, and that beyond the rising up of Spirit-Force to the place “infinitely” above the head, there was the potential descent of the Spirit-Force into and through the right side of the heart in the Awakening to the Transcendental Position of Consciousness Prior to the duality of “up above” and “down below”…”
That is one of the problems when the presumption is made by those with limited knowledge of Ramana Maharshi and his sources that Da spoke exhaustively in syncronicity with Ramana Maharshi. You see too much of this on the internet, recently I even saw claims that Da “discovered” an esoteric connection between the sinoatrial node and the heart on the right, an idea which was published in English long ago in a book by Paul Brunton based on Ramana Maharshi’s teachings and which Da was familiar with. Closer reading shows there are subtle differences which show more of what could also be a 5th stage orientation to the event in Da’s case. Ramana Maharshi did not “describe the descent of the Spirit-Force into and through the right side of the heart in the Awakening to the Transcendental Position of Consciousness”. That was Da’s experience of “spirit force”, and the culmination of his practice of 5th stage visionary activities including being taken over by the Goddess for a time. I suggest perhaps he never really progressed beyond that stage. Da is the one who refers to a stabilized current to the Heart, and who does not really address Ramana Maharshi’s statements, based on the traditions, that when the mind is resolved, a force current breaks the heart knot and rises up amrita nadi to the saharara and thereafter ego I thoughts simply do not arise. Da’s description of jnana samadhi (extended introversion in the heart and effort excluding the world outside) is not even recognized in tradtional sources even in its more primitive stages, defies what is known about the Heart and Amrita Nadi already, and has no place in Ramana’s scheme of things or others who have experienced the event. It is based on Adidam dogma based on Da’s description of his own experience, belief that these differences represent an issue with Ramana Maharshi rather than with Da. and an interpretation of Ramana Maharshi not accepted outside of Adidam. It is this consistent attempt by Adidam to portray Ramana Maharshi inaccurately and more in support of Da’s statements than he was, that is the root of concerns by others not inside the group.
“While the Transcendentalist Schools speak of the Awakening to Consciousness Itself, Prior to ascending efforts, only Ramana Maharshi and Avatar Adi Da Speak about the specific esoteric structure that links the Emanationist Realization to the Transcendentalist Realization. That structure is called by Ramana Maharshi and Avatar Adi Da, “amrita nadi” (the channel of eternally nectarous Love-Bliss, connecting the right side of the Heart with the “sahasrar” [the place "infinitely" above]).”
Actually, not really. As much as I love Ramana Maharshi, he reconfirmed ancient wisdom. Both the Heart and Amrita Nadi, also known as para nadi and brahma nadi, are mentioned as early as the Upanishads, as Ramana Maharshi said. As I have pointed out, other have described Amrita Nadi as well. And I should point out that not only is Da’s description different in some ways than all others, but he himself varied that description over time, an S shape from the right heart to the head, then a spiral extending above and below the heart as well. Nor would Ramana Maharshi describe it as a channel of “Love-Bliss”, that is Da’s personal take on it, and one I think could have 5th state overtones again. Ramana and others describe it as associated with physical form and a channel of pure Consciousness that reveals everything as the Self. Again, when Adidam portrays Ramana Maharshi inaccurately and more in support of Da’s statements than he was, that is the root of concerns by others not inside the group.
“After His Re-Awakening, Avatar Adi Da experienced something that was never described or experienced by Ramana Maharshi. There was not just the descent of the Spirit-Force down “amrita nadi” into the right side of the heart, there was a “Re-Generation” of “amrita nadi” where the inherent “Brightness” of Consciousness Itself Shined “Brightly” from the heart up “armita nadi” to the “sahasrar” and then down into the body-mind, again. In Avatar Adi Da’s Case (and in the case of all seventh stage Realizers), the Divine Self-Radiance of Consciousness Itself ultimately “Outshines” all conditional worlds. This stands in contrast to Ramana Maharshi’s Teaching and Demonstration, which was essentially a dissociation from all conditional arising, by Abiding as Consciousness apart from the world. Ramana Maharshi Taught that conditional arisings post-Realization were one’s “left-over” karma.”
I can only repeat what I said above about the consistent misrepresentation of Ramana Maharshi implicit here to try and support Da’s position, such as that he abided as a Consciousness apart from the world, when Ramana Maharshi himself described the function of how conciousness through amrita nadi related to the world. As for the “left over karma”, he himself said that was not absolutely true, it was a model to help convey an idea. Adidam needs to stop taking isolated statements out of context. As an aside, this description of how the consciousness flowed back to the body mind also could be interpreted as a fifth stage event.
“With careful study of the Great Tradition, you can even intellectually come to see that what Avatar Adi Da has Revealed is actually Unique, and it is on some most fundamental level the Completion of all that has come before. Because Ramana Maharshi understood and Transcended all the first five stages of life, and because He understood the most subtle yogic esotericisms about the relationship between the fifth stage Awakening and the sixth, and because He intuited something about the nature of even the seventh stage of life, He should be held in highest regard. But, if you read Ramana Maharshi’s Teaching and His life-story, you see that He did not describe the four-part process that occurs after seventh stage Awakening. Only Avatar Adi Da has done that in the entire history of the Great Tradition.”
It is subtly ironic that Adidam claims such “careful study of the Great Tradition”, and they are entitled to believe it. Those outside of the group see so many fundamental errors, omissions and misinterpretations instead. Adidam says that where Ramana Maharshi does not agree with Da, it is because Ramana had only “intuitions”. How convenient! In a nutshell, the claim is that because Ramana Maharshi taught in agreement with the traditions there were four stages of jnana culminating in a stage of “trancendence”, and those do not exactly agree with Da’s description, which evolved over the years, Ramana Maharshi and the other jnanis are wrong. I agree Da’s claims are unique, any Ramana Maharshi scholar would say that. But they are unique only in a way that everyone else is wrong, and yet Da is the only one saying this. Others might ask, maybe it is Da that is wrong?
“Interestingly enough, this is not something that requires “faith” in Avatar Adi Da. This can be understood and seen to be true even intellectually. But it requires a very sophisticated understanding of the Great Tradition all together. ”
There we go again. Adidam claims a “sophisticated understanding of the Great Tradition”. But the proof of that is sorely lacking in the eyes of those outside the group. What we see is sophisticated errors, misinterpretations and material out of context based only Adi Da as bench;mark, and his being right in every case. Not understanding or even particularly deep considerations of the traditions.
“…”Okay, so, why did Avatar Adi Da first say that Buddha and Ramana Maharshi were “seventh stage” Realizers. After His Divine Re-Awakening in 1970, when Avatar Adi Da would sit to “Meditate”, instead of His own “contents” arising, thousands of other peoples psyches would arise, and He would “Meditate” them. A number of them rather mysteriously began showing up, literally, at His doorstep in Los Angeles. He opened a center in April 1972 in order to formally assume Teaching responsibilities that were spontaneously being required of Him…”
An interesting siddhi, but not really proof of enlightenment. This can be found in some fourth and fifth stage examples.
Who walked in the door? Street people, druggies, whores, hippies, etc. No qualified devotees with a strong background of practice and preparation appeared during those early years.
Actually, that is a very subjective interpretation. There were those with a background of practice and preparation, sufficent for a traditional jnani. I have read accounts of those there as early as July 1972 who Da acknowledged then had a good practice and grounding in the teaching, who then left as the cultism became too difficult. The truth is that Da did not draw many in the first place, or keep many of those types of followers over a long period.
“And this was all happening in the most anti-Spiritual “culture” imaginable, the “modern” West.”
That is historical revisionism and hyperbole at its finest. Da rode the wave of existing widespread interest in spirituality among the young and at a time when interest in non-dualism was growing. He simply didn’t draw many who were not spiritual dabblers to begin with. Ramana Maharshi has always had more followers in the US than Da had. Non-dualists voted with their feet.
“So, in order to even begin the “Conversation” necessary, Avatar Adi Da had to start somewhere. I believe He even Spoke of Jesus as a seventh stage Adept originally. Jesus, Buddha, Ramana Maharshi — just so people could even begin to understand that it is humanly possible to Realize Identity with the Divine.”
And if the only people he drew were so ignorant as to not understand even such a basic concept of non-dualist
Realization, what does that say about Adidam and its credibility? And what can we say about a belief that everyone in the world needed to be misled from 1970-1993, but now expects this claim to be accepted as evident? I think most can think of more likely explanations. This type of thing is known among fourth and fifth stage figures.
“Over the years, and after much growth in His devotees comprehension of the Great Tradition, did He begin to introduce the nuances necessary for a fullest right understanding of all these extremely esoteric matters. So, it is not at all a right comprehension of the history of all of this to say “Buddha and Ramana Maharshi” got “demoted”. That is an unfortunately negative spin on what was actually a rather natural progression of greater and greater discrimination being brought to the stages of life and the nature of Most Perfect Divine Self-Realization in contrast to Realizations and Revelations recorded in the Great Tradition.”
I have shown that it is true that Da’s claims are in conflict with the Traditions and based on questionable assertions, and that Ramana Maharshi is not accurately presented, even in KOL but increasingly more so over time. It is true that although some terms are used in common, they are not really describing the same thing and never really have. Far more so than Adidam normally addresses, because of the assumption that only Da has revealed the truth of these terms and it is convenient to use Ramana Maharshi as a precedent when it isn’t accurate. But I am not trying to convince anyone who believes Da that somehow Ramana Maharshi deserves to be repromoted, because the differences are so great I see the definite, alternative possibility that Da was only fifth stage once you stop making Da the be all and end all of enlightenment, which those in Addiam can not do. I on the other hand am not going to discard the traditions or consider Ramana Maharshi inferior, just because Da has to be right or being with him duplicates experiences I still consider as within the range of fifth stage. It is ironic that Da said it was hard to tell the difference between some fifth stage states and his seventh stage, because it is true. One of many statements I think unconsciously revealing, such as some of his humor. In any case, before evaluating Ramana Maharshi based on any Adidam statements and Adidam cosmology, I advise those who read without clear opinion to check your sources first and consider what those familiar with Ramana Maharshi have to say, and consult with any jnani like figures you can about it. If they can’t “recognize” Da, who is qualified to do so?
January 16, 2009 at 4:09 am
Feel4God.
I find Conradg’s Ramana Maharshi cosmology accurate, although some differences in your statements appear to be matters of expression. There are, I think, and we knew this from the beginning, unbridgeable differences between Adi Da and Ramana Maharshi in terms of experience, which you consider superior and I do not. I do not look at terms, I look at descriptions and how they read and “resonate” (solid/peculiars in your terms can do that)
I have talked with others famiilar with Ramana Maharshi not involved here and there is general agreement with my assessment that Da is not describing in his experiences either the Heart or Amrita Nadi as Ramana Maharshi is referring to. But I also think Da does not accurately convey what Ramana Maharshi taught, something Ramana Maharshi scholars would agree upon universally, I think. Da seems much more concerned with energy flows and cycles and centers that have a lot to do with integrating his prior teaching from Muktananda with Ramana Maharshi’s (as you can see in the KOL essays and his discussions of ideas like the “perfect” yoga), and the marriage isn’t really a good one and never really was, although I suppose Da really wanted some traditional point of reference for a time. (I realized this marriage was doomed long before Da announced it after I reaquainted myself with Ramana Maharshi in more depth. Given the choice, and I had it, I chose Ramana Maharshi).
The exhaustive descriptions build on this Da model and never really incorporate what Ramana Maharshi actually taught. This appeals to you as a higher teaching and because that is how you experience it, which makes sense, where it seems fifth stage to me. When I reaquainted myself with Ramana Maharhi in more depth, it confirmed for me my concerns about Da’s evolving teaching, while you find that it confirms your beliefs. But what is left is to convey these respective teachings accurately. For me that includes criticism of Da, for you criticism of Ramana Maharshi. To me the Heart is literally everything and there is no need to consider an Amrita Nadi as separate, or anything else. The entire cosmos arises from a tiny seed of mind. The net result of accurate presentations of the respective teachings illuminates the issue and each should decide for themselves.
I did want to comment on one thing you said:
“It would be interesting to consider if the “I”-thought is the same as the “feeling of relatedness” given both are described as the separative gesture that creates duality and gives rise to attention and mind altogether. Plus, the “I”-thought and the “feeling of relatedness” both have their source in the heart on the right according to Ramana and Adi Da, respectively.”
That the concepts are related is something I always considered obvious. Where there is an other, fear arises. When there is only Awareness without subject or object, all is recognized as One. As I understand it from what Ramana Maharshi has said, everything in duality arises from tiny hologramic like karmic seeds that have built up, in relative terms, in the heart knot. In the unenlightened where the amrita nadi (again in relative terms) is not clear, the heart light shining through these seeds creates the appearance of individual and world much like holograms can create dimensional scenes via the same ascending process up to the sahasrara and creates the psychophysical world. But this is all “within” the Heart as it IS. When the knot and the seeds dissolve, the entire illusion ceases to function and all is recognized as the Heart and Heart light within the Heart.
I admit I always interpreted Da’s teaching in respect to analogues within Ramana Maharshi’s teaching because I believed the statement it was just a different expression of the same Realization. I no longer think that because the differences are too great, and as I have said, I consider Ramana Maharshi more accurate. I hope you can at least see why I have no need to consider the relation between Heart and Amrita Nadi, which is just a channel in the Heart and its Light, which Ramana literally said had no center or circumference, the way you choose to see it. I must be honest that in my experience, all that above stuff you relate to is fifth stage and I consider that probable for Da as well. But understand my disagreement is dharmic as is yours and is not because I have “baggage” with Da any more than you have “baggage” with Ramana. So further communications would make sense within that framework.
January 16, 2009 at 6:46 am
FF&C, Feel4God,
Here are a couple of allusions to our fundamental ignorance or “not-knowingness” by the Maharshi:
A man asked the Maharshi to say something to him. When asked what he wanted to know, he said that he knew nothing and wanted to hear something from the Maharshi.
Maharshi: You know that you know nothing. Find out that knowledge. That is liberation.
———–
M: What is Bliss but your own being? You are not apart from being which is the same as Bliss. You are now thinking that you are the mind or the body which are both changing and transient. But you are unchanging and eternal. That is what you should know.
D: It is dark and I am ignorant.
M: This ignorance must go. Again, who says “I am ignorant”? He must be the witness of ignorance. That is what you are. Socrates said, “I know that I do not know.” Can it be ignorance? It is wisdom
———-
Nisargadatta Maharaj banter on ignorance:
Maharaj: What do you call that “I amness”?
Q: Consciousness
M: Do you know the consciousness? Do you witness the consciousness?
Q: I don’t know.
M: To what principle do you give that name?
Q: Everything that I perceive or know. Everything.
M: Who knows consciousness?
Q: I don’t know.
M: What you don’t know, that is the prior-most.
—————–
Maharaj: … In that nothingness, you are also not there. Then who is it that wants anything more than this?
Q: I don’t know.
M: The answer that you don’t know is a hundred percent correct because in that state where you did not know, you did not even know that you existed.
——————-
When you were not knowing anything, what was was the first thing you came to know in your whole span of life?
Q: The self. And then other things.
M: You started with not knowing, including you did not know yourself. So what is it that you started knowing first?
Q: I started reading the Gita, reading Krishna.
M: You did not know anything. You did not know yourself either! So where is the scope for Gita? … You started knowing so many things after you started knowing yourself. You came to know “I am,” and then you came to know other things. How did that happen? …
After you came to know yourself, you started knowing so many things. But what knowledge did you have even before you came to know yourself?
————-
Maharaj talking about what happened after self-realization:
Maharaj: … Earlier I was sure of so many things, now I am sure of nothing. But I feel that I have lost nothing by not knowing, because all my knowledge was false. My not knowing was in itself knowledge of the fact that all knowledge is ignorance, that “I do not know” is the only true statement the mind can make.
January 16, 2009 at 9:52 am
A note about the notion that there’s a distinction between Ramana’s and Da’s realizations, even from the point of view of Da himself. If one examines the Knee of Listening, one finds Da discussing the differences between himself and Ramana as “a difference made on the level of communication, and it is the result of a difference in emphasis.” He goes on to say that “Ultimately, it is itself the difference between Ramana Maharshi’s characteristic ‘purposelessness’ and my own unique ‘purpose’ (or historical role and work).”
His whole point is that his realization and Ramana’s are the same, but their teachings differ on the level of communication. He explains that Ramana’s spontaneous realization became tied, as a teaching, to the ancient path of Advaita, and the ancient world cultures of liberation, whereas his own teaching represents a new kind of expression of the same realization for the modern world of creative human potential. He does indeed, as Feel4God points out, identify himself with Amrita Nadi, but he concludes that Ramana does also, in his own traditional way: “Even Ramana Maharshi at last justifies life as Amrita Nadi and sees no radical distinction between it and the Self. To be sure, the Self is its heart and foundation, but it is not exclusive of the Living Form.”
I find it interesting that at the beginning of his teaching years, Adi Da would very clearly recognize that Ramana’s Self-Realization and teachings about it was in no way an exclusive concentration in the heart, apart from Amrita Nadi, but saw Ramana as merely expressing this same realization in a traditional form. Instead of asserting some new and radically different form of realization, Da merely asserts that he has a special mission, to found a culture which is oriented towards this “creative” approach to living.
Much, much later, of course, Adi Da reversed himself and claimed that Ramana was indeed a lesser realizer who represented an exclusive orientation towards the heart, that did not include Amrita Nadi. But his own testimony here seems to undermine those later claims.
The question this leaves is, is there even any validity to Da’s claim to have communicated some new, “creative” path of Amrita Nadi that is truly free of seeking and superior to the traditional paths, such as Ramana taught? Well, certainly there are cultural differences between the eastern culture Ramana taught in and the western culture Adi Da grew up in. But Da relies on a core argument that addresses the issue of seeking and dilemma, and this is where he reveals his superficial understanding of Ramana’s actual teaching. He says:
“Traditional Self-Enquiry (as taught by Ramana Maharshi, and in one manner or another, by other traditional realizers) is a method – or a strategy for achieving realization. It has a goal, like all seeking. The dilemma with which it begins is the absense of Self-Knowledge. Thus, it pursues the knowledge of the Self, which knowledge is liberation.”
Right here we can see how little understanding Da has of Ramana. Ramana himself never, ever, described his path, or the practice of self-enquiry, as being directed towards the goal of achieving Self-Knowledge. Quite the opposite, he repeatedly and endlessly described it as merely “getting rid of non-existent suffering and realizing the Happiness that is already the case”. He denied entirely the notion that Self-knowledge was absent in anyone, or that it should be the goal, or could be attained, by any seeker. To Ramana, the only point was “getting rid of ignorance and illusion”. If that is done, Self-Realization naturally asserts itself without any effort or seeking whatsoever. So even self-enquiry in Ramana’s view was not directed towards “Self-Knowledge”. Instead, it was directed towards reality itself, as he said endlessly to whomever would ask. The whole point was to simply “be as you are”, as he repeatedly said. So rather than advocating some kind of exclusive concentration in the heart, Ramana merely advocated being what we are, and allowing That to become conscious by the disillusionment of all illusions. This involves the examination of our false presumption that we are the ego. The mere bringing of attention to this matter, which normally we keep in the dark, spontanteously dissolves this illusion and allows our native Self-knowledge to emerge in consciousenss.
Da simply doesn’t seem to grasp this, or he is being deliberately obtuse so that he can claim for himself some special and unique status, either for his teaching during the KOL period, or for his realization, in the post-FLO years. In the KOL years, he developed his own form of self-enquiry, in the form “avoiding relationship”, and according to him it was this method alone that brought about his own realization. His claim is that this was a path free from seeking, but one could easily make the same accusation towards him that he makes towards Ramana, that this is a seeking path based upon the absence of “relationship” and the goal of achieving some kind of unqualified sense of “relationship”.In fact, if we observe the life he led during this time, it was that of a highly motivated seeker. Even his sense of “purpose” belies a motivation to seek, to accomplish, to become someone of unique historical importance, better and greater than all previous realizers. This sense of himself and his mission didn’t end with his realization, he was not released from this search then, but continued it all the way through his life, and one can see how it led to distortions of traditional paths like Ramana’s and grandiose claims for himself all the way through that life, in ever-increasing and extreme ways, as is the case with all dedicated seekers.
The funny thing is, if one examines Da’s own self-description of his own realization in the Vedanta Temple, one finds him describing it as the achievement of Self-knowledge, not the realization of “relationship”. Here’s his self-description:
“In an instant, I became profoundly and directly aware of what I am. It was a tacit realization, a direct knowledge in consciousness itself. It was consciousness itself, without the addition of a communication from any other source. I simply sat there and knew what I am. I was being what I am. I am Reality, the Self, the Nature and Support of all things, and all beings. I am the One Being, known as God, Brahman, Atman, the One Mind, the Self.
“There was no thought in this. I am that Consciousness. There was no reaction of either joy or surprise. I am the One I recognized. I Am that One. I am not merely experiencing Him.
“Then truly there was nothing more to realize”.
A number of things about this. First, we of course can’t accept this merely at face level as genuine Realization, but we can at least inspect it as a form of self-description and a statement of his own spiritual understanding at the time. Lots of people imagine themselves to be realized based on some kind of revelatory experience and use traditional language, or creative language of their own, to describe it. In Da’s case, what’s interesting is that nowhere in this self-description of realization does he speak of Amrita Nadi, “unqualified relationship”, or anything to be differentiated from traditional descriptions of Self-Realization. To the contrary, he explicitly describes this realization as being a moment of supreme Self-Knowledge, of the attainment of knowledge of himself, as the Self – not as Amrita Nadi. Instead, he makes it clear that this is exactly the same realization as has been traditionally described. And the final phrase “then truly there was nothing more to realize” pretty much shuts the door on the notion that he went on from mere “exclusive” Self-Realization to the full “Realization of Amrita Nadi” as he later claims.
Now, one could certainly argue as Da does that his way of self-enquiry in the form “Avoiding relationship” was more suited to outward-going westerners than Ramana’s path. Ramana himself had no objection to notions like this, and was willing to accommodate all kinds of cultural and personal liabilities or simply characterological differences. But clearly Da does not suggest that his own path led to some other realization that is uniquely different than Self-Knowledge, knowing oneself as the Self, as Reality. But as Ramana said, all such approaches must lead in the end to the same form of Realization, of knowing Oneself as the One Self. Da affirms this. One could say that he does so because he’s read such sources as Ramana and the general Vedantic traditions, and didn’t actually fully and truly realize even this much, but it’s hard to suggest that he realized something greater or unique or “more” radical than this either.
It’s also fairly easy to argue that Da’s realization was not actually as complete as he claims, even precisely because he did not release this motivated sense of “purpose” we find him talking about even in the KOL, and which dominated his “work” for the rest of his years. He is certainly right that Ramana exemplified a kind of “purposelessness”, in that Ramana simply related to everyone as they were, without any sense that he had to change them or transform them, or change and transform the world. He merely acted as the Self, and let the Power of the Self move in its own spontaneous way, free of any goal or sense of purpose, of something to be accomplished. That Da was so clearly and openly motivated by a sense of purpose casts serious doubt on his own radical realization, and suggests that he did not truly surrender his ego even in the Vedanta Temple, but left something behind that ended up biting him on the ass, and essentially ruining his spiritual work.
Most great teachers in the Advaitic tradition, like Ramana, suggest that having any sense of purpose, even that of liberating others or saving the world, is a sign of incomplete realization. Papaji also affirmed this point of view. He pointed to Tibetan notions of the Boddhisattva, or of tulkus, those who compassionately go about trying to help others, as showing the signs of subtle ego that does not fully understand the radical nature of true realization. He pointed out how this motivation itself must be surrendered in the Self, so that all action is merely the unmotivated and spontaneous work of the Self, which has no “purpose” to fulfill, but which naturally liberates all beings by its very nature.
A sense of purpose reveals a subtle ego, and this is another reason why I would suggest that Adi Da retained a subtle sense of ego which went on to disrupt his spiritual life, as well as his teaching and the lives of his devotees. No one in Adidam could help but be affected by Adi Da’s profound sense of purpose, mission, and endless concern for his “work”. No one could help but be disturbed by it as well. I think one could well trace all the most disturbing and even negative trends in Adidam to this intensely motivated sense of purpose on Da’s part, from the self-indulgences to the abuses to the money-grubbing to the tearing down of devotees to the regular cycles of expansion and implosion. I’m not at all suggesting that this purpose was entirely negative or that it never produced anything worthwhile. Quite to the contrary, it certainly made things interesting and even wonderful at times. But it always seemed to fall short of its goals, and in itself always seemed to be not terribly radical at all, but in fact quite egoic a great deal of the time, and self-defeating.
One could even see how it often led to the very reverse of its goal. Take the issue of cultism itself. Now, obviously Da saw many problems with cultism, and tried from the beginning to address them. He strove to destroy cultism. His “Mummery Book” , a kind of allegorical autobiography, describes its hero’s mission in its own original subtitle as (I may be paraphrasing slightly) “The boy who came, destroyed big religion, and was liberated by his own wisdom”. And yet, of course, Adi Da ended up creating a cult out of his own efforts to destroy cultism, and a religious business out of his efforts to eliminate the religion business, aspiring by the end to create the one and only true religion that would convert everyone in the world to its own path. I’d suggest that the negative results Da experienced came from his own egoic motivations in the first place, the primary egoic motivation being to eliminate the ego. This is based on a dilemma, the notion that there is an ego to eliminate at all, and that is where he opened the back door to his own failure. The results unfortunately speak for themselves. Adidam never grew, never became much more than a tiny cult, and this left Da feeling failed and frustrated, as endless rants in his notes testified to. In the last years before his death he seemed to come to some accomodation with his failures, some acceptance that this wasn’t going to change, but I’d also suggest that this led to his early death. When someone has a grand purpose in life like Adi Da, there’s really not much to live for when it falls short.
Now, I’m sure that most Daists will disagree entirely with this assessment. I’d just ask them to think for themselves a moment about this whole sense of “purpose” that motivates Adidam itself. Is this really what realization is about? Is this really what spiritual life is about? Try and consider such things for yourself, not merely operating upon the received wisdom of Adi Da’s own teachings, which are founded on this sense of purpose, rather than upon the radical purposelessness of freedom and motiveless love. I think this will resolve itself by itself, and needs no greater argument.
January 16, 2009 at 12:32 pm
I think it is amusing that Conrad used Bill Stranger as an example of someone who at least at one time had some sensibility about him and is now more or less a fundamentalist kook{my words] I think personally that Bill is a very poor example. Although I always liked him personally , he was always totally stuck at the head level. There really is such a thing as being intelligent and discriminating and yet still being able to be in your heart and intuition. Being nonjudgemental is part of that and it is a real practice. Here I see an incredible amount of head and very little heart or practice{although that would be something hard to see on the internet anyhow} But that is my perception anyhow.
What I see basically is a lot of left over and current emotional reaction to Adi Da and the whole thing he created and a lot of heady justifications for that and using the sophisticated and lending itself very well to “talking heads” schools of Ramana Maharshi and his descendents. It’s amusing, because this is what Adi Da criticized as “the talking school” and not “practicing school” and it is quite out front and even flamboyant here. Perhaps feel for God is Bill Stranger. I can see why someone would think that. I know who I am and am not afraid to post it . It is hard for me to take seriously people I do not even know who they are anyhow. Just seems like a bunch of intellectual game playing to me.
I do not consider my subjective “experience” one stage or the other. At some point you have to step aside from your head about this and let your deepest intuition and feeling guide you. This is also recommended in the Buddhist traditon, which can also be quite intellectual and discriminating too. I have been reading the biography of Tenzin Palmo, a British woman who at a young age went Tibetan Buddhist when it was not at all chic and spent 12 years in a cave like Milarepal. Anyhow she has many deep insights and she really practiced and still does. I have met her and she is very bright to say the least.
She was the first private western student of Chogyam Trunpa in England and he taught her
buddhist meditation. He used to sit on the couch next to her and slide his hand up her dress to try to have sex with her. She found it amusing and charming and simply put him off since that was not her thing. She also said that he was very special and had much to offer her as a student and did not care about his sexual predilections. I agree with her personally.
I have never been a fundamentalist, in or out of Adidam. have you all ever heard a real “fundamentalist” talk? I hear Christian fundamentalists on the radio from time to time and they are a hell of a lot more dumbed down and seriously extreme than any Daist I have ever heard. Check it out sometime. I have known some more “fundamentalist” types in Adidam, but they are certainly not the majority. I am sorry that Conrad feels that he personally was one of that type. maybe he is still reacting to that in himself and that is why so much reaction. I am just speculating of course.
I myself see some of the down side of Adidam and there could be seen to be some cultism. But it is rather mild I think . Now anyone can come up with the “Guru Papers” and all the cult busting literature and trounce about anyone and anything. I have seen stacks of these books on people’s shelves. I have read some of them and find them rather silly. They have no connection at all to real spirituality or even real discrimination. They are just “in your head” and “in your face” quasi western psychology “gotcha” books. whatever
Flick Rahke
January 16, 2009 at 2:02 pm
Aro Says:
“Here are a couple of allusions to our fundamental ignorance or “not-knowingness” by the Maharshi:”
A man asked the Maharshi to say something to him. When asked what he wanted to know, he said that he knew nothing and wanted to hear something from the Maharshi.
Maharshi: You know that you know nothing. Find out that knowledge. That is liberation.
———–
M: What is Bliss but your own being? You are not apart from being which is the same as Bliss. You are now thinking that you are the mind or the body which are both changing and transient. But you are unchanging and eternal. That is what you should know.
D: It is dark and I am ignorant.
M: This ignorance must go. Again, who says “I am ignorant”? He must be the witness of ignorance. That is what you are. Socrates said, “I know that I do not know.” Can it be ignorance? It is wisdom
**********************************************
Aro, thanks for those great quotes from Ramana on “ignorance”. As I told FFaC, it was not an issue for us participants during this period of “Divine Ignorance” whether Adi Da had totally originated the concept of Ignorance or not. At the time I knew of the traditional statements about the falseness of all duality, including knowledge and ignorance; and that Realization was beyond all knowledge, all description. Again, it was probably “advertised” by devotees as something totally original – and for us, especially Adi Da’s working with us to actually fall into our inherent Ignorance, it was original – because we understood it! Also, people should keep in mind most of us were in our early twenties.
However, devotees’ enthusiastic claims by no means implies that Adi Da said He originated all of this conceptually. FFaC responded to my writeup about that period, but did not really significantly counter anything I said, so I don’t think his example of this period as an illustration of Adi Da making some kind of “unique and revelatory” claim about “Ignorance” is applicable.
Relative to Conrad’s post about the astrology of Adi Da’s Divine Mahasamadhi:
Conradg Says:
“Likewise, it’s silly to say that you can’t use astrology to describe the “Acausal Divine Person”.”
Actually, I didn’t mean to imply this, though I can see why you thought I did. What I said was …
“Of course, you are basing much of what you say on your presumption that Adi Da is a karmic being and so astrological analysis would have its place in those terms. But for the Acausal Divine Reality, what bearing does astrology actually have?”
In this statement and question, I was implying that the Acausal Divine Person upon Mahasamadhi would not be chartable by astrology until such time as there were subtle and gross vehicles again to chart. Of course, Adi Da could be charted in those terms while He was alive here in bodily terms, just as you say, but only could be charted again, if subtle and gross vehicles were animated again.
So I am questioning the logic of your “Mahasamadhi” (“predictive”) charting for the Acausal Divine Reality once ALL the vehicles have been shed. There would be no karmic residue to even chart until such time that such a choice was made again. Again, this astrology is only applicable to vehicles, not to what is beyond all karma.
By the way, did you ever speak to Adi Da about His Returning, during your conversations about His astrology patterns?
Conradg Says:
“The general point being that while the Divine Person is beyond causation, when the Divine Person incarnates in any conditional world, that conjuction can be described by astrological signs and symbols, like anything else.”
Yes, that is what I was getting at above – Adi Da’s physical Body functioned within the laws of the cosmos too, so of course, could be charted. He even starts off the Knee mentioning astrology.
Conradg Says:
“So, maybe Da reincarnates in 2350. Maybe he comes back much sooner. The point is, simply presuming that he can’t possibly come back because it would upset your picture of things is counter-productive to any consideration, astrological or otherwise. If anything, one ought to presume that Da would tend towards the unexpected, as even his death demonstrates.”
Conradg Says:
“As for your objections, I’m sure if Da did reincarnate you would immediately be able to rationalize it, so why not just do so now?”
You seem to imply I am very close-minded when you make statements like this. I said very little one way or another in any kind of absolute terms – just what the signs were when He physically Departed – that His major Works were completed, such as having finished the Aletheon that same day; and what He has Himself said in the past about not coming back.
Conradg Says:
“Another point is that, even if Da is truly the 7th stage FLO, there’s no particular reason to imagine that he couldn’t or wouldn’t incarnate, regardless of various things he’s said in the past. He always kept it open as a possibility, from what I know.”
He certainly spoke extremely rarely about ever coming back – and therefore the working presumption is that He would not. Of course, who really knows?
This astrology reading certainly interests me – I have done more than “dabble” with astrology, though nothing professional like yourself. By the way, I have been meaning to ask you – when did that experience happen when you were a teen – i.e., the experience with Ramana appearing to you and you beginning some kind of death process? The experience that “rocked my world” I had just before meeting Adi Da, that I described a while back relative to descending and ascending through endless incarnations only to fall into an intuition of the heart, occurred in May 1973. Right after that I dropped everything I was planning (to be a medical doctor), went to India with some friends, but decided to not go with them to Tiruvannamalai, and went to Varanasi alone to meditate instead – only to later find out that Adi Da was there at the same time in Varanasi. Right when I got back from India in late 1973, I was given The Knee of Listening and met Adi Da a few weeks later. I have always been curious about noting synchronicities, etc., and many devotees had unusual experiences during this time – so this is why I am asking you.
January 16, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Okay, I keep seeing various mentionings about posting anonymously, so here is my take on it. I actually came up with the silly “Feel4God” name because somewhere else I was limited to 8 characters. I just figured this was a good thing to remind myself and others to do (feel for God), and it is a bit of a face-losing silly name for me, so I also used it here; plus it has multiple meanings. shiva at one time seemed to imply that I meant to say that I have “A Feel for God”, but that was not my intention – otherwise I would have included the “A”, and really, wouldn’t have used that name.
Conradg Says:
“Do you really think that’s enough for the rest of us, this anonymous guy on the internet who won’t even divulge his real identity is convinced that Adi Da is the egoless Acausal Divine Person?”
Actually, no one has asked me to say who I am. Besides, I thought we were all the Self anyway! Okay, I will try to be serious about this matter. So… “Who am I?” Hey, that question sounds really familiar!
Anyway, I have mentioned my email address a few times as feel4god@gmail.com and a few people do know my real name. But overall, especially after Conrad declared this and other such things about me:
“Instead, what we get are constant bragging, constant degridation of others’ practices, always trying to frame yourself and Da as the best and greatest, and the rest of us as spiritual dolts who are missing out on these profound gems of wisdom and bliss you are enjoying.”
I decided that if that is what people really thought, i.e., that all I was doing was bolstering my own ego, then it was best to remain anonymous – at least that way no one could then assume I was doing this posting as a known person to make some kind of name for myself (ridiculous or otherwise). In other words, Feel4God will just disappear anonymously and that will be that – a devotee’s voice about his time with Adi Da. Who really cares anyway who I am or who any of us are?
I have never posted anything like this about Adi Da on the internet before, so I gave my email address at one point so people could tell me if how Conrad characterized me at the time was true from their point of view; or if any devotees or whomever wanted to contact me about whatever. I received no negative feedback, so I kept posting, but decided anonymity was best to help with being less egoically self-involved with all of this.
And, as I said to FFaC, I like the “ignorance” of anonymity – I can better (more directly) relate to people simply as they are speaking here, rather than through any filters we may have developed from 5-35 years ago.
Plus, my name Feel4God spawned two more identities right on this blog! “I Feel4U” and “Feel4U2″ !!! Though I am not sure what happened to my “sons” – I bet they got bored and went out looking for girls – or else went back to the meditation hall? My real name would never have spawned any offspring here, that is for sure!
I did get a chuckle about sort of being compared to Bill Stranger – he is way more versed in these matters than I am! I just spent some time with him a few months ago and, as always, very much enjoyed his wisdom and wit.
Hey! Maybe Conradg is not really Conradg! And Flick, who are you, REALLY? Even though I know you, you always reminded me of our inherent Ignorance! And FFaC – Good Lord, I have no idea and I like it that way!
January 16, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Feel4God,
Regarding the astrology issues:
I was implying that the Acausal Divine Person upon Mahasamadhi would not be chartable by astrology until such time as there were subtle and gross vehicles again to chart.
You are assuming, of course, that in Da’s Mahasamadhi not only his physical body died, but also his subtle and causal bodies died and left no trace. There’s no particular reason to assume this other than belief, and I’m not sure there’s even many good reasons for a Daist to believe this. As I said, even by Da’s own testimony his genuine “translation” event occurred in 2001 at Lopez, and his physical body survived past that point. So why not his subtle and causal bodies?
Now I know it’s some kind of article of faith in Adidam that Da is “the Acausal Divine Reality” and has no past lives, and no future lives as well. But Da spent a lot of time making claims to have all kinds of very complex past life connections, all of which he felt that astrology could be used to investigate and analyze. So even by his own standards, the Acausal Divine Person can accumulate a helluva lot of very casual connections. Likewise, even if one fully accepts Da’s own claim of full Translation, that doesn’t mean the body-mind remnants of his various karmic manifestations, including the Franklin Jones one, won’t continue to play out their various patterns, combined in some way with him. Maybe, and maybe not, but I would hardly consider it heretical or nonsensical to suggest it would.
Of course, Adi Da could be charted in those terms while He was alive here in bodily terms, just as you say, but only could be charted again, if subtle and gross vehicles were animated again.
An important part of the past-life astrological considerations we came to was that elements of past life patterns would be evident in present life patterns, including the birth chart and Mahasamadhi charts, and thus also in future life patterns. There are particular patterns to look for, rather specific patterns actually, and I found these characteristically present in the kinds of relationships Da pointed to for himself and others. So, when I saw these same patterns projected in his Mahasamadhi chart, it’s not hard to see that they point towards some future life pattern involving another human incarnation through another human vehicle. Of course this does imply the continuation of subtle and causal bodies and forms, but that is also exactly what these particular kinds of astrological patterns point to – a continuation of unfinished business, rather than the completion of these things.
So I am questioning the logic of your “Mahasamadhi” (”predictive”) charting for the Acausal Divine Reality once ALL the vehicles have been shed. There would be no karmic residue to even chart until such time that such a choice was made again. Again, this astrology is only applicable to vehicles, not to what is beyond all karma.
That is of course the question. Are you so sure Da actually shed all his vehicles? Certainly he shed the physical, but what of the rest? You can suggest that he shed these at an earlier time, but is that really true? How would you even know? And is “shedding” even an appropriate way to think about the Acausal Divine Person? If he’s never identified with such bodies, and has Translated beyond all such things, why not continue to associate with them anyway. I’m also reminded of that old talk Da once gave back in the 80s, in which he said that maybe all of us will translate out, and he will be the only one left here in the conditional worlds. That would certainly suggest he ain’t going anywhere at all.
By the way, did you ever speak to Adi Da about His Returning, during your conversations about His astrology patterns?
I don’t recall him saying anything definite about that one way or the other. He certainly never suggested to me that he’d never return. It seemed to me that he wanted to keep all options on the table. My impression was, as with most of these things, that he wanted me and others to figure these things out for ourselves, rather than have it handed to us by him. So my general impression was that he intended to leave behind a mystery about it all, rather than some pre-conceived definable answer. So I don’t see anything out of line with what I’ve put forward here. Da’s very specific personal instructions to me was to always say exactly what was on my mind, and I’m doing that now. It wasn’t bad advice, really.
You seem to imply I am very close-minded when you make statements like this. I said very little one way or another in any kind of absolute terms – just what the signs were when He physically Departed – that His major Works were completed, such as having finished the Aletheon that same day; and what He has Himself said in the past about not coming back.
I’m not suggesting you are closed-minded, only lacking much tolerance for more imaginative interpretations of things, looking instead for the safe and official line to champion. You might take a few more chances. As for the signs surrounding his departure, I’m not sure they’re really all that auspicious. I know the official line quickly became that he died with everything complete, but come on, really dude, are we all expected to be that naïve? I heard from people that he was still working on the Aletheon, and wasn’t exactly finished, except in retrospect. But even if he were, is that the last bit of work he had to do? It seems like he left a helluva lot unfinished in every area of his work, life, relations, etc. Likewise, he was always saying he’s finished with his work, so if he’d died at any time from July of 1974 on, one could argue that he had “completed” his work. It makes it all seem rather meaningless.
I think we both know what it would really look like if his work was complete. He described it himself many times: a sizeable community of seventh stage realizers; a full worldwide sangha of real substance in all the stages of practice, functioning and growing, at least in the many tens of thousands, and likely much more; worldwide recognition and acceptance of him by significant representatives of the traditions as a genuine Adept, and Adidam as a genuine new religion worthy of praise and nurturing; serious and well-financed patronage by leading philanthropists from around the world; recognition of his artwork throughout the worldwide art community as being of the highest caliber, and recognition of its spiritual nature. I could go on and on in describing the details of how it would look to have actually succeeded in all these things, and more. I think we both know things fell far, far short of that.
I know he certainly said he’s not coming back many times, but he’s also contradicted himself many times as well, so I wouldn’t take that as terribly conclusive of anything. If I look at the sum of it all, even strictly within the bounds of his own life, teaching, and considerations of these things, I’d definitely put the weight of it on the side of his re-incarnating. I’m reminded of something he said about Vivekananda, that Vivekananda had very deliberately gone around creating unfinished karmas for himself, in order to ensure that he would re-incarnate once again with a large group of people in order to continue his “work”. And if you look at Adi Da’s life, he certainly seems to have gone around doing very much the same sort of thing, creating all kinds of unfinished business with all kinds of people – us dissidents come to mind – which will require another lifetime to resolve, at the least.
Of course, if his Mahasamadhi chart looked different than it does, I would certainly suggest that he’s not coming back, but it in no way gives me that impression, but exactly the opposite appears to be the case. Just my opinion, of course.
By the way, I have been meaning to ask you – when did that experience happen when you were a teen – i.e., the experience with Ramana appearing to you and you beginning some kind of death process? The experience that “rocked my world” I had just before meeting Adi Da, that I described a while back relative to descending and ascending through endless incarnations only to fall into an intuition of the heart, occurred in May 1973.
The experience I had with Ramana occurred in September of 1973. As a coincidence, this was just a few weeks after Da had visited Ramanashram, so I’ve often wondered if the photograph of Ramana I was sent from there had been handled by Da. There’s mention in the magazine describing that trip of Da spending time in the bookstore looking through photos of Ramana, but that’s as far as it goes.
It’s also amusing to me that during that winter and into the following spring of 1974 I spent many hours lying in the dark listening to Pacabel’s canon, long before it became popular, and imagining myself in some large spiritual community celebrating God. During that time I decided to go off wandering, looking for God, and finally left home on my grand spiritual quest, backpack and all, on the morning of July 8, 1974, the day after the first Great Guru day of the Garbage and the Goddess Period. So yes, unusual synchronicities came from the beginning for me too.
January 16, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Hey Feel For God This is the Real Flikananda here. I can see your point and also others probably want to keep their privacy too. not many of us use our real names on any of these forums anyhow. I think you are the only formal “devotee” who ever stayed in an ongoing debate like this one. I don’t know ffac or anyone else here except Conrad and I actually used to live in a household with Conrad when he was still very young and I was not so old myself. He is a good guy and very intelligent. hey sorry about talking about you in the third person, if you ever read this, conrad. Like I said , I have always had mixed feelings myself. I just feel that the spiritual transmission of Adi Da and his written and spoken teachings have a power that is found nowhere else and is available to anyone who wishes to make use of these things. The community and the practices and sanctuaries he gave are simple ways to amplify all of this and make it even more accessible and useable for awakening. I don’t think one who feels this way is at all “brainwashed’ or manipulated to feel this way. it is self evident.
I also feel that many of the traditions and their practices and different teachers can be very useful. Also they are more user friendly if you have a bug up your butt about Adi Da and his personal style. now that he has passed, it will be harder to hold a grudge against him for his style of teaching and living, although people can hold a grudge for a long time. Of course, holding a grudge like this is less than useless, it is damaging to the holder. It is known that anger is much more damaging to the angry party than anyone else.
Anyhow , this forum is much more sane and balanced than the Lightmind one. I was reading there and felt like I was in a Bevis and Butthead cartoon. People here speak generally with some intelligence and open mindedness. Flick Rahke
January 16, 2009 at 8:34 pm
“However, devotees’ enthusiastic claims by no means implies that Adi Da said He originated all of this conceptually. FFaC responded to my writeup about that period, but did not really significantly counter anything I said, so I don’t think his example of this period as an illustration of Adi Da making some kind of “unique and revelatory” claim about “Ignorance” is applicable.”
Feel4God, I did not specifically counter what you said because it is technically accurate that Da did not specifically claim to have originated ignorance, only that he demonstrated it in the considerations. But neither did he make any attempt to reference all the traditional precedents for this thereafter, nor did he say anything even knowing his enthusiastic devotees were making these claims. He even joked once, as you recall, about Ramana Maharshi’s teaching and limitations compared to this ignorance concept. And during that summer he wrapped this basic traditional concept with lots of precedence that was not mentioned into a period of a practice of just “presuming enlightenment”, which had predictable results.
And, whereas Ramana Maharshi consistently pointed out traditional sources that illustrated what he was teaching in his conversations, and many of which were extant in the culture he was primarily dealing with. This goes back to the main difference in their approach. Ramana Maharshi worked with each person’s current understanding and practice and is to be understood wholisitcally in context, while Da instead tried to work on isolated theme after theme in large groups, who as a group, were already not even prepared to properly understand and apply this from the beginning. This resulted in practice in lack of integration, dependency, lack of grounding in the traditions, and repeated failures.
I do value the statements about ignorance from many sources and not just Da. This serves better understanding.
January 16, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Flick says:
“What I see basically is a lot of left over and current emotional reaction to Adi Da and the whole thing he created and a lot of heady justifications for that and using the sophisticated and lending itself very well to “talking heads” schools of Ramana Maharshi and his descendents. It’s amusing, because this is what Adi Da criticized as “the talking school” and not “practicing school” and it is quite out front and even flamboyant here…”
I think you mean well, but have not inspected how your orientation and temperment is with respect to such discussions. It is your nature as a vital peculiar type to think they are “heady” because the nuances escape you and you just want to feel your spirituality. And so you define practice based on your own tendencies. By your own admission, you consider Ramana Maharshi’s teaching, which actually
not that complex and can be intuited, too technical. This shows you do not understand it. It does not appear you spent enough time in sadhana groups to see the issue with such limitations based on tendencies. So, instead, you focus on generalities presuming they cover all specifics, and assess activities that are not your forte to begin with with righteousness that has a kind of rigidity. But dharma discussions do serve a purpose. Some of us actually have practices and can delve into dharmic fine points at the same time!
“It is hard for me to take seriously people I do not even know who they are anyhow. Just seems like a bunch of intellectual game playing to me. ”
That is simply your vital tendencies. The concepts being discussed are not dependent on personalities. You do not really have to know people to evaluate what is said, unless they are making claims about themselves. I am not.
“I do not consider my subjective “experience” one stage or the other. At some point you have to step aside from your head about this and let your deepest intuition and feeling guide you. This is also recommended in the Buddhist traditon, which can also be quite intellectual and discriminating too.”
Of course you use more than your head, but you do use your head too! It does not take a rocket scientist to assess that your experiences are fine, but they are subtle and include underlying beliefs, not radical. So if I say they do not exceed the fifth stage, which puts you in good company, that is simple application of the model. Are you stablized as the Heart? If not, what is your problem?
Please discontinue assuming you can quantify motives here, and the state of practice and understanding. You seem like a nice fellow and all, with spiritual experiences, but despite those vital tendencies, you really can’t.
January 17, 2009 at 12:39 am
Conradg writes:
‘In an internet forum like this there’s not much “person” on display anyway, it’s just argument that’s left. Which is good in a way, because it makes it easier to engage the argument without letting personal matters get in the way. Unless, of course, we constantly try to insert our subjective personal experience into the discussion.’
There is a suggestion here that personal matters are irrelevant in an investigation of Truth and that argumentation free of subjective experience will somehow lead to the revelation of this Truth. This position presumes a separation between the arguer and the Truth that can somehow be overcome in a rational manner without bothering about our individual experiences. Now, it may be fun and stimulating to engage in such debates, but are any of the opposing debaters in this blog suggesting that such deliberations can actually lead to greater understanding?
The reason I don’t engage in argumentation as a means of clarifying the Truth is because it’s completely futile! The only consideration of merit with regard to uncovering the Truth (if that is one’s intent) is the matter of what underlies that person’s actions. As much as I don’t like referring to an outside source these days when communicating with others, I will, however, quote here one of Adi Da’s particularly relevant lines, especially for devotees (since they put the greatest significance on his words): “Truth is in the re-cognition of your own activity.”
So, it’s not a question of who is correct about Ramana’s or Adi Da’s relative realizations or which was the greater realizer. The significant issue is: what are we doing when we are engaging the process of argumentation (or indeed anything else)? Are we trying to convince the other person our point of view because we feel insecure in some way (even if only a teensy weensy little bit)?
This is the challenge I put to Conradg and Feel4God and anyone else intent on debating the Truth without putting “subjective personal experience into the discussion.” Not that it will do much good.
Adi Da must be turning over in his grave!
January 17, 2009 at 1:44 am
Conrad,
Many years ago you told me that your mind was your bondage in this life. Maybe it is time to feel beyond this bondage, to the wounded being who has to strike out, accuse and blame.
A deprogrammer of fame in 1985, who consulted with all the principles bringing suit against Da Free John and the Johaninne Daist Communion, accusing him of profanities and violence, said that it was obvious to him that if Da Free John had asked any one of them to return, each would have jumped at the chance.
You are like a child who blames his parent for all the things wrong in his life, never assuming the responsibility for his own life, that would set him free.
Conrad, you are more than the mind you are controlled by. Grow beyond.
January 17, 2009 at 11:04 am
I was born in the same year as Adi Da. Being interested in comparative religion I have followed his career closely over the years. Im my opinion he was a genius in many ways and I find I agree with most of what he writes. We parted company when he began to say that he chose to take birth. To quote the great Ramana Maharshi, the self sees no others. Who is there to save? If he chose his birth why would he not have chosen the time and place of his death? His death appears to have been quite ordinary.
January 17, 2009 at 11:11 am
EddieB says:
“Now, it may be fun and stimulating to engage in such debates, but are any of the opposing debaters in this blog suggesting that such deliberations can actually lead to greater understanding?”
right on. i don’t think anybody in his or her right mind can possibly suggest that.
FFaC says
“Of course you use more than your head, but you do use your head too!”
really? i come from a science background, have a solid mind/intellect and enjoy mental masturbation as much as the next bloke. well, maybe not quite as much as the main debaters here, but close.
however, i had to realize that the mind has NO (and i mean ZERO) grasp on non-duality (i might be mistaken, but that is what i understood this blog to be about – originally anyways). none whatsoever. ALL mind concepts are just that: concepts. dualistic concepts that have NOTHING to do with non-duality. in trying to understand non-duality the mind is about as useful as a sledgehammer is in trying to understand and take apart a delicate swiss watch.
all “you” can do, is have a look. examine for yourself. use the pointers of people like ramana, nisargadatta, sailor bob adamson and really investigate for yourself.
there have been very insightful posts here on this blog. but they have virtually all been ignored by the main debaters. i mean, how could a party-pooper like C L possibly post something like:
“The error here is that Da considers the body-mind-”self” as real, and other than (apart from), the “I”-thought. Instead, the body-mind-”self” is the illusory product of the “I”-thought, which when inspected is found without base and dropped, and with it the body-mind-”self” illusion. So, in inspecting the “I”-thought (vichara) there’s no “turning away from body and mind” other than looking into the root/source of said body-mind-”self”, which is anyway implicit, as product, in the “I”-thought. And therefore, when the “Transcendental “Root””, Consciousness Itself, is realized, there’s no “exclusive fixation” upon it, since there’s nothing else at all to be acknowledged on its own or as apart from That, so nothing that can be “excluded” to begin with, being Consciousnes the One and Only Reality (of all and All, by the way). In brief, the whole Da’s “dissociative introverted” reading of Ramana’s realization is mistaken and flawed, so (at best) he had to conceive that “6th stage” to accommodate his wrong interpretation of Ramana’s account.”
shame on you, C L!! that statement would (and should!) have ended the entire debate, but nobody even noticed it, let alone responded to it.
but hey, you guys (the main debaters) obviously are having some fun. nothing wrong with that.
just don’t expect to get one iota closer to the TRUTH.
although, it has been helpful (as a few have already expressed) in seeing just how way off franklin really was and that he had little to no understanding of non-duality.
as for the whole amrita nadi and bodily location debate:
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 5.
“Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?”
“No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion.”
The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: “All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature.”
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page5.html
(a new translation. very worth the read. clear non-duality)
there is no duality in non-duality. not even a tiny little bit!
January 17, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Ah yes FFAC I can see that I am out of my league here in the debating of real spirituality and any sort of intlelligent discussion on “real spirituality” I will leave it to you big boys to figure it all out and figure out Adi Da and Ramana Marshi in particular Flick Rahke
January 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Eddie,
I think that you are trying to make a good point here about “putting subjective personal experience into the discussion” but I do question that and also your use of language in parts of your post.
Is it really an investigation of Truth or is it an investigation of what is not truth. Can you really investigate “Truth”? Or as you say, ” …argumentation as a means of clarifying the Truth”. Again, truth is truth and one can’t clarify that. I think that Conrad and FFaC are aware of that and they are mostly intellectually discriminating differences between Ramana and Da.
And even is they post their subjective experiences or “spiritual” experiences, what would that mean. What is spiritual experience anyway? It’s all experience in any case. It’s just a value judgment as to whether one is more spiritual than the other or whether the experience is spiritual in the first place. Everyone has had some form of ‘spiritual” experience throughout their lives (thought induced, or drug induces, or “transmission” induced, etc.) and seekers seem to hold on to it, refer to it and talk about it forever and even if you have daily “spiritual’ experiences, so what? Then seekers keep seeking the “transmission” or “spiritual experience” forever. One could make a case that that spiritual experiences simply conditions the seeker to keep seeking therefore, they become less advance and stay childish looking to be saves by mommy and daddy forever –if you want to go in that direction.
And the Adi Da phrase, “Truth is the re-cognition of your own activity” is a phase that myself and others have considered and practiced with for years, i.e., since the mid-seventies. If that statement were true or accurate, why aren’t we all living in Truth by now or why isn’t the Adidam community more advanced than the average Joe based on this statement about “Truth”?
Well, that statement simply doesn’t make sense, that’s why. Who do you think is re-cognizing it’s own activity? The “you” as mind is always there re-cognition it’s own activity and that has nothing to do with truth. Cognizing or re-cognizing does not lead to truth. That practice is only re-conditioning the mind further.
One would be better off saying (or more accurately saying) that: Narcissus is only re-cognizing it’s own activity; or the mind is only re-cognizing it’s own activity; or “I” is only re-cognizing its own activity. This is one of those statements that we take for granted as a grand statement professed by Adi Da but it really doesn’t make sense. And the argument that this statement is practiced from a “prior 7th stage disposition” doesn’t cut it either. The “you” or “mind” is still there re-cognizing (unless you want to delude yourself around a prior 7th stage disposition???). That’s why I claim that Adi Da has been wrong about many basic premises and he has based his teaching on those premises and deluded himself and others.
And even better than reporting some subjective “spiritual” experience, I think that it would be better to ask their wives , 5 friends, and members of their community, etc. if anything worthwhile is really going on with them. In other words, are they really walking the talk beyond the spiritual experience?
As far as Conrad goes, we all know him well enough since he uses his first name. And both FFaC and Conrad are not implying anything about their practice in any big way so we don’t have to read between the lines here. However, I would be more interested in Feel4God; i.e., to know his name and his daily actual practice since (as I recall?) he has suggested deeper spiritual experiences and gave the impression that he was mature or more mature and an advance practitioner? and said that the community had matured in the last few years (based on my recollection of previous posts but correct me if I’m wrong on any part of this).
My fairly close relationship to the community for years doesn’t support this statement (that there is growth in Adidam after 38 years). Recently a long time devotee of Adidam (scholar and practitioner of Adidam for 34 yrs with a wife still working full time for the institution) said to me privately and I quote, “Raymond, quit looking for love in Adidam, you won’t even find goodwill”.
And another long time devotee ( a woman who lives -and has lived- with many of the high level bureaucrats of Adidam said to me recently that these people are no different than you and me. She said let’s go through everyone one by one and analyze their practice and maturity which got us all the way up to the konias (Adi Da’s wives) and putting our heads together, we couldn’t come up with one mature person any more than anyone out there in the public. And these were people that we have lived with and known personally for years. (I have lived with members of Adidam consistently since 1978 until 2006 –even after I had left Adidam). I don’t think any member of the community would ague with me on this face to face especially since I am well versed in the transition protocols.
Therefore, in addition to a formal assessment (including tithe, 20 hrs of weekly service, daily meditation practice, etc.,) this informal way is the best way to assess members of Adidam (or anyone). Do they walk the talk as claimed? What operates behind the abstractions?
Raymond
January 17, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I don’t think how a person dies says anything about his spiritual realization. Unless he dies perhaps screaming in fear of death. Many great realizers, including Ramana died moaning in pain from something like cancer. Very “nondual” to think that qualifies their realization. Adi Da died suddenly with no pain. Perhaps he chose the moment and perhaps he did not. Makes no difference either way in regards to his realization. People qualify realization all the time from the limited body-mind perspective, not very “nondual”
I showed a pic of Adi Da once to a bunch of people working at a fasting and raw food ranch. They were horrified and said that there was no way he could be enlightened because he was fat and out of shape. same sort of limited reasoning.
I agree with FFAc that there is a place for mental discipline and discrimination and debate in spiritual life and practice. Why not? ADi DA himself always recommended it and also study of the traditions. I admit to have not studied Ramana very much and shoud not presume to debate anything about him. I will be inspired and read some DAvid Godman and Ramana. If nothing else, the musings here have inspired me to that.
Still it does come down to your subjective experience and heart intuition. So if someone feels this from Sailor Bob as opposed or instead of Adi Da , that is fine. I have not experienced SAilor Bob personally. I have been around a lot of the new age nondual poonja types like Gangaji and Andrew and some other jokesters like that and I think that puts a bad name on “nondualism” makes it really into the “talking school” rather than a real practicing school.
Also I talk about my experience of spiritual transmission. Perhaps my experience of it could be called fourth stage or fifth stage or whatever, but the transmission itself is pure and wholly conscious and blissful , full of love and humor. That is “Satchidananda” And I relate to it from my own deepest intuition. Apart from calming and clarifying the body and mind through a real practice of the yogas and beginning meditation and the deveioppment of insight, this opening of the heart by reception of transmission is “where ” it is at for me Flick Rahke
January 17, 2009 at 2:24 pm
shiva Says:
> but hey, you guys (the main debaters) obviously
> are having some fun. nothing wrong with that.
> just don’t expect to get one iota closer to the TRUTH.
Often people use this word “Truth” to refer to the substance of everything (just like every wave in the ocean is water, whatever you’re perceiving and doing right now is Truth). By this definition, the idea of getting “closer to the TRUTH” makes no sense. You can’t get closer to or further from the substance of everything.
So maybe you’re defining TRUTH as some limited thing, such that some people at some times are closer to it than others. In that case, then it indeed makes sense when you talk about getting closer to it. But for clarity, you ought to at least be explicit about what this limiting definition of TRUTH that you’re using is. Otherwise, it’s impossible to know what you’re talking about.
Stuart
http://stuart-randomthoughts.blogspot.com/
January 17, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Gratitude,
Maybe you’re not quite understanding that all of us need to recognize that our minds are our bondage in this life, and that all of us need to grow beyond the mind. So, please, practice what you preach, before accusing others of childishly acting out of some imagined “wound”.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but Da did indeed personally ask me to come back to him, and offered the same intimate position I had enjoyed as his patterning person. I simply had to say no, not out of anger or childishness, but simply because I did not want to be a part of that scene any more, it was not what I wanted to be or to associate with, and I could see that the same issues would continue to arise.
I’d advise you to be attentive to your own mind, and your own childishness. If you are MS, I’d imagine you ought to recall that you admitted to me in that same conversation that you were a lying, thieving pyschopath, and needed help overcoming it. I’d be happy to help, but first you have to really want to change that. Hiding behind this righteous pose of moral and spiritual superiority isn’t the way to do it. Presuming that you have grown beyond something I haven’t is probably a false notion, or you wouldn’t be relating to me this way right off the bat. How about simply being ordinary and human here with me? That would be a good start.
January 17, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Feel4God,
I don’t have any objection to your posting anonymously. I can certainly understand why you would want to. It’s just that one guy’s personal claim that Da is the Acausal Divine Person Incarnate doesn’t carry much force. Whose does? I certainly wouldn’t expect my opinion on such matters to have any meaning to anyone else. You’d have to be someone already highly respected for their spiritual maturity outside of Adidam to have much impact on the debate merely by making such a claim.
I’m reminded of an old friend in Adidam – this is when I was still a member – a guy with a real job and career, a Ph. D. in economics who had worked for the World Bank, who asked me to review an “advocacy letter” he was planning to send out to all his personal friends and contacts. In his letter, he basically told everyone that Adi Da was the Divine Person Incarante, that he was Krishna coming back to establish the new yuga, etc. I told him I thought it was a big mistake, that while he was certainly a credible figure to talk about economic matters, he had no real credibility on spiritual matters, and his personal opinion about Da’s great spiritual status was really pretty much meaningless to anyone but himself. He didn’t really like my take, he sent the letter out anyway, and all he got was either silence or negative feedback.
The problem here is that a lot of people in Adidam develop and are even encouraged in some very bad social habits. They overestimate their own spiritual maturity and status relative to virtually everyone outside of Adidam. They talk in weird and condescending ways that they can’t even comprehend as being socially inappropriate. They think that their own opinions and experience with Da have some kind of special meaning and value. It takes a while for them to get the picture that they are no big deal, and that people outside of Adidam don’t see them as being spiritually mature or special or gifted with great insight or spiritual experience, etc. They are used to thinking of themselves as the elite vanguard of a world-changing spiritual revelation, unprecedented in human history, and they sort of imagine they deserve some kind of special acknowledgment and respect for that. When it falls flat, they complain that the world just doesn’t understand or isn’t ready to receive their wisdom.
You end up with guys like “Gratitude” above. Or, frankly, yourself when you first began posting here. I gotta give you credit for not just hanging in here, but gradually dropping some of the attitude you first brought to this conversation. You were pretty over the top, and I felt you needed to be made aware of that, and I’ve noticed that it had some affect on you. Maybe you’re still in a little denial about it publically, but you have changed your tune a bit, enough to make a difference in the tone of the conversation at least. I mean, when you asked for feedback after I made that criticism of you, quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner, and I don’t recall anyone saying no, you weren’t. So I’m not sure that it matters if no one has contacted you privately about it. But like I say, I give you credit for changing your tune since then.
I’m reminded of an incident that happened when I went on a family vacation in the Sierras with my sister and her kids from back east a few years ago. Her youngest son, about five or six years old, had some very obnoxious social habits, always talking loud, endlessly, bragging and fighting, wouldn’t shut up, very demanding all the time, always wanting and needing attention, and it was obvious there was some fairly heavy family issues going on there. One day, my family wanted to drive to Yosemite (which was about 45 minutes away) for a day hike, and only this nephew of mine wanted to come along, which gave me a chance to spend time with him apart from his family and my sister. On the drive there, for the first twenty minutes or so, this kid just kept up all the banter, the endless blathering talk, the demanding of this or that, etc. Finally, I just turned to him and said rather forcefully, “You mother’s not here, and you don’t have to act this way any more. You can just relax, and enjoy the day with us. So cut it out.” The kid looked utterly shocked, he’d never had anyone talk this way to him before, and he didn’t know what to do. After a few minutes, he fell asleep, and when we got to Yosemite he woke up and was completely different. For the rest of the day, he was just relaxed, easeful, quiet, and didn’t feel any of that old need for attention-seeking histrionics. It was a great time for us all, and he seemed to greatly enjoy the opportunity to simply be human without his mother around.
I kind of feel the same way about a lot of Adidam people. They develop some really bad social habits in Adidam that they don’t even realize are unnecessary, and when they go out and talk with people from outside they often think they’ve got to keep up that whole game, when it’s just something they can drop and let go of, and find that life is really much better without. Sometimes you gotta just tell them to cut the crap. And some of them actually listen. Others don’t, of course, and they just slink back to Adidam with a self-righteous attitude and wounded pride.
Anyway, the point being that basing any conversation upon one’s own personal claims to superior experience isn’t a mature approach. It degenerates pretty quickly into a playground argument of “Yes he is! No he isn’t! Yes he is! No he isn’t!”Who really cares for such a debate? It’s hard for some Adidamers to drop that attitude, of course, because they think that’s how they’re supposed to be, but that’s just like my nephew thinking he’s supposed to be obnoxious and bragging about himself all the time. It turns out that when mommy isn’t there, there’s no reason to keep that up. It can just be dropped, and no one is the worse for it. So, I’m suggesting that this whole “Da is the greatest, better than all the rest, and my experience of him is greater than yours, or anyone else’s here” can also just be dropped, it’s just unnecessary and pointless, and creates nothing but unhealthy conflict. I think you’ve already been getting that point to some extent, haven’t you?
I understand why you enjoy this forum. To some degree, it’s because you can speak your mind anonymously outside of Adidam without that whole apparatus looking over your shoulder. My point is exactly that – you don’t have to talk like you do in Adidam here. Mom and Dad are gone for the day. You can just be yourself, and not put up such a front of braggadochio. It’s really much more enjoyable that way. I don’t want you to have to lose that by posting under your “real” name. In some ways, you can be more real by posting anonymously. That’s one reason the internet is so popular. It’s not only some crazy place where people get to flame one another. It’s also a place where they can drop their social face, if they so choose.
January 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm
In the late 1970′s Bhagavan ADi Da Said that if it would serve someone not to know that they were Enlightened, He would not tell them. So, who can really know about the level of practice of anyone in the community of practitioners of Adidam? Only One who has Realized It. And certainly Conrad, you, could not say, or know, who is or is not Enlightened.
January 17, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Eddie B, I find it interesting and often inspiring to consider the Dharma of great Spiritual Masters. And yes, some of these deliberations can actually lead to a greater understanding – and, if nothing else, I have pointed out several times that this so-called debate demonstrates the real need for actual Realization to determine altogether what is the Truth.
Of course, none of the participants in this so-called debate think that any such intellectual exercise will bring about enlightenment. And really, for this reason, I always bring up subjective arguments – for one, I have not been assuming this thread is simply some kind of Dharma debate. (Did I miss a memo or yet another protocol meeting, Conrad?
)
I have never engaged in some kind of formal debate process, and when Conradg subjectively (and often times, reactively) dismisses my own testimonies, it doesn’t really make sense to me altogether in terms of real consideration – especially because in the end, everyone will make their life choices based in their own subjective processes – and hopefully, with real heart-based intelligence rather than just some intellectual one.
So when I simply state what works in my relationship with Adi Da, it can be taken however anyone wants to take it – and really, just like anything else. Of course, I understand that in a real (classic) debate, testimony from recognized authorities goes further than subjective testimony – but again, I would never assume that this blog is some kind of formal debate.
For me, to just present Dharma, like we are in some kind of court of law, is not what I am interested in. What interests me is the real process of self-transcendence – and speaking of great Masters from various points of view, further inspires that in me. So such talk here has never just been a debate in the classic sense for me – all sorts of emotions and subjective meanderings have been rampantly posted by many of us. And of course, there is always the need for self-understanding – several of us have brought that up many times, but maybe you missed those posts.
From my standpoint, we have entered into an open-ended dialog or a multi-level consideration here, much more so than a debate. As much as Conradg, for instance, tries to remain simply “objective” and classically “debate-like”, even stating he has no agenda or dogma about Adi Da to proclaim, I find this impossible to simply accept given how often he has repeated his speculations about Adi Da’s lack of full Realization, etc. – the same with FFaC, though to a lessor extent than Conradg. Given this, and other emotions being displayed, there is still obvious subjectivity involved.
I do agree with you, Eddie, that self-understanding of all of our motives is more important than the content we are presenting. Go back and read some of our earlier posts if you want further clarification of this statement.
Plus, I already said this in a prior post to Conrad:
“Anyway, the conversation about all of this has been lively and always reminds me of the saying “to each their own”. And mostly, I am reminded that only Realization itself will answer many of these questions for each of us. So how about if we speak again about this after Realization? ”
And Conradg responded:
“It’s a date. Let’s hope that’s sometime before 2385.”
So there you have it, Eddie! Such consideration can be useful!
January 17, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Conradg Says:
“Now I know it’s some kind of article of faith in Adidam that Da is “the Acausal Divine Reality” and has no past lives, and no future lives as well. But Da spent a lot of time making claims to have all kinds of very complex past life connections, all of which he felt that astrology could be used to investigate and analyze. So even by his own standards, the Acausal Divine Person can accumulate a helluva lot of very casual connections.”
As you know, it is common knowledge in Adidam that Avatar Adi Da combined with the subtle vehicles of Vivekananda and Ramakrishna, so His interest in those Masters’ lives and lineage goes without say. This does not mean Adi Da had past lives in the usual sense we think about though. Adi Da has always kept this mysterious – there were times when He spoke of Shah Jahan, etc. – and it was always very fascinating (and sometimes really chilling) to some of us devotees, and that is possibly why He never divulged too much along these lines, as it really had nothing to do with us, well, at least for now – who knows though.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Feel4God, I did not specifically counter what you said because it is technically accurate that Da did not specifically claim to have originated ignorance, only that he demonstrated it in the considerations. But neither did he make any attempt to reference all the traditional precedents for this thereafter…”
FFaC, for you to present your argument about Adi Da on this basis is hardly evidence that there is, as you said, “a wide range of Da’s concepts presented as unique and revelatory, where there is apparently already historical precedent which scholars have noted.”
You really are not supporting your argument here – and I came to the same conclusion upon a thorough examination of your posts about the authorities you cited as saying Adi Da was not fully Enlightened. You make a lot of anecdotal statements, which is fine – but please stop presenting them as authoritative or even actual facts, as they are really very subjective in nature. As you must know by now, subjective statements are okay by me – but make that clear.
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“… nor did he say anything even knowing his enthusiastic devotees were making these claims.”
Adi Da always gave devotees plenty of latitude to make whatever mistakes were needed for the sake of real lessons. He was extremely realistic about our growth process. He also was not likely even physically present most of the time us devotees would go about enthusiastically making such proclamations of uniqueness to the rest of the membership. And even when He might have seen this, it does not mean He had to correct us with some kind of proclamation every time we did – He worked much more unpredictably than that.
@ Flikananda – I like it! Bliss in a flick! Like Ramana’s description of ever-changing images flicking on the screen of the Self! I think our friends here will be mightily impressed with the dharmic nuances of your new name!
As I said before, I really enjoy your posts, Flick – there is a grounded realism to them that I definitely appreciate.
January 17, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Eddie,
I think that you are trying to make a good point here about “putting subjective personal experience into the discussion” but I do question that and also your use of language in parts of your post.
Is it really an investigation of Truth or is it an investigation of what is not truth. Can you really investigate “Truth”? —or as you say, ” …argumentation as a means of clarifying the Truth”. Again truth is truth and one can’t clarify that. I think that Conrad and FFaC are aware of that and they are mostly intellectually discriminating differences between Ramana and Da.
And even is they post their subjective experiences or “spiritual” experiences, what would that mean. What is spiritual experience anyway? It’s all experience in any case. It’s just a value judgment as to whether one is more spiritual than the other or whether the experience is spiritual in the first place. Everyone has had some form of ‘spiritual” experience throughout their lives (thought induced, or drug induces, or “transmission” induced, etc.) and seekers seem to hold on to it, refer to it and talk about it forever and even if you have daily “spiritual” experiences, so what? Then seekers keep seeking the “transmission” or spiritual experience forever. One could make a case that that spiritual experiences simply conditions the seeker to keep seeking therefore, they become less advance and stay childish looking to be saves by mommy and daddy forever –if you want to go in that direction.
And the Adi Da phrase, “Truth is the re-cognition of your own activity” is a phase that myself and others have considered and practiced with for years, i.e., since the mid-seventies. If that statement were true or accurate, why aren’t we all living in Truth by now or why isn’t the Adidam community significantly more advanced than the average Joe based on this statement about “Truth”?
Well, that statement simply doesn’t make sense, that’s why. Who do you think is re-cognizing it’s own activity? The “you” or “I “ as mind is always there re-cognition it’s own activity and that has nothing to do with truth. Cognizing or re-cognizing does not lead to truth. That practice is only re-conditioning the mind further.
One would be better off saying (or more accurately saying) that: Narcissus is only re-cognizing it’s own activity; or the mind is only re-cognizing it’s own activity; or “I” is only re-cognizing its own activity. This is one of those statements that we take for granted as a grand statement professed by Adi Da but it really doesn’t make sense. And the argument that this statement is practiced from a “prior 7th stage disposition” doesn’t cut it either. The “you” or “mind” is still there re-cognizing (unless you want to delude yourself around a prior 7th stage disposition???). That’s why I claim that Adi Da has been wrong about many basic premises and he has based his teaching on those and deluded himself and others.
And even better than reporting some subjective “spiritual” experience, I think that it would be better to ask their wives (intimate partner) , 5 friends, and members of their community, etc. if anything worthwhile is really going on with them. In other words, are they really walking the talk beyond the spiritual experience and the abstract speech (not to deny the usefulness of discrimination and abstract considerations)?
As far as Conrad goes, we all know him well enough since he uses his first name. And both FFaC and Conrad are not implying anything about their practice in any way so we don’t have to read between the lines with them. However, I would be more interested in Feel4God; i.e., to know his name and/or his daily actual practice since (as I recall?) he has suggested deeper spiritual experiences and gave the impression that he was mature or more mature and an advance practitioner? and said that the community had matured in the last few years (based on my recollection of previous posts but correct me if I’m wrong on any part of this).
My fairly close relationship to the community for years doesn’t support this statement (that there is significant growth in Adidam after 38 years as compared to not being in Adidam). Recently a long time devotee of Adidam (scholar and practitioner of Adidam for 34 yrs with a wife still working full time for the institution) said to me privately and I quote, “Raymond, quit looking for love in Adidam, you won’t even find goodwill”. However, he chooses to remain committed to Adi Da over the community.
And another long time devotee ( a woman who lives -and has lived- with many of the high level bureaucrats of Adidam said to me recently that these people (who she lives with) are no different than you and me. She said let’s go through everyone one by one and analyze their level of practice and maturity which got us all the way up to the konias (Adi Da’s wives) and putting our heads together, we couldn’t come up with one mature person any more mature than anyone out there in the public or other spiritual groups (acknowledging variations of course). And these were people that we have lived with and known personally for years. (I have lived with members of Adidam consistently since 1978 until 2006 –even after I had left Adidam). I don’t think any member of the community would ague with me on this face to face especially since I am well versed in the transition protocols in Adidam.
Therefore, in addition to discussion and discriminating dharmas and describing spiritual practices, formal assessments (including disclosing tithe, hrs of weekly service, daily meditation practice, etc., for Adidam members) and informal assessment are also a good ways to assess members of Adidam (or anyone); i.e., do they walk the talk? What operates behind the abstractions?
But, as you say Eddie, even this (with my additions) may not do much good?
Raymond
January 17, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Okay you guys, analyze this;
(and don’t forget to put it on full screen)
Do you love the two armed form, and who can argue with this presence demonstrated here?
January 18, 2009 at 12:02 am
Conrad,
My mind is stably in place, I am very aware. However, I don’t use it to desecrate all, or any, of my past associations. Since I am a practitioner of Bhagavan Adi Da, it pains me to hear you, also once a practitioner, speak of Him and His Teaching in the way you do. This is why I suggest that your mind is doing your bidding, rather than your heart.
January 18, 2009 at 12:31 am
Adi Da said: “Real God Is the One Who Stands Firm, Merely As the Witness-Consciousness, As Free. That Is Me, As I am.”
Real God is the one who created the universe and is omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. Which universe did Adi Da or any of the advaita teachers recommended here create? Saying that you are God is just delusion, which is the opposite of the goal: liberation from illusion.
All the gurus I have met were quite mediocre when it came to their relationships and their effectiveness in the world. It seems to me they all only had part of the picture. They were good at being, not very good at doing i.e. not very good at manifesting their potential. Nisargadata sold cigarettes, which is as low as you can go short of genocide. Isaac Shapiro has had 4 wives or something yet he gives “relationship satsang”! The list is endless. It seems to me people should do satsang for free or at cost and make a living in the world in a creative way to demonstrate their “mastery” of life. Instead they do satsang only, which is a very cushy little game! If everyone became enlightened, these people would have to go on unemployment benefits because they haven’t developed any of their potential. Yet they say they are GOD, no less!
Adi Da at least started to get into photography and art in the end. But… he was corrupt cult leader.
Maybe it is true after all that this is Kali Yuga.
January 18, 2009 at 12:59 am
P.S. I just thought there needed to be some dancing to clear your heads a little. LOL
January 18, 2009 at 1:20 am
I think people who have once been in Adidam and are no longer are a bit out of touch with people who are still in Adidam, and that is fine, why should it be other wise? But I think to always put them down is a bit silly. I run into Da devotees in marin all the time, and they are just ordinary people who are committed to whatever degree to Adi Da and his teachings. I even know some of the old “insiders” and old “higher ups” and the same applys. They never take any sort of superior stance to me when i talk about my involvement with Buddhism or other teachers like Ammachi. I also know some into Ammachi that are stiill pissed at Adi Da and I know a couple of guys there who still feel very good about adi da and their history with him. It is all a very individual thing and there are no absolutes about it.
Adi Da was very charismatic and people into him really loved him and also were sometimes confused by him. I knew a few over the top fundamentalist types but they were in the minority. People did get transported into all sorts of free and higher “states” from associtation in all kinds of ways with Adi Da and this may have made them seem like “cultists” I don’t really know why people get a bug up their butts about people being enthusiastic. I have seem some people over the top hysterical emotional too and it irritated me at times, but who am I to judge someone’s spiritual process? Still,of course I do judge. That is part of the ego thing after all.
Who here does not judge? I see it here all the time.
Being in Adidam always was hard in many ways and always had an edge to it. I called it the “Ecstacy and the Agony” I would fall spontaneously into very deep states of ecstasy and transcendence and just free love in the darshan things and also often in meditation and contemplation in meditation halls. Of course, this is not something you can willfully maintain. These are satoris of a sort. You get deep glimpses of “Reality” as a gift so to speak. Adi DA was really good at that. That is a big deal in my book. The only other teacher I have personally seen who could come close to this is Ammachi and she has somewhat of a different character and flavor. She grew up in a village in India and is a woman. She grants darshan by hugging people. I have thought at this times that this is sort of superior to Adi Da, but really it is just different way of working with people and the world. These gurus have different functions.
There is such a thing as purification too. The transmission really does wake up your dark stuff and brings it out. That can make it rough and I call it the “agony” I have gone through a lot of that and life itself often brings this about in an unconsious way. How many really think this life is just peachy the way it is without transcendence? I like to have fun and feel good , but life itself is a reeking pile of suffering with death at the end of it. I love life anyhow but it does suck big time.
Adi damers are not saints of course but they have been given a lot from Adi Da and they are often praising this stuff. I just can’t get down on them for that myself. He was also not an easy teacher in many ways. He was hard if not impossible to fathom and people certainly got worked emotionally. I think Eckart called this way of working “the way of the cross” or cruxifiction. It did seem that way a lot. It is hard for people to stay with that. I was not able to myself. I value Adi Da’s transmission and it still has an influence on me. I also value the practices and teachings of many of the traditions and they also have an influence on me. I still read Adi Da and also Buddhism and Amma and now ai will read more of Ramana. I still feel what Adi Da says in his books resound in me at a free space level when I read. It is like a deep meditation experience.
Personally I think the work of Da will be more freed up now that his physical body has passed. I think people inside his community will mature at a faster and fuller rate spiritually and humanly and I think more people will be interested in knowing about him and his practices. I certainly can not know for sure one way or the other . It is just an intuition I have. Flick Rahke
January 18, 2009 at 1:49 am
Flick,
No need to take my comments wrong, please. I did not say you were unqualified to discuss spirituality. What I am trying to do, with limited success, is to ask you to inspect your own tendencies and limitations. And, be more precise in your level of knowledge on what you are talking about, differentiating between between fact (and its context), opinion, and mythology. When you base your premises on mere opinion, mythology or suppositions having no factual basis, you end up way off base before you even realize it.
Now, you state: “Many great realizers, including Ramana died moaning in pain from something like cancer.”
Absolute nonsense! Once again, you state something that is not fact, but an opinion based on mythology you have picked up, to make a point. Neither Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, or Sri Nisargadatta, who all died of most painful cancers, died “moaning in pain”. Witnesses report the exact opposite, that they died consciously, and peacefully, in bliss. That does not mean they fell no pain, Ramana Maharshi said the exact opposite, and it is reported that Ramana Maharshi did moan sometimes when he was sleeping; but this is the same Ramana Maharshi who used minimal anesthetic that did not affect his physical awareness for a painful operation to try and cut out the cancer, without complaints. As Ramana Maharshi described it, even that level of pain associated with cancer, which most of us would be taking as much morphine as we could handle to deal with, was not separate from the Self and perfect as it was. It is the same with Buddha, who died quite painfully of food poisoning with calmness and equanimity. That is why you don’t see true Realizers chronically seeking pain relievers and tranquilizers or using mind altering substances, but rather facing whatever happens with unshakeable courage and clarity in all circumstances and states, as Ramana Maharshi says. If anything, the Presence associated with these figures is reported to intensify and seemingly outshine the dying body. So while it is not a definitive factor, the way a jnani dies does reflect something of their state. Let us not minimize that by presenting personal mythology as fact, please.
January 18, 2009 at 1:55 am
Thanks to all who responded to my last posting. I can see that the discussions on this blog are multi-dimensional and cover a broad range of topics commonly associated with ‘spiritual’ matters, especially non-dualism. They have prompted me to look into why I want to communicate with people about things associated with Adi Da. I find such communication (i.e., more personal ones) more attractive than the ‘dharmic’ ones. (I do, however, acknowledge this blog to be a designated non-duality blog.)
It has been my experience for over a decade that free exchange with most members of Adidam is not possible for reasons very clearly elucidated by Conradg in a number of previous posts. The thing is, Adi Da has greatly affected my life and I naturally would love to share this with people who have been similarly affected even if they remain as devotees, warts and all! I am grateful for the few I can relate to in a free and loving manner without the burden of dogma and strictly-adhered-to-points-of-view. Of course, points-of-view have nothing to do with love. (I wonder, has the word ‘love’ appeared on this blog, and how many people even find it relevant in a discussion of truth and non-duality?)
One way of establishing real relationship is to ‘lose face,’ to admit being contracted in the midst of some debate or consideration in order to re-establish that relationship in a loving and compassionate manner; in short, to be open and vulnerable. If discussions about stages of life, non-duality and relative realizations succeeds in doing this, then great. I find it does not accomplish that aim – it just adds to the dilemma of mind and the energizing of difference.
I don’t know which ‘I-thought’ I am communicating here or who on this blog brings greater insight into the realizations of Ramana or Adi Da. Actually, I don’t know very much, if anything at all anymore, and my brain is like a sieve, often not even being able to grasp relatively simple concepts. But I really want to communicate. Luckily that doesn’t require much brain power, if any at all!
If there is another internet site where ‘personal experiences’ regarding Adidam are freely exchanged, without much inclusion of dharma and debate, or the agony of endless defensiveness, then please let me know and I will gladly bow out here. I can now see that so much of what I do is dictated by natural attraction. I was no longer attracted to Adidam and I am not attracted to purely cerebral debate. Sometimes I wish I still was – it’s probably easier!?
January 18, 2009 at 2:09 am
Gratitude says:
“In the late 1970’s Bhagavan ADi Da Said that if it would serve someone not to know that they were Enlightened, He would not tell them. So, who can really know about the level of practice of anyone in the community of practitioners of Adidam? Only One who has Realized It. And certainly Conrad, you, could not say, or know, who is or is not Enlightened.”
That is sure ironclad Adidam centric logic, Gratitude.
And how convenient, that just like everything else, Adidam is its own measure. In the first place, those who are really enlightened know it for reasons having to do with the nature of jnana itself. You comments simply show how little so many in Adiam know about real jnana, and if Da wasn’t just joking as I suspect he was, more evidence he wasn’t. It is those who think, or want to think they are enlightened but are not, to whom this would apply. Since many do not consider Da as likely a Realizer based on the tradtions, and he was not acknowledged by those who would know best, living jnanis, anything he would say is suspect. As for not knowing the state of those in Adidam, I think there are enough current reports to show plenty of secrecy and nothing but subtle experiences that require effort to sustain. 
.
January 18, 2009 at 2:56 am
Conradg Says:
“You end up with guys like “Gratitude” above. Or, frankly, yourself when you first began posting here. I gotta give you credit for not just hanging in here, but gradually dropping some of the attitude you first brought to this conversation. You were pretty over the top, and I felt you needed to be made aware of that, and I’ve noticed that it had some affect on you. Maybe you’re still in a little denial about it publically, but you have changed your tune a bit, enough to make a difference in the tone of the conversation at least.”
Actually, when I first began posting here, there was so much disrespect, antagonism, and mean-spiritedness directed to Adi Da and Adidam, that contradicting it head-on made more sense to me at the time. Perhaps that was a mistake, who knows. Things have certainly become much more respectful and human here over the last several weeks, that’s for sure.
Conradg Says:
“I mean, when you asked for feedback after I made that criticism of you, quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner, and I don’t recall anyone saying no, you weren’t. So I’m not sure that it matters if no one has contacted you privately about it. But like I say, I give you credit for changing your tune since then.”
That is really strange – after asking for feedback, I think I saw just one somewhat indirect post about it. A few people wrote me positive things privately, but nothing negative. Are you talking about private messages that you got, or actual postings here? Because if I had received some negative feedback either privately or online in response to my request for feedback, I would have done what I said at the time, which was to apologize and/or depart. So where are those posts that you refer to of “quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner”? Because if indeed that is all that my posts are (were) to people in general, I would apologize and/or move on.
My email is feel4god@gmail.com
Conradg Says:
“So, I’m suggesting that this whole “Da is the greatest, better than all the rest, and my experience of him is greater than yours, or anyone else’s here” can also just be dropped, it’s just unnecessary and pointless, and creates nothing but unhealthy conflict. I think you’ve already been getting that point to some extent, haven’t you?”
Hmmm, it seems to me that you and FFaC speak of Ramana as greater than Adi Da, too – so I am not sure why you are not directing this along those lines as well; not to mention you both very frequently look to show that Adi Da is less than others in terms of Realization. And really, so what if I say that I truly experience Adi Da in the ways that I have, and feel that He is the greatest – it is my opinion just like most of what other people post here is their opinion. Nothing wrong with some real enthusiasm for one’s Spiritual Master, ya know.
Conradg Says:
“I understand why you enjoy this forum. To some degree, it’s because you can speak your mind anonymously outside of Adidam without that whole apparatus looking over your shoulder. My point is exactly that – you don’t have to talk like you do in Adidam here.”
I am not sure I would use the word “enjoy” at this point. I like to consider things with people serious about self-transcendence, but this has not really been all that “enjoyable” – it is very time-consuming, although definitely interesting at times. Usually I would at least expect a few laughs with something I “enjoy”. Not much fun in that sense here. I guess laughing is just more duality?
Oh, by the way, the people that I stay accountable with in Adidam do know that I am posting on the internet. You seem to think there is some kind of problem with this – damn, another memo I must not have received!
Okay, I have been wanting to find out what emoticons work around here to try to liven things up a bit. Sorry Jerry, about the potential mess below.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_emoticons
8) Awestruck or Ecstatic or Orgasmic or Stoned
X( Pout
)( or )) or (( Example of calling somebody a butt
:O or =O or =o or
:/ or :-/ or :-\ or :\ or 8/ or 8\ or >/ or >\ Skeptical / Annoyed / Uneasy / Apologetic
xP or XP Disgust / Dead / Straining / Mischievous
xD or XD or
:S or :s or ^o) Confusion / Crazy
:3 Cute / Cat-like Behavior
:E Wildcard Smiley
:X or :# Sealed Lips / Embarrassment
:-* Kiss on the cheek
>:O or XO or
>:( or >[ or >=[ or >=( Angry / Grumpy
>:) or }:) Devious/devilish smile
0:) Innocence / Halo / Angel
<3 or x3♥ Heart / Love / Dark Love
– or –^–@ Rose
%-) Happy but confused.
%-( Sad and confused.
8-0 Shocked.
:’-( Crying.
:-* Kiss.
X-( or X( Brain dead.
:-& Tongue-tied.
;^) Smirking smile.
:-} Grinning.
:-\ or :-/ Undecided.
:L Angst.
:9 Yum yum!
*\o/* Cheerleader
:F Best. Smiley. Evar.
January 18, 2009 at 3:18 am
Feel4God,
You say:
::Former Follower and Critic Says:
“Feel4God, I did not specifically counter what you said because it is technically accurate that Da did not specifically claim to have originated ignorance, only that he demonstrated it in the considerations. But neither did he make any attempt to reference all the traditional precedents for this thereafter…”
FFaC, for you to present your argument about Adi Da on this basis is hardly evidence that there is, as you said, “a wide range of Da’s concepts presented as unique and revelatory, where there is apparently already historical precedent which scholars have noted.”
You really are not supporting your argument here – and I came to the same conclusion upon a thorough examination of your posts about the authorities you cited as saying Adi Da was not fully Enlightened. You make a lot of anecdotal statements, which is fine – but please stop presenting them as authoritative or even actual facts, as they are really very subjective in nature. As you must know by now, subjective statements are okay by me – but make that clear.::
Feel4God, I acknowledge subjectivity, and always have, but it is not as if there is no suggestive evidence as well. The orginal point, as you are aware, was that from critics, namely that when you examine Da’s teachings, you find prior sources for most of it, sources Da was familiar with and timelines that showed reason to see influence, and that Da rarely cites those sources. He consistently presents his interpretion and leaves by omission the impression Adidam generally promotes of originality. A few of us critics could write a book on just this subject because as Conradg points out it is quite visible outside Adidam among those actually familiar with the sources. It is known for example that the first three stages were only described after Da had read books stating related conceptions in development. We could go on and on, including statement from those before and after my time involved. Conradg was involved nearly 30 years, and he is just one of manhy who sees the same thing, and suggestive example after suggestive example. So, if you want to think I was resting my case on a few examples, which you can provide alternative explanations for, you are mistaken. These were just a few indicators of a widely recognized suggestive pattern. Absolute Proof? No. Speculative? Yes, but very highly suggestive pattern in aggregate, and a hypothesis that has not been refuted and is hardly refuted by your analysis. Similarly your claim that I should produce specific evidence of what this or that jnani said about Da or it is not relevant. I have said that the nature of the spiritual path is that there are karmic rules that apply. As Ramana Maharshi said when asked about those not enlightened being assumed to be by followers, that the result would be “according to their merits”. The evidence and ability to ask is available to those who choose to pursue it sincerely, and those who want can get it, those who are not moved to do so sincerely will not get it. It is a basic spiritual law, because one must be ready first, and there is all the time in the world to work out karma. These situations are tests of understanding. Those willing to drop their pride in what they think they know and to ask those with clearer vision will get an answer and that has always been my advice here. It is not my place to say more than that. I made that clear earlier. By your definition subjective, by my definition, subjective because it needs to be and hardly lacking in evidence. One can hunt down the critical quote from Nisargatta about the western teacher teaching the fundamental questions (I wonder who that could be)
. Or Ammachi’s criticism of those teaching like Da does. 
. And one can check with sources and discover what the private opinion of some jnanis associated with Ramana was. But as you are well aware, Da knew all this and his universal rejection at that level anyway and complained about the lack of recognition by his teachers and such figures throughout his entire teaching career, and yet it has no effect at all on Da’s devotees, who think they know more than those figures. So let us not pretend otherwise or that is my burden of proof to assert what Da himself acknowledged, or that Da himself didn’t criticize such figures as Nisargadatta, Ammachi, Papaji, etc.
::You say:ormer Follower and Critic Says:
“… nor did he say anything even knowing his enthusiastic devotees were making these claims.”
Adi Da always gave devotees plenty of latitude to make whatever mistakes were needed for the sake of real lessons. He was extremely realistic about our growth process. He also was not likely even physically present most of the time us devotees would go about enthusiastically making such proclamations of uniqueness to the rest of the membership. And even when He might have seen this, it does not mean He had to correct us with some kind of proclamation every time we did – He worked much more unpredictably than that.::
I appreciate the unpredictablity. But he was never remiss about criticizing all sorts of things and was hardly ignorant of what kinds of ministry were going on. His lessons of that type, if he intended that, were generally cyclical and not of such lengthy duration. What you are saying is that it didn’t matter to Da if all sorts of people representing Da were making enthusiastic claims because it was just part of their lesson to eventually realize their error, including eventually the lower level members and the public that was told this, and nobody bothered to ask or inform Da. The same Da that was very precise in his review of everything that went out on his teaching, frequently holding it up because of some minor point? I must say the inner circle has little credibility left. No, I wasn’t there in the inner circle to see this personally. But there is just too much of it for too long, and it conflicts with contrary statements from others fairly highly placed who have since left. So we will just have to agree to disagree on this one, because I understand how you see it and it is fair to raise your concerns for consideration by all here, but I will not concede the point based on what you have provided in the way of explanation.
January 18, 2009 at 3:22 am
Conradg Says:
“The experience I had with Ramana occurred in September of 1973. As a coincidence, this was just a few weeks after Da had visited Ramanashram, so I’ve often wondered if the photograph of Ramana I was sent from there had been handled by Da. There’s mention in the magazine describing that trip of Da spending time in the bookstore looking through photos of Ramana, but that’s as far as it goes.”
That is very cool timing. It was July (or August) 1973 when Adi Da was in Varanasi when I also was there.
Conradg Says:
“It’s also amusing to me that during that winter and into the following spring of 1974 I spent many hours lying in the dark listening to Pacabel’s canon, long before it became popular, and imagining myself in some large spiritual community celebrating God. During that time I decided to go off wandering, looking for God, and finally left home on my grand spiritual quest, backpack and all, on the morning of July 8, 1974, the day after the first Great Guru day of the Garbage and the Goddess Period. So yes, unusual synchronicities came from the beginning for me too.”
Heheh, very interesting. I bet there were a whole lot of people that were experiencing many unusual phenomena during this time. For people who don’t know, Pachelbel’s Canon was listened to by Adi Da very often in 1974 and the piece was included in the first movie back then, A Difficult Man. A bit later, Pachelbel’s Canon became a much better known piece of music, as Conrad also points out.
January 18, 2009 at 4:15 am
Flick,
I do not recall your name unfortunately even though I should I suppose but we all including Feel4God would have known each other at some point in those days. It has been a long time, and since I chose Ramana Maharshi over Da I have had no further contacts with Adidam, and I’ve seen many more teachers and done much since that time. If I seem harsh to you points, it is precisely because this isn’t like the Lightmind site in its approach to discussions and it seems like you react as though it was to points of dispute. Obviously, your two cents are welcome, as are mine, even if I point out where I think you are off. Like you I knew the young Conrad, a very intelligent and focused guy, during the SF days. I do recall his Ramana Maharshi story since he refreshed my memory. Just to reiterate, it isn’t personal here for some of us and I want to keep it that way, we are just stating our positions and there is no moderator with an agenda here. And I think that is one reason this dialogue has been possible, something it may have seemed was not possible. So instead of the usual scene we see where critics like Shiva want the discussion to end because the case is closed on Da and that is that
, and where these devotees want the discussion to end because the case is closed on Da and that is that 
, a few have actual discussions to some extent more like those we would have in life, where we talk about why we have our positions without demanding that others change theirs first before we talk. I hope that continues.
January 18, 2009 at 6:20 am
Gratitude says:
In the late 1970’s Bhagavan ADi Da Said that if it would serve someone not to know that they were Enlightened, He would not tell them. So, who can really know about the level of practice of anyone in the community of practitioners of Adidam? Only One who has Realized It. And certainly Conrad, you, could not say, or know, who is or is not Enlightened
I guess this means I could be enlightened, and not even know it. Or my cats and dogs. There could be Avatars all over the yard for all we know. What to do?
Yet isn’t it funny that Gratitude is “certain” that I am not enlightened. How can this be, unless Gratitude thinks that he/she is enlightened? He says that unenlightened people can’t know who is and who isn’t enlightened, and yet he also claims that I am certainly unenlightened, which can only mean that Gratitude thinks he/she is enlightened, or else how else would he presume to know about me. O what a tangled web we weave! What to do?
The truth is, the whole issue of whether anyone is enlightened or not is a canard, a distraction from the real matters of spiritual life. Much better to ask whether a person loves or not. That’s a lot more humbling question. I would certainly fall well short of enlightenment by this standard. This we can tangibly see and feel and relate to, whereas “enlightenment” is just a concept. As Jesus said of his true devotees, “You will know them by their love”.
So, Gratitude, would you say that you are filled with love for God and others? Is that really how you seem to be relating to me here? Granted, one can’t see very much over the internet, but to the degree one can, is this really love we are seeing demonstated by Gratitude?
As Raymond pointed out, there’s really precious little human or spiritual love in Adidam. It’s just not how the social fabric of that community is designed, it’s not what’s encouraged, and it’s not the intended result. So it’s no accident that it ends up working out the way it does. Raymond is quite right that the people in Adidam are no different, really, than than in most other spiritual groups, or even non-spiritual groups. For all the talk of creating a community of enlightened beings, there’s not much love to show for it, so who really cares about these kinds of claims? If there are realizers all over Adidam, how come it’s such a humanly dysfunctional and relatively loveless place? Maybe no worse than a lot of other groups, but certainly no better.
Claiming enlightenment or spiritual experience is easy, but demonstrating love is hard. One can talk about one’s special and profound spiritual experiences until one is blue in the face, but just one moment of genuine, demonstrated love blows all that stuff out of the water. And without that demonstration of love, all the claims and declarations fall flat. All the arguments go nowhere. We end up mere egos blathering about something that can only be understood through the prism of love.
January 18, 2009 at 7:01 am
Shiva,,
You say:
“….all “you” can do, is have a look. examine for yourself. use the pointers of people like ramana, nisargadatta, sailor bob adamson and really investigate for yourself.
there have been very insightful posts here on this blog. but they have virtually all been ignored by the main debaters. i mean, how could a party-pooper like C L possibly post something like:
“The error here is that Da considers the body-mind-”self” as real, and other than (apart from), the “I”-thought. Instead, the body-mind-”self” is the illusory product of the “I”-thought, which when inspected is found without base and dropped, and with it the body-mind-”self” illusion. So, in inspecting the “I”-thought (vichara) there’s no “turning away from body and mind” other than looking into the root/source of said body-mind-”self”, which is anyway implicit, as product, in the “I”-thought. And therefore, when the “Transcendental “Root””, Consciousness Itself, is realized, there’s no “exclusive fixation” upon it, since there’s nothing else at all to be acknowledged on its own or as apart from That, so nothing that can be “excluded” to begin with, being Consciousnes the One and Only Reality (of all and All, by the way). In brief, the whole Da’s “dissociative introverted” reading of Ramana’s realization is mistaken and flawed, so (at best) he had to conceive that “6th stage” to accommodate his wrong interpretation of Ramana’s account.”
shame on you, C L!! that statement would (and should!) have ended the entire debate, but nobody even noticed it, let alone responded to it.
but hey, you guys (the main debaters) obviously are having some fun. nothing wrong with that.
just don’t expect to get one iota closer to the TRUTH.
although, it has been helpful (as a few have already expressed) in seeing just how way off franklin really was and that he had little to no understanding of non-duality.
as for the whole amrita nadi and bodily location debate:
Diamond Sutra
Chapter 5.
“Subhuti, what do you think? Can the Buddha be recognized by means of his bodily form?”
“No, Most Honored One, the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion.”
The Buddha then spoke to Subhuti: “All that has a form is illusive and unreal. When you see that all forms are illusive and unreal, then you will begin to perceive your true Buddha nature.”
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page5.html
(a new translation. very worth the read. clear non-duality)
there is no duality in non-duality. not even a tiny little bit!…”
I think upon closer examination Da is seen to actually contradicts the body of all non-dualistic understanding where he deviates, as I’ve said. The statement you feature was noticed but does not help dialogue here. Those in Adidam and sympathizers will not adopt the view you have presented on Da, so it polarizes and ends all discussion. Seems more like what I have seen of the Lightmind dynamics that I don’t think bringing here is a good idea. Others may and do consider that a deficiency in the traditions, not in Da, based on their experiences with Da. And others may not be that versed in the traditions to understand the nuances you are trying to convey. So it seems that the more productive part of your posting refers to those traditional sources that illustrate alternatives to Da’s dharma.
January 18, 2009 at 7:58 am
Gratitude, too much of that kind of self-righteousness and meaningless “outing” goes in Adidam after people leave. Its always interesting when people get so wrapped up in the group they do not realize how cultic it all appears. I suggest you deal with your own obvious issues, Gratitude.
You say:
“A deprogrammer of fame in 1985, who consulted with all the principles bringing suit against Da Free John and the Johaninne Daist Communion, accusing him of profanities and violence, said that it was obvious to him that if Da Free John had asked any one of them to return, each would have jumped at the chance.”
Wishful thinking at best, and inaccurate. I doubt the deprogrammer actually talked with you, most likely this is another one of the official attempts and mythologies within the group to defame those dissidents, who simply wanted a new start in life. So, I am not going to let this pass without refutation. They did not sue Da over his profanities, which were in print. Initially, there was hope for reconciliation, but Da refused to meet with any of them. Da used Sal Lucania’s mafia relationship to get a full refund from Scientology (Scientology spread the story Sal was a mafia plant), but they would not give those who spent years and thousands of dollars supporting his then secret extravagent lifestyle one dime after all those years, forcing the lawsuit. If you give to Da, it is gone, period, end of story. But they did settle to avoid more bad publicity. The fact is the evidence behind the second lawsuit, actually the first one planned against Da for fraud, based on the years of hiding the nature of his actual lifestyle from members, was much stronger, so Adidam counter sued for claimed extortion and it was settled out of court with payment and gag agreement. That speaks for itself. None of them even attempted to come back. Lots of nonsense still being spread like the claim that the charges were all retracted, which the subject of that claim personally denies but naturally wants nothing more to do with that group after being called a liar in print and various other media.
There was no reason I could not have come back, in fact I was asked shortly after I left, but why?
January 18, 2009 at 8:17 am
Eddie B,
I appreciate your view about the futility of human argumentation about these matters, but really, isn’t this going a bit too far? Obviously conversation and debate has some rather severe limitations. If we recognize those limitations, I think we are fine. The problem comes when we have unreasonable expectations, as if argumentation is supposed to magically enlighten us, and when it doesn’t, we throw our hands up and feel we have to renounce or even condemn it all. Christ, is that really grounded?
My view is that one, argumentation is interesting, and I find it enjoyable to engage, up to a certain point of course. I don’t feel I need to defend it anymore than I need to defend anything else I find enjoyable. The fact that it doesn’t lead to enlightenment doesn’t make it any worse than anything else we might do, since very little, and maybe nothing at all, actually leads to enlightenment. What it does do, if done with some sincerity of purpose, is force us to examine ourselves and butt up against arguments both within and without which counter our own presumptions about life. In other words, like anything else in this world, it’s only as valuable or meaningful as we make it, and all of that is purely a function of how we actually participate in it. Obviously no one is ever going to convinced of anything by argument if they are determined not to be. But if someone really does want to find the truth and be disillusioned of their false ideas, it’s not a bad way to speed that process along.
All of spiritual literature, scripture, and even conversation is a form of argumentation. No two people ever entirely agree about anything, I’ve found. Those who seem to are just spouting insincere allegiance to a doctrine that doesn’t actually reflect their true state of mind or experience. The problem with most people who are guilty of spouting religious doctrine is that they don’t actually speak from their own real experience, thought, or feelings. So in that sense, I would of course encourage people to speak from their own experience and feelings. Otherwise we are just playing with words in order to confuse not just others, but ourselves.
But that is different from trying to actually put forward our own subjective experience as an argument in itself. Most people, myself included, are generally deluded about their own subjective experience. Anyone who has a shred of self-knowledge can’t help but notice how deluded they have been at various times in the past, and will always relate to their own experience with more than a grain of salt. Someone who says that Jesus is the only way to salvation and claims their personal experience proves this is simply deluded. I don’t suggest that this person renounce Jesus or Christianity, only that they stop hiding behind the veil of their own experiential certainties, but approach the question of God and religion with a genuine humility, ignorance, and appreciation for their own limitations. A lot of people, especially the most gung-ho elements of every religion, tend to ignore this and plow forward with grandiose presumptions about the value of their own experience, and how it can be translated into meaningful wisdom. But dualistic traditions put a great deal of value on their personal experience, often at the expense of any real human understanding of what they are up to.
The more humbling approach of the non-dualistic traditions is that all experience is inherently deluding. That means everything, even the most wonderful spiritual experiences we have ever had. The more mature somone is, in my experience, the less value they place on their own spiritual experience, and the more convinced the become of its deluding power. Rather than holding onto their experience as some kind of proof or certificate of truth, they let all that go, they hold onto less and less, they know less and less, they are simply able to abide in their own ignorance, their inability to know what truth is.
The idea that the kind of intellectual, conceptual arguments that people often have about spiritual matters is false and deluding, whereas spiritual experience reveals reality itself, is itself a deeply deluded view. Verbal arguments can actually more easily be understood to be highly limited in their truth content. No one but a purely nutty fundamentalist would suggest that verbal communications are the equivalent of truth, or that they will discover truth. So in many respects they are safer, more humble, less prone to the kind of atavistic claims and invulnerability that is usually the case for personal spiritual experience. People who think their personal experience represents a “deeper” communication of truth, and that it trumps all argument and reason, are simply more deluded than most about their own experience and its limitations.
This is again why I have come to find the approach of self-enquiry to be more useful than the approach of “personal experience”. Whatever experience arises, self-enquiry simply observes it and enquires of the one who has such an experience. “To whom is this experience arising?” is the approach, regardless of the content of the experience. It’s a way of deconstructing experience, rather than making it into a form of knowledge and thus delusion. The meaning of the experience become less important than its structure in consciousness. So one who practices self-enquiry is at a bit of a disadvantage in any competition to see whose spiritual experience is greater, deeper, thicker, and sexier. It’s not that such people aren’t having spiritual experiences, they just aren’t putting a lot of emphasis on them, or thinking that these experiences mean much of anything. Enquiry pretty much slices and dices experience, and leaves it as rubble to be discarded.
So for me, personally, when someone starts talking about their personal experiene of Da, and putting it forwards as some kind of evidence of Da’s genuine enlightenment, my immediate reaction is, why would someone do such a thing unless they had failed to understand the first thing about personal experience, which is that it is inherently deluding? If Da is a true non-dual realizer, why would he be encouraging his devotees to approach their experience of him in this manner? If these people are truly mature non-dual pracititioners, why would they be clinging to their personal experience and making it the centerpiece of their approach to this discussion? Don’t they know that such an approach only reinforces the deluding power of experience? Isn’t the whole point of non-dual practice to be free of our experience, our delusions, our reliance upon the mechanisms of limited consciousness which we suffer?
I’m not suggesting a ban on discussion of personal experience, but personal experience should be put forward not as evidence of anything, but as something to deconstruct, something to be relieved of, not reinforced. Using the mind to deconstruct our experience is about the only useful thing it can used to do, because it undermines the very structure of mind itself.
Now, if Da’s supporters are really sincere in their denunciation of intellectual, conceptual discussion of these things, what do they make of Da’s own incredibly intellectual, conceptual writings about these things? I mean honestly, who is more guilty of endless talk and abstract reasoning arguments about all these issues than Da himself? Have you not read his books, for God’s sake?
reater understanding?
So, it’s not a question of who is correct about Ramana’s or Adi Da’s relative realizations or which was the greater realizer. The significant issue is: what are we doing when we are engaging the process of argumentation (or indeed anything else)? Are we trying to convince the other person our point of view because we feel insecure in some way (even if only a teensy weensy little bit)?
Of course this is true. None of us know anything for certain. So of course we are a bit insecure about what we think to be true. It’s why I refrain from making conclusions about Da or Ramana, etc. I can examine their writings, and say something about all that, the differences and similarities, but the underlying reality is a mystery to me. As it is to others here, whether they like to admit to it or not.
I’ve had a number of conversations about these matters with Daists, and they usually at some point say something to me like, “Well, isn’t there at least some possibility that Da is right, that he is who he says he is?” And I will always answer, of course there is, I could always be wrong, he could be right, and I might never really know. They somehow always find this admission on my part very satisfying. But when I turn the tables on them, and ask whether they will admit that Da could be wrong, and not be who he says he is, they always, to a man, fall silent. They can’t really even face that possibility theoretically. It’s way too threatening to even give the smallest portion of credible possibility to.
But for what it’s worth, I’m certainly not trying to convince anyone that my interpretations are right. I don’t even have a particular interpretation that I hold to myself, so I’m not sure what I’d even be trying to convince them of. There are certain factual matters that I think should be beyond dispute, which I find many Daists in denial about, and many interpretations that I find specious, but there’s a fairly wide range of interpretations that I’m simply agnostic about.
January 18, 2009 at 9:10 am
Shiva,
You’re entirely right that there’s been a huge number of really great posts out there by people who are more deserving of praise than bombastic blowhards like me. The post by CL that you quoted from is one of them. I’ve noticed many more. But I’m not sure any post is ever going to put an end to the conversation. We’ll just get tired ot talking someday.
however, i had to realize that the mind has NO (and i mean ZERO) grasp on non-duality (i might be mistaken, but that is what i understood this blog to be about – originally anyways). none whatsoever. ALL mind concepts are just that: concepts. dualistic concepts that have NOTHING to do with non-duality. in trying to understand non-duality the mind is about as useful as a sledgehammer is in trying to understand and take apart a delicate swiss watch.
I hope you realize that you just used your mind to make this point to other minds like mine. So either the mind isn’t entirely useless, or what you just said is entirely useless. Which is it?
Personally, I just out and out disagree with your notion that the mind is useless in understanding non-dualism. It depends on how one uses the mind, whether one uses it to reinforce our concepts and experience, or to undermine and deconstruct them. Self-enquiry is of that nature, a process of using mind to see through the false assumption of ego at the root of mind, and so is the general project of “investigation” that Ramana and many others recommend. Teachers of non-dualism, including Da, have always used mind as a tool, because it is such a dominant part of the experience of human beings. You can’t even come to the conclusion that mind is meaningless and useless without at least using mind and engaging it. It would never occur to most human beings that mind is useless unless they thought about it rather deeply, as you have done. It certainly does have to be abandoned past a certain point, but that’s a pretty advanced point in the process of non-dual awakening. To abandon mind prematurely is simply to set oneself up for a mindfucking cult-clusterfuck of failed discrimination and unconscious belief.
all “you” can do, is have a look. examine for yourself. use the pointers of people like ramana, nisargadatta, sailor bob adamson and really investigate for yourself.
Yes, and all these folks have used verbal argumentation to aid this investigation. So we can’t really say that it’s actually useless.
January 18, 2009 at 9:20 am
I did not mean to say that Ramana was moaning in pain at the exact time of his death, just that there was some moaning and crying out and so forth when he was sick with his fatal illness. In fact, his devotees were upset about his obvious pain and he told them not to worry since he was not the body. I do know this little bit about Maharshi. And he did die of cancer and so did Ramakrishna and so did the great Roshi Suzuki Roshi. I am just referring to the fact that realization happens in the context of the natural realm where beings get sick and die. Any kind of realization in this context will appear paradoxical to our very liminted conceptual thinking minds. That is what I was pointing to. People do not really get the point of the posts I make because they go against the flow here. Personally I do not use anesthetic for any kind of dental work, because i do not like how it makes me feel, but that does not mean I am enlightened either. I just don’t like how people idealize enlightenment when it is a paradox in the human realm in nature.
And the depth of spiritual life does happen primarily in the realm of personal experience. It is true that it would seem that this would be expressed in more love and more caring and more compassion. Although , this expression would fluctuate over time in the pracitioner since growth in spiritual life in not necessarily linear. I have found in my association with all kinds of spiritual groups , including buddhist and hindu ones , that people are just people. I have found that some of the teachers , including the Tibetan , Anam Thubten and someone like Ammachi did seem to be overflowing with love and compassion. I also saw this in Adi Da, and many of the people who were close to him said this about him too. Like I said though, many were put off by his teaching method which appeared to be harsher much of the time. It depended on the person. I know people who he yelled at and felt abused in this. Like I said, I am happy that I never had that sort of relationship with him. I also think people will have an “easier” time with the practice he gave and the direct spiritual relationship he offered now that his human personality is dead.
So I guess I just have not had the sort of negative experiences with DAists that others have had here. I have had some not so pleasant experiences with some individual members here and there . but that is an individual thing.
I never had the least problem with Michael Wood, or James Steinberg, or Brian O’Mahoney, or William Tsinkas, or the mothers of Adi Da,s daughters , or the daughters themselves. I was outspoken at times about things I thought were ridiculous like the aids policy for a time. I think Fletcher Andrews yelled at me about that when I protested, but he was a serious idealistic solid.
Even cruel Hal is basically a pussycat as far as I can tell. james steinberg is a pussy cat scholar of the traditions. Peter Malakov is a pussycat scholar of the traditions,. Jonathon Condit is certainly a gentle person. Crane Kirkbride the same. i guess I am being brainwashed from afar. They have their clutches in me and the demons are laughing. Oh I do think the Kanya Bonnie is a bit nuts in her personality. I think she should not be a leader, but should just be a priestess and I am sure that is what she wants herself and i hope she gets that. Cheech Marrero has been through a lot of hell in his life and he is totally dedicate to
adi da still now in his old age. He is an intense Puerto Rican guy from the ghetto in New York. Still in his intensity, I always personally found him to be loving. I have a different perception of these insider types myself and I was never an insider in
Adi Dam. Flick Rahke
w
January 18, 2009 at 9:28 am
Gratitude,
My mind is stably in place, I am very aware. However, I don’t use it to desecrate all, or any, of my past associations. Since I am a practitioner of Bhagavan Adi Da, it pains me to hear you, also once a practitioner, speak of Him and His Teaching in the way you do. This is why I suggest that your mind is doing your bidding, rather than your heart.
Well, I’d suggest on what little evidence you’ve put forward that your mind is neither stable nor self-aware, and you certainly have no problem throwing your anger and disturbance at me personally. Did you learn this hostility from Adi Da, and does it come from your heart as love, as from your mind as separativeness? I think it’s pretty obvious it’s the latter, but I’d like to hear your honest answer.
I fully understand that it can be painful to hear Adi Da criticized openly, especially by people who loved him like me. Well, why not practice the wound of love, rather than lashing out at me? If you did that, rather than simply attacking Da’s critics, you might actually demonstrate something real and true in the Adidam practice. As it is, you are simply demonstrating the falseness of its claims to transcend egoity. In other words, you are making Adidam look much worse than I ever could.
January 18, 2009 at 10:02 am
So FeelforGod, what’s the emoticon for LMAO (laughing my ass off).
I’m laughing with you not at you.
Conradq can’t help it if he can’t get the joke.
Maybe he does. I don’t know.
The mind is like the fruitcake grandmother baked. No one wants to eat it, especially when it’s become stale. It’s chock full of nuts, and even the most heavenly of coffees doesn’t make it entirely palatable.
Excuse me while I go watch more belly dancing videos.
Conradq, lighten up a little okay. Some of the best laughs we had were in the community.
January 18, 2009 at 10:16 am
Feel4God,
As you know, it is common knowledge in Adidam that Avatar Adi Da combined with the subtle vehicles of Vivekananda and Ramakrishna, so His interest in those Masters’ lives and lineage goes without say.
Really, this is common knowledge, or a common belief? Honestly, dude, you seem to be slipping up here on this whole belief issue. It’s certainly common knowledge in Adidam that Adi Da claims to have combined the subtle vehicles of Vivekananda and Ramanakrishna, but no one in Adidam actually knows if it is true. They just tend to believe it because Adi Da said it was so, and it seems somewhat reasonable to them. But no one actually knows if it is true.
This does not mean Adi Da had past lives in the usual sense we think about though.
Well, no one has past lives in the usual sense we think of. This is why every realizer says he has no past lives, no future lives, etc. The body has past lives, future lives, but we do not. We are, even now, not who we think we are. We have no past lives, and not even a present life. Some of us know this conciously, and others do not. The realizers know this, they know they are the deathless Self that has never been born and never died. They know they were never a limited human being or soul or separate person, and were never traversed some path to enlightenment. Their present “life” is just a vehicle of the Self, chosen by the Self to do the work of the Self. So there’s nothing terribly unique about Adi Da’s claim to have combined with certain past-life vehicles. The Self of every realizer has claimed the same thing.
Actually, when I first began posting here, there was so much disrespect, antagonism, and mean-spiritedness directed to Adi Da and Adidam, that contradicting it head-on made more sense to me at the time. Perhaps that was a mistake, who knows. Things have certainly become much more respectful and human here over the last several weeks, that’s for sure.
If you had actually done that, I think that would have worked out much better. Instead, what you actually did was mount a series of attacks on Ramana, using Da’s teaching and your own subjective experiences to make a case that Ramana was inferior in realization and practice to Da. This naturally produced a lot of antagonism. I think you did that precisely because you didn’t feel free to address the actual criticism Da was getting on this forum, so instead you tried to deflect attention away from all that stuff by attacking Ramana. It worked to some extent, in that it got people talking less about Da’s actual problems, and more about some esoteric issues related to the traditions.
The truth is, you never really addressed any of the direct criticism about Da, and whenever I actually brought them up, you immediately cried foul, and considered such topics entirely off-limits. So let’s not pretend that your problem here is that you addressed the criticism of Da head on. Quite the opposite, you did a head-fake and avoided almost entirely every single criticism of Da that has to do with real life matters, preferring instead to engage the debate solely on esoteric conceptual issues of spiritual realization. But even there you couldn’t help but engage the conversation in a superior, adverserial manner, claiming superiority for Da and his devotees, and inferiority for all others. This was obnoxious, of course, but I can see how you would prefer that to actually defending Da from the more direct criticisms many here have made.
As for the negative feedback, I recall at least three posters giving some of that in their posts after you asked for comments, but maybe you missed it. It’s too troublesome to search through the archive for it, but I recall that Eddie B. was one of them.
Hmmm, it seems to me that you and FFaC speak of Ramana as greater than Adi Da, too – so I am not sure why you are not directing this along those lines as well; not to mention you both very frequently look to show that Adi Da is less than others in terms of Realization.
Well, that’s hugely misleading. I certainly never made claims about Ramana before you began your long series of posts claiming Da was superior to Ramana in realization and most everything else. It wasn’t until well into that debate that I even suggested that the reverse was actually true, that Ramana is greater than Da in these respects, and that’s only in the midst of countering your endless claims of superiority.
And I don’t think I have ever tried to show that Da is lesser than others in terms of Realization. I pretty much try to avoid canards like that, because they are simply not demonstrable. I’ve pointed out how Da is lesser than others in terms of his behavior and in some aspects of his teaching, but trying to actually compare realizations is quite beyond me.
And really, so what if I say that I truly experience Adi Da in the ways that I have, and feel that He is the greatest – it is my opinion just like most of what other people post here is their opinion. Nothing wrong with some real enthusiasm for one’s Spiritual Master, ya know.
On that level I have no objection. But in the midst of an argument about what we can fruitfully demonstrate about Da or Ramana or whomever, it has no relevance. Cheerleading doesn’t sway a debate. As you’ll probably notice, I’ve never engaged in any cheerleading for Ramana, nor have I ever suggested that my personal experience of him demonstrates his genuine realization. And you never will.
I am not sure I would use the word “enjoy” at this point. I like to consider things with people serious about self-transcendence, but this has not really been all that “enjoyable” – it is very time-consuming, although definitely interesting at times. Usually I would at least expect a few laughs with something I “enjoy”. Not much fun in that sense here. I guess laughing is just more duality?
No, if you come to the point where you can laugh at this debate, then you are getting the point of non-duality. I find that funny, because I laugh all the time while reading and writing these posts. I mean that literally, it’s a very “free” activity for me. I find the whole thing quite hilarious, and thus quite enjoyable. I’m sorry you don’t. But clearly you are attracted to it in some way, and maybe if you persist long enough you will start to see the humor in it. I recall when I first began posting on the internet defending Da it was very difficult to me also, and not very funny. Of course, things were way, way more hostile back then, on the original Wilber Forum and the early days of Lightmind. This is a total picnic in comparison. So feel some gratitude for the dues I paid and the paths I cleared back then, even if only psychically.
Oh, by the way, the people that I stay accountable with in Adidam do know that I am posting on the internet. You seem to think there is some kind of problem with this – damn, another memo I must not have received!
Well that’s good to hear, but let’s be clear about why that is. You have very successfully avoided addressing any and all factual and life-level criticisms of Adi Da that could get you into trouble with those sort of people. You’ve not addressed these issues because to do so you would have to start dealing with facts, rather than abstract concepts. You would have to start talking about the realities of what Adi Da actually did and said, and that would force you to openly admit quite a few unpleasant things which the security people in Adidam would really, really, not like. I remember I tried to do the same thing, to some extent, when I was first defending Da, but I didn’t think I should actually try to deny what was pretty much public knowledge. I remember one time someone said that Da fucked only pretty women, and I replied, no, he’d fucked a few dogs here and there too. Well, someone in security contacted me about that one, and was quite pissed that I’d ever acknowledged directly that Da was fucking his devotees.
Point is, there’s a serious limit to what you can actually say on this forum, and we both know it, and that’s why you ignore directly addressing most of the criticism of Da, and focus instead on these more abstract matters. You have vaguely said a few things about how some of that criticism is inaccurate, but rather than actually demonstrating or discussing those inaccuracies, you change the subject, and even insist upon not even bringing up that sort of thing. We both know why that is. If you actually had to clarify the actual facts, you would be admitting to things that Adidam wants kept hidden forever, and I do mean forever. It’s simply forbidden to talk openly about these kinds of matters, so you simply issue a vague denial and move on. That’s playing it safe, certainly, but it’s hardly what anyone would call facing the criticism head on.
Now, personally I could really care less. I’ve got no agenda to push, so I don’t much care whether we address the life level issues of Adidam that are so immensely embarassing. I’m more interested in non-dualism and Ramana anyway. But I’m not in denial about the other stuff either. I know its just too charged and dangerous for you to handle in an open forum. So I won’t press it. But don’t believe for a moment that it’s forgotten, or even irrelevant.
January 18, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Conrad says:
“I hope you realize that you just used your mind to make this point to other minds like mine. So either the mind isn’t entirely useless, or what you just said is entirely useless. Which is it?”
i never said (nor did i mean) the mind was completely useless. i need the mind to make this post, i need the mind to go shopping, i need the mind for all kinds of tasks. nobody can dispute that! (well, on the level where you accept the very existence of the mind that is (ultimately there is no such thing of course).)
i guess you misread my post. all i said was that the mind is useless in getting a grasp of non-duality. and i would say that is beyond dispute. i have never heard ANY spiritual teacher not say that and it is immediately obvious when you consider that the very operation of the mind is dualistic. the mind creates concepts to get a grasp of the perceived world. and within that perceived world it is useful. but again, it is utterly useless in trying to get a grasp of that which inherently transcends the mind. inherently, because IT is THAT wherein the mind arises.
also, i don’t understand you saying that you need the mind for self-enquiry. you state correctly that self-enquiry is the SEEING through of the false assumption of the ego. do you need the mind to SEE? the mind interprets what is seen, no doubt. but the process of seeing itself does not require the mind.
however, i agree with you that the mind can be used to set itself into a spin by trying to deconstruct concepts. of course, the mind cannot deconstruct concepts because it can only use more concepts to do so. but as i said in the attempt it can be set into a spin by seeing the futility of the attempt and the constant creation of vicious circles of ever more concepts to deconstruct (previous) concepts.
again: i never said the mind is useless in and of itself. it is a very useful (and even required) tool for many human activities. it is also not the enemy! it is not even necessary to quieten the mind. the mind just does its thing of producing thoughts and concepts. there is no problem with that whatsoever, as long as they are not believed in and not believed to be “you”.
also, you and FFaC seem to be under the impression i was trying to end this thread. it is not my position to do so. i was just trying to make the point that there were posts that – if taken seriously – should have ended the discussion. that is my opinion. you guys (amongst others) obviously do not agree with that and are having too much fun arguing. nothing wrong with that! i am always in for some fun.
this debate, however, was not fun for me and i got a bit impatient (not my strongest virtue!) and probably used the wrong tone to express myself. i am sorry if i offended anybody with that. i get that feedback a lot (of using the wrong tone). and of course, nobody forced me to stay here. i just find it interesting to discover the extend to which franklin jones was off. that was in fact one of the reasons for me leaving adidam. i didn’t quite realize the extend of it. but boy was this guy off in non-duality (and many other) terms!
January 18, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Flicke,
I’m not sure I should address you on these posts of yours, but honestly, do you really think you are putting forward an accurate assessment of Adidam here? You and I have had many private conversations about these things before, and this is not what you have told me in private. Have you changed your mind, or are you just reacting to something about the way people talk here?
I understand what you mean when you say that most Adidam people are nice, good people. I don’t think anyone’s ever said otherwise. Most of them don’t hit you over the head for having left the teaching, or tell you outright that your teachers or path is inferior to theirs. But honestly, don’t you think the favorable reception you get has a lot to do with the very large sums of money you’ve donated over the years? You say good things about a number of higher up guys in Adidam, but don’t you think they’ve treated you well because of the gobs of money you handed them? Anyone can be nice to people who give them money, who build dance halls for them and pay for security services and so forth. It’s not exactly a stretch. But maybe you’ve gotten a rather distorted view of Adidam precisely because they have cultivated your ability to make money in a growth industry, so to speak. How much kindly access to the Sanctury do you think you’ve have gotten without that foot in the door?
It’s more important to consider how these people will relate to you if you cross their interests, if you do something they don’t like or that they view as detrimental to Adidam. Is the love still there? Are the doors still open to you? Do they really give a rats ass how you are? I would suggest that if you cross these guys, you will be dead to them. No kidding. I speak from personal experience. I know what it’s like to have them turn at the highest levels and throw you under the bus. Fortunately, I had faith in God and don’t believe in emulating the worst that people can throw at you, I just don’t believe in that sort of thing, but it certainly doesn’t give me a very high opinion of that gang who runs Adidam.
But I understand, it’s better for business to say nice things, and not raise any hackles, truth be told.
January 18, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Well this this post does say something. I am surprised that Conrad has attacked me personally here when I have never attacked him or said anything detrimental about him. I simply listed a group of people that perhaps might be considered “insiders” in Adidam and said I don’t find anything wrong with them. I have never gotten personal on this forum and see no reason to do so.
These people were honest and nice to me before i ever had any money or donated any money in Adidam. There was a 2 or 3 year period when I gave extra money for security{which is funny because I don’t tend to like securtiy] and I bought maybe $2000 dollars of stuff at the pazooza poojas. I bought a waliing stick of Adi Da and a copy of a painting by IO. That was Stan Hastings wife and on of Adi Da’s daughters. My thing with Thankful is another story. I knew him since he was born and knew him since he was a teen. I have always had a good relationship to the young people who grew up in Adi Dam and I think they are a great group of very hip and intelligent young adults now. Most are not formally in the community now, but a few still are and are dedicated. some even live on the Fiji island. I consider Stan a good person, although he is famous for talking people into giving things and that is why he was one of the big “pazooza” people and also hung out with the rich and famous types who came around like that famous rock dude Ed, who I thought was on a huge ego trip myself. He talked me out of about $1500 to buy some bedroom furniture for him at the retreat up in Humboldt. I did not mind at the time. I wish I had more money now, but the money I gave when I had it , I was glad to give at the time . I felt like it was a good thing to do and I never have regrets about giving freely whether it be to a beggar on the street or KPFA radio or Ammachi or Adidam.
The money I gave never made me an “insider” in Adidam or got me any special access priveleges. I think I went to one party at Adida’s house in Lake County. I was just serving there as a bar tender and then got invited for an hour to go in the main room and hang out and dance with Adi Da. They were playing techno music in that period , which was good for me because that is what I like. Also , more were smoking pot instead of drinking because Da was not drinking and I do not drink because of hep c. I think pot is much better than booze anyhow and does not make you into an obnoxious fool like booze does.
I went to the same darshans as any one in the community at that time and that was it.
As far as the dance studio is concerned , I had it built before 2000 for myself. I had this dream of creating a dance company for young people in Adidam and teaching them all I knew about dance and also dancing there myself. I had my fiftieth birthday party there in 2000 and did a dance performance with some of my dancer friends who were never in Adi dam. There were a mix of people there. In that year I had a botched and traumatic surgery on my abdomen that I could not heal from. Then, because of this, I developped panic and anxiety and was prescribed a very evil and addictive tranquilzer , xanax. it caused me to be messed about for around 2 years. I never was able to fulfill my dream with that studio and it was just sitting there useless and vacant. Stan approached me and asked if they could use it for Da’s photography work. I was nonfunctional and glad to let the studio be used for something valuable. After that, the Mummery people used it for a year of so for rehearsals. I was still not able to use it myself anyhow. Later on a creep who was in Adidam a long time ago who I was friends with him and his whole family, turned into a snake and litterally stole the studio for me. That is the story of the dance studio I built in Lake County and the money I gave.
The people I mentioned here were nice to me when I was a nobody and had no money , which was the case for 90% of the time I spent in Adidam. I have left Adidam a few times since 1975 and always had discomfort there for the same reasons other people do. Still I do not go back on what I have posted here about Da’s teaching and transmission and how I feel like the people in ADidam are pretty ordinary type of people. Perhaps when Sal was there , before my time ., there was some kind of “mafia gang feel to it” I don’t know. Sure I have heard all the bad stuff about ADi Da over the years. That he watched porn a lot . It goes on and on. I do know he spent a lot of money on art and so forth. well he did not take it with him. He left a lot more than he took , which was nothing. The art he produced with his photography was brilliant. I am not a Da psycophant either> i always thought his play, the mummery sucked and was torture to sit through. I thought his earlier paintings were really bad too. But he found his forte in art in photography.
I also know how the rumor thing works. I am amazed at some of the rumors I have heard about myself. So I don’t know exactly what is true about what Adi Da did and what is not true. I am sure I have said negative stuff about Adi Da off and on over the years too.
Still the basic stuff I have posted here has always held true for me. About the transmission of a guru and also Da’s written teachings. Sometimes I am more into it and sometimes more into other teachings.
Considering that ai have not ever done anything to hurt anyone and have not attacked anyone, ai am surprised by this personal attack. Oh well emotions run high in the people writing on some of these forums and people have to lash out at times. I don’t know, maybe my style of writing about my experience riles people up. whatever Flick
Rahke
January 18, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Excuse the double posts to Eddie yesterday–sorry, my mistake
As per Wikipedia:
Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.
gratitude Says:
January 17, 2009 at 1:44 am
Conrad,
Many years ago you told me that your mind was your bondage in this life. Maybe it is time to feel beyond this bondage, to the wounded being who has to strike out, accuse and blame.
A deprogrammer of fame in 1985, who consulted with all the principles bringing suit against Da Free John and the Johaninne Daist Communion, accusing him of profanities and violence, said that it was obvious to him that if Da Free John had asked any one of them to return, each would have jumped at the chance.
You are like a child who blames his parent for all the things wrong in his life, never assuming the responsibility for his own life, that would set him free.
Conrad, you are more than the mind you are controlled by. Grow beyond.
gratitude Says:
January 17, 2009 at 4:44 pm
In the late 1970’s Bhagavan Adi Da Said that if it would serve someone not to know that they were Enlightened, He would not tell them. So, who can really know about the level of practice of anyone in the community of practitioners of Adidam? Only One who has Realized It. And certainly Conrad, you, could not say, or know, who is or is not Enlightened.
——————————————————————–
So, back to the dark ages! Having spent most of my adult life in Adidam, I know that this kind of thinking is prevalent in Adidam, especially with those members that have been around a long time. And if one connects the dots, these points to Franklin’s way of having indoctrinated his devotees over the years. One simply doesn’t learn to respond like this in a vacuum.
It’s kind of fear based self-loathing projected onto someone else. Being “Narcissus” has been so well engrained in Adidam. When felt threatened (devotee, guru or community), always attack the person by reminding him that he feels betrayed, angry and unloved; i.e., remind them of their “Oedipal” a term commonly used in Adidam. In Adidam, you are taught to always doubt yourself but never to question or doubt the guru, community or teaching. There is never any room for critical thinking. It’s blind faith which leads to denial of what in really going on in Adidam.
And what can be more blind than accepting a comment that someone made (who knows who?) about 25 years ago that said that if we were asked to return by Franklin we would all come back. The real answer to that would probably be zero or near zero if Franklin had asked the thousands who have left him. Remember back in the 80s when Franklin went all the way to Marine in person (the only time ever) and asked Steve F. to return and Steve refused.
And “Gratitude’s” next comment about Franklin who would not tell the person if he was enlightened because it would serve him not to tell him. How ridiculous can it get? (Perhaps, Franklin would have other personal motives not to tell someone about their “enlightenment”?)
And then, Gratitude says; “So, who can really know about the level of practice of anyone in the community of practitioners of Adidam?” Well, that leaves everyone nicely off the hook. I guess Adidam can do away with levels from student beginner to 1.3 (and stages of practice) and assume everyone is in good standing with full access???? And devotees of Adidam can never be criticized for their actions.
I wrote a long detailed article on the Lightmind Forum several months ago called: -RE: Seventh Stage Devotees in Adidam http://www.lightgate.net/forum/viewforum.php detailing how even Franklin didn’t know how to tell whether his wives (konias and others) were Enlightened or not and got it wrong.
As I’ve said in other posts, even though this narrow minded response would not be made by everyone in Adidam, what is prevalent in Adidam is that the rest of the community goes into denial about this kind of ideology and in their indifference, they contribute to the problems of Adidam —and it all adds up. And over years, it become difficult to see the forest for the trees. It becomes entrenched fundamentalism.
January 18, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Shiva,
I kind of thought you’d find my post humorous. I guess I’m not as funny as I think.
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were saying the mind is entirely useless, only useless in understandin non-dualism. My point is that even when it comes to non-dualism, the mind is useful. It just has its limits. Obviously it can’t take us all the way to enlightenment, but it can indeed help us grasp certain basic principles of non-dualism, even though the mind is dualistic by its very nature. The reason it can do this is that WE are not dualistic by our very nature, and thus we can make use of even dualistic mind to grasp what is beyond dualism. We can use language, concepts, metaphors, poetry, art, you name it, all products of the mind, to shed some light on non-dualism, because non-dualism is the very nature, in reality, even of dualistic mind.
If the dualistic mind were really utterly separate from the non-dual reality, then you are right, it would have nothing to do with non-dualism, and would be utterly useless to gaining any understanding of non-dualism. But fortunately it is not. And we are not. So we can use mind in an intelligent way to learn about the nature of non-dual reality. That is why teachings about non-dualism exist. Otherwise, Buddha and Ramana never would have spoken at all, but just remained silent.
also, i don’t understand you saying that you need the mind for self-enquiry. you state correctly that self-enquiry is the SEEING through of the false assumption of the ego. do you need the mind to SEE?
Yes, you do need the mind to see. There is no perception with the mind. And you definitely need the mind to practice self-enquiry. In fact, if you don’t have a mind, you don’t need to practice self-enquiry! It’s a “dualistic” practice, even Ramana admitted that. All practices are dualistic, regardless of how “high” we think they are. And all practices are done with the mind. As mentioned before, the point of self-enquiry is that it uses mind to deconstruct mind, it destroys the very basis for actually practicing self-enquiry, making self-enquiry itself obsolete in the process. As self-enquiry sees through its own delusions, it actually destroys the illusion of mind that is its own basis, and it simply comes to an end. At that point, only Grace remains, and Grace takes that final spark of mind and extinguishes it in the heart.
i agree with you that the mind can be used to set itself into a spin by trying to deconstruct concepts. of course, the mind cannot deconstruct concepts because it can only use more concepts to do so.
By “deconstructing concepts” I don’t mean the usual academic process of post-modernist thinking. In self-enquiry, this mean putting attention directly upon these concepts, such as the concept “I”, and seeing if it is really there. When this is done, one sees that nothing is there at all, just a concept, a phantasm. This does not require a new concept, just the intelligent use of attention to inspect the concepts we have assumed to be true without actually knowing them to be true, primarily, of course, the concept of “I”.
also, you and FFaC seem to be under the impression i was trying to end this thread. i was just trying to make the point that there were posts that – if taken seriously – should have ended the discussion.
Oh, no, I never took that very seriously. I thought it was just a loose rhetorical point you were trying to make. It’s just worth pointing out, I think, that this is a conversation, and simply declaring that someone has said what, to you or I, might seem to be an incontravertable truth, doesn’t mean that everyone else is going to agree. The Daists here, like Feel4God and Flick, aren’t going to just roll over and play dead because one of us says something we all agree with. Nor is the opposite going to be the case. I’m sure the Daists who read this thread probably think Feel4God is just killing us all, and wonder why we don’t all just join up and send in tithe checks.
And just to be clear, I don’t see anything wrong with your tone, so don’t waste any time trying to clean it up. Shiva must be Shiva, after all.
January 18, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Martin Gifford Says:
“Real God is the one who created the universe and is omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. Which universe did Adi Da or any of the advaita teachers recommended here create? Saying that you are God is just delusion, which is the opposite of the goal: liberation from illusion.”
Martin, your statements about God the Creator are more about dualities in the mind, if I understand what you are posting here. Are you versed in the non-duality arguments?
NC Says:
“Okay you guys, analyze this:
P.S. I just thought there needed to be some dancing to clear your heads a little. LOL”
Thanks NC! Is that you? Wow!!! You look totally hot! Oh, you must have been off doing kaya kalpa – I really missed your posts! Good to see you again, and your newest bodily form is magnificent!
Conradg Says:
“As Raymond pointed out, there’s really precious little human or spiritual love in Adidam. It’s just not how the social fabric of that community is designed, it’s not what’s encouraged, and it’s not the intended result. So it’s no accident that it ends up working out the way it does. Raymond is quite right that the people in Adidam are no different, really, than than in most other spiritual groups, or even non-spiritual groups. For all the talk of creating a community of enlightened beings, there’s not much love to show for it, so who really cares about these kinds of claims? If there are realizers all over Adidam, how come it’s such a humanly dysfunctional and relatively loveless place? Maybe no worse than a lot of other groups, but certainly no better.”
Hahaha, thanks for providing yet another example of how you tend to argue, Conrad. Since I am waiting until Realization to continue the Ramana consideration with you
I will at least return the favor for “de-constructing” me a bit yesterday – and once again, you are also all-pervadingly “de-constructing” everyone else in Adidam simultaneously! Your siddhis have magnified, my friend!
You know that many many times I have brought up to you that you tend to make very exaggerated statements and sweeping generalities/conclusions – all couched in usually a pleasant enough attitude (though often pretentious), lofty thought processes, and a huge amount of fancy wordcraft. You are doing a kind of mental magic act here to make your points – with plenty of smoke and mirrors!
Often when you make derogatory statements about Adi Da, or Daist devotees or just myself, you do it in this manner. Again, I have called you on this many times, but you don’t seem to get it. Ok, to avoid just making a general statement about you, here are some more examples of your trickery:
For instance, when you said at one point that you did not do “ad hominem” attacks – but only I did. To respond to this accusation at the time, I only had to go to your most recent posts to point out how you did “ad hominem” attacks many times to me. I quoted at least five instances, but received no response from you about them, nor to my question of how exactly were you then defining an ad hominem attack for yourself given the instances I quoted. One of your “greatest hits” at that time was when you proclaimed that not only I, but Daists lack in our intimate lives!
And just yesterday, getting back to the form your arguments often take, you said:
Conradg Says:
“I mean, when you asked for feedback after I made that criticism of you, quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner, and I don’t recall anyone saying no, you weren’t. So I’m not sure that it matters if no one has contacted you privately about it. But like I say, I give you credit for changing your tune since then.”
And I responded:
“That is really strange – after asking for feedback, I think I saw just one somewhat indirect post about it. A few people wrote me positive things privately, but nothing negative. Are you talking about private messages that you got, or actual postings here? Because if I had received some negative feedback either privately or online in response to my request for feedback, I would have done what I said at the time, which was to apologize and/or depart. So where are those posts that you refer to of “quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner”? Because if indeed that is all that my posts are (were) to people in general, I would apologize and/or move on.”
Now maybe you are still looking to respond to me about the “quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner”, but at the time of my asking for feedback, there was nothing anywhere near what you are saying here. So this is another example of you trying to “hoodwink” people into some generalized belief you are putting forth via your use of logic, lots of words, and sweeping “charged” generalizations.
Edit: Okay, you did respond to this just a little bit ago:
Conradg Says:
“As for the negative feedback, I recall at least three posters giving some of that in their posts after you asked for comments, but maybe you missed it. It’s too troublesome to search through the archive for it, but I recall that Eddie B. was one of them.”
Hardly “quite a few people”. And no, I read all the posts and there was basically nothing posted as direct negative feedback in response to my request. So look at this tendency, Conrad – I have pointed it out many times, and it does cheapen your communication when you do this. Smoke and mirrors just won’t cut it around here.
One of your latest, that I quoted above, about “there’s really precious little human or spiritual love in Adidam” is also utterly pretentious of you to proclaim, don’t you think? Do you know everyone in Adidam or even the majority of Daists to make such a grandiose claim? I could cite many examples of devotee friends demonstrating great love – but you would write that off to a subjective experience of mine, I guess. How do you know how much we love our intimates and friends these days, by the way?
Oh wait, there’s more right here…
Conradg Says:
“So for me, personally, when someone starts talking about their personal experiene of Da, and putting it forwards as some kind of evidence of Da’s genuine enlightenment, my immediate reaction is, why would someone do such a thing unless they had failed to understand the first thing about personal experience, which is that it is inherently deluding? If Da is a true non-dual realizer, why would he be encouraging his devotees to approach their experience of him in this manner? If these people are truly mature non-dual pracititioners, why would they be clinging to their personal experience and making it the centerpiece of their approach to this discussion? Don’t they know that such an approach only reinforces the deluding power of experience? Isn’t the whole point of non-dual practice to be free of our experience, our delusions, our reliance upon the mechanisms of limited consciousness which we suffer?”
You immediately assume that what I have been talking about are just experiences. I went over and over in the earlier sections of this blog how true heart-recognition of Who Adi Da Is, is NOT a subjective experience as you are defining them (and as Adi Da has also defined and given as lessons such psycho-physically-based experiences).
Yes, all psycho-physical experiences are to be seen for what they are – temporary, deluding, and dualistic. But this heart-based recognition is not this! Yes, I know there is no convincing you or anyone of this – that is for each person to understand in their own case. But perhaps break some taboos, Conrad, and stop just automatically assuming that Daists don’t understand the difference between psycho-physically-based spiritual experiences and this heart-recognition of the Acausal Divine Person. How can you be so sure that this is not the case? There is an undeniable difference for those who do recognize Adi Da most directly (not through the medium of psycho-physical experience) – and this is the impasse you and I will not likely get beyond.
Regardless, many Daists do recognize via a heart-based intelligence Who Adi Da Is, and such a heart conversion is not an intellectual exercise.
Conradg Says:
“No, if you come to the point where you can laugh at this debate, then you are getting the point of non-duality. I find that funny, because I laugh all the time while reading and writing these posts. I mean that literally, it’s a very “free” activity for me. I find the whole thing quite hilarious, and thus quite enjoyable. I’m sorry you don’t. But clearly you are attracted to it in some way, and maybe if you persist long enough you will start to see the humor in it. I recall when I first began posting on the internet defending Da it was very difficult to me also, and not very funny. Of course, things were way, way more hostile back then, on the original Wilber Forum and the early days of Lightmind.”
Wow! If that is truly the case with you, why don’t you share your hilarity on this blog, as your posts are seldom humorous, at least in my experience. I would love for us to share some laughter more!
Remember that talk by Adi Da “Sex, Laughter, and God-Realization”? Well, we have talked plenty about God-Realization, but almost never about laughter and sex. Thank God for NC’s bellydancing! Come on, Conrad, let’s break taboos (as you admonished all of us earlier), and make a date not to just realize God, but also to love freely, laugh more, and… nah, I don’t want to have sex with you! Of course, I am happy to talk about it though. You want to make the first move big guy, or should I?
Conradg Says:
“So feel some gratitude for the dues I paid and the paths I cleared back then, even if only psychically.”
Ok, this one made me laugh in a twisted kind of way. This is just too ironic on too many levels.
Conradg Says:
“You have very successfully avoided addressing any and all factual and life-level criticisms of Adi Da that could get you into trouble with those sort of people. You’ve not addressed these issues because to do so you would have to start dealing with facts, rather than abstract concepts.”
Actually, I wrote extensively in the beginning of this blog about my first-hand experiences with Adi Da in gatherings, etc. I also pointed out that almost everything you were bringing to the table was second-hand (hearsay) “knowledge” at best. You were not involved very close in, and so this is understandable.
I can only truthfully speak of what I directly experienced not just what I heard, and if I choose to not speak of some of that, you should certainly be able to understand and accept my right to do so. After all, for quite a while you refused to speak of your spiritual experiences (although you have now done so some), and you also refused to speak of your sex life – citing that both your spiritual experiences and sex life were way too personal to post on a public forum. But somehow you think I should speak of intimate private matters publicly about Adi Da. Really, many aspects of His private life were not my business, just like they are not yours. And remember, He is my Spiritual Master, whom I respect utterly, and vowed eternal devotion to.
Conradg Says:
“Now, personally I could really care less. I’ve got no agenda to push, so I don’t much care whether we address the life level issues of Adidam that are so immensely embarassing.”
You see, this is another example of where you lack self-understanding relative to some of your motives. You keep saying you have no agenda, but from the very beginning you have been on an anti-Daist campaign. If you really had no agenda, wouldn’t some praise for Adi Da, His Teaching, His Sanctuaries, etc., at least come through more? All your posts are your “actions” here, and the number of anti-Daist posts by you speak much more loudly than your occasion words that you have “no agenda to push”. Plus you seem to quickly find ways to get back to your agenda whenever possible.
Anyway, I am beginning to think that we have indeed hit an impasse that will not be resolved, no matter how much we talk here – whether it be debate-oriented, or about self-understanding. Sooner or later, the core response of the being takes precedence, and our “twain” does not seem to be meeting in these mainly intellectual terms, Conrad. Good thing we are always already in prior Unity!
So does anyone know any good jokes? Non-dual ones, of course!
January 18, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Hi, Flick. Enjoying the interplay here; varying & respectful offerings. I also as you said, prefer the “practicing” forms of spiritual paths rather than the “talking” ones; but it is helpful to have conversation, to challenge each other, as honestly and as respectfully as we’re able. To listen, to touch & communicate feeling.
I agree there was a fullness and brightness communicated by Master Da. I benefited greatly by studying his teachings & the great religious traditions which I continue to do. Thanks for commenting on my Dec. 25 & Jan. 4 (where you can click to my article about my years living with Master Da) posts on this discussion. One clarification. When I said the “experimentation for me was ultimately a failure” refers to my practice with the community (’73-’77) in relation in particular to free love. I say I don’t regret it but found it ultimately to be overly hurtful to people. In that sense, it was a failure. What fruit the Master’s work will have remains to be seen. We see both positive and negative in this discussion. I think it is healthy to be critical, while maintainly an open balance. Once shortly before I left the community, Master Da called a meeting in San Francisco for those (including myself) who were considered dissidents. I was critical of the organization in its isolationism, in its deification of the guru and of Da also, but I didn’t feel like a dissident who was bitter or vengeful. I felt this was just part of being in relationship to the teacher.I was a critic who was grateful, who was a friend. I did know some were very angry at Master Da, even bitter. As you, I never felt brainwashed and entered into sexual experimentation,etc. as an adult & further didn’t always just do what I was told to do. I feel our own freedom and conscience are primary. I don’t want my opinion that some of our experimentation as a “life-style” was ultimately a failure to take away from the relationship I had with the Master as a teacher and spiritual friend. I don’t consider that a failure. It was deep & even today influences me. It’s true I’ve never been a devotee in the full sense of the word, but that doesn’t take away the gratitude I have for the teachings and the genuine transformative friendship those many years ago.Thanks for your feedback.
I was wondering if the moderator would be able to have the most recent posts at the top, so we don’t have to scroll down so far to catch up with the comments? Blessings to all from Los Angeles, Morgan Z Callahan
MODERATOR’S NOTE:
Thanks for contributing. I’m looking into seeing if comments can be paged.
–Jerry
January 18, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Most of the “nonduality” going around these days including the “nonduality” on this blog, I would refer to as “nonduality lite” or “watered down ” nonduality. I have checked out a lot of these new age teachers who sort of came down from the general Maharshi line, including Andrew Cohen, and Nome , and Gangaji, and Joe Blow Brigss and so forth. I think Maharshi would roll over in his grave if he saw his teachings being distorted so. Like I said I am not the expert on Ramana like many others around here, but i do know that his brand of spirituality is more than an intellectual exercise. He did really teach from the practicing school and not the talking school.
I still think true spirtuality is approached through real practice over time. The sudden Realization is paradoxically realized after much sadhana or practice, often over an entire life or many lifetimes like in the case of the Buddha and many others. Many high Tibetan lamas who have reincarnated over and over are still practicing in this life , although perhaps they chose to be Boddhisatvas. To point at Adidam and make a big deal of there being no enlightened people or seventh stagers is just totally ridiculous if you have any grasp at all of the history of practice in the great traditions of spirit. You practice, because you know that life here as it seems is suffering and you have been given a glimpse that there is much more than meets the eye. That is what spirtitual teachings and transnission show you. It is not at all blind belief. And as Feel for God says better than me ” There is more to transmission than personal experience only .” Still it is a very personal thing. But the intuition of the Acausal Reality is the primacy of spiritual transmission.
Spirituaity is a real yoga that includes the mind and also all parts of the body. It is not just in the head.
Of course, if you believe, like Raymond here, that what we know of spirituality is all just garbage and placebo and there is not really such a thing as realization and that a guru like Adi Da is only just a scumbag manipulator and that is that, then I feel pretty sorry for you. Just copping to the blind and mortal modern western view of life is pretty sad. It sounds like sour grapes to me. I have no idea if I will awaken in this life and I surely will not knowing my lazy streak and “western softie ” approach to spiritual life. Still I plug away in my own way and am always going against my own laziness to try to do more. I always go back and forth with myself. But i value the great dharmas and the great teachers. I have stated a lot of the ones i value here. Adi Da is still very new in the great tradition and his claims remain to be validated or not. People in his community could still very well “wake up” Now that Adi Da is dead especially I am not into perpetuating the rumors about his personal life that I do not really know much about except second hand. I don’t really care where the money goes that he accumulated. I would like to see it somehow used for the community like improving the Fiji island and improving the run down sanctuaries and whatever. I have no control over any of that and never will. I think the stuff that happened in the past, including to anyone, is irrelevant now at this point and that people should just continue with their practice either inside Adi dam or outside in any way they choose. Flikananda mahan of the ladida school of scientology
January 18, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Feel4God says:
“Good thing we are always already in prior Unity!
So does anyone know any good jokes? Non-dual ones, of course!”
That’s a pretty good joke right there. “Good thing we are always already in prior Unity!” –as said by the mind which is in complete duality.
You see, that’s the kind of idealistic and fundamentalistic thinking coming out of Adidam and Christianity which doesn’t ring true. And that statement says it all.
January 18, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Conrad,
“I kind of thought you’d find my post humorous. I guess I’m not as funny as I think.”
your humor is very elusive indeed.
“Yes, you do need the mind to see. There is no perception with the mind. And you definitely need the mind to practice self-enquiry.”
i assume that 2nd sentence to read withOUT the mind. otherwise i would agree. the mind is not needed at all for the perception itself. it comes in when the perception is interpreted but not prior to that.
anyways, a very strange mind you must have.
i sure don’t need mine to see (neither for the seeing through the eyes nor the immediate seeing).
“So we can use mind in an intelligent way to learn about the nature of non-dual reality. That is why teachings about non-dualism exist. Otherwise, Buddha and Ramana never would have spoken at all, but just remained silent.”
are you familiar with the term “pointer”? you don’t look at the pointer itself but to that to which it points. “the tao that can be spoken of is not the real tao”. but it can be pointed to. and you have to leave the mind at home for that. because that what is pointed to can only be intuited or directly seen, not spoken of and not grasped with the mind.
presence-awareness is beyond the mind. you don’t need the mind to be aware. the mind arises in awareness.
no worries, dear! i am not going to take away your beloved mind! i am just putting it in it’s proper place…
a few quotes from nisargadatta:
“As to my mind, there is no such thing. There is consciousness in which everything happens. It is quite obvious and within the experience of everybody. You just do not look carefully enough. Look well, and see what I see.”
“You must watch yourself continuously — particularly your mind — moment by moment, missing nothing. This witnessing is essential for the separation of the self from the not-self.”
(obviously, this seeing of the mind is not done by the mind. it is done by awareness.)
“The supreme gives existence to the mind. The mind gives existence to the body.”
“That in which consciousness happens, the universal consciousness or mind, we call the ether of consciousness. All the objects of consciousness form the universe. What is beyond both, supporting both, is the supreme state, a state of utter stillness and silence. Whoever goes there, disappears. It is unreachable by words, or mind.”
this last one is interesting as the word “mind” is used with two different meanings – “the universal consciousness or mind” and “It is unreachable by words, or mind.”
english is not my mother tongue and in my language there is no single word that quite encompasses all connotations of the english word “mind”. maybe that is where our differences come from. but somehow i don’t think so…
you are just so charmingly in love with your mind…
January 18, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hey Morgan good to see you here again. Did I say I did not think you were ever a ‘true devotee?’ I think I said that many do not seem to get the whole point of Adi Da. And since you were in the early days when people could be friends with Bubba {brother} I thought there was sort of almost a detriment in this , although it is also very positive, sort of a mixed bag. he had to do a lot of experimenting with people then to try to get at the crux of it for us westerners and it was pretty intense i guess. I never was in it myself. That is when some claimed to have been abused. I don’t even know if that is really true or not. it is just hearsay to me. I like to hear from others who were really involved.
Anyhow I think it is possible to a fruitful spiritual relationship to Adi Da and certainly his teaching even though he grew old and finally passed away like we all do , not just the “bad boy ” gurus. I am not any sort of formal member of Adi Dam and perhaps one needs to be to make real use of the practice and so forth, I can’t say for sure. Anyhow I am mainly involved in Buddist meditation practice and go for the original teachings of the Buddha about how he awakend himself. Basically these teachers relate their own experience in these matters and use that as teaching for others. I think that is what Adi Da was doing, just describing his own experience from the time of his birth and all through his various transitions. he seemed pretty honest to me in this respect.
Still , I was just reading an old text called “What is the Conscious Process?” and it is funny that my friend gave it to me to read, since it covers in depth and quite succintly all the issues that have been debated here. I don’t feel like I am some sort of cult devotee or something by noticing this. I do my buddhist sitting and hang out with buddhist sitting and dharma groups and i see no contradiction at all in reading ADi Da and even feeling his transmission. i don’t have any problem with this at all. And I just report my experience and feelings about it here. I do jab some at the ‘talking school”: thing which feels not straight on to me. And I do question all the negative pr on Adi Da. I don’t deny it per se, but I have seen how rumors work. I mean you would not believe the rumors I have heard about myself that were ridiculous. I am not sure how much more I will post here. If Adi Da had not recently died and if I had not been at home sick for weeks, I doubt I would have ever come across this site. But I read some of the stuff here and put in my two cents for better or worse. But some have taken offence to what I say here and have attacked me on a personal level. I am very open about my life and so forth , but still I do not like personal jabbing. Plus I have said about all that I could say about how I feel about all of this. I am just waiting to get back to surfing and dancing again. And living and dying of course Flick Rahke p.s I get down to L.A. a couple of times a month and was thinking of going over to the Vedanta temple for one thing and also to a kundalini yoga class that has a lot of people and dinner after in Hollywood. maybe a surf at Malibu if I ever get over the flu
January 18, 2009 at 11:59 pm
A response to Conradg in general.
You write very lucidly and there is hardly anything in your arguments that I disagree with even when they contradict my own postings. Yet I always feel something is missing. For what it’s worth, and with no ‘evidence’ whatsoever other than my subjective experience of your postings and my own past, I will try to convey what that is.
Let’s look at a stereotypical relationship between a husband and wife (pretty much what it was like between a number of my former girlfriends and myself). He (the husband) is a very logical and articulate man, always able to argue his way through her unreasonable emotionality and lack of finesse. She (the wife) often feels intimidated by his imposing intellect and does not reckon she is being heard or received. So, although he seems to have the answers for everything and there is nothing in his arguments she disagrees with (i.e., if she can even keep up with the intricacies of those arguments and the speed at which they are enunciated), she leaves him. She wants to be with someone who will drop the mind and be able to confess his vulnerability.
Now, I have no experience of what you are really like and I have no wish to cast aspersions on anyone. But I want to take the risk here of being honest and convey how I see what lies behind much of your postings. I feel intimidated by your resounding intellect (as Dirty Harry said, ‘A man’s got to know his limitations’ – I know mine after decades of intellectual gamesmanship) and feel that a deeper level of communication would reveal more about truth and non-duality than clever arguments. Even if it didn’t, there would at least be more ‘soul’. (Go to http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=De-0ZXDbaZ8 to listen to a 60’s Australian band’s musings on what soul is).
Of course, I understand cyberspace is not particularly suited to intimate communications (and such interactions may have nothing to do with spirituality in any case), but I mostly go with my feelings these days. Perhaps what I am seeing in you is very much what I see in myself!
January 19, 2009 at 12:17 am
No, Flick, you didn’t say anything about being a devotee or not. I just wanted to communicate that it wasn’t necessary in the early years, though being a devotee was almost always held up as the ideal practice. We never signed any paper of absolute devotion, apparently now required. Most fundamental was staying in relationship to the spiritual Master & that’s a 2-way street. In the beginning there were 3 forms of practice, all honorable, of being a student, a disciple (where one did all the practices, vegetarian, yoga, meditation, study) & devotee (complete surrender to the guru). I don’t know if the path of devotion is truly possible for a Westerner, but it never has been for me. Of course, these levels of practice weren’t so black and white, but rather a predominance of what one was attracted to do. Since I left in ’77, I wasn’t around for the ’85 mass public denunciations of Master Da. But those who say they were abused certainly deserve a listening as well and there was criticism in ’76 & ’77, including as said, by myself. During the Garbage & Goddess period there were lengthy periods of being released from the “conditions” or disciplines practiced in many a spiritual community. I appreciate you aren’t puritannical in your thinking. You’re on the money to listen to the experiences of those involved, even those who felt abused. What counts for me is the impression of love that endures, the experience of Heart, and the inquiry begun, the study of the esoteric in the great traditions, within that relationship to a spiritual teacher.
Get over that flu! Maybe see you in L.A. someday. I still go at times to sit in the Vedanta Temple, and certainly am thrilled, captivated to wonder, looking at the sea. Melts my intellectualizing. Maybe one day it will be Flick I’ll see catching waves.
January 19, 2009 at 12:57 am
Wow I just went through a lot of this blog from beginning to end I had never done that before. Lots of for real nutcases have posted here. Deluded people that think they are enlightened for example and saying some really bizarre stuff. I am not referring to most of the regular posters here like Conrad or FFAC or Feel to God and the other regulars although they revel in putting what I say down. but quite a few nut case posts. Then there is the mass of really pissed off disaffected people. I am surprised people still hold onto this sort of stuff after so many years. Then the people who feel like Da was a fake and taking advantage of them. Actually I was in the room a few times when he was drunk and I had the same experience of Da that feel for god describes, he just felt to me to be egoless and transmitting the bright nonduality. I think nonduality can be transmitted from a realized guru and then of course, it has to be realized by a devotee, You can’t catch it like a disease.
Adi Da was for most a difficult teacher to stay with. he was tough and cotroversial and the discipline was not easy for western softies who just want to get the goods now . Has any body ever seen what people do to enter a zen monastery? Sometimes they sit out front for days in the snow and see if they will be admitted. When they are admitted, they are given a tough discipline and renunciation for the rest of their lives and no guarantee of awakening to nonduality during their lifetime. That is just in zen.
I think many nowadays just want to hear someone discourse on nondualism and just get it and wake up now. I think that is great in theory, but seems more like delusion to me. Quite a few came away from Poonja with that. Now he was a man who had a lot of siddhi of transmission too. He was some sort of realizer and a great devotee of Ramana. But he put in his time and paid his dues. He really did a practice over a long period,.
You can throw rotten tomatoes at me , but I just read a small book of Adi Da that someone just gave to me and it is called “What is the Conscious Process?” It covers very well all the issues brought up in this forum in a short little book. I had not read that for many years and I was surprised at how apropo it is. Certainly it is critical like much of his stuff is, but i don’t think overly so.
I personally think there is a lot of delusional thinking in the modern view of nondualism in our society. I do think you can get glimpses and satoris in hearing the teachings, but it still required a devoted practice over time and not sitting in your room by yourself thinking you are now awakened.
Something else I saw scrolling through all this stuff. Equating Adi Da and his community and his teachings to fundamentalist Christianity is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I mean it is hardly even worth mentioning because it is just plain silly. I mean has anyone hear actually heard what a fundamentlist Christian says or believes? I have heard it plenty on the radio,
give me a break please. I guess it must be pure emotional reaction to Adi Da to say something like that. Not that Christ did not have some good stuff to say . Of course , he was crucified for making the kind of declarations about his relationship to the Spirit. Not too acceptable from the nonduality point of view. “I and the Father are One” But what fundamentalists believe about Christ is another matter. Personally , I was taught to study and be open and learn discrimination by my association with Adi Da. i always have checked teachings and teachers out and tried to separate the bull from the real thing. I have found plenty of bull out there and some real thing too. I don’t seem to get it . I never felt anyone tell me I had to blindly believe in Adi Da and i often questioned things for long periods of time. I don’t really care if all the proclamations Adi da made were conventionally true or not. I don’t have to convince myself or anyone else. I don’t care if Adi Da has a large following or a small one. marpa had one disciple. Milarepa did not have too many either. Amma has a lot of them whatever. people look at really superficial stuff and judge a lot from really superficial stuff, like if Adi Da looked wasted in his old age or if he was too fat when he was younger or if he did not have enough disciples or if some people left him feeling bitter or pissed off. Did he drink straight all the way through or did he quit long enough to dry out? how much pot did he smoke? Did he stick it in too hard when he screwed? Did he die of an overdose of viagra? Personally I have not been in his community for years and have some distance from all of this stuff. I have no agenda here or anything riding on it . I just hate to see tons of rumor and sensational gossiping.
I don’t care if people think I have no knowledge or grounding in the traditions. I have read lots but admittedly very little Maharshi so i cannot not debate the particulars of this teachings. But I do have a lot of experience of the modern nondual teachers and please give me a break. Flick Rahke
January 19, 2009 at 2:40 am
Feel4God wrote: “Martin, your statements about God the Creator are more about dualities in the mind, if I understand what you are posting here. Are you versed in the non-duality arguments?”
Yes, I am versed in the non-duality arguments.
I guess the point is in how we define “God”. Do we the dictionary definition or the a new definition. If we use the dictionary definition, then those who claim Godhood need to demonstrate their Godhood through creating universes, etc. If we use another definition of God then we need to state articulate that definition before claiming Godhood.
My experience is that people claim Godhood immediately after big experiences. My conclusion is that they have experienced something so new / big / different that they presume it is God. I guess this is because the only thing bigger than humans is God in our human POV.
People get away with continuing to claim Godhood because they hang around in spiritual circles where that is accepted. But when someone comes along and questions it, there is an uproar.
My goal is liberation from illusion, not some flowery “enlightenment” state, although I wouldn’t resist any such state. It seems to me that others are after thrilling states and don’t want to question them, and they call those states Godhood. Or they are just intellectually lazy.
The error comes with interpretation of experience. All experience is naked and real, but no interpretation is true.
January 19, 2009 at 4:04 am
WEll I have going through a sort of a process myself here and here is my final conclusion after all my blathering. Who am I to judge or criticize any one posting on this forum for anything they have posted here? Every one has a right to their own experience of Adi Da or whatever or whomever and everyone has a right to feel however they feel about it and I can’t possibly know what their real process is . I mean we are all human and in the same boat , however we choose to approach it. so I appologize to anyone here for me acting “holier than thou” and also being judgemental and obnoxious. That is all I have to say Flick Rahke
January 19, 2009 at 7:38 am
Feel4God,
You know that many many times I have brought up to you that you tend to make very exaggerated statements and sweeping generalities/conclusions – all couched in usually a pleasant enough attitude (though often pretentious), lofty thought processes, and a huge amount of fancy wordcraft. You are doing a kind of mental magic act here to make your points – with plenty of smoke and mirrors!
I don’t mind such criticisms of my manner. But you fail to actually demonstrate that I’m substantively wrong. You don’t like the way I say things, but you don’t actually refute anything I say either. I understand that criticism of something we cherish is painful, but that doesn’t mean that critics are inflicting pain. It just means that sometimes hearing what we don’t want to hear is difficult. Blaming the messenger is not going to help you deal with that pain any better.
Often when you make derogatory statements about Adi Da, or Daist devotees or just myself, you do it in this manner. Again, I have called you on this many times, but you don’t seem to get it.
Honestly I don’t. Certainly I’ve made generalization, which I consider generally true. Certainly I’ve been critical of Adidam, and of your arguments in support of Adidam, and of how you argue. Are you saying that is simply not allowed? You keep “calling me” on various things, as if we are in some Adidam devotional group, and you are the authority who gets to decide what kinds of comments are permissible, and what is not. Sorry, we’re not in Adidam anymore. That’s exactly one of the reasons I left, so I don’t have to put up with the sort of control game that goes on there.
Ok, to avoid just making a general statement about you, here are some more examples of your trickery:
For instance, when you said at one point that you did not do “ad hominem” attacks – but only I did. To respond to this accusation at the time, I only had to go to your most recent posts to point out how you did “ad hominem” attacks many times to me. I quoted at least five instances, but received no response from you about them, nor to my question of how exactly were you then defining an ad hominem attack for yourself given the instances I quoted.
I have no idea what post of yours you are referring to. I try to answer pretty thoroughly all your posts, but I may have missed some. If you could give me a date and time reference, I could find it better among the 700 odd posts on this thread. I’ve scrolled back as far as January 14th, but I don’t see it.
In general, though, I define ad hominem as using an attack on the person making an argument as a refutation of the argument that person made. In other words, if someone makes a criticism of Adi Da, and you try to argue that this person is a jerk, or his photograph shows a lack of spiritual maturity, and therefore that invalidates his criticism of Adi Da. This would be an example of using an “ad hominenm” argument. The criticsm of the arguer may be correct or not, but it is irrelevant to the argument he has made. It works both ways. For example, Da’s criticism of Ramana is not refuted merely by saying that Da is not a genuine realizer. One has to actually address the specifics of Da’s criticism of Ramana to see if it’s true.
Plain old flaming, in which people just engage in a series of personal attacks on one another, while unpleasant, is not in itself an ad hominem argument, unless it is being used to discredt someone’s argument.
One of your “greatest hits” at that time was when you proclaimed that not only I, but Daists lack in our intimate lives!
I recall that. I was commenting on the general state of Adidam culture, and I would stand by it as a generality, based on my own experience of Adidam culture, and the comments I’ve heard from many people who are still participating devotees who aren’t totally blind to what goes on there. But I was not making an attack on your personal life, and I don’t believe I referenced you personally either. I couldn’t possibly, since you keep anonymous here, and I have no idea who you actually are or what the state of your intimate life is. General comments always have significant exceptions. I have commented on your highly competitive nature, and how I’ve seen that sort of thing ad nauseum in Adidam, and how it doesn’t make for much of a culture of intimacy there, but I don’t know the details of how you play it out in your life, if you do at all, or if you just reserve it for critics of Adidam. But it’s certainly one of the reasons why so few people like to stay in Adidam, so it certainly is something that makes Adidam small and rather cultic. Most people just don’t have the stomach for competitive spirituality, fighting it out for the various levels of practice and proximity to the Guru. If you would take a look at what you’ve undoubtedly helped create in Adidam, you might understand better why it is such a small and unnattractive spiritual community. Again, blaming the messenger isn’t going to help change those realites.
Now maybe you are still looking to respond to me about the “quite a few people on this forum pointed out that you were indeed being pretty condescending and superior in the typical Adidam manner”, but at the time of my asking for feedback, there was nothing anywhere near what you are saying here. So this is another example of you trying to “hoodwink” people into some generalized belief you are putting forth via your use of logic, lots of words, and sweeping “charged” generalizations.
I simply recall reading comments in at least three posts here which seemed to address this issue. Trying to locate them at this point is not worth my time. If I recall falsely, my mistake, but I remember several people echoing the sentiment that these Adidam people tend to be very superior and condescending, and this really undermines their efforts.
Hardly “quite a few people”. And no, I read all the posts and there was basically nothing posted as direct negative feedback in response to my request.
I’m not referring to some kind of standalone response to your request, just comments within people’s posts that referred to this issue. It didn’t seem like people wanted to make you the topic of discussion, but they did address the topic you raised and wanted feedback on.
So look at this tendency, Conrad – I have pointed it out many times, and it does cheapen your communication when you do this. Smoke and mirrors just won’t cut it around here.
Yes, thank you, I will look at this. Will you look at the tendency you have, and Adidam in general has, to speak from a position of presumed superiority over all other teachings and paths and practices? Because so far you seem to be in complete denial of it, in your own case and in the case of Adidam altogether. Rather than attacking me for making this criticism, you might actually consider that it’s true, and that it would help explain the dismal showing Adidam has made in the area of its “missionary work”. You might actually see that in my own crude way I’m trying to help you, and even help Adidam. If you took this kind of criticism to heart, and Adidam took it to heart, you all might actually be able to turn that sinking ship around. If not, well, don’t say you weren’t warned.
One of your latest, that I quoted above, about “there’s really precious little human or spiritual love in Adidam” is also utterly pretentious of you to proclaim, don’t you think? Do you know everyone in Adidam or even the majority of Daists to make such a grandiose claim? I could cite many examples of devotee friends demonstrating great love – but you would write that off to a subjective experience of mine, I guess. How do you know how much we love our intimates and friends these days, by the way?
The truth hurts, sometimes. There are plenty of loving people in Adidam, but as I said, the structure of Adidam is not built on love, it’s built on a very dismal religious business model that simply has no real regard for human beings and actual, demonstrable love. It’s very sad, really. I lived with that culture for a very long time, and found it very frustrating. People are certainly able to carve out their little human refuges of love, but the highly competitive and soul-crushing nature of the beast is always tending to defeat that. That was my general observation of what I saw going on, and like I say, a lot of people felt the same way, they just felt it was somehow a necessary ordeal to undergo, that there must be some good reason Adi Da let this go on or even encouraged it, as if it were somehow good for us all in the long run. I’m simply not making this up. I could of course be wrong, deranged, insane, what have you. But I’m not simply lying to smear Adidam.
You immediately assume that what I have been talking about are just experiences. I went over and over in the earlier sections of this blog how true heart-recognition of Who Adi Da Is, is NOT a subjective experience as you are defining them (and as Adi Da has also defined and given as lessons such psycho-physically-based experiences).
Well, you claim it’s not a subjective personal experience, but what else is it, really? I’m including in this category all forms of experience, “non-dual” or otherwise, that we all have had at one time or another, even the great samadhis and so forth. Clearly, you have had experiences of Adi Da, what you call heart-recognition of him, and you seem to cling to the idea that these are not experiences, they are “reality”. Well, what I’m pointing out is that all experiences, even what we think are the “highest” experiences, even what we like to call “non-dual” experiences, are still experiences, and are not nearly as important as the question of who is having these experiences. In other words, I’m not trying to put down your experience, I’m trying to make the point that any experience points back to the experiencer, no matter how profound we think it is. You could stop being so defensive, or making claims that your experience is beyond the experience of the rest of us. You have no idea what my experience has been, or is now, or what anyone else here has experienced. You keep insisting that you are somehow beyond experience, but that just doesn’t seem to be a very credible claim to me. As I said, someone who is genuinely heart-opened beyond experience just doesn’t come off the way you do. My personal feedback, nothing more, and I’m sure you’ll quickly dismiss it, but I can’t offer much more for you.
Yes, all psycho-physical experiences are to be seen for what they are – temporary, deluding, and dualistic. But this heart-based recognition is not this! Yes, I know there is no convincing you or anyone of this – that is for each person to understand in their own case.
Look, you really could convince me and others of this. It wouldn’t be hard at all. If you were to demonstrate selfless love and a complete lack of superiority, competitiveness, assholishness, pettiness, defensiveness, etc., and just really gave your unqualified love to everyone here, you know, even your enemies, then yes, I think we’d all stop in our tracks and go, hey, maybe there’s really something to this Adidam thing he’s talking about. But that’s in no what what you demonstrate, even on this little internet forum, so why would we possibly imagine what you say is actually true? Do you really love your enemies? That’s the big test. None of us do very well with that one, it’s a very humbling matter to even look at, but that’s the measure. Do you really think you are passing this test here? If not, stop making these kinds of claims for your higher spiritual life. Whatever is going on there is obviously not making a serious dent in your ego.
But perhaps break some taboos, Conrad, and stop just automatically assuming that Daists don’t understand the difference between psycho-physically-based spiritual experiences and this heart-recognition of the Acausal Divine Person.
I don’t automatically assume this. Some Daists do understand the basic issue, and they don’t go around making claims they can’t actually back up in their living. Some actually do love their enemies. Most people like that don’t have any real power in Adidam, because they don’t have the urge to lord it over everyone else. But I don’t believe you are one of those people. Just my impression, for whatever it’s worth, which I’m sure isn’t much.
How can you be so sure that this is not the case?
Because of how you relate to others on this forum.
There is an undeniable difference for those who do recognize Adi Da most directly (not through the medium of psycho-physical experience) – and this is the impasse you and I will not likely get beyond.
If you are an example of this “difference”, then you are right, we have reached an impasse. You have clearly created a “difference” between yourself and others, whereas a truly heart-opened person awakening to the Acausal Divine would find a unity, a commonality, not a difference. So by my standards at least you are not meeting the mark, to say the least.
Regardless, many Daists do recognize via a heart-based intelligence Who Adi Da Is, and such a heart conversion is not an intellectual exercise.
If that is so, great, but it must show itself directly as unqualified love, not as claims of spiritual superiority. Love is not hard to see.
Wow! If that is truly the case with you, why don’t you share your hilarity on this blog, as your posts are seldom humorous, at least in my experience. I would love for us to share some laughter more!
If I could teach you how to laugh at yourself, and at this whole forum, I would. But learning to laugh isn’t the same as making jokes, it’s seeing the humor, the absurdity, in ourselves. I laugh at myself all through this forum. I think I’m totally ridiculous. That gives me the freedom to be serious and earnest. I’m not the kind of guy who likes to throw emoticons around to show that he’s laughing. I love seriousness, because without it you can’t really laugh at all. I write seriously because I can afford to, because I find all this quite humorous. Maybe I’m just very odd. Adi Da used to comment on what a strange sense of humor I had. He seemed to enjoy it, however. It’s one of the things I miss about him, someone who could “get” my sense of humor, and my seriousness, at the same time. I’m not sure that laughter and humor can be taught, but I did pick up a few pointers from him on the subject.
Remember that talk by Adi Da “Sex, Laughter, and God-Realization”? Well, we have talked plenty about God-Realization, but almost never about laughter and sex. Thank God for NC’s bellydancing!
Well, we should certainly correct that. But are you sure you want to talk about Adi Da and sex?
Come on, Conrad, let’s break taboos (as you admonished all of us earlier), and make a date not to just realize God, but also to love freely, laugh more, and… nah, I don’t want to have sex with you! Of course, I am happy to talk about it though. You want to make the first move big guy, or should I?
No problem. I love you, dude. You’re a pain in the ass, but nothing short of lovably so. Love is all that matters anyway. My first post on this forum was all about how much I loved Adi Da. And I mean that still. I loved him, and in my experience anyone you really loved, even once, you love forever. Early on in this thread I quoted Nisargadatta saying that nothing in this world is real, not the people, the creatures, the world itself, except for the love we feel for one another. So just letting you know I feel a lot of love for you, even if I express it wierdly. You’re a funny guy, but so are we all. No sense in witholding love just because we’re strange and colorful fish out of water. I really do love you. Not joking there. I love everyone here, it’s a wonderful forum, and I don’t really get any sense that anyone here is more advanced than anyone else. Just because you claim to be, doesn’t mean I can’t love you still. Maybe not the way you want, but my love just doesn’t recognize all these silly ideas of ours as having any foundation.
Ok, this one made me laugh in a twisted kind of way. This is just too ironic on too many levels.
Indeed. It’s a strange and twisted world, you gotta laugh, there’s no other way through it all. When I look at the path I’ve taken, I can’t help but laugh. What else am I going to do?
Actually, I wrote extensively in the beginning of this blog about my first-hand experiences with Adi Da in gatherings, etc. I also pointed out that almost everything you were bringing to the table was second-hand (hearsay) “knowledge” at best. You were not involved very close in, and so this is understandable…I can only truthfully speak of what I directly experienced not just what I heard, and if I choose to not speak of some of that, you should certainly be able to understand and accept my right to do so.
This is like saying we can’t speak about World War II, because we weren’t personally there for it. This is a very defensive stance, trying to reduce our understanding of Adidam to only the things we were directly present for. If you really meant this, of course, you wouldn’t accept anything in Adidam you weren’t directly present for and saw with your own eyes, the good and the bad. But clearly you completely accept all the good things about Adi Da you’ve heard that you weren’t present for, and yet none of the bad. That simply makes no sense, other than as a form of cultic denialism.
There’s quite enough testimony from quite a lot of people to establish that everything I mentioned earlier has a strong factual basis, and isn’t made up or mere “heresay”. You don’t actually refute this, I notice, you just point out that I wasn’t personally there in the room for very much of it. I was certainly there for enough of it too see what was going on. The facts should not be in dispute, though the interpretations are up for grabs.
After all, for quite a while you refused to speak of your spiritual experiences (although you have now done so some), and you also refused to speak of your sex life – citing that both your spiritual experiences and sex life were way too personal to post on a public forum. But somehow you think I should speak of intimate private matters publicly about Adi Da. Really, many aspects of His private life were not my business, just like they are not yours. And remember, He is my Spiritual Master, whom I respect utterly, and vowed eternal devotion to.
I am not the subject of discussion here. If I were, if I were a spiritual teacher with hundreds of devotees, with a whole organization devoted to me, with all kinds of accusations of abuse, my personal life, my sexual life, my intimate life, would certainly be a valid topic of discussion and investigation. Every genuine spiritual teacher would agree. Ramana’s life was an open book, as were the lives of all the saints and sages. If there were any hint of impropriety there, it would be considered worth looking into. That Adi Da considers all such inquiries improper merely says that his whole understanding of the Guru function and relationship is improper.
You continually try to conflate criticism of Adi Da’s personal life with some kind of inquisition of of his critics themselves. Adi Da’s personal life is definitely the business of his devotees, past, present, and future, this is a completely false claim on his part, that his personal life is off-limits, when most of his spiritual teaching and work have occurred in private, personal circumstances. If being Sat-Guru were a job with office hours, and he just went home to a private life after a day of teaching publically, then fine, but when you become a Sat-Guru, you renounce your personal life, you no longer have one. You no longer even have any individual sense of being a separate person, how could you?
You see, this is another example of where you lack self-understanding relative to some of your motives. You keep saying you have no agenda, but from the very beginning you have been on an anti-Daist campaign. If you really had no agenda, wouldn’t some praise for Adi Da, His Teaching, His Sanctuaries, etc., at least come through more? All your posts are your “actions” here, and the number of anti-Daist posts by you speak much more loudly than your occasion words that you have “no agenda to push”. Plus you seem to quickly find ways to get back to your agenda whenever possible.
If there were more to praise about Adi Da, I would. Or, if you didn’t continually try to defend the improprieties, personal and dharmic, of Adi Da, I wouldn’t be so drawn into critical discussion of those things. I didn’t begin this forum with criticism, I began it with declarations of love and praise for Da. If you and other Daists weren’t so fixated on denying the facts or promoting the pretensious specialiness of Adi Da and yourselves, I wouldn’t be responding to you so critically. But when I declared my love and praise for Adi Da, you had nothing to say. You never acknowledged it, and in fact you only tried to put down my relationship to him and suggested I didn’t actually have the kind of experience of him that you had. You only started engaging me with crazy criticisms of Ramana, who you had very little experience of, you certainly weren’t “in the room with him”, all aimed at proving Da’s superiority. That was a really loveless tack, wasn’t it?
But it’s true I have plenty of criticism of Da. That doesn’t mean I have some agenda here. I’m just responding as honestly as I can to what is brought up here. As for my motives, what about your own? Do you really know what you are doing in this place, talking with people like me? I know very well what kinds of secret doubts you probably have about Da yourself. You come here not to counter them in me, but to counter them in yourself. Can you even admit to any doubt about Da? I certainly can admit to uncertainty in my understanding of him. Can you?
Anyway, I am beginning to think that we have indeed hit an impasse that will not be resolved, no matter how much we talk here – whether it be debate-oriented, or about self-understanding. Sooner or later, the core response of the being takes precedence, and our “twain” does not seem to be meeting in these mainly intellectual terms, Conrad. Good thing we are always already in prior Unity!
Well, the ego always creates impasses. I don’t feel there’s any real impasse here, but that’s because I don’t have any real taboos about what we can discuss about Da. But it does wind down naturally, nothing is forever. If you want me to talk about my love for Da more, my experience of him, I would. That’s kind of what originally drew me to this site, it seemed like a good place to reminisce about our times with Da, without regard to whether it was good, bad, or ugly. It wasn’t my intention at all to get drawn into this dharmic battle. But once you start reminiscing, I guess it starts to bring up conflicts, because Da was not exactly a peaceful dude living a conflict-free life. C’est la vie.
January 19, 2009 at 10:38 am
Shiva,
the mind is not needed at all for the perception itself. it comes in when the perception is interpreted but not prior to that.
I think we have a semantic problem with the use of the word “mind”. I use it in the Vedantic sense that Ramana used it, to refer to all dualistic experience, including simple perception and all bodily processes, not just those of intellect. In other words, all our experience, bodily or mental or emotional, is simply an experience of “mind”, of consciousness seemingly knowing through these vehicles. Even if you use the term in the materialistic sense, of course, perception is still a function of the mind. The eyes don’t do the seeing, the brain does. There is no cognitive perception without cognition, i.e., mind.
anyways, a very strange mind you must have.
Many would agree, so it must be so.
i sure don’t need mine to see (neither for the seeing through the eyes nor the immediate seeing).
You need your mind to carry on this dialog, to read and consider non-dual teachings, and to practice them. You also need mind to see. Are you in the eyeballs, seeing from them? I don’t think so. There is no sensory perception if the brain is dead.
are you familiar with the term “pointer”? you don’t look at the pointer itself but to that to which it points.
Yes, I am well familiar with that term. That teaching meme does not suggest that the pointer is unnecessary, it only warns against confusing the pointer with what is being pointed towards. I am in no way suggesting that the mind itself is non-dual or to be valued as such. But it is of value in pointing us towards the non-dual reality.
“the tao that can be spoken of is not the real tao”. but it can be pointed to. and you have to leave the mind at home for that. because that what is pointed to can only be intuited or directly seen, not spoken of and not grasped with the mind.
presence-awareness is beyond the mind. you don’t need the mind to be aware. the mind arises in awareness.
Quite so. And yet you used your mind to point this out to my mind. Why did you do that, if mind cannot help us in these matters?
Regarding your Nisargadatta quotes, thanks for them. I love that dude. Don’t imagine I am arguing that a realizer has any mind. Quite the contrary. But Nisargadatta’s recommendation to observe the mind, this is directed to your mind. He is suggesting that you engage this inspection, using your mind, your attention. In the process, mind is undone. But that doesn’t mean you don’t use mind in the process.
I’m not saying you have to get all intellectual about it. That’s not his point, or mine either. But you do have to engage the mind in order to transcend it. It won’t go away by itself. You have to recognize that what you call yourself is really just mind, nothing more. And that means all of you, not just your intellect, but your body, perceptions, emotions, spiritual experiences, the whole of it. It is just mind. Mind knowing itself as mind is pure awareness. That is “heart”, transcending all the mind’s contents, even the “I”-thought at the root of mind.
english is not my mother tongue and in my language there is no single word that quite encompasses all connotations of the english word “mind”. maybe that is where our differences come from. but somehow i don’t think so…
I think that is the root of our differences. I don’t think we actually have much real disagreement in matters of substance.
you are just so charmingly in love with your mind…
And should I not be? Will the mind be transcended by anything other than love?
January 19, 2009 at 10:48 am
Flick,
I am surprised that Conrad has attacked me personally here when I have never attacked him or said anything detrimental about him.
I’m not trying to attack you. As a friend, I’m just a little surprised at the general hostility you are exhibiting in a sort of shotgun manner towards all criticism of Adi Da and Adidam, and even virtually all forms of non-dualism people on this forum are practicing and talking about. I don’t find your defense of Adidam very convincing either, based on what you’ve told me in the past. You’re certainly entitled to your own views, but I think you’re taking this all a little too personally and defensively, is all.
The money I gave never made me an “insider” in Adidam or got me any special access priveleges.
That’s not what you told me. You said you were given permission, not being a student at all, to go on the Sanctuary any time you felt. Was that not true?
I went to the same darshans as any one in the community at that time and that was it.
But you weren’t actually a member of the community, were you? You didn’t have to do any of the things that community people had to do, because you were giving them lots of money. I’m not saying that’s bad, but it’s not the way things are for most people, who have to struggle and go through transistions and play politics a lot of the time to get on the darshan list. I have no problem with your donating money and time to Adidam. I certainly did, probably a lot more of both than you if you added it all up. I don’t regret it either – except of course when I look at my savings account. It’s water under the bridge. That doesn’t mean I approve of Adidam’s whole relationship with money. At the time, I thought this was just the way things were supposed to be. Over time it began to seem really bizarre, but not until I left and saw how other Gurus related to money did I realize how spiritually unsound it all was. Ramana, for example, forbid people to solicit money for his ashram. He relied entirely on donations, and wouldn’t even accept those unless it was clearly lawful. Papaji felt very strongly that any Guru who charged money for Satsang or “membership” was a fraud. As I’ve considered these things, I’ve come to agree with that view. Sorry, I think Adidam’s whole relationship to money was fucked up, and took advantage of people who were naïve, good-hearted westerners like yourself not aware of the real tradition about these things. You don’t have to be angry and resentful to come to that conclusion.
…that he watched porn a lot . It goes on and on.
Are you saying he didn’t? Come on, Flick, he watched TONS of it, for years on end. Hell, back in the day he used to make porn films of people in the community. Crane’s first meeting with Adi Da ended with Adi Da demanding that Crane fuck his wife on the floor in front of everyone, while Da filmed it. Back in the day, that was actually published in one of the magazines, before they got ashamed of this sort of thing. I remember returning some of his porn videos to the store for him, and the guy serving the scene telling me, “Don’t ever tell anyone about this, ever!” as if it were nuclear secrets or something. I once went on a shopping trip to a sex store in Berkeley, picking up an order of dildos, sex toys, and a full size blow-up doll for him. It was hilarious. He gave the doll a name, I can’t remember, he seemed to have a gas with it. He used to tell me dharma stories based on his porn viewing. In fact, one of the best analogies I ever heard from him about the conscious process and witness consciousness was taken from a porn movie he had recently watched.
Maybe it’s worth repeating, to liven up this discussion of non-duality. Da told how he had been watching this porn scene with two women and a man the other day. One of the women was on all fours, giving head to the guy, while the other woman was wearing a strap-on dildo, fucking the woman from behind with it. Da said that unike most porn actors, the woman with the strap-on dildo seemed to be really into it. Da got the impression that she was a lesbain, and that she was really into fucking other women like this. He felt that what she was really doing was trying to get the feeling of what it was like to be a man with a penis fucking a woman, she was that into it, in a concentrated, imaginative way. He pointed out how inherently frustrating it was to choose to seek in this manner, because, of course, the woman didn’t actually have a penis, and she couldn’t ever get the feeling of what it would be to actually be a man with a penis fucking a woman. The best she could do was simulate that feeling in her mind with this clumsy, feelingless strap-on. Then Da said that this was just how all of us related to experience. We identify with the body-mind like a strap-on dildo, always trying to get it on with the world. but none of us actually are the body-mind, we are always only the witness of the body-mind. We are always trying to get the feeling going of being a body-mind in a world, just like this woman is trying to get the feeling of being a man with a penis fucking a woman, we are always trying as hard as we can to fuck the world, to get the experience of it, but it’s always futile and let’s you down. The basic problem, Da said, with great emphasis, is that we just don’t have the dick for it! We don’t have the real anatomy to get it on with the world, because we are just the witness, mere consciousness. So all our seeking is inherently futile and frustrating, and thus all rather sad and pathetic, like this lesbian with her strap-on.
Now, I’m not a prude, I think this was a great analogy of sorts. But to somehow deny that Da was a huge fan of porn is just crazy to me. I have to ask, who the hell are these people here pretending this is all just “heresay”? Sure, I wasn’t there every time Da watched a porno, but it’s not as if there’s any doubt that he did, for years on end, ad nauseum. He had a whole library of porn, and was always looking for new releases. It’s not as if he never got any insight into the non-dual from watching porn. I’m sure it was all a perfectly valid tax deductible charitable church expense. I’m sure plenty of people have non-dual experience from watching porn. Porn may be the most enlightening thing must people do, for all I know.
I do know he spent a lot of money on art and so forth. well he did not take it with him. He left a lot more than he took , which was nothing.
A lot? Ya think? Jeez, I remember him personally raising a million dollars for Disney art in one weekend! He was doing this personally, with a live feed from Fiji to every community in the States. I remember, just a year or two in from that point, talking with the head of the art department, and him saying they’d raised at least five million by then, and it grew well beyond that. And yeah, sure, he can’t take it with him. Neither can anyone, what the hell is the point of that? I mean honestly, flick, what kind of rationalizaiton is that? People drained their retirement funds, gave their life savings, racked up credit card debt, all for what? Some silly baubles? Disney art and paperweights costing millions of dollars? While alive, he certainly tool a lot, and gave nothing back. Those people are still paying the price for it. Not exactly high on my list of compassionate action.
The art he produced with his photography was brilliant.
I agree. He deserves credit. But it came at a huge cost, of course, in money and manpower. But at least the result was better than Disney crapola.
i always thought his play, the mummery sucked and was torture to sit through. I thought his earlier paintings were really bad too. But he found his forte in art in photography.
I liked the mummry a lot in a literary way, but I amdit it was often torture to sit through. But I think that was part of the deal – Da liked torturing people a bit.
I also know how the rumor thing works. I am amazed at some of the rumors I have heard about myself.
In my experience, most of the time the rumors were far less extreme than the actual realities behind them. As many described it, what actually went on would make your hair stand on end. But if you choose to think it was all some kind of very normal scene, be my guest.
*********************
Most of the “nonduality” going around these days including the “nonduality” on this blog, I would refer to as “nonduality lite” or “watered down ” nonduality.
I’m not really sure what you mean here. Are you including Adidam in this category, or do you think Adidam was one of the real non-dual scenes, and if so, why? Likewise, are you putting yourself in the category of real non-dualism, as opposed to “nonduality lite”? If so, why. If not, why all the righteous finger-pointing at others?
I have checked out a lot of these new age teachers who sort of came down from the general Maharshi line, including Andrew Cohen, and Nome , and Gangaji, and Joe Blow Brigss and so forth.
I haven’t heard anyone advocating these teachers here, so I really don’t know what you’re talking about. I’ve only heard people talking about Ramana, Nisargadatta, Papaji, Annamalai, Ammachi, Lakshmana, Sailor Bob Amundson, etc. None of them are people I would consider non-duality lite. So what are you talking about?
I am not the expert on Ramana like many others around here, but i do know that his brand of spirituality is more than an intellectual exercise. He did really teach from the practicing school and not the talking school.
Well of course. Who has ever said otherwise here? Who has actually advocated something like a “talking school” on this forum? I must have missed those posts. But you don’t even seem aware of what the practice in Ramana’s path was, so how can you really even say that people are distorting it?
I still think true spirtuality is approached through real practice over time.
Who doesn’t? Why build yourself up to be some upholder of the true tradition against the rest of us barbarians? This just seems like ego to me, to be honest.
To point at Adidam and make a big deal of there being no enlightened people or seventh stagers is just totally ridiculous if you have any grasp at all of the history of practice in the great traditions of spirit.
The question is, do you really have much grasp of the history of practice in the great tradition? It appears that you don’t, or you would know that other teachers did indeed have enlightened realizers for devotees. In most cases, I’d be understanding of Da’s failures, since not every enlightened teacher has enlightened devotees. But Da is claiming to be the greatest Guru ever, with greater realization and greater siddhis and greater power to enlighten, unprecedented in human history, and yet his record is not very impressive. There seems to be a serious gap between the talk and the walk. Wouldn’t you say?
You practice, because you know that life here as it seems is suffering and you have been given a glimpse that there is much more than meets the eye.
Sure, no doubt all must practice as best they can, with the best understanding they can muster, and have faith in the process. Why do you think the rest of us are doing anything different than that?
Spirituaity is a real yoga that includes the mind and also all parts of the body. It is not just in the head.
Sure, I think this is obvious to everyone here. What point are you trying to make that we don’t already know?
Of course, if you believe, like Raymond here, that what we know of spirituality is all just garbage and placebo and there is not really such a thing as realization and that a guru like Adi Da is only just a scumbag manipulator and that is that, then I feel pretty sorry for you. Just copping to the blind and mortal modern western view of life is pretty sad.
He can speak for himself, but I don’t think that’s Raymond’s point of view about any of this. You’re really distorting his views, I’m not sure why, maybe he hurt your feelings or something.
It sounds like sour grapes to me.
Are you sure you’re not suffering from sour grapes yourself? You sure can dish it out here, but the question is, can you take it? Can you be as critical of yourself as you are of others? Or is that the problem?
Anyway, I’m not wishing to damage our friendship, but I really don’t get what all this self-righteousness is about. Pardon me if I’m being out of line, as you know I tend to speak my mind. Please don’t take it as an attack.
January 19, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for — now — months on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest, rather than keep getting sucked back in egoicially, and perpetuating this forever. This is just a suggestion for you to consider, like everything else that is being written here . . . Of course it very likely will be twisted and reinterpreted into something else, but we don’t have to be sucked back in by that. It’s like being taunted by the bullies on the school playground — just walk away!
January 19, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Eddie B.,
Thanks for the feedback. I’m not sure how to respond. I started writing you a personal response about my actual relationship with my wife, which is nothing like you describe, and then I thought, what am I doing? I’m not sure I can give you what you want here, on an internet forum. I’m sure there’s quite a lot missing from my posts. You would be a better judge of that sort of thing than me. But let me assure you, I’ve been married for 25 years to the most loving, ecstatic, mindless woman in the world, and she’s found it in her heart to love me in return. I’m an extremely lucky man. She is in no way intimidated by my intellect, because she could care less about such things. She just laughs at me when I get that way. And I love her for it.
But you are right, this is cyberspace, it doesn’t lend itself to the kind of intimate communication we might like. To me, this is just an entertaining and sometimes even illuminating place to talk, which means its mostly limited to intellect. Sorry if I’ve been unkind or hurtful to you, even without intending it.
January 19, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Devotee,
Your hidden doubts are showing.
January 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Hey Conrad I think you did not see the very last thing I posted here . I don’t feel like I have sour grapes but certainly I have been overreacting myself and I am not sure why. One thing though, at the time of my money thing, I was what was called a third congregation student.
The regular students were kind of offended at us 3c because we had mostly just as much access as them without having to do nearly as much. I got into this category before I gave any money.
Anyhow like always I have gone back and forth on Adi
da over the years and I am sure I said plenty to you in our conversations over time. So I can see why you are confused by my postings here. Sorry about that and sorry like I said to anyone I might have offended here{although I doubt anyone cares one way or the other about what I have written here}
Anyhow , as usual, my process that I am going through is pretty out front in the moment and I know after the fact that I can be punky and insensitive to others.
Also, it is no real excuse, but I have had this really bizarre flu virus that I cannot seem to kick and it is affecting my mental and emotional state a lot. On top of that I finised tapering off my long taper of tranquilizers just a couple of months ago and that is impacting me too.
Still even though I was on retreat with Amma when I heard about Adi Da’s death and have felt no grief myself from it and was hanging out with some good friends at Amma’s who completely depsise him, it somehow triggered the old good feelings I used to have for him and his teachings. So I have been reading some again and also feeling some of the transmission, partially probably because I have also been around some devotee friends who went to the island and related to me their experiences there.
So this is pretty much full disclosure for me relative to my emotions and thoughts about this. Still this death seems to have stirred up a lot in a lot of people and I just have to see where it takes me. I will continue my Buddhist studies and practices and continue in my relationship with Amma. And like I said I am going to read the David Godman editings of Ramana Teachings. I am also not closed to teachers like Sailor Bob. I was referring to teachers I have personally seen, like Andrew Cohen and so forth. Anyhow I have no right to be righteous even with the ones I do not jive with.
So I would like to say that it was good to connect with Morgan again too and like I said I get to L.A and want to go to the vedanta temple there too Flick Rahke who will probably not post here again and best to all whatever your experience and feelings
January 19, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Is Conrad a Hypocrite?
Conrad seems to really know where it’s at, at least that is the notion that he purveys. He seems to enjoy his own self-appointment as expert in-charge and expresses his views on matters of spirituality and on Adi Da as though his point of view is supreme. So on the one hand he seems to be very good at talking the talk. And he uses the time honored method of so many of the recent pundits, criticizing Adi Da as charlatan on the one hand, and then demonstrating their own spiritual prowess on the other- as a virtual one-two punch. It seems to be somehow perceived as a rite of passage., this trashing of Da.
Conrad you have hurt so many of us with your wild and careless accusations toward your one time guru who loved you completely, and never hurt you in any way. And so many of us who confided in you and thought you were our friend only to be used by you as our confidences were distorted into your own twisted logic of abuse. And then you publicly spread these distortions all over the Internet, for all to see. Ahh, the great hero, Conrad G. I’ll bet you get a little rush every time you make disparaging remarks against Da in print on the Internet. I’ll bet that rush is quite addicting. Did you ever wonder were that rush of energy comes from? Probably not. Because if you did, you certainly wouldn’t do it.
You are a star at Adidaarchives.com. “The voracious abusive personality cult of Adi Da” , “Conrad G accuses Adi Da of Rape” the headlines read. How could you make such an allegation? The person you claimed you were told was raped says no, she wasn’t. And you have the temerity to say that she is a liar. Now if that isn’t abuse, I don’t know what is. You have hurt so many with your recklessness. You really have to ask yourself whether that little rush is worth it.
I love you Conrad, I was a friend of yours. But I feel deeply hurt by what you have done. Do you ever ask yourself, what if I am wrong? I know that some part of you does. It is like a splinter in your heart. It is just there, and you wish that you could get at it somehow and pull it out.
I wonder about your own criminality as well, and how that fits into your scheme of things as far as your being the righteous one, the slayer of un-truths. I mean a simple Google search of your name reveals a little matter titled “United States of America v. $79,320 in United States currency” which the Federal Government has been so kind as to plaster all over the Internet. http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:JV5iKCF-0VgJ:www.websupp.org/data/NDCA/3:05-cv-04068-13-NDCA.pdf+United+states+of+america+v.+%2479,320+in+united+states+currency&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us Perhaps this is a fitting reflection? I don’t know myself. I don’t particularly agree with our draconian drug laws in this country. But it does make me marvel at your duplicity.
So where does the heartbreak end my friend? How many will you feel the need to hurt with this recklessness? There are 2000 people who love Da as master and your casually throwing out accusation after accusation as though they are the gospel truth without even the faintest of discrimination or even research. This does not sound like someone who is spiritual at all. This is not the sign of a spiritual being. A spiritual being is someone who is all too aware of their responsibility to love, and to not hurt another. And before they make accusations, take the time to do the research so that they know that beyond any doubt, they stand in the light of truth, not the darkness of their own lazy delusions.
So I am calling you out. I am saying that you are reckless in your accusations, and because you are factually wrong, you are needlessly abusing those who once loved you.
Just because somebody says “it” doesn’t make “it” true.
January 19, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Conrad, how much do you want to bet that “New World” is Bill Stranger?
January 19, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Having never had the experience of sitting with Da-the closest I got was traveling from LA to Clearlake for a scheduled Darshan only to be told he had changed his mind and left earlier that morning (I heard a woman who had traveled all the way from Australia had arrived in time to see him get into the car) having been powerfully intrigued, fascinated and perplexed over the years, I would like to take advantage of this forum to ask any of the articulate posters with long direct personal experience who a few probably inane, undoubtedly subjective yet nonethless sincere questons: 1) Was Da’s transmission something he could turn on and off or step up and intensify at will? Would he sit down and “flame on” as it were? 2) did it seem to be more of the nature of a catalyst IE activating the available “spirit” potentiality of those who gathered or a beacon summoning all who beheld with a demonstration of the reality of a higher order of light? Did it seem like he was a conduit, a portal through which some “magical”force could manifest into this realm? 3) Was he completely consciously controling and directing the process or was it more like he was just holding open the door and “it” did whatever it was up to…. 4) was the “light” everpresent regardless of what he happened to be doing? I welcome any comments anyone is prompted to make in response to this inquiry, thank you.
January 20, 2009 at 1:31 am
New World,
Your post is really sad. If you feel hurt by Conrad, then just express it and leave out the slimey attacks. Conrad actually argues very coherently and persuasively and respectably, and it would be really good if those who disagree with him would do so in kind. Do you have any idea how obnoxious the Adidam cult is to those of us who spent years, decades in Adidam being brainwashed, misled, deceived, exploited? If Adidam really has some superiority to reveal (the Adidam revelation, superior to all that has ever been or will be), if you really can refute that Adi Da didn’t do all the things that are alleged, if you really have something substantive to say about the traditions relative to Adidam, then please do so. What is it exactly that you are “calling out”? I really want to know if you really have something honest to say here. I have enough personal experience with Adidam to find Conrad a most credible witness, and I’ve been waiting, waiting, waiting, for a real refutation from someone. Clearly, there is no refutation of the problems with Adidam, and posts such as yours only confirm this.
January 20, 2009 at 4:03 am
I do not know who “New World” is but this post with the police report really sucks. Really low blow, considering that Adi Da used marijuana as a sacred celebratory substance with many devotees over a pretty extended period of time and considered it a sacred celebratory accessory. Like I have posted before on this forum, what is the big deal around pot, unless you are still living in the 1930′s in your attitude. People being arrested for pot is a sign of a continuing and very “unenlighted” police state. And the fact is that he was never charged. People should really try not to get so personal like this here. very low blow and i am surprised that the moderator allowed this post to pass. only for the reason of the viciousness of such a low blow. I feel some around here are quite sad that McCain and palin did not get elected. Perhaps we should hold Sarah Palin up here as a model spiritual practicioner based on some of this stuff. Flick Rahke
January 20, 2009 at 4:26 am
Flick,
Yeah, I think our posts crossed in traffic. Good to hear you’re feeling gaining some perspective, sorry to hear your health sucks. I guess we have a different experience of non-dual teachers. I never had any interest in the Cohen and Gangaji types, so they’re not even on my radar. The living teachers I’m most interested in are Lakshmana and Sarada. For some reason I really like this Sarada lady, she’s completely non-intellectual, reminds me of my wife actually, she’s very simple and devotional without any complications, just immensely happy and full of love.
Here’s a link. Maybe Feel4God can give us a photographic reading on her:
http://mathrusrisarada.org/
I also like Ammachi, but only met her once. Very strong transmission, but the scene is a bit too big and noisy for me. I live pretty quietly and privately. Maybe some day I’ll travel a bit and see some of the usual suspects, but I have no real interest in the general round of “teachers”. One guy I did get invited to a private meeting with was Premananda, who was Rang Avadhut’s personal attendent, and a totally loving and sweet guy without any pretensions. I’m much more impressed with these types than those who make grand non-dual claims.
Anyway, wish you luck and good health and maybe some day we’ll get together again and shoot the shit.
January 20, 2009 at 5:05 am
New World,
I appreciate that you feel hurt, but lashing out at me doesn’t seem to be a very mature way of responding to the kinds of things I’ve written about. I would remind you that I didn’t make the accusation of rape against Da, it was the man who actually participated in the rape and beating of the woman in question with Da who did so. I think you know who he is, and that he was a very credible, highly respected figure within the innermost circles of Adidam for quite a while. He had no reason to lie, he in fact contacted me when I was a very public defender of Da, and he explained what he had been through, and what he’d done with Da, and the traumatic effect it had on him, and asked how I could defend it. I couldn’t. He helped me to see just how wrong I had been to defend Da’s actions. The woman in question personally admitted to me Da’s abuse of her, but as a devotee she immediately explained, “But I deserved it”. Something like this need to be disclosed, regardless of confidences broken. I also spoke directly with Sukha Mai about the incident, and she never even tried to deny it. So I would stand by the account I’ve passed on as valid. It isn’t the only accusation I’m aware of either.
If you think I get some kind of “charge” out of this, you are wrong. It’s rather painful stuff. I do get relief from speaking the truth, however, and undoing some of the damage I did in defending Da when he was not deserving of it.
Now, as to the accusations you make against me, and the citing of civil legal proceedings that are long since over, be aware that I have never been charged with criminal wrong-doing, and even if I had been it would be for something I and most people would not consider immoral, but in fact a genuine service to others. There are many people and clubs who have thanked me profusely.
But if you do want to talk about his sort of thing openly, why don’t you first talk to Bill Dunkelberger, head of security in Adidam, and see if he wants to disclose Adidam’s involvement in this sort of business. You might remind him of federal money-laundering laws and various RICO statutes, and the regulations that apply to non-profit organizations. Then get back to me, and we can have an open and free discussion about criminality in Adidam. You see, I know a great deal more about Adidam than I openly talk about. If you want a discussion of hypocrisy, that’s fine with me, but beware that I know a great deal about your own hypocrisy in trying to discredit me like this.
Now, as to whether I am at all spiritual, that is for God to decide. I make no such claims. I am simply interested in spirituality. I could of course be wrong, I’ve certainly been wrong before, and chances are I’m wrong now about many things. But the same applies to you and Adi Da and the whole of Adidam as well. Admitting you’ve been wrong about something you’ve invested so much in is very hard. It was very hard for me, and I got no thrill out of it whatsoever. I’m sorry if I hurt you, but sometimes life offers no easy choices. I still love many people in Adidam, yourself included. But you all have to face up to the facts of what’s gone on, and not continue this denial game of attacking critics. Practice the wound of love, which means not striking out at those you imagine have hurt you. Isn’t that what Adi Da supposedly taught?
January 20, 2009 at 5:19 am
New World,
I am disgusted. I had hoped we could avoid going into the dirt here, and discuss the differences between traditional non-duality and Da’s variant with reasonable civility despite serious disagreements. It is sad that some of Da’s followers insist on denying things widely stated to be true from so many sources, and instead trash critics by any means possible. Thus we see these kinds of personal attacks once again, against yet another former member.
If you have to resort to such dirt on someone’s private life, and you just can’t stand to have anyone question Da, why can’t you devotees just leave us all alone to speak the truth as we find it. And if your guru and practice is so superior over all others out there, why not let the results speak for you? As for your hurt feelings, and the way you treat those no longer involved, and the way you feel about someone “once” loved, even under your own dharma, who is responsible for that contraction?
Since you really want to go there…
I suppose I should appreciate your demonstration of the extent to which some Adidam members will go in response to criticism of their guru and the quality of their practice we supposedly can’t judge. Those who never were involved may not have realized this before. But you should be embarassed by now.
I was not a dissident, though I was struck by the mafia like way the organization operated, the unloving way people were treated, and the way those who left were trashed and maliciously gossiped about while still involved. But having heard the more extreme allegations, I have since talked with some of them, and some who have posted critical comments on the internet. They consistently report experiencing threats, this type of character assassination, etc., and such communications from less stable members. If there were any doubts about these stories, and the depths to which some of you are willing to go to suppress information from public discussion, you have effectively relieved them at one stroke.
Let me remind you before you post this kind of stuff about anyone to try and silence criticism that Da’s long term use of marijuana was not entirely legal, and not only that, he didn’t grow it himself, it was provided to him! Use of marijuana in your organization is now widespread, and some devotees are currently growing it under the medical marijuana loophole. But of course we don’t really want to talk about that, do we? So before you start preaching about criminality and duplicity, I would think twice about going down this road, and stop being so piously hypocritical. Obviously Da did not believe in following drug laws but was protected by his followers, so why single this critic out? I think we can guess–because you want to hurt and silence him at all costs.
You ironically say:
“So I am calling you out. I am saying that you are reckless in your accusations, and because you are factually wrong, you are needlessly abusing those who once loved you.
Just because somebody says “it” doesn’t make “it” true.”
I will say the same about you in spades, New World. I call you out for demonstrating so well how effective your practice is.
We have seen that you are so spiritually advanced you consider “love” posting such irrelevant links about someone’s personal life on this public site in a desperate attempt to get back at them because you feel hurt. It is you who are reckless and irresponsible here, unable to apply the dharma you claim to value in this case, and inaccurate as well, as I know from my own research. There are too many like you in Adidam, unfortunately, and thanks to those like you, I was wise enough to see the light and leave quietly long ago. Let me put your complaint in perspective. Let’s say there are really 2000 people today who consider Da their Master after 38 years of teaching. There are good estimates that 10 times that many who followed him once and have since left. And no endorsements from contemporary jnanis or any of his teachers, either. So, if you have problems with Da being examined and challenged based on his life and teaching, welcome to the real world that he himself admitted basically rejected him.
January 20, 2009 at 5:37 am
Devotee Says:
“Fellow devotees, we are just energizing the Conrads, Former Followers, etc. who will go on writing forever — moved by our Beloved to be sure (why else would they rail on for — now — months on end!), but in a perverse way that is not serving His Work. For that reason, out of love for our Beloved, I suggest we give this venue a rest, rather than keep getting sucked back in egoicially, and perpetuating this forever. This is just a suggestion for you to consider, like everything else that is being written here . . . Of course it very likely will be twisted and reinterpreted into something else, but we don’t have to be sucked back in by that. It’s like being taunted by the bullies on the school playground — just walk away!”
Ever consider that you are “avoiding relationship?” You flatter your importance way too much, really. I think the very fact that you consider this “railing” says something. There hasn’t been any dialogue to speak of between devotees and those who have departed like this I am aware of, and yet it is obvious criticism in various sites appeared long ago, and has not stopped just because no devotees respond. Everywhere I see mention of Da outside of Adidam, I see skeptical and critical comments by someone, whether devotees respond or not. If you think the public is only reading pro-Adidam sites and concludes lack of a response proves the Adidam position is correct, you are mistaken.
January 20, 2009 at 5:54 am
Flick,
Get well. Godman’s books are well worth the read. The Power of the Presence trilogy I recommend, because it illustrates how Ramana Maharshi worked with many, many different devotees and you get a good idea of the ranges of his approach with devotees (including a few who became jnanis), which are not as rigid as some think and included both bhakti and inquiry. “Timeless in Time” is also a good book to look at. None of us are advocating Cohen, Nome and some other corrupted western characters. Da’s death inevitably brings up mixed feelings for those who loved him. But he is simply being looked at compared to the standards he espoused at varied times and in relation to traditions.
January 20, 2009 at 7:26 am
Hi Jerry,
I am quite shocked that you allowed New World to post personal details relating to another poster. I think it is wrong.
January 20, 2009 at 8:04 am
MODERATOR’S NOTE: This forum includes revelation of the intimate details of Adi Da’s life, and I don’t see any problem revealing the publicly available details of the lives of the contributors. Do these details have a bearing on the teachings of Adi Da or Conradq? Decide for yourselves. Today’s revered sages such as Satyam Nadeen and Robert Sherman were imprisoned for serious crimes, Nadeen for the manufacture of illegal drugs, Sherman for forgery, theft, sabotaging capitalist institutions, bank robbery, escape from prison. It’s well known that Nisargadatta supported his family by selling tobacco to the addicted masses. You could go on and on reporting the social, ethical, legal mishaps of teachers and sages.
January 20, 2009 at 8:19 am
regarding the post by New World:
i don’t want to get in the middle of you two, especially since you claim to be “friends” (yeah, right, some friend you are!) and even love conrad (must be adidam-love).
i don’t always agree with what conrad says and i don’t always agree with the way he says it (but i do agree MOST of the time).
i do feel moved to respond, however, because “New World”s post violated my sense of justice and decency. and i don’t want conrad to be alone in supporting his statements about franklin jones and his cult.
i joined in the early 1990s and was therefore not part of the community when the alleged rape happened. i can’t say anything about that. and i am not going to.
since i served mr. jones for many years very intimately (spending many hours almost daily in his direct company) i can most certainly support some of conrad’s statements and i can confirm that they are not hearsay.
he was indeed VERY abusive of many of the people around him. ‘new world’ says conrad entitled one of his postings “The voracious abusive personality cult of Adi Da”. i haven’t read it but i can certainly second and confirm the title of it. that is exactly what i saw. and to be honest, from what i have seen in terms of how mr. jones treated people to make the jump to actual rape by him or ordered by him does not require much imagination. it really doesn’t.
i also know that mr. jones’s highly abusive behavior was always rationalized by his devotees as being an expression of love and service to the devotee. with devotees he could get away with virtually anything. truly amazing really, how the human psyche can be manipulated. criticism of “the guru” was completely and utterly taboo in adidam. all letters to him were censored. all questions in the so-called “avataric discourses” in the early 2000s (i was present to virtually all of them) were censored. i.e. you were not allowed to spontaneously ask a question. no, you had to submit all of them before the discourse and if the mucky-mucks didn’t like it, you were not allowed to ask it.
as a side note: compare that to the meetings with true non-duality teachers like nisargadatta and sailor bob adamson. ANYBODY could and can come to their meetings and ask ANY question.
but of course we cannot have free access to the “divine world-teacher” as mr. jones proclaimed himself. the “divine world-teacher” had to go and hide from the world on a remote island in the fijis. HELLO!?!? wake up, folks!
mr. jones was highly abusive of money. i have witnessed it many many times. and i have spoken many times to the main financial people around him. i just couldn’t make head or tail of his behavior but back then i was still inclined to believe that there must have been something i really did not understand. i had many conversations with them and nobody understood his crazy behavior of completely depleting a very small organization of the very little financial resources it had for his own PERSONAL collections (a legal renunciate? i hardly think so!). nobody understood it. it didn’t make any sense, not even to his immediate financial servers. but it was always rationalized as simply part of his “crazy-wise” teaching method. as a consequence many people on his fijian island ( i lived there for a couple of years, so this is not hearsay!) suffered from malnutrition because there was often simply not enough money to buy decent food. also, the entire island had to survive on a ridiculously low monthly maintenance budget. if i remember correctly, it was $50 or $100 for the entire island per month. i am not sure about the figures any more but it was so low that basically nothing could be done with it. but of course everything was done for mr. jones himself.
he had the very latest in av equipment. well, of course he needed it. when he was not doing art, he was basically watching tv or movies all the time. literally. one of his daughters visited him almost every night and they played nintendo games and watched movies and tv shows on end. the very small internet bandwidth of the island was used most of the time to download tv shows recorded by devotees in the usa. all for his oh so “spiritual work” of course! yeah, right!
i did not come here to make those kind of things public. it really was not my intention. i wanted to discuss mr. jones from a non-duality point of view because somebody here called him a “compelling exponent of the non-dual tradition”. and that he was most certainly not. his teaching and especially his adidam rules are anything but non-dual. especially his teaching sometimes seems to be non-dual but if you were educated by true non-duality teachers it is immediately obvious that mr. jones certainly does not fit the bill. he taught stages of enlightenment, his devotees have to go through stages, he proclaimed himself to be more one with oneness than anybody else ever was or will be. the list goes on and on. i don’t need to repeat what was already clearly exposed here.
as i said i just could not let the cheap post by ‘new word’ stand on it’s own. another voice needed to be heard that supports conrad in at least some of his statements. that link ‘new world’ posted is just so low! it just shows that another statement is also true: there is not much friendship and love going to or from adidam devotees. i can second that. i have spoken to many devotees about that. but let me also be clear: it does of course happen. i made two very good friends in adidam and i have seen deep love expressed between devotees. but the extremely competitive adidam climate does not make it easy. many devotees will confirm this in private conversations.
shame on you, ‘new world’. your post was very low and probably will not quite have the effect you intended. i certainly was not going to post anything i said in this post again. but it needed to be said to confirm some of conrad’s statements.
oh, and btw: i know personally a drug dealer (and not a small one!) who was VERY close to mr. jones. i won’t go into details since this is a public forum and i don’t want to harm anybody and i also believe that pot should be legal.
your post was so off on so many levels!
January 20, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“Now as to whether or not I am spiritual, that is God for decide” Hey Conrad, is there really that kind of God to decide if you are really spiritual or not? I hope he is there to reassure me when I die because I am afraid of death .. lol I guess.
Well whoever , “New World” is, and I doubt he is Bill Stranger, because Bill Stranger always seemed a lot more intelligent than that and does not seem like the hysterical type like that post that “New World” posted. But I think he should cool his heels for sure if he ever posts here again.
Getting into this mudslinging on a personal level is just “inappropriate”
Now I have been trying to post what I feel is positive about ADi Da here about how I feel about his transmission and teaching. Personally like I have always said, he never hurt me personally, and I have friends who might look here who were hurt by him and I have friends who are devotees in Adi Dam who might look here sometimes and think that I am a creep too. So I am in dangerous “political” territory even posting here. I could get flack from either side if and when I bump into someone, which will certainly happen.
So thanks FFAC for the info on the different nondual teachings and teachers and thanks Conrad for that too. The whole question about pot on either side should just stop. I would think that someone intelligent enough to be considering the issues in this forum would not even consider the pot thing even worth considering. The fact of Adi Da smoking it or the fact of someone growing it medically or for any reason really does not make Adi Da “bad” or the grower of it less “spiritual” Personally I think “New World” is not a guy at all > “New World” is Sarah Palin after all.
I mean we do live in a backward society and a generally unelightened world. All of us here, the few Daists and the Daist detractors really want to be free and happy.
I don’t really care if Adi Da hung out with his daughter all nite and watched movies and played video games. I don’t think that makes him either “enlightend” or “unenlightened” I don’t think how he died makes him “enlightened” or “unenlighened” I don’t care that he looked old when he died and that he was often overweight when he was younger. I could still fee the brightness of his teaching and transmission. I cannot “assert or deny” the worst allegations of people against him . I was not there. But someone was there , so perhaps their feelings are justified. I cannot explain or defend his behaviors or teaching methods. These things have confused me too. But those things are not really why I am not a member of the community. There are other things much more relevant to me. I am not great at all the pujas and other community discipline stuff. And I have never been big on selfless service, although I am trying to get more into it. I think that is a good practice for selfish types like myself.
Anyhow, I do not want anyone lashing out at me and I hope to get well and get back to surfing and dancing, so I do not really know why I post here, since I could get it from “both sides” and I do not want to get lambasted for touching my pee pee or something like that Best to all and may all beings and posters here be happy and free Flick Rahke
January 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Flick said:
“I don’t really care if Adi Da hung out with his daughter all nite and watched movies and played video games. I don’t think that makes him either “enlightend” or “unenlightened””
yes, you are right of course. i don’t care either how many movies he watched. that is not what i meant to imply. i guess i did not make my point well.
the point i was trying to make was the incredible amount of human and financial resources that went into enabling him and his daughter to do that. on a remote island in the middle of nowhere mind you. they had the finest (i.e. very expensive) equipment (in two places of course – his and his daughters), they (and many of his inner circle) had the finest food, while the rest of the ashram had the most simple food so much lacking in diversity that malnutrition was not a rare occurrence at times.
January 20, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Jerry,
I seriously question your logic when you say:
“This forum includes revelation of the intimate details of Adi Da’s life, and I don’t see any problem revealing the publicly available details of the lives of the contributors. Do these details have a bearing on the teachings of Adi Da or Conradq? Decide for yourselves. Today’s revered sages such as Satyam Nadeen and Robert Sherman were imprisoned for serious crimes, Nadeen for the manufacture of illegal drugs, Sherman for forgery, theft, sabotaging capitalist institutions, bank robbery, escape from prison. It’s well known that Nisargadatta supported his family by selling tobacco to the addicted masses. You could go on and on reporting the social, ethical, legal mishaps of teachers and sages.”
This comment, “the teachings of Adi Da or Conradg”, and your final sentence, “You could go on and on reporting the social, ethical, legal mishaps of teachers and sages”, illustrate the underlying problem with your logic. Where did Conradg or others here set themselves up as a teacher? If he had, then you would have a point. But he didn’t. Restating what the traditions teach while not making personal spiritual claims of this type does not make one a teacher or one giving a teaching. Conradg and others are just ordinary spiritual aspirants, not teaching, not seeking followers, perhaps more versed on both Da and the traditions than many others and able to articulate that because of their experience, but nothing else. I am disappointed in your judgement that you would state otherwise, that this is a dispute between teachers. It obviously isn’t.
No, Jerry, it is not disclosing the clay feet of some competitive teacher as you suggest, it is only another cheap shot at critics by a member of Da’s organization that has no real relevance. One who knows very well that Da was unlawfully using and unlawfully supplied with marijuana, (obviously he didn’t grow his own supply), and that use and provision of it (including monetary exchanges) occurs commonly within the membership. But this person chooses to obscure this and imply that Conradg is some sort of lying criminal because of this case, in the hope some anti-marijuana fantics will draw false conclusions. What this incident does show, I repeat, is more evidence for many independent reports going way back of the lengths to which some of Da’s membership will go when someone discloses information they do not want public.
This is nothing new, it was true even at the beginning. I refer you to this published account from a former follower describing the scene at the end of 1972, barely a half year after the Ashram opened:
“…The disciplinary focus on those issues, however, took an unacceptably bizarre turn when the ashram’s leaders began to interview the disciples concerning their most intimate habits – such as how frequently they masturbated – and filed away their answers. That kind of invasive questioning would not be tolerated even in a strict religious order, as I knew from experience, and I considered it frightening and outrageous. I wondered who had access to those files and how they would be used….”
Time has answered that kind of question. Some members will use anything and everything they can think of to obscure the issue. They will call dissidents who contributed years of income to the group under misreprestation of Da’s true lifestyle, criminal extortionists. They accuse the press of having a vendetta against them, when the organization itself admitted hiding the truth for years until it was exposed. And so I expect most readers will realize this, and consider the source here as well.
January 20, 2009 at 5:47 pm
“Where did Conradg or others here set themselves up as a teacher? If he had, then you would have a point. But he didn’t.”
He did. To me, a teacher is someone who communicates their view of truth. When Conrad writes, “Practice the wound of love, which means not striking out at those you imagine have hurt you,” that’s one example of where he sets himself up as a teacher.
My years online have been all about recognizing so-called regular people as teachers, sages, and enlightened ones. That’s the form of nonduality I’ve been setting forth for the last eleven years.
-Jerry
January 20, 2009 at 6:21 pm
O.K. so now we know that Conrad was at least accused of growing pot at some point. And we know that Conrad is not a teacher in the formal sense of the word. Certainly we are all teachers for each other. many in the Buddhist tradition, including Pema Chrondon , have described how someone in your sangha{ yes they do value community in Buddhism too} who could be the most aggravating person to you could also be your best teacher by pressing your buttons so your little self could be revealed to your big Self so to speak. So it is not so bad for people to be aggravated by each other in this forum. We have all shared similar experiences and have different perspectives on this and all.
I don’t really disagree so much with what Jerry said here either, although I did react at first to him letting this post go through. he is right that people are adept at exposing the inner stuff of Adi Da. Of course, if someone wants to be private in their life , I also think that their privacy should be respected. This thing about Conrad is on the open internet I guess. Still it should not be used as some sort of mudslinging thing to try to somehow discredit him., Pretty stupid and mean spirited,although I can see how reactivity can run hot and emotional. That is why people strike out at each other. I was unconsciously being pretty punky and superior in my approach to people here myself and I illicited for a short tiime a strong repsonse from
Conrad talking about the “growth” industry. So this girl , Sarah palin is just feeling attacked and respoding in kind in her mind. But of course no one has to come to this blog, just as no one ever had to stay in Adi Dam. I know people who tortured themselves on the island for years. They could have left any time and eventually they did leave, and all pissed off. i would never do this to myself personally . i know my limits and try to push beyond, but not to the point of starvation or malnutrition. If I put myself in that postion, I would make sure that I had enough money to keep good protein powder around and some green concentrated powders and a good blender. I would do the same thing if I lived in Amma’s ashram in India. Many westerners cannot get by on dahl and white rice and cooked vegies. EVen the western selection of diet there is rather limited. So you have to pick and choose what you can actually put up with in your sadhana.
Also I never would have chosen to be in a room with Adi Da yelling at me at the top of his lungs. It was difficult enough getting the trickle down.
Still what is the big deal about people smoking pot or growing this benign psychoactive plant medicine? I mean what is the big deal about a few Adi Da devotees capitalizing on ridiculous archaic laws and making some money? In our culture, you need money to function and let’s try not to be so puritanical here. very “dualistic” I don’t even have a problem if Da used coke earlier on. I do feel that it is destructive but each to his own. We have to remember what a Christian based puritanical society we come from around sexuality and drugs and plants that produce “ecstatic” type states. I smoked pot off and on and ai did not smoke it before meditating. I never felt it useful in this way. But I would smoke in the evening before dancing ecstatically. It is very good for this, although i could go either way. By morning, my consciousness would be clear just fine for any type of meditation practice or chi gung or yoga. I could just stop using it at any time. And I was smoking moderately before dancing even a couple of months ago. I also have a medical recommend so it is not even illegal for me. But as soon as I got sick , I just stopped because it is a bit hard on your lungs.
So the whole thing of using marijuana to attack Adi Da or Conrad is just childish and very unsophisticated. It is just a reflection of the very unconscious culture we are living in. Flick Rahke
January 20, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Jerry, if I may…
When Conrad says to “practice the wound of love”, that is not him giving out a “teaching”, but simply reminding New World vebatim of Da’s recommendation to his own devotees. And as such, is a subtle (or not, depending on one’s POV) reflection of the utter hypocrisy of an obvious hypocrite yelling “Hypocrite!” about somebody else in public.
Your point of regular people as teachers is well-taken (by me at least). Depending on the clarity of the communication, and the spirit in which that communication is received, we can indeed all be teachers and sages to each other. As to “enlightened ones”, as long as the “e” and “o” are not capitalized!
January 20, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Thanks everyone for the supportive posts. I appreciate all the love, from both sides of the debate.
Also, let’s not blame Jerry for allowing these personal attacks. He’s neutral in this matter, and should be respected as such. He’s been a great host, and isn’t responsible for the tactics of those who wish to silence or discredit critics of Adidam.
I’m not even sure what New World’s point was, other than to further discredit Adidam and its hostility to criticism. Don’t these people realize they only hurt Adidam far more by these means than its critics could?
I recall that Ramana once had a close devotee who left and became critical, and wrote a pamphlet detailing his criticisms of Ramana. They told Ramana about it, and he said, we should print copies of his pamphlet and hand them out to everyone at the entrance to the ashram. That way, he said, everyone would have a chance to consider the criticism, and those who believed it, would stay away, and those who did not, would come on in. He felt this was all for the best. If only Adidam people could take such an attitude.
As Shiva points out, you don’t have to agree with me on everything, or even anything, to show basic human respect, and not make irrelevant personal attacks on critics of Adidam. He also makes it clear how this kind of attitude backfires, in that it inspires people who might otherwise stay quiet to speak out about their own experience in Adidam. The intention of this sort of thing is to intimidate and discourage critics from speaking out. The effect may be the opposite. I hope others will, over time, be inspired to tell the simple truths about their experience of Adidam, whether positive or negative, without spin or distortion one way or another.
I would hope New World would have the courage to continue this conversation, but I don’t expect him to return. It’s funny, I had just been thinking before he posted that everyone on this forum has been pretty wonderful, regardless of our disagreements. Let’s not let a few bad apples spoil the experience. I keep thinking this whole conversation is coming to a close, and perhaps it is, but it would be a shame to end it all on this note. Let’s be reminded that not everyone in Adidam is as deranged and angry as this fellow is. There are good people there who don’t deserve to be trashed and dragged through the mud, just as there are among Adidam’s critics. My heart goes out to them.
January 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Jerry, I appreciate your ability to see all of us as teachers, but when I recommended to New World that he practice the wound of love, I was just referring to a well-known aspect, at least within Adidam, of Adi Da’s own teaching. I don’t have any “teachings” of my own. At my best, I’m only a student. I appreciate those who do have teachings, and I try to talk about those teachings as best I can with others here, but I don’t really have anything of my own one could call a teaching, and I certainly don’t promote myself as such. If people want to discuss my personal life, that’s their business of course, but I don’t see how it has any bearing on the discussion of Adi Da’s life and teachings, which is the topic of this thread. It seems off-topic, in other words.
January 20, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Good post Conrad Flick Rahke I like the story about Ramana and his detractor. very heart warming . I don’t have any problems posting on this forum and perhaps I can learn something myself
January 20, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I have to make a judgment. When the discussion becomes about Adi Da’s possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior, I think everyone should be willing to put their own legal, moral, and ethical behavior on the line.
January 20, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Jerry,
“I have to make a judgment. When the discussion becomes about Adi Da’s possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior, I think everyone should be willing to put their own legal, moral, and ethical behavior on the line.”
I find this a very dispiriting attitude. If a child says he was raped by a priest, should we attack the child’s character, and mount an investigation of the child’s behavior, see if he’s a bedwetter, see if he steals cookies from the cupboard, interview his friends to determine whether he plays well in the sandbox? Or, should we simply examine the actual accusation on its own merits? The Catholic church defended itself for years by blaming its victims, accusing them of being sinful heretics out to destroy the church. You seem to approve of that approach. Your creed is a sure way to discourage anyone from ever blowing the whistle on any spiritual authority, out of fear of being attacked simply for speaking out. Is that what you want?
Adi Da’s behavior is what it was, and it makes no difference whether his critics are saints or sinners, it changes that behavior not one iota. You can judge Adi Da’s behavior without an inquisition into his critic’s personal lives, just as you can judge George Bush’s character without an inquisition of his critics. If Daists want to trash me, that’s fine, they can do what they like, but it doesn’t have the slightest thing to do with how anyone will judge or evaluate Adi Da’s behavior, except to the degree that it reveals how vindictive his legacy is.
Honestly, Jerry, I’m pretty disappointed in you. Not for publishing those comments, I have no problem with that, but for considering that sort of inquisition to be a meaningful part of the debate about Da’s legacy. Should I mount an investigation of Feel4God’s private life now as a normal part of the discussion of Da’s behavior? Where does that sort of approach lead us, but to a kind of inquisitorial madness?
January 21, 2009 at 12:36 am
Jerry,
You say:
“When Conrad writes, “Practice the wound of love, which means not striking out at those you imagine have hurt you,” that’s one example of where he sets himself up as a teacher.”
That is not teaching, that simply paraphrasing Adidam dogma back to someone who is obviously not following their own guru’s written teaching.
“I have to make a judgment. When the discussion becomes about Adi Da’s possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior, I think everyone should be willing to put their own legal, moral, and ethical behavior on the line.”
Disappointingly impractical and illogical in dealing with these kinds of situations, Jerry, because of where it inevitably leads It might make sense in some sort of level playing field. That is not the case here at all, in these kinds of dynamics. Otherwise, it is time to get the discussion back on track.
January 21, 2009 at 12:41 am
Well I can see everyone’s point of view, even the one of New World in a way. This person is in a severe grief emotional state. That can last a long time and makes a person nutty and hyper sensitive. Still this person does not have to hang around this blog considering the content here. That is the answer to that. I also can see both jerry’s and Conrad’s points of view. Jerry wishes to remain neutral in a sense from the postings here and Conrad should also not be attacked relative to his private life. Gosh human relations can be tough. Another reason bedsides sickness , old age, and death to be free of this round of samsara. Well I will butt out so to speak Flick FRack the state
January 21, 2009 at 12:53 am
More from Da on Ramana Maharshi:
“Ramana Maharshi was a rather “reluctant” Teacher.
He did not very much like to be imposed upon (or otherwise depended upon). Likewise, He did not sufficiently understand and appreciate, or very much like (or even very much Perform), the Role (necessary for any Sat-Guru) of Instructing (and Obliging) devotees in the practical details and disciplines of (especially, preliminary, and, necessarily, psycho-physical) sadhana. Also, because His own history (in His Lifetime as Ramana Maharshi) included only the sadhana of the sixth stage of life, He was not very much inclined (nor was He very much qualified or equipped) to Serve as Sat-Guru (and, thus, as thoroughly Instructive and “Commanding” Teacher) in relation to devotees who were not yet prepared for the sixth stage sadhana (and who, therefore, yet required the Sat Guru to Discipline, Instruct, Initiate, and Guide them through, and then beyond, the first five stages of life, wherein there must, necessarily, be much purification, and transformation, and ego countering, and ego-transcending, discipline, of the body-mind, even as a preparation for the body mind-excluding practices that are the principal characteristic of the sixth, or necessary, but, Truly, only pre-seventh, stage of life).”
Another example of Da’s gross mischaracterization of Ramana Maharshi. Readily disproved by reading more detailed accounts of his life and teaching.
And, much like (generally) comparable Realizers in the various (specifically, and, often, more or less exclusively) sixth stage traditions, Ramana Maharshi was not, in the Fullest (and Truly Yogic) sense, a True Siddha-Guru (Who directly Serves and directly Awakens devotees by direct, and consistently Effective, Spiritual Transmission), but He was a True Jnana Guru (or One Who Serves and Awakens devotees indirectly, by Silent and thought-free Abidance In and As the Transcendental, and inherently Spiritual, Self-Condition That Is Consciousness Itself, but, in contrast to the case of a True Siddha-Guru, not directly, through open, voluntary, even, at least at times, intentional, and truly consistent Spiritual Effectiveness).”
If there was any doubt of an active doer consciousness in Da that survived the Vendanta Temple Event, this dispells it. That he fails to comprehend what Ramana Maharshi meant by Silence is icing on the cake.
“And His fundamental Teaching can be summarized briefly (in His own Words) “The mind is to be introverted and made to merge into the Self; . . . the practice must be long because [it is] slow and [it] must be continued until it [the mind] is totally merged in the Self. . . .
That is a totally obtuse characterizationo his teaching.
“All that is required of you is not to confound [or identify] yourself with the extrovert mind but to abide as the Self. Ramana Maharshi also Taught (on the basis of His own Realization of sixth stage “Sahaj Samadhi”) that Ultimate Self-Realization is not Itself to be identified with the efforts, experiences, and states that may precede (or, otherwise, arise after) It, for It (the Very Self) Is the Self even under any and all conditions that may seem to arise. Therefore, once Atma Vichara had (in due course) achieved its (sixth stage) maturity in Him, Ramana Maharshi “Practiced” only the (sixth stage “Sahaj Samadhi”) “Practice” of Abiding (in the sixth stage, object-excluding manner) As the Very Self (or Consciousness Itself), tacitly (and indifferently) Acknowledging all naturally arising phenomena to Be Only the Independent (or object-excluding) Consciousness Itself, and, Thus and Thereby, He Remained characteristically unperturbed, detached, and, in general, inactive.”
Equally inaccurate, both as to teaching and lifestyle.
January 21, 2009 at 1:40 am
ConradG says: “I would remind you that I didn’t make the accusation of rape against Da, it was the man who actually participated in the rape and beating of the woman in question with Da who did so.”
Well for some reason this person has never felt strongly enough about it to put their name behind this allegation that you are saying actually happened . And why should he? He has you to do it for him. So in fact he has never made this allegation publicly, he has only told you a story privately. So in fact he is not making these allegations publicly, only you are. You are staking your reputation and associating the Goehausen name with this allegation of rape against Adi Da. A few questions. When he told you this story, did he know that you were going to have it spread across the Internet? Have you communicated with him since you made these allegations for him? Did you know this person at all, or was your contact with him limited to just 1 or 2 meetings?
ConradG says: “He had no reason to lie, he in fact contacted me when I was a very public defender of Da, and he explained what he had been through, and what he’d done with Da, and the traumatic effect it had on him, and asked how I could defend it.”
Well obviously his agenda was straight on the face of it – he wanted to turn you against Da. He wanted you to come over to his side. Would someone lie to do this? I think they definitely would.
ConradG says: “He helped me to see just how wrong I had been to defend Da’s actions.”
Well he must have been quite the salesman. How do you know you weren’t just a mark? How well did you know this guy? How do you know he wasn’t a drug addict, or delusional? How do you know?
ConradG says: “The woman in question personally admitted to me Da’s abuse of her, but as a devotee she immediately explained, “But I deserved it”.
So let me get this straight, this woman said to you that she was raped by Adi Da? Because if she did then you are at that point obligated to go to the police. It’s that simple my friend. There is no fooling around with this kind of shit. If someone says they were raped, you go to the police, end of story. But you never did that did you? Why not? Because she didn’t say that she was raped, did she? And so without a victim, and with only the words of a man too cowardly to make his own public allegation, a man with an agenda to turn as many against Adi Da as possible and hopefully use someone else to do it, you went ahead and publicly accuse Adi Da, your former Guru, of rape, and you sign your name beside it.
I question your judgment sir. I question your judgment and your clarity. An allegation of rape should come with strong and verifiable evidence. You are so far below the mark it’s actually stunning to me that you would stake your reputation on making this allegation.
January 21, 2009 at 2:09 am
About NEW WORLD.
I don’t know why I was so stunned by the post from NEW WORLD. It shouldn’t surprise me, given I was in Adidam long enough to have encountered its fundamentalist nature first hand, but it did anyway. The vehemence was palpable. If NEW WORLD really is a formal devotee, then Adidam is headed for the dustbin of spiritual cults much faster than I had anticipated. And if s/he isn’t, then it’s simply another case of the destructive effects of defensiveness and its precursor, fear. It’s fear that does it – it always is! My understanding of Adi Da’s teachings (and on good days my actual practice as well) is nothing like what NEW WORLD communicates. NOTHING!! That’s one of the reasons I left Adidam – most practitioners do not actually practice what Adi Da revealed, call it non-duality or not.
For Jerry (the Moderator).
I am sometimes divided about the merits of allowing posts like NEW WORLD’s onto a public domain. On the one hand, it was vitriolic and abusive, and could be seen as just unwanted destructiveness. On the other hand, it brings out into the open a point of view that would otherwise be unseen and secretive. Some years ago in Australia we had a politician who was resoundingly racist and bigoted. There were calls to have her censored. She wasn’t, which turned out be really advantageous, because the rest of the muck in the woodwork came out and we all got to see where a significant number of people in society come from. So, I ask you let this person continue (that is of course if Conradg doesn’t want this to occur – after all, he is the one being disgustingly attacked) .
To Conradg.
In answer to your reply to the last post of mine, I was not offended by anything you said and I was not looking to see what the nature of your private relationships are about. I simply wanted to let you know that I felt your ‘mind’ was getting in the way of ‘heart’. I always find verbal communication such a grind (believe it or not posts on this blog take me hours to write), and they inevitably fall short of what I really want to say. Maybe MY mind is the problem. You are providing a useful (and necessary) service on this blog to all those fearful of revealing the facts, as well as admitting they MIGHT be wrong in their understandings. It’s the nature of attachment and it’s no different in any groupings of people.
To Adi Da (wherever he is).
What can I say? I suspect much of the factual elements of what people say about you are true. I know this is so even in my own limited contact with you. AND I know that fearful people do all sorts of things in order to ally that fear. Some attack you, some defend you, some don’t give a shit one way or the other. I guess I’ve done the last two, but not the first. I have no beef with you and I have no beef with Adidam (because I left it before a real beef developed). It takes guts for a person to be who they are in this world, however it looks. No doubt about it, you had guts!?
I am concerned, however, for friends of mine that remain in Adidam, for those who cannot yet stand on their own two feet and claim their rightful sovereignty and human maturity. We could have so much greater intimacy and just plain old fun if they could go beyond their ‘spiritual’ attachments. Hell, I don’t know what ‘spirituality’ is anyway. Maybe you could kick their asses some more (on a different dimension of course).
I don’t assess your realization but do occasionally wonder. Your influence in my life is immense and requires no verification, AND I have no desire to pursue anything associated with the community you left behind. I don’t know what responsibility you should shoulder for its appalling cultism and fundamentalism. Perhaps everything, perhaps nothing. I don’t know. And I don’t know what spirituality is, even though you gave all those discourses and wrote all those books, and looked straight into my eyes on all those darshan occasions. Strange how I feel freer now than when I was your ‘formal’ devotee. I guess devotees in Adidam must see me as deluded. That’s OK. I guess I occasionally think the same thing of them.
All in all, “I trust the process of (my) own life.”
Cheers.
January 21, 2009 at 3:08 am
I have been enjoying this historic inauguration in American history, and pray that the tolerance and energy of these days are able to be maintained to demonstrate to everyone our unqualified unity. What a great possibility we have!
It is unfortunate that this blog tends to get so negative and often times does not stay focused. I presume that the main topic of the blog is Adi Da’s Mahasamadhi (“Adi Da is dead”), and to me that would also warrant a discussion of His Teaching, His legacy – but really, mostly the effect He continues to have in people’s lives.
Considering His Teachings as compared to other non-dualistic Teachings has been very useful, and not really off-topic in my view, especially given the “non-duality” nature of this site. But many posts, mostly from Conradg, have dramatized a “gotcha” game with the very few Daists here. I have repeatedly pointed out that Conradg should inspect his own motives to discredit Adi Da and Daists’ practice, and that this seemed to be his main agenda here, given how many times he has focused on “charged” personal issues, negative allegations, hearsay, rumors, etc. However, over time I have gathered that Conradg actually believes that he is doing us Daists a favor even with his various mudslinging approaches here.
I suppose it was inevitable that Conradg’s karmic behavior here would beget some karma back at him. It is not that I condone what New World posted, but that tends to be the nature of the beast in this egoic, dualistic “growling pit” here and in this world. Egos can get very nasty when they feel threatened, and that works for all egos. Until the ego is utterly transcended, there is reactivity and unlove.
Conrad, I am not pious or self-righteous about what people want to do with their lives, so please don’t think I am coming from that viewpoint with the following. However, I could never quite understand how someone with your intelligence could justify all of your attacks on Adi Da, and later attacks on myself and even other posters here – and then tell us how much you love us all and how humorous all of this is to you! I have no sense that people find your posts all that humorous, and your posts certainly don’t overwhelm me with love either; they mainly are cold, very analytical, and often distorted in nature.
And no matter how many times I have brought specific instances of your tendency to attack Adi Da, me and/or other Daists, you simply deny any motivation about it one way or another – and now you say that you love us all! This actually seems delusional to me.
When I read about the criminal investigation of you that New World posted a link to, I noticed that LSD was also mentioned as being confiscated. Now this is conjecture on my part, but if you had been using LSD, that may account for the severe disconnect that seems to exist between your mind and your actual bodily actions (i.e., what you post here and its impact on real people).
LSD can be highly deluding, and I remember Adi Da saying (this is paraphrased to the best of my memory) that it can partially separate the subtle being from the gross body-mind via overstimulating and shredding the connectivity (of the central nervous system) between the gross and subtle vehicles. This can result in a partial identifying with aspects of the subtle vehicle and being disconnected especially from the emotions and physical components of the lower body-mind. In other words, LSD use can result in a real strong fixation with mind, even more or less exclusively.
There does seem to be some real disconnect between your mind and your actions here, Conrad, as myself and some others have pointed out. For this and several other reasons, LSD has never been recommended to Daists, and other than the study Adi Da spoke of in The Knee Of Listening, He never used LSD to my knowledge. I suspect the drug Ecstasy has similar effects over time, although it is not hallucinogenic and so mind-altering, and so perhaps not so potentially deluding – though I know that some of the ex-Daists claiming enlightenment did so after experimenting with large dosages of Ecstasy after they left. However both drugs are a way of seeking “to take heaven by storm” – and often lead the user into some sense of inherent enlightenment, which they then reaffirm with mind and perhaps even feeling, as a means to constantly justify their own illumination, superiority, or equality with even the greatest of Realized Adepts.
So take this post with however many grains of salt you wish, but this may be why you attack here the way you do at times and then tell me later how much you love me and others.
I am not interested in your history of drug use, nor of anyone’s for that matter. Daists have not been using any accessories (at least they are not supposed to be) for many many years, myself included.
I am hoping that this blog actually serves our spiritual growth, relationship, and communication – and not just keep spiraling down into some kind of mudslinging bullshit. As I have said before, I find all this repetitive talk of “dirty laundry”, etc., of no usefulness after a certain point – you see what it has reduced this blog to currently. If it continues in this vein, I will have to bow out, as I have already spoken plenty about my own experiences with Adi Da regarding gatherings, use of accessories, etc., and I personally see no further use in discussing any of Adi Da’s or yours or Nisagadatta’s or anyone’s personal private life for the sake of sensationalism, bashing, etc. What does any of that have to do with our actual transcendence of the ego at this point? Really, it does seem to be much more about sensationalism and bashing than non-duality and inherent love.
Again, my email is feel4god@gmail.com if anyone wants to discuss anything privately.
Jerry Says:
“I have to make a judgment. When the discussion becomes about Adi Da’s possibly illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior, I think everyone should be willing to put their own legal, moral, and ethical behavior on the line.”
Conradg Says:
“I find this a very dispiriting attitude. If a child says he was raped by a priest, should we attack the child’s character, and mount an investigation of the child’s behavior, see if he’s a bedwetter, see if he steals cookies from the cupboard, interview his friends to determine whether he plays well in the sandbox?”
We are hardly children here, Conrad. And besides, you certainly come across with a superior attitude about Adi Da, Daists, etc. – plus you were a Daist for many years. So you are looked at by many as some kind of expert. You are definitely the most vocal and prolific poster on the internet relative to the sensational aspects of Adi Da and Adidam, and combined with your intellect, you come across very logically to many. So in that sense, you have assumed the role of the teacher regardless of your claims.
Conradg Says:
“Should I mount an investigation of Feel4God’s private life now as a normal part of the discussion of Da’s behavior?”
Feel free, but to what avail? Besides, I have never considered anything about anyone’s personal history that wasn’t already posted here. You have consistently demonstrated disrespect to particularly Daists and even have severely twisted my words to have me sound like I am talking about my being superior to all others here. This distortion then allows you to justify your attacks. Please notice this, Conrad!
However, isn’t it obvious that no ego is superior? We simply are here to recognize the non-dual truth of heart-based Reality and to ultimately realize there is no you or I. However that works for each of us, so be it!
I hope we can discuss things without resorting to any more bashing, as we had for a little while there. I also sincerely hope my post above is helpful, Conrad. And as always, if nothing else, all of these considerations sure point to the need for Realization!
January 21, 2009 at 8:46 am
I was around the Da scene a fair amount last year and I can say for sure that there was absolutely not the slightest sign that Da’s work was coming to an end. The Devotees I spoke to talked of the man being around another 20 years.
Adi Da was desperate to push himself as an Artist, he wanted to be seen as a major artist and he expected his devotees to get results. They were spending a small fortune to host that art show in Florence and Da was continually pushing the devotees there to get more results. He wanted to get known internationally as an artist and he was not just sitting back in a ‘what will be will be ‘ kind of way. He wanted results.
Devotees I knew were considering any links they might have to an art critic or gallery owner etc that might lead to Da getting serious exposure in the international Art world.
This obsession with fame and insatiable appetite for attention characterized this narcissistic man. He was not trying to lead others to realize their true inner nature, he was asking his devotees to give their very attention to him. I know the official line is ‘searchlessly beholding of beloved’ etc etc but does anyone else on this blog wonder what is really energetically going on here. When I tuned in to Da I could quite easily detect his transmission, but after a while it became clear to me that there was a malevolent component here, something was trying to get its claws into me, soon after I rejected the transmission and the consideration was over for me.
I have noticed the clear signs of delusion in many of Da’s followers, many of them very nice people just deluded by Da. Energetically the ones who have deeply surrendered are somewhat powerless, they have given their own personal authority over to another. The promised gift of Godhood sadly has not been delivered, it will never arrive by giving one’s attention to such a false God.
I think perhaps the one gift that some of us may have received from Adi Da was in the face of his blatant ” I am the only 7th stage Godman, true reality” rhetoric . Some of us may have naturally responded by asking ourselves: “What do I really, really know is true?”
In that case, perhaps Adi Da really could have been a gift, what a cosmic thought.
January 21, 2009 at 11:42 am
Feel4God says
“I am hoping that this blog actually serves our spiritual growth, relationship, and communication – and not just keep spiraling down into some kind of mudslinging bullshit.”
I believe this blog serves a very useful purpose for at least a few of us who have needed to examine and clarify our time at Adidam. To that end, the details of Adi Da’s behavior, cult phenomena, and the presumptions of the teaching all play a part, and while some reactions to these topics may be mud-slinging, these topics are not, rather they are exactly what we need to look at. The odd mixture of truth and falsity that is Adidam penetrates down to your cells when you are a devotee, and it takes real understanding, and in my case it is hard-won, to sort it out. This blog has helped me do that.
Why do we need to look at the details of Adi Da’s behavior? Well, it is rather obvious to me that it speaks to his lack of realization, and as I’ve said before, his behavior combined with his genius and powers is tough to explain. That’s for all of us to decide for ourselves. If someone else thinks it is all the crazy wisdom of the FLO, I won’t belittle you or fight with you, but I would debate with you as long as it served clarification of the issues.
What I find lacking from those who have no problem with Adi Da’s behavior is their denial, avoidance, shame, revisioning, and slippery lack of acknowledgment of that very behavior. I would really respect you if you would simply admit it and stand by it. He is your guru and that is what he did, end of story. Why aren’t you OK with it? But instead, devotees usually feel “attacked” by “hearsay”, “innuendo”, “agendas to discredit”, “dissidents”, and then tend to go on the attack themselves.
There is a mountain of evidence surrounding Adi Da’s behavior that cannot be denied. To dispute one thing here or there only comes across as more attempts to conceal. It is as if Benie Madoff would point to a trade in one month of one year and say, “Hey, that’s legitimate, why are you attacking me?”
I think we would all agree that the world can’t handle Adi Da’s behavior, so Adidam is at a serious disadvantage if they wish to be open and honest, like say, an exoteric organization that is dedicated to truth. But is there an “esoteric” side to it, in which it is all perfect crazy wisdom that is beneficial beyond our understanding? I say no, of course not! Why imagine that his action is more or less than what it looks like, the time you saw him with open eyes? Getting to this understanding cost me years of de-briefing and probably $100,000 of today’s dollars for my tricks and treats in Adidam, and I CELEBRATE this board!
Best wishes to all.
January 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm
feel4god:
conrad was not alone in posting the truth about mr. franklin jones. you are doing your delusional adidam routine again.
1. you declare all negative posts about mr. jones as not useful and simply unpleasant and thereby justify your ignoring them. you simply ignore the content. that may work in your “devotional group”, but it sure won’t work here.
2. you single out conrad and accuse him of mudslinging and to top it off you now accuse him of being delusional because lsd was found in his house. you are just as low as mr. new world.
you apparently don’t know the first thing about lsd. i suggest you read some of the books by stanlislav grof (also a devotee of muktananda btw).
but leaving the lsd nonsense aside. it wasn’t only conrad who told stories of his own direct experiences with mr. jones. my accounts are not based on hearsay AT ALL. i specifically stuck to what i personally witnessed. you had nothing to say. but how could you? you know it is true (at least those parts that are common knowledge). virtually everybody i know and knew in adidam has only disbelieve and head-shaking wonder about the way mr. ones misused money. everybody i knew spoke about it in those terms. as a good devotee it was rationalized away and declared to be part of his “crazy-wise teaching method”. but his misuse of money pissed off many people.
i am posting this (again) for those readers who are trying to assess mr. jones. (feel4god is too far gone in adidam delusions as he has demonstrated again and again). i don’t know conrad personally, but from all i can tell conrad is not a delusional mudslinger. i can confirm many of his statements from my own direct experience in mr. jones direct company.
look at my posts and you will find accounts personally witnessed by me. there is no fiction or hearsay in those. i guarantee you.
and as far as the assessment of mr. jones as a non-duality teacher goes: much has been said about that in this blog. and it should be clear that he was NOT a non-duality teacher by any stretch. at first glance his written word may look like it. but look closer. look at the way he set up adidam. it is a totally dualistic, totally ego-centric (i.e. mr. jones centric) organization that was all about the search. yes, he called it searchless and acausal but again. look closer. look how adidam is set up. “enlightenment” was always something far away in the future (never right here, right now as true non-duality teaches – whether “you” see it or not). a devotee needs to go through all kinds of meaningless stages. and then of course there is mr. jones himself. who declared himself to be more one with oneness than anybody ever was or ever will be.
he also declared himself as the “divine world-teacher” and then went into hiding on a remote fijian island in the middle of nowhere.
just look at the facts. you will have all the information you need to assess what mr. jones was all about.
January 21, 2009 at 12:45 pm
New World,
The person who made the rape allegation against Adi Da didn’t want to be drawn into a public controversy. They told me not to reprint or publish any of their actual communications with me, but never told me I couldn’t summarize them. They have no personal interest in getting involved in this public debate, and as far as I know never have. So I’m not going to get into any details of my relationship to them. I did not report the matter to the police because, for one, the incident had happened at least fifteen years previously, and obviously none of the parties involved wanted police involvement. I can understand why.
Now, you have every right to decide that you don’t believe this story. You also have every right to think I’m naïve and foolish to believe it. The conversation with the woman involved was very strange in every respect, in that she approached me while we were sitting next to one another at a private, semi-informal gathering with Adi Da present. She knew about my involvement in these internet discussions of Da’s abuses, and she struck up a conversation with me about them, because her name had obviously come up, and it seemed she must have been following the debates to some extent. I don’t know what on earth her motivation was to talk with me about this, perhaps just wanting to get something off her chest. Anyway, she talked about these abuses elusively, and then said, “but of course, I deserved it, I was a real bitch”. I wasn’t in the mood to interrogate her, and in fact actually felt a little uncomfortable even talking about it, especially with Da himself present on the other side of the room. As I say, I still considered myself a very loyal devotee at the time, and I wasn’t sure what to think. I’ve had a number of the women around Da spontaneously confide in me some rather abusive stories about Da, completely unsolicited. I’m not sure why they have done so, other than that I might perhaps seem like a sympathetic fellow (in person – apparently I don’t come across that way at all on the internet).
Well obviously his agenda was straight on the face of it – he wanted to turn you against Da. He wanted you to come over to his side. Would someone lie to do this? I think they definitely would.
I’m not sure that he had an agenda, so much as he felt a desire to simply confront my own arguments in defense of Da with some cold facts. Him and I had never had much contact while we were in Adidam, but I think he saw me as a “good kid”, and thought I was being naïve about what actually went on in Adidam. He was a much more worldly type than I, but a very good-hearted person. He was never involved with any dissident group, never publically made any comments about Adidam at all, and simply wants to pursue his own private life. That is his business. The information he brought me was very hard to refute, and emotionally, as I look back on it, I would have to say it perhaps represented a turning point in my own process of considering Da’s spirituality. Consider me naïve once more, if you like. It’s up to everyone to decide for themselves what is credible and what is not.
Well he must have been quite the salesman. How do you know you weren’t just a mark? How well did you know this guy? How do you know he wasn’t a drug addict, or delusional? How do you know?
I didn’t really notice any attempt to “sell” me anything. He didn’t seem delusional to me, or a drug addict, but you never know. I’m not really into mounting investigative attacks on people who mention bad experiences with Adi Da. I could well be a mark, a setup, and if so, well, what can I say? Any way one tells the story of my involvement with Da, I’ve been naïve and something of a mark one way or another, either by believing in Da or believing in his critics. So I’ve never thought I come out of any of this looking very good. Most people would agree, I think.
I question your judgment sir. I question your judgment and your clarity. An allegation of rape should come with strong and verifiable evidence. You are so far below the mark it’s actually stunning to me that you would stake your reputation on making this allegation
I have no problem with your questioning my judgment. I question my own judgment every day, so why shouldn’t others? I have no reputation at stake that I’m aware of, however, so I don’t think I have much to lose. My goal in life is not to build up a reputation of some sort. I’m just not that kind of guy, never have been. People will think as they wish about me, it’s not my concern. I try to be as truthful as I can, but I’m sure I fall well short of the mark.
If I were you, I’d be less concerned about Da’s reputation, and more concerned about the truth. You seem to be overly concerned with matters of reputation, and not really very concerned about the truth of what Da actually did. If you can face up to the realities behind Da’s reputation, and still defend him, please, do so. Just don’t engage in a coverup of those realities in the process. I certainly tried to defend him, and found that past a certain point I just couldn’t do it. Maybe you can do better.
January 21, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Yes I agree with FFAC. would be good to get off the sensationalism on all sides of the ADi Da suabble here. I will post some of my own experience and some quotes from other teachers I study with here later. I just read this post above from this guy Jacob here and got a laugh at how some get absolutely nothing of what Adi Da was up to.
I mean Adi Da was really into the art in itself from the beginning of his involvement with it. it was pure “meditation” for him . He was not doing it for fame and fortune at all. And the fact of him as a new and recent artist being featured at the art festival in Venice is totally unheard of and amazing in itself. Whatever you think about ADi Da and his teachings, it takes a real dunce not to see the absolute brillinance of Adi Da’s photo art. But of course art is a matter of personal taste too.
It is funny to consider Da’s transmission a form of “demonic possession” I have seen a couple of people before say this. I would say that being “possessed” by the ego is much more accurate in a person. Perhaps Adi Da’s transmission reveals this to an individual and their own ego is part of what they are experiencing. There is often this phenomenon all through spiritual history of turning that back on one’s guru and calling them an evil. I know a case of a tradional contemporary guru where people felt she is demonic and have actually tried to assasinate her several times, guess who,. Ammachi. Yes, she has often been “possessed” by Krishna or Devi and then able to “transmit” that sort of bliss to people open to it. I have seen her in old vids do the Krishna thing and it is quite amazing. But of course, someone could call this a sort of demonic possesion.
Spiritual transmission can be quite unnerving , especially to the shut down and particularly heady western mind. But really, spiritual transmission is at the heart of spirituality. But I know many egos who are “legends in their own minds” Like all unelightended beings. Look at the shape of the world and human society and leadership and so forth. I do not see a new age of enligtened and loving people emerging overnite like some like Eckart say is coming. I do think it is possible for people to wake up though, through real reception of teachings and practice and reception of transmission over time Flick Rahke
So please get on with the mudracking. That is pretty amusing too, but I am glad to see a trend in the return to discussing real isssues, like FFAC has now begun again
January 21, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Yes , mudracking and mudslinging is just people stubbornly being shut down and holding to their views and being very angry and emotional about it and striking out at the enemy. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote a little gem of a book recently about this whole process in egoity called “Calming the Fearful Mind A Zen Responce to Terrorism ” he talks about how the process of “gotcha” develops in individuals and groups and societies and how it is countered by deep and compassionate and receptive listening on all sides. This is a guy who saw his villages and monks and nuns slaughtered in the
Vietnam war. This is a great and easy book for anyone these days to read by the way. very practical on all levels.
His newest book “The Way of Power” is absolutley brilliant too. He is deceptively simple in his communications of truth. Flick Rahke Also he is a strong adherent of the necessity of community or sangha for spiritual practice, one of the “gems” of the Buddha. We in the west seem to forget this prinicple in our aggressive egoity
January 21, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Feel4God ,
Honestly, I just don’t share your bitterness about this conversation we’ve all been having here on this forum. I understand there’s been some rough and tumble, and that I’ve sometimes been very critical of you, and you’ve been very critical of me, but at the end of the day I simply don’t feel anything like you seem to about it, or about you personally. Perhaps I’ve just been through all this before from both sides of the aisle, but I just approach all this with a basic sense of freedom that isn’t shaken very easily by our conflicts. I feel to some extent the way football players on rival teams might bash heads all day long in the game, and then drink all night long together afterwards.
So I just don’t feel that there’s any contradiction behind arguing hard and strong here with one another, and yet also affirming a basic love for one another that transcends all this conflict. People seem to be attacking New World for claiming to be my friend and loving me, but even though I don’t know who he is, I’m quite sure he really does love me. Yes, I think he’s angry and has committed what one might call a personal foul, but people get carried away sometimes. It doesn’t mean they don’t still love you. And I don’t doubt that you love me also. Yes, we don’t perhaps show it in the most obvious ways, but it’s still there if you look for it. And I just don’t find it that hard to find the love, even here in this nutty forum.
I really mean it when I say that most of the time when I’ve been posting here I feel humorous, free, happy, and loving. Call me delusional if you like. I must be! I don’t think I’m ignoring the obvious conflicts we have, but I think it’s truly foolish to ignore the obvious love that is present here as well. Obvious to me at least. Life is hard, conflict is tough, and human relationships can be a bitch. Why make it all the worse by denying ourselves the basic right to love and be humorous about it all?
If there’s any legitimate defense to be made of Da himself and all his endless conflicts and abuses, I think it would be in that direction. So if you shut that off, what defensse is there left of him but denial and some attempt to discredit his critics? I’d be more aware of that when you try to make us seem loveless and humorless assholes.
Now, as for my little “incident”, there’s not much to say. As to your question about LSD usage, I will only say that I have taken LSD only two times in my life, both within the last 2-3 years, purely as a curious experiment at the request of some friends of mine. I found the experience positive and even useful, but I have no particular attachment to it. As far as other drugs go, I’ve taken shrooms twice also, and Ecstasy just twice, as a “come-down” once each to the LSD and shroom experience. Of all of them, I felt the most affinity for shrooms. They seemed the most natural and beneficial. Ecstasy was okay, but it felt chemically “artificial”, and didn’t really add much to the natural openness I already felt, but it did make the come-down a bit smoother. I’ve never taken opiods, cocaine, or amphetamines. I’ve never been into any kind of chemical enhancements, but I thought it was something worth experimenting with, just to see what it was about at long last, after having gone a full lifetime without any exposure to this sort of things, which most people who have known me are always very surprised to find out. I guess I seem like the kind of guy who must have done a lot of hallucinogens.
But I understand your concern and appreciate it.
LSD can be highly deluding, and I remember Adi Da saying (this is paraphrased to the best of my memory) that it can partially separate the subtle being from the gross body-mind via overstimulating and shredding the connectivity (of the central nervous system) between the gross and subtle vehicles. This can result in a partial identifying with aspects of the subtle vehicle and being disconnected especially from the emotions and physical components of the lower body-mind. In other words, LSD use can result in a real strong fixation with mind, even more or less exclusively.
What I noticed in my bried experiences was that all of these drugs are, essentially, destructive. In other words, they work by breaking down the natural structure of the brain’s function, and how the brain constructs experience. In that respect, they are useful in seeing that our ordinary experience is an artificial construct, and that there is much that is being suppressed by it, particularly a kind of native bliss that we don’t ordinarily perceive. For me, however, I already experience native bliss to some degree anyway, so taking these drugs wasn’t like opening a closed door, but like opening a door that was already partially open, just opening it further. It was useful to see how much more open I could be than I already am. But there’s definitely a price to be paid by opening the door via chemistry, and I wouldn’t want to do that very often. Who knows, I might try it again, maybe in another year or so, see if there’s anything more useful in the experience. Or maybe not. Probably just shrooms though.
I’ve known a few people who took a lot of acid, and I agree that it’s probably got long term disassociative effects. But it seems pretty harmless to me in small, very infrequent doses. Even so, I’m doubtful that I’ll bother with it again.
My general sense is that drugs are useful for helpng people see that there’s an inherent happiness beyond the mind, but once you get that point, and make that connection, it’s not terribly useful. Cannabis has a similar, though much milder effect. I find that my own experince of cannabis isn’t even terribly meaninful on that level. For health purposes its quite useful, but I find that most of the time I’m already much happier before smoking cannabis than whle high. Spiritual practice to me is much more effective than any of these drugs, though if you practice while on drugs they can certainly help you achieve some insights about the process.
There does seem to be some real disconnect between your mind and your actions here, Conrad, as myself and some others have pointed out.
You really need to examine your own mind and actions first, and be less concerned with mine. You keep trying to find some way to make yourself out to be superior, any way you like to slice it, every time you try to relate to me on a personal level here, “bringing” these things to me. It’s a little tiresome, and every time I point it out, you deny it. Don’t you think that’s just a little funny?
For this and several other reasons, LSD has never been recommended to Daists, and other than the study Adi Da spoke of in The Knee Of Listening, He never used LSD to my knowledge.
That’s not what I heard. But regardless, without a doubt Adi Da has used a tremendous amount of drugs, far more than I ever have. Aren’t you concerned about the effects these drugs have had on his own brain, and his own impression to be the most enlightened being of all time? I mean, honestly, I’m not trying to play gotcha, the simple facts are the Da has done just about everything, from LSD to Ayahuasca to Ketamine to amyl nitrate and obvioulsy loads and loads of cannibis and hash and alcohol. And he did a lot of it after being involved in the community. And please, don’t just deny this sort of thing, it really degrades the conversation. I talked with the guy whose service function it was to procure these drugs for Da. He was actually supposed to take them first, and then report the effects to Da before Da took them. Call it an experiment if you will. But please, don’t just deny it or call this heresay. Anyway, if you’re so concerned about the deluding effects of these kinds of drugs, why aren’t you concerned about the deluding effects they might have had on Da, who took far more and far more destructive drugs than I ever did.
I’m quite familiear with the ex-Daists you mention who took X and then became “enlightened”. It certainly does seem that drugs can help the mind create its own reality, if one isn’t careful. But don’t you worry that Da himself has done this very thing through his own use of drugs? In that from what I know a lot of this drug experimentation he did was in the eighties, don’t you worry that it might account for the various changes that occurred in his teaching, the increasing megalomania, the grandiose and rather egocentric claims he began to make? If you’re so worried about me, why not about him?
So take this post with however many grains of salt you wish, but this may be why you attack here the way you do at times and then tell me later how much you love me and others.
Well, no, I don’t see that as even the slightest possibility. I was never under any illusion that the few times I’ve taken hallucinogens that I was “enlightened”. My expereince was simply of being in love with God, that’s basically as far as it went. It was great, but there was no illusion of being enlightened. Nor have I ever had any such sense of myself, even remotely. Nor do I consider myself in any sense equal to any realizers, even Da for that matter. Whatever he is, I’m quite positive that I’m not in any sense his spiritual or yogic equal, and I don’t criticize him from that imagined perspective. I can be critical of NFL quarterbacks without imagining that I’m actually a better athlete than they are. So, I’m under no illusion of being a teacher or anything remotely in that league, nor do I even aspire to such grandure.
So really, while I am touched by your concern for me, the attempt to undermine my criticism of Da by suggesting that I’m some drug-addled acid-head is, to be honest, pretty lame on your part. I’m willing to bet that most people in Adidam have done far more drugs than I ever have. You probably have yourself, for all I know. Do you never run short of wild theories of personal attack to try to undermine my criticism of Da? What will it be next, that I beat my wife? Why not simply accept the fact that there are very legitimate reasons for intelligent, spiritually sensitive people to be very critical of Adi Da, particularly those who have been involved in Adidam close up? Why not just deal with the criticism itself, instead of trying to find some way to shunt it aside as somehow unreal or the product of delusion by going after the critic? This is simply not a honest way to deal with critics, and I hope you can see that.
I am hoping that this blog actually serves our spiritual growth, relationship, and communication – and not just keep spiraling down into some kind of mudslinging bullshit.
I do too. I think that a part of you really is sincere about this, wanting to communicate honestly with one another. I think another part of you is in denial, and doesn’t want to face the criticism of Da head on in a realistic manner. You need to do some soul-searching about your own motives here, and how far you are willing to take this process of real communication, rather than constantly questioning my motives, and assuming that your own motives are pure and above reproach. I think it’s been very clear to many people here that you have an agenda to establish Da’s superiority, and your own by implication. If you can’t see that, fine. I can communicate with you regardless of our particular limitations and self-delusions.
As I have said before, I find all this repetitive talk of “dirty laundry”, etc., of no usefulness after a certain point – you see what it has reduced this blog to currently. If it continues in this vein, I will have to bow out, as I have already spoken plenty about my own experiences with Adi Da regarding gatherings, use of accessories, etc., and I personally see no further use in discussing any of Adi Da’s or yours or Nisagadatta’s or anyone’s personal private life for the sake of sensationalism, bashing, etc.
Honestly, my friend, that desire would seem a lot more legitimate if you hadn’t just written a long post dragging me through this very same mud, and implying that my criticsm of Da was the result of overuse of LSD, and saying that I was deserving of getting this mud thrown at me by New World? If you wanted to take the high road, wouldn’t you have just said outright that you’re not going to go there? Wouldn’t you just have taken a principled stand against New World’s tactics, and said right then and there, this isn’t what our conversations should degenerate into? I’d feel more impressed by your sincerity and good will if you’d responded inthat manner. Instead, you drag me through the mud yourself, and then you say let’s stop this mudslinging. Where’s the credibility in that?
The problem with your desire to stop talking about Adi Da’s private life is that, effectively speaking, he had none. He was always being Guru, whether in public or private. Most of his interactions with devotees, most of his “teaching demonstration” occurred in private, which is to say that it wasn’t his private life at all, it was his teaching life. This is of course how it is with many spiritual teachers, which is why their lives are considered open books. It’s not like Adi Da had a public teaching life, after which he went home to his family and had a private life that is no one else’s business. Ad Da did virtually all his actual teaching of devotees in his own house, even in his own bedroom. To say that all of that is off-limits is just nonsense. It represents the core of his actual teaching work. He said so himself many times. His attempt to prevent people from talking about the dominant aspects of his teaching work and relationship with devotees just doesn’t wash, in any sense at all, given the way he taught. And we know that the only reason you make this separation is because what Da did behind closed doors often just doesn’t look very good, and is highly embarassing and just tends to destroy his attempt at creating a respectable public reputation. That isn’t a valid reason to exclude it. Of course, it’s not the only thing to talk about, and because so much of it is very taudry, it makes for taudry conversations, but that’s not the fault of Da’s critics. It’s the result of the choices Da himself made in how he wanted to live out his teaching relationship with devotees. Blaming critics for it just doesn’t wash.
We can of course talk about merely dharmic matters, issues of practice and so on, but because Da taught that spiritual practice in Adidam was all about the direct personal relationship to him, not just in the meditation hall but in life and actual relations with him, one can’t ignore the rest of it. If you can’t accept that, you’re always going to have trouble dealing with criticism of Da, which doesn’t recognize this artifical boundary as anything more than a public relations device to sheild Adi Da from criticisms in areas devotees are either ashamed of or simply unable to speak honestly about because it is consdered a violation of Adi Da’s own instructions. So I understand the dilemma this puts you in. I was in the situation myself when I used to defend Adi Da on the internet. But I hope you will stop blaming Da’s critics for putting you in this situation. They aren’t responsible for it, even if sometimes they’re a little crude about it, myself included. Da put you in this position, so your anger is displaced if you direct it at critics.
We are hardly children here, Conrad. And besides, you certainly come across with a superior attitude about Adi Da, Daists, etc. – plus you were a Daist for many years. So you are looked at by many as some kind of expert. You are definitely the most vocal and prolific poster on the internet relative to the sensational aspects of Adi Da and Adidam, and combined with your intellect, you come across very logically to many. So in that sense, you have assumed the role of the teacher regardless of your claims.
That’s a huge stretch, and I’m not sure what the point is. By that standard, you are a spiritual teacher yourself. I’m not sure why you resent my intellect so much. Yes, perhaps I come across as being logical, even plausible. You’re saying that’s a bad thing? What, you want me to be illogical and implausible? Well, come to think of it, I think you do. That would make it easy to discredit me. But isn’t the issue not with me and my “expertise” or intellect, but with the simple fact that much of the criticism of Adi Da is actually logical and plausible? I gotta say, having argued from both sides of the fence, it’s really a lot easier to argue from this side, because it really does have logic and plausibility on its side. And these are not in opposition to heart, feeling, and love. They are intimate friends.
Of course, Jerry has a point that everyone is a teacher in their own way, you, me, my cats and dogs, every poster here. But that’s quite a different thing from being a formal teacher with devotees, who has a devotional relationship or a student relationship with others. I have no such thing, and I ‘m sure you know that. But really, if you want to keep attacking my personal life as a legitimate target of this debate, keep it up. I think it just makes you and New World look a lot worse than I do.
Conradg Says:
“Should I mount an investigation of Feel4God’s private life now as a normal part of the discussion of Da’s behavior?”
Feel4God says:
Feel free, but to what avail?
Obviously, I was making an ironic rhetorical point that this leads to madness, which I actually said if you read the next sentence in that paragraph. I have no interest or intention in investigating or commenting on your personal life. I would consider that very rude and obnoxious and completely uncalled for.
However, isn’t it obvious that no ego is superior?
Yes, it is. But isn’t it also obvious that every ego tries to become superior in some way? You are certainly right to point this out in me. I plead guilty. But will you continue to deny your own quest for superiority, which I think is rather transparent to one and all, yet somehow opaque to yourself?
We simply are here to recognize the non-dual truth of heart-based Reality and to ultimately realize there is no you or I. However that works for each of us, so be it!
Yes, and isn’t it obvious that in Reality there are no superior Divine Realizers, there is no superior Adept, there is no you, I, or Da, there is only One Person? …Ah, I see an exception coming from you, for some reason. Da is special?
I hope we can discuss things without resorting to any more bashing, as we had for a little while there. I also sincerely hope my post above is helpful, Conrad. And as always, if nothing else, all of these considerations sure point to the need for Realization!
Yes, I hope we can also. None of us are perfect, we sin every day in every way, and we must always be forgiven. That’s what all human relationships require, deep forgiveness and love on an ongoing basis even as we struggle to rise above the pettiness of our minds and personal conflicts. I can never say no to such offers, regardless of what might have been said even a moment before.
January 21, 2009 at 3:19 pm
shiva Says:
“conrad was not alone in posting the truth about mr. franklin jones. you are doing your delusional adidam routine again.”
I never said that Conradg was the only one posting about Adi Da in this manner – I said he posted the most.
shiva Says:
“1. you declare all negative posts about mr. jones as not useful and simply unpleasant and thereby justify your ignoring them. you simply ignore the content. that may work in your “devotional group”, but it sure won’t work here.”
If you are going to make such a declaration, at least quote me as to where you derived this erroneous summary. What I said is this:
“As I have said before, I find all this repetitive talk of “dirty laundry”, etc., of no usefulness after a certain point – you see what it has reduced this blog to currently. If it continues in this vein, I will have to bow out, as I have already spoken plenty about my own experiences with Adi Da regarding gatherings, use of accessories, etc., and I personally see no further use in discussing any of Adi Da’s or yours or Nisagadatta’s or anyone’s personal private life for the sake of sensationalism, bashing, etc.”
If people find it useful to speak about their own personal experiences, positive or negative, I have no problem with that – but if it is simply for the sake of bashing and sensationalism, that I find is useless. As far as your own personal experiences, shiva, I was not on Naituaba when you were, so I cannot really comment on your content. I spoke of my personal experiences with Adi Da, but because they ran counter to yours and Conradg’s, they were subject to various ad hominem attacks via clever wordcraft and various other “logic” and misquoting. I can repost various specific examples of this if Conradg or you want, but really I would rather simply move on from this level of it.
shiva Says:
“2. you single out conrad and accuse him of mudslinging and to top it off you now accuse him of being delusional because lsd was found in his house. you are just as low as mr. new world.”
I did not accuse him as delusional because LSD was found in his house – I don’t even know if it was; I just read the case that said LSD was found there. From this, I simply conjectured that if it was used by Conradg, this might explain why there is such a great disconnect I feel from his posts that attack versus posts that say he loves us all and finds all of this so humorous.
shiva Says:
“you apparently don’t know the first thing about lsd.”
This is again very presumptuous on your part. I personally won’t talk about illegal substance use on a public forum, unless it has already been disclosed within the same thread AND the party involved is aware of this and acknowledges something about the source of disclosure. So I figured it might be helpful to post what I have learned about LSD. I do assume we are all inherently connected and are moved to self-transcendence here.
Regarding whether I know about LSD, I will simply say that I vaguely remember living in San Francisco in 1967 – so draw your own conclusions.
And there are ways to repair the “holes” that LSD and other drugs purportedly tear in the subtle body – prayer, meditation, service, fasting, raw diet, green drinks, etc., etc., as required by the particular individual. Various teachers have recommended similar things.
shiva Says:
“my accounts are not based on hearsay AT ALL. i specifically stuck to what i personally witnessed. you had nothing to say. but how could you?”
Exactly – as I said above, I was not there when you were. As far as money spent on art, look no further than the Catholic Church – its art assets are a very large part of its worth. The art of Adidam is actually a very wise long term investment – as art has always been.
Really, money is a huge deal to egos, especially in the West where the dollar reigns supreme. It brings up all kinds of “creeps” in the body-mind that are admittedly very difficult to face. But Adi Da deals with every aspect of the body-mind and requires radical (non-dual) devotion and right life disciplines as the necessary foundation for the spiritual process with Him. It works for me and other Daists, so please accept that. If it did not work for you, I have no beef about that – but to make sweeping generalizations about Adi Da, like you do in terms of various statements such as “it should be clear that he was NOT a non-duality teacher by any stretch” – really makes it more difficult to accept the rest of your communications. You have been on that bandwagon from the beginning, and for that reason I generally did not comment on your posts because others (like FFaC and Conradg) at least acknowledge that Adi Da taught non-duality.
shiva, are you saying that you never felt His Transmission as the non-dual Truth?
And really shiva, for being such a “pure” non-dualist as you like to present yourself here, I don’t understand why you are bothering with all of this duality.
shiva Says:
“enlightenment” was always something far away in the future (never right here, right now as true non-duality teaches – whether “you” see it or not). a devotee needs to go through all kinds of meaningless stages. ”
This is your lack of understanding of Adi Da’s Teaching – and I have posted so much about this already, I have to ask you to just review my prior posts else we will get into another repetitive loop which I currently don’t have time for. I don’t mean to sound pretentious about this, but really, there are pages upon pages of posts addressing this very matter.
shiva Says:
“and then of course there is mr. jones himself. who declared himself to be more one with oneness than anybody ever was or ever will be.
he also declared himself as the “divine world-teacher” and then went into hiding on a remote fijian island in the middle of nowhere.”
Again, I have done my best (albeit very limited) to explain the absolute non-duality of the FLO statement in prior posts.
By the way, as you well know, Adi Da was in California in 2005, and sat with many many people in Darshan daily for many months. So He wasn’t exactly in “hiding” as you characterize above.
Okay, now I see there are even more posts to catch up with, and from Conradg too!
January 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Eddie,
I appreciate your observations about me, my inability to let more heart through more, and my obstructing mind. All valid, I’m sure. What I’m not really sure of is how to overcome that. I mean, it’s a bit vague and doesn’t give me much of anything tangible to work with. Any ideas?
One thing I should perhaps mention is that I write ridiculously fast, right off the top of my head. Maybe that’s part of the problem. You say you take hours to write your posts, whereas with me they just fly by. In part it has something having to do with advice Da gave me back when I was his astrologer, that I should just say whatever is on my mind. I don’t mean that I write in a disassociated state, but I don’t spend any time actually thinking about what I’m going to say. Or at least precious little time. In any case, even when I spend more time considering what I will say, when I actually write it down it comes out very fast. Not sure what I can really do about that.
January 21, 2009 at 4:09 pm
In the Knee of Listening, Franklin says (regarding year 1964):
“I continued to exploit the possibilities for experience during that time, and I saw no benefits in retarding my impulses. …….I would often exploit the possibilities of sex, or become deeply drunk on wine, engage in orgies of eating, or smoke marijuana for long hours. ……… This point in my narrative brings us to the spring of 1964.”
That was just the beginning of it,— 45 years ago. Needless to deny it???
January 21, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Flick, thanks mucho for that book reference. I really dig your posts – very honest and straightforward.
Conradg Says:
“Yes, it is. But isn’t it also obvious that every ego tries to become superior in some way? You are certainly right to point this out in me. I plead guilty. But will you continue to deny your own quest for superiority, which I think is rather transparent to one and all, yet somehow opaque to yourself?”
Sure, I can plead guilty once again to this too. And this is exactly why I maintain my relationship with Adi Da, as His intrinsic egolessness is obvious to me and helps to keep my superiority numbers at least a bit more “manageable”! Hey, can you imagine me without the Guru?
I mainly liked what you said about LSD use in terms of its destructiveness. That is very similar to what I experienced with it prior to meeting Adi Da – though I certainly also enjoyed the aspect of it opening up new vistas of awareness at the time. It was before I even had read any spiritual literature, so I was unprepared for it in those terms; plus it was some of that renowned Osley acid. I certainly gained a healthy respect for the fact that Reality was much greater than it appeared to be, and this prompted my delving deeply in spiritual literature, etc.
At this point I have no desire to ingest any kind of psychotropic drug into my system as it would likely interfere at least to some degree with my practice of recognition of Adi Da, radical devotion, etc. This raw diet also really makes my body extremely sensitive to drugs.
Conrad, I have written extensively that I have never witnessed Adi Da being anything less than egoless, under ANY circumstance – so you can conjecture all you like about what drugs may have done to Him, but what you seem to be implying in terms of delusion has never been my direct experience with Him.
Conradg Says:
“Why not simply accept the fact that there are very legitimate reasons for intelligent, spiritually sensitive people to be very critical of Adi Da, particularly those who have been involved in Adidam close up? Why not just deal with the criticism itself, instead of trying to find some way to shunt it aside as somehow unreal or the product of delusion by going after the critic? This is simply not a honest way to deal with critics, and I hope you can see that.”
Much of what I would say to you now Conrad, can be read in my post to shiva. I really have no problem with people sincerely speaking of their experiences with Adi Da, but if it just seems like a lot of disrespectful bashing for whatever egoic reasons, it is not something I will generally even comment on; I have said this many times in the past. Also, part of what makes this blog much more difficult for me than for you is that I just lost the physical form of my Master, and really that saddens me deeply still.
Conradg Says:
“saying that I was deserving of getting this mud thrown at me by New World? ”
Where did I say this??? I specifically said that I could NOT condone what New World did. I also stated my position on these matters very clearly to shiva before reading your post. In terms of speaking to you about LSD, I said it was conjecture on my part only. If it is not applicable, that is fine. Others may find it useful, maybe not.
So do you see how you twisted my words again, Conrad? Here is what I said:
“I suppose it was inevitable that Conradg’s karmic behavior here would beget some karma back at him. It is not that I condone what New World posted, but that tends to be the nature of the beast in this egoic, dualistic “growling pit” here and in this world. Egos can get very nasty when they feel threatened, and that works for all egos. Until the ego is utterly transcended, there is reactivity and unlove.”
Plus I said “all egos” – which certainly includes me! Anyway, that is enough for now…
January 21, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Really there is no big deal to cannabis one way or the other. Mostlly it is just an enjoyment enhancer, good for things like sex or dancing, which is probably why it is taboo in a purtianical culture such as ours. Like Conrad, I don’t feel like any of these things are really useful for a spiritual practice. Psychedlics can open the door to at least the possibility of a spiritual reality and realization. Beyond that the continued use of them would be a detriment to health and realization.
Adi Da at one point told people to not use pot anymore and that it would be detrimental to spirtual practice to use it. This is pretty much accepted in the traditions, and Ammachi agrees with that too. many sadhus in India still use cannabis products regularly though. Personally I go against Adi Da’s and the traditional view of it though. I don’t think it adds to spiritual practice, and I don’t think it detracts , if used moderately for enjoyment enhancement.
So I have always been baffled as to why people make such a big deal about cannabis one way or the other. It is pretty ordinary and benign stuff. Flick Rahke
I am also baffled as to people making such a big deal of
adi da drinking or having sex or smoking pot as in the above post by Raymond. People have very idealistic views of enlightenment. it is like the people at the raw food and fasting ranch that I showed a picture of Adi Da to years ago and they exclaimed that there was no way he could be enlightened because he was fat and out of shape. Trungpa Rinpoche is another case in point. Many people point the finger at him because he drank and partied and had sex with female students. Still he was one of the most brilliant teachers of Buddhism to come to the west. I have taken his Shambhala trainings and they are absolutely magical in a sense. His teachings are brilliant and his community is still thriving with great retreat centers. I have done retreats at Rocky Mountain and in Vermont. I would have no problem particpating in his community if I felt moved that way. But some feel like he was a cultic figure who brainwashed people. he also played sort of a kingly role and was called the “Vidyadhara”
The crux of the matter with Adi Da is really very simple though. If you aknowledge that he is who he says he is , then everything about him falls naturally into place. If you see him as egoless and the “Acausal Egoless Divine REality” then everything falls into place. Then the “proclamations” he makes are just him telling the truth of it. Of course , that is no different that saying “I am That”
If you do not feel that Adi Da is egoless and enlightened, then all his declarations and teachings seem like total bull and very full of ego. Then his actions would appear to be very negative and have no teaching value at all. It is like that lama I refered to earlier who gave a reasoning for a lama or guru having sex with a female student. he said that it could be a negative thing if the guru was not realized , but a great blessing if the guru was realized. Same activity with different merit , depending.
Here is something else. I have a friend who is a devoted disciple of a very brilliant traditional Tibetan lama. My friend is a pot grower. he went to this lama and asked him about the karma of growing pot. The lama told him that the only bad karma in it would be in getting caught. So he told him to avoid getting caught. Flick Rahke
January 21, 2009 at 7:29 pm
feel4god says:
“Really, money is a huge deal to egos, especially in the West where the dollar reigns supreme.”
that is all you have to say? first of all it is flat out wrong as the dollar is vastly overrated since it is not backed up any more (by gold as it used to be) and secondly it has nothing to do with what i said. is it not true that virtually every devotee in adidam struggled with mr. jones’ abuse of money? again: virtually everybody i knew did.
“But Adi Da deals with every aspect of the body-mind and requires radical (non-dual) devotion and right life disciplines as the necessary foundation for the spiritual process with Him.”
just adding “non-dual” before “devotion” doesn’t make it non-dual, you know? mr. jones was always the unreachable OTHER in adidam. always. it was totally dualistic.
you have done that so many times on this blog. just add a (in that context) meaningless “non-dual” to an inherently dualistic concept and assuming you made a statement. well, you didn’t. just like mr. jones smoke-screens in his written word by adding “searchless” or “acausal” or other seemingly non-dual words to inherently dualistic concepts. that does not make them non-dual. and no excessive repetition will do so either.
“shiva Says:
“enlightenment” was always something far away in the future (never right here, right now as true non-duality teaches – whether “you” see it or not). a devotee needs to go through all kinds of meaningless stages. ”
This is your lack of understanding of Adi Da’s Teaching – and I have posted so much about this already, I have to ask you to just review my prior posts else we will get into another repetitive loop which I currently don’t have time for.”
“Again, I have done my best (albeit very limited) to explain the absolute non-duality of the FLO statement in prior posts.”
i appreciate that you THINK you made a point regarding those two major issues. but if you look at the responses you got here, it should be clear that you did not.
“shiva, are you saying that you never felt His Transmission as the non-dual Truth?”
yes, that is a fact. never once. and i spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours in his direct company. i am not exaggerating on both accounts.
“By the way, as you well know, Adi Da was in California in 2005, and sat with many many people in Darshan daily for many months. So He wasn’t exactly in “hiding” as you characterize above.”
are you serious?? who was allowed to go there? only so-called devotees in so-called “good standing”.
compare that to the utter openness of a ramana maharshi, or nisargadatta maharaj, or sailor bob adamson, or many many other real non-dual teachers.
NONE of them declared themselves to be world-teachers! many of them would even refuse the word “teacher” (because to them there is nobody to be taught anything).
ANYBODY could approach them and ask ANY question. sailor bob adamson still opens his house 3 times each and every week.
you really can’t be serious! mr. jones in his seclusion and hiding on a remote island was anything but a “world-teacher”, let alone a divine one. hell, even devotees in “good standing” could not just ask him a question. EVERYTHING going to or from him was mercilessly censored. i have witnessed that again and again. i personally heard him say one thing and the official communication going out to the sangha was a TOTALLY different thing. the same goes the other way. and i am talking MANY such incidents. those were not exceptions. they were the rule.
why? i ask you! why would that be necessary?
your believability, feel4god, suffers tremendously from not being able to admit simple indisputable facts. like mr. jones’ abuse of money and his hiding from the world.
feel4god, you feel this need to uphold mr. jones in the face of indisputable facts. no praise, no blame. been there, done that. seriously. there was a time i really believed he was a divine teacher. and i had the same blind attitude you are exhibiting here. i am hoping for your sake that you will wake up at some point. i really do.
January 21, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Suppose maybe Da was the FLO seventh stage realizer because the eighth and ninth stage realizers refused to have anything to do with him…
January 21, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Feel-for-yourself/”new world”/and any other current cultist…the following has been presented for your consideration, written in 1985…could have been written yesterday. (As to your incredibly horrific response to Conrad Feelfor yourself…I will reply separate from this post).
The following is a letter from Mark Miller, a person much miligned by the FrankenDa Cult, written in 1985.
This is a personal letter from Mark Miller to Susan (last name unknown), a family member of an Adi Da devotee. This letter describes the immersion of devotees in a mythology about Adi Da that is a key component that allows the cult to function. It was written during a period of time that followed widespread media coverage of Adi Da that led many family members of Daist to have serious concerns.
September 17, 1985
Dear Susan,
Thanks for the letter about your cousin and Da Free John. Yes, I do know who your cousin is, although I haven’t spent much time around him. Yes, I’m quite sure he knows that the kinds of things you read about in the newspapers have gone on around DFJ. However, his interpretation of those events would be much different than mine. It isn’t surprising that he would outright deny the legitimacy of the accounts in the articles when you ask him about them, since you are an outsider and are presumed to lack sufficient “spiritual maturity” to understand the true nature of DFJ’s actions. It is also not surprising that he would call the people speaking out in the media “a group of disgruntled liars.” You should realize, though, that more than 25 people have shared their negative views of DFJ with the press, including many who were very close to him. This group can’t be dismissed so easily.
Let me emphasize that your cousin does know at the very least that the kinds of incidents described in the newspapers were common around DFJ, even if he was not aware of the specific events or if he interprets them differently. In addition, your cousin is probably aware of other similar occurrences that have not yet been made known to the public but would be at least as disturbing as what you’ve read.
The revelation that just took place in the media is unlikely to have much immediate effect on your cousin or other committed devotees. They will continue to explain away DFJ’s abuses until the right moment comes (if it ever does), when something about their whole involvement with DFJ just doesn’t work for them any more. It will probably take something more personal for most people to doubt the teaching or their practice. Then, they may be open to interpreting DFJ differently. Or, even then, they may just ignore their doubts and carry onward. The media circus that just transpired is likely to galvanize devotees against us “dissidents” and rally them around the Master in the short term. Later, when all the excitement has passed, I do think the groundwork we have laid will ultimately contribute to some people waking up. It’s too soon to tell for sure.
To continue with answering your questions, the essence of what makes the whole phenomenon of DFJ and his community possible is the collective commitment of all involved to mythologizing everything associated with DFJ. His words and actions are consistently interpreted as lilas or divine acts, regardless of what they appear to be when viewed plainly. Dysfunctional, abusive, and inconsistent behaviors are explained away as the paradoxical expressions of an enlightened being, designed to teach and transform others. Devotees inject their spiritual fantasies and expectations into their perceptions of DFJ and his behavior in a habitual way that gets reinforced by others in the community. Their vision becomes clouded and their discrimination is compromised because of this. The degree to which individuals do this, and the way they do it varies, but it is a fundamental characteristic of those within the group.
This myth-making activity becomes habitual and unconscious in those who are most closely involved with DFJ. I have also seen this process operating in people who’ve never even met DFJ, but who’ve deeply bought into the image created in his books and tapes. As I see it, everything associated with DFJ, including his books, his talks, his manner of living and his evolution into a religious icon over the past 5 years or so all work together to justify and recruit people into the “esoteric” practice of DFJ mythologization. All of the things that DFJ has called “agency” function to facilitate that activity and harness it to DFJ’s personal benefit. Everything he does is incorporated into a marketing plan designed to sell the idea that he is a larger than life superman who is the greatest spiritual figure in history.
Once people have become involved in the practice of myth-making, all kinds of abuses and inappropriate developments are possible, both intentional and unintentional. I don’t see DFJ as particularly evil, but more as deluded and irresponsible. Negligent is another word that comes to mind. DFJ vigorously pursues his own self-interest and the fulfillment of his desires and fantasies at the expense of others, all under the guise of spiritual teaching. He tramples on devotees in the process, and many suffer ill effects as a result. He exploits the high-minded aspirations of sincere people and harnesses them for his own gain. Many suffer from a derailment of their lives and lose years worth of precious opportunities because their whole existence gets turned upside down in the process of “serving the Master.” Others suffer psychological difficulties and confusion as a result of DFJ’s mind games and exploitation of them, facilitated by their indoctrination into a belief system that undermines their discrimination.
The person most involved in the myth-making process, and the one who started it all, is DFJ himself. He interprets everything in his life in self-serving, grandiose and supernatural terms. So much of what he claims about himself and what he has allegedly achieved on a spiritual level are things that supposedly occurred in the unseen spiritual dimensions of existence where no one can confirm or deny his assertions. As a corollary to this, whenever something goes wrong and a “common sense” explanation will not suffice, DFJ interprets the problematic event in a cosmic way that covers his butt and makes him look like a selfless spiritual superhero.
In yet another form of butt covering, DFJ requires that devotees worship him as a unique and supreme revelation of God in human form, while at the same time criticizing them for doing so. He draws distinctions between their actual cultic worship of him and idealized concepts about “correct” worship of him that are operationally meaningless, and have little fundamental effect on devotees’ relationship to him. He says that his proclamations of Divinity are “ecstatic speech,” and they are not about him personally being God in the flesh. To interpret them in a way that does not grant him unique and unprecedented status, however, requires one to completely butcher the English language.
If you look at the actual relationship of DFJ to his devotees, rather than buy into the smokescreen of his words, it is obvious he is being treated as a deity who is above and superior to all other human beings. There is also no doubt that he claims to be the most enlightened spiritual figure in history; greater than Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna; and he demands that people treat him that way.
You mentioned that you didn’t understand how all the things I said about the group and DFJ could be true if intelligent people like your cousin and myself were involved. What happens is that you develop a blind spot when dealing with anything relating to DFJ, and to some extent in ancillary areas. With respect to most aspects of your life, you continue to be a largely normal and rational person. So it’s not like you have to be a glassy-eyed automaton to be trapped in a cult. That’s the popular picture of cult members, but I doubt it’s true of very many people in ANY cult. There’s a few people like this in DFJ’s group, but most people are relatively ordinary, albeit with a blind spot that obscures their discrimination regarding DFJ.
The fact is, sometimes people who are intelligent but not street smart can’t see the forest for the trees. I know that when I was 19 years old I bought into the extraordinary claims made in DFJ’s autobiography (The Knee of Listening) and appreciated his dharma (if you can really call the dharma his) to the point where I didn’t see the obvious when I met him – i.e. that DFJ was extremely irresponsible and was exploiting people to satisfy his whims and fantasies.
By the time I met DFJ and saw things about him that would previously have caused me to reject him out of hand, I was already sufficiently indoctrinated to assume that anything he did was a form of teaching. This, plus the intensive peer pressure and “encounter group” tactics used on me when I first joined the group helped reinforce a belief system with two mutually supportive tenets. Firstly, DFJ was believed to be a perfectly enlightened being whose bizarre and apparently abusive actions were all a form of teaching work and did not disprove his claim to enlightenment. Secondly, doubts and negative reactions to DFJ were to be surrendered (i.e. released and ignored) since they were only signs of the ego’s resistance to spiritual practice, and symptoms of the avoidance of relationship by Narcissus (i.e. the unenlightened ego fixated on it’s own sense of separate existence). These two themes set up a system of circular reasoning that is self-reinforcing, once you truly believe in it.
Although this circular logic and belief system goes a long way towards insulating DFJ from criticism within the group, he also tries to hide much of his more exaggerated behavior from those whose commitment to him (and willingness to both tolerate and be taken advantage of by him) is not as strong as those in his inner circle. People in the inner circle have demonstrated that they are thoroughly indoctrinated into the belief system about DFJ, and at the same time DFJ has found them to be either attractive sexually, entertaining, or functionally useful to him. The people close to DFJ keep secrets about him from the general membership, as you have seen revealed in the newspaper articles you mentioned. They have no problem whatsoever lying to cover up for him, based on the idea that people outside the inner circle aren’t mature enough to understand “the way DFJ works,” nor to interpret his actions properly.
Because of this, DFJ has been able to get away with just about anything. If he were a fundamentally evil or violent person (and I don’t think he is) the situation in the community could be very dangerous. As it is, I think he’s more deluded and psychologically messed up than violent or malicious. His violent tendencies appear limited to wife-beating, as far as I know, so men like your cousin are probably OK. Mostly, DFJ is naive, self-indulgent, and irresponsible. He is an amoral sociopath who can be cynical or indifferent about his followers and their human frailties. He goes through huge mood swings and alternates between periods of extreme self-indulgence and exaggerated discipline. Others suffer because DFJ’s weaknesses are amplified by the power he has within his little fantasy world, and their own lives are impacted by his personal instability and dysfunctional behavioral patterns. Power corrupts, and DFJ’s life is a good example of that.
The community is at root a society devoted to glorification and myth-making in relation to DFJ, who is truly the ultimate example of Narcissus, the mythical figure DFJ uses to describe those who are unenlightened. This supreme Narcissist requires the constant adoration of not only himself, but also of everything associated with him — his properties and possessions (including the holy sites), and the murtis (pictures) of him, etc. These inanimate objects serve as extensions of his huge ego, and the construction of them and/or worship of them serve to usurp huge amounts of devotees time and money.
DFJ is remarkably spoiled. He gets showered with both attention and gifts, and his every whim is taken as a Divine Commandment. He gets his way virtually all of the time. Yet, he still whines and complains incessantly, and never stops criticizing the efforts of those who seek to please him.
Anyway, let me get to your final question. Once people leave the group, there is no guarantee they will stop the “esoteric practice” (ha ha) of DFJ mythologization. That is just one reason why some people you’ve met who leave the group still believe in all kinds of nonsense about DFJ. It can be difficult to see all of the ways in which habitual mythologization is operative and to understand the full range and scope of its influence. Waking up can take time. Many can’t seem to develop much insight into their delusions and commitment to myth-making about DFJ, beyond identifying the crudest and most obviously cultic level of it. This is why some of the group’s beliefs and assumptions are retained indefinitely by many people, even long after they leave.
The funny thing, though, is that this myth-making activity I’ve described really is an “esoteric” practice in some sense. It truly is “hidden,” as it is largely unconscious and almost entirely uninspected in the community, despite DFJ’s frequent criticism of cultism. He superficially criticizes some aspects of cultism, yet at the same time creates an entire culture devoted to it. It is remarkable that he is able to focus everyone’s attention on what he writes and says, rather than what he does and how he lives.
DFJ also never gets to the core issue, which is the fact that he is an ordinary human being like everyone else and should not be afforded the unique luxury of being beyond accountability. If he really wanted to end the cultic game surrounding him he could easily make some very practical changes in the way he lived and the way he related to others. Of course, this is the last thing he actually wants.
Living like a regular person would effectively undermine most of the cultism involving DFJ, but it would also force him to relate to others in a way he has been afraid of. He would then have to participate in relationships with true peers who require that he be a responsible human being and face the consequences of his actions without appeal to an absurd belief system that gives him license to explain away his mistakes and faults. He would have to face criticism and rejection, and lots of it!
The problem now is that if any devotee living in the community wasn’t cultic in their relationship to DFJ, they would soon be pushed out of the group because they weren’t committed enough and weren’t “in right relationship to the Master.” I saw this happen many times. DFJ has thus insulated himself from meaningful criticism and from much of the ordinary feedback that one would get from friends and adversaries. He does this through his own actions and choices, and through the protective mechanism of the extremely cultic inner circle he has created.
DFJ and those close to him are careful to test people’s commitment to the “practice” of myth-making before they let them get too close to DFJ personally. DFJ has been pretty careful most of the time about who he messes with. Some people, however, wake up from the fog of his cult belief system at a later time and get very upset about what he’s done to them while they were asleep. That’s what is going on this year in the media, etc. He is reaping what he has sown.
I hope this addresses your questions, Susan, and that it helps you to understand what your cousin is involved with. It’s a messed up fantasy world, but I do not believe it to be violent or physically dangerous for men, at least. Don’t give up on your cousin, but you also need to accept the fact that he has made a choice to follow DFJ and won’t leave until he’s ready to do so. And that may never happen.
Regards,
Mark Miller
January 21, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I am enjoying (and benefiting) from this blog more now than in its earlier days because we are getting down to relationships rather than dharma, even though there are abusive postings full of defensiveness and hostility. While it remained at the level of dharmic debate amongst people who claim no authority or realization, I felt it did not enhance self-understanding. I recall one of Adi Da’s communications about how we would rather spend many hours meditating in a cave than really address this business of love. I have found that an overwhelming majority of arguments here and elsewhere operate at a superficial level, and that what is really going on (and where the solutions really lie) gets hidden beneath layers of denial.
To Feel4God and other devotees.
As devotees of Adi Da you are obliged to advocate him and to increase the numbers in Adidam. Naturally when advocating (or espousing any point of view), one tends to highlight those aspects that would achieve pre-determined goals. Now, I really have experience in this matter, both as a former Mission Manager and as a research scientist where I admit at times following a course of action known as ‘selective omission.’ Because I am so familiar with this pattern, I can see that that is what you are constantly doing on this blog and probably also doing in your interactions with people outside of cyberspace.
If someone was to approach you in order to obtain information about Adi Da and Adidam, and that person wanted to know everything about the guru and his community, how would you respond? Imagine I am that person and I am asking you the following questions: On a factual level (for now), is it true that Adi Da had taken significant amounts of drugs and alcohol over the years? Is it true that he and some close to him have been on anti-depressants? What sort of sexual experimentations and directions did he take charge of and how long did these events continue? Adi Da claims to be a ‘legal renunciate’: are there accounts in financial institutions housing moneys associated with Adi Da and/or Adidam, how much is in them, and is it true that there are devotees who don’t even have the money to get their teeth fixed? Can you point me to those who have left Adidam so I can get an alternative view of what it’s like to be a devotee?
How do you respond to these questions Feel4God? Will you ‘selectively omit’ relevant answers I seek, or do you have the courage of your convictions to answer without any spin whatsoever? If you feel I am unable to receive the complete picture because, well, I am only approaching and could not fully appreciate the crazy-wise ‘methods’ of an Adept until I was more matured in my relationship to such a one, will you at least tell me THAT honestly? Then down the track when I am a mature practitioner, will I have access to such information?
The truth is so damn simple. You love your guru – no problem, I can see that. I once did too (and probably still do). You feel his teaching to be unique – no problem, it’s damn incredible. You occasionally have doubts about the goings-on with him and his community – no problem, it happens with all gurus and in all communities. You have doubts about yourself and you feel threatened at the prospect of your beliefs being undermined – no problem, we all do. Just please answer my questions straight. I want to make a truly discerning choice as to whether I join up or not.
I cannot help but feel that these questions are useful for your liberation, whatever your relationship is to Adi Da and whatever responsibilities you have in the community. (Yes, you could have a go at me for making such a grandiose statement. If you must, go ahead, some self-understanding usually results from confrontations of that kind.) And the answers would be particularly useful to me and others on this blog who are trying to extract information without defensiveness. I was once a devotee, a very immature one at that, and I want to uncover what it was that allowed me to bury my head in the sand and to become such a cultist. I could use the answers to the above questions in order to get a full picture.
To Conradg.
I really appreciate your admission that you have an ‘obstructing mind’ – welcome to the club I would not join if I had a choice! You have set me the unenviable task of suggesting ways to overcome it. Boy, what a challenge. I’m going to be presumptuous enough to suggest two things:
(1) Have you read the books (a trilogy) by Jed McKenna? (www.wisefoolpress.com) Strange I should recommend him given those who discard his books as lightweight do so because they find he lacks ‘heart’! The author suggests one method worth practicing (I think in book 2) – ‘spiritual autolysis’ – whereby one writes and re-writes a piece until everything is stripped away leaving only the essence, which is as close as one can get to the truth in written form. Now this suggestion may be counter-productive to a mindy person, but given you say you write ‘ridiculously fast’ you could try it on a passage or two and see what the outcome is. I found it tremendously useful as a means of self-reflection.
(2) I believe a colleague of mine sent you an email regarding a book we are creating and editing titled “Why God Can’t Stop Laughing At us.” Did you get that email? In any case, if you haven’t already, go to http://www.laughinggodonline.com and see if you are interested in contributing something Humorous about your ‘spiritual’ travels. We have found the process of discovering the Humor of our absurd spiritual endeavors enjoyable and mind-breaking.
Whether any of this is useful, who knows? I’m enjoying communicating with you on this level in any case!
January 21, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Actually I sat with Adi Da a lot less than hundreds of hours and i did feel his transmission as non dual truth. I asked him a question on two occasions that no one knew i was going to ask ahead of time. He did criticize me heavily one time for an hour solid about paying lip service to practice and not really doing it. There are pros and cons to both sides. Like I said he did take on the very traditional guru role of HInduism where the guru is not questioned and there is devotion and obedience. Whether or not one really considers Adi
Da to actually be realized is the only real issue here. Everything else completely hinges on this one thing.
all the arguments hinge on this one thing. If he actually was fully realized in the way he said he was , then everything he did and said makes sense. if he was not realized, then none of it makes any sense and is an abomination of sorts. So Mark Miller did not feel that he was realized, and shiva does not feel that he was realized, and Conrad and FFAC do not feel like he was realized and most others here also share that feeling or opinion based on their experience and judgement call about him. FeelForGod feels that ADi Da was realized and so does New World. Therefore all of their posts are based on this feeling or opinion. No one can stint someone’s intuition about these things because it is personal and subjective. Shiva’s feeling about sailor bob is also subjective and someone else might come to a totally different conclusion.
So all the debate here is pretty much useless, except that it is fun and distracting to interact in these sometimes rational and sometimes very emotional ways with other people. We are social by nature even in cyberspace.
By the way, I do not hide my own opinions and intuitions and beliefs either. I also feel like Adi da was egoless and therefore realized. Stiill i have chosen not to be in his community for various reasons, and I value my association and practice with other traditions and teachers and think they are valuable whatever “stage of life” and i do not pigeonhole any of them. So I also take Adi Da’s teachings with a grain of salt and discriminating doubt . All teachings are to be considered over time and not blindly believed in. I think that the intensity of this life requires more than belief in a place where everything could change in a moment and you yourself could die in the next moment Flick Rahke
January 21, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Feelforyourself,
Quite honestly you deserve less respect than the miscreant Franklin Jones and so I offer you none.
I have read every last posting here and have posted from the start of this forum. You have consistently accused me, and all other opposing posters, of “twisting” your words although that has never happened from the beginning of this forum almost two months ago.
Quite simply feelforyouself, you are a cultist, you are a fundamentalist, and all of that in the most negative implication of those words and meanings. I care not for agreement or validation on what I say from any poster here. I quite simply have had enough of your lying, manipulation, and abuse.
Let’s play the “feelgoodway”;
***”I have repeatedly pointed out that Conradg should inspect his own motives to discredit Adi Da and Daists’ practice, and that this seemed to be his main agenda here, given how many times he has focused on “charged” personal issues, negative allegations, hearsay, rumors, etc. However, over time I have gathered that Conradg actually believes that he is doing us Daists a favor even with his various mudslinging approaches here.”***
Never, have I seen in these weeks, have you ever once “inspected” your motivations to “Accredit” the teachings, actions, or life and times of Frank. Never once. Never once, have you “inspected” any thing that has been “brought” to you. You have consistantly fallen back on “the teaching” and expect everyone else to give the “teaching” a basis of legitimacy, that is doesn’t deserve. You have consistantly argued “Authority” based on Frank, but, in the end, have only agued your own “authority” based on Frank. You no more speak for him than you would of yourself if you were sane enough to see it.
***”I suppose it was inevitable that Conradg’s karmic behavior here would beget some karma back at him. It is not that I condone what New World posted, but that tends to be the nature of the beast in this egoic, dualistic “growling pit” here and in this world. Egos can get very nasty when they feel threatened, and that works for all egos. Until the ego is utterly transcended, there is reactivity and unlove.***
Who and the hell are you to make the claim, never mind expect “authority”, about Conrads Karma? This is the very self serving bullshit that you have brought to this forum from the begining…completely unisnspected by you. BTW…not only DO you “condone” it, you have added unto it…let’s explore. BTW…”Egos” can get very nasty when they are confronted with the fact that they have wasted their entire adulthood chasing a dream…in your case the “ultimate” dream, only to find out that they are the last men standing to hold up the bag of garbage that they thought was IT…check out the grease spots dude…”Garbage”…what do you do with garbage?…you still think it’s the “Divine”…maybe it’s time for you to listen to the people who “Graduated”…All I ever hear from you is “Grease Spots”.
“***Conrad, I am not pious or self-righteous about what people want to do with their lives, so please don’t think I am coming from that viewpoint with the following. However, I could never quite understand how someone with your intelligence could justify all of your attacks on Adi Da, and later attacks on myself and even other posters here *** and***When I read about the criminal investigation of you that New World posted a link to, I noticed that LSD was also mentioned as being confiscated. Now this is conjecture on my part, but if you had been using LSD, that may account for the severe disconnect that seems to exist between your mind and your actual bodily actions (i.e., what you post here and its impact on real people)***.
Feelforyourself you are both pious and self-righteous. When you started out your treatise with “please don’t”…well, dude, all I can say is don’t sit at a poker table with that bullshit…the “Cosmic Reality” is gonna send you home shirtless…(oh,sorry, that was very unkind of me considering you don’t have a shirt anymore. “Please don’t see the very thing I’m doing”…best to keep your mouth shut and not give such an obvious “tell”, but, I know that you are a philistine at this table). Well of course you “can’t understand”. That’s what we’ve been telling you all these many weeks. So of course it must be Conrads drug use…or, even better..”implied drug use”…to explain how anyone in their “right mind” could “tear down” the God Man. Gutless is the only way to express the inuendo that you have resorted to here. At least “NW” had the balls to say what he thought, you on the other hand, use implication and faux incomprehention.
To me this posting on January 29 3:08 pm of yours is the most telling of all. From the very begining of this forum I was astounded that you and any other current member were posting as you were. What has been so obvious to everyone else here, and missed by you and other “current devotees”, is the non-neccesity to “take down” Frank or expose the cultic response of the remaining few. You have done that quite handily just as Frank took down his own reputation. Howl at the moon. Blame the moon. Blame the night. When you wake up in the morning…blame the sunrise…boo hoo!
2,000??? 2,000??? When I left Adidam 10 years ago the “official” number was 1,200 and that was a lie…I was in a position to know. I”m still on the “mailing list”…you know…”official”. Dead.
The question that keeps arising for me is this… considering the “quality” of the people that have been left in charge…and considering the attitude and entitlement they must feel after all these years of servititude…what will happen to the “treasures”? The Disney art…the glass…etc…the off shore bank accounts? Who gives a rats ass?
Feelforyourself/new world/devotee…you’ve not heard a single thing brought to you here…nothing. For any of you to argue “non duality” or anything other than the Daist Propaganda is a loss to everyone here. You have been indulged mightily. Thank all here for it. As far as I can see, all that I can thank you for is to keep talking and exposing what it is to be a cultist and totaly bereft of the fact. That too serves and in a way that is totaly missed by you all. Thank you for that.
”
You must understand…when one concludes, especialy within Adidam, that the choice was egoic, oedipal, adolescent, etc., that these remarks are an offence to a choice made, a very mature and painfull choice, an offence to the people that made this choice, that you will be called on it. It is a reflection of ones own disrespect for oneself…a fear based response”. ***I wrote that on December 10,08, to “bring” to you something that you weren’t seeing. I do not see any of that recognition in you today, in fact, quite the opposite. What I saw in your post was an intentional “attempt”, utterly in vain, to discredit a voice, a very valid voice, that offended YOU, talk about fucking egos dude…as if you are “the”spokesman”, “defender”, “devotee”, of the Divine. Sorry dude…unless you are representing a 350 lb. transvestite name “Divine” any argument you have, or, anyone else posting here, is quite simply your own “Authority”. But…that is it, isn’t it? No-one ever doesn’t. Then again, there are those who know that and there are Daists…self-righteous pricks like yourself covering themselves in daist/wool clothing. I have no more need of people like you than I had for the self righteous Catholic Preist/pricks that I dismissed so very long ago. Does this seem judgemental? IT IS. No problem with that at all. YOU ARE FUNDIMENTALIST/CULTIC. Your church is dead and you have wasted enough of your life. Question is…when will you wake up or will you? If you haven’t heard it here…good luck.
January 21, 2009 at 11:56 pm
My bottom line about Adi Da drinking, smoking, and having sex with disciples is this:
1. Adi Da is supposed to be Real God (ahem), so isn’t that satisfying enough for him? Why does he need booze, drugs, and sex parties?
2. Adi Da’s job was to liberate people, not to drag them into drugs and sex.
I’m surprised this isn’t transparent to everyone. You come to a guru a starry-eyed seeker, and find yourself drunk and on all fours getting it up the ass. And latter you’re giving him all your money, time, and energy, and bowing to fatso like a slave.
Come on!
January 22, 2009 at 12:47 am
Franklin and Drugs–Early years:
1961 -age 21 or so: August: >>>”He had some peyote and we decided to take the drug…..In the past months, I had used marijuana a few times and found it very enjoyable and relaxing. And so I willingly accepted a chance for some kind of very powerful “hi”…We ate the cactus….”
1962-1963 -age 23; “thus we began a two year period in which I experimented with my writing, read voluminously, exhauted myself in self-indulgent experiments and worked on my internal processes with various drugs and therapeutic techniques.”
1963–..”in my years at Stanford, I had the occasion to use marijuana again.”
1963 –”And I use a formula cough medicine called “Romilar”. On 4 or 5 occasions, I took Romilar in a dose of thirty to fifty capsule.”
1963—>>>>”in was on the bais of such self validating experiences that I openly desired to experience the effects of th “new” drugs, LSD, mescaline and psilocibin.”
1963–volunteered for drug trials at the V.A. –mescaline, LSD, psilocibin,….
1964–“I continued to exploit the possibilities for experience during that time, and I saw no benefits in retarding my impulses. …….I would often exploit the possibilities of sex, or become deeply drunk on wine, engage in orgies of eating, or smoke marijuana for long hours. ……… This point in my narrative brings us to the spring of 1964.”
1964, late Fall: “Ken Kesey, …..we smoked marijuana together….met Richard Albert, Timothy Leary, and Ralf Metzner….psychedelic movement..
1965;–”I had temporarily stopped even using marijuana to relax”…..but the spring of 1965 I had begun to use marijuana frequently.
1965 mid summer…thus, I bought 2 large capsules of mescaline, and Nina and I went to spent the……..”
1965 early summer. I took other drugs with my old friends. We took Romilar again.”
1965 …”early summer..I took a drug called DMT…….”
1966;—”I had long been accustomed to writing and exploiting the inner mechanisms of experience though its means as well as thorough the use of drugs and other excesses. Clearly Rudy’s way was opposed to such habits….”
I could keep going for the next 45 years….but this is a small 5 years sample of significant and excessive drug usage between ages of 21 and 26. The implications of this are very interesting when read in the context of extreme anxiety and fear simultaneously ascribing his experiences to the “bright” and equaling them to Ramana Maharshi’s death experience at age 16 (another delusion?). His interpretations of all his drug experiences seem very delusional and grandiose as he translates them into spiritual experiences.
Also extrapolating from that time, we see the addiction to drugs and thus, an early death. Furthermore you see all the denial by the members of the Adidam community in this regard of early and consistent drug use.
Also, we were all impressed when we read Franklin’s autobiography in the 70s in our naivety and immaturity, but rereading it with more maturity and clarity of mind in a new context, we see a very immature and fearful young man sincerely seeking truth but getting deluded like the rest of us in those days.
January 22, 2009 at 1:34 am
Eddie comments about the postings here: “While it remained at the level of dharmic debate amongst people who claim no authority or realization, I felt it did not enhance self-understanding.”
The debate about dharma as far as I am concerned is only is about clarifying dharmic statements made by Da and comparing them with traditional non-dualism using existing sources, readily available for others to look at. Therefore no authority is necessary. Adidam is self-validating to the extent you interpret the resulting teaching and experiences as more radically pure than traditional ones. Discussion of relationships and personal accounts can be part of that, without missing the point that such dharmic distinctions are what is readily accessible for general comparison and determining what seems more in tune with one’s own sense of it. While you will get different answers depending on who you talk to about Da’s behavior and how it is interpreted.
January 22, 2009 at 1:37 am
Conrad,
In your astrological studies of Adi Da, which system did you use? I find that in the Vedic system, Adi Da has an exalted Mars in 2nd house, but both his sun and saturn are both debilitated, in 11th and 5th houses, respectively.
Of particular notice, I think, is his exalted Mars. One astrologer noted how such a strong Mars might manifest:
Spiritually advanced types will harness Kuja’s surging energy for tantric healing. But Mars is the warrior planet and even the most dignified position of Mars has a vulgar underside. Everyone has anger and aggression, stored in the subconscious over the course of many lifetimes. So, even a guru will get angry occasionally under Mars influence, or cross sexual boundaries, or act with unusual selfishness.
January 22, 2009 at 11:48 am
Eddie, I enjoy your posts and have always tried to answer your questions. I already gave you a very long response to some earlier questions, and received some feedback from you about it. On January 3, Eddie, you asked me:
Eddie B Says:
“Why are there so few ‘formal’ devotees in the world (the numbers of which have not significantly changed for decades), and what is your contribution to this being the case? (I use the word ‘formal’ because there are many who consider themselves to be devotees but are not registered as such with Adidam.)”
That same day (Jan 3) I gave you a detailed response concerning my take on this, my own failures, etc.
Part of your response (Jan 4) to my post is as follows:
Eddie B Says:
“I reckon all points of view can be traced back to one fundamental tenet. All subsequent arguments are built from the acceptance (or belief) of that one tenet and therefore become completely coherent and self-consistent in their formulations. The fundamental tenet of the devotee in Adidam is that Adi Da is, as he himself claimed, the only fully realized being to have appeared. Thus, his teachings and proclamations must be uniquely true and are to be followed and defended.”
From there you draw various conclusions about your participation in Adidam as a fundamentalist, etc. Based on how you define this “fundamental tenet” above, this is what is very often mistakenly presumed about what Adi Da requires. This Way has NEVER truly been about believing or accepting blindly such a tenet! It is always about moment to moment recognition of Who Adi Da Is. Such recognition by the devotee is heart-based intelligence and has nothing to do with the mind of beliefs and doubts. However, no one can be talked into this as it requires their own heart-based recognition.
And currently you ask:
Eddie B Says:
“If someone was to approach you in order to obtain information about Adi Da and Adidam, and that person wanted to know everything about the guru and his community, how would you respond? Imagine I am that person and I am asking you the following questions: On a factual level (for now), is it true that Adi Da had taken significant amounts of drugs and alcohol over the years? Is it true that he and some close to him have been on anti-depressants? What sort of sexual experimentations and directions did he take charge of and how long did these events continue? Adi Da claims to be a ‘legal renunciate’: are there accounts in financial institutions housing moneys associated with Adi Da and/or Adidam, how much is in them, and is it true that there are devotees who don’t even have the money to get their teeth fixed? Can you point me to those who have left Adidam so I can get an alternative view of what it’s like to be a devotee?”
As you well know, everyone is different, so depending on the person in front of me, I would respond accordingly, as it is first and foremost a relational matter. So since this is not an actual real situation for me, I can only play along here on a theoretical level. Let’s say someone started firing away with your questions – I would first ask them what was their recognition of Who Adi Da is. Let’s say they say they are curious about Him, however, they keep asking these same questions. I would recommend some of Adi Da’s Teachings (His Autobiography, perhaps) and I might tell them to go look at this blog, to read everything they can on the internet including the Adidam websites, and then if they are still seriously interested, to come back and we can talk further.
I just assume that this imaginary person will either recognize Who Adi Da Is or they will not. If so, then we can talk more about whatever questions this person may still have – if not, that’s okay too.
Okay, maybe this is why I am not the Mission manager? I used to suggest that all of us cultic couples in Adidam should get divorced, go find a new partner not yet in the Teaching, show them the wisdom of this way, marry them, and come back. We would basically double our numbers very quickly! Needless to say, this was not taken seriously. Then I suggested multiple wives (or husbands)… Again, I can only guess that this is why I am not running the Mission, as you once did Eddie.
Flick is right on when he says:
“Whether or not one really considers Adi Da to actually be realized is the only real issue here. Everything else completely hinges on this one thing. all the arguments hinge on this one thing. If he actually was fully realized in the way he said he was , then everything he did and said makes sense. if he was not realized, then none of it makes any sense and is an abomination of sorts.”
So if we make our choice based on our real recognition.(or lack thereof), then it is real – end of story, no need to get all bent out of shape about it one way or another. If we make our decision based on our own need to be a cultic fundamentalist, then there are all the problems that every spiritual organization has faced with such childish motivations. And the more powerful and controversial the Master, the larger these issues will loom. However, Adi Da is always actively undermining this quality in us as far as I am concerned. I think some of what even the critics post about cultism is often stemming directly from what Adi Da wrote and spoke of about cults. Plus, Adi Da was always acting to include everyone, and so the various levels of practice came about, etc. In our immaturity we make all kinds of mistakes – whether in Adidam or not – everyone does.
Unfortunately, there are so few Daists here, I think people have long tired of hearing mainly from me; and also have long ago drawn their own conclusions already, like you, Eddie, about Adi Da and Adidam. I can pass your current questions on to the Mission folks for them to look at, if you like.
You say that you are involved in free enquiry, and I like the sound of that. Let’s freely inquire about what this cultism we all have with our ego actually is, and the fundamentalism that it results in. If we always did that first and foremost, the rest of this could be considered with more heart intelligence and freedom than has typically been going on here. So on that note…
Raymond Says:
As per Wikipedia:
“Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life. The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity, but has by and large retained religious connotations.”
I read your posts, Raymond, and much of what you say about how fundamentalism and cultism works, I agree with you on. However, this definition of fundamentalism can certainly be applied to the ego. In any moment that we are presuming separation from Reality, we are defining ourselves as a fundamentalist, with all the attendant beliefs, doubts, defensiveness, etc. that is the activity of egoity.
In any moment that there is actual recognition of the non-dual Truth, Acausal Reality, we are not fundamentalists nor are we belief-based nor are we suffering from body-mind doubt.
For myself, based on this understanding of my own egoity (and its inherent cultic fundamentalism) AND heart-based recognition of Who Adi Da Is, I have chosen Adi Da, the Way of Adidam. Yes, I become egoic in an instant, but to turn again to intrinsic egoless Reality is the counter-egoic practice, the necessary foundation for utter relinquishment of attention in Reality. Adi Da has recently written about our preliminary practices:
“… All of that is an intrinsically ego-transcending practice and process that purifies and transforms, but only if it is based upon true (and truly devotional) recognition-response to Me – which, as I have Said, is Realization, is Enlightenment.”
So for starters, can anyone here claim to not be a fundamentalist, without self-transcendence?
January 22, 2009 at 11:52 am
To Feel4GOD:
I thought that I heard it all at the very lowest of levels when New World in his neurotic and frantic ways “with love” tried to destroy and discredit Conrad on the growing of marijuana issue. I thought that it couldn’t get much worse and lower than this but when Feel4Love brought out the LSD issue which was even more unwarranted under the guise of love and prior unqualified unity, than that really pissed me off —(under any circumstances but even more so especially since Conrad had been more than sincerely kind to you overall and even willing to talk to you at length). Well, you certainly showed your true colors as an Adidam fundamentalist in your posts.
Like the New World post, Feel4God sets up the bashing in the following way:
——–“I have been enjoying this historic inauguration in American history, and pray that the tolerance and energy of these days are able to be maintained to demonstrate to everyone our unqualified unity. What a great possibility we have!”——
———” But many posts, mostly from Conradg, have dramatized a “gotcha” game..”—–
Then he pretends that he just “noticed” the LSD part in the article as if it just fell out of the sky:
——–” Conrad, I am not pious or self-righteous about what people want to do with their lives, so please don’t think I am coming from that viewpoint with the following.”——-
——–“When I read about the criminal investigation of you that New World posted a link to, I noticed that LSD was also mentioned as being confiscated.——-
No, we won’t think that of you???. What I really think wouldn’t be posted here, however.
Then he throws out the “karma” or “sin” number at him to reinforce his LDS claim. (But even the Hindu/Buddhist notion of karma is just that –a notion, – by the way) but either way, it’s an obvious ploy on your part:
——– I suppose it was inevitable that Conradg’s karmic behavior here would beget some karma back at him.——-.
The only karma here (if there is such a thing) is that outsiders reading your post will think twice before approaching Adidam.
And if there is karma back at Conrad, it’s with the support and appreciation of what he has done (and the courage to have done it) for many people. Courage is something you have no idea about. Once your balls are cut off by Adi Da, you are left with only the irrational deluded abstract dualistic thinking as you have just posted here–like New World. Many people (myself included ) has found Conrad’s thinking fairly clear by the way; so trying to attack his thinking to the use of LSD is obviously absurd to say the least. (And you turned out to be wrong about his use of LSD). Can you find the courage to admit that you were wrong and apologize?
Then after going much out of your way to bash him i.e., to discover the LSD issue and assuming all kind of things about Conrad’s mentality based on LSD (which was irrelevant in the first place), Feel4God says:
I hope we can discuss things without resorting to any more bashing, as we had for a little while there. I also sincerely hope my post above is helpful, Conrad. And as always, if nothing else, all of these considerations sure point to the need for Realization!
Yes, what a hypocritical ?????? you are— Feel 4 whatever you think you are feeling for.
And then when addressed by shiva on the LSD issue, Feel4 makes the following idiotic comment:
Shiva Says:
“you apparently don’t know the first thing about lsd.”
——-”This is again very presumptuous on your part. I personally won’t talk about illegal substance use on a public forum, unless it has already been disclosed within the same thread AND the party involved is aware of this and acknowledges something about the source of disclosure. So I figured it might be helpful to post what I have learned about LSD. I do assume we are all inherently connected and are moved to self-transcendence here.”——
Does it get any more absurd than this? You won’t talk about LSD after digging for dirt about it. And this guy in his delusions likes to think about the notion that we are all inherently connected in prior unity??????
I always wondered why Conrad even bothered with this hypocrite. At the end of the day, he will still be the same ??????? as he was at the beginning trying to support his deluded point of view. When Conrad says he loves you, Conrad is expressing a feeling of caring for humanity (which included you) which results from having flushed out and discarded as many dualistic nonsensical abstract notions —of which you, Mr. Feel4God seem to have no inkling about.
Raymond
January 22, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Wow this forum has been much degenerated to the mood and style of the booger slinging Bevis and Butthead cartoon of the Lightmind Forum. At least this particular blog and thread has. I am no longer seeing any sort of halfway balanced or rational posts at all . Just like a sort of mass hysteria like the Salem witch trials with lots of angry pissed off teen language. If some of you all are still pissed , then perhaps you could go to Adi Da’s island and dig him up and kick him around some, or you do some real research and find out who this FeelForgod is and jump him in the street and give him some real spiritual lessons. or if all else fails, beating a pillow and screaming might help Good luck I”m outa here Flick Rahke
January 22, 2009 at 2:05 pm
It is pretty amazing to me how this thread has turned into some sort of hazing over pot and psychelics. I just read this ‘horriying revelation” of Adi Da’s severe drug use and addiction in the early years. Sheesh , wow, romilar a few times, the terrible scourge of mankind marijuana off and on, and then a few of those just horrible psychedelic trips including peyote and mushrooms a few times. Well I am just horrified by this awul and awe inspiring revelation. Almost as bad as the one I heard here where possibly maybe Conrad grew pot at some point. or the just horrific revelation that those dastards in California grow pot for profit. oh my I am just shocked beyond beyond belief. Well I must be the old fart here and the only one who grew up in the hippie generation and even protested the Vietnam War and i did inhale and i did take psychedelics maybe 20 or 30 times myself. I have to say to the uninformed though, that the pharmaceutical drugs such as antidepressants and tranquilizers and sleeping pills that very very many Americans are on{I know about that stuff too} are a hell of a lot worse than any pot or psychedelic. much more damaging and much more addictive and much easier to get . and much more legal Like I said this blog has regressed really on both “sides” to gotcha booger games Flick Rahke
January 22, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Further comments on Da’s “death experience” and his claims surrounding it and claimed similarities to Ramana Maharshi’s experience.
In KOL, Da states:
“…Finally, in the spring of 1967, the usual time of year for great revelations, I passed through an experience that epitomized all of my seeking and all of my discovery. The experience itself is surrounded with all the evidence of a clinical breakdown. But it is also full of the sense of primary experience, the break through of an ultimate and unqualified consciousness.
I had contacted a spring cold, which was not unusual, except that I had appeared almost impervious to disease for the last couple of years. I was in the bathroom when this episode began. I had bathed and shaven, and I was rubbing a cleansing pad on my face. Suddenly my flesh began to feel very “massy” and unpliable. I felt as if the pores of my face had closed. The skin became dry and impervious to air. As I looked at my face in the mirror it appeared gray, disturbed and deathlike. The saliva in my mouth stopped flowing, and I was overcome by a rising anxiety that became an awesome and overwhelming fear of death.
The death of Narcissus had begun in me. I was stuck with the knowledge that I was soon to go mad and die. I tried as much as possible simply to observe this process in myself. I calmly said good-bye to Nina and left for school. When I sat down to my first morning class this process was still going on in me. There was simply this absolute fear, and all my physical and mental processes seemed to be rushing to disappear and die. As I listened to the lecture on church history I felt as if my mind were a separate, material entity. It seemed to be rushing forward at an invisible point with accelerating speed. I felt as if I were to go violently insane on the spot. I began to write very rapidly in my notebook in order simply to observe this process and not be overcome by its effects.
I wrote every word the professor spoke, and if there were a moment of silence I would write whatever I was observing in the room or in my body. Somehow I managed to get through the fifty minute lecture. When it was over I sat by myself. My body felt in a fever and my mind close to delirium.
The whole experience seemed to summarize all the parts of the many experiences of fear and sickness and near madness I had known in my life. It was as if every one of those experiences was an event of this same kind, which could have led to some marvelous perception if only I were able to allow the death or madness to take its course.
But in this instance, as in the past, the shock and awesome fear were too great to be allowed without resistance. I had taken a few cold pills in the previous days, and so I left school to go to a doctor for advice. The doctor said the pills were mild and not aggravating or narcotic. He attributed my heightened sensitivity and alarmed condition to perhaps overwork or some kind of nervous excitement.
None the less, I stopped taking the cold pills. I went home. All day I stretched alone on the floor of the living room, revolving in this same overwhelming fear of death. When Nina came home she tried to make me comfortable, and I passed the evening in front of the TV set observing my terror.
When Nina went to bed I also tried to sleep. But the fever of the experience only increased. Finally, I woke her in the middle of the night and asked her to take me to the hospital. My breathing had become alarming, and my heart seemed to be slowing down. At times my heart would beat irregularly and seem to stop.
She drove me to a nearby emergency ward. I was examined by a nurse, and then a psychiatrist, who told me I was having an anxiety attack. There was nothing apparently wrong with me physically. He gave me a sleeping pill and told me to rest. If I felt no relief within a couple of days, I should seek psychiatric help.
When we got home I tried to sleep, but it seemed a long time before I could sleep. During the next few days I went to a psychiatrist, and I detailed to him the entire history of my life, including my experiences with drugs and my work with Rudi. He only told me I could join a group therapy session he held every week. I went to his session that night, and also, the next day, to a group session for students held by a psychologist at the seminary. But there was no relief, no fundamental insight, no communication I could make that made the difference.
Finally, several days after this process began, I was lying home alone in the afternoon. It was as if all my life I had been constantly brought to this point. It seemed that all of the various methods of my life had constantly prevented this experience from going to its end. All my life I had been preventing my death.
I lay on the floor, totally disarmed, unable to make a gesture that could prevent the rising fear. And thus it grew in me, but, for the first time, I allowed it to happen. I could not prevent it. The fear and the death rose and became my overwhelming experience. And I witnessed the crisis of that fear in a moment of conscious, voluntary death. I have no idea what occurred to me physically at that time. I may very well have passed through what would appear to be clinical death. I only know that I allowed the death to happen, and I saw it happen.
When that moment of crisis had passed I felt a marvelous relief. The death had occurred but I had observed it! I remained untouched by it. The body and the mind and the personality had died, but I remained as an essential and unqualified consciousness.
When all of the fear and dying had become a matter of course, when the body, the mind and the person with which I identified myself had died and my attention was no longer fixed in those things, I perceived reality, fully and directly. There was an infinite bliss of being, an untouched, unborn sublimity, without separation, without individuation, without a thing from which to be separated. There was only reality itself, the incomparable nature and constant existence that underlies the entire adventure of life.
After a time I got up from the floor. I walked around and beamed joyfully at the room. The blissful, unthreatened current of reality continued to emanate from my heart, and not a pulse of it was modified by my own existence or the existence of the world. I had acquired a totally new understanding. I understood Narcissus and the whole truth of suffering and search. I saw the meaning of my whole life to that moment. Suffering, seeking, self-indulgence, spirituality and all the rest were founded in the same primary motivation and error. It was the avoidance of relationship in all its forms. That was it. It was the chronic and continuous source of our activity. It was the chronic avoidance of relationship. Thus we were forever suffering, seeking, indulging ourselves and modifying our lives for the sake of some unknown goal in eternity.
Life appeared to be determined by this one process of avoidance. It was the source of separation and unlove, the source of doubt and unreality, of qualification and loss. But in fact there is only relationship, only love, only the unqualified state of reality.
In the weeks that remained to my first year at seminary I tried again and again to communicate my experience and my new knowledge. I was not in the same position I had been in college. This experience was fundamental and complete. It could not be lost or modified by any events, any return of old tendencies. This was the primary knowledge I had sought all of my life. The “bright” paled beside it. My experience in college was merely a symbol for it. All that I had come to see as a result of Rudi’s discipline, all of the functioning apparatus of our spiritual being, all worlds, all possibilities, all powers were merely a distraction from this primary knowledge….”
It needs to be pointed out that despite the impression given here by Da, the old tendencies clearly did return in full force.
Da also writes in KOL:
“…I returned to his [Ramana Maharshi] works, looking for confirmations of my own experience. And I found that his path had remarkable parallels to my own experiences. Even the event in Ramana’s childhood that gave birth to his ultimate state was very much like the one through which I had passed in seminary.
He described it himself as follows:
“It was about six weeks before I left Madurai for good that the great change in my life took place. It was so sudden. One day I sat up alone on the first floor of my uncle’s house. I was in my usual health. I seldom had any illness. I was a heavy sleeper. When I was at Dindigul in 1891 a huge crowd had gathered close to the room where I slept and tried to rouse me by shouting and knocking at the door, all in vain, and it was only by their getting into my room and giving me a violent shake that I was roused from my torpor. This heavy sleep was rather a proof of good health. I was also subject to fits of half-awake sleep at night. My wily playmates, afraid to trifle with me when I was awake, would go to me when I was asleep, rouse me, take me all. round the playground, beat me, cuff me, sport with me, and bring me back to my bed and all the while I would put up with everything with a meekness, humility, forgiveness, and passivity unknown to my waking state. When the morning broke I had no remembrance of the night’s experiences. But these fits did not render me weaker or less fit for life, and were hardly to be considered a disease. So, on that day as I sat alone there was nothing wrong with my health. But a sudden and unmistakable fear of death seized me. I felt I was going to die. Why I should have so felt cannot now be explained by anything felt in my body. Nor could I explain it to myself then. I did not however trouble myself to discover if the fear was well grounded. I felt “I was going to die,” and at once set about thinking out what I should do. I did not care to consult doctors or elders or even friends. I felt I had to solve the problem myself then and there.
The shock of fear of death made me at once introspective, or “introverted.” I said to myself mentally, i.e., without uttering the words – “Now, death has come. What does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies.” I at once dramatized the scene of death. I extended my limbs and held them rigid as though rigor-mortis had set in. I imitated a corpse to lend an air of reality to my further investigation, I held my breath and kept my mouth closed, pressing the lips tightly together so that no sound might escape. Let not the word “I” or any other word be uttered! “Well then,” said I to myself, “this body is dead. It will be carried stiff to the burning ground and there burnt and reduced to ashes. But with the death of this body, am ‘I’ dead? Is the body ‘I’? This body is silent and inert. But I feel the full force of my personality and even the sound ‘I’ within myself, – apart from the body. So ‘I’ am a spirit, a thing transcending the body. The material body dies, but the spirit transcending it cannot be touched by death. I am therefore the deathless spirit.” All this was not a mere intellectual process, but flashed before me vividly as living truth, something which I perceived immediately, without any argument almost. “I” was something very real, the only real thing in that state, and all the conscious activity that was connected with my body was centered on that.
The “I” or my “self” was holding the focus of attention by a powerful fascination from that time forwards. Fear of death had vanished at once and forever. Absorption in the self has continued from that moment right up to this time. Other thoughts may come and go like the various notes of a musician, but the “I” continues like the basic or fundamental sruti note which accompanies and blends with all other notes. Whether the body was engaged in talking, reading or anything else, I was still centered on “I.” Previous to that crisis I had no clear perception of myself and was not consciously attracted to it. I had felt no direct perceptible interest in it, much less any permanent disposition to dwell upon it. The consequences of this new habit were soon noticed in my life.”
This was very much like my own experience of “death” in seminary. And its ultimate consequences in my understanding were also similar, although Ramana taught through the medium of Indian Vedanta and saw the whole importance of his awareness in the pure awareness of “Self,” prior to all life, whereas I was led to understand in terms of “Reality” as unqualified relationship and as the creative, living Presence of the “bright”…
Da goes on to say later that:
“Ramana Maharshi’s own Realization of the Inherent Samadhi of Consciousness Itself was made possible by a profoundly terrifying moment in His youth, in which He was overwhelmed by the fear of death, and by an utter revulsion toward continued identification with the body-mind and with conditional existence.
In that permanently consequential moment, by virtue of His profound detachment from everything conditional (which detachment was the result, according to His own confession, of the preparatory, and necessarily purifying, sadhana He had done in previous lifetimes), He not only experienced the Transcendental Self Position, but chose, with absolute firmness, to Eternally Identify with that Position, and never to assume the (inherently fearful) position of the body-mind again. This crisis of fear and detachment in Ramana Maharshi was the True, and Profound, Sudden Awakening of the sixth stage Disposition, in Which Awakening Ramana Maharshi Realized that He was Inherently Identified with That Which is Free of death, Free of the body- mind, Free of the world, and Free of desiring and its results, and by, with, and As Which Awakening He was utterly Satisfied…”
In reality, closer examination shows this appears to be Da projecting his own experience onto Ramana Maharshi’s and suggesting similarities that do not exist. At that time, Da was sick, under great stress from maintaining the role of a Christian minister and pretending to have beliefs he did not have at the seminary, dissatisfied with Rudi, had been taking cold medicine, and showed symptoms of another anxiety attack aggravated by the medicine (reread the diagnosis). Ramana Maharshi was perfectly healthy. Da’s experience lasted days as Da struggled with increasing panic. Ramana Maharshi’s experience last at most a few minutes, as a moment of fear drove him not into panic, but right into recognition of the Self. Da’s experience produced temporary euphoria followed by the same old tendencies. Ramana Maharshi’s experience resulted in permanent Self-Realization.
Besides these obvious differences, Da’s limited knowledge of Ramana Maharshi led him to presume that it was Ramana Maharshi himself who gave the description he quoted, and that that was the definitive account, accurately translated into English. It isn’t, further research has shown it be an embellished and not totally accurate account which Ramana Maharshi himself said was inaccurate.
David Godman has written:
“The next quote I want to comment on is the very long ‘How I realised the Self’ quote.
This is now accepted as the standard version of what happened. It appears in most of the biographies, and there is even a huge sign in the New Hall at Ramanasramam that has the whole quote painted in large letters. However, the sequence of events and the language used is largely the work of Narasimhaswami, a fact which he acknowledged in the first edition of Self-Realization where he put a footnote at the bottom of the page where this description appeared, saying that he had written this account himself, and that he had based it on stray comments that he had heard Bhagavan make over a period of a few weeks. In subsequent editions this footnote was removed, leaving readers with the impression that Bhagavan had actually uttered these words himself. There are many suspect phrases in this account, such as the one that says that after his realisation he felt the full force of his ‘personality’, which was actually the thing that had disappeared. I discussed this whole account with Prof. K. Swaminathan in the early 1980s, and he agreed that the account had in many places been fabricated by Narasimhaswami, not deliberately, but largely out of ignorance of what had actually happened.
If I was sitting down to write an account of Bhagavan’s life and his realisation experience, I would certainly cite this as a source, but I would also include other versions that have variations and additions to this basic account. There is, for example, Bhagavan’s own brief written summary in Arunachala Ashtakam, verse two, where he wrote: ‘Enquiring within “Who is the seer? ” I saw the seer disappear leaving that alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say “I saw”. How then could the thought arise to say “I did not see”. ‘
I would also include a key account that Narasimhaswami recorded, in Bhagavan’s own words, that did not find its way into his published version of Self-Realization. It appeared in the April 1982 edition of The Mountain Path and gives key extra details that the standard version lacked. For example, Bhagavan’s initial belief, after realisation, that he had been possessed by some sort of pleasant spirit (he used the Tamil word avesam) since he had no other context through which he could evaluate the experience.
Narasimhaswami also misses out Bhagavan’s experience of the aham-sphurana just prior to his realisation, an event which is recorded in Ramana Leela, the Telugu biography. I discussed some of these points in ‘”I” and “I-I”, a Reader’s Query’, an article I wrote for The Mountain Path in the early 1990s. As one of your editors pointed out, in the Telugu biography it is quite clear that when Bhagavan describes his realisation to Krishna Bhikshu, the author, he makes it clear that it was something that happened to him, rather than something that he ‘did’. These are important points that are largely ignored by Narasimhaswami.
When Bhagavan had to testify in the court case that was brought by Perumal Swami in the 1930s, Perumal Swami’s lawyer produced a copy of Narasimhaswami’s book and asked him if the contents were accurate. Bhagavan replied that he had not read it before it was published, and that it contained some mistakes.
One of these mistakes was almost certainly the comment attributed to Bhagavan when he first stood before the lingam in the Arunachaleswara Temple: ‘I have come to Thee at Thy behest. Thy will be done.’ This is just a romantic interpolation by Narasimhaswami that has no basis in facts. Kapali Sastri once asked Bhagavan about this alleged incident, and Bhagavan replied, somewhat scornfully, ‘As if I needed to announce my arrival’.
Narasimhaswami was an energetic researcher, and much of what we know about Bhagavan’s early life comes from his exhaustive research, but he did make occasional mistakes, and he was in the habit of writing accounts in his own words and attributing them to other people. When I went through the Ramanasramam archives in the late 1970s and early 1980s I found many manuscripts that contained conversations, recorded by Narasimhaswami, that he was attributing to Bhagavan. Bhagavan was making philosophical points in them in an incremental, almost socratic way, something which seemed to me to be alien to his ‘get straight to the point’ style. I showed the dialogues to Viswanatha Swami, who had listened to Bhagavan speak for many years, and he agreed that all the conversations had been fabricated. The teachings were clearly derived from what he had heard Bhagavan say, but the construction of the dialogues and the language used by Bhagavan was so untypical of everything else I had seen recorded, I was forced to conclude that it mostly came from Narasimhaswami himself. I mention all this because when it comes to statements made by Bhagavan that are recorded by Narasimhaswami, the phrase ‘caveat emptor’ is clearly appropriate.”
Godman’s description of what Ramana Maharshi actually said about it, and his associated research on that incident, is more accurate:
“Sometime in 1896, when he was sixteen years of age, he had a remarkable spiritual awakening. He was sitting in his uncle’s house when the thought occurred to him that he was about to die. He became afraid, but instead of panicking he lay down on the ground and began to analyze what was happening. He began to investigate what constituted death: what would die and what would survive that death. He spontaneously initiated a process of self-enquiry that culminated, within a few minutes, in his own permanent awakening.
In one of his rare written comments on this process he wrote: ‘Enquiring within ”Who is the seer?” I saw the seer disappear leaving That alone which stands forever. No thought arose to say ”I saw”. How then could the thought arise to say ”I did not see”.’ In those few moments his individual identity disappeared and was replaced by a full awareness of the Self. That experience, that awareness, remained with him for the rest of his life. He had no need to do any more practice or meditation because this death-experience left him in a state of complete and final liberation. This is something very rare in the spiritual world: that someone who had no interest in the spiritual life should, within the space of a few minutes, and without any effort or prior practice, reach a state that other seekers spend lifetimes trying to attain.
I say ‘without effort’ because this re-enactment of death and the subsequent self-enquiry seemed to be something that happened to him, rather than something he did. When he described this event for his Telugu biographer, the pronoun ‘I’ never appeared. He said, ‘The body lay on the ground, the limbs stretched themselves out,’ and so on. That particular description really leaves the reader with the feeling that this event was utterly impersonal. Some power took over the boy Venkataraman, made him lie on the floor and finally made him understand that death is for the body and for the sense of individuality, and that it cannot touch the underlying reality in which they both appear.
When the boy Venkataraman got up, he was a fully enlightened sage, but he had no cultural or spiritual context to evaluate properly what had happened to him.”
Finally, I am aware that some find this type of discussion boring and of no value, others see it as just a different way of saying the same non-dualist “thing”. Ironic, because non-dualist traditions generally consider it part of the necessary preliminary “homework” to undertake serious practice, unless there is intuitive understanding because it has been done in past lives. And ironic for those who do not realize that Da himself said “You cannot see the subtle uniqueness in the various aspects of this Teaching because you do not know what the Great Tradition itself is.” And that Da himself said “Becoming familiar with the Great Tradition is another fundamental that you must have established in order to practice as a devotee”.
It is true that some of us have found Da unconvincing after such study, others have not. But at least that offers a real basis for understanding the unique and unprecedented aspects Da claims for himself and his teaching compared with traditional non-dualism. Otherwise, you have interpretations of experiences and behavior without understanding the traditional context accurately.
January 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Ah yes thank you FFAC for returning this thread, at least in your most recent post, to a semblance of sanity. Very interesting stuff to consider and not based on hysteria. I have a hard time reading long posts , but this is a good one. very refreshing to actually take even Adi Da’s admonition to study the great tradition for real . You are really doing that very refreshing Flick Rahke
January 22, 2009 at 4:29 pm
slyder, shiva, Raymond… did I miss anyone?
Your responses to my post are way over the top. As I said to shiva yesterday:
Feel4God Says:
“I did not accuse him as delusional because LSD was found in his house – I don’t even know if it was; I just read the case that said LSD was found there. From this, I simply conjectured that if it was used by Conradg, this might explain why there is such a great disconnect I feel from his posts that attack versus posts that say he loves us all and finds all of this so humorous.”
If you read this as my trying to discredit Conradg because of some acid use, so be it. However, think about it – if that was my intention, why would I then go on to say that I also experimented with it – and know that it can have the effect of stimulating experiences of the subtle vehicle and dissociating the mind from gross life? In fact, pot can even do this, especially if used a lot.
It seems like this “critic conditioning” (i.e., that Daists are absolute cultic fundamentalists) have made you all read a lot more into my posts than is actually there.
So what is the big deal about my conjecture, especially given the “disconnect” I have brought up several times relative to Conradg’s posts in terms of his words vs. his apparent lack of sensitivity to their impact on others? Conradg himself, after Eddie brought it up, even admits to this:
Conradg Says:
January 21, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Eddie,
“I appreciate your observations about me, my inability to let more heart through more, and my obstructing mind. All valid, I’m sure. What I’m not really sure of is how to overcome that. I mean, it’s a bit vague and doesn’t give me much of anything tangible to work with. . Any ideas?”"
Anyway, I just posted something about fundamentalism as everyone’s egoic activity, so hopefully we can consider that further.
January 22, 2009 at 5:15 pm
I want to address a number of issues brought up by Flick, Feel4God, Shiva, and others.
Flick makes this point a number of times:
The crux of the matter with Adi Da is really very simple though. If you aknowledge that he is who he says he is , then everything about him falls naturally into place. If you see him as egoless and the “Acausal Egoless Divine REality” then everything falls into place. Then the “proclamations” he makes are just him telling the truth of it. Of course , that is no different that saying “I am That”
If you do not feel that Adi Da is egoless and enlightened, then all his declarations and teachings seem like total bull and very full of ego. Then his actions would appear to be very negative and have no teaching value at all. It is like that lama I refered to earlier who gave a reasoning for a lama or guru having sex with a female student. he said that it could be a negative thing if the guru was not realized , but a great blessing if the guru was realized. Same activity with different merit , depending.
This is a very common attitude amongst Daists, and it has its precedents outside of Daism too. Unfortunately, a lot of those precedents are from authoritarian systems of thought which are used to control and excuse the excesses of its leadership. If anyone has seen the recent Frost/Nixon interview movie, one is of course reminded of Richard Nixon’s one-line defense of himself, when asked about the illegality of some of his actions as President: “If the President does it, it’s not illegal!” Unfortunately, if one does not believe in the absolute power and authority of the President, this is more an indictment of Nioxon’s corruption than any evidence his accusers might have given.
Likewise, if one does not believe in the absolute power and authority of “realizers”, the defense Flick offers for Adi Da is in fact an indictment of Adidam on a scale that surpasses any criticism the rest of us might give. In a way he has a point that the sex, drugs, money, and self-indulgences Da might have carried on aren’t really the point. The worst thing about Adidam is how it has led many people – good-hearted people like Flick even – to think in this manner, to believe that if one considers someone “realized”, and “egoless”, that they can then do anything they like, no matter how bizarre or apparently selfish, and it’s always okay, in fact it’s more than okay, it’s a Divine Blessing. “If the Guru does it, it’s not egoic”, is what it boils down to.
I have to point out – not wanting to hurt my friend Flick’s feelings, but I can’t help but risk it – that this is the essence of effective, long-term brain-washing. Brain-washing is not, as most people think, a way of forcing someone to believe specific crazy things, it’s a way of turning the mind inside out, and making all kinds of contradictory ideas not only acceptable, but actually necessary. It sets up a fundamental dichotomy in the mind which simply cannot be broken by logic, but which rules all further thinking and deciding. This is why we often call it “fundamentalism” in a religious context. We see it in many religions, and it often takes the same form – “If God does it, it must be right”. And then whatever person, historical movement, scripture, group, or idea is considered to be “God”, is folded into this equation, and the result is an ironclad, unbreakable system of authority which allows any action to seem not only reasonable, but Divine and Perfect.
The world has been plagued by this kind of thinking since the beginning of time. It’s not a recent invention by totalitarian movements of the 20th century, though they are perhaps the modern archetypes of it. We can find it in many places, even in our democratic politics as we see in Nixon’s case. An examination of George Bush would reveal a similar way of thinking at work. Despite the rather obvious failures of his Presidency, too numerous to list, there are still a core of people who not only support him, but consider him successful. From the beginning, this group, many of them fundamentalist Christians, gave their support to Bush because they felt that he was somehow annointed by God, chosen to be President in this difficult time, and they were going to stick by him through thick and thin. They have supported his actions because, whatever they might seem to be, he’s the vehicle for God’s will in their eyes. Flick I’m sure would see through the insanity of this attitude, the false dichotomy created, the unthinking, unreflecting fundamentalism of this stance, and yet, he seems to have a harder time recognizing what he’s just written as another form of it, in a different context.
Feel4God has made similar confessions of his own thinking process over the course of this long conversation. Most recently, he suggested that drug use could lead to severe disassociations of the mind, that it could result in delusions of grandeur, illusions of personal enlightenment, an emotionally disassociated state in which one acts lovelessly while yet proclaiming one’s great love for all, and other negative, self-destructive effects that could lead one into numerous delusions. He at first attempted to imply that my own criticism of Adi Da was the result of some kind of imagined drug abuse on my part, which is laughable given my miniscule history of drug experimentation, even in comparison with his own. When I turned the tables, and asked why he wasn’t concerned that Adi Da’s own enourmous and long-term use of drugs hadn’t resulted in just these kinds of delusions, he immediately trotted out the same tortured logic that Flick set forward:
I have written extensively that I have never witnessed Adi Da being anything less than egoless, under ANY circumstance – so you can conjecture all you like about what drugs may have done to Him, but what you seem to be implying in terms of delusion has never been my direct experience with Him.
In other words, if Adi Da took drugs, it can’t possibly have been deluding, because he is the egoless Divine, and that’s all I’ve ever seen in Him. There’s no need to even discuss the matter further. It is simply assumed that, because Adi Da is inherently egoless, nothing he does could possibly be wrong or deluding, regardless of how wrong or deluding it would be for others. If the President does it, it’s not illegal.
The logical setup is infallibly circular. It always comes back to the “experience” of Feel4God, his own perception that he has never seen Da as having any ego. What would that even mean? It’s not at all clear, but it’s certainly got all kinds of historical precedents, again not very pretty ones. Because there is no real “ego”, it’s just a reflection of our own way of thinking and perceiving, we can see it or not see it wherever we like. It’s perfectly easy to see almost anyone we like as egoless, if we allow ourselves to do so. It’s perfectly easy to rationalize any leader, even a spouse, as egoless and pure, no matter how much their actions say otherwise. Battered housewives are a common example of this. And as it happens, Adi Da had a whole household of battered housewives who felt exactly that way about him that no matter how much he abused them, he was egoless, and they were the egoic ones who deserved this treatment.
The most revealing element of the accusation of rape against Adi Da alluded to by New World isn’t the brutal nature of the rape itself, it’s in the defense of it made by the woman involved. Referring not just to this incident, but to a whole series of beatings and abuses, one of which left her with a broken arm, she explained “I deserved it, I was a bitch.” Worse than any physical damage she might have received, even any mental torture it might have inflicted, was the transformation of her own mind into a vehicle of defense for her abuser. This is what is called “Stockholm Syndrome” in the psychological literature, an example of someone identifying with their abuser, to the point where they so internalize the abuse that it has changed their entire way of thinking about themselves and the world.
I could certainly be persuaded of Da’s “crazy wisdom” if there was, indeed, a liberating, enlightening result to these abuses. I’m not closed off to the notion that sometimes one has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, that a realzer may need to break some taboos, even be abusive, for the purposes of bringing a devotee beyond the ego to God-Realization. But what if the result is far less than that, but instead the psychologically pathology of an abused wife who thinks she deserved her abuse? What’s the value in that? This woman didn’t become enlightened, she simply became compliant. She didn’t break through the ego, she simply became a broken ego. It’s not that she’s a bad person, or somehow pathetic. She’s a sweet, kind person. But her mind has been turned into her own abuser, and she’s simply not free even of that form of bondage. One would expect something more of a genuine realizer truly offering compassionate service to their devotee.
But in the logic of the pseudo-devotee, all this is justified, because the Guru is egoless. Even as he abuses his devotees, there is no ego detected. Not once. Not even for a split-second. It is simply not allowed that one might ever think such a thing. The devotee is told that this is the greatest sin of all, to think that the Guru is an ego of any kind at all. This truth is repeated endlessly, and made the great taboo. Those who cross that line do indeed, as Flick says, begin to see things differently.
The problem with those who first begin to break this taboo, who begin to suspect that the Guru is acting egoically, is that they have still not broken free of the logic that has ensnared them in the first place. They still think, like Flick, that if it were true that the Guru has no ego, all would be justified, all would be explained, all would be forgiven. So they think they have to prove that Da has an ego, that he’s not enlightened, not realized, not who he says it is, on and on. This is very easy for some to do, harder for others. But it’s really not getting to the root of the problem, which is in the dualistic thinking at the core of this dichotomy.
What needs to be examined is not Da himself, to see if he has an ego or not. What needs to be examined is our own way of thinking and perceiving, an inspection of this fundamentalist assumption that if he were somehow shown to be egoless, everything he does is Divine, and if he is not, if he is found to be egoic, then everything he does is false. You find in some ex-devotees an example of the latter disposition. They find Da to be pure ego, pure evil, and everything he has ever said or done is false, dangerous, and deluded. But they are in some respects still seeing things by the same fundamentalist dichotomy that originally made them think that everything Da did was Divine.
The real freedom from fundamentalism comes when we reject the original dualism that Flick has enunciated so well. We need to learn to think differently about spiritual matters, by seeing through the falseness of this dichotomy, and rejecting its assumptions. We need to see that we have created these dualisms ourselves in an attempt to solve a deep personal problem. We want to be free of our own ego, and so we look for an egoless savior to help us. We desire a trustworthy guide, someone who will do right by us, who has no ego of their own, who can take us beyond our own ego, who will always do the right thing. Our desire for this egoless savior is so great that we will project this desire onto whatever person or symbol seems to carry an emblem of authority to us. We do this with parents, with school teachers, with politicians, with religious figures, with lovers, spouses, celebrities, books, scriptures, anyone who has about them an authoritative character.
Part of the process of growing up requires that we overcome this need for an egoless savior, but much of society actually encourages us to cling to this approach. Spiritual cultures in particular tend to emphasize the infallibility of their leaders, their saviors, their Gods and Gurus, their scriptures and preisthoods. They exploit the need we have for an egoless one to lead us, to teach us, to show us the path of truth and righteousness. And they encourage the notion that whatever these vehicles of egoless Grace do is for our own good, is untouched by ego or evil, and if only we are pure enough to see it, we would agree, but for now we must simply keep it as an article of faith. We must learn always to see the Guru as egoless, because if we don’t, his Grace will not come to us, will not redeem us, and we will fall into sin.
We don’t see that this very logic is our bondage, rather than our salvation. If we doubt one Guru, we turn to look for another who is genuinely egoless. Most of us grew up as Christians, and were led to think that Christianity was egoless, but most of us saw through that, and went looking for something that seemed more authentic. Most of those on this forum came across Adi Da, and felt that he was genuinely egoless, and began to see him that way, regardless of what he did. We had mystical experiences of him that seemed egoless to us. I certainly did. We felt a transmission from him that seemed profoundly transformative, and his teachings were immensely impressive.
I can relate very well to Feel4God’s confession that he’s never seen any ego in Adi Da. More so, I can relate to the logic of thinking that this would excuse anything he did, no matter how seemingly abusive or exploitive. Even in the early days, I was not an insider, but I was very much aware of Da’s various indulgences, abuses, and so on. And I was perfectly willing to forgive them all, because I had seen Da’s egolessness – or at least I thought I had. I had certainly had profound experiences of non-dual reality the very first times I saw him. I assumed that meant he was egoless, realized, enlightened, and thus perfectly aware of exactly what we all needed. I simply took everything he did on faith, never examining the logic behind my thinking, or the deep personal needs that fueled it.
At a certain point in my life, however, as I began to really inspect what was wrong with Adidam, I encountered this deep fundamentalism in myself. I was indeed totally locked into this dichotomy, wherein as long as I saw Adi Da as egoless, everything he did was not merely excused, but a Divine Blessing. Those who could not see his egolessness were simply unable to receive or recognize his Blessing. I argued on the internet for years with critics of Da, speaking from this point of view, mounting the best defenses I could of Da’s actions based on this principle, but I never examined the principle itself. I simply assumed, like Flick, that this is how things were. I couldn’t help but notice, and even openly admit, that when it came down to it there wasn’t a single aspect of Da’s teachings, or any action of his, that I didn’t accept as Divine. At a certain point, the miraculousness of that seemed just a bit suspicious to me. I began to realize that I was indeed a fundamentalist, and I didn’t seem able to change it.
I didn’t particularly like being a fundamentalist, but I didn’t see any real alternative. Like Flick, it really did seem to me that it was an either/or, black/white situation. The problem was that I was beginning to look at the other side, the “dark side” of Adi Da, a bit too much, and I began to wonder, with increasing emotional conflicts in myself, if he really was “dark” and not “light”. I was drifting away from Adidam’s fundamentalism, but I hoped I was drifting towards its own deeper, non-dual truth. I remember having a conversation at that time with a friend of mine in Adidam about all these things, a fellow who had few – though not none – illusions about the various crazy problems in Adidam, and with Adi Da himself. He challenged me to simply give up my fundamentalist ideas about Adidam, and see what happened. For some reason in that moment I simply decided to do that. It was a conscious decision, not based on some expected outcome. I had been heading in this direction for some time, and now seemed to the time to just let it all go. It wasn’t a decision to be a dissident, quite the opposite, it was a decision to view Adidam without blinders on.
Over the next few months I just stopped believing in the things I once had. The problem was, at a deeper level I still felt trapped in these dualisms. My process was causing Adi Da quite a lot of concern. He kept sending notes to me, asking people to check up on me, saying that he felt he was losing Conrad. At a certain point I wrote Adi Da a long letter describing the dilemma I found myself in, confessing to him both my recognition of his spiritual influence upon me, but also talking extensively about his “Dark Lord” side, as I refered to it. The people at the head of Cultural Services in Adidam were very much involved in these exchanges, and they even confessed to me how what I had written very much reflected their own conflicts with Adi Da, and they wanted me to re-write the letter, tone it down some, take out some of the anger, and they would then pass it on to Da, because they really looked upon it as reflecting the kinds of things they struggled with also, but didn’t want to risk their positions by stating openly. I, on the other hand, obviously just didn’t care about my position, and was willing to be the sacrificial lamb for this kind of “talking truth to power” incident. I considered doing that for a while, but I realized that it was simply pointless. I knew Adi Da very well, and I knew exactly what his response had always been, and would always be. There was simply no question that he would always continue to affirm his own infallibility, which of course he has to the very end.
A little while later, Da sent two more highly placed figures to talk with me, offering to take me back, giving me the same position of access I’d had to serve him from. It was really quite kind and generous of him, but I wasn’t interested in becoming like those guys in cultural services, protecting their position of access at the price of their own personal integrity and freedom. I wanted something greater than that.
At that point I simply continued my open, often critical considerations of Adi Da and Adidam on internet forums. But really, I was still working to understand and counter my own fundamentalism. I read a lot of books on cults and deprogramming, on the psychology of totalitarianism, on narcissism and its various manifestations. I also continued to be haunted by the possibility that I was wrong, that Adi Da really was the egoless Divine, the true FLO realizer, and that everything I was doing was a terrible mistake. I really began to look into this assumption that Flick talks about, this idea that a realizer has this kind of absolute authority, and asked myself where that whole notion comes from. I realized that it comes from inside me, not from the world itself, not from the genuine history of spiritual realizers, but from a distorted mindset that I had been carrying with me for years.
I began to realize that it didn’t really matter whether Da was realized or not, whether he was egoless or not, his actions and teaching simply needed to be looked at for their own value and place in the spiritual process, and if they didn’t hold up, they just didn’t hold up. This required me to put aside the question of whether he was realized, and simply examine him directly, without any such assumptions on my part. And that is where his failings and flaws could at last simply be observed for what they were, without any excuses or absolutions. I could even begin to consider the possibility that Da was indeed realized, but tragically flawed nonetheless. I was no under some obligation to see him a certain way, if I saw him as realized, and another way if I saw him as not realized. I could just look at him directly, not assuming either conclusion.
I have found this outlook not just to be freeing in relation to Da, but in relation to spirituality altogether. It allows me to examine all kinds of other spiritual teachings without getting locked into these fundamentalist, dualistic thinking processes that only obstruct our understanding. I can examine Ramana without assuming that he’s realized, or without assuming that his teachings are perfect and flawless simply because he appears to be realized. I don’t have to assume that Trungpa’s alcoholism was a sign of his realization, and I don’t have to consider his teaching to be valueless because he was an alcoholic. Likewise, I can accept the valuable lessons I learned in Adidam, and see Da’s own spiritual value, and also accept all that is dark and sleazy about his life. Unfortunately, doing that makes it impossible for me to actually be involved in Adidam, because one of the requirements of Adidam is to claim that everything he did was a Divine Grace, because he is the egoless Acausal Divine.
It’s not really that I reject entirely the notion that Da could be a realizer of the egoless Acausal Divine. Who really knows? Anything in this crazy world is possible. But I do reject the notion that his shit doesn’t stink because he claimed to be a realzier. I reject the notion that I have to assume, in all cases, that Adi Da is acting egolessly and for the benefit of all beings, as Feel4God does, bless his heart.
Well, that’s my path. It’s certainly not for everyone. I can fully understand why Feel4God would want to stay with what is safe and secure in the world of Adidam. But that kind of life just isn’t for me anymore. I was wrong in thinking that shedding the fundamentalist mindset would allow me to grow into a mature pracitioner within Adidam. I don’t see any way that is practically possible now, or ever has been, or ever will be. But I was right in feeling that to shed my fundamentalism would open me to a greater form of spiritual life than I had found thus far. My own experience of Spirit is much greater now than while I was in Adidam, and less encumbered by dualistic assumptions.
So while I might have some disagreements with Shiva about some issues, I have to say that he’s pretty much right on about the general dualistic foundations of practice in Adidam. It’s not that there’s no non-dual teachings and even non-dual experience in Adidam. I certainly had many non-dual expereinces there, from the very start, literally. And others have I’m sure also. But the actual mindset of practice in Adidam, the actual structure and asana of life there, even at the highest echelons of the inner circle, is heavily dualistic, often in the extreme. This is an unfortuante combination, in that the dualisms are all explained and excused away by the non-dual claims at the core. Which means that in practice, dualism runs wild in Adidam, unchecked by any restraints or even common sense much of the time. When everything the Guru does is Divine, no dualisms he perpetuates or indulges in are recognized as dualisms, they are considered the compassionate expressions of his Divine Grace. No exceptions to this are permitted, but any such allusions are considered high treason, heresy, and to be swiftly dealt with.
Eventually, everyone becomes like the woman mentioned above. Everyone’s mind begins to internalize their leader’s abuse, they blame themselves for anything that goes wrong, and they make sure that no doubt about the Guru’s egolessness ever come to the fore. Everyone becomes their own Stockholm Syndrome/Patty Heart/Symbionese Liberation Army soldier. They do battle on Da’s part, to reinforce the dualism at the heart of their own mind. Feel4God is doing his part, as I once did. I can’t really blame him. Been there, done that. No need to get righteous about it. It sets up a dynamic that at core simply can’t be argued with on superficial issues, because the answer always boils down to the same thing: in my experience I’ve never seen Adi Da as having any ego. The notion that this is actually a meaningless non-sequitar never occurs to him. The notion that this form of thinking is his own bondage simply contradicts everything he has been taught, and even everything he has experienced, because even his experience has been seen through these perceptual glasses.
Well, everyone has to live within their own mind’s limitations, unfortunately. But non-dualism is about breaking beyond the mind and its dualisms, not accepting them and building a spiritual life around them. So yes, Shiva is right, Adidam is not really about non-dualism. It aspires to be about non-dualism, and it certainly has many scriptures, teachings, and even experiences that are non-dual, but where it really counts, in life, dualism rules the day.
As a sidelight, I remember a conversation I had while I was still tentatively in Adidam. A fellow who had been our local CSM for many years in Marin was “assigned” to keep in touch with me for Da’s sake, and to “counsel” me. He was a humorous sort who didn’t take himself too seriously, and we had a good lunch together talking about some of these things. At a certain point he asked me for some help with a nagging problem he’d always had. He said that, in Darshan with Adi Da, he experienced tremendous bliss, freedom, and happiness, but in the periods between those Darshan moments, he simply couldn’t experience that, not anywhere near to that degree, no matter what he did or how hard he tried. He wanted help on how to feel that way all the time. I told him that he was focusing on the wrong thing. Those blisses, authentic or not, had come and gone. Instead of focusing on them, he should pay attention to what didn’t come and go, what was continuous then and now, what hadn’t gone away, what he didn’t need to work on to regain, because it had never left. I remember the look of utter bewilderment on his face. He had no idea what I was talking about. He couldn’t even relate to the notion.
Adidam just isn’t oriented at all, in practice, to the non-dual. Yes, this fellow may have had some kind of non-dual experiences in Adidam’s Darshan. He may have, for that moment, opened up. But he had no idea of how to actually live a non-dual relationship to that, to see what was of value and what was not. It never occurred to him to look to see what was continuous in his consciousness, only what was missing, what needed to be “transmitted” from the Guru during Darshan, and how he could always remain connected to his Guru’s “transmission”. That’s dualism, pure and simple. The non-dual approach simply isn’t taught in Adidam. It’s considered a kind of talking school heresy even. And we see the results.
January 22, 2009 at 6:53 pm
slyder:
thank you for posting the mark miller letter!
i had never read it and really didn’t know much about the whole “dissidents” affair of the 80s.
this guy is just spot on. his analysis of adidam is very insightful and still absolutely true. it seems mr. jones’ scheme hasn’t changed much at all over the years.
it also made me realize how much one can get caught up in this adidam scheme.
i.e., how much i was caught up in it!
a couple of years ago my posts may not have been that much different from feel4god’s posts. honestly.
i really did believe that mr. jones was the divine incarnate and i would have defended him.
for me, it now puts feel4gods (and some other) posts into a different context. i know, his posts are very annoying at times. he exhibits an incredible amount of blindness and ignorance. but again. if i am honest, i could have written similar posts back in the days i was involved.
there is not a hint of sarcasm in me saying this about you, feel4god. i understand where you are coming from.
slyder, he is not a hypocrit (as far as i can tell, that is). he really does believe what he is saying. a hypocrit – in my understanding or definition – usually knows he is wrong and spreads lies anyways. feel4god does not strike me as such a person.
i don’t know how deeply you have been involved, slyder. in case you have not been and also for others reading this who have not been, let me tell you that the adidam system is extremely effective in breeding ignorance amongst its members. and looking the other way when it comes to mr. jones’s huge ego and its manifestations.
and – as mr. miller also states – i have met many highly intelligent people in adidam. sure, you have the glassy-eyed space-cakes but they are not in the majority. highly intelligent people succumb to the adidam setup and manipulation. it is very subtle.
whenever doubt comes up (and it does come up for virtually every devotee) and you voice it in some way, your “devotional group” “helps” you to get back into “right relationship with the master” again. and the members of those groups are not evil manipulators. they really are not (except in very rare cases). they honestly think they are helping you and try to bring you back “on the right track”.
the adidam scheme is extremely effective this way.
as mr. miller says: “These two themes set up a system of circular reasoning that is self-reinforcing, once you truly believe in it.” (the two themes are 1. the believe that mr. jones is a divine being, and 2. doubts and other negative reactions are part of the “spiritual process” and to be surrendered and transcended.)
it all sounds really reasonable – even to highly intelligent and street-smart people, once you make the assumption that mr. jones is indeed a divine being.
i have seen both sides of the fence now. and most daists are not evil manipulators or hypocrits. they are “just” caught up in the adidam delusion.
i guess i am lucky that in my 15 years of involvement i didn’t have the kind of “spiritual experiences” that turns many into bliss-junkies. otherwise, i might still be a devotee.
the human psyche seems to be very easy to manipulate. mine certainly was.
i was lucky to wake up at some point. others, like feel4god, have not come to that point yet, and maybe never will.
they are probably not open to it, but they deserve our help and understanding. i really don’t mean that in any way condescending at all!
for some reason the mark miller letter put all the pieces of the puzzle together for me and i can now understand why i thought the way i did back then (and why feel4god and flick for example still think the way they do). according to my friends, i am not a glassy-eyed space-cake and i have a well-trained, well-functioning mind (i come from a math and physics background).
one would think that i should not be easy to win over. but the adidam scheme is quite effective. as many here have seen.
sadly, there is just no getting through. the feel4gods and flicks will not wake up through any arguments in this blog. they need to see and feel for themselves. maybe a seed can be planted, i don’t know.
on the other hand, they will not get through either. not to me anyways. once a waking up takes place you just see the dream as a dream and the scheme as a scheme and no argument can bring that about. you have to see for yourself. really see it.
and no! with “waking up” i am not making claims of enlightenment here, feel4god. i still (habitually) believe in the ultimate dream. most of the time anyways.
Flick says:
“Shiva’s feeling about sailor bob is also subjective and someone else might come to a totally different conclusion.”
absolutely true.
but i can tell you this:
i have learnt and (more importantly) seen more about non-duality in the 4 months i spent with sailor bob in melbourne than in the 15 years i spent with mr. jones in adiam. incomparably more!
January 22, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Feel4God .
Thanks for your response to my last blog and for your on-going participation altogether. The whole exercise for me has been one of clarification and confirmation. (I didn’t originally think these would be necessary but, as always, there appeared hitherto unseen layers of uncertainty.)
One of the places where we fundamentally differ is that I no longer wanted to participate in a community where I found free enquiry not practiced, irrespective of what my ‘recognition’ of who Adi Da was. Actually, we might even have similar recognitions of who he was. But it doesn’t matter anymore. If I knew things about Adi Da that were less than ‘appealing’ and someone approached me wanting to know as much as I or others knew about him, I would now feel obliged to reveal everything irrespective of that person’s ‘recognition.’ And if I needed to get further information from members of the community and they withheld it because of my level of ‘recognition,’ or due to some arbitrary level of practice, then I would have to tell this new person that we operate in a hierarchy where certain things are kept secret from others. In short, as Groucho Marx so eloquently waxed, “I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member.”
I find real freedom has no surrounding fixtures. Devotees in Adidam are in protection mode, partly because Adi Da himself often instructed them to ‘protect the treasures,’ but also because they are fearful and simply defending themselves from the specter of absolute freedom found only in no attachment. Divine Humor! I no longer have the need to defend anything about Adidam (or any other spiritual practice, idea or recognition) so I can see clearly about its cultism and fundamentalism that was not previously possible. From the postings of this blog I can see that you, and others in Adidam, do not share this freedom. It was a shocking ‘recognition’ when I discovered it some years ago, but strangely enough it did not invalidate what I got from Adi Da. In fact, I feel it enhanced it! (one of the many heretical statements I seem to make these days.)
Being so involved in the Mission for a number of years (full-time for a good deal of it) was a wonderful lesson in humility and ignorance. I have since ventured into other spiritual groups (not as a member – see Groucho Marx above) and observed the same behaviors surrounding their mission activities, and their members dispositions in general. It confirmed in me a growing ‘recognition’ of the lack of freedom and cultic fundamentalism in all ‘spiritual’ groups including Adidam. From my perspective now, it’s so extensive (and unconscious), that open communication is just not possible. It’s shocking actually! I guess I am naive enough to imagine one day my friends in Adidam will come to ‘recognize’ it and really shift from their defensiveness.
In summary, your ‘recognition’ of Adi Da moves you in one direction and my recognition moves me in another. Let’s not let a little thing like God come between us!
I would like to reproduce here a paragraph that appeals to me as the most lucid description of what surrendering into reality is. (Yes, even more than Adi Da’s writings!) Ironically, it comes from A Course in Miracles, a book I otherwise find almost entirely undecipherable:
“Simply do this: Be still, and lay aside all thoughts of what you are and what God is; all concepts you have learned about the world; all images you hold about yourself. Empty your mind of everything it thinks is either true or false, or good or bad, of every thought it judges worthy, and all ideas of which it is ashamed. Hold onto nothing. Do not bring with you one thought the past has taught, nor one belief you ever learned before from anything. Forget this world, forget this course, and come with holy empty hands unto your God.”
January 22, 2009 at 7:18 pm
Thanks, Flick.
I agree pretty much with your assessment, echoed by several of us at different times, that:
“Whether or not one really considers Adi Da to actually be realized is the only real issue here. Everything else completely hinges on this one thing. All the arguments hinge on this one thing. If he actually was fully realized in the way he said he was, then everything he did and said makes sense. If he was not realized, then none of it makes any sense and is an abomination of sorts.”
I would modify that statement slightly, and say that upon close examination of traditional sources, what is observed in Da’s case has precedents, and also would make sense, if a person thought they were realized because of some conditional samadhi experience, even of the nirvakalpi type, of limited duration, but were not. Notable siddhis often arise at this stage if indulged, but not without subtle evidence of ego. Tripura Rahasya refers to this type as follows:
“There is still another class of men whose Jnana is contradicted by worldly pursuits. That is no Jnana in the true sense; it is only a semblance of it.”
There is yet another possibility to consider from the traditions. Tripura Rahasya refers to the lowest class of jnani, one in whom experiences of the Self have occurred, but whose karmas and strong identification with form drive their behavior, preventing them from becoming a living jnani. It describes this class as follows:
“As for the lowest order of Jnanis, these realise the Self off and on, and spells of ignorance overtake them whenever overcome by their predispositions, they look upon the body as the SELF and the world as real. They are often able to over-ride the old tendencies, and thus there is a struggle between wisdom and ignorance – each of them prevailing alternatively. The Jnani ranges himself on the side of wisdom and fights against ignorance until falsity is thoroughly blown out, and truth prevails.”
This class awaits full realization later, after the body is dropped, and is unqualified to serve as Satguru although they may have some transmission value and be able to catalyze samadhi states. There is dispute as to whether this type is really a jnani. The distinguishing factor in this lowest class compared with alternative possibilities is whether there is evidence of increasingly stable jnana or evidence of increased egoicity over time.
The problem with “recognition (or lack thereof)” alone, is that although that is the basis used by many aspirants, it is karmic, being subjective and dependent on the qualities of the aspirant making this assessment. The Self chooses who and when it will. “Caveat Emptor” in personal assessments of enlightenment and the purity of one’s own assessments used in the decision is the path of the wiser aspirant.
“He who is from his own experience capable of appreciating the states of other jnanis including the best among them, is certainly a perfect sage. He who is not influenced by happiness or misery, by pleasure or pain, by desires, doubts or fear, is a perfect sage. He who realises pleasure, pain and every other phenomenon to be in and of the Self, is a perfect sage. He who feels himself pervading all – be they ignorant or emancipated – is a perfect sage. He who knowing the trammels of bondage, does not seek release from them and remains in peace, is a perfect sage. ” “The perfect among the sages is identical with Me. There is absolutely no difference between us.”
Da laims to have been the only perfectly realized Being, and not just another Realizer, who he considers imperfectly Realized. Since this critical claim made by Da is not recognized as even a possible state by the traditions, which assert absolutely no difference, the real question is whether Da represents a state beyond that of the perfect Sage and thus the traditions are incomplete, or one below it as described in the traditions where Da is confounded with egoicty. Again I point out that while we all have our own perception regarding Da, and can point to experiential evidence pro or con, other jnanis recognized Ramana Maharshi as one even while living and more so now, while Da has not been recognized by anyone who the traditions say are in a position to assess that accurately. Certainly there are those who did not “recognize” bona fide jnanis based on their own karmic tendencies, and who dispute, misinterpret or do not understand the traditions. But there are also those, very common in this time, who “recognize” some figure as enlightened, based on their own qualities and experiences, but yet these figures who are not recognized by those by far in the best position to know, jnanis, and they conflict with age old dharma. And there are also those, very common in this time, who assert that the traditions are incomplete and require evolution because one who they consider enlightened presents a case that it is so (Da and many others). That choice is always a personal choice, and not one without consequences. I advise sticking with the foundation of the non-dualist traditions and the higher wisdom of jnanis, myself, rather than giving more weight to personal assessments based on one’s present, conditional frame of mind.
This leads me to the clear probability that Da simply presumes he is more realized, based on self-assessment, but is actually not completely realized, and has confused a conditional subtle, or what Da terms fifth state samadhi (Savikalpa mixed with some Nirvikalpa) Samadhi with a new and higher stage, and is at best bordering on the lowest class of jnani. This is a known condition, and there are examples of this in the traditions. Therefore, I personally do not think Da is capable of fully understanding jnana or pure transmission beyond that state, quite remarkable compared with the norm and not to be dismissed, as we have seen in many personal testimonies, but ultimately no substitute for the presence of the jnani.
I just want to make clear that in the midst of reasonable discussions about Da’s behavior, this conclusion has a dharmic justification and is not just because of something Da did. This conclusion means for me it does not matter if Da lived the outward life of either Swami Ramdas or Drukpa Kunley, which both fall within the range of classes of jnana, his dharma and the results of his behavior itself requires that traditional non-dualism be seriously deficient, and that alone makes his full realization highly suspect. Those who want to assume anyway based on their own interpretations of their experiences that he represents an exclusive shortcut to a higher, previously unknown Realization will do so. Those who conclude that there is sound reason for doubt, and that first attaining jnana using proven approaches, and the clarity that goes with it, and then assessing Da, is the more sound and best approach, will want alternatives to the mono-Da approach Adidam represents. On that basis, we can agree to disagree and still have civil and illuminating discussions.
January 22, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Dharmashaiva,
In your astrological studies of Adi Da, which system did you use? I find that in the Vedic system, Adi Da has an exalted Mars in 2nd house, but both his sun and saturn are both debilitated, in 11th and 5th houses, respectively.
I generally used a tropical zodiac, rather than the sidereal system of Vedics. Likewise, I generally used the harmonic system of aspects. I was never deeply educated in Vedic astrology, but I did use some of its ideas and its various interpretations of signs and planets.
The kind of interpretation you bring up about Da and Mars is certainly applicable. The western-style system I used might have used a different method, but it essentially comes to very similar results. Adi Da’s Mars in Aquarius certainly is in a detrimental position, and is likewise strongly squared to Uranus in Taurus, which indicates a very angry, revolutionary disposition that wishes to remake the traditions in his own, self-centered way. And of course it also indicates the sort of sexual indulgences and power-plays that we see in Da. An extremely complex chart overall.
I recall a prominent professional astrologer was asked to look at Da’s chart long ago, and they said they either he would be a spiritual teacher or a multi-millionaire businessman. Apparently he decided to be both.
January 22, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Shiva,
“Slyder, he is not a hypocrit (as far as i can tell, that is). he really does believe what he is saying. a hypocrit – in my understanding or definition – usually knows he is wrong and spreads lies anyways. feel4god does not strike me as such a person.
i don’t know how deeply you have been involved, slyder. in case you have not been and also for others reading this who have not been, let me tell you that the adidam system is extremely effective in breeding ignorance amongst its members. and looking the other way when it comes to mr. jones’s huge ego and its manifestations”.
Thank you for this. You are quite right. He (Feel4God) realy does believe what he is saying and I too was in that place myself. My service within community was advocacy and I was damn good at it…better than the average bear/daist. So, yes my friend, had this been 10+ years ago I did sound the same…better…no “head”..all balls…. As an aside, the only time I ever got “notes” from Frank, and just once only, was this…”He is the most peculiarly solid vital that I have here”. Still have the originals…Right back at Him…too fn funny!
As to the Mark Miller letter, I just saw that myself…link from here led me to it. It could have been written yesterday. So sad, that like Ramana, it was not available by the “Lyons at the Gate”.
So very much of the responses here have been accomondating to Frank and current devotees and so very much of that response has been missed by them as well.
Full Stop…Whoever is offended by my use of his given name I say this…His name is Franklin Jones. Given by his parents. It is an honest name. There is no pretention in it. There is no need to add unto it or take away from it. It is his name. The “glory” that you add to it by “recognizing” his insistance to be called something else reminds me of this
January 23, 2009 at 1:50 am
I appreciate that true suspension of beliefs about Da, and why people really left, rather than either presume you know or get stuck in resistance to something problematic in Adidam, is the best way out of Adidam. Once I did it, I saw things clearly and was out very rapidly. Others did the same thing. I also realize it is not possible until you really do it and not just con yourself that you have done it, and that only happens when you are really ready to do it. Otherwise, if not ready, it becomes a self validating rationale or you phase out only to be drawn back. I’ve come to understand that there are karmic reasons why some can’t do it with respect to teachers most others clearly see through at this time. In my case, I was led to remember this lesson in respect to Da fairly easily. I am enternally grateful for that. We should speak our truth as we see it, but with the understanding that there but for the grace of God go I. Recognizing that at one point, I would have been no more receptive than current members here even though I personally would have left as the claims became greater in any case because of my particular karma and pre-existing understanding of non-dualism. Da is right about one thing, I believe. In a strange way, we are here lifetime after lifetime to learn lessons and be tested on what we have learned. Not everyone is at the same point in their lessons. And in the end, they can only learn it and see it for themselves. As those of us who departed should know well.
2
January 23, 2009 at 4:22 am
Ah yes Conrad I can see you are rapping back all the psychological anti cult books I have seen stacks of on in your library. I have read a couple of those books myself, including the “Guru Papers”‘ and to my mind they are no representative of any wisdom at all. Personally modern pop psychology is not my cup of tea. If you feel like you were “brainwashed” by Adi Da and the community somehow, I am sorry for your pain, but don’t pigeonhole me into your paradigm of pop psychology. I have not been a “devotional group” since I can remember and I have also always thought for myself when in the community. I don’t play the “us and them game” whether i was so called in the community or play it like you do outside the community. I always had quite my own life outside the community of Adidam , since I mix with many different types of “groups” of people, including the artistic dance scene of the Bay Area and also other “groups” and “cults” like ravers and theatre people and even some of the Buddhist cults.
But for real I have never been “cultically” involved in any community. As far as Adi Da’s proclamations of the “first, last, and only Seventh Stager” and all of that type of stuff, how could I believe it or disbelieve it? I never believed or disbelieve anything adi Da wrote or said. it was alwasy a real process in intelligence and consciouness and heart for me to read his stuff. Sometimes I would just flat out disagree with it and so on. The point is for me , there is a direct transmission in his teaching that speaks to my deepest intuition and actually allows me to feel and experience directly in that moment what he is communicating. I know you guys here , in daist type terms, would call that a sort of undisciplined “peculiar” and “brainwashed” type experience. I had this direct experience of
adi da’s teaching long before ever being in his community and be a “brainwashed true believer” i read the Knee of Listening and method of the Siddhas both several times before “joining up in the cult” and the penetration directly to consciousnss was astounding to me. I had been meditating and studying many teachings for years , including Watts and many Buddhist and Hindu teachers and even been with Maharishi some and been with a very strong transmission guru , Sri Chinmoy and also had hung with both Muktananda and Rudi too. But I had never experienced this type of direct communication from a book.
And I found that communication of which I speak much more strongly even in the direct physical presence of Adi Da himself. It was like he described in recent years , that his body and presence was actually the teaching and a direct communication of what he was teaching. Of course this could stimulate all sorts of “spiritual ” experiences, including the whole range of shakti type blisses and the “Witness Consciousness” and heart on the right experience. And I personally had all these “experiences” Of course , there is also “purification” type experience, which could include many pissed off and negative mental states and emotions and sickness and difficult life changes and so forth. karma is karma.
Personally, though , the most overiding sensation of this sort of darshan thing was a sense of “no problem”, “no dilemma” was how adi Da labelled it . A total sense of unconditional and unconditioned love and no separation . There was just no one and nothing to be separated out.
Now I do not know about you , but these sort of “experiences” or satoris are highly unusual around even the most advanced realizer teachers. Of course, they are not permanent except in realization itself,and I mean simply the Unconditional freedom, not the lesser all blissful stuff. But it is a good thing to know that there is a greater reality existing here now too. You still have to “practice” until stable in the freedom , perhaps and probably beyond the current lifetime.
Now all of what i just relayed is totally outside the context of Adi Da’s community. It just happened while i was sitting with him at community gatherings and I did the reading on my own. So your anti cult books could never really acount for something they could only explain away in a very “materialistic cult” type of way.
Of course , when i said the part about either believing what Adi da was true about himself was misinterpreted, or more accurately , I did not explain what I meant very well. I don’t myself believe that he ever did anything that “evil” I don’t know if he broke someone’s arm or not. I get one story from all the pissed off people here and I get another story about these sort of things from a few people that i know who were also there at most of the personal events with Adi Da. These people I know are not even in the community now and do not have anything riding on it and are not trying to cover anything up , although they are still sympathetic to Adi Da. I know a little about Mark Miller. he had his pretty girlfriend kind of swept off her feet right away when they came around Adi Da. he was trying to keep his big male ego intact and that is a tough one to recover from . That woman was one of the wives and has not been one for many years. yet she herself is still into Adi Da and involved with the practice. mark Milller got a lot of limelight and poured his pain out into the media. now that is something I would not have done, but each to his own. My last girlfriend, which was quite a few years ago, dumped me and got together with my best friend very shortly afterward and they got married. now i was really hurt and pissed for a few months , because ai was very attached to her and thought ai would be with her the rest of my life. I hated both of them for awhile , but i was released from that pain and now am good friends with both of them. People really can let go and it does not take that much really. it is more of a grace you might say.
So i did not mean to say that someone who is “enlightend” could just do whatever they want and just kill people or beat up babies or whatever or be a Charles Manson or a Jim Jones. I don’t consider marijuana smoking or sleeping with disciples or spending money on disney art or living on an island in seclusion while being a guru all that evil myself. I heard rumors that Adi da maybe took a prozac type drug for awhile and maybe some valium, but I do not know if that is true or not. The thing I heard the most about is the watching of porn movies. I mean that I do not find too disturbing either. I just don’t. I mean he could go around giving darshan to the masses like Amma, but he did a different style. By the way, the Indian culture took a long time to accept an eccentic guru like Ammachi.I mean a female guru holding men in her lap for long periods of time and kissing them on the ear and whispering mantras into their ear? how bizarre.
They tried to kill her a few times. They did not try to kill Adi da , They just sued him for bucks.
So personally I do not know if Adi Da’s proclamations about his particular kind of realization of whatever stage as compared to whatever stage of whatever reaizer in whatever tradition is true or not. it is not a matter of belief. I like how FFAC works at the best around here, although he had definitely formed some strong opinions himself. But we all have opinions formed from our own experience and our response and reaction to our experience.
I just post my own experience and my own opinons and so forth here. i am glad that i do not feel hurt or pissed off. i am free to study and feel whatever transmisson of Adi Da that I can feel. i am also open to feeling it with Ammachi, and with some dzogchen Tibetan masters i have studied with. And in my own meditation.
i could also get into what is said in the traditions about the way of a Guru and the importance of a guru and their transmission in spirtitual life. i have been reading a lot about that in some
Tibetan Buddhist teachings. Adi Da felt that this approach is the essence of all the traditions. it does seem at least very important in much of the traditions i have studied, perhaps less so in
Theravadin Buddhism.
so , yes I see that conrad is playing a very superior and condescending role here, and you can pigeohole yourself as someone who was brainwashed and is now “free” but please try to keep your pigeon holing to reflecting of yourself. I do not need to be deprogrammed because i was never programmed
This last guy Shiva was saying something about some being offended by people being offended by the use of the name Franklin Jones. Nothing wrong with using that name, but I have noticed that the people who use that original name are the people who are pissed off at Adi Da and want to debunk his claims of realization. They do this by not respecting the spiritual names he chose for himself and saying he was just common and should use his ordinary name. Sometimes i wonder why people use new age names and spiritual names myself, but i still call them by their chosen names because I respect their personal choice. so on a forum like this, to call Adi Da by his born name is in this context a way of debunking him . So i use the last name I knew him by, which was Adi Da. I think a lot more names were added on since then, whatever. lots of times they do offend in one way or another. so sorry . sometimes i call him Da Free John. I don’t know but I have never been inclined to call him Frank or Franklin or Frankie or Jonesy . it must be my brain washing. Does anyone know where I could get an interventionist to save me from this cult I escaped from? Or at least give me a new copy of “Cult Busters Anonymous” Flick Rahke
January 23, 2009 at 4:56 am
Wow I just read some of ‘Shiva’s” stuff on the “adidam scheme and setup” and how this was comfirmed by the very wise and balanced views of Mark Miller. I am beginning to think that many posting here somehow really brainwashed by Adi da somehow. I am not sure how he and the community did it although people do give long reflections here of how they wer brainwashed. lots of different ways ai guess. Kind of like patty hearst and SLA.. Thanks to god that they did not ask Shiva or Eddie to rob a bank . They might be posting here from jail now. It seems to me that the most pissed off people were the biggest “climbers” in the context of the community of Adi dam. I mean the Cutlers, for example were huge ego climbers in the community although they had a sort of “devotional” expression. When they left pissed off, they sued the community for lost time and money. Big egos are sort of a pet peeve of mine and sort of rile me up. I guess that is why I am waxing a bit facetious in this post. People here keep describing their huge positions of responsibility and closeness to Adi da in their stay in Adi Dam. I am lucky , because the only close up personal contact I had with Adi Da was once in 1975 when i raided the kitchen for toast and cofee with a black dude friend of mine and Morgan Callahan was doing security there. he just joined us in the glut of toast and jelly. Adi Da walked in unanounced with only Bonnie. He just sat at the table with the 4 o us and I offered him a marlboro and he took it and I lit it. Then he just sat there and smoked the cig and did his samadhi thing. very simple and beautiful.
Then over the years I think I asked him two questions at a talk. Once he yelled at me for paying lip service to practice and not really doing it. The next day i was put into a special group of “dissidents’ for complaining so much to his face. i was actually not complaining , but trying to tell him that I found value in him. so I felt abused and felt like they did not understand. We were told that we would not be able to go back to the darshan later that day. Well everyone went anyhow big deal that is my claim to fame in my personal contacts with Adi Da. he was attractive to me, but in the spiritual sense. i always had a spiritual relationship with him. I did not get into the other stuff, I can see that others here did and that certainly did complicate things for some Flick Rahke rage against the machine
January 23, 2009 at 9:16 am
FFC,
I’ve really appreciated all your posts, especially the recent ones on Ramana, and your mature attitude.
I also really enjoy all these considerations about the matter of realization, including speculations on what kind of realization Da has, etc. The quotes regarding the various types of jnanis is something I’ve seen before, but it’s still highly relevant.
But I do take exception to the notion that this is actually an important matter in regards to most of the problems with Adi Da. The issue of whether Adi Da is an egoless realizer really has no serious significance in relation to virtually any of Adi Da’s abuses or indulgences, or his misrepresentations of the traditions. If Adi Da says that 2+2=5, it won’t suddenly become true if Adi is an egoless realizer of the Acausal Divine. Likewise, if Adi Da abuses a devotee, that won’t suddenly make it morally and spiritually acceptable, simply because he is recognized as “egoless”.
As I pointed out in my last past, this whole issue of realization has nothing to do with justifying or excusing behavior one way or the other. If we do recognize Da as a realizer, it still doesn’t change what he’s done, nor does it change the way we should look upon his actions. Action is in the world of causes and effects. Thus, we should judge action by its own qualities, character and effects. If Da was an asshole, he was an asshole, regardless of his level of realization. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t.
Certainly, it seems less probable that a realizer would act in the ways that Da has done, but in fairness we can’t come to any absolute conclusions about his realization merely by looking at his actions. As Flick points out, it’s not really a big deal that he did all the drugs and sex and so forth that he did. But neither does his spirituality in any way make those indulgences acceptable. In fact, that’s one of the many problems with Adidam. Adi Da did all kinds of obviously self-indulgent, stupid, irresponsible, and counter-productive things that were both self-destructive and destructive of others, and no one ever stopped him because of his status as Guru and realizer. Instead, they actually encouraged him in all of these things most of the time, assuming that if he did it, it must be not just okay, but Divine.
This whole dharma of “recognition” that Flick and Feel4God are trying to promote is not only a cultic phenomena, but a total distortion of the genuine, non-cultic spiritual traditions of devotion to a Guru. It is a complete corruption of the principle of true Guru-recognition to use it as a way to excuse and defend irresponsible and self-indulgent behavior on the part of would-be Gurus. If Adi Da over-indulged in drugs, it makes no difference if we recognize him as egoless, they are still going to have a negative and deluding effect on him, just as they would on anyone else. If Adi Da overeats, smokes, drinks alcohol, and doesn’t exercise, he’s going to develop heart-disease, and suffer an early death, regardless of whether he is an egoless realizer or not. And if Adi Da abuses money, hoards his riches at the expense of poor and malnourished devotees, spends it profligately on himself, on silly brickabrack, and stashes it in Swiss bank accounts, it doesn’t make all of that morally defensible simply because he is an egoless realizer.
I think you know this, but I want to remind you of it, because sometimes when you engage in arguments about Da’s realization, you almost seem to think that it really is the central issue in these debates about Da, as if, were you to become convinced of Da’s realization, then it really would make everything else fall into place and seem both acceptable and even some kind of Divine Blessing. I simply don’t see how it would change anything of any significance, and I don’t think the traditions see it that way either. So the whole issue of figuring out what Da’s realization might have been is just entertaining, maybe educational, but not in itself the most important point of criticism, in part because up to a certain point it’s just unknowable.
Yet there is indeed a genuine traditional instruction about the importance of recognizing the Guru. This has to do with the profound process of seeing the Guru as one’s very Self. It has nothing to do with seeing the Guru as some kind of perfect vessel of the Divine, whose every act is by definition perfect and therefore excuses all kinds of abuse. Quite the opposite, the Guru as seen as the embodiment of all virtues because the Guru actually lives a virtuous life, and never deviates from that. He does this naturally, as an expression of his realization. But in Daism, this is turned upside down, and it is said that whatever Da does is virtuous, because he is realized, so he doesn’t have to act virtuously at all. He is “free” to act non-virtuously, as if that is what freedom means. Again, a total perversion of the whole idea of freedom. In every respect, the Daist version of Guru-recognition represents an inversion and a perversion of the traditional teachings.
The spiritual force of recognition is highly important to the process of realization. I’ve mentioned before Nisargadatta’s own process in relation to his Guru, who told him on their first meeting that Nisargadatta was the Supreme Being. This is of course the opposite of Adi Da’s process of recognition, in which the devotee recognizes Da as the Supreme Being. Nisargadatta’s Guru was acting in the traditional manner, pointing not to himself, but to the devotee’s true Self, telling his devotee to recognize the Supreme Being as his very Self. For Nisargadatta, this was a complere turnaround in his entire way of looking at everything. He said he could not refute what his Guru told him. He could see that his Guru had nothing to gain by lying to him, he seemed utterly trustworthy, wanting nothing for himself, but was giving everything to his devotee instead. So he felt an intrinsic sense of trust in his Guru, and in his simple words, and the power of that instruction propellled him to discover if this were actually true, if he really was the Supreme Being. And as Nisargadatta said, the whole of his practice was really the result of this faith in his Guru, which compelled him to prove the truth of what his Guru had revealed to him.
There was nothing, absolutely nothing in this recognition of his Guru that in any way implied that this Guru could do anything he liked, no matter how lacking in virtue, and it would be considered Divine or true. The opposite was the case. The power of his words was dependent on the Guru being utterly virtuous and trustworthy, with nothing to gain for himself and everything to give to the devotee. He was not looking for gifts, for tithes, for services rendered, for sex, for a luxurious life, for anything.
And Nisargadatta lived exactly the same life in relation to his own devotees when he became a Guru. He asked nothing from them, except the sincere and earnest application to his words and arguments. He didn’t ask for service, he didn’t ask for money, and in fact refused all such things. He supported himself and his family on his own labor. He suffered the usual hardships of a life in India, and it never occurred to him to take the easy way of having an ashram where he would be supported by others. He was offered such a circumstance many times, and turned it down. Which is why a western devotee of Nisargadatta meant it literally when he said that Nisargadatta was the only person he had ever met in his whole life who didn’t want anything from him. This kind of virtuous honesty greatly inspired many of his devotees, and made them take his teachings seriously, precisely because they came from a place of scrupulous honesty and virtue.
The same cannot be said of course for Adi Da. I don’t know that I ever met a single person in Adidam who actually trusted Adi Da. I knew some of the innermost and most highly placed people in Adidam, and all of them distrusted and feared Adi Da. They were terrified of letting Da have a say in their lives, because they never felt they could trust him to act virtuously in relation to them. I recall an incident where the famed head of the whole Institution yelled and screamed and begged me not to pass on to Adi Da any indications about his personal life, for fear of what Adi Da might decide he should do if the matter were brought to Da. This is simply not how it works in the traditions. There, one trusts the Guru, not in spite of his unvirtuous behavior, but precisely because of it.
Papaji used to say that no true Guru would ever humiliate his devotees. And yet, humiliation was one of the standard methods of Adi Da’s relationship to devotees. Everyone who was around him couldn’t help but notice it. I saw him repeatedly enact these humiliation rituals in his personal company, sometimes with me. In Adidam, this was considered some kind of test of one’s recognition of Da, but this method has the principle ass-backwards. The whole point of the relationship to the Guru is one of mutual trust, not mutual distrust. It is about the demonstration of virtue by the Guru, not the demonstration of a lack of virtue, which somehow the devotee is supposed to overcome or explain by saying the Guru is egoless.
I recall an incident in Papaji’s relationship with Ramana. After his own sudden realization shortly after meeting Ramana, Papaji continued to come to Ramana for years of instruction. He was considered by many at the time, including Ramana’s own brother, who was manager of the ashram, as Ramana’s most faithful disciple. And yet one day, during a discussion, Papaji heard Ramana give an instruction that didn’t sound right to him. Immediately Papaji spoke up very forcefully and objected to what Ramana said, without any compunction whatsoever. And as it happened, Ramana recognized his error and clarified what he meant. Now, this is of course the sort of thing that would never happen in Adidam. The idea that anyone would forcefully object to or correct some instruction Adi Da made would be sheer insanity. They would assume that everything he said was correct and true. They would rather spend years carrying out some crazy-ass instruction from Da than just come right out and say, hey, that’s just not true. Or, worse, that’s unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong.
So I think it’s really, really important to understand that this whole notion of “recognition” as it is being preached here by Daists has nothing to do with genuine recognition of the Guru. One can recognize the Guru, and still point out when he is wrong. If one doesn’t, one will fall into error, which is of course what has happened in Adidam. Adi Da has taken advantage of the ignorance of these traditions by his devotees, and the manufacturing of myths about the traditions which justify his approach, which is simply invalid, plain and simple.
The devotional recognition of the Guru is a beautiful thing. It is the very means of realization. But if it is perverted by turning it on its head as an excuse for self-indulgent and irresponsible behavior, it loses that power, and devotees simply will not become enlightened. And that more than anything explains the lack of spiritual maturity in Adidam, and of course the absence of realizers. It’s not that people don’t have spiritual experience and energies and even genuine non-dual experience. But because the fundamental principles of spiritual life are constantly being perverted and inverted, these lead nowhere, and grow into nothing of greater value. If there is to be any spiritual maturity in Adidam, this principle would have to be restored, even if only one devotee at a time, even if it means leaving Adidam. Perhaps with Da now gone, there’s some hope of this occurring. But it will still require some fundamental changes, and there’s no sign of that yet.
January 23, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Flick,
I think there’s a lot of truth spoken in your facetious comments, even if you are consciously implying the opposite. But if you read it as straight commentary, it’s pretty right on. Maybe your unconscious is trying to speak for you?
Well, psychoanalyzing one another is a good parlor game. But I simply think you are wrong to write off the kind of criticism of cultism that I offer as merely materialistic, and not applicable to “spiritual” people like yourself. I think it’s a huge, huge mistake to think that because you feel Adi Da’s spiritual transmission in his books that you are therefore immune to the same fundamentalist psychology that afflicts other people. This is actaully one of the big myths about spirituality, spiritual experience, spiritual transmission, shatkipat, non-dualism, sacred teachings, Gurus, and the whole lot.
People who get involved in the esoteric dimension of these paths begin to think themselves immune to the pathologies of the psyche that afflict “ordinary” people. They imagaine that sort of thing can’t possibly happen to them, because they feel genuine spiritual truth, a change in their own consciousness, and an awakening to spiritual reality. I’d suggest that such people are actually even MORE susceptible to such things. I don’t know of any studies done on that, probably because it’s a hard thing to confirm in someone, but it has been shown the cult members are actually more intelligent than the average person, and that in fact very intelligent people are actually more susceptible to cult-thinking than less intelligent people. So it’s also possible, and in my view even likely, that people who are more spiritual sensitive than others, such as yourself and me for that matter, are actually more susceptible to fundamentalist cult thinking than ordinary people. WHich is why I think it’s doubly important for people involved in spiritual paths, and especially esoterically sensitive people, to become aware of the fundamentalist mindset in themselves, and to develop a healthy immune system to weed out “infections” that might fester in their psyches. And yes, I do think that both of us have been so “infected” over our years in Adidam, like most everyone else, and have to struggle to overcome those diseases.
Certainly you’ve done better than most. You had the good sense to get out of Adidam, and to limit your exposure to reading his books, and maybe some causal contact from the periphery while being something of a patron for a while. And my comments in the last post aren’t really directed at your life choices, they were directed at some comments you made on this forum that I thought epitomized a certain way of thinking I find to be unhealthy and just plain false. I’m sorry if I seemed to single you out, but I thought you are strong enough to handle it, and see it as a point of conversation rather than an attempt to slam or label you personally.
As for Adi Da “not being that evil”, I would heartily agree. I’ve never thought of him as being genuinely evil at all, just rather screwed up. There’s certainly plenty of good in him as well. My point is that, to the degree that he’s screwed up, one can’t just deny it and say he’s egoless, and magically make all that bullshit go away and turn to Divine Smoke.
I understand you get really angry when anyone mentions anti-cult literature, but I’d suggest that’s a defensive rage that shows that something about that literature pushes some buttons in you. Consider that maybe it does so because there’s a real truth in there which might not be so flattering to you, or to any of us. I don’t think it makes sense to write that psychological criticism off as mere materialism that doesn’t apply to spiritually sensitive people such as you. As I say, I think it is even more applicable to such people, because they tend to use spiritual experience to disassociate themselves from the material world and it’s responsibilities and implications, and that’s not a healthy road to go down.
Now, maybe you’re right that I’m condescending, and that I think I’ve gone further down the road of taking responsibility for those cultic and fundamentalist patterns than some people. I plead guilty. I’ve spent a fair amount of energy and attention over the last ten years trying to get these matters straight. After all that, maybe I’ve only gotten myself up to the level a lot of people were already at. But I still think I can recognize arguments that come out of a fundamentalist mindset, and what you wrote the other day certainly seemed to fit that bill, even if you find the very thought really demeaning and condescending. So maybe you’re not quite as free of all that as you think, even if your contact with Adi Da is only through his books at this point. Christians don’t have to be highly placed figures in the Vatican to go along with the fundamentalist doctrine, and they can even be very liberal and skeptical of some aspects of church dharma and yet be fundamentally in agreement with the basic church mindset.
All I’m saying is, be a little more mindful of how none of us are immune to cultism, brainwashing, mind control, and all the rest, regardless of how spiritually advanced we might think we are. It’s a universal disease that operates at every level of the mind, not just at the material level of crude politics and belief-oriented religion.
January 23, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Eddie B Says:
“Thanks for your response to my last blog and for your on-going participation altogether. The whole exercise for me has been one of clarification and confirmation. (I didn’t originally think these would be necessary but, as always, there appeared hitherto unseen layers of uncertainty.)”
You are welcome, Eddie. I also very much appreciate your interested and interesting participation.
Much has been said about how Daists are fundamentalists and I have seen in myself over many years the adolescent tendency to separate from Reality regardless of what situation I am in. I know it is my tendency, nothing that I am a victim of. I have seen many childish/adolescent tendencies also being played out in Adidam not to mention the world at large. However, over time these tendencies do get purified more and more – and most certainly Daists have become far more discriminating about what is bullshit and what is not.
Most importantly, I came to a discriminating insight in which I realized that all my separation from Reality could only be countered by that very Reality Itself. With that self-understanding, I was able to persist with and fully commit to Adi Da and Adidam. He always counters my egoity at whatever level I am animating it – whether that be gross or spiritual. Now it is certainly not the case, as you can tell, that I always thereby submit to Reality – but it is always a process that must be based on recognition of Who He Is, and my own understanding of how much I actually need to surrender to Acausal Reality in my life day to day.
Eddie, I understand what you said about why you had to leave Adidam – for the sake of “free enquiry”, etc. But for me, because His physical Form and Transmission was generally only available to members of Adidam, I persisted. I mean, most people would have probably left all the difficulties of the Adidam institution, culture, and community if they still had full access to Adi Da. Really, who would put up with all the “hard school” that Adidam in that sense represented? But those were the “rules” and because of my heart-deep recognition of and connection to Him, I stayed.
Eddie B Says:
“I find real freedom has no surrounding fixtures. Devotees in Adidam are in protection mode, partly because Adi Da himself often instructed them to ‘protect the treasures,’ but also because they are fearful and simply defending themselves from the specter of absolute freedom found only in no attachment.”
When you say that Daists “are fearful and simply defending themselves from the specter of absolute freedom found only in no attachment”, this is certainly true if someone is dramatizing a childish relationship to the Guru. However, this statement of yours also sounds very similar to many who justify their departure from the Spiritual Master based on some mental understanding of non-dualism and/or a “I can do this myself or the Guru is in me” adolescent reaction to the Spiritual Master. Now, of course, if you have actually realized the “absolute freedom” of no attachment yourself, then that is different. If not, can you even trust your own ego-I to guide you? Much of the “critics” complaint is that the structure of Adidam supports only a dualistic approach – but to leave because of this presumption without really going beyond one’s entire reaction to whatever it brought up, why is that automatically assumed to be the “right” choice? Your reaction was yours, and is still there until it is purified altogether – and this is why Adi Da stimulated every kind of reaction. Why do we tend to assume that our ego-I knows what is best for us in spiritual terms? Isn’t that just another form of belief or fundamentalism?
Now if some completely obvious appearance of say, Ramana Maharshi, manifested in your room, opened your heart on the right and you transcended all attention in Reality Itself, including the regeneration of Amrita Nadi, and told you to leave Adidam and come be with Him, that might be different. Of course, I would have talked to Adi Da about this, being my chosen Master. But in any case, this is not what I hear about how people decided to leave – they decided based on their own egoic measure of Adidam. No problem with that, but it doesn’t necessarily and automatically mean it was the best choice. What I see very frequently here are people shouting out like fundamentalists how great it is for them now – but where is the enlightenment?
And just as Flick demonstrates, no one had to be totally involved in the day to day life of Adidam to still even have access to Adi Da. And anyone could have spent many hours in the Empowered Meditation Halls, but did they? Did you?
So Eddie, do you actually relate to a Spiritual Master still?
Since I saw no direct response relative to my questions about fundamentalism as the activity of every ego-I, how about another matter of “free enquiry” concerning our lives?
Since all of us have become such close “friends” here, I would like to consider some aspects of the ego-I that support this separative activity of belief, doubt, fundamentalism, cultism, etc. It is easy enough to tear into any religious or spiritual tradition and find aspirants who are fundamentalists. This often is the justification for many people to depart Adidam, as we see here.
But it is possible in Adidam to actually transcend fundamentalism by being radically devoted to Adi Da – given Who He Is. We are admonished from the very beginning to recognize and Self-Indentify with Acausal Reality. There is no dualism in this admonishment – quite the contrary – He tells us this is Realization. However, our egos want to make it dualistic. Of course, most critics think that this is not possible in Adidam and are very quick to shoot down any attempt to consider this.
Such devotional submission has been the means since very ancient times, and yet by statements made by some here, that very tradition is apparently being thrown out by some critics. Rather than continuously focusing on Adi Da or Daists, how about ourselves? Where do we not exercise radical devotional submission to non-dual Reality? How are we fundamentalists by tendency caught up at times in dualistic beliefs, doubts, fear, etc.
As a matter of “free enquiry”, let’s start with the body. Is your diet supportive of such submission to non-dual Reality? We know traditionally it has been recommended (and certainly by Adi Da) that the diet be “sattvic” and wholly supportive of equanimity.
So who here amongst us regulars (and anyone else, if you care to join in) has a totally “sattvic” diet, free of all accessories that tend to stimulate/depress and thereby disturb equanimity (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, marihuana, hard drugs, refined sugar products, coffee, etc)?
Personally, I think the dietary disciplines in Adidam have resulted in many people not living up to them, as well as many others leaving Adidam.
The gross body is full of addictions by tendency, and food-taking is a major form of consolation – we tend to be real fundamentalists at the food level! After many years of experimenting with what right diet is, Adi Da has summarized the diet in the recently published “Green Gorilla”. This books goes into the specifics of a “green” raw diet, using the findings of Victoria Boutenko relative to “green drinks” and all the years of consideration of diet in Adidam, to show why not only such a diet supports the process of radical devotion to Reality, but also leads to great health benefits, plus allows us to live more lawfully with our Earth environment.
Many of us Daists have been on this diet for almost a year now (after being on mostly vegan or even all raw diet for years) and as I said before, all “loopholes” relative to ANY use of accessories were closed via various essays by Adi Da back in 2001. I have found that this diet (basically because of the use of two quarts of green vegetable-fruit smoothies every day) has greatly clarified my practice in terms of understanding how addictive the ego actually is at the bodily level. The body actually has much built-in wisdom about all of this good food and now I have no desire at all for any accessories whatsoever – they would tend to disturb the energy of the body.
Again, my question is this:
Who here amongst us regulars (and anyone else, if you care to join in) has a totally “sattvic” diet, free of all accessories that tend to stimulate/depress and thereby disturb equanimity (e.g., alcohol, tobacco, marihuana, hard drugs, refined sugar products, coffee, etc)? What more can you tell us about it?
January 23, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Actually the cult busting books and the cult busters and so forth do not really make me angry. I only read a few of them a few years ago and found them to be silly and immature. I have not even thought about them until seeing them brought up here. But I find their “gotcha” approach to sprituality in general to be sort of Bevis and Buttheadish even though couched in some western psychological pop language. People in our culture love to see whatever they feel is a “cult ” get “busted” even though they themselves are totally brainwashed by the cult of money and “scientific materialism” {sorry I am being fundamentalist and cultic here by using one of Adi Da’s terms} As far as forums go in relation to Adi Da, the “archives” one and “Lightmind” one are seriously obsessed in getting Adi Da. This one is somewhat more balanced in some ways and some are obsessed here too. I find my old buddie’s “Beezone” site actually much more unbiased, although it leans in sympathy toward Adi Da, but it posts most of the teachings on traditional nonduality themselves that are talked about a lot about by people here who are much more versed in them than “i” am.
Welll Papiji cetainly did not act toward people like Adi Da did. he worked very differently. He told them that “they were that” and also had a strong transmission to back up his talking. so all these people can back very “nondual” and are even sqabbling amongst themselves as who is the most “nondual” now that is a circus in its own right. So I don’t really see how holding up Poonja is such a stellar example of the “right” way to teach. And by the way , his first American “devotee” {who is quite silly himself I feel} denounced his guru , Papaji , and probably papaji denounced him as a fraud too altthough I am just speculating on that one. Of course, Andrew’s own mother denounced him, and so did Gangaji, and Andrew felt like Gangaji was following him around. pretty funny. Andrew does have a pretty good forum type magazine reminding me of the old “Laughing Man” Of course, Adi Da is easier to bash because of his particular way of doing things. I can see that. But I know all those people involved and I do not personally write them off as gangsters and i see value in Adi Da’s role as a guru and his teachings.
Now I do not say I like everyone either.
I can see how FFG gets frustrated here though. And i can see what frustrates others about him. he does use the language and style of Adi Da and Adidam, because he has been steeped in it for many years now. Still that is the vocabulary he uses and it can seem “cultic” because it is particular to Adi Da and his teaching. But people here also twist around what he says a lot to “gotcha ” him. I have seen it here quite a bit.
Acutally I have seen it here on myself too. sometimes I bring it on myself too. First . i did not say that I just felt Adi Da’s transmission in reading his books. Conrad forgot to point out in his last post that I also talked just as much about feeling “it” in direct physical darshans and also in meditation halls and so forth. I have a friend in Marin who has a humble hall and I can feel it in there strongly there, although I do not hang out there and meditate. I have a different sort of hall at my place, which is a simple altar with a buddha and some yidams on it . Also a pic of Ammachi, since I have been relating to her in the past couple of years. And yes my style in the community, when I was in it , was to not be in the thick of things much . no one ever busted my balls for my sort of approach. In fact, Adi Da himself created a whole group of formal members, called the “third congregation” to account for this and i was one of the first group to get into that. I did not have much money at that time either. so it was not about money. I remember going to my first darshan with Adi
da in that group. None of the “regulars” except Steinberg knew about us yet. So they were having this big outdoor sitting with Adi Da and i was there and had not been around the community for quite a while. This oldtimer[who is actually a nice guy but kind of “righteous” came up to me and asked me what the hell I was doing there since i was not a formal “student” I loved that one when James Steinberg came over and told the guy to leave me alone . The guy was flustered. But there were quite a few of us who got the access without having to do much of anything. Of course real practice gives you a much fuller “access” I think they still have that group but I do not know much about it.
The lack of so called maturity and lack of realizers in Adi Dam does not mean squat. First I personally do not know who is “mature” and who is not. I have not kept up on this and I doubt that FFAC has either. And not having realizers does not mean anything one way or the other. Ammachi has been teaching for many years herself and has millions of devotees and i have not noticed any realizers around her except herself. Her swamis are strong and nice, but I do not notice any realizes there, although I could not say for sure. I know there is talk here about realizers around maharshi. My buddy knows a lot about Maharshi too and has read all the books and was mentioning to me a lot of the names mentioned here. So I am still be educated in that one. But I don’t think there were very many. My friend has mentioned around four and he told me that a couple of them were at very advanced levels of their practice when they first came to Ramana.
The “crazy wisdom” thing in the traditions has pretty much been isolated to small groups or individuals around teachers and gurus. Adi
Da always said he was biting off a big chunk to get into that way of teaching. now I guess you could say that he was making excuses up front. That is what most would say about it on this blog, but there is always more than one way of looking at things.
I mean, Drupka Kunley , screwed his own mother, although she did not seem to mind from what I hear.
That guy would have been massacred here. he would have been strung up. Then there was that “Zen’s Red Thread” who got drunk a lot and hung in bars and brothels. I liked him in his passions myself. But you all can just string him on up if you know the guy I am talking about, Ikkyu. There is not a long list of these sorts of course. The left handed path is not for most and I don’t know why Da chose to teach that way due to the immaturity of people and the dangers. perhaps it will pan out over time and it will be shown to have had a positive effect. i can’t really know. I just personally am not all flustered and angry about it and do not feel any righteosness around it. i just keep a “don’t know mind” because i never saw anything that bad, mostly proclamations and ways of saying things that stirred me up . I did not choose to not practice in the community because I thought Adi Da was a fraud or anything. i have a whole variety of reasons, one being that the practice itself is very hard and full of discipline. I like it easier, although I question the value of ‘taking it easy” as I get older. This world in itself really does not fulfill and it is full of pain and suffering{check out the Buddha’s basic teaching all you “non dualist ” realizers here. It pretty much sums it up. Adi Da’s teaching relative to knowing the small reality and also knowing the Great Reality is a pretty good way of putting it too.
Now I read the Green Gorilla recently and it is kind of an abbreviated version of “Eating Gorilla Comes in Peace” I liked the old teachings on the healing stages in partcular. I also read the Green Smoothie book of Butenko and her theories make sense about the right diet. Now raw is pretty hard to adapt too though. I would like to do it eventually if I can. I have tried the green smoothies and they are great although I can’t afford a vitamix at this point and use a clunky old blender. Perhaps one of you devotee types here could by me a vitamix now that you don’t have to give so much dough to buy Adi Da paperweights anymore lol ha ha just kidding maybe. So I eat some cooked and raw vegan and that works best for me now. I do smoke some pot before dancing a few times a week , although I had not done that for years and only started again several months ago. I have not done that for a couple of months , since I have been sick. big deal It does not seem to interfere with my “practice” although I think the way of abstinence is generally preferred for spiritual practice. It is just something temoporary for me and I always stopped the stuff at will. I practice yoga and tai chi and chi gung daily and also pranayama. i have been doing some of
adi da’s old three part conductivity exercises in pranayama and meditation and they are very powerful yet simple. I have not been totally up on the discipline since having the flu since it is difficult for me to do anything . I drink some green tea and also kombucha that evil drink and I touch my pee pee outside of pissing probably every day too. I have not gotten beyond my sexual attraction to women and trees and dogs yet sorry to say. i have always had a prediliction to masturbation since I was a teen and I know it is a big drawback in some ways. Adi Da worked directly in the sexual arena because we really are uselessly addicted to sex big time an obsessed with it grossly as a culture. And also very addicted and and attached to the romantic fantasy of coupling. nothing wrong with that , but there is more to life and spirituality. I don’t think just saying you are either going to be married or just celibate quite gets to the crux and I suspect that is why Adi da worked so intensely with his followers in this area. Very dangerous for him and others, as we have seen. people are very pissed off still . I don’t really think he was all that much of a horndog myself. I doubt he was having sex much if at all in his last years and I doubt he died of a viagra overdose like was suggested at the Lightmind circus. Flick
rahke
January 23, 2009 at 6:17 pm
Dear Feel4God,
I was a dedicated 100% raw fooder for five years.
While there is much to be said for the diet, it is not going to enlighten you though you may hold such beliefs. I certainly felt that raw foods was the way and felt superior to non-raw foodists as do many raw foodists.
Of course you can follow the raw food diet without becoming extreme in your beliefs, but you are a Daist so well, what can I say.
But I recommend you consider the experiences of other long term raw foodists who are now less extreme in their diets:
http://www.beyondveg.com/
I know how it is to think you have found all the answers through diet and spiritual practice. But I think you will find that what you appear to have found is just thoughts in your mind. The truth is not really something to be achieved through diet or doctrine.
Blessings on your journey.
Jacob
MODERATOR’S NOTE: Good post. Just a note that I don’t want discussion to take off in the direction of diet and spirituality unless it directly bears on Adi Da’s teachings on nutrition. Thanks. -Jerry
January 23, 2009 at 7:50 pm
“shiva, are you saying that you never felt His Transmission as the non-dual Truth?” (feel4God http://tinyurl.com/a9vney)
—
“Transmission” of the “non-dual Truth” is an oxymoron.
Shakti, power, experience, even samadhi, is raw data to be interpreted and/or understood by one’s buddhi. If buddhi is not awakened, then the conditioned mind takes its place with the interpreting process, originating false conclusions. Nothing is “transmitted”. At all times, all arises as the content of One’s awareness.
—
PD To shiva: thanks for your kind comments and symphaty, I appreciate it very much!
Clara
January 23, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Uh Jacob I think you missed FFG’s point. he does feel like “sattwic” diet and life are important addendums to spiritual practice and also there is some disagreement in traditions whether a more cooked type ayrurvedic diet is somehow better than raw. Adi da experimented with all the approaches and always taught that seeking in any realm , including diet , did not make one wake up in itself. Now all these areas are very fascinating for people , including raw diet and they can certainly get “cutlic” and rigteous about it whether they are Daists or not. i know a lot more raw foodists that are not Daists, and they are very idealisic and righteous about diet than either Da or Daists. I am positive from reading FFG posts that he does not think raw diet is going to enlighten him or anyone else. That view is in direct conflict with Adi Da’s teachings.
I am amazed at how people around here directly misquote and misinterpret and twist what FFG posts here. Of course, he writes in the style of the language of Daism , which people consider cultic and are offended thereby. like saying “Of course yu can follow the raw food diet without becoming extreme in your beliefs, but you are a Daist so well , what can I say” i did not see FFG coming off as an extreme raw foodist at all. I know much more extreme raw foodists out side of ADi dam.
” I know how it is to think you have found all the answers through diet….. ” and so forth. That is not what FFG was indicating at all. I wonder sometimes if people reading his posts are from another country and need a translator to get the English right. When Adi Da is talking about “right life” and “right diet” he is not talking about an idealistic life of getting super healthy or anything like that. I do not think jacob has ever read Adi Da’s views on diet and exercise and so forth. According to this post he is just saying what he heard second hand, like so many do with Adi da and other teachers too , for that matter.
And I have seen myself that the so called “sattwic” life of good diet and exercise and being grounded in work and so forth do serve as a good base for doing real practice that is embodied and not just in the head so to speak, just talking. I mean the spirituality of Asia is very grounded often in physical yogas and diet and so forth . I mean look at the system of chi gung in regulating the life force. Flick RAhke I am just starting to get my energy back and will hopefully get back to my “real” life of meditation and dancing and surfing and hanging out with various meditation and practice groups and getting the fuck out of my house and off cyberspace. And I am currently enjoying reading Adi Da’s teaching again and feeling the transmission in them. I want to get some of the new books, including the Basket of Tolerance and the Altheon when they come out.
I think that Adi Da stepping aside from his body and personality is generally a postive thing and he certainly has no problem with it. I think that he felt like he had to teach the way that he did, but it was difficult and complicated for most everyone and I think his “work” in the sense of more hearing about him and getting interested will actually grow now that his eccentric personality has been reabsorbed so to speak. Things will be very different and less complicated in many ways. There was always a direct spiritual relationship available with Adi Da and he did mostly emphasize that if you really read his teachings, but it was complicated by either being cultically obsessed with or cultically reactive to his eccentric personality and dramatic ways and style. I do not really see an inner gangster type thing happening and his daughters are very sweet and pretty noncultic really although they loved him as their father. I think namleela is pretty amazing although she is the one daughter that I know not at all. I think the two women who were very close to Adi Da would prefer to simply be priestesses in his temple on Fiji and practice in that way. Perhaps they will become fully enlightened. no way of knowing. it is not a linear process. We don’t even know how much longer this precarious planet will survive , so these discussions of Adi da are sort of silly in the big scheme of things , although evidently distracting and entertaining.
Certainly more educational than t.v. and the news. I don’t know if droves of people will go to adi dam in the future. I doubt it because most on this planet are not interested much in any sort of spiritual life, even though it is inherent to all. And I have no idea how many if any will wake up . That is up to the individual how much it is worth it to them I just think that now it will be simpler and less complicated in ADi DAm whatever Flick Rahke
January 23, 2009 at 8:13 pm
I would say that at least here, I have by far the least fundamentslist and cultic view of things
Adi Dam and other as anyone. Some here are more Da funadmentalist in their expression sometimes, and most in the fundamentalist and cultic attitude of the mostly modern day and recent times “cultbusting” that comes out of a sometimes justified reaction to some of the modern religions. and also modern versions of old religions such as Chrsistian fundamentalists. I personally have no problem with people practicing freely in the modern religions including scientology. many seem to get great life benefits to it. Tom Cruise seems very bright and intelligent to me and pretty happy.
Ton Hubbard is not my cup of tea. Flick
Rahke
January 23, 2009 at 8:16 pm
Feel4God.
I have not got into the process of discussing specific items back-and-forth because I generally don’t see the value in it (and because writing takes me a long time – I do have other things in my life to attend to besides blogging). I get a ‘take’ on things when I read peoples’ writings irrespective of the details – I think it’s called ‘transmission’!? So, when I read your (or anyone else’s) postings I get an instinctive feeling about what underlies that person’s writings. So, for example, when I read Conradg’s posts it’s immediately clear to me that what he writes comes ostensibly from a highly developed mind. Which is both a strength and a liability. And, as it happens, I do occasionally enjoy such conversations.
When I read your posts (and when I am in the company of devotees in general) I feel your closure irrespective of what you write. To you, it seems otherwise. You feel you are being freed by your ‘recognition’ of who Adi Da is, whereas I feel you are espousing platitudes and are contracted. I persist in communicating with you because of the potential to uncover things of value for both of us. I had a similar disposition to you many years ago when I was a devotee (as have many others here on this blog) so I know what it’s like to hold onto a practice and a ‘recognition,’ and to be oblivious to the cultic and fundamentalistic disposition underlying it all. You might also see this one day, perhaps after you allow enough people of good will to show you. Or you may not.
On the other hand, as you refer to in your post, there are those who have left Adidam who justify their departure based on intellectual understanding, false notions of non-dualism, and adolescent reactivity to the Spiritual Master. I am guilty of all of them. I don’t have a ‘practice’ as such anymore, not one that gets me anywhere in any case, and I don’t seek ‘enlightenment’ because there is no such thing (this does not mean there is no such thing as Spiritual Reality!). My diet varies over time as my body changes and as I come to understand more and more the place of ‘practices’ in spiritual reality. I am no longer a vegetarian because I find some flesh foods help me maintain a healthy weight. Yes, I used to spend many hours in empowered meditation halls (where Adi Da’s padukas were housed, etc). I don’t have a spiritual master now – Adi Da is a hard act to follow! I And so on, and so forth. If you believe ‘right-diet’ (and submission to Adi Da) leads to realization, or even if you just do it because of love, then so be it. You will no doubt continue to do it…. until you don’t. Or not.
I am an ordinary person who stumbled into Adi Da, felt his transmission and got my ass kicked intensely for a number of years, then left because I could no longer maintain a false civility or say or do anything that did not feel right for me, irrespective of whether it got me onto retreat in his company. The process of relinquishing my cultic associations with Adi Da and his community was a long one and obviously still continues to this day. A year ago, I spent 6 months writing an essay titled ‘Leaving Adidam’ which details that process. You can download it at http://home.exetel.com.au/eddieblatt/writer/Leaving%20Adidam.doc if you really want to know the full story.
The three words that best describe my understanding of Adi Da, Adidam, and any other topic whatsoever pertaining to spirituality is ‘I don’t know.’ Every day is a challenge, a challenge to maintain my integrity in the midst of conflicting desires and the ups and downs of life. My main ‘practice’ is to observe when I am contracted and to act on that discovery. I have the faith that even in the midst of it all everything is as it should be. I don’t argue dharma because it presumes separation and there is no such thing as objective reality. I don’t compare myself to others anymore, seeing it as utterly useless and devaluing each person’s individuality and their required path, and I do not defend any beliefs, practices, ways, or gurus as being the only authentic means for liberation. I do allow myself to be addressed by friends, but only those who do not insist on seeing everything through the (false) prism of one point-of-view.
As mentioned above, writing takes me a long time (and I do have other things in my life to deal with besides blogging) so if I have not answered all of your questions it’s not because I am in avoidance, it’s just because I am tired. But I do have a challenge for you. If you communicated only what you really knew – not what you have read or been told or transmitted to by Adi Da, or imagined might take place in the future – what would you have to say? I would enjoy reading that! You see, I want to know about YOU, not what you have acquired or repeat because Adi Da said it.
Oh, before I take leave, I must pass comment on one particular statement you made:
‘Daists have become far more discriminating about what is bullshit and what is not.’
As I see it, that is just not possible until the elemental closure I encountered, and continue to encounter in devotees becomes clear to them. Otherwise, the intimacy we all want will keep on being undermined by the falsity exemplified by ‘us and them’ and ‘we have it and you don’t,’ and ‘I know and you are deluding yourself,’ and “Adi Da is the only way to absolute Truth,’ etc., etc. While this closure remains obscured from consciousness, your sentence that the ‘possibility in Adidam to actually transcend fundamentalism by being radically devoted to Adi Da – given Who He Is’ remains platitudinal and mere fantasy.
So, do we have a real conversation here, or what?
January 23, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Thanks Jacob for the link. Actually, I never found the raw diet possible until the green drinks were incorporated into the diet. Victoria Boutenko’s findings make all the difference. Plus, we have actually gotten pretty sophisticated with raw food, using a dehydrator often, etc.
Jacob, I do understand that raw food or any substance is not going to enlighten anyone. However, Adi Da has always taught that a sattvic diet helps to provide a necessary foundation to allow the being to receive His Conscious Light of Love-Bliss Reality more readily and deeply in the body-mind. Without a sattvic diet, the body-mind is typically agitated, tamasic, anything but equaniminous.
It was on this basis that I ask if people are serious enough about their non-dual practice to allow for the bodily equanimity that diet, and all the other yogas traditionally recommended (and definitely by Adi Da), result in.
Many people I have spoken to who have left the formal practices of Adidam took to various substances such as pot, ecstacy, etc. – in order to feel greater insight into the inherent non-dual Truth. However, such experiences generally have to keep being refreshed through repeat usage of the substance – and becoming dependent on any accessory (in fact, any usage whatsoever now) is never recommended in the Teachings of Adi Da.
Jacob Says:
“I know how it is to think you have found all the answers through diet and spiritual practice. But I think you will find that what you appear to have found is just thoughts in your mind. The truth is not really something to be achieved through diet or doctrine.”
I can only assume from this statement that you have not been reading most of my posts. Where did I say anything about finding truth “through diet or doctrine”?
January 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Feel4God,
I’m not sure what the point is of asking everyone what their diet is. For my part I’ve done all the various diet programs in Adidam, even before they became popular. I was living on green drinks 10-15 years ago and raw foods and all kinds of esoteric stuff. I came to the general conclusion that it was a good supplement to a healthy diet, but if one were restricted to just that it was generally a negative and even deluding thing. My sense is that a basic, balanced mostly organic diet is the best, not too much of anything, not too little of anything, and no particular emphasis on diet as having much to do with non-dual practice. Moderation in all things.
I’ve known people who were really into raw foods and various other programs, and I found that they appeared more screwed up than people on the ordinary average diet, but in a different way. So I’m not really supportive of the notion that this kind of diet is really the best for non-dual practice. It seems actually to have some deluding effects that result in an ungrounded and even fanatical approach. Cultism, you know? But to each his own, I guess.
My diet has a fairly decent range, but it’s mostly organic and whole grain, fruits and vegies, salads, green drinks with all those crazy ass swamp grass powders, various oddball supplements and anti-oxident concentrates at times, but also a little bit of meat or fish now and then. I maybe have a glass of wine once every couple of months, a toke maybe once a month, more if I’m getting hay fever really bad, nothing special.
In general, diet just isn’t as important as Adi Da made it out to be in my view. The more important issue is how much attention gets sucked up in diet, and all that raw fooding and green-drinking can get pretty obsessive. Non-dualism isn’t about the body-mind anyway, so putting too much attention on such things is counter-productive. Ramana advised a simple vegetarian diet, but of course he lived in impoverished India with its own cultural background, and he never told westerners they had to eat the Indian style.
Now, you also mentioned something about fundamentalism being seen as egoity itself, and I didn’t comment because I thought that was just too simplistic, to the point of meaninglessness. I mean, everything can be reduced to egoity at some level, but it doesn’t shed much insight onto the workings of fundamentalism to look at it that way. Fundamentalism is a particular way the mind works, or doesn’t work really, in which discrimination and basic cognitive functions are disturbed and made dysfunctional. You might as well say diet is just about egoity. Fine, but you still got to know how nutrition actually works to understand it. A dysfunctional diet can certainly be a detriment, and so can a dysfunctional mind. Understanding that dysfunctional pattern is important in both cases.
January 23, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Flick,
I can relate to what you’re saying about some of the anti-cult books. Some really do lay it on with a materialistic bent and plain old anti-religion. Some of it comes to ridiculous conclusions that aren’t much different from cultism itself. But in some sense that’s exactly what I mean – some of these guys are just on the opposite side of the coin from cultism, they haven’t actually broken past black and white thinking themselves. Once they were in a cult and thought it was great, now they’re out of the cult and they think it’s all bad. Not terribly insightful, really.
But that’s not really what I’m talking about. There’s a whole lot of much more sophisticated and intelligent literature out there about how the mind works, how the brain works, how cognition works, the deeper psychology of all these things, and this is very interesting stuff. Some of it appears in the anti-cult books, and some of it is presented well, some not. I try to take the best from those books and leave what isn’t meaningful to me. I have a sense of what kind of books you probably read, and I can understand the reaction, but there’s more too it all than this superficial anti-religion propaganda one sometimes finds. Behind the pop-psychology is some genuine research and understanding that holds up very well, if you go to the sources and not the just popularizers.
The kind of thinking I was criticizing isn’t some cult fantasy, however, it’s very real. People really do tend to think in black/white, all or nothing terms about religion. Like I say, your own formula, that it all boils down to whether someone thinks Adi Da is realized or not, is an example of this. Are you still defending that, or do you see through that as way too simplistic? How different is it really from someone who says it’s all a question of whether you accept Jesus as your personal savior or not, or the Bible as the word of God or not, or the Koran, etc.? All these religions set up false dichotomies where you either have to accept this whole package, or reject it. To the degree Adidam also does that, it’s just a cult. Same as Christianity and the others.
But there is a different way of approach religion, and I think you not only know that, but you try to do things that way yourself, at least to some degree. That’s why you don’t get very involved in Adidam, I think. I know you well enough to say that you aren’t the fanatical gung-ho type, and I think that’s a good thing. It’s not just laziness, it’s also a sense that being the macho spiritual practitioner downing sprouts and green drinks and doing everything on his checklist is deluding himself. He’s trying to make it all work, and damned if Spirit just doesn’t work that way. It takes a softness and an openness that simply isn’t there in the hard core fanatics.
As for Papaji, I really like the guy a lot, but I admit he had some wierdness in his scene in the last years of his life, when all these hippies suddenly started showing up. I find it odd that people blame him for Andrew Cohen, when the guy only spent five weeks with Papaji, whereas he was student in Adidam for two whole years. I think he was a lot more inspired by Adi Da’s example than Papaji’s, and one of the problems was he very quickly spun away from Papaji’s teaching style and began to emulate Adi Da instead. It’s true Papaji said some crazy ass things about Andrew during his five weeks, and gave him all sorts of experiences, but he did that with a ton of people during that time. Literally, Papaji was for some reason giving all these people sudden experiences of the Divine, more than Adi Da ever did during Garbage and the Goddess, and people genuinely felt that they were enlightened. In some ways Papaji was actually like Da during that time, teaching people a lesson about spiritual experience and their own delusions, not just by talking about it, but by giving them all kinds of direct initiation in these things. It was apparently a very genuine and yet genuinely confusing demonstration that has taken years and years for people to settle into and figure out for themselves.
As you know, Papaji quickly denounced all these people claiming to have been enlightened by him, and said that none of them were for real, including Cohen and Gangaji, so whatever they are doing, it’s not Papaji’s teaching or work.
My sense for Papaji is that he recognized that these westerners needed some rather dramatic lessons and demonstrations, and so he gave them that. Some of them understood, and some did not. It certainly created a rather bizarre scene with many repercussions around the globe, but it’s not really representative of Papaji’s own teaching and work. As David Godman pointed out, when Papaji told you that you are that, and that enlightenment was right now, and required no effort, he was deadly serious, because in his direct company this was really the case, and he could awaken that powerful intuition in an instant. That kind of initiation has tremendous power, and taken rightly can certainly propel you to the full realization. But it takes real persistence in that, and I think Papajji knew that the westerners coming to him had no real capacity for that, they would have to develop that capacity over time. But he gave it to them anyway, with the intention that it would at least initiate a process in them over time which would help them see beyond the ego. It produces a lot of controversy and even petty squabbling, but that’s the kind of thing I see as at least partially beneficial to the general western culture that has been trying to grasp what non-dualims is about for the last fifty years or so.
Now, I’d put Adidam in a similar category, actually. It’s mostly been a lesson about what non-dualism isn’t, with some direct experience of what non-dualism thrown in for good measure. Adi Da’s by no means a total fraud. There’s something valuable in his spiritual transmission, I certainly experienced him that way. In fact, I’d have to say that in all my years in Adidam, I never really had any trouble with Adi Da in the Darshan Hall or in meditation. I never had the sense that he was doing anything evil, or what some people call black magic. In fact I remember in my last darshan with him intentionally going there to see if I could detect anything like that, and I found nothing of the kind. So I wouldn’t suggest that he’s spiritually worthless, or incapable of doing anyone any good. Quite the opposite, I benefitted significantly from him. I just didn’t come to the conclusion that he’s the be-all and end-all of religion, or free of life-level problems.
But as far as transmission goes, I’ve never felt it limited to Adidam-related books and halls and so forth. I find all kinds of profound transmission in all kinds of spiritual literature, not just Ramana but all these non-dual dudes, and even lots of lesser people. I’ve read channelled material of the nutty-fruitcake variety, and there’s transmission there too. There’s transmission all over the place. Eddie was quoting the Course in Miracles, a great book, and I find powerful transmission from that also. I see photos of spiritual teachers, and I feel transmission. My wife looks at me with love, and I feel transmission. I think of something, or nothing, and I feel transmission. It doesn’t have to be Da.
When Da died, I went to the local Adidam center and offered flowers to him, and I felt his transmission there, I felt him personally present, and that was good, because I wanted to pay my respects. As I said, I found him to have a rather humous attitude about it all, not upset at all, and not at all serious as the devotees there were. I didn’t feel any sense of sorrow or loss about his death, and he seemed to want to let me know that. But I’ll be honest, the transmission was no stronger or more “non-dual” than anything else I experience on any other day when I meditate. I felt no need to return, in other words. It had its particular qualities, to be sure, but it just wasn’t what I’m about anymore.
I’d agree with you about the lack of realizers in Adidam being no big deal if we look at Adi Da as just another spiritual teacher, like J. Krishnamurti or Papaji or Amamchi or whomever. So he didn’t produce much, that’s really no skin off my back, I got from him what I got, and it was certainly valuable to me while it lasted. It’s only in comparison to his grandiose claims and expectations that it looks bad. Obviously a guy who claims to be the greatest realizer ever with this grand service of being the guy who enlightens and Divinely Translates the entire conditional cosmos ought to show a little bit more skill and results than the average spiritual teacher. That he didn’t kind of looks bad. Just saying.
ny realizes there, although I could not say for sure. I know there is talk here about realizers around maharshi. My buddy knows a lot about Maharshi too and has read all the books and was mentioning to me a lot of the names mentioned here. So I am still be educated in that one. But I don’t think there were very many. My friend has mentioned around four and he told me that a couple of them were at very advanced levels of their practice when they first came to Ramana.
As for Crazy Wisdom teachers, yeah there were some good ones. But Da himself says he’s not actually in that tradition, and if you examine it, you’ll see that he’s right, for better or worse. So it’s not really a meaningful comparison. Many of those stories are actually mythical in any case, and we don’t much know what the truth is behind them. And you’re right, the left-handed path is tough on everyone, which is why it’s rarely used, and rarely results in fruitful practice. It’s no great surprise that it didn’t turn out very well in Adidam either.
January 23, 2009 at 9:53 pm
flick:
“I asked him a question on two occasions that no one knew i was going to ask ahead of time.”
sure. that happened, especially in the old days. my involvement was more recent and it was definitely not possible to simply ask him a question without prior approval. feel4god should be able to confirm that. even some people who served him directly had to address him through a spokes-person.
why?
the most common official adidam justification is that mr. jones was in such a refined state that any inappropriate address could create a “disturbance” for him.
how come – i ask – that a fully realized being could possibly be disturbed by reality itself – the very “thing” he has claimed to realize? does nobody else see how utterly ridiculous that is??
that btw, was also the official explanation for all the lies going to and from mr. jones.
no exaggeration here. EVERYBODY who has ever served mr. jones closely knows that this is a well-known fact. he was consistently lied to in order not to create a “disturbance” and his response was consistently distorted (often to a degree that can only be called a lie). again, feel4god should be able to confirm that.
how can a fully realized being possibly be disturbed by anything that arises, since everything that arises is immediately recognized as arising in awareness as awareness?
just another example that the entire adidam setup is just utter nonsense and has little to do with non-duality.
flick, you use so many prejudices and misconceptions in your posts. you make statements, only to say in one of the next sentences that you have not really been there or only had very little contact with mr. jones, etc. you must be really bored to write such superficial responses or something, i don’t know. it seems you write first and think later.
one of your last such examples was the statement about naamleela: “I think namleela is pretty amazing although she is the one daughter that I know not at all.”
as i said: it seems you write first and think later. if you knew naamleela you might not make such a statement. but i don’t really want to go down that road. so far, there are no claims of her being a realizer…
as far as your statements about buddha go, you may want to read the diamond sutra. it might clarify some things for you.
an excellent newer translation can be found here:
http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_translation.html
a few quotes for all of us to contemplate:
“… if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple.”
“… the Buddha cannot be recognized by means of his bodily form. Why? Because when the Buddha speaks of bodily form, it is not a real form, but only an illusion.”
and yet, even in the diamond sutra there is talk of karma and people and past lifes, etc. here is the buddha’s explanation (also in the diamond sutra):
“When the Buddha explains these things using such concepts and ideas, people should remember the unreality of all such concepts and ideas. They should recall that in teaching spiritual truths the Buddha always uses these concepts and ideas in the way that a raft is used to cross a river. Once the river has been crossed over, the raft is of no more use, and should be discarded. These arbitrary concepts and ideas about spiritual things need to be explained to us as we seek to attain Enlightenment. However, ultimately these arbitrary conceptions can be discarded. Think Subhuti, isn’t it even more obvious that we should also give up our conceptions of non-existent things?”
January 23, 2009 at 10:17 pm
C L says:
““Transmission” of the “non-dual Truth” is an oxymoron.
Shakti, power, experience, even samadhi, is raw data to be interpreted and/or understood by one’s buddhi. If buddhi is not awakened, then the conditioned mind takes its place with the interpreting process, originating false conclusions. Nothing is “transmitted”. At all times, all arises as the content of One’s awareness.”
yes, so true. your posts are always a breeze of fresh and clear air on this blog.
the transmission teaching of mr. jones really does not hold up when looked at with an understanding of non-duality.
i once asked sailor bob adamson whether he had any siddhis and i indirectly mentioned transmission. from his answer it was so refreshingly clear that those concepts do not make any sense to him whatsoever. his living “experience” simply has no room for such concepts. for him there just is no other. so, how could there possibly be a transmission?
now, i can understand how such concepts can OCCASIONALLY be used as “rafts to cross the river” (referring to a quote from the diamond sutra in my last post). no problem there. but to make this an essential component of adidam and then try to sell it as non-duality just doesn’t hold up. another point that shows how little adidam has to do with non-duality.
January 24, 2009 at 12:28 am
Conradg,
Likewise I appreciate your insights. I think we are closer than it appears. Let me see it if I can frame this in a way you find more reasonable.
“But I do take exception to the notion that this is actually an important matter in regards to most of the problems with Adi Da. The issue of whether Adi Da is an egoless realizer really has no serious significance in relation to virtually any of Adi Da’s abuses or indulgences, or his misrepresentations of the traditions. If Adi Da says that 2+2=5, it won’t suddenly become true if Adi is an egoless realizer of the Acausal Divine. Likewise, if Adi Da abuses a devotee, that won’t suddenly make it morally and spiritually acceptable, simply because he is recognized as “egoless”.
I start with the understanding that for many, these behavioral issues are not considered as reliable information as some of us know they are and as those familiar with cultic behavior from similar groups would understand. And that many do not understand the nuances of the non-dualist traditions regarding behavior, and how such things are judged with reasonable confidenct. Thus while we can and should be critical about some of Da’s behavior, there is a more common threshold of percieved probable accuracy to be met. That is why the accounts are either doubted or considered exaggerated, while Adidam in response waters down the stories to accounts that may seem justifiable as skillful means by a clear misrepresentation of the traditions regarding acceptable jnani behavior based on isolated incidents of one or more jnanis behavior, often mixed with legend. We realize this distortion is necessary, of course, to maintain the image of Adi Da as the Promised God Man, when his behavior, including misrepresention of sound dharma, clearly has the best probability of fit in the range between the lowest class of jnani and the class of men whose Jnana is contradicted by worldly pursuits, being only a semblance of it.
An example of how this is done is the references to the more extreme end of behavior, Drukpa Kunley, about whom is written:
“One of the best-known crazy adepts of the Himalayan countries is Drukpa Kunley, who lived in the fifteenth century. Although he was an actual person, many of the stories told about him belong, at least in part, to the realm of legend and hagiolatry. Nevertheless, the outrageous exploits ascribed to him and other crazy-wisdom adepts convey quite well the flavor of Tibetan-style holy folly. After his enlightenment, Drukpa Kunley divested himself of his monastic robes and became an itinerant “clown,” achieving considerable renown for his ability to drink massive amounts of Tibetan beer and seduce the ladies. He delighted in rejecting easy or conceited women, however pretty, but spared no efforts to win the heart of those in whom he saw great spiritual potential. As tradition would have it, Drukpa Kunley’s countless sexual adventures were all initiatory occasions. He was a true Tantric, for whom sex is a vehicle of spiritual transformation.”
As we know from their respective stories, we can not ascertain whether he was a jnani, but it seems that whereas Drukpa Kunley loved the intoxication of drink, he seemed more interested in spiritual potential than physical attributes. Da on the other hand was much more into physical attributes and more exotic sexual behavior and intoxication of those involved, without the demostrated initiatory results. Too often the results were like those reported by Georg Fuerstein, Da’s seduction of a wife and the intoxication and exclusion to of a husband, a questionable and disturbing incident with negative impacts lasting well beyond the event. What is a particularly radical departure in Adidam dogma is the idea that the inability to show consistent rational for these events through resulting great spiritual progress includes more difficulties in this life is justified by alleged benefits in future lives, for example, Da’s spreading of herpes to many knowing that he had it. This is an example of where the considerations of behavior and realization intersect and inform the decision. That is because the combination of Da’s misrepresentation of the non-dual traditions, even outright heresy, and behavior that on its own is not only suspect but does not demonstrate the results required for skillful means, makes the crazy wisdom Realizer justification too improbable given that jnanis adapt their actions to the needs of others. This is something that only discussion of behavior in isolation can’t do, rather, it is the wholistic picture of what would be reasonably acceptable behavior associated with jnana informed by results.
It is a case of simple probability, where each dimension of appraisal, including affects the odds of a person:
(1) being a jnani given the behavior (to what ever extent a person can accept that it happened)
(2) the problematic results that fail to show skillful means
(3) that a jnani would fundamentally misunderstand and increasingly misrepresented basic dharma
(4) that a jnani would most closely resemble some state between the lowest class of a (barely) jnani and and outright self-delusion about one’s jnani state, and
(5) that a jnani destined to be a World Teacher would come in such an extreme form unacknowledge by other jnanis and act in ways that do not visibly draw or serve more qualified aspirants but instead rewards cultism.
The collective probability of all these being true of a jnani as they would have to be in Da’s case is, in practical terms based on the non-dualist traditions, very low in Da’s case, meaning the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on Da. And since the behavior itself is justifiably challenged as you say, and Da’s justification for it based being enlightened is on sounder assessments of the traditions highly improbable to say the least, it must be throughly tested to be considered remotely acceptable according to those same traditions.
“As I pointed out in my last past, this whole issue of realization has nothing to do with justifying or excusing behavior one way or the other. If we do recognize Da as a realizer, it still doesn’t change what he’s done, nor does it change the way we should look upon his actions. Action is in the world of causes and effects. Thus, we should judge action by its own qualities, character and effects. If Da was an asshole, he was an asshole, regardless of his level of realization. If he wasn’t, he wasn’t.”
I agree in principle. And the traditions clearly state that we should judge the actions of a claimed jnani by its effects, based on the Dattatreya principle. The issue in respect to others is the level of acknowledgement of the actual behavior, and at what point the reports are considered credible. I agree that there is enough credible information that “recognizing” Da on such suspect and subjective grounds as has been shown is no different than those faith based deciders who “recognize” many other contemporary controversial spiritual figures as Avatar like figures, despite the reams of evidence to the contrary. I consider such “recognition” a non-dharmic distortion, and simply interpretation and faulty mental extropolation of transitory subtle and psychophysical experiences into something the traditions demonstrate they are not. But it is easier to show that the rationale that Da is enlightened making the behavior somehow mysteriously beneficial as claimed, despite obvious negative effects, is more improbable the more dimensions you examine wholistically. One measure is a measure, multiple measures are a pattern.
“Certainly, it seems less probable that a realizer would act in the ways that Da has done, but in fairness we can’t come to any absolute conclusions about his realization merely by looking at his actions. As Flick points out, it’s not really a big deal that he did all the drugs and sex and so forth that he did. But neither does his spirituality in any way make those indulgences acceptable. In fact, that’s one of the many problems with Adidam. Adi Da did all kinds of obviously self-indulgent, stupid, irresponsible, and counter-productive things that were both self-destructive and destructive of others, and no one ever stopped him because of his status as Guru and realizer. Instead, they actually encouraged him in all of these things most of the time, assuming that if he did it, it must be not just okay, but Divine.”
I do not defend that non-dharmic concept in Adidam at all, and the traditions do not support such an approach. Even the Guru Gita, which the organization was fond of quoting selectively while I was involved as demanding faith in the guru, points out that if you find your guru being contrary to the dharma, you are obliged to correct them, and if they persist, obliged to depart. Again, the root of the problem is that Adidam lacks mature dharmic understanding, and selectively distorts and misinterprets traditions to come to inaccurate and even non-dharmic conclusions. This seems based on a combination of ignorance because they see Da as complete if there is any dissonance, and an inability to comprehend the wholistic teaching, due to the need for easy resolution of the cognitive dissonance on their interpretation of such traditions. That was evident in the whole Ramana Maharshi discussion, where it became necessary to agree to disagree on what are widely seen to be fundamental misconceptions and misinterpretations.
“This whole dharma of “recognition” that Flick and Feel4God are trying to promote is not only a cultic phenomena, but a total distortion of the genuine, non-cultic spiritual traditions of devotion to a Guru. It is a complete corruption of the principle of true Guru-recognition to use it as a way to excuse and defend irresponsible and self-indulgent behavior on the part of would-be Gurus. If Adi Da over-indulged in drugs, it makes no difference if we recognize him as egoless, they are still going to have a negative and deluding effect on him, just as they would on anyone else. If Adi Da overeats, smokes, drinks alcohol, and doesn’t exercise, he’s going to develop heart-disease, and suffer an early death, regardless of whether he is an egoless realizer or not. And if Adi Da abuses money, hoards his riches at the expense of poor and malnourished devotees, spends it profligately on himself, on silly brickabrack, and stashes it in Swiss bank accounts, it doesn’t make all of that morally defensible simply because he is an egoless realizer. ”
Yes, as stated above, I realize this whole Adidam concept of “recognition” is not dharmic, it is the deification of mental constructions. And the failure of those in Adidam to understand and rightly apply traditions like the Guru Gita to this situation is, quite possibly I think, the true betrayal that led to his premature death. I believe it is ironic that the insider betrayal it is known from early accounts that Da always feared could lead to his to his death, which I think he misinterpreted through his own prism into seeking more and more insularity, came in this form. Just a hypothesis, of course.
“I think you know this, but I want to remind you of it, because sometimes when you engage in arguments about Da’s realization, you almost seem to think that it really is the central issue in these debates about Da, as if, were you to become convinced of Da’s realization, then it really would make everything else fall into place and seem both acceptable and even some kind of Divine Blessing. I simply don’t see how it would change anything of any significance, and I don’t think the traditions see it that way either. So the whole issue of figuring out what Da’s realization might have been is just entertaining, maybe educational, but not in itself the most important point of criticism, in part because up to a certain point it’s just unknowable.”
I hope I have clarified that concern for the most part. Again, I understand that the traditions have given us enough to make reasonable assessments based on multiple dimensions as well as guidance on what to do about it. If all dimensions align in the same direction as they do in this case from that standard when you consider all the details wholistically, one is dharmically justified in taking appropriate action on the basis of such probability.
“Yet there is indeed a genuine traditional instruction about the importance of recognizing the Guru. This has to do with the profound process of seeing the Guru as one’s very Self. It has nothing to do with seeing the Guru as some kind of perfect vessel of the Divine, whose every act is by definition perfect and therefore excuses all kinds of abuse. Quite the opposite, the Guru as seen as the embodiment of all virtues because the Guru actually lives a virtuous life, and never deviates from that. He does this naturally, as an expression of his realization. But in Daism, this is turned upside down, and it is said that whatever Da does is virtuous, because he is realized, so he doesn’t have to act virtuously at all. He is “free” to act non-virtuously, as if that is what freedom means. Again, a total perversion of the whole idea of freedom. In every respect, the Daist version of Guru-recognition represents an inversion and a perversion of the traditional teachings.”
Once again, I agree in principle. Normally, one might not pay such attention to teachings which could be technically accurate based on learning, and pay more attention to actions. In this case, the “inversion and perversion” you refer to is so blantant that according to traditions, that alone is sufficient reason to walk away and soundly doubt realization, “recognition” or not. Jnanis enlighten and enliven dharma, they do not revise and pervert it as Da has done. The actions align to the same conclusion and are even more reason for walking away.
“The spiritual force of recognition is highly important to the process of realization. I’ve mentioned before Nisargadatta’s own process in relation to his Guru, who told him on their first meeting that Nisargadatta was the Supreme Being. This is of course the opposite of Adi Da’s process of recognition, in which the devotee recognizes Da as the Supreme Being. Nisargadatta’s Guru was acting in the traditional manner, pointing not to himself, but to the devotee’s true Self, telling his devotee to recognize the Supreme Being as his very Self. For Nisargadatta, this was a complere turnaround in his entire way of looking at everything. He said he could not refute what his Guru told him. He could see that his Guru had nothing to gain by lying to him, he seemed utterly trustworthy, wanting nothing for himself, but was giving everything to his devotee instead. So he felt an intrinsic sense of trust in his Guru, and in his simple words, and the power of that instruction propellled him to discover if this were actually true, if he really was the Supreme Being. And as Nisargadatta said, the whole of his practice was really the result of this faith in his Guru, which compelled him to prove the truth of what his Guru had revealed to him.”
That revision of yet another basic dharmic concept is a critical difference between Adidam and the traditions. I always found it interesting that Da says, “I do not lie”, and then makes himself the Supreme Being, with everything else simply in relation to that “One” he is “most perfectly”. And sin becomes “avoiding relationship” to that Being. When in fact, as Ramana Maharshi says, supreme humbleness is the nature of the Divine, and even the gods recognize and serve each other. In truth, it is not to strong to say this Adidam concept of recognition is non-dharmic at its core. It is recognition of the Self that is critical.”
“There was nothing, absolutely nothing in this recognition of his Guru that in any way implied that this Guru could do anything he liked, no matter how lacking in virtue, and it would be considered Divine or true. The opposite was the case. The power of his words was dependent on the Guru being utterly virtuous and trustworthy, with nothing to gain for himself and everything to give to the devotee. He was not looking for gifts, for tithes, for services rendered, for sex, for a luxurious life, for anything.”
I agree, this concept that the guru can do anything they like, without concern for others, is a charmic perversion, just as Dattatreya said long ago. Buying access by contributing money or endorsements, and the like, well documented in the case of Da, is an example of how perverted this doctrine became.
“And Nisargadatta lived exactly the same life in relation to his own devotees when he became a Guru. He asked nothing from them, except the sincere and earnest application to his words and arguments. He didn’t ask for service, he didn’t ask for money, and in fact refused all such things. He supported himself and his family on his own labor. He suffered the usual hardships of a life in India, and it never occurred to him to take the easy way of having an ashram where he would be supported by others. He was offered such a circumstance many times, and turned it down. Which is why a western devotee of Nisargadatta meant it literally when he said that Nisargadatta was the only person he had ever met in his whole life who didn’t want anything from him. This kind of virtuous honesty greatly inspired many of his devotees, and made them take his teachings seriously, precisely because they came from a place of scrupulous honesty and virtue.”
True, but Nisargadatta was a jnani in a tradition of jnanis who lived that tradition fully, such as I beleive his guru’s other outstanding disciple, Sri Ranjit, who died not that long ago, did also.
“The same cannot be said of course for Adi Da. I don’t know that I ever met a single person in Adidam who actually trusted Adi Da. I knew some of the innermost and most highly placed people in Adidam, and all of them distrusted and feared Adi Da. They were terrified of letting Da have a say in their lives, because they never felt they could trust him to act virtuously in relation to them. I recall an incident where the famed head of the whole Institution yelled and screamed and begged me not to pass on to Adi Da any indications about his personal life, for fear of what Adi Da might decide he should do if the matter were brought to Da. This is simply not how it works in the traditions. There, one trusts the Guru, not in spite of his unvirtuous behavior, but precisely because of it.”
Adidam’s very structure is non-dharmic. Adi Da’s relation to his followers is non-dharmic. Their relation to the guru and each other is non-dharmic. The result can only be non-dharmic, period, just as the traditions say, no matter what experiences they have, which are really binding, not liberating. But that, and their blindness to that, is their karma.
“Papaji used to say that no true Guru would ever humiliate his devotees. And yet, humiliation was one of the standard methods of Adi Da’s relationship to devotees. Everyone who was around him couldn’t help but notice it. I saw him repeatedly enact these humiliation rituals in his personal company, sometimes with me. In Adidam, this was considered some kind of test of one’s recognition of Da, but this method has the principle ass-backwards. The whole point of the relationship to the Guru is one of mutual trust, not mutual distrust. It is about the demonstration of virtue by the Guru, not the demonstration of a lack of virtue, which somehow the devotee is supposed to overcome or explain by saying the Guru is egoless.”
Agreed. It is ironic that those such as this group who consider themselves superior to the traditions and beyond dharma are, in the end, the very proof it by negative example.
“I recall an incident in Papaji’s relationship with Ramana. After his own sudden realization shortly after meeting Ramana, Papaji continued to come to Ramana for years of instruction. He was considered by many at the time, including Ramana’s own brother, who was manager of the ashram, as Ramana’s most faithful disciple. And yet one day, during a discussion, Papaji heard Ramana give an instruction that didn’t sound right to him. Immediately Papaji spoke up very forcefully and objected to what Ramana said, without any compunction whatsoever. And as it happened, Ramana recognized his error and clarified what he meant. Now, this is of course the sort of thing that would never happen in Adidam. The idea that anyone would forcefully object to or correct some instruction Adi Da made would be sheer insanity. They would assume that everything he said was correct and true. They would rather spend years carrying out some crazy-ass instruction from Da than just come right out and say, hey, that’s just not true. Or, worse, that’s unethical, immoral, and just plain wrong.”
Jnanis inherently respect each other, as you can see from the dialogues between Ramana Maharshi and enlightened followers. And they do not mind clarifying anything in communication or action that is not interpreted correctly, for the sake of others. Ramana Maharshi was corrected by others, including animals and spirits, and recognized it was the Self that was doing the correcting. Jnanis have no egos.
“So I think it’s really, really important to understand that this whole notion of “recognition” as it is being preached here by Daists has nothing to do with genuine recognition of the Guru. One can recognize the Guru, and still point out when he is wrong. If one doesn’t, one will fall into error, which is of course what has happened in Adidam. Adi Da has taken advantage of the ignorance of these traditions by his devotees, and the manufacturing of myths about the traditions which justify his approach, which is simply invalid, plain and simple.”
Agreed. I see I did not sufficiently clarify the difference between “recognition” and Recognition.
“The devotional recognition of the Guru is a beautiful thing. It is the very means of realization. But if it is perverted by turning it on its head as an excuse for self-indulgent and irresponsible behavior, it loses that power, and devotees simply will not become enlightened. And that more than anything explains the lack of spiritual maturity in Adidam, and of course the absence of realizers. It’s not that people don’t have spiritual experience and energies and even genuine non-dual experience. But because the fundamental principles of spiritual life are constantly being perverted and inverted, these lead nowhere, and grow into nothing of greater value. If there is to be any spiritual maturity in Adidam, this principle would have to be restored, even if only one devotee at a time, even if it means leaving Adidam. Perhaps with Da now gone, there’s some hope of this occurring. But it will still require some fundamental changes, and there’s no sign of that yet.”
I do not want this to be seen as a personal attack. I am not a teacher, this is only my opinion, based on experience, and reading of the dharma available to all. As to whether Adidam will progress, I have not even seen a humble recognition that they do not really know what they think they do, and an understanding that being so essentially non-dharmic in so many ways is not an advantage as they think, but a trap. Discarding the dharma in so many dimensions can, under spiritual laws, only produce non-dharmic results. The karmic linkage with Da for those in Adidam, based on all I observed, is a common meme that involves a desire for special, non-dharmic revelations and short cuts to avoid the necessary learning stages addressed in the traditions. Those in Adidam hope to duplicate what they see is the realization of this desire in Da in their own case as well. But I believe the traditions are sound and actually work, and they predict that this shortcut does not work, and they predict exactly what we see in Adidam when dharmic distortion takes hold. One final comment. Adidam teaches all this is nothing but egoic resistance to the very Divine, a non-dharmic distortion in itself. This recognition that it was not ego after all was not possible until we were ready. Until then, Adidam will hear only ego in all this. Adidam as a whole is far from ready to suspend belief, they are still “knowers”. The future will reflect this reality in many cases.
January 24, 2009 at 12:49 am
I realize I should restate the “Dattatreya Principle” I referred to. Dattatreya was an ancient Guru, enlightened by the elements themselves, and traditionally considered a primal example of a guru. He also appeared harmlessly mad. What he remarked once was (paraphrasing) something like this:
“Although the jnani has absolute freedom, they do not exercise this freedom or behave in in a manner that would lead others into error.”
This is a basic principle for jnanis.
Da’s teaching and actions are non-dharmic and opposed to that basic principle. He sees himself as free to do whatever his desires lead him to do and to command all others, and leads groups into error for his own “demonstrations”. And he sees himself like a fire that burns everything in its path, you must stay away or whatever happens is your responsibility, and in the end, you will be burned anyway to suit his demands.
As a result, I do not consider it very likely that Da is realized.
January 24, 2009 at 3:39 am
I was a vegetarian for the most part before I ever heard of Da and I remain one. A basic lacto-vegetarian diet in modern quantities is all Ramana Maharshi said was sufficient for spiritual purposes, and dogma isn’t something I concern myself with anymore. I eat more for health which is probably the best thing I can do for spiritual practice as well. I prefer organic for obvious reasons when it makes sense. Other than that basic approach, for me it is whatever works, and I pay attention to research on which foods are better than others, and not to dogma and food fadism. I did not do well when I experimented with totally raw and I do not consider that practical for everyone, especially with my body type and with age. I appreciate “green” foods periodically, but have seen no research that shows it produces tangible benefits over the basic lacto-vegetarian diet emphasizing foods with concentrated phytonutrients. I do not consider coffee, tea, wine, beer or chocolate problematic in reasonable quantities in the culture we live in, and I think the health benefits of these are proven in small quantities.
January 24, 2009 at 4:16 am
Flick,
Something you said reminds me of why I do not let old Adidam dogma concern me.
You say:
“i have always had a prediliction to masturbation since I was a teen and I know it is a big drawback in some ways. Adi Da worked directly in the sexual arena because we really are uselessly addicted to sex big time an obsessed with it grossly as a culture. And also very addicted and and attached to the romantic fantasy of coupling.”
First of all, it turns out that Da or not, nature knew what it was doing. Frequent masturbation in the teens and 20s greatly reduces the risk of prostate cancer. It isn’t even worth concerning yourself with directly one way or the other unless you are doing certain types of practices. Just another issue that isn’t one. Secondly, I disagree with your whole premise. Da’s emphasis on sexualty and coupling I consider a diversion. Ramana Maharshi dealt with this much more gracefully. When you no longer consider Da Realized, it become apparent how this focus reflected his tendencies and that there are better ways of approaching this in the traditions. What you do not yet realize is that when your practice is aligned and you are not trying to conform to some dogma in a conflcted way, nature does not present such a dilemma. Your practice does itself, lessons happen, and these diversions take care of themselves in the right time. I am surprised you haven’t picked this up from Amma yet.
January 24, 2009 at 4:40 am
Eddie B.,
Thanks for the suggestions. I haven’t read Jed McKenna or done any autolysis, but it sounds interesting. The idea of writing in the most stripped down form is certainly appealing in some sense, but obviously it takes a lot of time. Maybe it turns out to be the more efficient method of communication. Maybe I’ll try it.
I was always a big fan of Hemingway’s approach to writing. He once said that the most important possession a writer must have is a built-in bullshit detector. And then there’s Henry Miller’s approach, when he said writing’s easy, all you have to do is sit down at a typewriter and open up a vein. I do wish I could be more disciplined and precise in my writing, but it seldom comes out that way.
I think I did get your friend’s email a while back about writing a humor piece, but nothing really comes to mind that compels me to write. There’s a big difference between having one’s whole life turn out to be a joke, and having a funny story to tell. But maybe I’ll think of something.
Btw, I really liked your quote from A Course in Miracles. I too find a lot of that book hard to comprehend, but some of it is downright beautiful. It certainly helped me out at one time.
January 24, 2009 at 5:04 am
To follow what Conradg has said, it makes no sense to blame Papaji for all the so-called Realizers from the West that were not. Papaji said he was moved to do so, not that it was a conscious strategy. Andrew Cohen was far more influenced by Da, and must have been familiar with the presume your enlightenment period, and Da probably influenced the evolutionary enlightenment heresy as well. Papaji specifically said none of the westerners were really enlightened. Some, the wiser ones, simply contined their practice, avoiding all this egoic nonsense. A demonstration on the western ego I think, the tendency of which is always looking for shortcuts.
As for the tantric, left hand path emphasis in Adidam, agreed that that path simply doesn’t have a good track record of success outside of stories that may be substantially mythical. It’s appeal is more that it is fascinating. Recall that Da was first attracted to the path of occultism because of fascination with the possibilities, but his request for teacher was turned down. He then he became fascinated with kundalini yoga because of its very risk, and found Rudi who was also somewhat tantric in his approach. Now, as we know, even Mutkananda engaged in some secret tantric practices. Neither the path or the lineage seems to have met the success expected, what we see instead seems more like proof of the dangers. Not surprisingly, Ramana Maharshi approved of most paths but did not favor kundalini yoga because the risks were high, and yet this is the very path that Da chose.
January 24, 2009 at 6:27 am
Well Conrad, I must say that your last two posts here have been excellent. Yes you have quite an intellect and that has its pros and cons like anything , but you also have a heart too and that is evident in these posts to me. I don’t completely agree with everything, but most I do agree with and your tone and manner is very nice.
I am glad that you can feel the transmission we have been discussing in so many ways in so many circumstances. I have to different degrees too. such as with Ammachi and also the Tibetan dzogchen master, Anam Thubten, and at the vedanta temple for sure too. I don’t have a pretty wife like Victoria so I can’t say anything about transmission there. Personally though , i can say that if feel like I have felt “it” in a very pure and powerfully awakening form around Adi Da and in the halls and land and in the teaching, written and spoken. I like many other written and spoken teachings too, even in people not considered that “enlightened”‘ like Pema Chodron and I love Chogyam Trungpa. Yes there is a sort of a transmission in everyone and everything. Actually Adi Da talked about this himself in a talk sometime and I remember this. Sorry , Shiva , if I do not remember it exactly and perfectly. But still I remember him talking about this.
I guess that some here, who got in close to Adi Da feel hurt or whatever and hold a severe grudge. I feel for them in a way , except that their intense anger is a little hard to take. I don’t experience that myself because I never had that kind of experience with Adi Da myself and have no reason to be angry. Perhaps he was in a physically refined state . I was at Lopez Island the day after the “death” event and was there for a couple of weeks being a driver and seeing Adi Da every day. He did seem in a very refined state, but one could also say he had been very ill. But his spiritual “transmission” was extremely there and powerful. mark miller’s ex was in the living room leading a lot of call and response chanting and she was in quite a state. There was one time, when each person could go into Adi Da’s bedroom and sit at the foot of the bed and hang out for awhile. I did this and looked at his face and body and so forth and he appeared to be dissolved in light and just radiating pure light to me. His eyes were big and I could see no one home there. No one told me to see this or have this experience. It was my own direct observation and it did have an effect on me. I guess you could call it the “brainwashing” transmission, since no one was talking to me.
Yes I do not keep going back over my post and see what I have written and I do not think things out that much before I write, maybe I am even more “stream of consciousness” than Conrad. I don’t know
I found what you said in your last post about going down to center with the flowers quite touching, Conrad and how you had a sort of communing in a way with Adi Da. Whether you are into him or not, it shows your heart and respect.
As far as Adi Da’s proclamations about his realization and function, I can’t say if I know if they are true or not. Perhaps it will be shown in the future that they are true. I used to just say to myself and others that they had to be bullshit, but how could i know that ? I do think he was very special though , in my travellings in the traditions and with a variety of gurus and teachers. I think people in Adi Dam are open generally, they just feel like what they have is fine and good enough. i don’t think they are anything remotely like jesus freak fundamentalists myself. not even remotely perhaps we know different people in Adi Dam.
I do find some ex devotees to be very condescending and sneering and superior in their attitudes and manner. Like Shiva here for example. He does seem very angry and likes to lash out, maybe why that is why he is so superior and condescending. He seems to set Sailor bob up in the same way that he claims people set up Adi Da. I don’t see any difference myself. Well Shiva, perhaps you thing you are shiva , but I think you have a bug up your butt about the word use of “transmission” . It is just a word to describe the best one can a sense of “reality” or non duality or Oneness perhaps being reavealed directly to one in the “depth ” of their being. obviously it is hard to try to describe these things in words. I personally feel that Adi Da had a way to do this with his words that pointed very well to it. I feel that even the later and more obtuse writings do it too. So “transmission”: or “shransmission” or whatever.
But claiming that Sailor bob has it all over Adi Da is the same “mistake” that shiva is saying Adi Da people do. I think this is an ego trip myself.
I know a lot of people who do know namleela and they say good things about her. To me she just seems dedicated to her father as guru and to the practice. so i just threw her into the mix. i guess shiva does not like any sort of muddled thinking so he must be one of those “solids” Adi Da was referring to. This blog seems to be a haven for the “solid” types to me. FFG is pretty flowery with his devotion, but still seems that solid way to me. Solid people have always had a hard time with me and i can be pretty punky . Solid types like to be in control on all levels at all times . whatever i don’t care.
I did not know that Andrew Cohen had been with Adi Da ever. No wonder he had such a grudge against him once he was a guru himself. I went to see him once and to me he has absolutely nothing going. he asked new people if they had a teacher and i told him that my teacher was Da. he called me up on the stage and had me sit close and face to face with him. He wanted to find a way through me to discredit Adi Da. I told him that I was just curious about him and that I did not represent Adi Da or his community. I looked into his eyes and there was plenty there, plenty of andrew and plenty of venom and ego. yes the eyes are the “window of the soul” and I think there really is something when people refer to Adi Da as no one at home by looking into his eyes. Anyhow, I did not care much for Andrew Cohen. There are a lot of him around since papaji did his thing. Conrad has some pretty good explanations for what he did and certainly papaji had a very powerful awakening “transmission”{sorry about the use of this most hated word} I can feel this about him even though I never met him. wow now that is “peculiar”
As for the Diamond Sutra and my studies of Buddhism, thank you shiva for pointing me in the “right” direction. More judgement and condescending attitude. I have never been around someone who could sneer so well with his words. quite a siddhi in itself. I have read that text a few times and it is very advanced for sure.
I guess that Poonja was a sort of crazy wise guy himself and what he did cannot be explained or fathomed. I don’t care much myself for the enligntened teachers he sent out, but he knows more about it than me. I think his books are great, but his way of teaching had its quirks. What is an egoless or enlightend human supposed to look like? an old man in white with a long beard? The hippie white Jesus? Mother Theresa? Do enlightened humans fuck? do they eat raw or cooked? do they use money or not? Do they read and or write? Do they laugh and do they cry? Are they fat or skinny? do they ever have diarrhea or get sick? do they die? do they go up in light when they die? oh sorry, now my stuff is getting very superficial and stupid again because ai am not thinking it out enough.
conrad I eat pretty much the same diet as yu do. I personally think the diet and exercise and conductivity stuff is pretty important but not an end all . Most people eat such a bad diet that it must affect how they think and feel and act. And moving the body and energy in exercise seems pretty imortant to me in spiritual life. This kind of stuff I jive with in Adi Da’s teachings. Raw is pretty hard to adapt to although in principle I think it is goodl I have not done the green smoothies much yet, but I liked the Butenko bood and it made sense to me although it is unconventional and radical in its views. I have a friend in Hawaii who used to eat a regular veg diet and had all kinds of health problems. He switched to an all raw diet and it was a hard transition for him He did adapt though and jnow is a fanatic about it because all his health problems disappeared No more digestive problems, no more insomnia and lots of other things he is a body builder at the gym and very strong he looks great in his sixties. This is all something to be explored and experimented with on an individual level. That is what Adi Da always said about diet, that the principles held true , but an individual thing of experimentation Flick Rahke
January 24, 2009 at 7:58 am
I have several issues regarding Adi Da’s dietary recommendation-Raw diet without accessories, meaning plain raw diet. All Adidam’s literature recommends a lactovegetarian diet. However, a lactovegetarian diet includes diary products. Adi Da did not recommend a sattvic diet since in the Hindu tradition, sattvic food includes diary products and cooked vegetarian meals. Adi Da’s dietary recommendation is typically 70s Californian. Correct me if I am wrong-Adi Da was greatly influenced by an obscure dietician named Ariola (I think I have got the name right). Ariola was discredited when it transpired after his death in middle age that his eating habits were completely opposite to his punishingly prescriptive ‘dietary’ recommendations!
In the mid nineties I met Bill Stranger in London during an Adidam seminar (I live in London). During lunch we sat next to each other and chatted. I found him a decent guy -we were having a disagreement on astrology – Bill saying Adi Da believed in astrology and I said it was all bullshit and we agreed to disagree. However there was one thing I noticed. Just before Bill was about to eat his food from the plate he looked neurotically at the piece stuck at the end of his fork. It reminded me of a cartoon of Professor Sigmund Freud neurotically staring down his trousers. This was the end of my infatuation with Adi Da’s dietary recommendation.
On a more serious note, I have no problem with a balanced (and cooked) vegetarian diet and most eastern spiritual traditions recommend it. Recent psychological research, however, suggests the dangers inherent in a punishingly strict diet. It can trigger anorexia, especially among younger women. It also makes Adidam vulnerable to further attacks from detractors that it is attempting to trigger anorexia amongst its members. Imagine the media furore. I think as part of its restructuring (which is inevitable if it is going to survive) Adidam should simply recommend vegetarian food instead instead of recommending something (minimum raw diet) which is now discredited.
January 24, 2009 at 8:55 am
thanks Flick and FFG for your response to my posting concerning raw foods and Adi Da.
I can see that perhaps I was reacting more out of my own previous experience of raw foods than FFG’s current experience. I did enjoy the Boutenko book, green smoothies and I have started to incorporate such drinks into my diet . I have not read Da’s latest book on diet, is it Gorilla Diet? For me at the moment due to my negative experience around Da, I choose not to study his books on diet etc.
I was interested to read that no one else seems to have found Adi Da’s transmission to be malevolent, perhaps that is personal to me, but for now I choose to follow my own inner guidance and I am currently drawn to another Teacher, but also quite comfortable to have no teacher.
I do very much enjoy this blog and thank you for all our contributions
January 24, 2009 at 11:15 am
flick,
you say my post to you was sneering and condescending.
yes, i am guilty as charged.
i was thinking about whether or not i should respond at all, since your posts in general are rather superficial and (in my opinion) very cultic and often based on hearsay.
i thought you could take my tone since you are not particularly delicate in your choice of words and expressions yourself.
“I guess that some here, who got in close to Adi Da feel hurt or whatever and hold a severe grudge.”
i don’t know about that. i can only speak for myself and tell you for certain that is not the case here.
as i mentioned in earlier posts, mr. jones was always very friendly and humorous with me. he really was. many in his inner circle noticed that and thought he had “a special relationship” with me. and many envied me about the access i had.
in all my years of serving him he only shouted at me directly once. it is a bit embarrassing to admit now, but back then i was actually hoping he’d shout at me more, because it was considered a “divine blessing” to “receive his shout”.
so, no grudge here. he always treated me really well. however, what i have observed him doing to others does most certainly not fall under that category. i very much agree with conrad and ffac in their most recent posts about the acceptable behavior of a self-proclaimed jnani.
as far as my anger is concerned: i am an angry sob – no doubt. always have been. in mr. jones’ terms: i am a vital-solid with a strong vital.
but i am not particularly angry with mr. jones. more with myself maybe for sticking around for 15 years. i did not leave adidam angry. i just woke up at some point (it was process really that went on for more than a year) and just couldn’t go back to that ineffective system called adidam.
“He seems to set Sailor bob up in the same way that he claims people set up Adi Da.”
i think only someone who has not really read what i posted could come to such a conclusion.
nothing could be further from the truth. sailor bob does not accept any traditional guru role – not at all. he would not even call himself a teacher. and i am not fixated on him in any way. however, he has been VERY helpful in deepening my understanding of non-duality. but john wheeler and jeff foster have also been very helpful in that regard. especially john. with all those mentioned there are no guru games going on whatsoever. they refuse it altogether because to them there is no such distinction (as in guru – devotee) to be made.
“I think you have a bug up your butt about the word use of “transmission” . It is just a word to describe the best one can a sense of “reality” or non duality or Oneness”
a transmission is something transmitted from one being to another. that hardly fits your description of that word. mr. jones calls himself a transmission guru.
i was responding to a post made by C L where she clearly shows that ““Transmission” of the “non-dual Truth” is an oxymoron.” and in the sense the word “transmission” is commonly used and defined that is true. plain and simple.
“But claiming that Sailor bob has it all over Adi Da is the same “mistake” that shiva is saying Adi Da people do. I think this is an ego trip myself.”
sailor bob speaks about pure non-duality, without any embellishment. he is a very simple man, not an intellectual at all (but by no means dumb!). he rarely quotes any philosophies. he just speaks from his own direct experience. and in his own words: “there is no sailor bob. i am only speaking to the I Am that I Am”.
you simply cannot compare such a clear non-dual message to mr. jones’ distortions and misrepresentations of traditional non-duality.
everybody who has ever listened to sailor bob or john wheeler and knows mr. jones’ teachings will readily agree.
that is hardly an “ego trip”!
January 24, 2009 at 11:23 am
ffac says
“(1) being a jnani given the behavior (to what ever extent a person can accept that it happened)
(2) the problematic results that fail to show skillful means
(3) that a jnani would fundamentally misunderstand and increasingly misrepresented basic dharma
(4) that a jnani would most closely resemble some state between the lowest class of a (barely) jnani and and outright self-delusion about one’s jnani state, and
(5) that a jnani destined to be a World Teacher would come in such an extreme form unacknowledge by other jnanis and act in ways that do not visibly draw or serve more qualified aspirants but instead rewards cultism.
The collective probability of all these being true of a jnani as they would have to be in Da’s case is, in practical terms based on the non-dualist traditions, very low in Da’s case, meaning the burden of proof is overwhelmingly on Da.”
that was very clearly and concisely worked out, ffac. my compliments.
the last point could be expanded by the fact that the self-proclaimed “world-teacher” has most of his active teaching career been in total hiding from humanity in general, except for a few hundred devotees.
January 24, 2009 at 11:41 am
Flick says:
“The lack of so called maturity and lack of realizers in Adi Dam does not mean squat. First I personally do not know who is “mature” and who is not. I have not kept up on this and I doubt that FFAC has either. And not having realizers does not mean anything one way or the other. Ammachi has been teaching for many years herself and has millions of devotees and i have not noticed any realizers around her except herself. Her swamis are strong and nice, but I do not notice any realizers there, although I could not say for sure. I know there is talk here about realizers around maharshi. My buddy knows a lot about Maharshi too and has read all the books and was mentioning to me a lot of the names mentioned here. So I am still being educated in that one. But I don’t think there were very many. My friend has mentioned around four and he told me that a couple of them were at very advanced levels of their practice when they first came to Ramana.”
——-
Sri Muruganar confessed self-realization by the grace of his guru in his recordings of the verbal teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi. A working version of his Guru Vachaka Kovai is available at //www.happinessofbeing.com/Guru_Vachaka_Kovai.pdf
Commentaries are by Muruganar, Sadhu Om and Michael James in the excerpt:
The state in which one does not see any second-person object, the state in which one does not hear a second-person object, the state in which one does not know any second-person object – know that state alone is infinite (bhuma).
[Michael James: That which is infinite (bhuma), alone is immortal (eternal and hence real) whereas that which is finite is mortal (transitory and hence unreal). In Chandogya Upanishad 7.25.1 and 7.25.2, the Infinite (Bhuma) is identified as being synonymous with "I" (aham) and then with Self (atma). Therefore the word 'Bhuma' should be understood to mean Self or Brahman, our true state of mere being.]
O men who – after running all over the world and after seeing and worshipping holy men – are making research upon the truth with great love, if you scrutinize the supreme reality which [those] great tapasvins clearly know, (you will find that it is nothing but) the open and empty space of Jnana.
[Michael James: The reality which is experienced by Jnanis is only
the empty space of Jnana (the knowledge of one’s own existence),
that is, the mere consciousness ‘I am'.]
When scrutinized, that which is shown and given by the Guru-Fathers (the father-like Gurus) to the disciples who go in search of spiritual masters, hurrying around the world, is only the wonderful space of Jnana (the mere consciousness ‘I am’).
The eternal goal, which is the resort or refuge in which the weary wanderings here and there come to an end, (and which is given by) the Jnana-Guru, who is Siva, the supreme reality, who shines triumphantly as the defectless existence-consciousness (sat-chit),
is only the wonderful space of turiya (the empty space of Jnana).
[Michael James: The weary wanderings through so many births
and deaths, as well as the weary wanderings of the body and mind
in each birth, come to an end.]
The glory of the vast space of true knowledge (meyjnana), whose greatness cannot be excelled by anything else, cannot easily be seen by any other means, but only by the Grace of the Guru, who
destroys (all our) defects.
Those who have seen the glory of (that) vast space (of Jnana) will be transformed into the supremely blissful and silent Siva, having destroyed birth (and death), which were multiplied more and more because of the vanity of attachment (to the body as ‘I’) and the other vanity (of taking the objects of this world, including the body, to be ‘mine’).
Wandering here and there in search of the space of consciousness [chit-ambara], which exists and shines everywhere as Self, is like searching with a flaming torch for the sun in broad daylight, which by its supremacy puts the white moon to shame.
[Sri Muruganar: The space of consciousness (chitrambalam or
chit-ambara) is that which is also called the Heart-space (daharakasa or hridayakasa), the consciousness-space (chidakasa) and the knowledge-space (jnanakasa). That alone is the true form of God, who shines as Self.]
Who else but Jnanis, who shine as Siva Himself, having destroyed the impurities of the mind (i.e. the tendencies or vasanas), can clearly know the greatness of the glorious space of consciousness (the state of true Jnana), which is untouched by any defect or
deficiency?
“Therefore that space of consciousness is itself the real supreme Siva, which cannot be described by anyone” – saying thus, the divine Lord Ramana, the supreme Jnani, revealed to me the state of Self, which is Siva Himself.
Self itself graciously revealed and bestowed Self, which is the form of Self, at the time, which is the form of Self, and in the place, which is the form of the Self; in order for Self to attain (itself), it realized itself as the form of Self.
[Sadhu Om: In the above two verses Sri Muruganar expressed the
experience of supreme Jnana which was bestowed upon him by
the Grace of His Sadguru, Bhagavan Sri Ramana. Sri Muruganar’s
state of egolessness can be clearly understood here from the fact
that he says the Self realized itself, and not, “I have realized Self”.
Truly, no jiva can ever realize Self; it is Self alone that realizes
itself
January 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Eddie B Says:
“When I read your posts (and when I am in the company of devotees in general) I feel your closure irrespective of what you write.”
Eddie B, I am not sure what kind of “free enquiry” is it when you have already decided that Daists are closed-minded. Why not just call it “already decided” instead? This is a very common form of fundamentalism on the part of critics around here towards Daists – as you state above, regardless of what I write, you feel me being closed.
Eddie B Says:
“I don’t seek ‘enlightenment’ because there is no such thing (this does not mean there is no such thing as Spiritual Reality!).”
Once again, this does not sound like “free enquiry” but “already decided” – which may be fine in this case – but how did you come to this conclusion?
Eddie B Says:
“I am no longer a vegetarian because I find some flesh foods help me maintain a healthy weight.”
This is a very common justification that thin body types make. However, if you actually get into the green drinks as Victoria Boutenko describes them, you will find that they are incredibly packed with highly usable proteins. My weight is normal and stable, and I feel much better overall. My wife is very thin by nature and has the same experience as me – weight stabilized at normal levels for her.
But the green drinks as described by Boutenko are key – not just a few pieces of spinach or whatever – but large bunches of greens (kale, chard, collards, spinach, etc.) mixed with fresh fruit for taste – highly blended in a Vitamix type blender to really cut them up. Incredible health benefits if you persist for a bit.
I wanted to say the above to others, e.g., Conradg, FFaC, etc. – you can find out more about this in Victoria Boutenko’s “Green For Life” book and also Adi Da’s “Green Gorilla”. I think Conrad mentioned being married to a Daist? He would probably know about this then.
While I am on the diet issue, I am not surprised at all by the people here that posted their diet (including accessories use) vs. some of the critics that never spoke about their diet and accessories use. It is clear that diet factors greatly into one’s overall physical health, mental and emotional expression and communication, etc. Adi Da spent so much time on the diet because the gross body is the FOOD body, where we largely tend to identify – and its basic equanimity (“no-seeking”) is very important as a foundation for the higher stages of life.
This also reminds me to mention that the arguments put forth by Conradg and FFaC regarding Ramana’s Teachings are of great interest to me – but to many people, who have not had the benefit of preparing the body-mind as these guys have confessed to doing to one degree or another, the foundation of abiding in awareness (ultimately the witness) in order to practice self-enquiry, is beyond most people.
In other words, such advanced teachings and practices would mainly be understood by, and work for, those who have already prepared the body-mind in this (and most likely, prior) lifetimes. Adi Da’s Teachings deal with every aspect of an aspirant’s development, and makes it clear that right life disciplines and radical (non-dual) devotion to Reality are the necessary foundation for the more advanced practice of the Witness, etc. Otherwise, at best, people who are not prepared will tend to base their understanding of non-duality on just the mind (and perhaps that is why there are mostly just solids here). Such an error tends to produce the “stench of enlightenment” and “talking school” when it is just mind-based.
Eddie B Says:
“The three words that best describe my understanding of Adi Da, Adidam, and any other topic whatsoever pertaining to spirituality is ‘I don’t know.’”
I really like your intention here, Eddie, but you still seem to have drawn a lot of conclusions about Daists, myself included, as noted above.
Eddie B Says:
“I don’t compare myself to others anymore, seeing it as utterly useless and devaluing each person’s individuality and their required path”
Huh? But you just said this:
Eddie B Says:
“I had a similar disposition to you many years ago when I was a devotee (as have many others here on this blog) so I know what it’s like to hold onto a practice and a ‘recognition,’ and to be oblivious to the cultic and fundamentalistic disposition underlying it all. You might also see this one day, perhaps after you allow enough people of good will to show you. Or you may not.”
Eddie B Says:
“I do allow myself to be addressed by friends, but only those who do not insist on seeing everything through the (false) prism of one point-of-view.”
Damn! I should have remembered reading this part initially and not given you all this feedback, since it seems you think that I am this type of person. So does this mean that you are not receptive to my address of your post?
Eddie B Says:
“As mentioned above, writing takes me a long time (and I do have other things in my life to deal with besides blogging) so if I have not answered all of your questions it’s not because I am in avoidance, it’s just because I am tired. ”
No problem, Eddie. It may very well take a long time to write in a manner that is not just mind, but also heart. I appreciate your well-considered posts. By the way, green drinks will likely give you a lot more energy than meat. Google, “Delicate Balance” if you want to watch an interesting movie about meat and its impact individually and globally.
Eddie B Says:
“But I do have a challenge for you. If you communicated only what you really knew – not what you have read or been told or transmitted to by Adi Da, or imagined might take place in the future – what would you have to say? I would enjoy reading that! You see, I want to know about YOU, not what you have acquired or repeat because Adi Da said it. ”
I plead ignorance!
Eddie B Says:
“While this closure remains obscured from consciousness, your sentence that the ‘possibility in Adidam to actually transcend fundamentalism by being radically devoted to Adi Da – given Who He Is’ remains platitudinal and mere fantasy.”
Again, I ask, what kind of “free enquiry” is it when you have already decided that Daists are closed-minded? Until critics also transcend their fundamentalism relative to all of this, how can there really be any “real conversation”?
Is there not some common ground here in which we accept that we are all arising in Prior Unity, and look to fall deeper into heart-based Awareness of this essential Truth?
January 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Can anyone offer any clarification on this word “transmission”? It is clear that anything can “transmit” IT to me (miraculous, wondrous, limitless presence or whatever ultimate description you choose for god, suchness, consciousness, truth, reality), IF I can receive the transmission. A French fry at Burger King is as profound as the holy padukas if I receive the transmission. Gradually maybe I am getting the transmission from more and more places, but so far though, I tend to find it most obviously in the teachings/presence of realizers, natural settings, and so on. So my choices of what to associate with, assuming that I make choices, have a large impact on how much transmission I am likely to receive.
Transmissions communicate self-recognition, they awaken, they re-contextualize me, they overwhelm separation and abstraction with presence and wonder. Maybe it is more accurate to say that during a transmission I wake up to what is already present rather than receive a transmission from somewhere else. I could say that the transmission is the guru, but I can’t really say whether it comes from without or within, where it originates. Is that because it is not in time-space?
In any case, some transmitters “out there” more readily stimulate awakened presence for me than others. It seems to me that I am able to discern real differences in transmissions. Nisargadatta and Ramana have the strongest and purest; Gangaji generally doesn’t do it for me; Ramesh generally doesn’t do it for me, although his early writings can; Adi Da has the most amazing, crackling, electrical presence in Darshan, and his writings can be wonderfully poetic, but for me it’s not a pure transmission. These are just a few instances of differing transmissions- what do they mean? Is it my resonance with particular objects on display which is different than your resonance because of our differing receptivities, or is it discernment of actual qualities/limitations of the transmissions? I think both can be true.
If transmission is not a good word because it implies something originating in one object and going to another, then what word can replace it? I think the problem and the answer has to do with ultimately there being no inner and outer. Where is the guru located (or anything else)?
January 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Conradg Says:
“And Nisargadatta lived exactly the same life in relation to his own devotees when he became a Guru. He asked nothing from them, except the sincere and earnest application to his words and arguments. He didn’t ask for service, he didn’t ask for money, and in fact refused all such things. He supported himself and his family on his own labor.”
Conrad, I actually did some research to find out more about the teachings of Nisargadatta, whether he spoke of the heart, Amrita Nadi, etc. I am still involved in that, but what I am wondering about, after reading your post above, is why you are on such a high horse relative to Nisargadatta when his way of supporting himself was selling cigarettes. Now I am not trying to pass judgment on Nisargadatta, that is certainly not my place nor my intention. But how can YOU hold such high esteem for someone who apparently contributed to many people’s ill-health to make his livelihood and who chain-smoked himself – and then out of the other side of your mouth, constantly judge Adi Da’s actions so negatively, and thereby even question His Realization?
Is there something I am missing about all of this?
Conradg Says:
“My diet has a fairly decent range, but it’s mostly organic and whole grain, fruits and vegies, salads, green drinks with all those crazy ass swamp grass powders, various oddball supplements and anti-oxident concentrates at times, but also a little bit of meat or fish now and then. I maybe have a glass of wine once every couple of months, a toke maybe once a month, more if I’m getting hay fever really bad, nothing special.”
I hope you saw my comments in my immediately prior post about green drinks as Victoria Boutenko defines them. I would have basically agreed with your diet above until I started the green drinks and all raw myself. A very big difference for many who have tried both approaches.
Conradg Says:
“The more important issue is how much attention gets sucked up in diet, and all that raw fooding and green-drinking can get pretty obsessive. Non-dualism isn’t about the body-mind anyway, so putting too much attention on such things is counter-productive.”
Diet is very ordinary for me now – I can make a few quarts of green drinks quickly, and that is two meals worth each day (along with some nuts and seeds); very little fuss and muss, very straightforward. My third meal, a large salad and some raw crackers is also very ordinary. It has actually freed up more time and attention for meditation, etc.
Conradg Says:
“Now, you also mentioned something about fundamentalism being seen as egoity itself, and I didn’t comment because I thought that was just too simplistic, to the point of meaninglessness.”
I guess you missed my point about the cultism we all have with our ego-I, our belief in it, and the fundamentalism that this inevitably results in and is expressed in every aspect of our lives. Certainly worth considering, in my book. I went into more specifics about critics’ fundamentalism toward Daists in my immediately prior post to Eddie.
January 24, 2009 at 1:58 pm
FFC,
Thanks for your detailed reply to my post. You very well answered all my objections, and clarified everything I had been pointing at. I hope you understand that I wasn’t so much criticizing your approach as trying to stimulate a more comprehensive assessment, and I’m very happy with the results. You have an excellent grasp of the traditions and the ways in which Adi Da has not only departed from them, but inverted them into a non-dharmic path that produces non-dharmic results. I know a number of people with traditional backgrounds who have wished that this sort of presentation of the basic facts surrounding Adidam be made.
This certainly accounts for the lack of acknowledgment of Da by traditional teachers of all kinds, and even the frequent criticism. It has been a good learning experience for me at least, and allowed me to deal with a lot of my own personal karmas, tendencies, and delusions. I hope the same is true for many others, even those still involved with Adidam. This sort of conversation helps clear the air and clarify these matters, and I hope will be taken as serious stimulus for personal consideration by those who read this blog, whatever their background or relationship to Adi Da has been.
January 24, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I find amusing some of the names around here. “Shiva” and “Vivekenanda” and some others. Do you guys really feel that you are “incarnations” of Shiva and Vivekenanda? Does not really matter, just feels pretentious to me for some reason. I think it is funny that “Shiva” writes me off as “cultic”
I just have been writing what I see valuable in different teachers I have studied with and received valuable transmission and gifts from, including Adi Da and Ammachi and various Tibetan teacher and Buddhist teachings and so forth. I have not been in Adidam myself for many years and was never even any sort of “insider” like Shiva said he was. I am actually very open minded and have been over at sailor bob’s site and have done a lot of reading there. I say my views also of people like Andrew and so forth that I have had experience of. I do not make any claims or proclamations about Adi Da or Ammachi or sailor bob or anyone, I have just related my own personal experiences here. That is all I can go by, my own personal experience of teachers and gurus and my own intuition. Of course, in a blog like this with the majority of the people here being extremely negative about Adi
Da in particular , if anyone expresses a positive experience and feeling about Adi Da, they are going to get criticized every which way but loose so to speak . And I always expected that writing here. If I wrote on the Lightmind Forum{which would be silly even to attempt to do} it would be even thicker I think.
But this guy shiva has been particularly slamming and with a negative reaction to my posts. I guess this simply means that we are two people that would tend to dislike each other in real life outside of cyberspace and that is o.k. too, just the way of life and egos. You can’t expect everyone to love you or even like you .
As far as diet goes, I think the principle of raw diet holds true, especially with the new stuff of Victoria Butenko added in. I have not been in the community when they have been experimenting with this , so i don’t feel particularly “cultic” about it. I just know about how the raw diet has improved the health and energy in many I have known and some just glow with it. And Butenkos book makes much sense to me. \
By the way, Adi Da I know for sure does not make anyone adhere to any ideal of diet. many in Adi Dam eat all kinds of cooked diets, including eggs and chicken and more traditional Chinese medicine types of diets and so forth. You have to experiment with diet over time. Paavo Airola was and is a highly respected dietician who did die. His diet was never discredited because he happened to die. Diet does not keep you alive indefintiley. The diet he recommended of vegetarianism was a diet he saw traditional cultures like the long lived hunzas eating. There is nothing California or new age about it. I think that adi da and people discovered that most people are allergic to dairy in one way or another , so that part was removed for most people unless they felt they needed dairy for some reason. I think the thing about dairy is pretty common knowledge these days. some can get thin on the raw diet , but this is not “anorexia” I got very skinny after a long surpervised fast once and people thought I had anorexia{by the way I did this on my own and was not in Da’s community} I did not have anorexia and have never had it. Raw diet takes time for the body and mind to adjust to. It could take even a year and many give up before they actually have adjusted to it due to the discomfort of purification, kind of like spirtual life too. uncomfortable at times and more blissful at times.
I think FFG can appear “cultic” at times, because he is steeped in the language and style of communicating of his guru. That is not unusual. You should hear the swamis around Ammachi. yes , he can be somewhat self rigteous too, but no more so and sometimes less than any other posters around here , including myself. We all defend our views to the best of our ability and can get over the top sometiimes when we are being criticized, especially with the intense critcialness here.
I do feel like FFG’s post about Nisardagatta and the cigs is pretty ridiculous , but he is only writing it in reaction to how people write about Adi Da. Selling cigs does not mean you could not be enlightned, any more than having sex would mean you are unenligtened. Let’s try to not get on the idealistic views of enligtnenment and the view of the prescriptive behaviors of the enlightened being. Now that is being narrowminded.
Hey FFg I think you hit the crux of the matter in your post where you talk about how certain characters are attracted to the advaitic teachings because of their own predeliction for a mental approach to spirituality and turning the vedanta{which Ammachi recommends against . She says most people need bhakti and karma yogas, and that the advaita vedanta is for already advanced practicioners or it just is an egoic mental exercise} Yes this aproach would and does attract the solid type of personality and that is surely what we see here . By the way , I do not feel offended being called a peculiar or vital. we do use these terms in a overly critical way, but they can be useful anyhow. it is like getting one of those cartoonish charicature drawings of yourself at the carnival. not very flattering, but funny Flick
rahke
January 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Talking about people leaving Adidam, F4G says:
“Now if some completely obvious appearance of say, Ramana Maharshi, manifested in your room, opened your heart on the right and you transcended all attention in Reality Itself, including the regeneration of Amrita Nadi, and told you to leave Adidam and come be with Him, that might be different. Of course, I would have talked to Adi Da about this, being my chosen Master.”
So even upon realizing absolute oneness with God, there would still be a separate you that needed to check in with a separate Adi Da for confirmation and permission to follow a separate Ramana? Whenever do you get to be free and trust your own authority?
January 24, 2009 at 5:00 pm
feel4god:
“I am not surprised at all by the people here that posted their diet (including accessories use) vs. some of the critics that never spoke about their diet and accessories use. It is clear that diet factors greatly into one’s overall physical health, mental and emotional expression and communication, etc.”
yes, i am not surprised you’d say something like that. you are clearly on a mission. good luck!
“Adi Da’s Teachings deal with every aspect of an aspirant’s development, and makes it clear that right life disciplines and radical (non-dual) devotion to Reality are the necessary foundation for the more advanced practice of the Witness, etc.”
when, oh great feeler, will you learn that adding “non-dual” in front of any arbitrary nonsense like that does not make it non-dual? you ain’t foolin’ nobody, dude.
all this preparation non-sense. all that purification non-sense that mr. jones preached does only one thing: it prolongs the search. it IS the search. whether or not he calls it search-less or not. it is nothing but a search. isn’t that obvious?
“the foundation of abiding in awareness (ultimately the witness) in order to practice self-enquiry, is beyond most people.”
the witness is just a state. awareness is prior to all. awareness is that within which everything arises. even the witness.
the witness is not IT.
and: it is not beyond “anybody”. presence-awareness is the natural state. right here. right now. nothing is needed to get there.
no search-full food-mortification is necessary.
i know you’re gonna have a ball with it, so i have to tell you:
i am a really bad sinner. i ingested half a bottle of wine (oh, i love that sweet buzz!) and i am about to enjoy a sin-full hollywood movie. i am soooo bad!
LOL!
there is no duality in non-duality. not even a little bit. not even a bit of search-full food-duality!
January 24, 2009 at 5:26 pm
make that one bottle of wine!
January 24, 2009 at 5:59 pm
The Guru Gita is one of the traditional works coming down from long ago that extolls the value of the Satguru:
“The Guru is one who instructs the disciple about attributeless, eternal Brahman, and thereby reveals the Brahmanbhava (feeling of being Brahman) in his heart, just like one lamp kindles another lamp, is the Guru.” (75)
“By steadiness in the path to liberation, by seeing one’s own Self in oneself, by the practice of introspection within and by the Grace of the Guru, the Knowledge of the Self dawns in the Sadhaka. (76)
“Just as a crystal shines with all its beauty in a crystal, as a mirror in a mirror, so also in the Self shines the bliss of the Chidakasha “That I am” is beyond all doubts.” (77)
“Lord Shiva says to Parvati, “I shall tell you, the state of consciousness that arises in the heart when the consciousness personified Purasha of the size of the thumb is meditated upon in the heart.”” (78)
“I am unborn. I am deathless. I am beginningless. I am endless. I am changeless. I am consciousness and Bliss. I am the smallest of the small. I am the greatest of the great.” (79)
“There is none prior to me and none later. I am eternal. I am self illumined. I am diseaseless. I am ever pure. I am the eternal Akasha. I am without the least movement, am Bliss imperishable.” (80)
“O Parvati, Brahman is the unseen incomprehensible, without name and form and inexpressible by word or speech directly. This is the very nature of the Brahman. Know it thus. (81)
Howver, the Guru Gita states that many gurus are not Satgurus:
“The Guru devoid of Knowledge, who indulges in falsehood and who is full of vanity should be abandoned. Because when he is not able to find peace for himself, how is he to bestow peace on others?” (104)
FFC Comment: Analysis shows that Da takes traditional concepts and terms from the traditions for inspiration, but redefines and selectively uses them in a way that ends up distorting and conflicting with the original meaning. Da once said he was not an Avatar, and now claims to be the Only Avatar and Realizer. His murcuric moodiness is widely known. He awakens all sorts of useful but temporary subtle experiences and samadhis in others, but not a progressivly stable sense of peace, which is the one indication Ramana Maharshi said was the most most reliable.
“What special knowledge has a stone in saving other stones from drowning? If it cannot swim across the river by itself; how can it help other stones to swim across?” (105)
“They (such Gurus) are not at all fit to be worshipped whose reasoning creates painful delusion. Such Gurus should be abandoned from a distance. One should take refuge only in the Self-realized ones.” (106)
“O Parvati, imposters, habitual sinners, atheists, those who are of the different temperament, slaves of woman, evil-doers, ungrateful, rougish, those fallen from Karma Marga, cruel, who indulge in vain discussions, sensualists, those who are angry, violent, unyielding to reasoning, devoid of knowledge, great sinners, crooks, fools, such Gurus should be avoided; and one should only take refuge in the Self-realized Guru with single-minded devotion and discrimination.” (107,108,109)
FFC Comment: Adidam criticizes those who departed from Da, despite clearly undharmic teachings and behavior and lack of recognition from any living jnanis, as being blinded by ego, as if their being blinded to the truth by devotional belief was not possible. Yet traditional sources say if that is the case, such gurus should be abandoned. It is not as if there are no jnanis in the world, requiring it be Da, or nothing. The wisest course is to let jnana occur first, something never achieved through Da’s path, and then determine if Da was correct or not, because the alternative is being bound to an illusion that cannot liberate.
“There are ever so many Gurus in the world who rob the wealth of their disciples. But I consider that Guru a rare one among Gurus who removes the afflictions of the disciple’s heart.” (162)
“Gurus are those who are pure at heart, calm, collected, of a saintly nature, who speak measured words, who are free from lust, greed etc. who have conquered their senses and who are established in good conduct (Sadacharas).” (164)
“Gurus are of many types with different capacities. They are known by names, Suchaka etc. The intelligent one should know and test for himself and seek refuge in the one who is established in Self-Knowledge.” (165)
FFC Comment: My opinion is as follows. There are those who prefer to risk it all, based on how they interpret their experiences, and a Da centric reading of the traditions, on the assumption that Da is correct, and all others off base. And that traditional sources which collectively describe figures like him not as Satgurus, are wrong. And that traditional figures, from his gurus to those authoritiites whose sharp repudiation and criticism of undharmic teaching prompted his “way that I teach” response, to the non-response from jnanis, and the majority of one time followers who departed, are all wrong. Maybe Da is right, that those who leave him “go back to zero”. Maybe God rolled the dice, and by chance, his first full incarnation was a flawed figure totally at odds with previous understanding and Realizers who nobody who should have recognized him did. But those odds are pretty slim, once you examine all the factors. I say more probable is a flawed, still egoic figure with fifth stage abilities who assumed he was complete, when more self-inspection would have been useful. But again, I am not discounting the experiences leading to unusual insights, I had plenty myself, only what their significance is in the broader picture.
January 24, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Feel4God,
Conrad, I actually did some research to find out more about the teachings of Nisargadatta, whether he spoke of the heart, Amrita Nadi, etc. I am still involved in that, but what I am wondering about, after reading your post above, is why you are on such a high horse relative to Nisargadatta when his way of supporting himself was selling cigarettes. Now I am not trying to pass judgment on Nisargadatta, that is certainly not my place nor my intention. But how can YOU hold such high esteem for someone who apparently contributed to many people’s ill-health to make his livelihood and who chain-smoked himself – and then out of the other side of your mouth, constantly judge Adi Da’s actions so negatively, and thereby even question His Realization?
I never said that Nisargadatta was some perfect, ideal human being. Quite the contrary, he was quite ordinary. He just had a great deal of integrity, honesty, and virtue, and he didn’t compromise his relationships with his devotees for the sake of money, fame, power, or personal pleasure. That’s why, in comparison to Da, he might seem to be a paragon of virtue. But he certainly had his own rather minor faults, I don’t think anyone would suggest otherwise. He didn’t. He was challenged many times by devotees and questioners about his beedi business, and he simply said he wasn’t perfect, this is how he made a living, he didn’t see much wrong with it, and that was that as far as he was concerned.
The perfect should not be made the enemy of the good – I’m sure you’ve heard that saying. Nisargadatta was a very good man, but not a perfect one. I’m sure there are many other things one could find fault with him about. He sure was ugly, for one thing. But there’s simply no comparison between his way of living his life and his relationships with devotees and Adi Da’s. I’m sure you know I’m not a prude, and I’m not begrudging Da his own cigarette habits, but even that habit of his was far more destructive than smoking beedies.
Maybe you’re not aware of the difference between Indian beedies and American cigarettes. Beedies are made from only 10-20% rolled tobacco, and usually fairly mild tobacco at that, and they include no chemical additives. They are thus much safer than western-style cigarettes, and less cancer-prone. That’s not to say they are harmless by any means, but it’s not really a comparable risk-factor. I remember back in the 70′s in Adidam beedies were quite popular to smoke – herbal and tobacco types. It even helped some people kick their cigarette habits.
There’s also the context of life in India to consider. Nisagadatta’s father died when he was eighteen, leaving six younger children to look after. Nisagadatta went to bombay to look for work, and ended up opening a small beedie shop, which prospered, and allowed his family to live, rather than starve to death (not much safety net in India at the time). Beedies are hugely popular in India, and there simply was not the same kind of anti-smoking atmosphere there and then as here and now. I guess in some revisionist history sense you could accuse Nisargadatta of lacking virtue by selling beedies, but I don’t think anyone in India would feel the same way. The luxuries of opportunity taken for granted by westerners in our time were simply not present in India in the 1920s and 30s. Nor was the health-conscious sensibility developed much then. There were so many ways to die for most people, it’s hard to begrudge someone smoking their beedies. If Nisargadatta contributed in some small way to some people’s ill health, at least they had the enjoyment of smoking some well-made beedies in the bargain, which is precisely what they paid him for. If they hadn’t bought beedies from Nisagadatta, they certainly would have bought them elsewhere. And obviously it was a total legal business.
Nisargadatta’s own smoking habit didnt’ seem to result in any ill health, He remained strong and vigorous throughout his life, dying at the age of 84, which is quite impressive for an Indian of that time. Needless to say Da only lived to 69 while having benefit of all the luxuries of wealth in modern America, the best health care, and access to all sorts of healthy foods and supplements.
Let me also say that I can find much to admire in many people who are far less than perfect in their personal habits. And there are many things to criticize in some who don’t smoke cigarettes. A life of virtue and integrity is greatly to be admired to whatever degree one finds it. I find a lot of that in Nisagadatta’s life, and not so much in Adi Da’s. I think the differences are rather self-evident.
Now some could still argue that Nisagadatta must not have been enlightend, if he sold cigarettes, even if they were just beedies. What then of Papaji, who was a military man, and even a full-blown terrorist? He was a rather high-ranking member of the militant wing of the Indian resistance, and trained hundreds of people in how to resist the British occupation. He was involved in a plot to assassinate the British governing general in the 1930′s, which killed a British aide to the general in the process. So he’s guilty of murder. Even furthermore, he and his fellow conspirators joined the elite Indian Army corps in the late 1930′s as a special group selected by the British to lead the Indian Army, with the secret plan of staging a military coup against the British. The plan was disbanded after WWII broke out, but certainly Papaji was willing to shed blood for his country. In fact, that’s why he left the army, shortly before he met Ramana., even though he was an elite part of the group of officers who later became the top generals of India’s military after Independence. He knew Nehru personally, and used to go on long walks with him discussing military strategy and spirituality. He always defended this choice of his, even years later after his enlightenment. Anyway, the difference here in comparison to Da, as with Nisargadatta, is the virtue and integrity with which he handled himself in the midst of these occupations. Soldier and cigarette seller do not necessarily imply moral failings.
As for Amrita Nadi, Nisagadatta said when asked that he had no experience of Ramana’s “heart on the right”, so I doubt he’d know much about Amrita Nadi. Most jnanis don’t have these kinds of yogic experiences in any case, regardless of realization. Ramana himself said that it was purely incidental and had no bearing on realization, it was just a way of describing these things from some yogic perspectives, and not a defining issue. I know that Daists are obsessed with these yogic signatures, but they really have far less meaning than far more important matters, which are generally left out of the Daist lexicon.
I hope you saw my comments in my immediately prior post about green drinks as Victoria Boutenko defines them. I would have basically agreed with your diet above until I started the green drinks and all raw myself. A very big difference for many who have tried both approaches.
I’ve heard some interesting things about the Boutenko diet, and I will probably check it out, but once again, these things haven’t got much to do with non-dual practice. I may take up smoking beedies, however, since clearly it helped Nisagadatta become a realizer.
I guess you missed my point about the cultism we all have with our ego-I, our belief in it, and the fundamentalism that this inevitably results in and is expressed in every aspect of our lives. Certainly worth considering, in my book. I went into more specifics about critics’ fundamentalism toward Daists in my immediately prior post to Eddie.
I read those comments, but they didn’t make much of an impression on me. Clearly one can reduce fundamentalism of the kind I described, this “black/white” thinking process, to the essence of dualistic egoity, but that’s more of a philosophical approach than a practical one. In practice, fundamentalism represents duality in action, in separating oneself out from others, in thinking there’s always an “either/or” dichotomy one is subject to, and one’s worldview is subject to. It doesn’t matter whether it is a Daist, a Hindu, or a Christian dichotomy. The pattern of fundamentalism is always that of stark dualism. Is that what you mean by comparing it to the belief in the ego-”I”?
I’m not clear on where your discussion of fundamentalism is in this thread. Perhaps you could repost it?
January 24, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Jacob says,
“I was interested to read that no one else seems to have found Adi Da’s transmission to be malevolent, perhaps that is personal to me, but for now I choose to follow my own inner guidance and I am currently drawn to another Teacher, but also quite comfortable to have no teacher.”
Good for you, that seems a mature approach.
I would not say malevolent. That does not mean others, and I certainly did not, all found the transmission pure. It was useful and energetic in nature, but after a while left traces of craving, not peace. I have described that in the end, I found that it was like what Da said about Muktananda, that he had great experiences but felt like he was in someone else’s subtle world, not Reality. I began near the end to feel that at all of us present were in this “other world” all right, but Da’s and not Reality. One expanded and subtle but still egoically limited, mind based “world” falsely presented as “The Other World”, Reality, which looking back based on what I know now from futher traditional studies, for me, explains a lot about what happened.
When I used pictures of Da for meditation, I actually had some remarkable experiences, including a few that were probably the most profoundly illuminating actually. In his presence, which for me was almost exclusively formal darshan events, some of it depended on the bhava mood he was in. You had times that were electric, similar to those described in Garage and the Goddess, and other times were it was more subtle. There was for me a sense of light around him and even clear glimpses of what seemed to be a golden, god like spiritual being associated with that light.
What I did begin to notice toward the end was that Da’s transmission was not homogenous, and did not seem to feel totally pure. It had the high elements of transmission that had attracted me, but that was not all, there was more, a personality level on his part as well. I began to consider what I actually began to feel that some of what came up in our “connection” was not just my “stuff”, which we were all led to believe. I also felt some unresolved egoic qualities in Da including an actual need to be loved, and even a sense of the qualities of that “other world” I inutively felt on more subtle level and what was there. Comparing this with the presence of Ramana Maharshi and the like, as I did when departing, is like comparing night and day.
Ultimately, once I suspended belief in Da, on the basis of my study, logic, feeling, and intuition, and in comparison with Ramana Maharshi whose presence I had been familiar with before I heard of Da, I could no longer trust Da as a Realizer. As the traditions say, it is time to leave if that happens, and I did, not dramatically, but rapidly confirmed as right when I next ran into some devotees. Many, including myself, have reported a kind of inner intution prompting us to leave, and disregarding that deep inner voice is not recommended in the traditions.
So, what could be harmful in all this I think is not the transmission per se, impure as it is, but how you react to it. When I learned neither to desire or resist it, I was free of it and could extract the usefulness, seeing Da for all his compexity. Those in Adidam can’t do this, in my opinion, they are stuck unawares in the dilemma state of desire and resistance and the only thing they know is to go deeper into this dilemma which prevents them from seeing the full picture. The pitfalls of do-it-yourself spirituality when you bring so much baggage as Da did into his practice and ambitiously choose what you already know are risky paths as Da did are many. If he failed, totally disregarding sound dharma, looking back throuugh knowledge of the traditions, it was predictable, and he is just one of legion in spiritual history. Despite the title KOL, he neither really listened or surrendered. His approach can be summarized as a peculiar adaption of spiritual cannibalism from many sources to a new level of brilliant but flawed synthesis. The cannibalism based synthesis continued until his death, producing more and complexity and less and less clarity. His transmission comes from and represents all of that. So, as advanced as some elements of his practice became, his unwillingness to understand how the ego actually works and actually seek out real jnanis, meant failure was to be expected. What is harmful is the adoption of assumptions that concerns are egoic as if the inner voice was an old and obsolete spiritual mythology rather then the foundation of spiritual practice. The continued assumption that the Da transmission is totally pure and lacking egoic qualities of any kind, leading you to accept what you experience in transmission and otherwise as more complete than it really is, is more of a concern to me than the transmission itself. I do believe this shared subtle reality effect, for which there are traditional precedents, is one possible explanation for the kind of shared behavioral fadism and belief structure you see which is considered proof Da was God. Once outside it, clarity develops.
January 24, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Feel4God.
Yes, you point out my inconsistencies and we could continue that way of communicating. It gets done a lot on this blog, and that’s fine if you are so inclined. However, I don’t have that inclination. I’m not out to prove or disprove anything solely by logical argumentation. (Who was it that said ‘At times he denies. At times he asserts. At times he asserts what he has already denied. At times he denies what he has already asserted.’?) I am more inclined to discover what really underlies our drive to pursue certain paths and how that basic view can be communicated in words.
A number of previous posts (including my own) have concluded that everything devotees believe or pursue originates from the primary ‘recognition’ of who Adi Da is; i.e., that he is (was) egoless, the divine incarnate, and that his instructions via Adidam (and whatever other means) is the only way to the absolute realization of god because Adi Da is (was) the only absolute realizer to have ever appeared in this realm. If this is not true of you, then please let me know. Even if it isn’t, that is what comes across from you and almost every other devotee I have been involved with. I proclaimed it myself for years as part of the community of his devotees even though (from my point of view now) I was completely unaware of its platitudinal qualities and its propensity for dissociative relationships. These ‘conclusions’ I make come from my personal experience over many years, not from lack of ‘free enquiry.’
The primary difference, then, between us is that when I consider something I don’t do it through the prism of Adi Da’s perspective. (I used to!) Now you may decide on that basis that I am not engaging in ‘free enquiry’ and that I have ‘already decided that Daists are close-minded.’ So be it. There doesn’t seem anything more to be said that can further illuminate this matter. It just becomes fruitless mind-games. If you can’t distinguish between a person who stands before you without referral to an outside source, or who responds purely from what he knows, to a person who declares that a particular way which he is pursuing is the only true way, then no amount of debate will resolve anything. You either see it, feel it, know it, or you don’t. In that sense, I admit I am aware of something I presume you are not. I reckon if this understanding of mine is to be undermined in order for me to realize, then it will be… by ‘Grace.’
Our common ground is that Adi Da has greatly influenced both of us (although just like siblings who really love each other we can fight over nothing). I can’t claim to really know about ‘Prior Unity’ other than some good ideas I’ve read and on the occasion I have felt unbounded love and presence. I guess that makes me a mleccha!
PS. Thanks for the ‘Delicate Balance’ tip. I will look into it.
January 24, 2009 at 9:09 pm
It’s Context Stupid.
As opposed to endless consideration about the Franklin diet and the Victoria B., the very best diet and only raw diet is:
Quote from ?: “Saw dust with a little bit of wood glue as needed.”
January 24, 2009 at 9:39 pm
To Clara and Shiva,
I appreciate your posts.
After 26 years in Adidam around Franklin and receiving Darshan -at times up to 2 or 3 times a day, —I never experienced any transmission?
Re: the Liberator by Da Free John, 1982:
“Locate consciousness,” and
“Be Consciousness,
Contemplate Consciousness,
Transcend everything in Consciousness,
This is the Epitome of the Way of Truth”
Food for thought for deconstructing Franklin’s best from the point of view of non-duality
January 24, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Feel4God,
I think I found your response to Eddie on fundamentalism, and I’ll respond to some of the ideas in it, as you asked.
Eddie B, I am not sure what kind of “free enquiry” is it when you have already decided that Daists are closed-minded. Why not just call it “already decided” instead? This is a very common form of fundamentalism on the part of critics around here towards Daists – as you state above, regardless of what I write, you feel me being closed.
I think Eddie bases his judgment on years of living and practicing in Adidam. That doesn’t make it closed-minded, it makes it a well-informed opinion. I don’t think Eddie is closed off to new arguments, but his experience of people in Adidam, and the kinds of views and arguments supported by Adidam, and made by Adi Da himself, certainly seem fundamentalist to many other people as well, so you can’t call him a “fundamentalist” simply for judging Adidam as fundamentalist. Otherwise, you are a fundamentalist merely for judging Eddie as a fundamentalist, and then I’m a fundamentalist for judging you a fundamentalist for judging Eddie as a fundamentalist. This is clearly a crackpot argument.
Now, Eddie was just giving you some personal feedback as to how you come off. Instead of actually addressing what he sees in you, you just call him closed-minded. I wouldn’t consider that a very open-minded attitude towards criticism. Does it even make sense? Is all criticism closed-minded? For example, Adi Da is a very critical person. He’s famous for his critical notes about people, and of course his criticisms of the traditions. You’ve quoted examples of the critical conclusions he’s made about Ramana and others. So, if you are saying that coming to critical judgements is closed-minded fundamentalism, doesn’t that mean Adi Da himself is a closed-minded fundamentalist? Or is he somehow immune from this logical process you are using to define fundamentalism on the part of critics?
Free enquiry doesn’t mean one doesn’t come to critical judgments about things. Quite the opposite, free enquiry leads to sane critical judgments about all kinds of matters. That’s what practical wisdom is about. If you begin a free enquiry into diet, say, you are going to end up coming to many critical judgments about diet. Openness is not the same as stupidity. It merely means that one arrives at one’s critical judgments by a free and open process, rather than one that has already decided what one is going to decide ahead of time, and merely use the process to confirm one’s own assumptions.
To suggest that critics of Adi Da are fundamentalists simply because they have critical judgments about Adi Da is a purely circular logic. It’s a way of defining away all criticism as a form of fundamentalism. And yet, it’s a logical argument you would never use on Adi Da himself, or your own positive judgments about Adi Da. Which tells me that it’s not actually an honest objection, it’s a complaint and a diversion from the real issues.
Eddie:“I don’t seek ‘enlightenment’ because there is no such thing (this does not mean there is no such thing as Spiritual Reality!).”
F4G: Once again, this does not sound like “free enquiry” but “already decided” – which may be fine in this case – but how did you come to this conclusion?
He’s saying that the concept of “enlightenment” (which is why I think he put it in quotes) is just a concept, not a real “thing”. This should be rather self-explanatory, and even obvious. This is of course supported by the whole non-dual tradition, and it’s not hard to describe how those traditions come to that conclusion. You might need to to some study to avoid having to have all these things explained to you.
This also reminds me to mention that the arguments put forth by Conradg and FFaC regarding Ramana’s Teachings are of great interest to me – but to many people, who have not had the benefit of preparing the body-mind as these guys have confessed to doing to one degree or another, the foundation of abiding in awareness (ultimately the witness) in order to practice self-enquiry, is beyond most people.
I don’t think these matters are beyond anyone’s ability to understand, and I don’t think that basic health issues of diet and so forth really factor into it. There are yogic and philosophical abstractions that many people might not have the traditional background to understand, but the basics of non-dual teaching are extremely simple and available to anyone who is interested. Eating raw doesn’t make one more available to them than anyone else. Almost every non-dual realizer in history that I’m aware of ate a fairly ordinary diet. There’s certainly some basic human maturity and freedom from gross desiring that is necessary, but endless programs of self-discipline don’t really prepare anyone for non-dualism. Ramana was strongly opposed to the whole notion of “preparatory practice”. He compared it to playing the violin – one starts as a novice, and one gets better only by actual practice of playing the violin. One doesn’t do all kinds of other things as preparation, one simply picks up the violin and plays until one perfects one’s practice. That’s all it boils down to.
Now, of course some people may have been practicing non-dualism in previous lives, and so they seem to catch on a bit faster. But it’s still the same practice for everyone, and it doesn’t take much intellect to grasp it, nor does one have to get one’s health and diet all together. Quite the opposite, one has to do it now, and always now, regardless of one’s “preparation”. Doing it now is the only way to get any good at it. Everything else is purely secondary. As one gets good at it, one’s health and diet may improve, simply because one’s life naturally simplifies and becomes more sattvic. But trying to make one’s life sattvic so that one will finally be ready for non-dualism – this is an egoic dodge, is all it comes down to. The ego never wants to actually do non-dual practice, the ego only wants to postpone it and it comes up with all kinds of alternatives, including getting super-healthy and “prepared”. But the real wisdom comes of just diving in as one is right now.
I understand Adi Da’s teachings say otherwise, but my own experience doesn’t support that notion. Nor do the non-dual traditions. One certainly finds such notions of gradual preparation and stages of growth in various yogic and experiential paths, but the non-dual paths tend to be strongly critical of that idea. It’s not because they are “talking school”, it’s because they take the direct path that transcends dualistic approaches to truth.
Eddie B Says:
“I don’t compare myself to others anymore, seeing it as utterly useless and devaluing each person’s individuality and their required path”
F4G: Huh? But you just said this:
Eddie B Says:
“I had a similar disposition to you many years ago when I was a devotee (as have many others here on this blog) so I know what it’s like to hold onto a practice and a ‘recognition,’ and to be oblivious to the cultic and fundamentalistic disposition underlying it all. You might also see this one day, perhaps after you allow enough people of good will to show you. Or you may not.”
Eddie is not comparing himself to you, he’s showing empathy for you, in that he’s been there and done that. This is a way of creating a relational bridge, not tearing you down.
Eddie B Says:
“I do allow myself to be addressed by friends, but only those who do not insist on seeing everything through the (false) prism of one point-of-view.”
F4G: Damn! I should have remembered reading this part initially and not given you all this feedback, since it seems you think that I am this type of person. So does this mean that you are not receptive to my address of your post?
I think Eddie means that he finds your viewpoint so locked into the official Adidam-approved point of view that it’s rather dehumanizing to talk with you. It’s not like talking to an open-minded friend, but to an inert object (prism) that can only respond by pre-designed formulas. He’s making a criticism of your relational abilities in other words. This doesn’t make him closed-minded. He’s trying to describe the difficulty in relating to a person who seems closed-minded to him, meaning you. Making fun of him isn’t going to win you points. Maybe you should show some empathy back, rather than this defensive posture of ridicule.
Eddie B Says:
“But I do have a challenge for you. If you communicated only what you really knew – not what you have read or been told or transmitted to by Adi Da, or imagined might take place in the future – what would you have to say? I would enjoy reading that! You see, I want to know about YOU, not what you have acquired or repeat because Adi Da said it. ”
I plead ignorance!
I don’t think you’re grasping what Eddie is asking of you. He just wants you to talk like a regular human being who doesn’t have a whole retinue of pre-digested dharmic responses to throw back at him. He wants you to talk from your ordinary experience, not from Adidam sound bites. Nor from approved messages and the written dharma, just you as a guy in a mysterious world like the rest of us. Do you understand the difference?
Eddie B Says:
“While this closure remains obscured from consciousness, your sentence that the ‘possibility in Adidam to actually transcend fundamentalism by being radically devoted to Adi Da – given Who He Is’ remains platitudinal and mere fantasy.”
Again, I ask, what kind of “free enquiry” is it when you have already decided that Daists are closed-minded? Until critics also transcend their fundamentalism relative to all of this, how can there really be any “real conversation”?
Give the guy some credit. Obviously Eddie didn’t start thinking about this stuff yesterday. He’s been engaged in a process of free enquiry for decades now. He spent what, fifteen years in Adidam? (Do I have that right?) And now ten years out of it. And quite a few years before that considering spiritual matters. So it’s not exactly as if he’s without any basis for having the opinion that Adidam people are basically fundamentalists who don’t really know what they are talking about, they just accept a whole set of ideas and conclusions about Adi Da and his teaching because they are devoted to him, and he sees this talk about transcending fundamentalism through devotion to Da as platitudinous drivel because he saw that go on for years when he was there. It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion to come to, and I don’t think he’s closed to conterarguments, but they would at least have to admit there’s a problem in Adidam rather than just deny all criticism and pretend that critics are the real fundamentalists. That just doesn’t fly in the real world.
Now, from my point of view it’s certainly possible to transcend fundamentalism, at least theoretically, while practicing in just about any religion. There are non-fundamentalist Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. The problem with a small cult (and I use the word descriptively, not judgmentally), however, is that it becomes almost impossible to do this, especially if the cult is very active in policing and “educating” its members in what views are allowable and permissible, as in Adidam. There are certainly small spiritual groups that aren’t fundamentalist. But Adidam isn’t one of those groups. It could be different, certainly. Genuine devotion to a Guru doesn’t require that one be a fundamentalist, and is in fact the best means of all for transcending fundamentalism. Ramana didn’t require it of his devotees, nor did Nisargadatta or any of the other prominent Advaitic teachers I’m aware of. But Adidam is a far more regimented and restrictive place. I would say that in my opinion, like Eddie, there’s really no serious sign that people in Adidam are at all interested in freeing themselves of their fundamentalist tendencies, and in fact there’s plenty of effort made to prevent that. I don’t see Adi Da discouraging fundamentalism within Adidam either. Quite the contrary, he seemed to demand it.
But feel free to argue otherwise. Just don’t assume that if we seem skeptical it’s due to closed-mindedness, or some kind of anti-cult fundamentalism of our own. You could begin by trying to define fundamentalism in a fashion that can actually be applied on a reasonable, human level, rather than on some abstract philosophical level. And that would mean something that we could actually use to freely judge Adidam and other spiritual groups to see just how fundamentalist they are, or are not, rather than just reacting to the label as a meaningless pejorative.
Is there not some common ground here in which we accept that we are all arising in Prior Unity, and look to fall deeper into heart-based Awareness of this essential Truth?
Well of course, but we also have to be aware of those obstructions in our mind that prevent this from occurring. Fundamentalism is one of the principle practical obstructions in people’s minds that divert them from non-dual understandiing of prior Unity. That’s why so many of the world’s religions are stuck, like Adidam but on a larger scale: they are unable to see their own fundamentalist errors, but instead protect and preserve their fundamentalism as if it is necessary and essential to the very survival of the religion. Which it may in fact be. In which case, we may have to be willing to accept the death of our cherished religion, in order to give birth to a truly free and non-dual way of life.
January 24, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Flick Says:
“I do feel like FFG’s post about Nisardagatta and the cigs is pretty ridiculous , but he is only writing it in reaction to how people write about Adi Da. Selling cigs does not mean you could not be enlightned, any more than having sex would mean you are unenligtened. Let’s try to not get on the idealistic views of enligtnenment and the view of the prescriptive behaviors of the enlightened being. Now that is being narrowminded.”
What I said to Conradg was:
“But how can YOU hold such high esteem for someone who apparently contributed to many people’s ill-health to make his livelihood and who chain-smoked himself – and then out of the other side of your mouth, constantly judge Adi Da’s actions so negatively, and thereby even question His Realization?”
Note how I capitalized the word “YOU”? So all I meant to say, Flick, was how could Conradg judge Adi Da’s use of accessories, and only cast Nisardagatta in a positive light? I was not saying that for myself it implied anything about Nisardagatta’s realization – only that Conradg should at least be consistent in how he judges spiritual masters since he seems to negatively judge Adi Da constantly.
Conradg Says:
“But there’s simply no comparison between his way of living his life and his relationships with devotees and Adi Da’s. I’m sure you know I’m not a prude, and I’m not begrudging Da his own cigarette habits, but even that habit of his was far more destructive than smoking beedies.”
Wow! Where do you get these “facts” and draw such conclusions from? Let’s continue looking at your “logic” below:
Conradg Says:
“If Nisargadatta contributed in some small way to some people’s ill health, at least they had the enjoyment of smoking some well-made beedies in the bargain, which is precisely what they paid him for. ”
Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.
Conradg Says:
“Maybe you’re not aware of the difference between Indian beedies and American cigarettes. Beedies are made from only 10-20% rolled tobacco, and usually fairly mild tobacco at that, and they include no chemical additives. They are thus much safer than western-style cigarettes, and less cancer-prone. That’s not to say they are harmless by any means, but it’s not really a comparable risk-factor. I remember back in the 70’s in Adidam beedies were quite popular to smoke – herbal and tobacco types. It even helped some people kick their cigarette habits.”
Hahahaha! I remember this bullshit, and this is what the propaganda was at the time. I also remember some of us in the 70s finally decided to blow the smoke from a bidi through a napkin and the same with a regular cigarette – the bidis were far more loaded with tar! A simple Google search shows various studies that bidis contain more tar and nicotene than regular cigarettes.
Conradg Says:
“Nisargadatta’s own smoking habit didnt’ seem to result in any ill health, He remained strong and vigorous throughout his life, dying at the age of 84, which is quite impressive for an Indian of that time.”
He did die of throat cancer according to Wikipedia. And throat cancer is a very well-known impact of bidi smoking according to various Indian studies. Also, how much ill health did all the second hand smoke of his cause?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisargadatta_Maharaj
Even aside from your misrepresentation of the facts, Conrad, what I find weird is your dual-standard – i.e., minimizing Nisardagatta’s negative impact on the health of thousands of people while maximizing Adi Da’s negative impact because of how He smoked off and on over time. Not to mention, the incredible amount of Teaching Adi Da generated relative to health practices!
Again, I am not trying to determine anything about Nisardagatta’s realization – however Conradg is approaching and drawing conclusions about Adi Da’s Realization this way.
January 24, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Eddie B Says:
“Yes, you point out my inconsistencies and we could continue that way of communicating. It gets done a lot on this blog, and that’s fine if you are so inclined.”
It is admittedly very frustrating trying to communicate on this blog – especially given you and others already assume that I am a fundamentalist, and you proceed from there. I was simply trying to point this out.
Eddie B Says:
“Now you may decide on that basis that I am not engaging in ‘free enquiry’ and that I have ‘already decided that Daists are close-minded.’”
Well, you did say that. I am very careful not to misquote people. You said something along these lines on more than a few occasions such as here:
Eddie B Says:
“When I read your posts (and when I am in the company of devotees in general) I feel your closure irrespective of what you write.”
I don’t have a problem with what you feel, Eddie, but have you inspected your own potential motives for perhaps wanting to feel that “closure” irrespective of what I write?
Did the last time that you asked me to write without referencing Adi Da’s Teaching, etc., actually make a difference to you about what I communicated? It was Jan 3. Let’s see:
You responded:
Eddie B Says:
“I reckon that when the culture of Adidam becomes truly relational and free of the childish dependency on the guru, people might then be attracted. When the fundamental tenet goes, and with it a mountain of uninspected ‘stuff’, the righteousness surrounding Adidam will go.”
Apparently not.
Recognition of Who Adi Da Is, is necessary for this practice from the very beginning – otherwise it is all just childish dependency. I have expressed this many times, but apparently you do not get that from me. Such recognition confirms to me that Adi Da is the Acausal Divine Reality – it is Self-evident to the heart. But this is not some exclusivity about Adi Da! Ultimately, there IS only the Acausal Divine Reality.
Eddie B Says:
“Everything changes when you do not hold on to any tenet or belief whatsoever. One simply becomes present without qualification and without referral to any outside source.”
Again, no beliefs are necessary. Do people really not get this by now, given how many times I have dealt with this???
However, regarding recognition of Adi Da as Reality, that is necessary from the beginning. If you think that this recognition has to disappear for us to have a conversation, then we may as well let this one go now. But at least let’s make a date to regroup when Realization is completely evident!
Eddie B Says:
“If you can’t distinguish between a person who stands before you without referral to an outside source, or who responds purely from what he knows, to a person who declares that a particular way which he is pursuing is the only true way, then no amount of debate will resolve anything.”
Why do you assume that my recognition of Adi Da, and my subsequent speaking about Him, is not speaking from my heart, from who I am?
January 24, 2009 at 11:03 pm
To Conradg.
I responded myself to Feel4God but your take on his post was astonishing. No wonder I generally don’t reply in detail to every item brought up in this blog. I just don’t have the capacity anymore to convey meaning and significance with such clarity and precision.
Still, it’s all very simple, and people either get it or they don’t. Just like me – I sometimes get it, then later I get something else. I particularly thank you for one of your written paragraphs which is worth reproducing here:
‘He (Eddie) just wants you to talk like a regular human being who doesn’t have a whole retinue of pre-digested dharmic responses to throw back at him. He wants you to talk from your ordinary experience, not from Adidam sound bites. Nor from approved messages and the written dharma, just you as a guy in a mysterious world like the rest of us. Do you understand the difference?’
It may seem strange but I attribute much of my capability to relate to others in a ‘regular human way’ to Adi Da. I guess my karmic pre-disposition steered me towards ordinary human maturity rather than some profound realization, mystical or otherwise. The best books I’ve read on these matters (i.e., the difference between absolute Truth-Realization, which cannot be wanted, and human adulthood) are the trilogy by Jed McKenna, the first two of which can be downloaded as audios from the website I posted a while back.
Oh, and I first began consciously aspiring to something greater than my scientific-materialistic background around 25 years ago in the days when Louise Hay and Wayne Dwyer reigned supreme. Boy, those were the days…
January 24, 2009 at 11:46 pm
I came across this definition of Mahasamadhi in the Knee of Listening (KOL) 1995, p. 55 which I found interesting in light of Franklin keeling over from an ordinary heart attack. And, furthermore, as stated by Adidam???:
Mahasamadhi (“great samadhi” or “great state of ecstasy”) is the Sanskrit term for the physical death of a Realizer. Such a being does not die in the ordinary sense of being helplessly subject to the body’s death process. Rather, in death, such a Realizer merely releases the body-mind and continues to Bless others by Abiding in Samadhi or the exalted state of Realization Itself, through and beyond the death transition.
January 25, 2009 at 12:19 am
A Story:
I was talking to a former Adidam member today who left Adidam in 1987 and who I have known since the early 80s.
He would never post this story so no one would ever hear about it:
He joined Adidam in the early 80s. He contribute to full time work with the Adidam youth fellowship. He tithed regularly and obviously did his 20 hour of service and much more. (He had been a follower of Ramana Maharshi since the very early 70s.)
He had worked in a convalescent hospital wiping butts at minimum wages (1970′s minimum wage???) prior to joining Adidam. He accumulated $10,000. working there. Around 1982, he was convinced that Adi Da was who he said he was at the time. So he gave Franklin the full $10,000. as a gift. After that, he heard of the stories about Franklin and the case of Jack Daniels going to Fiji, etc., etc. By 1987, he had heard so many “awful” stories that he quit. And in today’s money with interest, that is quite a lot of money.
Well, he went back to working his butt off and wiping butts also at minimum wages. Although I sense no sour grapes from him, the implications are obvious (and this obviously affected his family also).
Had he been well vetted from the Adidam side, he would never have given a penny, – at least not the $10,000.
There are many stories like this not reported –and hopefully they will be.
January 25, 2009 at 1:51 am
The debate about Sri Nisargadatta, his lifestyle and means of making a living, in comparison with Da, is worth commenting on.
Nisargadatta did say that he was in the same state as Ramana Maharshi, but when asked, said he did not experience “the heart on the right”. He may well have been referring not to what Ramana Maharshi actually said he experienced, but to what others think about it. He did not mention amrita nadi. That could be a concern if you consider that type of experience Da describes the only sign of realization as those in Adidam do. But the same could be said for some of Ramana Maharshi’s realized disciples. Some, like Sri Matha, vividly describe the experience. Others do not. Please keep in mind what Ramana Maharshi actually said, not how Da put it. Ramana Maharshi pointed out that everyone intuitively is aware of the heart center as shown by reflexively referencing there. And that the heart knot, identification with form, is dissolved simultaneously with Self-Realization, which includes a fully opened amrita nadi automatically. And that is all Ramana Maharshi is really talking about, not phenomena which may or may not be even noticed, in fact, he warns not to think about or visualize it, but simply BE it.
The teaching about Heart, the heart knot, and what we call Amrita Nadi goes back to the Upanishads, and can be found in various traditional texts, sometimes in more symbolic terms.
It is hard to find actual, narrative accounts because that is not the way the ancients wrote, and even then it was the nature of the realization and not the yogic phenomnena associated with it that was important. In more recent times where more personal accounts exist, I have seen that the Master Bankei reported that at a moment of total resignation, something in his chest released and the “Unborn” became obvious, to me suggestive of the heart. But jnanis do not dwell on these things because we focus on trying to imagine and create the experience rather than allowing it to happen in its own time. For example, we now know from more private conversations Ramana Maharshi spent months prior to his death experience in a state of extreme bhakti and he said that his kundalini was so active he felt like the back of his head was being bombed. Information he gave to those who needed it like Sri Matha. But Da didn’t know that, which makes his assessment as if he could read Ramana Maharshi like a book all the more amusingly wrong.
Putting this in perspective, not only is does it seem perfectly reasonable that jnanis would not necessarily experience this phenomena in such an experiential way, but those who realize on the subtle planes would not report these experiences as all, only release from identification with any form and Realization as Pure Awareness itself, which is the Heart without center or circumference and its Light as it IS. It is important to restate that the traditional understanding is the there is a tiny singularity intuited in bodily terms there that is associated with the appearance of the body in the Heart as it IS, and that is all.
It is more problematic to try and fit this in Da’s stage scheme because Da makes a huge deal out of the Heart and Amrita Nadi based on his own experiences. Yet Da’s description and conception of these after the Vedanta Event he wrote about is found through study to be inconsistent with everything else known from ancient times and every other account. In part because Da’s experience evolved over time, and was associated with further consideration about it and activity he himself describes such as a kind of automatic “avoiding relationship” going on and flows to the heart from above. And of course, the energetic S curve revelation a few weeks afterward, Not only that, but he also describes in writing a time after the Vedanta Event as “Sitting in my room a few minutes ago and suddenly know who I am. A magnificent flow moved through me, through the Flow of Everything.” In other words, although Da’s description of the Vedanta Event itself is how Self Realization is described classically, his descriptions after that seem more consisent with the same path he had been on, than the non-dualist jnani stage indicated at that one point. Da’s struggle to find traditional validation for his experiences when he was virtually unknown led him to less accurately interpret and misrepresent Ramana Maharshi’s experiences as being more similar to his, as he knew them from his limited resources. Actually they are as different as night and day. It is always useful to study realizers in any case.
On this issue of the bidis, they are harmful, and Ramana Maharshi himself says nicotine was poison. It did seem out of place at first. I know Nisargadatta sold them to make a living for his family but I think to those who wanted them already. What I think is a relevant point to consider is, not just did he sell them, did Nisargatta encourage anyone to smoke them who did not want to smoke? At least at the time of the talks, I don’t think so. Da did. I recall the pushing of cigarettes during celebratory and party periods, a vice developed then, being younger and foolisher, that it took me years to shake even after leaving Adidam. Da could have ended that foolishness with one word. We now know that even short periods of smoking cause genetic damage that you can’t repair by fasting, diet, etc. And while Nisargadatta said he smoked because his body had gotten used to it before jnana, and died of throat cancer at 84, Da smoked a lot too and died of heart disease at age 69, and encouraged those around him to overindulge riskly lifestyle choices, despite all the healh information. As I said, Da was experimenting with diet and long fasts along with periods of extreme indulgence the year before the Vendanta Event, and nothing really changed.
This is one of those cases where behavior needs to be evaluated in a larger context. Whatever Nisargadatta’s faults, in the larger context, he is widely respected as a jnani based on his impact on others. As for the relative morality, I recall a failed scheme in Adidam to sell beef to Japan to make money, strange for a group that knew excessive meat eating was a health risk and claimed respect for ahimsa, based on the same rationale that they were going to buy beef anyway. So I don’t think this line of debate is going to resolve the underlying issue of how to evaluate behavior. But interesting none the less.
I
January 25, 2009 at 5:09 am
Feel4God,
I’m not sure what kind of point you are trying to make. Clearly, Nisargdatta was a smoker. Clearly, he sold tobacco products. I don’t smoke, and I don’t think it’s a good idea for people to smoke. Therefore, I don’t approve of Nisargadatta smoking either, whether it’s beedies or other forms of tobacco. Do I think this is a serious moral issue? No, I don’t. My criticism of Adi Da is not based on the idea that he should set some kind of perfect moral example, or that he’s directly responsible for the bad habits of those in Adidam who followed his example and smoked, though he is of course guilty to some extent for that sort of thing. Nisargadatta is guilty of it too.
Does that mean that everything about the two teachers is equal, because they both smoked? No, obviously not. I’m capable of differentiating between someone who has a few minor faults in one area, and someone who has some major faults in many areas. For one thing, Nisargadatta didn’t hide his faults. His beedie smoking was right out in the open, with no attempts to deny it. He faced criticism for it from his devotees without denials or lashing out at his critics. With Adi Da, there’s an entire industry of denial associated with all his faults and indulgences, which extended far beyond merely smoking cigarettes. You are a part of that industry of denial. So it’s rather odd to see you making these attacks of Nisargadatta, and then trying to limit the criticism of Da to the fact that he smoked “off and on”.
To say that Nisargadatta encouraged people to smoke by his example is, I think, a distortion. I’m not aware of anyone who took up smoking as a result of seeing Nisargadatta smoking. But I am certainly aware of people who took up smoking because they saw Adi Da smoking. It was all too common within Adidam. I know lots of people who struggled with it, and it was virtually impossible for them to stop because of how frequently Adi Da smoked and encouraged smoking. In fact, Adi Da often went on about how smoking could be a yogically beneficial practice, using the breath, using nicotine as a drug to open up the mind, etc.
In fact, after my very first encounter with Adi Da, as a kid of seventeen in 1975, when I came out of his house from my very first darshan, I was greeted by a two devotees, one with a bottle of champagne, the other with a cigarette, offering both to me. I told them I didn’t smoke or drink, and they said, “Your do now!” So in Adidam smoking and drinking were not only often encouraged, they were sometimes even required. Drinking was often required in Adidam gatherings, especially if Adi Da was personally present. As sometimes was ganga. Whereas, I’m not aware of Nisargadatta ever encouraging or requiring people to smoke, drink, or do drugs. Da promoted ganga for a time as a sacred sacrament, not an “accessory”, and his devotees were lighting up day and night for months on end. And I could go down the list of “accessories” that Da both used himself, and encouraged others to use, from meat and junk food to all kinds of unhealthy habits. To say that Da wrote about health foods doesn’t change the fact that he also encouraged the opposite just as much. And then, of course, denied it all, and required that his devotees lie about it all, so that others wouldn’t know of his hypocrisy.
My praise of Nisargadatta, which you seem to be reacting to, was of his honesty and trustworthiness. He didn’t lie or put up false pretenses about himself. He lived above his beedie store, and taught there too, and everyone saw how he made a living. He did not hide his bad habit, nor did he excuse it. He just accepted it as something he liked to do, and I gather felt that if he was going to sell beedies, he should smoke them also. So I don’t see any hypocrisy on his part.
But if your real objection is not to Nisargadatta himself, but to me for using a double-standard, you simply haven’t understood my criticism of Adi Da. Must I re-list it all for you once again? I don’t think that’s necessary at this point. But once again, I’m not the issue here. Adi Da is. His actions are not excused because some realizer smoked and sold cigarettes. If the worst Adi Da had ever done was openly smoke cigarettes without hiding or denying that fact, I wouldn’t be here criticizing him. Most likely, I’d still be in Adidam. And so would a lot of people. I wouldn’t have come to distrust Adi Da, nor would a lot of people. If Adi Da had demonstrated the same kind of human intergrity and honesty that Nisargadatta did, none of this controversy would surround him. We could rather easily say that Da was a great realizer who had this nasty little smoking habit. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of Adi Da’s nasty habits, combined with his overwhelming dishonesty, denial and hypocrisy, and his authoritarian demand for secrecy and denial from his devotees, made him highly untrustworthy to many people. That isn’t me using a double-standard, it’s just the simple facts.
In fact, even if Adi Da had been just as self-indulgent as he was, and yet been so openly, I think a lot of people would have at least felt he could be trusted, and even sympathized with. That’s why the various examples stated in the crazy wisdom tradition have a certain appeal. Drukpa Kunley was certainly a womanizer, but he didn’t hide it and pretend to be celibate, as Adi Da often did. Ikkyu didn’t drink in secret and then present himself as a sober preacher of rectitude. And Marpa didn’t abuse Milarepa behind closed doors, and then make him smile for the crowds and pretend that all was fine. These stories are perhaps a bit legendary, but even in legend there’s no hint of hypocrisy or denial or secretiveness. But with Adi Da, and yourself, there’s a mountain of denial and obfuscation involved in even discussing these matters. This, more than even all the self-indulgence itself, renders Adi Da simply untrustworthy, and Adidam advocates such as yourself not trustworthy as presenters and defenders of his legacy. If you can’t openly talk about precisely what Adi Da actually did, how can you really be trusted at all to provide an accurate portrayal of his life and teachings?
Now, as for realization, I don’t draw conclusions from self-indulgent behavior alone, but it’s certainly a huge stretch for me to think that a genuine realizer would behave as Adi Da has, especially in being such a hypocrite about it all, and a denier of it all, and creating an entire institution devoted to hiding and denying it all.
But that’s not all that is involved. The traditions give a great number of qualifiying signs to look for in realizers, and also all kinds of disqualifying signs. Adi Da lacks many of the first category, and demonstrates an overwhelming number of the second. There’s a real reason why he is not recognized in any tradition as a realizer, but is rather widely regarded as an imposter and fraud. The traditions are in fact full of warnings about Gurus exactly like Adi Da. Devotees are advised to steer well clear of them. Not heeding those warnings, people get what they deserve perhaps, but many are simply unaware of those warnings due to their lack of knowledge about the traditions, and the distortions of the Guru tradition that are put forward by Adi Da to make it seem as if he is a legitimate realizer.
So let’s be clear. It’s totally fair to criticize Nisargadatta for smoking and selling beedies, and if one thinks that’s enough to disqualify him from being considered a realizer, fine. I don’t think it is, but others may. I also think it’s totally fair to criticize Adi Da for all the myriads of his indulgences and abuses, and his hypocritical hiding and denial of the same, and if one still wants to believe he’s a realizer, that’s fine too. But most people simply won’t find that conclusion supported. I think it’s quite reasonable to look at the record of both, and conclude that Adi Da is not a realizer, and that Nisargadatta is, especially when one considers their total teaching and influence. It’s not a double-standard, in other words.
Btw, both Ramakrishna and Ramana Maharshi died of throat cancer, if I recall correctly, and neither smoked that I’m aware of. And Nisargadatta outlived both of them.
Also, the actual agent of cancer causation in tobacco is not known. Neither nicotine nor tar alone seem to be the active causes of cancer. Theories abound, and one of them is that tobacco has a unique property of concentrating naturally occurring radiation from the soil, which is then deposited in tiny particles in the lung and espoghal passageways, and it is this radiation that later causes the cancer. This may explain why other forms of smoke, such as from ganga or other herbs, are not necessarily good for the lungs, but they don’t cause cancer, because these plants don’t attract the radiative particles the way tobacco doe. Neither do nicotine patches cause cancer. So I would gather than beedies, while not safe, are certainly less cancerous than ordinary cigarettes. Of course, it depends on how much one smokes of them.
January 25, 2009 at 11:08 am
Wow that about wraps it up for me. I don’t know if my tolerance for it has just gotten less or the the bullshit has gotten thicker here, but it is just too much over the top for me. Certainly I have never had any sort of “missionary” zeal in writing here or care about “convincing” anyone or whatever. I was just kind of bored and when I came here, after hearing over the years about some of the ongoing smear campaigns online about Adi Da, I felt like, at least, on this blog, which seemed to have more than one view presented, it would be worth something{for some reason or other} to talk about or present what I have found to be of value to me over the years in my study of and some practice with Adi Da and also with other teachers and traditions.
I have not been in Adi dam for several years and have had all kinds of doubts come and go like anyone, whether the doubts come from real issues or from my own my of doubt in general. It is important to know that the mind of doubt is a very real issue also. whatever
Anyhow, maybe post a bit more intellectually here than at Lightmind, but it is basically the same sort of Bevis and Butthead land sort of “he had green boogers” campaign. I mean this debate over beedies versus regular cigs and if Adi Da smoked non stop or would quit and smoke again and if he drank and stopped and if he watched porn when he fucked and when and how much is just beyond ridiculous. I don’t know if anyone can stand aside from their reactive emotional states{although most seem stuck in their heads at the same time,kind of weird} to see the circus like quality of it , using the cigarette “debate” as only one example of course{there are many others}
And then the example of Drupka Kunley, and Ikkyu, and Milarepa, who when I brought them up , Conrad said were all basically mythological and now he presents all his expert inside knowledge of whether or not Drupka discussed openly his womanizing or Ikkyu hid his bar and prositute stuff from people or whether Marpa was covering up his beatings of Milerepa. just over the top ridiculous. I mean it is still legend, but there were not exactly many people around to hide Marpa’s rough workings with Milarepa.
Adi Da always said it was amusing because he never hid what he was being “accused ” of doing. When in his community, I always heard that he had hit Nina or that he had been partying for months or that now they had been smoking pot for months or “who is he having sex with now” or now they are having another fundraiser and Adi Da needs to buy some more art. I always picked and chose the kinds of meetings I attended and if I did not like the way things were being communitcated, I would leave . I never gave any more money than I wanted to give and for most of the years I was in the community, I have one hundred dollars a month. For a period of time, I gave five thousand ,which was not very much for me at the time and I felt fine about it. So if people want to be “brainwashed” and feel like they were slavish fools or whatever, that is not my problem. But they might just try to let it all go and move on.
Then there is all the rumor mongering and exagerration that entails, so you don’t really no the extent of the truth, since the truth in rumoring always tends toward the sensational and grossly exagerrated. I guess people do not remember the school kids game where you say something and pass it on down the line and see what it sounds like at the end. I mean, like I said, i can’t believe some of the rumors that I heard about myself over the years that were totally untrue and totally ridiculous.
So I guess i should have expected it , but I found that posting anything positive about my experience personally about Adi da and his teaching here was met with derision and referring to me as a sort of dumb brainwashed fundamentalist cultist with no real thinking ability and it goes on.
I am not sure why FFG wants to keep coming here to get bludgeoned. Perhaps he does have some sort of missionary zeal or something. I sure don’t, I could care less if anyone here likes or dislikes Adi da or believes or disbelieves or knows about the intricacies and technicalities of the heart on the right or if sailor bob has bigger balls than Adi Da.
Basically , this is pretty much a bash da blog, in spite of the sort of intellectual stance of the majority of posters here. Well I hope you guys figure it all out and can continue to validate the conclusions you have already come to about all of this. Flick Rahke
January 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm
“…such advanced teachings and practices would mainly be understood by, and work for, those who have already prepared the body-mind in this (and most likely, prior) lifetimes. Adi Da’s Teachings deal with every aspect of an aspirant’s development, and makes it clear that right life disciplines and radical (non-dual) devotion to Reality are the necessary foundation for the more advanced practice of the Witness, etc.”
all of this “teaching” of progression is time-based and body-based and re-inforces the search, even with a “searchless” thrown in once in a while for good measure.
to put this in context of true non-duality teachings, here one of my favorite quotes on the time concept:
“Big Bangers ‘n’ Mash
Life has JUST happened – IS JUST happening now in this one, timeless, eternal moment. From nothing to everything. So the ‘Big Bang’ as scientists like to call it didn’t happen 6 billion years ago or whatever; it’s just happening in THIS present moment as a singular, unique explosion of creation. Absolutely everything has just been created, including any concept of time or ’cause and effect’. The oceans, mountains, sky, sun, sensations, thoughts, you, him, her, everything, absolutely everything that exists in experience has just been created. These words are the first and only words that you’ll ever read; this moment is the first and only moment you will exist and live. Mind-blowingly amazing isn’t it?!…
So notions of time passing and ’cause and
effect’ are simply that – man made notions. Time is
eternal. It IS – without movement. There is no past
and no future; there is only the present moment. You
will live and die in this same beautiful, timeless
moment. You, the world, existence, has no history;
there is no beginning or end. Pictures of you as a
child are simply pictures. You had no childhood. It’s
a memory created in imagination now, presently.
You are without age.”
from
David Brockman: The Wonder of This
January 25, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Harvard Professor R.J. Lifton (tinyurl.com/dxa29m) describes the main three components of a cult:
- Worship of the leader
- Thought Reform (including eight conditions)
- Exploitation of members
Please read this http://tinyurl.com/lifton and this http://tinyurl.com/cbomqp
I urge ex-members (and members) participating here to please have a look/read and get back with your evaluation whether Adidam fits the model or not
Namaste
Clara
January 25, 2009 at 2:34 pm
It’s the context, stupid,
Context is a theme that may need to be re-emphasized time and time again in all discussions; but especially on a blogging site where the objective is not to write a book but simply a relatively short blog. So, context always has to be kept in mind.
In 1992, James Carville (Bill Clinton’s campaign manager) said, “It’s the economy, stupid”.
In 2005, Bruce Lipton (a cellular biologist) said, “It’s the environment, stupid”.
So, I say and remind people that, “It’s the context, stupid”.
For example, the issue of smoking ala Nisargadatta style is to be understood in its greater context. Also, the deaths of “Realizers” or claimants need to be understood in the greater context.
Once I mentioned in a very short post that Franklin self- indulged himself with drugs in 1964. That was in the greater context of all the self indulgence with drugs between 1961 and 1966 (posted later) which also was in the greater context of the thousands of example of self indulgence until his death in 2008.
*** It was also in my particular personal undisclosed context of having been told last year that Franklin was on anti-depressants during all of 2007 and that was in the context of the informant which was the intimate of someone directly responsible for coordinating and/or sending the anti-depressants; and that was in the context of everything that I know personally about Adidam and Franklin and also in the context of Franklin’s entire life.
The funny but interesting post last week by Jacob (in London) on a relatively minor point about an Adidam missionary in relationship to his views on diet and the way he looked at his food on his fork as he started eating. Nothing derogatory there but an interesting metaphor in its right context which spoke well to Jacob (in his personal context). Among other variables, it requires a reader or listener to apply some deductive and inductive reasoning to that post in the context of missionary work in London, overall diet strategies, who this member/missionary is in relationship to his Adidam functions, etc., and then the whole thing makes “sense”.
Which bring me to another important issue that is often overlooked?
Besides being in a certain context, all incidences, stories, arguments, etc. about Franklin can be prioritized in a hiarchical way on a scale of 1 to 10 —-or on a scale from very mild, mild, mild to moderate, moderate, moderate to severe, severe, and profoundly severe. Sometimes I post (or others post) relatively minor incidences but in its right context and in the quantities of relatively minor incidences in Adidam totaled together make for a powerful argument for deconstructing the myth of Adi Da.
And my important point here is that there are thousands of those incidents at the mild or moderate level worth posting. A 10 (which is relatively rare) would be something like a law suit or Shawnee writing a book exposing her father (also for her own sanity?) and a 1 (or even less than a 1) would be something like Jacob’s story (not to underestimate the perception of the victim: a 1 to me may be a 10 to him). My friend who lost his last hard earned $10,000. to Franklin in 1983 would probably still consider that a 5 or a 6 (without any left over sour grapes about it).
In any case, most of the reports don’t fall in the 10 category but they all add up anyway which is something overlooked. To use a metaphor, a building can be demolished in a variety of ways and some ways more effective than others but all ways are important.
January 25, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Good
Bye Beavis and Butthead Time to break away from the cult of cult busters I am sick of baloney sandwhiches Flick Rahke even though they can be addicting in a sick sort of way , like the McDonald’s every one seems to love in our advanced society of civilization of nondualism where diet matters not
January 25, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Okay, Flick, clearly you’re superior to the rest of us gossiping scumbags here. Glad you cleared that up. We were all wondering when you would weary of our pathetic existence and return to your higher life free from all this inspid babble of lower minds. Maybe some day I will get your Darshan again and beg forgiveness for sullying you with your lowly concerns and gutter mentality. Until then it’s back to the tabloids, lots of gossip to process!
He he he. Well, who knows, maybe you can laugh that that first paragraph, maybe not. If you can, then be on your way and be free. If not, if maybe you got a little angry and offended, hmmmmm, maybe something to notice, all I’m saying.
Anyway, to be serious, If you think all this talk about Da’s indulgences is besides the point, I think you’re mistaken. Self-indulgent desiring is one of the primary obstacles to spiritual practice, and looking down upon it as a petty concern is, essentially, not taking spiritual practice seriously. One of the primary signs of spiritual realization is freedom from desire, from the binding impulses of the egoic self.
Without that freedom, non-dual proclamations about Amrita Nadi are just a load of crap. Who gives a rat’s ass if you have visions of fountains of bliss rising up from your heart to your sahsrar if you are still bound to the same ordinary desiring as everyone else? Why should someone like that be worshipped and looked to for instruction on how to achieve the same? So when we see that Adi Da was bound to the same course of ordinary desiring we all suffer from, it certainly ought to make us pause and wonder what’s so valuable about his teachings and “transmission”.
Now of course Feel4God will say that he’s never seen Adi Da show the signs of having an “ego”, whether or not he’s indulging his desires to the utmost, and that’s supposed to be enough to answer all doubts and questions. Well, who can really counter that? The point is, who cares? If “egoless” still means being bound to desire and suffering, and playing out the ego-games the same way any other ego would if it got the chance, what’s the difference?
You gotta wonder, why would someone who was actually free of ego act like someone who is full of ego? What would be the point of that? Wouldn’t there be better things to do? It’s like a drunk saying he’s free of the desire to drink, while he’s drinking all day long. Does that make any sense?
The other issue you bring up is all this debate about what Adi Da did or didn’t do. I think you know very well that these factual disputes are only a matter of debate because Adi Da and his devotees have made it their central policy to deny and hide every kind of indulgence or abuse or desiring extravagance of Adi Da’s with the same kind of attitude the military brings to nuclear secrets. Why all the secrecy and hypocrisy on Adi Da’s part, if he’s egoless in the midst of all this, if it’s really a form of Divine Blessing rather than egoic dramatization? Well, it’s certainly not the fault of critics that these things are hidden and denied and lied about and covered up over and over again, even on Adi Da’s specific order.
Now, maybe you don’t care about this stuff, but doesn’t it bother you at least a little bit that Adi Da and his devotees have systematically lied and denied the facts about these things, and didn’t have the courage to openly admit to the extent of his indulgences? Even if you don’t care, plenty of people do, and don’t they have the right to know about these things, since they do matter to them? Or is everyone supposed to not care like you, and if they do, there’s something wrong with them?
I know people who were lied to systematically about all these things, who came into the teaching without knowing what was going on, who participated for years, who served and donated money and invested themselves in the practice and dharma, and then found out that behind closed doors Da was engaged in all kinds of things they never would have approved of, and would have steered clear of Adidam had they known. Is that really just business as usual for Sat-Gurus? Maybe you wouldn’t have cared, but don’t they have the right to not be lied to and misreprented and decide for themselves what to make of Adi Da’s pattern of behavior, rather than have it all hidden from them and papered over with false images of the kind of guy he was?
I think that should be a pretty easy question to answer, if you have even a modicum of conscience and compassion for other people, which I think you do. It seems like just basic human morality, something that ought to be obvious to everyone involved in spiritual practice.
And Flick, I cited those crazy wisdom stories with the acknowledgement that they were mythic. My point was that even in those mythic examples of crazy wisdom, the behavior of these guys is right out in the open, not denied and hidden and hypocritically covered over with some respectable veneer as in Adi Da’s case. If there’s one thing that even Crazy Wisdom guys keep straight, it’s their honesty and openness and lack of deception about their indulgences or abuses. Trungpa, for example, never kept his drinking or womanizing a secret. He flaunted it openly and publically. He scandalized a lot of people, and got criticized for it, without turning on his critics and accusing them of lying. But with Adidam, all critics are blamed, and called liars and gossips, while denying or stonewalling all enquiries into what Adi Da actually did. As if it’s somehow just a prurient interest in someone’s private life, with no bearing on whether we should take Adi Da’s claims of spiritual realization and teaching seriously.
If spiritual realization does nothing to change the way one lives one’s life, if it means just continuing the same desiring indulgences one kept following before realization, just now even more exagerrated and well financed and “Divinized”, then what is its value? Anyone can do that. You could do that. Why not become a spiritual teacher yourself, and give darshan, and collect lots of money, and if people criticize you for just being a desiring ego like everyone else, just tell them you’re actually egoless, and it’s their lack of recognition that tells them otherwise. Tell them it’s stupid, egoic gossip to dredge up those kinds of issues. Some I’m sure will believe you even. Create an organization around yourself to protect you from all prying eyes. I think you already can see how its done.
Well, maybe you’d have some qualms about doing something like that. Or you don’t have the energy. Well, I’d join the Flickananda movement if there were the right incentives. What can you offer me? It better be more than Court Astrologer, I’ll tell you that much. I’ve already turned down that gig.
Anyway, I wish you a hearty goodbye and a parting hug. No hard feelings, I hope. You’re a lovable guy as always, even when bitching. I hope we really do meet up again sometime.
January 25, 2009 at 3:47 pm
FFaC Says:
“What I think is a relevant point to consider is, not just did he sell them, did Nisargatta encourage anyone to smoke them who did not want to smoke? At least at the time of the talks, I don’t think so. ”
How can you say this? Nisargadatta was a spiritual teacher to many people and smoked constantly. Just by his example, that is plenty of encouragement – not to mention people were smoking his second hand smoke anyway.
FFaC Says (from an earlier post):
“And the traditions clearly state that we should judge the actions of a claimed jnani by its effects, based on the Dattatreya principle.”
So the ill effects of selling cigarettes to thousands of addicted people would be okay, I guess according to the Dattatreya principle. Who decides this, anyway? Conradg and you?
FFaC Says:
“… did Nisargatta encourage anyone to smoke them who did not want to smoke? At least at the time of the talks, I don’t think so. Da did. I recall the pushing of cigarettes during celebratory and party periods, a vice developed then, being younger and foolisher, that it took me years to shake even after leaving Adidam.”
This is utter bullshit, FFaC! Adi Da never did such a thing in all the gatherings I went to. Smoking was totally up to the individual, as was even going to the gathering. Now, FFaC, perhaps you are talking about devotees suggesting that you smoked, but certainly Adi Da never forced anyone to smoke.
Plus, if you had actually done as He admonished, you would have stopped smoking right after the gatherings ended anyway. So blaming Adi Da like this is very childish of you.
You are really going for some sensationalism with this post, FFaC, in jumping to that conclusion. Look at what you just said very closely, and how you did this. Your playing the victim like this actually surprises me, FFaC.
FFaC Says:
“And while Nisargadatta said he smoked because his body had gotten used to it before jnana, and died of throat cancer at 84, Da smoked a lot too and died of heart disease at age 69.”
Actually, there were no signs of any physical abnormalities the day of Adi Da’s Divine Mahasamadhi, nor in the many days prior to it. Adi Da’s health was very formally monitored every day. The only conclusion the doctors came to was that His heart simply stopped beating and He slumped over to His left side.
FFaC Says:
“So I don’t think this line of debate is going to resolve the underlying issue of how to evaluate behavior.”
I do agree with you here – and on this note, I will say again, that Nisargadatta’s behavior does not concern me. I simply brought it up to show how ridiculous trying to analyze Adi Da’s behavior as a means to discredit Him and His Realization, in light of His accomplishments, etc., actually is – and how Conradg and you are using a double standard, depending on what you want to conclude.
Apparently, you guys still don’t get this, so I won’t continue with this approach – as really, I respect other people’s Spiritual Masters, and I agree with Flick that this whole line of reasoning relative to a Master’s behavior that we are doing here is absurd.
January 25, 2009 at 4:34 pm
No Conrad I am not offended, and I like you too. But one of the main points I made in the post prior was that i can’t seem to figure out where people get that what Adi da was doing was ever hidden? He used to tell some people that I know that he never hid all the stuff he was accused of . Actually< I myself have studied and practiced in the Chogyma Trungpa community and I was there when Trungpa was alive too after I left Adidam at one point because the practice and discipline was too rough for me at the time. I was interviewed by them much as they used to interview people approaching Adi Dam. The guy told me that I was too uptight about diet and that I should get into hamburgers and cigarettes and not be concerned about what I ate. he was aware of Adi Da’s sexual and dietary and booze activities and said their guru was just as wild as Adi Da and that I would not be escaping any wildness by studying with Trungpa, if that was what I might be thinking. well I did study there for a time, but I did not choose to take up hamburgers and smoking cigs. I think that I smoked cigs for awhile during parties in Adi
dam for awhile in the late seventies, but cigs always made me sick so i never got into them. same with booze although I did party for around a year in Fairfax in the bar scene around 18 years ago and drank beers and smoked pot. I did stop when it was making my liver sore.
I liked it much more when Adi Da was smoking pot. much more hip and "conscious" from my perspective , although it was somewhat more "hidden" due to illegality although most of the students new about it anyhow. It was well known.
I am not sure where all this accusation of "hiding stuff" comes from. Everyone knew that their money was going to buy art and build a house for Adi Da or whatever. Now I have been given a tour of the house where Adi Da lived in Kauai off and on for years and it is a very simple circumstance. not the bit lavish at all., I heard it was the same in Fiji although I never was on that island.
But I was amazed at how non pretentious and simple the house in kauai is. Tasteful but very simple. not flashy or expensive. Everyone knew how much money Adi Da spent on his intimates at Christmas.
You have to remember that people were devoted to him as their guru and did not mind giving money. Now their might be some here and around the forums who feel ripped off and are resentful of money they gave. I think most who came and went , like myself are not resentful of this. No one was forced to to anything including giving money. I know all the percentages that were asked for to participate as a full student, but you could still participate if you gave a hundred dollars or even fifty dollars a month with no further contributions for anything , including birthday or Christmas gifts to Adi Da. i used to chip in twenties dollars here and there when those sort of donations were asked for . I liked to put in something when I could , because for me it was a gift of love at the time.
So hey you guys and girls , you can stop whining now . Don’t look back and get on with brightening your own lives . people who are with Adi da either in life or in death want to practice with him. I am not practicing with him now, but I have just posted here my positive experience of him and his teaching , although I have also posted some of my negative feelings around it and doubts also.
Now i myself , as Conrad pointed out at the beginning of his post , in his fun poking and playful way can be offensive and punky. II do my best, but I myself am still an adoslescent punk at the tender age of 58 and also can be offensive. so I know that i have been offensive to some and to Shiva for sure and I know you are all human just like me and that we are all in the same boat,.
But neverthess I find most of the stuff I read here pretty reactive and silly. That is my slant on it Flick
Rahke
January 25, 2009 at 4:41 pm
p.s. I look back over some of my posts and I see a lot of misspellings. People must think I am some sort of redneck from Lake County or something, but actually I am just a terrible typist and I try to type fast anyhow The I hit the submit button and it is too late ha ha ha It is always too late once yu hit the submit button whatever you said is there for all to see Fliock FRack my new computer name
January 25, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Feel4God.
I read your last reply a number of times in order to maximize my appreciation of what you wrote, and to try and see it from your perspective. To really see if it addresses the many issues people have been raising here about Adi Da, his realization and his behaviors, as well as what actually occurs in Adidam (not only what filters out into the public).
Your devotion to Adi Da is clearly enunciated as is your ‘recognition’ of who he claims to be. It is also clear that you relate to everything on that basis because it is all ‘self-evident.’ So be it.
In a sense that concludes most of our discussions on these matters. The growth, or otherwise of Adidam, will depend on how you and other devotees use this ‘self-evident’ knowledge to relate to the ‘outside’ world. If devotees continue to relate in the way they have been, holding on to the same tired argumentation and self-implosion, then whatever credibility Adidam has in the world will evaporate very quickly. As Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.’ The reason people do not join Adidam (or indeed leave) is not just because they are not prepared to live the required disciplines, nor is it because they do not ‘recognize’ something exceptional about Adi Da. It’s because those representing the way are unattractive in their exaggerated cultism. Take it or leave it.
I will not be advocating Adi Da one way or the other. I will simply say it as I find it without any imposed restrictions by the institutional hierarchy and its secrecy. It is evident to those who know me that Adi Da’s impact was profound. But I am glad that the ‘childish dependency’ is over, and that whatever adolescent reactivity remains will become evident and moved beyond as well.
Which brings me to your question about whether I have ‘inspected my own potential motives for perhaps wanting to feel that “closure” irrespective of what (you) write?’ The answer is yes. Actually, that is my only ‘practice’ now. I find everything else superfluous. Also, some time ago, I spent an intense 6-month period of writing about why I left Adidam and what closures in me might have contributed. (I’ve already listed the link to that essay in a previous post – it’s a long one!) What you perceive as ‘closure’ on my part is known to me as clarity; the result of being led away from the self-implosive, fundamentalist and cultic nature of Adidam and seeing how those remaining are either unaware of it all or too fearful to change. I appreciate you might see this as me being closed.
I simply must stand on my own two feet now and move with personal integrity. I trust I will be shown what is needed (by the grace of God) and I trust you will be likewise. However long it takes for us.
Cheers.
January 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm
C L Says:
“Harvard Professor R.J. Lifton (tinyurl.com/dxa29m) describes the main three components of a cult:
- Worship of the leader
- Thought Reform (including eight conditions)
- Exploitation of members
***********************************
Actually, C L, in the article it says:
“1) a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship.”
Regarding this first issue – yes, this is indeed a fundamental basis for cults. However, Clara, I can only assume that you do not understand the Teachings of Adi Da and/or have not been reading or understanding my posts.
From the beginning, in Adidam, it is and always has been, about the non-dual recognition of, and Self-identification with, Who Adi Da Is. It is not about dualistically relating to Him as “other”, worshipping Him as “other”, believing (in) Him, etc. In others words, it is not about making Him into an “object of worship”. That is what cults and their fundamentalism are all about – you have no argument from me about that.
However, notice the quote above that I copied from the first article:
“1) a charismatic leader who increasingly becomes an object of worship.”
You boiled this down to “Worship of the leader”. The word “object” is very key, and also interesting to me that you omitted that in your summary. Are you sure you have no agenda here?
Recognition of Reality is very different from belief in Reality, and even faith in Reality. This recognition is heart-based Reality intelligence and is Self-evident, even from the beginning. If you have studied much of Adi Da’s Teaching, or even very little, you would probably notice that the very first part of His many major Teaching Works is an Essay called:
“First Word: Do Not Misunderstand Me – I Am Not “Within” you, but you Are in Me, and I Am Not a Mere “Man” in the “Middle” of Mankind, but All of Mankind Is Surrounded, and Pervaded, and Blessed By Me.”
From here, this essay goes into great detail about how cults have worked since ancient days, and I highly recommend that you read it, if you really want to consider cults altogether. Adi Da clearly states what actual cults are and what we devotees must always be doing to not create a cult out of Adidam. Personally, I have not seen greater wisdom about cults than what Adi Da has written, and many critics would probably also concur (though not likely here).
There seems to be a great need by the critics here to discredit Adi Da, and so it has become necessary for them to constantly make Adidam into just a dualistic, object worshiping cult, all centered around the separate “man in the middle” – and to constantly blame this on Adi Da.
Making cults is what egos do everywhere – with politicians, movie stars, religious leaders, spiritual masters, and most especially with their own ego-I – and Daists have also been guilty of being cultic. However, Adi Da has been very actively undermining this in us for years – again, read this Essay that is at the front of many of His books.
The ego wants to do whatever it can to remain separate – including worshiping some object and itself! Many many people testify that being in Adi Da’s direct physical Company required self-transcendence of the ego-I pattern we suffer greatly, even if it is ultimately illusory. Were you ever in His physical Company?
Most of the critics here are very intelligent with their minds. I don’t know you, or your understanding of the Teachings of Adi Da, so forgive me if this sounds too rudimentary. Adi Da defined these type of people (mind-based), myself included, as “solids”. He also said that He wrote “The Knee Of Listening” to attract the solids – because it includes very high Teachings on jnana, etc. However, once He had us in His physical Company, He began to make it obvious that what He requires is a “hard school”, starting from the ground up. So bodily disciplines of diet, exercise, yoga, money, service, etc. were (are) required – as well as emotional-sexual considerations, study of the Great Tradition of religion and spirituality, meditation, etc. All the while, this Way was (is) to be undertaken always in relationship with Him – Satsang – unqualified Love/Self-identification with Him, and this was especially obvious in His Darshan occasions. This aspect was particularly wonderful for all types of devotees.
Mind-based types (“solids”) liked the Darshan occasions generally, and especially like very high dharma considerations. However, they don’t like the rest of the body-based disciplines by tendency, and tend to think that such matters are below the “superior” mind.
Let’s look at one of my favorite proponents of “pure” non-dualism right here: Mr. shiva! (After a half bottle of wine):
shiva Says:
“all this preparation non-sense. all that purification non-sense that mr. jones preached does only one thing: it prolongs the search. it IS the search. whether or not he calls it search-less or not. it is nothing but a search. isn’t that obvious?”
This may be true if someone has actually realized this, but for shiva to make such statements is pretty silly. It is just based on some mental understanding of non-duality, but not its actual realization. No amount of his affirming this notion, makes it true. This is also the kind of talk I hear from people who are stoned a lot. I can only assume that certain of the critics here did not speak about their accessory use in this regard because many people know that various substances can give someone lots of mental insights while they are high – but such substances can be very deluding, especially if used too much. The “talking school” of non-dualism is full of such people.
I think Mr. shiva, with all his “high” mindedness is just having experiences of “fun-da-mentalisms” !
Anyway, I think considering cults and fundamentalism is very very useful, so thank you for your post, Clara. I regret that Flick has taken his leave because I found his posts very balanced and real – plus he is not a “solid”! Unfortunately, I too will have much less time going forward because generally I have been writing during work hours because it has been slow lately. However, that is about to change (tomorrow) due to a large contract, so I will try to keep up reading here, but it will definitely be greatly reduced in terms of response. Now quit that cheering!
Flick, if you read this, please email me at:
feel4god@gmail.com
Also, if anyone else wants to talk more offline, feel free to write me.
Love
January 25, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Feel4God,
I don’t get what your point is still. Now you are arguing the second-hand smoke issue? That wasn’t even demonstrated to be harmful until after Nisargadatta died, and the studies about that are still in dispute (it’s a pretty neglibile effect).
Now, the idea that thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it is simply absurd. Do you have any basis for this? Can you name anyone who took up smoking because of Nisargadatta? I’m not saying it never could have happened, but it seems a pretty absurd stretch. Particularly in that smoking beedies was so prevalent in india that no one needed Nisargadatta’s example to take it up.
As for the notion that Adi Da didn’t encourage smoking, that’s just nonsense. He certainly did. He didn’t force people to, but it certainly did get pushed in people’s faces. And the idea that smokers can suddenly stop smoking just because Adi Da said the party is over is absurd and shows no understanding whatsoever of the power of nicotine addiction, which is way more powerful than heroin. It’s incredibly hard to quit smoking, and no one should be surprised that a lot of people in Adidam didn’t do so. And of course, Adi Da didn’t quit smoking after the party periods were over, he kept it up regardless of what was “allowed” for others.
As for specific examples of people he led to become smokers, how about his own children? How about the leadership, the inner circle, who I observed sneeking smokes for months and months after party periods ended?
Again, where’s the double standard? I’ve explained the issue of honesty and integrity, and you completely blow that off as if it doesn’t matter. You single out smoking as if it’s the only thing anyone could criticize Da for, when it’s the least of it. If Nisargadatta did everything Adi Da did, I’d condemn him for it as well, and consider him a phony, pseudo-nondualist. And you would too, which is where the real hypocrisy comes in. The fact is, you are willing to forgive Adi Da anything and everything, literally, because you presume him to be egoless. I don’t presume Nisargadatta to be a realizer, however. He does look that way to me, in spite of his smoking habit and making a living selling beedies.
I used to work in a convenience store when I was younger, and I sold tons and tons of alcohol, cigarettes, and junk food. So I guess I’m guilty of horrible crimes as well.
Anyway, I see through your tactics here. As usual, you are trying to create a diversionary smoke screen that tries to create the illusion that there’s an equivalence between Nisargadatta openly smoking and selling tobacco, and Adi Da commiting every kind of self-indulgent act imaginable, and lying about it all to boot. This false moral equivalence is the very kind of propaganda that cults try to indulge in to excuse their violations of ethics and morality, and most people see through it.
The notion that because Nisargadatta smoked and sold beedies and is still considered a realizer, anything and everything is permissible and excusable for a realizer is just nonsense. There are sensible limits, and most people, including myself, think Adi Da stepped way over the line in a whole range of things, not just tobacco, which is the least of it. There’s a difference between jay-walking and armed robbery. Just because both are against the law doesn’t make the jay-walker a dangerous thief, and it doesn’t make the armed robber a harmless guy who just happened to commit some minor traffic offense.
Now, maybe we just have different sensibilities about smoking. I don’t smoke, but I’ve known tons of people who do. My parents both smoked, and I don’t think that made them criminals. They discouraged me from smoking, and never had parties where they encouraged me to smoke, as Adi Da did with his kids, or the other kids in the community, a great many of whom became smokers as a result of his influence. The first cigarette I ever smoked was in Adidam, as I mentioned, and actually I’ve never smoked a cigarette except with people from Adidam. Similar with drinking. I had one brief evening of drinks before joining Adidam, and then a whole lot during those party periods. Without Adidam I’m sure I’d never have done much drinking at all. I don’t even like alcohol. Apart from a couple of incidents with friends as a teenager, I also never smoked ganga until I was in Adidam, where it was encouraged as a “sacrament”. So it’s strange that you would infer that Nisargadatta would be passively influencing people to smoke because he did, when Adi Da actively influenced people that way, and never warned them away from it.
I don’t fault Adi Da for having a smoking habit, I understand it’s hard to quit, but I do fault him for actively promoting smoking and encouraging people to smoke. That simply didn’t happen with Nisargadatta that I’m aware of. We know you really don’t care about it anyway, you are just trying to confuse things, literally with smoke and mirrors, so that you can come to this crazy conclusion that all concerns abotu Adi Da’s behavior are absurd. I would never suggest that concern for Nisargadatta’s behavior, or any other realizer, is absurd. He deserved some criticism for his smoking habits, but I don’t think there’s any evidence he encouraged people to copy him. That’s more of a projection on your part based on your experience in Adidam, where because there’s so much attention on being like Adi Da, and people take their behavioral cues from him, you imagine that the same is true in Nisargadatta’s circle. I don’t see much evidence of that, particularly in that they had a completely different scene altogether.
I don’t think you understand the huge differences in teaching style between Nisargadatta and Adi Da, or even a teacher with an ashram like Ramana. Nisargadatta didn’t have a permanent Sangha as in Adidam. He wouldn’t accept people as devotees even, and generally only allowed people to stay and listen to his talks for a few weeks at a time, and then he would throw them out and tell them to go away. He didn’t encourage the sort of cultic personality worship as in Adidam, and didn’t want people imitating him or worshipping him, falling into patterns of habit and cultic fascination. He had a teaching transmission to give, and once that was done, you were supposed to be on your own. So even people who saw him smoking didn’t stay in that kind of atmosphere for very long.
But again, you don’t really care about any of that. Thinking that you’ve found some kind of flaw in my criticism of Da, you think you can accuse me now of being a “fundamentalist” who has pre-judged Da. Never mind that I spent nearly 30 years in Adidam, and worshipped him as God for most of that time. You certainly wouldn’t have considered me a fundamentalist while I was doing that, would you? Ah, but now I make some criticisms of him, and so that’s “fundamentalist prejudgment”. Yeah, right. I see where your standards are.
January 25, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Unfortunately, FFG, it is more as Conradg said, since he and I were around at that same time. In public, Adidam does talk a lot about health, but that is not the whole story. Cigarette smoking was widely pushed at times, along with the drinking and various other stuff. I wasn’t a smoker before I got there. And of course I did stop smoking during “straight” periods, as most did. And I am not saying Da was solely responsible and I was just a victim, I am using myself as an example of the consequences. I could have said no to a number of things, theoretically, although my involvement would have been restricted. Some I did, some I didn’t. I should have simply left for good. But that is not what I was saying. If you find something inaccurate in what I put here, by all means mention it. In this case, to be fair, perhaps I need to be more specific.
I am saying there are several practical problems with this binge and purge approach Da openly fostered, and the idea that there was some sort of magical protective siddhi so the normal rules did not apploy. The one problem I have already identified–that even casual use of tobacco for those limited periods generally causes genetic damage, and it alters your body chemistry permanantly in relation to tobacco. Fasting and a “straight” diet may help mitigate but does not correct that. The same thing is true with some of the levels of alcoholic excess, the damage is done and the genie can’t totally be shoved back in the bottle. The whole drama of endless binge and purge pattern there did not serve health or spiritual practice, period. I’m sorry if I don’t have faith that Da’s siddhi protects everyone from harm. Comparing this to Nisargadatta’ situation does not mean I find selling bidis commendable.
I do not understand how you can say Da’s heart was perfectly healthy and it “just stopped”. You may believe it, but I say it is probably what they are saying now to justify the “conscious mahasamadhi” claim. We can agree to disagree there. I wondered if they were going to take a perfectly normal death and mythogize it, as that did anything to improve the already shattered credibility. It reminds me of what one early devotee who left said, that Franklin had predicted he would stay a few days before and he still left, so even then when the group was just getting going they had to cover that up to preserve “infallibilty”. Childish. Even Ramana Maharshi, who correctly predicted WW2 in advance, was not infallible in his intital assessments of every single thing. I look at that final picture of him and I see a frail body with death written all over it. Da’s lifestyle is well known. Da’s genetic heritage included heart disease, as he knew, yet he smoked and drank, along with other drugs known to affect the heart, with abandon. His eyesight was permanently and prematurely damaged from that lifestyle. And in his life he had numerous experiences medically diagnosed as panic attacks where he visualized dying because his heart stopped, but did not change. He was diagnosed with arterial blockage back in 2000 and was treated for it. So feel free to make that claim if you want, but there were no uninvolved doctors there, and so it seems like more of the same magical thinking to me.
Otherwise, I do think there are different was of looking at the Nisagadatta smoking issue. It is just one piece of a puzzle.
January 25, 2009 at 6:43 pm
feel4god:
“We simply are here to recognize the non-dual truth of heart-based Reality”
“Is there not some common ground here in which we accept that we are all arising in Prior Unity, and look to fall deeper into heart-based Awareness of this essential Truth?”
and in the last post:
“This recognition is heart-based Reality intelligence and is Self-evident, even from the beginning.”
i appreciate that you think by repeating mr. jones’ misunderstandings of non-duality you are doing a “service” to the rest of the world. but i’d think there are few people on this blog who could be fooled by it.
since when is awareness “heart-based”? awareness is not based on anything. how could it be? it is that within which EVERYTHING is arising. it is based on nothing whatsoever.
and then of course the often by you repeated “argument”:
“This may be true if someone has actually realized this, but for shiva to make such statements is pretty silly.”
so the truth is dependent on realization or understanding? interesting. i always thought that the truth was simply true and not dependent on anything.
that is like saying to a quantum physicist that he can not publish his findings until he has fully understood and realized them. i have studied quantum physics and let me tell you NOBODY understands it. we can describe it with mathematics (to some degree) but the human mind is simply not capable of understanding quantum physics because the mind can only utilize concepts that utterly fail and are absolutely not applicable. so, nobody understands it with the mind, and yet we can utilize the truth of it. the electronics in your washing machine wouldn’t be possible without quantum physics.
so, your regurgitated talking-school non-sense is an utterly flawed argument. THAT is silly.
interestingly enough, there are mind-blowing parallels between quantum physics and non-duality.
and both are not “understandable” with human means. that does not change the truth that all sages throughout mankind’s history have agreed on and repeated. and all of us “understand” it anyways because it is our true nature.
presence-awareness or reality is not based or dependent on anything. everything is arising in awareness as awareness. otherwise it would not be non-dual.
i feel fully confident in saying that and i certainly don’t need your permission! “i” don’t understand it. “i” CANNOT understand it. it is true nonetheless.
“It is not about dualistically relating to Him as “other”, worshipping Him as “other”, believing (in) Him, etc. In others words, it is not about making Him into an “object of worship”. That is what cults and their fundamentalism are all about – you have no argument from me about that.”
adidam is EXACTLY about that. mr. jones is set up as an unreachable other. in his teachings he says otherwise (i know his teaching very well) but the reality of adidam is TOTALLY cultic and mr. jones is fully set up as the big divine other. and he is FULLY set up as an object of worship.
who are you trying to fool, feel4god??
virtually nobody here who knows adidam intimately agrees with you. isn’t that interesting? well, there is a good reason for that!
January 25, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Feel4God -
It’s my observation that you have given up being human in favor of being a 100% Adidam missionary. That seems obvious. You will never see eye-to-eye or heart-to-heart with any ex-Daist, even the more cheerful and reasonable ones!
At some point (maybe), you might find communicating the Daist dogma, to the exclusion of spontaneously expressing your unique self, to become tiresome or limiting. Until then…you will have to suffer your separateness from the rest of humanity, because of beliefs of your chosen religion (call in non-dual religion if you must), just like many millions of others out there.
Just so you know, I was there in ’75-76, and had many “darshans” and heard several talks with Bubba Free John, before he went of in seclusion to consider ashtrays with the inner circle. When I left the community, Billy T. acutally held my hand, looked in my eye and told me take what I had learned of the teaching with me, out “into the world”. In the interest of transparency, they had me diagnosed as “a peculiar with a solid strategy”!
Well, I suppose I did just that to a certain extent, but after a couple of years out, my desire to return to the community completely disappeared (and has never returned). In the 80s, I found myself picking up revised copies of the KOL with the aforementioned Essay at the beginning with Strategically Capitalized Words peppered throughout, and I affirmed that I had made the Right Decision.
So…despite a couple of other people here telling you this in various ways, you don’t seem to get that by your very style of communicating, that you are coming off as a 2-dimensional cardboard cutout character. You might as well be a Jehovah’s Witness! (Not that there’s anything wrong with them, many of them are genuinely friendly).
Also…wasn’t one of the primary tenets of the teaching is that “the ego is an activity”. I see much referral here to the ego as a noun, a thing, a pseudo-entity perhaps.
Anyway, my apologies for being so hard on you. It’s just that in your very last post, trying to educate poster Clara on Adidam basics, I felt the inspiration to give you my reflection (for whatever that’s worth!)
Flick:
Do you know how many times you’ve threatened to leave, but haven’t? Good God, man, have some integrity!
Actually I enjoy reading your posts, despite disagreeing with most of your conclusions. I think it’s because your surfer-dude Self transcends all the rest of the stuff.
January 25, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Flick,
You definitely have vital qualities! It seems you lump many different contributions together and overreact. I see people stating opinions and not a witch hunt. Presume I will still see you writing here.
You raise an interesting point. In your experience, everything was known through gossip and you came and went as you chose. And you had the personality, means and lifestyle to do that, comfortably. Good for you.
Now imagine another scenario. People who already had some knowledge of the traditions, and came not to get involved in an organizational circus, endless silly theater, and find out the latest gossip, but simply to be in association wiht a Realizer (as they thought). People trying to apply standard non-dualist practice and guage the depth of practice based on standard principles. Neither throwing themselves off a cliff, or walking away. How would they know what they were getting into, the difference between what was said and what was communicated with a nod and wink, and what was really going on, at the time? Surely you are aware that even in 1985, many did not know much about what was really going on. “They weren’t ready”. What is really the case is that some, like you, had the desired qualities to be in a position to know. Others did not. I suggest you not judge those you do not understand and what they should have known based on your own experience.
This does bring up one point though. Flick. I do not think that seeing oneself as a victim is correct either. I never said so. It was I who thought I knew enough about the traditions to recognize and test a Realizer. It was I who thought I knew enough about cults to recognize and avoid one. It was I who was desperate for a living guru when the traditions say to wait until you know you are ready to recognize one. It was I who was so concerned about not losing this opportunity I compromised my better judgement too often. It was I who had difficulty considering and then seeing I had made a mistake. I, and many others. These are all necessary lessons, either in past lives, this life, or future lives. The error I made was karmic. It could have easly been avoided by more study and patience, so that I understood the same things I write now about jnana and jnanis, but I was impatient, like the rest of our generation. So my message now from this hard lesson is the same as Ramana’s, that you do not get such things for the asking of it, but in the Self’s own time, when you are really ready, not when ego drives your choice of guru in hopes you are one of the elect. You are responsible for the homework, not the guru.
January 25, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Realization of Truth (i.e. of nonduality) is not an item that is (or can be) “transmitted”, but that is recognized by one’s buddhi as it reflects That (suchness). The Self realizes itSelf through that surrendered (clean, freed) mirror of buddhi (intuition, direct knowledge). That realization is Jnana.
So, whatever is (or can be) “transmitted” belongs to (and appears in) the relative, only to arouse one’s buddhi (if awakened) to That which already is (the case), i.e. suchness, Truth, which is implicit in all that appears. Therefore, the item/energy/experience transmitted is not [that] understanding or realization itself, but a vehicle for one’s enquiry (and eventual realization).
Is in this context that I wrote that non-dual Truth (absolute reality) cannot be transmitted, or that “transmission of the nondual Truth is an oxymoron”. Because absolute reality, or nondual Truth, is the changeless expanse where all relative (transmissible) items arise, move and dissolve. IT (Reality), itself, does not move nor is transmitted to any where. It is and it remains at all times present, and available to the eye of enlightened buddhi.
Also, transmission, as described above, consisting of a relative experience, it also (potentially) informs buddhi (if awakened), of countless other aspects within relative reality, implicit to it by intrinsic association or non-separateness.
My observation, that prompted me to send that ‘oxymoron’ message, is that Adidam chelas tend to be very light in their use of the terms “nondual” and “acausal reality”, and specifically making the mistake I elaborate above. It’s no wonder, given Da’s insistence on the use of transmission (darshan, shaktipat, etc) as if that was IT (Reality, or Jnana).
January 25, 2009 at 8:01 pm
Thanks for the post and consideration, Eddie.
Eddie B Says:
“In a sense that concludes most of our discussions on these matters. The growth, or otherwise of Adidam, will depend on how you and other devotees use this ‘self-evident’ knowledge to relate to the ‘outside’ world. If devotees continue to relate in the way they have been, holding on to the same tired argumentation and self-implosion, then whatever credibility Adidam has in the world will evaporate very quickly.”
I appreciate this feedback, Eddie. I am not sure if the “argumentation” matters as much as the demonstration. I think it is more a matter of people seeing it demonstrated over time in person. It is very difficult over the internet to even discuss, much less demonstrate, this inherent Self-evident understanding.
And yes, once there are actually a good number of devotees in the Perfect Practice (rather than just the preliminary “Perfect Knowledge” practice) – this demonstration will become much more obvious and “Bright”!
Adi Da has always said that devotees must authenticate this Way – and some of the posts on this blog have served to deepen my understanding as to why this is so necessary.
Eddie B Says:
“I trust I will be shown what is needed (by the grace of God) and I trust you will be likewise. However long it takes for us.”
Yes! Take care Eddie, and again, thank you for your posts. I always have liked you, for whatever that is worth to you. Good luck with your project too.
Conradg, here is yet another example of you completely twisting what I said. What I don’t understand is someone of your intelligence doing this over and over – other than you obviously have an agenda to discredit Adi Da and make me look like a fundamentalist. What a blatant misinterpretation of what I said! Here is what just got posted:
Conradg Says:
“Now, the idea that thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it is simply absurd. Do you have any basis for this? Can you name anyone who took up smoking because of Nisargadatta? I’m not saying it never could have happened, but it seems a pretty absurd stretch. Particularly in that smoking beedies was so prevalent in india that no one needed Nisargadatta’s example to take it up.”
What I said in response to FFaC:
“How can you say this? Nisargadatta was a spiritual teacher to many people and smoked constantly. Just by his example, that is plenty of encouragement – not to mention people were smoking his second hand smoke anyway.
FFaC Says (from an earlier post):
“And the traditions clearly state that we should judge the actions of a claimed jnani by its effects, based on the Dattatreya principle.”
What I also said in response to FFaC:
”
“So the ill effects of selling cigarettes to thousands of addicted people would be okay, I guess according to the Dattatreya principle. Who decides this, anyway? Conradg and you?
Conrad, as hopefully you can see here, though I am close to giving up trying, you did once again completely distort what I said! I never said that “thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it” – all I said was Nisardagadatta’s own smoking would encourage others to do so. Where in the world did I quantify how many he encouraged?
Conradg Says:
“And the idea that smokers can suddenly stop smoking just because Adi Da said the party is over is absurd and shows no understanding whatsoever of the power of nicotine addiction, which is way more powerful than heroin. It’s incredibly hard to quit smoking, and no one should be surprised that a lot of people in Adidam didn’t do so.”
Almost all of us did back then, as did Adi Da, whenever the gathering periods ended. It was always a lesson about not holding on to anything. Sure, some people snuck some here and there, and others might have even left Adidam to keep smoking perhaps – but why are people talking as being victimized by all of this? It was always a matter of choice – to smoke or not, to quit or not. But to keep blaming “daddy” for all of this is silly.
Much of what you also are posting in order to blame Adi Da relative to “pushing cigarettes, etc.” is perhaps true of some of the membership, but certainly not of Him. Now maybe you can convince some newbies that what you are saying is true (and I do think this is your main intention), but I was there at those gatherings with Adi Da, as I have described in detail much earlier – and you were not. You were dealing with other members and partying with those not in the immediate gatherings with Adi Da. So I am not doubting your experience with them – just don’t confuse other members’ activity with Adi Da’s.
But this is what you do – just like you distorted what I said above, and that was posted just a few hours ago!! What you are talking about occurred some 30 years ago – so much more time to twist and distort in your mind via the “way of Conrad”!
January 25, 2009 at 8:08 pm
To FFC (and Feel4God).
You write in response to Flick: ‘You (everybody) are responsible for the homework, not the guru.’
On my last retreat at an Ananda Marg Ashram a few weeks ago, I had a long conversation with one of the long-term monks there. He said he spent two years of intense investigation of every spiritual way he could find before acknowledging the realization of the Ananda Marg guru and committing to his instructions. In one context that could be seen as very ‘solid.’ But this guy astounded me. His heart shone as tears welled in his eyes and he recounted the time he spent with his guru before his death 20 years ago. Not once in the entire week I was on retreat did he, or anyone else, try to ‘convert’ me. Not once did he make any platitudinal declarations or claim his guru was the only means for liberation. He only said that that was his chosen path based on intelligent investigation. He was real and RELATIONAL. Many of these monks at the Mela appealed to me as mature human beings – probably because they do intense service ‘in the world’ and have to relate to all sorts of people. They are humbled because espousing platitudes in service to the hungry and ill is as worthless as tits on a bull.
Now I’m not naive enough to believe nothing cultic goes on behind the scenes, nor do I believe that service alone is sufficient for Truth realization. But when I compare the communication by this humble and grateful monk with what it is like communicating with many devotees in Adidam… well, enough has been said about that on this blog.
Feel4God, if you read this, you might be interested to know that I just discovered what my main motivation for criticizing Adidam and you is. It’s because I am saddened by what could be, by what a wonderful contribution Adi Da may have made to a world so much in need of relational intelligence and human maturity, but instead presided over a horribly developed cult (no matter how much he or others criticized it). I’m saddened by devotees who I spent so much time with being stuck in their ‘self-evident recognition’ and who are incapable of simply being authentically relational. I’m saddened by their defensiveness and lack of ordinary human maturity. It’s like when I go back to the city where I grew up and meet family and friends I haven’t seen for decades. I’m overwhelmed to find they are exactly the same now as they were then (although I’m not really surprised).
The writings and discourses of Adi Da can be a resource of immense value in the world, even if it can be criticized as not being true to pure non-duality teachings. But we must first be totally honest. You have an obligation as a devote of Adi Da to get his teachings out into the world, so really ‘listen’ to what you hear from others. They are the ones you are meant to be serving, as they serve you in mutual recognition. I feel the same responsibility but it’s not restricted by any hierarchical declarations. I am free to be informed by the God (the same one as yours) that is clearly evident as me, and you, and everyone else. It’s a perversity to doubt that what informs either of us is not already God, whatever Adi Da said and whatever standings he has in the community of spiritual aspirants.
January 25, 2009 at 8:40 pm
C L Says:
“shiva, are you saying that you never felt His Transmission as the non-dual Truth?” (feel4God http://tinyurl.com/a9vney)
—
“Transmission” of the “non-dual Truth” is an oxymoron.
****************************************
C L Says:
“My observation, that prompted me to send that ‘oxymoron’ message, is that Adidam chelas tend to be very light in their use of the terms “nondual” and “acausal reality”, and specifically making the mistake I elaborate above. It’s no wonder, given Da’s insistence on the use of transmission (darshan, shaktipat, etc) as if that was IT (Reality, or Jnana).”
I guess we could spend all of our time here dealing with semantics… Okay, so why are you saying “My observation, that prompted me”? What is this “My” and who is this “me”? And what is this “observation”? And who is the “I” you refer to later?
Some people insist on some kind of attempt to always do the “non-dual speak”, and that is fine. But it is usually understood here by most of us what is being communicated without all the antics with semantics.
Regardless, this Transmission is beyond mind – there is no way for the ego-I (mind) to subordinate this Transmission to its confines – just like radical devotion to the Master. Such devotion is radical, because it is at once non-dual, and also devotional. In Truth, there is no separation between the Master and the devotee when devotion is radical – just like the Master’s Transmission is Himself. All of this is beyond mind, so it is impossible to comprehend with the mind, though we can still talk about it, albeit in apparently dualistic terms.
Or we could simply say there is only Acausal Divine Reality…
and leave it at that!
Bye for now!
January 25, 2009 at 9:02 pm
FFG:
What I also said in response to FFaC:
“So the ill effects of selling cigarettes to thousands of addicted people would be okay, I guess according to the Dattatreya principle. Who decides this, anyway? Conradg and you? ”
I understand the point, FFG. It is a reasonable question to consider. That is exactly why Nisargadatta was asked in the first place. I never said I was the “decider”. I do not presume to know the exact answer or speak for him. Your contention is that Nisargatta was leading others into error and thus violating the Dattatreya principle. I can infer, as in the case of other jnanis, that there was no spiritual error here and it has something to do with karma. But that is just an opinion, and I do not say to ignore the question.
What I point to to help evaluate this, as I explained in some detail about dimensional assessment, is the overall context of the results. Keeping with the theme here, I am contrasting Da and Nisargadatta. That either smoked in itself is not a deal breaker. Da started a bookstore which he maintained through the efforts of followers, because he couldn’t afford to include a restaurant, and Nisargadatta sold bidis to make a living as he had before he was realized, supporting his family by those efforts.
The difference is the over all context. The “choice” if you will, has been made, in the vast majority of the non-dualist community and among living jnanis, that Nisargadatta is respected as a Realizer and Da is not, because of the overall context. Nisargatta’s state was confirmed by his widely respected guru and his co-disciple and jnani, Sri Ranjit, is widely considered a jnani by contemporaries and non-dualists, and his teaching conformed to dharma. Many have been inspired by his teaching and humble life which glorifes the Self, not the guru. Da, on the other hand, lives a non-dharmic lifestyle and his teaching is not dharmic either, nor despite all the money and western resources at his disposal, has he produced anything suggesting jnana to anyone other than a small minority, many of whom don’t even know the half of it from just what I learned. And his teaching methods included many years of the kind of binging and purging method which, despite the claim it was designed to teach how to let go of things, did not produce such results in his organization. If you benefit, fine. That doesn’t make him enlightened.
David Godman is far more of an expert on Nisargadatta than I am. I think it worthwhile to email him on his understanding of this bidi question.
January 25, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Re: “it’s the context, stupid” posted above,
error: this was the post that i found humorous and interesting posted by Vivekananda and not posted by Jacob as mentioned.
Vivekananda Says:
January 24, 2009 at 7:58 am
In the mid nineties I met Bill Stranger in London during an Adidam seminar (I live in London). During lunch we sat next to each other and chatted. I found him a decent guy -we were having a disagreement on astrology – Bill saying Adi Da believed in astrology and I said it was all bullshit and we agreed to disagree. However there was one thing I noticed. Just before Bill was about to eat his food from the plate he looked neurotically at the piece stuck at the end of his fork. It reminded me of a cartoon of Professor Sigmund Freud neurotically staring down his trousers. This was the end of my infatuation with Adi Da’s dietary recommendation.
January 25, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Well I just guess I have no integrity since I have not left yet. It is kind of irrtating to come here seeing some of what I perceive to be nonsense from many of the critics, but somehow it is also “addictive” like for some of the other posters here. Perhaps we are addicted for different reasons though.
I doubt I would come back if FFG splits though. he is the only adherent and supporter of Adi Da here amongst a whole throng of voices speaking out against. I hate to see him beat up on all the time, so I have been willing to take the karmas of others upon myself to relieve their suffering lol. So ,please shiva dump on me, you do not need the wine. just meditate on me for awhile. Here ai am.
FFAC was calling me that evil “vital”. I love it when people refer to me as a vital. In Adidam they always pegged me as a “peculiar” I think “peculiars” might be even lower than “solids” due to their lack of being able to function well. But they tend to be able to feel ‘transmission ” more and better than say , “solids” and “vitals”
So I don’t know what the hell I am. I do have a hard time keeping my room clean and organized, but , at 58, people are amazed at how a white boy of my age can still do so much African dance. When I tell some of the young people in the classes my age , they don’t believe me and think I am in my forties. and the surfing in cold water, which I really love. It is like a rush for me{uh oh that drug language} . So perhaps I am a “vital” Perhaps “I ” am the Self. Perhaps I am ‘don’t know mind”
But this bizarre flu has kicked this old vital’s ass and I am really feeling my age and chronic medical stuff now. it is hard to see when and if I will regain some vitality at this point, but I tend to have a doubt mind and be pessimistic.
Certainly I would love to smoke some pot and go to do some rave dancing all nite or at least to an African dance class, but here i am having to relate to all these “solids” {now don’t get offended, i also aknowdedge that some are also alive as the Self, such as shiva and others]
So FFAC was pointing out how all over the place and lumping people together and so on I do in my posts. Well i just can’t keep up with these long posts. I mean there is a long one by Conrad and a long one by Shiva and another by FFAC and then a couple by FFG. I am trying to remember right now which things I read that i want to respond too and I don’t like to keep scrolling up and down and all over the place. so I am sort of stream of consciousness.
Well FFG does speak in the vernacular of Adi dam, so it is very specific and some could call it cultic sounding, but it is more like I just described. i agree with much of what he says though. i think the smoking argument on both sides is pretty silly though. it reduces both Nisardagatta and ADi Da to something much less than they really are. Too much idealism about what enlightenment should look like in the paradox of physical incarnation . Or even higher realization.
Adi DA does not work in the same way as the founder and guru of Ananda Marga or of Ammachi and others. Many teachers and realizers have done their work and transmission outside the mainstream of human society. Of course, Adi Da has created quite a literature that is full of his transmission and also the most recent artwork , which is pretty mind blowing in itself. like I said , he found his genius forte as and artist in photograpy and using modern technology, although his early photography was done in black and white using no technology and it is quite brilliant too. i heard he said that his artwork is a form of darshan and i think there might be something to that. In some of it I have seen, and I have not seen much , it reminds me of my favorite modern artist, Kandinsky{and I have seen a lot of his originals in Paris at the museums there} Adi Da goes way beyond Kandinsky though and I do not say that lightly because i adore kandinsky. So he has been “working in the world” from that point of view. And perhaps his declaring himself to be “blessing the world” is true too. I can’t say I know except that I can feel his blessing if I do certain things in relation to him, like reading his teaching for example. so that means that he would be avaible to anyone who gives him their attention and was available at all.
Now personally, apart from what Eddie was saying to FFG about “having an obligation to get Adi Da’s teachings out into the world, I can’t stand missionaries of any sort. i could care less about getting Adi Da’s teaching out into the world. If people read it and resonate with it , I think that is good and I can relate to what they are feeling. Personally I do not feel that this world can be saved anyhow . If people can sit down and look at Adi da and feel his transmission in the sense of an awakening to their “True Self” that is cool too and I can relate to what they are feeling. But if thousands and millions of the self deluded people on this whacked out planet do not do that it is not my problem. i have problems of my own. The way that I can relate to Adi Da’s claim as a “World Teacher ” is that anyone could feel his transmission of Self if they chose to, and this is a very unique siddhi i have personally not seen in anyone else. Now I also get very much from other teachers and teachings, I just have not seen this particular “siddhi” in that form anywhere else. Not better , just damn good.
I do think there is such a thing as “self evident recognition” that Eddie was criticizing in FFg above. I have seen this over and over in myself without any encouragement or “brainwashing” from anyone outside myself . including Adi Da.
As far as what CL said , the “transmission” of which I speak is itself the “buddi” of the Self. It is the Self “speaking” to Itself and “Awakening ” Itself to Itself. That is why Adi Da calls it “Revelation” His body and transmission prescence is just a transparent vehicle or window in this process. it all happens in your own Place though so to speak. Of course it is paradoxical. how else could it be here where we identify with the small self of ego activity and the resultant body and mind. We have to get used to paradox and not being able to explain everything and figure it all out. some “surrender” and “letting go” of mind and body is called for.
By the way , I think it is great that Eddie is doing his spiritual practice with Ananda Marga. I hear there is real “power” there in a spiritual way. I support all practice in the traditons that have come down and service to the world in the context of spritual life is a very powerful spriital practice and also good for the world and living beings who are suffering. just check out what Amma does and recommends for her devotees. All of us could learn from that demonstration and lesson i think.
As far as what FFAC said ,most of the years I was in Adi dam I was different than any other devotee. I gave an abolute minumum of money and worked in health food stores and drove cab and was struggling with absolutely horrible health problems I had undianosed Addison’s disease for eight years and could only function with great difficulty . I did push through and even created a vegatarian lunch program for the Adi dam school in Marin > I loved being around all those kids and teachers in that context but it was immensely difficult and then trying to do all the discipline being very ill all the time. I guess that is when I got the rep for being a peculiar.
Anyhow, I was never privvy to any special info and I was never an insider or was at the inner gatherings, but i know several close up who were and they have a very different slant than most postiing here. And they are not liars or “brainwashed” in my opinion. Of course they did have devotion to Adi Da and going through a difficult and also blissful and freeing process with him.
And yet I always new when he was drinking or buying art and all that stuff. i knew many of the women he had sex with and some were sure wanting to be with him again and missing that with him. i don’t know any of the ones who you say had problems though.
in my opinion ADi Da was not an alcoholic or a cigarette addict. he used these things strictly in the circumstances of ‘teaching gathering ” with people . From what i know, he did not sit in his room alone drinking jack daniels. he was transcending his body and I have heard him give brilliant and very awake discourses many times on large amounts of alcohol and later on pot{ except that he had a prediliction for fart jokes on pot, go figure, he also liked the Beavis and Butthead movie i hear , so perhaps I should leave those guys out of my critiques of detractors]
Also the few times I was in a party situation with Adi Da, I would drink beer after beer and never really get at all drunk and i have a very low tolerance for alcohol. There was much more going on at a very deep level .
When I was around, there were a very small percentage of people who would have a hard time stopping cigs after those party times .Most all people had no real problem quitting things, including myself. I do remember that it was said time and time again that people who were inclined to cig addiction should not smoke at all and Adi da gave that particular recommendation to a few people directly who were around him. Does not any one else remember that stuff? The periods when Adi Da was actually drinking with people were short in the scheme of things. Most of the time he was not drinking or smoking pot or cigs. now I do know that the booze and cigs damaged his health over time and he was told by his docs in later years to stick to pot only if he was going to use accessories in gatherings with people. I think he did have heart disease and needed blood pressure meds sometimes at least. i think the booze and cigs did age him in some way , but there was other things going on that aged him too. perhaps he did die of a heart attack and that means absolutely nothing.
I don’t know how anyone here could say that the “death events” that happened with him at Lopez and in Fiji were “panic attacks” or “anxiety attacks” i don’t think anyone here was there with him when those occured. now those events might have had some characteristics of panic attacks or anxiey, but that means nothing. I saw Adi Da the day after the “death event ” in Lopez island, and he was in a rarefied in his body and at the same time putting out the most intense and beautiful transmission. he certainly was physically weak though and in a wheel chair . I really think there was much more going on than a panic attack. i have had severe panic and anxiety disorder in my life and that was something different.
“There are sensible limits, and most people including myself,think Adi Da stepped over the line in a whole range of things……” I just had to quote Conrad on this one. i guess that he knows most of all the lots of people who have come and gone from Adi Dam. he should stick with ‘including myself” I think conrad is somewhat of a recluse and I personally have run in a lot more circles than conrad since not being in Adi dam and have talked to many ex devotees over the years and just a very few that i have met and also been friends with share this opinion with conrad. Most don’t feel bad about their previous association and do not hold anything on Adi Da. for example at my last retreat with Amma which was when
adi da died, there were two guys i know who just hate Adi Da and there were 3 guys I knew there who used to be with him who still respect him and felt that they got something positive from there time in Adi dam. so to make ridiculous statements like “most people” who were ever with Adi da share conrad’s opinions of Adi Da sure does not give the cult busting cult much credibilty in my eyes. As I said before, most of these books that are “anti cult” are reactions either against some negative teacher that had followings such as Jim Jones types or the usual modern western reaction to the guru principle and esoteric spritituality in general in sort of pop psychlgical analysis sort of way. Does not hold much water for me and I have read enough of that stuff to know that I have read enough. Flick Rahke
January 26, 2009 at 12:18 am
Raymond could you please come up with something better to discredit Da with than “Bill Stranger looking at something neurotically at the end of his fork?’ give me a break . Well I guess there is room for us clowns like you and me here too.l Flick Rahke
January 26, 2009 at 1:49 am
I wonder who “the vast majority of the non-dualist community and the living jnanis ” are that FFAC is referring to in his post that on the one hand acknowledge Nisardagatta and do not aknowedge Adi da are. Is that Andrew Cohen or Nome or who? Is it bob the sailor? will the real and acknowledged living jnanis please now sign in? Is there a verification process for these people to prove that they are real jnanis? And who is the vast majority of the non-dualist community in the world. Are they all posting on this blog these days? So Adi Da’s teaching does not comform to dharma and Sri Nisardagatta’s does? Who has decided that? I have read Nisardagatta’s books and it is all mostly spoken from what I have seen and question and answer. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I do not know if there is a college somewhere that has qualified his spoken teachings as qualified real stuff dharma. No doubt in my mind he was some sort of realized being. i don’t qualify teachers by stages like Adi Da has done because that would be very pretentious of me. I just know that they have realized more than me at this point and i can learn plenty from them if I put myself to the task. But it takes a lot of time and reading too and that is a discipline in itself.
How Adi Da characterizes and qualifies other teachers and traditions is really a matter of consideration . i don’t look at it as a matter of gospel or blind belief. That is not what discrimination is about or what relating to spirituality is about, unless you are a fundamentalist. Of course, fundamentalism is also found in the anti cult cult.
So I don’t tend to pigeon hole teachers themselves. They are way beyond this lil ego thing in realization of non-duality. And I mean here “realization ” of nondualtiy not the talking school part. Saying “I am That” is not the same as talking about it in the mind.
Samsara and Nirvana are not the “same” except in Realization, in case you have not noticed that. You are not the Self , except in the continuing moment of Realization. You are the squirming and scared little ego thing. Flick
Rahke
January 26, 2009 at 1:51 am
FFG says:
>>Conradg Says:
“And the idea that smokers can suddenly stop smoking just because Adi Da said the party is over is absurd and shows no understanding whatsoever of the power of nicotine addiction, which is way more powerful than heroin. It’s incredibly hard to quit smoking, and no one should be surprised that a lot of people in Adidam didn’t do so.”
Almost all of us did back then, as did Adi Da, whenever the gathering periods ended. It was always a lesson about not holding on to anything. Sure, some people snuck some here and there, and others might have even left Adidam to keep smoking perhaps – but why are people talking as being victimized by all of this? It was always a matter of choice – to smoke or not, to quit or not. But to keep blaming “daddy” for all of this is silly.
Much of what you also are posting in order to blame Adi Da relative to “pushing cigarettes, etc.” is perhaps true of some of the membership, but certainly not of Him. Now maybe you can convince some newbies that what you are saying is true (and I do think this is your main intention), but I was there at those gatherings with Adi Da, as I have described in detail much earlier – and you were not. You were dealing with other members and partying with those not in the immediate gatherings with Adi Da. So I am not doubting your experience with them – just don’t confuse other members’ activity with Adi Da’s.”<<
Whether events in Da’s proximity coincided precisely with the parties elsewhere, what happened was inspired by what went on around Da. Pressure to smoke and use alcohol to excess came from those above, not just in the lower levels, and was a widely accepted norm in advanced houses as well. Admittedly the community was a very hierarchial organization, in part because new members had to establish their committment, but Da was not unaware of what was going on in his community.
There is an ancient spiritual principle that you do not test fate for the sake of doing so. Ramana Maharshi’s influence gradually got many to abandon such things naturally, without all the traume. The issue with Da and his organization remains that despite mass demonstrations that everyone was pressured to participate in, people vary even on a genetic level on the ease with which they become addicted, and nicotine is very addictive. Few start with the idea they can become addicted. Even casual use not only changes the way in which the body reacts to nicotine thereafer, but genetic damage generally results. The risk of colon cancer, for example, does not return to pre-smoking levels, ever. The damage caused by even short binges of heavy drinking does not just disappear either. You can’t just end it with a cleansing fast, followed by a healthy vegetarian diet, and watch all that disappear. Yet that is what was being taught. I saw many make matters worse by trying to force themselves to do a long fast under those circumstances. And this cycle went on and on, driven by inspiration from Da’s own lifestyle of extreme eating, drinking, and substance use, and then extreme fasts, juice diets, and the like. Maybe easy for you to go through all this, FFG. But lots of casualties, I have met some, those who got addicted to smoking, alchohol or drugs while involved, who will never be what they could have been. No dharmic or scientific basis for any of this I can see. An ill-conceived experiment that was not fully disclosed to the public or those considering membership who were pointed to the "conditions", and one that should have ended long before it did.
January 26, 2009 at 2:22 am
Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.
Feel4God,
You seem to have some severe short-term memory problems. I wrote in a previous post:
Conradg Says:
“Now, the idea that thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it is simply absurd. Do you have any basis for this? Can you name anyone who took up smoking because of Nisargadatta? I’m not saying it never could have happened, but it seems a pretty absurd stretch. Particularly in that smoking beedies was so prevalent in india that no one needed Nisargadatta’s example to take it up.”
To which you self-righeously responded, accusing me of distortion:
Conradg, here is yet another example of you completely twisting what I said. What I don’t understand is someone of your intelligence doing this over and over – other than you obviously have an agenda to discredit Adi Da and make me look like a fundamentalist. What a blatant misinterpretation of what I said!
You then list a number of quotes that I didn’t respond to, carefully omitting the quote of yours that I obviously was responding to:
Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.
So when I said, “the idea that thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it is simply absurd,” it’s reather obvious that I was not distorting anything you said at all, but making clear that your suggestion that Nisargadatta caused people to take up smoking was simply absurd, and of course you have zero evidence to show for it, just a supposition you pull out of your ass that presumes people who came to see Nisargadatta talk would somehow begin smoking simply because they saw him smoking, like teeny-boppers copying the latest pop singer.
You then give me this same old tired, deceitful pack of lies:
Conrad, as hopefully you can see here, though I am close to giving up trying, you did once again completely distort what I said! I never said that “thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it” – all I said was Nisardagadatta’s own smoking would encourage others to do so. Where in the world did I quantify how many he encouraged?
Well, obviously you are lying and denying once again, and once again caught in the act. Doesn’t this get embarassing? Don’t you realize this is the internet, there’s actually a written record here of what you’ve said, and when you lie and pretend never to have said what you’ve clearly said, you will get caught? This isn’t Adidam, where you get to rewrite history at the drop of a hat. You’ve done this before, I’ve pointed it out with all the requisite proofs, and yet you never apologize, you never take responsibility for having lied and denied, you just move on as if no one will notice and you can just keep up the shell game. And then you have the audacity to accuse me of distorting your words! At least you’ve got nerve, I’ll hand you that.
Now, say what you will about Nisargadatta, it’s just bizarre that you would try to hold him responsible for setting a bad example to his devotees while excusing Da of the same thing, and saying his devotees were responsible for their own smoking. How is Nisargadatta responsible then, and not his devotees, for the smoking they might theoretically have taken up, but which you have no evidence that they did? It’s truly bizarre how you have no sense of any responsibility for consistency in yoru arguments, and then you have the nerve to accuse me of using a double-standard. This is about as hilarious as it gets.
The weird thing is, I never even brought up the issue of smoking when I was criticizing Da, simply because it’s so minor in comparison to everything else. You did, and yet now you say it’s my fault that I try to make Da responsible in any way for influencing his devotees to smoke, when your whole moral argument against Nisargadatta hinges on his having influenced his devotees to smoke, or subjecting them to second hand smoke, when Adi Da did the same thing, and arguably much worse in that they were smoking western-style cigarettes, much worse than beedies. You simply can’t have it both ways, but it’s hilarious that you would try without any apparent sense that you’re doing something obviously irrational and bizarrely hypocritical. But that’s the problem with cultism – it makes people lose any sense of cognitive proportion, they are so used to having things twisted around, it starts to seem normal to them. And at the same time, normal rational argumentation begins to seem unfair and horribly biased.
Almost all of us did back then, as did Adi Da, whenever the gathering periods ended. It was always a lesson about not holding on to anything. Sure, some people snuck some here and there, and others might have even left Adidam to keep smoking perhaps – but why are people talking as being victimized by all of this? It was always a matter of choice – to smoke or not, to quit or not. But to keep blaming “daddy” for all of this is silly.
By your own standard of moral criticism of Nisargadatta, obviously Adi Da did indeed have some moral responsibility towards his devotees to set a healthy example, and not lead them into unhealthy habits. He failed miserably at that. Instead, he created situation after situation that required them to engage in unhealthy habits, and even encouraged them to drop their disciplines, including the use of highly addictive substances like tobacco, which it is well known is very, very difficult to stop using once you’ve become addicted. And so naturally a large number of people were unable to stop. The idea that it’s a matter of simple choice shows no understanding of the real nature of addictive substances. Certainly Adi Da was not able to successfully quit smoking tobacco. When I was in gatherings with him in the nineties, he was still smoking up a storm, and talking about how spiritually beneficial it was to boot. Even in periods when accessories were no longer allowed, he kept smoking. As did a very large number of his inner circle.
Much of what you also are posting in order to blame Adi Da relative to “pushing cigarettes, etc.” is perhaps true of some of the membership, but certainly not of Him. Now maybe you can convince some newbies that what you are saying is true (and I do think this is your main intention), but I was there at those gatherings with Adi Da, as I have described in detail much earlier – and you were not. You were dealing with other members and partying with those not in the immediate gatherings with Adi Da. So I am not doubting your experience with them – just don’t confuse other members’ activity with Adi Da’s.
Well, this is just a lie. When I first came in July of 1975, I was invited straight into Adi Da’s living room, where he was sitting smoking a cigarette. He gave us Darshan there, putting down the cigarette for a few minutes. When I stepped outside onto the lawn, I was handed a cigarette and a glass of champagne. We all smoked and drank, and then Adi Da came outside and gave a second Darshan on the lawn. Now, I was not an insider by any means, but this was hardly unusual behavior. It was just how he lived day to day. I accepted it as normal, no big deal. He went away later in the year, and came back in June of 1976 for Indoor Summer, during which time he smoked endlessly. I wasn’t there in the room with him, but clearly he was smoking something, or why would he make an ashtray the principle object of his “Divine Ignorance” consideration? Did it serve no useful purpose. When he did gather with the larger community, he usually had a cigarette in hand. I remember sitting with him in the Cathedral, and somone asking a quesiton about why he smoked, and commenting that it was a nasty habit, and he broke out a cigarette and lit up right there as a way of saying fuck you to the questioner. It was quite funny, really. But the idea that he somehow didn’t encourage the idea that smoking was okay is just laughable.
But this is what you do – just like you distorted what I said above, and that was posted just a few hours ago!! What you are talking about occurred some 30 years ago – so much more time to twist and distort in your mind via the “way of Conrad”!M.
Are you really going to bald-faced lie to me and everyone here and claim that Adi Da didn’t smoke well into the nineties, and for all I know past then? I was there personally as he smoked. I breathed his second-hand smoke. Do I get to sue? Do you really think the newbies are going to be impressed that you can lie so unabashedly about these matters? If you lie about things as petty as smoking cigarettes, why should anyone believe you about matters of any real importance? What kind of moral transformation has all your years of spiritual practice brought about in you, if this is what it produces?
January 26, 2009 at 9:04 am
Wow this place is sort of like an insane asylum . People are so eager to get FFG and Adi Da that they get way off base. First of all this whole cigarette thng is beyond ridiculous. I wonder if all you nondualists realize in some small way how ridiculous you sound. It is back to the Beevis and Butthead stuff I guess.
You make it sound like Adi Da and his inner circle were conspiring to get people “hooked” on cigs. I was there too. I was at parties in 1975 and lived in households for a couple of years. I never saw any large groups of people become addicted to cigs after the party periods. People just stopped and got back to the “life disciplines” That was not as “fun” , but I preferred in myself. I had been in TM for years and did not like substances much.
maybe a there were a few isolated examples of people keeping smoking due to an addiction. Most people were glad to stop.
I was not around that much in the nineties. I don’t know how much Conrad was actually around the “gatherings” then. Perhaps he could say how much. I think the truth is that all through his teaching career, there were periods of time when Adi Da gathered with some people and used the booze earlier and more pot later and most of the time people and Adi Da were not doing that . I did not live on the island ever myself. Perhaps Shiva could say for sure how much of the partying was going on with Adi Da and people living on the island while shiva was living and working there. I think shiva seems to be a truth ful person to me. I don’t just like to hear rumors but from people who could say for sure.
I just know what it was like for real in the years that I was around.
But I know many who were around and up close and some just regular types too and they seem to sing a different tune. I also know some who were around some also and did not feel good about it . They left. So different people have different feelings and experience of the same thing. I guess that is the way it is in life.
Anyhow FFG certainly is off the wall himself off and on. You guys are certainly reacting to each other, but there is also more going on. I have seen people in reaction to Adi Da for years on end after leaving the whole thing. I have not exactly been able to figure out why. I can see if someone felt disaffected with the whole thing and just left and went on with life. But to have this angry obsession with Adi Da that goes on for years and years on end , I just don’t get it myself. It is not like the pscho types who write the cult busting books. They mostly just seem to be against guru type of spirituality. But the people I am talking about are sincerely interested in spirtual life and growing beyond their own suffering. It is baffling to me , but I think the solid intellectuals around here might have some answer to this . Flick Rahke
It seems that FFG will not be around much anymore to get into arguments with and kick around . If that is the case and people decide to replace him with me, then you guys can just kick each other around.
January 26, 2009 at 11:19 am
To FFaC,
Good post on comparing Ramana Maharshi and Franklin Jones (January 22, 2009). I’m more than familiar with the sections you quoted (with lots of red ink in my Knee of Listening on those paragraphs?). Your approach was with 2 different Knees of Listening (KOLs) addressing it from a particular approach; i.e., assuming integrity of Franklin’s written work for the sake of dharma discussion in both KOLs at the different time period with added corrections and information from Ramana’s end. And you made your point very well from that position.
However, let me try to articulate it from the point of view of “no integrity” or deceitfulness/deceptiveness based on the distortions, modifications, revisions, additions, deletions, amplifications, capitalizations, tweaking, fabrications, and embellishments with his KOLs and all of his books in reference to Ramana (also Buddha and Jesus) after March 5, 1993, (the day of his great declaration as the one and only 7th stage Realizer demoting Ramana Maharshi to 6th stage) as compared to all of his KOLs, Basket of Tolerances (BOTs) and all his books prior to March 5, 1993.
You made your argument based on “accepting” for now the literature of Adi Da as valid after March 5, 1993 and comparing the validity of 6th stage vs. 7th stage as per Franklin’s description before and after that crucial date. OK, that one approach and you arrived at a valid conclusion making Franklin’s realization very suspect and Ramana’s demotion to 6th stage also very suspect… But what I’m doing is throwing out the whole thing based on deceitfulness, deceptiveness and “lies” by Franklin and his editorial staff, thus making the comparison between Ramana and Franklin unnecessary.
Several months ago, I spent several weeks reading and marking everything written on Ramana Maharshi by Franklin Jones before and after March 5, 1993 (the day of the declaration of 7th stage only, -demoting Ramana to 6th stage). I compared word for word, sentence for sentences, paragraph by paragraph on ALL the Knee(s) of Listening, the Basket(s) of Tolerance, and on all his books before and after March 5, 1993 in regard to what he said about Ramana, the Buddha, and Jesus related to their stages of life;
i.e., everything to do with 6th vs. 7th stage including ascending/descending Amrita Nadi related to Franklin and Ramana. —yes, a long project!
So, the project started with March 5th 1993 working backwards through all of his books and many Journals to 1964 where Franklin acknowledged reading Ramana Maharshi and he said: “…..I had increased my knowledge of such things to include a new viewpoint, a more inclusive philosophy along the lines proposed by mystical and spiritual literature. My reading encompassed the literary works of Christian saints and the classical writings of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism, Hinduism, Vedanta and yoga. I was acquainted with the works of Ramana Maharshi, Krishnamurti (J), Sri Ramakrishna, and Sri Aurobindo”. ——- And also reading forward from March 5th, 1993, noting and marking all instances related to his deletions, additions, embellishments, etc. in most of his books to the 2004 KOL as compared to the previous KOL, BOT, etc. March 5th, 1993 date.
FFaC: To add to the necessary “preliminary homework” as you say, I suggest that you do the following exercise (a very small part of what I did) with the March 5, 1993 date in mind as a before and after study and note the revisions:
1- Compare original KOL of Franklin’s 1967 death experience word for word with the description of it on pages 177 and 178 of the KOL 2004 and note the changes;
2- Compare the description of your quote from the KOL 2004 pages 451-452 with the KOL 1992, pages??? (I’ll save you the trouble because you won’t find it since the Chapter in the 2004 KOL called “Sixth Stage Realization Demonstration and Teachings of Ramana Maharshi” was fabricated after March 5th, 1993);
3- Compare KOL 2004 with pages form the Basket of Tolerance 1989, p. 258 starting with: “Ramana Maharshi was a principle example of…..” in both books— clearly saying that he was a 7th stage Realizer in 1989 and note the very deliberate changes in language in 2004 KOL.
4- Compare the KOL 1995 with the KOL 1992. (In the 1995 KOL, you won’t find one reference to the stages of life –not the 7th or the 6th; —practically the only Adi Da book that makes no reference whatsoever to the stages especially after the Big Declaration of March 5, 1993 ??? yet the only-by-me references, descending/ascending Amrita Nati and the Bright are mentioned to support Franklin’s only-by-me 7th stage without mentioning the 7th stage…..very clever by trying not to be offensive right after 1993.
Obviously you noted all the revisions after March 5th, 1993.
Initially, I acknowledged his Realization for the sake of argument and did that comparison and concluded as you did; however, the other approach lends itself to dismissing him completely as a fraud and fraudulent teaching. (And this is only a small portion of the big picture of all the references that I pulled out of many books.)
It’s the context—– and I will restate that theme (context) many times to make my argument over time because the whole thing is bogus from beginning to end when looked at it in the greater context.
The context being “his entire life” but specifically, : 1-Franklin claims to be born the Bright; 2- Franklin was very well read in general including Ramana starting in 1964; 3-Franklin claims ego death equal to Ramana in 1967; 4- then Franklin takes Ramana’s book to India in 1969; 5- Franklin claims re-awakening in 1970; 6-Franklin continues reading and even hangs Ramana’s huge picture on the wall of his bookstore on Melrose -1972; 7-Franklin continues to write and includes all kind of very precise and accurate material about Ramana and Amrita Nati in the 1st KOL and on and on in all of his books including the BOTs until March 5th, 1993. And that is just part of the context. So, he can’t play dumb (at age 54) after March 5th, 1993 –not with that background; especially as a claimant Realizer since 1970.
Of course, Franklin would try to play dumb and would need to account for this huge unprecedented disclosure by rationalizing it which he did 6 months later in a talk on Sept. 13, 1993. He said that he was naïve at the time of his Re-Awakening at the Vedanta Temple in 1970 (said that 3x in that short paragraph). From: The Divine Siddhis of Adi Da, September 13, 1993.
And of course he is well read as it is said in one of the issues in Crazy Wisdom Journal of 1976; i.e., he had read over 30,000 books by 1976. So, playing dumb or naïve is not the issue here. The guy is just plan lying and deceitful, and conning his devotees –apparently very consciously (and successfully for some) and conning himself based on a delusion of grandeur and believing in his imagination.
And looking at it from this argument, the issue of 7th vs. 6th is a moot or irrelevant point. If the so called enlightened guru is revising his teaching deceptively then why compare dharmas. Why not say it the way it really is. However, for some the argument is better made comparing dharmas and the more ways of deconstructing Franklin, the better is the argument that Franklin is not a Realizer.
So, there are dozens if not hundreds of references stating that Ramana is 7th or completely Realized and that there is no difference between Ramana and his own Realization before March 5th, 1993 and therefore, hundreds of very conscious changes had to be made by a team of very deceitful editors at Franklin’s request after March 5, 1993. The editors went though his books word by word, editing all references that incriminated Franklin and revising them.
To summarize: All the places where Franklin attributed Ramana as a 7th stage Realizer before March 5, 1993 entails writing a book and not a blog which is not practical here. The Buddha and Jesus as 7th stage prior to 1993 would also be included as part of the review.
In any case, Franklin’s declaration need to be seen in light of his declaration of the Bright at birth, his voracious reading thoroughly his early life and later life, his declaration of the death of Narcissus equated to Ramana in 1969, his voracious reading just on Ramana himself beginning in 1964, the Vedanta Temple declaration followed by 23 more years of teaching. In other words, Franklin can’t play dumb in 1993 as if he didn’t know. Declaring himself to be the Lord even in the early days, he would have known that Ramana was 6th then, if there is even such a thing as stages (which I personally don’t buy) but he declared him as 7th based on a life time of knowledge about Ramana and Amrita Nati. The evidence is overwhelming in every one of his books prior to 1993 -that he did declare Ramana as 7th stage.
So yes, he is a fraud having used distortions, modifications, revisions, additions, deletions, amplifications, capitalizations, tweaking, fabrications, and embellishments with his KOLs (and all of his books) after March 5, 1993 the day of his great declaration as the one and only 7th stage realizer denoting Ramana Maharshi to 6th stage after having declared him 7th stage for 25 years since 1970.
January 26, 2009 at 11:38 am
Reading today’s “Love Letters” before starting work… My dear friend Conradg wrote me again! Oh no, there has been another misunderstanding! Okay, I had better “handle business with my neighbor” Conradg here.
Conradg Says:
“So when I said, “the idea that thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it is simply absurd,” it’s reather obvious that I was not distorting anything you said at all, but making clear that your suggestion that Nisargadatta caused people to take up smoking was simply absurd, and of course you have zero evidence to show for it, just a supposition you pull out of your ass that presumes people who came to see Nisargadatta talk would somehow begin smoking simply because they saw him smoking, like teeny-boppers copying the latest pop singer.”
Conrad, I have asked several times that if you are going to draw conclusions from what you think I said, please directly quote me! I was basing my response to you on prior things that I said, but you conveniently skipped quoting not only those, but even the one you based your erroneous conclusion on. Finally you quoted this one:
Feel4God Says:
“Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.”
That was said in the context of what I had been discussing and which is a well-known fact – that Nisargadatta sold bidis to thousands of people – not that he talked thousands of people into smoking by his actions. You must really think I am stupid if I would take your presumed line of reasoning.
Okay, let’s check some of this iron-clad internet history…
First I said to you:
“But how can YOU hold such high esteem for someone who apparently contributed to many people’s ill-health to make his livelihood and who chain-smoked himself…”
Then later you said:
Conradg Says:
“If Nisargadatta contributed in some small way to some people’s ill health, at least they had the enjoyment of smoking some well-made beedies in the bargain, which is precisely what they paid him for. ”
I also said to FFaC:
”
“So the ill effects of selling cigarettes to thousands of addicted people would be okay, I guess according to the Dattatreya principle. Who decides this, anyway? Conradg and you?
Followed by what I said, after already mentioning at least twice that his impact on many smokers’ health was due to selling cigarettes:
Feel4God Says:
“Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.”
This quote alone, taken out of context, would perhaps allow you to jump to your silly conclusion about what I meant, but I said this only after already mentioning a few times that his impact on many people’s health was due to his selling cigarettes. So again, if you would simply post the quotes from me that you are addressing, a lot of time could be saved and misinterpretations perhaps avoided.
Conradg Says:
“Well, obviously you are lying and denying once again, and once again caught in the act. Doesn’t this get embarassing? Don’t you realize this is the internet, there’s actually a written record here of what you’ve said, and when you lie and pretend never to have said what you’ve clearly said, you will get caught?”
Please quote me and show me exactly where I have lied according to you. These are very aggressive accusations and should be backed up, Conradg. I do my best to remember things correctly and to always quote people to help avoid misunderstandings. However, given we are guilty of being caught up in the illusion of the ego-I, we are already involved in a self-perpetuated lie – so let me see where I have actually lied here, and I will rectify this, plus apologize if necessary.
Conradg Says:
“when your whole moral argument against Nisargadatta hinges on his having influenced his devotees to smoke, or subjecting them to second hand smoke”
I said from the beginning that I was not judging Nisargadatta or his realization – but was questioning your use of double standards for comparing Adi Da and Nisargadatta. You then base your next argument on this mistaken presumption about my judging morally – I really don’t care if Nisargadatta sold bidis nor do I assume it has anything to do with his realization. I have said this several times, partly in response to Flick even.
Conradg Says:
“Are you really going to bald-faced lie to me and everyone here and claim that Adi Da didn’t smoke well into the nineties…”
I never said there were no gatherings in the 90s. I was there for some of them. What I was talking about was in the context of the 70s, just like your example was from 1975 where someone handed you a cigarette. Again, you jumped to your own conclusions here. You get downright nasty and mean-spirited sometimes, Conradg.
Also, FFaC, this last part of this quote (about you and Conrad) was said with tongue deeply embedded in cheek (note the emoticons):
“So the ill effects of selling cigarettes to thousands of addicted people would be okay, I guess according to the Dattatreya principle. Who decides this, anyway? Conradg and you?
”
So no need to call any meetings, email David Godman as you mentioned, or whomever. By the way, I have not been responding to your interesting quotes and posts about Ramana Maharshi due partially to time constraints, but also I came to the firm conclusion that all this consideration of Amrita Nadi, differences between Adi Da and Ramana, etc., could really only be decided upon our own Realization. So I hope you and I can also reconvene for that, as I already have a date with Conrad, and I hope Eddie too.
Flick Says:
“It seems that FFG will not be around much anymore to get into arguments with and kick around . If that is the case and people decide to replace him with me, then you guys can just kick each other around.”
Hahahaha! Your posts hit home a whole lot more than people give you credit for, Flick. I am definitely planning to stop posting here so much because of work and also it doesn’t seem to be serving much of a purpose any longer. However, I don’t like things left hanging out personally, and so I made this response. I know this is part of Conradg’s “tar-baby” game, as I mentioned very early on, but some things just need to be addressed, like the above accusations and misunderstandings. Or maybe they don’t any more… Who knows.
January 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm
feel4God,
“this Transmission is beyond mind”
What is or can be transmitted is phenomena.
The absolute cannot be transmitted because it always is, every where. It can only be real-ized: known to be the actual case.
If Reality could be transmitted, there would be no seekers or sadhaks anymore. But, again, Reality is not an item (object) but the expanse wherein all things (including shaktipat) appear.
It is your intrinsic intelligence that through which you (eventually) realize, as soon as the conceptual/thinking mind has surrendered to natural Self-abidance, which awakens buddhi and bestows Jnana.
Now, anything that helps you to leave mind behind and rest on natural Self-abidance, though that is not yet Jnana, is no less a blessing. Including Adi Da’s transmission.
Love
Clara
January 26, 2009 at 3:56 pm
FFG,
The problem with agreement Flick’s comment that:
“It seems that FFG will not be around much anymore to get into arguments with and kick around. If that is the case and people decide to replace him with me, then you guys can just kick each other around.”
is that agreement to disagree and confining comments to areas of interest, in what time you have, is fine with me. There are legitimate dharmic and broad behavioral issues with respect to traditional sources compared to Da and the organization where there is disagreement. This is an opportunity for all to consider these issues at a greater depth based on current understanding. And to the extent possible, present information of the type that can be assessed without unseemly personal attacks. It is understood that your practice meets your requirements at this time as you see it. No one really expects the “protagonists” here to change positions.
January 26, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Well there are some real signs of pathological obsession around here. Does Raymond spend all this time poring through Adi Da’sl literature to find all the little ways he is fraudulent? he just posted here that he spent several weeks doing that very thing. Hey get happy and get a life. Perhaps you should forget about Adi Da and spend time studying only Ramana and doing the real practice he recommends. Or you could put your time to better use becoming a cult interventionist. You might have to spend a lot of time lifting weights and getting in shape and perhaps a few years in a martial arts discipline to get that job though , because you have to be pretty strong to haul away some of these hysterical cultists. But I guess there are always tasers. They are quite the vogue in law enforcement these days. In that case you would not have to get into shape, but it is a good discipline , neverthess to work the body too and not just the left brain and the mouth apparatus. Well I guess that is my “deconstruction” for the day Thank you for your attention Flick Rahke phd the “psychotherapist” who is fishing for some clients
January 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm
I guess Clara is not aware of the paradoxes involved in spiritual life in this seeminly material human existence. Paradoxically in the context of human existence , reality can be transmitted in a sense, but we again get into the ridiculous arena of intellectually debating semantics. That is a major problem with the talking school . It stays in the arena of “mind dharma” and does not account for the heart an the paradoxes of incarnation I mean as Suzuki Roshi said “You have to say something” Flick
rahke
January 26, 2009 at 6:11 pm
FFaC, yes, I agree there can certainly be various dharmic considerations that are useful, and you know that I have always appreciated your level-headed approach to such considerations (except when you are not, of course). But let’s face it, this is not a “Daist-friendly” blog at this point. I have to spend most of my posting time re-explaining myself; going over the same thing about dualistic cults vs. true Adidam (as defined by Adi Da) vs. Adidam (as tended to be lived by us egoic Daists); semantics; and plus, hardly anyone has any fun around here! Where are the girls that were promised? Oh wait, that was that other site.
Wait, didn’t Eddie suggest strippers at one point? 
(just kidding!)
Okay, FFaC, on that note of yours and for old times sake, I will respond to Raymond’s last post:
Raymond Says:
“He said that he was naïve at the time of his Re-Awakening at the Vedanta Temple in 1970 (said that 3x in that short paragraph). From: The Divine Siddhis of Adi Da, September 13, 1993″
Some of your conclusions are based on trying to convince people that Adi Da was not “naive” at the time. Actually, Adi Da was very naive in many ways when He started teaching us devotees. He at first thought we would simply understand jnana and that would be that! He used to tell us that He had no idea how unprepared everyone who showed up would be.
Such were the Teaching years, a spontaneous grand experiment, demonstration, test, all kinds of disciplines and gatherings – ultimately for the purpose of devotees’ understanding and renunciation at every level, thereby producing the Teaching at every level, and always on the basis of Satsang.
Adi Da always acted spontaneously, without some grand plan to deceive as you are implying, Raymond; and then you follow this up by making your conclusions based on this erroneous assumption.
Adi Da Himself was moving through His own process, and deepened this over many years – basically until the Divine Outshining in 2000 at Lopez. I figure that by 1993 He noticed enough real difference between His Realization and Its Expression, and Ramana’s and others – that further defining was necessary and/or devotees were ready to receive the FLO communication. (I still do not understand why people do not get the FLO communication as absolute non-dualism.) Anyway, I am no expert in these areas, so talk to some Adidam scholars if you want a more considered approach about FLO, etc.
I agree with Flick – choose one and get on with the practice – and then when such Realization becomes true of us, let’s talk about what all these distinctions between the 6th Stage and 7th Stage really mean.
January 26, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Flick Rahke’s comment is a result of “When you are up against facts use slander when you don’t have any facts”.
January 26, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Well, too many posts to reply to individually. And most don’t address the issues I’m most interested in anyways. Feel4God’s cigarette dialog is the most absurd of all. There’s no point in making arguments you don’t even believe in, as he seems to be doing, and there’s no point in responding to such nonsense.
I do want to address some of the comments Sri Flickananda has made. His Holiness is saying all these “accusations” that Da did accessories outside a few, occasional, fully sanctioned party periods is, well, just naive beyond words. Your Dudeness, do you actually believe that? Well of course insiders will tell you that sort of thing, that’s the whole point. Insiders have been lying for decades, as official policy. They were directed to lie from the start, and they continue to lie to this day. Feel4God admits himself that if anyone asks these kinds of questions, and they don’t “recognize” Adi Da, he’s not going to tell them the answers. This has been official church policy from the beginning, in one form or another, since the beginning.
You can go back to Garbage and the Goddess, and even then most of what went on was secret. Sure, a fair amount did get out, and in that time and place it was fairly open, but even then a lot of editing and euphamisms when on, and the insiders tried to keep it a secret. I knew about some of these things when I approached a year later, some was even in the G&G book, and people told me their stories now and then, but there’s a lot of specifics I didn’t hear about until years later. It certainly wasn’t all out in the open.
Even Indoor Summer was kept relatively secret from much of the community. You found out only what you happened to hear about or see. Obviously there were no presentations given about Da’s pussy posse rustling up new babes for Da to screw. There were no formal requests at study days for hot women. It kinda happened behind the scenes. But I knew some of the chicks, you saw the sudden wide smiles they had, it wasn’t that hard to figure out.
Now, after Indoor Summer Da decided to clamp down. He’d created a pretty scandalous reputation, and a lot of people were very wary of his “work”. It was decided that Da would move to Hawaii, party in secret with a small group of trusted devotees, and cut the rest of the community out entirely on what was going on. The disciplines were reinstated for everyone not part of that scene, and there began an official “cleansing of the record” policy, in which Da was increasingly presented as “retired” from all of that, and the official line became that Da had engaged in a few bried “experimental” party periods, but now he was returning to a pure and simply life away from all that. In reality, he was carrying on pretty strong for most of that time in Hawaii. I left formal involvement in Adidam at the end of 1977, in part because I could see how damned boring and clamped down it was becoming, and I didn’t think this group was going to grow spiritually for a long time anyway. When I cam back in 1982, I was really shocked to see how Adidam was now being presented, as some very rigid, strict, disciplined group, and Adi Da as this virtually celibate teacher who never indulged himself at all. I talked with some of my old friends on the inside, and they assured me, don’t believe any of that crap, he’s still the same crazy party guy as ever, maybe more than ever. They told me this not as dissidents, but as devotees trying to assure me that Da was still his old wild self. And I thought, great, good to hear that. Still, it was very bizarre that no one was openly talking about any of this, it was all just shut down and highly censored. THe new people coming to Adidam had no idea what the real score was, they seemed they were joining some sort of highly disciplined guru-devotion thing, maybe like Ammachi is now.
Well, when the whole dissident thing broke I had been living in Lake County for a few years, working at the Press and then as Librarian at MOA. When I heard some of the accusations, I wasn’t a bit surprised, they didn’t seem news to me, but to a lot of people they were. I know people who had joined during that period, and they had no idea at all. I knew a guy who had even worked for the Institution down in Marin for a couple of years, and he had no idea either. At least a couple of hundred people left in the wake of those revelations and the round of denials that ensued.
As I’ve said before, Adi Da spent a good 75% of those years using one kind of accessory or another. That might even be an underestimate. He did have his purification periods, but as FFAC says, even those were part of the binge and purge pattern he’d established early in his life. And after the 1985 dissident lawsuits, the clamp-down became even more intense, and the screening process to weed out untrustworthy people got even more intense. But they couldn’t clamp down entirely, it was impossible. Certainly the locals in Suva were well aware of the boatloads of booze that were being shipped over to the island. And if you knew the right people, and they found you trustworthy enough, of course you had an idea of what was going on. But of course no one knew everything, precisely because it was so heavily censored.
So when Flickananda says that he’s not aware of any efforts made to hide these indulgences of Da’s, it’s just hilarious. I assume in his Divine Wisdom Sri Flick is just toying with us. For example, Sri Flick doubts the idea that Da had panic attacks at Lopez and elsewhere. I find this strange, since Flickananda himself told me in a conversation a few years ago that he had talked directly about his own panic attacks with Da, and that Da had admitted that he too suffered from panic attacks, and offered his sympathy. Likewise, I know for a fact that at least in the late nineties Da was on various anti-depressant medications, that he had yelled at his doctors, “I’m depressed, get me on some medications!” So where does Sri Flick get off now saying that it’s all just conjecture that Da suffered from panic attacks and depression? Was he lying to me back then, or is he being disingenuous now? What’s the story, Dudeananda?
Anyway, this whole issue of who did what when is so ridiculous. Why doesn’t Adidam just let everyone openly tell their story, tell the whole truth of what actually happened all those years, and stop the whole crazy denialist coverup? It’s so bloody annoying. Who cares anyway? The man is gone, his life is over, and there’s no sense in creating a false image about it all any longer. It’s such a huge distraction from the issues that matter. Why not just tell the whole truth, nothing but the truth, and leave the interpretations to whomever wants to interpret it as it makes sense to them? Let the fundamentalists say it was all God’s egoless work, and let the critics say it was egoic self-indulgence, and we can each decide for ourselves what to think.
I mean, I can understand that some things were kept secret with justification, like drug use, because of immoral laws that shouldn’t exist, but most everything else didn’t need to be secret at all. Some people are certainly prudes and would react, but why should Adidam want such people in the first place? So really, I don’t see a single legitimate reason for most of the things that went on to have been done in secret and covered up and lied about. It was a huge mistake I think on Da’s part to order all this secrecy and division, and it contributed hugesly to creating a cult.
Which brings me to the other issue that’s been brought up about fundamentalism. Feel4God points out that genuine worship of the Guru is not a fundamentalist approach, but is the way to undo fundamentalism. This is entirely true, in my view. Unfortunately, the presence of so much cultism in Adidam tells us right off the bat that, by this standard, there was very little genuine Guru devotion going on, because if there was, it wouldn’t have been so obviously present and pervasive.
You can look at these cultism books and their checklists, and go down the line, and sure enough, Adidam meets every criteria in spades. You can say it’s unfair to include such criteria as “devotion to a charismatic leader” in the list, but that’s because the list is meant to provide a guideline, and requires that numerous elements of cultism be present, not just one or two. So it’s not suggesting that merely having a Guru makes for a cult in the negative sense. In fact, you can have a cult without a charismatic leader at all. But there’s certain guidelines for recognizing those Guru relationships which are negatively cultic, and that’s where Adidam gets the label from.
Adidamers like to say that cult-critics are merely labeling all forms of esotericism involving Gurus as cultic, but that’s simply not the case. There’s plenty of Gurus who don’t demonstrate the whole heavy duty cult phenomena. The usual list of famed non-dual realizers, like Ramana, Nisargdatta, Papaji, etc., don’t seem to fit those criteria. Nor do a lot of other legitimate spiritual teachers. But Da does, regardless of his lengthy criticism of “cultism”, none of which actually address the very real and genuine concerns of the cult phenomena. Instead, Da just talks about cultism in a way that seems to exempt him from criticism, by suggesting that cultism is really just about false practice, and that since he’s not a false practitioner, he can’t be cultic, nor can his devotees as long as they aren’t false in their practice. Which, in truly amazing circular logic, means doing exactly what Da instructs. Therefore, those in Adidam who do exactly what Da says can’t be cultic, by definition, and if they seem to be, well then, that’s the fault of critics who are themselves false practitioners, and thus cultic, and thus incapable of seeing how true Adidam devotees actually are in their practice, and hence not cultic at all.
Of course, that kind of circular logic is exactly the hallmark of cultism, but to those who are wrapped up inside it, it seems to offer a perfect cocoon of self-rationalization. If that’s the kind of life you want to live, you’re welcome to it, but I don’t think you’ll get many takers.
Now, this is not to say that there isn’t a form of devotion to the Guru which really does cut through all this stuff. There’s even a form of genuine recognition of the Guru which cuts through fundamentalism and cultism. But it really does that, it doesn’t just redefine cultism into some self-referential view of practice that constantly reinforces more cultism. It shows itself in a real freedom from cultic characteristics. It doesn’t cling to ideas, it doesn’t parrot phrases and scripture, it is alive, living, direct, real, always surrendering all that bullshit, and always awakening in the moment to the reality of the Guru.
I’m not even suggesting there’s nothing like that going on in Adidam. I saw examples of it while i was there, and I experienced it myself also. It’s just that the advocates of Adidam on this forum show no evidence of it. They are playing the usual cultic games of hide and seek, of blame and accusation, angry at critics and at the world itself for not recognizing Da, in denial and proud of themselves for it. But I was reminded of my old friend Wes the other day, and I thought it was worth reprinting his original post on this forum, to see what someone who has actively worked to shed some of his own cultism from within Adidam looks like. It’s nothing like what we see on display from the holy guys who are lecturing us about the greatness of the Adidam practice.
Here’s Wes:
December 3, 2008 at 10:58 am
This being a non-dual post…
I will get to that in a moment, as best I can.
Hi to many old friends posting here.
I wish I knew more of your names again. To connect the face with the feeling of you.
As you may know, I have continued in the formal community for all these years.
Along the way, there has been so much dis-illusionment with my utopian vision of both community and Guru .
I have done my own share of inhumanity along the way.
And am humbled by the evidence of my own cultism and naiveite’.
All that being so. I found that Adi Da is my Awakener.
Perhaps another way of saying ” Non -Dual ” is
“No- Separation ” or ” Unconditional Love “.
I have always experienced an unconditional love as an essence of Adi Da all this time…throughout the process
of dis-illusionment with all appearences around and about Him
as an ” Other “. And around and about all of us as seeming separate.
I am left to make peace with how that gift of unconditional love or no-separation works out … forever.
Personally, I am sorry for the immature egoic excesses that
I was a party to in the community .
We have mostly grown on…
Most devotees have softened and become more compassionate and open minded over time.
Most have despaired of casual , or formalized cultism .
During His last couple of years the Guru became so translucent, so shattered of the earlier teaching personas.
During this time, Adi Da awakened me to His Spherical Form.
Which is not an ego -or owned -or other.
It is an all embracing , all inclusive bright consciousness as unconditional love.
This is what takes me forward in practice.
That is the ” It ” for me now … the Bright Sphere of the Guru is not owned or other.
In the mystery of all, when I give my attention to Adi Da,
feel to Guru, that is what arises as consciousness.
So His spiritual legacy to me is awareness of consciousness
as non-dual in that manner.
Yet transcendently bright and all embracing.
This gift continues to shine and there is no roster or external gate or external temple, that can prevent anyone from access.
This is beautiful to me. Adi Da is that to me now.
I hope there is beauty , happiness and grace in all your lives in what ever form it is revealed …even all form.
Recalling…” It is better to be happy than concerned “.
Always enjoyed that simplicity.
Much Love to you,
Wes
Anyway, that’s a beautiful post, and it makes no difference to me if Wes is a Daist or a Buddhist or a Vedantist. It goes to show that not everyone in Adidam suffers from the old-timer’s disease of righteous self-aggrandizement. There’s room for humility in Adidam, there’s room for God in his infinite beauty, as everywhere else.
What I find most disturbing, I guess, in Feel4God’s and Flickananda’s posts, is this notion that I have some agenda to destroy Adidam, or slander its reputation, when the opposite is the case. I certainly would be happy if the kinds of ideas and approaches they are advocating ended up on the garbage heap, but I don’t wish to destroy Adidam itself. At least not what Adiam meant to me at heart while I was there. While I was a devotee I fought just as hard against that kind of cultic nonsense as I do now, I just didn’t see how much I was a part of it myself. I dreamed of an Adidam that was really about God-love, about real Guru-devotion, and not this cultic fabrication put forward by the fundamentalists and denialist, in the official world and in the public advocates like Chris Tong and so forth. That never came to fruition as a church, but it remained a reality in the hearts of some devotees here and there, now and then. It just tended to get crushed and censored and controlled to the point of death by the general community and its fatuousness. Da himself seemed of two minds about it. In Mummeryspeak, sometimes he saw himself as Raymond Darling, and sometime he acted out the machinations of Evelyn Disc. But even so, it was never entirely crushed, as a few far flung devotees like Wes remind us.
It was not a happy day when I came to the conclusion that Adidam would simply not change appreciably from its cultic fundamentalist cant. I suppose I could have stayed, and tried like Wes to find a sanctuary in the midst of all that egoic structure from the official lines of fundamentalist imprisonment. But it seemed essentially pointless for me. God had other plans for me, and to my surprise, Adidam just wasn’t a part of it anymore. So be it. But that doesn’t mean I wish to destroy what is beautiful in Adidam more than I would destroy what is beautiful in Christianity or Islam. But I do have to be honest about what the dominant forces at work in all of those religions are, and it’s not a pretty sight. But there are some beautiful souls nonetheless in the most odd places in this world, and Adidam is no different in that respect. May all those beautiful souls find God in their heart and worship Him there as the One Being of all. You can call Him whatever Name you like.
Eddie brought up a beautiful quote from A Course In Miracles. It reminds me of the central method of that book: that nothing we fear has ever happened. That because none of it every happened, we can forgive one another entirely, not just laying a guilt trip on one another, but truly, deeply forgiving everyone of the illusion that anything other than love has ever been true of any of us. That book helped me get over a lot of my difficulties in leaving Adidam, and it helps me now too, in reminding me of the need for radical forgiveness, the kind the doesn’t need apologies or explanations to feel relieved. In many respects, this whole dialog has been futile, to the extent that we’ve tried to pursue an understanding that would allow us to put it all behind us. What is needed is to recognize that it isn’t behind us, it never happened at all. In fact, that was my very first moment of insight in Adidam, that first time I saw him, that none of this has ever happened. Sometimes, the first impression is the truest.
January 26, 2009 at 9:17 pm
i didn’t really want to get into this cigarette “discussion”. it seems rather silly to me and i think it has really gotten out of hand here. i prefer to discuss non-duality issues but not many people here seem to be interested in that…
but since flick asked so nicely
here’s what i saw:
in the beginning when i joined people were clearly pushed to smoke, drink and eat meat. i was not in mr. jones’ company back then but the argument that was always used was that in his company you were expected to participate in all three and therefore the same rules applied in the regions. this came from the “cultural servers” (for readers who were never part of adidam: they determine and enforce the rules of ashrams and communities and they make sure everything is conform to the gurus instructions), not just from peer pressure. i had no issues with drinking and smoking (although i never smoked before and have not since – i don’t like it) but i had a personal issue with eating meat. i became a vegetarian when i was 17 for moral reasons and i really didn’t want to eat meat. but in order to participate in the parties (and i really wanted to) it was required. i just assumed since the request came from the “divine person” (as i believed back then) my karmas would be clean in that regard. i just didn’t (and still don’t) want animals to be killed or otherwise harmed for my food.
in later years, however, there was no pressure on people at all. it was made very clear that participation in any of those “accessories” was strictly voluntary. there was also no peer pressure at all (whereas in the beginning when i joined there was both, “cultural” pressure and peer pressure). many people did use them but there were also some who didn’t and they were in no way looked down on. there was a very pleasant freedom regarding the use of “accessories”.
to sum it up:
from what i personally can vouch for, both sides are right. it just depends on the period you are looking at.
January 26, 2009 at 9:35 pm
Flick, many people took Adi Da’s teaching very seriously for decades. Very seriously. At that point, you don’t just pack up and leave it if things are feeling off- it’s a part of you. Like a virus infecting a hard drive, you have to go in and re-examine the code piece by piece if you want to function properly. If that isn’t your experience, fine, but it is mine and apparently many others. Your tone has become mocking and sarcastic, but I think you’re putting down some good people who are offering a real service here. You’re not getting what it’s for, so why waste your time with it?
You say you’re on your way out the door, but you keep coming back for yet another parting shot! I would hate to get in a marital dispute with you.
January 26, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Enough with the conjecture who was the non-dualest and who lied about what when, more lurid details please….
January 27, 2009 at 12:22 am
There could be many things meant by “transmission”, but if we mean an awakening to non-duality, and strictly speaking there can’t be such a “thing” transmitted, an interesting question is where is the awakening force, within or without, or both synchronously?
We could call the awakening force the guru and say then that the guru is not a particular object, but Self awakening to itSelf (I like Clara’s spelling). Therefore when I am sensitive to the guru’s presence, I see Self more clearly. The guru can appear to take any number of forms “without”, but the guru is more properly “within”, or synchronous.
The guru has moved me into contact with various outer gurus of differing degrees of Self-realization in my life. Rather than say that Da Free John was my guru and then I left him, it is more accurate to say that the guru took the form of Da Free John and then moved on to other forms for me. What was the transcendental attraction in Da Free John was the same attraction “elsewhere”.
So back to transmission. Some Self-realization is clearly and potently expressed “out there”. In my slumber, I seem to stumble onto real teaching that awakens. Now it seems to be “out there” coming in, a transmission. A printed talk with a realizer will likely stimulate awakening more than watching TV, and not only because the concepts point toward greater and lesser understanding, respectively, but because the realizer was Self-realized as opposed to someone like me just spouting off a good non-dual rap. Somehow the potency of Self-realization is more recognizable, more the awakening force. But where is it, and what word expresses it?
January 27, 2009 at 1:15 am
Flick,
Having a vital peculiar around to provide this off the wall perspective is enough reason to hope you stay here…seriously!
But really, dude, yes it would be obsessive if someone with your tendencies did what Raymond did at least with respect to reseach. To not agree with the conclusions does not alter factual details. You rely on your feelings and do not bother with details. I would be wondering what happened to you if you started delving so deep. But for some of us the analysis of subtle details is just second nature. That’s why it takes all kinds to make a world. No need to speculate on an obsession. There are manhy of the kind of details that allow one to look at Da’s biography and the changes over time to the point of clear contradiction, what is known about that period in Da’s life, and draw alternative conclusions about fidelity to fact. Some don’t care, some do. Such is life…
Let me focus on dharma rather than biographical revisionism, for now. Alan Watts famously said that Da knew what IT was from all sorts of subtle details in the early manusript of KOL. Superficially, it can seem so, but Alan had lifestyle issues himself like an over fondness for alcohol etc., and failed to consider that Da might have been writing partly for him. Those lifestyle choices led to his early death, and was more of an iconclastic pundit than spiritually advanced himself, and that is what he thought he saw in Da. Although if you look at what Alan actually said, it is clear his vision of Franklin Jones (Da) from the book, and later a carefully crafted video presentation over dinner and wine, was not accurate. If you read exactly what he said, you can see that in reality he is specifically criticizing what Da was already becoming in private and which became fully evident not long after Alan’s untimely death at 57:
“…Franklin Jones …has simply realized that he himself as he is, like a star, like a dolphin, like an iris, is a perfect and authentic manifestation of the eternal energy of the universe, and thus is no longer disposed to be in conflict with himself… But if you genuinely know this, it is nothing to be proud of nor humble about. It is just what is so, and there is absolutely no necessity to parade it by defying social conventions, on the one hand, or by coming on as one who is extremely holy, on the other. The hapless Rasputin was, perhaps, an example of the first case, and Meher Baba of the second though he had a jolly face and a lively twinkle in the eye.”
Ironically for Alan, who had met Da years before but didn’t meet Da personally after the Vedanta Event and according to family sources was not as enthusiastic about Da by the time he died as it is claimed, Da actually exhibited some qualities of both Rasputin and Meher Baba, the self-clamied Avatar. And Alan died, leaving a widely criticized endorsment, because he didn’t really examine all the details first. It is clear Alan would have distanced himself from Da had he lived long enough to see what was really going on, as can be seen from the his original endorsement criticizing both aspects of what Da became. That is one reason why detail are important.
Unfortunately for Alan, the truth is that there were always subtle details in KOL, not necessarily integrated, that would appeal to him. And other details that would appeal to a varied and wide audience, so many could find something attractive and think they saw unshakeable evidence of IT. But words do not always reflect Reality, and there were other red flags that Alan failed to see. And when you really look at all the subtle details, and the changes over the years, a good case can be made that even then, and so much more so now, what Da is describing is so inconsistent with the traditions that there is a serious conflict and signficant difference, just as Da later said.
To correct Da to an extent, it not that Ramana Maharshi “never described it” when referring to the more technical aspects of his claimed realization of Heart and Amrita Nadi, even reading that in Method back then I found strangely less than accurate. I think that has been demonstrated quite well by now. It is that when you really go into the details, Da’s description is totally in conflict with everyone else who ever described what Da considers his unique revelation, including Ramana Maharshi specifically. This conflict is far more significant than the old fable of the blind men describing the elephant differently, Flick, as you advocate. Ramana Maharshi and others, compared with Da, as most experts on Ramana Maharshi and living jnanis in that tradition would assert, and ironically in eventual agreement with Da, are really describing two different elephants! Da actually paid attention to details and would have recognized that, and increasingly set himself as above and apart for that very reason. Those who consider him supreme will take comfort in that. Those who do not wish to reject traditional non-dualism find that, and his demotion of everyone else, sound reason to suspect his claims and an explanation for problematic aspects.
I do regret that Da never allowed anyone critical of him to discuss such things directly, and that writing him would have been a waste of time. It would have been interesting to confront him with all that has been uncovered since the day he wrote KOL and see what he had to say. But those inclined to such things, in part consider what they missed the first time around, can certainly build a totally adequate alternative theory to explain it all quite well anyway. This can be done by simply examining Da closely in comparison with what is already known about his life, and states less than Realization, based on subtle details in his words.
Regarding just one of these details suggestive of a fifth stage state you may not have really thought about, even after the Vedanta Temple event, Da was having peculiar states of mind more indicative of some sort of peculiar subtle state than non-dual Realization, and strange visions that are of questionable validity. As he puts it:
“Even as before I continued to experience various manifestations of Shakti and subtle vision. I could hear all kinds of sounds within the various bodies. I was able to see subtle mechanisms within these bodies and perceive the relations of various forms and currents of energy beyond the physical. I saw the tiny organisms by which consciousness and energy are transferred and communicated between the various levels of existence.”
Some might look at these details and conclude that this might be reasonable, up to the last sentence. But then they might well ask why no Realizer in all of history refers after jnana to “tiny organisms by which consciousness and energy are transferred and communicated between the various levels of existence”. What tiny organisms? How is it that such tiny organisms no one else has ever reported could be essentially responsible for such an essential process as the transfer of consciousness and energy throughout all levels of existence? That sentence, when you really think about it and the implications of it, and don’t just glance over it, reflects a very bizzare, post realization cosmology of existence, one dependent on mysterious “tiny organisms”. And a very bizzare understanding of consciousness itself and the process by which consciousness and levels energies are reflected in all levels of existence, one dependent on the activities of previously unrecognized “tiny organisms”. This is not at all consistent with the attempt elsewhere to show similiarities with Ramana Maharshi’s Realization and permanent resolution in the Absolute. No one has ever explained how this really makes sense when you think about it.
No Flick, the devil lies in those details! Those who consider even the original KOL an unsurpassed modern exposition of non-dualism and clear evidence of Realization, as some suggest, should consider import of the many little details like that, amplified over time, about Da’s suspect Realization, barely noticed at the time, if at all. Details that were glossed over only hinted at in the context of Da’s generally pursuasive and certain manner of expressing his experiences in seemingly familiar non-dualist language. To those who find this interest in details boring and obsessive, ignore if you wish, but judge not lest ye be judged by the same measure of logical consistency and be found wanting. And those who do not agree with the what I have expressed, feel free to dispute and rebut at your leisure. Nothing personal here in my case at least. Nobody has to agree and no personal judgements are required. And Flick, feel free to continue to dismiss all this attention to detail if it is too obsessive to follow.
It’s fun to wait and see what you will say next to liven things up. Just be cautious about assuming motives, my friend, even if you are a armchair “psychotherapist”. 
January 27, 2009 at 4:41 am
Well I am not sure if no12c41 is a guy or a girl, but I guess it does not matter, except it made me curious because of the comment about marital dispute.
Yes he she did rightly point out that I did say in one post a while back that I was leaving this environment and did not do it. I do get the picture though, people here do not like me here, because I post positve personal experience of Adi Da. He or she is pointing out that this is a place for people who were hurt by their association with Adi Da and Adi dam and this is a sort of therapeutic blog land where they can work some of it out. I was being sort of naive.
But I do not like being here anymore either. It is particularly angry and venomous and more and more directed at me. FFG kept saying that he was frustrated because Conrad would go off and twist stuff and around and even lie. I could not figure that out but now I see it in my face. I never in my life had a conversation with Adi Da .
what I said about not having a personal relationship with him is true and I am not sure why Conrad posted here that i told him that. I would not say he is delusional , but certainly a selective memory in this case. Anyhow you can get temper tantrummy and call me all the names you want but it will fall upon nothing since I am breaking my addiction here cold turkey.
I looked at this blog for awhile after Adi da died and only recently started posting , because it just seemed like a lot of dumb Da bashing and I have just recently been shown that this is what it is for. people are trying to work some things and emotions out. No reason for me to be part of that . Good luck Flick Rahke
January 27, 2009 at 9:05 am
It is a pity we discuss so much whether we believe Adi Da was “true” or not, when it is clear that all of these perceptions are really only opinions. Adi Da lived his life as an example for the Absolute, whether we like it or not. The message is always for yourself to also live your own life as a template of the Absolute in what is every moment. Mind Polarity expansion won’t contribute too much to this. I also doubt any romantic contribution will do just this. I am the truth, the way and the life. That is the message. Tscha!
January 27, 2009 at 9:24 am
Flick, if by any chance you’re still reading this, I’m not suggesting that this blog should be reserved for people who are working out their problems with Adi Da. I just don’t think we should be dismissed as merely bashing as we examine the details of his contradictory life and contradictory teachings, and it would be great if differing opinions would honestly acknowledge and argue with those details instead of jumping to conclusions about our alleged pathological motives.
For the most part though, I find the board participants more respectful than all the hand-wringing suggests they are, which just makes the dramatic flourishes amusing.
And BTW, I don’t want you to go, I just thought that you had said more than once that you were going to, and then you stepped back in with more zingers.
January 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Conrad, this may surprise you, but as many times as you have said that you are not a prude, I actually have come to think that you are indeed a prude! Why do I think this? You were and still are highly offended that Adi Da did not fit your expectations of what a Guru should look like. You have gone on and on (and on!) judging your long-time Master, contrasting Him to Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc., and it seems to many of the Daists that have visited here, that you are expressing great betrayal that Master Da did not give you what you wanted. And on top of that, you never even got to be an “insider’ – i.e., you did not get invited to gatherings in His intimate sphere.
People might not know, but when gatherings were called, there was a great hopefulness of being invited but also this readily combined with feeling betrayed if one was not invited. Many people have been in both situations – however, you, Conrad, were seldom, if ever, invited to any really intimate gatherings. Flashing forward to now, this does not surprise me – maybe you were too prudish back then? You did at least say when you first arrived, you were a nerdy type of guy.
I said it very early on, and it bears repeating. I think based on what you have said here, you suffered a lot of very mixed emotions back then, both of loving the Guru and also hating the whole apparently dualistic scene He apparently created and supported. I can see you wondering back then:
“What does all of this partying have to do with spiritual life – and why the hell am I never invited to be inside with Him???”
Classic mind vs. emotion.
I am not saying that I think only you suffered this question – similar versions of it were expressed by many people back then. Hopefully, this ambivalence was released by living the non-dualistic devotional relationship to the Guru throughout those periods. However, if this ambivalence was not understood and transcended, but only suppressed, then it would keep rearing its ugly head.
You express classic ambivalence on this blog, Conrad – everything from loving the Guru to bashing Him; to saying you love me and then attacking me; to doing the same with your friend Flick with your biting sarcastic tone, and really most anything devotees have said to you is generally met with, at best, very heartless responses.
And on top of all of that, by your own admission, you were an Adidam fundamentalist, even the sole defender of Adi Da and His Way on the Internet – only to be met with further criticism by various Daists (once again, according to you). You also said you were up against very intense critics of Da – and that this blog was a picnic compared to back then. (By the way, are some of the critics that are here now supporting your current efforts, the same ones you argued with back then?)
So when your valiant efforts to defend the Master were not applauded by the Daists in charge, you must have felt even further betrayed. Natural enough.
However, your flip-flopping between sides does not serve much in the way of credibility, Conrad – it mainly points to the same ambivalence you seem to dramatize between your heart and your head. As you well know, one doesn’t get rid of fundamentalism just because they were a fundamentalist before and now have left Adidam.
Also not serving your credibility, are all the many times you twist my words around and come to these very distorted conclusions of what you think I am saying. I have very specifically pointed these out to you many times, but they seem to fall upon deaf ears. And you also have publicly denounced me and accused me of lying – to which I recently said:
“Please quote me and show me exactly where I have lied according to you. These are very aggressive accusations and should be backed up, Conradg. I do my best to remember things correctly and to always quote people to help avoid misunderstandings. However, given we are guilty of being caught up in the illusion of the ego-I, we are already involved in a self-perpetuated lie – so let me see where I have actually lied here, and I will rectify this, plus apologize if necessary.”
Whenever I have asked for specific feedback, you fail to provide. You cannot make such accusations and expect your credibility to just be accepted point-blank – you have to back up your statements, not just do your usual “smoke and mirrors” almighty logic rap. Maybe your captive audience of critics here buy this – but I actually think they don’t in some cases; however, no one wants to counter you and then be attacked themselves. Only Eddie amongst the critics dared to suggest that you show more heart in your words.
I actually thought Flick’s posts were very honest and put things in an interesting perspective. Flick was certainly never an insider and has also a lot of experience in spiritual circles outside of Adidam. And also Flick never needed to climb the “ladder of Adidam”, that Adi Da dangled to get certain people to see their own egoic mechanism involved with such seeking. The Master always “played” with those kind of politics – it brought up everything egoic, and required real “hard school” transcendence to maintain the relationship to the Master and other Daists. You strike me as such a climber, Conrad – or at least someone who really wants to be acknowledged as superior. Of course, you could not help but be very harsh, sarcastic, and condescending with Flick, your supposed friend.
Though you speak of intimate conversations with Adi Da as His astrologer, you still never really got invited into His house for gatherings. I know you must have also thought that maybe He was telling you that you did not need those kind of lessons (and that very well may have been the case) – rather than just feeling betrayed and righteous about what He was doing. But the separative/betrayal/rejection activity of the ego is very powerful – and this is why it is dealt with in detail in Adidam. You well know that you cannot simply relinquish attention to the Divine altogether without also fully understanding the separative activity of the ego-I, which always manifests itself as the “avoidance of relationship”. Animating the head without the heart is just that.
I also agree with Flick that the membership, especially in Lake County, certainly knew of what was going on. The Master never kept it a secret, but given the “gotcha” mentality of rumor-mongers, etc., I am sure many Daists on the inside tried to be discrete about gatherings; and I am sure some such Daists tried to be discrete for puritanical reasons too. Well, as we well know, many a prude or puritan have swung to the other side – it is inevitable if self-understanding is lacking. Fundamentalism works that way, and this does help to account for your activity on this blog and earlier on the Internet.
Regarding your version of some Adidam history: From my vantage point, part of the reason the Master went to Hawaii after the Indoor Summer period, was to rid Adidam of the incredible politics that devotees were creating. One guy actually had members of his “circle” bowing down to him because he figured he was now a guru! When I heard this, I knew things would end soon, as the devotee delusion was getting too thick. And others thought they were fully enlightened during this period and left. I have already described this period of “Divine Ignorance” earlier in a post to FFaC – it was a great period, but many people got way deluded with their egos back then. Much “talking school”, the Guru is within me, “I” am enlightened, etc. was being presumed. Fortunately, I was at every gathering during Indoor Summer (every day, all afternoon and all night), and the Master countered much of this tendency in those attending. We hardly left His house and that was probably a good thing, as we would have likely added to the delusion if apart from Him physically. However, we insiders failed to “pass this Prasad” of this great period to the rest of the membership, as I have already confessed earlier; so I can see why some of the delusions mentioned above, started manifesting in the community.
Here is what you said about the trip to Hawaii after Indoor Summer:
Conradg Says:
“It was decided that Da would move to Hawaii, party in secret with a small group of trusted devotees, and cut the rest of the community out entirely on what was going on. The disciplines were reinstated for everyone not part of that scene, and there began an official “cleansing of the record” policy, in which Da was increasingly presented as “retired” from all of that, and the official line became that Da had engaged in a few bried “experimental” party periods, but now he was returning to a pure and simply life away from all that. In reality, he was carrying on pretty strong for most of that time in Hawaii.”
This is a very good example of where rumors apparently become “reality” for people who were not there; and also evoke questions about credibility. Conrad, I went to Hawaii as part of this group, and we simply lived the disciplines, got ordinary jobs, lived in households, did the practices – i.e., the student conditions were fully applied. Also during this time, the Master reworked Adidam to such a degree that, let’s just say the person whom I mentioned above as wanting to also be a guru, and who had been a “mafioso-type” of guy in Adidam prior to this time, was no longer in charge of anything. He ended up leaving Adidam at this point. This was a very happy time of restructuring Adidam, as far as many of us were concerned.
Most of your posts about Adidam history are definitely slanted in order to discredit Adi Da and Adidam – but call it what you will, Conrad, as I know you will. However, what I say above was my direct experience of this period – quite different from what you heard.
I do wish you Conrad, Eddie, and others, who spoke about their dream of a non-dualistic Adidam, had not left Adidam, though I don’t question this most personal decision. The Master’s Callings have never been so loud and clear to so many of us Daists now – in terms of His Teachings, Works, Spiritual Presence, etc., – for a true Adidam of non-cultic spiritual practitioners to fully manifest. Again, this blog has helped to further sensitize me to the cultic tendencies of the ego, and for this I am very grateful.
Take care and don’t forget our date when we are fully Realized!
January 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Flick,
I’m not trying to call you a liar, but I remember very specifically having a conversation with you about an exchange you had with Da about your and his panic attacks. I’m certainly not making that up. Perhaps you don’t remember it. So my question to you is, did you ever have any kind of exchange with Da about this subject, even notes of some kind from him? Because if you didn’t, I really have to wonder how much I can trust the various stories you now tell about Da. My memory of that conversation is pretty strong. Could you have been making it up then, or is there some other explanation? You’ve got me a little confused here. Perhaps this is an honest mistake on the part of one of us. Because I told other people at the time about our conversation, such as my wife, and she remembers me telling her about it way back when, not something I just made up out of nowhere. So what gives?
Feel4God,
I’m going to make a conscious effort not to get pissed off at you anymore, regardless of our differences, and even regardless of these ongoing ad hominem attacks on me to try to personally discredit my criticisms of Adidam. It’s flattering that you think my criticisms can’t be countered on their own merits, but that you must try to find ways to discredit me and my motives personally. So I take it as a complement.
Conrad, this may surprise you, but as many times as you have said that you are not a prude, I actually have come to think that you are indeed a prude! Why do I think this? You were and still are highly offended that Adi Da did not fit your expectations of what a Guru should look like. You have gone on and on (and on!) judging your long-time Master, contrasting Him to Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc., and it seems to many of the Daists that have visited here, that you are expressing great betrayal that Master Da did not give you what you wanted. And on top of that, you never even got to be an “insider’ – i.e., you did not get invited to gatherings in His intimate sphere.
First, it’s simply not true that Da wasn’t what I was looking for when I came to Adidam back in 1975. Quite the opposite. It’s more accurate to say that a Guru like Ramana wasn’t what I was looking for. I very much am a westerner, with all the tendencies and expectations of a westerner, and I didn’t really like Indian things, or eastern cultural ideals. Nor did I like the rather boring and bland character of the Indian jnani world, at least as I perceived it as a young guy with a hardon for spiritual seeking. When I came across Da, I was tremendously excited to find a westerner who seemed to be a full realizer, and a wild and crazy one at that. It fit very well a certain wildness in myself, and a private sense of expectation that a genuine realizer could appear very much in the western mode of life. I shed very quickly the eastern and brahmanical ideals I had read about, and was very happy to “take a bite out of life” in the Adidam manner. I didn’t have a problem with smoking, drinking, sex, wild parties, etc. I did some of that, and it never occurred to me to think it was some sinful activity.
Some people certainly did have problems with it, but I never did. I wasn’t a party animal by any means, but I was never righteous about such things, and I still am not. So when I criticize Da now for all his indulgences, and compare him to Ramana, it’s not our of prudishness, but out of a more mature understanding that comes from experience, of looking back on all that youthful excess and seeing it for what it was, and continued to be throughout the years. If it had produced the kind of transcendent spiritual culture Da had said it would, well, that would be great. But it didn’t. And the reasons have to do not just with all the self-indulgences themselves, but the cultism, the lack of understanding, the hubris, the lack of real dharma, and on and on. I still harbor no prudish reaction to such things. But in evaluating the spiritual legacy of Adidam, it’s fairly simple to see that it missed the mark in a lot of very obvious ways. And yes, I do appreciate the “boring” maturity of Ramana now in a way I didn’t when I was a foolish young guy caught up in the excitement and idealism of Adidam, even if it was a different kind of idealism.
You’re also right that I wasn’t invited to gatherings in those early days, but I never felt bad about that or left out. I could see pretty easily that those gatherings were for people with different karmas than me, and I didn’t have much doubt that one day my time would come. And that did happen in the mid-90′s. I’m not sure why you say I was never invited to gatherings in his intimate sphere. You must know that’s simply not true. I was definitely invited to many intimate gatherings after I became Court Astrologer. I spent time in his bedroom with him even. I gave a number of reports to him personally, sitting right in front of him. I drank and smoked and got high with him a number of times. Are you really going to deny this? How out of the loop are you anyway, if you weren’t aware of that?
Now, it’s also true that there came a time there, where I wasn’t allowed to attend these gatherings, due to my participation in online forums about Daism, like this one. The security guys, Dunkelberger and Taylor, were very much on my ass, and wouldn’t approve me for Darshan, and those guys had final say for a while about who got invited to gatherings. Da and the kanyas would put my name on the list, call me up and invite me in, and the security people would veto it. It was certainly rather frustrating, but I could differentiate between these institutional types and Da and the RSO themselves. They often invited me to travel to be with Da. In fact, Da himself numerous times asked me to join his travelling party and live with him, but I had to decline because of my family obligations. At one point he talked about creating a whole travelling medical/psychic extravaganze with a few other healers and psychics that would be able to support itself by doing healing work for the public as Da travelled around, just so that I could bring my family with me. But that of course never happened.
Anyway, when Da was at Lopez, he personally invited me to come up there and see his intimate circumstance, and serve him in the whole patterning consideration of that time. And as I said before, when I was leaving Adi Da, he personally extended an offer to me to come back and serve him intimately once more, and I turned it down. So the idea that I left out of some kind of resentment that I wasn’t invited to gatherings is just a fantasy on your part. Or maybe it’s some kind of rumor manufactured after I left to discredit me, and you are just passing on those rumors you heard. I have to admit, it must be rather embarassing that I would have left, given the access I was given by Da. But from what I’ve been told by friends who remained, there were indeed a lot of nasty rumors being circulated in Adidam after I left, and this may just be one that you have picked up on without knowing it was false.
People might not know, but when gatherings were called, there was a great hopefulness of being invited but also this readily combined with feeling betrayed if one was not invited. Many people have been in both situations – however, you, Conrad, were seldom, if ever, invited to any really intimate gatherings. Flashing forward to now, this does not surprise me – maybe you were too prudish back then? You did at least say when you first arrived, you were a nerdy type of guy.
If you are talking about the early days, yes, I was a very young, very nerdy guy. In fact, I was the youngest person in the community who wasn’t actually the child of a devotee. The strange thing is, that remained the case for many years. Even ten years later, I was still one of the youngest people in the community who didn’t grow up there. An odd karma. And except for that very first Darshan, in which I was simply in the right place at the right time and got invited straight into his living room, I didn’t get invited to any gatherings. But I didn’t even expect to or crave such a thing. I didn’t come to Adidam to party, I came for spiritual practice, so I applied myself to that rather than to all the other things. I lived all the disciplines, I meditated and studied the dharma, I read the traditions, I served and attended whatever events there were, including larger darshans and Q&A sessions. I never had the sense of missing anything. It’s funny, I remember asking Da a question once in the Cathedral, it was a huge moment for me, I just broke out in huge smiles and love, and Da seemed very amused. My roomate told me afterwards he was jealous, because from what he could see it was obvious that Da really liked me. So, for me, that was enough. I wouldn’t have known what to do at a party anyway, and I didn’t see how it mattered. I saw the people who went to the parties, and they didn’t seem any more mature than anyone else. If anything, less so. So it wasn’t really any skin off my back.
I said it very early on, and it bears repeating. I think based on what you have said here, you suffered a lot of very mixed emotions back then, both of loving the Guru and also hating the whole apparently dualistic scene He apparently created and supported. I can see you wondering back then:
I think everyone had mixed feelings back then. But I didn’t have any mental notions of “non-dualism” back then anyway, and I didn’t hate the scene in any case. It was certainly a weird scene, and certainly insiders played their games, but I never felt anything like hate or revulsion towards it. I don’t think my general experience was much different from anyone else’s, in that everyone had mixed feelings about the community. My orientation wasn’t at all about blaming the community however. I saw people who did, and I wasn’t very sympathetic to that view. I generally tried to keep a positive view about the community, even while noticing its problems. Like I say, I didn’t come for the community, so it wasn’t a disappointment to me really.
“What does all of this partying have to do with spiritual life – and why the hell am I never invited to be inside with Him???”
Well, really, this is your own fantasy. Maybe it’s projection, maybe it’s the only way you can deal with my criticism of Adidam. It’s certainly not how I felt. I new perfectly well why I wasn’t invited to those parties. I was a kid who just didn’t have the kind of self-indulgent party karmas that those people did. It’s funny, because now that you mention it, I recall how in the 90′s Adi Da began giving critical notes about how the insiders and cultural people in Adidam had no clue how to recognize spiritual maturity, they were always looking for a certain “type” of person, generally an insider, and giving them all the transitions and cultural recognition, and that they were missing a number of people who didn’t show that kind of sign, but whose spiritual maturity was what Da needed to work with. And when I went on retreat with Da back in 1985-86. when he returned to MOA, he pointed to me as an example of this. I even had the kanyas personally apologize to me for being overlooked all those years. It was kind of funny, really, because it didn’t really matter to me one way or another. It was good to be invited to gatherings, but even that wasn’t what I came to Adidam for. Nor, really, was some high-placed niche in the community. I did suffer the whole “separation” from the Guru, in the devotional sense, in that I wanted to be with him constantly, every moment, not just in gatherings. So one of the critical issues I had to deal with very directly was this whole matter of the dualistic separation from the Guru, which is spiritual issue, not something that gets solved just by going to a lot of small gatherings.
Classic mind vs. emotion.
Look, I see what kind of propagandistic dynamic you are trying to set up with to marginalize me here. It’s all duly noticed and filed away in the appropriate circular file cabinet.
I am not saying that I think only you suffered this question – similar versions of it were expressed by many people back then. Hopefully, this ambivalence was released by living the non-dualistic devotional relationship to the Guru throughout those periods. However, if this ambivalence was not understood and transcended, but only suppressed, then it would keep rearing its ugly head.
I think Da was well aware of what I was going tthrough, and he certainly tried to assauge me by inviting me to as many Darshans as he could, and giving lots of notes to try to keep me around. That got interfered with by the politics of the community, but even that interference served me really, making it more and more clear to me that I had to find a whole different understanding of the Guru, and eventually to leave Adidam behind.
You express classic ambivalence on this blog, Conrad – everything from loving the Guru to bashing Him; to saying you love me and then attacking me; to doing the same with your friend Flick with your biting sarcastic tone, and really most anything devotees have said to you is generally met with, at best, very heartless responses.
Be careful who you call heartless. My responses here have not been ambivalent. When I see someone worthy of praise, like Wes, I praise them. When I see someone who seems very heartlessly fundamentalist and just parroting empty Daist dharma, I criticize them accordingly. I’ve praised and loved Da, and I’ve criticized him as well. They aren’t contradictory responses. I’m not a fundamentalist is all, so I don’t have to speak only praises or criticism. This is what is so hard for fundamentalists like yourself to understand – life is more than a black and white phenomena, and so is Adi Da. And yes, I love Flick, and yes, Flick can be crazy too and deserving of some criticism. He’s a big boy, I think he can handle it just fine. And biting sarcasm? Oh, jeez, get a sense of humor dude.
And on top of all of that, by your own admission, you were an Adidam fundamentalist, even the sole defender of Adi Da and His Way on the Internet – only to be met with further criticism by various Daists (once again, according to you). You also said you were up against very intense critics of Da – and that this blog was a picnic compared to back then. (By the way, are some of the critics that are here now supporting your current efforts, the same ones you argued with back then?)
I wasn’t the only Daist defending Da back then, but I was the most active. Ted Ulle was active for a while before dropping out, and there were a few non-student “friends” who defended Da to some degree. And really, are you going to deny that I was heavily criticized by the Adidam security people and denied access becaue of my participation in these forums? I had meetings with Bill and Joe, go ahead and ask them about it if you don’t believe me. Ask Anthony Costabile about his vow to “teach me a lesson” when he was worldwide head CSM. He even apologized to me about it later. So stop pretending I’m living in some crazy paranoid fantasy world.
So when your valiant efforts to defend the Master were not applauded by the Daists in charge, you must have felt even further betrayed. Natural enough.
I certainly felt undermined. I certainly felt they were making a huge mistake in not responding to the criticism of Da on the internet, thinking it would either go away or no one would pay attention to it. Huge mistake on their part. I put a lot of effort into proposals to create a truly open Adidam website with forums to discuss and clean up all these issues. I got a lot of support from quite a few people at the top, such as Brian O’Mahoney and James Steinberd, and all kinds of promises were made. And then, it all got tossed. I came to see that I was hopelessly naïve in thinking that Adidam would ever come clean about its past, and its present for that matter. It did help me to see that Adidam was essentially a closed society, in the Popperian sense. It was not a free culture, a free society dedicated to open inquiry and free consideration. This helped open my eyes to what was really going on. Did I feel betrayed? In some sense, yes, but in another sense, I just felt like a fool. What had I been thinking anyway?
However, your flip-flopping between sides does not serve much in the way of credibility, Conrad – it mainly points to the same ambivalence you seem to dramatize between your heart and your head. As you well know, one doesn’t get rid of fundamentalism just because they were a fundamentalist before and now have left Adidam.
It’s up to other people to decide how credible I am. You have your opinion, I’m sure others see me differently than either of us do. But to try to create a false dichotomy between head and heart, as if Adidam is my heart, and criticism of Adidam comes only from my head, well, that just doesn’t fly. My heart includes everything I have ever loved. So Adi Da is still in my heart, and I can feel him there. It’s not my spiritual intuition that Adi Da responds to me with the hate and scorn that you seem to be determined to heap on me. He’s not the black and white character you make him out to be. I think he recognizes he made a lot of mistakes too, and is deserving of criticism for them. But that’s just my feeling, your heart might have a different view.
Also not serving your credibility, are all the many times you twist my words around and come to these very distorted conclusions of what you think I am saying. I have very specifically pointed these out to you many times, but they seem to fall upon deaf ears. And you also have publicly denounced me and accused me of lying – to which I recently said:
Your objections have been duly noted. I leave it to others to decide if I have really distorted your words or not. You seem of the view that if you think something is true, that makes it true, and that if I disagree, it means I am deaf. You seem to neglect the possibility that I hear you just fine, but don’t feel under any obligation to submit myself to your judgment. You can judge me as you wish, but don’t expect me to go along with it. This isn’t an Adidam “devotional group”, I hope you know, and your words carry no authority here.
“Please quote me and show me exactly where I have lied according to you. These are very aggressive accusations and should be backed up, Conradg. I do my best to remember things correctly and to always quote people to help avoid misunderstandings. However, given we are guilty of being caught up in the illusion of the ego-I, we are already involved in a self-perpetuated lie – so let me see where I have actually lied here, and I will rectify this, plus apologize if necessary.”
I think I detailed your denials pretty well in that post. You claimed never to have said what I disputed, and I produced the quote that proved you were wrong. Now maybe lying is too strong a word. Maybe in your imagination you think you meant something different than you actually said. Maybe you’ve made so many disingenuous arguments here you can’t keep track of them all. That’s not my problem. And please, don’t start bring the ego-I into this. At that level, everything is a lie, but it doesn’t justify denying basic facts or quotes we have made.
Whenever I have asked for specific feedback, you fail to provide.
I think I’ve given you tons of feedback. Anything more and I’ll die of carpel-tunnel syndrome. Obviously we see things differently. You want some kind of clarification from me that will only come if you look at yourself, and your own participation here, rather than trying to blame me for your failure to communicate what you think you want to communicate.
You cannot make such accusations and expect your credibility to just be accepted point-blank – you have to back up your statements, not just do your usual “smoke and mirrors” almighty logic rap. Maybe your captive audience of critics here buy this – but I actually think they don’t in some cases; however, no one wants to counter you and then be attacked themselves. Only Eddie amongst the critics dared to suggest that you show more heart in your words.
I have no problem with people criticizing me. I listened to Eddie and have tried to absorb his criticism. I didn’t notice you do anything remotely like that when he criticized you. You just stonewalled him and basically give him the bureaucratic fuck you. You were about as inhuman towards him as I’ve ever seen anyone be. But maybe you have a rationale for that. I can’t wait to hear it.
Again, those who read this blog can judge for themselves who here is doing a better job. For my part, I don’t really think you or I are the issue here, and I don’t think how either of us comes off really matters. You are obsessed with ad hominem arguments, going after the person rather than the argument. This whole post of yours is an argument against me personally, as if that is what really matters. I really doubt much of the world gives a rat’s ass about me or you, they read this to try to understand Da and his legacy. So this kind of exchange is really besides the point. All your obsession with trying to come up with some kind of character assassination assessment of me only shows how bankrupt you know, on some level, your arguments in defense of Adi Da are. I guess I could do the same, if I cared to. I don’t even know who you are, and I kind of like it that way, because it keeps my arguments focused on Da, and not on you.
I actually thought Flick’s posts were very honest and put things in an interesting perspective. Flick was certainly never an insider and has also a lot of experience in spiritual circles outside of Adidam.
I think Flick is honest in that he says what he thinks, without editing or even much forethought. But it doesn’t make what he says true, it’s still just his opinion. It seems like a lot of emotional reactivity to me, without a lot of content. He lashes out at people a lot, and I bet if he were on the other side of the fence you’d be denouncing him as an angry dissident. But because he’s an angry defender of Da, you kind of like it. What a shock.
You strike me as such a climber, Conrad – or at least someone who really wants to be acknowledged as superior. Of course, you could not help but be very harsh, sarcastic, and condescending with Flick, your supposed friend.
I think Flick knows me well enough from the old days to testify that I was never a “climber”. My sudden ascent in the mid-90′s had nothing to do with any social climbing on my part. I was plucked from obscurity by Da himself, because I wrote an astrological paper (something I had no previous interest in) that I gave to James Steinberg to look at, and he passed it onto the RSO and they gave it to Da, which I had never imagined happening. Everyone was pretty shocked that it led me to writing regular reports directly to Da and being invited to gatherings and such. It surprised me too.
As for Flick, I think most of my friends know I can have a pretty hard-assed sense of humor, and that I speak my mind, very bluntly, when my opinion is asked for. Da very much liked that quality in me, so I’m not sure what your problem is with it. Flick can dish it out pretty well himself, so I’m sure he can handle it just fine.
Though you speak of intimate conversations with Adi Da as His astrologer, you still never really got invited into His house for gatherings.
Again, simply not true. I’d call you a liar if you weren’t so utterly clueless, it seems. I’m sure many people were surprised that I was invited to such gatherings, but it’s a little hard to deny the facts as you seem to be addicted to doing. Do you even bother to check the facts, or do you just have a reckless disregard for the truth?
I also agree with Flick that the membership, especially in Lake County, certainly knew of what was going on. The Master never kept it a secret, but given the “gotcha” mentality of rumor-mongers, etc., I am sure many Daists on the inside tried to be discrete about gatherings; and I am sure some such Daists tried to be discrete for puritanical reasons too. Well, as we well know, many a prude or puritan have swung to the other side – it is inevitable if self-understanding is lacking. Fundamentalism works that way, and this does help to account for your activity on this blog and earlier on the Internet.
Again, we can see what your agenda is: to “account” for my activity on this blog. As I’ve said from the beginning, you should be more concerned about accounting for your own activity on this blog than mine. This ad hominem attempt to somehow discredit me through amateur psychoanalysis is just a petty waste of everyone’s time, including mine. But it’s generally the way cultists respond to criticism, so it at least serves some purpose in showing people what Adidam is like.
Regarding your version of some Adidam history: From my vantage point, part of the reason the Master went to Hawaii after the Indoor Summer period, was to rid Adidam of the incredible politics that devotees were creating. One guy actually had members of his “circle” bowing down to him because he figured he was now a guru! When I heard this, I knew things would end soon, as the devotee delusion was getting too thick. And others thought they were fully enlightened during this period and left. I have already described this period of “Divine Ignorance” earlier in a post to FFaC – it was a great period, but many people got way deluded with their egos back then. Much “talking school”, the Guru is within me, “I” am enlightened, etc. was being presumed. Fortunately, I was at every gathering during Indoor Summer (every day, all afternoon and all night), and the Master countered much of this tendency in those attending. We hardly left His house and that was probably a good thing, as we would have likely added to the delusion if apart from Him physically. However, we insiders failed to “pass this Prasad” of this great period to the rest of the membership, as I have already confessed earlier; so I can see why some of the delusions mentioned above, started manifesting in the community.
Adi Da openly stated that he left California and went to Hawaii to work in privacy with a small group, away from the general community. I’m sure a lot of people got jobs and lived the disciplines, and Da himself certainly went through his binge and purge stages, but quite a lot of that time in Hawaii he was using “accessories”. Do you deny this? My sources, who were there, say something quite different.
As for Indoor Summer, yes, I remember when Sal declared himself a Guru. Quite funny, really. But is any of that stuff really surprising, given the way Da was teaching? If there was ever a talking school teaching, it was his “Divine Ignorance” teaching that summer. Not that this makes it all false – talking school teachings aren’t entirely false – but it’s hardly a shock that things turned out as they did. You can’t presume that Da couldn’t have anticipated this turn of events, so leaving and going off to Hawaii was not a very responsible thing to do. He made a mess, he should have cleaned it up himself, rather than running off. That would be the manly way to handle it.
Most of your posts about Adidam history are definitely slanted in order to discredit Adi Da and Adidam – but call it what you will, Conrad, as I know you will. However, what I say above was my direct experience of this period – quite different from what you heard.
This reminds me of Stephen Colbert’s complaint that “reality has a liberal bias”. I’m not really concerned with discrediting Adidam. As I’ve said, Adidam and devotees like you do that for me. Do you really not see how much you have done to discredit Adidam on this blog? It amazes me that you don’t see what you and other devotees are doing to yourselves.
Now, I do think that the simple facts about the history of Adidam don’t support the notions that Da was the greatest realizer ever or someone who only acted out of compassion for others. In fact, I was talking with an old friend of mine on the phone recently, someone who left Adidam a while ago but who has been reading this blog since it’s inception, and he points out that the one word you have never used to describe or defend Adi Da is “compassionate”. He points out that there’s a good reason for this. Compassion just wasn’t part of Adi Da’s emotional vocabulary. He didn’t “do” compassion, and so it makes sense that even his strongest defenders, like you, simply wouldn’t think of reaching for that word to describe him. Doesn’t that pretty much say it all?
I do wish you Conrad, Eddie, and others, who spoke about their dream of a non-dualistic Adidam, had not left Adidam, though I don’t question this most personal decision.
What? Didn’t you just question this decision on my part? Didn’t you just say that I felt emotionally betrayed, and was acting from my head rather than my heart? Am I missing something here?
Now, I’m sure you do wish we hadn’t left. But I don’t have any regets or any sense of loss, so I’m very happy with how things turned out, and no hard feelings either. I don’t know if you will actually change the kind of things in Adidam that led people like me and Eddie to leave, however, or if you can change Adidam enough to stem the losses in the ranks that one might imagine will occur in the years to come. It doesn’t appear so right now, but you never know. Talking about Da’s superior non-dualism isn’t going to do the trick, I hope you realize.
The Master’s Callings have never been so loud and clear to so many of us Daists now – in terms of His Teachings, Works, Spiritual Presence, etc., – for a true Adidam of non-cultic spiritual practitioners to fully manifest. Again, this blog has helped to further sensitize me to the cultic tendencies of the ego, and for this I am very grateful.
Well, that’s good. At least it wasn’t a total loss. If in my mad egoic rush to destroy Adidam I in any way helped you get past even a smidgeon of false practice, I’m deleriously happy for that.
Take care and don’t forget our date when we are fully Realized!
I can’t wait. Now, I think we’re really coming to the end of the line here. It’s time to concentrate on practice, not on these distractions of the mind. I wish you all the love and blessings in the world.
January 27, 2009 at 5:43 pm
There’s a typo in my last post need correction. Where I said:
“And when I went on retreat with Da back in 1985-86. when he returned to MOA…”
The years are incorrect. It should be 1995-96.
January 27, 2009 at 7:21 pm
“… the tiny organisms …”
I knew a girl who could see and feel those things all over her skin..even when she was out of meth and had slept for a couple of days…
January 27, 2009 at 7:38 pm
“From the beginning, in Adidam, it is and always has been, about the non-dual recognition of, and Self-identification with, Who Adi Da Is.” (feel4God)
“non-dual recognition” — must mean recognition of not-two, that is: “I am you, you are me”. In which case, said recognition must be: either (a) theoretical, an hypothesis, fueled by faith, or (b) a realization of non-duality, the actual knowing of not-two: Jnana.
I will take that the case is (a), given our interlocutor tacit confession. Then, that “non-dual recognition” appears to be the premise of the Adidam sadhana: a matter of faith in “Who [Adi Da says that] Adi Da Is” (God), including “non-dual recognition”, meaning: having faith that “I am He, He is me” (so we can exclude dvaita as the suggested sadhana). We are also explained that this [sadhana] is “Self-identification with Who Adi Da Is”, which is only a reiteration of the above, namely, that the goal of said identification is to realize, as oneSelf, Who Adi Da Is (God), given the “non-dual” ingredient, otherwise we would be talking of a dvaita (dualistic) sadhana, a la Krsna Consciousness version of the Vaishnava tradition.
Then all the above is further emphasized: “It is not about dualistically relating to Him as “other”, worshipping Him as “other”". So, we are clear: The sadhana of Adidam is about realizing Adi Da as oneSelf. “Non-dual recognition”.
I wonder how much this is explicit in the Adidam literature, or rather a pure dvaita approach is the one that transpires from it all, namely: that liberation consists in realizing one’s soul unique eternal position in relation (and in relationship) with the (One and Only) “Divine Person”.
Our interlocutor then adds: “Recognition of Reality is very different from belief in Reality, and even faith in Reality. This recognition is heart-based Reality intelligence and is Self-evident, even from the beginning.”
Recognition of Reality is Jnana, no less. Intuitive apprehension of any aspects of relative reality is another matter. So, the recognition of “Who Adi Da Is”, is at best a matter of faith, which in turn, at best, is the projection of one’s Self (as Guru function) on a particular form, independently of authenticity considerations ** (please read the Dog’s Tooth tale to illustrate this http://tinyurl.com/c6793j). It is the blessing power of the Self what confers the feeling of heart attraction (and of veracity) upon the object of devotion, given the karmic affinity. Other chelas on this forum have experienced the same “heart-based recognition” of the (same) Guru, until they did not anymore, when that karma and function exhausted.
** Please refer to my first post on this thread, where I stated my view of the all-pervading Divine Reality, which operated through Adi Da, as it operates through “everything” and “everyone”. http://tinyurl.com/cxw9fk It also shows that I am a firm proponent of Bhakti in the context of advaita and Jnana-marg.
Namaste
Clara
January 27, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Conrad, actually, I think it is justified to question your credibility given how loud and long you have been making statements on the internet especially given the fact that I find quite often the “facts” as you present them, just do not add up to what I was actually there for.
Your post is clarifying and I do appreciate your less pissed off response. I actually got more out of this post (January 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm) about you, Conrad, than I have from any of your others. Unfortunately, there have been a lot of reckless accusations, “half-baked truths”, and jumping to conclusions that you have been posting, and this is unfortunate for Daists, for you – and really for anyone looking for the truth.
Conradg Says:
“You’re also right that I wasn’t invited to gatherings in those early days, but I never felt bad about that or left out. I could see pretty easily that those gatherings were for people with different karmas than me, and I didn’t have much doubt that one day my time would come. And that did happen in the mid-90′s. I’m not sure why you say I was never invited to gatherings in his intimate sphere.”
Part of the problem has been that I only recently became aware of your timeline in terms of your access to Master Da. Most especially, the mid 1990s – I was in Fiji during this time, while you were in California. When we spoke earlier about the 70s and 80s, I knew you were not invited to gatherings back then, and also given what you said earlier about not going to intimate gatherings – so my apologies for extrapolating that statement of yours to the 90s, which I was not aware of, again because I was in Fiji.
I am glad you caught me up with your intimate times with Adi Da, though now I have even more difficulty understanding your departure rather than sticking around to further help with these issues. It has been unfortunate on a number of levels, as you already know. I am also sorry you were denied access to Darshan if that was unjustified. I found that your story is actually a sad one, Conrad – for a variety of reasons.
Oh, by the way, regarding the Divine Ignorance period, Sal went to Hawaii during that “after” period too, and that is where it all came tumbling down for him – I was there for that. So the fallout from the Indoor Summer period, was dealt with very directly by Adi Da in Hawaii.
Another misunderstanding – first I said:
“And on top of all of that, by your own admission, you were an Adidam fundamentalist, even the sole defender of Adi Da and His Way on the Internet – only to be met with further criticism by various Daists (once again, according to you). You also said you were up against very intense critics of Da – and that this blog was a picnic compared to back then. (By the way, are some of the critics that are here now supporting your current efforts, the same ones you argued with back then?)
Then you said:
Conradg Says:
“I wasn’t the only Daist defending Da back then, but I was the most active. Ted Ulle was active for a while before dropping out, and there were a few non-student “friends” who defended Da to some degree. And really, are you going to deny that I was heavily criticized by the Adidam security people and denied access becaue of my participation in these forums? I had meetings with Bill and Joe, go ahead and ask them about it if you don’t believe me. Ask Anthony Costabile about his vow to “teach me a lesson” when he was worldwide head CSM. He even apologized to me about it later. So stop pretending I’m living in some crazy paranoid fantasy world.”
I could not figure out how you jumped to the above conclusions from what I said. I think it must be when I said “once again, according to you” above. I was actually just saying that I heard it from you, nothing more nothing less – as you said something along these lines on this blog earlier. Remember, I was in Fiji or doing some other service, not keeping up with all the cultural politics in Adidam – so I was just taking you at your word when you stated something about being criticized by those in charge. You kind of flipped out on that one with your conclusions, Conrad.
Conradg Says:
“I think I detailed your denials pretty well in that post. You claimed never to have said what I disputed, and I produced the quote that proved you were wrong. Now maybe lying is too strong a word.”
I guess that is about as close a retraction of your original statement that I was lying, as I am going to get. So be it.
Conradg Says:
“I think I’ve given you tons of feedback.”
No you have not. Not once have you shown that I was lying. There have been some miscommunications between us no doubt, but to then accuse me of lying is actually an unfounded ad hominem attack. On the other hand, I have repeatedly and specifically shown that you have greatly exaggerated many many things about Adi Da and Adidam based on my direct experience of those periods you are judging. For these reasons, I felt it necessary to comment on perhaps why you act like you do. Hey, the analysis was free of charge!
Conradg Says:
“I can’t wait. Now, I think we’re really coming to the end of the line here. It’s time to concentrate on practice, not on these distractions of the mind. I wish you all the love and blessings in the world.”
Yes, I agree, and very much the same to you, Conrad.
January 27, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Bubba Free John (1974): ‘Everything the guru gives you is garbage.’
Given the shift in the mood of the blog and the desire to not continue nitpicking by protagonists, I thought I would write about where I see myself relative to ‘practice’ and realization.
The only freedom or truth I have come to know is indelibly linked with ‘authenticity.’ While a devotee of Adi Da it seemed I was living such a life. I had submitted to the guru’s direction because I was in-love with him, and it felt to me that he was in a rather unique state of freedom. Furthermore, I deemed that I had actually imbibed much of the guru’s understanding of reality and, in relation to others, was simply offering them his communicated wisdom as a service.
What I didn’t appreciate at the time was that it was not completely true of me. I had presumed my god-given uniqueness (encompassing the totality of who I am) was a falsity and that I would realize Adi Da’s state of freedom by submitting to him and his instructions. (Or as he put it “Look at what he (the guru) does! Look at how he lives. I want to do just that!”) I was supposing that ‘practice’ of the way that he instructed would lead to realization.
Over time it became clear that my life as a devotee in Adidam lacked authenticity especially in the sense that I was not directly relating to people as genuine human beings. (That’s the value of being involved in mission activity – you get to relate to people who don’t see things your way and who tell you that the institute you represent is unattractive because it is run by a bunch of cultists and fundamentalists!)
I had simply become a parrot, espousing the words of Adi Da in jingoistic fashion, but not knowing who I really was. There developed a credibility gap of ‘authenticity.’ No wonder people found me, both within Adidam and outside, a righteous asshole and a phony ‘defender of the faith.’ Rather than engage in a ‘practice’ reflecting genuine human adulthood, I was completely caught up in the trappings of a cultic organization. Although I felt Adi Da was significantly responsible for the cultic nature of Adidam, of course I never aired my views, especially when wanting to go on retreat!
Whatever went on in the name of serving the guru and the purpose of realizing the Truth for all of us within and without Adidam was seen as necessary. Any ideas or points of view that were not deemed in alignment with the guru were relentlessly suppressed and discarded as creations of the ego. This blog has given me the opportunity to once again engage with devotees (even if only through the written word) to see if time and experience had resulted in any changes to this disposition. Unfortunately, I could not detect any.
So, to ‘practice.’ I must confess that I have none to speak of and thus will probably have little to contribute to this blog from here on in. I have, however, been ‘practicing’ my writing skills, and what I have written may turn up in some other publication down the line!? Whatever eventuates, it is clear that, as the Master once said, it is all garbage! I may have realized nothing, but I’m a lot more authentic about it.
PS. Conradg, thanks for including the typo correction. I was on retreat myself for 2 months at the MOA in September and October of 1995. We may have crossed paths. My guess is I wouldn’t have seen you as a human being anyway. I was singularly purposed to God- Realization! No need to let people get in the way….
January 28, 2009 at 12:29 am
To Conrad:
I have appreciated reading your posts and am impressed with the work it must have involved, on your part, to deal with many of the Adidam devotees here.
You probably know, better than I, how unlikely it is that the Da apologists are going to have an epiphany of their own cultic involvement in Adidam.
But there is always the hope that a critical discussion of the teaching and our participation in this whole enterprise could awaken “hearing” instead of mere emotional “digging in”.
After all, you have provided an example of someone that changed his position through such a consideration over the years.
It certainly “rocked my world” to see my own folly after so many years of delusion.
I can’t say I have your patience or relatively high measure of light-heartedness and gratitude about it all.
Cults thrive on stupidity and are abusive energy sinks that misdirect people from worthwhile endeavors that would, otherwise, make a true contribution to the world.
Lord knows, the world is in dire need of true service instead of this foolishness and willful ignorance.
The lesson of Adi Da’s life is tragic enough already and there has been enough damage done by this “grand experiment” gone wrong.
Thankfully, the damage was contained due to the smallness of the group. Most of the world doesn’t even know of Adi Da for good reasons. However, for those of us that were involved, this thread has been a ample and final debriefing to, hopefully, bring this sorry chapter to a close.
It may also serve as a warning, to those in the future, of how appearances can be deceiving.
As Adi Da said (referring to P.T. Barnum): “Suckers are born at a far greater rate than one a minute.”
January 28, 2009 at 7:59 am
FFG says:
‘Conradg Says:
“I can’t wait. Now, I think we’re really coming to the end of the line here. It’s time to concentrate on practice, not on these distractions of the mind. I wish you all the love and blessings in the world.”
Yes, I agree, and very much the same to you, Conrad.’
——-
I think that most of what needs saying on the subject of a Jnani’s external behavior – as in Sri Adi Da vs. other known realizers, has been hashed-out on this blog. I am grateful to all who have posted here, including the principal advocates. I wish you all well in your practice. I believe that however any one’s presentation may appear here it’s all derived from oneness or love of the Self.
I find David Godman’s exposition on the subject quite matured. Malook, an Indian academic now teaching in America, questioned him in “Living the Inspiration of Sri Ramana Maharshi” regarding his attitude on this matter when he wrote the biographies of Ramana and devotee-saints of the Maharshi’s lineage:
Malook:”You obviously have a reverence for the people you were writing about. Didn’t that make it difficult to be objective about facts? For example, if you saw something ‘not so nice’ (at least as perceived by an average reader) about the people or their lives, there could have been a tendency to not include it in the books given that you have a reverence towards them?”
http://www.davidgodman.org/interviews/al3.shtml
In response, David dwelt at length on Sri Ramana Maharshi’s exemplary life:
David Godman:” … I don’t think I need to burnish Sri Ramana’s image at all because the uncensored truth of his life speaks for itself.
Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfill.”
January 28, 2009 at 10:04 am
Given that the following has been brought up several times by critics here, especially Conradg, I want to speak to this:
Conradg Says:
“I’m not really concerned with discrediting Adidam. As I’ve said, Adidam and devotees like you do that for me. Do you really not see how much you have done to discredit Adidam on this blog? It amazes me that you don’t see what you and other devotees are doing to yourselves.”
As I have said several times, I find quite often the “facts” as presented here by the critics just do not add up to what I actually experienced in all my years with Adi Da. My countering those types of posts with what I experienced, often seemed to be characterized/dismissed as an attack on the critics and/or just another cultic move to defend Adi Da. And from there, it has been concluded by various critics, most especially Conradg, that I have done much “to discredit Adidam on this blog”.
As I have also always said, people should and will make their OWN decision about Spiritual Masters, Who their Master is or is not, etc. Regarding Adi Da, this should be based on your real consideration of Him, His Teaching, Works, devotees’ and others’ statements, etc. It is always a matter of recognition of Who He Is or not – and no matter how carefully crafted some of the arguments about whether Adi Da is fully Realized or not based on His behavior (that especially Conradg and FFaC have presented) – I say, just freely, openly and deeply look at Adi Da’s Person, photos, Teachings, Leelas, etc., and let that speak to your heart (or not).
It is true enough that I have made mistakes in my presentation here, but whether I have done much “to discredit Adidam on this blog” remains to be seen. Conrad seems to want to dictate that as some kind of truism to you to help you make a decision, but let that decision remain your free choice altogether.
Given Conradg’s presumption I quoted above, I should also mention that I have received letters from some non-Daists expressing their gratitude for presenting a different picture of Adidam than was generally being presented here and on some other forums. Again, thank you very much for those letters! They have greatly heartened me, and also said to me that I was not simply discrediting Adidam by my posts – those letters are a real breath of fresh air in the sometimes very difficult environment of this blog.
The best to all of you with your practice and choices – may you be so open and free to allow the Acausal Divine Person to guide the choice that is best for your absolute Realization of Reality!
Aro Says:
“I am grateful to all who have posted here, including the principal advocates. I wish you all well in your practice.”
The very best to you too, Aro. And thank you for your very fine contributions throughout this blog, including your latest:
Aro Says:
‘David Godman:” … I don’t think I need to burnish Sri Ramana’s image at all because the uncensored truth of his life speaks for itself.
Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfill.”’
This quote, and Aro’s post, show great respect for Spiritual Masters and their many ways they may animate to demonstrate their Love (Compassion), Skillful Means, Teachings, etc. So thank you again for this, Aro.
I still imagine that the Great Ones would be laughing their asses off if they saw what we have been discussing and sometimes presuming about them here!
January 28, 2009 at 1:20 pm
The big picture shows us that even cults are the work of the Divine, since all in life is.
The big picture shows us that even wrong teachings and wrong methods (as in contrary to Dharma and tradition) help beings on their way to Self-awakening.
It’s no less a paradox that Self-realized beings can display such twisted means and lead so many apparently astray, only as a phase of their realization path.
Can we read between the lines, and recognize the perfect tapestry?
10/27/2008, exactly 30 days before Da’s passing, I delivered a talk where I spoke of him (audio online) and (among other things) I was prompted to say that even for realized beings to assume the position of God in terms of World Teacher and Saviour (“avatar”) was a risky business that would kill anyone not fit to it. I added, “well, he’s still alive…”. But then, life uttered its final word deciding otherwise.
When the Guru figure becomes solidified (“Divine Person”) before a devotee who’s “self-contracted” predicament becomes also solidified and underlined, it’s time to remove the murti-fied Guru from his platform and return the devotee’s to her true space of intrinsic freedom, in line with the original Dharma that communicates that “you are That” (Tat tvam Asi).
Love
Clara
January 28, 2009 at 1:32 pm
Eddie says:
“So, to ‘practice.’ I must confess that I have none to speak of”
Cutls have problems with guys like you and me who give up the Search. It’s anti-fundamentalism!
You know, we are being just “pretty silly” here. We must be stoned or something and basing this on some mental understand of non-duality, and not the actual Realization.
However, my 26 years in Adidam also validates that Franklin Jones’s practices just re-inforced the search, -big time and that is why there is no growth in Adidam. But what do I know anyway? I’m just in the “talking school”
shiva Says:
January 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm
FFG says, “…such advanced teachings and practices would mainly be understood by, and work for, those who have already prepared the body-mind in this (and most likely, prior) lifetimes. Adi Da’s Teachings deal with every aspect of an aspirant’s development, and makes it clear that right life disciplines and radical (non-dual) devotion to Reality are the necessary foundation for the more advanced practice of the Witness, etc.”
Shiva says, “all of this “teaching” of progression is time-based and body-based and re-inforces the search, even with a “searchless” thrown in once in a while for good measure”.
Response From Feel4God To Shiva:
shiva Says:
“all this preparation non-sense. all that purification non-sense that mr. jones preached does only one thing: it prolongs the search. it IS the search. whether or not he calls it search-less or not. it is nothing but a search. isn’t that obvious?”
FFG says, “This may be true if someone has actually realized this, but for shiva to make such statements is pretty silly. It is just based on some mental understanding of non-duality, but not its actual realization. No amount of his affirming this notion, makes it true. This is also the kind of talk I hear from people who are stoned a lot. I can only assume that certain of the critics here did not speak about their accessory use in this regard because many people know that various substances can give someone lots of mental insights while they are high – but such substances can be very deluding, especially if used too much. The “talking school” of non-dualism is full of such people”.
January 28, 2009 at 8:26 pm
Listen up, old bad-karma Patrul,
You dweller-in-distraction.
For ages now you’ve been
Beguiled, entranced, and fooled by appearances.
Are you aware of that? Are you?
Right this very instant, when you’re
Under the spell of mistaken perception
You’ve got to watch out.
Don’t let yourself get carried away by this fake
and empty life.
Your mind is spinning around
About carrying out a lot of useless projects:
It’s a waste! Give it up!
Thinking about the hundred plans you want to accomplish,
With never enough time to finish them,
Just weighs down your mind.
You’re completely distracted
By all these projects, which never come to an end,
But keep spreading out more, like ripples in water.
Don’t be a fool: for once, just sit tight.
Listening to the teachings — you’ve already
heard hundreds of teachings,
But when you haven’t grasped the meaning of even
one teaching,
What’s the point of more listening?
Reflecting on the teachings — even though you’ve listened,
If the teachings aren’t coming to mind when needed,
What’s the point of more reflection? None.
Meditating according to the teachings —
If your meditation practice still isn’t curing
The obscuring states of mind—forget about it!
You’ve added up just how many mantras you’ve done —
But you aren’t accomplishing the kyerim visualization.
You may get the forms of deities nice and clear —
But you’re not putting an end to subject and object.
You may tame what appear to be evil spirits and ghosts,
But you’re not training the stream of your own mind.
Your four fine sessions of sadhana practice,
So meticulously arranged —
Forget about them.
When you’re in a good mood,
Your practice seems to have lots of clarity —
But you just can’t relax into it.
When you’re depressed,
Your practice is stable enough
But there’s no brilliance to it.
As for awareness,
You try to force yourself into a rigpa-like state,
As if stabbing a stake into a target!
When those yogic positions and gazes keep your mind stable
Only by keeping mind tethered —
Forget about them!
Giving high-sounding lectures
Doesn’t do your mind-stream any good.
The path of analytical reasoning is precise and acute —
But it’s just more delusion, good for nothing goat-shit.
The oral instructions are very profound
But not if you don’t put them into practice.
Reading over and over those dharma texts
That just occupy your mind and make your eyes sore —
Forget about it!
You beat your little damaru drum — ting, ting —
And your audience thinks it’s charming to hear.
You’re reciting words about offering up your body,
But you still haven’t stopped holding it dear.
You’re making your little cymbals go cling, cling —
Without keeping the ultimate purpose in mind.
All this dharma-practice equipment
That seems so attractive —
Forget about it!
Right now, those students are all studying so very hard,
But in the end, they can’t keep it up.
Today, they seem to get the idea,
But later on, there’s not a trace left.
Even if one of them manages to learn a little,
He rarely applies his “learning” to his own conduct.
Those elegant dharma disciplines —
Forget about them!
This year, he really cares about you,
Next year, it’s not like that.
At first, he seems modest,
Then he grows exalted and pompous.
The more you nurture and cherish him,
The more distant he grows.
These dear friends
Who show such smiling faces to begin with —
Forget about them!
Her smile seems so full of joy —
But who knows if that’s really the case?
One time, it’s pure pleasure,
Then it’s nine months of mental pain.
It might be fine for a month,
But sooner or later, there’s trouble.
People teasing; your mind embroiled —
Your lady-friend —
Forget about her!
These endless rounds of conversation
Are just attachment and aversion —
It’s just more goat-shit, good for nothing at all.
At the time it seems marvelously entertaining,
But really, you’re just spreading around stories
about other people’s mistakes.
Your audience seems to be listening politely,
But then they grow embarrassed for you.
Useless talk that just make you thirsty —
Forget about it!
Giving teachings on meditation texts
Without yourself having
Gained actual experience through practice,
Is like reciting a dance-manual out loud
And thinking that’s the same as actually dancing.
People may be listening to you with devotion,
But it just isn’t the real thing.
Sooner or later, when your own actions
Contradict the teachings, you’ll feel ashamed.
Just mouthing the words,
Giving dharma explanations that sound so eloquent—
Forget about it!
When you don’t have a text, you long for it;
Then when you’ve finally gotten it,
you hardly look at it.
The number of pages seems few enough,
But it’s a bit hard to find time to copy them all.
Even if you copied down all the dharma texts on earth,
You wouldn’t be satisfied.
Copying down texts is a waste of time
(Unless you get paid) —
So forget about it!
Today, they’re happy as clams —
Tomorrow, they’re furious.
With all their black moods and white moods,
People are never satisfied.
Or even if they’re nice enough,
They may not come through when you really need them,
Disappointing you even more.
All this politeness, keeping up a
Courteous demeanor —
Forget about it!
Worldly and religious work
Is the province of gentlemen.
Patrul, old boy — that’s not for you.
Haven’t you noticed what always happens?
An old bull, once you’ve gone to the trouble of
borrowing him for his services,
Seems to have absolutely no desire left in him at all—
(Except to go back to sleep).
Be like that — desireless.
Just sleep, eat, piss, shit.
There’s nothing else in life that has to be done.
Don’t get involved with other things:
They’re not the point.
Keep a low profile,
Sleep.
In the triple universe
When you’re lower than your company
You should take the low seat.
Should you happen to be the superior one,
Don’t get arrogant.
There’s no absolute need to have close friends;
You’re better off just keeping to yourself.
When you’re without any worldly
or religious obligations,
Don’t keep on longing to acquire some!
If you let go of everything —
Everything, everything —
That’s the real point!
Patrul Rinpoche (1808-1887)
January 28, 2009 at 10:21 pm
FFG,
From defense of Frank (in all manner..from his teaching to his violation of “money, food, and sex), to “darhma” (who got it right in the “traditions”), to diet ( and the assumption…or “consumption” and what that could possibly mean… “raw”…”vegetarian”…”lacto”… “sativic”…” So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man.), to the use of “various substances”, and of course the critics being “hidden” about it… the more you speak here the more you show your desperation and utter lack of self-understanding. So very much of your “identity” is wrapped up in Adidam…you have no idea who you are anymore or how you present yourself. You feel put upon and defend the undefendable. Franks non-understanding of “non-duality” is yours. He knew it not. Your “understanding” is based on his non-understanding…an “error”. Protect it you will, for you must. Defend him you will, for you must. But, make no mistake, you have never here defended anyone but you.
FFG, your responses to the posters here, “critics” if you like, reminds me of the saying…”A pickpocket could look at a Saint and only see His pockets”. There is nothing in me that doesn’t understand your reactions, and, the lack of seeing on your part of that which has been brought to you, over and over again, or, your utter gymnastic convolutions to explain away, and dismiss, for your own self-validation and self-preservation, the truth of Frank and Adidam. It is quite clear.
As to your predilection to paint all others who have seen something that you quite clearly haven’t, as “talking school”, I would refer you to the 70 plus books that Frank “wrote” ( there was some “help” BTW). Seventy books? Seventy? “I Am That”. How does Franks proclivity for writing and grandious verbosity, stack up to stack up to Ramanas’ preference to teach in silence ( BTW…His actual Teaching)? Seventy books is nothing short of a “talking school”. Worse. An “echo chamber”, and, an utterly egoic one at that. ALL WORDS are merely pointers, casual or “sacred”. The writing of seventy books amounts to someone who can’t get enough of his own voice. Some of us did. You haven’t.
“Talking School”? Ask the birds…they have no need for “dahrma” or “traditions”, never mind “cosmologies” and “concepts” of “non-duality”. THAT IS ALL UTTER CRAP. And you are addicted to eating those shit-sandwiches…no wonder you need to “prepare”…they taste like shit…the birds won’t eat them…but you… a “spiritual being”…so much more evolved than the mere bird…will eat. Pay attention to the birds. They sing. They eat. They fly. They build nests. They live in a place that is utterly unremoved from the “place” that you “think” that you are removed from. Talk to them about “talking school”. Tweet Tweet. You’ll feel real stupid real quick. Now, that’s a “lesson”. No 70 books either.
January 29, 2009 at 12:57 am
Aro says:
“Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfill.”
Unfortunately, that conclusion is paraphrased based on your understanding, but is not really so accurate historically, and simply not being a paragon of virtue does not reflect the context of what Ramana Maharshi actually said. It is important not to mischaracterize what he said just to make a broader point you want to make. In fact, historically, most jnanis do exhibit a more saintly quality in respect to their relations with others than normal simply because they lack egoic mindframes. A simple review of historical jnanis where there is some evidence of something other than mythology shows that. The more extreme, crazy wisdom types etc. are noteworthy for their relative rareness among the great traditional jnanis, even more so after mythologies are examined more closely. That does not mean they may not have very strange appearing eccentricities and may not violate some social conventions. They might get drunk, and might even seduce in some circumstances, such as the examples Ramana Maharshi himself gave. They might go to war and might even kill someone to defend others such as Krishna taught. But as Ramana Maharshi repeatedly said, it is readily apparent by the depth of peace you feel in their presence that you can interpret something about their state. Ramana Maharshi stated quite well what is found in these dialogues:
>>Question: Does a jnani have Sankalpas (desires)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: The main qualities of the ordinary mind are Tamas (sloth, inertia) and Rajas (passion, excitement); hence it is full of egoistic desires and weaknesses. But the jnani’s mind is Suddhi-Sattva (pure harmony) and formless, functioning in the subtle Vijnanmayakosha (the sheath of knowledge), through which he keeps contact with the world. His desires are therefore also pure.
Question: The jnani seems to be more accurate in his expressions, he appreciates the differences better than the ordinary man. If sugar is sweet and wormwood is bitter to me, he too seems to realise it so. In fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc., are the same to him as they are to others. If so, how can it be said that these are mere appearances? Do they not form part of his life experience
Sri Ramana Maharshi: I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realisation you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True, the jnani appreciates the distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth.
Question: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality towards all?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes.
“Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas (attitudes) become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani.” (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37).
You ask about jnanis: they are the same in any state or condition, as they know the reality, the truth. In their daily routine of taking food, moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. Not a single action is done for themselves. I have already told you many times just as there are people whose profession is to mourn for a fee, so also the jnanis do things for the sake of others with detachment, without themselves being affected by them.
Q: How then does the aham-vritti [`I'-thought, the sense of
individuality] function in the jnani?
A: It does not function in him at all. The jnani’s real nature is the Heart itself, because he is one and identical with the undifferentiated, pure consciousness referred to by the Upanishads as the prajnana [full consciousness]. Prajnana is truly Brahman, the absolute, and there is no Brahman other than prajnana.
Question: What are the marks of a real teacher (sadaguru)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Steady abidance in the Self, looking at all with an equal eye, unshakable courage at all times, in all places and circumstances.
Question: There are a number of spiritual teachers teaching
various paths. Whom should one take for one’s Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Choose that one where you find you get shanti (peace).
Question: Should we not also consider his teachings?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. If a teacher tells him to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities, can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation. Activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity is advocated the adviser is not a master but a killer. In such circumstances either the Creator (Brahma) or death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of a master. Such a person cannot liberate the aspirant; he can only strengthen his fetters.
Question: How can I find my own Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: By intense meditation.<<
Now this is where karma comes in. There are those who see all this in Da, as karma dictates they will. Most others who have met him see a flawed human being with apparent limits, not what Ramana Maharshi describes for a jnani. And they see a teaching obssessed with what Da himself says is ideal, a "commanding guru", one focused heavily on group behavior and evolving conditions of behavior and practice, that adds fetters. It is not traditional dharma, but a modern, neo-advaita doctrine that just because the state of the jnani can’t be proven from their behavior, that most jnanis appear to behave more like the rest of us and considerations of behavior in context are not relevant. And I love Ramana Maharshi and his saintly qualities myself, but that was not so rare as you suggest. That there are so many problematic so-called jnanis teaching in the West is a reflection of western desires and not mainstream jnana dharma. You have so-called jnanis teaching that it is just the body doing it when caught in scandalous, hidden behavior, and they have nothing to do with it. At best these are the lowest class of jnani, not fit to serve as guru, and most often, they simply aren’t jnanis, just as Tripura Rahasya states.
January 29, 2009 at 2:03 am
In response to some of the comments above about the Indoor Summer period, Da moving to Hawaii and Sal Lucania being kicked out, I do agree with Conrad that what happened was essentially forseeable. It reminds me a little of Mao’s period of freedom only to follow it with repression thereafter using that period as a rationale. When Da declared all that was necesary was to presume your enlightenment, things became wild rapidly. I had a friend, Rick Carlson from Vancouver BC, that specifically confronted Da in August of 1976 about the fact that despite this, he didn’t feel anymore enlightened. To which Da’s infamous reply was, “don’t play the punk with me”. Rick got the message from that and what followed, within 6 months he departed, and in our last conversation, he had concluded that Da was not at all what he said.
FFG, you did not mention that that was during the period when Da had already proclaimed “disciples”, that all this resulted in various “tribes ” being established, the largest one being Sal’s, see that tribe as their primary means of approach to Da. You in the inner circle may have had something else in mind, but that is how it was. Da knew enough what Sal Lucania was doing and could have done something but didn’t. Yes, Da came back over New Years 1977 and seemed to be the hero then, saving us from ambitious Sal, and others, but was he? Many of us, looking back, and thinking now about what Sal’s son said about the Da he knew at the time, concluded long ago that this was simply Da’s time to discredit and get rid of Sal because he knew too much, using his weaknesses to get him out. Many, including the Common Ground correspondent, left because they saw too much first hand.
This wasn’t just an isolated case. You had Peter Susnjar up in BC who took charge and sat in the guru chair until he was removed. Lots of completly out of line behavior from the Ignorance and presume your enlightenment dogma which as I said could have been avoided had Da simply referenced the concepts roots as I knew them.
Now as far as Hawaii goes, that is only one way of looking at it. I was there outside on the Hotel Deck for Bubba (Das) birthday Nov 3, 1976. I presented a gift and layed it in front of him, and was enjoying the party. What I did not realize is that Da was having health problems and that is why he and his gopi consorts left earlier than expected. He went to Hawaii right after that, I think Nov 8, because it was becoming too much, not to just break this pattern up, which he could have done with a word in front of all present. Recall also that when he came back and all the strict conditions returned, the previous tribe structure was broken up, and Sal had been booted out, that Da went back to Hawaii, and soon the Siegler Springs sanctuary was even proposed for sale for a time, if it would finance a proposed sanctuary for him there in Hawaii. Some ambitious devotees I knew went to Hawaii. Of course the job market and cost of living would have made most devotees move to Hawaii very difficult. Da didn’t return until around April, when the weather got better. Now the use of accessories may very well have lessened, but it was not that Da was living the lifestyle line members like myself were told. We now know from public admissions in 1985 that the partying continued far more frequently than among ordinary members. I too know defectors, including more than one of the rarer females at the time, who were in Da’s private company even more than you, and what you say is simply disputed first hand.
Who is right? No need to say anyone is lying. I think if you look at all the patterns, what you may recall from your vantage is only one view, and does not reflect the whole picture. Those who want to presume that critics are all exaggerating will do so regardless. Suffice it to say there is more than one way to look at all this. I consider it totally unnecessary theater, that simply sticking with the practice would have been more beneficial.
January 29, 2009 at 2:22 am
Now That’s what I’m talkin about. Thank you to Patrul Rinpoche and to Neti neti for posting something of such wisdom and beauty . Flick Rahke I will certainly put this in my peace pipe and smoke it
January 29, 2009 at 2:26 am
Clara says:
“The big picture shows us that even wrong teachings and wrong methods (as in contrary to Dharma and tradition) help beings on their way to Self-awakening.
It’s no less a paradox that Self-realized beings can display such twisted means and lead so many apparently astray, only as a phase of their realization path.
Can we read between the lines, and recognize the perfect tapestry?”
It seems so. It is a question of timing. Those with wanna be a guru karmas must first be purified for that time when they can actually serve that role, and so for those who need lessons in choosing a guru when it is not yet really their time. Future destinies, foreshadowed in those who lost their way first. Often, the Sage was once a sinner in the distant past. I read where Da said once that the guru whose teaching becomes problematic has cut himself off from the Divine and ends up spiraling, being bound by his followers karma as well. If you apply that to him, it is an interesting karma that ironically will serve others, just not as he thought. The play depends on the assumption of roles.
January 29, 2009 at 8:20 am
Ah yes that quote from Patrul Rinpoche was very nice and I see the Beavis and Butthead mentality reigning supreme here again ,so I thought I would place a quote here from Annamalai Swami here, whom I think some here have mentioned before and hold in some sort of regard{I have been studying him of late}
quesion;”Going back to the question of how to determine who is and who is not a jnani, can we come to some valid conclusion by studying his life and teachings? Will not his state be somehow reflected in the life that he leads?”
Annamalai Swami :”You cannot determine the answer to this question by studying the teachings or the behaviour of a person you think might be a jnani. These are not reliable indicators.Some jnanis might stay silent;others may talk a lot. Some are active in the world, some withdraw from it. Some end up as teachers while others content to stay hidden. Some behave like saints, wheras others act like madmen. The same peace can be found in the presence of all these beings, since this peace is not affected by modes of behavior, but there may be no other common factors.
question: “Jnanis are supposed to have an equality of vision . Cannot we decide whether someone may be a jnani on the basis of whether he treats people around him equally?”
Annamalai Swami “Jnanis remain absorbed in the Self at all times and their apparent behavior is just a reflection of the circumstances they find themselves in. Some may appear to be egalitarian. Others may not. They play their allotted roles, and though they may seem to be involved in them as ordinary people would be , they are not really touched by any of the events that occur in their lives. Equal vision may be there , internal equanimity may be there, but don’t expect all jnanis to behave in a prescribed , egalitarian way.”
Here is something I have found in studying the life of the Buddha.
“On the road, Gautama met an ascetic who remarked on his clear eyes and radiant complexion and asked about his religion. The Buddha declared that he was a Victor, that he had no equal in the world of gods and men, that he had become omniscient and had reached nirvana. The ascetic shook his head and walked away on another road. Gautama’s first proclomation of his Buddhahood was ignored.”
I am not sure how people feel about this man Annamalai Swami but I think he was a much revered senior disciple of Ramana Maharshi and is teachings seem pretty right on as I read them.
The Buddha had many detractors in his lifetime as a teacher. He was very revolutionary for his time. I think everyone knows the detractors Jesus Christ had, including one of his closest disciples. They did not just sue him , they tortured him and crucified him.
Personally I don’t think that a guru having detractors and critics means all that much as to whether they are truly realized or not. And I am not just referring to Da Free John. There will always be a certain amount of people angry at any particular teacher or guru for various and sundry reasons. Of course , if someone does not feel right about their teacher any more, it is good to move on and find another teacher or teaching and stick with that for awhile at least. One needs to be flexible and willing to change and let go of the old. That is the way I see it and that is how I have done it. of course there will be people who disagree with this approach and I have seen that plenty here . Flick Rahke
January 29, 2009 at 11:30 am
Former Follower and Critic first says the following:
“Aro says:”
“Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfill.”
Former Follower and Critic then Says:
“Unfortunately, that conclusion is paraphrased based on your understanding, but is not really so accurate historically, and simply not being a paragon of virtue does not reflect the context of what Ramana Maharshi actually said. It is important not to mischaracterize what he said just to make a broader point you want to make.”
FFaC, you said the above to Aro who actually quoted that exact paragraph from a David Godman interview – so I am not sure what you are getting at with your response. Here is that David Godman interview as Aro had already linked it for us:
http://www.davidgodman.org/interviews/al3.shtml
All of the following, including what Aro quoted, is from David Godman:
“Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him, he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfil.
In Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramana narrates the story of Kaduveli Siddhar, an austere ascetic who attracted public ridicule by having an affair with a temple dancer. A local king offered a reward to anyone who could prove whether this man really was a saint or not. At the time the challenge was issued, Kaduveli Siddhar was subsisting on dry leaves that fell from trees. When the dancer eventually gave birth to Kaduveli Siddhar’s baby, she thought that she had proved her point and went to the king to collect her reward.
The king, who wanted some public confirmation of their intimate relationship, arranged a dance performance. When it was under way, the dancer stretched out her foot towards Kaduveli Siddhar because one of her anklets had become loose. When he retied it for her, the audience jeered at him. Kaduveli Siddhar was unmoved. He sang a Tamil verse, part of which said, ‘If it is true that I sleep day and night quite aware of the Self, may this stone burst into two and become the wide expanse’.
Immediately, a nearby stone idol split apart with a resounding crack, much to the astonishment of the audience.
Sri Ramana’s conclusion to this story was, ‘He proved himself to be an unswerving jnani. One should not be deceived by the external appearance of a jnani.’
I find it fascinating that Sri Ramana, a man of impeccable saintliness, could say that behaviour such as this could not be taken to indicate that Kaduveli Siddhar was unenlightened.”
January 29, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Feel4God,
Because you seem to persist in wanting me to spell out some of your intentional falsehoods or flagrant disregard for the truth, I’ll go back and do so, against my better judgment.
In our most recent dustup about Nisargadatta’s smoking beedies, you accused me of distorting your words, when an examination of what you actually said shows that I did not. As you described it:
Feel4God:
Conrad, as hopefully you can see here, though I am close to giving up trying, you did once again completely distort what I said! I never said that “thousands of people suddenly began smoking simply because they saw Nisargadatta doing it” – all I said was Nisardagadatta’s own smoking would encourage others to do so. Where in the world did I quantify how many he encouraged?
I showed you precisely where you quantified this:
Feel4God:
Very likely Nisargadatta’s spirituality also made it seem okay to many people to smoke bidis. I cannot imagine that his contribution to people’s ill health was simply minor – he must have impacted many thousands of people over all those years.
You clearly quantified the number of people Nisargaddata “impacted” as in the many thousands. So your denial that you ever quantified these charges was a blatant lie. Furthermore, saying that Nisagadatta “encouraged” others to smoke, and describing his contribution to his devotees’ ill health as not at all minor, but something with real “impact” on their health, makes it very clear that you are claiming that these “many thousands” of people must have actually started smoking through Nisargadatta’s influence and encouragement. What other possible explanation is there for this choice of words? If someone does not actually start smoking as the result of this “encouragement”, how can it have any impact whatsoever on their health? How can one even say he actually encouraged or influenced anyone at all, if they didn’t actually take up smoking as a result? So either your entire argument is utterly idiotic, or you are simply flagrantly lying and making things up when you say that Nisargadatta must have had a non-minor impact on the health of thousands of his devotees by smoking beedies. So my counterargument, that the idea that thousands of devotees suddenly took up smoking because they saw Nisagadatta smoking beedies is bullshit, is a perfectly valid criticism, and not some bizarre distortion of your words as you claim.
In fact, your near constant complaint that I distort your words seems to have very little basis at all. You just don’t seem to want to take responsibility for what you actually say. The truth is, you have shown a flagrant disregard for the truth many times, and have been caught just making things up when it seems to suit your argument, if you think you can get away with it.
For example, you recently have been claiming, with seemingly total confidence, that I had never been involved in any private gatherings with Adi Da, and that therefore my testimony that his self-undulgent use of accessories such as cigarettes continued into the nineties is just “not credible”, and that I am lacking in credibility because I make assertions about things when I wasn’t personally there. Now you admit that this was completely false. But you don’t explain how you ever could have asserted it was true in the first place. This isn’t some subjective issue one can have one’s own opinion about. Either I was present in intimate personal gatherings with Adi Da, or I was not. I’ve said from the beginning of this thread that I was, so attacking my credibility on this point is a big deal, an overt accusation that I’m lying and misrepresenting myself, a rather big deal. And yet clearly you were dead wrong, and now admit it. Obviously, you never even bothered to check the facts. You only explain, as if it explains your making things up about me, that you were in Fiji and had no clue what Adi Da was doing in California. But what’s the explanation for filling in the blanks of your ignorance with this invented fantasy of yours about me? It seems that somehow you just decided that it fit your story better if you claimed that I was not involved in any private gatherings with Adi Da, so you just made that up, thinking what, that “the newbies” would buy it since, after all, it’s just your word against mine?
And even more strangely, you did this is a post attacking my credibility! Don’t you find that at all ironic, that you would make up a total lie about me so as to undermine my credibility, and then get caught in that flagrant lie, and then somehow explain it away by saying you just weren’t aware of what was going on in California at that time? As if that’s a valid excuse? I mean, doesn’t this completely destroy your own credibility, and show that you just make things up in order to try to undermine Adi Da’s critics, with no regard for the truth whatsoever? How else can you explain this blatant lie about me? And isn’t it curiously strange that you would make these lying accusations in a post defending yourself against the accusations I’ve made that you lie? Could there be a more perfect demonstration that I’m right about your propensity to lie and cover-up and attempt to discredit critics of Adidam any way you can, without any regard for the truth?
As for your claims that you’ve simply been trying to undermine critic’s views about what Adi Da did by talking about what happened when you were in his company, and how it didn’t correspond to what critics say? Well, clearly here’s an example of you not being in Adi Da’s company, but making up lies to discredit a critic who actually was there, claiming that he wasn’t. So why should we believe anything you say about the times when you were there. Clearly, you’re willing to flagrantly lie and deny things that did happen, if you think you can get away with it. And furthermore, I haven’t actually heard you even describe what kind of accessories Adi Da actually did use and when, nor any real first person accounts of his inner-circle life. You make some very vague and general assertions and denials, but you don’t really describe much of anything at all, and so we don’t get any real picture of what Adi Da was doing in all those private gatherings all those years. Clearly, you’re still covering a lot of things up, and don’t feel at all free or willing to openly talk about what went on, even when you were there personally. And then you accuse me of not answering your posts!
I’m not going to re-open all the issues about what Adi Da did and didn’t do, but I will add one more example of your blatantly misrepresnting your own words in a previous argument we had about Ramana’s teaching on the “I”-thought. It’s as juicy a subject, but it’s an example nontheless of your methods. We had begun this argument with this comment by you:
“Yes, I am familiar with Ramana’s statements about this. The I-thought being the root of egoity as separative attention in the heart on the right, is discovered to be an illusion. In the Way of Adidam there is direct Self-Identification with Adi Da through His Gift of recognition of Who He Is. In my experience this cuts deeper because He is already beyond the root of egoity. All practices in Adidam are always to be done in that context – and the Teaching always reminds us of that.”
I wrote a reply back mentioning that this wasn’t Ramana’s teaching, that he didn’t teach that the “I”-thought was located in the heart on the right, but in the mind, and that while the Source of the “I”-thought was in the heart, the “I”-thought itself was not. (Which is different in that respect from Da’s teaching). You asserted otherwise, and this began a lengthy series of back and forth arguments, finally resulting in you once again accusing me of “distortion” and making the following assertion:
I have said from the beginning that I understand that the source of the mind is the heart, not that the mind is located in the heart. What I pointed out in several of your posts was that you were saying the “I-thought” is IN the mind, and I was saying that the “I-thought” IS the mind, and quoted Ramana, as above, to support this difference. I can only assume that you really dislike to hear any kind of criticism, so you went off on a tangent, almost going “postally ad hominem” on me once again.
This was clearly a complete denial of what you originally said, that “the “I”-thought itself is the root of separative attention in the right side of the heart”. Were you consciously lying, or were you just trying to cover your ass and pretend no one would notice, and try to blame me for “distortion” to boot? It appears that at a certain point you realized how absurd and false your original assertion was, and rather than just admit you’d made a mistake, you tried to pretend it was my fault, that I was “distorting” your words, and that you’d never said any such thing. What I did notice was that after I confronted you with this evidence in my post of January 16, at 1:05 AM, you completely dropped the subject, and never addressed the issue again. This was of course typical of the way you have dealt with being contradicted by facts. You deny and obfuscate until the whole facade falls apart, and then you move on, with some vague accusations of “distortion”, as if I’m somehow the one who lacks credibility here.
In a recent example, you try to make this charge of “distortion” on my part even in your latest substantial reply to me. You had previously said:
Feel4God:
“And on top of all of that, by your own admission, you were an Adidam fundamentalist, even the sole defender of Adi Da and His Way on the Internet – only to be met with further criticism by various Daists (once again, according to you). You also said you were up against very intense critics of Da – and that this blog was a picnic compared to back then. (By the way, are some of the critics that are here now supporting your current efforts, the same ones you argued with back then?)
To which I wrote back:
Conradg:
“I wasn’t the only Daist defending Da back then, but I was the most active. Ted Ulle was active for a while before dropping out, and there were a few non-student “friends” who defended Da to some degree. And really, are you going to deny that I was heavily criticized by the Adidam security people and denied access becaue of my participation in these forums? I had meetings with Bill and Joe, go ahead and ask them about it if you don’t believe me. Ask Anthony Costabile about his vow to “teach me a lesson” when he was worldwide head CSM. He even apologized to me about it later. So stop pretending I’m living in some crazy paranoid fantasy world.”
Rather than simply admitting that once again you were wrong in your attempt to make me seem less than credible, you once again put the onus on me, somehow accusing me of “jumping to conclusions” and “flipping out”, as if there’s some reason I should have assumed you weren’t trying to cast doubt on my credibility once more (this in a post openly dedicated from beginning to end to attacking my credibility, often in demonstrably false ways, including the lie that I was not involved in intimate gatherings with Adi Da).
Feel4God:
I could not figure out how you jumped to the above conclusions from what I said. I think it must be when I said “once again, according to you” above. I was actually just saying that I heard it from you, nothing more nothing less – as you said something along these lines on this blog earlier. Remember, I was in Fiji or doing some other service, not keeping up with all the cultural politics in Adidam – so I was just taking you at your word when you stated something about being criticized by those in charge. You kind of flipped out on that one with your conclusions, Conrad.
Well of course the phrase “once again, according to you” was clearly and obviously intended to cast doubt on the veracity of my accusation that I was being targeted for reprisal by the Adidam security people and head honchos. What other purpose does that phrase serve? Your whole post was explicitly about attacking my credibility, and clearly that was just another snide aside that was meant to suggest that this too was not a credible charge, but that it was something that should be viewed as not very credible at all, but once again something that relies purely on my own word, which you are attacking as lacking credibility. And yes, literally implying by subtle insinuation that I am some paranoid crazy just making this stuff up in my head, when that’s really a much better description of your own methods. So no, I wasn’t “flipping out” , or jumping to conclusions. You clearly and openly stated you have an agenda to discredit me, to render me “not credible”, and so it’s not at all nutty for me to interpret these comments of yours as part of that agenda. I have a hard time imagining that anyone wouldn’t read you that way. But somehow, in your own little world, these are just “innocent” remarks, with no insinuations intended. Either you are just being disingenous, or you are just incredibly clueless and lacking in self-knowledge, and I think that the likely explanation is that both are true. You seem so convinced of your own innocence and righteousness in all things that you simply don’t feel any need for responsibility, accountability, or honesty here, and so it doesn’t matter if you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar, it’s all just an “innocent” mistake on your part, and we shouldn’t try to actually hold you responsible for these things.
Now, that’s just how it looks from here. I don’t know you personally, so who knows, maybe you’re not such a bad guy. But your words speak for themselves, and I’ll let others come to their own judgment.
As I’ve said, I want to wind things up here, so I don’t want to drag out this personal stuff any longer. I would have preferred not to re-visit these thigns, but you asked for it, so I gave you a response.
I’ll probably post one or two other things soon, when I have time. One will be an essay on the subject of open and closed societies, and how cults figure into that equation, and Adidam in particular, and how the traditions view this sort of thing, particularly Hinduism.
January 29, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Hmmm, I thought we were done with all of this, Conrad. For you not wanting to continue in this vein that sure is one long post!
I already thoroughly responded to the cigarette issue we were discussing. If anyone is actually interested, our back and forth (and back and forth!) on it can be looked at in prior posts. In summary, I will say this much about it:
Conradg Says:
“You clearly quantified the number of people Nisargaddata “impacted” as in the many thousands.”
And I clearly already explained and (re-explained!) that I said the impact on thousands of people was due to his long-term business of selling cigarettes to thousands of people. Did you not even read my posts explaining all of this once again? You must have because even you reluctantly admitted that maybe “lying” was too strong a word. So I accepted that as your retraction of that accusation.
Regarding the issue of your not being involved in intimate gatherings: Again, as I already said, that was based on my earlier conversations with you relative to the 70s and 80s, and I apologized for the extrapolation to the mid-90s, when I was in Fiji. As far as all the conversations we had about the 70s and 80s, it was true that you did not go to intimate gatherings – except for, what, one isolated invitation? So you were not at those gatherings, and yet you stated many things that you heard were going on there, and I countered them because I was there and what you were saying was simply not what I experienced.
Conrad, it is obvious that your main motivation here is to have all my statements be summarily dismissed, via you somehow re-interpreting them and then accusing me of being a liar. And to think that you say you do not do ad hominem attacks!
There is nothing I can possibly say to have you understand my side of this, so say whatever you want. Hell, you do that with your long-time Spiritual Master who only ever loved you, so why wouldn’t you do that with me? And this is exactly what you do here – you twist people’s words around, basically if they say anything pro-Daist, you reinterpret their words as you see fit, and then frustrate them into leaving – all so you are left feeling right, smug, self-righteous, and superior in your very entrenched position.
I mean, really, ask yourself, why the hell would I lie about cigarette smoking anyway, by Nisargaddata, Adi Da, or anyone else? I have said from the beginning that the likes of us cannot simply judge an enlightened Adept by His actions. Even Ramana Maharshi is clearly saying this!!! And why would I lie about your being at any intimate gatherings? As I explained, it was a misunderstanding. The gatherings we were mainly talking about, at least early on, were the 70s and 80s, and I know you were not at them, because I was there for many of them, especially in the 70s. You agreed that this was true, except for perhaps an isolated invitation or two, and yet you talk about those periods in such an exaggerated manner and with such an air of authority, that your statements needed to be countered by someone who was actually there for far more of them than yourself.
And really, if anyone is actually interested at this point (which I highly doubt), they can find many many instances of where you twisted my words and where I very specifically pointed these misrepresentations out to you – and yet you refused to change or even acknowledge what you did.
So this was also why I questioned your credibility as some kind of undisputed source for all this history – not just whether you were there or not. I could repost the time you said you don’t do ad hominem attacks, and show you all the posts not long before that statement in which you had just done such attacks.
Conradg Says:
“For example, you recently have been claiming, with seemingly total confidence, that I had never been involved in any private gatherings with Adi Da, and that therefore my testimony that his self-undulgent use of accessories such as cigarettes continued into the nineties is just “not credible”…”
As I said before, I never denied there were gatherings in the 90s! I was there for some of them, once again as I have already explained. Why would I deny that there were gatherings in the 90s? I never did that, Conrad – that was another miscommunication between us, and already explained.
* Reading further…* Good lord, Conrad, now you are going back to Ramana considerations! Again, I explained all of this at the time, and you apparently didn’t read or get it then, so why would you now? If anyone wants to see what I said about your silly accusation at that point, feel free. You really are grasping for straws here, aren’t you?
As you reposted, yes, recently I said:
“And on top of all of that, by your own admission, you were an Adidam fundamentalist, even the sole defender of Adi Da and His Way on the Internet – only to be met with further criticism by various Daists (once again, according to you). You also said you were up against very intense critics of Da – and that this blog was a picnic compared to back then. (By the way, are some of the critics that are here now supporting your current efforts, the same ones you argued with back then?)”
To which you responded:
Conradg Said:
“I wasn’t the only Daist defending Da back then, but I was the most active. Ted Ulle was active for a while before dropping out, and there were a few non-student “friends” who defended Da to some degree. And really, are you going to deny that I was heavily criticized by the Adidam security people and denied access becaue of my participation in these forums? I had meetings with Bill and Joe, go ahead and ask them about it if you don’t believe me. Ask Anthony Costabile about his vow to “teach me a lesson” when he was worldwide head CSM. He even apologized to me about it later. So stop pretending I’m living in some crazy paranoid fantasy world.”
If you look at my statement above, I said first “by your own admission” – which means, I believed you (which I do), and then in the very same sentence “once again, according to you” – in which the “once again” refers back to the first instance of accepting what you said as truth. So yes, your response above did indeed sound a bit “crazy paranoid” as you say, when you interpret my statements the way you did.
Conradg Said:
“Well of course the phrase “once again, according to you” was clearly and obviously intended to cast doubt on the veracity of my accusation that I was being targeted for reprisal by the Adidam security people and head honchos.”
Why would I not believe you about this? I even said that you must have felt betrayed during this time, that it was a sad story, that I was sorry if you got denied Darshan if it was not justified, etc. You even admitted to feeling betrayed, which I thought would be natural enough to feel given what you said.
Now given how much we have considered the egoic activity of betrayal, rejection, and separation in Adidam, you must have also considered it possible about yourself that when someone is feeling betrayed, they often have an adolescent angry reaction and start lashing out at the apparent source of betrayal. I said very early on to you, that this is what I thought you were dramatizing with your exaggerations and incredible disrespect to your long-time Master, and how mean-spirited your portrayals and words can be towards Him, Adidam, and most Daists here. (Oh wait, I am the only Daist left here, I think – anyway, towards me then.) Some Daists seemed compelled to just post a simple “Grow up, Conrad” kind of response – but obviously that was not going to do anything but provoke you more and have them leave. Admittedly, not a mature, relational response by someone to just say that and leave, but there is something to it that you might notice how your words provoke people into being very short with you at times.
Conradg Said:
“As I’ve said, I want to wind things up here, so I don’t want to drag out this personal stuff any longer.”
Hahahaha! You say this after your marathon attack on me! I thought we were already done – and we only had to Realize the Absolute Truth to have our next date!
Anyway, you should know that Daists will naturally feel that you betray your relationship to Adi Da when you speak so casually, caustically, and recklessly about Him. It actually hurts those who love Adi Da, and probably even those who don’t know Him, to hear you speak so extremely disrespectfully about our Spiritual Master – someone you related to for many years too. And most especially, after His physical departure. I certainly feel bad about how you do this, and yes, I get angry about it too. But no, I don’t lie, Conrad – I have always been a straight-shooter with you, and if there have been some miscommunications, which there obviously have been, I apologize again for my part in them. But that does not justify your wrongful accusations – why don’t you try to work something out the next time before angrily throwing around such accusations? Many of your posts toward Adi Da and Adidam are full of this same anger too, Conrad, so I hope you find some peace from it through practice and real self-understanding.
If you (or anyone) want to actually consider your accusations any further, please please look at the prior posts first to keep the repetition down – or even email me if you wish.
feel4god@gmail.com
January 29, 2009 at 8:42 pm
“Zen, Advaita, Dzogchen, Taoism, meditative inquiry, the power of now, presence-awareness, radical non-duality – many names have been given to this fresh seeing, this waking up, this aliveness. The danger in names and formulations is that they easily solidify, codify, and deaden into dogma. Next thing we know, we have priests, scriptures, lineages, doctrines, holy wars, blogs – right ways and wrong ways. You may consider yourself a free-thinking, anti-authoritarian type, but this tendency toward dogmatism, fundamentalism, and authoritarianism can take subtler and subtler forms. It’s easy to see it “out there” in Christian or Islamic fundamentalism, or in someone else, but what really matters is seeing it in oneself, as it arises. Faced with uncertainty and insecurity, the human mind has a natural tendency to want answers. It’s very easy to slide into believing something, and then into identifying with those beliefs, and then into defending them to the death (literally or metaphorically). Waking up from this tendency is a lifelong, moment-to-moment, awakening. In other words, it happens Now. And like weeding the garden or cleaning the house, it’s not something you finish doing. And actually, you’re not doing it. It’s happening. Consciousness is seeing through illusion and waking up”. Joan Tollifson
“Anything is possible within the seeker’s world. Within the seeker’s world there are a million different spiritual paths and processes and practices and goals. A million things to do, a million things on offer. Within the seeker’s world, you can look for enlightenment, you can wait for liberation, you can anticipate some sort of energetic transformation. Within the seeker’s world, you can go to meetings and hear about future events that might or might not happen to you. You can believe that “there is no person” or “there is nothing to get” or that one day separation will fall away. It’s a world full of belief. It’s a world full of second-hand concepts passed down by well meaning people who really believe what they tell you.
But what the word ‘nonduality’ points to has nothing to do with any of that. It allows it, embraces it fully, but really what we are pointing to has nothing to do with that whole seeking game. It’s not something that the seeker could ever find in his world, because what we are pointing to is the dissolution of the seeker and, along with it, his world. It’s a falling away of seeker and world, and a plunge into something much more mysterious, vibrant, and alive than the second-hand concepts ever promised – and that’s not something that could be found within the world!
And that plunge, well the moment we talk about it, we are into the language of seeker and world. But of course that’s the only language we have. All teachings function within this realm of seeker and world (taken together, we could call this the “dream world”). Even these words, and the words expressed in the meetings, function within the dream world, and that is why, as I said before, I know that the moment I speak about this, it’s simply not true. The moment I speak about this, I’ve made it into something, something in the dream world, something for the seeker to hold onto and attempt to understand. I’ve turned it into something for you to get in the future”.
*****
“In this dream world, everything is in perfect balance. A depressed character is met with a depressing world. A fearful character is met with a terrifying world. A seeker is always met with teachers who will cater to the seeking, feed the seeking.
In fact, the teacher needs the student as much as the student needs the teacher. The student functions in the teacher’s world in the same way as the teacher functions in the student’s world. He meets a need. Because of course, a teacher cannot know himself as a teacher unless he, in some way, uses the students to create and maintain that identification. And so he clings to them as tightly as they cling to him. In the dream world, in your quest to be a person, to be a somebody rather than a nobody, in your attempt to make your life work, you always meet your own reflection.
And the teachers promise you so much! They promise a future event called enlightenment, or awakening, or liberation, or some sort of shift or change in perception that you can or cannot obtain.
But in the falling away of the self-contraction and along with it, the contracted world space in which all teachers and teachings operate, the grace is revealed, and it has nothing to do with any sort of future event, or spiritual experience, or shift in perception, or transformation of consciousness, or anything else that was promised by the dream teachers. And it’s shockingly ordinary. It’s drinking a cup of tea. It’s eating fish and chips. Except now, nobody drinks the tea, and nobody eats the fish and chips. Drinking tea just happens. Eating fish and chips just happens. Tea drinks itself. Fish and chips eat themselves. That’s about as close as we can get in language”.
Jeff Foster
“All other knowledge depends on your own presence. The essence of this is just to look directly into that presence, your own self-evident being, and see it for what it is. With this, the belief in any contradictory self-definitions is abandoned and what you are and always have been stands self-revealed and unadorned — the natural state. Whether or not such a looking happens or not makes no difference to what you ultimately are. There is no need of becoming oneself, or what one already is”. John Wheeler
Quite simply…the “non-duality” cat is out of the bag. These are but a few of the voices that are beyond the “traditions” and all such “preferences”. There are, quite simply, and thankfully, many, more and more, voices that are “speaking” that which can’t be spoken. Good.
Question your preference for “Sri”, or, “Bubba”, or, “Sai”, and you may find some “new ears”. There are voices that you may not have considered…clear “voices”.
Try Walt Whitman…Song to Myself.
January 29, 2009 at 8:45 pm
FFG (and Aro),
“FFaC, you said the above to Aro who actually quoted that exact paragraph from a David Godman interview – so I am not sure what you are getting at with your response. Here is that David Godman interview as Aro had already linked it for us:
http://www.davidgodman.org/interviews/al3.shtml”
What I am getting at is that when you take one section of what Godman said to make another point, you have to be aware of the context. I have actually had discussions with Godman via email on this very point.
This snipet from Godman was prefaced by the following:
>>Anyway, Michael asked Kunju Swami, ‘In the thirty years that you were associated with Sri Ramana [1920-50] did you ever see him do or say anything that was so bad or so embarrassing that you feel that you couldn’t tell anyone, or make it public, because it would reflect badly on his public image?’
Kunju Swami thought for a while and said ‘No’.
‘Then who are we protecting by censoring stories?’ asked Michael.
He didn’t receive an answer.
Kunju Swami felt that that it was an expression of his Guru bhakti to filter out any stories that might, even remotely, cause readers to think that Sri Ramana was not some great omnipotent being who transformed everyone who came to him. I take a different view. I don’t think I need to burnish Sri Ramana’s image at all because the uncensored truth of his life speaks for itself. <>“Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him, he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfil.
In Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Sri Ramana narrates the story of Kaduveli Siddhar, an austere ascetic who attracted public ridicule by having an affair with a temple dancer. A local king offered a reward to anyone who could prove whether this man really was a saint or not. At the time the challenge was issued, Kaduveli Siddhar was subsisting on dry leaves that fell from trees. When the dancer eventually gave birth to Kaduveli Siddhar’s baby, she thought that she had proved her point and went to the king to collect her reward.
The king, who wanted some public confirmation of their intimate relationship, arranged a dance performance. When it was under way, the dancer stretched out her foot towards Kaduveli Siddhar because one of her anklets had become loose. When he retied it for her, the audience jeered at him. Kaduveli Siddhar was unmoved. He sang a Tamil verse, part of which said, ‘If it is true that I sleep day and night quite aware of the Self, may this stone burst into two and become the wide expanse’.
Immediately, a nearby stone idol split apart with a resounding crack, much to the astonishment of the audience.
Sri Ramana’s conclusion to this story was, ‘He proved himself to be an unswerving jnani. One should not be deceived by the external appearance of a jnani.’
I find it fascinating that Sri Ramana, a man of impeccable saintliness, could say that behaviour such as this could not be taken to indicate that Kaduveli Siddhar was unenlightened.”<<
There is nothing that surprising here, in context. Godman is simply trying to educate those whose beliefs about jnanis do not reflect what traditional non-dualism actually teaches. It is really quite simple, this example. Was this a secret affair? No. Was anyone harmed by the affair between a temple dancer and this jnani? No, except for the sensibilities of moralists. Was there apparent benefit? Nothing at all to suggest there was not, even prior to the demonstration. Was the jnani able to refute criticism and demonstrate his true nature for all? Absolutely.
If we are going to go down this road, I see no reason for not applying the same criteria to Da. Let us avoid euphemisms and internal secrets, and have Da’s life become an open book. Let us for example consider the many, many sexual partners Da had, the nature of those associated activities, and let us consider the many of those who assert they were harmed by being with Da, and not just those who stayed engaged. And so forth, with all the other behavioral issues. Let us see the evidence of the peace common to jnanis in this case. Let us see the actual teaching as applied in practice and not just essays and talks. And let us see the willingness to fully address and convincingly refute in public, outside of a narrow group of followers and sympathizers, the suspicions about Da’s enightenment. Then one can make their own assessments.
Again, I point out that applying this point about behavior and teaching to show that there is no proof a person is not a jnani is somewhat a diversion, and not really what David Godman intended. Otherwise, I might as well accept anyone based on my tendencies since I can’t prove they are not realized based on behavior, and ignore repeated deviations from dharma . That dilemma is simply karma. As I have said, there is a simple and traditional way out of this dilemma. The presumption is that the aspirant must decide this on their won, but ne does not have to rely solely one’s own judgement. While it is true that the unenlightened can not fully comprehend the state of the jnani or the rationale for their actions, this limitation is not the same as for fully enlightened jnanis, who, being that same One and not being blinded by egoic mindsets, can with accuracy assess others and their claims of Realization, whether they are jnanis or in a lesser state. That is precisely why it is traditional for those who have living, enlightened gurus to have at least tacit confirmation, given the subtle snares of maya. There is not a single jnani aware of Da who ever endorsed his claims, and evidence of criticism that can be found by those who sincerly want to seek it out. And also, to those who can see the living quality of the traditions as being more than just words to play with, a teaching must still be fundamentally consistent with the living dharma or the source is false. These are the prescribed and time tested traditional methods for resolving such dilemmas. Those content to consider themselves qualified to judge Da as enlightened based on their own merits and interpretations of such things will do so anyway. And as Ramana Maharshi said about these situations, their fate will be according to their merits as well. Discussion here simply illuminates perspectives, and may inspire some, but does not change what is the case. That is just how it is.
January 29, 2009 at 9:07 pm
FF&C says:
“Aro says:
“Having said all this, I should also make it clear that Sri Ramana himself readily admitted that enlightenment didn’t turn people into paragons of virtue. Like most great Masters before him he said that it was impossible to judge whether someone was enlightened by what he or she did or said. Saintliness does not necessarily go hand in hand with enlightenment, although most people like to think that it should. Sri Ramana was a rare conjunction of saintliness and enlightenment, but many other Masters and enlightened beings were not. They were not less enlightened because they didn’t conform to the social and ethical mores of their times, they simply had different destinies to fulfill.”
Unfortunately, that conclusion is paraphrased based on your understanding, but is not really so accurate historically, and simply not being a paragon of virtue does not reflect the context of what Ramana Maharshi actually said. It is important not to mischaracterize what he said just to make a broader point you want to make. In fact, historically, most jnanis do exhibit a more saintly quality in respect to their relations with others than normal simply because they lack egoic mindframes. A simple review of historical jnanis where there is some evidence of something other than mythology shows that. The more extreme, crazy wisdom types etc. are noteworthy for their relative rareness among the great traditional jnanis, even more so after mythologies are examined more closely. That does not mean they may not have very strange appearing eccentricities and may not violate some social conventions. They might get drunk, and might even seduce in some circumstances, such as the examples Ramana Maharshi himself gave. They might go to war and might even kill someone to defend others such as Krishna taught. But as Ramana Maharshi repeatedly said, it is readily apparent by the depth of peace you feel in their presence that you can interpret something about their state. Ramana Maharshi stated quite well what is found in these dialogues:”
———
The quote is of David Godman’s response to Maalok’s question on how the aspirant or devotee should regard a true teacher’s uncomplimentary behavior. David Godman’s response was based on his understanding of the teaching of the Maharshi in regard to this matter based on his 25 years of studying Maharshi at the time of this interview. Maalok even went on to ask David:
“Maalok: So would it be correct to surmise that, in your opinion, an enlightened Guru can never be held accountable for his or her actions? That we never have the right to complain about or criticize his or her behaviour simply because it does not conform to accepted canons of morality?”
I urge all who have followed this thread to read the entire dialogue on this subject between David Godman and Maalok, an Indian academic teaching in the United States:
http://www.davidgodman.org/interviews/al3.shtml
David quoted Sri Ramakrishna’s opinion on the matter:
“David: In Sri Ramana Darsanam, a book I recently edited for Sri Ramanasramam, the author, Sadhu Natanananda, attributes the following remarks to Sri Ramakrishna, the great 19th century Bengali saint: ‘Even if my Guru is one who frequents the toddy shop, I will not superimpose any blemish on him. Why? Because I know that he is not going to lose his Guru-nature simply because of that. I have taken refuge in him not for examining and investigating his external life. That also is not my duty. Therefore, whatever happens, he alone is my Guru.’
The word Guru means ‘the one who dispels darkness’. Someone who has ‘Guru-nature’ has the ability to wake people up from the darkness of their self-inflicted ignorance and show them the light of the Self.”
——
David Godman even referred to the Kudaveli Sidhar story narrated by the Maharshi on 31st January, 1938. (See the most recent post by FFG – Jan.29 at11.30 a.m). In the Maharshi’s conclusion that “one should not be deceived by the outward appearance of a jnani,” (‘Talks…’ pg 422) he referenced Vedantachudamani V. 181 whose meaning he gave thus:
“Although a jivanmukta associated with body may, owing to his prarabdha appear to lapse into ignorance or wisdom, yet he is only pure like the ether (akasa) which is always itself clear whether covered by dense clouds or cleared of clouds by currents of air. He always revels in the Self alone, like a loving wife, taking pleasure with her husband alone, though she attends on him with things from others (by way of fortune, as determined by her prarabdha) …. If he appears indulging in sexual pleasures, he must be taken to enjoy the ever-inherent Bliss of the Self, which divided Itself into the individual self and the Universal Self, delights in their
reunion to regain Its original nature. If he appears wrathful he means well to the offenders. All his actions should be taken to be only divine manifestation on the plane of humanity. There should not arise even the least doubt as to his being emancipated while yet alive. He lives only for the good of the world.
Sri Bhagavan now warned the hearers against the mistake of disparaging a jnani for his apparent conduct and again cited the story of Parikshit. He was a still-born child. The ladies cried and appealed to Sri Krishna to save the child. The sages round about wondered how Krishna was going to save the child from the effects of the arrows of Asvatthama. Krishna said, ‘ If the child be touched by one eternally celibate (nityabrahmachari) the child would be brought to life.’ Even Suka dared not touch the child. Finding no one among the reputed saints bold enough to touch the child, Krishna went and touched it, saying, ‘ If I am eternally celibate (nityabrahmachari) may the child be brought to life.’ The child began to breathe and later grew up to be Parikshit.
Just consider how Krishna surrounded by 16,000 gopis is a brahmachari! Such is the mystery of jivanmukti! A jivanmukta is one who does not see anything separate from the Self.”
The question of interest is what should be attitude of the puny but earnest devotee to a situation that may be beyond his control. Here’s Nisargadatta Maharaj’s take on it:
“Q: Must I not examine the teacher before I put myself entirely into his hands?
Maharaj: By all means examine! but what can you find out? Only as he appears to you on your level.
Q: I shall watch whether he is consistent, whether there is harmony between his life and his teaching.
M: You may find plenty of disharmony – so what? It proves nothing. Only motives matter. How will you know his motives?
Q: I should at least expect him to be a man of self-control who lives a righteous life.
M: Such you will find many – and of no use to you. A Guru can show the way back home, to your real self. What has this to do with the character, or temperament of the person he appears to be? Does he not clearly tell you that he is not the person? The only way you can judge is by the change in yourself when you are in his company. If you feel more at peace and happy, if you understand yourself with more than usual clarity and depth, it means you have met the right man. Take your time, but once you have made up your mind to trust him, trust him absolutely and follow every instruction fully and faithfully. It does not matter much if you do not accept him as your Guru and are satisfied with his company only. Satsang alone can also take you to your goal, provided it is unmixed and undisturbed.”
January 29, 2009 at 9:54 pm
slyder,
thanks for the wonderfully clear quotes you posted.
a much needed breeze of ever-fresh air on this blog!
and i can’t help but notice the WORLD of difference in (e.g.) clarity compared to mr. jones’ teaching.
so simple. so direct. so fresh.
beautiful!
January 29, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Flick,
Once again I feel the need to mention that you logic here is not that tight once again.
You say:
Annamalai Swami :”You cannot determine the answer to this question by studying the teachings or the behaviour of a person you think might be a jnani. These are not reliable indicators.Some jnanis might stay silent;others may talk a lot. Some are active in the world, some withdraw from it. Some end up as teachers while others content to stay hidden. Some behave like saints, wheras others act like madmen. The same peace can be found in the presence of all these beings, since this peace is not affected by modes of behavior, but there may be no other common factors.
question: “Jnanis are supposed to have an equality of vision . Cannot we decide whether someone may be a jnani on the basis of whether he treats people around him equally?”
>>Annamalai Swami “Jnanis remain absorbed in the Self at all times and their apparent behavior is just a reflection of the circumstances they find themselves in. Some may appear to be egalitarian. Others may not. They play their allotted roles, and though they may seem to be involved in them as ordinary people would be , they are not really touched by any of the events that occur in their lives. Equal vision may be there , internal equanimity may be there, but don’t expect all jnanis to behave in a prescribed , egalitarian way.”
That is a an excellent reference. Nothing surprising about that at all. Makes perfect sense. But are you claiming that Annamalai Swami is implying that if a teaching is clearly not dharmic it can’t be considered? No, what is being implied is that the ability to eloquently express dharma, or to stay silent, is not a reliable indicator. And whether apparent saint or apparent madman, there must be the common factor of peace Ramana Maharshi referred to. Who said the jnani treats everyone “equally” and with outward equanimity regardless of the circumstances? Obviously that is not the case, the jnani treats all beings differently based on their state and spiritual needs. Ramana Maharshi for example was harsh when required, and several cases of jnana were the result. When his monkeys were attacked by a predator, he drove the predator away. That doesn’t mean being harsh or responding to aggression in such ways is always is a sign of jnana! What is referred to is that the jnani is equitable in considering spiritual needs, and does not act differently based on physical attributes, weath, ingratiation, or their own desires or reputation, etc. The point being a jnani naturally engages in right action because they have no sense of egoicity and do nothing for themselves, so prescribed rules make no sense. Nothing new here relative to what Ramana Maharshi said.
You say:
>>Here is something I have found in studying the life of the Buddha.
“On the road, Gautama met an ascetic who remarked on his clear eyes and radiant complexion and asked about his religion. The Buddha declared that he was a Victor, that he had no equal in the world of gods and men, that he had become omniscient and had reached nirvana. The ascetic shook his head and walked away on another road. Gautama’s first proclomation of his Buddhahood was ignored.”<>I am not sure how people feel about this man Annamalai Swami but I think he was a much revered senior disciple of Ramana Maharshi and is teachings seem pretty right on as I read them.<>The Buddha had many detractors in his lifetime as a teacher. He was very revolutionary for his time. I think everyone knows the detractors Jesus Christ had, including one of his closest disciples. They did not just sue him , they tortured him and crucified him.<>Personally I don’t think that a guru having detractors and critics means all that much as to whether they are truly realized or not. And I am not just referring to Da Free John. There will always be a certain amount of people angry at any particular teacher or guru for various and sundry reasons. Of course , if someone does not feel right about their teacher any more, it is good to move on and find another teacher or teaching and stick with that for awhile at least. One needs to be flexible and willing to change and let go of the old. That is the way I see it and that is how I have done it. of course there will be people who disagree with this approach and I have seen that plenty here<<
Generally good advice. But you err when you say that critics are those who have not let go of Da. Maybe some, but my position is clear. Had I had more information and more understanding in advance, the most I would have done is to try and see Da, never become really involved. Others simply do not know how much is true and how much is exaggerated. I am simply presenting the infomation and a case I wish I had heard long ago. Let decisions be based on as much information as possible, not only voices unwaveringly supporting Da.
How can I put this? The very senior members of the organization that I first met, people like Susan Lesser and a couple of the original disciples, were dishonest in their approach, and did not tell the truth. I see no evidence that has changed today. I think those considering Da are still spoon fed information selectively, but I know for certain critics and their motives are being misrepresented. Ironically given subsequent events with the dissidents, I actually found Pat O’Mahoney in conversation long ago to be more accurate about what it took to live in the then Dawn Horse Communion than what I was told before I joined households. He was right that you just had to adapt to whatever craziness came down and not lose faith in Da regardless, or you would probably leave. I had more reasonable limits on faith. I left.
January 29, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Feel4God,
You have had your say, I have had mine, and let the jury decide. Personally, I don’t find your “explanations” at all satisfactory, but I’m also certain that it doesn’t matter. As I said before, I had no desire to revisit these issues, but you repeatedly insisted that I do so even when I felt it best to drop it. Be careful what you ask for.
As for your certainty that I feel “betrayed” by you and Da, please save the self-serving psychoanlysis for someone who finds you a credible judge of character. I simply don’t, plain and simple. Nothing personal, really. I don’t even know you, nor is that what this forum is about in any case. Nor do I feel personally “betrayed” by Adi Da. On the personal level, Da and I are just fine with one another. I made my peace with him quite a while ago. That doesn’t mean I think he’s what he claimed to be, it just means that I don’t have any need to “get back” at him.
All of this is just a distraction from the real issues that matter in any case, that rise above our personalities. You simply can’t seem to refrain from conflating my person, and my personal relationship with Da, with the criticism I have of him, as if without any personal issues of “betrayal”, I would be just fine and dandy with Adi Da and the culture he created. As if all the criticism of all the people who don’t see Da as the FLO realizer just boils down to some kind of petty personal resentment. But I get that this is just about all you really have – ad hominem attacks meant to discredit critics, rather than sound arguments and evidence that genuinely exculpates or advocates Da’s actions.
I’ve noticed the sheer paucity of arguments in favor of Da’s controversial activities. All we get are denials, protestations that self-indulgent action is irrelevant and too taudry to discuss, and the wholesale shotgunning of critics.
It’s not that Da himself didn’t at least try to justify his actions. But none of that even makes it into devotee posts. I’m of a mind to write a post describing Da’s own self-rationalizations, rather than merely pretending he didn’t do anything that required any explanation, or merely suggesting that because the traditions say you can’t entirely say whether someone is realized based on their behavior, that therefore anything goes. My God, that’s the Charles Manson defense, and not even Da was stupid enough to try it. Leave it to ignorant, brain-dead devotees who can’t even remember what Da actually said all these years, but just nod their heads in approval of everything he did anyway, to put that red herrring out there. It’s just embarassing. I guess it’s better than attacking the critics, but it’s still about as meaningless an argument as there is. Is this all you have? Really? Is it that bad out there in Adidam?
Well, it will give me something else to write about at some point over the next week.
January 30, 2009 at 12:22 am
I hate to be disrespectful, but I think the whole new age version of advaita vedanta that is going around these days and the teachers{so called “jnanis”] is pretty bogus. None of these people spent years practicing at the feet of their Master, like Annamalai Swami did{he also did many years of hardcore self less service for his guru Ramana Maharshi and then sat and meditated for many hours a day for many many years under Maharshis guidance] or Sri Nisardagatta or Poonjaji. people spend a little time hanging with Poonja or even Nisargatta way back when , when he was still alive and puffing, or even with Nome or Gangaji or Andrew or Sailor Bob or whatever the latest “jnani” there is and they get an injection of radical teachings and it really goes to their heads. Now they are in the “sudden school” of enlightenment and they can give Satsangs themselves. i am sorry but I just don’t buy it.
I have personally sat with several of the modern day “jnanis” including ones from Buddhist tradition such as Adyanshanti. now I have many friends who adore this teacher, but personally I though he was a bit confused and in his head.
I wonder if these are the modern day living “jnanis” that FFAc is referring to that do not acknowledge Adi Da as a valid teacher and realizer. And I don’t mean second hand rumor about what someone might have said about him. I would like to see one of these teachers quoted and I mean a real one like say Poonja ji.
I am sorry but I just can’t buy it if it is coming from say, Clara or Sailor Bob or some of the other modern day jnanis that are held in respect here. I have put direct quotes from Annamalai Swami here who said that a jnani could literrally appear to be a madman in their actions. I once read a book of strange and eccentric Gurus compiled by some devotee of Meher Baba. One was of a woman siddha who gave darshan and teachings to students out the back window of a mental institution. She was highly revered.
By the way, I know I can sound punkish myself, but when i am referring to the “Beavis and Butthead”‘ attitude, I am not referring to most of the posters here. I mean silly stuff like the guy who recently posted about the woman coming of meth speed and having hallucinations of bugs on her skin ,as if to infer that was the sort of experiencs Adi Da was having in perceing the “small creatures of light” sort of thing. And then the one Raymond posted about Bill Stranger looking neurotically at the food on his fork and somehow him doing that discredits Adi Da and his teaching on diet. That is what I mean when I say “Beavis and Butthead” although i have to admit, that I feel like it borders on that with some of the mudslinging around beedies and cigs and some other things, but at least not dumb and gross.
Well I have to say that I cannot even dream of keeping up with all the solids here with the sublety of their posts regarding Maharshi and other things, so i will just say that what I am writing is my own experience and my own opinions. Of course I can be absolutly wrong about various issues. I can only go on my own experience and my own gut feelings and so forth. Flick Rahke , retired psychologist
January 30, 2009 at 2:05 am
FFG says:
“…when someone is feeling betrayed, they often have an adolescent angry reaction and start lashing out at the apparent source of betrayal…dramatizing with… exaggerations and incredible disrespect to your long-time Master, and how mean-spirited your portrayals and words can be towards Him, Adidam, and most Daists here…Daists will naturally feel that you betray your relationship to Adi Da when you speak so casually, caustically, and recklessly about Him. It actually hurts those who love Adi Da, and probably even those who don’t know Him, to hear you speak so extremely disrespectfully about our Spiritual Master – someone you related to for many years too. And most especially, after His physical departure. I certainly feel bad about how you do this, and yes, I get angry about it too…”
I left Da long ago, after, as I said, I couldn’t even defend Da in my own mind. And that was on dharmic grounds that are even more valid today, before Mark Miller and the other dissidents opened the curtain on years of apparent mispresentation, confirming I made the right choice. But I can’t speak for why those who knew about all this before that considered it irrelevant.
I appreciate that Da’s recent death is painful to long time devotees. And that criticism of Da is painful and considered disrepectful, particularly when it comes from former advocates. And that “Daists” see nothing in the criticisms of much value. And that Daists are focused on what they see as adolescent reactions to Da who they consider enlightened.
But the other side of the coin is that it is painful to those who know better to see a sanitized image of Da being presented in public, or merely vague admissions. And it is painful for those who value the traditions more than Da to see how Da has distorted and criticized those like Ramana Maharshi over time, and do not acknowledge that critics have a valid perspective from a traditional POV. And that dialogues with “Daists” start with the presumptions about motives that do not take into account that Da’s enlightenment is not widely accepted.
It is simply true that the same circumstances and events are seen totally differently inside and outside the “Daist” camp of members and sympathizers. How could it be otherwise? Adidam is a very hierarchial and somewhat insular group given the negative reaction Da has received over the years. Those who grow more skeptical leave over time, over and over, just as it always was. So, over time, those who are left are those increasingly committed to whatever Da says, along with newer members who only hear about the negative motives of critics and one side of the events. So now, what the “Daists” consider disrespectful and a betrayal because they think from their experience Da was enlightened and should be as respected as Ramana Maharshi was, for example, critics consider perfectly appropriate for what they see from experience as a flawed human being whose teaching showed increasing spiritual pomposity rather than revelation, and who is is not being represented accurately.
Unfortunately, what would really serve the larger non-dualist community is a revelation on the part of “Daists” that spiritual integrity requires that years of filtering out or sanitizing any stories that might, even remotely, cause readers to think that Da was not some great omnipotent being who transformed everyone who came to him, should not be necessary. Da did what he did, as controversial and hard to explain as some of it was. But if he was truly enlightened, what ever he did of significance is appropriate for disclosure. In this respect, the Beezone site is more respectful of Da than the Adidam site which is built too much on revisionism back into the past. If both sides could only simply agree that, just as in Ramana Maharshi’s case, the truth of his life speaks for itself, what ever that means. There are differing perpectives on what happened or did not happened and what it meant or didn’t mean, but all together a more accurate picture could be created from this process. Were that ever to happen, we would not see agreement, but we would not continue to see these kinds of communication breakdowns and emphasis on ulterior motives.
Motives are actually very simple to figure out.
“Daists” are devoted to their guru and interpret everything as supporting Da’s assertions, and their reaction is tempered by the sense that they generally face an unfavorable reception except among a small audience. “Daists” see critics as narrowly focus on issues from a negative perspective that they do not want to dwell on, when they see the positive as more relevant.
While critics do not consider Da what he claimed to be, although they differ as to why Da is the way he is, and have good reason to feel that had they known more, their involvement would have ended much earlier, if they got involved at all. They want to focus on all the suspect aspects of Adidam as they see it, and to ensure that others know of these concerns.
These dynamics are commonly seen among this and similar controversial groups between members and former members. Nothing new here. And yet there are still relevant topics that do not need to devolve into assertions of motives, as has become too common here.
January 30, 2009 at 11:06 am
To be clear about this, I actually don’t just automatically assume that all critics are dramatizing some kind of adolescent rejection pattern based on feeling betrayed by what Adi Da and/or Daists did or did not do to them personally. I have listened to and learned from what various people have said here about my shortcomings, other Daists, etc. as well.
However, I do think many people (even Daists) do react at times to Who Adi Da actually Is and what He Teaches. He flies in the face of many presumptions that are built into the traditions and in our body-minds.
He also has very much criticized what Flick referenced as ‘the whole new age version of advaita vedanta that is going around these days and the teachers (so called “jnanis”)’.
Every ego wants to be their own Guru by tendency, wants to find the Guru within, in order to try to contain and control Reality Itself. However, Adi Da always counters this egoic tendency, and as I quoted Him before, the very first part of His many major Teaching Works is an Essay called:
“First Word: Do Not Misunderstand Me – I Am Not “Within” you, but you Are in Me, and I Am Not a Mere “Man” in the “Middle” of Mankind, but All of Mankind Is Surrounded, and Pervaded, and Blessed By Me.”
To those who think they can find the Guru within (and even as oneself), this statement is very difficult to accept, and I think this is more likely to be the main reason people here react to Adi Da. I also brought up the real necessity for a life of radical devotion to a Sat-Guru – and this statement was met with criticism by some, and agreement by others. (It was actually one of the few things Conradg and I seemed to always agree on, at least in principle.)
These days it is often assumed that because of non-dual arguments such as what Clara brought up as “you are That” (Tat tvam Asi), etc., this justifies “killing the Buddha”, etc. – i.e., no Sat-Guru (other than oneself or the Guru within) is necessary. For instance, shiva seems to exemplify this approach, as do many others here to one degree or another, and certainly many of the so-called “jnanis” in our “new age”.
Rather than going any further with this in my limited words, I will quote from “Perfect Philosophy: The ‘Radical’ Way of No-Ideas” by Adi Da Samraj:
“Where there is egolessness, there is a right comprehension of the ‘world’, the body, and all events – but that right comprehension is not merely a mental phenomenon.
The mind can become a kind of ‘reflection’ of The Inherently egoless State of Divine Self-Realization, but the mind is not, itself, The Source of Realization.
There is no ‘inner permanent entity’ in the human individual.
There Is Only The Self-Existing, Self-Radiant, Inherently egoless, and Self-Evidently Divine Conscious Light.
The Divine Conscious Light is not born – and The Divine Conscious Light does not come to an end in death.
Conditional processes have a kind of continuation, but they have no ultimacy.
Conditional processes arise during (and previous to) the physical lifetime of an individual, and they also continue after the physical lifetime.
Nevertheless, the factuality of such continuation does not mean that there is a permanent ‘internal’ principle in the human individual.
In Truth, and in Reality, There Is Only The Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Divine Self-Condition Itself.
Everything conditional is a conditionally apparent ‘play’ upon That.
There is no separate ‘interior absolute’, no permanent entity, or ‘soul’, ‘inside’ the human being.
There is Only The egoless, Indivisible, and Acausally Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Divine Self-Condition.
The apparent human being Inheres, Indivisibly, In That and As That.”
January 30, 2009 at 12:43 pm
you just don’t get it, do you, great feeler for god?
even your “own” guru says:
“There is Only The egoless, Indivisible, and Acausally Self-Existing and Self-Radiant Divine Self-Condition.
The apparent human being Inheres, Indivisibly, In That and As That.”
true non-duality teachers express this much more clearly but this statement is close enough.
the first sentence says nothing but: “there is ONLY the one.”
what guru? what devotee?
there is neither an inner nor an outer guru. never has been. never will be. only in the dream do such concepts exist and make “sense”.
the second sentence mentions an APPARENT human being, i.e. not a real one. it is imagined. it is a dream. and that imagined being arises in THAT and as THAT.
again: there is ONLY THAT.
even mr. jones got it right once in a while – in his written word at least. there is usually a lot of ego-maniac background noise to be filtered out but just contemplate the 2 sentences i quoted. there is little background noise in them. it is all there. nothing more needs to be said, really.
the contemporary jnanis that slyder and i quoted say ONLY that. that is probably what you don’t like about them. they don’t distract you with unnecessary blisses and other stuff that only strengthen the search. they say JUST that. ONLY that.
very clearly and always making that one point.
in the end, they are neither for nor against gurus. the very concept of a guru only makes sense in the dream. that’s why they just don’t go there.
you can only criticize them for that because you haven’t yet understood what your own guru says.
just contemplate those 2 sentences for a change. it is ALL there.
January 30, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Flick and others bring up the issue of western neo-Advaitic teachers, and whether these folks are real jnanis. My own personal opinion, based just on my sense of things and not on any real direct experience of these guys, is that no, almost none of them are fully realized. I think they tend to mistake the initial openings of one’s non-dual intuition with realization itself, and do not appreciate the process by which attention and egoity are actually transcended.
I looked at Sailor Bob’s site, and while I can’t really pass judgment on the guy’s own realization, his teaching seems to not recognize what realization is really about, and thus I have to say I’m skeptical of people who consider him truly enlightened. I’m sure he helps people considerably, and has perhaps achieved a certain level of impressive understanding and self-surrender, but it seems to me at least to fall short of the kind of realization one finds in Ramana, Annamalai, or Nisargadatta.
There’s a story on that site, meant I gather to demonstrate Sailor Bob’s teaching methods and effectiveness, of a guy who comes to him for the first time, trying to understand what this non-dual teaching is all about. He admits that after fifteen years of studying various non-dual material, he doesn’t really know what it’s about. Sailor Bob leads him through a very direct examination of his own consciousenss, his own awareness, and in the midst of that, the guy suddenly just “gets it”. And then he basically feels that’s all he needs to know, and he leaves shortly thereafter, under the impression that he’s now “enlightened”, and it’s really all so simple.
The problem here is that what this guy experienced is just the beginning of spiritual life, not the end or culmination of it. I’m not suggesting the intuitve awakening he experienced is false, quite the contrary. Sailor Bob seems to have really helped this guy get a direct sense for what non-dualism is about. But mistaking that basic awakening for “realization” is a classic failure to appreciate just how profound realization really is. And one sees this same pattern repeated in many teachers and many students in the western non-dualist neo-advaita schools. There are countless examples of people who have experienced this kind of awakening, and who then assume they’ve “got it”, and even start teaching other people how to “get it”. I wouldn’t suggest this is harmful, but it’s rather naive and lacking in both the traditional understanding of Advaita and an appreciation of how the ego continues to operate even when we have begun to awaken from dualism.
On the other hand, one can become too critical of these movements. Just because these people aren’t full realizers of the caliber of Ramana doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable to many people. There are varying degrees of quality, depth, and traditional understanding among these folks. Many of them do seem to understand the need for deepening practice and surrender. Many of them do practice in relation to a Guru, or find a genuine relationship to the Guru who dwells in the heart of all beings, whether or not they have awakened fully or surrendered fully to that One. As with all spiritual paths, the benefits and detriments are in the devotee’s own approach, and are not always dependent on the particulars of what they are approaching.
The idea that the Guru is only and literally some human individual one must have some sort of “membership” vow with, however, is just not supported even by the greatest of the Advaitic Gurus. As has been mentioned before, Gurus like Ramana, Papaji, Annamalai, Nisargadatta, and so forth do not objectify the Guru in that respect, but very clearly teach their devotees to locate them in Awareness Itself, as their very Being and Consciousness. This is not the same at all as “making the ego one’s Guru”. Quite the opposite, it is a profound instruction that means constantly finding the Guru to be non-separate from one’s own Being and Awareness, at all times. Ramana constantly told people to find him within their own heart and Self, and not to be concentrated in his human appearance. To Ramana, the human appearance of the Guru was merely a concession to the dualism of the born person. Once they learn to feel beyond their own dualism, they naturally begin to locate the Guru in their heart, as their own conscious awareness. This is not a disassociative approach. To the contrary, it is an intensely devotional approach that surrenders mind into its source.
Ramana’s view of the “talking school” is not that it means seeing the Guru as dwelling in and as one’s own awareness, but of not actually doing as the Guru instructs, but merely resting at a superficial level of understanding and prattling on about non-dual teachings. As he says in Muruganar’s “Guru Kavacha Kovai”:
391. Those who do not dive into the Heart and there confront the Self,
in the five sheaths hid,
are only students answering out of books, clever questions raised by books,
and not true seekers of the Self.
Probably the most critical remarks one could find about the “talking school” is in this passage from the same text:
328. Sensible people shun the company of empty talkers
who are not content to humbly tread the path of righteousness,
and uphold in practice life’s ideals,
who instead proudly mouth vain words.
329. Many are the ills that flow from mixing with mad folks
afflicted with confused minds and rattling tongues.
The best friendship is with those good men whose minds are dead
and who abide in the pure silence of Awareness.
330. Give up without delay, O mind,
the friendship of worthless folks with speech perverse and wicked ways.
From now on, live in the company of sages steadfast in their state of motionless stillness.
Hence, gain new life by dwelling in the company of those
who live in the purity of true Awareness, free from all falsehood.
But Ramana also reminds us that the Guru is found in this Awareness, not as an object to it:
431. How can any treatise thrust some wisdom into that human-seeming heap of clay,
which keenly watches things perceived and not the Self, Awareness?
432. Is it not because you are yourself Awareness, that you now perceive this universe?
If you observe Awareness steadily,
this Awareness Itself as Guru, will reveal the Truth.
It is by recognizing the Guru in one’s own heart that spiritual practice becomes truly non-dual. The human Guru is only present as a catalyst to make this understanding come alive. Once this occurs, the Guru may even send the devotee away, to meditate apart from the human Guru, in order to strengthen their practice. For ten years Annamalai served Ramana very directly, but after Annamalai had gotten the basics down, he sent him to live outside the ashram, and over the years decreased their contact gradually, until at one point he said they should never meet again, a few years before Ramana died. This was in order to strengthen Annamalai’s practice, to force him to locate Ramana in his own Heart, in his very Awareness, rather than to keep his attention on the outer form of the Guru.
It isn’t necessary to send the devotee away, but the instruction remains to locate the Guru in the heart, regardless of outer appearances. Without that understanding, the spiritual process simply doesn’t progress beyond a rudimentary level. And this is of course the traditional wisdom about the relationship to the Sat-Guru. The notion that one is supposed to hang out at the Guru’s ashram forever doing the same thing over and over again, hoping realization will bleed into you, isn’t the traditional approach. Instead, one stays with the Guru to become founded in the fundamental disposition of practice, and then one is generally encouraged to move on. This isn’t a disassociation from the Guru, or some egoic presumption about the Guru, it’s a real process of esoteric, non-dual understanding. That’s what breaks up the tendency towards cultic fixation on the outer Guru’s life and form and circumstances.
Annamalai is an excellent example of someone who did exactly what his Guru told him to do, and realized accordingly. This worked because what his Guru told him to do was dharmically correct. If Ramana had told him to do things which were adharmic, the results would have been different. But Ramana knew what the true Dharma was, and so he instructed Annamalai in that course of sadhana, and it proved effective in his case. Ramana taught Annamalai how to recognize the Guru in his own Awareness, and to practice as such.
If there’s a criticism of the neo-Advaitists, it’s that their teachings are only loosely based on the real Advaitic dharma, and are not terribly clear about what does have solid roots in dharma. In my view, the primary problem is one of superficiality. Not just in some personality level of superficiality (althought that’s frequently the case also) but a superficial understanding of the non-dual process altogether. Sailor Bob’s instruction to that visitor above is an example of this superficial approach. It’s not that what he taught the guy is false, not at all, it’s quite true. It’s just that this truth has to be taken much more seriously than seems to be the norm in these circles.
I’ve told the story of how Nisargadatta responded to his Guru’s simple intructions. He didn’t just experience some little sense of awakening, and then presume himself enlightened. He was moved to prove the truth of it, to really find out, to investigate his own being to see what it was all about. This was not “self-guruing”, this was actually following his Guru’s instructions to the letter. It’s just that because his Guru was a genuine realizer, he didn’t give Nisargadatta all kinds of pointless and superficial instructions about diet and so forth. He taught him to find out the truth of who he was, for real, and not to settle for anything less than that. His Guru died less than a year later, but Nisargadatta persisted in the practice, finding his Guru in his own heart and awareness, and realized in about three years total.
Not everyone can be expected to progress so quickly, but at least everyone can recognize the profundity that is required, and not presume realization or teacher status simply because they have begun to awaken to these simple truths. The ability to talk about non-dualism, even if based on some true experience and awakening, is not the same as genuine practice of the non-dual “dive” into the heart, where the Guru abides.
522. “Of fate and effort, which is stronger? Which will yield? Which will prevail?”
Those who wage this war of words are wholly ignorant
of That from which the world and the ego both appear
and into which they disappear.
523. Some there are who endlessly jump and, sweating,
shout full throated refuting or elaborating doctrines,
instead of biding in clear silence, inquiring into That which is,
and in the Heart enjoying it.
524. None can perceive the Sun, the Self, by arguments.
Irritating mental disputes are but conceits that cloud the light of truth
and make the eyes swim in dizziness.
525. Far from revealing Truth, words only darken and conceal It.
To let the Truth shine of itself, instead of burying It in words,
merge in the Heart both word and thought.
526. Let not your intellect become a slave to the mere sound and fury of controversy.
Enter the Heart with mind clear, concept free, and realize your natural Being as the Truth.
529. The individual’s thirst will vanish,
only when the habits-predispositions-tendencies of the frenzied mind die,
and the direct experience of pure Awareness comes.
530. True, non-dual experience of the Self supreme as pure Being
is called direct Knowledge.
False dualistic knowledge too is called knowledge though qualified as indirect,
even as a demon might be called “virtuous”!
531. From questing inward in the Heart comes knowledge which destroys all false illusions.
Searching books for pure, clear wisdom is like trying to cook and eat the picture of a gourd.
532. Can hunger be appeased by eating food cooked over a painted flame?
The end of pain, the bliss of peace results from egoless Awareness,
not from “verbal wisdom”.
533. Never through argument,
but only by abiding in the heart as pure Awareness,
which lights up and shines within the mind,
can one enjoy the thrill, the throb, the bliss supreme of being the Self.
538. Knowing aright the nature of the Self,
and abandoning the non-self as void, unreal, is wisdom true.
All other knowledge is ignorance, and not wisdom.
January 30, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I am not sure that Adi Da’s lifestyle activities and teaching style , including spending money donated by devotees on expensive art, having sex with some of the female disciples, using alcohol and pot on and off, yelling at people, watching pornography on and off, could be compared to the activities and thought process of Charles Manson. And I do not think that Adi Da’s devotees not thinking much about it from a larger perspective is much like the followers of Charles Manson either. this seems much like the hysteria of the cult of cult busters. not all groups of more insular followers of a guru or religion are evil cults like the Manson cult or the JIm Jones cult. You have to use some discrimation from time to time about this sort of thing.
And there is no getting around what Annamalai Swami and many others from the traditions have said about this sort of thing. Flick Rahke former follower I guess that is FRFF
January 30, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Aro Says:
“Q: I should at least expect him to be a man of self-control who lives a righteous life.
M: Such you will find many – and of no use to you. A Guru can show the way back home, to your real self. What has this to do with the character, or temperament of the person he appears to be? Does he not clearly tell you that he is not the person? The only way you can judge is by the change in yourself when you are in his company. If you feel more at peace and happy, if you understand yourself with more than usual clarity and depth, it means you have met the right man. Take your time, but once you have made up your mind to trust him, trust him absolutely and follow every instruction fully and faithfully. It does not matter much if you do not accept him as your Guru and are satisfied with his company only. Satsang alone can also take you to your goal, provided it is unmixed and undisturbed.”
Thanks Aro for sharing this great quote from Nisargadatta Maharaj as well. It also illustrates how Daists feel about Adi Da – the clarity, depth, love, etc., in His Company are always available to us when we persist in recognizing Who He Is, and this is why we have stayed with Him. And also, if someone does not have this same recognition after real consideration of Him, His Teaching, photos, etc. – no problem with that either.
Oh, my good buddy wrote me again…
Conradg Says:
“As for your certainty that I feel “betrayed” by you and Da, please save the self-serving psychoanlysis for someone who finds you a credible judge of character.”
It matters not whether you think I am a credible judge of character, Conrad – your betrayal and anger bleed through almost all your posts about Adi Da – the very disrespectful tone, the anger, the pretentiousness, etc. Anyone can find many examples of this throughout the thread. Why, here is another one right in this post:
Conradg Says:
“and not even Da was stupid enough to try it.”
Do you really not see how disrespectful and angry you are being, when you make your point like this? It also really undermines the effectiveness of your communication to obviously be so out of relationship with Him, someone that you even say you love.
Conradg Says:
“Leave it to ignorant, brain-dead devotees who can’t even remember what Da actually said all these years, but just nod their heads in approval of everything he did anyway, to put that red herrring out there.”
Another example of your angry superior attitude. Actually, you do quite well in showing where you really are at, so no real need to point it out to you and others any more.
shiva Says:
“you just don’t get it, do you, great feeler for god?”
So you have “got” some “thing” I don’t have, shiva? What is that exactly? It sounds like a mental concept that you accept, perhaps even an intuition of the truth of non-duality – but your insistence on this non-dual speak and your stance demonstrates that you are still trying to mentally hold on to some “thing” here – like the idea of non-duality. Such an idea is just another icon that is then believed in, which is a form of fundamentalism – given you have not Realized the Truth beyond all duality.
Adi Da was very clear about speaking this way – fine, if you have actually Realized the Absolute Truth of Acausal Divine Reality. But you have not, shiva, nor has anyone here demonstrated that they have, so it is just an artifice in your mind that you are rapping about. No problem with that, as long as you understand that is what you are actually doing. Now maybe some people here are saying they have fully Realized the Truth of non-duality – are they?
shiva Says:
“the contemporary jnanis that slyder and i quoted say ONLY that. that is probably what you don’t like about them.”
At first I thought slyder had written the first passage he quoted – and I thought, damn, that guy has changed the tone of his posts! But then I saw it was by Joan Tollifson. It was pleasant to read but it did not directly reveal the Divine to me. Maybe it does for others, though. So be it.
shiva, actually I think I had a non-dual “experience” of my tea yesterday when I almost laughed my tea out my nose upon reading this part of one of those pleasant quotes.
“Tea drinks itself.”
Sorry, shiva, but somehow you seem to bring out a side of me that can be silly sometimes – I will try to be good.
shiva Says:
“there is little background noise in them. it is all there. nothing more needs to be said, really.”
So why do you keep saying things?
Sure, Master Da could have simply written one book, gave a few talks, etc. – but I find all the ways He animated of speaking and demonstrating the Truth a real means of actually directly recognizing that Truth through open-heartedly listening to it being read, etc. Ultimately, He describes the spiritual process at every level of psycho-physical development, and personally, I am very grateful for this. Others apparently are not, and so be it.
January 30, 2009 at 6:39 pm
“I wonder if these are the modern day living “jnanis” that FFAc is referring to that do not acknowledge Adi Da as a valid teacher and realizer. I am sorry but I just can’t buy it if it is coming from say, Clara or Sailor Bob or some of the other modern day jnanis that are held in respect here.” (Flick)
—
Hi Flick. Responding to your allusion. In all my posts on this thread, I have not stated anywhere that Adi Das was without any realization. Also in the talk I delivered 30 days before his death, I acknowledged him as a person of realization (vs. a learned con man). I expressed myself in those terms after I browsed some of his earlier talks. However, here I have made abundantly clear [tinyurl.com/da7stages-error & tinyurl.com/cvt547] my understanding that his 7 stages teaching is wrong (against all jnanis’ realization) and that subsequently his proclaimed status as the highest realizer is also false. Also, I have expressed here [tinyurl.com/bjmfyx & http://tinyurl.com/c87m7c my view of his teaching as misleading, in that reinforces duality, in opposition to the supposed nondual truth that the 7 stages lead to. In other words, Adidam became (long ago) a conditioning device in which the functions of the Guru and the devotee fossilized, with no opportunity for the second to realize actual nonduality with the first. That, to me, is what killed Da and removed him from the stage, opening a possibility for the people involved of reinterpreting the original message to true nondual terms.
About his controversial behaviour, and the whole conversation about moral standards in evaluating jnanis actions, I will only say “Ye shall know them by their fruits”, although this concept only serves within a very limited view, since ultimately (and regardless) all things are the will of the Divine.
The fact is that Da is gone, and this is what matters and what the Divine wanted to happen to Adidam. Amen.
All the best
Clara Llum
January 30, 2009 at 7:41 pm
conrad:
“I looked at Sailor Bob’s site, and while I can’t really pass judgment on the guy’s own realization, his teaching seems to not recognize what realization is really about, and thus I have to say I’m skeptical of people who consider him truly enlightened.”
that is right. you can’t really pass judgment – and yet you do.
whether you or anybody else thinks he is a jnani or not does not matter to me. all i can say is that i met sailor bob over 4-5 months and saw him many times. imho, he is a jnani and knows what he is talking about.
but check him out before you pass judgment. anybody can call him. there are contact emails on his website to set up a phone conversation. i highly recommend it.
conrad:
“Sailor Bob leads him through a very direct examination of his own consciousenss, his own awareness, and in the midst of that, the guy suddenly just “gets it”. And then he basically feels that’s all he needs to know, and he leaves shortly thereafter, under the impression that he’s now “enlightened”, and it’s really all so simple.
The problem here is that what this guy experienced is just the beginning of spiritual life, not the end or culmination of it.”
again, you don’t know the person and yet to pass judgment.
that person is john wheeler and he is – as far as i know – the only one who “got it” that quick. that is highly unusual.
i have met john wheeler and he knows what he is talking about as well.
again, check him out before you pass judgment. he too is available for phone conversations. contact info on his website: http://www.thenaturalstate.org
i am not a jnani, so my judgment may be wrong. however, my intuition works really well and it has guided me very well so far.
as an indicator how strongly my intuition has responded: i have decided to move to melbourne to see things through with sailor bob (and john wheeler and others).
check them out and see for yourselves. but check them out first before you pass judgment.
January 30, 2009 at 7:42 pm
“First Word: Do Not Misunderstand Me – I Am Not “Within” you, but you Are in Me, and I Am Not a Mere “Man” in the “Middle” of Mankind, but All of Mankind Is Surrounded, and Pervaded, and Blessed By Me.” (feel4God)
This is not the declaration of a jnani, but of a yogin. For the first resides within the devotee as their own Self. The second, not having realized That, sees himself separately.
“I will quote from “Perfect Philosophy: The ‘Radical’ Way of No-Ideas”” (feel4God)
As Shiva says, these quotes just reflect mainstream advaita, if only in a very convoluted style. The question is how Adidam betrayed the very thing it proposed, when Guru and devotee became fixated as two separated extremes.
There’s no need to kill the Buddha when you can become him and he acknowledges to be your very Self.
January 30, 2009 at 8:07 pm
Hey Clara , nice to get your viewpoint on all of this. I find it hard to point to any particular thing that “killed” Adi Da. I guess you say that it was the “Divine”‘ I guess that one could say that anything that happens is the “will of the Divine” I am not sure that the “fossilized Guru devotee relationship ” in Adidam “that gave no one the opportunity to realize nonduality” killed Adi Da. That is quite some speculation though. I wonder which “Divine ” you are referring to in “the will of the Divine” So are you one of the qualified enlightened jnanis I was asking about to qualify Adi Da’s actions . I am just curious.
Thank you Conrad for your last excellent post. The only thing i am not sure about what you say was Ramana’s style of being a guru and his personal approach. i think his was one approach and a good approach, but also, other tradional gurus took a different approach and also Adi Da. I am not so sure that Ramans’s approach was more “dharmic” . I am not sure what you mean by “dharmic” either since many of the “dharmas” and teachers I have studied actually have different flavors of the dharma and different approaches to teaching and transmission.
Still i appreciate your very intelligent and balanced post Flick Rahke Former Follower
January 30, 2009 at 8:44 pm
feel4god:
“Tea drinks itself.”
to spell it out for you:
there is no tea-drinker. drinking of tea just happens – to no-one.
your response to my post shows yet again, that you are too attached to your mr.jones-induced dreams to even consider anything else.
fine with me. nothing more to say for me.
i wish you sweet dreams!
C L:
“The question is how Adidam betrayed the very thing it proposed, when Guru and devotee became fixated as two separated extremes.”
indeed. that is one of the reasons i left and one of the reasons adidam is dualistic at it’s core. it simply can not be considered non-dual. in mr. jones’ stage model, adidam is a 4th stage teaching with 5th stage elements.
January 30, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Feel4God,
It matters not whether you think I am a credible judge of character, Conrad – your betrayal and anger bleed through almost all your posts about Adi Da – the very disrespectful tone, the anger, the pretentiousness, etc. Anyone can find many examples of this throughout the thread. Why, here is another one right in this post:
Conradg Says:
“and not even Da was stupid enough to try it.”
Do you really not see how disrespectful and angry you are being, when you make your point like this? It also really undermines the effectiveness of your communication to obviously be so out of relationship with Him, someone that you even say you love.
I am not a perfectly realized sage, I have the same emotions all of us have, and I don’t hide them. Sometimes the plain truth must be spoken without dressing things up. Not all ideas or arguments deserve respect, and the ideas and arguments you brought forward in these posts, which I called brain-dead, simply do not deserve anyone’s respect. They are, indeed, brain-dead, the empty gestures of those who have essentially given up making any sense, and simply rely on the inherent uncertainty of the mind to infer that this means anything is possible, and if anything is possible, then every argument is equal and deserving of respect. This is sheer nonsense, and that needs to be said. Patiently picking apart such arguments may be the polite way to go about debate, but it’s actually a disservice to us all to give respect to what is simply disreputable and dishonorable.
I understand very well that you like to interpret my disrespect for some of your arguments as “betrayal”. But this is simply due to the fact that these arguments themselves lack any validity, and cannot be defended by any other means than to attack some emotional quality in those who point out how absurd and contempable they are. I, personally, am not ashamed to show contempt for what is contempable, or disrespect for what is disreputable. But the sane response to that would be to stop being offended by my tone, and show some reason why these ideas are deserving of any respect at all.
If you don’t like my “superior” attitude, then come up with a superior argument that makes more sense than my own. Non-dualism doesn’t mean that all arguments are equal, it doesn’t make nonsense into sense. It means that we need to approach arguments with a sword of discrimination, and forcefuly reject the ones that are simply untenable and absurd. There are a number of arguments one could at least try to make to defend Da’s actions that are at least deserving of some respectable criticism. You simply aren’t making them. If that makes you undeserving of respect as a debator, that’s not my fault. In my experience of Adidam, it is indicative of a general deadening of cognitive abilities that occurs there, as it does in any cult which requires people to accept and believe things they really don’t understand or comprehend, such as Da’s behavior. This degrades the quality of argument of its own members, because they simply cannot find any but the most primitive rationales for Da’s actions, and they are left to make nihilistic arguments such as these that represent the very bottom of the barrel, the desperate need to create some vague semblance of an excuse where there is none.
Earlier in this thread I would have simply suggested you find a better argument. At this point, I’m not so sure that you can. The problem is, you don’t seem to realize how little sense you make, like an American Idol contestant that can’t recognize that they are tone deaf, precisely because they are tone deaf. And unfortunately, much of Adidam is a tone-deaf community leading the tone-deaf. Anyone with a decent sense of pitch has been sent packing, and those who once might have had any pitch-sense have had their ears filled with tar so that they don’t notice anymore how awful the music is when it comes to Da’s behavior and the general culture he created. As with the American Idol judges, it does no one any good to pretend that tone-deaf singers deserve respect and serious discussion. They need to be encouraged to clean out their ears. Supplies of Q-tips are available. But harsh, plain language is also needed. Some tone-deaf people are ridiculously aggressive in defending their own claims to talent. It makes for hilarious television sometimes. But it does not make for great singing.
Flick:
I did not compare Adi Da’s behavior to Charles Manson. I said that the argument being used to defend Da are comparable to the arguments Charles Manson has made defending his behavior – that because we are not able to fully determine someone’s spiritual realization by his actions, that means than anyone’s actions could be compatible with realization, meaning that even Manson could have been realized, and we would be too stupid to notice and appreciate him. Manson has indeed made arguments of this kind, and they are of course examples of pure sophistry wedded to the worst kind of narcissism. I would not compare Adi Da’s narcissism to Manson’s, but it is certainly sad that his followers would resort to similar rationales for their amoral behavior.
January 30, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Clara’s comments are appropriate. It not that all critics are saying that Da lacked any “realization.” The question I think that needs to be considered is whether his realization in fact was of pure jnana and was stable. Otherwise, what comes goes. If a teacher teaches in contradiction to every other jnani and in contradiction to dharma itself, and they claim to have a higher state of realization than anyone else has ever had, and their teaching over time appears to fetter rather than free, that they are in the highest state of Realization is not very likely. It is said that in the cycle of karma, we do not necessarily see smooth progression upwards towards Enlightenment. Many have unwisely assumed they had reached the goal without sufficient confirmation, only to fall back.
January 30, 2009 at 8:59 pm
yes Shiva just posted a good post too. I think Conrad was mostly referring to a general phenomenon that we have seen in the west since the period of Ramana and Nisargatta and Poonja and i feel what he said is valid, but of course , each teacher has to be ‘evaluated” individually and then it has to be by your own intuition, so we cannot pass any real judgement of sailor bob for example.
shiva has had direct experience with sailor bob and i applaud him heartily for plunging in to practice with his teacher by moving near to him. That takes passion for awakening and guts if you can apply that sort of thing to the jnani way. I have only referred to my direct experience of some of the self declared modern jnanis and my own feeling about them. Flick Rahke former something or other
January 30, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Isn’t the extent to which Da was an abusive, predatory, exploitative, self-servng potential personal liability to those who gathered around him pretty much no longer relevant now that he is…uh…dead? Probably is safe to assume he will never again personaly bite anyone. As long as any of his colorful ever superceding names draw curious people into earnest examination and exploration of significant spiritual issues and considerations (like this blog for example) it seems to me he is still getting some sort of worthwhile job done in spite of how opportunistically he looked out for himself while he could still get his hands on things…
January 30, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Flick,
The only thing i am not sure about what you say was Ramana’s style of being a guru and his personal approach. i think his was one approach and a good approach, but also, other tradional gurus took a different approach and also Adi Da. I am not so sure that Ramans’s approach was more “dharmic” . I am not sure what you mean by “dharmic” either since many of the “dharmas” and teachers I have studied actually have different flavors of the dharma and different approaches to teaching and transmission.
I don’t think Ramana’s style is the only acceptable style. There are many “dharmic” styles. But there are also many “adharmic” styles as well, and we should not presume that all styles are dharmic, some are simply false and deluding. It’s not always easy to know which is which, which is why the traditions often step in and try to set things straight, though in a way that doesn’t impose some set style on everyone, or a fixed standard for all. It’s open and free, not closed and fundamentalist. But that doesn’t mean it literally condones anything and everything either, or gives credibility to what is simply not credible, and respect to what is disreputable.
I understand the difficulty in even learning what the dharmic view on behavior is. It takes a lot of study and practice and weeding out of nonsense. I consider my experience in Adidam a part of the process of weeding out nonsense, particularly in the realm of behavioral issues. But the very idea of “dharma” requires discrimination, an ability to recognize what is not dharma, what is simple human foolishness and narcissism, sometimes masking itself as dharma. I am learning as I go myself. It’s not as easy as filling out a prescription for right behavior, and then looking for that in jnanis. There are people like Ramana, and then there’s Ammachi. Every genuine realizer has a different style and quality, but there is always a basic integrity and honesty about them, and the fulfillment of egoless action that is not self-centered or desire-based. I simply find it very difficult to see Adi Da’s actions in that light, it simply requires too much of knocking a square peg into a round hole. The pattern of his behavior simply isn’t what would be considered dharmic in the Guru-tradition, regardless of the tolerance it might have for stylistic and even tantric differences.
One could of course argue that this doesn’t matter, that Adi Da is so unique that none of the traditional dharmas fit him, but then that is itself an admission that his behavior is adharmic by traditional standards, and one is left all alone trying to defend Da as some sort of unprecedented phenomena. That’s the defense Da himself mounted, and yet I don’t hear anyone at this blog making that defense, as if it’s just too ridiculous even for devotees to make. It probably is, but not making it pretty much seals the deal about Da. If he relied on arguments that not even his own devotees think are defensible, what chance is there that anyone else will find them convincing?
January 30, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Aro,
There is nothing to disagree with on the teaching of Ramana Maharshi or Sri Nisargadatta with respect to an enlightened guru or jnani. I myself referenced the entire link. What I disagree with is how I suggest you have missed some context and extended this idea beyond what was intended to peculiar kind of nihilism. Again, I find nothing about this behavior mentioned that would exclude jnana either. Some jnani smoked, had sexual affairs, lived as a householder or as wanderer, appeared to be mad, etc. The point is these are moralistic objections, not dharmic. The intent is not to actually suggest that all dharmic objections are irrelevant. There are many, many cases in the traditions where someone who would not appear to be a jnani is surprisingly acknowledged as one by another. But this advice only applies to those who are actual, bona fide jnanis, and for those seekers who are ready. What this does not mean is that a pattern of what is clearly adharmic should be dismissed as irrelevant or that everyone attracted to a teacher has necessarily found a jnani. What this means is that if, after close examination and some basic understanding of the truth, you find a sense of peace and increased awareness of the sense of Self, that is your guru. To paraprhase something Da himself said, you are not acknowledging that the point is that when quoting what Ramana Maharshi or Sri isargadatta “said”, that it was in the presence of the guru that this was said. These were real responses to real people with real karmas based on having come to these jnanis in context, where beliefs were interferring with recognition of the jnani.
Ramana Maharshi was not that obtuse or laisse faire when those who came to him asked specifically about those whose dharma was off base, and neither was Nisargadatta, who even criticized an unnamed western teacher teaching what Da taught. The same Ramana also gave specific indications useful in assessing whether one was a jnani. The same Nisargadatta also said the true guru would never humilate you.
So, on this case, Godman is simply referring to those who apply predetermined, moralistic or religious beliefs to a jnani who demonstrates the true Guru presence. Context and spiritual readiness is what is important, it is not behavior itself out of context. The key is to understand this is to understand that this person considered as a jnani who is sought as guru must first demonstrate this.
As Godman puts it: “The term Guru is often loosely used to describe anyone who gives out spiritual advice, but in Sri Ramana’s vocabulary the word has a much more restricted definition. For him, a true Guru is someone who has realised the Self and who is able to use his power to assist others towards the goal of Self-realisation.”
No other definition of guru is intended, and this advice is only applicable in that limited sense. It is up the the strength of one’s connection with the inner guru whether the outer appears at a given time. If the destiny, qualities and karma of the devotee are such that they improperly presume one who is not qualified to be a guru as Ramana Maharshi defines it to be so based on karmic blindness about such things, their fate will be according to their merits. That is just how it is.
Again Ramana Maharshi was actually not that obtuse here, certainly not as much as suggested:
Question: What are the marks of a real teacher (sadguru)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Steady abidance in the Self, looking at all with an equal eye, unshakable courage at all times, in all places and circumstances.
Question: There are a number of spiritual teachers teaching
various paths. Whom should one take for one’s Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Choose that one where you find you get shanti (peace).
Question: Should we not also consider his teachings?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. If a teacher tells him to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities, can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation. Activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity is advocated the adviser is not a master but a killer. In such circumstances either the Creator (Brahma) or death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of a master. Such a person cannot liberate the aspirant; he can only strengthen his fetters.
Question: How can I find my own Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: By intense meditation.
Question: How is one to decide upon a proper Guru? What is the swarupa (nature or real form) of a Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He is the proper Guru to whom your mind is attuned. If you ask, “How to decide who is the Guru and what is his swarupa?”, he should be endowed with tranquillity, patience, forgiveness and other virtues; he should be capable of attracting others even with his eyes just as a magnet attracts iron; he should have a feeling of equality towards all. He who has these virtues is the true Guru, but one wants to know the swarupa of the Guru, one must know one’s own swarupa first. How can one know the real nature of the Guru if one does not know one’s own real nature first? If you want to perceive the real nature or form of the Guru you must first learn to look upon the whole universe as Guru rupam (the form of the Guru). One must see the Guru in all living beings. It is the same with God. You must look upon all objects as God’s rupa (form). How can he who does not know his own Self perceive the real form of God or the real form of the Guru? How can he determine them? Therefore, first of all know your own real form and nature.
Question: Isn’t a Guru necessary to know even that?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: That is true. The world contains many great men. Look upon him as your Guru with whom your mind gets attuned. The one in whom you have faith is your Guru.
Question: What is the significance of Guru’s grace in the attainment of liberation?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Liberation is not anywhere outside you. It is only within. If a man is anxious for deliverance, the internal Guru pulls him in and the external Guru pushes him into the Self. This is the grace of the Guru.
Question: When loyal to one master can you respect others?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Guru is only one. He is not physical.
So long as there is weakness the support of strength is needed.
Question: Is success not dependent on the Guru’s grace?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes, it is. Is not your practice itself due to such grace? The fruits are the result of the practice and follow it automatically. There is a stanza in Kaivalya which says, ‘O Guru! You have been always with me, watching me through several incarnations, and ordaining my course until I was liberated.’ The Self manifests externally as the Guru when the occasion arises, otherwise he is always within, doing what is necessary.
Question: How can one know whether a particular individual is competent to be a Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: By the peace of mind found in his presence and by the sense of respect you feel for him.
Question: If the Guru happens to turn out incompetent, what will be the fate of the disciple who has implicit faith in him?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Each one according to his merits.<<
Again, that is just how it is…
January 30, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Shiva,
Just to be clear, I’m not passing judgment on Sailor Bob’s realization. I did pass judgment about this particular teaching “incident” described on his website, and the superficiality of it. I’m willing to give Sailor Bob the benefit of the doubt, but that doesn’t mean I will accept this sort of superficial teaching as genuinely representative of the true non-dualism of Advaita. As I say, it’s the bare beginning of the process, not the end. And of course I could be wrong, but that’s not going to stop me from judging what I see before me.
I don’t mean to criticize your spiritual choices. I think the best way for you to find out if Sailor Bob is realized, and if his teachings are for you, is to do just what you are doing, move there and really get into it, really test it all first hand. I would say the same thing for anyone interested in Da. If people want to find out about Adidam, really get into it, really join up, see what kind of practice they actually have, what the value of their teachings are, and try to keep an open mind until all issues get resolved, not by the usual cult-fundamentalism, but by real enquiry that won’t settle for bullshit excuses.
So I applaud your decision to spend real time with Sailor Bob. I’ve heard many good things about him. I’m just not so convinced as you are that he’s truly awakened beyond ego. But I tend to be rather skeptical of most people and teachers.
On the other hand, I’ve heard from a friend of mine that John Wheeler isn’t the real deal. He’s a friend I greatly respect, and he got into a long correspondence and then phone relationship to Wheeler, and came to the conclusion that Wheeler hadn’t genuinely realized at all. So I have two people hear saying opposite things about Wheeler, you and my friend. I can’t say for sure who’s right, but for right now I’d tend to trust my friend’s view over your own, just because I know him better and he has a much deeper grounding in the traditions.
One of the problems I have with Wheeler right off the bat is that he’s said he’s read Nisargadatta’s “I Am That” about 200 times. Now, personally I consider that sort of obsession to be an example of self-generated brainwashing of the kind that can produce any number of delusions. Nisargadatta himself never suggested that people study his word so intensely, in fact he warned against it. David Godman describes a conversation he had with Nisargadatta about this matter, in which Nisargadatta corrected David’s own naive fascination with the verbal arguments of his teaching. He told David that he wasn’t grasping the significance of his teachings. Their purpose, he said, wasn’t to fill the mind with non-dual ideas until the mind began to operate in a “non-dual” fashion. Nor was the purpose to endlessly debate these matters inside oneself, or with others. The point was that these teachings of Nisargadatta’s were literally a seed that he was planting in the minds of his listeners (and readers), that, once it took root, would grow of its own accord and flower into realization, not through thought or argument, but through silent surrender. Nisargadatta made it clear that the whole point was to let the teaching be received, even just once, and then let it grow inside oneself through clear devotion to the actual practice, not by endlessly listening to verbal arguments and thinking them through.
When I hear about people immersing themselves like Wheeler in the verbal arguments of people like Nisargadatta, I get the impression of people who are deluding themselves with the mind, rather than transcending and deconstructing the mind as instructed. Papaji warned people very strongly about the danger of creating a comprehensive conceptual system of enlightenment, precisely because the mind is capable of constructing any sort of delusion it is fed, and if the mind is allowed to create too precise an idea of what enlightenment is and how it comes into being, the mind will in fact literally “create” just such an experience, and convince the individual that they are enlightened, when in fact it is just the mind continuing to delude us. Guys like Wheeler seem to me to represent this sort of self-deluding experience of enlightenment. They immerse themselves totally in the dharma of non-dualism, until their own minds create a “non-dual realization” in their own minds, that really does have great power and shakti and so forth, but is still based in mind, rather than transcending it.
I’d suggest that a similar process has occurred in guys like Adi Da himself. He created such an elaborate conceptual system of enlightenment that his mind naturally re-created the experience of it for himself. It’s not that there’s no genuine dharma or genuine experience going on, but it’s mixed in with mind-based experiential delusions that only reinforce those concepts, and ends up spiralling out of control until we have the one and only greatest of all the greats sort of megalomania. So in that sense, I’d put Adi Da in with the other western non-dualists who end up creating distortions of the original non-dual dharma, even with the best of intentions.
Now of course you have every right not to take these criticisms seriously. I certainly don’t know for sure about any of these teachers. But I think my skepticism is warranted to some serious degree. I’d just recommend that you keep an open mind, and not turn Sailor Bob into a cult leader whose realization is beyond question, or get offended when others question him. That would seem to be against the very spirit of the whole enterprise.
January 31, 2009 at 2:04 am
Thank you ,conrad and FFAC for your dialogue and certainly l respect your intelligence and posts ,even though I have disagreed with various things of course. not that i have not felt the same way you guys have felt off and on over the years. Perhaps the defense that Da himself mounted really is the correct defense. I mean we are familar with the letter “The Way that I Teach” that Da wrote in response to a traditional teacher who criticized his way early on. Actually , in that context , the letter made a lot of sense to me.
Personally I have questioned Adi Da’s ways and actions over the years and i do not now feel they were all that big a deal. That is my opinion. And I know most of them anyhow , of course not all of them. I think I will write tomorrow when I am clearer and more fresh a longer post of my history and feelings about Adi Da and spiritualiy in general, sort of summing up why I even posted here to start with.
But I would still like to hear if Clara is a realized jnani or not. She speaks with that sort of authority , but I would like to hear for myself since she does post here regularly and certainly is not afraid to post her real name or who she is. I know that she is a Reiki practicioner{ I have a couple of levels of Reiki trainings myself and love it} and also a teacher of sorts too. I just wonder if she is an enlightened jnani or not because I can’t tell .
Flick Rahke former something or other
January 31, 2009 at 11:37 am
Doesn’t anyone wonder why so much time is being spent attempting to somehow demonstrate that Adi Da was not fully Realized, and even in some such attempts, that He was simply deluded with Himself? These attempts typically ignore what He has produced – a body of unsurpassed spiritual Literature, Empowered Sanctuaries, endless testimonies of His Love for all beings, a spiritual culture of practitioners, etc., etc.
Even in light of all the traditional references – which clearly state that it is impossible to judge a Guru’s Realization by His behavior – some of you here still think that it is possible for you to judge such behavior, and even while you admit to your not being a jnani.
It is also clear that some of you are now looking to re-interpret what has been said since ancient days about this matter. Even Ramana Maharshi, Annamalai Swami, David Godman, and Nisargadatta have said this in no uncertain terms – but somehow this is conveniently “revised” by you to further your agenda to discredit Who Adi Da Is, and What He declares as Truth.
Adi Da’s Way of Satsang with the Master via the recognition of Who He Is, and Self-identification with Him via radical (non-dual) devotion, and right life obedience to Him – has always been the ancient means for Realization. Although Adi Da has transcended the traditional errors of seeking, the Way of Satsang He requires is the ancient Way of Realization – so such quotes by Ramana Maharshi and others about the Guru’s Realization and behavior are certainly applicable.
Critical, discriminative thinking is, of course, a necessary discipline, but when even the traditions are indiscriminately re-interpreted as we have seen clearly demonstrated here, it actually becomes necessary to ask what are your motives behind that.
Adi Da was well aware that the ego ALWAYS revises an Adept’s Teaching to fit their own agenda. This has always happened historically – as it allows the ego to create the Master as an Icon or object in order to then dualistically worship such a one.
Such objectification of Truth is what egos always do to prevent real ego-transcendence. This has even been done in these modern times with the iconization or mental objectification of the Truth of Non-duality. Adi Da has criticized this approach since the very early days. I just bumped into this from the 70s where Adi Da said:
“Truth is not within. The nervous system and the brain are the new ‘Golden Calf’.”
To prevent this iconization or objectification of Himself, Adi Da wrote in a very unique manner and many volumes worth – always pointing out the ego’s tendency to subordinate (or objectify) the Divine to its own (usually mentalized) version of “Reality”. And this attempt to re-interpret what has been said by Adi Da, Ramana, Nisargadatta, and many many more Masters since ancient times, is more of the same.
When I bring up specific matters about the ego being mightily offended with Master Da’s undermining of them, as the principle reason people here react to Him, I tend to get mainly ad hominem attacks on myself by Conrad. But really, if you still react to Master Da’s Work with devotees as some of you apparently do even years later, shouldn’t that be something you truly inspect to make sure you are free of your own egoic motives? Did that reactivity disappear over all these years or are you still holding on to it? Isn’t it YOUR reaction? And are you now Realized given all the time away from Adi Da? So all of this judgment of Adi Da can only go so far, before it begs these kinds of questions.
As other Daists have testified, and as I have done so with many pages of posts especially very early on, in all the years of His working with devotees, I never saw Adi Da lose His Depth, His Clarity, His Loving Regard, His Realization – and at first I was actually looking for this loss so I could leave His very difficult (ego-offending) Company. This does not mean that I did not react egoically to what He always spontaneously generated – but because of this recognition, from the beginning, of Who He Is, after quite a period of “testing” His Realization over against the apparently “non-spiritual” party circumstances of the Garbage and the Goddess era, I finally committed my life to Him as my Sat-Guru. This is what the traditions have always admonished and just as we see from various statements by Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc., quoted on this blog recently by Aro and Flick.
I have seen endless examples of Adi Da dealing with the ego – in myself and others – and I can only testify that His Skillful Compassionate Means always fully took into account where I was at – and yes, it sure was tough to stay in place. However, in doing so, I saw (and sometimes only years later) how much His Regard has served me.
Most of the critics here spent a good number of years with Adi Da, and I don’t have a problem with their decision to leave His Way. However, when so much time and energy (in some cases, years!) is spent to discredit Adi Da, it does beg the question – are such motives pure? And are you now Realized, having “killed the Buddha”, having left the Guidance of Adi Da – or did Adi Da just offend your egoic point-of-view too directly and persistently? Isn’t that what we “hired” Him to do, as He used to ask?
Admittedly, many people who came to Adi Da were mightily offended by His always spontaneous actions that cut deep into our egoic activity at every level of the being – this is what He does because of Who He Is and what His Function spontaneously calls for. And this is traditionally understood. So many decided to leave His Way because it was too much for them. He warned us always to not approach Him casually – i.e., without recognition of Who He Is. Many many people were heart-drawn to Him that did not either continue with this heart-recognition, or who came for their own egoic reasons – like to just be part of the wild scenes of Garbage and the Goddess, Indoor Summer, etc.
In either of these cases, the traditional relationship to the Sat-Guru was not being honored by the devotee because actual recognizing of Who Adi Da Is, and Self-identification with Him (via Divine Communion) are necessary once you commit to His Way. It is only egoic, body-based “practice” without such recognition. Without moment to moment recognition as the foundation for practice, the practice is false in any such moments – and it is also for this reason, that many of us Daists (myself included) have been slow with entering the advanced stages of this Way. But that His Way is effective and is based in radical (non-dual) devotional recognition and whole-bodily response to Him, is obvious to us Daists as the necessary foundation for truly Spiritual Transcendental practice – just as it has been traditionally recognized.
Again, I have no problem with those who no longer, or never did, enjoy that recognition of Adi Da – but it is true for many of us still practicing this Way. And that devotion to, and trust of, the Guru is also fully supported by the ancient Guru-disciple relationship as the sole means for Realization.
I also understand that most of what I write here is likely to fall upon deaf ears because most of you, who are actively participating here, have come to your own conclusions about Adi Da, Daists, and perhaps even myself specifically. But still, it has to be said because it is utterly obvious to me that Adi Da Samraj is the Acausal Divine Reality, fully Realized, and He fully animated Reality while He was physically active in this realm. In my experience, His actions have always been a spontaneous response to awaken us from our egoic sleep. I see this working for myself and others, and fully respect anyone’s choice of some other Master too.
Thanks Flick for bringing up Adi Da’s “The Way that I Teach”. Maybe I will re-type that here at some point.
January 31, 2009 at 1:31 pm
FF&C says,
“There is nothing to disagree with on the teaching of Ramana Maharshi or Sri Nisargadatta with respect to an enlightened guru or jnani. I myself referenced the entire link. What I disagree with is how I suggest you have missed some context and extended this idea beyond what was intended to peculiar kind of nihilism.”
What context did I miss? I have only reminded all that the Maharshi cautioned his disciples to be careful about judging a jnani. Of the four stories he related on 31st January 1938, three of them – Thondaradipodi Alwar, Kaduveli Sidhar and King Parikshit were on this theme of defaming a jnani on account of his external behavior.
On the other hand when you string together disparate quotes of the Maharshi to make your point as in:
“Again Ramana Maharshi was actually not that obtuse here, certainly not as much as suggested:
Question: What are the marks of a real teacher (sadguru)?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Steady abidance in the Self, looking at all with an equal eye, unshakable courage at all times, in all places and circumstances.
Question: There are a number of spiritual teachers teaching
various paths. Whom should one take for one’s Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Choose that one where you find you get shanti (peace).
Question: Should we not also consider his teachings?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. If a teacher tells him to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities, can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation. Activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity is advocated the adviser is not a master but a killer. In such circumstances either the Creator (Brahma) or death (Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of a master. Such a person cannot liberate the aspirant; he can only strengthen his fetters.
Question: How can I find my own Guru?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: By intense meditation.” ….
I find the it not in context. From “Talks…” pp 554-5:
27th December, 1938
Mr. Narayana Iyer: Bhagavan’s words are so pleasing to hear but their import is beyond our comprehension. That seems to be far too much for us even to hope to realise.
G.V. Subbaramiah: Our grasp is only intellectual. If Sri Bhagavan be pleased to direct us with a few instructions we shall be highly benefited.
Maharshi: He who instructs an ardent seeker to do this or that is not a true master. The seeker is already afflicted by his activities and wants peace and rest. In other words he wants cessation of his activities. Instead of that he is told to do something in addition to, or in place of, his other activities. Can that be a help to the seeker?
Activity is creation; activity is the destruction of one’s inherent happiness. If activity be advocated the adviser is not a master but the killer. Either the creator(Brahma) or death(Yama) may be said to have come in the guise of such a master. He cannot liberate the aspirant but strengthens his fetters.
D: When we attempt to cease from activity the very attempt is action. So activity seems to be inevitable.
M: True. Thayumanavar has also alluded to it. A doctor advises a patient to take the prescribed medicine with only one condition. That condition is not to think of a monkey when he takes the medicine. Can the patient ever take the medicine? Will he not think of the monkey whenever he tries not to do so?
So also, when people try to give up thoughts their object is frustrated by this very attempt.
D: How then is the state to be attained?
M: What is there to attain? A thing remains to be attained if it is not already attained. But here one’s very being is that.”
January 31, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Hi Feel4God,
Can you spell out how Adi Da’s various controversial behaviors could plausibly have been — or were, in your own experience of them — undermining of ego, as you say? Beneficial, and even the most beneficial course of action he could possibly have taken? (Offense, and certainly humiliation, are by no means inherently undermining of ego. It needs spelling out).
In so many instances it’s hard even to imagine any plausible positive interpretation, let alone persuade anyone it’s the most likely candidate. I’ve heard precious few accounts — just about none, actually — along the lines of, “it sounds wild, but it was actually tremandously helpful to me, just perfect in fact.” Meanwhile, stories of disappointment and disillusionment are legion.
What percentage of Adi Da’s actions are still confusing to you, personally, but you figure he moved in mysterious ways? And what percentage make perfect sense to you? I’d love to hear your alternative inner narrative of the individual instances, in place of the generalized, not to say vague, approach you’ve taken thus far.
My sincere sympathies for the loss of your teacher.
January 31, 2009 at 2:21 pm
It amazes me that so many people have devoted so much time and energy over the years trying to somehow demonstrate that Charles Manson is not a fully Realized Master, but is somehow simply deluded with Himself. These attempts typically ignore what he has produced – a body of unsurpassed spiritual wisdom available to anyone who recognizes Him as the true God-Man, endless testimonies of his love and Divinity from his Manson Family devotees, Empowered prison sanctuaries blessed with His Presence, and a spiritual culture of both in and out of prison that will surely demonstrate itself to be the greatest spiritual force on earth.
And yet, even in light of all the traditional references – which clearly state that it is impossible to judge a Guru’s Realization by His behavior – some of you here still think that it is possible for you to judge Charles Manson by such outer behavior, and even while you admit to your not being a jnani. Clearly such people have no real undestanding of the traditions, and are imposing their own egoic standards on someone who is clearly a transcendental Realizer of the highest degree.
It is also clear that some of you are now looking to re-interpret what has been said since ancient days about this matter. Even Ramana Maharshi, Annamalai Swami, David Godman, and Nisargadatta have said this in no uncertain terms – but somehow this is conveniently “revised” by you to further your agenda to discredit Who Charles Manson Is, and What He declares as Truth.
Charles Manson’s Way of Satsang with the Master via the recognition of Who He Is, and Self-identification with Him via radical (non-dual) devotion, and right life obedience to Him – has always been the ancient means for Realization. Although Charles Manson has transcended the traditional errors of seeking, the Way of Satsang He requires is the ancient Way of Realization – so such quotes by Ramana Maharshi and others about the Guru’s Realization and behavior are certainly applicable.
Critical, discriminative thinking is, of course, a necessary discipline, but when even the traditions are indiscriminately re-interpreted as we have seen clearly demonstrated here, it actually becomes necessary to ask what are your motives behind that. Why would anyone wish to denigrate and disrespect this ancient spiritual tradition by pretending that Charles Manson’s obvious spiritual Realization can be judge by his actions, when the traditions themselves say this is impossible? Don’t they realize their criticism of Charles comes from their own egoity? As Charles himself said:
“I can’t judge any of you. I have no malice against you and no ribbons for you. But I think that it is high time that you all start looking at yourselves, and judging the lie that you live in.”
Charles Manson was well aware that the ego ALWAYS revises an Adept’s Teaching to fit their own agenda. This has always happened historically – as it allows the ego to create the Master as an Icon or object in order to then dualistically worship such a one. Charles Manson has never made himself into an icon or object of realization, he is the Acausal Divine Reality Itself, and contemplation of Him is therefore inherently egoless in nature, and his actions and his instructions to his devotees, whether it be devotional worship of him or the occasional murder of heretics, is always done as a form of egoless contemplation of and service to the Acausal Divine Reality.
Such objectification of Truth is what egos always do to prevent real ego-transcendence. This has even been done in these modern times with the iconization or mental objectification of the Truth of Non-duality. Charles Manson has criticized this approach since the very early days. I just bumped into this from the 70s where Charles Manson said:
“Look down at me and you see a fool;
look up at me and you see a god;
look straight at me and you see yourself”
Clearly Charles Manson understood that the ego is at the root of all our illusions, especially the illusions of those who judge him based on his actions. As he said,
Just because you’re convicted in a court room doesn’t mean you’re guilty of something.
To prevent this iconization or objectification of Himself, Charles Manson spoke in a very unique manner – always pointing out the ego’s tendency to subordinate (or objectify) the Divine to its own (usually mentalized) version of “Reality”. And this attempt to re-interpret what has been said by Adi Da, Ramana, Nisargadatta, and many many more Masters since ancient times, is more of the same. It is the ego projecting itself on the actions of a realizer, acting under the illusions that it can judge such a One, when they are in Reality only judging themselves. As Charles explained:
My father is the jailhouse. My father is your system… I am only what you made me. I am only a reflection of you.
When I bring up specific matters about the ego being mightily offended with Charles Manson’s undermining of them, as the principle reason people here react to Him, I tend to get mainly ad hominem attacks on myself by people who feel betrayed by Charles, and rather than moving beyond such emotional reactivity, they feel the need to punish Charles, even to the extent of imprisoning him. But really, if you still react to Charles Manson’s Work with devotees as some of you apparently do even years later, shouldn’t that be something you truly inspect to make sure you are free of your own egoic motives? Did that reactivity disappear over all these years or are you still holding on to it? Isn’t it YOUR reaction? And are you now Realized given all the time away from Charles Manson? So all of this judgment of Charles Manson can only go so far, before it begs these kinds of questions.
As other members of the Manson Family have testified, and as I have done so with many pages of posts especially very early on, in all the years of His working with devotees, I never saw Charles Manson lose His Depth, His Clarity, His Loving Regard, His Realization – and at first I was actually looking for this loss so I could leave His very difficult (ego-offending) Company. This does not mean that I did not react egoically to what He always spontaneously generated – but because of this recognition, from the beginning, of Who He Is, after quite a period of “testing” His Realization over against the apparently “non-spiritual” revolutionary circumstances of the Helter-Skelter era, I finally committed my life to Him as my Sat-Guru. This is what the traditions have always admonished and just as we see from various statements by Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc., quoted on this blog recently by Aro and Flick.
I have seen endless examples of Charles Manson dealing with the ego – in myself and others – and I can only testify that His Skillful Compassionate Means always fully took into account where I was at – and yes, it sure was tough to stay in place. However, in doing so, I saw (and sometimes only years later) how much His Regard has served me.
Most of the critics here spent a good number of years with Charles Manson, and I don’t have a problem with their decision to leave His Way. However, when so much time and energy (in some cases, years!) is spent to discredit Charles Manson, it does beg the question – are such motives pure? And are you now Realized, having “killed the Buddha”, having left the Guidance of Charles Manson – or did Charles Manson just offend your egoic point-of-view too directly and persistently? Isn’t that what we “hired” Him to do, as He used to ask?
Admittedly, many people who came to Charles Manson were mightily offended by His always spontaneous actions that cut deep into our egoic activity at every level of the being – this is what He does because of Who He Is and what His Function spontaneously calls for. And this is traditionally understood. So many decided to leave His Way because it was too much for them. He warned us always to not approach Him casually – i.e., without recognition of Who He Is. Many many people were heart-drawn to Him that did not either continue with this heart-recognition, or who came for their own egoic reasons – like to just be part of the wild scenes of murder and mayhem at the Tate-La Bianca households, etc.
In either of these cases, the traditional relationship to the Sat-Guru was not being honored by the devotee because actual recognizing of Who Charles Manson Is, and Self-identification with Him (via Divine Communion) are necessary once you commit to His Way. It is only egoic, body-based “practice” without such recognition. Without moment to moment recognition as the foundation for practice, the practice is false in any such moments – and it is also for this reason, that many of us Manson Family members (myself included) have been slow with entering the advanced stages of this Way. But that His Way is effective and is based in radical (non-dual) devotional recognition and whole-bodily response to Him, is obvious to us Mason Family members as the necessary foundation for truly Spiritual Transcendental practice – just as it has been traditionally recognized.
Again, I have no problem with those who no longer, or never did, enjoy that recognition of Charles Manson – but it is true for many of us still practicing this Way. And that devotion to, and trust of, the Guru is also fully supported by the ancient Guru-disciple relationship as the sole means for Realization.
I also understand that most of what I write here is likely to fall upon deaf ears because most of you, who are actively participating here, have come to your own conclusions about Charles Manson, his Family, and perhaps even myself specifically. But still, it has to be said because it is utterly obvious to me that Charles Manson is the Acausal Divine Reality, fully Realized, and He fully animated Reality while He was physically active in this realm. In my experience, His actions have always been a spontaneous response to awaken us from our egoic sleep. I see this working for myself and others, and fully respect anyone’s choice of some other Master too.
I will leave you with the immortal words of Charles Manson, through whom the Truth has been lived, embodied, and will never die:
Always is always forever
As one is one is one
Inside yourself for your father
All is none all is none all is none
It’s time to drop all from behind us
The illusion has been just a dream
The Valley of Death may not find us
Now as then on a sunshine beam
So bring only your perfection
For then life will surely be
No cold no fear no hunger
You can see you can see you can see
January 31, 2009 at 2:55 pm
The first talk I ever heard by Adi Da was in New York on the radio program hosted on Sunday morning on public radio called “In the Spirit” The tape that was played was “Garbage and the Goddess”
One thing that Adi Da said over and over was “There is nothing to be attained. have I said it? There is absolutely nothing to be attained.” he was laughing a lot too. As an aside , I had been having a bad stomach flu with vomiting and diarrhea and was laid up. As a result of this intense initiation with Truth, I felt a strong and free happiness rising up, in which the flu was spontaneously remitted and I went upstairs and had some scrambled eggs, much to the amazement of my roomates. That was my first contact with Adi Da and I was a twenty five year old pro ballet dancer, in a ballet company with my friend Patrick Swayze and dancing frequently with some of the heavy hitters back then like Nureyev and Baryshnikov{forgive my bragging and namedropping since i am just another ego}.
He also referred to “taking the Goddess and fucking her brains out” I noticed here how some were very offended by this statement of his from back then. I guess those people are not aware of enlightment being described in certain traditions {and certainly in the Kashmir Shaivism lineage that Adi Da had practiced in for a few years} as the Union of Shiva and Shakti. That refers to the merging of Consciouness and Energy . Or you might say the “Enlightenment of the Whole Body”
This is a bit subtle for me , but I think that the Realization of Adi Da perhaps went beyond the jnani sort so to speak, because it integrated fully into the embodied or physical nature of Reality or the Cosmos. That was his New York streetwise way of describing this Realization that “he fucked the Goddess’s brains loose” I guess we could leave out the word “fuck” since people tend to find this word offensive, unless they are a George Carlin fan like I am. {Sad to say the poor old George also passed in the last year}
So he was referring to a rather radical and nondual realization of the nonseparation of matter and spirit or Consiousness and Energy.
As far as the devotion to the Guru thing goes, Adi Da originally posited his teaching in the more jnani type mode in his radical presentation of the ego activity and direct inquiry into it , although somewhat differently than Maharshi.
As a teacher he was young and naive so to speak and I think was surprised when people did not just wake up when he presented his teachings. He worked experimentally with people over time and was frustrated I am sure. People really are bound in many and in deep ways and they do not just tend to wake up with a little talk or the snap of a finger like so many modern Advaintans believe.
I think that Adi Da saw his Guru function wake up right from the beginning, but he saw how it worked over time and how he could be used as a Guru over time. So there was the Way of Divine Communion and so forth. He was well aware that people had the real beginnings of communion and also deep moments of awakening to nonduality simply by meditating on his form, his prescence and his State{his Nondual state of course}
Personally I have had much direct experience of Adi Da in three forms and a falling into nonconditional and uncaused happiness as a result of this contemplation and meditation.
And this was not something exclusive to Adi Da the person. he was awakening me to my own native state, or buddhanature. He was acting as a sort of transparant window or revealing personality. That is a true function of a Satguru. he is not pointing to his human personality in itself. That is just a vehicle.
Adi Da saw that this was a primary way of awakening in the spirtiual traditions and so he championed the way of meditation on the guru. i think it is still very up to date myself . I also think there are other ways and means that are viable also.
Amma says that most are not advanced enough for the teaching of the Advaita Vedanta and that they just become pundits and up in their heads. She recommends bhakti and karma yogas. Of course , in the traditons, bhakti and devotion to a Satguru and purification of vasanas and karmas through self less service are considered a life time practice and prerequesites for awakening to nondual realization. Check out the practice of Annamalai SWami for example Former Follower Flick Rahke
January 31, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I got tired of looking at that thread called “Da was truly great” and decided to start a new thread about the truth of the man…
Why was Da a loser?
Well, for one thing, because he gambled for the world…and lost.
He also, I fear, gambled for his own soul and lost as well.
Beginning with an insight — “radical understanding” — which by itself and apart from the demand for “satsang” is a fragment of liberating wisdom, he sought to build an institution which (he believed) would establish on earth the most true, authentic, and effective path to enlightenment.
Sadly (quite sadly), all he accomplished was to create yet another cult religion, a power game of wealth and ego politics, which used the principle of self-sacrifice as a fulcrum for extracting wealth from the world. (Which wealth, we are told by a number of sources, he secreted in off-shore bank accounts.)
The whole Adidam thing was and is a sham. From the point of view of “the great tradition” it is more than a sham — it is a travesty and a great betrayal. As an old Indian monk said as far back as the early 1970s, Franklin Jones (aka Da) was a spiritual criminal.
How do we ourselves know that? Because we tested him and he did not pass the test.
Yes, I know from the Daster’s point of view, those who tested Da and found him wanting are in fact the ones who “failed the test”. …Enjoy that deluded thought, Dasters, while you lay your flower on your master’s empty mausoleum. Then go on and find out what happens to you when you pass through the door of your own death.
Frank found out for himself, of course, when he died. He passed into some rather hellish bardos, where he was roasted and flayed, until he emerged looking unrecognizable. I saw him, sitting up in bed in a recovery room, looking down at the peeled charred flesh of his hands and arms. The pain was still very intense. Outside the room there were gardens and sunlight — he had been transferred to a subtle world where he could heal and prepare for his next spiritual lesson. An angel-nurse brought him a cooling drink.
There was something startling about his face — it revealed his true inner visage for the first time, something he never revealed while incarnate, no matter how many shape-shifting changes he made.
It was a demonic face, willful and narcissistic, and my first impression was that although he had suffered incredibly in the timeless space that he entered after his death, he had yet to begin his great lesson in humility.
Adi Da was a kind of genius, who could mimic and plagiarize the greatest spiritual teachings of history. But he never in fact attained “enlightenment” or any kind of higher stage of consciousness. He was just a very smart phoney, driven by an inner core of greed, no different than any other loser who is possessed by the uninspected power complexes of this world…
Elias
January 31, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Ah yes I just saw that “Squeaky Fromme” has brought a whole new level of the “Beavis and Butthead” mentality ot this blog. Often there are intelligent and useful posts from both “sides” , but these kinds of posts are just so stupid that they give the “anti Da” side a really bad name. But these people do crop up and make these posts off and on. These kinds of posts show no study or even any knowledge of the spirtitual traditions of mankind of which bhakti for a guru is a very common and revered tradition and a gross ‘western materialist” mentality of the most shtoopid kind. Even worse than some of the stuff I have seen at “Lightmind” which gets pretty deluded and low off and on too. Oh well have to get on with the real work anyhow Flick Rahke
January 31, 2009 at 3:51 pm
It is ridiculous to speculate how many of the students Adi Da had over the years felt hurt by his actions or teachings and what percentate of them did not feel hurt in any way. Mostly all the people I have known and talked to and moved on had no hard feelings at all and most actually felt they had received something positive. Of course, on these kind of internet forums you are going to find mostly people who are expressing anger and did feel hurt. I would say that is probably a very small percentage of people who were students of Adi Da, but no one has done a survey and has exact numbers.
And then there is a large group of people naturally in our society who are just plain anti guru and anti “cult ” no matter what form it takes. To them , all gurus are just Charles Manson. Mostly these people are plain old anti spiritual and they tend to be modern western atheists and belong to the cult of cult busters.
These people have been brainwashed by a pretty ignorant culture and its media and their upbringing and you see quite a few of those on these forums. Flick Rahke
January 31, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Aro,
“What context did I miss? I have only reminded all that the Maharshi cautioned his disciples to be careful about judging a jnani. Of the four stories he related on 31st January 1938, three of them – Thondaradipodi Alwar, Kaduveli Sidhar and King Parikshit were on this theme of defaming a jnani on account of his external behavior.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5067397/talks-with-sri-ramana-maharshi-complete
Now, that is a reasonable assessment, both that Ramana Maharshi was illustrating a theme and the nature of the theme Ramana Maharshi was conveying, that one should be cautious about judging or disparaging a jnani based on behavior. No issue there. The entire context from what was said that day can be read in the link to Talks above for those interested. The examples of behavior Ramana Maharshi mentions are illuminating for what they say and do not say about the jnani. And particularly the caution found at the last sentence: “If however a man consciously attempts to display siddhis he will receive only kicks”.
January 31, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Wow I just see “Elias” came down from the subtle realms and bardos long enough to post another circus type post here. The king of “Beavis and Butthead” postings. What a siddha to be able to traverse the subtle bardos of after death states and bring his klowledge of what became of Adi Da after he died. The high Tibetan lamas should be very envious of this guy for his immense psychic and spriritual powers. I imagine that he can also levitate much better than the “hoppers” of Maharisi have been trying to do for so many years.
Or perhaps he is just another megalow but ordinary nut case that shows up here off and on and the trend seems to be getting thicker right now with the nut jobs ruling . Elias should have been careful about the quality and dosages of the LSD he was taking back in the good ole days Flick Rahke
January 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm
seasofbrightjuice Says:
“I’ve heard precious few accounts — just about none, actually — along the lines of, “it sounds wild, but it was actually tremandously helpful to me, just perfect in fact.” Meanwhile, stories of disappointment and disillusionment are legion.”
Earlier I wrote very specifically about my experiences at various times with Adi Da. For you to say the above, I can only assume you have not read this entire blog – and I certainly don’t blame you for that! In looking at my saved posts, this is around #90, and I really don’t want to keep repeating myself, so please go back and read my posts if you are really interested in more specifics.
However, since you seem sincere, I will tell you this…
In the 70s I fell in love with a woman from the very small group of ladies in Master Da’s household – it was a “love at first sight” response. I could not stop thinking about her, but she was almost always in Adi Da’s house, and there was never a time when I would be able to see her, apart from larger group occasions with the Master. I only had eyes for her, even through the Garbage and the Goddess period, and actually have the “dubious” distinction of never getting laid during the Garbage and the Goddess period (nor was I ever pressured to, contrary to what rumors may be floating around.)
I am certain for a number of reasons that Adi Da knew what was going on with me, but He never brought up this longing I clearly was having for this woman. I constantly had to release this attraction I had for her because she was spoken for. This process of attraction and release actually made me long for her that much more. Even when it became totally obvious that we were both extremely attracted to one another, we were left in this conundrum of her being in the Master’s household.
This may sound very ordinary in some ways, but it was extremely “wild” for me – my emotional-sexual feelings for this woman were very intense, and I constantly had to release this attraction to her in relationship to my Master. There would be various indicators to me that the Master knew what was going on, like mentioning our names together, etc. – but there was nothing I could do other than trust Him – I mean, she was in His house after all, and He is my Sat-Guru. Enough said, if you understand the traditional relationship the disciple should have to his Master.
Finally, after almost a year of this, she and I “bumped” into one another outside of His house in Marin, and expressed our great attraction for one another – and immediately (like that same day), the Master asked her what was going on with her, etc. At some point she confessed to this attraction, and He immediately told her to move back up to the Sanctuary (where I lived) to be with me.
From this, I learned much about trusting the Master, submitting to Him, and I was consequently blessed with a wonderful woman who learned to love the Guru very personally, passionately, and myself as well. There are many many humorous moments and very instructive lessons He granted the both of us over the subsequent years regarding all of this, that I will save for another time perhaps.
The Sat-Guru never works in just some predictable, conventional, prescribed manner, and I hope this story helps to illustrate something about that.
January 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Flick
I understand the arguments you have put forth on Da’s way of teaching. The original essay was generated in response to criticism of Da on this matter by more traditional spiritual authorities. There are a number of complex reasons why I think you can say there are adharmic elements in Garbage and the Goddess period. Later perhaps.
The jnani does not see either bhakta or jnana as separate. We know that Ramana Maharshi was a bhakti jnani. I thought perhaps you have not seen this early, more bhakti oriented book bv Sri Nisargadatta. It is short. Read and enjoy!
http://itisnotreal.com/Self_Knowledge_and_Self_Realization-Publication.pdf
January 31, 2009 at 5:09 pm
Flick,
What right do you have to judge me, or Charles Manson, who I recognize as the egoless Divine Guru, and who you are slandering with your obvious materialistic bias against genuine Gurus? You are not a realizer yourself, you are just one of those five billion slugs who know nothing. And how do you know that Beavis and Butthead are not enlightened themselves? You think it’s fine to trash them, and the whole tradition of western realizers who cannot be judged by their actions, which of course is a total violation of the sacred spiritual traditions. You call them names, but you can’t actually demonstrate that Charles Manson was not enlightened, it’s clear you just have emotional betrayal issues to work out. Beavis and Butthead are clearly enlightened, as their many millions of devotees will readily tell you, far more than have even heard of the likes of Adi Da. If you can’t recognize that, it’s simply because you are focused on their actions, their “style”, their use of simple American idioms, rather than on their egoless Acausal Divine Being, which radiates like a Divine Scent from their egoless asses. If you are incapable of recognizing that smell, that is your loss, not ours.
It is so typical of modern know-it-all types to put down enlightened Masters who don’t appear as they would like them to, whose gross materialism focuses solely on action and appearance rather than on the deeper spiritual nature of those giants such as Beavis, Butthead, and Charlie. But I guess it’s hopeless trying to convince those brainwashed by materialism to recognize the spiritual greats who are here in our midst. If only these people could recognize their own egoity and their anger, and stop feeling betrayed, it would all become clear. All praise Beavis, Butthead, and Charlie Manson!
January 31, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Feel4God,
“Doesn’t anyone wonder why so much time is being spent attempting to somehow demonstrate that Adi Da was not fully Realized, and even in some such attempts, that He was simply deluded with Himself? These attempts typically ignore what He has produced – a body of unsurpassed spiritual Literature, Empowered Sanctuaries, endless testimonies of His Love for all beings, a spiritual culture of practitioners, etc., etc.”
Of course you and others inclined to Da consider it unsurpassed, and some well known pundits and religous scholars may consider it so. No doubt Da has built a very complex argument. But if so unsurpassed, why is there so little recognition? Where are the jnanis and great teachers, the mature spiritual figures, who say so? Why no favorable recognition or acknowlegement from them? Why did they not even bother to see him while alive? What is it really, that makes any of those who still see Da as the Avatar and as having transcened the traditional states assert their judgement is far superior to these others, who have essentially spoken on the matter by this reaction if you understand the traditional response in these situations?
“Even in light of all the traditional references – which clearly state that it is impossible to judge a Guru’s Realization by His behavior – some of you here still think that it is possible for you to judge such behavior, and even while you admit to your not being a jnani.”
That is incomplete, and only partially true as stated. You have oversimplified the matter into a nihilistic based logical heresy. Spirituality requires discrimination. It requires looking deeply into the examples provided, and understanding what is not there as well as what is there. What is there is moralistic and legalistic objections, the freedom that Dattatraya talked about, and results that back up the claims. What is not there is adharmic examples of teaching and behavior, and results that are nothing but problematic, and repeated violatons of the Datttatreya principle. One can easily say about you that you are not a jnani and have no standing in explaining why Da is so totally unrecognized.That is why this line of discussion goes no where. I have already presented how the traditions teach us to resolve this dilemma. Recogizing that karma dictates differing levels of discrimination may produce alternative conclusions. So be it. So let us debate on that level and not pretend that the traditions were wasting our time when they put some parameters on indications of jnana including behavior, examples of which I have referrenced many times.
“It is also clear that some of you are now looking to re-interpret what has been said since ancient days about this matter. Even Ramana Maharshi, Annamalai Swami, David Godman, and Nisargadatta have said this in no uncertain terms – but somehow this is conveniently “revised” by you to further your agenda to discredit Who Adi Da Is, and What He declares as Truth.”
Absolutely not, at least regarding what I am saying! If you read the entire context of the sources, and what was said and not said, and what was said and not said elsewhere, and why it was said and not said, and apply discrimination, it is perfectly clear. I undertand that is what you are used to. It was the nature of Da to take isolated points and write extended essays “proving” his case. Logic requires a sound foundation to avoid error. That is why it is not that hard to provide an alternative, deconstructed view of some of what you consider unprecedented. It is the same with the claim you are making now. In my case, I have been very clear. I have found alternative views of Da that acknowledge his accomplishments and insights while still being consistent with the assessment that he was a flawed human being with limits who did not recognize those limits properly. It is not discrediting Da to do so as long as I am reasonably accurate and can source what I write about dharma in the traditons, lest someone think I am claiming to be a teacher myself.
January 31, 2009 at 6:02 pm
FFG,
I am sure you have read it before, but please review this link again in light of the discussions here:
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html
I fear you are making conclusions about the arguments being raised here, and I am certain of that in my case, that are inaccurate with respect to how they stand in relation to the traditions. What I am saying in essence is certainly not unprecedented or in conflict with traditional sources, and is not just in relation to Da. I am simply applying here what I think applies to Da, who I consider a prototype neo-Advaita teacher. There can be all sorts of discussions back and forth about this. But I think this link depersonalizes the discussion and states the argument well.
January 31, 2009 at 7:17 pm
i thought squeaky fromme’s post was quite funny!
i didn’t know that charles manson was considered a (sat-)guru by some people. so be it.
at first i thought this guy was making fun of our great feeler. his choice of words and the overall attitude match feel4god perfectly. if you do a simple text replace of “charles manson” with “adi da” and leave out the manson quotes, this could have been written by our great feeler. i bet you, nobody would notice the difference.
elias:
while i would agree with some of your findings about mr. jones, i think your post is misplaced. you do not bring one argument as to why or how you came to your conclusions. not one. you just vent your (rather hateful) feelings and throw in some speculations about the after-life. hellooo??
give us some juice, man!
January 31, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Who are these people claiming that me and my fellow jnani Butthead aren’t enlightened? I don’t remember seeing any of these people at any of our private, intimate gatherings at Butthead’s house! They base their criticism of us on nothing more than rumor, and that reductionist cartoon on MTV. They are clearly not understanding the great tradition of jnanis, which unequivocably states that jnanis’ realization cannot be judged by mere actions of appearance. These modern materiailistic know-nothings are simply jealous and feeling betrayed that they were not invited to our after-show parties, and so they just make up stories to get back at us. Our devotees know better, however, and recognize us as egoless jnanis who never act without utter compassion, out of selfless service to others. Yes, we do drugs and eat junk food and snigger. So what? Who cares? You can’t judge jnanis by their action. Anyone who claims otherwise is self-guruing.
All this mud-slinging in our direction is just shallow western materialists who insist that fictional characters can’t become enlightened. If that’s so, how do you explain how that fictional character Adi Da supposedly became enlightened. We simply won’t stand for this discrimination and non-recognition. We experience our own egoless directly. I have never seen Butthead ever show any sign of ego, in all the years I have been with him. I’m sure he would say the same about me. And that’s all that’s needed. Ask Ramana! Nisargadatta smoked cigarettes, and so do we, and there’s no reason we can’t be just as enlightened as he is.
Just because we are crudely drawn and seem to behave in self-indulgent ways doesn’t mean we can’t be just as realized as Ramana. All of that is just our way of reflecting back the egos of our devotees. The Way We Are is not the way we look or act. So cut it out.
January 31, 2009 at 9:27 pm
beavis,
never for a moment did i doubt that you and butthead were true and enlightened jnanis. i think it was only flick (so far) who doubted you.
but me not doubting you shouldn’t really come as a surprise. i even consider sailor bob adamson a jnani! but i am glad and grateful that the know-it-alls on this blog corrected me and taught me that only the strict adherence to ramana maharshis every syllable can possibly be considered “dharma”.
so, now that you have dared to speak out, be prepared for the attacks of the know-it-alls! i for one am glad you spoke out because i always thought that you and your buddy must be true jnanis! but conrad i am sure will not agree at all. you spoke of “the way we are”. that of course cannot possibly be considered dharma! ramana never spoke those exact same words, so it must be wrong.
realization must be difficult because conrad cannot imagine it any other way! he cannot imagine that somebody (like john wheeler) heard something along the lines of “you are not the ego you think to be. you are pure non-conceptual presence-awareness” from somebody (like sailor bob) and the guy dared to become enlightened on the spot! gimme a break! conrad heard those (or similar) words thousands of times and did not get enlightened. ergo, nobody can! it cannot be. period. it cannot possibly be THAT simple! no fricken way!
just a warning from an admirer…
January 31, 2009 at 10:38 pm
Thanks FF&C for giving us the link to “Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5067397/talks-with-sri-ramana-maharshi-complete
For those interested, the talk on jnani conduct is Talk # 449, pg 434-439 and the one on “activity” referenced in my last post is Talk # 601, pg 574-5
February 1, 2009 at 1:05 am
Aro,
One comment on this apparent misunderstanding:
As you should know, David Godman, in Be As You Are, organized quotes from Ramana Maharshi around topics. It is certainly useful to trace them back to their source, chronologically, in Talks or similar sources. But Ramana Maharshi may have addressed one perpective at one time, and a different one at another. What I provided was nothing more or less than quotations on the topic of Guru as organized by Godman himself, with only portions that do not direcly relate to the issue edited out to save space. See: http://www.hinduism.co.za/guru.htm
This shows that what Godman said in the interview itself is corrrect with respect to a jnani, but not all there is to be said. If you do not look at the larger context, you end up with the problems of a kind of neo-nihilistic doctrine addressed in a critical manner here. http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html.
February 1, 2009 at 1:14 am
FFG,
Interesting story. Good for you. Just to clarify, I would not say myself that Da was not aware of what was going on, or that he was just some bad guy. That was never my personal experience. Others have legitimate complaints. Each person has their own story.
February 1, 2009 at 1:52 am
Well the discussion on this blog has become pretty degraded to say the least. I don’t see Conrad here putting up with it. I was going to spend some time writing some of my personal experience of Adi Da and also some other teachers and traditions that I have practiced with and it just feels beneath me to waste my time with the crowd here now. Although i suspect that there are no new people here, and that “Sqeaky Fromme” and “Beavis” are either Elias or Raymond or both.
Yes , shiva, of course “Squeaky Fromme” is very directly making fun of FeelforGod. The whole post is a direct quote from him just replacing Adi Da with Charles Manson. Then some i guess Manson rock lyrics thrown in. not very intelligent or any creative thinking at all. And , actually, to equate Adi Da , with the things he did , to Charles Manson, a real mass murderer, and to equate Daists with followers of Charles Manson shows a serious lack of any sort of intelligence at all. really bad and really stupid. Hardly worth even addressing ,except that it insults the intelligence of people like you, shiva, and FFAC and Conrad who actually reflect some sanity and intelligence and some real contact and knowledge of spirtuality around here along with your stated disdain for Adi Da.
And it is a showing also of no intelligence or class to use the whole thing over again by using the cartoon charactes I referred to about the tone and subject of the really dumb postings , because Beavis and Butthead truly are gross and stupid{although I found them funny since i grew up in America} and then compare Beavis and Butthead to a guru like Adi Da. I mean give me a break . It is about as stupid as you can get, dumb as mud.
So i do not know if there will be any more interesting or intelligent posts on this blogs any more or not. it has certainly degenerated to a very low level. But i did learn some things by listening to Conrad and FFAC and shiva and some others too. So I will check to see if this place is still be ruled by the mental institution escapees before I post here again.
Anyhow, again I wish shiva the best in his apprenticeship with sailor bob and respect him for putting himself on the line by moving to a whole other continent for his spiritual realization.
But please, shiva , stick with sailor bob and leave Beavis alone. I think you would be barking up the wrong tree with that one. just my opinion Flick Rahke
February 1, 2009 at 3:41 am
Wow…couldn’t get laid during the Garbage and the Goddess period…no wonder someone isn’t ready to get off the train yet….I realize this is a pointless uncalled for cheap shot however I have no misgivings about anyone endeavoring to construe it as anything else
February 1, 2009 at 4:19 am
We have seen the suggestion, based on a vision by Elias, that Da is simply demonic at his core.
“…Frank found out for himself, of course, when he died. He passed into some rather hellish bardos, where he was roasted and flayed, until he emerged looking unrecognizable. I saw him, sitting up in bed in a recovery room, looking down at the peeled charred flesh of his hands and arms. The pain was still very intense. Outside the room there were gardens and sunlight — he had been transferred to a subtle world where he could heal and prepare for his next spiritual lesson. An angel-nurse brought him a cooling drink.
There was something startling about his face — it revealed his true inner visage for the first time, something he never revealed while incarnate, no matter how many shape-shifting changes he made.
It was a demonic face, willful and narcissistic, and my first impression was that although he had suffered incredibly in the timeless space that he entered after his death, he had yet to begin his great lesson in humility.
Adi Da was a kind of genius, who could mimic and plagiarize the greatest spiritual teachings of history. But he never in fact attained “enlightenment” or any kind of higher stage of consciousness….”
What Papaji and others of that level talk about, as mentioned by Conradg, seems more realistic:
“…Papaji warned people very strongly about the danger of creating a comprehensive conceptual system of enlightenment, precisely because the mind is capable of constructing any sort of delusion it is fed, and if the mind is allowed to create too precise an idea of what enlightenment is and how it comes into being, the mind will in fact literally “create” just such an experience, and convince the individual that they are enlightened, when in fact it is just the mind continuing to delude us….They immerse themselves totally in the dharma of non-dualism, until their own minds create a “non-dual realization” in their own minds, that really does have great power and shakti and so forth, but is still based in mind, rather than transcending it.
I’d suggest that a similar process has occurred in guys like Adi Da himself. He created such an elaborate conceptual system of enlightenment that his mind naturally re-created the experience of it for himself. It’s not that there’s no genuine dharma or genuine experience going on, but it’s mixed in with mind-based experiential delusions that only reinforce those concepts, and ends up spiralling out of control until we have the one and only greatest of all the greats sort of megalomania.”
Da himself describes pre-Vendanta Temple experiences in mediation as follows:
“…Then I also began to experience myself in the form of various deities and demons. I took on the graceful Buddhalike qualities and sat eternally calm in meditation. But then I would also take on the terrible forms of Siva, and my body and face twisted about in fierce expressions. I sat like the ferocious aspect of God, with skulls of blood and hatchets in my hands….”
Even his subtle experience at the Vedanta Temple has a related kind of shifting quality:
“…As I meditated I felt myself take on the form of Siva, the Divine Being prior to all form. I took on the infinite blue form of the original Deity, as I had done previously in Baba’s Presence. I sat in this blissful state of infinite Being for some time.
Then I felt the Shakti appear against my own form. She embraced me, and we grasped one another in sexual union. We clasped one another in a fire of cosmic desire, as if to give birth to the universes. Then I felt the oneness of the Divine Energy and my own Being. There was no separation at all. The one Being that was my own nature included the reality that is consciousness, add the reality that is all manifestation as a single cosmic unity and eternal union.
The sensations of the embrace were overwhelmingly blissful. It exceeded any kind of pleasure that a man could acquire. And soon I ceased to feel myself as a dependent child of the Shakti. I accepted her as my consort, my loved-one, and I held her forever to my heart…”
It seems quite possible to propose a theory, as Cornradg mentions, that endless thinking and meditation on all the mental constructs and thoughtforms he had aquired in these still subtle mind realms, informed by conflicted desires and empowered by kundalini and the shakti force that came through him, could, theoretically build up so much force that Da inadvertely created his own, still egoic “wonderland”. This would be, for him, a self-validating subtle realm where he appeared to become the Divine himself, one that can be partially experienced by others who resonate with this. Such a possibility is far from unprecedented.
If so, it could explain why Da later felt that he had “husbanded”, or mastered the Goddess, even to the point where he kept a duplicate of the Goddess statue that initated these visions for private pujas.
We all know that Da famously said:
” I think I am getting out of line. I shouldn’t say these things. “The Goddess is beautiful. Surrender and let, her show you everything.” That sounds better, right? “Let the Goddess face you. She has bracelets and necklaces and her vagina is adorned. Don’t let her turn to the Divine and show you her asshole. Let her face you with her breasts falling out.” That’s the teaching of the traditions. But the Teaching of the Guru has the Goddess always facing him. He shows you where she’s at, he shows you her dependence on the Absolute, and enables you to commit the sacrifice. Then it is not difficult. When the Guru shows you the true nature or condition of the Goddess, then you become capable of sacrifice. Until that time you aren’t capable of it, because you are enamored by the force of life.
At least that is the way it seems to me. What do I know? This could just be an aberration. Must be. No one agrees with me. I’ve never met anyone who agreed with me. I’ve talked to many people. I’ve talked to many teachers, and none of them agrees with me. They all tell me that I’m mad, that I’m undeveloped. So that must be so. If you consult the usual books they won’t tell you such a thing. I’ve read them all myself. Rudi used to tell me to surrender, but that is not the principle. Muktananda used to say, “Yield to the Goddess,” and that is not the principle. The Goddess used to say, “Yield to me,” and I fucked her brains loose. I’ve never listened to anyone. Perhaps I should have!”
Desite the tone of this later talk, Da was intellectually aware at the time of the Vedanta Temple period that without the grace of the Goddess herself, no embodied being can go beyond Her realm. And he assumed he got such a blesssing, because of his visions, and his experience that that power now resided in him as a unified Siva-Shakti in a self-validating vision. But such a casual approach to the Goddess and her Maya powers of illusion, his faith in his abilites to shape the Goddess to his will, and admitted disregard for any other counsel about his true state based on faith in his own self-validating mental constructs, if not real, would prevent further awakening. And the price for living in such mental constructs as if they are real, by underestimating the power of Maya even in such apparently perfect realms, is that being impermanent, they inevitably reveal the egoic and binding nature of their construction over time as the qualities become increasingly problematic.
Thus mastery of the Goddess is not the principle either! A more proper approach would have been for Da to pay more attention to the example of Ramakrishna’s guru, Totpuri, and how the Goddess revealed her power as nothing less than the Divine itself. Nothing Da has described, either in teaching or his experiences, for all its complexity, is beyond the realm and incomparable genius and powers of Maya, who frees only those She will when She will. As the story goes:
“…From Sri Ramakrishna Totapuri had to learn the significance of Kali, the Great Fact of the relative world, and of maya, Her indescribable Power.
One day, when guru and disciple were engaged in an animated discussion about Vedanta, a servant of the temple garden came there and took a coal from the sacred fire that had been lighted by the great ascetic. He wanted it to light his tobacco. Totapuri flew into a rage and was about to beat the man. Sri Ramakrishna rocked with laughter. “What a shame!” he cried. “You are explaining to me the reality of Brahman and the illusoriness of the world; yet now you have so far forgotten yourself as to be about to beat a man in a fit of passion. The power of maya is indeed inscrutable!” Totapuri was embarrassed.
About this time Totapuri was suddenly laid up with a severe attack of dysentery. On account of this miserable illness he found it impossible to meditate. One night the pain became excruciating. He could no longer concentrate on Brahman. The body stood in the way. He became incensed with its demands. A free soul, he did not at all care for the body. So he determined to drown it in the Ganges. Thereupon he walked into the river. But, lo! He walks to the other bank.” (This version of the incident is taken from the biography of Sri Ramakrishna by Swami Saradananda, one of the Master’s direct disciples.) Is there not enough water in the Ganges? Standing dumbfounded on the other bank he looks back across the water. The trees, the temples, the houses, are silhouetted against the sky. Suddenly, in one dazzling moment, he sees on all sides the presence of the Divine Mother. She is in everything; She is everything. She is in the water; She is on land. She is the body; She is the mind. She is pain; She is comfort. She is knowledge; She is ignorance. She is life; She is death. She is everything that one sees, hears, or imagines. She turns “yea” into “nay”, and “nay” into “yea”. Without Her grace no embodied being can go beyond Her realm. Man has no free will. He is not even free to die. Yet, again, beyond the body and mind She resides in Her Transcendental, Absolute aspect. She is the Brahman that Totapuri had been worshipping all his life.
Totapuri returned to Dakshineswar and spent the remaining hours of the night meditating on the Divine Mother. In the morning he went to the Kali temple with Sri Ramakrishna and prostrated himself before the image of the Mother. He now realized why he had spent eleven months at Dakshineswar. Bidding farewell to the disciple, he continued on his way, enlightened.
Sri Ramakrishna later described the significance of Totapuri’s lessons:
“When I think of the Supreme Being as inactive — neither creating nor preserving nor destroying —, I call Him Brahman or Purusha, the Impersonal God. When I think of Him as active — creating, preserving, and destroying —, I call Him Sakti or Maya or Prakriti, the Personal God. But the distinction between them does not mean a difference. The Personal and the Impersonal are the same thing, like milk and its whiteness, the diamond and its lustre, the snake and its wriggling motion. It is impossible to conceive of the one without the other. The Divine Mother and Brahman are one…”
February 1, 2009 at 4:32 am
Hmmm, yeah….I am begining to see the genesis of an idea for a series synthesizing various elements from this broadening examinaton of cultic phenomenah….”Can you survive a week on CHARLIES ISLAND? Can your ego survive a single day? How many hours until you find yourself begging for transcendence? They come looking for heaven and have to fight their way through hell! There are no angels on this island…there is only one supreme boss on CHARLIES ISLAND and whatever he says…GOES!
Next week: REVOLT OF THE LOVE SLAVES!
February 1, 2009 at 5:31 am
How nice to hear from “Squeaky Fromme” on this thread. It’s so neat to have a little levity injected into the conversation.
Believe it or not, I actually met the real Squeaky.
This was a little before she tried to “off” President Ford. Boy, what an angry politically radical woman she was. She had come to visit at the Berkeley Living Love Center around 1974, with one of the other Manson family women (who was kind of cute) but Squeaky turned me off right away. She came to visit a friend of mine that had been a prison psychologist that knew Manson well. He also knew Timothy Leary from interviews while working in the same slammer.
You meet all kinds in group living situations!
Anyway, later on, my psychologist friend showed me a handwritten letter from Manson himself!
I was intrigued to be holding a letter penned by the notorious killer and curious to know what the hell he would write about to my friend.
I immediately understood Manson’s technique. He was communicating his version the Ignorance consideration to my friend by telling him that he didn’t know what anything was in reality. It wasn’t the Divine Ignorance Consideration but, instead, an attempt to undermine my friends self-confidence and replace it with his knowing guidance. My friend thought it was interesting to observe.
I realized that Manson was constantly looking for weaknesses in others to exploit and thereby assume control through their willing surrender to his leadership. Add a little LSD and political ideology to the mix and, voila, he had a robot to to do his bidding.
This was one species of the method that we can find in cults everywhere. It was crudely done but, hey, it worked for Manson.
I required a more subtle and sophisticated handling to be brought into Adi Da’s fold. I’m no cheap whore, you know; I have my standards!
Like The Greatful Dead sang: “What a long, strange trip it’s been.”
February 1, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Well I can see that this thread has certainly finally been taken over by the mental institution escapees. Elias has gotten his way and it has pretty much sunk at least to the level of Lightmind forum of zero intelligence. Even FFAC has bought into Elias totally self glorifying and totally insane claim that he can freely transition back and forth to the death realms and bardos and that he saw Adi Da’s experience there.
And now this ongoing comparison of Adi Da to Charles Manson. As if the things Adi Da did with people is the same as Charles Manson{who is actually seriously himself lacking in intelligence and so were his followers] who committed mass murders. Well I certainly hope you all around here grow up a little some day. Whatever Da said about it , I am saying that even to approach any sort of spirituality requires some growing up and maturity.
Flick Rahke
February 1, 2009 at 6:49 pm
I was not aware that everyone in all the religious cults was being fed LSD . Well conspiracy theories abound. Actually LSD used in the right circumstance in moderation could be a real door opener into a more Nondual way of seeing things, although it does have to be abandoned and not indulged. More self righteosness and prudishness about things like marijuana and psychedelics. Flick Rahke
February 1, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Former Follower and Critic Says:
“FFG,
I am sure you have read it before, but please review this link again in light of the discussions here:
http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html
“I am simply applying here what I think applies to Da, who I consider a prototype neo-Advaita teacher. There can be all sorts of discussions back and forth about this. But I think this link depersonalizes the discussion and states the argument well.”
**************************
I studied the contents of the link you listed above, FFaC. No, I had never seen this before, as I never have really delved into what is on the Internet about non-duality until this blog. I have studied many traditional texts on non-duality, and of course, the traditional devotional relationship to the Guru, especially in its non-dualistic form. As you know, Adi Da was very insistent that devotees study the Great Tradition in great depth – though many Daists, admittedly, did not.
I see this link also deals with many of the issues Adi Da criticized as the “Talking School” approach to spirituality. I think others here might also find that link educational in assessing such “talking school” approaches.
I was putting together a rebuttal to your argument above, but this blog has hit a new low, so I will wait and see if the “blightmind” mentality continues or not. If there is a time a bit later in the future to continue this discussion in a more balanced environment, I possibly could get into it. I appreciate your detailed approach to consideration, FFaC – even though I certainly don’t agree with all of your interpretations and conclusions as they relate to Adi Da.
Not only are there the obvious problems with concluding things based on some highly conjectured mentalizations, as is your necessary approach when it comes to Adi Da – there is also the inherent problem that this approach necessarily leaves one’s heart-based intelligence out of the picture.
When I first saw photos and read the Teachings of Ramana Maharshi, my heart was certain that He spoke the highest Truth I had heard to date (back in the late 60s) after a few years of spiritual seeking. No one came close to speaking to my mind and heart like He did. My heart recognized His Heart.
However, once I read and viewed Adi Da’s Teachings and photos in late 1973, I was heart certain that He spoke the highest Truth, and that He was my Master – plus He was alive. As I could then and can still see, other Masters (such as Swami Muktananda, Ramakrishna, etc.) were great in their various realizations and expressions of truth – but no others Emanated the Truth so Fully, Silently, and Brightly in terms of the Heart and my heart’s recognition, as what I radically understood from the very beginning with Adi Da.
Such recognition is Self-evident as one’s heart-based Reality intelligence; as it is evident in the Master’s Eyes, Depth, Clarity, Love, Works, etc. Adi Da called this Radical Understanding from the very beginning – it was non-dual and not based in seeking – i.e., it is radical.
The heart is no fool – the mind always has been a fool, as it is the very activity of the ego. Certainly we must use the mind to exercise discrimination, but never subjugate the heart’s inherent Reality-based intelligence to mind.
There is also much that Adi Da has written, both old and new, that sheds great light on the non-dual practice of radical devotion, that I still wanted to post – though I have already quoted from His Teachings on this matter to a fair extent. It seems that many so-called non-dualist “jnanis” cannot reconcile that radical devotion to the Master is the necessary foundation for realization of the Truth of non-dualism – and so remain in the mind with its endless trappings and arguments. And also, as I have seen here, such debates, though very useful up to a point, finally need to also be submitted to the heart’s inherent intelligence in the end.
I wish you the very best in your practice with Sri Ramana, FFaC.
Anyone should feel free to contact me at feel4god@gmail.com if and when you like.
February 1, 2009 at 7:13 pm
“…it has pretty much sunk at least to the level of Lightmind forum of zero intelligence.”
Unfortunatley you are right and with that, I’ll say goodbye to all you folks.
February 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Flick,
I just want to say that I have been following this blog since it started and find your posts to be very sober, refreshing, humours and wise. I am not a devotee but interested in spirituality. I agree with you that this blog has deteriorated, actually you know it’s not worth reading any more when Elias starts posting, I’ve read enough of his stuff to know that I can’t be bothered reading any more…
Actually this blog had so much potential and I think it’s pretty much served me since now. I wanted to say thank you before signing off. Also special thanks to Feel4God and Conrad, both your
February 1, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Flick,
“Even FFAC has bought into Elias totally self glorifying and totally insane claim that he can freely transition back and forth to the death realms and bardos and that he saw Adi Da’s experience there.”
Whoa! I too find the invasion of the lowest Lightmind level of discourse here unfortunate. I appreciate those who bring quality sources and discussions to the table, even if we do not agree. If you read carefully, you will see that I refer to what Elias says as a “vision” by Elias, not a reality! Visions often reflect as much about the one having them as what is seen (enough said). What Elias says does not conform to my assessment. In fact the rest of my comments are to say that instead of denying that Da ever attained “any kind of higher stage of consciousness”, a more defendable case could be made for the kind of explanations provided by Papaji and the like, who actually were jnanis, unlike Elias. I thought it was interesting given Elias and his demonic claim that Da himself had already experienced a vision of himself as a demon along with the god like states, but in a different context than Elias presents. I remain unconvinced that Da’s core being is demonic, if anything, I would say he simply appears to be more humanly flawed than devotees see him as being, for reasons I described.
Lightmind is lightmind, this place was different. I hope this does not represent the final fate of discussion here.
February 1, 2009 at 8:13 pm
To Squeaky Fromme, Elias, Beavis, and other like-minded bloggers.
I wonder if you realize the wanton and destructive nature of your participation here. And if you did, would you feel it in your heart to make amends?
We have a program here in Australia for adolescents who go on destructive binges like deface walls with graffiti or smash cars. If caught they are required to face the people they have affected by their behavior so they can feel what their actions have done to real people. So they get to see firsthand the pain they have inflicted on others.
Your postings feel like that to me. I have found this blog to be useful and frequented (in the main) by people genuinely wanting to uncover and/or discover their connection to the Divine. It feels to me that your only purpose here is to destroy.
I can only guess that you must harbor huge amounts of anger and resentment. Whether I am right doesn’t really matter. More importantly, now you know how it has affected me. Am I naïve enough to hope you might actually recant so that I and others may continue to interact with each other in a more mature and intimate manner?
Perhaps I am just a simple Australian not versed in the intricacies of worldly matters.
February 2, 2009 at 12:58 am
Thanks Feel4God, that is an interesting story, and does begin to answer my question. A complete answer, which is not your responsibility, would be to proceed systematically and openly through Adi Da’s major notorious exploits, suggesting plausible positive interpretations. Or, where none come to mind but you still imagine there may be one, to say as much. Of course there’s been plenty of talk here about how to interpret Da’s motives etc., but from the Daist side it’s been notably more abstract and theoretical. Critics have told and interpreted much more concrete tales.
(I THINK I’ve read 98% of this page, but I may well have missed the posts you mention, or they may have faded from memory. I made a couple desultory attempts to find post #90, but all the posts seem to be unnumbered, at least on my computer. I’ll count to 90 though if I can’t figure any other way).
I’m only a curious observer, never met Da but find his contradictions intriguing. I rather feel affection for him from a distance, at least in the sense of liking his style, his chutzpah; I don’t feel heart reverence for him in the instinctive way I feel it for someone like Ramana. But, I’m more or less decided that he’s tragic. I’m pretty much decided that FLO declarations, systematic encouragement to lie about his doings, demand for extreme material tokens of devotion, physical violence, etc., if true, show he lost his way. (That’s just FYI disclosure. I don’t feel I have anything new to add to the conversation at this junture, I intend to bow out again).
I’ll add my thanks and admiration to the chorus, for all of you who have stuck out this conversation together: F4G, conradg, ffac, flick etc. I’m sure it’s been illuminating eavesdropping for many like myself.
February 2, 2009 at 3:47 am
Thank you Sky and Just an Observer and FFAC and Eddie
It looks like it is all quiet on the western front right now and we shall see.
Sorry FFAC, I did jump prematurely and sometimes i do not have enough focus to follow through with you. hey if I can read Adi Da , I should easily be able to read you { I mean in the sense of intellectual] Not that either of you does not speak from the heart oh whatever
But I was glad to see that some people have been reading here and appreciating some of the posts and interchanges. maybe I will be famous someday as the great hero who defended the misunderstood
Avatar Adi Da. It remains to be seen , although maybe it will be hundreds of years from now and in some legend form. Well who knows,.
I have been reading today some of Adi Da’s later teachings that I guess will go into his final work “The Alatheon” I was reading in ‘Atma Nadi Shakti Yoga” and , of course, his later style takes some focus and concentration to read, but I find that I still fall into a very clear and contemplative state when reading it with simply an open mind. It is hard to describe the experience, but it is like finding yourself somehow coinciding with your own Self.
I think that probably people have a similar type thing happening when they read someone like Ramana Maharshi too.
I have studied a lot of spiritual teachings , but ai personally have only had this sort of “transmission ” experience reading the writings of Adi Da.
Now I have often burst into tears in reading leelas of Ammachi’s blessing work with all sorts of people. I mean my heart just rips wide open. But she is Divine in the mother sense and this naturally awakens a feeling of love and compassion in me. Of course she wants people to put this to work by doing lots of selfless service. That is the discipline with her.
Well goodnight Flick Rahke
February 2, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I would ask Feel4God to answer some of my points. I am neither a devotee nor a detractor of Adi Da although for some time I have found Adi Da’s teaching interesting and I am familiar with most of his work.
1. Adi Da was insistent to his dying days that surrender to a human guru while the guru is alive in bodily form is absolutely essential for Realization. Hence his famous saying – “dead gurus can’t kick ass”. Your guru has now passed on. Surely, following Adi Da’s own teaching, you should leave Adidam and seek out a living guru? Now don’t tell me Adi Da edited this passage out from the latest edition of his books since as you well know, in this age of the internet, what is said cannot be unsaid.
2. Following your Guru Adi Da, you have laid great emphasis on being a devotee of a perfect realizer as an essential condition of authentic spiritual practice. You have criticized what you call the ‘talking school’ mode of spiritual practice and ‘self guru-ing’. You may be right, you may be wrong. However, in none of the editions of the Knee of Listening (I think I have read them all) did Adi Da ever indicate that he was anyone’s devotee. He was a student of so and so or a follower of so and so but never a devotee. Adi Da’s head was never on anyone’s feet. One of the signs of a good teacher is that they teach by example. Adi Da could never say to his devotees- “this is the way you do it-look at me- this is the way I did it”. It is likely Adi Da, despite his many qualities, did not really understand devotion as practiced in the Hindu tradition since he was never a devotee. Moreover, what on earth was Adi Da doing apart from ‘self guru-ing’ when he followed a series of teachers? I think he was a follower of Muktananda for only a few days.
I think the supreme exemplar of devotion in the 20th century was Swami Ramdas (the Indian sage, not the American new age seeker). Perhaps some of you should check him out on the net (he died in the early sixties). Interestingly in the early 80s Adi Da wrote a beautiful little book called ‘Compulsory Dancing’ in which he acknowledged Ramdas as God Realized. Shouldn’t post Adi Da Daists study people like Swami Ramdas to learn the art of devotion since Adi Da himself was apparently deficient in this respect? This should prevent future embarrassments since what the Daists called devotion is usually perceived as cultism by others including by people like myself who are sympathetic to aspects of Adi Da’s teachings.
February 2, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Hi Flick,
I think you misinterpreted what I wrote when you commented:
I was not aware that everyone in all the religious cults was being fed LSD . Well conspiracy theories abound.
What I said:
I realized that Manson was constantly looking for weaknesses in others to exploit and thereby assume control through their willing surrender to his leadership. Add a little LSD and political ideology to the mix and, voila, he had a robot to do his bidding.
This was one species of the method that we can find in cults everywhere. It was crudely done but, hey, it worked for Manson.
I apologize for not being clear; of course, I didn’t mean that every cult feed its members Acid but that there are mechanisms for control of peoples’ thinking.
I think it is unfortunate that you, also, feel uncomfortable talking about your positive experiences with Adi Da on this site.
This is one of the tragic results of the whole cult experience. The truth, both good and bad, is compromised.
February 2, 2009 at 5:00 pm
WOW!!!!!!!
Humor gets injected, perhaps a little too irreverend for some, and it’s all “Lawyers and Handgrenades”. Sheeeeeeeesh!!! Get an enima. “Childish”, “Adolesent”…you might want to check in with your own responses.
To be quite “frank” I’ve found the three way discusion of the two teachers in question boring. The discussion, referencing, validating who said what when, and of course the vaunted “Traditions”, “Jhanis real or not”, is an exercise in the type opf masturbation that i left so very long ago. Being able to “reference and quote” validates nothing more than that. It’s like a squirrel jumping through the trees based on the practice laid down by the “lineage” of Rocky J. Squirrel, explaining to other squirrels that it is “the” Way to trancend jumping…”Who does the Jumping…Who collects the nuts”? Thank God for the humor, that is unless you’re still addicted to the somber discussion of “Dharma”…I’d rather watch the squirrels “trancending” “Dharma” and just jumping from branch to branch.
From Tony Parsons;The OPEN Secret
“This isn’t about seeking or not seeking; it’s beyond the concepts of Advaita and non-dualism and beyond the idea of reaching states of awareness or mindfulness. There’s no goal. There’s nothing on offer. This is totally beyond knowing.
This is really a description – a sharing together of a description of something that is beyond attainment, something that can’t be lost and also can’t be grasped or gained.
All the time there’s separation there’s a sense of loss, there’s a sense of a feeling that there’s something that isn’t whole. And so the seeker attempts to fill that void, fill it with something – whatever. And some look to something called “enlightenment” because it is felt that enlightenment might be the thing that will fill this sense of loss; it could be the answer to some secret that we don’t quite get.
And it sounds, when we read about enlightenment, as though somebody else has found the secret. But nobody’s found the secret.
There’s no such thing as an enlightened person. It’s a complete misconception. But the difficulty is that being seekers, the energy of seeking pushes us into being attracted to the idea that somebody else has found something that we can find, because we grow up believing that effort brings results. So, if effort brings results, and we’ve heard of something called enlightenment or liberation, we can make the effort and then we can become liberated or enlightened … like this guy up the road we’ve heard about, or that woman that’s giving satsangs. They have got something that I want. If I go there I will learn how to get it.
In the dream there’s still an idea that enlightenment or liberation is something that’s attainable. And so there are teachings that reinforce the idea that you are an individual that has choice, so now you, as an individual, can choose to self-enquire or to meditate, or whatever else, and eventually you could become enlightened.
You can go all over the world and find teachings offering something to get. It is rare, however, to find an uncompromising communication that offers nothing at all to the seeker.
This aliveness is nothing being everything. It’s just life happening. It’s not happening to anyone. There’s a whole set of experiences happening here and they’re happening in emptiness … they’re happening in free fall. They’re just what’s happening. All there is is life. All there is is beingness. There isn’t anyone that ever has or does not have it. There’s nobody that has life and somebody else doesn’t have life. There just is life being life.”
Well maybe this is just another example of “talking school” to some of the posters here that are that condecending to think that way…some habits are hard to break. Of course this may be the very thing that keeps you right where you are…seek on.
BTW, there is a very good book, edited (and compiled?), by Jerry Katz, our most gacious host, called “One”. May I suggest you check it out. As has been said before, maybe you’ll hear with new ears.
Sri Sri Bevis
Do you have TP for your bunghole?
Flick,
Well…at least Bevis had the balls to post in his own name. What is this “i showed you mine so show me yours” thing you have about posters names here? How about this…show some actual respect for their choice? You know…a little less adolecent and arrogant. Respect? Ring a bell?
February 2, 2009 at 8:31 pm
YouTube – Show me My Self!
a more defendable case could be made for the kind of explanations provided by Papaji and the like, who actually were jnanis
February 3, 2009 at 2:16 am
If we weren’t liberated by “Real God” (aka Adi Da), then as Maxwell Smart says:
“We’re in a lot of trouble!”
February 3, 2009 at 4:07 am
Well Slyder I guess you do not read all the posts , but that is understandable since there have been so many in the past. After I posted that thing about people not posting their real names, i apologized and said that I understood that they wanted to keep their privacy.
I have read many of the Tony Parsons books and find them pretty good, ,much like Jean Klein and some of the other modern advaitans. That approach is just my personal cup of tea though.
Actually , having been a boy brought up in American culture, Beevis and Butthead got me in touch with my American boy roots and I found them quite funny and was sad to seem them go off MTV, which is basically a commercial hip hop station now. I thought the Beavis and Butthead movie was very hilarious and especially if you were stoned. i hear that Adi Da liked this movie too. maybe he was stoned . i don’t know myself one way or the other .
Still I don’t find the “humor” recently posted here funny myself ,the Beavis and Butthead stuff and the Charles Manson stuff. Not creative and pretty stupid. The real Beavis and Butthead cartoons were much funnier. i find more intelligent humor such as George Carlin or Bill Maher[the evil stoner} or even the bawdy humor of Chris Rock much funnier than the stuff I have seen here. The “humor” here is so obviously just a huge anger type reaction of lashing out in frustration.
Well “another ex devotee ” I see what you are saying now. One thing though in your recent post is not true though. I have never felt uncomfortable in describing my positive experiences of Adi Da , either in the form of his written teachings or in his personal company. I do try to put things in my own language and not copy the language of Adi Da or his teachings. I try to incorporate it into my own life and experience and communicate it from that place. I have put my positive experiences of Adi Da and his teaching all over this blog. And it does not make me feel uncomfortable. perhaps you have not read many of my posts and that is fine too.
I think the “intelligensia” in the form of Conrad and FFAC and FeelForgod may have abandoned this blog and left me alone to spar with the plethora of “Da haters” here. That is not my purpose and it was only my purpose to just post my own postive experience of Adi Da to counter some of the anti cult cultism that i saw so much in reading this blog. It seemed to me that there was a lot of unnecessary hysteria around the life and teaching of Adi Da. Whatever proclamations he made about himself can not be proven or disproven, except in the fruitful practice of people who might really apply themselves over time to his teachings. I hope and wish them the best and hope that at least a few wake up to full egoless enlightenment in their’s and my lifetimes. I would not mind waking up myself.
As far as what Adi Da actually did and was even purported to have done, i really see no big deal in it one way or the other. i do not know if he broke someone’s arm or not. If he did, that is not good, but certainly not like Charles Manson. most of what he did just ruffled a lot of feathers and bruised a lot of egos from what i can tell. Flick Rahke
February 3, 2009 at 4:48 am
Actually Adi Da did say he was devoted to Rudi and later to Muktananda and he really was devoted to Rudi for years. He was definitely with Muktananda for more than few days, and Muktananda valued him as a “devotee’ and so forth. Perhaps Adi Da did not stay for Muktananda for a long time, because he was growing in his practice a an accelerating rate and also very quickly in general. Perhaps he learned form Muktananda what he needed to learn very quickly. This is not unheard of . Look at how quickly Ramana Maharshi “learned” Most of us in reality tend to take much longer time to wake up , perhaps not even in this lifetime. That is how they teach it in the traditions anyhow . The cutting through of the ego knot takes real practice over time and persistence in it over a life time.
I think that Adi Da knew very much about the Hindu guru-devotee relationship and he taught a classic form of it, including the style of pujas and “worshipping” the guru and the chanting and such. When this sort of format was instituted over time, many people were offended by the “Hinduness” of it and some left because of that.
My feeling is that Adi Da considered the guru-devotee relationship the express route to awakening. ken Wilbur said the same thing about Adi Da at one point, although I have no idea what he thinks now. He considered the relationship to him personally in the context of guru-devotee particularly powerful , due to his ablility to wake up people directly by revealing their own Self to themselves so to speak by connecting to his transmission by meditating on him in a devotional manner. I did find this happen to myself many times over the years by doing that very process, and I am not a bhakti or devotional type at all.
Still , even those experiences were real, still they were satoris or glimpses of the natural state. it takes very advanced practice over time to have the revelation of your own Self to take hold . True realization transcends the mind and experience, but still paradoxically takes real practice. Flick Rahke
February 3, 2009 at 7:01 am
Perhaps I am just a simple Australian not versed in the intricacies of worldly matters.
Nah, you are just a covertly self-righteous seeker who apparently believes there is some sort of valuable pearl here easily obscured and devitalized by a little good natured free expression and failure to regard everyone’s earnest assessments as something more than personal opinions. But it is cool, man, nobody is holding being Australian against you.
February 3, 2009 at 12:19 pm
seasofbrightjuice Says:
“(I THINK I’ve read 98% of this page, but I may well have missed the posts you mention, or they may have faded from memory. I made a couple desultory attempts to find post #90, but all the posts seem to be unnumbered, at least on my computer. I’ll count to 90 though if I can’t figure any other way).”
What I meant was that I have written some 90 (mostly quite long) posts on this blog. Within some of those are specific accounts of what I experienced in Adi Da’s Company directly – not hearsay, as many of the accounts by some of the critics here have necessarily been (hearsay, that is).
seasofbrightjuice Says:
“Thanks Feel4God, that is an interesting story, and does begin to answer my question. A complete answer, which is not your responsibility, would be to proceed systematically and openly through Adi Da’s major notorious exploits, suggesting plausible positive interpretations. Or, where none come to mind but you still imagine there may be one, to say as much. Of course there’s been plenty of talk here about how to interpret Da’s motives etc., but from the Daist side it’s been notably more abstract and theoretical. Critics have told and interpreted much more concrete tales.”
seasofbrightjuice – interesting name. If that was singular, i.e., seaofbrightjuice, it would be non-dual, yes?
And you are welcome. As you probably know, Adi Da’s Teaching was developed through His work with devotees under all kinds of extreme life level, and also the more apparently spiritual, circumstances – always requiring radical (non-dual) devotion at its root, in order that self-understanding could emerge in the midst of whatever lessons were given.
As I said before, I have already expressed a lot about my experience with Adi Da through all the Teaching demonstrations I directly participated with Him in. However, I am most interested in practice – actual, for real, transcendence of the activity of egoity – not so much a review of history.
I have brought up many times what I think are some of the critics’ actual motivations for continually wanting to “de-construct” Adi Da in their often very negative, exaggerated, and distorted fashion. When I specifically point out where I see this happening, I often end up being attacked – with some critics citing that they simply are wanting the truth about this or that in terms of Adi Da.
However, it does seem to me that it is not just their wanting to somehow demonstrate that Adi Da’s behavior necessarily implies that He is not fully Realized – but also it is done to justify their own egoic search and, in some cases, even their own superiority. So I have to ask what are the critics’ motivations for this apparently never-ending search? Admittedly, they could be many – but to avoid any discussion of egoic motives involved in the all to frequent “gotcha” attempts here, is ridiculous in my view. Please know that I am not saying that this is all that critics are doing here – but when I do scratch the surface of this possibility at all, I get hit with various ad hominem attacks, and that does say something.
So consider this about Adidam’s history. Many many women have been deeply drawn devotionally, whole bodily, to Adi Da Samraj (as have many men, but that is another consideration). Women being very intimately attracted to Him in great numbers occurred in the very early days, and even throughout the rest of Adi Da’s life. He spoke of this very early on as being associated with the processes of His Re-Awakening, etc.
In the 70s, Adi Da attracted pretty much every woman that entered the Way – it literally felt like the gopis and Krishna, where the gopis just forgot themselves and turned to the Divine. They also very typically forgot their husbands, boyfriends, etc. too! They just wanted to be with the Guru – period. As you might surmise, this stimulated great jealousy in many of the men, especially in those early days. And this was most difficult for the men who either did not recognize Who Adi Da Is, or failed to consistently live that radical devotional practice throughout such periods and tests. (This can also be said in general about some of the women who experienced jealousy, etc., during these periods too, but that is a whole other story.)
I could go into a lot more personal detail about how I was tested in this area as well, but again, this environment is overall too “unfriendly” at this point. Suffice it to say, I experienced much of the same jealousy particularly during periods shortly after the one I already described to you in my prior post. However, I continued to practice, to meditate, to remain as discriminating as possible about what was my egoic content, motives, etc. – and this allowed me to keep recognizing that Adi Da is Reality Itself – and for self-understanding to develop further. Of course, I faltered often in this recognition/understanding – but I also was very close to Adi Da’s person, so I was frequently and profoundly refreshed in that recognition.
Those that could not deal with this extreme situation relative to how the women flocked to Heart-Master Da, ended up leaving His immediate circumstance on the Sanctuary (and especially once the parties ended and the disciplines were once again in full force). This included many couples who decided that a householder’s life together was what they really wanted. Some left Adidam altogether, some simply became householders in Adidam. Once this extreme period of “Krishna and the Gopis” ended in the mid 70s, most of us simply did become householders in Adidam, practicing the daily form as given by Adi Da, with our intimates, often times in a larger household of other devotees.
Over the years, the number of women that could truly practice in His immediate circumstance greatly dwindled, but still many many women wanted to consider that form of intimate sadhana. So again, this provoked great jealousy in many men! And if their woman freely decided to practice in that manner, apart from her intimate, though in agreement with him – it was sadhana of the most intense nature for both the man and the woman! It stirs up everything! Again, I speak of this from first-hand experience – and I can assure you that issues of jealousy were very powerful and needed to be dealt with.
Some men dealt with these issues of jealousy, etc., within Adidam, others left very angry. After leaving, some even got together to band against Adi Da, the most famous having already been mentioned on this blog, and that one was clearly catalyzed by his losing his intimate in the manner summarized above. We already know what ensued as it is public knowledge.
I realize that everyone’s experience differs, and that this is clearly over-simplifying what are complex emotional issues. But that is what I see motivated a lot of such anger and frustration then, and this is even witnessed here – 30 years later in some cases. I think much of it is oedipal in its roots, and that is some of the self-understanding that Adi Da guided many of through shortly after such periods. The point was always self-understanding and self-transcendence of egoity – though obviously very difficult in these kinds of “oedipally-charged” situations.
In bringing this up, I don’t wish to further anger people with this consideration – but that is what I experienced for myself, and what I saw first-hand many men go through, even those called dissidents. I had many discussions with the guys back then, and I always sensed extreme jealousy and frustration at the core. To me, it is far more important for each individual to understand these patterns than to spend so much of one’s very short life trying to get back at Adi Da – Who isn’t even physically alive any more!
And if no one here can relate to any of this, so be it. For those that can, a recently published book by Adi Da Samraj called “The Complete Yoga of Emotional-Sexual Life: The Way Beyond Ego-Based Sexuality” is extremely useful relative to these kind of considerations.
The Complete Yoga of Emotional-Sexual Life: The Way Beyond Ego-Based Sexuality
February 3, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Hey, no fair. My link did not come up. So, people need to go to the YouTube, go to Papji, and go to Show Me Myself, if you want to see something asinine.
Papa G tells this woman that, because she is “here” she is therefore enlightened, fully realized and she cries hysterically on and on. He tells her to sit with him for awhile, for as long as this miracle lasts, then tells her to sit her ass down somewhere’s else. It’s worth seeing this little tidbit. I have heard about that sort of thing but until you really see this imbecility you don’t appreciate it. Do me a solid and view this one, you guys.
February 3, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Hey Eddie from Australia, If it means anything, even though I disagree with some of your posts about Adi Da and Adidam, I feel that you are one of the people posting here that shows heart and also intelligence and some balance in your personal expressions and opinions.
In my mind you are an earnest and sincere seeker of Truth and in my mind is one who had studied with Adi Da and moved on and not dropped the ball so to speak. You are continuing in your study and practice of spirituality and not just opted to fall back into the mass of sheep of “nonbelievers” and the cult of scientism that is so prevalent in out U.S. that is waging war on the rest of the world.
And personally being a surfer, how could anybody hold a grudge against someone who comes from a country that has surfing as a national pastime and sport? Flick Rahke
Of course , as I said , I am a fan of George Carlin and Bill Maher and some others who are somewhat intelligent and classy in their expression of humor, but the “humor” I have seen here is pretty unintelligent and crass and just plain stoopid and surely an expression of unbridled anger and lashing out reactivity, kind of pathetic really. Flick Rahke
February 3, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Slyder,
All this might well be boring to Neo-Advaita devotees of those like Tony Parsons, etc. Of course it would be. I am not even interested in getting into the neo-Advaita briar patch here, others have said it quite well (see link below for example). Those inclined to that revisionist dogma are welcome to take that path and see where it leads. Apparently history was waiting for just such ones, no doubt, and it is just the karma of the time. Lots of realizers making a living off neo-Advaita. The only caution I have for those more skeptical is that all these neo-Advaita teachers and disciples congratulating themselves on such an understanding realization according to neo-Advaita are measuring themselves according to their own standards, and are for the most part not even honest enough with themselves to admit the bait and switch.
Some presume Parsons is realized when he says:
“This isn’t about seeking or not seeking; it’s beyond the concepts of Advaita and non-dualism and beyond the idea of reaching states of awareness or mindfulness. There’s no goal. There’s nothing on offer. This is totally beyond knowing.”
Otherwise it is talking school mindstuff, consoling pablum. No need to repeat what has already been said here: http://spiritualteachers.org/neo_advaita_article.htm
Between Tony Parsons who it seems thinks Ramana Maharshi was a dualist and Ramana Maharshi who actually demonstrated results, personally, I’ll take those Ramana Maharshi, no thank you! But I think my boring days here are near the end.
February 3, 2009 at 3:12 pm
Well I did watch the Papaji video as suggested by a poster here. it did seem pretty “assinine” at first, mostly due to the woman’s irritating hysteria. But this also could be her bodily reaction {a sort of kriya or intense movement of energy through her} to a sort of “glimpse” of the egoless state that Papaji gave her. he was famous for being able to give tastes or glimpses like that. The only problem was that his way did lend itself to “talking school” since he gave no practice for people to do for follow up of their satoris. so people would let it go to their head so to speak and would think they were enlightened based on a momentary satori. Then they would go out and become enlightend jnani teachers themselves based on a moment of grace given to them by this teacher. And they are all over the place these days giving their satsangs. I just don’t personally see them as enlightened jnanis myself though Flick Rahke
February 3, 2009 at 3:14 pm
seasofbrightjuice:
you asked some very good questions. and i don’t know about you, but i felt that feel4god did not even begin to answer them. not one! he just evaded you and your questions – as he always did on this blog.
you asked the questions, so obviously you will be the judge of that, but i hope you are not just being polite. did he really begin to answer anything?
and:
don’t believe for a moment that there is anything radical about the spiritual aspect of adidam, let alone non-dual. feel4god just adds an utterly meaningless “non-dual” before anything he writes about mr. jones. don’t be blinded by that. REALLY examine it for yourself.
i am not angry with mr. jones at all. i just saw him for what he was and left.
personally, i would consider teachers like tony parsons, or jeff foster, or sailor bob adamson, or john wheeler radical in their approach to non-duality. but most certainly not mr. jones. he only understood – but never lived – the very basics of non-duality.
don’t let feel4god off the hook so easily. he distracted you with his usual smoke-screens but – as far as i am concerned – did not answer ONE of your (reasonable) questions.
February 3, 2009 at 3:39 pm
ffac says:
“Otherwise it is talking school mindstuff, consoling pablum. No need to repeat what has already been said here: http://spiritualteachers.org/neo_advaita_article.htm”
there is nothing consoling about the radical neo-advaita message. i find it incredibly frustrating, actually. but nevertheless i KNOW it is true. there is nothing mind-based about it at all! you really don’t know what you are talking about, ffac. YOU are the one that comes across utterly mind-based and mind-oriented.
have you actually submitted yourself to so-called neo-advaita teachings? well, i have. and believe me. there is NOTHING consoling about it. “i” don’t get it. “my” “mind” don’t get it.
but i KNOW it is true. and i am grateful for the pointers. because that is all that is (and possibly could be – like all teachings): pointers. “you” have to “understand” it (but very obviously not with the “mind”). and there really is nothing much that can be done about it, except for stick with it.
your oh so beloved mind will never get it, ffac. there is no method, no “teaching”, really, in neo-advaita and i guess that’s what you so obviously don’t like about it. but don’t play the know-it-all here, just because you read some dharma. that dharma certainly has validity for the time it was written. but it is just that: dharma. mind-stuff. pointers. some find those pointers helpful, others find neo-advaita pointers helpful. NONE of it is the final truth. all of it is just pointers.
that link you provided does not provide ANY new insights. just mind-stuff from people (like you?) who take traditional dharma for more than it is. for more than pointers that – in the end – have nothing to do with TRUTH. just like neo-advaita pointers.
you have clearly not listened carefully to any neo-advaita teacher, otherwise you would not call them “talking school mindstuff”. that it most certainly is not!
just different pointers. but still only pointers. just like nisargadatta and ramana (and i read both regularly and with much appreciation).
February 3, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Yes the “neoadvaitists” like tony Parsons and Jean Klein and so forth are not my cup of tea either. They can be an interesting read up to a point. Actually Eckart Tolle is in this vein also , although he is very popular and in these days. I do like some of his descriptions of the “pain body “; and how the ego works in his latest book. he offers a sort of modest meditation practice and feeling nature and so forth. He is the kindly nerd of neoadvaitism. very smart though. These guys just do not have enough juice for my taste though. I need some “yoga” down here along with the transcendentalism. Flick Rahke
p.s. Yes FFAC it has been fun, but seems to be winding down. I do not see Conrad here at all for several days now. I might linger for awhile to see how Charlie Manson and Beavis and Butthead are doing ,
February 3, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Again, I am not interested in the diversion of discussion about Da into the swamp of neo-Advaita teaching, which is really a separate dharma with adharmic elements. Da criticized it, Ramana Maharshi, Papaji, Nisargadatta and other tradtional jnanis have criticized it, and in any case neo-Advaita is not what Da cites as being the traditional precursors for his teaching or realization claims. Discussion of the traditions and comparisons with Da’s teaching relates directly to what Da taught.
I will simply point to what Tony Parsons himself says:
“It has recently been argued that Traditional Oneness is somehow better than Neo-Oneness, or even Pseudo-Oneness. The strangeness of this idea exposes the foolishness of trying to give title to that which is limitless.
The cunning and manipulative guru mind inevitably objectifies verbal expression, and out of that objectifying arises a plethora of dogmatic movements all claiming supreme understanding of that which cannot be understood.
As a consequence, so-called Traditional Advaita, for instance, is just another established religion with a proliferation of teachings and literature, all of which very successfully and consistently miss the mark. It stands alongside Christianity and Buddhism as one of the many systems of personal indoctrination promising the eventual spiritual fulfilment. To quote from The Open Secret “To translate the inexpressible into the doctrinal is to attempt to transform a song of freedom into a dogma of limitation. When the bird has flown, the essence of its song is often mislaid and all we are left with is an empty cage.”
The teaching of “Traditional Advaita” has no relevance to liberation because it is born out of a fundamental misconception. Its logical and sensibly progressive recommendations include meditation, self-enquiry, self-restraint, and to quote “the renunciation of the ego and all desire”. Of course there is nothing right or wrong with the idea of desiring to renounce desire. However, these idealistic recommendations and teachings are based on the fundamental misconception that there is such a thing as a separate individual with free will and the choice to become.
The belief that there is a separate seeker (subject) who can choose to attain or become worthy of something called enlightenment (object) is a direct denial of abiding oneness (Advaita).
Within the hypnotic dream of separation, the prevailing perception is that of the seeker and the sought. The ignorance of this perception continues in the search for enlightenment, and inevitably the dreamseeker is attracted to a dreamteaching which upholds and encourages the same premise of personal discipline and sacrifice (seeking) leading to the eventual goal of enlightenment (the sought).
The recommendation to cultivate understanding and refine something called “the mind” (?) is hugely attractive to the dreamseeker because it prolongs the very worthy search and thrives on logic, detachment, complication, endeavour, hierarchy and exclusivity.
Trying to understand oneness is as futile as trying to fall in love with an inch.
There is no possibility of teaching oneness. However, the sharing can bring a rediscovery of that which is already known.
If we are to believe recent descriptions of something called “Neo-Advaita” as being “the forcing of the truth(?) on unprepared minds” or “advising people to stop seeking” or suggesting to people that they are “nothing but the mind itself”, these teachings, if they exist, are equally as dualistic as the “traditional Advaita” they were born out of.
This confusion is of course as much an expression of oneness as the clarity which exposes it.
All of this silly circus is simply the eternal play of oneness apparently seeking itself. It is the wonderful cosmic joke oneness plays on itself by pretending to be an individual seeking something called “not being an individual”.
When it is suddenly and directly rediscovered by no-one that liberation brings with it the realisation that there is nothing to seek and no-one to become liberated, then there is much laughter . . .”
The last sentence is nothing but an obvious and clever paraphrasing of what Ramana Maharshi said. Otherwise, this teaching seems to be nothing but a clever attempt to not address the real issues raised directly, but instead gloss over the nature of the difference between those teaching neo-Advaita versus traditional non-dualism, with the usual misrepresentation common to such teachers. Realization IS of what is already the case, and there is nothing to be attained, as has been known and proven from ancient times, nothing new here despite Parson’s pontifications. But as has already mentioned, ignorance of the subtlety to which this truth can be shaded in the realms of mind and Maya into superimposing presumptions of resolution in that state should be underestimated at one’s own peril.
Similarly to what Ramana Maharshi said to those who said that Krishnamurti said there is no need for a guru: “How did he know it? One can say so after realising but not before”, it is useful to first consider not just if there is some relative truth in what Tony Parsons says, but if Tony Parsons “knows” this. If a reader thinks he really “knows” this, by all means carry on. Otherwise, enough said.
February 3, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I cannot help but tend to agree with Eddie, older children who insist upon trying to convince the younger ones the toys and prizes falling out of the pinata are worthless pieces of nonsense, and would thereby deprive the littler ones of the thrill and delight they experience in acquiring them, add nothing to the occasion and indeed would probably be better off out somewhere reaping the consequences of their craving for destruction on their own.
On the other hand, the party does appear to be winding down and you can’t fairly blame folks for trying to have a little more fun before everybody goes home…
February 3, 2009 at 8:56 pm
shiva Says:
“there is nothing consoling about the radical neo-advaita message. i find it incredibly frustrating, actually. but nevertheless i KNOW it is true. there is nothing mind-based about it at all! you really don’t know what you are talking about, ffac. YOU are the one that comes across utterly mind-based and mind-oriented.
have you actually submitted yourself to so-called neo-advaita teachings? well, i have. and believe me. there is NOTHING consoling about it. “i” don’t get it. “my” “mind” don’t get it.
but i KNOW it is true. and i am grateful for the pointers. because that is all that is (and possibly could be – like all teachings): pointers. “you” have to “understand” it (but very obviously not with the “mind”). and there really is nothing much that can be done about it, except for stick with it.
your oh so beloved mind will never get it, ffac. there is no method, no “teaching”, really, in neo-advaita and i guess that’s what you so obviously don’t like about it. but don’t play the know-it-all here, just because you read some dharma. that dharma certainly has validity for the time it was written. but it is just that: dharma. mind-stuff. pointers. some find those pointers helpful, others find neo-advaita pointers helpful. NONE of it is the final truth. all of it is just pointers.
that link you provided does not provide ANY new insights. just mind-stuff from people (like you?) who take traditional dharma for more than it is. for more than pointers that – in the end – have nothing to do with TRUTH. just like neo-advaita pointers.
you have clearly not listened carefully to any neo-advaita teacher, otherwise you would not call them “talking school mindstuff”. that it most certainly is not!
just different pointers. but still only pointers. just like nisargadatta and ramana (and i read both regularly and with much appreciation).”
I disagree. I am not so concerned about how I come across, either, I am just the messenger here and neo-Advaita types are bound to be offended and not see the point. I understand you are drawn to neo-Advaita and that is how you would see it.
Of course I have seen and listened to neo-Advaita teachers. Many are useful and worth listening to, while some are worse than the disease. But regardless, neo-Advaita is consoling precisely because it leaves you with the impression that you KNOW it is true. I submit that what you KNOW to be true is stilll just mental but on a higher level, a more subtle form of mindstuff with a life of its own, communicated by those who still are not fully resolved. So it is not really Truth, but in some form still a mental reflection of it, and in that sense “talking school”, a term I really don’t like because that doesn’t mean it it useless. When Papaji and others criticize that approach, it is because it creates an illusory sense of an understanding that is not what it appears.
There is still something “missing” from neo-Advaita that is there in the highest traditional non-dualism, and it isn’t anything you have identified, including the lack of a method, which is really not the case at all. Sooner or later in this life you may see what is missing, or you may not. I can not convey it to you. I am only disputing that neo-Advaita is superior to or not different than traditioal non-dualism. Otherwise, if that is where someone’s karmic path lies, proceed.
February 4, 2009 at 7:05 am
“So by now, since you have chosen to read this through to end, I suppose that you might be asking yourself, “Why should I listen to you? Who the hell are you anyway?” And the answer is that you shouldn’t listen me. Anymore than you should listen to Eckhart Tolle or Tony Parsons. At least not without truly listening to yourself. What you can do is search into the very depths of yourself, not taking someone else’s (anyone else’s word) for anything. Instead listen to your heart and seek a teacher who teaches you how to eliminate the unnecessary burdens and who at the same time promotes the blossoming of your essence (your essential value), your divine nature, the best of the best that resides in the core of your (and his) humility.
If you have found this article useful, interesting, stimulating, controversial or you just like to ‘stir the pot’, submit and/or post it to the appropriate websites, forums and newsgroups; perhaps you and I together can play a small part in awakening a few people from the Neo-Advaita trance”.
– Author unknown
FFC,
I am quite familiar with Sri Aurobindo’ description of the “Intermediate Zone” and it does apply quite well to Mr Jones. As I posted here some time ago there is a term that is used in Zen that also applies…”Spiritual Drunkedness”. Although Adyishanti is not “my cup of tea” he quite clearly, openly, honestly, describes the period of his own “Spiritual Drunkedness”. In fact, almost all of the “neo” non-dualism describe (the “real” ones anyway) the very same “process”. Joan Tollifson describes it as “life-long, always now”.
Although I don’t know who the author of this “article” is it does have all the earmarks of Dennis Waite, an anti-”neo” non-dualist. Very broad brushstrokes painted there and very confused at that. The claims made by the author are not claims made by the people that he feels the need to “debunk”. He gets it wrong all over the place. For instance, as I posted some time ago, when a European left Nisaragadatta and inquired if there was someone in Europe that they could talk to when they got home he recommended they go to see Douglas Harding (The Headless Way). This man is considered to be in the “neo” group by many. Too bad.
Quite simply the authors motivation shows up in the last sentence…”If you have found this article useful, interesting, stimulating, controversial or you just like to ‘stir the pot’, submit and/or post it to the appropriate websites, forums and newsgroups; perhaps you and I together can play a small part in awakening a few people from the Neo-Advaita trance”.
I will agree with the point made not to take his word for it and to find out for yourself.
FFC Says
“Those inclined to that revisionist dogma are welcome to take that path and see where it leads. Apparently history was waiting for just such ones, no doubt, and it is just the karma of the time. Lots of realizers making a living off neo-Advaita”.
I don’t think you’ll find someone like Sailor Bob Adamson, Douglas Harding, Joan Tollifson, etc doing anything but “sharing” what it is they have seen…what they know. As far as “revisionism” goes, the “dogma” that has grown up around Realizers like Ramana Maharshi, etc., who was realized, IS what is being undermined and so it should. So very much of the give and take between you, Conradq, and F4G, was who said what, when, how, to whom, correcting F4G about all of the above…yet what does any of that have to do with what Ramana actualy offered. It’s all correct but it’s all mistaking the finger for the moon. All “questions” put to Ramana came from “Yeah…but”. The “answers” were out of his great compassion but the questoners who were inevitably mistaking the finger for the moon, but…that “content” became the cosmology that has been argued here on this forum…the finger only. Is it any great wonder that Ramana’s “preference” was to teach in silence? He knew all too well that all language, sacred or casual, is inherently dualistic, only ever a pointer to, and in the end Babel.
What of the teaching of Jesus? “Kingdom Come”. Right here, right now, no waiting. What is required? Repentance…to turn about…no 40 days in the desert…turn. “Talking School”? What, no practices, no diets? Faith? Sounds like talking school to me… “Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.” (Matthew 21:21,22)…”Yeah, but, I understand that intellectualy, but, shouldn’t I have a practice? It can’t be that simple”. It is. Closer than the breath.
“There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep
seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We
think that there is something hiding reality and that
this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
How ridiculous! A day will dawn when you will laugh
at all your past efforts. That which will be the day
you laugh is also here and now”. Ramana Maharshi
No cosmology there…direct. The “cosmologies” came later…”fingers”.
If it seems that people like Bob Adamson etc have simplified, or taken a shortcut, or are just “talking”, find a Guru. When you’re done with that in a few hundred lifetimes we’ll sit and have some tea and laugh.
Out!
February 4, 2009 at 11:40 am
ffac:
“I understand you are drawn to neo-Advaita and that is how you would see it.”
i am drawn to the truth. and i see it communicated by people like ramana and nisargadatta but just as well (and sometimes more radical and/or clearer) by neo-advaita people.
slyder’s quote of ramana is spot on:
“There is no greater mystery than this, that we keep
seeking reality though in fact we are reality. We
think that there is something hiding reality and that
this must be destroyed before reality is gained.
How ridiculous!”
similarly radical quotes can be found coming from nisargadatta. that is the truth. and there is an immediate resonance with it. i dispute your statement that that is just mind. no, there is a resonance in the depth of my being that instantly knows that this is the truth.
neo-advaita teacher say ONLY that. they don’t give consoling advice like mantra repetition and traditional practices. that really is the only difference. the ultimate message (as in the quote) is the same. it has to be.
you have yet to make a case, ffac, why this (the very same message) is supposed to be superior or more complete coming from ramana as compared to tony parsons for example?
February 4, 2009 at 11:41 am
shiva Says:
“i am not angry with mr. jones at all. i just saw him for what he was and left.”
You sure sound angry around here, shiva, but okay. I know many a male devotee who felt jealous at one time or another when his intimate would just melt in obvious devotional submission upon sighting Adi Da walking by or in a formal Darshan or Discourse.
Having been in His house many times, I have long felt that women, in some basic sense, had a more direct and easeful practice with Adi Da because they didn’t bring any of the usual male competitive games that guys tend to bring to “daddy”, the Guru, etc. To see a large group of women’s whole bodily devotion and attention surrendered to Adi Da was very helpful to me. It also showed me why Adi Da generally preferred to have women serve Him in various personal ways. Of course, He also very much engaged men, especially those men who left their male competitive ego at the door before “entering” His House of intrinsic egolessness.
This male competitive oedipal mechanism in me became obvious in relationship to Adi Da over time as the self-contraction. It is real good to hear you transcended all of this, shiva. Did you ever feel even a twinge of jealousy that your intimate devoted (and still does, right?) her life to Adi Da?
shiva Says:
“don’t let feel4god off the hook so easily.”
HaH! I should take this statement very seriously as this pearl must be more non-dualistic wisdom from shiva… Must contemplate as great oneness… shiva says I am on a hook… HaH! That means I am the one who is hooked, yes? Then who is the hooker around here? If there is a hooker, there must be the activity of hooking in order for me to be on a hook. Or is all this arising just one great process of hooking? By the way, don’t they charge money for that, shiva?
I guess when I drink my tea, if I find that “the tea drinks itself”, being “hooked by a hooker” is simply the great process of hooking! I think I am enlightened! Can you confirm this, shiva? Or does this exercise prove unequivocably that we need a Realized Master?
And on that note…
Patrul Rinpoche:
“There is no account that tells of anyone who attained Buddhahood without a Guru…”
All the great Realizers speak of the absolute necessity for the Guru. This includes Ramana Maharshi, Swami Muktananda, Swami Vivekananda, Guru Nanak, Patrul Rinpoche, etc., and of course, Adi Da Samraj.
But somehow, in this “new age”, hundreds, even thousands have become enlightened via some mental grasp of the Truth of non-duality! Isn’t this highly suspect? The ego loves it! The structural “seniority” of the brain-mind over the emotions and physical body has a lot do with this. Rather than dealing with preparation of body, emotion, and mind via all the self-transcending disciplines of right life that allow for stable equanimity – the mind instead reflects on the Truth of non-duality and the futility of all seeking, and apparently decides it doesn’t need no stinking disciplines! And relative to devotion – it’s just more dualism!
How foolish to listen to ego-mind regarding Truth! If we understand that the activity of egoity is our apparent illusion now, then listen to someone who has clearly Realized Reality! Such listening, in its fullest expression, takes the form of the Guru-disciple relationship and necessarily requires right life disciplines (obedience to the Master’s word), radical devotion (non-dualistic Self-identification with the Master’s egoless State), and the Spiritual practices most directly associated with abiding in non-dual Communion with the Master as Reality Itself.
To one degree or another (depending on the Guru’s Realization and His Tradition), these are the time-honored, tested, and ancient means of Awakening from our egoic illusions. This is what Adi Da has so clearly elucidated in His Teachings.
Only one who is fully Realized beyond all egoic activity (gross, subtle, and causal) can actually authoritatively state that “Nirvana and samsara are the same” without it being some expression of a limited realization or even just a mental affirmation or truth repetition. Our heart-based intelligence knows what is bullshit, what is just mental gymnastics, what is just tacky or clever semantics, and what is Real.
Listen to your heart and its real need for Reality, for the Conscious Light of Love-Bliss Itself. Only the converted heart recognizes the Truth – no mind ever truly has.
shiva, though you speak constantly about the non-necessity for a Guru, it seems like you are submitting your life to one by going to live close to Sailor Bob. I have no problem with that, but it sure sounds like some kind of guru-disciple relationship going on there. Or is that just the oneness traveling over the oneness to the oneness as oneness in order to realize oneness?
February 4, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Sorry to disappoint, but Jesus is a pretty bad example to use as someone speaking the end all of realization of Truth. First the Bible was not written by anyone who was remotely realized or even having any real wisdom to share. Perhaps some of it Jesus said and perhaps not. Then no one really has any idea of the realization of Jesus. I guess it would be more real to quote modern day Christian realizers like say Billy Graham or even more up to date, Sarah Palin.
Neo Christianity is full of the wisdom of nondualism that is free for the picking.
Flick Rahke
Yes I have seen many of the so called neo advaitists myself and videos of Poonja. I can’t speak anything about sailor bob since I have no experience of him, only Gangaji and Andrew and Adyashanti and Nome and Clara here. They all seem pretty much confused and full of themselves to me Definitely a real spiritual conceit at play. I would not call what most of them do “free of charge ” by any means. Adya charges plenty and
Andrew is supported by his students.
Adi Da never played the “humble pie” game like so many of these others. Flick Rahke
February 4, 2009 at 4:45 pm
the great feeler says:
“You sure sound angry around here, shiva, but okay. I know many a male devotee who felt jealous at one time or another when his intimate would just melt in obvious devotional submission upon sighting Adi Da walking by or in a formal Darshan or Discourse.”
“This male competitive oedipal mechanism in me became obvious in relationship to Adi Da over time as the self-contraction. It is real good to hear you transcended all of this, shiva. Did you ever feel even a twinge of jealousy that your intimate devoted (and still does, right?) her life to Adi Da?”
you just can’t accept that i (or anybody else for that matter) could possibly leave mr. jones without being angry with him or having some other emotional hick-up about it, can you?
your (and mr. jones) hobby-psychological oedipal “explanation” is the only possible one, isn’t it?
well, here are the facts:
sukhapur (for readers new to adidam: she was one of the two principal devotees around mr. jones, handling a large part of his life and having the final say about who could serve him directly) commented several times that she appreciated my mature and non-competitive attitude in serving mr. jones. she said i had a simple and service-oriented attitude that was very rare for male devotees. those were pretty much her exact words (it’s a few years ago). ask her or some of the cultural folks that were around back then; they will confirm it.
and no, i never felt jealousy about my wife’s devotion or service-relationship with mr. jones. quite on the contrary, i was simply happy for her and wished she would serve him very closely, which she at some point did.
you just gotta face it, great feeler:
there are men who leave mr. jones without being angry. in fact, i had a great time serving him and i often think about the friends i was serving with and the (largely) great time i had performing my service. i had lots of fun. it was a very exciting time in my life and i have lots of very fond memories about it! i SIMPLY came to the conclusion that mr. jones is not the real deal.
btw, i call him mr. jones not out of disrespect or because i am angry. it was his birth-name and i simply don’t accept the connotations of the later names he gave himself – yes, he gave them to himself! they were not given to him by others (jnanis) because they recognized something special about him!
i don’t really want to comment on the rest of your post, since it only shows your blatant misunderstanding of non-duality.
at the end you say:
“shiva, though you speak constantly about the non-necessity for a Guru, it seems like you are submitting your life to one by going to live close to Sailor Bob. I have no problem with that, but it sure sounds like some kind of guru-disciple relationship going on there.”
i don’t recall ever speaking about the non-necessity of a guru. you interpret it that way, perhaps, as this is the only framework you are allowed (or allow yourself) to think in. i have no arguments against people choosing gurus. one just needs to be aware that the perceived separation between oneself and the guru is just part of the dream. and i think gurus who re-enforce that separation (as mr. jones clearly did) are downright dangerous because they keep you in the dream.
i have a few reasons for moving to melbourne, but sailor bob is certainly a major one. however, he does not see himself as a guru nor anybody else as separate or a devotee. i just know that i can learn a lot from him. that will not prevent me from seeing or consulting other “teachers”. in fact, i know i will do just that. in that sense it is not a classic guru-devotee relationship. also, it doesn’t feel that way. but even if, i would have no problems with it. it’s all part of the dream…
“Or is that just the oneness traveling over the oneness to the oneness as oneness in order to realize oneness?”
that it is it exactly! i am almost impressed, great feeler!
February 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm
“You sure sound angry around here, shiva, but okay.”
yes, i realize that. it is part of this one’s nature. this one is an angry son of bitch. but that anger is often not directed towards anybody in particular… it just spits out…
February 4, 2009 at 5:48 pm
For those still addicted to “tradition” (Fiddler On The Roof…cue music)
DUALITY AND NON- DUALITY IN VEDIC AND BIBLICAL TRADITIONS
“The Vedic Tradition
The Vedas are the sacred scriptures of Hindus and the Upanishads are the culmination of the Vedic
search for Truth or Reality. The Upanishads reveal the ultimate experience of God in which a person
can declare “I am Brahman”, or ” I am God”, which is described as Non-dual (advaita) experience or
ontological non-duality. The Vedic tradition reveals a progressive growth of divine-human
relationship in four stages: relationship through poetry (Samhithas), relationship through ritual or
sacrifices (brahmanas), relationship through meditations in the forest (aranyakas) and finally selfrealization
(Upanishads).
The Upanishads speak of four levels of consciousnesses, which again show the progressive growth in
divine-human relationship: waking consciousness, dreaming consciousness, deep sleep consciousness
and the thuriya, which means the fourth. In waking consciousness one identifies with one’s physical
body and lives to satisfy one’s physical desires and ambitions. In the dreaming consciousness one
identifies with ideals and ideal persons taken from the past or memory and tries to follow and
imitate them. Here a person might say I am a Hindu, Christian, and Muslim etc. In the deep sleep
one is freed from the personal and collective ideals and ideal persons of the past (time) and enters
into the realm of originality and creativity (eternity) and becomes an original and creative person
and is able to say, ‘I am’. In the thuriya or the fourth state one realizes one’s identity with God and
says ‘I am Brahman’. The statement, ‘I am Brahman’ may appear to a statement of spiritual arrogance
but in reality it is a statement of utter humility in which the ego is completely renounced and only
Brahman remains. To say that ‘I am God’ does not mean that a human being becomes God but it is to
affirm that God is the only Reality.
There are four or five mahavakyas connected to this ultimate experience: I am Brahman
(ahambrahmasmi), you are that-Brahman (tatvamasi), Atman is Brahman (ayatmanbrahma), all this is
Brahman (sarvametatbrahma) and Brahman is non-dual (prajnanambrahma). These mahavakhyas are
different ways of expressing the same advaitic experience. The Vedas should not be seen as the
systematic treaties of philosophy but the collection of the various philosophical discoveries and
experiences of the seekers of Truth or God.
Later the great teachers (acharyas) tried to define the teachings of the upanishads into various
systems of thought. There are three main schools of thought: advaita (non-duality), visistaadvaita
(qualified non-duality) and dvaita (duality). According to advaita profounded by Shankara (7c AD,
who hailed from Kerala) Brahman or God alone is real and the world is an illusion or Maya.Human
soul is ultimately identical with Brahman. The mahavakya ahambrahmasmi, I am Brahman or God is
the experience of this non-duality. Brahman is nirguna without any attributes. The way to realize
this truth is jnana marga, the path of wisdom. The system of visistaadvaita propounded by Ramanuja
(12c, who hailed from Tamil Nadu) states that God and creation are like soul and the body (or body
and the hair that grows on the body) inseparable. God and human beings are like soul and body
inseparable but they are not identical. God lives in human beings and creation and creation and
human beings live in God but they are not identical. The soul though of the same substance as God’s
and emanated from him rather than created, can obtain bliss not in absorption but in existence near
him. The way to have this experience is through self – surrender. He proposed the path of devotion
or bhakti as a way to this realization, which comes through the grace of God. A person might say I
am in God and God is in me but cannot say I am God. For Ramanuja God is saguna, with attributes like omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence. Madhava (13c, from Kamataka) proposed the
system of dvaita, duality. He clearly distinguishes between God, human beings and creation. God is
the only Supreme Being and there is nothing or no one equal to him. He proposed the path of
devotion (bhakti) and good actions (karma). To reach God one needs a Guru. Here a person might say
‘God is greater than I’ but cannot say ‘I am God’. Interestingly all these three masters are from the
South of India. Though majority of the Hindus believe that the non-duality of Shankara is the
supreme truth but most of them practice the path of devotion and worship to the various
manifestations of Supreme Being, (as Vishnu, Siva, Krishna and Rama) and the path of self-less
action. Thus the path of wisdom (jnana), the path of devotion (bhakti) and the path of action
(karma) are the three typical ways that the Indian sages propose to reach God.
The Biblical Tradition
In the Biblical Tradition also we see a progressive growth in divine- human relationship. First relating
to God through prayers and psalms; second relating through the rituals-sacrifices in the temple; then
God’s promise of New Covenant and John the Baptist preaching in the desert (symbol of aranyakas)
the end of the old and the coming of the new; then Jesus’ experience of God as non-dual, ‘I and the
Father are one’ and the inauguration of the new relationship with God. We can say that the New
Testament is the Upanishads of the Biblical Tradition.
We also find four levels of consciousness in Jesus: first Jesus a human being (waking consciousness),
Jesus the Jew (dreaming consciousness as Judaism was his spiritual ideal), Jesus, the Son of God,
universal consciousness freed from the Jewish memory (deep sleep consciousness in which he says ‘I
am the way, the Truth and the Life’), and finally Jesus as God (the thuriya, I and the Father are one),
ontological non-duality. Jesus also makes many great statements. To quote four of them: I am the
light of the world (I am Brahman), You are the light of the world (You are Brahman), I and the Father
are one (Atman is Brahman) and this is my body and this is my blood (All this is Brahman). Jewish
religion is basically a dualistic religion. God is the transcendent reality and creator. Human beings
are creatures of God. Nobody can see God and live. No one should make any image of God. No one
can come near to God, as He is Holy. This God can speak only through the prophets. But the prophets
also foresaw a new relationship with God in which God writes the law in hearts of the people. God
will be Emmanuel, with us and within us (visistaadvaitic experience). Jesus inaugurates this new
covenant at the moment of his baptism and takes it little further into advaitic experience. He could
say boldly that he and God are one. This experience was not in the memory of Jewish tradition. The
theory that God is our creator and we are his creatures makes this experience impossible and it
would be blasphemous if anyone claims that experience.Thus Jesus brings a revolution in his spiritual
tradition and fulfills the spiritual search of his spiritual tradition. Jesus does not abolish the dualistic
and qualified non-dualistic relationships but opens them to a new possibility of nonduality. ‘I have
not come to abolish the law but to fulfill the law’, he said.
Can we make a system of thought from the teaching of Christ? Is it advaitic or visistaadvaitic or
dvaitic? Jesus made three important statements, which might throw some light.
I and the Father are one or I am the light of the world (advaita, ontological non-duality of
Shankara)
I am in the Father and the Father is in me (visistaadvaita, qualified non-duality of Ramanuja)
My Father is greater than I; and my God, my God why have thy forsaken me (dvaita, duality of.
Madhava).
Is Jesus a non-dualist or a qualified non-dualist or a dualist? It seems to me that we cannot put Jesus
into any category since he manifests all these experiences. It shows that these statements are not
exclusive but they belong to the different levels of the human consciousness and can be present at
the same time. The difference between stages and states is that the stages follow one after the
other but the states can be present simultaneously. Truth is not a static system but a dynamic living
reality which cannot be defined into any system. One has to grow from duality to qualified nonduality
and from there to non-duality (Spiritual life is a growth. Sin is a refusal to grow or block the
growth of the others). And then one has to come down to qualified-nonduality and then to duality.
But there is qualitative difference between a person who had the non-dualistic experience and lives
in the qualified non-duality and duality and a person who lives in qualified non-duality and duality
without having non-dualistic experience. A person who lives dualistically thinks that he/she is a
creature of God. He/ she praises and worships God. A person who lives qualified non-dualistically is a
mystic. He might say that I am in God and God is in me. A person who experiences non-duality is a
realized person. He can say, ‘I am God’ or ‘My Real I is God’. But he also can be a mystic and a
worshipper of God. Sri Shankara had non-dualistic experience of Reality but he also wrote devotional
hymns as if he was a dualist. Sri Ramakrishna had non-dualistic experience but he had great devotion
to the Divine Mother. Jesus had non-dualistic experience of God but he also prayed and spoke to God
dualistically. Spiritual life is not only an upward movement towards God but also a downward
movement towards human beings and the world: the love of God and the love of neighbour of the
biblical tradition. When one is growing spiritually the dualistic experience, qualified non-dualistic
experience and the experience of non-duality appear to be stages but when one is coming down then
they turn into states of consciousness.
In general Christian tradition presents divine-human relationship in a dualistic sense and only in the
case of mystics some what qualified non-dualistically but the non-dualistic experience is reserved
only to Jesus and is closed to the Christians. 1′l}e theory of creation out of nothing makes nondualistic
experience impossible. In the same way the three paths of jñana, bhakti and karma should
not be seen as exclusive. The good actions lead to devotion and devotion leads to jñana. This jñana
manifests in devotion and further in selfless action. In spiritual life there is a movement of ascending
and there is also a moment of descending since nobody can remain on the top of the ladder.
Meanwhile life is not only to be (jnana) but also to relate (bhakti) and to act or to share (karma).
They are integral part being alive. Our relationships and actions should be based on the strong
foundation of our Being. Otherwise they can be very superficial.
The non-dualistic interpretation of the Upanishads by Shankara seems to focus entirely on the
ontological nonduality and neglects the functional duality, though he himself wrote many devotional
hymns later. For this he had a justifying reason. He found that the spirituality of that time based on
devotion ~d rituals was very superstitious, superficial and sentimental and closed the door to the
highest divine-human relationship. He wanted to through away the chaff and hold on to the kernel.
But his ideal became unreachable for the common man. With his zeal for the absolute Shankara
refused to give any value and meaning to the world and human relationships and held to the view
that the world is an illusion. Thus he tended to move towards monism. While Ramanuja tried to
correct this extreme position and give some meaning to the world and human beings but he was
suspected of moving towards pantheism. Madhava while trying to keep the balance between monism
of Shankara and the pantheism of Ramanuja created an unbridgeable gulf between God and human
beings. Though Ramanuja and Madhava, with their qualified non-dualistic and dualistic
interpretations, tried to give meaning to the divine- human and relationships and bring God closer to
the ordinary people but they also closed the door to the non-dualistic experience of God. Thesedualistic experiences have preparatory value and later functional value but not ontological value. As
long as we have physical body and live in this world of time and space we need to relate with God
and with one another in a functional duality though we know that we are ontologically one with God
and one another as there is only one Reality.
Christian tradition also focused too much on the functional duality but closed the door to the
experience of ontological non-duality to its followers. Though Jesus opened the door to this
possibility for every human being but Christian tradition reserved it only to Jesus and closed this
possibility for Christians. The Christian mystics could go to the experience of God’s indwelling
presence but they could never claim the non-dualistic experience. If there is anyone in record who
made the statement ‘I am God’ it was Meister Eckhart of Germany, who said that a spiritually poor
person is one who says, ‘I and God are one’. But he was condemned as a heretic. Perhaps in that
particular time and spiritual tradition no one could have imagined the possibility of non-dualistic
experience. But to day Christians are ready for it. Jesus did not abolish the dualistic experiences of
God but he used them as preparatory ground for his non-dualistic experience and came back to them
to live functionally. He invited his brothers and sisters to grow into this deeper relationship with
God. Jesus did not relate with God as his creator but as his Father. That was a revolution. Jesus was
not only a non-dualist(I and the Father are one) but also a qualified non-dualist(I am in the Father
and the Father is in me) and a dualist( My Father is greater than I). He was not only a jñani who
realized his oneness with the Father but also a bhakta, who had devotion to his Father and a doer,
who did the will of his Father. Jesus’ experience of God includes both ontological non-duality and
functional duality. To realize ontological oneness with God and at the same time live dualistically in
the world of time and space at the functional level is the miracle of life”.
Swami Sahajananda
I do understand how and why you may feel the way you do Flick. Brought up Catholic, and listening to the numbnut priests that didn’t have a clue…well…that’s why so very many people left the church. Sarah Palin!!! OMG…you are a pistol! Might I suggest looking into the Gnostic interpretation of the teaching of Jesus and perhaps reading the works of Bede Griffiths; Vedanta and Christian Faith. More importantly the works of Rocco Errico…Let There Be Light…and the works of George Lamsa. The original “Teaching” from the Aramaic…whole new meaning brother. And the very best part!!!! NO INTERMEDIARY!!! Still need a Guru? “It is done unto you as you believe”. Mathew 9:29 You are a Westerner copping an Eastern disposition…ain’t gonna work. Sorry! ;-}
February 4, 2009 at 5:56 pm
as my friend u.g. krishnamurti used to tell me, “if you are not angry, there is something wrong with you.” amen.
February 4, 2009 at 5:59 pm
shiva Says:
i don’t recall ever speaking about the non-necessity of a guru. you interpret it that way, perhaps, as this is the only framework you are allowed (or allow yourself) to think in.”
Hmmm….
shiva Says:
“to illustrate this point further, let me tell you what i have found in real non-duality teachers:
… 3. no guru games WHATSOEVER. no self-glorifications. hell, they even refuse the label “teacher” because to them there is nobody to teach anything and nobody to receive a teaching.”
***************************
shiva Says (about anger):
“yes, i realize that. it is part of this one’s nature. this one is an angry son of bitch. but that anger is often not directed towards anybody in particular… it just spits out…”
It amazes me that you say this, but never noticed any anger as I described earlier.
shiva Says:
“btw, i call him mr. jones not out of disrespect or because i am angry. it was his birth-name and i simply don’t accept the connotations of the later names he gave himself – yes, he gave them to himself! they were not given to him by others (jnanis) because they recognized something special about him!”
It sounds very disrespectful and dissociated to me. Did some jnani give you the sacred name of shiva, btw?
shiva Says:
“i don’t really want to comment on the rest of your post, since it only shows your blatant misunderstanding of non-duality.”
In respond to this, I will quote back what you (rightfully) said to Elias the other day:
shiva Says:
“i think your post is misplaced. you do not bring one argument as to why or how you came to your conclusions. not one…. give us some juice, man!”
shiva, you seem to just make these sweeping negative statements about my posts, but seldom with any substance to back your conclusions about them.
And I thought for sure you would get hooked by my hooker-hooking-hooked trinity of oneness!
shiva Says:
“that it is it exactly! i am almost impressed, great feeler!
With such a hearty confirmation of “my” “enlightenment” from the great shiva, can “i” open up shop now?
Will you give me a new name? How about:
FeelOneGod? (FOG for short) OneSelf? BeingMySelf? AsYouAlwaysAre?
shiva2?
Or maybe something “non-dualistically” “nasty”:
HookedOnHookers?
February 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm
OOOOOPPPPPSSSS!!!! Almost forgot! WHO wrote the Bahgavad Ghita and the Upanishads? Men? Say it ain’t so! Who says Krishna was Enlightened and who confirmed it? See how the slippery slope works?
Out
February 4, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Shiva,
An invitation. I do so very much enjoy and appreciate your postings here. I would very much like to have a conversation with you separate from this forum if you are of the mind to. My e-mail is…slyder1953@yahoo.com.
Slyder
February 4, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Sorry for disappearing, guys. Got a little tired of posting, needed some down time. As I said before, I want to post a longer piece about Adidam in relation to the notion of open and closed systems, but that might not be till the weekened.
Things are slowing down here anyway. Only s couple of things I wanted to comment on. First, there’s this video of Papaji talking to this woman. Unfortunately, I only have dial-up and can’t see video, but I think I’ve heard this same incident on an audiotape. I assume its the same, but maybe its different. Anyway, I had a very different reaction to the dialog. I didn’t get the impression that Papaji was telling this woman she’s “fully enlightened” at all. My impression was that he was just helping initiate her in the stream of real practice, of surrendering into this condition of prior love, and pointing out that this is what enlightenement is about, and that it starts at the beginning of one’s practice, not at the end.
And that’s a hugely important principle to grasp, I think. Real spiritual practice, from the beginning, involves the same intuitive surrender to our true Nature that full and complete enlightenment represents. There is no real difference in kind, only in the degree of one’s surrender. But in any moment in which one is truly surrendering in this fashion, regardless of how screwed up the person is in the conditional sense, they are doing true “practice”. Papaji seems to be making an example of this woman in this particular moment as a very loving, graceful gesture to show just how profoundly important it is that we recognize and value this surrender. He’s not trying to pretend that she’s now a new Ramana, but that even this humble moment of surrender makes all “difference” disappear, that love simply dissolves all boundaries between Guru and disciple, teacher and student.
I thought this whole exchange was particulary beautiful precisely because it’s clear that the woman is still very much an imperfect, even somwhat hysterial mess. Papaji is making the point that what we value as important, this whole notion of being an informercial-perfect enlightened guy with all his shit together, is precisely the opposite of what real practice often looks like and feels like. True surrender is not a picture postcard. And even more important, it doesn’t come at the end of your “practice”, it is your practice from the start.
Which means I also disgree with those comments which suggest that Papaji was making a mistake in not giving this woman some kind of “practice” to do. This completely misses the point. He was telling her that this disposition is her practice, and nothing else. Simple surrender into one’s own Nature, boundless love, to the point of “falling apart”, that’s the practice. That’s what real self-enquiry is about, not some dry practice of silent meditation. It might seem silent and meditative sometimes, but inside it is a total surrender of self and ego to what we truly are, not some practice aimed at achieving that by other means.
This is why Papaji didn’t recommend “practices”. He was quite contemptuous of such ideas, that there’s some other set of things we need to do to come to the point of “enlightenment”. Instead, he insisted that one must practice enlightenment from the beginning, truly surrendering, truly enquiring into one’s very Self, and not putting this off even for a second to engage in some other “preliminary” practice. He was intent on teaching his students this one central principle, and he didn’t seem to mind if they didn’t quite grasp it all at once, he was going to keep showing it to them over and over again until the point got driven home. In the process, certainly some people misunderstood the point he was making. Some decided on the basis of a few experiences like this that they were fully enlightened, and started teaching others as if they were Siddhas. Others just wanted to share this experience with others, and didn’t make a big deal that they were enlightened. It’s not like Papaji was creating an organization with self-enforcing rules and regulations. He understood that such a route was even more prone to error and harm than letting people make their own mistakes. And certainly people made a lot of mistakes with these teachings. But not nearly as badly as those who created organizations around themselves, like Da and Cohen, and tried to enforce a whole system of “practice”.
Real practice has nothing to do with “practices”. Some people are helped to some degree by having some sort of structure to hang their self-surrender upon, a mantra, a form of enquiry, the name and form of a Guru, puja, etc. Nothing wrong with that at all, unless we begin to equate practice with these things.
I don’t want to get too far into the whole neo-Advaita debate here, since its a bit off topic. All I can say is, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It seems there’s a lot of people knocking the neo-advaitins who themselves seem to have a very suspect “practice”. It’s one thing to make simple criticisms, another to be contemptuous of people who are just trying their best to understand and communicate what they’ve experienced, mistakes and all.
February 4, 2009 at 7:40 pm
One other post I wanted to comment on Feel4God’s on February 3, 2009 at 12:19 pm:
I have brought up many times what I think are some of the critics’ actual motivations for continually wanting to “de-construct” Adi Da in their often very negative, exaggerated, and distorted fashion. When I specifically point out where I see this happening, I often end up being attacked – with some critics citing that they simply are wanting the truth about this or that in terms of Adi Da.
However, it does seem to me that it is not just their wanting to somehow demonstrate that Adi Da’s behavior necessarily implies that He is not fully Realized – but also it is done to justify their own egoic search and, in some cases, even their own superiority. So I have to ask what are the critics’ motivations for this apparently never-ending search? Admittedly, they could be many – but to avoid any discussion of egoic motives involved in the all to frequent “gotcha” attempts here, is ridiculous in my view. Please know that I am not saying that this is all that critics are doing here – but when I do scratch the surface of this possibility at all, I get hit with various ad hominem attacks, and that does say something.
I don’t think you understand what the phrase “ad hominem” means. Literally, it means “of the person”. It refers to a false form of argument that doesn’t counter the argument itself, using logic, evidence, or counterarguments, instead it attacks “the person” of the arguer himself. When you attack the personal motives of an arguer, rather than his arguments themselves, you are by definition engaging in “ad hominem” attacks. I have pointed this out many times to you, but you seem unable even intellectually to grasp this. If you wish to engage in ad hominem attacks on Da’s critics, that is your business, but as I have said before, once you open the door to such ad hominem attacks, you can’t complain when ad hominem arguments are made against you. Somehow, you want to be able to mount such attacks, and yet be immune from them yourself. Well, that’s just not the way it works.
Ad hominem attacks are generally considered forbidden in serious debates because, one, they are irrelevant to the subject at hand, and two, they turn they debate into a flame war of increasingly hostile personal attacks that often bring the debate to an effective end. For example, in your post you bring up the fact that Mark Miller, who was sued by Adidam in 1985 for “conspiracy” to defame, and who then countersued and won a large settlement from Adidam, had originally come to Adidam with a girlfriend, Julie Anderson, who was at the time the reigning Playboy Centerfold “Miss September, whom Adidam quickly wooed away and made one of his “wives” during the 1976 Indoor Summer Summer period. You point out that Mark could be accused of being motivated by jealousy and humiliation from that incident, and that this would somehow “account” for his anger and criticism of Adidam. Well, certainly one might have a valid point that this incident contributed to Mark’s motives for harboring resentments against Adidam, but it doesn’t account for or in any way refute the criticism themselves. Mark could well be a really angry, jealous guy, and yet also be completely right about Adidam. There’s no contradiction between those two statements. So while pointing out that Marks’ motives might not have been utterly pure could be true, it simply doesn’t in any way answer the criticism he and others have made of Adidam.
Another example is myself. You’ve attacked me personally a number of times, making all sort of claims that I am motivated by anger and resentment that I was somehow “not invited” to be in Adidam’s inner circle. I’ve demonstrated that this is simply not true at all, in that I was repeatedly invited to and participated in intimate gatherings with Adi Da, and even promised continued access if I would return to Adidam. But that isn’t even really the point. Even if your attempt to impeach my motives had been correct, it still would have been irrelevant. You can spend all day trying to suggest that I have anger or resentment towards Adi Da, it still doesn’t in any way counter the criticisms I’ve made, either on the facts or on interpretation.
But why not put the shoe on the other foot. What if we were to examine your own motives for posting here in defense of Adi Da? Would that be a valid subject for discussion? Would that undermine your own credibility? For example, in this post you admit that your own wife was originally one of Adi Da’s “intimates”, meaning she had sexual relationship with him. And, even after you got together with her, you seem to imply that her sexual relationship with Adi Da continued:
Over the years, the number of women that could truly practice in His immediate circumstance greatly dwindled, but still many many women wanted to consider that form of intimate sadhana. So again, this provoked great jealousy in many men! And if their woman freely decided to practice in that manner, apart from her intimate, though in agreement with him – it was sadhana of the most intense nature for both the man and the woman! It stirs up everything! Again, I speak of this from first-hand experience – and I can assure you that issues of jealousy were very powerful and needed to be dealt with.
So I gather that over the years, your wife continued to have sex with Adi Da, and that this brought up “issues of jealousy” in you. You point out that some men put in this situation became angry and left, while others, like yourself, “dealt with it”. I know you were not alone in this. I’ve personally known a number of high-level Adidam people who had had to endure the same situation – being married to a woman in Adidam who would for periods of time re-engage a sexual relationship with Adi Da. It tore them apart emotionally, but they “dealt with it”. I recall one fellow telling me how he would be mowing the lawn outside of Da’s house in Hawaii, while his wife was inside having sex with Da. It wasn’t a pretty feeling, but he “dealt with it”.
This brings up the matter of what “dealing with it” really means. To most men, “dealing with” a Guru who wants to screw their wife would mean not putting up with it, confronting the Guru with his inappropriate desires, until the Guru either back-down or the woman refused to go along with it or the man left. But in Adidam such a route is considered “male competitiveness”, and clearly a violation of the Guru-devotee relationship. So that’s out. Instead, the male devotee has no choice but to “surrender”, which means being subserviant and submissive, letting the Guru have sex with his wife, and not being disturbed by this, to whatever degree this is possible.
Those who take this route end up with an entirely different set of motives. Rather than having the motives of an angery “dissident”, they very likely develop the motives of an intensely loyal cultist, willing to defend their Guru at all cost, because any “crack” in their faith in the Guru has the potential to unleash a whole backlog of self-loathing and resentment. All those repressed emotions of jealousy and anger that have been carefully locked away and rationalized as some sort of “spiritual lesson in submission of the male ego to the Sat-Guru”, would, if their Guru were found in any way to be at fault, imperfect, egoic, or otherwise engaging in self-indulgent behavior, come rushing out and overwhelm the man with guilt and self-loathing. Perversely, the more such a man is abused, the more sex his wife has with the Guru, the more “bonded” the man becomes to the Guru, and the more powerful his loyalty, devotion, and willingness to see everything the Guru does as “egoless” becomes. This is one of the primary devices of all cult leaders. They require their followers to either participate in or consent to humiliating practices, knowing that the power of humilation will actually increase their belief in the cult, in the leader, in the whole rationale behind the humilation.
So, looking just at this one bit of information, that you seem to have allowed your wife to carry on a sexual relationship with Adi Da even after you were together, is enough to come up with a lot of possible motivation on your part to explain all of your remarkably prolific defenses of Adi Da on this forum, all the irrationality, all the nonsensical defenses, the parroting of Adidam dharma, the virtually seemly defense of Adi Da’s “egolessness”, and the intense resentment towards Adi Da’s critics. Your resentment and doubt of Da’s critics can be seen as merely a projection of the interior resentment and doubt you feel towards Adi Da, but are unable to even allow yourself to feel anymore, because of what it would do to the whole life you have constructed for yourself within Adidam.
And that is essentially how it tends to work for people in cults the world over, regardless of what the circumstances involve. Cultic abuse tends to actually reinforce the loyalty of those within the cult, at least those who “take the bait”. The cult process tends to weed out those who might object to inappropriate behavior on the Guru’s part, leaving behind only those who are willing to “submit”, and who will direct their repressed hostility towards outsiders, rather than towards the actual source of their anger, the Guru himself. This creates a huge structure of self-defense, in which reality is distorted beyond recognition, in which black becomes white and white becomes black, “fair is foul and foul is fair”. In psychology, they call this “cognitive dissonance”, in that one’s cognitive capacities become distorted the more the realities of what the cult does depart from what the cult preaches, or is supposed to be about. So a teacher who claims egolessness and says that all his actions are motivated by compassion and love for others, but who actually practices lustful desiring of other people’s wives and indifference to the pain and suffering this causes their husbands, creates a “dissonance” that actually requires even greater devotion and loyalty on the part of the devotee – either that, or simply leaving.
The fantasy that this kind of circumstance actually produces some kind of “spiritual crisis” in which the husband “transcends himself” by not reacting to his Guru’s sexual predations, and thereby “goes beyond male-competitiveness” is simply that – a fantasy designed to rationalize away a wasted lifetime spent with a sexually-obsessed predatory Guru. The truth is, no one in Adidam behefited from these things, they just adapted to it as best they could under the circumstances, and the result was the increasingly cultic craziness of the culture as a whole. Some people are able to put up with all kinds of crazy nonsense, and still function, but it does take a toll, and part of that is evident in the kinds of posts Feel4God has written here. No wonder the guy feels such an intense need to defend his Guru with 90+ posts. The guilt and dissonance must be to much to handle in silence, and now that his Guru is dead he can’t help saying something, even if for now it’s just a lot of denialism and anger against critics.
I can understand Feel4God’s problem. I never had to put up with Adi Da’s sexual predations, but that’s not the only form of nuttiness and abuse I saw and participated in and acceded to over the years. Having all those rationalizations fall away and dealing directly with what is actually going on in Adidam is nevertheless a very difficult, often harrowing experience. I can understand why someone would not want to open that can of worms. But neither should we pretend that such people are pure and motivated only by devotion to the egoless true Divine Heart-Master. There is a whole lot of ego repressed and active underneath the conscious self in such people, and it manifests here in all these cultic denials and assertions of Adi Da’s egoless Divinity.
So, Feel4God, how’s that for examining your motives? Do you think that’s relevant to our discussion, or is it “ad hominem”?
February 4, 2009 at 7:59 pm
(Is there some reason this didn’t post the first time it went through?)
Sorry for disappearing, guys. Got a little tired of posting, needed some down time. As I said before, I want to post a longer piece about Adidam in relation to the notion of open and closed systems, but that might not be till the weekened.
Things are slowing down here anyway. Only s couple of things I wanted to comment on. First, there’s this video of Papaji talking to this woman. Unfortunately, I only have dial-up and can’t see video, but I think I’ve heard this same incident on an audiotape. I assume its the same, but maybe its different. Anyway, I had a very different reaction to the dialog. I didn’t get the impression that Papaji was telling this woman she’s “fully enlightened” at all. My impression was that he was just helping initiate her in the stream of real practice, of surrendering into this condition of prior love, and pointing out that this is what enlightenement is about, and that it starts at the beginning of one’s practice, not at the end.
And that’s a hugely important principle to grasp, I think. Real spiritual practice, from the beginning, involves the same intuitive surrender to our true Nature that full and complete enlightenment represents. There is no real difference in kind, only in the degree of one’s surrender. But in any moment in which one is truly surrendering in this fashion, regardless of how screwed up the person is in the conditional sense, they are doing true “practice”. Papaji seems to be making an example of this woman in this particular moment as a very loving, graceful gesture to show just how profoundly important it is that we recognize and value this surrender. He’s not trying to pretend that she’s now a new Ramana, but that even this humble moment of surrender makes all “difference” disappear, that love simply dissolves all boundaries between Guru and disciple, teacher and student.
I thought this whole exchange was particulary beautiful precisely because it’s clear that the woman is still very much an imperfect, even somwhat hysterial mess. Papaji is making the point that what we value as important, this whole notion of being an informercial-perfect enlightened guy with all his shit together, is precisely the opposite of what real practice often looks like and feels like. True surrender is not a picture postcard. And even more important, it doesn’t come at the end of your “practice”, it is your practice from the start.
Which means I also disgree with those comments which suggest that Papaji was making a mistake in not giving this woman some kind of “practice” to do. This completely misses the point. He was telling her that this disposition is her practice, and nothing else. Simple surrender into one’s own Nature, boundless love, to the point of “falling apart”, that’s the practice. That’s what real self-enquiry is about, not some dry practice of silent meditation. It might seem silent and meditative sometimes, but inside it is a total surrender of self and ego to what we truly are, not some practice aimed at achieving that by other means.
This is why Papaji didn’t recommend “practices”. He was quite contemptuous of such ideas, that there’s some other set of things we need to do to come to the point of “enlightenment”. Instead, he insisted that one must practice enlightenment from the beginning, truly surrendering, truly enquiring into one’s very Self, and not putting this off even for a second to engage in some other “preliminary” practice. He was intent on teaching his students this one central principle, and he didn’t seem to mind if they didn’t quite grasp it all at once, he was going to keep showing it to them over and over again until the point got driven home. In the process, certainly some people misunderstood the point he was making. Some decided on the basis of a few experiences like this that they were fully enlightened, and started teaching others as if they were Siddhas. Others just wanted to share this experience with others, and didn’t make a big deal that they were enlightened. It’s not like Papaji was creating an organization with self-enforcing rules and regulations. He understood that such a route was even more prone to error and harm than letting people make their own mistakes. And certainly people made a lot of mistakes with these teachings. But not nearly as badly as those who created organizations around themselves, like Da and Cohen, and tried to enforce a whole system of “practice”.
Real practice has nothing to do with “practices”. Some people are helped to some degree by having some sort of structure to hang their self-surrender upon, a mantra, a form of enquiry, the name and form of a Guru, puja, etc. Nothing wrong with that at all, unless we begin to equate practice with these things.
I don’t want to get too far into the whole neo-Advaita debate here, since its a bit off topic. All I can say is, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. It seems there’s a lot of people knocking the neo-advaitins who themselves seem to have a very suspect “practice”. It’s one thing to make simple criticisms, another to be contemptuous of people who are just trying their best to understand and communicate what they’ve experienced, mistakes and all.
February 4, 2009 at 9:34 pm
In the light of recent postings about ‘anger,’ I must say that since I left Adidam I harbor no anger against Adi Da or the community of his devotees. If people find Adi Da to be who he claims to be, and live their lives accordingly, good luck to them. I find ‘debate’ about that choice completely unnecessary.
Adi Da’s main legacy in my case is that I now have no person, teaching or way I can turn to for the Truth. It’s frightening at times and wonderfully liberating at other times! Strangely enough, I feel it all as a gift.
For those who are interested in reading the author I found to have had the greatest influence in confirming my understanding since leaving Adidam, it’s a guy calling himself Jed McKenna. His trilogy of books begin with ‘Spiritual Enlightenment – The Damndest Thing.’ (He’s very ‘American’ which confirms my unverified assertion that the greatest Realizers in the world are American!)
February 4, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Slyder and Shiva,
I do not say there is anything wrong with seeing those like Sailor Bob Adamson who seem level headed and have a good reputation. Sailor Bob is someone I would see myself. Harding is someone I wish I had seen, for the most part, those who actually saw Ramana Maharshi seem pretty clear. As a general rule, provided the teacher is not corrupted, there is nothing wrong with the good company of those who teach non-dualism. Provided their own relationship to a Realizer is strong and fairly unobstructed, they don’t even have to be fully enlightened to be effective, that quality of the connection comes right through. Ramana Maharshi did say jnanis use agents for such purposes.
As you know, you do have to be very careful. Flick mentioned some examples at least some of which I know are corrupted. Even though those I know to be corrupted seem to speak pure non-dualist “truths”, it is not true of them presence wise. And hanging around corrupted teachers may have some initial value, but has a subtle corrupting influence over time, even if the words seem valid. I’ve seen it.
Where I think it is a particular concern and red flag is when neo-advaita teachers oversimplify and see only the tip of the iceberg in traditional non-dualism, often presuming a superior modern perspective and short cut as a result. Certainly Ramana Maharshi’s description of the ulimtate absurdity of seeking and personalizing the Pure Awareness already the case is totally accurate to the extent words can convey the Truth. But the subtle seeds of karma are very hard hard to permantly resolve even if they seem dormant. Amma may be too extreme, perhaps, but there is validity I think to her statements about the value of a more bhakti oriented practice.
February 4, 2009 at 10:24 pm
That is funny i was actually saying that I thought what the woman was going through on the video with Poonjaji was a natural and benefiicial result of receiving a real spiritual transmission although it could be sort of irritating due to the hysterical side of it and that she was laughing like a ninny. But she did end up in a very peaceful condition and poonjaji was very loving. Actually I was questioning another poster’s negative reaction to the vid. I guess people do not read my posts here , since i tend to value what Adi da said and did and that is not politically correct here.
Personally I do feel that some of the people who went to poonjaji did sort of take the bone and run and now mistakenly think they are enlightened, such as Andrew and Gangaji and several others.
Ammachi and other teachers like Adi Da have said that one can start from the point of view of Self or Nonduality , but that the ego is still very much in play , so that a real “practice” is useful and even necessary over time for the vast majority of humans. That seems pretty right on from what I have seen . Other wise it really does seem like “talking school” or spiritual conceit to me.
yes , Slyder I was using Sarah Palin as an example of modern day neo Christianity , which is where the majority of Christians stand. I know there is a more esoteric form of Christianity as with gnostics and Father Bede Griffiths and also Thomas Merton as examples. That is a rare minority though. And I do feel that the Bible is pretty much not full of much wisdom. Actually , so also with the Bhagavad Gita and other ancient texts.
That is a big reason why a living guru with a living teaching and transmission is a good thing. I just can’t see Jesus or Krishna as my teacher and guru. Now ‘love thy neighbor” is good basic practice and teaching , but I think it is simplistic, and not really doable for real by most egoic personalities without long term practice. Same with the Krishna teachings. I do think that krishna for some could still be a living transmission guru . This certainly was the case for Ammachi for real. I have seen her “possessed” by the form and spirit of Krishna and it is beyond amazing.
I never said that one needs a guru for practice. I have practiced off and on for years without a guru. i have been doing a lot of Buddhist sitting pracitce studying with various teachers. I have also studied and practiced with other gurus like Ammachi and also Sri Chinmoy when I was in my early twenties.
I just think that the way of real devotion[not cultic devotion , but an intelligent devotion based on a heart and intuitive response to the teaching and transmission and person of a realized guru] to a guru could be very effective and even a sort of express route to awakening. According to Adi Da, this awakening and devotion is right at the start , but that real practice over time is still necessary. That rings pretty true to what i have experienced and seen.
I have not said that Adi Da is the one true guru or anything like that., I have just described my experience of him as a spiritual revealer and transmitter of my own Self. So I think his way, if approached and practiced for real could be an express way of awakening. no guarantee of course.
i am glad that Eddie B as an Aussie has discovered that the “greatest Realizers in the world are American” perhaps there is more coming out of our culture than Hollywood movies and big war toys that are used for genocide. if what is said about sailor bob is true, then there is more coming out of Australia than good surfers and Fosters lager. Flick Rahke
February 4, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Wow I thought Conrad had tired and got bored with this. I recognize him now posting in the form of “Butthead” I wonder why he is using this name. personally I always considered him intelligent and never thought of him as a “Butthead” well I am not one to figure people out.
I don’t think FeelFor God is being all that “cultic” He certainly uses the language of Adi Da and Adidam that he is steeped in. It does sound better coming directly from Adi Da, but, of course, Adi Da was a master communicator of dharma.
But I do thing FFG is expressing j his own direct experience of Adi Da as the ‘Acausal egoless divine” Certainly i have experieced this many many times myself and I have said it here too.
if someone thinks I have some sort of ulterior cult motives to somehow defend Adi
Da and his actions, then I find that pretty laughable. I am sure someone could dig up some pop psycholgy from the half baked “cult busters” books.
This whole “cult busting” head that has emerged from the very non spiritual and anti spriitual culture of modern American society is just so irritating and boring and very “BEavis and Butthead” like Flick Rahke
February 5, 2009 at 12:33 am
Well yes certainly U.G. was an angry character so it makes sense he would say something like that. of course it is better to get angry and do something rather than roll over like a dog. But , say in Buddhism, which has a strong nondualism side, the anger elicited in sense of an ego contraction and reaction is considered negative and destructive mostly to the person who is being angry but to other beings in that environment of anger. Check out the effects of anger in the world. like Israel and Palestine for example. Thich nat Hahn , the great living zen master talks a lot about this in his very “practical” teachings. he has a whole book on how to deal with it with ‘compassionate and deep listening” and lots of other places.
Wow, Slyder you are a virtual encyclopedia of spirituality. The stuff you wrote is very sophisticated and complex and shows a lot of knowledge of traditions. I do question a lot of the philosophy and your interpretations though. You seem to have it all figured out from jesus to Shankara. it is almost as if you walked in Jesus shoes. you might consider writing your own ‘Basket of Tolerance”
By the way people do seem to express a whole whopping lot of anger here and i would not presume to figure out why. i guess there could be a lot of reasons. But is seems sort of self defeating to stay angry at , say, Adi Da after not having any thing to do with him or his community for many years. It seems a bit obsessive compulsive to me , but that is just another shrink expression. it just seems like a good thing to let go of and just move it on. Flick Rahke
February 5, 2009 at 5:35 am
Regarding how a jnani parts with the body, the Maharshi said:
“Again a jnani has attained liberation even while alive, here and now. It is immaterial as to how, where and when he leaves the body. Such jnanis may appear to suffer, others may be in samadhi, still others may disappear from sight before death. But that makes no difference to their jnana. Such suffering is apparent only to the onlooker and not to the jnani for he has already transcended the mistaken identity of the Self with the body.” – “Talks…” Talk #87, pg 87
http://www.scribd.com/doc/5067397/talks-with-sri-ramana-maharshi-complete
February 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Apparently my latest clarifying comment disappeared. In any case, in response to Shiva and Slyder, it is evident to me that each neo-Advaita teacher should be considered on their own merits, and not just on what they teach. Presence is essential. Words and even generated experiences may contain truth but do not have the same effect coming from those who are not jnanis. I do think Amma, for example, has provided good insight about the limitations of some of what is taught. It is that which is below the tip of the iceberg that concerns me. And that was my point.
Flick has mentioned some examples, and I personally know a few who are corrupt, despite fairly impecable language. As far as I know, Sailor Bob is recommended, certainly someone I would spend time with, someone whose relationship with his teacher shines through. There is nothing wrong with good company of those sincere and matured non-dualists, whether or not they can be shown to be fully realized, they are suitable agents. In any case, each is responsible for their own practice.
I think Da will never be seen the same by everyone. To some extent, that was the complex nature of Da. I think Georg Fuerstein verbalized something which I considered myself and a good part of why I left, whether Da’s lessons were really the most effective way or represented some deficincy in himself. From his very first talk, Understanding, Da deflected considerations of his own state by focusing on others being imperfect. The real question is whether the means Da used were really the most effective way to deal with karmic lessons. I did not find that to be the case.
February 5, 2009 at 12:55 pm
It is worthwhile, I think, to evaluate the first critical dialogue Da (Franklin) had back in 1972 when he opened his Ashram. When I look back it now, I see why Adidam evolved the way it did. In particular, look at how Da turns on his first questioner who simply did not understand his non-verbal teachings, and then uses one of his devotees to reinforce the focus on the questioner as motivated by “stone cold fear”. Now imagine a large group where those kind of dynamics are accepted in regard to everything Da says and does, and you have Adidam. There are always going to be those who see Da differently.
QUESTION: You can answer whichever way you like.
FRANKLIN: I do not have need for the answer. What specifically are you asking?
QUESTION: Well, actually you answered me, because I wanted to see what you wanted to say.
FRANKLIN: No, that is not what you wanted to see. Don’t play games. I am not here to entertain. All these little dramas you are playing have no place. I have no interest in them, and neither have you. I am not here to “lay something on” to you. I am not concerned with that. If you want to discuss something with me for a real purpose, that is something else. But if you want to play at polemics, and idle cleverness
QUESTION: That’s not what I want.
FRANKLIN: No, no. That is what you want.
QUESTION: Do you think that is what I am trying to do?
FRANKLIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Why do you think that?
FRANKLIN: What is all of that? (pointing to his expression)
QUESTION: What is what?
FRANKLIN: What has all of that (pointing to his expression) got to do with anything, hm? You are very upset. What are you upset about?
QUESTION: I’m not upset at all.
FRANKLIN: Yes you are, my friend. (to another) Does he look upset to you?
ANOTHER: Yes. I recognize that. (to the questioner) You know what that is? It is fear stone cold fear.
FRANKLIN: Something here is upsetting you. I would like to talk about that. That would be worth talking about.
QUESTION: I don’t feel upset.
FRANKLIN: You don’t feel the least upset?
QUESTION: No.
FRANKLIN: Very good.
February 5, 2009 at 1:10 pm
beavis/conrad/butthead:
“Unfortunately, I only have dial-up and can’t see video”
you can download the vid, however, and then watch it. once downloaded you’re not dependent on the dial-up bottleneck as you are during streaming.
use firefox and this extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3006
it’s all free and very easy.
February 5, 2009 at 1:14 pm
ffac,
i agree with most of what you are saying. especially that great caution is in order when choosing a spiritual teacher. most of us know from our experience with mr. jones how misleading spiritual teachers can be.
yet, what i said earlier is still an open issue:
you have yet to make a case, ffac, why this (the very same message) is supposed to be superior or more complete coming from ramana as compared to tony parsons for example?
February 5, 2009 at 1:46 pm
our great feeler:
“no guru games WHATSOEVER. no self-glorifications.”
that refers to GAMES some gurus are playing (like mr. jones for example) but that does not question the very purpose of a (real) guru.
“shiva, you seem to just make these sweeping negative statements about my posts, but seldom with any substance to back your conclusions about them.”
i think i have done plenty of that in my posts here. but i have pretty much given up any hope of getting through to you. sorry, man, but from all your posts i get the very strong feeling that you are lost in adidam la-la-land where you have claimed your little island of feeling away from reality and where nobody can reach you.
from the responses you are getting it should be clear that i am not alone in my assessment.
you simply do not address any real issues. i already expressed my amazement at conrad’s patience with you, but i get the feeling that has run preeeetttyyy thin lately…
you state all critics are angry with mr. jones. i explain to you i for one wasn’t and back it up with quotes from sukhapur about me (who, in adidam, has the reputation as a highly intuitive and accurate judge of character). no response. doesn’t fit your theory; ergo, it can’t be true.
i explain that and how mr. jones was consistently lied to by those around him and how his communications to the sangha were severely distorted (often to a degree that can only be called lies) in order to make them more palpable. i refer to you for comment, since virtually EVERYBODY in adidam knows that. no response. doesn’t fit the (false) image you want to convey here; ergo, it is ignored.
and on and on.
others here have revealed that strategy of yours at length.
in fact, i am mostly responding to your posts to clarify and set right some of your points for the general reader here who may know little to nothing about adidam.
i think beavis/conrad/butthead’s analysis is spot on:
“Those who take this route end up with an entirely different set of motives. Rather than having the motives of an angery “dissident”, they very likely develop the motives of an intensely loyal cultist, willing to defend their Guru at all cost, because any “crack” in their faith in the Guru has the potential to unleash a whole backlog of self-loathing and resentment. All those repressed emotions of jealousy and anger that have been carefully locked away and rationalized as some sort of “spiritual lesson in submission of the male ego to the Sat-Guru”, would, if their Guru were found in any way to be at fault, imperfect, egoic, or otherwise engaging in self-indulgent behavior, come rushing out and overwhelm the man with guilt and self-loathing.”
hits the nail on the head from what i have seen in adidam and from how you, feel4god, present yourself around here.
February 5, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Flick, I hope you don’t consider me presumptuous for posting under the illustrious names of Beavis and Butthead. I just want to show my solidarity with those two great jnanis, but I hope no one will think I am up to their level of realization.
As for the issue of anger, I find it a rather odd subject for Daists to be complaining about, given just how angry a guy Adi Da was much of the time. Honestly, I’ve never known anyone who could rant and rave as long and strong as he could. I guess you never had to sit through endless note cycles though. If anger is such a terrible thing to find in ex-devotees, why isn’t it a terrible thing to find in Da himself?
Personally, I think anger does have a valuable place in not just spiritual life, but human life altogether. There’s plenty of abusive, vengeful anger in this world, and that’s to be condemned, but sometimes anger can just be a way of getting one’s energy up to deal with ingrown complacency and inertia that just shouldn’t be tolerated. In the spiritual traditions, it is said that “unconsciousness” is represented by the quality of tamas, inertia, deadness, stuckness, an inability to move. Rajas, associated with the emotion of anger, is able to break tamas up, get its energy moving, and actually change a stuck situation. The purpose is to achieve sattvas, balance and harmony, but there’s virtually no way to move from tamas to sattvas directly without passing through a phase of rajas. It doesn’t require one get destructively and explosively angry, but some anger can indeed by useful.
For me, I first got into this whole consideration of criticism of Adi Da precisely because, back in 1998 he went through a long series of angry, critical denunciations of devotees as being stuck, trapped, tamasic unable to grow, etc. He asked repeatedly “what’s wrong with Adidam?” He even asked me personally a number of times to describe what was wrong with Adidam, and that’s what led me to go online to the original Wilber forum, where a whole lot of very angry ventings were happening, critical of Adidam. At first I was defending Adi Da, and sometimes I got angry at the critics there. Eventually, I began to see that regardless of their emotional qualities, they had some valid criticisms. Eventually, of course, I became a critic myself.
I remember finally letting my own anger out at that time. It was considerable. People here might have the impression that I’m a solid, but that’s not actually true. When I first came to Adidam, I was considered maybe the most peculiar person in the community. Then, I went through a long phase where I overcame my peculiarity by becoming more and more solid. And then, finally, I became a vital, which is what I think I’ve really been all along underneath it all. I went on a retreat back in around 1992-93 in which I was declared a full-fledged vital, or in the words of some, a “classic solid-peculiar-vital.
Anyway, by this time I was quite at ease with anger, and so leaving Adidam was a good time to let some of that anger out. In my view, this is simply natural and even healthy for a lot of people. If one is stuck in a long-standing pattern, such as being a cultist, a fundamentalist, a member of some group that seems trapped in various patterns of unconsciousness, getting unstuck from all that often requires a great deal of rajas, of new energy that breaks up the old energy. So it’s quite natural and even healthy to get angry about Adidam and all the various abuses one had previously been silent and repressed about. One can certainly take that anger too far, and become destructive and hurtful to oneself and others, but that doesn’t mean that anger itself is wrong. Eventually, as one breaks up the old pattern and creates a new, more open pattern, the anger dissipates and falls away, and one is left with a sattvic pattern, a balanced and harmonious life. That’s basically how it went for me at least. My life now is far more sattvic than it ever was in Adidam, and thus I feel much more capable of genuine spiritual practice. So while I didn’t end up doing much good for Adidam’s own pattern of stuckness, I certainly did help myself quite a lot. And anger was definitely a useful part of that process, so I wouldn’t condemn anyone merely for being angry. It’s important to look at the reasons behind the anger, and the results that ensue. Anger can often be an extremely healthy reaction to an unhealthy circumstance. And like I say, for Daists to complain about anger seems very hypocritical, or even a form of denial.
February 5, 2009 at 3:26 pm
I agree with what FFAC says on the issue of more so called “traditional” advaitins like Ramana Maharshi and the modern “upstarts” so to speak. The difference is that the “truth” of nonduality coming from an actual realizer is a lot different in terms of “transmission” than the parroting of the nondual truth from someone who has not realized it in themselves yet. I think that is the real distinction here. Now of course that is not to say that someone more contemporary could not themselves wake up and communicate the truth. That would be very narrowminded.
But many of the modern day advaitins are going around giving the satsang of Truth and it is “talking school” and just blathering.
I have listed the one I had personal experience with and there fore would not wish to comment on someone like sailor bob who I have no experience of. It does seem like most of the circus of unrealized jnanis did emanate from the Poonjaji school. I think that might be because even though he was a realizer of nonduality, he was somewhat naive as a teacher{as Adi Da was for some of his teaching years , especially in the beginning}. He spoke the nondual truth in a powerful way and had a palpable transmission to back up his speach , a silent transmission of the truth. so people were getting intense satoris or glimpses and thinking that they had “got it” so to speak. he would just naively send them on their way and now we have nondual realizers coming out of the woodwork. Personally I don’t buy it and prefer something and someone more real. But I bet Poonja is laughing his ass off. Flick Rahke
February 5, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Beavis! Butthead! What the hell happened to you guys? Come on in here!
Beavis & Butthead (B+B): We were just cruising along and this talking head dude named Conrad came up to us and was yakking endlessly. What a bunghole!
B+B: Then he wanted us to read all kinds of anti-cult books, and he kept going on and on about Adi Da and the cult of Adidam!
B+B: We kept telling him that we hate words. Words suck! If we wanted to read, we’d go to school. But the dude wouldn’t listen. We faked like we had a really bad hay fever attack to get the hell away from him, but this Conrad dude told us about some medical weed that would set everything straight! Man, it was awesome – except he still would not shut up with all of this rap about cults, and especially Adidam.
Feel4God (F4G): I see. Yeah, I read what you said up there, Butthead. That didn’t really sound like you. You know, Adi Da really liked you guys’ big movie.
B+B: Cool!
F4G: He even imitated your T-shirt routine!
B+B: Whoa! We really think He is cool! He has a very big sense of humor!
Butthead: Man, I feel awful, F4G – I mean, really sick.
F4G: I can’t imagine! Go lie down on that couch over there, Butthead. Hey, Beavis, why don’t you go into the next room and watch some videos.
F4G: So, Butthead, wtf happened after you got totally ripped?
Butthead: That dude Conrad friggin’ entered me! And then I started yakking and spewing all sorts of words everywhere! It was non-stop and my mind is just a whirl of words that make me dizzy and totally unbalanced. Plus my bunghole really itches!
F4G: Uhhh, how did he enter you, Butthead? No wait! Please don’t tell me that! So Conrad is in you now?
Butthead: Yes! But he finally talked himself to sleep.
F4G: Hmmm… I’m not sure how to address you when we speak here.
Let’s see… Conrad + Butthead… OK, let’s call you ConHead until we can get you exorcised of this Conrad dude.
Butthead: Please do something, man! These words are non-stop and they are really hurting my head!
Ok, Butthead. But first we need to consider some of the things “you” said above:
ConHead Says:
“So I gather that over the years, your wife continued to have sex with Adi Da, and that this brought up “issues of jealousy” in you. You point out that some men put in this situation became angry and left, while others, like yourself, “dealt with it”.”
You are jumping to conclusions here once again, ConHead – and as usual, you are mistaken in doing so. This presumption of yours I quoted above, which is the ground upon which you built your pseudo-psychological analysis of me, is wrong. What this period I referred to was about, was that many women, my intimate included, still served in Adi Da’s house but many, including her, were not involved sexually with Adi Da. She had already left His most intimate sphere, like I said earlier, and was living with me. However, this period still was very intense for me, as described in my prior posts, in terms of the egoic desire to have the woman all to myself, and not have her being so much of a gopi, i.e., so devoted to Adi Da.
Again, keep in mind, this woman was one of a very few in Adi Da’s most intimate sphere early on, and so I also looked at her as very much a gift from the Guru. I never would have even met her if it was not for Him. Soon thereafter she and I did simply take up householder living as that is what we required at the time.
You really like to jump to conclusions about what I say, ConHead; and also you like to characterize Adi Da with the most negative of connotations possible, e.g., “sexual predations”. How asinine and presumptuous of you to say this! Did you not read what I wrote? And even just looking at it very simply, almost all the women in Adidam wanted to be with Him – it wasn’t like He had to go looking for women, you know, as you like to characterize. (Sounds like jealousy/anger on your part right there, ConHead.) This alone would make many a man jealous. If someone said it did not, I would wonder about that as well. However, given your twisted reception of what I said, I won’t bother writing any more about the yoga various women said was activated in them by their Guru.
You are showing your prudishness again, ConHead, and your Psych 101 analysis reads like a chapter from one of those anti-cult books.
You clearly either forgot or never recognized Adi Da as the Reality in which all of us arise, abide in, inhere in, and are a modification of. Yours is the reaction of someone who not only did not understand this, but is so deeply frustrated that your life has become obsessed with trying to justify your lack of recognition with endless bashing and mental analysis about Adi Da, Daists, and Adidam.
One could look at all the tests Adi Da gave devotees as the traditional “lions at the gate” – where, even though He fully and freely Gifted everyone with His most radical Teachings and very Being from the beginning, the ongoing Realization of Who He Is could only be further understood and more deeply animated by devotees via their passing many many tests of their radical devotional recognition of the non-dual Reality in which all arise.
Butthead: I swear, F4G, I never said those things! But damn, the women sure love Adi Da!
F4G: Yeah they sure do and so do many many men. Don’t worry dude, this will be over soon, just lay back down on the couch.
Butthead: Come on, F4G, get this righteous prude out of me!
F4G: Try to be nice, Butthead.
ConHead Says:
“The truth is, no one in Adidam behefited from these things”
What a pretentious assumption you make here, ConHead – but this is what you have done throughout this blog with what I have said, so this comes as no surprise. By your standards, I could call you a liar just on this basis. So I guess you interviewed everyone in Adidam? As I already wrote, this process greatly served my self-understanding especially relative to householder desiring, holding on to an “other” as some kind of “immortal beloved” that I could demand happiness from, the cult of pairs, etc., etc. Many devotees attest along very similar lines.
Given your reaction here, ConHead, you seemingly could not imagine letting your egoic grip go on your wife and householder’s life – which is fine, but it all does go, sooner or later. Adi Da clearly awoke this self-understanding and capacity to release all kinds of attachments in many many devotees by our FIRST being “single” with Him, though not through excluding our intimates, but by loving them in relationship to the Divine Reality in which we all arise. Too threatening for many to do this in the direct physical Company of the Guru, I understand, but not for those who maintained their non-dual relationship to Adi Da.
Some devotees were tested apparently more severely than others – but I can say that I was NEVER tested beyond my limits for self-understanding and transcendence. How you can speak for all devotees relative to this, is beyond me. But this is what I directly experienced and am now a much freer person as a result – and it really doesn’t matter to me whatever analysis you want to attempt to characterize my and other Daists’ behavior as some kind of cult bunch of zombies. By the way, what is it about the traditional requirement that you have to surrender EVERYTHING to the Guru – that you don’t get, or are not ready for, ConHead?
ConHead Says:
“Some people are able to put up with all kinds of crazy nonsense, and still function, but it does take a toll, and part of that is evident in the kinds of posts Feel4God has written here. No wonder the guy feels such an intense need to defend his Guru with 90+ posts.”
Hahahahaha! This is unbelievable coming from the guy who has written for years on the Internet, first defending His Guru, and now bashing Him unendingly! Too much! This is the first time I have written of my experiences with Adi Da on the internet, and, of course I am going to defend my beloved Guru from your insidious statements – I love Him, and other readers should hear what Daists have to say that is contrary to so many of your frustrated, anger-driven posts. Unfortunately, ConHead, love does not seem to be your motivation here, and yet you have some incredible need to go on like this for how many years now?
Why are YOU so in need to keep posting endlessly about all of this? By your own admission, Adi Da is not your Guru any longer. And you actually said you were done with all this mentality the other day:
Conradg Says:
January 27, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“I can’t wait. Now, I think we’re really coming to the end of the line here. It’s time to concentrate on practice, not on these distractions of the mind.”
But I knew you were not going away, and as shiva said about you, “you are just so charmingly in love with your mind”.
Oh, yeah, this must be why you entered Beavis and Butthead! You transferred your mind to Beavis and Butthead in order to come back here! Poor guys… Now that is truly an ad hominem attack! I must try to help these innocents be free of this madness…
Butthead: It’s about time!
Beavis: Yeah, that Conrad dude is in me too!
F4G: Damn! The Way of Con-Rad is duplicating itself!
Hmmm…. Beavis, what should I call you in order to address you properly until Conrad is exorcised from you? Let’s see…
Beavis + Conrad = BeRad
So BeRad it is! That is a totally cool neo-type name, dude! Go see shiva and have him “enlighten” you, then you can become famous and makes lots of money and maybe even get some babes! shiva knows a lot about the shakti, dude!
Butthead: “Hey Beavis, we need a chick that doesn’t suck. No, wait a minute, that’s not what I mean.”
F4G: Come on guys, stay serious here. So BeRad, what is happening with you?
BeRad: I need TP for my pie-hole! I have the worst case of diarrhea of the mouth ever! I just could not stop talking about cults! I just want to be happy again! But just now, I was watching some videos of Adi Da and it was the only time that this diarrhea would stop! Whenever I really just looked at Adi Da, I could see His happiness and His Humor and I merged into That! And this crazy talking head would just fall away! Cool, huh?
F4G: That’s it! And surely, my friend shiva will confirm your “enlightenment” now, BeRad – especially if you just don’t mention the name Adi Da, and instead say the “Self” or “Awareness”. You are going places now, BeRad! So just maintain that recognition, and hopefully Conrad will leave you be to your practice and your love of the Divine without all the negativity being thrown around about your particular choices.
Butthead: Oh man, I just watched that video too – totally cool! It works! The endless mentality stops when I simply sight Who Adi Da Is most directly! Cool!
B+B: We are totally indebted to Adi Da! He ridded us of the cult of Con-Rad! Can we give you some money, dude? We are rich and famous already, you know.
F4G: It’s all a free Gift, always already, from the beginning and forever! Take care my friends, check out http://www.Adidam.org , and be more discriminating about what you ingest altogether! See you guys later – I got lots of work that has finally arrived, so away you go for now!
Butthead: Damn, Beavis, that was a close call! I feel violated by Conrad!
Beavis: Me too! But, dude, only call me BeRad from now on. Do you get IT dude?
Butthead: Don’t over-analyze IT, dude!
BeRad: Heheh, you said “anal”, dude!
February 5, 2009 at 3:49 pm
yes I have read a lot of the description of anger in the Buddhadharma and studied it from buddhist masters , particularly Pema Chodron and Thich Naht Hahn, who was certainly abused big time by the Vietnam war waged on Vietnam by America. He certainly had a bit more reason to be angry than anyone coming from Adidam. Give me a break. I mean the Cutler’s{who were some of the biggest ego climbers I ever saw in Adidam} to angrily sue Adidam because they could have out there making big bucks in the world as chiropracters instead of wasting their good income years in Adidam? Thich Naht Hahn found piles of bodies of his monks and nuns in villages wiped out by American troops. The village where he was born and grew up was bombed by napalm because they thought that perhaps there were some VC hanging out there.
Thich naht hahn did not express his anger in the childish pouting way of people I see here. He became a peaceful activist and brought real change. he always said that the expression of anger never helped anyone or anything He says that you do not repress your anger, you observe it and then do something else. That sounds like what Adi Da says too.
Of course if you are into the modern psycho babble model of the cult busters, it is only about the profuse spouting out and vomiting up of anger and spreading its goodness all around and everywhere. That is the “modern” up to date approach and i personally do not buy it . Of course, we all get angry.
If you want to get into the “:solids, peculiars , and vitals” thing, which I am surprised at since it is so Daist, then it is ridiculous for conrad to say he is a vital just because he is caught up in anger. You are a “solid peculiar” I am a “vital peculiar” Vitals tend to explosively express their anger and then just drop it and move on. solids are extremely angry by tendency, but repressing it more and sitting on it with their minds. My feeling is that most of the people posting here are male solid types , because they are very angry and have been holding this anger for years on end. They do express it some , but in a very mental way and not in a way that actually lets go of it. Actually the expression of anger does tend to hold it . According to buddhism that is the way anger works. Actually , I have to say the I think FFAC falls into another category, because he truly does not seem that angry to me although he is as “solid” as they get. Just my personal observations and ruminations Flick Rahke
February 5, 2009 at 8:06 pm
Just as Rudyard Kipling lamented about the British and the Indians on the subcontinent with that famous statement, ‘Never the twain shall meet,’ so can we lament about Feel4God and Conradg. It was foretold early on in this blog by that great fortune-teller disguised as Eddie B.
Guys, it’s really time to now let it go. As I and others have commented, there is a differing primary point-of-view on both sides of the great divide that is as solid as a rock. No amount of continuing dialog (as argumentation or reasoning) will change it. That must be clear to both of you by now. The ‘devotee’ comes from a very different place to someone who once was a devotee but is no longer. Neither have sole rights to the Truth because the Truth is just not realized by the winning of one over the other.
Feel4God, good luck with your continuing disposition as a devotee. It’s not my cup of tea for the reasons I and others on this blog have elucidated on many occasions, but I know that whatever falsities there are will be revealed. That’s the way Truth works for everyone.
Conradg, I would love to see you use your gifts of clarity and writing (and any ‘anger’) in a way free from trying to convince Feel4God and other devotees the merits of your arguments. Your commentaries regarding Ramana’s words and Adi Da’s words have been very useful for me, especially as I have been both a devotee of Adi Da and have spent a good deal of time with those of the Ramana/Papaji lineage.
An interesting story: Soon after reading Love of the Two-Armed Form, the first book I read of Adi Da’s, I found myself in the home of a self-proclaimed ‘realizer’ who lived nearby. When I asked him where he was at in the hierarchical scheme of enlightened beings he replied that he himself was not fully realized. However, there were two photos on the wall; one was Ramana Maharshi, the other Adi Da. He pointed to Adi Da and told me that this one was fully realized. Having heard that, it was immediately clear I had to leave and find a way to the top dog himself. I did AND after I left Adidam I went on two pilgrimages to Ramana’s Ashram. I have no need to ‘compare’ one with the other, but I have enjoyed the commentaries on this blog.
Oh, and I do get angry. If I read another post on this blog trying to convince someone else, something else, I will probably resort to abusive anger, the worst kind of anger. Please, guys, save me and this blog from that horrendous outcome.
February 5, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Flick,
You didn’t answer the question of why, if anger is purely a terrible thing, Adi Da got so angry so often? And why, if you think anger serves no useful purpose, but Adi Da frequently got angry at devotees, you still think so highly of him, and of Adidam altogether? How do you justify/explain/rationalize Adi Da’s extreme temper, his blow-ups, his yelling at and criticizing devotees in the most extreme manner? I’m just curious, because you seem to contradict yourself here, in strongly criticizing critics of Adi Da for their anger, but not criticizing Adi Da for his own anger. Shouldn’t you condemn Adi Da as clearly not enlightened for displaying so much anger so often?
And regarding the whole solid/vital/peculiar thing, I brought it up because it’s been commented on here a lot, and when in Rome, I don’t mind speaking Italian. I think the three gunas are better than the whole “solid-vital-peculiar” thing, but then again, Da based those on the three gunas in any case. But you’re just flat out wrong about the emotional characteristics that Da associates with these things. He most definitely associates anger with vitals, sorrow with peculiars, and fear with solids. People do confuse this, because solid for example often cover up their fearfulness by trying to look scary and angry, but in reality they are just little scaredy cats. I remember having a meeting with Joe Taylor, Da’s personal body-guard, and a few other devotees, and seeing how much he tried to scare everyone around him, by looking angry and threatening and even seething with a barely masked contempt. But I could see right through this to his fear, and I told him afterward that he was the most frightened person I’d ever met in my life. And he still is. Of course, the dude had been in the military, and had been in charge of security at one of the nuclear labs where they make atomic weapons. These guys all like to look very scary, but it’s really just a projection. Inside these incredibly solid controlling types are all just terrified little babies. Needless to say, Joe didn’t much like me.
I don’t think that the expression of anger necessarily leads to a holding on to it. For most healthy vitals, blowing off a little steam here and there is a good thing, and they get over it fast, as if it never happened. Other people might not recover so quickly, however, so they need to be conscious of the effects they have on people. And of course in an ideal world no one would ever get angry, or fearful, or sorrowful, and everyone would be enlightened, but that’s not the world we live in, is it? So I think it’s best not to condemn any of our emotions, and try to make them work for us rather than against us. Anger can be productive and useful, if you aren’t afraid of it, and don’t make too big a mess. And frankly, given the state of the world, if you aren’t at least a little bit angry, you just aren’t paying attention.
February 5, 2009 at 10:28 pm
That is funny since I saw Joe as a big teddy bear and he did not seem weird or scary to me. i guess maybe because he was big and wore the pretty severe clothing. Although i tend to feel that security type people who are wannabe cops or whatever are pretty uptight and offensive.
Actually I guess conrad and people did not read most of my post which was pretty much about buddha dharma and in particular Thich naht Hahn’s recommendations of practice with it. Surely he has been a heck of a lot more than Conrad or anyone else here in working to change the negativity in the world without resorting to anger at all.
I did not say that i was expressing Adi Da’s teaching exactly relating to the peculiar solid and vital thing. I did say that vitals tend to get angry and express it and let it go. I did not say that I thought this was any better than what a solid does. Anger is destructive and I get angry to especially when i listen to the news too much and see too much bull floating around.
I did say that I thought from what i have seen, that solid type people do have a lot of anger and tend to suppress it and hold on for years on end. I have certainly seen that with solid type exdevotees of Adi Da. i don’t think expressing it is necessarily any better , although we are all going to go through our own stuff with anger because of course it will come up.
I was just posting another possible way that ai learned in buddhism that is not based on the western psycho pop way that says yu just have to express your anger all the time. We see the effects all over the world of people expressing their anger at each other. They are expressing their anger quite well in the middle east these days. The buddha taught that hatred is never cured by hatred but only by love. Easy to say and hard to do.
As far as Adi Da i will leave the critiques up to you. I posted what i had read from Annamalai swami and Maharshi about not judging the realization of an enlightened jnani by his actions and so forth. Certainly when a jnani’s actions are unconventionl and can appear even very harsh , that can bring up doubts in the mind of anyone, even a so called devotee. Why not? Especially in a culture like ours that is so shallow and pre brainwashed so to speak against anything and anyone unconventional.
So i do not think personally that Adi Da was an ordinary man. I do feel that he is an enlightened egoless jnani , so i go by that. That is my personal experience of him. So i feel that Annamalai’s teaching relative to that applies here.
Now I personally know one person very well and others who were yelled at a lot by Adi Da over a pretty long period. One friend eventually left and so on. he is not damaged or anything like that. he is more into Eckart now, but still talks very positively about Da’s teachings and uses them in his own life and practice. he was certainly in big time line of fire though and that itself stirs up a lot around Adi da.
I used to have lots and lots of my own personal negativity stirred up just by sitting in darshan with Adi Da. I called it “the ecstacy and the agony” First I would be totally ecstatic and at one with all beings while in darshan and then all the dark stuff inside my deeper hidden being would be stirred up and it would certainly be uncomfortable and painful.
The tendency of the ego when self revealed stuff comes up is to not claim it and instead project it out and blame someone or something outside. i have seen this in myself and many others over and over. i mean is it not the point to have stuff dredged up and over time with practice and letting go, actually be free of the obstacles to true self realization? Anger is a primary reaction when these deep things come up and anger usually projects outward to someone or something.
Adi Da was a great target for this sort of angry reaction, especially since his actions and actual siddhis of bringing stuff were the things that brought reactions up. Whatever his action were, they did seem to trigger deep stuff in people , particularly relative to the “emotional sexual”: bondage of life. he always said his direct way of working in this arena was dangerous so to speak in the way that it could bring really dark stuff up. i think he was right.
So people were attracted to his brightness just because and also for more egoic climbing reasons that come up in an organization of people and that is cultic sometimes. so they got in close and the siddhi is even stronger there and they got scorched so to speak by the revealing of their own deep reactivity.
I could have gotten “closer” as anyone could if they chose to by getting into some kind of service trip with Adi Da such as Conrad did. now i was happy to get more mildly scorched from a distance and sometimes , like for the past few years and at other times i decided to get even farther and study with other teachers and so forth. And I also have expressed my mind doubts off andf on over the years. i am sure Conrad has heard plenty of that from me. i have also expressed much more postive for much more of my time. Of course it goes beyond postive and negative.
That is what Feel For God expresses as “recognition ” of the guru as not an ordinary being but as the “Acausal Egoless Divine”
Well that is also how Adi Da has always appeared to me too and he does not have to “brain wash” me or tell me this for me to have it be my own direct experience and deep perception.
I think Adi Da has a great way of expressing Nonduality in human terms. Even his later stuff and the most recent stuff which I just now started reading and does take concentration and focus to read expresses it the most directly for me.
And I still see no big deal in the actual actions of Adi da, including his expression of anger. I think Annamalai sums it up very well for me. Adi da never killed anyone or did anything remotely like the negative “cultists” like Jim Jones or Charles Manson in his own little group. But people sure do have idealistic projections about how , in their minds , how a real guru is supposed to behave.
i mean just how is a totally ego less being living in human form supposed to behave? Are they supposed to never yell or have sex or buy or do art or whatever? a very limited viewpoint of realization Are they never supposed to express signs of pain such as maharshi expressed in his death process? perhaps in the view of some. Flick Rahke
February 5, 2009 at 11:48 pm
I Like This!!!
I like this tone. FFAC we are sympatico here. What I have to say about any teacher is only an expression of myself and any resonance that may be happening then. We only ever argue our own “authority” in the end. Each and all should find them out. Da said that himself. It is great good advice.
That advice I took seriously and led to my leaving Adidam within a year after my last “formal retreat”. To this day I will not dismiss the Gift I received from (shit!!! do I say it) Da during that final Darshan. He showed me Him/him…both. I saw exactly who he was as a very real and fucked up man. I can’t explain or dismiss it. Wasn’t ready for it either…not in my head…my heart already knew. The gaze between us was heartbreaking. There was no pretention between us. The relationship ended that evening. It took another year to leave.
Having said that my advice…find them out. How will the Divine show itself to you? In what form? I sure as hell can’t tell you. It could be Ramana, who , FFAC, I wish to have sat before as well. Who, what, Where will Speak to your Heart? I do not know. I don’t know that you do, or I do, or Who/who does. I can only ever speak my own heart. Doesn’t make me right (don’t tell F4G ;-} ).
Having sat with Sailor Bob I can only recommend sitting there as well. Again, only my endorsement and all that that carries with it. After all too many years of study and considerations of the “Traditions”, BTW…contrary to recent postings, a long time fan…Seminary School, etc…after leaving Adidam there was the “collapse” of that whole pursuit and the concepts involved, a major portion of my life, zip, flushed. What happened after that was hearing Teachers like Ramana in a very “basic”, stripped down, core, way. It was a major “mind-fuck”. But it also returned me back to the reason why I was having arguments with Catholic Priests ( pricks ) as a child. There was the simplicity of the “teaching”…no…the Offering”… of men like Jesus…and those cocksuckers made it into a maze. And so, my entire adulthood has been “unhooking” the maze that never was.
That’s the “Thang”…it Is Simplicity. Hahaha…and the “difficulty”. Ease…but can it be so?
Flick…yeah I can roll with the best of them but I wind up in bed with Stigmata Wounds and it just fucks up the Egyptian Cotton sheets, causes brain lesions, and I end up posting nonsense on forums like this.
I don’t know anything and that’s what I know. Returned to the Mystery. It is isn’t it? Truly. These days I’m more inclined to watch the squirrels dance from branch to branch. How does it all happen? Isn’t my own life a Mystery? Why go to other concepts when this one isn’t solved? Well…it never will be. Mysteries are never solved…only Lived…and that is The Mystery.
Richard Martin AKA Slyder
February 6, 2009 at 12:18 am
Conradq
Bevis??? Butthead???
No sense in having a multiple personality disorder unless you show it! ;-} ( Are you F4G arguing the other way too??? Vous Diable)
February 6, 2009 at 1:23 am
Feel4God,
Your last posts are great examples of why ad hominem arguments are to be avoided. They just turn into flame wars, without outright insults taking the place of actual arguments. If I wanted to play out this script, I guess I could come up with all kinds of funny names for you, and silly games of ridicule, but I think the point has been made. Furthermore, it just doesn’t help my argument to descend into that game, whereas it helps you if we all just disintegrate into ad hominem and thereby distract from the actual facts, actual arguments, and actual logic of Adi Da’s behavioral problems. It’s easier to call someone a prude rather than try to tackle the more serious issue of Adi Da’s sexual predations.
And no, the term “sexual predator” is not at all the worst I could use to describe him. It’s simply an accurate term for someone who spent a good deal of time on the hunt for fresh meat to satisfy his own sexual needs. You can certainly rationalize that hunt, you can call it devotional love, and fantasize that all the women in Adidam want to have sex with Adi Da anyway, but it remains what it is – a man of virtually unquestioned power and charisma within his own world using that advantage to get women into his bed in large numbers. There’s the whole “pussy posse” of devotee-pimps (again, just an accurate word for their service function) going through Adidam on a regular basis looking for promising sexual partners for Adi Da.
I don’t necessarily condemn such behavior. I don’t look down on rock stars or movie stars or billionaires who use their wealth and power to fulfill their sexual desires. It’s understandable enough, given the way the ego works. But those who claim to be egoless Divinities seem for some reason to require a higher standard, or what really is the point? What exactly would the reason be for this behavior? As I’ve said before, Da actually tried to justify his behavior many times, and you haven’t even bothered to use those justifications. It’s not enough merely to say, “It wasn’t that bad, some of it was good”, one has to come up with real, positive reasons for doing something that is generally destructive and self-indulgent. Mick Jagger and David Lee Roth probably didn’t do much harm, but what spiritual rationale exists for such behavior?
When I said that no one benefited from Da’s sexual theater, I was simply quoting what people I know who have been a part of that whole world have said, not just to me, but to Da himself. And these are people who are still, to my knowledge, members of Adidam. They had taken part in all this sexual theater themselves, and had seen how it devastated people left and right, and that as far as they could see, it benefited no one. One of these ladies even told this to Da himself, and he didn’t really try to deny it. In fact, a few years later, he seems to have as much as admitted that this whole attempt to use “sexual theater” to grow devotees spiritually had failed, and he admitted this openly, and put an end to it – after 30 years or so of trying. Why did Da say this, if people actually did benefit spiritually? Obviously I was not wrong to say this, even if it isn’t something I have intimate experience of myself.
As for your claim that I grossly distorted what you said or jumped to conclusions about you, let me quote what you originally wrote:
Over the years, the number of women that could truly practice in His immediate circumstance greatly dwindled, but still many many women wanted to consider that form of intimate sadhana. So again, this provoked great jealousy in many men! And if their woman freely decided to practice in that manner, apart from her intimate, though in agreement with him – it was sadhana of the most intense nature for both the man and the woman! It stirs up everything! Again, I speak of this from first-hand experience – and I can assure you that issues of jealousy were very powerful and needed to be dealt with.
I was responded to the highlighted sentence of yours, that you were writing from first-hand experience, which clearly indicates that you directly experienced this kind of sadhana first hand, rather than merely observing it in others. Now, you could have written that you observed this kind of thing first hand, if it wasn’t something you actually went through yourself. But you didn’t. You wrote that you <b?experienced this first hand. So I don’t think I leapt to any conclusions at all. I merely interpreted your words at their face value. If you say now that you misspoke, that you didn’t really mean it, well, fine, correct yourself. But don’t accuse me of distorting your words. Once again, every time you accuse me of distorting your words, if those words are actually examined it turns out that the opposite is the case, that you have simply refused to take responsibility for your own words.
My “ad hominem” analysis of your motives for posting here doesn’t really necessarily rest on the presumption that you personally had to go through this sort of thing yourself, however. We will never actually know what the truth is here, it’s between you, your wife, and Da. The point is that the very same dynamic can occur just by being involved in a situation like this, where there’s a vast discrepency between the spiritual ideals of egolessness and the clear facts of self-indulgent seeking on the part of one’s Guru. And this of course isn’t the only area where Adi Da departed from his ideals or “preachings”. Money, food, power, emotion, abuse, spiritual teachings, the traditions, the list is virtually endless. The stresses of having to deal with Adi Da’s behavior are so intense that any number of these are enough to create the kind of denialist responses and cultic rationalizations we have heard from you and other Daists here.
But as I’ve said repeatedly, arguing about one another’s motives is rather pointless. You don’t actually know what my motives are, and I don’t really know what your motives are. The issue is rather besides the point. The simple facts about Adi Da’s behavior should simply be put on the table without censorship or spin, and we can figure out what the most plausible explanations are. But as you said before, you simply won’t just tell us the facts, that is only for people who already “recognize” Adi Da as egoless, and who will therefore interpret everything he does as egoless, regardless of how self-indulgent it might otherwise seem to be. So all we really get from you are whitewashed “stories” with no real content and just a lot of assurances that it was all about love. That simply isn’t convincing.
As for posting here, yes, I’m not going to be doing much more. It became rather obvious a while ago that you were descending into the most cultic kinds of rationalizations and stonewalling. Your latest post shows that you don’t really want to deal with anything real at all, it’s too much for you. I understand that you’ve gone well past your limits here. So I don’t expect much more from you except ad hominem attacks on my motives, my person, my credibility. You really don’t have anything else to say, I get it. But really, while you accuse me of taking a page out of the anti-cult books (is that even wrong?), you seem to be living out the anti-cult descriptions of the cultist as if you’d studied them as a manual for how to argue, rather than as a criticism of the way you argue. If you think that helps you make your case, all I can say is keep it up. Others will have to decide for themselves if Adidam is the sort of thing they want to devote themselves to, if these are the results.
But I will admit to one motive that is purely self-interested in posting here. I have a desire to get Adidam out of my system. Perhaps I am coming near to the point where I can just do that, and see all this posting as having made its point, such that I really can just leave it behind. That would be as significant to me as leaving behind fundamentalism itself.
February 6, 2009 at 2:56 am
Shiva says:
“yet, what i said earlier is still an open issue:
you have yet to make a case, ffac, why this (the very same message) is supposed to be superior or more complete coming from ramana as compared to tony parsons for example?”
There is not that much difference between our positions. I reference Ramana Maharshi a lot because he was modern and is widely considered the exemplary Realizer of the last Century, and because he addressed a lot of topics. I suspect if Ramana Maharshi was alive and there was some sort of vote as to which modern Realizer most non-dualists would like to spend time with, it would probably be Ramana Maharshi. I prefer more historically verifiable accounts to those who are more legendary. That does not mean of course that those since him must necessarily be inferior. Any fully realized jnani (which excludes the most inferior class) is qualified to present the same message along with the Jnana Presence, a critical distinction. But, the message, even if it seems identical, is words and mental constructs, however inspiring, if not coming from a jnani. It is not as important if a given non-dualist teacher is fully realized or something somewhat less if they are on the path and are aligned with dharma\, and are one of those who Ramana Maharshi referred to as the agents jnanis use. But there are too many who are not, who lack the wholistic quality of a true jnani and do not convey dharma precisely, who are agents as much or more for themselves.
When I refer to what is below the tip of the iceberg, it is because it is no big secret in this modern era that formerly more esoteric teachings such as that the Self is Pure Awareness without subject are widely comprehended at least intellectually. And it is possible to attain awakenings and extended mental states based on this understanding which seem to be resolution. But that is not the same as jnana. Furthermore, there is an insufficient recognition of the purifying role of advanced bhakti practice, and a recognition that true jnana comes from grace in the highest sense and that there is far more than what we see going on.
I do not want to seem to focus on Tony Parsons, as if I was superior to him. The point is, when you read what he says, I find much to agree with, but tell tale signs of a lack that I would not expect in a jnani,, something I do not find in those more aligned to mainstream non-dualism as a wholistic approach. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t go see him if he came provided there was nothing that came out about him. Discrimination is something that ls learned over time for most part by experience, not by prejudgements.
February 6, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Yes, I agree, Eddie, the twain between Conrad and I will never meet on this blog – except in the ultimate sense that it always already has, as we all arise in the One Divine Reality.
One’s Spiritual Master is always an individual choice, and ultimately a choice that should be founded on one’s heart-based intelligence/recognition of that One. I found it useful to discuss this process in depth with various contributors here, and I hope others have found my input useful too. I apologize again for my own egoic limitations in such discussions, and wish you all the very best in your life, practice, and love of the Divine.
I will take my leave of this blog now for a few reasons as I have said more than enough myself, and I also see no further usefulness in countering what various critics here post about Adi Da, Adidam, and Daists. I think we have argued/debated plenty, and if anyone wants to hear what I might have to say any further, it is likely to be found already posted here. If it is not found here, feel free to speak with me privately by emailing:
feel4god@gmail.com
Also, if anyone wants to read what other Daists have to say about many of the controversies posted here, their own testimonies, etc., you can find their considerations at:
http://www.adidaupclose.org/
Love,
Feel4God
February 6, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Flick,
I’m not ignoring your comments about Buddhism and Thich naht Hahn’s teachings about anger. To the contrary, you are the one who seems to be ignoring them as soon as the subject changes to addressing Adi Da’s own anger. I’m wondering why that is. When you talk about critics of Da, you quickly condemn them for their anger, and point to Thich naht Hahn and other teachings about the destructiveness of anger. And yet, when you talk about Adi Da’s anger, you suddenly change position 180 degrees and say you don’t see anything wrong with him being angry, as long as he doesn’t get as bad as Jim Jones or Charles manson. Why the double standard? I mean, obviously Adidam critics are not as angry or violent as Jones or Manson, so why isn’t it okay for them to be angry? Why apply the Thich naht Hahn standard to them, but not to Adi Da?
You may say you’re not a cultist or a fundamentalist, but this is a pretty good example of how cultists and fundamentalists think, or don’t think. They have high spiritual ideals they apply to people they don’t like, but then they completely reverse course and excuse their Guru or leader for the very same thing. This is called cognitive dissonance, pure and simple. Do you have some other explanation for it? Some reason to praise Thich naht Hahn’s teaching about anger one moment, and then completely reverse yourself the next moment when talking about Adi Da’s anger? Whether or not you can say for sure that Adi Da is “realized”, can’t you still condemn his anger in the same way you condemn the anger of his critics? I mean, especially since Adi Da’s anger has been, if anything, much more intense and harmful and long-standing than the anger of his critics. What stops you from condemning Adi Da for being angry when you have no hesitation to condemn everyone else who gets angry? This is not a fake gotcha question. It’s a real issue I think you need to look at seriously, and not avoid and react to me for driving home. It simply doesn’t make sense to me in any other way than as a form of cognitive dissonance. If you have a better explanation, I’m all ears, but maybe you should consider the possibility that you aren’t as free of “brainwashing” as you like to think, and the evidence of it is right here.
As for Joe, I’m sure he’s a nice enough guy when you don’t cross him, but I was talking about a situation where I was definitely crossing him, and he showed his deeper emotions.
February 6, 2009 at 2:40 pm
I think people on this blog can just drop the back and forth on Adi Da and get to the real matters at hand. Are sailor bob and Tony Parsons and Nome true jnanis or not? Are they realized or not?
Is Richard Martin a realized jnani or not? I did ask Clara Llum this question about herself and she stopped posting her very knowledgeable posts after that.
Then again, is the “Guru Papers” the end all of modern and ancient spirituality? Are these people experts on what is true of spirituality and what is not?
Does saying and hearing a phrase like “Thou art That” enlighten one now and forever? Will the true enlightended jnanis speak out and sign in please?
So what we have here mostly is a personality clash between FFG and Conrad and perhaps also between FFG and shiva with a bit of slyder thrown in the mix.
I see a small amount of pissed off guys and maybe even a woman or so who left the community of Adi Dam for various reasons, as what happens with any community and has happened throughout the history of mankind. This does not really shed any sort of negative light on the teachers or teachings that they left, except that the modern communications and internet can give all sorts of people a pulpit for expressing their disaffections and whatever nonsense or reality is in their head.
Remember that the internet is chock full of nuts and conpiracy theories that may or may not be true. mostly untrue. I think Elias is a good example in this vein, albeit a much more extreme one than the regular posters here.
I think that anything negative {or positive for that matter] that has been said about Adi Da and his teaching should be taken with some discrimination and a grain of salt so to speak. Emotions in various people at various times can run high about Adi Da. That does not really say much about him.
I would suggest to anyone that reads this that they study the teachings of Adi Da directly from the earliest times up to the latest. Check out also the websites hosted by his community and not just the negative ones like this one. Also check out my friend
Ed’s site{he is also not in the community} called Beezone . He has much about the Jnanis referred to here and lots of histories and stories of former devotees of Adi Da that are very postitive. I personally know a lot of those people and they are very open minded and have studied intensively and extensively in traditional context, including the founder of the site.
Perhaps this blog should now be more devoted to figuring out the truth or untruth of the extended jnani line up. Flick Rahke
February 6, 2009 at 3:39 pm
Slyder,
On same wavelength, basically.
In your account, it is interesting how that fits into how I have seen the shift in perception about Da occurs. Even given the varying decades, there is a commonality in the majority of accounts I have listened to. There comes a point in the beginning of involvment where it seems indisputable based on what you have read and experienced that Da is enlightened, and it is said that you should trust an enlightened teacher. There are boundaries you accept for yourself after that basic tenet is accepted about doubts. There are always lessons to be learned, “stuff” to deal with. Even those who depart for a while if they get ‘burned’ often do not resolve their stuff or the doubt issue, and are unable to definitively separate the problematic ‘community’ and what is associated with Da. Usually they simply stay in enough proximity to get benefits with minimal risk.
But others find themselves in a position where they can’t exclude a sense that Da had his flaws, too. Just as the guy who left in early 1973 after a personal talk with Da wrote after editing most of Da’s initial course for him based on the Knee of Listening material, a sense that Da was “a genius” and “initiatory”, but also ” flawed teacher with limits” who did not understand his own limits, forcing him to leave to be consistent with what Da himself had taught. I recall the day I first saw Da in the way I came to understand later, and it took me a while to realize what I had actually seen and its significance because it was not what I wanted to see, either. There comes a time for some, including the critics here, when integrity requires that you confront these doubts honestly and not with preconditioned assumptions about their experiences. Most who have done that end up leaving and do not see him as what he came to claim himself. I feel today that what I felt in relation to Da was not just my own “stuff”, but his too, and that I had simply bought into the diversion. It is sort of like if someone is reactive, sure you can look at yourself and see things you need to work on, but there is no need to operate on the assumption that the reactive party is only doing it for your benefit to get the necessary results. In fact the self dishonesty in adopting a position that does really ring true to you is just another lesson to be dealt with.
I recall reading some “Daist” guy who was interested in that phenomena and critics accounts so they could understand how to reduce attrition, perhaps through better screening, etc. It isn’t really a mystery to me anymore, I think it is karma and grace. I did begin to get a sense of deja vu, that this was a not quite finished lesson from past lives designed to drive the point home, that I was being shown something necessary for futher spiritual work. Others are destined to see Da as they do in this time. It is unfortunate that Da sought to become an exclusive World Teacher despite all the baggage, had he simply offered his approach as just one way, there would not be as much tension.
February 6, 2009 at 4:12 pm
I should comment on the issue of Mr. Miller and his motives, since FFG has brought it up. Adidam has presented a case that Mr. Miller was simply upset and jealous because his Playboy centerfold girlfriend chose to be one of Da’s consorts. They have also referred elsewhere to Mr. Miller as a extortionist. In so doing, they push the limits of the private settlement agreement where Mr. Miller was paid a signficant amount of funds and both parties agreed to “confidentiality” restrictions.
In fact, the circumstances under which when Mark and his girlfriend arrived and were immediately and highly unusually invited to Da’s private party, ostensibly to help with some issues, and how he was then given alcohol and drugs, and excluded and “relieved” of his Playmate girlfriend in 1976, are documented on the internet. But the fact remains that Mr. Miller, because of his faith in Da, did not leave thereafter, and accepted that as some sort of divine lesson at the time and took on responsible roles within the group. He did actually leave and become a dissident until around 1985. It was only after many years, when he gained insight into the whole scene over time and clearly understood the way in which Da was not living the lifestyle he claimed publically, that Mr. Miller concluded Da was not what he said and that he and many other members had been systematically misled. As I have said, his case was strong enough that Adidam settled out of court, and if anything, it was Adidam types that were threatening to hound Mr. Miller who was trying to start a post-Adidam life based on his professional qualifications if, after years of donating his time and labor to Adidam, he did not settle. Mr. Miller has never renounced the claims made in his lawsuit.
As for the benefits to those involved which FFG refers to, the alternative would be to abandon a guru. Some like FFG can’t contemplate such a decision
February 6, 2009 at 6:53 pm
“I did ask Clara Llum this question about herself and she stopped posting her very knowledgeable posts after that.”
Hi Flick, I did not post more simply because I already said (mostly) all I had to say on the thread’s topic: Da.
Regarding your question, I understand is rhetorical, since you already visited my website, as you noted. Besides, you answered it yourself some posts ago, remember? (“full of themselves”). So much for prudence.
All the best
Clara
—
shiva, Richard, Conrad, Former Follower, no12c41, Raymond, Eddie, I enjoyed your posts very much. Sincerity and the thirst for truth is more than half the way to it. Also, having visited Da-la-land and returned to your marbles all together says a lot to me. You guys rock.
February 6, 2009 at 7:36 pm
i guess Conrad just sort of skims over my posts. or only reads what he wants to. I addressed my feelings and obsvervations of the anger issue around Adi Da a couple of posts ago very thourougly. Whether he agrees with that position I took is another matter, but he is saying that I did not even address it. I can see why FFG got frustrated in dealing with him. It is like dealing with no on there.
And I can see the sort of “ad hominim” attacks that he was referring to. I did mention that I thought that people tended to carry their righteous and somewhat destructive anger too far over a long period of time, but Conrad takes this personally and then attacks me a “cognitive dissonance brainwashed fundamentalist” Sorry buddy but yu can keep your labels you gleaned from your fundamentalist cult buster books to yourself. If you felt like a fundamentalist cultist in your time in Adi dam and are somehow trying to get rid of it and purify it and have emotional problems about it all , then that is fine, but don’t project it on to me.
I did not brainwash you. and I have never been brainwashed , except may be to by a Lexus due to our cultural brainwashing. Personally I think you should go for a good deprogramminn and maybe an oil change and a tune up too.
If there ever was a “cult” exhibited in Adi dam with “insiders” and all that stuff, i was never part of that and if anyone was, then it was Conrad and some other posters here including the shiva guy.
so that is their problem and not mine.
So i will leave it to you guys to bash Da on your own without any other feedback and to figure out who is more enlightened, Tony Parsons, sailor bob , Ramana Maharshi , Poonja, Andrew, or perhaps even Clara or Slyder. Ta Ta Flick Rahke
February 6, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Flick,
I did read your post, and I did understand your response to Da’s anger. You think it’s fine for him to get angry, no big deal, he didn’t end up like Jim Jones or Manson, and you wonder why anyone would be bothered by it. I also understood your criticism of ex-devotees here and elsewhere who express anger, that this is a sign of their immaturity and lack of spirituality, that you feel that anger has no place in spiritual life, that it’s destructive and anyone who defends or justifies their anger is being deluded and rationalizing. What I don’t understand is how you can hold both views at the same time, and not see any contradiction between them.
For example, you say:
Thich naht hahn did not express his anger in the childish pouting way of people I see here. He became a peaceful activist and brought real change. he always said that the expression of anger never helped anyone or anything He says that you do not repress your anger, you observe it and then do something else. That sounds like what Adi Da says too.
Okay, if that’s what Adi Da says about anger, why didn’t he practice it? You admit that he got really angry quite often, so angry it was really hard for devotees to take it. But if you agree that the expression of anger never helped anyone, how can you explain your claim that Adi Da’s anger helped anyone? Aren’t you completely contradicting yourself? And how can you support the idea that Adi Da was only acting to help others, if anger can’t do that?
Do you see what I mean? You are completely contradicting yourself on a number of counts, and for some reason you don’t even seem aware of it, much less bothered by it. I’ve been asking you to explain this contradiction, but you seem unable to even see that there is a contradiction to address. Instead, you just pretend there’s something wrong with me, to the point where you won’t even address me directly, you talk about me in the third person.
Earlier in this thread Feel4God asked me to explain why I didn’t think Nisargadatta’s smoking was a big deal, whereas I did think Adi Da’s behavioral problems were a big deal. I didn’t stonewall him and pretend it wasn’t an issue to deal with, I answered him in a lot of detail over numerous posts, explaining my views. I didn’t think it was an irrational question to ask. And so I don’t see how this is an irrational question for me to ask. I don’t see eye to eye with you either about the issue of anger or Adi Da, but there’s a glaring inconsistency here in your views that needs to be examined.
As I’ve said, I don’t see a good explanation for your self-contradiction. I’ve asked you for one, and you keep refusing to answer, I think because you know you don’t have a good one. And yes, this really does make me think that you have a cultic double-standard for Adi Da, that you condemn others for the very things you find completely okay about in him. Isn’t that virtually the definition of cultic?
And as long as we’re on that subject, I’m not much persuaded by your claim that you’ve never been cultic or fundamentalist or brainwashed in your life. Everyone has been cultic, fundamentalist, or brainwashed at one time or another in their life, even if just by mom and dad and TV. So I view your denial as merely that, a form of denialism. People who aren’t at all aware of their own cultism are much more prone to it than those who have self-knowledge about themselves and have seen their cultism and fundamentalism. It’s a universal human failing that everyone has to see in themselves and get past. I’m just pointing to an example of what looks to me like your own form of cultic thinking about anger and Adi Da. If you have a good explanation for these cognitive contradictions, I’d be happy to hear about it, but you simply have not addressed this contradiction at all. Can you?
February 7, 2009 at 1:33 am
If you divide it all into “Given By Me Only” and every possible other thing else how could you possibly refer to this proposition as Non-Duality?
February 7, 2009 at 2:34 am
I will not leave my participation here like this. I wish to apologize to Conrad, FFAC, shiva, slyder, Clara, and anyone else here that I have been hurtful and judgemental towards. I have no right or call to judge anyone else’s experience or process with them or what they may feel about them. I have been sarcastic and superior and biting and punky . not too spiritual and guilty of the same things that I accuse others of animating.
I have no real excuse. The one thing is that i find the cyberworld makes it easier for me to be this way and brings out the worst in me. I lose my connection to my feeling in relationship to other people. I think , for me that cyberworld makes me lose touch with how really human are the people I am communitcating with.
I have never addressed Conrad in person how I have addressed him here with such disdain and disrespect and i never would sitting in a room in front of him. We have been friends off and on over the years since we were in our twenties. we have always had a friendly and honorable relationship.
Anyhow, I do not even know the other people that I have been addressing here with my judgement and in reality they are human and spirtual beings and their experiences and perceptions and so on are just as valid as mine. I mean , in real life, perhaps I would enjoy very much the company of other people posting here on this blog. Anyhow just some ruminations on the cyberland, but still i need to be mindful of how I address people and treat people with much more love and respect.
We are all on the same ship There are no borders and no separation really But I can sure make them and get angry Flick Rahke
February 7, 2009 at 2:48 am
Conradg writes:
‘But I will admit to one motive that is purely self-interested in posting here. I have a desire to get Adidam out of my system. Perhaps I am coming near to the point where I can just do that, and see all this posting as having made its point, such that I really can just leave it behind. That would be as significant to me as leaving behind fundamentalism itself.’
Conradg, thanks for this acknowledgment. Just as it’s not possible to know the degree of fucked-up-ness a cultic institution is until one leaves it and becomes strong and independent, it’s also not possible to freely reflect on it until that institution and all of its entanglements are out of one’s system. I reckon that’s why you and Feel4God were not able to interact solely on a dharmic level – he is unconsciously caught in the web of cultism and you are trying to be completely free of it. That’s where the twain never meets and where the real stuff of freedom lies. It does not dwell in the domain of dharmic (or ‘gotcha’) debate.
I remember (a long time ago now) being so certain that Adidam was THE ONE AND ONLY way. All the others were either deluded or at the very least inferior. The day I realized I and Adidam were just as cultic as every other ‘spiritual’ group, was the day I truly began the path of no-path. I don’t know for sure whether I am completely free of Adidam (I’m not sure of anything anymore), but perhaps I don’t want to be. Not in the sense of feeling gratitude for the gifts I received from Adi Da while a devotee. But like you I want to leave ‘fundamentalism itself behind.’ Dare I say it, only love can do that. Perhaps love already has.
Again, thanks for your honesty.
February 7, 2009 at 10:57 am
getting bubba out of our system — but we are just recreating the same thing, looking to other gurus — trying to figure out which ones are the real thing based on what??? what brought you to adi da (the search) will take you to someone else. until you throw them all out of your system, the search goes on and on and on ….. But you can’t do it. and no one can help you. it’s a maddening thing!
it’s amazing — over 900 postings! and many of them pages long. it’s like a giant virtual head spiraling into a black hole. we have invested so much of our lives into the spiritual crap that it is hard to throw it all out — baby and bath water –
we still think it has meaning and virtue. but when it goes, what stands there — a naked ape. and life.
February 7, 2009 at 11:07 am
I heard of Adi Da a few months ago and started reading some of his books.
I was impressed by what I read and then started to google about him. That’s how I found out that he had just died and I also found this blog.
I have been reading this blog since and I appreciate all the posts here. All of this is new to me and I find it hard to tell what is or was really going on.
I strongly believe to always hear both sides of an argument and then come to my own conclusions. I found some (but not all) of the anti-Da posts a bit emotional and most of the pro-Da posts by Feel4God and Flick seemed to not really go into the issues raised by the anti-people.
I didn’t feel I had enough information from this blog but it certainly raised some questions that are very important to me.
I didn’t feel I could altogether trust Feel4God and Flick. No offense, I am sure you have your reasons but I did get the impression that the picture you are painting is a bit too pretty.
I am really interested in Adi Da, so I thought I wanted to give his devotees another chance to answer some of the question that really bothered me.
A little more than a week ago I wrote them a letter. I send it to the official adidam.org site and also to another site that Feel4God recommended a few times: adidaupclose.org.
I did not receive any response, except an acknowledgement that my letter was received.
I sent a reminder a few days ago, because I think I gave them enough time to respond and also because I am just really interested in Adi Da and curious about their response.
I must say the non-response from both sites makes me VERY suspicious about the integrity of Adidam.
What else can I do as somebody who knows nothing first hand about the history of Adidam?
I got the impression that this blog will close very soon. That is why I feel moved to post this here.
Maybe you, Feel4God, can ask some people inside of Adidam to respond. They have my email.
Here is the letter I sent to both sites:
Hello,
I recently became interested in Adi Da and googled about him and learnt that he had just died.
I am still interested; I don’t think (or hope) his work will stop.
I came accross this site: http://nonduality.org/2008/11/28/adi-da-is-dead
This site has some interesting information from current and former devotees.
Some of the information is rather disturbing.
I always believe in hearing both sides. I was hoping you would comment on the following points:
1. Adi Da said he was the divine world teacher. How come he lived on a very remote island and had virtually no contact with the world?
2. One thing I found particularly disturbing is an issue raised by a certain “shiva” who says that he served Adi Da very closely for a number of years.
He says (http://nonduality.org/2008/11/28/adi-da-is-dead/#comment-1477):
“the most common official adidam justification is that mr. jones was in such a refined state that any inappropriate address could create a “disturbance” for him.
how come – i ask – that a fully realized being could possibly be disturbed by reality itself – the very “thing” he has claimed to realize? does nobody else see how utterly ridiculous that is??
that btw, was also the official explanation for all the lies going to and from mr. jones.
no exaggeration here. EVERYBODY who has ever served mr. jones closely knows that this is a well-known fact. he was consistently lied to in order not to create a “disturbance” and his response was consistently distorted (often to a degree that can only be called a lie). again, feel4god should be able to confirm that.”
Is it true what shiva says?
Why was there a need to protect Adi Da from reality?
If not a realizer then who is able to deal with reality as it is?
3. Is it true that Adi Da misrepresented Ramana Maharshi as Conrad and others claim? I have read many books by and about Ramana Maharshi and I am confused myself. I cannot find the “6th stage error” that Adi Da speaks about.
4. Is it true that so much money went to the Adi Das personal circumstance that there was very little money for food and maintenance on his Fijian island?
I am very interested in Adi Das teaching and I was seriously thinking about joining his community but I would like honest answers to those questions before I can do that. Please address the questions directly and do not explain everything by just saying that he was a “crazy-wise adept”. I believe that and that is part of what attracts me but I believe the above questions require a more detailed answer.
Also, please include possible contact info in Austria.
Sincerely,
Peter from Austria.
February 8, 2009 at 12:00 am
Eddie says:
“I remember (a long time ago now) being so certain that Adidam was THE ONE AND ONLY way. All the others were either deluded or at the very least inferior. The day I realized I and Adidam were just as cultic as every other ‘spiritual’ group, was the day I truly began the path of no-path.”
I never saw Da as the greatest Realizer ever, fortunately. My position always was that all jnanis are one, not that some Avatar and new revelation was needed. I really thought Da was playing with the inner circle who obviously had issues. Once I realized the organization was serious about their inflated opinions of themselves and their bizzare understandings of traditional non-dualism, and it became obvious Adidam was hopelessly spirialing deeper into cultism because of Da himself, I left quickly and quietly. If you don’t think Da is the greatest and that leaving him for good is the karmic purgatory as taught, and you begin to sense he is not enlightened, you need to honor that and know that there are many paths to follow and you just need to find the one that is right for you. In that case, you can take whatever was gained from being in Adidam as a gift and use it on more productive endeavors.
February 8, 2009 at 12:21 am
Flick,
No problem. The thing is that the arguments you are giving about Da are standard ones some regulars know well. It is not lack of understanding of these arguments, it is disagreement based on real experiences.
All I can say is that you do not see how your particular temperment and approach influenced the results you got. I believe that on some level, you knew what it would take to minimize getting “burned” based on your standards, and you saw Da as one of many sources. Not everyone was so fortunate.
February 8, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Well Peter If you read this post, you are not going to get an unbiased and balanced point of view on this site. Most of the people posting here are former devotees who are pissed off for one reason or the other. some others just do not “believe” in the way of the guru path at all and some others do not even believe that spirituallity exists at all. There were quite a few positive posts about Adi Da early on this blog, but the last month or so, the only people here advocating Adi Da have been myself and FeelForGod. I guess Feel4God is a formal member of Adi Dam and I used to be but have not been for years now.
Perhaps Feel4God was “painting a pretty Picture” of Adi Da. I don’t know. But was simply relaying my own personal and direct experiences of Adi Da and my own experience of his teaching and also my own experience with his community in general. I am not so sure you actually read any of my posts or not , since there is so much long material here.
Well i hope you get a response from Adi Dam, since this particular blog is not representative of most people’s experience of Adi Da over the years that he taught. I think maybe i have seen 5 to 10 people max posting all this negative stuff about him among all the people who have studied with Adi Da.
I would suggest you go to another site , which is called “Beezone” and has lots of good and more nonbiased and even positive material there. That site has nothing to do with the organization. You might even be able to contact the founder of it or perhaps people who wrote experiences there. I don’t really know.
Anyhow I am not really into these aguings and ramblings with people about Adi Da. I personally feel his enlightenment and his validity as a teacher and guru and that is about it
Oh there actually is a very good article that explains all this stuff very well. It is from an old Daist magazine. It is called “Masters and Emotions” and it is written by Conrad G here. It is very well written and pretty much could clear up your doubts. Perhaps you could get Conrad to get a copy of that article he wrote to you
Flick Rahke
February 8, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Eddie B.,
I remember (a long time ago now) being so certain that Adidam was THE ONE AND ONLY way. All the others were either deluded or at the very least inferior. The day I realized I and Adidam were just as cultic as every other ‘spiritual’ group, was the day I truly began the path of no-path.
I sympathize completely. My problem for many years was that I thought I saw how cultic Adidam was, but I didn’t even realize how cultic I was myself, and so I wasn’t looking at it from a level playing field. I still assumed that Adidam, despite all its problems, still represented the ONE AND ONLY WAY, just colored over with cultism, which I hoped could be purified and reformed. Eventually I saw that this too was mere vanity. The claims that Adidam are special are themselves so ordinary and common, you find them all over the world, in all kinds of spiritual groups. Eventually, one has to examine that whole motive, and let it fall away, leaving oneself in no way special at all, nor one’s group. When that happens, when you can examine Adidam on a level field, it’s no longer very enticing, it’s clearly full of all kinds of very egoic problems, from top to bottom, meaning including Adi Da himself. That doesn’t make it different from the rest of human seeking, it makes it even more like it. Anyway, I’ve really appreciated your contributions here. Hope this has been worthwhile for you.
Ellen,
I simply don’t agree with you that all Gurus are the same, all religion is the same, all spirituality is the same, and should all be thrown out, or that no one can be of help. I think it’s important to come to the point where you can view all these things from a level playing field, but that doesn’t level them. It simply makes it more clear that one’s personal inclinations tend to distort our views, sometimes dangerously so by making us overlook deficits, or even try to pretend they are advantages. The world is full of help, if one is open to it. Some of it is needed by us at certain times and places. I needed Adidam at a certain time and place, but I tended to assume that meant it was the one and true great Help for all, forever. But even that helped me learn this lesson, so I guess you could say I needed it for that reason alone. Getting it all out of my system is a valuable lesson as well. How else can we look at our lives, except as opportunities to learn things we didn’t expect to learn? When given lemons, make lemonade.
Flick,
I really appreciate your openness and your apologies to all. I feel similarly. I hope I can be forgiven for being such an ass at times here. Please understand that I don’t take any of what is said and done in discussions like this personally, even when it gets personal. What we’ve been through together transcends our piques of emotion.
Funny you should mention that article I “wrote” for the Laughing Man Magazine. I did write the original piece, but it was so deeply edited that even at the time I barely recognized it when it came out. After it was published, I decided never to write for editorial ever again, since it was clear that I couldn’t trust any kind of personal integrity there. So a lot of it didn’t even represent my views at the time, much less now. (And no, I don’t have any copies of it). In fact, I think I wrote much better defenses of Da back on the Wilber and Lightmind forums, if any of that stuff is still available online. But it’s important to keep in mind – people’s views do change over time. Even yours might.
February 8, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Hey Conrad Nice post and thanks for that. i also appreciate what you said to Ellen . You said what i feel also and in a more articulate way. I also do not believe in throwing out the baby with the bath water. i am familiar myself with UG Krisnamurti and do not agree with his “position:” on spirituality.
Anyhow I do believe the internet and forums are useful tools, but also have limitations and are somewhat dehumanizing , including the dehumanizing of myself as i said in that post.
Thanks to FFAc in his post to me too. Yes I forgive everyone for being an ass from time to time, that is our prerogative as humans . lol..
Well I did try to go to our local dance rave here last nite to try to get my vital on again. I did have fun socially and did a lot of dancing. Gosh was I weak from the virus though and it made it worse again today , so I am frustrated with the bodily life right now.
I ran into and talked to an old friend of yours , conrad, I wish yu guys could work out your differences, but I don;t know details and that is between you guys. Still we all used to live in the same household together in our youth and it was pretty fun and interesting back then although difficult in some ways too.
Yes people’s views change over time. I think my views and mind change everyday or every moment. it’s kind of like mind roulette, which number will the little ball land in when the wheel of mind stops spinning for a moment. Peace and out Flick Rahke.
p.s. I wonder if Peter is for real whatever I don’t really care one way or the other. The internet is so strange to me.,
February 8, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Flick,
You say:
“I would suggest you go to another site , which is called “Beezone” and has lots of good and more nonbiased and even positive material there. That site has nothing to do with the organization.”
I encourage everyone to read accounts from all sides about Da. Beezone is good because it presents older and newer versions of material for comparison and is more open about some of the problems. But in trying to find out about Da, it is still true that some see miracles, some don’t; some see more benefit, some see much less. And some report being harmed, and it is a stretch to say they are lying. The differing views are no different than it was in 1974, when Scott Lowe states that the story of the “miracle” halo around the sun became a loyalty test and he was kicked out as a result, even though he and many actually doing the work outside, while Da and his insiders were wildly partying ,didn’t see anything abnormal. (I have since talked to one who was there and later left, they say there was a halo of sorts due to high level moisture but nothing out of the ordinary, and that the famous photo Adidam uses enhanced the actual image from how it really appeared).
For me, if I were to go back and ask myself what would have helped me the most in deciding about Adidam more wisely, I would say this to one and all. The most telling fact someone who doesn’t have first hand experience should look at is the very high percentage who came only to later leave, and whether the reasons given by Adidam for all those defections really make sense if you presume that others have come for the same reasons and with similar understandings, only to depart later.
Flick, I simply do not understand how you can honestly say:
“I think maybe i have seen 5 to 10 people max posting all this negative stuff about him among all the people who have studied with Adi Da.”
It is one thing to defend your positive experiences of Da, it another to speak so of those you do not know, as you keep wanting to do for some reason. If there is one thing that is true, it is that assessments of experiences with Da vary widely.
As if everyone else who ever participated considered Da to be what he said he was except a handful of critics. A more accurate assessment is that of the over 90% of one time followers, who are no longer involved for a variety of reasons including those discussed here, most people just leave and move on with their lives. You may not be aware of this because of your lifestyle, but in most circles, admission you were involved with Da when you no longer believe all the dogma is not something most want to acknowledge, at least here in the U.S. where first hand accounts are available from the earliest days in LA. There are those like yourself and Beezone who by their own admission live in the “zone” surrounding the “hive”. As Beezone himself says:
“The genesis of Beezone came from a term Adi Da Samraj uses in his teachings called the Beehive. He equates the function of the Guru to the way bees organize themselves, the hive is the center and the other bees serve the hive. Since I am not of the ‘hive’ but in the zone of it’s influence I chose the term Beezone to represent my relationship to Adidam and Adi Da Samraj.”
Da himself stated:
“Traditional sacred society, large or small, has had a kind of hierarchical way of organizing itself. Something of that can be considered in context of the Way of Adidam. The general congregation in the hive is the kind of worker bee. In this zone it keeps going in and out of the hive and serving the hive in various ways. Then there’s a core of others who are interior to the hive but are busy interfacing with those who go in and out. These ‘insiders’ are working with the bees coming in and out but are also serving something at the center. The center of course is where the Guru is, which has no function whatsoever, except to be there and Shine from the center.”
What those considering Adidam need to know is that they are entering a “beehive” where Da is the only acceptable standard for assessing spirituality and the intepretation of events and experiences, and they should take that into consideration. As we have seen here, for those in Adidam, differences between Da and the traditions are resolved by the presumption Da’s state is superior to all others. And although there are accounts of Amrita Nadi, being in the Witness State and of experiencing being in the heart on the right, the interpretation of those experiences is unique to Adidam and inconsistent with the traditions. Many critics point out that the more they understood the traditions, the less convicing Da was.
The problem with the perpective of those living in the “zone” is you do not get the full picture about the downside of some of what happened because such a position minimizes the risk of being forced to accept Adidam dogma as totally accurate, and the risk of being “burned”. And that as a result you end up teaching a more watered down version of Adidam than Da teaches, including about his exclusive Avataric status. The danger with the whole hive hierarchial model is well expressed by the first published account I have seen of someone who left Da around January of 1973 and wrote about the problems with Da, taken from http://www.thirdmg.com/journey3.html:
“For me, a breaking point had arrived. Although I respected Franklin as a genius in spirituality, I also knew that he was a fallible man with limits. Months had gone by and I had learned much – more, in fact, than I realized at the time. Of the many spiritual authorities and sources I had dealt with over the years, Franklin alone had spoken to me directly and deeply. He was genuine, substantial and, for me, ultimate. By comparison, all the rest had been only preparatory. But I was not at rest. I did not want to become part of a disciple collective, a worker in a hive, or a permanent follower. I had come to Franklin for direct personal spirituality. A lifetime of endless, tedious effort and servitude did not make sense. At one point I expressed this feeling to Franklin privately and told him that I felt understanding alone was sufficient. He didn’t respond for a while, and when he did, his answer was equivocal. “Yes,” he said, “but effort is still necessary.” But at that time, the small, quiet inner voice that had always been my most reliable spiritual guide was telling me to leave. Franklin once said that those who ended their relationship with him went back to zero. But I didn’t believe that. I trusted that the true guru was within and that the external guru was only a manifestation of the inner. When I stopped by the ashram a few months later to buy a book, the disciple behind the counter chastised me in a distant, dreamy and blissful voice about how much I was missing since I had left. But I recalled that Franklin, through word and action, taught his disciples to remain awake and to be present to reality. The disciple’s other-worldly mannerisms only confirmed the validity of my decision. My inner voice had not failed me. I never returned.”
Sound familiar? Similar to what several of us found over time, and it could have been written today. I have written the author of this story and he points out in more detail than his public story how the underlying problem with Adidam existed in the very beginning.
And similarly, the account of Scott Lowe written about his participation in the summer of 1974:
“When I was asked by David Lane to write an account of my brief period as a member of the community centered around Franklin Jones (AKA Bubba Free John, Da Free John, Heart-Master Da, Da Love Ananda, Da Kalki, Da Avabhasa) I was initially reluctant, for several reasons. I had been involved with the guru for only a few months back in 1974, and since that time we had followed widely different paths; I had taught middle school and eventually gone back to university, earning a Ph.D. in the History of Asian Religions, with a special interest in Classical Chinese texts. He had gone on to become a moderately notorious “cult” leader, living on a secluded Fijian island with nine “wives” and a small group of male disciples, supported by the earnings of a community of followers, mostly in the San Francisco Bay area, and the income generated by a string of increasingly monomaniacal, eccentrically written books, books that I had occasionally glanced through but had not read. Though I still regarded Da Free John as an intriguing and fascinating teacher, I had not bothered to keep up with his publications and exploits and was hardly current on his end of the guru business. It was not clear to me that I had any particularly interesting insights to offer or that my academic expertise gave me special qualifications to analyze the life and oeuvre of this puzzling man. Though my memories of my time in the community were colorful and potentially entertaining, I was never especially privy to dark secrets and my role in the ashram’s history was utterly insignificant.
Furthermore, the methodological problems underlying this enterprise struck me as thorny, for while I am now a professional scholar of religion, I most certainly was not one in 1974. Back then I was a young university graduate embittered by the hypocrisy shown by an America at war with “communism” and its own children. I was not pleased at the prospect of a middle-class existence (assuming I survived long enough) and, like millions of others, was desperately trying to discover new ways of understanding that might make it possible to actually live the idealistic values with which I had been raised. The hopeful optimism of the late sixties was long gone by the dark days of 1974; it was time to stop browsing in the spiritual supermarket and get on with the serious work of inner transformation, before it was too late. The world was in dire straights and nothing short of a revolution in human consciousness could hope to save it, desperate times requiring desperate measures. Like many of my apocalyptically anxious fellow-travelers, I was fairly immature, reasonably cynical in a generic way, but at the same time quite naive and impressionable in specific instances. I suppose I was reasonably representative of an entire generation of individuals, who despite their many differences shared similar attitudes of frustration, despair, and longing. For many, the answers were no longer to be found in the failed theologies and empty religious practices of the West. We looked East for the ecstatic awareness that would halt the mad march of consumer “culture,” heal the planet, and restore our souls. What made sense to us then may seem very strange in the 1990s. In the process of mulling over my experiences, I have been reminded again and again just how subtly, but significantly, my current frame of reference differs from that of twenty years ago; the same must be true for nearly everyone, which leads me to suspect that projecting oneself into one’s own past is nearly as perilous an undertaking as predicting the future.
What finally convinced me to write this essay was the realization that my experiences of Da Free John, though brief, occurred at a time of unusual openness. Although the guru has been extraordinarily reclusive for many years now, when I was in the community he was relatively accessible, and his activities were in plain view. With hindsight, it is clear that in 1974 Da Free John was planting the seeds of behaviors that would grow into luxuriant, noxious weeds in the tropical isolation of his Fijian hideaway. With luck, my narrative of the early days of his community in northern California might shed some light on the later developments that were at least partially revealed in a series of investigative articles published from 4 to 16 April, 1985 in the San Francisco Chronicle.”
Scott made some additional comments: http://www.lightgate.net/daism/texts/TheStrangePostscript.html.
And former follower and one time editor for Da, George Fuerstein, who now states about Da in his book “Holy Madness”:
“In the case of Adi Da (see Chapter 4), I have had to adjust my earlier view in light of more recent developments and also because of my improved understanding of the concept of enlightenment within the tradition of Buddhism, which offers what I now deem to be the most sophisticated model of the spiritual path.”
There are of course many other accounts that can be found on the internet. The point being that dismssing critical views as those of handful of hostile, disaffected followers who never understood or tried to follow Da’s teaching simply isn’t accurate.
Notice how Beezone himself addresses these concerns:
“Lately I’ve been reading some of the bulletin boards and web pages on the Internet that discuss Adi Da. Many of these discussions (if I can be so generous) center around the questions of Adi Da’s sanity and authenticity of realization. There seems to be an inconsistence in Adi Da’s questionable ethical behaviors that date back to 1974.
In spiritual life, particularly in the east, the problem of ethics and questionalble behavior from a Guru have long been a question of legitimacy. How can individuals who ‘claim’ enlightenment do so many hurtful and nasty things under the name of truth? Why would Upasani Maharaja throw a rock and hit Meher Baba (Meher Baba devotees say about his abuses) in the head and cause it to bleed? If Adi Da is enlightened the how could he do all the bad things people obviously experienced in his company? How does this ‘square’ with truth and enlightenment?
It simply does not square with anything! It doesn’t and it can never be ‘reconciled’ with our notions of enlightnement or what is good. But yet it still exists and it is a paradox.
Even if one were to inquire in real spiritual terms as to the condition of an enlightened being which is suppose to be all about Bliss and Love, how can “wackin” someone around or performing strange sexual behaviors be in any way ‘consistent’ with Bliss, Love and Awakening?
As unenlightened beings we are left in our own questions and logical inconsistencies, our own wanting and needing things to be ‘good’ and ‘right’. We don’t want to be duped and ‘had’ by some mad man or woman!
The only ‘explanation’ is it’s a paradox. The word paradox is used to describe something that seems to be a contradiction but is in both cases true. Something is both GOOD and BAD at the same time.
Unfortunately our minds think in a logical and sequential manner and we can never fully come to terms with a paradox. We can never come up with final answers that will ‘solve’ these questions.
We can come up with ‘relative’ answers, based on the laws of nature but not absolute answers. If we poist a question and try and solve it by using our minds we will ultimately come to an unresolved ‘pair of opposites’.
So when we look at Adi Da or any other ‘realized’ being, there is no way to ultimately resolve these outrageous and inappropriate behaviors, which are by all logical and common sense accounts ‘hurtful’ and wrong. We have ideas that enlightened masters should be like holy saints.
“Saints would never have contradictory natures.” They’d always be on one side; they’d always be good, morally and spiritually.
It is exactly this ‘not wanting to be duped’ that continually keep us in the contradictions and impossible dilemma’s of our own mind. Somewhere along the line, the line to infinity, we must let go of ALL ideas and expectations and every speck of what we think ourselves to be. We must ultimately lose ourselves and that means lose all sense of what we think is RIGHT, GOOD and SANE!
There is no other way to do it. Nargarjuna, the famous Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century postulated his ‘four corner negation’, pointing to the most ultimate answer he could give to this question of logic. He said that you can’t ultimately say (1) Yes (2) No (3) Both Yes and No (4) Neither Yes and No. All possibilities of Eternalism or Nilism are confounded in the ‘infinite realm of contradictory opposites’.
Enlightenment does appear to be a kind of madness.
To come up with a moral certainty in this climate is …..forget it! It can’t be done. Reconciling Adi Da’s behavior or even the rationalizations of our own contractictory nature is impossible. NO ONE can claim Absolute Knowing. Adi Da, Meher Baba or whoever can claim that the adept is That Which is Beyond All Opposites and therefore WHATEVER that one does is ‘purifying’ and ‘balancing’ but the claim can’t be either proven or denied from ‘this side of infinity’.
Our fears (Fear and revulsion account for most of the spiritual adventure of mankind. Paradox p. 30) tell us that this kind of stuff is ‘crazy’ and that kind of logic can be used by manipulators to do evil and perform self justifying actions. And that IS true. We have to be aware of ‘deception’ and protect ourselves from falling into the spell of someone’s evil intentions. But paradoxically the higher up one goes up the scale of things the less and less the things of this world can be brought with it, and that includes logic and the concepts of good and bad.”
I applaud Beezone for at least admitting the problem, while official Adidam remains extremely vague for obvious reasons. And I applaud Flick for discussing at least some of the details not found in Adidam promotions. But the problem with this logic of “Da and other Realizers”, adoption of nihilistic tenets, and reliance on the arguments of paradox, remains. If you honestly go into the specifics of Da’s teaching and behavior, and these details should all be made available to the interested public to decide for themselves, there seems to be some reason to see the appearance of grasping at straws in explaining all this based on a prior belief on what the answer has to be.
All that needs to be said is there is disagreement. No need to make obviously erroneious statements about critics.
February 8, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Yes thanks FFAC I was referring only to the people and posts I saw on this site and at Lightmind. I have no real idea about everyone else who has been in Adi dam although most I have talked to who left did not feel negative about it , but that is only my own small world. I guess we could do a survey or poll or whatever of former devotees, but that would not even be accurate. so the conclusions you came to in this most recent post seem valid and right on to me and i will just leave it at that Flick Rahke p.s You might have hit the record of the longest post yet, will have to get out my ruler and measure the lenghts of different posts , though, since i am only estimating
February 8, 2009 at 9:45 pm
TO PETER FROM AUSTRIA.
Your post reminded me very much of myself many years ago. I wish to briefly reply, strangely enough more for my own benefit than yours. (Actually, everything I do is for myself – not very ‘spiritual’, hey?)
I must begin by placing myself in the appropriate place in the spectrum of current and past devotees. I was a devotee for over 10 years and left about 12 years ago. Adi Da was the first ‘spiritual’ (whatever that means) person I encountered. His affect on me was profound and I remain grateful to this day. I am one of a number of past devotees who have not harbored any anger towards Adi Da or his community, but am critical of the cultic and fundamentalist disposition of the community and its participants.
I say very little about Adi Da and his ‘realization’ because I simply do not know. I do know what it was like to live in his community, however, and how difficult it can be to feel the insanity of that institution but not be clear enough to leave. I also know what it’s like to fear being completely honest in the face of perceived (and actual) retributive action. Such circumstances, however, are no different to any other fundamentalist organization or club, from the flower growing society down the road to so-called spiritual groups such as Adidam. You can download my full story of why I left Adidam at http://home.exetel.com.au/eddieblatt/writer/Leaving%20Adidam.doc.
Having said all that my advice would be to examine it all for yourself, to whatever degree you find necessary, and follow your heart. There is no such thing as a ‘wrong’ choice. At worst one may be wasting time by being led down the garden path, but even then you come to the necessary point of seeing that you were being led down the garden path. My favorite service in Adidam was sweeping paths – now I know why!
Good luck with your journey.
February 9, 2009 at 1:40 am
Ellen,
Good post. My “sentiments” exactly!
In observing myself and others, it does seem like we keep switching our illusion from one guru to another. One thing I realized about 5 years ago was that flushing Franklin out of my system wasn’t just about that alone but it was secondary to getting Christianity out of my system. The concept of “closet Christian” has been foremost on my mind and inspected and tested daily over the last few years…..and continuously flushed out.
Even though it appears that I’m deconstructing Franklin all the time, my “basic motive” has been to “flush out” mommy, daddy, Jesus, Santa Claus, all school teachers, all gurus,
and all forms of communications in religion and politics that indoctrinated me (and “Manufactured Consent” ala Noam Chomsky deconstruction style also); i.e., flushing out all of Western culture that is strongly imbued with Christian values –even flushing out all global and historical systems of thought.
And from that position, not to turn to another substitute guru (or daddy or mommy substitute) but to find “the courage to stand alone”. And this doesn’t say that I haven’t found interesting and useful views or “pointers” (as they say in the non-duality lingo) in much of everything else but I no longer make anything or anyone my “god”.
It’s a value system that we were indoctrinated with and it is a Christian value system for us Westerners.
Who can deny this? As infants (and in early childhood), we obviously were indoctrinated with Christian values. From birth, we wanted to be nurtured by mommy and then saved by daddy. ….and then Jesus came alone as the “perfect” savior. What can you do or say as a young child? And to pretend that this 2 to 5 year old stuff is not part of our repressed and un-inspected conditioning would be just too absurd.
As you well know, it’s not a matter of believing in U.G. or others, it’s a matter of inspecting and testing and flushing out those notions. Non-dualists do something similar (but not identical) with language and that’s why that there is a softening up of their position as compared to a fundamentalist dualistic system such as Adidam.
But for me, as U.G. and Kramer and Alstad, the authors of the Guru Papers, have so well stated (although reaching different conclusions), it’s not just about deconstructing all aspects of dualistic linguistic notions (since most of them are useful and functional) but it’s about inspecting the most abstract notions at the very top of the hierarchical pyramidal language and thought systems and throwing those away. That being done, lower abstractions fall into place.
As you say because we have invested so much of our lives in this “spiritual crap”, the parallel universe of thought (or the meme universe ala Dawkins) is difficult to get over. Or, it’s difficult to see that much (if not all) of what we call spirituality is physiologically based since we are and have been bombarded with language since in utero.
Speaking of Dawkins, it’s worth investigating the selfish gene. Another thing that I learned initially from U.G. and Kramer/Alstad is that we are all selfish or self centered or self interested; i.e., it’s all from the point of view of self. How do the concepts of “love and compassion” fit in if that is the case? –love/hate; unconditional love/conditional love. …more high level dualistic terms. Certainly there is no indication of “the abstract notion of love” demonstrated in history and present day culture. At the very least, the authors of the Guru Papers state that caring results from acknowledging selfishness.
And even as the search comes to an end, the culture and conditioning is still in us; thus, it’s “a maddening thing”. But any amount of flushing out culture (with value systems and abstractions) does soften us up and it “lightens your load just a bit more”.
February 9, 2009 at 8:03 am
Ah yes the ego “I ” is a wonderful teacher and guru. After all it is all molecules and atoms spinning around with no consciousness anyhow. blah blah blah blah blah blah blahloney baloney
May all enjoy their ego games for eternity lots of fun {and suffering } to all and to all a good nite Flick Rahke
February 9, 2009 at 8:36 am
As moderator, I’ve almost completely kept myself out of the discussion, but thought I’d take the 1000th post. I was never intimate with Adi Da or Adidam as are the main posters here. I never fell in love with Adi Da. That’s what this “comments forum” comes down to: falling in love. And falling out of love while lugging around the remains of a flood of experience.
When you fall in love you have tremendous tolerance for the behavior of the one you love. You may even find their behavior, no matter how it manifests, charming, meaningful, adorable, necessary, absolutely part of the one you love. This is true whether you fall in love with a spiritual master, an organized crime leader, an alcoholic, or someone you meet in the produce section. Then when you fall out of love, their behavior becomes another story.
You can’t argue with love, so you can’t argue with the people who are still in love with Adi Da. You can try.
I like Adi Da. The Knee of Listening and The Method of the Siddhas were powerful books for me. Just last night I was reading from The Basket of Tolerance, 1991 version. The explanation of the seven stages helped me understand my own experiences and prepared me in dealing with the shock of people I was about to meet when I brought independent nonduality to the Internet in 1997.
For me, the best way to relate to Adi Da is not to fall in love with him in the first place, but to like what there is to like, to use what is there to be used, and to not get drawn into the charisma of Adidam. Of course that means I’ve missed something, too, and you can’t stop someone from falling in love.
Jerry
February 9, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Jerry,
The Knee of Listening and Method of the Siddhas were both respected works. Critics have since noted some inconsistencies, some of which have been mentioned here, but they are still considered informative. I suggest the differences between the Franklin Jones “persona” and his teaching approach then, versus future personas, has something to do with this. The KOL was completed in late 1971. The original KOL course Franklin conducted http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/meditation_of_understandin.html further elaborates on his interpretation and approach at the time period of the Method of the Siddhas talks. The Method of the Siddhas contains talks from the first 9 months or so, into early 1973, after the original Ashram opened in LA. This was before Franklin Jones went to India, and came back a changed man with a different name, and noticeably different presence and approach. In reading Franklin Jones, it helps to know the period in which the works were produced and the periods of subsequent edits and revisions.
The seven stages model in the Basket of Tolerance circa 1991 (prior to the demotion of everyone else to 6th Stage or lower) evolved over time. But as critics have shown, the claimed distinctions between the sixth stage and seventh stage do not conform to actual descriptions by jnanis. It is a good framework for further consideration, but I do not think that Da’s model has actually proved superior to the Yogi, Saint and Sage (Jnani) model taught by Ramana Maharshi and which is similar, other than the claimed distinctions that became the sixth and seventh stages, to what Da originally taught in his first few years prior to the seven stages model. As for the latest revisions based on Da being the only fully Realized Avatar in all of history, that only amplifies the issues I have with some of the detailed ranking scheme in Basket of Tolerance.
I think Da provides a road map, but not a perfect one.
February 10, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Raymond Darling! You obviously grok u.g. and that makes my day. perhaps you know me too. i have an epilogue in “the courage to stand alone” in which i describe the beginning of the end of my life with Bubba.
I know this is a blog about Adi Da and his death — but allow me to compare:
U.G’s death was so different from the Divine World Teacher. He knew he was going, called all his friends to say goodbye, had a room full of people with him daily for several weeks as his body began to go. kept us laughing, and crying. then suddenly sent us all away because he said he couldn’t die with us all around “eyeballing”. He had 3 people stay with him for practical reasons. And when they all went to have a coffee, he died. His wishes, which he always made well know, were that he would die unwept and unsung, and that his body would be cremated with no ceremony whatsoever. He was absolutely adament. And so it was. He was 89 — 90 according to the indian calendar. He left us with nothing to hold onto, but for one who never talked of love — he lived it.
He never lived in any place for more than a few months. Owned nothing. His doors were always open to one and all — and you could argue with him, threaten him, yell, etc. (and I did) and there was no censure.
Anyway, I digress. I am appreciating this blog.
February 10, 2009 at 7:20 pm
TO ELLEN CHRYSTAL
Thanks for your posts. U.G. Krishnamurti touched me in a small way (till now) and I wanted to share that with you.
When I left Adidam I allowed myself to be led wherever life would lead me without trying to get somewhere. After encountering different ‘spiritual’ people in the Ramana Maharshi lineage, and reading the words of Ramana himself as well as those of Osho, Conversations With God, Adyashanti, and others (the usual suspects), I came across a trilogy of books that was to confirm much of what that journey had showed me. The author was Jed McKenna, and in the second book titled “Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment” he dedicates one chapter entirely to quotes from U.G.
I ended up borrowing a book by U.G. from a friend and, although I was unable to comprehend everything I read, there was enough to confirm the motives that led me to leave Adidam and the understanding that went with that process. I now feel there is no-one to go to for ‘spiritual enlightenment’ (whatever that is), and I rarely refer to anyone else when relating to others.
25 years ago, as a committed scientific-materialist, I would have said that all gurus and their teachings are a bunch of crap. Now, 25 years later and after spending lots of time and energy in the company of ‘gurus,’ especially Adi Da, I have come to the same conclusion. However, I now feel completely different when I say it AND I am indebted to Adi Da and the rest of the legion of gurus occupying our planet. Go figure!
Are there any specific books about U.G. and his conversations that you could recommend? When I read Jed McKenna’s books it was like reading something I had written (without the elegance and flair!) – I wonder if something similar would occur when reading those of U.G.
February 11, 2009 at 2:33 am
Eddie,
I discarded scientific materialism based on my own experiences, not because of belief. And I must point out that the goal and function of the outer guru is to faciliate one fully recognizing the inner guru and if the outer guru can’t do that, they may or may not be well meaing, but in the traditional sense, they are a fraud. Obviously I don’t share the disillusionment with enlightenment based on experiences with the many teachers who fell short of their claims and could not deliver what is already the case.
I did not see a need to in my case since I never considered any living gurus I met as anything but agents, as the one quote about the inner guru being the reason for leaving Da mentioned, and for me it has been a lifetime of better understanding how that process worked that prevented disillusionment. But many are disillusioned, with good reason, and there is nothing else that can be said when enlightenment is so ill defined in modern times that models are lacking and those who claim it are so conflicted with each other. The word has lost significance. I can’t think of anyone you have mentioned that I personally would consider a guru in the sense I have defined it. What I learned is that when you abandon scientific materialism, you also need to first examine the unconscious programming we have in the west, the whole heaven, hell, psychic and salvation dogma that afflicts us. Or, you are likely to run into problems based on such programming (as quite evident in the way Da became a Jesus replacement, a one and only Savior figure, and enlightenment in Adidam became a kind of permanant salvation that excused all sin), and the guru in the way I define it won’t do this homework for you. I have found that there are many, many levels of awareness, and that figures that attain one of these that others envy are quick to presume they have reached the goal and can readily find followers who will agree. And I have found there is much widespread dissatisfaction with traditions, which can only be understood from within first and not because it is dogma or it does not good. None of these questionable states however profound are really new, they have been known for ages, something that can be found by looking in the right places and not getting confused by labeling and terminology. What has changed is that it is easier to use modern knowledge in terms of words to presume enlightenment has occurred. So in the case of all these gurus and enlightenment, it is better to reserve judgement than
rush in.
The best source I know of online for UG Krishnamurti is here:
http://www.well.com/~jct/
February 11, 2009 at 6:28 pm
No teachers, no teaching, no religions, no knowledge, no assumptions about free will or cause & effect.
Just pictures.
Easy to prove for anyone. The most simple of things to do.
The body/mind is a process, not a “something”.
Move your finger. How is it done? Which cells contain the instructions? How do you trigger them? Millions of them are required. Is there an entity called “I” that does this?
Experiments during brain surgery (and other experiments) demonstrate that the consciousness “I will move my finger and then I do it” occurs after the movement has begun.
This so called awareness is a feed back screen for what the body does as a process.
Look at a sleep walker – they can at times fool people into thinking they are awake and aware. That all of this is a body process is obvious from the fact that drugs, age, accidents, health, genetics effect what goes on.
What we hear, think, feel, see, smell, taste all goes on as a process and little bits are displayed as pictures (awareness) and one part of the brain process comes up with an idea called “I”
Look at any other person and there is an absolute knowledge (picture) that they have no idea how a finger moves and never will.
Aside from the electrical/chemical forces operated by cells there are all the atomic, subatomic and quantum forces in play.
And there is an I that has any control in the middle of this? That is laughable.
At least there are some scientists who are beginning to say that not only don’t we know but never will and can’t know how things tick.
It can be fun to play with ideas about the nature of things but the process and its ideas will end. Some good talk about non-duality and what Ramana was up to are good to pass the time.
But in the end it is a mystery for this process and that needs to be enough.
February 11, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Eddie,
Everything about U.G. is online but I never go online to look. My favorite book is “the mystique of enlightenment”. there have been several different publishers. I also transcribed and edited “the courage to stand alone”. conversations with U.G. in amsterdam, 1982. i like those conversations very much.
u.g. used to those ex-devotees of adi da, who came to visit him — divorcees. and those who came to him after the death of rajneesh — widows. widows and divorcees!
anyone who wants to reach me can click on my name above and you will (i think) be sent to my website. there is contact information for me there. it’s a tango website. i teach argentine tango for a living.
And I hope you are not anywhere near those fires in Melbourne.
February 11, 2009 at 11:10 pm
Are you related to Bruce? Just curious. I really liked him and I heard he got royally screwed by some people in the community.
February 12, 2009 at 2:21 am
We all know that in 1993 Da definitively stated that Jesus was only a fifth stage mystic. Yet, in 1982, Da wrote:
“The more public Teaching of Jesus is associated with the moral exotericism and animistic terrestrialism of the Emanationist religion of the first three stages of life. And he is also often quoted or depicted in the terms of traditional formulations that affirm the dualistic ideal of evolutionary soul-culture (or the fourth to fifth stage views of traditional Emanationism, which are concerned with mystical soul-travel, or ascent through the cosmic hierarchy to the “Throne” or “Heaven” of God). But Jesus’ ultimate Confession of the Realization of his oneness with the “Father,” or the Spiritual and Transcendental Divine Being, implies free and utter transcendence of the point of view and conventional independence of body, mind, self, and soul. By virtue of that Confession, we may consider Jesus of Nazareth to be an Adept in the seventh stage of life, an Advocate of the point of view of Emanationist Non-Dualism, and thus, in Truth, an enlightened “Buddha,” “Bodhisattva,” “Jnani,” “Jivanmukta,” or “Mahasiddha,” Occupied with Transcendental Wisdom in the midst of a traditional culture of animistic spiritualism and Emanationist monotheism.
If we do not thus presume Jesus to have been a “Completed” or seventh stage Adept, the only alternative assessment that is also possibly legitimate is a spiritually less auspicious one, based on the evidence that suggests he was merely a typical figure in the moral and mystical traditions of the first five stages of life. According to that view, it is to be presumed that Jesus advocated the basically animistic doctrine that life is a struggle with unholy or daemonic “spirits” (which produce the symptoms of “sin,” or denial of God’s Help, in the form of disease, doubt, violence, hypocrisy, fear, anger, sorrow, defeat, and so forth). In that context, Jesus offered the “Holy Spirit” of God to believers (or those who would renounce “sin,” or willful possession by negative spirits, and exercise the impulse of faith, or the will to be possessed by the Holy Spirit) as the means of salvation from the negative destinies that develop from daemonic possession. To be sure, this interpretation of Jesus is certainly a correct reflection of the general setting of his Work. The question is whether or not his Teaching, or at least his Realization, exceeded the limits of animism and monotheistic Emanationism in the context of the first five stages of life.
I would say that there is a basis (in the “Confessions” or self-descriptions of Jesus) for affirming that Jesus had himself entered into the Realization of the seventh stage of life, and there is some indication in the New Testament that he may have Taught the Non-Dualistic Wisdom to at least a few others (such as Nicodemus)…”
Likewise, we know that in 1993 Da declared that Gautama Buddha was only sixth stage, not fully realized. Yet, in 1982, Da wrote:
aid:
Gautama…is rightly called a Buddha because he Realized the Samadhi of Awakening to the Nirvanic or Transcendental Condition…Truly, “Buddhism” is a term that may rightly be applied to any sixth to seventh stage Transcendentalist philosophy or Way of Transcendental Realization, just as the term “Buddha” may rightly be applied to any Adept who has entered into the Realization or Samadhi that characterizes the seventh or fully Awakened stage of life.”
As we all know, after 1993, Da then adopted a Messianic position, saying:
“…The Great and True (and Self-Evidently Divine) Spiritual Process Initiated and Guided by the Spiritual Masters in My present-Lifetime Lineage (and of the Lineage of even all the Life times of My present-Lifetime Incarnation-Vehicle here and of the Lineage of even all My Me-Invoking and Me-Blessing Forms and Vehicles of Me-Revelation here) has Become Complete only in Me. Its Perfection is in the seventh stage Fulfillment of the Course (and not at any earlier stage). This Divine Perfection is Uniquely My own. And I Alone the Hridaya-Siddha, the Divine and True Heart-Master and World-Teacher, Ruchira Avatar Adi Da Love-Ananda Samraj Am Its First and Great Example, and (now, and forever hereafter) Its Only and Sufficient Means.
I Am the First (and the only One) to Realize and to Demonstrate This, the Divine, seventh stage Realization and My Revelation of It Is therefore, New. For This Reason, the Divine seventh stage Realization was not heretofore Realized, or even Understood either within the schools and traditions of My present-Lifetime Lineage-Gurus or within any other schools or traditions in the total Great Tradition of mankind to Be the Most Ultimate and Completing Perfection of Realization Itself. Nevertheless, I have, spontaneously (by Means of My own Self-Evident “Bright” Heart-Power and through the Great and Constant Help of all Who have Blessed My Incarnate Forms), Realized and Demonstrated and Revealed This To Be The Case. And the traditional (and ancient) “Sid-’Method”‘ (or the Way of Guru-Devotion to the True Siddha-Guru, and of total psycho-physical Surrender of the ego-I” to be Mastered by the True Siddha-Guru’s Instruction, and to be Blessed to Awaken to Divine Realization by Means of the True Siddha-Guru’s Transmission of the Divine Spiritual Energy and the Divine State)Which “Method” was Communicated to Me by all My present-Lifetime Lineage-Gurus, and by all the Great Siddhas and Siddha-Yogis Who have Blessed My present-Lifetime Incarnation-Vehicle in the past is the Essence (or the Primary “Method”) of the Way of Adidam, Which (now, and forever hereafter) I Alone, and Uniquely, Reveal and Transmit to all My formally practicing true devotees (and, Thus, potentially, to all beings)…”
Suffice it to say that Da’s conception of the Divine, Radiant Transcendental Being he claims to be reflects his own nature. Traditionally, humbleness is valued, as described by Ramana Maharshi:
“The power of humility, which bestows immortality, is the foremost among powers that are hard to attain. Since the only benefit of learning and other similar virtues is the attainment of humility, humility alone is the real ornament of the sages. It is the storehouse of all other virtues and is therefore extolled as the wealth of divine grace. Although it is a characteristic befitting wise people in general, it is especially indispensable for sadhus.
Since attaining greatness is impossible for anyone except by humility, all the disciplines of conduct such as yama and niyama, which are prescribed specifically for aspirants on the spiritual path, have as their aim only the attainment of humility. Humility is indeed the hallmark of the destruction of the ego. Because of this, humility is especially extolled by sadhus themselves as the code of conduct befitting them…
The Supreme Lord, who is the highest of the high, shines unrivalled and unsurpassed only because he remains the humblest of the humble. When the divine virtue of humility is necessary even for the Supreme Lord, who is totally independent, is it necessary to emphasize that it is absolutely indispensable for sadhus who do not have such independence? Therefore, just as in their inner life, in their outer life also sadhus should possess complete and perfect humility. It is not that humility is necessary only for devotees of the Lord; even for the Lord it is the characteristic virtue.”
David Godman points out that humility in this equates with egolessness, rather than with a kind of ‘nice’ or socially acceptable behaviour. God is God because he is utterly egoless, utterly humble, and not because He is omnipotent or omniscient. I find the traditional conception more valid, just another reason for doubting Da’s realization being anything a fifth stage, subtle and mind plane creation.
February 12, 2009 at 8:52 pm
re question for Ellen
No I do not know Bruce.
February 13, 2009 at 2:05 am
Rumor has it the devil declared hell is not big enough for the two of them; likewise the big G, who considers him in certain regards to be an embarrassment, a non fully authorized self-appointed know-it-all spokesman, has declared “…not in My Domain,thank you…” this combined with the fact there are apparently several spiritually submissive beautiful women he did not manage to screw is pointing strongly towards a return to “here”…so,the “bright” may well be starting all over again…some lucky couple out there is in for quite a surprise
February 13, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Just passing says:
“Experiments during brain surgery (and other experiments) demonstrate that the consciousness “I will move my finger and then I do it” occurs after the movement has begun.
This so called awareness is a feed back screen for what the body does as a process.”
Non-dualism does not postulate that an entity “I” is the root of consciousness or that the root of consciousness is in the brain or body. Rather, there is simply Pure Awareness, all that really IS, not ultimately subject-object awareness of any kind.
The experiments you apparently refer to are described in much more detail here: http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm. That the body responds in these cases before one is consciously aware makes perfect sense, as does the showing that a potential develops before a choice is made. Furthermore, recent experiments with why we see illusions suggest that the cause the brain structures our experiences and projects what it anticipates will be as though we were actually experiencing it without any delay whatsoever.
A better model for the non-dualistic would be along the lines of the panpsychism http://www.consciousentities.com/panpsychism.htm theory, that everything is conscious, although it is more accurate to say everthing IS Consciousness and therefore conscious on some level.
February 16, 2009 at 9:33 pm
may it rest in peace
February 17, 2009 at 6:54 am
Passing by to say good-bye
Well, what an epic this forum has become, over a thousand entries, a friend told me about this a couple a days ago and I checked it out last night, I haven’t read the whole thing obviously but enough to get a general sense.
I have decided to use this forum in my own process of consideration as a means of letting go, kind of the last conversation before moving on, its time. The frame work of this discussion starts with Adi Da’s death, and debates of his authenticity as a spiritual Master, the controversy of his life, non dualistic teachings, paths or method, leading to a discussion on the great tradition, Master’s ect; however it becomes clear very quickly to a passer by, that the real centre of the discussion is really about the people participating and not so much the subject matter.
What comes across to me is more the investment the participants have made in propping up their identity, part of their costume of separate self, through Adi Da and the spiritual tradition of realizers , irrespective of which side, of the apparent debate they are advocating. No doubt, my blog entry will be just as revealing of myself as it has been of every body else.
In that spirit here is a bit of background, I’ll tell it like it was for me, I am not trying to make any point here, I have no axe to grind either for or against, it might be useful for your enjoyment to receive this as a story with no mind, a bit of fun.
I became a devotee in 1989, my involment with Adidam was no picnic, because I was an intense character, in denial about many things, fearful, uptight, controlling, very sorrowful, with very low self esteem, a child, with a good heart. I never was able to make use of the process while in the community, because I was not mature enough. This culminated in my going on retreat during the Jubilee at MOA in 1997 and again in 1998 for Naamleela Jones 18th birthday on the island of Naitauba. These two retreats exploded my apparent limits and I was able to let go of the little edge of “me” in all its forms that normally defined my life, and open to an ecstatic, vulnerable, wounded hearted disposition, which was deeply penetrating, at once painful and yet utterly liberating. I was lit up like a Christmas tree, with the force of transmition from Adi Da , which was incredibly powerful, I saw no “I” behind his eyes, I fell in love and became a lover.
However coming back to my ordinary life, slowly I saw myself receding back into the presumptions that defined me as a separate self, I had been given a vision of Divine Love, only to return to my usual round of suffering, this created a great tension between these two realities, a yearning to be free, of my clearly self imposed exile. So when I moved away from the community of Adidam in 1999, partly to give my children and myself a better life near the ocean, my yearning heart, manifested an angel, in the form of a loving friend who had himself been deeply involved with Adi Da and Adidam.
For three years on and off, this friend considered with me in an atmosphere of safety and love what I was really up too as a dream character in full costume, it was very confronting and he never once let me of the hook ,the consideration was always about what I was up to in any given moment, he was also very supportive and nurturing sensing what I really needed. The process that I could not allow within Adidam and that was not really available because of the cultic tendencies of its members, was now slowly unfolding, as I look back it was my heart yearning to be free of its self imposed limits. It was all leading to a crisis though, the magnitude of which was unknown to me, and that I would never have chosen had I realized the cost I would have to pay.
In 2003 I once again went on retreat for Adi Da’s birthday on the island of Naitauba, upon returning my whole life melted down, my children left home, my relationship came to an end and I found myself so penetrated by the loss of my intimate, that it cut through the drama of my life and my lovelessness, I was so devastated that I could not make the gestures that defined me previously, what started with the loss of my partner became a much greater consideration. This process had all the hallmarks of a full breakdown, I became homeless living in my car (which was tolerable, since I was in a most beautiful part of the world), but slowly I felt myself being taken down the rapids and eventually went over the falls, however I did not fall into oblivion when I let go, I fell into love.
The whole world changed, I found forgiveness for myself, my intimate, I saw that all were just doing their best in a changing universe, within the wound of the passing of all that one loves, within this mortal sphere. I stopped projecting expectations on conditional nature that it could not possibly fulfill; I stopped obliging the universe and people to make me happy. I got something about what egos are all about, and I stopped judging them, since I represent the same liabilities.
Off course I turned to Adi Da feeling like there was nothing left for me in the world. For the next four years I traveled the world going on retreat in the states and Naitauba about ten times for periods of four weeks to six months. I went to India twice four months at a time, to study music and be involved in so called mission work, which never really happened.
I traveled to ashrams and Mahasamadhi sites of about ten different realizers. I sent back gifts from India to Adi Da and eventually became involved in a very direct dialogue with him. Beloved acknowledge me as an ecstatic with a couple of others, he praised our practice which is kind of rare, and suggested that ecstatics like us should be in charge of the institution. The Ruchira Sannyasin order taking its cues from Beloved, started to pursue me intensely to become a resident on the island. I had come to realized that I was not really cut out for renunciation having tested myself during a four month stay on the island, but on a one week retreat bringing back some gifts from India something inside me broke and I made the gesture of response regarding residency to both Beloved and the Ruchira Sannyasin order. I could not immediately as a full time resident due to outstanding debts. However I handled some of my business, bougth a world ticket and plan to spend four month on the island on my way to the USA to do some work to pay my debts.
It turned out to bet six months, which was the second last time I was there. A whole play happened that by conventional standards would be seen to be insulting and manipulative, however because of my orientation to always consider the apparent outside reality of what is happening for me objectively, as a direct reflection of my presumptions and something I am actually animating, the play no matter how confronting and apparently unfair , in the end ,always worked out in my favor, there were many instances of this one after the other, and I was able to see that the whole event was like a movie script of my core emotional issues playing itself out right in the company of the realizer.
Really intense at times, I was made a resident without my consent, I took on certain positions and gave up other pursuits on the basis of promises which never eventuated, as a result of which, I ended up looking like the bad guy, ect ,in the end I saw clearly that I was orchestrating the whole thing , because of my presumptions, but it always turned out to my benefit eventually, though the whole process was a great ordeal .
I am a musician, and it was this that drew me into Beloved’s house from my first retreat. This particular time, I was drawn right in , I became the ultimate insider by default, I accepted the role of ashram manager, giving up my music sadhana, in return for which I would be made an attendant to Beloved,(the biggest carrot any one could dangle in front of me at the time, and I leaped). I saw everything that went on from day to day, I became the right hand man to the Richira Sannyasin order, what they really liked about me was my complete non-institutional approach, that I brought the perspective , the energy of an ecstatic, that I was not an insider, did not have any ambitions in that area. Yet I was privy for those six months to the whole process of Beloved’s intimate life, at least as close as a man can get to the gig.
I can testify that there was a lot of very dysfunctional things going on around him, and that from a conventional point view, there is some credibility to what anti Daist might be offended by and highly vocal about; but I can also testify that Adi Da showed signs of great realization, that he was absolutely one pointed and disciplined in his work, his day to day life in terms of diet, schedule, writing, doing his art dealing with people ect was exemplary, he was relentless in his commitment to his work, his relationship to people had full integrity as a spiritual Master, I sat in the silver hall, I witnessed the fact that he demonstrated great siddhis which he could turn on and off and that the force of his transmition was profound. There were also incredible moments of intimacy and a transcendent relationship that melted the heart in prior unity, many many instances, where he showed a sign, as pure love, deeply availablevulnerable and caring of his devotees.
He showed the trade marks of sheer brilliance and genius, and even the very qualities he might come under criticism for by his critics, showed themselves over time not something an ordinary ego would be able to manifest, no one could keep that going like he did as a façade, that is also obvious, of course this is just me talking, but you had to be there.
My visa coming to an end, I left and went to do some service in India, and came back six months latter debt free this time coming back for good, the long awaited guy who was going to make a big difference to Beloved’s circumstance, to his work. I arrived and was immediately brought back into the inner circle, the number one attendant, outside the door 24/7, where ever he was I was too, the first two weeks were amazing, they were like a vision of what could happen in terms of the process really working leading to realization, when the unraveling of the dream character is in motion, the confrontation intense, but the heart swooned in love, ecstatic. Beloved asked that a group of us make application for the Free Sannyasin order, which was big deal, I wrote the letter went through the consideration but it never happened, as things stared to melt down at that time, still I was given incredible access, ridding on the boat with Him from his little secluded house at Lions Lap , back to his office at the Matrix.
I went back to the island this time around with this yearning in my heart to go beyond my presumptions of being small as an ego, I wanted to bring the gift of an expansive heart of love and devotion, go beyond my egoic presumptions. I was made the guy that oversees the process of his art making in Picture Perfect, what is traditionally called a sarvadhakari, someone who makes sure the Master is never disturbed, is related to rightly and creates a conduit for devotees devotion and gifts to come to the Master, always sees that he has what he needs, in this case that he can do his art without disruption, however his art process was incredibly complex needing much technology, and people to serve the process, because he was always pushing the boundaries, there was always the frequent potential for problems.
I did not perform as expected and soon Beloved responded by saying “ I was not a sarvadhakari but just an umbrella holder” and of course I was taken out and relegated to my attending services, which still had me 24/7 outside his door. This pushed me right back into my sense of being small. He actually put me back where I was really at, what I was still presuming about myself, what was really going in my costume as an ego at an unconscious level of the mind.
Immediately I went from feeling ecstatic to feeling the most acute boredom, doubt and discomfort, the purification that came on was overwhelming, it was like someone had chopped the top of my head off and the subconscious and unconscious mind were running riot in my waking state( which also had been my experience in the silver hall previously), add to this the incredible schedule of being at his side 24/7, the fact that he was becoming unbelievably displeased with all that was going on around him, and that this was melting down at a rate of knots like never before( if you have witnessed this first hand you know how intense it gets, its kinda like being in a war zone) , his shout and displeasure were constant, I had been through this before, but not like this. I myself was melting down, just overwhelmed, with boredom , doubt discomfort, physically so, (the facilities for devotees are not fabulous but Lion’s Lap was really demanding), and I started to experience a fundamental sense that this was leading to my dissolution, through an agonizing process I could not indure, an inner voice came back clearly ” NO”, I don’t want this, its too much, the price is too high.
Eventually I started to look around at all that was going on, through very different eyes, questioning a lot of things I had previously shut my eyes too as a cultist. coincident with my meltdown , my sons situation back home was needing my attention, so I made it known that I wanted to leave, which went down like a led balloon, since things were already at fever pitch.
I was put with a small group of people who were asked to leave, immediately taken out of all my service, walked around like a ghost (no one came near me or spoke to me, either because they were giving me space, or because they did not want to be infected with my disease) while waiting a week for the next boat to leave. The little group that were going and I were taken through a consideration by Beloved and the Ruchira Sannaysin order, but that changed nothing. I received very strong but useful notes from Beloved about where I was really at during the process, kinda of the last gift of blows, as he once referred to receiving from Swami Muktananda, I got on the boat came backhome and realized that my involment with Adi Da and Adidam had run its course and I had been given all the lessons necessary maybe for this lifetime, in that sense I left I had left clean, with nothing hanging out, though its taken all this time (almost two years) for me to come to the point where I am writing my good-bye letter, letting go still very grateful for all I have received.
My initial period of coming back to the world, after this four year journey was relatively smooth, I saw clearly what the lesson was: that I was not ready for spiritual life, that I clearly said no to the confrontation, the ordeal required to awaken from the dream state, I saw clearly that I was in no position to make the choice of spiritual life leading to realization, that that choice required human maturity or adulthood, and that only on the basis of having inspected that terrain, and it not being enough or sufficient, could one then embrace the next step, not from an idealistic basis but because it was no longer enough.
I felt that in becoming an adult, I was only interested in living a life of love, from my heart in all my relations where ever I found myself, to serve the process of the heart and love in all others, and I did this very simply by serving people in a café for the first year, and giving my son a safe place to be so he could take his next step
. Three months after coming back, Beloved asked about me, wanting to know that I was practicing and participating, I wrote back to QSR that I was not involved with the community of Adidam and that if I had a practice as such it could be described as living love in all my relationships from the basis of prior happiness under all conditions, no small matter, but that was my heart commitment in terms of my evolution thus far; I also told her that I would send Beloved gifts periodically, which I did until the time of his death.
Some one from the local community phoned me (they had also been sent the notes I received) and asked if I was open to a conversation. I went and spoke with two men who really did not get that it was over for me, that there was no place from which I could respond or practice since I had seen very clearly that I had and was saying no to the process of awakening. They would have had me come back and start the fantasy all over again, replay the Mummery all over again, they used all sorts of cultic one liners, to no avail, Adi Da himself told me that my relationship to him was based on fantasy, I simply could not go back.
Off course having gone through the process freed me to look at the whole scene with open eyes, and many events and occurrences that I had glazed over as a cultist, stood out like dogs balls, were unacceptable and irreconcilable to me, all the stuff that people use to throw stones at Adi Da about were right in my face ( not that all the stuff that is said about him is true). These two sides of who he seemed to be: The human wounded transmition master of love, egoless, the lion in the wild priorly free, the vision of my own true heart in human form, appearing to be another and the petulant angry never to be satisfied one, dramatizing issues of being powerless, unloved, abused, a victim, imprisoned, while in conventional terms having more then enough, it was right in my face.
I could not reconcile these two apparent negating realities, the way of the heart is based on direct communion with that which is always already the case, inherent freedom, freely given through satsang with the one who is, unproblematic, whereas the culture of life around Beloved was always based on solving the problem of the failure of his work and the lack of response of his devotees.
I wrestled with these two mutually exclusive point of view, more kinda of fucked up about it, precisely because both sides were so real to me.
The heart. The love, the problem, then at one point I started to just sit with both realities one in each hand, not denying what I felt about both sides, simply allowing both sides, just allowed the paradox, and I noticed that my life is also the same paradox. Both these realities exist within my own being. A dream character in costume that would fight to the death, for his own survival capable of all the murderous activity that takes place in the dream, while at the same time, a timeless heart that lives and is sustained by its own isness capable of unconditional love, not defined or modified by any event in the dream , free.
A resolution happened, within the dream I still cannot deny my own sense of morality, or simply what feels right and wrong to me, so I cannot overlook, what feels off in Adidam, but…. Within the dream I choose what moves me in the direction my heart moves, toward adulthood, toward unfolding, unraveling, trusting my intuition, and so I
take all of what he showed and gave me that supports my process as my primary sense of who Adi Da is.
I can only be grateful, for everything that has played out in and outside of the dream with Adi Da, that has led me here, and he showed me what was beyond the dreamstate, no small matter in any lifetime, even if just a glimpse.
Even though I cannot forsake my own sense of what is right and acceptable in terms of what takes place in this dream like place, I cannot deny or at least not be open to the fact that for someone who is awake has stepped out of the theatre of human dreaming and is viewing the play acting of insubstantial character in the dream state, that the rules of the dreamstate would not apply to such a one, because they exit outside the scope of the dream , their point of view relative to the characters in the dream may be very different, based on a reality beyond space time, therefore their actions from this side of the fence may seem questionable, but from the point of view of awakening the heart, an awaken being would not care less what discomfort a dream character has to endure, if indeed awakening others were there impulse.
This is a very gray area and a touchy subject, which could be used to justify all sorts of things, so its not my point of view, but what I see and understand about this process requires me to stay open to the possibility.
I think when it comes to truth to try and punch reality into whatever box or point of view, really only reflects the one who is doing the punching.
I look at both sides of the arguments raging for and against , or someone like Wes who takes a more middle approach and what I see is still a bunch of characters like myself who are using , religion Adi da, the non dual tradition, whatever exterior form as a platform to create a costume for themselves in the dream state.
I though I was a practitioner, a warrior, but I discovered that rather then using the way , the realizer, the truth in order to go beyond, the dream character, that I was actually very busy building an identity with all of that
. The rebel is just as attached and invested in Adi Da as the cultist, and therefore needs him as much, because both are using that form to create themselves, as part of their costume, Adi Da one way or another does not even come into the equation in that game.
If the cultists thinks they are really doing it, they should look again, because that was not Adi Da’s feed back, and generally speaking it has never been the feedback of realizers, otherwise as far back as realizers go, there would be a line of awakened beings, the planet would be full of them, of whatever degree of refracted light. The torch having been handed down from generation to generation, so many hands eager to embrace the light.
Look around it’s not the case. Very few in all human time who have slept, no matter how hellish the dream got have chosen to open their eyes. That is why the argument is that the realizers is needed, like the light that falls gently on ones face in the early morning and coaxes one to wake up.
Some of Beloved’s advocates really come of sounding like defensive children and when they then take his writings and put them at the end of their blogs, after making all their childish declarations, intertwining their words with his, they make is words sound like a cultic child, as oppose to what might be an egoless heart singing to their Beloved. I wish they would desist.
Dont get me wrong I find some of what Beloveds writes about himself, challenging to say the least, but there is so so much of his words that are sheer poetry, transcendent beauty, nondual expression of sheer genius , beauty and delight, that melt the mind and breaks the heart. What about drifted in a deeper land, that book is superb, pristine truth, without any me or I in it, considerations of sheer genius, and thats from 1997, not all the earlier stuff, people have mentioned as more palatable.
And if yours is the voice of dissatisfaction and criticism, look at how you are invested, in having someone to point the finger at; you would be so lonely, bored without that, look at what a good companion Adi Da has been to you all this time. Never forsaking you, always giving you more controversy to keep you occupied, giving you a good focus to project onto, while being able to remain asleep.
I was lucky, something in me got so sick of being a victim that I was able to channel my experience, and view it primarily as a pure reflection of my own activity, my own presumptions. Its really the only real strength you have, because if its not happening to you as Adi Da said, and you are doing it, then you have the capacity, to change your action, become mature, create a reality you prefer, and learn from what is reflected to you as to what you are really up to, be responsible.
If however life is happening to you, you are adrift and the choiceless recipient, confounded and victimized by life, whether a semi trailor takes you by surprise or you find yourself writing on a blog that you were abused by a guru, you really are not in a position to grow very much from the experience, any experience, apart from maybe saying I will never let that happen again, while your yet uninspected programming is busy recreating that very happening in a different form. So seeing it as my own actionturned all my involvement as a growing , useful play.
To really accept responsibility 24/7 that’s a hero’s journey. At this point I cannot once again, find myself prostrated at the feet of any master, and whatever you say about Adi Da, he is a hard act to follow, he was the one who revealed that which is always already the case, to me, always prior and already, I take all of it to my grave.
But I can no longer surrender my own sovereignty at the feet of any other, especially as a developing adult, maybe when I have fully inspected the terrain of mature adulthood and its time to move on, another like Adi Da, will appear, or he himself, or my own heart will simply move, awaken and engage the first or next step. I actually feel that this process of being spat out of the cult, was necessary in order to move beyond being a childish cultist, I know that no matter where it goes from here the process I am in is necessary, required. He did me a great service, cut me loose and let me know, I was using the whole event as a prop for my fantasy, my egoic construct.
Holding on to the very debate that has happened on these pages has been for me something which has become increasingly obvious, its about creating and maintaining a costume, an identity an egoic construct, which is locked in the past and as long as I continue, I am actively preventing what is to come, to manifest. In a way even the Truth of Adi Da and his gift to me, requires me to let go of the whole drama, how amazing, humorous even. He must be laughing his tits of.
I must own my life, stand on my own, in surrender, love, vulnerability, but willing to step out into the night, come what may, with no one to hold my hand, that’s what’s needed now, two years ago I needed to prostrate at the Feet of the Lord. How can any one really judge another, we are truly ignorant, that is the truth of us, everything has its time, time enough for many lessons.
The cultist would say I am being an unsubmitted ego, adolescent, reactive, and I would say I still love that man like you can’t imagine and God bless you, love and blessings to you. The anti Daist may say I am a deluded fool exploited and blind, I would tell them the same thing, God Bless you, what else is there to do in this short time between birth and death, Love, don’t waste your time in petty arguments about a guru you don’t want to approach, be a lover, bring love into this humble place. Strange I never though this would happen to me, that I would find myself outside the fold of the Master taking up the journey apparently alone, Adidam was my life, and I never though I would see him dead so soon.
A final little story, before UG Krishnamurti awakened, in his youth he observed all sorts of yogis, saints and realizers and wondered what was it they had that he didn’t! So he would ask these people can you give me what you have? Inevitably they would respond, “oh no, you must make the journey yourself.”
At one point he came across Ramana Maharshi and asked him the same question, can you give what you have? Ramana replied” Off course, but can you take it!
Thanks for listening,au revoir and Blessed be.
February 17, 2009 at 11:40 pm
That was a magnificent post, The Quorn! It would be poetically beautiful to end the blog here, so I hesitate to spoil it, like a commercial right at a rare and wonderful moment on TV. But maybe my commercial is as real as the film somehow.
You really have my respect, but I think there is something costume-like as well about the intensity of the death of the dreamer you are portraying as the truth you’re not ready for. It’s so Adi-Da-esque, the avoidance, the refusal, the failure: maybe I’m just not up to it. Maybe I AM REALLY the whiney adolescent talking-school punk, and the intensely searing rip-off of the ego is my true sadhana which I am guilty of avoiding so much that it’s laughable I even pretend to be interested in truth.
I am exaggerating of course, but it’s just hard to find freedom and joy in sadhana from Adi Da, so failing at it (which really seems to be guaranteed) and walking away seemed like a big step into the sunlight for me.
So that’s what your post brought up in me to say, but the true gifts you’ve described are obvious. Thank you.
February 19, 2009 at 12:54 am
I was lit up like a Christmas tree, with the force of transmition from Adi Da, which was incredibly powerful, I saw no “I” behind his eyes, I fell in love and became a lover.”
As for there being no “I” seen behind his eyes, that does necessarily mean there is no egoic process going on, only that it is unusual. Falling in love with Da and becoming a lover is not a position where one could readily see that.
“Beloved acknowledge me as an ecstatic with a couple of others, he praised our practice which is kind of rare, and suggested that ecstatics like us should be in charge of the institution. The Ruchira Sannyasin order taking its cues from Beloved, started to pursue me intensely to become a resident on the island. I can also testify that Adi Da showed signs of great realization, that he was absolutely one pointed and disciplined in his work, his day to day life in terms of diet, schedule, writing, doing his art dealing with people ect was exemplary, he was relentless in his commitment to his work, his relationship to people had full integrity as a spiritual Master, I sat in the silver hall, I witnessed the fact that he demonstrated great siddhis which he could turn on and off and that the force of his transmition was profound. There were also incredible moments of intimacy and a transcendent relationship that melted the heart in prior unity, many many instances, where he showed a sign, as pure love, deeply available vulnerable and caring of his devotees. He showed the trade marks of sheer brilliance and genius, and even the very qualities he might come under criticism for by his critics, showed themselves over time not something an ordinary ego would be able to manifest, no one could keep that going like he did as a façade, that is also obvious, of course this is just me talking, but you had to be there.”
No ordinary ego is precisely the point. There are extraodinary states with siddhis that describe this far better than realization.
“I arrived and was immediately brought back into the inner circle, the number one attendant, outside the door 24/7, where ever he was I was too, the first two weeks were amazing, they were like a vision of what could happen in terms of the process really working leading to realization, when the unraveling of the dream character is in motion, the confrontation intense, but the heart swooned in love, ecstatic. Beloved asked that a group of us make application for the Free Sannyasin order, which was big deal, I wrote the letter went through the consideration but it never happened, as things stared to melt down at that time, still I was given incredible access, ridding on the boat with Him from his little secluded house at Lions Lap, back to his office at the Matrix.”
A recognized pattern, elevation, to be followed by demotion.
“I went back to the island this time around with this yearning in my heart to go beyond my presumptions of being small as an ego, I wanted to bring the gift of an expansive heart of love and devotion, go beyond my egoic presumptions. I was made the guy that oversees the process of his art making in Picture Perfect, what is traditionally called a sarvadhakari, someone who makes sure the Master is never disturbed, is related to rightly and creates a conduit for devotees devotion and gifts to come to the Master, always sees that he has what he needs, in this case that he can do his art without disruption, however his art process was incredibly complex needing much technology, and people to serve the process, because he was always pushing the boundaries, there was always the frequent potential for problems. I did not perform as expected and soon Beloved responded by saying “ I was not a sarvadhakari but just an umbrella holder” and of course I was taken out and relegated to my attending services, which still had me 24/7 outside his door…the fact that he was becoming unbelievably displeased with all that was going on around him, and that this was melting down at a rate of knots like never before( if you have witnessed this first hand you know how intense it gets, its kinda like being in a war zone) , his shout and displeasure were constant, I had been through this before, but not like this. I myself was melting down, just overwhelmed, with boredom , doubt discomfort, physically so, (the facilities for devotees are not fabulous but Lion’s Lap was really demanding), and I started to experience a fundamental sense that this was leading to my dissolution, through an agonizing process I could not indure, an inner voice came back clearly ” NO”, I don’t want this, its too much, the price is too high.”
Yes, as many of us heard inwardly going back to the earliest devotees, the price is indeed too high. But, many eventually realize the process itself is dramatic but unnecessarily so.
“I saw clearly what the lesson was: that I was not ready for spiritual life, that I clearly said no to the confrontation, the ordeal required to awaken from the dream state, I saw clearly that I was in no position to make the choice of spiritual life leading to realization, that that choice required human maturity or adulthood, and that only on the basis of having inspected that terrain, and it not being enough or sufficient, could one then embrace the next step, not from an idealistic basis but because it was no longer enough.”
That is only one way of looking at it, one more common in those who invested so much emotional intensity into Adidam. Instead of questioning why your inner voice said the price was too high, and noting that spiritual traditions tell you to honor that inner voice, you presume instead you were not ready for spiritual life as a result.
“These two sides of who he seemed to be: The human wounded transmition master of love, egoless, the lion in the wild priorly free, the vision of my own true heart in human form, appearing to be another and the petulant angry never to be satisfied one, dramatizing issues of being powerless, unloved, abused, a victim, imprisoned, while in conventional terms having more then enough, it was right in my face. I could not reconcile these two apparent negating realities, the way of the heart is based on direct communion with that which is always already the case, inherent freedom, freely given through satsang with the one who is, unproblematic, whereas the culture of life around Beloved was always based on solving the problem of the failure of his work and the lack of response of his devotees. I wrestled with these two mutually exclusive point of view, more kinda of fucked up about it, precisely because both sides were so real to me.”
Why would this not be the case? This kind of state is known traditionally, not as realization, but as a lesser state. Did it not ever occur to you that the transmission’s lack of staying power reflected something of Da’s own fluid state?
“The heart. The love, the problem, then at one point I started to just sit with both realities one in each hand, not denying what I felt about both sides, simply allowing both sides, just allowed the paradox, and I noticed that my life is also the same paradox. Both these realities exist within my own being. A dream character in costume that would fight to the death, for his own survival capable of all the murderous activity that takes place in the dream, while at the same time, a timeless heart that lives and is sustained by its own isness capable of unconditional love, not defined or modified by any event in the dream, free.”
The old paradox argument again. If Da exhibits the same realities that exist within you and others but to extremes, why presume his realization is complete?
“A resolution happened, within the dream I still cannot deny my own sense of morality, or simply what feels right and wrong to me, so I cannot overlook, what feels off in Adidam, but…. Within the dream I choose what moves me in the direction my heart moves, toward adulthood, toward unfolding, unraveling, trusting my intuition, and so I
take all of what he showed and gave me that supports my process as my primary sense of who Adi Da is. Even though I cannot forsake my own sense of what is right and acceptable in terms of what takes place in this dream like place, I cannot deny or at least not be open to the fact that for someone who is awake has stepped out of the theatre of human dreaming and is viewing the play acting of insubstantial character in the dream state, that the rules of the dream state would not apply to such a one, because they exit outside the scope of the dream , their point of view relative to the characters in the dream may be very different, based on a reality beyond space time, therefore their actions from this side of the fence may seem questionable, but from the point of view of awakening the heart, an awaken being would not care less what discomfort a dream character has to endure, if indeed awakening others were there impulse. This is a very gray area and a touchy subject, which could be used to justify all sorts of things, so its not my point of view, but what I see and understand about this process requires me to stay open to the possibility.”
One possibility, and one that finds little support in the traditions, not as Adidam skews them, but as they actually are.
“Very few in all human time who have slept, no matter how hellish the dream got have chosen to open their eyes. That is why the argument is that the realizers is needed, like the light that falls gently on ones face in the early morning and coaxes one to wake up.”
I value Realizers, but how can one state that Da is like the light that gently falls on one’s face in the morning?
“Dont get me wrong I find some of what Beloveds writes about himself, challenging to say the least, but there is so so much of his words that are sheer poetry, transcendent beauty, nondual expression of sheer genius , beauty and delight, that melt the mind and breaks the heart. What about drifted in a deeper land, that book is superb, pristine truth, without any me or I in it, considerations of sheer genius, and thats from 1997, not all the earlier stuff, people have mentioned as more palatable.”
The problem is there is no minimizing Da’s claims of exclusivity, even if not every work emphasizes it based on his bhava at the time.
“And if yours is the voice of dissatisfaction and criticism, look at how you are invested, in having someone to point the finger at; you would be so lonely, bored without that, look at what a good companion Adi Da has been to you all this time. Never forsaking you, always giving you more controversy to keep you occupied, giving you a good focus to project onto, while being able to remain asleep.”
I see Da as a flawed genius with limits, a lesson in presuming you have completed sadhana before that is the case.
“But I can no longer surrender my own sovereignty at the feet of any other, especially as a developing adult, maybe when I have fully inspected the terrain of mature adulthood and its time to move on, another like Adi Da, will appear, or he himself, or my own heart will simply move, awaken and engage the first or next step. I actually feel that this process of being spat out of the cult, was necessary in order to move beyond being a childish cultist, I know that no matter where it goes from here the process I am in is necessary, required. He did me a great service, cut me loose and let me know, I was using the whole event as a prop for my fantasy, my egoic construct.”
Good for you. It is good to continue to listen to your own inner intuition.
February 19, 2009 at 3:08 am
To THE QUORN (if he indeed comes back to this blog)
Good to see you still pumpin’!
The bit that struck me the most in your long post was where you said you were not ready for real spiritual life. This was one of the most dysfunctional features that was continually promulgated in Adidam. We constantly re-inforced it, and in the process belittled ourselves and others, and kept us childishly dependent on daddy to move us beyond it. After all, we ARE all egos, right?
Adi Da kept telling us that and so did the community. And of course since Adi Da himself was perfect, it followed that everything he said and did had to be perfect as well.
Now I’m not naive enough to presume that just because we might tell ourselves the opposite; i.e., that we are all already enlightened, that that makes it so. But who knows? And what does it really matter in the scheme of things? I hardly think in these terms anymore, anyway.
Continue to be ecstatic my friend. It usually takes a long time to be free of the negative and horribly cultic connections we created in Adidam all in the name of ‘spirituality’. But hey, what else was there to do?
I look forward one day to coming together as mature adults and not children.
February 19, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I thought i was going to stop with this eternal blog, but Quorn, whoever you are ….
U.G. Krishnamurti never claimed to be awakened. What happened to him was, as he called it, a calamity. Every thought, deed and experience that every man woman and child ever thought felt or experienced was flushed out of his system. The saints went marching out. What was left? A smooth functioning machine, an animal. Simple. Nothing higher or lower than a garden slug.
U.G. also said that he would rather be called a criminal than an enlightened man. This idea of enlightenment is a contamination. It is a concept used by the gurus, saints and saviors of mankind to exploit the gullibility and credulity of people. We are told that we have to be something that we are not. so that gives us something to strive for, to practice for, to search for.
In his meeting with ramana maharshi. u.g. asked him, “what you have, can you give it?” maharshi answered. “i can give it but can you take it?”
u.g walked away from him and said to himself, the unmitigated arrogance of that man. if anyone can take it, I can take it!
He never went back.
February 19, 2009 at 9:37 pm
To NO12C41
Thanks for touching basis and your feedback, I did say at the beginning that my letter would be as revealing of me as everybody else’s has been of them. So you got me, I am a tragic romantic, and I guess it shows.
However I think when I say that I am not in a position to choose a life truly committed to realization as its outcome, I am not saying that as an Adi Da-esque left over, based on taking on some sort of negative self image, due to my association with Adidam.
Its been a real consideration for me, and my involment with Adi Da gave me a lot of material to examine, what was that really all about, being a cultist, an idealist ect, that could be said to be based on the negative.
But Adi Da also acknowledged my heart and the truth of it not just verbally but through action, and non verbally, so I also received a lot of positive reflection. Which I think also stands out in my story, living as love ect. So I feel moved to clarify the first point.
I understand where you are coming from relative to realization, within the structure of Adidam I did say “NO” to the process and in some sense really got what his teaching about self contraction is all about, what egoity is and what it animates, which isolates it from the condition which exits prior to the crunch and therefore give conciousness the sense of being only, or identified only with this separate self sense, where the reality of whatever the prior condition is; can only bleed through in small amounts or periodicaly.
My understanding is that the core wounding we experience as small children and the presumptions we make about it is the means we create to individuate. As a psycho physical presumption established in the subconcious and unconcious mind, this becomes the premise that gets mirrored or projected as apparent events in the apparent objective universe.
In the way of the heart, hearing is the awakening to the fact that one is doing this thing, what I would call human adulthood, or what Jed Mc Kenna would call the transition from the segregated state to the intergrated state, though one is still operating within the dream , one is just no longer a dependent child, but a participating adult, however realization is to wake up beyond the dream, and thats a whole other story.
My feeling is that only as an adult who has become dissatisfied with the landscape in the intergrated state, can one make the step or choose to go further along the journey. I suppose the whole thing could happen as one big process, one big garage sale, continous, from childhoodness to realization, like Ramana did, fall on the floor, get the whole picture and then take time to integrate the awakening with the body mind.
So far however my life does not show the signs of moving at Ramana speed.
In terms of what I have just described I see myself as someone who is starting to enter into the awareness, of the presmptions, made as that child, the qualities of them and who is starting to see them clearly, allowing them, walking through them, sort to speak.
Something about it is unravelling, and this definetly has something to do with the unravelling of the egoic construct. The drive behind though is more to do with not wanting to be defined by these presumptions, by this construct any longer, and allowing for a reality in the dream that I would prefer, and that is more in tune with my heart.
So I think, its pretty clear where I am at, but I do get where you are coming from, that the association with Adi Da and his way, and having taken on so much about it being THE REAL DEAL ,that there is a tendency then, after leaving to exclude one self from the possibility of further growth or indeed awakening.
I can see that there was definetly some of that, which I took on, but I dont think thats the case anymore, its not so much that I said no on the island, and therefore thats it forever or until I say yes; its more that I know that I am not in a position to choose awakening, because, I am still extracating myself from the issues of being a child, adapting to the play of the dream as an adult, putting away childish things.
Frequently not well defined adults grab onto all this stuff about awakening, as another means to build an identity, an egoic construct ,because one has not individuated yet, one is still stuck in these projections, so when the projection, or the little toy one is grabbing for is called,” the spiritual way that leads to awakening beyond the dream state”, you have a recipe for some pretty scary shit.
Thats what I was alluding in observing the participants of the blog, You can feel no matter how sophisticated, or unsophisticated the discussion is, this kind of childish quality surrounding the whole thing.
Thats definetly something that was true of me, and paradoxically , being attracted to freedom and liberation was also a deep movement of my heart , the voice within. However you truly cant make a real commitment to unravelling egoity as the urge to freedom, if in the same breath, one is unconciously using spirituality as a means to build an identity or egoic construct.
There are those that go further like UG Krishnamurti, Jed McKenna or Adi Da who say clearly that egoity wants nothing to do with its own dissolution. That without a clear understanding of ones real motives, growing up in other words, that authentic spiritual growth, is not possible, and I agree with that because I am in the process of growing up, and that is really obvious to me.
To former follower and critic:
Hey dude, hi how you doing? whats been happening lately? How you travelling with it all?
I got to say, even though I read what you wrote, and considered it, and thanks for the feed back, it came of feeling like a paper I had written that was been corrected by a teacher or lecturer. Kinda dry and impersonnal.
The experience of Adidam for you must have been pretty negative, cause it dont feel like you focused on anything that was remotly positive in my story,like the only thing you are interested in talking about or addressing is what is going to reafirm your own point of view about the short comings of Adidam and Adi Da, and hey I know that if I put some thing out there like that, I gotta be open to what comes back, but bro I really laid my heart bare.
It seems to me that you were only interested in using my blog as a means to make your point, like you really know where the whole thing is at, not much room for exchange there and sharing, or to be enlivened or enriched by some body else’s life.
Even though you made a comment about the old paradox thing again, maybe it would be useful for you to focus on all the positives you took from Adidam, as a means to move on and let go, of all that may have wounded you there.
All the best mate cheers.
Hi Eddie B
Thanks for your feed back, I think I clarified at little more about what you were addressing further up in this response, but I really have taken all that to heart, because a few people have reflected this back to me.
Its not that it changes my point of view, because, in the process that I am in, its really obvious to me were I am at. Its more that it reminds me to be balanced, and really also acknowledge my heart, which I have a childish tendency to dismiss, because of the presumptions I am operating under as a child.
The tyranny of me !(LOL) in that sense I can see that Adidam played straigth into my game, it was a perfect fit, but it also enabled me to connect with something of the prior reality, actually feel sustained, by life and the Divine, and therefore allowed me to look into my fearfull shadowy heart fearlessly, where as, at an early time when I first joined the community, to be seen by others implied death to me, so I worked real hard at keeping all that good stuff suppressed.
It may not be beleivable to a lot of people, but the critisms and reflections I received from Adi Da, about my childishness were very useful, and humourus to me, I was not destroyed by it, cause I really felt connected to the prior reality. It was not sombre, I use to laugh about a lot of what he said with some close friends, even though I also allowed myself to be penetrated.
When I wrote the firt letter, I made it clear that I was communicating how it was for me, I was not trying to make a point about Adi Da or Adidam. I am sure that for some people it was really bad and for others really the best. I feel I came out pretty clean, and retained this feeling of wanting to live as love, actively doing so, there were times when after a full days work in the cafe when I first came back, and was living love, simply serving people, that I would find it hard to conduct the degree of happiness and ecstacy I would feel from having lived my heart all day, bringing coffes to some ones table.
Its like I said previously even if one had a bad experience, the only way to get something out of it, is to accept responsibility, using it to see what were the underlying patterns that manifested, attracted this in ones life, , then one can make use of anything as a means to grow, apparently negative or positive experiences, thats what I’ve come to understand, and it feels right for me.
So thanks Eddie I look forward to meeting as adults sooner rather then latter.
February 19, 2009 at 11:22 pm
WOW!!! What a post.
From the sound and feel of your post Quorn you are still in the process of finding out where you were and what actualy happened. It’s a good thing.
There’s much to speak to in there, but, just a couple of things for now. Did we need him to play out what we did? Yup! So did he. As Sal said so many years ago, “Bubba had a hard-on for being a teacher”, and all the oedipal play with Rudi and Muktananda was just a classic adolescent impulse to get what he wanted…he needed you more than you needed him. Contrary to the “myth” his sahdana was short and he didn’t have the patience for “spiritual life”. He cut it short and went into the business. He needed you…us…More.
As to his ego…not there?…yes it was. All his victim rantings about the failures of his children (us)…he played “daddy” while redirecting the lie on us. ALL of his “divine pout” was utterly egoic…victim blaming the victim. Non-sense!
See…that was the final “gift” I got from him…HE showed me directly the two sides of who he was…no words…direct. I for one am not pissed at him, but, he is who he is and not the “myth”. It was easy for me to leave.
He played the dream guru in the dream unaware he was dreaming. “Dreams within dreams”. Yelling at the “apparent others” in the dream to awaken to his presence within the dream and worship his dream-form.
There’s nothing wrong with the dream until someone tells you there is. They’re just having a bad dream called “all life is suffering”. Dream a better dream…dance and love and blow kisses to the ones that say you are dreaming…so are they.
February 19, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Right on Quorn what the heck is a “quorn” ? Yu may be an “incurable romantic” but you speak directly and openly from your own experience and from the heart. How yu described FFAC’s post about your post is very succinct from my point of view and hits the nail on the head.
Obviously you and all are still in process with their exposure to and mingling with Adi Da and his teaching. It is a lifetime process and all are in their own time with it. We are all processing this in our own ways and timelines.
I swore ai would never post on this blog again because it just draws attention on the internet to some people’s opinions and process with Adi da that is very “negative” in a one sided sort of way. But I had to post again seeing the post of “Quorn” here , which is “positive” in a pretty balanced and open sort of way.
Personally I have not been a formal devotee of Adi Da for years now, but somehow I was linked up to him again since his death in a very “postive” sort of way. I can feel his “nondual transmission” very directly in reading his teachings again and also the very recent writings and talks. I have been reading the just released newest edition of “Not Two Is Peace” on the politics of the world culture so to speak and it is just sheerly brilliant. It just penetrates me to the core and opens my heart and I have a sarori almost constantly while reading it. I really can see what he means when he uses the word, “Revelation”
Personally I feel like Adi Da felt a strong urgency to establish his work in this world as much as possible during his lifetime. I respect the people who submitted to him in such a strong sacrificing service manner to help him do this. They were able to hang out close with a very wild crazy seemingly mad guru who often contradicted and seemed to abuse people off and on. I think this was part of his urgency to push people and awaken them fully as part of the establishment of his work. He did want an enlightened community of practicioners when he passed.
He was not able to fulfill as of yet this part. no one has entered into the Enlightement yet. But i think many who stayed in fire with him working up close will now be alble to focus even more directly on their nonduality practice and relationship to Adi Da directly spiritually and his work in this area will soon show very “postive ” signs.
He was very successful in establishing most of his other objectives, a fully established written transmission teaching, amazing sacred transmission ashram sanctuaries, a sort of transcendental transmission art work , and incredibly practical teachings on how to live from a much more “enlightened” place……diet, culture, politics, exercise, money , service, sexuality and relationships, and on. His teaching in all these areas are completely brilliant and doable.
He was a hard teacher to study and live with. he confused people too. But his legacy is nothing short of awakening to real nonduality for anyone who uses his teachings fully and with heart and mind. Of course that also does mean resorting to him spiritually also, since he is still the “living” guru. he has not died really.
At the risk of sounding like a “brainwashed cultist” I would like to quote Adi da from the book I was reading today.
“The happening of Truth is not through the mind-it is at the heart. Truth is not a proposition argued over against other propositions. Truth is seff-evident, because the heart authenticates it in the moment of reception.
Truth is an embrace , just as love is. You do not get argued into love. It is self-evidently right.
One responds to truth as one does to love, simply through recognizing it. It is not about argument, not about the domain of mind , or of opposites.
There is a Universal Conscious Force that is Indivisible , egoless, Acauasal and Absolute. And everything is arising as an apparent modification of That
Reality Itself is a Prior Unity. Therefore, everything that is arising i part of a prior unity. It is not just that things are connected to one another in a unified sense. Everything is arising in That Which Is Indivisible abd Self-Evidently Divine.
This is a Spiritual matter, not a religious matter. It is a profoundly human matter, not a subject for disputes or “tribal” differences. That Which is One abd Self-Evidently Divine Transcends all religions, all differences. An “It” is not Itself “different” from anything. ”
The whole book is super good Flick Rahke
February 20, 2009 at 12:15 am
The Adidam mindset that leaving is because one is not really ready for spiritual life is an insidious cultic belief. True, it is belief that is pounded into those who get involved, in one form or another. And it takes a while to see that in some cases. But organized Adidam is really about a childishly dependent relationship with a problematic authority figure who everyone can say with certainty has so far granted only glimpses, and for those desiring spiritual maturity rather than dependency, a price that is too high.
What leaving Adidam can be about is graduation, learning the lesson that there is no substitute for a more mature spirituality based on a mature understanding. Da serves that lesson. I find as a graduate I have a more realistic idea of what was useful about Da and what was not. Realizing I am repeating this point somewhat, but I find the story of this early follower http://www.thirdmg.com/journey3.html who left in early 1973 quite revealing. In part because he was already mature in his experience and approach before he came to Da, and thus his assesments were quite insightful. And in part because he recognized that there were observable limits to Da for all his siddhis and apparent genius, and that maturity means you need to follow that reliable inner voice the traditions honor even if it means separating from a guru. If only this account had been readily available to those approaching during the early years.
I quote from a few portions of that account:
“…The Shakti acted like a flame passing from candle to candle. I didn’t realize that until the person who lived with me started having unusual experiences and asked me if the energy was “catching.” When I asked Franklin, he assured me that it was. The experiences varied widely, but could include mild headaches, vivid spiritual dreams, spontaneous energy flow in the body, loud external cracking sounds, floral fragrances wafting from nowhere, and even the sense of a spiritual feminine presence, such as the Blessed Virgin…
I already knew that most spiritual experience, no matter how interesting and entertaining, was a dead end. It seldom brought about permanent change. Instead, for the next few months, I focused as well as I could on Franklin’s central teachings, which I found curiously elusive, confusing and maddening. At every opportunity I questioned him closely about the nature of understanding and other issues. And repeatedly he confirmed my conceptual grasp of his teachings. But in practice it seemed impossible to avoid falling into a methodology of observation and a reinforcement of separation. Mostly, I was working against my own mindset and training. But, as I later learned, another part of the problem was that I was wrestling too much with Franklin’s choice of words and manner of verbal expression. For me, they did not always communicate his teaching as clearly as he intended. When I began to relax mentally and to trust more to my own intuition, many of the problems vanished and the living truth behind the words emerged.
Another kind of drama, not directly related to the Shakti, arose from constant change at the ashram and from the behavior of the disciples themselves. Just when everyone thought they knew their place, their job, their daily routine, their relationship to Franklin or the teachings, new announcements or some expression of dissatisfaction with the disciples would be made, and turmoil would ensue. The disciples tended to blame themselves, their seeking or their other inadequacies for the confusion, and each time they would fall into greater anxiety and self-absorption.
But it seemed to me that change was the rule of the place, the only true constant, and that the followers were not expected to become comfortable. As a result, I regarded the changes mostly as a distracting sideshow and tried to ignore them as much as possible. But it was not easy to buck the social pressure of the ashram. When relating to Franklin personally, I never had a problem. I liked him. He was well-educated, genial and reasonable. He always treated me considerately and tolerated my constant questioning; in fact, he never said a negative word to me or criticized me. But some of his disciples tended to be rigid, intolerant and authoritarian. When changes were announced, they could exert a strong pressure throughout the small community to conform immediately and without question.
There were other disturbing tendencies among the followers…Unfortunately, few of the disciples showed any concern at all about the dangers of authoritarianism, or wanted to think critically, analytically and independently. In my experience, spirituality required freedom and individuality. An unquestioning follower in any discipline is always a follower…
Franklin had forewarned us repeatedly that the structure of the ashram would gradually become more formal and that it would eventually become more difficult for people to have personal contact with him. He wanted to be relieved of all day-to-day responsibility for running the ashram and to devote himself without restraint to pure spiritual expression. His disciples and the organization would become the external vehicle of his spiritual expression, and they alone would be available to the public. That made sense to me from an administrative view, but I felt deeply uneasy about having a relationship with a bureaucracy of disciples. I didn’t trust how they would behave when Franklin did not personally oversee them.
In the move toward a more formal ashram structure, Franklin began to require discipline in his followers. He had been influenced in his early spiritual training by the idea that money, food and sex were primary issues to be dealt with at the physical level. As a result, he increasingly insisted that his followers work at regular jobs, control their eating habits and settle into a stable sexual relationship. Since I was not experiencing a problem in any of those areas – as Franklin himself agreed – I was not much concerned with them. But I found that part of his teaching peculiar and in many ways questionable, a case of “do as I say, not as I have done.”
…The disciplinary focus on those issues, however, took an unacceptably bizarre turn when the ashram’s leaders began to interview the disciples concerning their most intimate habits – such as how frequently they masturbated – and filed away their answers. That kind of invasive questioning would not be tolerated even in a strict religious order, as I knew from experience, and I considered it frightening and outrageous. I wondered who had access to those files and how they would be used.
For me, a breaking point had arrived. Although I respected Franklin as a genius in spirituality, I also knew that he was a fallible man with limits. Months had gone by and I had learned much – more, in fact, than I realized at the time. Of the many spiritual authorities and sources I had dealt with over the years, Franklin alone had spoken to me directly and deeply. He was genuine, substantial and, for me, ultimate. By comparison, all the rest had been only preparatory. But I was not at rest. I did not want to become part of a disciple collective, a worker in a hive, or a permanent follower. I had come to Franklin for direct personal spirituality. A lifetime of endless, tedious effort and servitude did not make sense. At one point I expressed this feeling to Franklin privately and told him that I felt understanding alone was sufficient. He didn’t respond for a while, and when he did, his answer was equivocal. “Yes,” he said, “but effort is still necessary.” But at that time, the small, quiet inner voice that had always been my most reliable spiritual guide was telling me to leave.
Franklin once said that those who ended their relationship with him went back to zero. But I didn’t believe that. I trusted that the true guru was within and that the external guru was only a manifestation of the inner. When I stopped by the ashram a few months later to buy a book, the disciple behind the counter chastised me in a distant, dreamy and blissful voice about how much I was missing since I had left. But I recalled that Franklin, through word and action, taught his disciples to remain awake and to be present to reality. The disciple’s other-worldly mannerisms only confirmed the validity of my decision. My inner voice had not failed me. I never returned.”
Contrast this mature approach with the lack of maturity in Adidam and the intrinsic problems in this path that can be seen more clearly once you realize that Da was not only a conflicted Christian until he went to Columbia University, but spent a year learning to be a Christian minister. As a result, the elements of conventional, charismatic Christian dogma with Da taking the place of Jesus run through Adidam.
So, in Adidam, the same recognizable salvation dogma in a new form, where “contraction” beomes something you are always doing and guilty of, and is now the primary sin that separates you from God. In Adidam, only the Savior and Messiah, Da, can free you from this sin, through recognition of his unique Divine Incarnation status, followed by allowing Da in the form of shakti and more powerfully spirit baptism to come into your life even bodily, followed by total surrender and just being “lived” by Da, in eternal service.
Now, admittedly Da’s years of conscious work with kundalini masters and years of independent work on the subtle planes have produced unsual siddhi abilities not found on such a scale in charismatic churches, but otherwise, except for the use of Eastern terminology, this is quite recognizable.
What is entrapping about this dogma also is the idea that although “you” are just an activity, “you” are also supposedly responsible for the contraction that “you” represent, and it is claimed no one other than Da has ever escaped this “contraction”, which leads to an immature guilt trip and inadequacy game. While in reality, it is understood traditionally that “you” do not control this egoic process, “you” are part of it. Maturity teaches that that source from which the reliable inner voice and guide springs is really that same guru that lays out the proper approach, not some outer guru father and savior figure with siddhis but teaching distracting and contrary dogma.
February 20, 2009 at 1:55 am
Yes I do feel for ole U.G. Flick Rahke
February 20, 2009 at 11:34 am
Hey Flick thanks for your comments
OK “The Quorn” is a nick name that Adi Da gave me once, as a play on my surname, it was in a very humourus context that he called me that, a very sweet and loving happening.
Some how it felt appropriate to use that name though I was a little concerned initialy that it would sound a little uptigth.
No harm done, all the best.
February 21, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Flick,
“Personally I feel like Adi Da felt a strong urgency to establish his work in this world as much as possible during his lifetime.”
That is exactly one of the reasons I seriously doubt he was enlightened. Da was by his own admission driven, a doer, one who saw himself in a unique cosmic role. That appeals to the modern western mentality. Endless direction to everyone on what to do, even thought there were constant changes over time and it was always a case of “do as I say, not as I have done”. In my observation, the real draw which few admitted was that everyone wanted to be able to live wild like Da with karmic impunity because they would be enlightened and the alternative was difficult to contemplate. Those who think so all better hope Da was enlightened and traditional non-dualism isn’t that relevant. I do not think the relationship between fundamentalism and Adidam is pure coincidence, I think it is a lesson some haven’t learned yet. It is fine that Da opened doors to levels we were not familiar with, it is another thing to believe he has a complete map.
February 21, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Quorn,
Spare the standard Adidam based assessments of why people leave and why they may criticize Da. You have no need to be praised for what you think is all the value you got out of Adidam. What would serve you although you don’t want to hear it is to simply point out cultic assumptions you are still making, which are obvious to those not influenced bv Adidam. It is your karma what you will hear from that.
I have moved beyond Adidam long, long ago, before you ever even heard of him, because it became clear his teaching and community did not do what he claimed, that Da was personally responsible for that in part with the very siddhis you praise, and Da’s realization was suspect, long before he made the Avatar claims public which would have led me to leave immediately. So I reject your cultic mindset assumptions about how I was “wounded”, it was a really matter of learning to avoid suspect teachers more carefully just because they had such siddhis and a seemingly valid teaching, that is all. It is useful for others to hear not just from those who see Da through the Adidam prism, but also from those who matured beyond it, such as the account from the very early ex-follower.
Adidam is a wound, it glorifies the wound as a matter of dogma and you still relish your wounds and sacrifices because you think it is spiritual progress. I do not have such a dysfunctional orientation. I have previously mentioned the attraction of the “beezone”, the place where you are at, where you are in the zone of the hive and influenced by it, and are offended by legitimate criticism of the center of the hive, Da. Spent a short time there before seeing through it, knew many who went there, some left through more maturity, some still hang out and probably will for life. If it is your karma not to see through it you will stay there. In your case, Da praised you for being a rare ecstatic, and you do not see how the community reflects Da, and you will hang on to that bone until you see it for the garbage it was. You have not yet recognized the liabilities in the peculiar approach that led you to this place. In the case I wrote about the early ex-follower, he was praised too, and Da erroneously thought he would stay after finishing most of his editing on the original KOL course. He did not, because he learned what he came for and moved on, recognizing Da was flawed and had limits despite his initiatory role. What you have trouble with is that there is a life beyond the hive, period, which is still non-dualistic and more mature, where Da is not seen as realized at all but someone with a drive for authority and siddhis whose ego overtook him short of the goal.
Until you are really willing to inspect some of your cultic assumptions and drop the Adidam game of turning doubt upon others instead, I can expect the reaction I got, where any criticism of Da is suspect. Too bad.
February 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm
It is interesting how it seems to break down over the same point, that Da advocates repeatedly say something to the effect of what we see once again:
“I swore I would never post on this blog again because it just draws attention on the internet to some people’s opinions and process with Adi da that is very “negative” in a one sided sort of way.”
This pattern or “meme” of the effectiveness as a proselytization tool for Da being the primary purpose for any discussions consistently surfaces itself. It is repeated many times above. Ironically, I recently noticed this at the lightmind forum, which for all its faults, does seen to have accurately pegged the problem with communications here at this site:
“That’s why the other forum [nonduality] deteriorated. It was doomed to from the beginning because frank’s followers were committed to an idea which they were unwilling to inspect, even though they pretended to be participating in a thoughtful conversation. In actual fact, they were unable to participate freely and when this was pointed out they, and their supporters simply became offended.”
You see the same thing at http://www.adidaupclose.org/, which pretends to allow for independent comments on known inaccuracies and concerns, but actually does not, rather only those comments praising Da are posted.
I have seen enough to conclude that this result is inevitable regardless of whether a moderator is neutral or not, which seems to have been just an excuse. This has been an interesting experiment. But in the end, what I see clearly is that only those who are willing to adopt the so-called neutral “beezone” position of advocacy for Da even if not formally involved are worth serious discussions with. Otherwise, it appears the proselytization imperative takes over and no interaction becomes preferable to honest rather than vague exploration of the understanding there are different POVs about Da which might interfere with the public face Adidam prefers. So be it.
I recognize that. There was a time long ago, right after I departed Adidam because I recognized something was seriously off, when I too felt that defensive reaction and rationalization pattern spring up to any criticism of Da by outsiders, who couldn’t understand or value Da. But I was open to looking at it, and seeing through the cultic mindset.
It is worthwhile to discuss some of the issues with the “neutral” cultic mindset seen even in the “Beezone” approach, and why it matters. There is in Adidam a belief that a certain Upasani Maharaj prophesied Da’s Avataric birth, although a more objective assessment reveals little to support that claim. It is not the claim however, but the mindset that allows unquestioning acceptance of that belief in Adidam that is the critical issue.
Here is the relevant section from http://www.beezone.com/UpasaniBaba/upasanis_prophecy.html:
“In respect of religion, Baba is thoroughly conservative (almost reactionary in these days of free thinking). He never countenances the complete overthrowing of the tried old order in preference to an entirely new scheme of things, though he is not averse to making necessary alternations or modifications to meet the exigencies of the time. He takes his stand on the four Varnas (castes). These distinctions and differences in Hindu Society are not based upon social status, but constitute a course of graded spiritual training to lead one to the transcendental Advaitic state. They form, as it were, specialized channels for the progress of the individual souls in their march towards their spiritual goal. If this order does not function properly and a change is imminent, God does not require a reminder. Change in Dharma is the specified work of an Avatara and Lord Shri Krishna has emphatically declared that He would incarnate himself if and when Dharma is in chaos and needs reform.
‘Whenever Dharma is in disorder
and Adharma rampant, Oh Arjuna!
then shall I incarnate Myself.’
Untouchability Baba explains on the basis of the Karma doctrine. It is for the expiation of some heinous sin in the past that the untouchables are obliged to be in their present state of wretchedness. It is better that they spend out their Prarabdha in this life rather than create more evil Prarabdh for the future by trying to avoid or escape from their present state. In this connection may be mentioned Baba’s prophecy to Shri Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math in February 1939, mentioned in the previous chapter. Baba declared than an incarnation will shortly manifest Himself on earth in a European country. He will be all powerful and bear down everything before him. He will see to it that Vedic Dharma is firmly re-established in India.”
So, the cultic mindset of Adidam sees this as prima facia confirmation that Da is the Avatar, with Da clearly supporting this claim, case closed, another esoteric revelation. But on what evidence?
Was Da born in Europe? No
Did Da reestablish the Vedic Dharma in India, including affirmation of untouchability? No
Was Da all powerful, bearing down all things before him? No
Does Da bear even the slightest resemblance to the described incarnation and their reactionary approach to dharma? No
That Da supporters can seriously make this claim with a straight face reflects not on critics, but on them. A more objective observer not inclined to wishful thinking would question the validity of the prophecy itself, for starters. And yet this is the same mindset that allows them to claim:
“Lately I’ve been reading some of the bulletin boards and web pages on the Internet that discuss Adi Da. Many of these discussions (if I can be so generous) center around the questions of Adi Da’s sanity and authenticity of realization. There seems to be an inconsistence in Adi Da’s questionable ethical behaviors that date back to 1974.
In spiritual life, particularly in the east, the problem of ethics and questionalble behavior from a Guru have long been a question of legitimacy. How can individuals who ‘claim’ enlightenment do so many hurtful and nasty things under the name of truth? Why would Upasani Maharaja throw a rock and hit Meher Baba (Meher Baba devotees say about his abuses) in the head and cause it to bleed? If Adi Da is enlightened the how could he do all the bad things people obviously experienced in his company? How does this ‘square’ with truth and enlightenment?
It simply does not square with anything! It doesn’t and it can never be ‘reconciled’ with our notions of enlightnement or what is good. But yet it still exists and it is a paradox.
Even if one were to inquire in real spiritual terms as to the condition of an enlightened being which is suppose to be all about Bliss and Love, how can “wackin” someone around or performing strange sexual behaviors be in any way ‘consistent’ with Bliss, Love and Awakening?
As unenlightened beings we are left in our own questions and logical inconsistencies, our own wanting and needing things to be ‘good’ and ‘right’. We don’t want to be duped and ‘had’ by some mad man or woman!
The only ‘explanation’ is it’s a paradox. The word paradox is used to describe something that seems to be a contradiction but is in both cases true. Something is both GOOD and BAD at the same time.
Unfortunately our minds think in a logical and sequential manner and we can never fully come to terms with a paradox. We can never come up with final answers that will ‘solve’ these questions.
We can come up with ‘relative’ answers, based on the laws of nature but not absolute answers. If we poist a question and try and solve it by using our minds we will ultimately come to an unresolved ‘pair of opposites’.
So when we look at Adi Da or any other ‘realized’ being, there is no way to ultimately resolve these outrageous and inappropriate behaviors, which are by all logical and common sense accounts ‘hurtful’ and wrong. We have ideas that enlightened masters should be like holy saints.
“Saints would never have contradictory natures.” They’d always be on one side; they’d always be good, morally and spiritually.
It is exactly this ‘not wanting to be duped’ that continually keep us in the contradictions and impossible dilemma’s of our own mind. Somewhere along the line, the line to infinity, we must let go of ALL ideas and expectations and every speck of what we think ourselves to be. We must ultimately lose ourselves and that means lose all sense of what we think is RIGHT, GOOD and SANE!
There is no other way to do it. Nargarjuna, the famous Buddhist philosopher of the 2nd century postulated his ‘four corner negation’, pointing to the most ultimate answer he could give to this question of logic. He said that you can’t ultimately say (1) Yes (2) No (3) Both Yes and No (4) Neither Yes and No. All possibilities of Eternalism or Nilism are confounded in the ‘infinite realm of contradictory opposites’.
Enlightenment does appear to be a kind of madness.
To come up with a moral certainty in this climate is …..forget it! It can’t be done. Reconciling Adi Da’s behavior or even the rationalizations of our own contractictory nature is impossible. NO ONE can claim Absolute Knowing. Adi Da, Meher Baba or whoever can claim that the adept is That Which is Beyond All Opposites and therefore WHATEVER that one does is ‘purifying’ and ‘balancing’ but the claim can’t be either proven or denied from ‘this side of infinity’.
Our fears tell us that this kind of stuff is ‘crazy’ and that kind of logic can be used by manipulators to do evil and perform self justifying actions. And that IS true. We have to be aware of ‘deception’ and protect ourselves from falling into the spell of someone’s evil intentions. But paradoxically the higher up one goes up the scale of things the less and less the things of this world can be brought with it, and that includes logic and the concepts of good and bad.”
You will find the most complex arguments asserted which could be equally applied to the most absurd conclusions, and diversionary questioning of critics, in fact, anything but seriously consider the possibility that Da was not what he claimed and that all these siddhis, transmissions and phenomena were possibly something less than enlightenment. Yet the burden is not on the critics. No endorsements of Da by contemporary jnanis, rejection by his teachers and contemporary non-dualist authorities, Avataric claims which no one outside of Adidam’s influence supports, and a majority of one time followers moving on. Instead, we have only the the accounts of seekers who share experiences with critics but not the same conclusions, and fuzzy thinking along the lines of the so-called prophesy.
That is what I mean by cultic thinking.
February 23, 2009 at 2:59 am
I have mentioned examples of what I think is cultic thinking, but you can find it among Da’s critics. From what I can tell, a life long obsession with going after Da at all costs seems to have resulted in the kind of bizzare nonsense we see here from the widely discredited “Elias” who runs the Lightmind site. His recent claim:
“In Frank’s case, if you watched, you could see the souls of the “devotees” literally leave their bodies and rush into the “guru” on his glorious throne. I saw that happen while watching one of Frank’s videos a few years back. It is a terrible sight, viewed with the inner eye — but also visible to the external eye and ear, through the body language of the crowd and the drawn out collective sigh they emit, as they give up their souls.”
I find far more value in Da than this crazy claim. That anyone would take this stuff seriously is beyond me. I have already stated that this reflects far more about “Elias” than Da.
This is evident when you read further, and see that it appears that now that Da is dead, “Elias” needs some new and dangerous cult leader to attack. And who does he pick now that Da is dead? Why, that dangerous cult leader Obama of course:
“Of course there’s nothing so dramatic or obvious in the Obama cult — although you can feel something like that in the videos of his rallies, where he gins up the crowd and gets “empowered” by their church-revivalist affirmation of him as “the one”. You can also see it in the media, where a number of “journalists” are still working overtime as apologists and apostles for the intellectual fantasy they have projected into him….
In Frank’s case it was a constant hammering on “the dark time” and other apocalyptic scenarios. “I will save you from death,” he said, back in 1980, when this kind of utterance began. O.k., some thought — he’s a genius, he knows things we can’t see, let’s put our faith in him…let’s give him our lives.
In Obama’s case, I think, we don’t have the same kind of conscious scheming that was apparent in “Da Free John.” What we have instead is a weak undeveloped man in the grip of an archetype, whose conscious mind is not fully aware of the goal that is driving him. But he knows how to serve that unconscious impulse, by wile, the parsing of language, and with false promises…
Why would anybody want to give over the spirit of free individualism to this man? He is spiritually dark, an ominous finger-wagging actor pretending to be the authority figure you always needed…”
The kind of nonsense seen from “Elias” lately shows I think what can happens when you keep projecting your own darkness onto others and need to create evil adversaries to justify your own mission. Criticism of Da based on an assessment he was a flawed man with limits does not require demonizing him.
February 24, 2009 at 3:13 am
…still trying to understand why God didn’t give Himself any advance notice check-out time was coming up fast..perhaps He didn’t want to get into an argument..or wanted to make some sort of point about something,,,like who really is Boss….
February 24, 2009 at 8:05 pm
About Adidam, cultism and me.
With respect to becoming a devotee, then leaving and beyond, two major events occurred for me.
The first, after reading Adi Da’s early books, was the discovery that everything I (and the world’s societies) were doing was an unconscious and futile attempt to become happy; i.e., the manifestation of the search and the beginning of awareness. That discovery changed just about everything in my life, including the desire to be in the company of the person who wrote it. Some years later that desire was fulfilled.
The second event occurred with equal force while still a devotee and gelled after leaving. It was the discovery that Adidam in its entirety (not just occasionally or in a few odd places) was a dysfunctional, fundamentalist and cultic institution similar to most other institutions of similar endeavor. That discovery also heralded dramatic and necessary changes, just like the first one.
I am tempted to proclaim that my discoveries are necessary for others to also discover; that the process of ‘spiritual’ growth (or at least human adulthood and maturity) entails both an ‘attachment’ to a human form considered to be higher up the ‘spiritual’ ladder, then relinquishment of that relationship when seen as the same egoic enterprise in a different guise. But I won’t because I don’t really know. It seems everything is as it should be in any case.
For those who continue to regard Adi Da and his point of view as the foundation stone of all ‘spiritual’ considerations, the best I can do is offer a sympathetic ear. As I have stated in earlier posts on this blog, I generally choose not to engage in intimate relationships with such people because I find they have a disposition which renders them incapable of being who they truly are rather than parrots. It’s like trying to relate to a child who has not yet developed mature relational facilities.
All of this beckons the question: why do I participate in this blog? I guess the answer is that I enjoy communicating about where I am at and listening to where others are at. It helps me put my time since discovering the ‘search’ into perspective. And I have learned heaps about the traditional view of non-dualism and Adi Da’s digressions from it. That unearthing has helped to loosen whatever grip there might still be to Adi Da as the ultimate spiritual authority.
I have also noticed in reading this very lengthy blog that I am not interested in arguing about anything. Hallelujah!
February 24, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Maybe he did. In 1972, when he was young, Da criticized those who followed gurus like Ramana by saying “Dead gurus can’t kick ass!” But time marches on, and like many other revisions to his works over the years, with an eye to the future and approaching death, he edited that out too, after changing the books title from “Method of the Siddhas” (too egalitarian!) to “My “Bright” Word”.
Those who lack the fortitude to honestly acknowledge up front Da’s exclusivity as Avatar and his constant revisionism is inseparable from his teaching and claims of realization, such as Beezone, are only kidding themselves and misleading others.
February 26, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Eddie,
“I am tempted to proclaim that my discoveries are necessary for others to also discover; that the process of ‘spiritual’ growth (or at least human adulthood and maturity) entails both an ‘attachment’ to a human form considered to be higher up the ‘spiritual’ ladder, then relinquishment of that relationship when seen as the same egoic enterprise in a different guise. But I won’t because I don’t really know. It seems everything is as it should be in any case.”
What you say makes sense to me. It is a necesary lesson. I would speculate further that those who saw through Da did do because of wisdom gained in past lives, because it is one of those critical lessons on the path. At least that is my sense of it. Even in traditional non-dualism, at best a teacher serves a function in time and space, facilitating the same understanding of a timeless state already the case. What Da taught evolved over time into a salvation game, with Messianic claims for himself at the expense of everyone else.
Upon close examination, after you get past the surface level, you can see that nobody of spiritual significance really and truly ever agreed with him, so Da really only had two choices. He must either accept that his totally unconventional sadhana was incomplete, or assert that everyone else was wrong and deluded. Those who know Da but who are not infatuated with him as a diety figure can understand that his personality and immense ego really only allowed the one choice, that he was an Avatar of unprecedented attainment and everyone else was wrong.
Many speculate that this egoic fall that most critics see, only happened sometime after his early books. I disagree. Many do not realize these books were more carefully edited to obtain endorsements by those like Alan Watts and did not reflect his true opinion of himself clearly.
I don’t know whether you have seen these interesting quotations I saw referenced once. They really made clear to me at least that Da’s egoic tendencies were so strong that although interesting siddhis began to manifest which he later perfected, he could not advance further spiritually. The quotes I refer to are from Sal Lucania in early 1974.
The first quote refers to his first “satsangs” around June of 1969:
“There were manifestations taking place, and I was aware of them. At one point they became very strong, and he sat for the first time in Satsang, or what is called Satsang now, at my house in the Bronx….Just before he left to go back to India, because the manifestations were taking place. I was having experiences, but he had never done anything formally. So he sat down one time, and this same power was manifesting. He sat and we all went into some form of meditation. When he saw that occurring, he wrote to Baba and asked him for a name, as you read in the book. He said he had to go to India…”
It is clear from this that although Da later claimed he was not interested in formal recognition from Muktananda, once he could no longer be a teacher in Scientology, he already saw himelf as a guru and began to conduct “satsangs”, and went to India precisely for that purpose of getting a name and recognition, just as Muktananda sources have always said. And as we found in later versions of Knee of Listening, the cold reception Da got from Muktananda when he went back to India in May of 1970 was because Muktananda had found out around the beginning of 1970 that Da was giving instructions and serving as an independent teacher without authorization, and that Muktananda had written him a letter criticizing that.
But even more interesting is a quotation that indicates that Da, not longer after his 1969 visit to Muktananda, had already considered himself here to bring a new and unprecedented form of teaching based on an experience he claimed had never happened before. As the quote says:
“…He was always working internally. You could observe that. He very rarely went out. Occasionally we would go out for walks together and come back. Then one day he called me down from the Bronx, and he told me that he was going to leave for India for good. He and Pat and Nina. That was it, he was just leaving the country. I remember him saying, “What the hell am I going to do in this place? The hell with it all. I’ve had it.” It wasn’t too long before that, you know in the book when he speaks of the incision in his head, that experience. I think it happened on a Friday night, because it was Saturday morning and I was down there.
He was telling me about it, and it was interesting because to this day he hasn’t written anything about it, nor have I ever heard him say it to anyone. But at that time he told me that the incision, the severing of that chakra, had never taken place before. It was an indication of a new form of teaching. He didn’t use those exact words, but he knew then that something very unusual had taken place in consciousness that had never taken place ever before…”
This claim of uniqueness is really very presumptous coming from a person who was far from realized at the time. No doubt his intent from the beginning but why it took him years to gradually lead people to accept the Avatar claim he was already beginning to develop in his own mind even then. With such a mindset, his future course became inevitable, and destroyed much of the value of his interesting insights.
February 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Eddie,
Part of the fundamentalist nature often seen in Adidam devotees which some here refer too is the same sort of issue with other messianic, revalationist fundamentalist organizations. And that is that the experiences seem self-validating, but are really not. We have seen numerous reports from Da’s devotees confirming what he teaches based on their own experiences. Claims of a witness state, the heart on the right, etc. That is not really that miraculous, though. It is a predictable outcome of the process Da described that he used long ago:
“The Siddha-Guru contacts his disciple in the Heart and at this place behind the eyes. Once that contact is established, the communication between the Guru and his disciple is continuous. It is not limited to the level of life. It is prior to life. And so it goes on and on, twenty-four hours a day, under all conditions, in all states, even beyond death. The contact is continuous. The communication of force is continuous. That is why disciples continue to have experiences of various kinds, whether awake, asleep, or in dreams. The contact and its communications are continuous. The karmas are continually being shuffled, awakened, run through, intensified, purified, obviated.
There is a profound spiritual principle involved in this relationship between the Guru and his disciple. Once he has contacted the disciple in the Heart, and with his own Light in the ajna chakra, the place behind the eyes, whatever the Guru does in his own body (the conditional gross, subtle or causal functions) is reflected or even duplicated in the body or life of his disciple. Know that the thing that underlies this whole process is this Satsang.”
The problem here is not that such a process presumably exists on a subtle level, since the traditions acknowledge that, but that the presumed realization and actual meaning of these experiences as being what they are claimed that is suspect. What Da describes is not, strictly speaking, an accurate and complete description of the higher aspects of Satsang based on the tradition, either. This can really be simply a state of becoming more and more absorbed in the same state that Da was in through a process of mental and psychic linkage.
In evaluating the experiences of those deeply associated with Adidam, it is not useful to question the content of the experience, but only their significance.
In this regard, the following paraphrased material has an interesting hypothesis that is illuminating:
“However, through meditation practices, the guru has built up an especially powerful mind that can send genuine help to a receptive disciple. This helpful connection is especially possible when the disciple uses the guru’s image as a focus for meditation, which is done in many traditions, or mentally reaches out to the guru for inspiration and help…
The projected ideas and concentrated thoughts of a man who has made a permanent connection with his Self are powerful enough to affect beneficently the inner life of other men. But even here nature requires the latter to establish their own inner connection with him in turn. And this can be done only by the right mental attitude of trust and devotion.
The link to the guru, built with the “right mental attitude of trust and devotion,” will inevitably be in large part based upon projection. Yes, the guru may in fact be a true spiritual giant, a shining incarnation of wisdom and compassion. Yes, as many traditions hold, a Self to Self level of the connection exits that transcends the psyche, the realm of forms and images. Nevertheless, the powerful affects, the compulsive desire to be always in the guru’s presence, gladly receive her smallest glance, hang on her every word, mimic her values and ideas, the extreme dependency and devotion, the relinquishing of so much of our identity, and so forth, all show that the disciple is in the grips of a compelling projection. This beneficial “inner connection” is needed for the help to flow, but it’s built at least in part on the back of a projection-herein lies its liability.
If we have any doubt that “the right mental attitude of trust and devotion” is based at least partly on projection, consider the all too numerous examples of betrayal of disciples by gurus. In these cases the good qualities seen were not truly in the guru. Nevertheless, the projection of good qualities on the evil guru is still beneficial for the disciple. Even if the guru were a man devoid of spiritual power and light, the effects would still appear beneficially within his life. This is because he has imagined it to be powerful and enlightening and the creative power of his own thought produces some benefit. If however the guru were an evil and living man, then the effects would be more or less harmful. This is because a subconscious telepathic working exists between the two minds though the intense devotion and passive submission of the one to the other.
Here the disciple’s imagination constellates the projection of good qualities on the evil guru. This projection activates the desirable qualities in the disciple and he is thereby benefited. Of course, with a living evil guru the disciple is also telepathically linked to his depravity.”
Now in using this material as a possible partial explanation, I would not say that Da is evil, but that this illustrates the problem even when the guru thinks they are enlightened and presumes to transfer their state to others. I would say that all availabe evidence suggests egoicity and lack of realization for all his abilities and insights. So Da devotees, at best, can only hope for the same thing Da appears to me to have had, an unstable state of confusion based on siddhis and mental creations, out of their Satsang. This is in fact all we see reported, not accepted signs of advanced spirituality, but unique, cultic indicators accepted only by the organization as being what they are claimed. And this linkage could help explain the illusory, self confirming nature of all the endless faddism in Adidam which they see as syncronistic and revelatory.
That is why a more mature spiritual approach than the projective one seen in Adidam is to me, best.
March 1, 2009 at 12:21 am
FFAC,
I am trying to find out what the value of assessing the ‘spiritual’ realization and integrity of a guru might be. At first glance it seems an imminently reasonable thing to do, especially if one wants to join that guru’s community of devotees. Gather all the facts about his life and how he relates to his devotees, read his works and compare it to other gurus and scriptures particularly those that have a long history and tradition, feel into any personal response, then make a discerning judgment about this ‘other’ being and what he offers.
Yet, at the same time, there is something about that approach that I find less than satisfying. When I try and do it, it always feels like it comes predominantly from a mental process, a projection of my mind onto what seems to be outside myself. Like cyberspace – if you forget where you are, it can feel like reality itself.
So, when people debate the merits of Adi Da, his lifestyle, his realization, his actions, etc., I generally find such discussions only marginally useful. (One exception was the comparisons between non-duality as revealed by gurus like Ramana and Adi Da, but even then….)
I can’t come to any final conclusion about Adi Da based on making an assessment in the usual way. When I look at how he said one thing and lived another way, or how angry he became with devotees, or how he spent so much money on seemingly superfluous things while devotees didn’t have enough money to get their teeth fixed, or his ridiculously dysfunctional community, I regard him as less than ‘realized’ and sometimes a charlatan. When I recall the siddhis that emanated from him, or the incredible silence sitting in meditation with him, or the look of infinity in his eyes when he looked into mine, I think of him as living in a realm very different from my own, perhaps even a state some call ‘enlightened.’
The point is that everything I look at as an exercise in judgment between two opposites becomes a dilemma. Which one is the ‘truth?’ Was Adi Da ‘enlightened’ or was he an egoic, self-glorifying con artist? In the end I don’t trust my mind in making any valid assessment about anything to do with the ‘truth’ whatsoever, including Adi Da.
It makes no difference to me what conclusions I, or anyone else, makes about Adi Da. After all these years it now feels like I created him myself, for myself, in order to get to feel the joy of going beyond previously entrenched tendencies of cultism and righteousness. For which I am simply grateful. If I had to put a face on this gratitude, I would say Adi Da, but really it’s of no significance. And that’s where when you write ‘it is not useful to question the content of the experience, but only their significance’ I grok with you. The significance of every experience I had with Adi Da, and every idea I ever had about him and his teaching, is that they are all of no value and must therefore be thrown out as garbage.
March 6, 2009 at 4:54 am
“Do you know what THAT is”? Hmm, well, it appears it may be some sort of off-track gluttonous self-gratifying spiritual predator…but then again, maybe it is an ashtray…
March 8, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Good points. When you look at Da closely, you see he was always describing himself disassociately. When he talked about others, he was only discribing his own experiences. His realization such as it was, based on his own conceptions, not the traditions. Those of us Da scholars who have investigated closely his writings over time can, as Conradg points out, see stong evidence that the originality was in the way he put ideas together from many different and uncredited sources, not that he discovered uncharted territory. As for his siddhis, let me just say this. I have seen a number of others capable of all of what Da did. And the effect is no more than what Da himself criticized, an emphasis on garbage. You are right. Da’s purpose was to teach us to recognize garbage, including his siddhis adn egoic demise. All I can say is that investigation indicates there is a quality Realizers have that Da lacks. Da was a master of the empowerment of mental forms, so we all shared his space. That is all, in my opinion.
March 9, 2009 at 12:08 am
As a former member, I’m sorry that I just stumbled upon this page.
Conrad, Wes, great to see your names.
Personally, I think Adi Da had a great sense of humor.
The whole process of falling in love with him, and then starting to have certain doubts, and then leaving… well that must have been the biggest growth experience my life!
If not for that ordeal, who knows how long it would have taken me to develop real trust in myself and my own understanding?
When I first read his statement that he was a trickster, and seducer, and a madman, and that his main purpose in life was to wake people up from their nonsense, using any means necessary… I thought he was just being poetic. It never occurred to me that he really meant it.
that man had balls.
i really did not want to leave, either, I wanted to stay in the community and suckle on the tit as long as I could, but I was forced out by cultic crap, idiotic people, etc.
sound familiar?
I wanted to complain and get the cultism fixed, but Adi Da made sure the whole system stayed broken, so that we could all go through the growing up process.
the human pool table!
initiation!
wow, what a ride. I’m not being flippant though, the wound does run deep.
March 13, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Some of us, early on, were just looking for a Realizer and not all that nonsense. That certainly was the sales pitch, that it was the qualities of those he drew that were responsible for what we saw in the “man of understanding”, and lot was deliberately hidden as early critics have pointed out. That is why someone like Alan Watts, who was specially recruited without ever meeting Da and who died before finding out the truth, could be so far off in his assessment here:
“As I read Franklin Jones especially the Epilogue, which is worth the price of the book he has simply realized that he himself as he is, like a star, like a dolphin, like an iris, is a perfect and authentic manifestation of the eternal energy of the universe, and thus is no longer disposed to be in conflict with himself. Dangerous wisdom and yet fire, electricity, and technical knowledge are also dangerous. But if you genuinely know this, it is nothing to be proud of nor humble about. It is just what is so, and there is absolutely no necessity to parade it by defying social conventions, on the one hand, or by coming on as one who is extremely holy, on the other. The hapless Rasputin was, perhaps, an example of the first case, and Meher Baba of the second though he had a jolly face and a lively twinkle in the eye.”
It’s pretty obvious that had Watts actually spent any time around Da, he would have realized how far off he really was. But he died, and the endorsement is still being milked out of context as if it meant anything.
Da, as can be expected, said it best in his unedited writings. From the first days, he thought he was enlightened, that any issues were because he had experienced states never befor experienced, and he drew people really wanted to think he was enlightened and unable to think critically. So when he said things right after his claimed enlightenment like “I am howling at breakfast, prowling in the trees, yet if you were to see me, you’d think I was a quiet man”, that kind of raw material was not published, only the carefully crafted and quiet “man of understanding” image.
That wild quality was always there, carefully rationalized, but when it became evident, always excused as being what was needed to enlighten others, and since his kind of shakti driven “madness” was by his own specific admission contagious, followers seemed to confirm this. In the end, hopefully you realize there are unusual states of mind that may be contagious and energetic but are not enlightenment, after all, and that that feeling there was something off about Da was right.
March 14, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Speaking of Alan Watts, and how he was conned by Da into endorsing him simply on the basis of his highly edited Knee of Listening and later a carefully planned recruitment presentation, it worthwhile noting that Da was quite familiar with Watts and his writings, and like all the sources he seems to have borrowed from without acknowledgment over the years, he adapted it to his own teaching. In fact, his “trickster”, “do as I say, not as a do or have done” approach from the beginning is perfectly described in this essay by Alan Watts:
“The Trickster Guru”
Alan Watts
I have often thought of writing a novel, similar to Thomas Mann’s “Confessions of Felix Krull,” which would be the life story of a charlatan making out as a master guru – either initiated in Tibet or appearing as the reincarnation of Nagar-juna, Padmasambhava, or some other great historical sage of the Orient. It would be a romantic and glamorous tale, flavored with the scent of pines in Himalayan valleys, with garden courtyards in obscure parts of Alexandria, with mountain temples in Japan, and with secretive meetings and initiations in country houses adjoining Paris, New York, and Los Angeles. It would also raise some rather unexpected philosophical questions as to the relations between genuine mysticism and stage magic. But I have neither the patience nor the skill to be a novelist, and thus can do no more than sketch the idea for some more gifted author.
The attractions of being a trickster guru are many. There is power and there is wealth, and still more the satisfactions of being an actor without need for a stage, who turns “real life” into a drama. It is not, furthermore, an illegal undertaking such as selling shares in non-existent corporations, impersonating a doctor, or falsifying checks. There are no recognized and official qualifications for being a guru, though now that some universities are offering courses in meditation and Kundalini Yoga it may soon be necessary to be a member of the U.S. Fraternity of Gurus. But a really fine trickster would get around all that by the one-upmanship of inventing an entirely new discipline outside and beyond all known forms of esoteric teaching.
It must be understood from the start that the trickster guru fills a real need and performs a genuine public service. Millions of people are searching desperately for a true father-Magician, especially at a time when the clergy and the psychiatrists are making rather a poor show, and do not seem to have the courage of their convictions or of their fantasies. Perhaps they have lost nerve through too high a valuation of the virtue of honesty – as if a painter felt bound to give his landscapes the fidelity of photographs. To fulfil his compassionate vocation, the trickster guru must above all have nerve. He must also be quite well-read in mystical and occult literature, both that which is historically authentic and sound in scholarship, and that which is somewhat questionable – such as the writings of H.P. Blavatsky, P.D. Ouspensky, and Aleister Crowley. It doesn’t do to be caught out on details now known to a wide public.
After such preparatory studies, the first step is to frequent those circles where gurus are especially sought, such as the various cult groups which pursue oriental religions or peculiar forms of psychotherapy, or simply the intellectual and artistic milieux of any great city. Be somewhat quiet and solitary. Never ask questions, but occasionally add a point – quite briefly – to what some speaker has said. Volunteer no information about your personal life, but occasionally indulge in a little absent-minded name-dropping to suggest that you have travelled widely and spent time in Turkestan. Evade close questioning by giving the impression that mere travel is a small matter hardly worth discussing, and that your real interests lie on much deeper levels.
Such behavior will soon provoke people into asking your advice. Don’t come right out with it, but suggest that the question is rather deep and ought to be discussed at length in some quiet place. Make an appointment at a congenial restaurant or cafe – not at your home, unless you have an impressive library and no evidence of being tied down with a family. At first, answer nothing, but without direct questioning, draw the person out to enlarge on his problem and listen with your eyes closed – not as if sleeping, but as if attending to the deep inner vibrations of his thoughts. Conclude the interview with a slightly veiled command to perform some rather odd exercise, such as humming a sound and then suddenly stopping. Carefully instruct the person to be aware of the slightest decision to stop before actually stopping, and indicate that the point is to be able to stop without any prior decision. Make a further appointment for a report on progress.
To carry this through, you must work out a whole series of unusual exercises, both psychological and physical. Some must be rather difficult tricks which can actually be accomplished, to give your student the sense of real progress.
Others must be virtually impossible – such as to think of the words yes and no at the same instant, repeatedly for five minutes, or with a pencil in each hand, to try to hit the opposite hand – which is equally trying to defend itself and hit the other. Don’t give all your students the same exercises but, because people love to be types, sort them into groups according to their astrological sun signs or according to your own private classifications, which must be given such odd names as grubers, jongers, milers, and trovers.
A judidous use of hypnosis – avoiding all the common tricks of hand-raising, staring at lights, or saying “Relax. Relax, while I count up to ten” will produce pleasant changes of feeling and the impression of attaining higher states of consciousness.
First, describe such a stage quite vividly – say, the sense of walking on air – and then have your students walk around barefooted trying not to make the slightest sound and yet giving their whole weight to the floor. Imply that the floor will soon feel like a cushion, then like water, and finally like air. Indicate a little later that there is reason to believe that something of this kind is the initial stage of levitation.
Next, be sure to have about thirty or forty different stages of progress worked out, giving them numbers, and suggest that there are still some extremely high stages beyond those numbered which can only be understood by those who have reached twenty-eight – so no point in discussing them now. After the walking-on-air gambit, try for instance having them push out hard with their arms as if some overwhelming force were pulling them. Reverse the procedure. This leads quickly to the feeling that one is not doing what one is doing and doing what one is not doing. Tell them to stay in this state while going about everyday business.
After a while let it be known that you have a rather special and peculiar background – as when some student asks, “Where did you get all this?” Well, you just picked up a thing or two in Turkestan, or “I’m quite a bit older than I look,” or say that “Reincarnation is entirely unlike what people suppose it to be.” Later, let on that you are in some way connected with an extremely select in-group. Don’t brashly claim anything. Your students will soon do that for you, and, when one hits on the fantasy that pleases you most, say, “I see you are just touching stage eighteen.”
There are two schools of thought about asking for money for your services. One is to have fees just like a doctor, because people are embarrassed if they do not know just what is expected of them. The other, used by the real high-powered tricksters, is to do everything free with, however, the understanding that each student has been personally selected for his or her innate capacity for the work (call it that), and thus be careful not to admit anyone without first putting them through some sort of hazing. Monetary contributions will soon be offered. Otherwise, charge rather heavily, making it dear that the work is worth infinitely more to oneself and to others than, say, expensive surgery or a new home. Imply that you give most of it away to mysterious beneficiaries.
As soon as you can afford to wangle it, get hold of a country house as an ashram or spiritual retreat, and put students to work on all the menial tasks. Insist on some special diet, but do not follow it yourself. Indeed, you should cultivate small vices, such as smoking, mild boozing, or, if you are very careful, sleeping with the ladies, to suggest that your stage of evolution is so high that such things do not affect you, or that only by such means can you remain in contact with ordinary mundane consciousness.
On the one hand, you yourself must be utterly free from any form of religious or parapsychological superstition, lest some other trickster should outplay you. On the other hand, you must eventually come to believe in your own hoax, because this will give you ten times more nerve. This can be done through religionizing total skepticism to the point of basic incredulity about everything – even science. After all, this is in line with the Hindu-Buddhist position that the whole universe is an illusion, and you need not worry about whether the Absolute is real or unreal, eternal or non-eternal, because every idea of it that you could form would, in comparison with living it up in the present, be horribly boring. Furthermore, you should convince yourself that the Absolute is precisely the same as illusion, and thus not be in the least ashamed of being greedy or anxious or depressed. Make it dear that we are ultimately God, but that you know it. If you are challenged to perform wonders, point out that everything is already a fabulous wonder, and to do something bizarre would be to go against your own most perfect scheme of things. On the other hand, when funny coincidences turn up, look knowing and show no surprise, especially when any student has good fortune or recovers from sickness. It will promptly be attributed to your powers, and you may be astonished to find that your very touch becomes healing, because people really believe in you. When it doesn’t work, you should sigh gently about lack of faith, or explain that this particular sickness is a very important working out of Karma which will have to be reckoned with some day, so why not now.
The reputation for supernormal powers is self-reinforcing, and as it builds up you can get more daring, such that you will have the whole power of mass self-deception working for you. But always remember that a good guru plays it cool and maintains a certain aloofness, especially from those sharpies of the press and TV whose game is to expose just about everyone as a fraud. Always insist, like the finest restaurants, that your clientele is exclusive. The very highest “society” does not deign to be listed in the Social Register.
As time goes on, allow it more and more to be understood that you are in constant touch with other centers of work. Disappear from time to time by taking trips abroad, and come back looking more mysterious than ever. You can easily find someone in India or Syria to do duty as your colleague, and take a small and select group of students on a journey which includes a brief interview with this Personage. He can talk any kind of nonsense, while you do the “translating.” When travelling with students, avoid any obvious assistance from regular agencies, and let it appear that your secret fraternity has arranged everything in advance.
Now a trickster guru is certainly an illusionist, but one might ask “What else is art?” If the universe is nothing but a vast Rorschach blot upon which we project our collective measures and interpretations, and if past and future has no real existence, an illusionist is simply a creative artist who changes the collective interpretation of life, and even improves on it. Reality is mostly what a people or a culture conceives it to be. Money, worthless in itself, depends entirely on collective faith for its value. The past is held against you only because others believe in it, and the future seems important only because we have conned ourselves into the notion that surviving for a long time, with painstaking care, is preferable to surviving for a short time with no responsibility and lots of thrills. It is really a matter of changing fashion.
Perhaps, then, a trickster may be one who actually liberates people from their more masochistic participations in the collective illusion, on the homeopathic principle of “The hair of the dog that bit you. ” Even genuine gurus set their disciples impossible psychological exercises to demonstrate the unreality of the ego, and it could be argued that they too, are unwitting tricksters, raised as they have been in cultures without disillusioning benefits of “scientific knowledge,” which, as ecologists note, isn’t working out too well. Perhaps it all boils down to the ancient belief that God himself is a trickster, eternally fooling himself by the power of maya into the sensation that he is a human being, a cat, or an insect, since no art can be accomplished which does not set itself certain rules and limitations. A fully infinite and boundless God would have no limitations, and thus no way of manifesting power or love. Omnipotence must therefore include the power of self-restriction – to the point of forgetting that it is restricting itself and thus making limitations seem real. It could be that genuine students and gurus are on the side of being fooled, whereas the phony gurus are the foolers – and one must make one’s choice.
I am proposing this problem as a kind of Zen koan, like “Beyond positive and negative, what is reality?” How will you avoid being either a fool or a fooler? How will you get rid of the ego-illusion without either trying or not trying? If you need God’s grace to be saved, how will you get the grace to get grace? Who will answer these questions if yourself is itself an illusion? Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.
The cock crows in the evening;
At midnight, the brilliant sun.
And there have also been such effective mother-magicians as Mary Baker Eddy, Helena Blavatsky, Aimee Semple McPherson, Annie Besant, and Alice Bailey.
© Alan Watts (1915 – 1973) The Essential Alan Watts, Celestial Arts (1974).
You can add Adi Da to the list.
April 9, 2009 at 3:40 am
at least whatever God is, that which is to be realized, that doesn’t change. Whether Adi Da was a con man or not, He revealed to me my activity of suffering and unhappiness. Satsang is the only way out.
April 9, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Who is it that you speak of when you say, “I”. That one that you cling to, has already died. It’s just an idea that you hold onto.
“I” is always insulted by death. Every idea, rises and falls in the endless waters of eternity. Who is it that will sink or swim? What will you hold onto when all the ideas, and the restless mind forms your direction? When the body falls, fails, and returns to the elements? Will you be in a bardo of your life long creation, or will “you” return to the non-separate self who is witness only the present, and who knows nothing but is pleasurably connected to bliss of existence?
April 26, 2009 at 2:51 pm
I guess I’m a bit late in getting this news.. I have to say, even though I believe Da was likely a scammer to some degree, that his huge autobiography was quite a good read.
May 8, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Divinity is for Everyone
Divinity is for everyone. In divinity each person’s equal, so there’s no competition for social status.
The divine order is the highest social order. Every single person is functioning at the highest level.
Intellectually we can picture the highest and best school and society. The difficulty is actually sensing and feeling the 100% unity of one-ness that presides at the highest level.
Because the divine order is equality, the more capable athlete helps the less capable athlete. The more capable speaker or writer helps the less capable speaker or writer. The less capable mathematician helps the less capable mathematician, and so on. There is not the brutal and destructive competition that exists in today’s human cultures.
Since talents differ, one person is most helpful in certain ways, while other persons are most helpful in certain other ways. Everyone is a helper, and divinity truly is for everyone. There is no high priest.
The divine doesn’t plan ahead. At each and every moment one simply does what he or she can do to help. When something needs to be done, you do it. You feel high-spirited and energetic and so you do it. You are full of high emotional energy, high mental energy, and high physical energy!
Right now the way is inequality, and striving for self-betterment. Today’s way is to strive to outperform others and take credit for your own personal performance. The divine way, however, is to elevate others. This ascent to the higher level is the long-anticipated, long-prayed for, and long-prophesied social paradigm shift!
In bringing this paradigm shift and in sustaining it, the persons who are higher lift other persons up to the higher level. But right now a great many people are being oppressed. Today’s low society is very competitive and combative. Today many people are weak and in need of help. But competitiveness beats them down lower and lower. In today’s anti-divinity cultures, hate, fear, competition and other impotencies rule.
To uplift the poor, divinity gives them wealth. To uplift the weak, divinity gives them strength. To uplift the visionless, divinity gives them visions. To uplift the crowded, divinity gives them space. Divinity adds to the emptiness and totally fills it up.
Divinity does all these things, for people to be uplifted by. Divinity does it freely, without making anyone indebted. So when everyone has divinity, then everyone uplifts the others. In divinity no person is above any other person. Everyone is at the same high level.
Those who want divinity to come to humanity need space to create the divine society. They need to meet and pool their resources. They need to find some piece of real estate on which to demonstrate the society of divinity at work. So let all the churches come forward! Let all the churches pool their wealth and support the model!
What blocks people is their inability to actually sense the divinity in themselves and make it stronger and stronger. People may read old divine prophecies and picture the ascension to the highest level in theory, but they can’t actually apply the theory and feel uplifted to the high level. This is why the ecstatic teacher has to come and teach people the uplift to ecstasy both in theory and in practice.
Words alone can’t fill you up to your full capacity. You have a lot more intelligence in you than verbal intelligence! To fill you to your full capacity you need music and art and all the other languages plus words. So the ecstatic teacher promotes divinity by means of all the languages for everyone to witness.
Those who are strong in one sense, capacity, or language help those who are weak in that sense, capacity, or language. As everyone joins together in ecstasy, everyone is uplifted by divinity. Those who are not uplifted are helped the most. In time they will understand divinity more and more as they feel uplifted more and more.
In divinity there is no ideal, better, or higher person. Divinity is for everyone.
If you argue that there are many ecstatic teachers, then by all means go to at least one of their churches and carry this divine message to them and bid them join together with me in moving more and more people forward.
Otherwise in all your dreaming, talking, praying, writing, and celebrating what you want to call “divinity” you are sliding deeper and deeper into word shit and all the confusion that keeps on maintaining the destructive and sinful social status quo. Greed and other social inadequacies are in fact destroying both the planet and the people.
There are so many other languages besides word shit! Word shit is only good fertilizer. But what is the fertilizer going to grow? That is the burning question.
These words are only smoke and ashes. The only divinity you will ever feel is the divinity inside of you.
The ecstatic teacher helps you feel your divinity burn out all your negativity, wordiness, ignorance, fear, and hate.
Only divinity- the integrated, optimal, and highest intelligence- will save the human race.
May 8, 2009 at 7:22 pm
fantastic John. Couldn’t have come to me at a better time. Your clarity is excellent. Yes Divinity is for everyone. thank you please write more.
May 8, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hey John Waters , just curious, are you a formal devotee of Adi Da?
Probably unlikely , but am just wondering.
Alan
May 9, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Divinity is for Everyone
(A recent revision)
Divinity is for everyone. In divinity each person’s equal, so there’s minimal competition amongst persons.
The divine order is the highest social order. Every single person is functioning at his or her highest level.
Intellectually we can picture the highest and best school and society. The difficulty is actually sensing and feeling the 100% unity of one-ness that presides at the highest level.
Because the divine order is equality, the more capable athlete helps the less capable athlete. The more capable speaker or writer helps the less capable speaker or writer. The less capable mathematician helps the less capable mathematician, and so on. There is not the brutal and destructive competition that exists in today’s tradition-based cultures.
Since talents differ, one person is most helpful in certain ways, while other persons are most helpful in certain other ways. Everyone is a helper, and divinity truly is for everyone. There is no social elite. No thing, idea, principle, process, child, man, or woman is idolized or worshipped.
Right now the way is inequality, and competing for goods. Today’s way is for the strong to outperform the weak and claim more goods for themselves. The divine way, however, is to elevate others. This ascent to the higher level is the long-anticipated, long-prayed for, and long-prophesied social paradigm shift.
In bringing this paradigm shift and in sustaining it, the persons who are elevated uplift other persons. But right now a great many people are being oppressed. Today’s society is very competitive and combative. Today many people are weak and in need of help. But competitiveness beats them down lower and lower. In today’s anti-divinity cultures, hate, fear, competition and other impotencies rule.
To uplift the poor, divinity gives them wealth. To uplift the weak, divinity gives them strength. To uplift the visionless, divinity gives them visions. To uplift the crowded, divinity gives them space. Divinity adds to personal emptiness and fills it up to one hundred percent.
Divinity does all these things freely, without making anyone indebted. So when everyone has divinity, then everyone is provided for. In divinity no person is above any other person. Everyone is a care-giver and a care-taker.
Those who want divinity to come to humanity need room to create the divine society. They need to meet and pool their resources. They need to find some piece of real estate on which to demonstrate the society of divinity at work. So let the churches come forward! Let the churches pool their wealth and support the new culture.
What blocks people is their inability to actually sense the divinity in themselves and make it stronger and stronger. People may read old divine prophecies and picture the ascension to the highest level in theory, but they can’t actually apply the theory and feel uplifted to the high level. This is why an ecstatic teacher has to come and teach people the uplift to ecstasy both in theory and in practice.
Words alone can’t fill you up to your full capacity. The reason is because you have a lot more intelligence in you than verbal intelligence! To fill you to your full capacity you need music and art and all the other languages plus words. So the ecstatic teacher promotes divinity by means of all the languages for everyone to witness.
In divine society all those who are strong in one sense, capacity, or language help those who are weak in that sense, capacity, or language. As everyone joins together in ecstasy, everyone is uplifted by divinity. Those who are not yet uplifted are helped the most. In time they will understand divinity more and more as they feel uplifted more and more.
In divinity there is no ideal, better, or higher person. Divinity is for everyone.
If you argue that there are many ecstatic teachers, then by all means go to at least one of their churches and carry this message to them and bid them join together with me in helping move all humanity forward.
Otherwise in all your dreaming, talking, praying, writing, and celebrating what you want to call “divinity” you are sliding deeper and deeper into word shit and all the confusion that keeps on maintaining the destructive and sinful social status quo. Ignorance and other social inadequacies are in fact destroying both the planet and the people.
There are so many other languages besides word shit! Word shit is only good fertilizer. The holy books are full of holy shit! But what is all this word fertilizer ever going to grow beyond the present human malaise? What’s the worth of all that fertilizer when virtually no seeds ever grow in it?
I remain The One. The sender of this note is your equal and Adi Da’s equal. So come and help others as you open the bud of yourself into the flower of everyone’s One Self.
No confusion and abuse this time. The accelerated work now is to CLEAR all channels so they can help all others be CLEAR.
9:30AM Friday, May 08, 2009
Revised 12:45PM Saturday, May 09, 2009
John L. Waters
May 10, 2009 at 5:47 am
john what other wrtings have you? where are they?
May 10, 2009 at 9:32 am
Alone is the Conditions of Bliss
Not the beginnings of great search
It is the possibility of sudden knowledge
Unless you are more than alone
Pursuing the answers
Lonely where you are only alone
Alone is the premise of great knowledge
And wisdom is simply the awareness
That you are alone
Thus the wise begin understanding
By standing alone
And soon they know the wisdom of it
Alone is my original form
Remaining alone I understood
Understanding I am the immensity of Great Love
Loving, radically and uncaused
Alone with no one
I am no longer troubled
May 12, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Second draft-North Trinidad and Humbled State
1.
I have read over all the comments in this Adidam nonduality blog and many of them are too verbally involved for me. If the real deal is transcending wordiness and ego-quarrels, why not just let go of the mentality of Pullus pullus hens picking at each other and common seagulls fighting each other over a bunch of smelly decaying fish scraps?
Well, the truth is people often don’t agree. One person thinks or feels one way, another person thinks or feels another way. Conceptual plays differ. Also, perceptions differ. For example, not everyone who visits Mother Meera sees the divine shakti light she is said to transmit. As for Adi Da, a lot of followers have moved on to continue on their search. And as for me and my multitudinous creations, they are somewhat controversial.
Of my art many say it’s not art. Of my music, many say it is trivial or out of date. As for my poetry, well pretty much the same. And so on and on. So at the age of thirty-eight in my humbled state I shook off my personal confusions and really embraced North Trinidad! That is, during the years 1977 and 1978 I built a three bedroom ranch style house about five miles north of Shadow Lodge- which is now “Walk About Joy.” I took daily walks at Patrick’s Point State Park and soaked up the bright sunshine, got drenched in the legendary Humboldt County
downpours, and breathed in deeply the salubrious pranic atmosphere.
That was decades before Adi Da moved to Trinidad.
Enraptured by the natural ambience of North Trinidad, I wandered around and found scores of places where there is an abundance of heavenly shaktipat blessing. I spent years cultivating this baffling sensibility and I used it to rejuvenate myself and help some other local people. But my odd looks and my clumsy speech prevented me from getting any genuine followers. And to make matters worse, my own family regarded me as a psychotic.
I’ve spent years talking with professional psychologists, professional educators, and other intelligent people, and I’ve had years of talking with “new agey” type people. In amongst the popular confusions and delusions I’ve found a relatively safe place to spend my time at- at Humboldt State University. And I’ve been working at Humboldt State University since about 1980. Since 2000 I’ve been enrolled as an over-sixty student.
At the long expanse of Big Lagoon beach, at small beaches at Patrick’s Point, and at the small beaches in Trinidad I experienced sensations which I cultivated more and more so that by 1981 I was a good sun- yogi. I carried the message of divinity as one-ness and I shared the shaktipat one-ness blessing with others. But I got into trouble with slick sophisticated people who continually found fault with my awkward social manners and my clumsy wordiness. I didn’t talk right and I didn’t look right to people who assumed they were “in the know.” And to conventional straight people I couldn’t even begin to get anywhere- except at Humboldt State. I wrote papers and some professors read my papers and encouraged me to keep writing. Other professors told me to give up on writing because I was so clumsy at it. But divinity kept me going. I pictured myself as the slow tortoise “holding up the world.” (Notice as a conceptual leela the divine mixing
of the
ancient Greek Aesop tortoise fable with the ancient Hindu tortoise avatar fable.)
I’ve been very slow to find my niche in global society.
For years I’ve been taking my half-finished articles up to the Humboldt State University Writing Center and other centers on campus where young editors have been reading my stuff and helping me improve my writing while expressing their personal thoughts and feelings. Some of these young people feel a healthy enthusiasm for my ideas. But it would take a large concerted mass of young people to actually move youthful human consciousness in the new direction of healing and integration. A new transnational network could be set up to introduce young people in every college and university to some new ideas which are exciting to many young people today. Many of these ideas are not in any other books.
I’m working now with an HSU business professor who is managing a special trust fund set up to pay students to help me with my voluminous writings and other creations. My handicaps are understood by some professors at HSU and so a special professor set up this trust fund several years ago. So now I have a couple of students being paid to help me. But it would be a great help- both for HSU and for Adidam- for HSU to become allied with Adidam.
===========================
2.
Darshan letter 1:
Since I wrote the first part of this communication I have read Daism Report #6 by Elias- “The Dark Time.” This article by Elias underscores a problem that was not unique to Franklin Jones. J. Krishnamurti also got depressed over the fact he couldn’t teach other people how to sense his “benediction”- his shakti. And K had to reject the idea that he was “The Messiah.” There have in fact been a great many so-called “messiah-claimants.” Wikipedia lists dozens of “messiah claimants” and there are quite a few determined “messiah-claimants” posted on the Internet today, including some who are quite obviously crazy. But all the past “messiah-claimants” who got followers failed to transform humanity. When someone gets labeled “The Messiah” that puts a big burden on the person. So any man who thinks he is “The Messiah” has got to have a very good sense of humor. And let’s hope that other folks can laugh along WITH him, not AT him.
So really, the subject of “what makes people smile or laugh” is very important. If you smile or laugh to put down something or someone down, well, you need to examine yourself. You need to take certain matters a lot more seriously.
Is this conceptual leela a joke, or what?
What is your response?
9:30AM Tuesday, May 12, 2009
John L. Waters
May 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm
what are you on about John? Why don’t you bow down to Adi Da?
May 13, 2009 at 9:40 pm
I was a devotee from 1975-1977. I wanted to share two experiences:
1. When I read the Knee of Listening in early 1975, my jaw dropped. I could not believe the power of that book. It spoke to me so deeply that I more or less immediately dropped everything, spoke to Jim Steinberg at the Polk St. center, joined the community and got invited up to “Persimmon”. This was the tail end of the Garbage and the Goddess days, so a full party was in progress when I got there. I had no interest in anything but being with “Bubba”, so I sat down 10 feet away from him and just watched him as he partied. At some point he saw me staring at him, and stared directly back at me with absolute love and intensity. Then he gave me a playful wink, and began to very slowly lower his finger toward me like a comboy with a gun. When the “gun” was aimed at my heart, he closed one eye and continued staring with the other, and pulled the trigger. My mind, my body, my entire sense of myself as a person evaporated. Poof!!! Not slowly dissolved….more like exploded. I could literally feel it suddenly leave….exactly as it might have been if I was really shot dead. In its place was just tranquil charged pulsating Beingness that lasted for quite a while…….er, uh, until, that is, I regained my composure and got on with the important business of being absolutely miserable…..for a much much longer while.
2. There was a brief period of time when I was a community member, when Da decided that everyone in the community should sit in private darshan with him. When my turn came, I walked into the room, offered prasad, bowed and sat maybe 20 feet in front of him. After I managed to relax and adjust to the situation, we silently began to communicate Love through our eyes. The love deepened and deepened and deepened until there came a point when all that was happening in the room was a transmition of Love back and forth. No people….just Love….humbly, fully, passionately….nothing else.
OK, that’s what I’ve got. Blessings and love to each and every one of you whether you’re a believer, a doubter, or somewhere betwixt and between. Peace.
May 13, 2009 at 11:40 pm
so? What next? why did you leave? your leela is great. So are you still in that incredible space? What was the point in adding a post? To validate Adi Da? Tell us why you are no longer a devotee. Do you still consider Adi Da as the Greatest Realizer that has ever lived?
May 14, 2009 at 5:44 am
Anyone that takes anything Elias says seriously has got to have some marbles loose, sorry. Thank you former devotee, nice leela of transmission.. Transmission is the real deal. Flick rahke
May 14, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Fourth letter to Adidam Blog May 14, 2009
http://nonduality.org/2008/11/28/adi-da-is-dead/
Namaste:
Quoting from the blog:
================
petrananda Says:
November 28, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Adi Da Samraj is little understood by the world. He claimed to be a World Teacher, but only had a handful of formal devotees at anyone time. Why was this so, in all of 30 years?
For me His teaching has given me a destiny of True Love and True Happiness that I as an ego could never have found in the world. I cry with gratitude and appreciation for His Presence in my life and with the certainty of His presence as I continue to live. May He continue to shout and bark in our ears so that we might Hear and transcend our separative nonsense. The Divine can only Live. There is no death.
thank you Lord
————————–
lol Says:
November 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
petrananda says:
‘He claimed to be a World Teacher, but only had a handful of formal devotees at anyone time. Why was this so, in all of 30 years?’
answer:
he was obviously a charlatan and a fraud
—————————–
petrananda Says:
April 9, 2009 at 3:40 am
at least whatever God is, that which is to be realized, that doesn’t change. Whether Adi Da was a con man or not, He revealed to me my activity of suffering and unhappiness. Satsang is the only way out.
—————————–
petrananda Says:
May 8, 2009 at 7:22 pm
fantastic John. Couldn’t have come to me at a better time. Your clarity is excellent. Yes Divinity is for everyone. thank you please write more.
——————————
petrananda Says:
May 10, 2009 at 5:47 am
john what other wrtings have you? where are they?
——————————
petrananda Says:
May 10, 2009 at 9:32 am
Alone is the Conditions of Bliss
Not the beginnings of great search
It is the possibility of sudden knowledge
Unless you are more than alone
Pursuing the answers
Lonely where you are only alone
Alone is the premise of great knowledge
And wisdom is simply the awareness
That you are alone
Thus the wise begin understanding
By standing alone
And soon they know the wisdom of it
Alone is my original form
Remaining alone I understood
Understanding I am the immensity of Great Love
Loving, radically and uncaused
Alone with no one
I am no longer troubled
(Adi Da)
———————————-
petrananda Says:
May 12, 2009 at 3:10 pm
what are you on about John? Why don’t you bow down to Adi Da?
———————————-
The Quorn Says:
May 8, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Hey John Waters , just curious, are you a formal devotee of Adi Da?
Probably unlikely , but am just wondering.
Alan
============
My answer(s)
Divinity is for everyone. Divinity is in everyone. Divinity is with everyone because divinity is contingent upon all existence.
Since the preceding is true, when you are everywhere, there is no up. There is no down. When you are everywhere, someone cannot possibly bow down to you. It follow that if ADI DA is/was GOD you cannot bow down to Adi Da because Adi Da saturates everything and everyone.
Moreover, when- as divinity- you are in/with everything and in/with everyone, you can’t possibly be alone. So even if divinity- he/she plays the part of the Fiddler on the Roof, the GOD teacher cannot be alone- even up at the top of the roof. So how come ADI DA said he stood alone? (read the poem) The answer is, ADI DA sometimes lost his sense of “The Bright” in a depression and a confusion. The chronicles of Adidam are profuse with such instances. Adi Da sometimes got confused in his thinking and in his speech. Like many a talker and writer, Adi Da needed better editors.
====================
Franklin Jones sensed Me (I+notI) as a small boy and later he called Me “The Bright.” The light Mother Meera calls “Paramatman Light” – the radiant and uplifting sense transmitted by Muktananda, Ramana Maharshi, and so many other shining facets of Me.
You sense Me in your samadhi. But if instead of your highest joy you pay attention to some bodily form-charm of a man named Frank or a man named John- or the bodily form of some sex partner- you have totally lost “The Bright” or samadhi and you have forgotten all about the little boy Franklin Jones and you have forgotten all about Me. And my voice is not Frank’s voice or John’s voice, either.
You need to get this CLEAR and BRIGHT message and be rid of your confusion. As long as you yourself are confused you can’t inspire and lead other people to Me.
Stay in good cheer.
Stay here with Me at the peace center.
May 15, 2009 at 10:33 am
Hello John
I agree with you entirely regarding the Divine. However whether Adi Da is a charlatan or not makes no difference to the Divine. The Divine is untainted by conditions. To truly feel the Divine living one is gracefully given irrespective of anyone, whatever their claims. thank you for serving. Let us continue to serve one another.
May 15, 2009 at 1:25 pm
May 15, 2009
Transmission is the real deal- gettin’ it on
gettin’ it on
(a rhythm-an-bliss tune)
=============================
first verse
jlw
Transmission is the real deal
and
Transmission is the real feel
and
Transmission is the big wheel
turning
you on and on and on and on-
jus’ gettin’ it on, BABY,
jus gettin’ it on.
jlw
===========================================================================
Flick rahke Says:
May 14, 2009 at 5:44 am
Anyone that takes anything Elias says seriously has got to have some marbles loose, sorry. Thank you former devotee, nice leela of transmission.. Transmission is the real deal. Flick rahke
============================================================================
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Hidden-Mysteries/Shaktipat.htm
Osho on Shaktipat or Energy Transmission
Question – What is Shaktipat or Energy Transmission? And is it possible that someone Can transmit Divine Energy?
Osho – No one can do shaktipat, no one can transmit energy; but someone can be a vehicle for such transmission. It is true that no one can do it. And if some body claims that he can do it, he is indulging in sheer deception. No one can do it, and yet in some moment transmission of energy can happen through someone.
If that someone is totally empty and surrendered, shaktipat can happen in his presence. He can work as a conductor, as a catalytic agent, but not knowingly. Through him God’s infinite energy can enter into another person. No one can be a catalytic agent knowingly, be cause the first condition to act as conductor is that you should not know it, that you have no ego. Ego disqualifies a person for being a medium for shaktipat.
With ego one becomes a non conductor of energy; divine energy cannot flow through him. So if there is a person whose ego is completely wiped out, who is absolutely empty inside and is a total void, who is doing nothing for you, really who does not do a thing – then through his emptiness, through his void, which acts as a passage, God’s energy can certainly reach you. And its speed can be very fast.
http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Hidden-Mysteries/Shaktipat.htm
===========================================================================
jlw
You sense Me in your samadhi. But if instead of your highest joy you pay attention to some bodily form-charm of a man named Frank or a man named John- or the bodily form of some sex partner- you have totally lost “The Bright” or samadhi and you have forgotten all about the little boy Franklin Jones and you have forgotten all about Me. And my voice is not Frank’s voice or John’s voice, or body odor, or rhythmic swaying, etc, etc, etc, and blah blah blah……………………
jlw
===========================================================================
http://sahaj-marg.us/smrti/education/clarif/transmission.html
Sahaj Marg Clarifications
Transmission
GROWTH HAS TO BE NOURISHED. There can be no growth without proper nourishment. This is the third role of the Master, that he ‘feeds’ the abhyasis with his spiritual transmission and nourishes them, so that growth continues to be strong and healthy. What we call transmission Master once defined as ‘spiritual food’. The body lives and grows at the physical level, and so sustains itself on physical foods. The soul, being spiritual in nature, needs food of that plane. I once asked Master whether the transmission was the same in quality or whether it differed with the abhyasi’s condition. Master answered that there could be no change in it as it is the subtlest force or power of Divinity, and hence unchanging. I was a bit puzzled as to how the same power could do everything Master claimed it could achieve, at all levels of development. I put this question to Master. Master laughed amusedly and said, “When we plant a seed we water it; when it comes up as a
small seedling we water it; when it is a strong plant we water it; and we go on watering it all its life. The same water achieves the growth of the plant stage after stage.”
http://sahaj-marg.us/smrti/education/clarif/transmission.html
=========================================================================
Edu-ter-tain-ment section. Singing! Dancing! Wording! Musicing! Check out this youtube video:
“Unbound” by Robbie Robertson
Tribute to the Divine Energy Shakti
LYRICS:
With eyes of fire
No one can see
The smoke from the sweet grass
Covers me
I am drawn
I am drawn to her
Like a moth to flame
She leads me down
Unbound
I am lost
I am lost
Has anybody seen me
I am lost
Oh nothing is forgotten
Only left behind
Wherever I am
She leads me down
Unbound
No borders
No fences
No walls
No borders
No fences
Unbound
Oh, listen for the night chant
Oh, listen for the night chant
Like a moth to flame
She leads me down
Unbound
No borders
No fences
Unbound
No borders
No fences
Unbound
Unbound
Category: Entertainment
Tags:
robbie robertson unbound shakti shiva divine energy enlightenment
==========================================================================
May 16, 2009 at 6:42 am
give me a break. I think another delusional type like Elias. no understanding at all of adi da. Flick rahke
May 18, 2009 at 4:23 pm
klik-ity-klak
the mind is full of chat.
Who is the knower of things?
May 19, 2009 at 2:33 pm
May 19 John Waters’ Commentary on recent Adidam responses-
Thanks y’-all for participating in the quadrupalogue.
petrananda Says:
May 15, 2009 at 10:33 am
Hello John
I agree with you entirely regarding the Divine. However whether Adi Da is a charlatan or not makes no difference to the Divine. The Divine is untainted by conditions. To truly feel the Divine living one is gracefully given irrespective of anyone, whatever their claims. thank you for serving. Let us continue to serve one another.
#
==========================================================================
#
Flick rahke Says:
May 16, 2009 at 6:42 am
give me a break. I think another delusional type like Elias. no understanding at all of adi da. Flick rahke
==========================================================================
#
NC Says:
May 18, 2009 at 4:23 pm
klik-ity-klak
the mind is full of chat.
Who is the knower of things?
==========================================================================
My comments:
NC, the small verbal mind is full of chat and on any Internet blog that is where it’s at.
Your chat is no more or less divine than mine. As are the colors of a rainbow and the sound of a nightingale, divinity is beyond the small verbal mind.
You can talk and write about what you think about the “knower of things” but it remains klik-ity-klak. On any blog we’re all stuck with words and music and with other material transmissions. Divinity is more than a material transmission.
Why are there so many religions and why do they fight? Adi Da presents his theory of how to bring world peace. But Adi Da didn’t teach integration. verbal chat is just a small part of the whole integrated brain’s intelligence.
===========================
Flick rahke, You are making a claim that you can’t defend. Your words are weak, without support of clarity. You can hatch out of and grow beyond such childish illogic. I encourage you to strengthen your backbone, your neck, and your beak- so you can peck your way out of your eggshell.
How many teachers have you worked with? When you yourself are feeling in touch with divinity, what are you talking or writing about? How do you prove it to other people? You can’t do it with words. Fancy talk doesn’t compute. Meher Baba was quiet for decades. He was transmitting divinity strongly.
High school learning and college learning are preparation for the new study of divinity.
===========================
Petrananda,
You are a good diplomat.
I am not dismissing Adi da as a charlatan, a fraud, or a fake. I am just promoting the fact that so many people have left Adi Da because he failed to satisfy them and he failed to live up to his promises- including his peace accords and his 2000 forecast about being recognized as the messiah. Adi da himself got upset over his failures, he didn’t follow a strict yogic dietary regimen and he suffered depressions. But that doesn’t mean Adi Da wasn’t great at times. But Adi Da is no longer a physical presence here. Adidam can pick up the pieces of itself and move forward in progress in promotion of true divinity- the universal omnipresent divinity that is for everyone, bringing wealth for everyone- spiritual, mental, emotional, and tangible material wealth, not just for some idolized person but yes. For everyone.
Support my class at HSU. Get involved with me. You won’t regret it. But you will need to work hard.
If you go over to Vijay Kumar, who calls himself Lord Kalki, that would be avoiding me. He, too, is making messianic claims that he can’t back up.
Knowledge is power. But words by themselves have relatively little power.
Quote: “In His book, Not-Two Is Peace, Adi Da calls for the creation of a “Global Cooperative Forum”, in which all of the people on Earth — or, in His words, “everybody-all-at-once” — are enabled to embrace an absolutely necessary paradigm shift — the shift from competition and conflict living as an “egoless collective”.”
http://global.adidam.org/books/not-two-is-peace.html
Okay. But how do you get this to WORK- to ACTUALLY HAPPEN?
HOW DO YOU GET MORE AND MORE CHURCHES TO JOIN ADIDAM?
Come to Walk About Joy in Trinidad and explore the possibilities.
John
May 19, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Hi John
You say come and get involved with you. tell me more please
May 20, 2009 at 8:03 am
Sorry dude but you have about a zero understanding of adi da and his work and are seriously deluded by your mind with delusions of grandeur. Adi Da is still quite active in his work through his written teaching and also his direct blessing prescence. Death does not end that and how could it anyhow? You do not seem to understand the paradoxes of Enligtenment in the human form, In fact truth is always a paradox to the human mind.
I seriously doubt that you live at Walk about Joy, because that is an Adidam ashram with Adidam practicioners and I seriously doubt they are studying with you, I just hate to see baloney bandied about on the internet, but it does happen a lot. not much to do about it. Flick rahke Check out Elias, a kindred soul
May 20, 2009 at 12:53 pm
John Waters, who are you?
May 22, 2009 at 6:44 am
John are you asking me, petrananda, who I am?
May 22, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Seminar Notes on the Mythical Second Coming of Divinity to Humanity
(This is a first draft. My paid student editors will help me polish off this essay and make it shine.)
The long anticipated “Second Coming of Divinity to humanity” is the bringer of whole-ness, unity, one-ness, revitalization and newfound health and brain integration to a long-disoriented, hyper-emotional, and otherwise dangerously disabled humanity.
There are a great many stories, poems, theatrical plays, songs, and other imaginative renderings of this old “messianic” prophecy. In fact all the modern civilizations have a different version of the “messiah” as a core myth. This “return of God” is really a prophecy about the next major step in human evolution- to a form of brain activity that no expert today can define. The ancient idea of evolution as the former of humanity is that “God” is the “Creator” of the world and of humanity.
By “expert” I mean a professional expert in psychology, and/or education, and/or psychiatry, and/or neurology, and so forth. Just having dreams and poetry and myths isn’t enough. Fairy stories are for immature people. Immature people can’t reform dangerous present hyper-emotional humanity.
Science approaches humanity as an aggregate of visible points- what microscopes enlarge and show to careful investigators. Each visible component is also subject to detailed chemical analysis- down to elements- atoms and molecules. And physical scientists show each atom is composed of even tinier parts. The analysis- disintegration- breaking up- of humanity is thus the present focus, not the integration of humanity.
This process of analysis is the focus in modern cultures- the isolation of one letter, one word, one sentence, one paragraph, one essay or argument, and one legally named person from another. In fact vast libraries of legal documents and other critical works are the focus of study for millions of professional experts plus billions of academic school students from kindergarten on up.
Question: But where are the classes on integration? Where in your city, town, or county is there even one school in which integration is the core subject?
Integration can be introduced by a writer-teacher, but integration integrates the mind, the body, the brain, the emotions, the senses, the languages, the organs, the tissues, the cells, and all the persons who are studying in the class on integration. So this can’t be mainly words and names. Integration is a brand new teaching! You’ve never studied integration before!
It’s true that there is the word “integration.” But talk is cheap, and talk and writing- verbalization- is merely a small part of human intelligence. Furthermore, this article is just talk. So are all the holy books just talk. And if you go to a credentialed teacher who is said to be holy- that is to say “of divinity” or a “representative of God,” you still won’t be taught about integration. You will just be taught a lot of words about some traditional religion or philosophy. And none of the old cultures produced the next step in human evolution. So humanity remains immensely confused and immensely destructive. And a lot of highly intelligent people today are genuinely concerned about the human situation. They don’t know about integration, the next step. They can’t teach what they don’t know about.
Today in fact many fanatical people are plotting to use mass destruction against certain hated nations. These fanatics plan to build or steal weapons of mass destruction and use them as soon as they possibly can. To expand your awareness keep up with the news. Study many sources of information. Don’t just hum, chant, dance, pray, and titillate your emotions and the emotions of other people in your “holy” church or temple.
What is rational, sane, and financially solvent humanity going to do down the road- for the coming decades and centuries- and millennia- to prevent a global war or a space war? What do you say? What does your school say? And what are you doing to expand your consciousness and the consciousness of other people.
After WWII and atom bombs used against Japan- even back in 1950 it was clear that somebody has to work hard and figure out what must be done to teach young people how to keep on expanding the human consciousness and the human intelligence- and of course- pay them to continue doing this while teaching other young people the new pedagogy that opens up the human mind to new ideas on an everyday basis.
Since 1980 I’ve made extensive use of Humboldt State University library, professors, and students for my research, teaching, discussion, and editing. Since January of 2000 I’ve been enrolled as an over-sixty student at HSU. And in 2003 Professor Emeritus Samuel P. Oliner set up a special trust fund for paying one or more students to assist me as editors, research assistants, and other kinds of helper. And now a new class at HSU is being proposed- the “Human Integration Project.” In this new class each day I will participate as a facilitator and provocateur. I will introduce this new integration pedagogy in theory and in practice. A regularly employed HSU professor will preside and grade papers. Proceedings of this HIP class will be put on the Internet or published in some other way.
I hope to meet you there.
John
May 23, 2009 at 10:42 am
I left Adi Da Samaraj because the revelation of Narcissus was unbearable to me. Yes there were “others” that hurt me, that abandoned me, but it’s what I did in the face of that created the real suffering. You can say anything you want about this incredible being Adi Da Samaraj but in my reality he was the only one who showed me true love, who was willing to insult me to the ultimate degree to help me to see my real condition. Every day I pray that I live the gift of revelation he gave me. I pray that I live as an open heart surrendered to truth, and aligned to the beauty he demonstrated to me. In my life He was the only one that loved me freely and fiercely. Not me as a separative ego, but me as an aspect of the divine shining to infinity and throughout each and every body mind.
May 24, 2009 at 1:08 am
NC John Waters has plenty of self published stuff about his life and himself on line if you google him. He is not the film director though. I am sure he is a harmless and benign person. I think just a bit deluded about his state. whatever Flick rahke
May 24, 2009 at 2:57 am
thankyou NC for that; I can resonate with all that you said. He has given me the sidom, the clarity, the understanding, the love, the capability, or at least the arms to realize how to truly live in this world of conflicts and duality. My life is thus so much happier and relational and easy. In a nutshell He has shown how best to use ones feeling-attention. I no longer live 24/7 as the clenched fist. Whatever He has always shown that it is only about self-responsibility regarding ones feeling-attention. His way is truly about becoming mature, growing out of ones separative acts. Whatever people think about Him, that does not matter as much as taking on full responsibility for ones feeling and attention, those faculties that are truly the responsibility of the individual.
thank you Adi Da for being part of my life, and helping me to see the foolishness of my separative ways.
May 24, 2009 at 1:04 pm
I was involved in the periphery of the Free Daist Communion in the late 80s. Nobody hurt my feelings. I wasn’t abused. On the contrary, it appeared to me Adi Da’s devotees were abusing Him. They were involved in one rather self-absorbed, solipsistic and self-defeating ego-adventure after another and tenaciously failing to recognize What, exactly, Guru Da was Offering. When I left, I was heartbroken and devastated because I knew I had serious issues, and I didn’t see how I could possibly move through (what I perceived to be) a massive body of dilettantes who had managed to find gainful employment as members of the Sacred Community organized around the World Teacher, Avatar Adi Da Samraj, the One Who Came to Restore and Reveal the Way to Realize the Divine for all beings, all time, all space.
When I left in 1990 or ’91 it wasn’t because I “decided” Adidam was a scam. It wasn’t because somebody hurt my feelings. It wasn’t because Adi Da was so very mean and scary. It was because I wasn’t ready. I wasn’t autonomous yet.
It isn’t necessary to join a community to approach the Guru to become combined with oneself. The head-games people play with themselves and the Guru in order to hang on to their illusions, their perpetually self-recreated and self-re-sustaining suffering is curious and bewildering to me. If they’re already enlightened, then what do they need the Guru for?
I don’t really understand why people approach the Guru for anything less than What He Gives. Adi Da does not Promise to perfect the ego. He Demands the relinquishment of that. Relinquishing or letting go hurts. It doesn’t hurt to satisfy the Guru. It hurts so you won’t pick it back up again.
May 28, 2009 at 6:24 pm
I connected with Adi Da by watching a video. At that time I had’nt any other experience with Gurus…but it was obvious when I saw him that this was who I am. So an intense study commenced on the subject. After two or so years I felt compelled to do the introductory course and the psychological test before taking the vow. A year later and a few days before the taking of the vow officially, I went to a satsang meeting with Isaac Shapiro. After the meeting while chatting to Isaac there was a long period in which there was no mind. So taking the AdiDam vow was naturally put on hold. After a few months and some intense night time dreams, Da came back into view and it was’nt long before the ‘vow’ became a necessaty. I began planning a trip to the States as it was said that Da was giving open Darshan and was known to be making trips to his various ashrams. But my trip planning quickly got delayed by an opportunity to go to Holland to retreat with Isaac. At this retreat it was clearly seen that I was everything without the identity of an I. A short period of about 3 months of bliss followed. After which there was a deep depression. During this time and the time of bliss, I would sit and meditate on the Murti of Da. There was an awareness of a ‘need for a Guru’ that was falling away, and yet there was an I that was holding on tightly to it. This was when I met a teacher called Avasa. Avasa himself was also deeply touched by Da’s works. While hanging out with Avasa there was an experience in which everything dissappeared and then recreated itself with helixes of light. It also became evident that everything is imagined and that there is no such thing as a ‘seeker’ and a ‘search’…let alone an ego…..that there is no seperate I in this body.
Eventually Avasa too faided into the background…but the essence of Adi Da remains. This essence is the same One that was recognised the day I saw Him. There is no need here for a ‘belief’ in Da to be who ever he claimed himself to be. Yet, daily, he rises as a thought…an unexplainable force, the intelligence that is everything. Words fail here and words written under the names of those who have written on this blog before, write my failed expressions. Its all the same One writting. It is the very essence, existence itself, that matters. Every body plays out its conditioned way and this in turn, when interpreted, can sway the attention from what this really is all about. So what is it all about…who knows?
May 29, 2009 at 12:57 pm
adi da is about the transcendence of the conditional self. You know this. Contemplation of Him is what He instructs. you know this.
May 29, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Adrian Setterfield Says:
“Words fail here and words written under the names of those who have written on this blog before, write my failed expressions. Its all the same One writting. It is the very essence, existence itself, that matters. Every body plays out its conditioned way and this in turn, when interpreted, can sway the attention from what this really is all about. So what is it all about…who knows?”
Answer:
It is all about oneness. It is all about everything. It is all about what K often called “the immensity.”
May 29, 2009 at 4:37 pm
What’s struck me most in the months since Da’s death is how little impact it seems to have had outside the narrowly-focused Daist/ex-Daist community. I’m a member of more than one large nondual sangha in the SF Bay Area and am plugged into multiple Buddhist and neo-Advaitic communication networks, and have been struck by how people in the broader “spiritual” community seem to have remained entirely entirely unaffected by, and indeed unaware of, Da’s passing.
Even ten years years ago I’m quite sure this would not have been the case, as Da was still a hot topic and frequently came up in conversation, but in the interim I think the overall spiritual subculture has largely moved on and forgotten about dear old Da. The similarly plugged-in people I’ve mentioned Da’s death to have expressed surprise that it didn’t make a bigger splash, but then have basically shrugged and moved on to the next topic, making my point. Impact: null. As one friend put it, “kind of a dud, no?”
May 30, 2009 at 6:08 am
Obviously , Adrian has had some experiences of Adi Da’s direct Transmission. Da speaks the Self to the Self and also Transmits the Self Knowledge to the Self. People can get intuitions of this by reading his written teaching and also from pictures and direct contact with him while he was in the body. also in direct contact with his physical ashrams and so forth. Now, also his artwork if so attracted that way.
I myself have practices and retreated intensively with various Buddhist teachers and have great love for the Buddhist dharma and practice.
But I always found Adi Da’s teaching and Transmission the most potent and immediate and liberating in the moment if I open to it and him.
Adi Da was not so popular because he was a wiid and unruly teacher and demanded real practice and discipline of the body and mind and surrender of ego. In the deepest and realest sense. he was not an easy or “mellow” teacher. So much in new age religion and spirituality including the newer “nondualism” is about idealisms and ego glory and not about practice and sadhana. it is about talking about realization and not actually practicing even the beginning aproach to it. it is full of self glorifying delusion and fake “enligtenment” I have been around a lot of teachers and communities and seen this first hand.
I was also in Adi Da’s community of practice too. There was often immaturity in disciples and the community , because they are simply humans also trying to grow spiritually like the rest. But Adi Da always demanded real practice and discipline and offered much in return. So whether or not he was “in” or not never made any difference to me and it does not now. Pop spirituality may have more adherents due to the lack of real demand for practice, but that means nothing to me . So I have found islands here and there of more of the real thing in the “spiritual subculture” but not much to write home about. Flick rahke
May 30, 2009 at 1:57 pm
A raindrop is about the transcendence of the conditional self. You know this. Contemplation of a raindrop is what a sage instructs. you know this.
May 31, 2009 at 12:26 pm
Exactly thirty days before Adi Da’s passing I delivered a talk in which I was prompted to comment about him and his work practically for the first time; talk which included a spontaneous ‘prophecy’ about his death. http://tr.im/mXAY (text), http://tinyurl.com/lhwer5 (audio stream). Do with it whatever you want to. Namaste.
June 1, 2009 at 12:14 am
Well I read the talk and it was interesting , as it was a commentary from an outside point of view so to speak. But you pretty much missed the point of what Adi Da was up to and how he was teaching and transmitting what he was teaching, he was doing it differently than the Buddha or your lineage of gurus.
You should read some of his more recent stuff , such as the Aletheon , where he spells it out. And he certainly is An Avataric Personality, in the sense of being able to transmit his state to anyone who is open to it , and that is why he required all the surrender and disciplines so strictly. It is not just a “talking school” thing. His work is effective at a Transcendental and also Spiritual level. In other words, there is yoga involved in the real sense of yoga. He said that relationship to him is also a matter of “conductivity” So the Teaching and Transmission penetrates to the toes , to the heart, to the cells. it is not just in mind or the head. In fact , the mind itself is transcended.
Anyhow, people should read some of the newer texts. I cannot translate very well for this great enlightend sage and avatar. People can dissect him and analyze him and critique him all they want, but you need to go much farther to feel who he is and benefit spiritually from him.
No one was in a prison on that island. I know many who lived there and any could leave at any time. Many rumors abound in the new age spiritual community. Now I know it was not an easy practice there either. Much is really required to actually go through real ego transcendence. Ego is more than just a little illusion in mind.
Flick rahke
June 2, 2009 at 10:19 pm
A raindrop, while lovely has no way to point out our delusions. I suppose if one were properly aligned to the raindrop, there may be an awakening of some kind, but it sounds like flowery poetry to me. No one likes to look at themselves so directly has Samaraj Adi Da demanded, because it demands everything. I don’t really mean this as a criticism of you John Waters, but as a reality check for myself.
Beloved was insulting to the ego, He loved the truth Perfectly. He was the portal to the perfect condition of the raindrop….to you…to me…to all reality. Not Him as a separative ego, a famous person, but as his condition, that was animated through the vehicle of his body mind and personality.
June 2, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Clara Llum, that was an insightful, and generous talk….and I appreciate that, but once I saw the truth of Adi Da Samaraj I was more than smitten. When you use the phrase “dangerous game” I nearly wept. How did he ever sum up the bravery endure what he had to for the sake of the Truth? How did he accomplish all that he did in so short amount of time?
Anyone who takes any issue with his building sanctuaries of worship doesn’t really get what they are all about. We live in a world that would, and is tearing apart the natural world for the sake of profit. There needs to be places set aside to nurture our spirituality, so we can face the places that are built on fear, anger, sorrow, and the whole array of reactive emotionality that we humans tend to indulge. So we can let those things go, and allow the truth to manifest. Of course we don’t have to go there to do this, but what is wrong with having these advantages? What you address is the error of the devotee, not the guru.
I say this respectfully. I can feel your heart and believe me the value of that does not escape me. I am no longer formally involved with his work, but I have no general criticisms of anyone involved. I do happen to feel that some people there are deluding themselves, that’s human enough. You don’t have to be a member of Adidiam to play that game. In fact I find myself to be quite full of crap on a daily basis. Excuse the vulgarity, but that’s my lot to transcend. Thankfully, Beloved gave me some advantages to work through this.
June 3, 2009 at 9:02 am
People are so concerned about the conditional world when in fact it has nothing to do with the real practise of locating the Divine here, there and everywhere. The beauty of Adi Da’s teaching for me is in the now, whatever the condition. Yes conditions do matter, especially as they act as mirrors. However it is the discipline of Being Love right now that matters . Remembering the Divine is forgotten if we are remembering the conditions of life primarily.
thanks for the recent posts.
June 5, 2009 at 1:49 pm
“It” is simply and most effectively a Communication of mutual Love-Bliss, and Adi Da is Himself the practice. He Is Eternally Present on every and all “levels” of experience to Call and Draw all beyond the lure (and the inevitable wretched results) of devotion to illusion. He Is the Identity, Means and Necessity to practice. He Provides everyone everything—immediately and on every imagined level—to Realize Him in this moment.
June 6, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Witness the confusion of certain memories of a certain person with something “IT” that is infinitely more. Witness a trap that many people have fallen into. People- even many old people- remain innocent and naive. Loss of ego means I- a named person- is not relevant to the issue, which is loss of egoity. Names and words are smoke and not the fire- the light- the energy- the potency- the divinity.
June 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Thank you Petrananda and Dagmar for a breath of sanity and intelligence . Nice to see some non quacks posting here, Flick
June 8, 2009 at 2:17 pm
There are many teachers of nonduality. Consider Adyashanti:
“Adyashanti’s nondual teachings have been compared to those of the early Zen masters and Advaita Vedanta sages. Expressing both the infinite possibilities and the ordinary simplicity of a spiritually realized life, Adyashanti’s teachings are directed to those who are sincerely called to awaken to their true nature and embody this life-changing realization.” Arise and open your eyes wider.
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=teachings
June 17, 2009 at 11:30 pm
after not having looked at this blog (or even thought about it) for several months i felt moved today to check it out again. i was surprised to find new activity.
i checked Clara Llum’s text and i’d say it is pretty much spot on.
i didn’t read her saying that naitauba (the name of mr. jones’ fijian island) was a prison. for the new people: i was his devotee for 15 or so years and lived on naitauba for 2 years serving him very directly for many hours a day.
naitauba is not a prison. it is easy to leave. clara did say in her talk that it was kind of its own country with no outside control or jurisdiction whatsoever. that is true. if there were crimes committed on naitauba nobody would know about it. however, i have never seen any obvious crimes committed on the island. although, some may consider it a crime that most of the little money that was available went directly to mr. jones’ circumstance (and was mainly used for luxury items and his luxury food). as a result there was VERY little left to feed the devotees who lived and served there causing malnutrition in some.
NC says:
“He loved the truth Perfectly”.
absolutely not true. he lied constantly and he was constantly lied to. the communications to and from him (i have seen lots of it!) was saturated with blatant lies. everybody around him knows that and many complain about it (although not publicly).
Dagmar says:
“it appeared to me Adi Da’s devotees were abusing Him. They were involved in one rather self-absorbed, solipsistic and self-defeating ego-adventure after another and tenaciously failing to recognize What, exactly, Guru Da was Offering.”
really, this was mr. jone’s doing more than anything else. he is most certainly not the victim. yes, there were (and are!) hordes of power-hungry dilettantes around him. but it was mr. jones who had the final say as to who would have what role. and it was him who would repeatedly put exactly the same power-hungry bastards into the same positions. he would fire them repeatedly but only to put them right back into the same positions. that was the case in all those 15 years of my involvement. nobody understood it and it was attributed to his oh so “divine and mysterious play”. but let me tell you, mr. jones was NOT the terribly mis-understood victim here. he repeatedly created and re-created the failure of adidam.
as Observer put it:
“Impact: null. As one friend put it, “kind of a dud, no?””
i would say he had a bit of an impact with his fear-no-more zoo project and also with his art. i do hope that those survive but his “teaching” pales and fails in comparison to true non-duality teachings.
as far as his “transmission” goes that so many quote here:
if his transmission was so unique and powerful then why did nobody realize anything in his company? literally NOBODY, not even his closest devotees – and that according to mr. jones’ own assessment!?
other teachers have accomplished WAY more in 35 years!
for me that was the main reason i left. i felt no spiritual growth in me whatsoever and not even a deepening of my understanding of non-duality. and i served him directly for 4 years, spending many hundreds of hours in his direct (and allegedly very powerful and transforming) company.
i grew WAY more in a few months with sailor bob than in all those 15 years with mr. jones.
FFAC:
thanks a lot for the “trickster guru” essay from alan watts. i had never read that one and my jaw dropped when i did. it seems that mr. jones has read it VERY carefully and put it into practice, creating his adidam scheme. alan’s text describes adidam very very accurately. amazing.
June 18, 2009 at 4:19 am
The true devotee does not care about conditions but about locating God in every now, under all circumstances. Whatever the conditional change the True devotee is yoked to God. What does it matter to him or to her what this or that is happening? (if he isn’t yoked he knows he is able to reyoke). What does it matter what is said about Adi Da and his community? For me I thank Adi Da for revealing to me the activity that I do that separates me from God, from Already Happiness. With that understanding I am able to go here, there and everywhere and see that I am able to locate God irrespective of the condition arising. Adi Da was a guru. His job as with all gurus was to show the devotee the darkness of his/her ways and the light that God is. His job was not to please the whims of those that came to him. He couldn’t care less (from an egoic pov that is) about them and their conditional ways. His only job was to show them the foolishness of their ways. This has nothing whatsoever to do with disciplines or to transmissions. The self-contraction is simply that; contraction upon God by the self. “See this, feel this and stop doing it was his message to me.”
To take on this mature responsibility, this Great Discipline of Locating God in all right nows, being relieved of the stupidness of this own activity is Love-bliss and Joy and Already Happiness. Nothing to do with conditions.
June 18, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Well that is interesting, since most of the neoadvaitism appeals especially to a certain type of person that Adi Da used to refer to as a “solid” type of egoity. This type of egoity manifests as someone stuck in their head or in strong mentalizing. Over the years , the more Hindu based advaita vedanta , with teachers such as Ramana Maharshi , and also based in devotion to the Guru and real sadhana practice and service{of which it sounds like Shiva did his share of} has gotten watered down to its current state of mentalizing. It has been watered down to what Adi Da referred to as “talking school”
Actually , I recently read one of his later texts, “Adi Nadi Shakti Yoga” and he sums this up very well there. My personal hit on it when I see and hear these teachers {and I have heard and seen plenty since I am open minded and check people out} , what I see is “talking heads” talking to “talking heads”.
Clara Llum is one of these teachers who knows Jack squat about Adi Da and his Teaching . To say she “predicted” his death and so forth is the height of egoic arrogance.,
I will not get into personal details, but I asked some people in Adidam if they knew some of the cast of characters posting on this blog and what they were like. Shiva was one and they did know him personally. I do not know shiva , because he was in Adi dam and on the island after I had not been there for awhile,
But I now know a lot about him and his current reaction from the point of view of others around him. He is in an angry reaction due to many factors, Our perception of things is very clouded by our uninspected and untranscended emotional and mental states, and anger and frustration are certainly included there.
Anyhow, I respect the privacy of someone in a public forum , but I understand the posts of this fellow from a much deeper perspective now.
So whatever one thinks about Adi Da’s personal life and manner of teaching{and there is a vast history in the tradition of spirituality of eccentric and “crazy” teachers} his realization of egolessness was and is real and his Transmission of this was and is real, and it is ongoing still. Just because someone like shiva cannot feel this transmission does not mean that it is not real,
I can feel this and relate to it just from reading the books of Adi Da, and I am not even a “member” of his community. I have not been to one of the sanctuaries for years either. So all I can say is that Adi Da is still quite active as a teacher and a transmitter of divine awakening and is available for that.
So I hope that his community can keep all the ashram sanctuaries going as places to meditate and receive. And also keep the books in print and always have them available. The process or awakening for real is usually a life time of practice and for most beyond the current lifetime and that is just the way it is. it is much more than a matter of some teacher just telling you that you are already That and blap, “yep, I am That” so sahley. not quite so simple, although Adi Da had himself hoped it would be so simple when he gave his first talk in L.A.
So no one has yet fully awakenend practicing with Adi Da , but I imagine several will over the coming years. Many will die and pass on not yet awakened too. Awakening is a long term and a real and fierce process and no shame in taking a long time, Check out the real spiritual traditions of
Buddhism and Zen and so forth and see what people really do and go thru in the process, Much more than the “talking school” Flick Rahke
June 20, 2009 at 1:10 am
I worked in communications within the community. I never observed what you perceived. I think you think you’re right. There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. What you see is what you are.
June 20, 2009 at 9:50 am
Flick said:
“But I now know a lot about him and his current reaction from the point of view of others around him. He is in an angry reaction due to many factors”
you may know what some devotees told you, which is most likely the usual adidam rationalization, i.e.: ‘since he left adi da he must obviously be in an angry reaction’. that is apparently the only way they can make sense of it.
be honest, Flick: you don’t know that from people “around” me. you may have heard it from people who knew me a few years ago and haven’t had any contact with me since. people who know me currently will not tell you that i am angry with adi da. simply because i am not and they know me as i am right now.
it seems to me, Flick, (and you have shown that in many posts) that your identification with mr. jones is similar to a devotees’. you utilize the same rationalizations to “explain” how anybody could possibly leave him.
Flick said:
“I understand the posts of this fellow from a much deeper perspective now”
no, you don’t. you just regurgitate other people’s rationalizations. it is apparently the only way a “devotee” can deal with his/her own doubts. in adidam you are conditioned (one could say brainwashed) to attribute all doubts (or any form of criticsm of mr. jones) to “untranscended emotional states”.
Flick said:
“So no one has yet fully awakenend practicing with Adi Da , but I imagine several will over the coming years”
don’t hold your breath. but if it will not happen you will find a rationalization for it. you will. you are already conditioned to do so. just as the editorial department found rationalizations for those many failed “prophecies” of mr. jones. they simply bent the truth and changed the literature. big deal, right? and all changes to the literature (during his lifetime) were always done with mr. jones’ direct and full knowledge and blessing. so much for his “love of the truth”.
NC said:
“I worked in communications within the community. I never observed what you perceived. I think you think you’re right.”
i know what i saw. and i saw a lot of communications, due to my function. it is as simple as that. and i saw heaps of lies going to and from mr. jones. obviously, i am not saying that all of it was lies. it wasn’t. but to say that mr. jones “loved the truth” is very far fetched, to put it mildly…
it’s really simple:
i had great times serving adi da. it was a part of my life i wouldn’t want to miss. i met great people, traveled to beautiful places and had a very interesting and fun service. i don’t regret it and i am not angry with adi da. he always treated me well (which certainly cannot be said for others, as i have witnessed myself on many occasions).
i simply saw that he was not who he proclaimed himself to be. and after having met true non-duality teachers i saw how far off mr. jones really was.
and since this is a non-duality blog after all, i feel moved to share my opinion of mr. jones as a non-duality teacher.
June 20, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Yes, shiva, you certainly show much anger in your posts. It is seething right through whether or not you are aware of it. No one of the devotees told me you were angry. they just said you were “solid” and unable to feel the transmission of Adi Da and that made you frustrated. That is all I know about it .
I am not personally a “devotee” and have not been in Adidam for many years. I still read Adi Da’s teaching and feel direct transmission of the Self in reading it. I bump into devotees off and on and I do retreats with Ammachi and also Buddhist retreats. Neverthess I feel that Adi da was and still is a fully enlitghened being and transmitter of that enlightenment.
I have been around plenty of the neo advaitist teachers and find them rather amusing. I do find Adi Da’s cricism of these types of teachers and their approach pretty much the same as my direct experience of them. I have also read sailor Bob’s stuff and pretty much find him the same as the rest. I find all of that to be “talking school” and not based on practice. I only respcect and resonate myself with the practicing schools. Buddhism is pretty much a practicing school and Ammachi certainly teaches a practicing school, and certainly Adi Da also a practicing school.
I find all this “talking head” stuff of “That Thou Art” and so on to be pretty silly and for people who just want to stay in their conceptual mind with spirituality. Ammachi criticizes this approach also and says that the advaita vedanta approach is for only a very advanced practicioner and that there needs to be much preparation for that kind of advanced “listening”
Even Ramana Maharshi was saying the same thing. But the modern age has watered it down to an idea in the head. I am sure though, that some can get a momentary buzz from this approach. otherwise it would not be so “pop” these days.
Personally I feel Adi Da to be a nonduality teacher of the highest. He just goes way beyond the “talking school” and makes real practice demands. He was a tough taskmaster though, as many gurus have been in the history of spirituality., many have also been acting wildly and eccentrically like he did also. Not everyone can stomach that . Flick Rahke
June 20, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Flick said:
“Yes, shiva, you certainly show much anger in your posts”
yes, i know. we’ve had that “conversation” already. i can be quite the angry sob, which btw – according to mr. jones categories – would rather point to a “vital” than a “solid”. people who know me well and these days would probably categorize me as “vital with a solid streak”.
i get angry at a lot of things. especially stupidity of which there is plenty in this blog.
i am not particularly angry with mr. jones though. anger is an emotion i feel easily and have no problems allowing. if i felt it towards him, i would know!
interesting, btw, what alan watts wrote in his “trickster guru” essay:
“because people love to be types, sort them into groups according to their astrological sun signs or according to your own private classifications, which must be given such odd names as grubers, jongers, milers, and trovers.”
mr. jones came up with “vital”, “solid” and “peculiar”. he really must have studied the essay. he applied virtually all instructions mentioned in it…
June 22, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Well the whole thing about the “strategies” is quite brilliant and very practical and applicable to different sorts of egoic neuroses. I doubt seriously that Adi da ever read that particular essay. People who are offended by him dream up all sorts of things about how he “stole” his teaching from other sources,.
there can be similarities, but there are also huge differences. And he does make light of the differences quite often. I have been reading a book where he writes about Buddhism and Advaita vedanta from the classics and it is very brilliant also. he differentiates very clearly his teaching from these others and also clarifies the similarities also.
After his awakening in the vedanta temple, he did go to Ramama Marharshi teaching to see what it said about what had happened with him and found some similarities and so forth. Over the years, his teaching has remained pretty much the same, but different also in some ways. He had to teach according to people’s response and needs in some ways. it is all fluid in a way.
So yes , you are right. There has been quite a lot of stupid reactivity mostly angry and emotionally based to Adi Da on this blog. that is for sure. Flick rahke
June 23, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Flick says:
“Personally I feel Adi Da to be a nonduality teacher of the highest.”
I know this is a personal question but after months of reading all the posts here, I’m very curious Flick, as to why you were never a formal devotee. I know you’ve always spoken of your admiration for Ammichi and Buddhism but do you believe Adi Da was the One and Only as He proclaimed Himself to be? If no, why not and if yes, why are you not formally involved? You write about your love for Adi Da and defend him from all criticism. You also seem so certain that the many others whose experiences led them to have a critical pov, simply failed to recognize him.
But again, I’m sincerely curious about where you stand with the One and Only proclamation made by Adi Da and Adidam.
June 26, 2009 at 7:32 pm
I was a formal devotee for around twenty years off and on. As far as the “One and only Proclamation” , that is a bit complex and one has to study deeply the spiritual traditions and also Adi Da’s teaching to make any light of it. It has offended me in the past also. he is really talking about what he calls “seventh stage Realization” I think also there might be “levels” of awakening and Realization. He is just saying that no one before him had that seventh stage fully “open eyed and fully embodied Realization” He felt there were some subltle{very subtle } limitations in some of the earlier Realizers and he says why in detail in his teachings and references to the seven stages of life.
To me , I have no problem studying in other traditions, because both the Buddha and Ammachi are way beyond me in level of enlightenment , whatever it is , and I can grow and learn a lot there. I also study and practice with discrimination and I feel like I got much of this from my study with Adi Da and he always encouraged intensive study of all the traditions. I have mostly focused in Buddhism.
I am always open minded about other teachers and give them the benetfit of the doubt. I find the new age advaintins to be pretty deluded from my point of view though. But show me one with some real realization and juice and I wiil acknowledge it and them.
I think the study of the beautiful and clarifying teachings of Adi Da is useful no matter what tradition you are practicing in,
These days I am not reacting to Adi Da as I did sometimes in the past and I do not care one way or the other if he is the one and only seventh stage realizer. He is a fully Enlightened and Egoless being of light and transmits that same realization to anyone who puts there attention on it and opens to it and him.,
That is for sure in my opinion.
July 6, 2009 at 1:35 pm
The full sense that is unitive is worth teaching to everyone, or at least all those who have the innate capacity to access this fullness in themselves. The joy in sharing the unitive sense is highest when it fills many persons in the group. So why should just one person be associated with divinity and worshiped like some golden calf? The full realization is that divinity is for everyone.
July 7, 2009 at 11:22 pm
I’ve thought a lot about Adi Da’s confession of being the First and Only Seventh Stage Adept, and of being the First (but not necessarily the last) Seventh Stage Realizer. I’ve concluded a few things. One, one need not believe that Confession in order to benefit from Adi Da’s Person. Second, in the book “Nirvanasara”, Adi Da says quite explicitly that he has two functions: (1) to critique and set-aright the existing spiritual traditions, and (2) to establish a new spiritual tradition. One may interpret the Confession as a necessary element of the second function. Indeed, a study of existing spiritual traditions shows that they all have Confessions of exclusive superiority. That’s just what the creation and maintenance of a separate spiritual tradition requires. If Adi Da was here merely to critique and set-aright the existing spiritual traditions, he would have had no need to make that Confession. But he had two functions, not one.
July 9, 2009 at 2:59 pm
That makes some sense, Dharmashiva. Yes I agree, it is not a matter of belief anyhow. does not matter if one believes Adi Da’s confession.
Of course, Adi Da often, in fact every moment was sharing the “unitive sense” with everyone around him and beyond his physical circle. In fact , i can feel him sharing it this moment. A Satguru like him is simply and empty Gateway or Window to one’s own True Self. It is innate in all of us, but needs to be revealed. One step of this is to learn the ego patterns that get in the way of this innate knowing or realization. So Adi Da always was critiquing the ego patterns in individuals and also how they manifest in the great traditions.
“Worshipping” a satguru, or the manifest Divine in human form is simply a form of Contemplation of the Divine and a skillful means of awakening to one’s own innate condition. It is one approach that has been common in Indian traditions. It can lead to ultimate liberation.
I always thought of Adi Da speaking to me as the Self talking to the Self and the Self Awakening to Itself.
I am not that much into formal worship myself, but still see it as a useful form of contemplation or meditation. Being more of a Buddhist type, I tend to go less for the puja and more for the meditation straight on. But even in Buddhism , the awakening of devotion is very highly prized. Flick Rahke
July 30, 2009 at 12:35 am
Well said Flick…Da was/is a Revealer…A Gateway…And both bhakti and jnana are necessary on the path
October 31, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I live in Cobb and met whatever his name is when his name was different. It was before the road through Sieglers was closed and I went through to get a drink.
The group with the one said get out. No drinks. Later the road closed as did any feeling of a Mother Theresa moment for the Holy Ones.
Deception is an idea and show me where the local poor are given a chance to become with the one. No cash no trance.
October 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm
Or Ash cant dance . Period.
Get a Mother Theresa moment. Give to the community.
November 15, 2009 at 12:17 am
Almost a year with no Turkey. Buck buck bbaack.
November 15, 2009 at 12:20 am
An american Buba Sai http://www.1888pressrelease.com/india-suddenly-less-silent-on-powerful-guru-sai-baba-pr-gq643vs411.html
December 25, 2009 at 6:53 pm
WELL I hate to see the last words on this nonduality blog on the Passing of Adi Da to be the words of “gotcha game” rather spiritually uniformed rednecks ha ha. So I will say that Adi Da is Alive and Well and still Transmitting. No doubt about it. Flick Rahke
January 6, 2010 at 2:56 am
I posted the bit about Da above. I am no redneck in fact have two masters degrees, and do well enough to live comfortably on my investments.
Having seen many interesting and who can say who is enlightened, but would guess Ivan Illich and Robert Merton are my best guides.
I have seen those milling around Sieglers, now whatever and have to question how easy it is to as PT Barnum would have said, you have a show.
Show yes, but true empathy and food for I am , I am no redneck. There are few in California. And being 4th generation as such, I look at the
newcomers with wonder, as I am truly at home.
Blah blah blar .
January 6, 2010 at 2:59 am
Hugh St. Victor
“To my dear brother Ronolfe from Hugh, a sinner. Love never ends. When I first heard this I knew it was true. But now, dearest brother, I have the personal experience of fully knowing that love never ends. For I was a foreigner. I met you in a strange land. But that land was not really strange for I found friends there.”
And it goes on. You want me to go on some more?
But the man is dead, and life goes on .
January 7, 2010 at 7:58 pm
2010–Short Introduction of My Integration Work
1. People who attend Church regularly depend on the Church to maintain good relations between all members, and to keep everyone’s attention focused on Divinity. Whenever human relations are dangerously weakened, however, Divinity must come again to reassert Itself and clarify Itself.
Today many younger people are leaving the Church, or they never took the Church seriously. There also are more and more crimes against humanity. There are more and more crimes against nature and Divinity as well! This is why Divinity must bring the churches together in a fundamental new understanding that will unite and harmonize more and more people.
There are many old prophecies of harmonious unification under the one Divinity. The traditional cultures present different pieces of the same puzzle of end-time prophecy. My work puts these varied pieces together so that people can study the one whole integrated image. This integration is the long-anticipated Divinity’s return made clear in a testable way.
Churches and Church-based schools need to take the initiative now, because so many secular schools were founded by and still cater to persons who are intensely skeptical of the one Divinity. Each Church accepts at least one inspired prophet or teacher of Divinity, however. This is why the Churches and the Church-based schools definitely need to become the leaders in this new constructive and blessed movement which promotes the one Divinity and studies and cultivates the process of unifying and harmonizing the presently divided humanity.
==========================================================================
2. The schools/churches have failed to teach integration. Integration is the next major step in the creation/evolution of humanity. To teach integration, there needs to be a new school/new culture of integration in theory and in practice. The new school/culture teaches advances in language theory ad practice to integrate the eight intelligences of Dr. Howard Gardner plus the much older intelligences of the human limbic system and the human brain stem.
In each and every traditional nation/culture schools/churches have splintered- dis-integrated in the age of Kaliyuga (age of destruction) and now today the teaching of integration brings the age of truth (Satyayuga) (construction) A world-wide revolution to peace in theory and in practice. This integration teaching integrates all the myths of return of Divinity to bless humanity and advance humanity to a higher level of intelligence.
The past Divinities have failed to teach integration, so they have fragmented humanity more and more. The new school/culture/teaching of Satyayuga reverses that trend in theory and in practice to bring more health, providence, success, and joy to the people in every nation.
==========================================================================
3. So who am I? Well, I am a creative free-lance person doing independent research at Humboldt State University as a graduate student in the over-sixty program. Since 2000 I’ve been working at HSU doing research on creativity, innovation, and inspiration.
My theory of inspiration, innovation, and creativity can be applied in many ways. The new innovative HSU program that I introduce in theory and in practice will be relevant to many subjects being taught at HSU. This innovative program will draw more students from the local community.
Here is some background: About twenty-five centuries ago Plato’s inspired student Aristotle organized knowledge and introduced the RRCS format which is used in all modern schools. The devotion RRCS stands for “Rational Retentive Cognitive Style.” Modern schools still emphasize the traditional Aristotelian system which takes each young person captive and forces boys and girls to concentrate on developing the specialized talents of memory, reasoning, and calculating with numbers.
There is a complementary devotion NRNRCS which stands for “Non-rational, Non-retentive Cognitive Style.” Rather as Aristotle introduced a number of basic principles for optimal rational functioning, my work introduces a number of basic principles for optimal NRNRCS functioning. This introduction makes it possible for today’s schools to create a new system of education. Nothing is taken away from existing education, but NRNRCS is added to the school curriculum. Integration of NRNRCS with RRCS in theory and in practice is the next major step in human evolution.
I demonstrate this integration in my personal presentations. These presentations help people understand both Divinity and the harmonious integration of the two fundamental complementary cognitive styles NRNRCS and RRCS.
==========================================================================
4. To read my many letters of recommendation, go to http://johnlwaters.tripod.com/recommendations2/
January 11, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Of note when you go to a jail, 97 percent of these folks will tell you they are religious in the US. And the amount of in the general population, is about 80 to higher religious.
Agnostics are less likely to commit a crime.
A fact.
January 13, 2010 at 4:52 am
I am not a practising Da devotee, though Avatar Adi Da has touched this lifestream in the most profound way: through confirming the divinity of Self and opening my Heart to the Bhakti state. His gift allows me to acknowledge His ever-present awareness- and gives comfort and deep Love to my soul.
February 27, 2010 at 4:22 pm
“The Cult Test.”
1. The Guru is always right.
“The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”
2. You are always wrong.
“Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a “defect” that needs to be fixed.”
3. No Exit.
“There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”
4. No Graduates.
“No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru’s wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates.”
5. Cult-speak.
“The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult-speak is also called “bombastic redefinition of the familiar”, or “loading the language”.”
6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking
“The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members accept the leader’s reality as their own.”
7. Irrationality.
“The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”
8. Suspension of disbelief.
“The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”
9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations.
“This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation.”
10. Personal attacks on critics.
“Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level.”
Here are the rest of the items, 11 through 100. We do hope #100 is not right in regards to the global warming cult, since many are truly decent people that have simply been brainwashed. But we do see a mass political suicide coming, and that’s a good thing. A damn good thing.
11. Insistence that the cult is THE ONLY WAY.
12. The cult and its members are special.
13. Induction of guilt, and the use of guilt to manipulate cult members.
14. Unquestionable Dogma, Sacred Science, and Infallible Ideology.
15. Indoctrination of members.
16. Appeals to “holy” or “wise” authorities.
17. Instant Community.
18. Instant Intimacy.
19. Surrender To The Cult.
20. Giggly wonderfulness and starry-eyed faith.
21. Personal testimonies of earlier converts.
22. The cult is self-absorbed.
23. Dual Purposes, Hidden Agendas, and Ulterior Motives.
24. Aggressive Recruiting.
25. Deceptive Recruiting.
26. No Humor.
27. You Can’t Tell The Truth.
28. Cloning — You become a clone of the cult leader or other elder cult members.
29. You must change your beliefs to conform to the group’s beliefs.
30. The End Justifies The Means.
31. Dishonesty, Deceit, Denial, Falsification, and Rewriting History.
32. Different Levels of Truth.
33. Newcomers can’t think right.
34. The Cult Implants Phobias.
35. The Cult is Money-Grubbing.
36. Confession Sessions.
37. A System of Punishments and Rewards.
38. An Impossible Superhuman Model of Perfection.
39. Mentoring.
40. Intrusiveness.
41. Disturbed Guru, Mentally Ill Leader.
42. Disturbed Members, Mentally Ill Followers.
43. Create a sense of powerlessness, covert fear, guilt, and dependency.
44. Dispensed existence
45. Ideology Over Experience, Observation, and Logic
46. Keep them unaware that there is an agenda to change them
47. Thought-Stopping Language. Thought-terminating clichés and slogans.
48. Mystical Manipulation
49. The guru or the group demands ultra-loyalty and total committment.
50. Demands for Total Faith and Total Trust
51. Members Get No Respect. They Get Abused.
52. Inconsistency. Contradictory Messages
53. Hierarchical, Authoritarian Power Structure, and Social Castes
54. Front groups, masquerading recruiters, hidden promoters, and disguised propagandists
55. Belief equals truth
56. Use of double-binds
57. The cult leader is not held accountable for his actions.
58. Everybody else needs the guru to boss him around, but nobody bosses the guru around.
59. The guru criticizes everybody else, but nobody criticizes the guru.
60. Dispensed truth and social definition of reality
61. The Guru Is Extra-Special.
62. Flexible, shifting morality
63. Separatism
64. Inability to tolerate criticism
65. A Charismatic Leader
66. Calls to Obliterate Self
67. Don’t Trust Your Own Mind.
68. Don’t Feel Your Own Feelings.
69. The cult takes over the individual’s decision-making process.
70. You Owe The Group.
71. We Have The Panacea.
72. Progressive Indoctrination and Progressive Commitments
73. Magical, Mystical, Unexplainable Workings
74. Trance-Inducing Practices
75. New Identity — Redefinition of Self — Revision of Personal History
76. Membership Rivalry
77. True Believers
78. Scapegoating and Excommunication
79. Promised Powers or Knowledge
80. It’s a con. You don’t get the promised goodies.
81. Hypocrisy
82. Denial of the truth. Reversal of reality. Rationalization and Denial.
83. Seeing Through Tinted Lenses
84. You can’t make it without the cult.
85. Enemy-making and Devaluing the Outsider
86. The cult wants to own you.
87. Channelling or other occult, unchallengeable, sources of information.
88. They Make You Dependent On The Group.
89. Demands For Compliance With The Group
90. Newcomers Need Fixing.
91. Use of the Cognitive Dissonance Technique.
92. Grandiose existence. Bombastic, Grandiose Claims.
93. Black And White Thinking
94. The use of heavy-duty mind control and rapid conversion techniques.
95. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who leaves the cult.
96. Threats of bodily harm or death to someone who criticizes the cult.
97. Appropriation of all of the members’ worldly wealth.
98. Making cult members work long hours for free.
99. Total immersion and total isolation.
100. Mass suicide.
March 1, 2010 at 1:34 am
“Enlightenment is a word. I prefer to take the fantasy out of it by pointing out that the light by which you see and know is nothing less than what everyone calls ‘enlightenment’. Everyone ‘has’ it and no one has it.
It is BEING. Everything is BEING. Since everything is BEING, what distinction can be made that ‘this one’ is more enlightened than that one.
Everything is upside down. Those who say that they are enlightened are playing ego games. Those who do not mention enlightenment unless it is necessary are not playing games with ’seekers’. In the many years I have known Bob Adamson, I have never heard him tell anyone or imply to anyone that he is enlightened. In fact his behavior is extremely ordinary with no ‘airs’ of being special at all.
You can hang around a glorified guru for a life time waiting for the ‘grace of the guru’ to trick your mind into believing that enlightenment has happened.
The introduction to your own true nature is through BEING what you are. It is NEVER about ‘becoming’ anything other than what you ARE.
Bees drown in honey just as seekers paddle around in circles for a seeming eternity or drown in their adorable charismatic guru bullshit.
It is quite obvious that most gurus KEEP the seeker ‘on the path’ through erroneous implications about a ‘future time’. It is good business.
Why free them, when you can make a good livin’ from dem dare seekers? You may not have noticed but it is a multi-million dollar industry.
Some of the most direct pointing is offered right here for free – yet few want it – it seems that most would rather pretend to be on the ‘progressive path’ no matter how frustrating it is, than to kick those old haggard beliefs ‘out the back door’.
We at the UGC have thrust a ‘chop stick’ into the honey jar so that bullshit soaked bees can crawl out of that jar of frustration and endless seeking.
Take it or leave it, it is up to you.
It doesn’t really matter because you were never truly bound in the first instance.”
Gilbert Schultz
go over to the guru cafe and listen to some awake guys. no cultic crap, no jumping through hoops, you can email and talk to them!
http://urbangurucafe.com/
April 9, 2010 at 9:31 pm
A lot of lost souls believing in a lot of things.
What you are looking for is within you right now, not another person. This guy was just another person, picking up on a lot of borrowed thoughts and belief systems carried over from various religious, parsed with a lot of psych-philoobabble. Get it through your thick skulls. You don’t need any belief system or any other person to take you where you already are.
He didn’t tell anyone he was about to kick the bucket because he didn’t know.
“Fully enlightened?” What the hell is that? Acid-trip, saint-adulation fueled fantasy. How can there be a finality to the infinite?
April 10, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Is he still dead?
April 24, 2010 at 1:04 pm
Om Sri Adi Da, Jai Adi Da, Jai Adi Da
June 11, 2010 at 9:07 pm
What I find funny and interesting as I read many of the comments, is that for every person that ever came in contact with Adi Da, there is as many “points of view” about Him.
I won’t bore anybody with my story, other than the fact that all association with him resulted in Love and Bliss. Reading, contemplating, sitting in Darshan, watching The Mummery play, observing his artwork, and even criticizing him….it all has the quality of love.
The criticism is so strong because when you love someone deeply, you are the MOST critical. So, for all the critics, deep down you still love him and you miss the feeling you got when you put your attention on him.
To those that are spiraling in a bliss-pool of his grace, how could you have any other conclusion about the man? Of course he is God!
To those that outright dislike him, and make your comments about “non-duality” (the word itself is dual) you will continue on your own quest of life, and someday may even look back with hindsight and smile when you think of the Non-conventional man that he was….
I guess my point is simply this: Nobody was held by gunpoint to enter into this relationship. I never wrote a check to Adidam that I didn’t feel like writing, and I wasn’t even a formal devotee, yet Adi Da healed my father, and I got a chance to partake in a summer of bliss. I left the community for my own reasons, and spent a few years killing him in my mind. I was successful!!!!
And then guess what happened? IN a moment of utter boredom and physical pain and just a sense of hopelessness of not knowing who God IS (even though i DO understand it mentally)…i stumble upon Adi Da again, on the computer, contemplating his death, and am filled with Bliss, Fullness and happiness….followed by all the same difficulties that existed before!
I recognize I am the flawed person i need to worry about. LIke many of you that lobby the criticism of Da being a “flawed human being”….as if YOU yourself are not completely flawed as well!!!
Sure, a trickster. A god man. A hedonistic bastard! It all fits. And why wouldn’t it all fit? The Divine IS all of these things in infinite forms right this moment.
We expected an avatar to be polite, and we got a crazy uncle instead. You all saw yourselves in Da the whole time. And the story is not over. Doesn’t matter what technically transpired behind the eyes of Franklin….what does matter is that every single one of us CONSIDERED it at one point, and our spiritual life and egoic life would never be the same from that point forward. We all live a lifetime Pre-Da and Post-Da, and whether you’re happy about it or not, is just one of the lasting jokes of this Divine Reality we all share.
So, calm down with your criticisms. You’re not being very “non-dual” (i crack up every time i hear that) What would possibly possess you to lob spiteful comments at a piece of the Divine anyways? If everything is SO non-dual, then Adi Da is as Non-dual as you and Ramana even if he was a 100% charlatan. Get it???
You’re not saving anybody by bashing another. You’re just pleasing yourself. And really, that is all anything is ever about anyways, EVEN WITH the Divine staring you right in the face in human form.
Yes, something to laugh about forever. Thank you, Da.
I’ll continue to swoon into bliss whenever i think of you, and then start complaining and questioning the very bliss itself.
I’m the one that’s currently fucked up. I accept that, now.
June 11, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Also: when Adi Da writes “I am the Avataric Only By Me Super Master God Guy” stuff, do you not realize, that if this “Non-Duality” is the truth of existence, then by HIM writing that down, and transmitting it for you to READ, that you are saying and reading that about YOURSELF, therefore it is completely in line with this wonderful non-dualistic view of reality.
Or, if its used as an ego irritant, then based on the comments here, it worked INCREDIBLY well. By him repeating himself endlessly with that sort of talk, many of you fell into the trap of thinking mentally about it, and didn’t take it as a transcendental proclamation, which you got all butt-hurt about unnecessarily….
=D
You gotta laugh.
June 11, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Do we not apply a sense of humor to the Divine? Is the Divine a boring, old man, sitting on a chair, always saying the perfect thing?
I dunno.
The Divine is the reality of every single stitch of this bizarre creation, and yet when in human form, IT is supposed to wipe your ass and make sure your ego is ALWAYS OK with what is happening.
Because your little ego is so learned, full of book knowledge and the master at all things spiritual. The guy that can send a room into bliss is just a SHAM! But YOU, yes you, capable of criticisms and descriptions of what reality REALLY is (non-dual of course) the real deal. Forget Adi Da, he didn’t accomplish a damn thing in his life.
Nah, you’re the MAN. YOU. The guy that can type his complaints on a messageboard. Lets build an entire island community around your cynical commentary. Where do we start? Hm?
June 13, 2010 at 6:59 pm
So, why aren’t we bashing Krishna or Jesus? They called themselves God in a manner that would be just as offensive to your average ego of the time. Maybe we should dig them up and start bashing them too.
Our patterned ego knows it all, doesn’t it? We can pass judgement so easily when it comes to another. We know it all. We know what a real spiritual master would act like. We have the manual. In our frontal lobe, the display of thoughts and concepts and the constant duality playing itself out somehow can express what “non-duality” looks like.
Krishna. You were an egotistical bastard, looking all pretentious in your garb, fucking the gopis! HOW DARE YOU!!! Although I fuck in my human form, if the Guru does it, then he is a Devil! God must be squeaky clean at all times, never offend ME, and he must never display anger if at all possible.
What a waste for a man like Da to spend a lifetime speaking about the truth of reality, producing amazing artwork and leaving behind spiritual ashrams to enjoy. What an asshole!
Let’s get Elias to take us on a Asstral Realm Dream Tour, so we can go kick Adi Da up and down space-time ONE LAST TIME. He deserves it! Look what he did! He sat around in all these different outfits, each more annoying than the last! SHEESH!
Yes, if i have a dream about something, it means it is REAL. It is cosmic history, you can check it in the Akashic Records even!
I make my life about criticizing anything that isn’t politically correct. My Ego is no “normal” ego! Nay! My ego is super charged with pre-enlightenment wisdom. In fact, I am just here as a ball of light, enjoying the experience of Earth, laughing at all of you as you try to get happiness. My happiness is in tearing people down, showing the light of the divine by sharing DREAMS over and over, revealing truths that nobody has ever realized, because only I get truth from as I lay in my spider-man pajamas in slumber.
How dare Jesus say he was the Way, the Truth & the Light, and nobody gets to God but through him? We should attack christians at every chance, telling them how stupid we are for following a man that would dare utter such a thing! What a prick! stupid long haired hippy looking weirdo, befriending tax collectors and prostitutes!!! how dare he mingle with the lowest of humanity? He should have come to ME, because I know what its all about.
oh, but this Da character really gets me mad. Speaking about the nature of reality, having no choice but to speak from the divine condition, he wrote AS the divine condition, yet when an ego reads it, he gets VERY angry and his mind spins out of control, and it sets him on a path to get revenge for daring to make little ego-boy upset. Although Da explained all of this completely clearly, I will still “kill the buddha” like the SPIRITUAL HERO that i truly am inside (aren’t i beautiful?).
Maybe someday I’ll be the Guru, and i promise never to act like Da, because he did it all wrong! I can attest to that, because I was there, and one time he looked at me weird, and that was it, i knew HE was fucked up! There is no way it was my own projection or shadow. It was HIM! He hurt my feelings mommy, he did. I will point the finger at this fake guru for the rest of my life, until my finger is cast in gold and worshipped at the true murti form of enlightenment. I deserve these accolades because I can utilize a human form to rip to shreds anything that doesn’t fit with this “great tradition” that i know absolutely nothing about.
In fact, all egos like me agree the maharshi is the man, and he NEVER did anything wrong! How do i know this? I wasn’t there or anything, but i READ about it, and i will come to this conclusion for my own sake, so i can continue to adore and worship “safe” spiritual masters, while lambasting the recently alive gurus that i could clearly see were human, and therefore could not be enlightened. Remember, my ego is the cleanest, realest, purest, bestest, most insightful and true ego there ever lived, and there is no way in hell I’m going to drop that beautiful ego to surrender to some crazy Guru that displays so many imperfections! NOPE. Not happening!
An Ego-Prayer at Night:
Please Universe, give me all the experiences I want and desire, without me having to ask for them. ALways make my lives auspicious and never put me in a situation where another person appear superior to me. I promise to be relatively “good”, and I will always stand in the straight line of society, never offending the social group at large, or considering anything taboo or strange.
Thank you, Lord Klik-Klak. Or should I say, you’re welcome. =D
June 19, 2010 at 2:49 pm
http://www.beezone.com/audiofiles.html
2nd talk on right from top.
“Spiritual Master as God”
This talk destroys all of the complaints on this board and anywhere else. People that have a problem with Da simply haven’t gone beyond their little ego yet to a degree where they can truly see a Realizer in their midst. Maybe at one time they did, and then they got “offended”. Well, if you can’t get beyond this offense, then you haven’t seen beyond your own egotistical nature.
Don’t feel bad. Its very common.
June 25, 2010 at 2:18 am
(my previous post was not formatted correctly. I have re posted it here)
I want to thank Adi Da for being the great genius of my life. In so many ways, he shaped developed and transformed me.
Such a shame other parts of his personality were so devastating to all of us. Ken Wilbur said that Adi Da was the spiritual genius of our age.
He was that to me.
I want to thank Broken Yogi (Conradg) for his thankless, brilliant, and heroic efforts to document his thoughts, experience and understanding of cultism for those of us also struggling to make sense of our years devoted to Adi Da.
Adi Da is a contradiction. I was a student in the late 80s and he transformed me. The positive results were dramatic. I was so grateful.
But then there was the other side.
Eventually, through the help of devotees smarter than me, you realize:
1. Adi Da doesn’t give a damn about me. I better cover my ass (i.e. money), or I will be hung out to dry. So you give up tithing and start saving money hopefully sooner rather than later.
2. You realize that the mission isn’t a failure because you are the scum of the earth, but because Adi Da had sex with every woman in the ashram and that was his undoing. Whether right or wrong, it certainly was amazingly naive.
3. Eventually, if you are lucky, you realize that somewhere along the way you became a cultist. I remember seeing a bumper sticker on an old Cadillac that read “God Said It, I Believe It, And That Settles It”. I was like that bumper sticker. I thought Adi Da was the only truth and savior in the world.
4. Once you have a cultic mind, then you can treat everyone like shit and never even know what an asshole you are. The movie that gives the lesson best is “The Big Kahuna” with Danny Devito and Kevin Spacey, When Danny Devito says to the cultic Born Again Christian (Search youtube “Big Kahuna Character Dialogue”):
“It doesn’t matter whether you are selling Jesus or Buddha or Civil Rights or How To Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down. that doesn’t make you a human being, it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly as a human being, ask him about his kids, find out what his dreams are, just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation, to steer it, it’s not a conversation any more, it’s a pitch. And your not a human being, your a marketing rep.”
I had developed a cultic mind, and so did everyone else around me. What a fucking mess.
What Broken Yogi’s observations show us, is that human beings have an incredible ability to look at shit and call it shinola. Broken Yogi’s website has a very helpful discussion on cults and cognitive dissonance. Understanding that it is the people in the cult, as much as the leader, that fuel the insanity, is another helpful insight.
So please do not think that it is not useful to study Adi Da. It is very useful. But also understand that there are many parts to any human being, and just because one part is genius, other parts may be shit.
So thank you Adi Da for your endless brilliant insights and teaching that saved my life. And thank you Broken Yogi for being brave enough to persist in open dialogue long enough to help the rest of us continue to walk out of the mess that became Adidam.
But don’t for a minute throw the baby out with the bath water. Adi Da’s teaching is worth studying.
June 27, 2010 at 9:55 pm
@omax:
“This talk destroys all of the complaints on this board and anywhere else. People that have a problem with Da simply haven’t gone beyond their little ego yet to a degree where they can truly see a Realizer in their midst. Maybe at one time they did, and then they got “offended”.”
no. this talk does not destroy the complaints on this blog. (i was a student of mr. jones for 15 or so years and i know this talk very well (and just listened to it again).) all the talk does, is to set mr. jones up as the ultimate other, the enlightened one to which all the poor little egos must aspire to.
and it is exactly that (among other things) what makes franklin a dualistic teacher.
again: this is a blog about non-duality, and people here criticize franklin from that “point of view”. it has been shown by quite a few people here that franklin simply cannot be called a teacher of non-duality.
in fact, you omax, with your cultic monologue have shown it again. you seem to be a bliss-junkie (bliss is nothing but an experience; it has no significance) desperately trying to work on your ego.
that’s how franklin set you up. however, work on the ego is inherently futile! all that work does, is to prolong the ego-illusion and thereby the necessity for franklin’s “help” to get rid of it. it’s a vicious circle. don’t you see? you reinforce the ego by working on it, by giving it attention and maintenance.
true non-duality teachers do exactly the opposite.
i very much second tom’s suggestion to have a look at urbangurucafe.com. you will find many strong and clear voices there. not all of them are equally clear imho. i find randall friend VERY clear. a rather unknown gem was the conversation with richard collings. very clear as well. but there are many others there. check the site out. it may make things clearer for you.
oh, yes, omax, of course there had to be the “offended by mr. jones” bit. that ALWAYS works with adidam cultists. that’s how they explain almost any and all criticism. that’s how one is conditioned again and again and again being a student of franklin.
personally, i never found franklin fucking around and taking drugs offensive. on the contrary, i liked that about him! as i said many times on this blog. i only remember him treating me well. i served him very closely and directly for 4 years, so he had plenty of opportunity for offending me. i left because i saw the fundamental flaws in his teaching.
franklin was smart. very smart. he was an amazing artist and a good writer. and he may have had a siddhi or two. i never experienced anything unusual with him. not once. but i have spoken to people who did and i am certain they did not lie to me.
he was an interesting character. that’s for sure.
but a teacher of non-duality he was most certainly not. he had glimpses and some parts of his teaching are almost pure non-duality. but he just couldn’t help himself. he NEEDED the attention of his followers. his need for glorification was huge and insatiable. so he always came back to the crap of him being the greatest realizer EVER and that everyone MUST give him their attention… sad really…
but of course, according to the cultist’s twisted logic i only speak out against him because i love him so much. yeah, right.
humans really do have an incredible ability to be manipulated and to see shit as shinola.
i just want to warn people to not repeat my mistake and waste valuable years of their lives with franklin jones. he was and is not the real deal!
July 6, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Shiva:
You spending 15 years with him, and not feeling anything says quite a bit more about you, than it does about him, or anyone else.
So, I guess if I spent 15 years as Eric Claptons guitar tech, and after all that time, I was no closer to being a great guitar player, i guess it would be the fault of Clapton himself?
This is the attitude of most people nowadays. To the modern human, there is nothing sacred, nothing that escapes the cynical and snarky mind of ego.
You say you find fundamental flaws, yet what you claim he had as a teaching is completely false. He never suggested you could work on your ego. Where do you get the idea that Da taught this?
Ah yes, let’s toss out the “cultic” word. Easy to do, eh? I guess someone who isn’t even a devotee is now a cult member! You must be a liberal. People like you find it easy to throw around loaded words like “racism” too.
You are arguing a feeble and obvious point of view, shiva. You point out that some of us might be “Bliss Junkies”, yet you spent 15 years seeking for bliss yourself. Amazing. I guess the nature of reality to someone like you is just a blank nothing where every “one” sits around with a silent cartoon caption over your heads stated that you are all NON DUAL.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHA
I can afford to be annoying, messy and insane. I’m a bliss junkie! OH SHIT!
No, but really, Da is the one that taught that all the silly bliss-outs are merely experiences that don’t change the person fundamentally. I guess now that you are free from his clutches, you can speak of it as if you were an authority.
I guess you have 70,000 images of genius image-art/ photography to show people? I assume you have one or two siddhi’s that you play with on weekends with your friends?
I guess you have an autobiography that illustrates an adventurous lifetime of divine self realization that I could buy ?
May I visit your empowered ashrams?
Perhaps you have 2300 pages of a final book that covers more about the nature of reality than any book prior to it? I’d like to see your scribbling on such matters.
Non-Duality Unite us All!!!!
Sorry you wasted all those “valuable” years with someone you consider talented and cool. I’d hate to be friend of yours in the present time! They must not quite live up to what you really experienced with Mr. Jones.
But anyways, now that I’ve set you straight and you have conformed to my way of thinking, go ahead and send me words of praise if you like. If you don’t, that’s OK, your future Karma will force you to.
G’day.
July 13, 2010 at 12:03 pm
MASTER DA: The self must be transcended not because it is some sort of unjustified and unreal entity, a separate actual something that must be obliterated or somehow dissolved. The self must be transcended because the conventional presumption about consciousness has taken the form of the activity of dissociative contraction and is manufacturing otherness and separation, performing, in other words, the habit of dissociation or separativeness.
Therefore, it is not the self as an entity that must be transcended, because even in Enlightenment the apparent self, present as a body-mind in relationship, continues. It is the self as contraction, the self as this knot, this disease, that must be transcended. Yet its transcendence is not a gradual process that ultimately results in Enlightenment, but truly it is a process that must be successfully or fully completed it every moment. The apparent progress of the Way depends on the complete prior success of the process of self-transcendence, which must occur in every moment.
….so, its ok everybody. What is so threatening about this?
July 14, 2010 at 8:07 am
thanks so much for your reply. has helped me alot already today. please where does this passage come from?
July 21, 2010 at 11:34 pm
http://www.strippingthegurus.com/index.html
chapter 20
July 30, 2010 at 6:00 pm
my first thought was ‘so what?’ the Divine Place is not dependent on anything
August 10, 2010 at 2:42 pm
In the summer of 1974 I happened to listen to the tape Garbage and the Goddess while driving in my car to a conference where I were one of the talkers.
I had a realization of being the ME to which all should come. Since then this has been my life. I have let others come to ME. No content is involved, just open eternal space.
It feels funny, so long afterwards to see this long page concerning the death of Jones. But I have absolutely no opinion one way or the other.
Just a feeling: stop cognizing and come to ME.
Tom in Sweden
October 6, 2010 at 4:50 am
Good riddance to the lousy, pompous, gauche, thoroughly Mafioso spiritual con artist. He abused his gifts, abused his disciples and he abused the great tradition.
November 1, 2010 at 6:26 pm
I encountered Adi Da in the old Yes Bookstore in Washington, DC. I was looking for nothing in particular and flashed on one book in the entire place, “the Knee of Listening”. Just as I had previously gotten thoroughly into Parahamsa Yogananda’s, “Autobiography of a Yogi” purely by “accident” this book seemed very authentic and interesting. I believe in the divinity of us all so cannot either accept or deny the special powers of Adi Da, but it still seems odd how I found this book. -Dave in DC
November 25, 2010 at 10:16 pm
Dave, you can get in touch with the DC area Adidam community if you like. www[dot]adidamdc[dot]org.
July 5, 2011 at 10:11 pm
Da was a good writer. For ten or fifteen years, anyway.
August 1, 2011 at 11:28 pm
[...] January 2, 2009 at 5:10 am [...]