Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

#2857 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - Editor: Jerry Katz

Expand Messages
  • Jerry Katz
    #2857 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - Editor: Jerry Katz The Nondual Highlights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights One: Essential Writings on Nonduality:
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 29, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      #2857 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 - Editor: Jerry Katz
       
      One: Essential Writings on Nonduality: http://tinyurl.com/2blmhy
       
       

       
       
      Daniel Sleeth has sent me some letters and material which I'm including here with his permission. Adi Da Samraj has been a huge influence on many people, through his books alone. People have been put off, to put it mildly, by elements of controversy in Adi Da's circle, his claim that you must turn to him in order to understand, and the sense that no devotee has ever become enlightened.
       
      Still, teachings of Adi Da might be very useful, or as useful as any structure can be.
       
      What follows is my correspondence with Dan Sleeth and a 14 page paper by Dan on why Adi Da should be taken seriously.
       
      Daniel's work is about nondual psychotherapy. Through my book reviews and excerpts in the Highlights, I have shown support for the field of nondual psychotherapy as it is unfolding. Nondual psychotherapy tends to turn to the sage Adyashanti and has roots in Buddhist teachings. I don't think the work of Daniel Sleeth or Adi Da has been recognized by many of the people in that field, so I am offering an introduction to it.
       
      --Jerry Katz
       
       

       
       
      Dear Jerry:

      I have completed a website recently oriented toward integral therapy,
      based specifically on the "Radical" Non-Dualism of Adi Da Samraj.  You
      might interested to see the therapy I make of nondualism, especially
      "Radical" Non-Dualism.  The name of the website is: 
      http://DBSleeth.com

      I have been a devotee of Adi Da Samraj for over 25 years.  Recently, I
      completed a doctoral program in which I based my dissertation on a
      comparative study of the ego in Freud, Jung, and Adi Da.  I have
      several pieces from this work published at this time (The Humanist
      Psychologist and The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies).
      Several more are submitted to other journals.  Perhaps you would be
      interested in having some of my articles appear on your website.
      Please take a look and see.

      ...

      Warm regards,

      Dan
       
      ------------------------------------------
       
      Hi Dan,

      Thank you for letting me know about your website, your work, and who you
      are. Is your work more an important part of the newly named and unfolding
      field of nondual psychotherapy? Or is it more a contribution to Adidam? Can
      you clarify that? In parts there is a sense of exclusivity, that only Adi
      Da's approach is useful. In any case, if it's okay with you, I would like to
      post excerpts to my newsletter, the Nondual Highlights. Links to your
      website would be included, of course. Each issue of the Highlights gets
      uploaded to the nonduality.com website.

      Jerry Katz
      http://nonduality.com
       
       
      -----------------------------------------
       
      Dear Jerry:
       
      Thanks for getting back to me.  I really appreciate the work you
      have done maintaining your website on nondualism and providing a much
      needed forum for nondual authors!
       
      As far as the nature of my work, the answer is actually "yes" to
      both.  What I hope to accomplish is the formulation of a nondual
      psychotherapy--based on the nondualism of Adi Da.  However, it is not
      my intent to suggest only Adi Da's approach is useful for therapy. 
      Quite the contrary, in fact.  Even so, it is my conclusion that his
      revelation of "Radical" Non-Dualism is the only account of nondualism
      that explains how satcitananda "works," or, more specifically, explains
      the relationship between love and awareness.  
       
      As I read mindfulness and nondual therapies, there is a huge
      emphasis on awareness, either in the sense of concentrated, focused
      awareness (i.e., attention), or more diffused and merely observing
      witness consciousness.  There is usually a secondary focus that values
      a vague affective orientation on the part of the individual, referred
      to by certain attributes:  equanimity, peacefulness, kindness,
      compassion, perhaps even empathy or self-esteem.  But rarely, if ever,
      do I read anyone coming right out and stating love is the healing
      principle--much less how love is directly related to awareness.  There
      is a real taboo in our culture and the profession of psychology against
      love in therapy.
       
      Anyway, that's how I see my contribution--making the clinical
      benefits of love explicit, both in terms of being the healing agent and
      a skill set resulting from ever greater awareness.  As far as I know,
      Adi Da's revelation provides the only specific account of why or how
      this happens.  I think it's a shame that his work isn't wider known or
      at least mentioned more often among nondual authors.  Being a living
      nondual sage makes him a tremendous resource.  Please feel free to post
      excerpts to your newsletter.  I look forward to collaborating with you
      and anyone else interested in disseminating the virtues of nondualism
      to a larger audience!
       
      Best,
       
      Dan
       
      ------------------------------

       
      Thanks for your response. Could I publish your letter, as well? Let me know
      of any changes or additions to it that you would like.

      Jerry
       
       
      ----------------------------------
       
       
      Dear Jerry:
       
      Please feel free to publish my letter.  I made one addition.
       
      By the way, another nondual advocate has expressed some interest in
      my work-- [name deleted].  Perhaps you know each other.  He challenged
      me to show why he should take Adi Da seriously as a guru and nondual
      sage.  I have written a 14 page response to explicitly identify the
      reasons why I take Adi Da seriously.  I decided to attach that letter,
      in case it is of interest to you as well.  I'm going to include it on
      my website as an open letter to critics of Adi Da.
       
      Best,
       
      Dan
       
       

       
       
      Testimonial
      by Daniel Sleeth

       

       

                  The following is correspondence directed toward a particular individual who expressed concern over my welfare because of spiritual practices attributed to devotees taking place in the company of Adi Da:

       

       

                  So, we have both had dreams of Adi Da, pursued our own spiritual paths, and have had encounters with many of Adi Da’s devotees, past and present.  Yet, we have each come to diametrically opposed conclusions about Adi Da based on these events.  Amazing!  At best, I can only hope to paint the picture of my own story.  To help serve this purpose, I have attached a file describing my first meeting with Adi Da, in which I became convinced of his enlightened state, as well as another incident in which I was the beneficiary of a miraculous healing at his hands.  These stories go a long way toward explaining my gratitude and deeply heart-felt appreciation of this remarkable Guru.  As you will see when you read them, I have good reasons.

       

      Since you have challenged me to make the case that Adi Da is someone who should be taken seriously, I will do my best to explain at least why I do.  I think it best to take the tiger by the tail and directly address the issue underlying your challenge:  some do not take him seriously.  Let me start with my mother.  First of all, I must say that she has passed away, about ten years ago.  For some time, unbeknownst to our family, cancer had developed in her lungs from a life-time of smoking.  Ironically enough, she had recently quit.  From there, it spread through her body, ultimately penetrating her brain and impregnating it with a slew of tumors.  As is always the case with cancer, they insidiously replaced living tissue with their own.  Finally, she had to give up her last-ditch efforts toward treatment with chemo and radiation.  Surprisingly easefully, she resigned herself to the fact that it had been a good life, and it was now her time. 

       

      One of the remarkable, certainly unexpected side-effects of this process was a sudden personality change right before her passing.  As the brain atrophies, so do certain of its functions.  It was as if she had adopted a shocking mantra of honesty:  “Out of the mouth of babes.”  That is, she no longer possessed any kind of filter to the remarks she made.  Whatever appeared in her mind quickly came out through her mouth, often to the humor, or more likely horror, of an unsuspecting audience.  As I sat with her on her bed during our last visit together, having come from out of town, we reminisced over our life together.  I had brought a recent picture of Adi Da that was noticeable for a particular quality:  given the lighting and the angle of his face in this particular photograph, he was the spitting image of my father!  I found it really amusing.  Unfortunately, my parents had divorced a long time ago, under acrimonious circumstances that had never fully healed.  In pointing out the similarity to her, she held the photograph in her hands and pondered it for many moments.  Finally, she announced her recognition of my comment, offering this insight:  “They’re both bastards!”

       

                  Of course, critics of Adi Da do not know my father, still, I’d say this pretty well sums up their sentiments toward Adi Da.  As you might expect, I was quite taken aback, as is usually the case with conclusions so contrary to my own.  As things turned out, this was to be the last coherent statement I ever heard from my mother, for I was literally on my way out the door.  Needless-to-say, this is a bitter-sweet memory.  Although the innocence she had fallen into made her comment amusing and endearing, even so, it went through me like a knife.  Unfortunately, we never had a chance for closure on this matter.  However, there has been no shortage of similar incidents over the years, indeed, not unlike the encounter we are having now.  Consequently, I would like to use this as an opportunity to address her concerns at last, and, hopefully, put her mind at ease.  You could think of this exercise as a catharsis for me, whereby I exorcise some of my demons.  I hope you don’t mind.

       

                  In considering my reasons why Adi Da should be taken seriously, it was surprising to discover how simple they are to state.  Given the acrimony appearing on the internet, I had expected the matter to be far more complicated.  But the legitimacy of Adi Da’s work can be summarized rather easily, in three colloquial propositions:

       

      1.      the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth;

      2.      the truth that sets the heart free; and

      3.      the truth that explains every aspect of reality.

       

      If you were to stop right now, you would have all you need to understand why I hold Adi Da dear.  But, in that case, you would never know the reasons why I came to these conclusions.

       

      I have been a devotee for nearly twenty-five years, starting in the early eighties.  At that time I was a returning student, flush with the effort to finish college, as you can see from the attached story of my first meeting with Adi Da.  Since that time, I have competed two master’s degrees and a doctorate degree in the field of clinical psychology.  I have also studied seriously in the area of comparative religion in between these bouts of academia, while engaged in my spiritual practice with Adi Da.  Over this period I have read hundreds of books, many of which steeped in their respective spiritual or psychological tradition, as well as scholarly rigor.  As a result of this study, I have come to the conclusion that even the best books are mostly untrue.  Unfortunately, conventional wisdom is inevitably compromised by a triumvirate of attributes, which limit it in this way:  redundant, erroneous, or irrelevant. 

       

      Even on its own, the first of the three propositions of truth mentioned above establishes that Adi Da is someone to take seriously.  I have yet to find a single sentence in his astoundingly vast corpus of work either erroneous or irrelevant.  Redundant, yes!  (I’ll get back to that in a moment.)  But in no way either of the other two.  More to the point, the nature of his work makes this accomplishment that much more astounding, for he is not speaking of relatively simple matters, as might be said of one’s hobbies or current events.  Rather, his work addresses the most sublime and profound nature of existence possible, such as nondual reality.  Indeed, his work is utterly confirmed in the most eminent scriptures and doctrines mentioned throughout the history of the nondual spiritual traditions.  Especially early in my study of his work, I have not always understood everything he says.  Nonetheless, everything that I have understood has in each case been confirmed in my own experience and by my studies.  I’ll never understand why this alone is not sufficient to impress his critics.  Truth is held in the highest regard in the sanctum of the courtroom, the standard by which testimony is considered both admissible and meaningful.  It ought to have at least as much significance in discussions such as ours.

       

                  In fact, the only legitimate complaint in this regard that I can see is the redundancy of his writing.  Virtually every paragraph says the same thing!  And it can all be boiled down to essentially a single statement:  there is only God, and Adi Da is that One.  Some people find this claim narcissistic and egoic, which is certainly ironic, given his relentless criticism of exactly these qualities.  I’ll return to the topic of his divinity again later.  As for redundancy, I have finally come to realize how important it is.  After all, the ego is a formidable aspect of our nature.  It simply won’t go away.  In my clinical practice, I work with people with mental disorders and find that most people don’t change very much, even despite years of constant, sincere effort.  You find that you have to repeat yourself over and over again.  It seems like you are always talking about the same old issues—and you are!  And so is Adi Da, precisely because we, too, are geniuses of resistance.  Indeed, the ego can make even our greatest help look like evil.  It is often said that the greatest evil ever done by the Devil was to make it appear he doesn’t exist.  But this is not true.  The greatest evil was to make it appear that God doesn’t exist—especially in human form.  To my mind, the crux of our discussion comes down to this:  Is Adi Da really God?  If so, then drawing attention to himself as he does makes perfect sense—such is simply the nature of worshiping God.

       

      Of course, one could dismiss Adi Da’s utterly profound utterances on nondualism as merely abstract formulations, inapplicable to ordinary human life, or perhaps even derivative of other sages and of no great consequence.  But this would represent a false reading, especially in the case of the latter statement, for his work is remarkably original and innovative within spiritual literature.  Indeed, the scope of his revelation on the seventh stage of life and “Radical” Non-Dualism is unprecedented.  (For more information on the seven stages of life, visit Adidam.org.)  Although the language of certain premonitory texts, such as the Lankavatara Sutra, Avadhoota Gita, and Tripura Rahasya, sound similar, they can be distinguished from the revelation of Adi Da in three significant ways:

       

      1.      no historical text mentions all aspects of the seventh stage realization,

      2.      certain aspects of the seventh stage realization appear in no historical texts at all, and

      3.      no historical text mentions only the realization of the seventh stage.

       

      Again, this alone sets Adi Da apart as someone to take seriously.  Existing texts represent primarily what Adi Da calls the sixth stage point of view of “Ultimate Non-Dualism”—with only certain passages within them suggestive of the more profound and all-pervasive realization of seventh stage “Radical” Non-Dualism.  Adi Da explains the difference between his unique revelation of the seventh stage of life and the seventh stage intuitions of these premonitory texts this way:

       

      The (always potential) seventh stage Realization and Demonstration did not Appear until I Appeared, in order to Fully Reveal and to Fully Demonstrate the seventh stage of life.… Therefore, relative to the seventh stage of life, the Great Tradition of mankind (previous to My Avataric Divine Appearance here) produced only limited foreshadowings (or partial intuitions, or insightful, but limited, premonitions), in the form of a few, random philosophical expressions that appear in the midst of the traditional sixth stage literatures. 

       

      [N]one of the traditional texts communicate the full developmental and Yogic details of the progressive seventh stage Demonstration (of Divine Transfiguration, Divine Transformation, and Divine Indifference).  Nor do they ever indicate (nor has any traditional Realizer ever Demonstrated) the Most Ultimate (or Final) Demonstration of the seventh stage of life (Which End-Sign Is Divine Translation).  Therefore, it is only by Means of My own Avataric Divine Work and Avataric Divine Word that the truly seventh stage Revelation and Demonstration has Appeared, to Complete the Great Tradition of mankind. 

       

                  To this point, all spiritual masters have necessarily worked within the cultural constraints imposed by their particular time and place.  Only in the last half of the twentieth century has technology and affluence allowed for the creation of a true world community.  Consequently, the conditions have only recently occurred whereby the provincialism of local customs and loyalties could be overcome, and the world’s great spiritual literature completed in a single and all-inclusive revelation.  A world teacher could not have appeared before this time—the conditions simply were not right for it.  Adi Da has incarnated precisely for the fulfillment of this purpose, to be the greatest possible aid to humanity.  His revelation of seventh stage wisdom is not intended to fulfill the objectives of any particular sect or denomination.  Rather, it is intended to be a comprehensive culmination of the entire Great Tradition of the world’s religions.  To my mind, this too is more than enough reason to take Adi Da seriously.

       

      Of course, one could simply disagree with Adi Da’s assessment of his role relative to humanity and the Great Tradition, and in that case remain unimpressed.  But to do so would be to discount the objectively measurable nature of his spoken and written word, as well as his more recent enlightened expressions in the form of photographic art.  Indeed, not everyone is willing to overlook him this way.  For example, despite being an uncompromising critic, Ken Wilber has always maintained that the nature of Adi Da’s spiritual revelation is unsurpassed:

       

      Do I believe that Master Adi Da is the greatest Realizer of all time?  I certainly believe he is the greatest living Realizer.…  And I have always said—and still say publicly—that not a single person can afford not to be at least a student of the Written Teaching.…  I affirm my own love and devotion to the living Sat-Guru, and I hope my work will continue to bring students to the Way of the Heart.…  I send my best wishes and love to the Community [of Adidam], and a deep bow to Master Adi Da.

       

                  Yes, in a word, Adi Da is to be taken seriously.  But, as you say, this is not what very many of his critics are doing.  Consequently, I can only conclude the issue is being adjudicated elsewhere—that is to say, in the domain where the measure of Adi Da is not objective, but subjective.  To my mind, two of the above propositions can be addressed objectively:  the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth; and the truth that explains every aspect of reality.  It is the second proposition that is troublesome in this regard:  the truth that sets the heart free.  That is, whereas the objective is about beliefs and essentially intellectual, the subjective tends to be emotional, pertaining to one’s deepest values.  It is precisely in this latter domain that the sparks begin to fly. 

       

      All things considered, given the overwhelming evidence in Adi Da’s favor, I can draw only one conclusion:  the real question is not whether Adi Da should be taken seriously at all, but rather another—why was this legitimacy ever called into doubt?  What would possess anyone to do so?  Clues to the answer, as might be obvious, come not from the teaching, but the teacher.  Unfortunately, it is at this point that the water gets particularly murky.  Bear with me as I sort out the issues, for the undercurrents we are about to enter are rarely what they seem.

       

                  To begin with, Adi Da is thought by some to have crossed the line as a Guru, thereby wrecking a kind of spiritual havoc.  Objections to Adi Da come down to this, a two-fold account of the teacher:

       

      1.      claims on his part to be the incarnation of God, and

      2.      claims by others that he abuses his devotees.

       

      The latter especially is thought to detract from his credibility, which I’ll get back to momentarily.  The former, on the other hand, will probably never be resolved except as a matter of faith, although being the author of such a profound and scintillating teaching certainly suggests something similar of the teacher.  Indeed, I have to express my great surprise in this regard.  After all, the teaching did not fall from the sky.  How could such a profound and superlative teaching possibly occur if not for an equally profound and superlative teacher?  As with us all, his words are a product of his own being, an expression of his own nature. 

       

      But therein lies a major clue to the mystery:  if his words suggest divinity, then he must be divine.  Surely this captures the objection to him perfectly—his critics simply don’t like the idea of him being divine.  Consequently, the underlying issue of our discussion can be spelled out like this:  if Adi Da is God incarnated in human form, all criticisms are pretty much rendered moot, for who is in a position to question the acts of God?  Needless-to-say, the very notion sticks in the craw of most critics, who are not inclined to worship Adi Da.  On the other hand, if Adi Da is not taken to be God, than nothing he says or does will ever make any sense.  All of his work relies explicitly on the fact of his divinity.  There’s no getting around it; this conundrum represents the heart of the dispute.

       

                  In Western society, the idea of a human being claiming to be God is anathema to prevailing spiritual sensibilities, indeed, even blasphemy in certain quarters.  I once worked for a foster family agency and was looking around for a suitable place to host our annual dinner.  One possibility was a church nearby in the community.  To secure the facility, I interviewed with the pastor, who was a personable and outgoing advocate of his faith.  As I listened to his praise of Jesus and unabashed devotion, I became more and more impressed by a commonality between us:  I love my Guru too!  Finally, I could stand it no more and announced how wonderful it was to meet someone so similar—we each loved a Guru as our Lord and Savior, the very presence of God alive in human form!  Unfortunately, he did not share my enthusiasm.  Indeed, he was aghast by my confession, to the point it appeared he might even leap across the desk and throttle me.  Slowly, painstakingly, he pointed out how inappropriate the comparison was, for no human being could possibly be God.  Nevermind the obvious contradiction, there can be only one exception.  Indeed, he ensured me I was in the grip of the Devil and should take care, for the sake of my soul, as you likewise appear to be doing.

       

                  To me, this is bald-faced discrimination, pure and simple.  Why Jesus but not Adi Da?  Or any other spiritual masters, for that matter?  No incompatibility exists in this at all.  Even worse, in my mind, was the destruction of something loving and wonderful taking place between us.  Whenever I go home for the holidays, a similar pattern invariably occurs.  I know my family worries about me.  My father is a devout Christian and cannot for his life figure out my conviction that Adi Da is the incarnation of God, although he does accept and appreciate the fact that I love God.  But we understand God in very different ways:  in his case, a discrete being, however extraordinary and immense; and in mine, the very nature of reality, which includes us all.  This is the heart of nondualism—not only is there no separation between self and others, but no difference between self and God either.  So long as this conviction is in doubt, much will remain inexplicable.  One thing I know for sure:  my father wants his God dead; it is too much for him to face God alive.  And I don’t blame him.  The confrontation from a living God is a demand for love and intimacy far beyond anything any other human being will ever ask.  To paraphrase a great existential theologian, it not only takes courage to be, but it takes courage to love unconditionally.  Probably no other axiom more succinctly summarizes spiritual practice than this.

       

      Again, this brings up a crux point in our discussion:  the vision of Adi Da that his critics paint is a caricature, created solely for the purpose of a straw man argument.  It bears no resemblance to the loving, caring, deeply sacrificial spiritual being that I know.  Indeed, when it comes to truth setting the heart free and taking Adi Da seriously, I can think of no better way to put it than the old homily—the proof is in the pudding.  I have practiced the way of life he recommends for nearly twenty-five years.  How could such a wealth of testimony be discounted?  I have also sat in his company numerous times, including occasions in which he has carried on lengthy discourses with others, a principle means by which I have come to know him personally.  At no time have I ever observed him to be other than utterly brilliant spiritually, often uproariously disposed toward humor and mirth, and never without deeply moving compassion, even at times in which discipline and honesty are dispensed uncompromisingly.  This suggests that the character of Adi Da is impeccable, certainly admirable.

       

      In reading the various accounts of Adi Da’s critics, on the other hand, I find little in the way of positive attributes to extol.  Instead, they are routinely sensational, exaggerated, and lacking any sense of a loving or forgiving tone (in particular, the website by Elias, for example).  I think of an elderly woman, unsophisticated in spiritual matters, sitting slumped at the edge of her bed, at the edge of her life, really, speaking bluntly for no better reason than her own mental incapacity—yet, even so, with love for me; the words intended, ultimately, for my own good.  I can find precious little to suggest the same with most of Adi Da’s critics.  The tone of their words is not loving, but often merely bitter and mean.  My mother was disappointed in love, the reasons for which I know only too well.  I imagine something similar must be the case for many of the critics of Adi Da.  In fact, I know this to be true.  As a result, their response is essentially unwarranted and over-reactive, at times even guided by ulterior motives. 

       

      As far as claims of impropriety are concerned, my mother summed up her take on it this way:  “He’s living the life of Riley, living off the fat of the land.”  I’m not sure that this technically even makes sense, but it was always clear to me what she meant.  In her mind, Adi Da was guilty of exploiting devotees for his own gain.  Yet, even this is only one side of the coin of the impropriety.  Lurking on the darker side is the abuse claimed to be heaped on his devotees, whereby they have not merely sustained losses but even been injured along the way.  However, as it turns out, these claims do not actually say anything about Adi Da at all.  Quite the contrary, in fact.  Indeed, a perhaps surprising culprit is implicated:  devotees themselves.  Although this appraisal can be hard to accept—I assure you, speaking on my own behalf!—nonetheless, I must acknowledge it is true.  In fact, the nature of this appraisal takes two parts overall: 

       

      1.      personal:  devotees failing to take responsibility for the excesses and liabilities of their own egos; and

      2.      social:  devotees imposing these excesses and liabilities on each other.

       

                  There is no question that some ex-members of Adidam are disgruntled, upset over the way they have been treated—in certain cases with good reason.  Yet, these reasons go both ways.  That is to say, the whole purpose of spiritual life is to transcend the ego and, thereby, reside in the native rapture of the divine.  But doing so is no easy matter.  Indeed, it is fraught with perils of all kinds, not least of which the devotee’s own egoic nature.  According to Adi Da:

       

      The crisis [the Guru] serves in the individual does not negate.  It illuminates, perfects….  I have often used this image of the sunlight over the well.  When the sun shines directly into the well, all of the creeps that hang around deep under the water start coming up the sides.  Then a few minutes afternoon they quiet down again.  As soon as they can find a little shade, they quiet down again.  The time you spend in Satsang [the company of the Guru] is like time spent with the sun directly over the well.  The more time you live in Satsang, the more these slithering things arise, the more you see of your egoic self, the more you must pass through the crisis of personal self-understanding.

       

                  However, the irony is this:  whereas it is true that the creepy-crawlies only emerge in the presence of sunlight, and their emergence thereby thought of as caused by the sunlight, the sunlight did not create their existence—they were there the whole time.  To put it somewhat differently, the accusations and complaints brought against Adi Da are partly true and partly false.  In the presence of the sublime, spiritual sunlight of Adi Da, creepy-crawlies are, indeed, stirred noticeably into life.  That much is true; and an extremely unpleasant truth it is, too.  Yet, that is the whole point of spiritual practice in the company of a Guru.  Devotees bring their creepy-crawlies with them into the Guru’s presence, as part of who they are—for the purpose of being purified.  But the presence of these creepy-crawlies is not the Guru’s fault, nor is the excitation that brings them to the surface.  To blame the Guru is to be ignorant of the true nature of the spiritual process, and irresponsible for the role you play in it.  Truly responsible men and women own up to this.  It’s as simple as that.

       

                  The situation for this aspect of the criticism reminds me of the years I have spent working with abused children in group homes and in my clinical practice, early in my career ages four through twelve, more recently adolescents and young adults.  The elements of the kinds of situations about which they complain come down to this:  the nature of the incident, over against the purpose to which it is put.  In a word, children scream bloody murder at bedtime, or when they are asked to clean their room, or share their toys, or even wait their turn—especially under certain conditions:  whenever they don’t want to.  Getting ready for bedtime is disappointing for any child, almost always eliciting gripes and ungracious mumbling.  But for a child who feels unloved, the demand appears particularly arbitrary and unreasonable.  And for the child whose abuse actually took place in their bed, well, the idea is practically unbearable.

       

                  As can be seen, the nature of the incident is wildly different in each case, along a continuum of ever increasing frustration and threat.  Perhaps I have been jaded by my experience with children who have been the subject of real atrocities, that I find the disgruntlement of Adi Da’s critics so particularly unmoving.  Although I know it is politically incorrect, what his critics call heinous and exploitive hardly raises any hackles for me at all.  The reason for this is simple:  interpreting the intentions and behavior of Adi Da in this way is mistaken.  And this point is pivotal, for explaining why Adi Da should be taken seriously has a surprising, and perhaps unwelcome, collateral effect:  his critics cannot be taken seriously, or at least taken at face value.  The situation is far different from what they represent it to be.  In a word, the spiritual master is a sacrifice for the sake of their devotees.  In return, the devotee is required to sacrifice to the spiritual master—which the devotee is, generally, only too happy to comply.  It is a profound love, going both ways.  It is obvious to me that the Guru/devotee relationship is the single most auspicious intimacy that a human being can have.

       

      Members of Adidam sometimes speak of the improprieties attributed to Adi Da euphemistically as “spiritual theater.”  However, a better analogy would be “spiritual therapy,” for these gestures on Adi Da’s part are direct interventions into the devotee’s own unenlightened state, simply occurring in the form of what is known clinically as confrontative technique.  At other times, devotees receive supportive technique, or perhaps even interpretive technique, as when they study his spiritual instruction.  Although not what you might expect, the interactions of which Adi Da’s critics complain are always intended for their most auspicious benefit.  In fact, there are spiritual traditions, referred to as “Crazy Wisdom,” in which practices such as these are revered.  (For more information on Crazy Wisdom, visit Adidam.org.)  Certain spiritual traditions put the situation this way:  suffering can be likened to burning coals, scorching in the depths of one’s being.  If they are kept buried deep enough, perhaps one only feels the sizzle remotely, or else coughs and gags on the smoke, merely suggesting the presence of fire.  However, to be truly relieved of the coals, one must reach down and grab them.  To throw them out, one must pick them up first.  Although being shocked, even dismayed at the touch is easy to appreciate, nonetheless, it only serves to abort the healing.  More to the point, it represents poor understanding.  

       

      Adi Da is extraordinarily gifted as a Guru, wielding interventions perfectly suited for each person.  He knows them far better than they know themselves, and even has more concern for their spiritual well-being than they usually have for themselves.  Yet, his divine intervention is easily misunderstood.  This is because the ego lives for only one purpose:  self-fulfillment, driven to insane proportions in the West by affluence and leisure.  Certainly, some members of Adidam have been subjected to intensely difficult and trying circumstances—I among them.  But I know about the continuum.  I know one size does not fit all, and circumstances are experienced very differently in each case.  I also know something even more pertinent to the issue:  more than anything, the ego feels unloved and is desperate for someone to feel sorry for them because of it.  But this only creates a difficult and unenviable situation:  as long as you retain any sympathy for the ego, Adi Da will inevitably offend you—precisely because everything about him exists for a single reason:  obliterate the ego!  

       

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.