Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
#2857 - Thursday, June 28, 2007 -
Editor: Jerry Katz
The Nondual Highlights - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NDhighlights
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 http://DBSleeth.com
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 after
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!
No matter what the experiences underlying the criticism against Adi Da, the larger context in which they have taken place is almost always overlooked. But the purpose toward which incidents are put makes all the difference. The whole point of spiritual practice is to relieve one of egoic attachment. If it is clearly understood that the manifest world is no more than an illusion, it loses the luster of its deluding power—replaced by the joyful and sustaining splendor of divine love. Yet, it is easy to get confused. No one is denying the circumstances of the grievances brought against Adi Da but, rather, this: that they warrant grievance. Perhaps better said, the issue is not so much whether the circumstances are true, as the whole truth. Consider a surgeon operating on an arm, using local anesthetic so that the patient is awake during surgery. Suppose the patient looks over and notices their arm, suddenly aware of the open wound, the severed tissue, the blood leaking out. That they should be shocked by the sight is understandable. But nobody in their right mind would leap up from the table and bolt from the room, in the middle of surgery, leaving not only the wound undressed but even the original injury intact. Unfortunately, this is precisely the case for certain former members of Adidam. That their wounds are terrible is not the issue. Of far greater concern, they have not finished the healing.
Spiritual practice is serious business, requiring
real commitment and perseverance throughout the entire course of
its process. Further, it is truly demanding.
No one who has ever received a hug from an abused child at
bedtime—about to enter what should be their sanctum, but so
often the site of the worst atrocities—and felt the
welcoming, grateful squeeze of their little arms will ever doubt
that, today, you have done your job. It still brings tears
to my eyes to think of a child who can go to bed without
incident, not because they are docile or obedient, but because
they feel loved and safe, finally—and you are the
reason why. No one can ever take that memory away from me.
Nor can they take it away that I freely and happily embrace Adi
Da the same way. The only crime of which Adi Da can rightly
be accused is this: loving his devotees enough to set some
limits—even when they scream bloody murder. There
is no doubt. I know intimately, incontrovertibly, the
loving compassion within which I live my life.
It seems that the confusion surrounding the criticism of Adi Da stems from the fact that the Guru/devotee relationship is so difficult for people, both to accept and to understand. Overall, it can be summarized this way:
1. it is difficult and demanding beyond belief to be in the Guru’s direct company, yet
2. all the difficulty
and demand is done for a single purpose: awaken the devotee
to the same spiritual realization as the Guru.
This is a good thing! At no point in my twenty-five years as a devotee have I ever attributed fault or blame to Adi Da for the exercise of his skillful means—except, of course, those times in which I have been overwhelmed by my own creepy-crawlies. More importantly, at no time while a member of the community of Adidam have I ever been abused or exploited by Adi Da. Quite the contrary, in fact! Having been abused growing up, believe me, I would know. And my saying this means something. To ask why Adi Da should be taken seriously but dismiss or refuse to accept the accounts of current members who are thriving in Adi Da’s company—especially because their praise is thought to indicate something slavish about their devotion, or perhaps even more sinister, like brainwashing—is simply misguided and improper. This gives no respect to the capacity of honest people to make intelligent decisions, based on their own discrimination and sensitivity. No one has the right to take that away from them.
But, of course, this is merely the personal side of the abuse issue. Those you come into contact with will have creepy-crawlies of their own, and many atrocities are committed for their sake. Of all the accusations and complaints of Adi Da’s critics, this is the only issue that has any validity, as far as I can see: some things have been handled poorly. Yet, even the legitimacy of this criticism is exaggerated, for his critics go too far in wrongly accusing Adidam of being a cult—and even more absurdly, accusing Adi Da of being a cult figure. Although newspaper headlines can get away with malfeasance, reducing entire communities and their way of life to a single word, reasonable men and women are unable to be so callously dismissive. Such appraisals are too simplistic. The situation is far more complex than this. More to the point, Adi Da is without doubt the most fervent, dogged, uncompromising critic of cultism taking place within Adidam. From the very beginning, Adi Da has warned of the dangers and inevitability of cultism among any gathering of human beings—including Adidam:
Over the years you have all heard me speak about cultism in negative terms. I have criticized the cult of the Spiritual Master, as well as the cultic attachments that people create with one another…. In other words, when there exists a certain hyped enthusiasm to which people are attracted, and when those people accept all the dogmas with which that particular group makes itself enthusiastic, they maintain themselves as opponents of the world and lose communication with the world in general and with the processes of life…. I have seen you all do it. To me, that enthusiasm is bizarre. There is something about the capacity of individuals for that kind of enthusiasm that makes my back tingle. It is a kind of madness. It is a tolerable neurosis as long as people do not become destructive…. I have had to spend a great deal of time and energy over the years trying to break down this form of approach.
Simply put, the worst that anyone can rightly say about Adidam in this regard is this: members of Adidam have tried to make it into a cult—but Adi Da has prevented them from succeeding. For that, we own him everything. Unfortunately, Adidam members have not always been sophisticated and graceful in their interpersonal relations, being in a steep learning curve involving the spiritual subtleties of love and intimacy. Indeed, the whole point of spiritual practice is to induce crisis, for the sake of purification and transcendence. To be sure, it can get the best of you. A little forgiveness is not unreasonable in this context, for a sincere effort is being made. Besides, precious little exists to suggest greater accomplishment in society at large, if one were to gauge the display offered by TV, movies, internet, and media anyway.
Adi Da goes on to say: “This [cultic]
tendency is present in everyone, not only in you and
members of other religious groups, but in the form of every group
that exists, from political organizations to begonia fanciers.”
Obviously, this humorous aside is meant to include even the cult
of Adi Da critics. The essence of the problem with cults is
we are taught to assign the truth, and the realization of it,
exclusively to certain individuals, often a particular
individual. The center of the cult—whether a
worshipped person, image, or idea—is considered of ultimate
value, possessing a status that no one else can attain. People
are then encouraged to be in awe of that one, perhaps even
worship them, usually in order to receive benefits of one kind or
another. In this way, you can kill two birds with one
stone: feel superior to everyone else, while getting your
deepest needs satisfied. And worse, it means you can
criticize others, while remaining immune in return—and,
thereby, above learning anything in return either. But this
is a childish orientation to life, common as it is, which Adi Da
goes out of his way to criticize, instructing us to avoid. He
admonishes: “You must not believe in me.” Rather,
we are encouraged to find out the truth of reality for ourselves—even
as we use his instruction and example for a guide.
No other spiritual tradition embodies these benevolent ideals so explicitly, at least as far as I can see. Indeed, quite the contrary usually. Even nondual spiritual traditions, espousing no separation between self and other, often espouse segregation among different nondual spiritual traditions—thereby necessitating the need for Adi Da’s work. In every talk, essay, book, poem, photograph, and work of art that Adi Da has ever produced, a common thread of tolerance and compassion for all living beings is present, human and nonhuman, and a lively admonishment to transcend the limitations of the egoic condition that prevents nondual God-Realization. Not only is every point of view on wisdom included in his vast oeuvre, but also the means whereby ordinary individuals might share in the same divine rapture that he continually enjoys. Adi Da calls his work of commentary on the history of spiritual ideas The Basket of Tolerance, precisely because this is his orientation toward the Great Tradition of spiritual practices.
In conclusion, I have one final comment to make. When I heard my mother for the last time, I reached over and held her in my arms. It wasn’t so much that no words were necessary for our parting embrace; no words were possible. We simply, deeply disagreed. When I was younger, I approached her once to resolve something in our relationship whereby I felt unloved. But it was, as it turned out, a part of her nature to which she was committed, and answered this way: “Do not try to change me! I am going to my grave just the way I am.” And so it happened. Yet, we loved each other anyway. It is a mystery. If for no other reason to take Adi Da seriously, consider this: only because of his instruction and spiritual presence am I capable of loving through rejection—indeed, even that of my mother. No simple feat, as you might imagine. And why should I not do his critics the same? I see no reason to let discord come between us. In my mind, there is only one way to end this testimonial: the presence of love is the reason to take Adi Da seriously—for He Is that Very One. Interestingly, the crux of the discussion seems to come down to this: everything can be taken two ways, depending on whether you understand Adi Da to be God or not. In the end, only the heart can decide. For me, the matter is resolved this way: I am attracted to Adi Da like a flower moving toward the light, for the simple reason that love recognizes its own source. What else is there to say?
See other articles at http://DBSleeth.com